pirana

My thought also. It's really not very different than if I conducted a study and determined that, on average, men weigh more than woman. Would that offend people? I think the analogy is valid because like weight, intelligence is heavily influenced by genetic make-up. Estimates I've seen indicate roughly 50% of intelligence is genetically determined. The tests I've seen do not appear to be gender biased. A case could be made that what is being measured (ability to assimilate, process, and use information) is known to not be an attribute perfectly evenly distributed; and possibly for very good reasons. While that is a whole different conversation, it does leave open the possibility that, depending on the needs. the intelligence represented by 4 puny little points on a test may be less important than other attributes. For example, faced with a physically formidable foe, it might be more valuable to be able to exert strength or wield a certain type of weapon than have 4 more points (on average) of intelligence. I by no means would advocate that intelligence is not important, but it is not some kind of over-riding solution to every situation; and it should not offend any group of people to find they are, on average, slightly less capable than some other group - be it based on gender, ethnic background, occupation, location, or anything else. IQ measures the ability and speed of certain ways of processing information. It does not mean a person is overall good or bad, valuable or invaluable. My guess is that anyone offended by this is hung up on the meaning and judgements they assign to the statement, not the statement itself. I bet that the breakdown between number based, word based, spatial relation based and pattern based questions affects the outcome in a way that can favor one gender over the other without any obvious gender bias. Pattern recognition and word based questions favor females, number based and spatial relationship based questions favor males. Very good points. And I think they provide support for my contention that people should nor be offended by this. If I took a pattern recognition test and the result said I was below average, That is all it would mean to me. It would not mean I am a less worthwhile person to know, work with, play with, etc. Like I said, I think people get upset with the trends in test results (if they are reported to be on the low side of the trend) because of what they read into it. BTW, if what you say is true (I have no reason to doubt you) I am an anomaly in a way I didn't know before - because my pattern recogntion is off the charts. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Well it is kind of convenient to get bombed in a grave yard. Saves on transport And labor costs too what with there already being a big hole in the ground. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

My thought also. It's really not very different than if I conducted a study and determined that, on average, men weigh more than woman. Would that offend people? I think the analogy is valid because like weight, intelligence is heavily influenced by genetic make-up. Estimates I've seen indicate roughly 50% of intelligence is genetically determined. The tests I've seen do not appear to be gender biased. A case could be made that what is being measured (ability to assimilate, process, and use information) is known to not be an attribute perfectly evenly distributed; and possibly for very good reasons. While that is a whole different conversation, it does leave open the possibility that, depending on the needs. the intelligence represented by 4 puny little points on a test may be less important than other attributes. For example, faced with a physically formidable foe, it might be more valuable to be able to exert strength or wield a certain type of weapon than have 4 more points (on average) of intelligence. I by no means would advocate that intelligence is not important, but it is not some kind of over-riding solution to every situation; and it should not offend any group of people to find they are, on average, slightly less capable than some other group - be it based on gender, ethnic background, occupation, location, or anything else. IQ measures the ability and speed of certain ways of processing information. It does not mean a person is overall good or bad, valuable or invaluable. My guess is that anyone offended by this is hung up on the meaning and judgements they assign to the statement, not the statement itself. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Try your embassy or consulate. If there is any hope, they will know of it. My guess is you are screwed. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Our cat is an excellent hunter-killer. That's her nickname. Any rodent of any type that makes the mistake of entering our yard is living on borrowed time. Get a big cat. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Sounds very similar, and like a good candidate to me. We live on a non-striped township blacktop, just enough to safely pass. But there are several assholes who, probably because it is also very hilly, insist on pretending it is a race track, driving way too fast over the blind hills. Thing is, it is otherwise a nice quiet country road, and my kids should be able to ride their bikes to friends houses and whatnot. No way no how with those assholes around. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

That is nothing short of beautiful. Kind thoughts to all who knew him. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Now there's an angle you don't hear much about. A friend of mine in a pre-pharmacy program pulled a journal article for me that had the results of a study that focused on the toxicity of marijuana smoke. They found something like 200 to 300 gas phase chemical compounds, many of them nasty stuff. It is many times more toxic than cigarette smoke. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

I dig Zbig. He makes many very good points, and from a historical perspective, appears to be accurate in his assessments. Probably doesn't play well with the beat-your-chest style of patriot; but if history teaches us anything, it is that unless the root causes are addressed as part of the solution, the problem will never end. Certainly the terrorists have to be dealt with, but a victorious war as a solution, without the accompanying addressing of root causes, only guarantees one thing - the next war. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Exactly, I am quite dissapointed that most people can't fathom the ideas of Memorial Day and Veterans Day, to them it is a day off, a sale, or a reason to get drunk and watch races. how many days of mourning do we need? And why does this day get elevated over Dec 7th? It gets elevated for 2 reasons: 1 - For political purposes. 2 - By lack of historical perspective. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

I agree. This logic gets my vote. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Yeah, but I was explaining why people might give the guy credibility. I understand that a physicist won't necessarily understand the mechanics of a macro system like a skyscraper, but there is physics behind the mechanics of a building getting hit by an airplane (gravity, kinetic energy, acceleration, conservation of energy, conservation of angular momentum, and stuff like that). A physicist is more than likely to be seen by the public as being credible even if they do not specifically know the impact of certain stresses on a beam of a particular shape and material. So yeah, I'm agreeing the guy is not credible, but just saying the general public is likely to see him as credible. BTW, did anyone see the clip of the engineer being interviewed where he was explaining how they considered an airplane impact in their design. They were very confident that the building could take a hit from a large plane. Then in a very sad tone he added "but we didn't think about the fuel." They never considered that they could have an instantaneous multi-floor fire. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

That line, "define your opponent immediately and relentlessly" says it all. There will be a lot of relentless definition, quite the euphemism for having a scorched Earth policy towards winning. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Soilders do not deliberately target civilians. That would be my primary criteria. Intentionally targeting civilians is not soldier-like; it is criminal and terroristic. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Become a consultant in a field in which you are an expert. Everybody is an expert at something. My career path planning chart: 1 - Are you an expert at anything? If yes, go to #3, if no, go to #2. 2 - Get to be an expert at something. 3 - Are there people that will pay for your expert advice? If yes, go to #5, if no, go to #4. 4 - Find a new expertise. Do a little research this time. 5 - Hire yourself out at will for as much as the market will bear and for as many hours as you can bear. 6 - Stay abreast of developments in your expertise. If you get bored, go back to #4. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

So is physical science the school's alternative terminology for Physics? " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Just getting into the days work, someone says a plane hit WTC. I asked what kind of plane, they didn't know. I just matter of factly stated that if it was small, it was probably an accident, but if it was a large commercial jet, that it was extremely unlikely to be an accident. She gives me a ghastly look as though if what I said was true that it would be partly my fault for saying so. A few moments later someone else walks by and says it was a big jet, and almost immediately another person stands up and says another plane just hit the other tower. My boss almost cries out "What is happening?!" I said it is almost certainly a terrorist attack, we all scramble for the lunchroom and spend the rest of the morning watching the updates - including the buildings coming down. Most everybody was on their way home by about noon. Leaving out the details on what I believe, I got some very nasty responses about my take on things that day and in the weeks that followed. Some reacted to my frank observations similar to what I described above - as if the fact that it happened is the fault of those who were not surprised by the event. I think that if a person already has an answer they want to hear, there is no need to ask the question (unless they are just positioning or looking to manipulate people). " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

You can buy transfer paper for your printer and put anything you want on any piece of clothing you want. The only limitation is the size of paper your printer can handle. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Goes without saying, that if you are in freefall and casting a shadow, you will inevitably meet up with it. No way around that, unless of course the source of light is removed. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Exactly, the total amount remains the same, but the structure keeps changing. Aging, expanding & disseminating. Which dovetails nicely with the way information (such as the existence and attributes of people's lives) passes thru time. Ever-widening in it's reach, but ever-weakening at each individual connection (or impact, if you like). Kind of like the inverse square law of light. It keeps on going, but keeps on spreading and thinning until it is so cool as to be undetectable, for all practical purposes. In the grand scheme of things (millions of billions) even the greatest of individual moments will be forgotten, if not totally lost; but that does not reduce the importance of the moment in which we live. That's my logic by which any sense of futility over our trivial existence can be refuted. Hallelujah. x " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Why does being a physics prof lend any extra credibility to his opinions on structural engineering and demolition? Science != engineering. Because physics explains how the natural world works and is the bedrock of all the physical sciences, including all of their practical applications. As far as giving credence to their "theory" by bothering to examine it, a waste of time since what they claim can not be disproven. To borrow a point from a previous thread; prove the towers were not brought down by The Flying Spaghetti Monster. All ideas and opinions are not equally valid just because some nut spewed them forth. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

The dimensionless universal constant of 137 strikes again. It's everywhere, it's everywhere! " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

What a freakin goof. The flaw in the story is the reference to "unnamed government agencies. No government agency can go without a name. The bureaucrats are way too in love with acronyms to let that happen. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Fun thread all. Gotta go. BS and great weekends to everyone. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Testable evidence is flawed as well. Years ago, we "proved" that the Sun moves around the Earth. We "knew" that bloodletting would cure all ailments. There will come a time when we have to admit that everything that we know now.... is really wrong. Actually the fact that they got the revolving part right was a good step in moving away from the everything-on-a-shell-in-a-fixed-distance-above-Earth idea. Later corrected to better define the system, with additional corrections always coming. Rarely does a well established theory (an often misunderstood term - individual opinions do not constitute a theory) get completely thrown out. They are almost always built upon. Newton's findings did not dismantle Euclidian geometry, they built on it. Relativity built on Newton, and quantum mechanics is building on relativity. That's how most science works. It is how all of the physical sciences have proceeded since the early Geeks. They really got the whole science thing going in high gear after the Ahabs got the motor running. Think of the pesky Dark Ages as a major breakdown that caused a delay in the journey. So, in spirit I would agree with you, but would change it to saying most of what we know is incomplete to make it an accurate statement. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley