id
int32 0
7.53k
| text
stringlengths 0
61.3k
| label
int64 0
6
|
|---|---|---|
152 |
And as someone mentioned earlier, from the apocryphal Book of Enoch,
satan was apparently kicked out for three times asserting his own will,
"I will". Hmmm...pro-choice looks kinda creepy here. | 4 |
451 |
That's right. Everyone. Even infants who cannot speak as yet. Even
a little child will rebelliously stick his finger in a light socket.
Even a little child will not want his diaper changed. Even a little
child will fight nap-time.
So far as Jesus saying "everyone":
A certain ruler asked Jesus, "Good teacher, what must I do to
inherit eternal life?"
"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good--
except God alone."
Ken, the book of Romans states that we are born sinners. We do
not grow into being a sinner. We sin because we are sinners. The
common mistake, even in Christian circles, is to think the reverse
true. So for as surely as you grew to look like you parents,
you not only inherited their appearance, but also their sin nature.
It goes with being human. | 4 |
824 |
searching out our deceased ancestors so that we can perform the
ordinances -- such as baptism, confirmation, and marriage for time and
eternity -- that are required for a person to obtain salvation through
Christ and to live with Him through the eternities. These are people
who may have not had the opportunity to know Christ in their lifetime,
so we are making it possible for Christ's saving grace (I know there
are thousands of interpretations of that phrase) to become fully
effective for them if they allow it to do so on the other side.
This paragraph brought to mind a question. How do you (Mormons) reconcile
the idea of eternal marriage with Christ's statement that in the ressurection
people will neither marry nor be given in marriage (Luke, chapt. 20)?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Hammerslag ([email protected])
"...there ain't nobody so bad that the Lord can't save 'em ain't
nobody so good they don't need God's love..." -- Mullins | 4 |
497 |
[stuff about Mithras deleted]
| 4 |
4,417 |
That's the whole point, David. As spirits separated from their bodies
and living in the spirit world, they cannot undergo the ordinance of
marriage, just as they cannot be baptized, since there is no physical
body to be baptized. We perform these ordinances as proxies for them,
in their behalf. Thanks for asking. Brooks
***************************************************************************
* Brooks Haderlie ([email protected]) * " O be wise; what can I say more?"
* * Columbus, OH by way of Ucon, ID * - Jacob 6:12 * * | 4 |
6,863 |
The basic definition that I use is:
The belief that Jesus was God incarnate.
The belief that Jesus was crucified and raised from the dead
for our salvation.
The acceptance of Jesus as personal Lord and Savior.
This would include most Christian denominations, but exclude the Unitarians.
| 4 |
6,874 | MC> Theory of Creationism: MY theistic view of the theory of
MC> creationism, (there are many others) is stated in Genesis
MC> 1. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
And which order of Creation do you accept? The story of creation is one of the
many places in the Bible where the Story contradicts itself. The following is
an example...
GEN 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle
after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his
kind: and God saw that it was good.
GEN 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:
and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of
the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every
creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
GEN 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be
alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the
field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he
would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was
the name thereof.
Even your Bible cannot agree on how things were created. Why should we
believe in it? | 4 |
2,843 |
EXACTLY!! Read that one sentence in there..."to the degree
that means other than the death penalty and military operations are
sufficient to keep the peace, then these non-violent provisions are to
be preferred..."
I don't believe that it is necessary for us to murder criminals to keep
the peace; the Church in the United States feels the same way, thus the
reason that the Catholic Church has opposed every execution in this
country in recent memory.
So what is justifiable? As you stated very explicitly from the new
Catechism, the only justifiable case is when it is necessary to keep
the peace. Since that does not apply *at all* to this country, the
logical conclusion (based on your own premises) is that one must be
opposed to *any* form of capital punishment in America.
| 4 |
4,689 | 4 |
|
2,873 |
Oh, yes he did. You may not agree with his premises, and what he proved may
not apply to "reality" (if such a thing exists), but he certainly proved
something.
Got it in one. Similarly, a moral relativist will not judge one moral system
to be better than another in every possible circumstance. This does not,
however, preclude him from judging one moral system to be better than another
in a specific set of circumstances. Nor does it preclude a set of moral
relativists from collectively judging a moral system, from some set of
circumstances which they all agree they are in.
Eh? Could you explain this? Which "that statement" are you talking about?
I still don't quite see what you're trying to say. I assume by "values" you
mean moral values, yes? In which case, what do you mean by "real"? What is
a "real" moral value, as opposed to an unreal one?
Sorry, but in what way is it an infinite regress? It looks extremely finite
to me.
Sorry, but that's not so. I can provide a justification for asserting that
the moral system of the terrorist is inferior to that of the man of peace. I
just can't provide a justification which works in all possible circumstances.
Similarly, I can provide a justification for asserting that bullets move
faster than snails. That justification won't hold in all possible frames of
reference, but it will hold in almost all the frames of reference I am ever
likely to be in.
I don't think I agree with this. My saying it *does* make it so *from my
point of view* and according to *my premises*, unless the argument is invalid.
It may indeed not make it so from your point of view, but I never claimed
that it did. In fact, I don't even claim that you exist enough to have a
point of view.
| 4 |
287 | (Anthony
If she doesn't welcome the excruciating pain of labor, the
selfish bitch deserves to die in childbirth. She was probably
lying about the rape anyway. | 4 |
6,004 |
Sorry Malcolm, but I rather believe Jesus than you.
Cheers,
Kent
| 4 |
6,077 |
Sorry, Fred, but for the purposes under discussion here, I must
disagree. Your point is true only in the sense that one cannot argue
against communism by reference to the Chinese or Soviet empires, since
those did not represent *true* communism. In judging the practical
consequences of Islam as a force to contend with in the world today,
it is precisely the Khomeini's of the world, the Rushdie-fatwa
supporters, and perhaps more importantly, the reaction of the world
Muslim community to those extremists, that we must look to. Perhaps
unfortunately from your perspective, most people are not concerned
with whether Islam is the right religion for them, or whether the
Qur'an could be used as a guidebook for a hypothetical utopia, but how
Islam affects the world around them, or what their lives might be like
if Islam gains in influence. When I consider such possibilities, it
is with not inconsiderable fear. | 4 |
5,911 | [reply to [email protected] (James Hogan)]
I take the view that they are here for our entertainment. When they are
no longer entertaining, into the kill file they go. | 4 |
4,625 |
You have clearly demonstrated that you do not even know
what my religion is in order to make that assumption.
How I can present any argument when you put your hands over your
eyes and devise new irrevelant excuses each time? The fact remains,
you want to argue about something that you do not know anything about.
Do you not have to learn a topic first before you can reasonably debate
the topic?
Which brings us about to the start of this thread. You began
perverting Bible verses, interpreting them without investigation.
For if you desired to investigate, you would have changed your
tune immediately. Thus it is clear to me. You do not believe
what I am saying because "you don't want to" check it out.
Then you must have also ignored every other post I have written
to you. This would seem to go along with your character.
| 4 |
5,510 |
> I'm leaning... SIRACH... is more directly referenced by JAMES
> than JOB or RUTH is... in any NT verse I've seen.
It would help if you mentioned chapter and verse from SIRACH and
from JAMES.
Job 5:13 ("He taketh the wise in their craftiness") seems to be
quoted in 1 Corinthians 3:19.
James 5:11 ("You have heard of the patience of Job"), while not a
quote, implies that James and his listeners are familiar with a
story of a man named Job who exhibited exemplary patience. It is
possible that the story they know is not that found in the Hebrew
Bible, but rather another similar and related story. (One has the
same problem with direct quotes.)
Again, Matthew 1:5 ("Boaz begat Obed of Ruth") tells us that Matthew
knew a story about a woman named Ruth who married a man called Boaz
and became the ancestor of David. Since Ruth is not mentioned in
the OT outside the Book of Ruth, it seems likely that Matthew was
familiar with the book and respected it, and thought Ruth important
enough to be one of the few women mentioned in the genealogy.
References like this do not prove that the NT writer considered his
OT source inspired or inerrant or canonical. But neither do direct
quotes. | 4 |
4,849 |
Thank you. I now know at least that though I may be on drugs, at
least I'm not the only one.
Yes, this took some getting used to -- of course not having an Indian
connection, no knowledge of hindi, etc., this was not trivial for me.
I did have, thanks to the wonders of the net, "A Glossary to *Satanic
Verses*", posted to rec.arts.books by Vijay Raghavan, which explains a
lot of the Indian English constructions, Indian culture references,
even the Islamic references ("Jahilia", "Submission", the context of
the Satanic Verses incident, etc.) -- what I have only covers the
first couple of hundred pages, but it helped me get into the flow of
the novel [I can mail this to anyone interested; if anyone has
portions after part I, if they exist, I'd like to get those]. | 4 |
4,054 | unfortunately not
| 4 |
3,804 |
I'm very grateful for scott's reflections on this oft-quoted phrase. Could
someone please remind me of the Scriptural source for it? (Rom. 12.9 doesn't
count, kids.) The manner in which this little piece of conventional wisdom is
applied has, in my experience, been uniformly hateful and destructive. | 4 |
2,670 |
Or a religion is a cult that got co-opted by people who are better at
compartmentalizing their irrationality.
Peter | 4 |
2,807 |
Note that "scientific evidence" in this area does not prove any conclusions.
There has been evidence to suggest that a certain part of homosexual's
brains are different from heterosexuals- but that proves very little.
Also notice that the apostles did not have with them the "scientific
evidence" linking certain genes with alcoholism, or stealing with certain
genetic problems. Even if they did have scientific evidence, I doubt it
would have stopped them from communicating the teaching from the Holy
Spirit that these things are sinful.
This reminds me of a conversation with a professor of mine. He said
something very true. Christianity teaches that we should not give in
to our every inclination. Most people do give in to their leanings.
In Christianity, we have the concept of struggling with the flesh,
and bringing it into submission. One person may have a problem with
his temper, and having a murderous heart, another may have a problem
with homosexuality, another may be inclined to greed. But God offers
us the opportunity to be more than conquerers.
The preying mantis bites the head off of her mate after she mates
with him. Is it natural for a woman to do the same thing to her husband?
The Bible is concerned with human morality, and only touches on animal
morality as it relates to humans. | 4 |
2,272 |
Surely it was intended as wit.
By the way, which "atheist cause" were you referring to, Bill?
| 4 |
4,843 |
I see no other way of interpreting them other than homosexuyality
being wrong. Please tell me how these verses can be interpreted in
any other way. I read them and the surrounding text. | 4 |
7,074 |
God never changes. He still loves us. Sending Jesus was one of His
attempts to reconcile with mankind. The nature of God has not changed.
Sinning in the face of God was punishable by immediate death. There are
several OT passages to back this up. God is God. He cannot tolerate
the prescence of sin in His midst. And the Israelites knew this! And
still, some of them chose to disobey and were destroyed. Were these
people KIND and LOVing themselves? God gave them every break He could
but in the end, He really had no choice in the matter. Seeing as how
we were failing to achieve salvation on our own, He sent His Son to die
for us - to be the ultimate sin offering. Now we live in the age of
grace.
He sent His Son as a consolation to us, out of love.
Hey, let's be fair for a moment here. KIND and LOVING does not mean
a free ride. There is an amount of give and take as in any relationship.
Parents are supposed to be kind and loving but does that mean that
children can do whatever they want? NOT! Part of being a parent means
administering punishment when the child is at fault. Part of being a
parent means giving instruction. God tests us through the trial of
life such that we may grow stronger. He teaches what is right and
what is wrong. The consequences of our actions are made clear to us,
be it Heaven or be it Hell. If God did not follow through with what
He has warned us about, He would not be a very good parent.
In parenting, if a parent issues a warning but does not follow through
with it, the children will not take that parent's words very seriously.
God does the same by telling us who have ears to hear what to do and
what not to do. By life's trials, we see the folly of doing our own
will rather than His. He warns us about the consequences of rejecting
Him when it comes time for Judgement. Do we follow Him?
I will.
Peace be with you,
Malcolm Lee :)
| 4 |
3,591 | In God,
whose word I praise,
in God I trust;
I will not be afraid.
What can mortal man do to me? | 4 |
3,300 |
(Deletion)
Well, that is certainly different, but it looks as if there is a translation
found for everything. By the way, I am most surprised to hear that night and
day move in an orbit. | 4 |
5,932 | Andrew - continuing the discussion on the Deuterocanonicals...
Arguably, it is both. Since authority is a matter of both
communicator and recepiant we can say that, for example "Jesus
is Lord" whether the world at large accepts the authority or
not. Thus the Bible can be considered for its authoritative
content whether or not it is accepted (This issue is at the
heart of Pilate's pragmatic question "What is truth?" to Jesus
when our Lord was brought before Him. Jesus' reply was to appeal
to the authority of his Father)
You also might like to consider the claimed authority
represented by the statements "thus says the Lord" in the Bible,
which claim to put across the exact words of God.
You fall into the danger of relativism with your rejection of
inherant authority and claim that it lies only in the "community
of faith" - does something become truth because it is accepted?
The main thrust of my argument is that there is a Godward
direction as well as a manward (which is where the reference to
Rev 22 came in.)
If we narrowed it down to the predictive elements - which will
cut out some of the 39 accepted OT books as well - we
nonetheless have criteria for determining the validity of the
book: Jesus' standards were that "Scripture cannot be broken".
Can you name a single prophecy that fits the bill in the Apocrapha?
(ie definitely fulfilled AFTER it has been written)
Does it have a subjective 'ring of truth' about it - and does
other evidence that has come to light contradict or confirm the
authenticity? (archaeological, other textual evidence for
example)
What this is getting at is the relationship between text and
reader. It is to do with the quality of writing, which should
have the ability to fire the mind, affect our thought life and
cause us to act in a certain way - there is something of this
in Jesus' quote: "Man does not live by bread alone, but by every
word that proceeds from the mouth of the Lord". (Matt 4.4)
Does the Catholic Church give the same authority to the
Apocrapha as to the accepted 66 books? Certainly it is not as
widely used as the OT and NT.
Think about what I have said above. You may want to revise your
conclusion. In addition think about other 'sacred writings', eg
the Koran, the book of Mormon and how and why you would
categorise them using the above principles. One word of caution
- you may find some 'reflected glory' in some of these books: in
that the 'inspired quality' may be derived from the Bible.
Remember that Lucifer is quite capable of appearing as an angel
of light and quoting Scripture.
What were you thinking of?
We've lost the point and the context here. I am not arguing that
the statement in Rev. can be applied indescriminately, just that
the whole acceptance/rejection idea does not just follow on from
man-made traditions - but there is I believe an act of God
involved in the selection and criteria of what is classified as
Scripture and comes under the definition of 2Tim 3.16.
| 4 |
7,427 | Recently, I've asked myself a rather interesting question: What RIGHT does
god have on our lives (always assuming there is a god, of course...!) ??
In his infinite wisdom, he made it perfectly clear that if we don't live
according to his rules, we will burn in hell. Well, with what RIGHT can god
make that desicion? Let's say, for the sake of argument, that god creates every
one of us (directly or indirectly, it doesn't matter.). What then happens, is
that he first creates us, and then turns us lose. Well, I didn't ask to be
created.
Let's make an analogue. If a scientist creates a unique living creature (which
has happened, it was even patented...!!!), does he then have the right to
expect it to behave in a certain matter, or die...?
Who is god to impose its rules on us ? Who can tell if god is REALLY so
righteous as god likes us to believe? Are all christians a flock of sheep,
unable to do otherwise that follow the rest?
Hmmmmmmmmmmmm.
I just want to point out that this is not sarcasm, I mean it.
How should one deal with a man who is convinced that
he is acting according to God's will, and who there-
Jokke fore believes that he is doing you a favour by
stabbing you in the back? | 4 |
2,031 | Brian, it doesn't offend me if you decide to reject Jesus
Christ. I only wish you would make that decision after you
learn who Jesus is. | 4 |
5,396 | Personally, I think it was Mrs. O'Leary's cow that knocked over that
lantern...
:*) | 4 |
1,012 | In response to alleged circular reasoning concerning the morality of
homosexuality, clh poses the following challenge:
I answer,
The circle is simple to break. The Church teaches that homosexual
behavior is immoral. This teaching is raw, impassionate, unassailable
dogma. That closes the argument for me.
--
Randal Lee Nicholas Mandock
Catechist
[email protected] | 4 |
3,544 |
Let me salute Gary Chin for speaking the gospel which is our source
of life. Any who will follow his example, and accept the priorities
Christ commands of us, that the weightier matters of the law are justice
and mercy and good faith, is my brother or sister in Christ, and I will
attend to such a person with humility and charity. We may not, in the
end, agree -- siblings often don't -- but we can at least talk.
| 4 |
6,607 | 4 |
|
1,388 | 4 |
|
5,873 |
Dress casual. Only in heaven is there a dress code (black tie and
self-important expression) | 4 |
6,795 | After reading the posts on this newsgroup for the pasts 4 months, it
has become apparent to me that this group is primarily active with
Liberals, Catholics, New Agers', and Athiests. Someone might think
to change the name to: soc.religion.any - or - perhaps even
soc.religion.new. It might seem to be more appropriate.
Heck, don't flame me, I'm Catholic, gay, and I voted
for Bill Clinton. I'm on your side!
| 4 |
1,702 | -= PASTORTALK =-
A weekly dialogue with a local pastor on the news of the day
by Carl (Gene) Wilkes
Startext: MC344578
CompuServe: 70423,600
Internet: [email protected]
-= THIS WEEK'S THOUGHTS =-
Last week the Supreme Court refused without comment to hear an
appeal by Rensselaer, IN, school officials desiring the
distribution of Bibles in their public schools (REL65, 5/21). A
lower court had banned the local Gideons, an international Bible-
distribution group, from passing out Bibles to fifth-graders. The
ACLU's Barry Lynn was quoted as saying that the court's action
protected the "religious neutrality of our public schools." He also
said that schools must serve students of "all faiths and none."
Schools were not to be a "bazaar where rival religious groups
compete for converts," according to Lynn.
Several Gideons, men who are responsible for putting Bibles in
hospitals and hotels, are members of our church. They tell of
similar stories where they are only allowed to distribute Bibles on
sidewalks around the schools, but cannot go inside the schools.
They tell of mild harassment by parents who do not want their
children receiving a Bible from a stranger. They are willing to
continue their work at a distance, but find the school's position
somewhat disheartening.
I understand rationally and logically the court's position. And, I
can see the sense of fairness for all groups. But, on the other
hand, when does "neutrality" become "nihilism?" When does plurality
turn into no position at all?
I see a couple of ironies here. One is that we can pass out condoms
but not Bibles in our schools. Think on that one for a moment.
The other is that while we are seeking "religious neutrality" in
our schools, countries like Russia--who, by the way, practiced
"religious neutrality" for the past seventy years--are making the
Bible part of their public school curriculum. When I was in St.
Petersburg in March, the church we worked with had trained over 100
public school teachers to teach the Bible, and the government had
requested hundreds more! I recently heard a medical doctor who is
president of the Gideon chapter in Moscow tell how they are eagerly
invited to the University of Moscow to distribute Bibles to the
students and are given class time to explain its contents. I
remember seeing a photograph of this doctor holding a Bible and
speaking to the university students standing under a statue of
Lenin. Now, that's ironic!
I admit two things: 1) We are a pluralistic society, and all faiths
have equal footing. This is what our country was founded on. 2) To
allow every group on school grounds could create a bazaar-like
atmosphere. Each city must work to be inclusive of all religions
and provide a hearing for them. 3)--I know I said two--The vitality
of religious faith is not dependent upon whether or not the public
arena acknowledges it as valid.
However--and you knew this was coming--I believe, disallowing the
distribution of the Bible by law-abiding, caring adults in our
schools only signals once again our culture's movement away from a
singular base from which we as individuals and as a nation can make
moral and ethical decisions.
What do you think?
-= MAIL BOX =-
(Let me know if you do not want me to print your letter or your
name.)
Good column [re: TIME coverstory about teen sexuality]; I agree
with moral education from home, but some homes don't have the kinds
of morals I want taught. One family I worked with smoked dope as
their primary family activity. Another acted like incest was OK.
Families, no matter where they are, are often a lot sicker than
we'd like to believe.
From: John Hightower, MC 407602
John,
I agree that the "home" ain't what it used to be, and some homes
are NOT the place to learn value-based sexuality. I still believe
that this is where the church can come into play. I know, those
families you speak of may not come to a church to seek information,
but the help does not need to be in a church building...I believe
that the youth from the families you mentioned will probably
disregard the value-free information at school, too. | 4 |
4,442 | #>In article <[email protected]> [email protected]
#
#># Ah, that old chestnut, your claim that moral objectivism ==
#>#scientific objectivism. I don't agree with it; now try proving, through
#>#some objective moral test, that my disagreeing is incorrect. =)
#>
#> Your claim, which you have deleted now was "not universal => not objective".
#
# I've deleted it now, in the interest of brevity. Go back a step
#and you'll see it was still in your post. Yes, that was my claim; if you
#can refute it, then please do so.
Firstly, an apology. You hadn't deleted your claim, and I was mistaken in
saying you had. Sorry for any offence caused.
Secondly, how can I refute your definition? I can only point up its
logical implications, and say that they seem to contradict the usage
of the word "objective" in other areas. Indeed, by your definition, an
objective x is an oxymoron, for all x. I have no quibble with that
belief, other than that it is useless, and that "objective" is a perfectly
good word.
#> So, what *is* objective? Not the age of the universe, anyway, as I show
#> above.
#
# How many ages can the universe have, and still be internally self-
#consistent? I'd be amazed if it was more than one. How many different
#moral systems can different members of society have - indeed, single
#individuals, in some cases - and humanity still stick together?
Begging the question. People can have many opinions about the age
of the universe and humanity can still stick together. You are
saying that the universe has a _real_ age, independent of my beliefs about
it. Why?
# The age of the universe, like most scientific facts, can be
#emirically verified through means that'll give the same result no matter
#who performs the testing (albeit there are error bars that may be on the
#largish side...).
This assumes that the universe has a real age, or any kind of reality
which doesn't depend on what we think. Why should an extreme Biblical
Creationist give a rat's ass about the means of which you speak?
#I've heard of no way to verify morality in a
#consistent way, much less compute the errors of the measurement; care to
#enlighten me?
The same is true of pain, but painkillers exist, and can be predicted
to work with some accuracy better than a random guess. I wrote
elsewhere that morality should be hypotheses about observed value.
If a moral system makes a prediction "It will be better if...",
that can be tested, and is falsifiable in the same way as a prediction
"This drug will relieve pain..."
# People's *ideas* about the age of object X are *not* objective;
#you can have any idea you like, and I can't stop you. Universae and
#their ages is another ballgame; they are what they are, and if you
#dislike some detail of them, that's a problem with your *opinion* of
#them.
Sure. Assume an objective reality, and you get statements like this.
#I claim that morality is an opinion of ours, and as such
#subjective and individual. If I'm wrong, then some more-or-less
#objectively "real" thing exists, which you label "objective morality";
#can you back up this positive claim of existence?
Can you back up your positive claim above? No. That's because it's an
assumption. I make the same assumption about values, on the basis
that there is no logical difference between the two, and the empirical
basis of the two is precisely the same.
#># Point: Morals are, in essence, personal opinions. Usually
#>#(ideally) well-founded, motivated such, but nonetheless personal. The
#>#fact that a real large lot of people agree on some moral question,
#>#sometimes even for the same reason, does not make morals objective; it
#>#makes humans somewhat alike in their opinions on that moral question,
#>#which can be good for the evolution of a social species.
#>
#> And if a "real large lot" (nice phrase) of people agree that there is a
#> football on a desk, I'm supposed to see a logical difference between the two?
#> Perhaps you can explain the difference to me, since you seem to see it
#> so clearly.
#
# Take a look on the desk - i.e., perform a test. If(football) THEN
#(accept theory) ELSE DO (Tell people they're hallucinating).
#
# Now take a look at morality. See anything? If so, please inform me
#which way to look, and WHY to look that particular way, as opposed to
#some other. Get my drift?
No. Just look. Are you claiming never to know what good means?
#># *Science* is a whole other matter altogether.
#>
#> Says you. Prove that those who disagree are wrong?
#
# That's a simple(?) matter of proving the track record of the
#scientific method.
I think it's great, and should be applied to values. I may be completely
wrong, but that's what I conclude as a result of quite an amount of
thought.
| 4 |
6,175 | #|> #|>
#|> #|> #This is quite different from saying "Employing force on other people
#|> #|> #is immoral, period. Unfortunately, from time to time we are obliged
#|> #|> #to do this immoral thing for reasons of self-preservation, and so
#|> #|> #we have to bear the moral consequences of that.
#|> #|>
#|> #|> Since both statements, to all intents and purposes, say effectively
#|> #|> the same thing,
#|> #
#|> #Are you serious? Two statements, one of which says that use of force
#|> #in the given situation is moral, and the other of which says it is
#|> #not moral "say effectively the same thing?"
#|>
#|> Yes, when you tag on the "Unfortunately, ...", then to all intents and
#|> purposes you are saying the same thing.
#
#Then delete the "unfortunately". Now tell me that the two statement
#say effectively the same thing.
#
#And to save everyone a couple of trips round this loop, please notice
#that we are only obliged to use force to preserve self. We can choose
#*not* to preserve self, which is the point of pacifism.
O.K., got you. I concede your point, though the word "obliged" strongly
implies that one must sometimes use force. A further rephrasing would
give you the distinction you mention, however. If I have you right, a pacifist
would not even go on to say, "unfortunately,etc."
#|> #Would you say this of any two statements, one saying "X is moral" and
#|> #the other saying "X is immoral?" How would you decided when two
#|> #statements "X is moral" "X is immoral" actually conflict, and when
#|> #they "say effectively the same thing".
#|>
#|> What they prescribe that one should do is a pretty good indicator.
#
#And in this case they don't prescribe the same things, so.....
Yes, fair enough, though why confuse things by saying that "one is
somtimes obliged" if the real meaning is that "one is never obliged".
#|> #|> and lead one to do precisely the same thing, then
#|> #|> either both statements are doublespeak, or none.
#|> #
#|> #They might lead you to do the same thing, but the difference is what
#|> #motivates pacifism so they obviously don't lead pacifists to to the
#|> #same thing.
#|>
#|> That's not true. You could formulate a pragmatic belief in minimum
#|> force and still be a pacifist. If the minimum is 0, great - but one is
#|> always trying to get as close to 0 force as possible under that belief.
#|> Not the same as 'force is immoral, period', but still tending to pacifism.
#
#If you don't think the use of force is immoral, why minimise its use?
If you don't think that it is "immoral, period.". | 4 |
5,597 |
It might be interesting for folk to know that the Church of Scotland
(also a Presbyterian church) managed to "agree to disagree" over
women's ordination for 25 years. The reasoning was that congregations
are free to call whoever they wish, and that Ministers and Sessions
choose elders. If a congregation did not wish to have a woman, they
were not obliged to, and if a Session did not wish to, they could not
be forced to. (Note that the who issue of freedom to call on the part
of the Congregation is VERY important here - this year is the 150th
Annivarsary of the Disruption, where the church split on that very
issue, they didn't get back together for almost 80 years).
A couple of years ago on the 25 anniversary of the allowing of womens
ordination the position was changed - so that, in theory, all
ministers and elders must recognise that women can be ordained. In
theory, a minister who refused to ordain a woman to his Session, or
refused to work with a woman minister in Presbytery, could be
disciplined. In practice this has not happened, and I believe it is
unlikely to happen. My personal view is that the new legislation was
a mistake, and that the permissive (but not prescriptive) legislation
worked very well.
We are going to start going round the homosexual debate at next years
assembly. At this years, a motion was put to ban the blessing of
same-sex couples (after an Edinburgh minister did so). Our Panel on
Doctrine is currently looking at marriage, and will report next year -
the matter will be considered and debated then.
Hope this is interesting | 4 |
5,834 |
Okay, I went back and looked: sure enough, my hunch was right.
2 Peter was most likely written between 100-120 A.D.
Revelation was almost certainly written between 80-96 A.D.
Odds are the gospel of John was written around 90 A.D.
Best dates for Luke and Acts are around 80 A.D., maybe later.
Again, this is from footnoted information in the New American Bible,
the best translation I've come across in regards to giving complete
historical information about each book.
- Mike
) | 4 |
7,079 | I guess I'm delving into a religious language area. What exactly is morality
or morals? I never thought of eating meat to be moral or immoral, but I think
it could be. How do we differentiate between not doing something because it is
a personal choice or preference and not doing something because we see it as
immoral? Do we fall to what the basis of these morals are?
Also, consensus positions fall to a might makes right. Or, as you brought out,
if whatever is right is what is societally mandated then whoever is in control
at the time makes what is right
MC
MAC
--
****************************************************************
Michael A. Cobb
"...and I won't raise taxes on the middle University of Illinois
class to pay for my programs." Champaign-Urbana
-Bill Clinton 3rd Debate [email protected] | 4 |
1,917 | I can (and do) take religious writings as a metaphor for life.
I do this with all sorts of fiction, from Beowolf to Deep Space Nine.
The idea is to not limit yourself to one book, screen out the good
stuff from what you read, and to remember that it is all just a story.
You sound Buddist to me :^) | 4 |
2,709 | Q. Should teenagers have the freedom to choose what church they go to?
My friends teenage kids do not like to go to church.
If left up to them they would sleep, but that's not an option.
They complain that they have no friends that go there, yet don't
attempt to make friends. They mention not respecting their Sunday
school teacher, and usually find a way to miss Sunday school but
do make it to the church service, (after their parents are thoroughly
disgusted) I might add. A never ending battle? It can just ruin your
whole day if you let it. | 4 |
5,832 |
Please note that God commanded Adam to work before the fall:
"The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work
it and take care of it." (Gen 2:15, NIV).
Work was God's design from the beginning.
--
Ken | 4 |
5,354 |
This is not at all comparable. Christianity is the main stream in
western culture. You are trivializing the experiences of others.
I remember what it was like being "different" as a Christian. We
were told all the time that we were different, and in fact that
only members of the our church were really Christians (though others
who believed in God weren't as bad as atheists), so we were a small
minority. That was nothing compared to being an atheist.
The only thing comparable would be a young child being Christian
being surrounded by staunch atheists, including parents, who
actively persecute any religious tendancies - both actual punishments
and, even worse, emotional blackmail. They would also have
to have the whole mainstream society on their side. Maybe these
conditions could have occured in the old Soviet Union* not in a
country with "under God" in its pledge of allegiance.
* I doubt it even then, because children have to be taught to be
Christians and hence must have support somewhere.
Yes. My atheism was "born of necessity." For an intellectually honest
person belief is mostly a response to evidence. Will or wishes have
nothing to do with it. I could choose to lie, or to be silent about
my true beliefs. I could no more choose to believe in the God of
Christianity than I could decide that the ordinary sky looks red to
me. Still I should be clear that I'm not equating what I went through
with what gays go through. However it is a mistake to assume that
everyone who goes through painful experiences are broken by them.
Happily some are made stronger, once we get past it.
Not without going to details and violating the confidences of some of my
childhood friends. Suffice it say to that religion does not guarantee
that a person will be happy and strong emotionally, and a repressive
upbringing can leave its scars even, or especially, on those who don't
get free of it. I doubt that any sane and sincere person doubts that and
I feel no need to defend it.
By the way I am much happier and stronger being out of the closet. In
the end it has been, as someone eloquently put it in private email, an
experience of liberation rather than disillusion. | 4 |
585 |
"Isaac Asimov read creationist books. He read the Bible. He had ample
opportunity to kneel before his Creator and Savior. He refused. In
fact, he sent out a strong promotional letter urging support of the
American Humanist Association, shortly before he died."
--excerpt from Ken Ham, "Asimov Meets His Creator," _Back to Genesis_
No. 42, June 1992, p. c (included in _Acts & Facts_ vol. 21, no. 6,
June 1992, from the Institute for Creation Research). This is one
of the most offensive articles they've ever published--but at least
it argues *against* a deathbed conversion. There's a part of the
article even worse than what I've just quoted, in which an excerpt
from a reader's letter says that if Asimov is burning in hell now,
"then he certainly has had a 180-degree change in his former beliefs
about creation and the Creator." (A post-deathbed conversion.) | 4 |
6,729 | Now that you have purified yourselves by obeying the truth so that you have
sincere love for your brothers, love one another deeply, from the heart. | 4 |
5,027 |
Ethics deal with individuals. Morals deal with groups.
Please describe these "number of ways" in detail. Then explain any
contradictions that may arise.
The sentence, "Yes, it's possible, but it is difficult." Humans survived
"in the wild" for hundreds of thousands of years.
Answer the question, Keith. Is homosexuality detrimental to the survival
of the species? | 4 |
3,604 |
No. I also understand it. I have read the Bible from cover to cover, examining
each book within, cross-comparing them, etc. And I have come to same conclusions
as Robert Weiss. | 4 |
1,502 | The other week I saw a TV program about the american space industry and NASA.
It said that in the 60's they developed a rocket that used ions or nuclear
particles for propolsion.
The government however, didn't give them $1billion for the developement
of a full scale rocket.
Did anybody see this program?
If not, has anybody heard of the particle propolsion system?
Thanx. 8-) | 1 |
6,151 |
This sounds an awful lot like a password-guesser, not a weakness in
DES. Merritt and I pointed out this weakness in Kerberos in a paper
that came out about 2.5 years ago, in both Computer Communications
Review and Usenix. For that matter, it was loudly discussed on the
Kerberos mailing list even earlier.
The problem has nothing whatsoever to do with DES, and everything to do
with bad password selection. | 1 |
1,076 | To: [email protected] (Ashwin Ram)
AR>Does the "Thermoscan" instrument really work? It is supposed to give you a
ABSOLUTELY!
Ya don't have to do the other end!
(it is accurate - but technique is important)
[email protected] | 1 |
3,437 |
There are people who have adapted to high altitudes in the Andes and in
Tibet. I suspect that it took them several generations to make the
adaptation because Europeans had difficulty making the adaptation. They
had to send the women to a lower altitude when they were pregnant in order
to insure sucessful childbirth.
Another factor you should consider is the X-ray opacity of the atmosphere
in case of stellar flares, the uv opacity is also important because uv
radiation can kill or damage microbes, plants, and animals. | 1 |
3,632 |
Firstly, an aside:
I agree that the weakness exists, but I have a lot of trouble
believing that it represents a difficulty in real life. Given:
1. the purpose of the one-time pad is to give unbreakable security,
and the expense of key distribution etc., imply that the clients
really do want that level of security
2. These same people want to keep P a secret
I find it hard to believe that Eve might happen to have a copy of P
lying around.
(I am aware that the same argument applies to Eve knowing even a small
part of the message, but Eve must know EXACTLY where (which bytes) in
C her known susequence starts, or the result will be garbled. I find
this at least as surprising.)
Back to the question:
If I had the resources to use a one-time-pad for such transmissions, I
would also append a Message Authentication Code to the message, using up
the next bits of the one-time-pad as the key perhaps. Your original
question basically asked whether there was any way to authenticate the
message with the same degree of security as the Pad itself provided,
and I don't know the answer. However, I would propose the following
for discussion.
Alice and Bob have an arbitrary number of secret, random bits to
share, which Eve doesn't know. She finds them out (effectively) by
knowing some P and the corresponding C. It is the fact that they
CORRESPOND that causes the problem. If a message authentication code was to
be created using some one-time-pad operation such that Eve could not
know which parts of the MAC were affected by which parts of the input,
she would be unable to forge a MAC to correspond.
What is required is a non-linear combiner of parts of the message.
(Non-linear so that simply xoring or subtracting or whatever doesn't
have exactly the same effect).
Now, at the end of the encrypted message C, Alice appends a n-bit MAC
computed as follows (S2 means the next full chunk of the one time pad):
1. compute C2 = P xor S2, and pad to an n-bit boundary with more of S
2. break C2 into n-bit chunks
3. set MAC to 0 (initialisation vector)
4. for i in each chunk sequentially
set MAC = MAC NLOP C2[i]
At the end of this process MAC is the Message Authentication Code.
(Bob verifies the MAC in the obvious manner; he recovers the
plaintext P, then uses some more of his pad to reproduce the MAC in
the same manner.)
NLOP is the non-linear operator, and there is the rub. The simplest
non-linear operator I can think of is an S-box; that is, have a fixed
(even published) permutation of the n-bit integers, an indexable table
called Sbox, and use:
x NLOP y = x xor Sbox[y].
Practically speaking, I think this solves your problem, as Eve never
sees the intermediate output C2, and hence can't deduce S2 or perform any valid
substitution on it.
Also practically speaking, you want the MAC to be fairly large, say 32
bits, but you might not want a 4 gigabyte (say) S-box, so you might
work on 4 byte-sized S-boxes, but I think that is an irrelevant detail
for the discussion at hand.
Who will be first to point out my errors, or give me a pointer to some
literature? | 1 |
6,944 |
It is completely clear. You have to assume that each byte that was encrypted
by this 'Clipper Chip' has been compromised.
Some people wondered, why Denning, Hellman and others did not respond,
when asked what would be done about such compromised phones, or if
compromise could not be restricted in time. (I did too) Let us just assume
that a) They do not know and b) Those who know don't tell and c)
They do not care. It seem's to be an 'Other Person's Problem' ...
gec | 1 |
6,914 | I have been scanning and trying to read the articles in the sci.crypt area,
but what do I get? SURPRISINGLY, the blurb comes upon the screen " file xxx
has either been cancelled or expired. Now I ask you, If it expired,
wouldn't it be out of the available file cache?
I am 32 and not a paranoid, but the older I get, the greater my cynicism of
both federal and state governments becomes.
The censorship of this Internet (and it is no less than censorship [stupid me, it's the GOVT.])
is ridiculous. The Japanese have far outstripped our ciphertechnology, and
our government is now, before your very observant eyes, trying to force the
"crypto standard" onto a framefork where the "standard" is now an ancient
relic in terms of modern Japanese security techniques.
Now, I pose the question: Why censor folks on the net and send the warning
shown above ("cancelled or expired") when it would be wiser to not let people
see the post at all??
Which Article of the Constitution gives me the right of revolution if things
seem to be going cockeyed??
Hmmm... | 1 |
4,084 | [...]
As anyone who attended HoHoCon will attest, you can pick information
off the video chip. It's surprisingly easy too. The guy did it with
a portable TV, with very minor mods. It only worked from 3 feet, but
then it was just a demonstration.
RA
[email protected] (Rogue Agent/SoD!) | 1 |
7,520 | First off, if I'm not mistaken, only hibernating animals have brown fat,
not humans.
Secondly, your description sounds just like 2,4-dinitrophenol. This is an
uncoupler of respiratory chain oxidative phosphorylation. Put in layman's
terms, it short-circuits the mitochondria, causing food energy to be
turned into heat.
2,4-DNP was popular in the 1930's for weight reduction. In controlled
amounts, it raises body temperature as the body compensates for the
reduced amount of useful energy available. It is very dangerous.
It would be wiser to adjust to your present body form, rather than
play around with 2,4-DNP. | 1 |
1,564 |
Where did that idea come from? It's news to me. | 1 |
2,232 |
This is a real address. My understanding of the current process
that mail takes is it gets downloaded on floppy disk and is processed
by retiree volunteers, who match the message against message profiles
and check the message count. (I.e.: "yeah, that's a for gays in the
military. what's this clipper stuff? must be against gays in the
military...")
The higher-volume white-house email stuff is in the works,
I know for a fact, but won't be online for probably another month
or two at the soonest. My understanding is that the link speed will
increase (direct internet instead of Compu$erve to floppy) but the
message processing will remain the same.
The white house email does get read. I agree that printing it
and sending Cc: to everyone you can think of is probably better because
it is more visible, but the message processing (fitting messages against
a template) is the same in either case. | 1 |
4,359 |
The variance from perfect sphericity in a model of the earth small enough
to fit into your home would probably be imperceptible.
Any globe you can buy will be close enough.
-- | 1 |
5,018 | Hi,
Thought I'd add something to the conversation.
My girlfriend used to work in a lab studying different natural carcinogens.
She mentioned once about the cancerous effect of barbecued food.
Basically, she said that if you eat barbecued foods with strawberries
(a natural carcinogen) the slight carcinogenic properties of both
cancel out each other.
--
Jeff Poupore
[email protected]
| 1 |
1,193 |
I saw a printed up flyer that stated the person was a
"licensed herbologist and iridologist"
What are your opinions?
How much can you tell about a person's health by looking into their eyes?
| 1 |
5,824 | FLAME ON
Reading through the posts about Kirlian (whatever spelling)
photography I couldn't help but being slightly disgusted by the
narrow-minded, "I know it all", "I don't believe what I can't see or
measure" attitude of many people out there.
I am neither a real believer, nor a disbeliever when it comes to
so-called "paranormal" stuff; but as far as I'm concerned, it is just
as likely as the existence of, for instance, a god, which seems to be
quite accepted in our societies - without any scientific basis.
I am convinced that it is a serious mistake to close your mind to
something, ANYTHING, simply because it doesn't fit your current frame
of reference. History shows that many great people, great scientists,
were people who kept an open mind - and were ridiculed by sceptics.
Especially the USA should be grateful; after all, Columbus did not
drop off the edge of the earth.
FLAME OFF, or end sermon :-) | 1 |
1,912 | Yesterday, I went to the Boeing shareholders meeting. It was a bit shorter
than I expected. Last year (when the stock was first down), they made a big
presentation on the 777, and other programs. This year, it was much more
bare-bones.
In any case, I wanted to ask a question that the board of directors would
hear, and so I got there early, and figured that If I didn't get to the mike,
maybe they would read mine off of a card, and so I wrote it down, and handed it
in.
After the meeting started, Mr. Shrontz said that he would only answer written
questions, in order to be fair to the people in the overflow room that only
had monitors downstairs. Naturally, I was crushed.
So, when question and answer time came, I was suprised to find my question
being read and answered. Admittedly near the end of the ones that he took.
Presumably getting there early, and getting the question in early made all
the difference.
So, on to the substance. The question was
Is Boeing looking at anything BEYOND the high speed Civil Transport, such
as a commercial space launch system, and if not, how will Boeing compete
with the reusable single stage to orbit technology presently being developed
by Mcdonnell Douglass?
Well, he read it without a hitch, and without editing, with impressed me,
then he answered it very quickly treating it as a two part question, last
part first.
This is to the best of my recollection what he said.
As far as single stage to orbit technology, we think that we have a better
answer in a two stage approach, and we are talking to some of our customers
about that. As far as commercialization, that is a long ways off. The High
speed Civil Transport is about as far out as our commercial planning goes at
this point.
So, this tells me that Boeing still considers space to be a non-commercial
arena, and for the most part this is true, however it also tells me that
they consider there to be enough money in building space launchers for them
to persue work on their own.
Now, I do have a friend on the spacelifter program at boeing. Actually,
this is a mis-nomer, as there is no spacelifter contract for the work that this
guy is doing, however, he is doing work in preparation of a proposal for space
lifter contracts. He won't tell me what he is doing, but maybe this is where
the TSTO action is taking place at boeing. At the very minimum, the chairman
of the board of boeing said that they have an approach in mind, and they are
trying to do something with it.
Anybody know anything further?
Is this really news?
Does this threaten further work on DC-? ? | 1 |
4,836 | agents
of
The original poster did not say why his mother had been in hospital
but I can answer a few general points.
Elderly patients may exhibit a marked difficulty in coping after
being in hospital for a few days. The drastic change of environment
will often unmask how marginally they have been coping at home. Even
young people find the change unsettling.
Though we have thought that this decrement in function after - say -
anaesthesia and surgery for a fractured hip (a common event in the
elderly) was due to anaesthesia there is good evidence that the
change of situation is much more important. Some hospitals have
tried a 'rapid transit' system for hip fractures, aiming to have the
patient back at home within 24 hours of admission. The selection of
the anaesthetic has no effect on the ability to discharge these
patients early.
Anaesthetists who work with the elderly (which is almost all of us)
generally take care to tailor the choice and dose of drugs used to
the individual patient. Even so, there is some evidence that full
mental recovery may take a surprisingly long time to return. This is
the sort of thing which is detected by setting quite difficult
tasks, not the gross change that the original poster noted.
Haloperidol (Haldol TM) is a long acting drug. The plasma half life
of the drug is up to 35 hours. If the decanoate (a sort of slow
release formulation) is used it may be weeks. The elderly are
sensitive to haloperidol for a number of reasons. Without knowing
more it is hard to comment. | 1 |
5,392 |
They also have a lot of the other voters really irritated at them.
Okay, folks, I know I'm in the minority on this issue, but I can't
let this assertion go unchallenged yet again. I'm going to say this
ONLY ONCE, in the hopes of NOT starting a flame war off of the main
topic.
Guns are offensive. Cryptography is defensive. See the difference?
The only way you can use a gun is to hurt somebody else. Crypto-
graphy helps prevent other people from hurting you. | 1 |
5,748 | Sci med people:
Can I sell my TENS unit or does it have to be sold by a physician or
other liscened person? | 1 |
1,684 | 1 |
|
4,842 |
-- That means that there cannot be any atheists since there is NO WAY that you
can prove that there is no god. Atheists are people who BELIEVE that there is no
god, most not only believe, but also are damn sure that there isn't a god (like
me).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cursor, aka Nick Humphries, [email protected], at your service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"What's the use of computers? They'll never play | "Why pay money to see
chess, draw art or make music." - Jean Genet. | bad films? Stay home
"Intelligence isn't to make no mistakes, but how | and see bad TV for
to make them look good." - Bertolt Brecht. | free." - Sam Goldwyn. | 1 |
7,121 | A person with a Schatzki's ring (a membrane partially blocking the
espphagus) has worsening dysphagia (difficulty swallowing) and the
doctor proposes dilation by balloow or bougie (using an inflatable
balloon to rupture the ring or a rubber hose to push through it.
Question: is balloon dilation safe, common, and indicated? It sounds
pretty invasive.
Yes, this is a common and safe procedure. The majority of Schatzki's
rings described by x-ray, however, wnd up being due to inflammation
instead of the congenital Schatzki's ring. Occassionally a cancer
masquerades as a ring. You should have the endoscopy to see if it
is due to the heartburn, and if so, you will need treatment for the
heartburn ong term. The balloon dilation is an alternative to cutting
open your chest and cutting out a section of the esophagus, so dilation
is not at all invasive, considering the alternative.
3 to 4 years, and once was symptomatic from them, with some
lightheadedness.
He is young, (30-ish), thin and in good
I' not an expert on heart problems, but PVC's are common and have been
overtreated in the past. My personal experience, and I have the same
history an build you do (related to the heart, that is), is that my PVC's
come and go, with some months causing anxiety. Taking on more fluids
seems to help, and they seem worse in the summer. Remember that a slow
heart rate will allow more PVC's to be apparent, so perhaps it is an
indication of a healthy cardiac system (but ask an expert about that
last point, especially)
Good luck, hope we don't die of arrhythmias. (God, what a happy thought) | 1 |
2,964 |
I was wondering if a group called 'sci.pharmacology' would be relevent.
This would be used for a more formal discussion about pharmacological
issues (pharmacodynamics, neuropharmacology, etc.)
Just an informal proposal (I don't know anything about the net.politics
for adding a newsgroup, etc.)
[more alt.psychoactives stuff deleted] | 1 |
5,286 | Introducing the Back to the Moon in Congress:
The Next Step
The next key hurdle for the Lunar Resources Data Purchase
Act is introduction of the Act in Congress. At this point, many
congresspersons have been approached about the bill. However,
for a successful effort to pass the bill, we need the best
possible congressperson to introduce the bill. Due to his
position as Chair of the House Committee on Space and Science,
Congressman George Brown is the logical choice. He has a long
record of support and interest in space development, and helped
pass the Launch Services Purchase Act and the Space Settlements
Act.
There is a small group of activists in southern California
who have assisted George Brown in his recent re-election campaigns.
We are mobilizing this group to have them tell Congressman Brown
about the Back to the Moon bill. We are also asking pro-space
constituents to let him know that they care about getting
America back to the Moon.
Finally, there is a good chance that a nationwide alert
for space activists to call or write George Brown to have him
introduce the Back to the Moon bill may be staged during late
spring, 1993.
All this should produce a positive reaction from Brown's
office. As more is known, it will be passed on.
However, even if we are successful in getting him to support
the bill, this alone will not ensure passage of the bill. For
any bill to become law, one of three conditions must exist:
either the bill must reflect widespread national support for an
issue (such as extension of unemployment insurance benefits); be
propelled by high-priced lobbyists (we're out of luck there); or
have widespread support within Congress, due to small, but
widespread, constituent support. The latter is the path that we,
by necessity, must choose.
This means that the introduction of the Lunar Resources
Data Purchase Act must be immediately accompanied by a large number
of congresspersons' sponsorship of the bill. To accomplish
this, we need activists to ask their congressperson to support
the Lunar Resources Data Purchase Act - now. To wait until the
bill is introduced is simply too late - it takes time to have a
congressperson's staff review a bill.
If your congressperson mentions that the bill is not yet
introduced, please elicit their opinion of the bill as currently
written. We appreciate all comments on the bill from activists
and politicians.
If you have yet to see the Back to the Moon bill, please
request a copy by Email (please include your U.S. postal service
address), or contact your local chapter of the National Space
Society). | 1 |
1,789 | My girlfriend just started taking this drug for her migranes. It really
helped her get through the rebound withdrawl when she got off analgesics.
She doesn't have a mail account, but asked me to forward this:
"Glaxo is the distributor; Imitrex is the drug's brand name. It works.
She can call her pharmacy for more info. The "miracle" drug has been used
for years in Europe and for some time in Canada. Trials in the U.S. were
completed and the drug hit the US market at the end of March. Some
pharmacies don't stock it yet. Presently it needs to be injected
subcutaneously; although testing is starting with a nasal spray form. It
mimics serotonin (its molecular structure that fits onto pain receptors
looks identical to serotonin on a model I saw)" | 1 |
337 |
I believe it is illegal to send any cryptographic code out of the country
without an export license. (Others will correct me if this is inaccurate.)
Dunno if you'd get one for the particular code you have; the only way to
find out is to apply for a license.
Note that you need to distinguish between what is legal to send to Canada if
YOU have such a license, and what is legal to send if you don't.
| 1 |
59 | James Nicholl sez;
Jeff responds;
I wouldn't worry too much about it, Jeff. If you work for JPL, then your
job IS imaging things :-)
(I know, it was a just a typo, but I couldn't resist. At least, I hope it
was a typo, or my stupid joke is stupider than I intended :-)
-Tommy Mac
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom McWilliams 517-355-2178 wk \\ As the radius of vision increases,
[email protected] 336-9591 hm \\ the circumference of mystery grows. | 1 |
5,251 | Dear news readers,
Is there anyone using sheep models for cardiac research, specifically
concerned with arrhythmias, pacing or defibrillation? I would like
to hear from you.
Many thanks,
Andrew Mears | 1 |
6,860 |
I don't think this will work. Still the same in space
integration problems, small modules, especially the Bus-1 modules.
the MOL would be bigger.
Also, budget problems may end up stalling developemnt.
A small undersized station wont have the science community support.
Program effeciencies may cut costs, but the basic problems
with freedom remain. in space integration, too many flights
too build. not enough science retrurn.
Essentialy $5 billion to build MIR.
I think had NASA locked onto this design, back in 1984, with
scarring to support a TRUSS for real expandability, we'd be looking
at a flying space station.
This looks the most realistic, to me, IMHO, but, i dont know if
there is enough will power to toss the CDR'd existing hardware
and then take a 1/3rd power cut and do it this way.
the core launch station has a lot of positive ideas. You could stick
in more hatches for experimental concept modules. Like the ET
derived workshops. Or inflatable modules.
pat
Sad but true.
epitaph. Killed by mis-management. | 1 |
7,317 | Just curious, how would the Clipper Chip system handle
conference calls?
| 1 |
810 | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I am sure your numbers are far better then mine. As i said above,
i don't have exact numbers.
How different would the contamination threat of a small manuevering tug
be from that of the Shuttle and it's OMS engines??????
I know that no small manuevering tug exists, but maybe one could
soup up a Bus 1. Does anyone out there have the de-clasified
specs on hte BUS 1? would it be able to provide enough control
force to balance the HST, and still have the rocket thrust
to hurl her into a decent high orbit?
Sorry, that should be intrument pointing.
Plus, if the second box gets fritzy, you could be in shitter ville
real fast.
The problem is no-one seems to have the exact numbers. When the mission
was planned originally at 3 spacewalks, and 3 astronauts, there was
enormous concern over the mass margins for the flight. THey
have now planned for 5 EVA's, an 11 day mission and have 2 reserve
EVA's and an emergency EVA. Obviously that is coming from somewhere.
My guess is the OMS burn fuel, or re-boost margin.
I just figured, if GOldin wants to really, prove out faster, cheaper
better, have some of the whiz kids slap together an expendable
space manuevering tug out of a BUs1, and use that for the re-boost.
it has to be better then using the Discovery as a tow truck. | 1 |
3,913 | OK, I heard a lot of talk about the NSA's infamous control over encryption
export through the ITAR. Here's a question. Say I develop this great new
encryption system, and I want to sell my software worldwide. The thought
police then come in and say "This algorithm is a threat to national security.
You will not be permitted to export it." At this point, what kind of trouble
could I get into if I ignored the ITAR and sold my program to international
customers anyway?
Doug Holland
| 1 |
373 | >there's no problem. The Feds don't care whose phone instrument is used, just
>that the conversation is by the suspect on the tapped line. They get the
>serial number, get the keys, and they are in business.
So, you admit that Clipper opens the doors wide for the following scenario:
FEDS: We need the keys to Joe Blow's phone.
ESCROW AGENT: Joe Blow? You have a warrant to tap his line?
FEDS: Well, no, but we have a warrant to tap Carlos "Slime-Devil" Gonzales'
line, and our tap shows that Mr. Gonzales is using Mr. Blow's phone. | 1 |
1,362 | Hmmm.... CELP takes up about 12.6 MIPS for full duplex, and has been
implemented on about a million DSP chips... the 56001 card in my PC only cost
about $700, and I'm sure once demand goes up the prices would drop. The Analog
Devices 21020 board that we're looking at now cost about $500 (academic price).
I don't think hardware is something to worry about... if you get it working,
people will snap up internet phone cards like there was no tomorrow.
What we need here is a good implementation of CELP (the government code is
absolute crap, I got a 30% speedup after looking at it for a couple of hours),
and modifications to pgp to allow it to compress/decompress 144 bit frames
every 30msec... I think the AD21020 should have enough juice for this (50MIPS).
As part of the project I'm working on now, we're trying to get CELP up and
running in realtime full duplex mode... I gotta find the source to pgp and
see how tough it would be to integrate the en/decryption parts into the code.
I'll play with it. Anyone else out there got an AD21020 setup?
- Ed
_____________________________________________________________________________
:-) ('') (-: (,,) :-) ('') (-: (,,) :-) | see lidflip instructions on
Edward Hutchins, [email protected] | other side of card
| 1 |
1,406 | Does anyone know where I can get a hold of some secure encrypting chips
or devices before they are banned completely?!?
Steve
| 1 |
3,562 | I would guess that they won't use Clipper at all. What they will
do is use their STU-IIIs amoung themselves and the governmental agencies
they need to talk to, and ignore Clipper. After all, if it's not secure
enough for the agency/department they are communicating with why should
the coprations trust it?
| 1 |
3,111 |
Yes, but that's because interstellar grains are very poor radiators, not
remotely black bodies. As a consequence they are a lot warmer than the
"ambient".
When I was in graduate school, a long time ago, we used 10,000 deg K with
a DILUTION FACTOR of 10+4 for representative values of the radiant energy
background in the galaxy due to starlight. | 1 |
1,940 | If anyone has any information on this deficiency I would very greatly
appreciate a response here or preferably by Email. All I know at this
point is a deficiency can cause myoglobin to be released, and in times
of stress and high ambient temperature could cause renal failure.
x
| 1 |
3,891 |
I've had neither a baby nor a kidney stone, but according to my aunt,
who has had plenty of both, a kidney stone is worse.
| 1 |
6,198 |
It has also apparently been excised from the second edition.
| 1 |
149 | :
: Isn't there a relatively new treatment for kidney stones involving
: a non-invasive use of ultra-sound where the patient is lowered
: into some sort of liquid when he/she undergoes treatment? I'm sure
: I've read about it somewhere. If I remember it correctly it is a
: painless and effective treatment.
The use of shock waves (not ultrasound) to break up stones has been
around for a few years. Depending on the type of machine, and intensity
of the shock waves, it is usually uncomfortable enough to require
something... The high-power machines cause enough pain to require
general or regional anesthesia. Afterwards, it feels like someone
slugged you pretty good!
| 1 |
3,701 |
Y'all got the first two reversed. | 1 |
1,447 | You've got it. What you regard as a right, someone else will regard
as a privilege. Followups to some generic ethics and morality
newsgroup .... | 1 |
2,947 | If you brighten up the dark part of CV043015.GIF with your viewer you
will see two other objects near the upper left part of the moon.
One is actually between the weather satellite and the moon. | 1 |
5 |
Elisabeth, let's set the record straight for the nth time, I have not read
"The Yeast Connection". So anything that I say is not due to brainwashing
by this "hated" book. It's okay I guess to hate the book, by why hate me?
Elisabeth, I'm going to quote from Zinsser's Microbiology, 20th Edition.
A book that you should be familiar with and not "hate". "Candida species
colonize the mucosal surfaces of all humans during birth or shortly
thereafter. The risk of endogenous infection is clearly ever present.
Indeed, candidiasis occurs worldwide and is the most common systemic
mycosis." Neutrophils play the main role in preventing a systemic
infection(candidiasis) so you would have to have a low neutrophil count or
"sick" neutrophils to see a systemic infection. Poor diet and persistent
parasitic infestation set many third world residents up for candidiasis.
Your assessment of candidiasis in the U.S. is correct and I do not dispute
it.
What I posted was a discussion of candida blooms, without systemic
infection. These blooms would be responsible for local sites of irritation
(GI tract, mouth, vagina and sinus cavity). Knocking down the bacterial
competition for candida was proposed as a possible trigger for candida
blooms. Let me quote from Zinsser's again: "However, some factors, such as
the use of a broad-spectrum antibacterial antibiotic, may predispose to
both mucosal and systemic infections". I was addressing mucosal infections
(I like the term blooms better). The nutrition course that I teach covers
this effect of antibiotic treatment as well as the "cure". I guess that
your nutrition course does not, too bad.
My, my Elisabeth, do I detect a little of Steve Dyer in you? If you
noticed my faculty rank, I'm a biochemist, not a microbiologist.
Candida is classifed as a fungus(according to Zinsser's). But, as you point
out, it displays dimorphism. It is capable of producing yeast cells,
pseudohyphae and true hyphae. Elisabeth, you are probably a microbiologist
and that makes a lot of sense to you. To a biochemist, it's a lot of
Greek. So I called it a yeast-like fungus, go ahead and crucify me.
You know Elisabeth, I still haven't been able to figure out why such a small
little organism like Candida can bring out so much hostility in people in
Sci. Med. And I must admitt that I got sucked into the mud slinging too.
I keep hoping that if people will just take the time to think about what
I've said, that it will make sense. I'm not asking anyone here to buy into
"The Yeast Connection" book because I don't know what's in that book, plain
and simple. And to be honest with you, I'm beginning to wish that it was never
written. | 1 |
1,059 |
Right. People here believe the government is listening in on
everything. Sure. If you can't provide an answer, change the
assumptions to something you can deal with.
It's not a matter of the government listening on on everything, it's a
matter of the government listening on anyone they take an interest in.
Say, if you do something heinous like attend a computer meeting at a
mall, the Secret Service decides to go for a warrantless search, and
acquires your name. It's a matter of any number of possible wiretap
abuses that cryptology makes far less likely, and this chip can
sabotage.
Par for the course, though. I predicted that you'd be jumping in in
favor of this. The reply was that you'd justify anything up to and
including death camps as long as the government backed them and had a
written policy statement. Perhaps a little extreme, but not much. | 1 |
5,077 |
^^^^^^^
A convention for Santa Claus impersonators? Please elaborate, enquiring minds
(those in the second and third jars from the left) want to know.... | 1 |
2,098 | Cause and cures for fever blisters respectfully requested.
Thanks!
:-D iane | 1 |
4,753 |
How about the discussion of the STS Tether experiment. Ran forward,
it would suck energy from the Earth's magnetic field, while trivially
slowing the Shuttle. It could also have run backward -- if they ran
electricity through the tether the other way, it would have trivially
propelled the Shuttle faster.
But an even better example comes to mind. There's this electronics guy,
someone like Craig Anderton or Don Lancaster. Ten years ago he wrote about
an invention of his. He could take a light-detector, run current through
it at about a hundred times its rating, and it would glow. He got legal
rights to this design of a combination "fiber optic emitter/receiver". This
turned out to be the basic unit of ATT's (I think) plan to bring Brazil's
communications system into the 21st century. (The article was mostly about
his legal wranglings with the company that eventually got him well-compensated
for his invention.) | 1 |
7,330 | : A woman once told me her doctor told her that I
: could catch, asymptomatically, her yeast infection
: from her, then give it back to her, causing
: a relapse.
: Probably bogus, but if not, it's another reason to use
: latex...
: Steve
It isn't bogus. I had chronic vaginal yeast infections that would go away
with cream but reappear in about 2 weeks. I had been on 3 rounds of
antibiotics for a resistant sinus infection and my husband had been on
amoxicillin also for a sinus infection. After six months of this, I went
to a gynecologist who had me culture my husband seminal fluid. After 7
days incubation he had quite a bit of yeast growth (it was confirmed by
the lab). A round of Nizerol for him cleared both of us. | 1 |
Subsets and Splits