Stonehead

Shoulda been an open and shut case, huh? Only one story.

This is tragic. I don't believe anyone can try the defendent in the absence of information that the jury and judge were offered. Or vice versa with respect to the dead man's actions. So, what you're talking about is 'pathos', an appeal to the emotions. Again, the Dateline story mentioned that the case was not about the character of either man but about the behavior of the shooter. Was it justified to fire three shots into the chest of the charging man and to do it with a large calibre pistol using hollow point bullets? All I can say is that the shooter definitely knew how to neutralize a threat and by that I mean that perhaps his conscious decision-making was bypassed by automatic response. I know that's the whole point of practicing so that if you get into a dire situation where time is of the essence then you will react automatically. BTW, I don't believe shooting the dogs would have been desirable because the charging man most likely would have attacked the shooter.

Strange bedfellows? Thanks for the Cheap Gas, Mr. Hitler! How Nazi Germany and apartheid South Africa perfected one of the world's most exciting new fuel sources. --Slate

Doubly so for Pierre Teihard de Chardin? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Teilhard_de_Chardin Don't immanentize the eschalon. --widipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanentize_the_eschaton

I think most of us are on the same page, just different parts of the page, re: global warming. One of the criticisms of the CO2/warming feedback cycle is that lag times in the two variables have been observed. The ocean is a huge sink for carbon and ocean temperature affects the volume of gas that it stores, so it's a moderator. Thus, the proposition is that cosmic rays which in turn affect cloud cover acts as a primary trigger. But, the fact remains, that we're definitely contributing to the carbon budget.

But it is, in a sense, enlightened self-interest.

For what it's worth, there have been well publicized examples of fraudulent activities in the sciences, for instance, in the medicial sciences and if I recall correctly this occurred in conjunction with NIH funding. As far as research universities there is huge pressure to acquire grant monies, fund research and graduate students, and to publicize results. I would imagine that science as a practice would be similar to other professions in that there are individuals in it who make bad moral decisions. But, as a body the purpose of science, as the root of its name, is knowledge. Sure, the workings of science are like any other human activity and reveal our shortcomings in things such as reseacher bias for a particular working hypothesis.

Definatly CO2 is increasing that proven, I wonder how much is blown out of proportion my the libs. Are you telling me that you think the scientist have figured this earth out enough to now for sure what going on??? The earth has been hotter and colder in the past not a result of humans. Certainly we could be causing something but run around like chicken little is stupid. Fair enough. So what you're really saying is that you have no faith in the advancement of science? Would you rather rely on knowledge gained from other means? Reading more into than what I said. Only point I was trying to make was these scientist are not perfect. Alot of times we get there personal beleifs with there data. Science has its place, real science. In retrospect, yeah, I gotta agree with some of what you're saying but the whole 'not trusting the scientist' thing is bogus. It's not necessarily the scientist or technician as much as it is the policymaker or politician. I take a systems approach so you could, for instance, talk of the sun-moon-earth system and within the earth there are a number of interconnected systems such as atmospheric-oceanic or core-mantle-crust. So yeah as far as understanding the geophysical interactions, sure. But, consider that a hell of lot is known. For example, NASA's EOS program used satellites to detect things such as simultaneous ocean rise and fall globally in real time. Other things such as changes in gravity anomolies within the mantle/core and meteorological changes. Variable changes superimposed over a secular trend in length of day or the Earth's spin rate. Stratification of the ocean temperature. Zonal winds. Etc. This is real science, observing real patterns separated from the noise and deciphering the workings of the processes that lead to those patterns. That's human nature. To see patterns and to use those observations to gain some advantage over a capricious world.

The problem is that the recidivism rate is high so this says something about lack of control. Accountability that's another issue, as is punishment. It's just my unease with an one size fits all approach that seems to be the conservative's answer to many things. Ok, this is different but it touches on behavioral choices and their outcome (matters under free will) but again I don't want to portray it as either-or. Obesity for instance. Some have argued that it's simply a matter of caloric reduction. Ok fine. I'm not trying to prove otherwise with the following two articles, just pointing out that it's not as simple as that. Bugs and the Bulge--CBC Radio Programmed For Obesity: Early Exposure To Common Chemicals Can Permanently Alter Metabolic System--ScienceDaily

Definatly CO2 is increasing that proven, I wonder how much is blown out of proportion my the libs. Are you telling me that you think the scientist have figured this earth out enough to now for sure what going on??? The earth has been hotter and colder in the past not a result of humans. Certainly we could be causing something but run around like chicken little is stupid. Fair enough. So what you're really saying is that you have no faith in the advancement of science? Would you rather rely on knowledge gained from other means?

What did Caddis ditch him, so he's chosen you to speedclimb?

So let me get this straight. Are you doubting global warming? I suppose if you were astute enough, you could argue that warming might cause glaciers to surge. Or some such stuff concerning accumulation and ablation. But definitely, check out the retreat of the Nisqually Glacier on Rainier. As far as politics and Mayor Greg Nichols, I heard some shight about concerns building a tunnel as a replacement for the viaduct if global warming is predicted to raise the sea level several meters or such. But I think I read that Nichols favors this alternative because he has some plan to reduce the numbers of cars having to come into the city.

The way I see it, it's just dialogue. But yeah, he starts out by saying: "to a neuroscientist...". I think it was Steven Picker ( Brain Cells Fire in Patterns) who when asked to describe the workings of the brain in five words or less said, "Brain cells fire in patterns." So yeah, if we took it to that ridiculously reductionist extreme, then the culpable individual no longer exists, only patterns exist. Admittedly, there's a lot of abstract notions being brought up, things such as free will for instance. Personally, I'm a believer in bringing complicated issues into simpler formats. Sure there's something lost in the translation. Hardly anyone here faults Al Gore for doing that with global warming. It just seems the important thing is dialogue. Is this pop culture pseudoscience?

Come. On. We're using this argument in the context of all crimes, including violent ones? Again, rabid dog vs. human being. You're saying that not only can someone be an instinctual killer absent of choice in the matter, but we should also forgive them for it with lightened penalties? Culpability in crime is only one area that the technology touches on. But I think the soup/salad thing is more applicable to such issues discussed in the article such as jury selection and unconscious bias.

I don't know how many times I've seen issues on this board narrowed down to a simple dichotomy. Sure it's easier to talk about but it leads to entrenchment. Seems the credo here is: Never give an inch. Anyway, I think the article refers to uses of technology that should lead to refinements in crime investigations, criminal justice, etc. It lends a more discerning eye to what's going on around us.

This guy is still alive but (damn!) those ideas! http://fas.sfu.ca/newsitems/cory-doctorow-2007-leonardo-lecture

Talkin' about famous dead people: --Robert Anton Wilson http://www.rawilson.com/trigger1.html

I'm surprised by how fast the novelty of extreme sports wears off but it's still thrilling to see for the first time. Most of the thrill is from seeing the successful attempts, the failed attempts look too painful.

I don't know if this speaks to your question but it seems that there's a difference in how we decide to mete out punishment based on criteria specific to the individual.

When has this not been the case? In contrast to... Well, for instance, marijuana possession in some cases. Seems that the focus is on punishment or retribution for flouting the law. But I could be all wet.

~Fuck~

Whaddya conservatives think of this? THe Brain on the Stand--New York Times

Think it was Pascal who presented this argument. Something called Pascal's wager.

Free coffee. yeah today at any starbucks, 10am to noon, 12 oz drip coffee Did I say it's free? Trust me. This is not a troll.

Looks like Bones is playing shootem up. Dope!