Stonehead

You gotta watch this shit. It's crazy. http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/september2006/200906terrorstorm.htm

Foley dramatised!

Here's Foley commenting eight years ago on Clinton's affair: "It's vile," said Rep. Mark Foley, R-West Palm Beach. "It's more sad than anything else, to see someone with such potential throw it all down the drain because of a sexual addiction." That was "just sad," Foley said. "It's unbelievable that he could behave so carelessly in that setting." http://www.sptimes.com/Worldandnation/91298/Congress_sees_through.html

Superglue

Will the general mass of consumers change their habits based on education? I don’t believe so. It’s as CBS said, consumers won’t voluntarily reduce consumption independent of market forces. The oil shock of 1973 led to the growth in sales of economy cars. It seems a no-brainer for the sales of hybrid cars to increase as petroleum prices rise. The market will respond accordingly but it seems as an afterthought after the primary stimulus and that would be the increase in gasoline prices. Do you think that people will begin to buy hybrid cars when the human and environmental cost is mentally factored into the price of oil? Do I also think that a concerted grassroots effort, i.e., one from the bottom up, will take root and effect change to smooth the transition at least from the consumer end? My guess is no. Will industry be better prepared to meet the challenge? Luckily, there are some politicians (http://www.bartlett.house.gov/EnergyUpdates/) who are shedding light on this issue. Really, in the whole scheme of things, Peak Oil is just one bogeyman to consider. Shit, for all you know, next year could see the outbreak of a bird flu pandemic that could effectively put the brakes on economic expansion and lead to a global contraction a lot quicker than a transition from a hydrocarbon-based economy to whatever comes next. Is it just our damn hubris as ‘enlightened’ human beings that we can handle it? Are we just whistling in the dark? There’s a guy named Kurzweil (http://www.kurzweilai.net/brain/frame.html?startThought=Artificial%20Intelligence%20(AI)) who talks about something called the Singularity. You think that the ol’ folks saw a lot of technological change in the last 80-90 years? Shit, we’re on the cusp of monumental change that’ll make your head spin.

...feeling all warm and gooey.

All the world's a stage...

As I understand, Diamox acts also as a diuretic. That's the problem with performance enhancers, you tweak one part of the system, then the whole system is affected. So, the problem is finding the right dosage to benefit enough without feeling the detrimental effects of dehydration.

I don't see why a biotic influence would be discounted. Given enough time, the influence of microbes and other life such as lichens could contribute to the formation of rock features. These chemical weathering actions could be made more amenable by compositional changes in the plutonic rock. Differences in chemistry (mineralogy) lead to a range in crystallization temperatures such that xenoliths begin to form before the final mass has cooled. Shouldn't there also be compositional changes from top to bottom as the mass cools? Personally, I believe in multiple working hypotheses. Maybe it's that our biases in worldview taint our ability to perceive objectively. Wasn't it Aristotle who created a fictional opponent who questioned him in dialogue so that he could logically create a better argument? Then there's that other fellow who talked about synthesis. And there's also another fellow named Paracelsius who once said that learning occurs outside of the university and you needn't necessarily only look to the given experts (the ones with letters behind their names) of a particular field to formulate ideas of how the world operates.

Descartes is sitting in a bar, having a drink. The bartender asks him if he would like another. "I think not," he says, and vanishes.

I've noticed that the Pope's words are directed towards 'the representatives of science', so it's with interest that I located the following article. Oh and BTW, those were the words abbreviated ( GZY ) on King Solomon's ring.

--snipped from Pope's address I've heard that theologians say morality arises from God. Some scientists offer a different opinion, saying instead that morality has its basis in the natural world, more specifically in the behavior of some mammals. I think I read it at the Edge.

Ok, it's not imaginery. We're actually living in Bizarro World.

I think this Bizarro World is referenced in this article. Or maybe this one. Or this one.

To me, one does not take precedence over the other, if their words and actions are informed by their motivation. If their motivation is to convert non-believers into believers then it doesn't matter if it's called proselytizing or evangelism. Some people would consider capitalism to be quasi-religious.

Know what this is a picture of? “We know that under the revealed image there is another one which is more faithful to reality, and under this one there is yet another, and again another under this last one, down to the true image of what absolute, mysterious reality that nobody will ever see. Or perhaps, not until the decomposition of every image, every reality.” —Michelangelo Antonioni Imitation (i.e., stealin') is the sincerest form of flattery. I was gonna speak of transcedence, scientitific reductionism, epiphenomenon, the limits of cognition and Ultimate Truth, the ego, exclusivity and the idea of a personal God but I don't have any idea of what I'm talking about. So, it's really about perception and akin to what Picasso said, "Art is a lie that makes us realize truth." My perception or 'take' on the world incomplete as it is, is all that I'll have. The label or name is not the same as the thing-in-itself, if it were I could get sustenance by going to a restaurant and eating the menu. Naming something is not the same as actually possessing something or grasping complete knowledge of something. Some people take the route of describing something by saying what it is not. But really, why multiple the names of something, if God is the Universe? If God is ineffable, transcedent then we are actually talking about the Godhead, the divine nature or essence.

More posts about sex and religion. Especially space sex. Is this guy for real? Or is this Colbertian humor?

Ok, my rant… In the larger scheme of things, I delight in seeing the David v. Goliath contests pitting an individual against a larger entity and especially if the minority party wins, which is rarely the case. It takes almost ‘divine’ intervention for the party with lesser means to win. Everybody knows that even if you’re right, you don’t necessarily win. What if some of these seemingly frivolous suits were actually brought about by the industry itself in order to discredit the legitimate claims, that it’s all part of some massive public relations game designed to influence public opinion? What if…? All that I know is that large amounts of money are channeled to PR firms. Follow the money. It is legitimacy that you’re talking about? As far as the tobacco litigation, I thought this was brought about by a number of state attorney generals and in response to the burden in health care that states have to shoulder as a result of tobacco-related ailments in underinsured and uninsured patients? Haven’t government entities been the protectors of the common good and have at various times taken legal action against such public evils such as organized crime, monopolies, etc.? I see that the idea of personal responsibility has inserted itself here, too. You can make a distinction between ingestion of addictive drugs and nutritional foodstuffs. Sure, of course, the individual makes the initial decision to partake but it presumes that all of us are conscious agents capable of making fully rational and mature decisions. Some of us are, some of us aren’t, and most of us waver between the sensible and the foolish. So here, you have to have an outside entity ‘protect’ some of us from ourselves. Some of us need that protection. I suppose if it got so absurd, then you could just stop going to Starbucks, KFC, whatever. It’s not infringing on your right to be free to do what you are legally entitled to. But then again, maybe we should have the freedom to fall, to stumble, to harm ourselves? Isn’t that the core issue of libertarianism? There’s an interesting interview with Dr. Alexander Shulgin, the man who invented over 80% of the world’s known hallucinogenic drugs including Ecstasy. (Might be good reading for some of you.) So here’s the issue rephrased again in a different context: Things like dealing with desire, lust, pursuit of happiness…are part of the human condition. I’d argue that no religious system in the world has succeeded in controlling society to the exclusion of these motivations. The future is transhumanism…, a cyborg future. . .

Young Chuck Norris!!!

Mother do you think they'll drop the bomb? Mother do you think they'll like this song? Mother do you think they'll try to break my balls? Ooooo Mother should I build the wall? Mother should I run for president? Mother should I trust the government? Mother will they put me in the firing line?

Message to George Bush: These are the people who will benefit from the promotion of Intelligent Design. Oh, and BTW, another natural phenomenon explained. Evolution 2, Intelligent Design 0

Annoying someone via the Internet is now a federal crime.

This thread's a bit early. National Pie Day is January 23. The American Pie Council (!) suggests a dozen ways to celebrate. And remember, it's damn right Un-American to not like pie.

Too good to pass up... Letterman interviews Bill O'Reilly (check videos listing)