Ditto's
Posted on 05/26/2007 1:49:34 PM PDT by Eurotwit
It depends on what your definition....oh, never mind.
Good one!
I hear ya. Most opuses remind me of a childish temper tantrum, screaming some tirade then running to their room and slamming the door. Likewise, having that tantrum on a thread and forcing the mods to zot you. A waste of bandwidth and emotion.
As to your other views, no problem here. There are many other subjects that can bring people together. I like hearing differing views. I just hate it when people holding different views choose to call others morons (and such) if they won’t agree with them. If a person is honest and open, I will respect their opinion. If they are championing liberalism, they really shouldn’t be looking for support on a conservative forum.
There are still (since 02/99) those who simply don't get it. Those that continue to believe that FR is partisan; that its aims are partisan victory.
Agree wholeheartedly.
Keep this up and I may become a FReepfriend of yours! [in the face of adversity, I might add...]
Ditto's
She was in a permanent vegetative state. He brain was basically gone. There was no Terri there. Personally, I beleive it was up to the family to decide what to do and everyone else to stay out. The family fought and the husband prevailed in court. Do you believe family law should be removed from the states and made into a federal matter? Do you believe special legislation should be introduced on the pleas of a party losing a court battle? At what point should the family legal system that millions of Americans have to plan and deal with be over turned? What is the criteria for exceptions to the system? Who gets to decide that? Shopuld there have been a confrontation between the Sheriff’s Dept and State Troopers? Would you want to be either of those law enforcement officers in that situation?
There is lots of scientific literature out there, both in archeology and in molecular genetics that covers our origins in detail. Google helps.
Gandhi was a Freeper?
Hey, in case you're mistaking me for someone else, I have no interest in them and do not take part.
>> Forgiveness does not change the past, but it does enlarge the future.
Very well, I forgive you for misspelling my name; but you'll have to talk to Gandhi about misspelling his :-)
Don't lecture us about family. Terri was murdered by her adulterous husband who wanted to profit off of her death for his own purposes.
And you wish to call it a "mercy killing" because in your view her brain "wasn't alive"? Well there are a lot of brains that aren't alive in this country. Let's start with those, OK?
No its amazing that after thousands of years of human politic that there are those who refuse to understand and accept the realities of the systems.
If your goal is consergvative ideology, come election time you vote for who can better represent your ideals of a candidate with an honest chance of winning of those available.. sitting out, or voting for a candidate that has no chance of winning, leaves you high and dry.... That’s just how it works.
I have yet to find a PEROT voter that felt like the really got what they were voting for.... remember that.
I remember several years ago, RA was awarded the honorary title of “Finest Freeper” Something must have changed between then and his bannishment.
Many of them are in Congress.
They (SETI) are assuming that, because we have yet to see it happen naturally, those frequencies are more likely to be used by intelligence than by nature.
"Yet they have no problem assuming life arose from natural causes. Look at me, I've got cake and I'm eating it too.
This sounds like a non-sequitur. Or I don't understand your point.
You seem to have missed the rest of my point that they will assume a natural cause first and only when that avenue has been exhausted will they conclude something else. Not only the type of signal is important but where it originates will be considered. The point I'm making here is that SETI is not limited to 'order' in the determination of a signal's origin.
Scientists are not considering a complex life form such as what we find now but a much simpler self replicating molecule.
"Can you think of a single invention by man that is a "self replicating" anything? I cannot conceive of anything in the physical world that man has designed that is self-replicating. Can you?
What does this have to do with science looking for some combination of chemicals with specific attributes?
"Software code can be written such that it is self replicating. However, this software is entirely dependent upon the existence of the hardware for which it run. Software cannot be coded to replicate itself without the existence of the hardware.
The hardware/firmware supplies the necessary rules, constraints and substrate for the execution of each command. Nature supplies the same environment to molecular interactions where the rules are realized in the 'laws of physics', the constraints by the availability of energy, and the substrate by complex molecules such as amino acids, sugars, and alcohol as well as other less complex molecules and simple atoms.
To steal some of your comment - life as we know it is entirely dependent upon the existence of the laws of physics, energy and raw materials for it function. It cannot replicate without that environment.
"Furthermore, the initial replication code will have to write itself!
There are synthetic molecules which replicate themselves.
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/tt/1990/may09/23124.html
The situation may have been even simpler with some molecules replicating other molecules.
"He proposed the idea that life began within a mixture of simple rather then complex organic molecules, multiplied through catalyzed reaction cycles and an external source of available energy. In other words, in the beginning it wasn't a molecule that replicated itself, there were a bunch of molecules that replicated each other. Life didn't start, according to this theory, with 'I replicate myself', it started with 'I replicate you and you replicate me'." Robert Shapiro
"This is why I think mathematicians, programmers and engineers are less likely to be evolutionists than pure scientists. I would love to see this polled, but given the evolution is god mentality of academia, I hold out no hope an accurate poll of this could be taken.
Unfortunately, while they have well ordered, logical minds, mathematicians, programmers and engineers are also less likely to have training in and understand the underlying biology and biochemistry.
You might look up papers by J. Shallit (a mathematician/Programmer)and W. Elsberry. (a biologist)
I too would like to see a poll of this.
"Therefore, the "much simpler self-replicating molecule" is still dependent upon the hardware and software sides of the entire molecule if it is to work. If this is not the case, please provide a real world or realistic theoretical example which replicates itself? You'd think with the rich diversity of life forms on this planet, these real world examples would be everywhere.
Given the size of the world, and the number of organisms looking for energy it is not surprising that we have not seen natural replicators everywhere. We would need to find a planet where life is just beginning to find them. We are limited to trying to find out if it is possible.
A real world example of a self replicating molecule? Prion, virus, bacteria, your DNA,...
"I'd tried telling my boss that my next code assignment will write itself through evolution. He told me "good, at least the work will get done on schedule".
It's being done.
As a programmer you might be interested in this http://www.sq3.org.uk/papers/evselfreps.pdf
Just FYI (don't tell anyone), one of my degrees is in CS.
The only thing that came out of that case is that everyone should have very clear “end of life” directives. That would have settled the matter from day one. The way the current system works is that the spouse is the immediate family in the eyes of the law, not the parents. Then it came down to what Micheal Schaivo said his wife wanted and I see lots of room for problems there and, hence, a legal battle. I would really, really hate it if my parents ever tried to intervene in any matter between my spouse and I, regardless of the issue.
Good post! I remember reading about code that “evolves” itself. Essentially the hardware running code is the environment where the code evolves. Now if the code could make needed hardware, like we can modify our environment, that would be interesting!
I’ll tell ya, I don’t understand this whole conversation.
From what I saw posted in links at #1153, it looks like he deserved it (I’ve had pals zotted for less).
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1840286/posts?page=1153#1153
From what he himself posted at DC, *he says* he deserved it.
If he wants to come back, why doesn’t he contact JR?
This handwringing brigade is becoming really boring, IMO.
btw... I think there are about 2000 of those “FR’s finest” freepers as they post a thread daily.
I’ve never read the thread and have no idea who selects them.
Thank you dixiechick2000,I did.
Gee, you said earlier that Terri was "brain dead" for years and didn't deserve to live. Now you say, if only Terri had written down on paper that she really wanted to live if she were incapacitated. Make up your mind would you...
The fact is that her parents and siblings wanted her to have food and water. Her husband wanted nothing for Terri including basic physical therapy, or combing her hair, or even primary dental care -- which is why she had dentures. He wanted his disabled wife dead (just like you supported) so he could go on with his new "wife" and kids.
Shouldn't society give the benefit of the doubt in such cases and review what caused her to be in this physical/mental condition?
Why not read the brother of Terri's viewpoint on the matter:
Terri's brother replies: exclusive interview to Michael Schiavo's lies.
Then come back and tell all of us the court system and legislative branch shouldn't intervene in a case like this.
Or, come back with a third reason that you can come up with...
Apparently I just lack the intelligence. Sorry.
NONE OF THIS changes the fact that until Vietnam, politics was left out of foreign policy because national defense is above politics. The GOP did this with Clinton and it is despicable that the ‘Rats won’t do it now. Conservatives are for a strong defense, but principled liberals should be able to rise above it (like Lieberman and Miller).
I still don't get your point. Are you saying that there would be no difference in our national defense position if Hillary Clinton wins? Or, if she's too right wing to get the nomination, another democrat?
I'm sorry if I simply don't follow your idealism.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.