Free Republic

Can't we shoot unlawful combatants with hollowpoints?

I don't think so in the situations we are involved in, but I don't know if the question has ever actually been addressed by (international) courts. The problem I see is who would be lawful and unlawful combatants under Geneva rules. Obviously, the only parties that could be held to the accord would be those in a regular military unit (our soldiers), not individual insurgent/guerrilla units.

Too much muzzle velocity, and the projectile can easily pass through the human body without expanding.

Depends on the bullet design and construction. I.e., in rifle bullets varmint style bullets are nearly useless on large game since they (basically) explode on impact and don't have any penetration in spite of velocities in the mid to high 3000's. Likewise, the good old 45/70 with a decent soft or hollow point can give both extreme penetration in large animals with terrific expansion in even shallow depths with less than 2000 fps velocity. Bullets need to be designed for the velocities they will be used at to give maximum energy transfer to the target, and an inappropriate bullet for the velocity will probably give poor performance regardless of caliber. High velocity projectiles have a quality all of their own regardless of style that low velocity projectiles do not have.

Like what?

Social workers, government employees of all types, police, assorted specialized Federal law enforcement (Drugs, Homeland Security etc) private security personell, school councellors, soldiers, prison guards and other related prison fields, etc.

Just about anything that results from increased government spending and/or social chaos.

Or populate the island with male and female of both breeds. In 100 years I'd expect to see two, true-breeding, populations.

Well go ahead and try it. You will find out you don't know much about dogs, breeding, or genetics.

The problem with stopping power in military ammo is the restriction to use of fmj bullets. 9mm has plenty more stopping power than a 45 if the 9 is a heavy HP and the 45 is a ball round. Without high performance bullets the bigger the hole the more stopping power and a 45 makes a larger hole than a 9 by far.

But, just for argument's sake, name one culture that produced great art that did not also practice some form of censorship.

Better yet, name one that survived for long without some form of it.

More job creation going on by the Bush administration..

Just more obsolete buggywhip industry. We're better off without it, we cqan concentrate more resources on the new emerging fields of the future.

A and C can both interbreed with B.

You are just trying to redefine a species as any number of things that can be interbred with any number of other things. This isn't what is being discussed. Look up the definition of species (closely realated subsets of species which all carry the same genetics as the overall species, just different dominances). You don't have the A, B, or C anyway.

You realise that by this definition, you would consider A and C to be the same species, even if they can't interbreed!

You're still engaging in a speculative fiction here. Living species are living species, not imaginary ones that live nowhere except in speculation. Just go out and demonstrate your hypotheitcal process with real living things and get legitimate biologists to classify the result as a new species. I will accept that.

When I left, they were pushing hard for a membrane based oxygen generator - essentially the opposite of a fuel cell.

now that

could be an interesting gadget to have. An atmospheric or water membrane?

. Over time a small subgroup that breeds in May and June forms because ...

This gets kind of speculative here. It requires that every member of every subsequent generation of that subgroup cannot breed at different times than the general population (which would be a true loss of genetic information from that population). At least it seems speculative to me because I am unaware of this situation ocuring naturally. Is there one?

For Darwinism to be true, you must have new species arise through the injection of NEW information.

That's basically why (Darwinian) evolution never seems to pan out on close examination. This has never been demonstrated to happen, even under laboratory manipulation. And everything seems to go from higher organization to lower organization (Loss of information, as you mention in the frog example), not the reverse. It would seem to me that we are DEvolving, not Evolving, with fewer species and less genetic potentials.

If I find an example of a plant, repeatedly crossbred by humans, that can no longer crossbreed with one of its ancestral species, will you agree that this represents a new species of plant?

If it occurs in natural populations, breeds true from generation to generation, and doesn't (can't) interbreed with other subspecies of the same original population. That is basically what a specie is.

Suppose I crossbreed plant A and plant B, yielding plant C. Suppose I further crossbreed plant C with other plants, yielding D, E, and F, until I finally get an example that will not crossbreed with either A or B. Is this a new species, or would we then be forced to conclude that not all members of a species can interbreed with one another?

Well, don't just speculate about it, Do it then present the results. That way we can deal with facts in the real world, not imaginary speculation.

Coffea Arabica is one such example - it cannot interbreed with either its closely related species, or with its ancestral species.

That is because they are different, and independent, species. What is the ancestral species, and how do you demonstrate that the 'ancestral' species produced it ( a new species)? Being in the same family does not prove that one species of that family gave rise to another of that family. Again, don't just make speculative statements, demonstrate it.

but in general, using manufacturing employment as a measure of the economy isn't good, ...

That's why I included the BOT deficit. If we weren't running a serious and increasing deficit, particularly with manufactured goods, I wouldn't worry much about things like manufacturing jobs. The outsourcing of High-tech jobs (white collar production), while retaining an American front label, is a means of disguising a BOT deficit in their respective areas; something hard to do with manufactured goods. Deficits = debt, and debts have to be repaid someday. Our current 'good' economy (for over a decade now) is really just a debt financed, and temporary, utopia. We need to be preparing for it's end, both Nationally and personally.

The NRST is definitely catching my eye these days, but I read different things regarding its effect on FICA. Why retain FICA?

It provides the money for the governments daily operations (at least till the baby boomer start retiring en masse), It is the justification for the numbering and tracking of all Americans, It allows the intrusion into the daily economic (and personal) life of all Americans. This is the basis for our way of life (covert control vs overt control), as it makes all the government controls look like they are voluntary for citizens and keeps them hidden. Doing away with FICA is unthinkable (to Republicans and Democrats) for these reasons.

So, what makes this study "junk science"?

The folks you're talking about are discussing automotive fuel cells, which aren't terribly amenable to cryogenic fuel cells....

What does the sub run on? And automotive fuel cells can run quite well on gasoline, alcohol, other hydrocarbon fuels and atmospheric oxygen. The sub fuel cells could probably run on the same if it didn't need to run under water, and may not need cryogenic fuels, just something with available hydrogen and oxygen. Liquefied hydrogen and oxygen aren't needed, and may not be what is being used here.

The two boys later told principal Kenneth Daniels that they threw the girl out the window because they did not want to be written up for disobeying a teacher.

Only doing their job. Very old excuse for violating human rights and decency. Apparently the new generation is the same as all preceding ones.

So . . . it is an American built submarine!!!

What American facility with what American workers produced it? That would be American built. I don't see anything in the article indicating it was built here. What I see is "The submarine is one of the four that the Kiel-based HDW has been building for Greece. The other three will be constructed at the HDW subsidiary Hellenic Shipyards in Greece." Nothing even indicates that any of the technology or design originated in the US.

I wonder if all the anit-hydrogen/anti-fuel cell FReepers are going to show up telling us that this is only theoretical lab stuff and is an impossible lunacy for practical use?