| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#231
May 12th 05, 12:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 11 May 2005 08:40:31 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in : On Wed, 11 May 2005 02:36:52 -0700, Frank Gilliland wrote: The politics of science is often more important than the science itself. It's a proven fact that the Earth is undergoing a period of global warming, and that it's caused by the influence of man on the environment. But politics plays the game that such facts are nothing more than speculations made by a few fringe researchers looking to get their names in the journals. There has been no conclusive proof that global warming is primarily the result of man's influence over the environment. Yes, there is indeed conclusive proof. In fact there has been clear evidence that this planet has experienced major cyclical climatic changes over the eons. The current warming trend may just be a part of that process, and man's contribution to it may be much less significant than what the environmental alarmists would lead us to believe. That's what I was talking about when I said "the politics of science". How did life come to be? Who cares? The only fact we know is that it -does- exist. So let's just make the most of it while it lasts. Existentialism. IMHO a rather selfish and closed mindset. Gee, and I thought you said that you were a realist. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
|
#232
May 12th 05, 12:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 11 May 2005 08:32:45 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in : On Tue, 10 May 2005 17:13:43 -0700, Frank Gilliland wrote: On Tue, 10 May 2005 07:39:33 -0400, Dave Hall wrote in : snip Your anti-God bias is showing. You would rather believe that the complexity of our ecosystem occurred due to just the right random, combinations of factors and events to produce all the diversified species, which all have a key part to play in the total picture, rather than consider the likelihood that an intelligent force was somehow responsible for guiding it. There's nothing "random" about it Well, no, that's my whole point. Something has to "guide" the development of life. Why? Something has to make the decision whether 2 legs are better than four, and whether a fifth finger makes for a more effective tool, yet 6 fingers is overkill etc. Why must it be decided? Why can't it just evolve that way because that's what happens to work best? Do you think that rain must come from God because we don't know how it gets into the sky? ....oh, wait a sec, we -do- know how it gets into the sky. Bad example. So do you think that the Earth is at the center of the Univ..... uh, forget that one, Galileo really shamed the church when he proved that the Earth orbits the Sun. Ok, how about this: The rainbow -must- be proof of God because it...... nope, Newton shot that one down in flames. Well how about music? God must have invented music, right? After all, how did birds learn how to sing? oops, another bad example...... Gee Dave, it sure looks like all of God's "creations" are slowly being discovered to be nothing more than natural phenomena. Except maybe for Michael Jackson. -- when you consider that the bell curve consists of a population as great as the number of events that occur in the Universe within any period of time, it becomes utterly -ridiculous- to think that life requires divine intervention. You're just too hung up of formal religion. It's preventing you to consider the possibility. Just because a certain part of the ocean is unexplored doesn't mean it's inhabited with monsters. -You- are too hung up on religion to realize that randomness (aka, 'chaos') is nothing more than a term used to describe the collective effect of dynamic systems that are either so numerous or complex that their components -have yet- to be isolated and identified. That doesn't mean a seemingly random process -doesn't- have a logical and scientific explanation, only that the process is as yet unidentified. And if you can't understand that much then you probably still check under your bed every night for the boogie man. And if there -is- evidence of guidance by some intelligent force, it's far more likely that this "force" is not God but some sort of ETI. Well now, you ARE making progress. You opened your mind for a split second. Tell me Frank, what is the definition of "God"? ROTFLMMFAO!!! You aren't suggesting that God is a collective of little grey humanoids from the planet Zorkon, are you? Beam me up, Scotty! May the force be with you, Dave! It always has been. OB1 has taught you well, young Jedi. But here is something you must know: I am your father, Dave. At least that's what your mother told me after she lost two other paternity suits. snip But keeping with that, who said it was random? Natural evolution and selection explains away any coincidental occurrences that you may mistake for "random". But what motivates natural evolution? Natural variation, and adaptability to a dynamic environment. Based on what criteria? There has to be a purpose for life. Why? Because you say so? Because you can't figure out what to do with your life? Or did you adopt that idea as part of a twelve-step program? What drives that purpose? When Moses asked God what the people should call him, God responded, "I am that I am." IOW, God exists for the sake of himself. For us mortals it isn't much different -- life is spent propogating ourselves. For human males that consists of impregnating as many females as possible, hence the common characteristic of men to "love 'em and leave 'em", and their willingness to screw just about anything that is receptive to their advances. The female reproductive role is more complex. Traditionally it has been to nurture and protect the larvae until they can be kicked out of the house. This explains why some women are gold-diggers (money = security, taken to an extreme). Ironically, monogomy isn't common with humans, their behavior being more like some species of birds. The female chooses a mate that is a 'provider', one she feels is also competent in a nurturing role. Yet she seeks a different male for breeding, looking for characteristics such as aggressiveness and healthiness, and other attributes that are carried genetically and will give her offspring a better chance at survival. With two 'mates' she gets the best of both worlds, since one male with all those traits is nearly impossible to find. Meanwhile, the males are just trying to dip their wicks anywhere they can. BTW, this isn't my theory. It's from a well-documented study on human behavior that has been supported by numerous independent studies. But if you need to find a purpose that transcends natural biology, try the simple fact that we -can- transcend biology. That, by itself, as a "purpose" for life, is reflected heavily in the Bhuddist faith and to some extent with the Hindu. The 'challenge' of life, therefore, is to overcome our animal instincts and attain a higher level of being. Flip the coin and you have people that think you should live hard and die young. It's doubtful that they have any regrets since they don't have much time to think about such things. Of course you could always take a perspective from Monty Python, but I think Monty Python itself is reason enough to live. And what else is important is what goes through your mind in your final moments of life. Did you make the right choices? Could you have done any better? Will anyone remember you for who you really are? And are you sure they really -do- know who you are? But that's assuming, of course, that anyone cares if you are on your death bed. If you ever visit a nursing home you will find that it's more common for people to die alone, especially if they don't have money or property to pass on in their will. Will that be the case with you? Or will your "loved ones" view your life more intrinsically? And will you have doubts about life after death, or will you resign yourself to lies that you used to convince yourself one way or the other so you wouldn't have to worry about it? Which brings me to my own philosophy regarding the matter: It's hard to evaluate life until you have something to compare it to. Most people who have come close to death consider it a life-altering experience, and their lives are improved afterwards. It's not a good idea to die just so you can live better, but at least you can explore the ideas and perspectives of some of the best minds on the subject. For that line of philosophy I would recommend yet another good book: "Thinking Through Death" by Dr. Scott Kramer. If you want a copy just drop me an email, I have a couple spares. Who decides whether a mutation is "beneficial" or not? Natural selection, otherwise known as survival of the fittest, assumes that gene mutations which result in a "better" species, would survive while the "lesser' versions of the species would die out. Yet, it is said that homo-sapiens evolved from apes. Why then are apes still around if we are the "new and improved" version of the ape? Because you assume that the "'lesser' versions of the species would die out", which is not necessarily the case. If not, then that's negates much of the evolutionary theory. I don't recall that being part of the theory at all. The theory is that variations which can adapt to a changing environment will survive -irrespective- of their origins. If the purpose of evolution is gradual improvement or a species, then the "old" should die off as it is replaced by the "new". That's only an assumption on your part because you have never studied the subject. If you -had- studied the subject you would know better than to make such an ignorant remark. There can be many circumstances where a variation doesn't compete for the same resources as it's progenitor. This explains why there are so many speices of birds that have but slight variations -- many birds are migratory. And so are many species of primates. This explains subtle variations within a specific species, but that doesn't explain how a bird came to be in the first place. Are you proposing that a winged creature suddenly appeared by accident, as a mutation from a land-based critter, and it proliferated all by itself. What taught it to fly in the first place? How could a genetic anomaly take into consideration the dynamics of flight? I suppose I should start with Rocky and Bulwinkle. You see, Rocky is a "flying squirrel". They don't really fly, but glide from one place to another using skin that has overgrown. The skin probably evolved because the critters kept falling out of the trees, and the species with the variation of loose skin allowed more of them to survive the falls. Easy enough. The next logical step would be an variation of their "wings" that would allow them to glide for longer periods of time, and over greater distances. Perhaps even a variation where muscle movement gives a little extra flight time. Eventually, over a few hundred thousand years and thousands of generations, there will probably be a squirrel that can really fly. But you propose that one day there was a rat, then a miracle occured and *poof* there was a bat? I don't think so, Dave. Evolution only explains a small part of the puzzle. No, you have only -learned- a small part of the puzzle. This is true. There are very few facts and a whole host of theories which cropped up to try to explain the facts. Such is science. Some theories will be dismissed while others will be proven as fact. And it's doubtful that divine providence will be a factor in any scientific theory. The theory of intelligent design is no more far-fetched than the idea that life began here spontaneously and proliferated into a diverse eco system, totally at random. You are assuming that "life began here spontaneously" and evolved "totally at random". Research strongly suggests that neither are true. ......Why do humans have self-awareness? Why do we posses an intelligence that allows us to contemplate the unknown, and live beyond the programming of instinctive behavior? What about the concept of a soul? Evolution is science. The questions you ask are philosophical. Yes, but it all relates in the bigger picture. Talk to Skippy about your "bigger picture" cause that type of BS doesn't wash with me. I don't even buy into the concept of a "grand unified theory". But before you start putting the human race on a pedestal, maybe you better think twice about what you assume are the differences between humans and other animals. Are you suggesting that other animal species are capable of possessing similar intellectual capabilities as we have? In some cases certain primate species have displayed social structures which transcend simple instinctive behavior. They have also been observed fashioning crude tools to obtain food. Dolphins and whales seem to communicate with a rudimentary language. But not one other species can do it all, in the same way that we do. So you have noticed that animals are different and have different characteristics. Congratulations. What you -haven't- learned that the same is true within the human species. Yes, animals possess some intellectual capabilities. Beavers are pretty good engineers, and nobody can tell me that their behavior is purely instinctual since the circumstances for every beaver dam are different, and requires some intelligence in order to build those "crude" tools. Did you know that dolphins have sex just for fun? They also seem to learn things faster and easier than most teenage humans. And just about every animal has some form of communication, not just dolphins and a few others. Ants communicate with chemicals, bees communicate by 'dancing', dogs communicate by ****ing on trees and smelling each others butts, etc, etc. But on the other hand, why would anyone think that human behavior is anything more than extentions of natural instinct? Everything we do somehow revolves around basic natural urges, whether it be breathing, sleeping, eating, sex, reproduction, dying, etc. Probably the only two characteristics that set us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom is our propensity to destroy ourselves and our ability to show mercy. But then again, the former doesn't differentiate us from lemmings, and the latter is more a recognition of the futility of life than it is a divine influence. Either way, man can be just as cruel as nature and frequently proves that to be a fact. So what's the difference between man and animal? Human arrogance in thinking he is something more than just another product of nature. snip Instead of being wishy-washy about the issue, why not consider the possibility that evolution is, very simply, one of God's creations? It very well might be. It's all part of the bigger plan. Like I said, I totally accept the concepts of evolution. I just believe that the process has been "managed" by a higher order intelligence, the definition of which, has yet to be revealed. I am not advocating any specific religious interpretation of "God", only that one exists. The problem is that you don't fully understand the vast multitude of variations that can occur in the processes of evolution. I don't accept the theory that if you place a group of monkeys in a cage with a bunch of typewriters that they'll eventually write every great piece of literary works. I don't either. Whose theory was that? They might type out every letter that is contained within those works, but they will not get the order correct. Such is the nature of chaos and randomness. It lacks structure, direction, and order, and those elements are required for meaningful results to occur. Again, who suggested that such a thing was possible? Neither do the scientists that study it. But the scientists don't insert God into the equation whenever something doesn't add up -- they look for other factors and they usually find them. There are still far too many unanswered questions to discount the theory of intelligent design. Discount it? No. But neither does it mean that we should jump to that conclusion because we haven't learned everything we can. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
|
#233
May 12th 05, 03:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#234
May 12th 05, 03:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#236
May 12th 05, 04:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ask your buddy "Bob-noxious" about the
criminal penalties associated with pirate radio. Another realm. No, it's not. Not in principle. We are speaking of cut and dry law,,you know,,,,reality. The only thing that's different is that Bob's visibility to commercial (paying) interests is what forces the FCC to pay closer attention. And enact harsher penalties compared to the cb/freeband. Read the rules you claim to comprehend for crying out loud.._ This concept has proved nearly impossible for you to grasp. Perhaps it because you so vehemently disagree with the law. .Your whole justification revolves around your perception that unless a law has serious, visible teeth, then it doesn't deserve our respect, and we are justified in ignoring it. What justification? The fact that you continue to incorrectly claim I justified anything over the years has dogged you. Then what would you call it. Call what? When you claim that freebanding is a simple infraction, that's a justification. It's a realty,,much unlike the manner you incorrectly claim speeding is a summary offense (over 15 mph of the posted limit and it is no longer a sumary offense,,,in Fl AND other states). But this serevs to illustrate you either A) invoke only the portion of the law you want or B) invoke only the portion of the law you understand. Would you still freeband if the FCC actively pursued freebanders and fined them heavily? You said they did ever since your breakdown occurred in this group. What a change of view. in fact, I am proud to have been a part of usenet history in which you have done so many flips in your life. That is anti-social behavior. I don't know about anti-social, but it certainly is unbecoming or indicative of one who is easily swayed in their core beliefs, especially when it was done by one of your age..several times. _ So is the behavior of sports fanatics and religious zealots, both a very real part of the fabric that weaves America. In what way? Breaking the law,,isn't that what you refer to as "anti-social" behavior? But then again, you have astutely illustrated you had no concept of the definition or the term "civil disobedience" and needed proper instruction regarding such..your problem is you disagree with how it is applied and in your rush to condemn the act, gaffed by attacking the very real and longstanding American and patriotic concept of civil disobedience. But most people understand tolerance is a necessary gem to a successful America and certain acts are placed into proper perspective by the majority...a perfect example is the majority of the populace do not consider speeders "criminals" like yourself. I don't either. Speeding is not a criminal offense. Another position of whcih you chose opposite end of the argument when taught. I'm proud of you. I never stated otherwise. You were the one who compared speeders to "real" criminals a few lines above, not me. Umm...you invoked speeding as a misplaced analogy on many occasion. Introducing a subject and crying foul when another uses it for a comparison is hypocritica. Do not introduce a subject if you do not wish it picked proeprly apart by others. You should have learned this with your unsolicited invocation of un-named sources and un-confirmed claims. The fact that you feel strong enough concerning a subject to claim such things but not provide for them, is telling. _ No,,facts. You can't call facts you disagree with "semantics". You want to talk about facts? The facts are that the FCC can and does auction off chunks of spectrum to commercial entities to use. They also regulate those chunks. They also set aside some spectrum for "public use". Yes, they administer it, as an arm and representative proxy of the U.S. government. Who is charged with administering what belongs to the public via their tax dollars. Not much different than an auction. Then why is the public not seeing the proceeds of these sales? Gee Dave,,they are..in the form of regulation and enforcement. You looking for some type procedural handout from an entity simply since it is tax dollar supported? That is the most hypocritical thing a republican can say,,,,I'm with Frank..you slept through class. So, while the FCC might not directly "own" the airwaves, the U.S. government does. _ Only when combined with other acts. If you feel simple freebanding (the context of which we speak) carries criminal charges, feel free to cite the passage or an example,,even one. What is "simple" freebanding? Again, I refer you to the com act of 1934 and associated regulations regarding unauthorized transmitters. The portion regarding unauthorized transmitters goes right out the window, Dave. Why can't you understand that? You incorrectly assume freebanders are all using unauthorized transmitters. How do you get through life with so many false assumptions responsible for your oft repeated gaffes? _ Know of any test cases pushing the limit on this law? Pushing which law and in what way? Transmitting, albeit, under the guise of part 15, to a much broader audience than permitted. Well, look into any "low power" pirate broadcaster. Some have tried to claim that their power is legal (even if their antennas are not). Once one is pirating, any legal guise under Part 15 vanishes. You can legally operate a part 15 transmitter on the broadcast band. That invalidates your statement, then. If one is legal, why did you mistakenly refer to such as a pirate? You said "check into any low power pirate". I built one such transmitter when I was a kid. But the antenna restrictions specified no longer than a 5 foot wire. I could hear my "station" up to about a block away. How is such defined? If a church camp own 2500 acres and broadcasts over such, and I sit on the public lake adjourning their property and can tune in their broadcast..is it now simply approached as a public broadcast? Most of those situations employ carrier current transmitters which radiate only a short distance from their "antenna" wires, thereby limiting range beyond the intended service area. The biggest uses for this technique is on .college campuses, travel, and road alert systems. Yes,,,but my question remains and is still valid. The reality is that even a carrier current system needs to be authorized by the FCC. So a radio system capable of covering a 2500 acre church camp would need FCC permission to operate. Sure,,,,,but again,,,if one was to zero in and receive the signal from property not owned by the entity transmitting under Part 15, what then? Isn't this a technical violation? That depends on the circumstances. I gave you the circumstances. An authorized carrier current station operating within the technical requirements is not responsible for incidental radiation beyond it's physical boundaries. My parameters clearly defined the circumstances and the receiving end proved the example was not incidental but fixed and regular. Cordless phones are part 15 devices, yet they can carry beyond your property lines. Cordless phones are no required anywhere in the rules to stop transmitting at the end of your property. How did you make such a glaring error and from what rule did you misinterpret this? Instead of arguing with me, try looking into the rules governing each service, and find out for yourself. Despite the relative ease by which a person may operate a CB radio, it is still not a "right" to do so, it is a privilege granted by the FCC, as the service is authorized by rule, even if a license is not required. And if that law were serious, one would NOT be able to buy, plug and play. What stops an immigrant from using a cb? Nothing,,they all se them in the fruit fields. This is true, the FCC isn't checking the immigration status of every CB operator, The immigration use was but one example. There are countless more of how anyone can use a cb simply by purchasing one off the shelf or from anotehr party. Well, that's a big glaring example of how reality can defy or obstruct the rules. The fact that this happens does not diminish the letter of the law. What is happening (reality) has nothing to do with what the law says. I'm curious as to how you continue to always wind up back at making such an obscure and remote invalid connection between the two. One could say that the presence of a law which is unenforceable is grounds for its revocation. Maybe that time is now. and it won't come up unless the person is cited for other rule violations. Some rulesand laws need no changing because they are rightly not enforced..like blue laws still on the books. It's sort of like the seatbelt law in many states. You can't get stopped for it alone, but if you are stopped for another violation, they can cite you for failing to wear a seatbelt at the same time. Yea,,well they just changed the law here,,they can pull one over for not wearing it,,it's no longer a secondary offense (in Fl) , but a primary offense. I believe that's true in Pa, as well now. But it's still secondary in other states. Again, it seems that you justify ignoring rules based on the unlikelihood of being cited. When I began selectively ignoring specific rules for a specific purpose (which happens to be THE definition of civil disobedience), most weren't even aware such rules existed, which nullifies any possible position presented by yourself regarding ignoring rules on the unlikelihood of not being cited. In fact, when cbers were sliding up one or in between to "channel 22a", most had no clue it was illegal. I have a hard time believing that these bright, intelligent CB operators would be so ignorant as to the legality of what they were doing. Yea..all those kids tinkering and swapping crystals really took to regs and rules with their Archer walkie-talkies like a scholarly piece. Again, reality takes precedence over your beliefs. In any case, ignorance of the law is no excuse. Don't you find it the least bit curious that only you feel obsessively and unreasonaly compelled to seek reasons why people do things.....especially cbers and freebanders, of all things. In those days, as a condition of your CB license (You did have a license right?), Not until the mid seventies and not for several years. it was required that you read and understand the part 95 rule book. How many kids read that wit their WT's they got under the tree? You couldn't plead ignorance, without opening yourself to the charge of making a false statement on your license registration form. There was no need.you are entertaining somethhing that ever occurred,,,the FCC didn't mess with kids funning around with swapping crystals, Dave, no matter how illegal it was. No one in my area ever believed that sliding through channels outside of the 23 standard channels was in any way legal. We took our chances based on the unlikelihood of getting popped. Had there been more busts, most of us would have been too scared to venture out of band. In fact there were regular rumors that the FCC was "in town" and many of us toned down our antics, hid the amps in the garage, and stayed on the legal channels, at least until the "alert" passed. Hahaha,,based on nothing more than a phantom voice on the air. At least you remain true to one core belief,...it a strange voice on the radio that compelled you to move to the spirit back then, now it's a strange cartoon name on the internet. The point being that we all knew exactly what we were doing then. Some of us know what we are doing now. As a condition of that privilege comes your responsibility to abide by the rules set fort in various FCC parts depending on which service you are using. You may not like it, but that's the way it is. Actually, I love the manner in which the FCC enforces radio law right now and have said so on many occasion. Sure. The FCC is not as effective as they should be, The country disagrees with you, simply by virtue of what the FCC enforces. No, the FCC disagrees with me. The last time I looked, the rank and file citizen has no input on what the FCC considers a priority. Umm..they do. Please check the manner in which a grievance is filed. Such are not reserved exclusively for those who get busted and fined......in fact, that is but a single application. and freeload.... er, freebanders get away with trespassing on other government administered frequencies with little chance of getting caught. Because it's practically a non-issue with the majority of Americans. The majority of Americans forgot about CB radio when Burt Reynold's hair turned gray, and computers and cell phones satiated their gadget fix. Which is why your personal bane remains a non-issue among the majority of the world. But you guys who are operating illegally are using all sort of excuses to justify or downplay this illegality. Then you should have no problem illustrating substance concerning your accusations, but you have failed to do so to date regarding any of these "guys" you incorrectly invoke. What substance do you want? Do you deny that people other than you operate illegally, and don't care about it? Stay with me, Dave. You not being provided a satisfactory explanation of why people do what they do simply because of the reality you are owed nothing by anyone, does not equate anyone justifying anything. _ Then who should they go after Those who present a direct safety issue. Very few people fall into this category. All hammies who jam repeaters and talk where they are not permitted (on the hammie band) fall into this category. How does jamming a repeater create a safety issue? You're an extra class hammie,,wait,,let me check,,N3CVJ,,,,yep,,you're an extra class hammie and can;t comprehend why jamming a repeater can present a safety issue? Classic and indicative of one who ironically is licensed for communications but knows little of it. how do illegal freebanding hams create a safety issue over than of illegal CB freebanders (As if there really is a difference?) I never said they should go after illegal freebanding hammies..you are losing your train of thought again.. - They have plenty of teeth. Their bite is interested in chomping away with censorship of television. It's much easier for them to enforce. Actually, the hammies are much easier to enforce. Not really. they still have to track down the illegal operator. That means moving beyond the confines of their cushy offices. "Tracking down" in the manner you believe is a thing of the past. The High Frequency Directional Finder in Laurel, Maryland pinpoints transmissions anywhere in the country immediately with no effort. Ask Scott about it. If true, Then read about it if you don't want to ask Scott. then your buddy "Bob" should be dropping loads in his pants right now. Not at all. The technology is there so..I have to be careful how I say this,,,,,,,,,a sort of roving watered down signal is there. Those involved with B-o-B are confident his extremely selective transmissions will not be pinpointed,,and even if one or two were,,,,by the time they acted upon it,,,too late. You cannot pinpoint transmissions from a single point. It requires at least 3 points to do with any accuracy. Why do you think there are so many GPS satellites in position in order to find a precise bearing? Ummmm..instead of arguing with me, you may try reading about this technology in Laurel, MD, you claim doesn't exist. There was a rumor a few years back, and in fact I knew a guy who once claimed to work on this system, where the GPS satellites could be made to work "in reverse" and pinpoint any radio transmission emanating from earth with the same accuracy as a GPS. But I cannot verify this. What do you think the Titan rocket is? Dave "Sandbagger" N3CVJ |
|
#237
May 13th 05, 11:39 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 12 May 2005 04:29:35 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote: On Wed, 11 May 2005 08:40:31 -0400, Dave Hall wrote in : On Wed, 11 May 2005 02:36:52 -0700, Frank Gilliland wrote: The politics of science is often more important than the science itself. It's a proven fact that the Earth is undergoing a period of global warming, and that it's caused by the influence of man on the environment. But politics plays the game that such facts are nothing more than speculations made by a few fringe researchers looking to get their names in the journals. There has been no conclusive proof that global warming is primarily the result of man's influence over the environment. Yes, there is indeed conclusive proof. No there isn't, for the simple reason that we do not have enough climatic history to determine just how and when the climate shifts normally as a reference before we can accurately gauge the additional effects of humans. How did life come to be? Who cares? The only fact we know is that it -does- exist. So let's just make the most of it while it lasts. Existentialism. IMHO a rather selfish and closed mindset. Gee, and I thought you said that you were a realist. I am. But I'm not so close minded that I'm just going to "accept" that I exist and not ponder why. Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
|
#238
May 13th 05, 12:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 13 May 2005 06:39:37 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in : On Thu, 12 May 2005 04:29:35 -0700, Frank Gilliland wrote: On Wed, 11 May 2005 08:40:31 -0400, Dave Hall wrote in : On Wed, 11 May 2005 02:36:52 -0700, Frank Gilliland wrote: The politics of science is often more important than the science itself. It's a proven fact that the Earth is undergoing a period of global warming, and that it's caused by the influence of man on the environment. But politics plays the game that such facts are nothing more than speculations made by a few fringe researchers looking to get their names in the journals. There has been no conclusive proof that global warming is primarily the result of man's influence over the environment. Yes, there is indeed conclusive proof. No there isn't...... Yes, there is. Ice cores are an excellent record of climatic history, and are good for over 500,000 years. How did life come to be? Who cares? The only fact we know is that it -does- exist. So let's just make the most of it while it lasts. Existentialism. IMHO a rather selfish and closed mindset. Gee, and I thought you said that you were a realist. I am. But I'm not so close minded that I'm just going to "accept" that I exist and not ponder why. What part of existentialism dictates that one must must not "ponder" their own existence? ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
|
#239
May 13th 05, 01:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 12 May 2005 10:34:14 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: There are criminal provisions in the communications act of 1934. We are speaking of freebanders on the eleven meter band. Who are radio pirates, operating unauthorized radio transmitters. The provisions in the communications act of 1934 do not differentiate which bands unauthorized transmitters can incur criminal penalties. If the FCC chose to do so, freebanders can be charged criminally. The fact that they have not chosen to do any more than sporadic citations, does not diminish the fact that they could if they chose to. Whoaaa.....you are invoking what does not take place, only what you pontificate can take place. Reality is,,it doesn't take place. End of story. Police do not usually cite people for Jaywalking, but they could at any time. The point is that just because a law is not actively enforced does not mean that it's ok to break it. But the point is that nothing will happen if you are never caught. But the fact that you are not likely to get caught does not diminish the illegality No one ever said it did. **and societal irresponsibility of engaging in the acts. * In order for you to claim such a "societal irresponsibility" exists, there first must exist a "societal responsibility" somehwere other than your mind regarding such (cb radio)....can you cite it? Societal responsibility goes far beyond CB radio. It goes hand in hand with morality, consideration, and just plain old fashioned good manners. Try again.....in regards to cb radio, please cite this non-existent "societal responsibility" concept that has you confounded. Not everything in life is codified, especially morality. If you need a specific guide on how to be a responsible citizen and a good neighbor, you can start with Miss Manners and work your way up from there. The FCC rules do carry criminal as well as civil penalties should they choose to apply them, if the case warrants it. Please cite these criminal penalties referring the freeband or simple dx. Please refer to the communications act of 1934 and related parts. I went to the source. I see no criminal charges, merely civil charges. Can you cite this exception of which you speak? Start with Title IV, section 401 and work your way from there. There is a mitigating difference between "can't" and "won't". Even so...keeping with your claim,,..how is it you confront all freebanders and lawbreakers regarding cb and freebanding? I have, on occasion, prevented speeding by paralleling someone in the right lane holding the legal speed limit. A massive ticket here in Florida, AND in Pa from what I read. Based on what charge? A person is under no obligation, and in fact is prohibited from exceeding the posted speed limit regardless of which lane you are in. A perfect example of you hypocritically breaking the law to commit an act of what you mistakenly believe upholds another. I broke no law. Besides, speeding is not a criminal offense, it's a simple summary offense. And the cb infractions are civil in nature, not criminal. Until they become habitual and flagrant. What it may or may not lead to is irrelevant, and calls for speculation. ..except when you invoked the possibilities of cbers running huge power interfering with emergency communications in a long ago conversation. Which happens. Speculation is acceptable only when invoked by yourself to suppport your hypocrisy. Nothing I have said is hypocritical. However you may wish to reexamine the context of which you pull your information before making invalid comparisons. or on bands where public access is set aside. Or not. Don't forget many of the freqs that have been abandoned. Abandoned does not mean "open". Right,,,it means not being used.To use your analogy regarding physical property,,,,if a lot or property is abandoned, and one tends the ground, takes care of it, and pays the tax on it for x amount of years, the often land becomes the property of the caretaker who has been taking care of it and paying the taxes. Squatters rights. And interesting angle. And a valid one. And for it to apply, then you would have to concede that radio spectrum is treated in the same way as "real" property. I wonder if someone has tried that tactic on the FCC in regard to the freeband area of 11 meters. The principle is similar. Only to your misguided education or beliefs or whatever is responsible for you not grasping such a concept. It has not been tried with the FCC because even the lowly cbers seem to comprehend the spectrum is 1) not owned by the FCC and 2) not tangible property. Then the concept of squatter's rights does not apply to radio spectrum. So I'm curious why you brought it up in that context. There are many abandoned buildings around. But you are still not allowed to trespass there. Yet, many people use these abandon buildings on a regular basis with immunity. Bums,,,vagrants, crackheads, .... Freebanders. I see the similarities. You really have a low opinion of yourself, Dave. No, not me, only scofflaws. I always said you had a serious ego and self-esteem problem. The mere admittance that you held yourself in such company confirms such. That was then, this is now. Everyone can repent, even you. It's not too late to atone for the error of your ways. See above for examples of a form of citizen eminent domain. Yes, and I'm waiting to see someone attempt to use this reasoning to obtain the legal authorization of the freeband Only you could. I've seen far more ridiculous claims come forth by misguided citizens against the government. So I would not be surprised if someone tried the "squatter's rights" angle with respect to radio spectrum. Then again, some people would rather just operate illegally rather than going through the trouble to have an perceived unjust rule changed. Those people are simply weak. The only thing you have in your favor is that the FCC is not motivated enough to do much about it. You have nothing in your favor. It's all blatant hypocrisy. What have I said, that could be considered hypocritical? Is operation on the freeband not illegal? Should the law not be respected? How many more excuses are you going to invent to hide, obfuscate, justify, or otherwise downplay the fact that you willingly ignore a federal law? It's not that it's any less illegal, it's only that they don't care enough. Because it is rightly a non-issue to the majority, of which you clearly do not belong, leading to the fact that you are a minority wishing to dictate your beliefs to the masses. Doesn't work that way. Sort of like the democratic party trying to subvert the constitution by an abusive application of a filibuster to block judicial nominees...... Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
|
#240
May 13th 05, 01:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 12 May 2005 10:14:42 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: From: (John*Smith) Oh no, he is nothing special alright... I imagine your IQ has been tested and blows him away... Your "imagination" is limited only yourself. Nothing odd about how you continue to prefer to change the topic to one of a poster instead of the topic. You see, this is a flub of the communication-challenged. Denial is not a river in Egypt. Try and remain focused on the topic and not allow your personal emotions to dictate poor communication form. Once again, remaining on topic is the preferred MO. If you continue to struggle with such, you may wish to examine your present agenda. And, surely you have rubbed elbows with colleges such as he has, perhaps you even share many of the same friends--too bad about Carl Sagans' passing--I bet you miss him... And my "bet" is proving more valid with each uncontrollable emotion of yours that manifests in the most entertaining of manners. With a single post, I have not only captivated yourr attention, but created an entity of obsession so intense, your can focus on nothing but your newly chosen "topic"...."me". (makes sign of cross, blesses the unsavory and newfound church member wearing Halloween mask) . and hold many as close personal friends-- Claiming you knew Sagan personally means nothing to the masses, so forgive my curiosity for inquiring as to why you felt it to important to mention? Feeling bad about yourself and needing a pick-me-up? LOL.. the rich exchange you have with them keeps you quite up to date--I can tell from your text... And the contingency can tell quite more from your multiple posts "suddenly" (LMAO) focusing on nothing but myself. Now,,,THAT is the defnition of rich,,but you continue with the gaffes, so it's more than worth the entertainment. Nope, no one would ever confuse you with an "Arm-Chair-Genius." Nor you with managing to remain on topic and focus on the subject instead of changing it to one of a poster you became fixated upon with your manias. Of course, people like yourself need reminded that usenet participants should focus on subject matter and not that of the poster, but like you said, no one would -ever- confuse you with someone who comprehended proper communication etiquette. Warmest regards, John Right backatcha!! Be kind to John. He shares your opinion that people should be allowed to transmit anywhere. Dave "Sandbagger" |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Amateur Radio Newslineâ„¢ Report 1419 Â October 22, 2004 | CB | |||
| Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1419  October 22, 2004 | Dx | |||
| Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1419  October 22, 2004 | Dx | |||
| OLD motorola trunking information | Scanner | |||
Linear Mode
