Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - QwazyWabbit

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ... 82
Politics / Re: another terrorist attack
« on: January 10, 2015, 09:42:19 AM »
The Christians had to work out what the message was going to be. They had a collection of writings in the 2nd and 3rd centuries and there were many splinter groups who followed various apostles and teachings and each had to reconcile them with their Jewish traditions. We have to remember that the early followers were Jews and there was always mutual prejudices between them.

Paul was a Roman and as a Pagan he had his own set of prejudices and traditions to overcome. He also had the hidden, perhaps subconscious agenda to make a living off being a preacher-man. Living off the land, so to speak, the same way Joel Osteen, Billy Graham and the other evangelists do today.

Christianity evolved as a sub-culture of the Roman empire and as a support group. As it grew it became more ensconced into the open world and part of the political and social infrastructure, eventually becoming dominant under Constantine who used it as an expedient to consolidate his power and influence. As a dominant component, it had to structure its traditions and dogma and expel the non-orthodox traditions, by suppression of the knowledge or outright repression of the heretics as occurred in the 11th and 12th centuries.

Once you have secular power as the Popes did at that time, you end up with armies to enforce what is and is not acceptable dogma. The protestants like Calvin and Luther got away with their heresies because the Popes by then had lost a lot of secular control. Now, the Pope has moral authority but no direct control of secular action. He can't have someone arrested and beheaded for insulting the prophets or Jesus. That's not true of today's Imams in places like Iran, Pakistan or perhaps Iraq and to a lesser extent in Saudi Arabia.

The problem with Islam, I think, is that it hasn't undergone the transformation that the Catholic church did in the period from 200AD to 1600AD, mostly because it started late (660 to 1000AD) and the Quran wasn't "written" until 900 or so. It's also mostly a testament about the prophet and very much like "Acts" and revelations. Muhammad sat as a prince and if there was a political/secular problem he was presented with cases and sat in judgment and had "revelations" and pronounced sentence, making law by fiat and precedence. If you look closely, Mohammad often profited personally as a result of his revelations and decisions. He was also establishing his moral authority over a Pagan, secular majority society in the same manner as Constantine.

The Shia-Sunni problem is about who is the rightful heir to this legacy and who or where should the Caliphate embody. This is a political struggle that has spilled over into the outside world. Islam just hasn't had its Nicene Convention and thrown out the dark gospels and its Protestant Reformation yet.

But again, the root of the problem is the question of who speaks for God. The correct answer can only be nobody can speak for God. If God exists and is omnipotent and omniscient, let him speak for himself, clearly and distinctly to all of mankind and let's have it done sooner, rather than later. If God doesn't exist then nobody can speak for God, period.

I have a problem with Judaeo-Christian and Muslim tradition at a more fundamental level. They are both founded on the pronouncements and teachings of Abraham, Moses and Muhammad, each of whom announced and acted on visions, voices and commands from God that in today's world would be diagnostic of schizophrenia. Prophets on dais in the public square announcing divine judgment is at hand can be found even today. Prophesies of Judgment Day are nothing more than momma saying "You wait 'til your father gets home, there's going to be Hell to pay!", to her disobedient children.

Politics / Re: The Zimmerman Trial... Possible Race Riots?
« on: January 10, 2015, 08:48:17 AM »
I don't think there was any doubt Zimmerman was an asshole with a gun and a wanna-be cop just looking for a confrontation. Calling him a neighborhood watch vigilante was saying it nicely. In neighborhood watch classes they teach "observe and report" not "confront and shoot".

Hopefully the judge will confiscate his gun, revoke any permits to carry and slap him with a permanent injunction against firearms. The cops are already watching him, I'm sure and each jurisdiction notifies the others when he moves.

The guy's life is totally screwed, he's unemployable and he may as well crawl into a hole somewhere.

Politics / Re: another terrorist attack
« on: January 09, 2015, 11:34:25 PM »
it quite natural to have some really angered sentiments on what these Islamist terrorists actions. What is bothering me is on how easy the muslims would dissociate themselves on the Islamists who did the killings.

Of course there are good and bad muslims just like Christian, but if someone would take a closer look, it seems overwhelmingly Islam as a religion produced more barbaric killings than any other religion.

Oh, I don't think Islam is unique in its barbaric punishments for perceived crimes against the religion. The Inquisition came up with some unique torture devices for extracting confessions from heretics and they also came up with burning at the stake for executions.

The Romans had the Colosseum where animals did the executing unless they had their victims tied to stakes and then hacked to bits with a sword or axe.

The English had quartering, the process of pulling the limbs off the convicted prisoner by four horses.

The English method for executions in Henry VIII's time was beheading with a sword. This method was very poor at getting the head chopped off on the first blow. They often missed the neck and hit the side of the head or higher on the cranium. The victim had to be kneeling. This meant the executioners had to prop the victim back up for a do-over. (Real-life sword decapitation isn't like "Highlander" where a single blow can instantly swipe off a head.) This often meant the condemned was still alive for repeated blows to chop off their head. Henry VIII sent his wives to that kind of death. If anyone thinks this wasn't motivated by religion, I remind you Henry created his own church and appointed himself its head just so he could divorce his wives any time he wanted.

The initial solution to the problem was to use bigger swords. Finally an axe and chopping block made it a little quicker. The French invented the guillotine. There are still questions today whether the head, once severed from the body, remains conscious for a time.

The Christianity practiced today is handed down to us from the winners of the contest between factions with opposing views about what Christianity was supposed to be. In this same way, Islam is being contested between Shia and Sunni and between "moderate" and "radical" Islam over who should be the final authority and speak for God on earth.

The fundamental problem isn't the methods of torture and death prescribed by any religion or religious group. The fundamental problem is that humanity allows anyone to remain alive who claims to speak for a/any/ god(s). Once mankind recognizes that anyone who rises up to speak as a prophet of God or who claims to speak for/as God is insane we will be far better off.

Outdoor Activities / Re: Firearms - Hunting/Target thread
« on: December 18, 2014, 02:41:18 PM »
Great joke concept but yes, the round would blow the barrel right off the frame before it even started to rifle into the forcing cone. I can think of some people that deserve to receive a free one and the "Oh, yeah, it's safe, I shoot mine all the time!", reassurance they need to win a Darwin Award.

Politics / Re: Current Politics & History Only Thread
« on: December 14, 2014, 11:15:00 AM »
Because... only ONE party in any private conversation must be aware that it's being recorded. The only exception is when a wiretapping warrant is secured, and because it's felony to violate this law, judges go over evidence and assure that there is proper probable cause before issuing the warrant. Basically what I'm saying is that the law works both ways, for private citizens, as well as for law enforcement.

We can talk about how this law is "intended" to harass and intimidate people from lawfully recording interactions they have with police and law enforcement, but the language of the law itself is clearly stated and "intention" cannot be debated in court. It's there in black and white. Anyone who might find this law intimidating is uninformed of the law, and possibly law enforcement would attempt to use this law to persuade the uninformed to comply with any requests to stop recording them when it's perfectly legal to do so, but it's everyone's responsibility to inform themselves of the law.

The one-party statement you make is incorrect. It varies by state. California is a two-party state, both/all parties to a conversation must know and ascent to recording a conversation or the recording of that conversation is illegal. Wisconsin is a one-party state. The one-party rule is FAR from universal. Of course, police can and often do wire themselves but a warrant must be obtained or the evidence is inadmissible. (But it's easy to find a judge to write a warrant for the purpose.) This doesn't make it illegal in one-party states but it would also be illegal without a warrant in a two-party state.

Of course, they can always put a camera/audio setup on the cop or in the car and record a uniformed officer as he goes about his duties and that system can conveniently malfunction or the recordings lost when a critical case becomes an issue. Which is why it's important for citizens to have the right to record/video tape any officer or incident on the street or in their homes without fear of arrest or prosecution.

The point of the Illinois law is to make it possible for officers to arrest or detain any citizen for an action that is and should be perfectly legal. It creates a crime where none should exist. This directly infringes upon the freedoms and liberties of citizens and it is intended to chill or prevent someone from filming police incidents like the Rodney King beating and the New York choke-hold death.

As far as I am concerned every uniformed cop everywhere should be wearing audio/video recording equipment that is verified functional at the start and end of every shift and is confiscated from the officer immediately and downloaded to a secured system upon use of force against a suspect, especially in the use of deadly force. If officer Wilson had been wired, the video evidence would have proved who was lying and who was telling the truth and there would be no issue about the shooting of Michael Brown today.

As far as intent of laws, the intent of a law is debated every day in courts of law all over this country and courts often use their discretion when interpreting the language of a law. The SCOTUS addresses the intent of laws and the meaning and interpretation of those laws every day. It's the very reason the court exists. The question is, are you going to strike down a bill before it becomes law where the intent is clear at its face or are you going to sit in prison for the next ten or fifteen years waiting for your case to climb up the appeals process and be debated and struck down by SCOTUS?

As far as "knowing the law" is concerned, a citizen cannot even walk down a street without potentially being charged with breaking a law. The number of state laws, county ordinances and city ordinances is so numerous that no citizen can be fully informed on a daily basis as to what laws they might be breaking. Police are trained upon contact with a citizen to phrase questions such that the citizen will incriminate himself if he gives ANY answer to a question. The "Do you know why I stopped you?" question is exactly that. If you offer any reason, even if it wasn't HIS reason for stopping you, it can be used as evidence against you in court and can even be used to add a charge greater than the reason for the stop in the first place.

Watch any cop show, the technique is very simple, observe a suspect until something "chargeable" occurs, contact the suspect, escalate the situation, either by interrogation or by seeking more evidence, "Do you mind if I search your car?", these are all designed to aid the officer in obtaining more evidence against you and more probable cause to detain or arrest you.

They are trained to say "stop resisting" when taking you down in order to establish the evidence that you were resisting even though you weren't. If your arm strikes an officer as he's trying to handcuff you, you can be charged with assault upon an officer even though the action wasn't voluntary or even if it was caused by the actions of the officers themselves. YOU are at fault and YOU will be the one defending yourself in court with four cops all saying you resisted and no evidence on your behalf to support your innocence.

In Austin Texas this year a 24 year old female jogger was arrested for "failure to identify", "resisting arrest" and assaulting an officer after being accosted by a fat fuck of a police officer for jaywalking. A simple citation was escalated to these charges because the officer failed to identify himself properly grabbed the female from behind without identifying himself as a police officer and then taking her to the ground because she reacted, as anyone might, by shaking him off before she knew who he was.

This is the kind of shit that needs to stop happening in this country.

Yes, one should know the law. The first order of business is knowing your Miranda rights. Don't answer questions, don't admit to anything, identify yourself, don't consent to search of your person or your car/home, ask if you are being detained or are free to go, immediately leave the area if you are not detained, do not debate any points of law with the officer, he's not there to be a sidewalk lawyer, he's there to find a reason to detain you. Don't give him one. If you are being detained you have a right to know the reason. If you are arrested you have a right to know the charge. You have a right to contact an attorney and you MUST NOT answer any questions other than your identity and place of residence no matter what questions may be put to you. REMAIN SILENT. There's a reason that's the first Miranda right.

Above all, know this, your right to remain silent begins at the moment you are contacted, not after you have been arrested or had your Miranda rights read to you. Know that everything you say or do from the moment you are contacted by police can be used to detain or arrest and charge you and that it can all be used against you in court. Officers can file charges but they don't have to stick. DA's can dismiss them for lack of evidence, courts can dismiss them for violations of rules of evidence or lack of evidence, don't give away your rights on the streets with cops who think every citizen is a suspect.

Liberty is being encroached every day by cops who think every pocket has a gun, every car has drugs in it, and every citizen can be searched or accosted because he "might" be selling cigarettes. Liberties are being violated by legislators that write bad laws with bad intent because "we need more laws" to prevent people from <insert favorite pastime here> because that shit should be illegal.

Politics / Re: Current Politics & History Only Thread
« on: December 10, 2014, 06:06:56 PM »
The Illinois law is an expansion of the wiretap law into the operation of police in public. While it may appear to be merely applicable to "private" conversations it is intended to be used to harass, intimidate and potentially arrest and charge people for recording police while they are in public. It can be used by police to arrest you for recording them after a traffic stop or even after they have contacted you on the street. These interactions can be construed by the police to be "private" conversations with you when in fact they are occurring in public where there is no expectation of privacy.

I am against any law that gives police officers, or any public official for that matter, any protection from being recorded while interacting with members of the public in the course of their duties. Police, judges, district attorneys, mayors and council members work for the PEOPLE and as such the people are entitled to know when they are losing their tempers, cursing, being violent and in any way, shape or form, using their authority to abuse people.

The place to argue about points of law is not in the street with the officer but in a court of law. A citizen is powerless in the face of cops who are willing to commit perjury for each other after they have beat down a citizen and hauled him off on false charges.

The police are out of control, that's for certain, when officers can say, "I'm going to fuck you up", follow that threat with an illegal assault, kill their victim and be acquitted of murder even in the face of video and audio evidence that they committed the unlawful acts under color of authority.

To those would video tape police on the street I say do it, do it a lot, keep watching them and keep them honest.

The only reason they are trying to make these laws stronger is because the videos are proving the points that the police are abusing their powers and if it's allowed to continue it will get worse.

Jokes / Re: Funny Pictures
« on: December 08, 2014, 11:05:40 PM »
That's why she's smiling. She's-a gonna be rich.

I don't know how they do their math but $10,000 @ 89.68% for 7 years is $749.09/mo. and total cost is $62,934.98 according to my calculations. The balance doesn't get below $8000 until you're 63 months out. Insanity.

They also subject you to tribal law if you can't pay it off. I wonder how that works.

Payday loans are insane anyway. It's been a problem that congress has not addressed at all.

railz / Re: Files needed to set up a rail server
« on: November 27, 2014, 06:21:33 PM »
One of the best resources on Quake2 you can ever find is right here on TastySpleen.

TS is possibly the largest and most complete collection of anything Quake.

Science / Re: The Ye Science Thread
« on: October 25, 2014, 01:08:51 PM »

I was wondering what did they use to cool down the material since what I know is that in most practice they use Liquid Nitro for which is about 210 °C.

Also wouldn't the substance they used to cool would be more colder than the substance being cooled be the coldest object?

Super-cooling is usually achieved by pressurizing the object in a Dewar container and then slowly releasing some of the pressurizing gas in that container. This cools the container and the test object in the same way releasing Propane from a tank cools the tank. My guess is they put the copper slug inside a pressure vessel, filled it with helium gas at high pressure and kept that whole assembly inside a Dewar filled with liquid helium surrounded by another chamber full of liquid nitrogen and surrounded the whole thing with a vacuum. Cracking a valve into the central core would release some gas and chill the core even more.

Liquid Nitrogen at 1 ATM is about 77 Kelvin or −196 °C. Liquid Helium is colder: 4.2 K or -268.8 °C at 1 ATM. Pressurize your liquid Helium and you can get it to go below 0.5 K.

Hospital MRI machines use superconducting magnets that must be chilled by liquid helium. The magnet is inside a chamber surrounded by liquid helium, the liquid helium Dewar vessel is surrounded by a jacket of liquid nitrogen and that whole thing is all inside a Dewar donut to keep it from chilling the room and the patient. Once the magnet is stabilized at 4 or 5 K, the current in the magnet is ramped up by a power supply which increases the current in the magnet until its at the desired magnetic field strength, then the power supply is disconnected and the current in the magnet loop remains constant. The liquid helium and liquid nitrogen are replenished periodically so the system remains cold. There are pressure relief valves vented to the outside of the building to keep the escaping gasses from filling the room. Liquid helium is extremely dangerous to handle because it's so cold and because the liquid helium jet from the stinger that's used to insert the gas into the magnet chamber will slice through things like feet and hands.

This is why people are researching warm superconductors. If you can create a superconductor at 77 K or even warmer, you make all that extra jacketing unnecessary and you greatly reduce the cost and size of your superconducting system.

/dev/random / Re: The Official Ebola Virus Thread
« on: October 25, 2014, 12:26:31 PM »
Regarding "affect" vs. "effect"...

Affect was the proper word to use in that context. Affect is used when we're talking about how many people would be affected by a change, as in "Millions of people were affected by the affordable health care act." Affect should not be confused or conflated with "affectation" which is a state of emotion or a display of some personal trait.

Effect is used when we're talking about what was changed. As in "Millions of people have suffered from the effect of changes in the health care laws."

Here's a case where both are used correctly: "Many were affected by the changes but the effects of the changes were varied and small."

Affect is a verb.
Effect is a noun.

/dev/random / Re: The Official Ebola Virus Thread
« on: October 18, 2014, 09:11:33 PM »
Doesn't matter if it's acidic or basic, it's about as unsafe if it's basic anyway. The further it is from neutral/water/buffers=bad.

And I'm at the bar, but these metals can cause some acidity Sometimes Foc. Iron sulfide can react with something or aanother to produce sulfuric acid.

I don't think that's correct but my last chemistry class was in 1976. I suppose if "something or another" contained

Iron sulfide is FeS, it can react with hydrochloric acid (HCl) to produce hydrogen sulfide (H2S) thus: FeS + 2 HCl → FeCl2 + H2S
This is the gas that's responsible for the "rotten egg smell" in geysers and hot springs. That orange color reminds me of those.

Sulfuric acid is H2SO4 so you'd need some heat and a source of oxygen to bind the extra oxygen to the hydrogen sulfide.

/dev/random / Re: The Official Ebola Virus Thread
« on: October 15, 2014, 11:00:03 PM »
Ebola is 100% non-fatal unless you live in west Africa where treatment is primitive or are a foreigner or without health insurance in the United States where treatment will be primitive. In that case it's 100% fatal.

We shall see if the nurses who have contracted it survive. They were diagnosed quickly and received treatment early.

Politics / Re: VICE Interviews with IS (The Islamic State) in Syria
« on: September 03, 2014, 05:11:04 PM »

Where the fuck is Geraldo Rivera? Tell him to bring Barbara Walters along too. And since we're sending people to their deaths, might as well ship everyone from Entertainment Tonight, those fuckers are useless wastes of p... Fuck, Oprah Winfrey too, almost forgot her fat ass.

So many assholes... it might be a better idea just to invite ISIS to come invade California. Quadz and Dervish are gonna have to move east to Nevada or some shit... but nobody tell 2dum. Hell, fit a pair of Huggies over his head, they'll accept him as one of their own.

I think Oprah is in New Yawk. ET is syndicated, the people who host it are local talent. The show you are seeing is different from the show we might see on the west coast even though the scripts and other content are the same but yeah, they are useless.

Politics / Re: another terrorist attack
« on: August 31, 2014, 12:02:51 AM »
Yep China is doing a good job in clamping down extremism. EVERYONE knows that..
But how about these jihadist that are not in China?
They certainly protest the suppression of Islam in other countries, but never heard a single word about China. Like "we will do a jihad". Pffft.

I don't get your point. The Middle East has historical and religious meaning to Islam while China does not really, so why would they be disappointed not hearing claim that they will conquer China? The radical jihadists think that the whole world should be under Muslim rule anyway.

I believe the point is that a jihadist's goal is the supplanting of all religions by Islam. But ISIS' goal is merely establishment of a caliphate in Syria/Iraq with the goal that the caliphate's ultimate goal is the spread of Islam and the destruction of Israel and the eradication of Jews from the face of the planet. Of course since the God of Islam is the God of Israel it's kind of hard on God to support such a plan no matter how hard the jihadi's may cry. To the jihadist, nothing must interfere with their goal of replacing all faiths with Islam - and that would appear to mean Buddhism is due for some attacks, atheism of a Chinese state would be due for some attacks, etc. It's only a matter of time and the placement of the properly indoctrinated individual.

The problem the Obama administration faces is how to build consensus on how to eradicate ISIS without appearing to be starting another Bush-style invasion of Iraq. It's so much easier to play golf and order a couple dozen drone attacks.

Politics / Re: another terrorist attack
« on: August 30, 2014, 08:05:52 AM »
IMHO, these jihadist only understand one language. They should be dealt with what they understand. No more dialogues. Just shoot, bomb or whatever method to eliminate them fast.

The only way to be victorious over an opponent who is willing to die for his cause is to make sure he dies quickly for his cause.

Or as George S. Patton said, make the other dumb bastard die for his cause.

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ... 82