08:22 – Barbara got quite a bit done on the chemistry kits yesterday. Today we should finish up the rest of the items we need to assemble 30 more of those. While Barbara works on those, I’ll continue work on the forensic science book.
Sunday, 29 April 2012
24 Comments and discussion on "Sunday, 29 April 2012"
Comments are closed.
This is strange. I had some Italian and Portuguese to translate to English. Used Google Translate, which has very good–almost completely natural–syntax; far better than Babelfish. But in every case where God was mentioned, it was translated as “Allah”.
Wonder what is going on with that.
That is pretty weird. IIRC, Google Translate can give strange results when it tries to find the linguistic equivalent of something — at one point, “Sarkozy” would translate to “Bush”, for example.
I’ve no idea why it would choose “Allah”.
There is no god but allah and mohammad is his profit.
I thought Jehovah, God and Allah were one and the same imaginary being?
Yeah, and aren’t we lucky that he is imaginary? If he really did exist, he’d be the nastiest, most psychopathic, murdering, misogynistic old bastard ever.
Kind of tells you something about the people who make this shit up, doesn’t it?
Well, he was made in our image.
Figuratively speaking, of course. Our pleasant, socially acceptable, life and woman supporting youth excludes us both.
I’ve been doing a little reading on quantum theory and Roman Catholic theology lately. You guys are in big trouble.
Also, another interesting book: “Superior Beings: If They Exist, How Would We Know?”
44 now, and we just got back after a little back roads tour through farmland and forest country about seventy miles to our northwest here. Sunny day, not a cloud in the sky, but very windy. Very little traffic out there and we can still see snow up on the hills and our old mountains.
Aaaagh, I hate it when theologians abuse quantum physics. Most of the ones I’ve caught doing it aren’t familiar with elementary algebra, let alone quantum mechanics. (Not that I claim any familiarity with quantum mechanics myself; I just know enough maths and physics to appreciate how wrong these charlatans are.)
The guys I have been reading are not theologians yakking about physics, it has been physicists yakking about physics and theology. The theology I have been reading comes from Roman Catholic theologians circa 300-2012 AD. So the physicists I am reading do in fact know some math beyond elementary algebra, beyond which I confess myself abysmally ignorant. (couldn’t get past quadratic equations, sorry)
And I won’t read guys talking about science or math who clearly know as little or less than I do.
Dave, you could do worse than read up on Kenneth Miller: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_R._Miller, a biology professor at Brown University, devout RC, and foe of both creationism and the anti-accommodationalism. In his book Finding Darwin’s God: A Scientist’s Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution is one of the better ones I’ve read on why science and faith don’t need to be in conflict.
An older book by Michael Ruse, titled Darwinism Defended is also a good read, although Ruse is both an agnostic and an atheist. I think all of Ruse’s works are well worth reading.
RBT wrote:
“There is no god but allah and mohammad is his profit.”
I would have expected you to say something like this, which Pauli said about P.A.M Dirac:
“There is no God and Paul Dirac is His prophet.”
Sorry, OFD; I realise I came off as hostile to you. I wouldn’t expect *you* to read that New Age drivel… I’d just endured someone telling it to me earlier in the day. This particular person is a theology tutor who harbours a number of “interesting” theories about the relation of quantum physics to theology — theories that compete, in their inanity, with his 9/11 conspiracy theories. I think I’m worked up about this because he’s such a nice man… just… prone to terrible ideas.
Mind you, I’m distrustful even of bona fide physicists talking theology. Grr.
Naw, I detected no hostility; I hastened to reassure you that I wouldn’t read any claptrap on these important questions, that’s all. Finished one book, which took me a couple of months, and starting another. Even without the theology, these are pretty interesting ideas and involve some really mind-bending concepts.
As for the 9/11 stuff, I am not a conspiracy theorist on it but feel that we never got, or will get, the complete intel on that day’s events and the immediate aftermath. Too many odd questions remain. As is true of other historical events in this country.
Of course not. Too many of our noble statesmen and centurions were caught with their pants down. Full disclosure might lead the peasantry to suspect their leaders were not fit to lead.
If the peasantry doesn’t already suspect that, then there is precious little hope left for our country. On September 11th, how many planes were stopped from reaching their targets by government action? How many planes were stopped that day by ordinary unarmed American citizens?
I’ve often wondered what exactly transpired that day.
Even if the federal authorities were completely aware that those airliners had been hijacked by islamic terrorists, and even if they were fully aware of the intentions of those terrorists, and even if there had been F-15s or F-16s armed and airborne, would (could?) any authority up to an including POTUS have actually made the decision to destroy a civilian airliner in US airspace? Even if the order had been given, would the guys with their fingers on the buttons have actually launched live Sidewinders or whatever against a civilian US airliner in US airspace? Maybe so, but I know that if I’d been in the cockpit I might have disobeyed the order to fire on those airliners. In retrospect, we know what happened and how many died, but without that knowledge any sane person would surely have hesitated to push the button that would kill hundreds of innocent US civilians and create havoc on the ground as well.
I’m very glad that I didn’t have to decide whether to give that order. Or obey it.
Robert, I have recently read an account/memoir by one of the women pilots who was ordered to scramble in her interceptor jet along with her c.o., and they were gonna do it. But with a twist: they would have rammed the airliners with their own aircraft and killed themselves at the same time.
Mind-boggling stuff.
I don’t doubt that they believe they were prepared to carry out that order, if they’d received it, and I don’t doubt they’d have intended to do so in that fashion. but I don’t think anyone can ever know whether or not they actually would have done it.
People faced with a decision between taking action that will have a known-bad outcome and waiting to see what happens when there’s a possible but not certain horrible outcome usually choose the latter. After all, anything can happen.
True, that.
I seriously doubt that I would have followed that order nor would I have immolated myself in the process. As it sayeth in Deuteronomy, this day thou hast set before thee, both life and death. Therefore, choose life.
And let the chips fall where they may. The outcomes could be horrific either way, or as you say, who knows? Maybe the buggering bastards on board have a sudden change of heart or are overcome by passengers? Maybe the flight crew takes some other action? Maybe the plane itself malfunctions in some way, the possibilities go on and on. Take out innocent lives and one’s own to prevent a possibly greater evil? Bomb the rail lines taking Jews, Catholics, POWs, gypsies, et. al. to the concentration camps? Blast Hiroshima and Nagasaki to avoid losing possibly hundreds of thousands more American soldiers?
I believe that as an individual faced with such a choice, one ought to take what is in one’s own immediate power to do, and on the side of life rather than death. But again, who knows what one actually does when the moment comes.
People faced with a decision between taking action that will have a known-bad outcome and waiting to see what happens when there’s a possible but not certain horrible outcome usually choose the latter. After all, anything can happen.
The people, soldiers, would have carried out their orders. The training in the military is such that such orders, when given, will be obeyed without question. Movies such as Crimson Tide are a fantasy and would never happen in the real world. The training, the excersizes are such that people that need to carry out such decisions will do so with the proper authorization.
A lot of this was learned during the wars we have been involved with. The pilot and crew of the Enola Gay carried out such orders without question. The same would be true today. Silo commanders and crews were carefully screened and trained to flip the switch that would destroy thousands of people.
One of my uncles was a nuclear submarine commander and I asked him if he would launch missles with the proper authorization. He said yes he would without question or hesitation. That was his training and that is why he was able to rise to rank and position that he obtained.
I haven’t seen that movie, but soldiers disobeying orders to kill civilians happens all the time. Geez, the whole reason the Nazis came up with the idea of gas chambers was because SS soldiers started refusing to continue machine-gunning rows of Jews lined up in front of trenches. And these SS were kids who’d grown up being indoctrinated with the idea that Jews were sub-human scum. In Viet Nam, US soldiers often not only refused to slaughter civilians, but sometimes actually fired on other US soldiers who were doing so (see the My Lai incident). The same thing has happened frequently with US soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, where many of our guys have died because they didn’t shoot when they should have, because there were women or kids in the line of fire.
How much less likely is a soldier to follow orders when that involves killing not just enemy non-combatants, but *friendly* non-combatants? That’s why every government uses non-local military personnel for putting down civilian rioting and so on. Soldiers, with few exceptions, simply won’t fire on unarmed civilians whom they perceive as being like them. Sometimes, they won’t fire even on armed enemy soldiers if they perceive them as being like themselves. See the unofficial Christmas Truce in WWI.
When the difference is perceived as thousands being killed or killing a few dozen to save those thousands a big difference exists from killing a person or two that is a relatively minor threat. It is much harder to kill a single individual than to kill a hundred when that destruction means the savings of thousands. That was the premise of the people in charge of launching nuclear devices. They know full well they will destroy thousands of innocent people in exchange for saving a few hundred thousand.
Viet Nam was not a popular cause and the soldiers perceived it as such. Iraq is partially the same way. Unfortunately, because of the political environment in Iraq if a soldier accidently kills a civilian their butt is on the line unless an officer orders the soldier to kill civilians then the soldier is largely relieved from responsibility, if the person that ordered the killing tells the truth (a whole different matter).
If an aircraft is heading towards the White House the pilots of the fighters have orders to destroy the aircraft using deadly force. I have no doubt the pilots would carry out those orders even if the plane was a commercial Airbus 380 with 600 girl scouts on board returning from a cookie convention. Some things are protected at all costs. Testing is done on the pilots to ascertain they have such abilities.
Grunts in Viet Nam and Irag are not tested to ascertain they have the ability to destroy civilian populations. Officers in a position where such an action would be required with proper authorization have been tested and trained to carry out such action. No such training is afforded the grunts.
To think that a submarine commander would not launch missles, or a missle commander would not launch missles when ordered would negate a large part of our defense systems.
A military pilot would take out an aircraft without hesitation that is heading for the capital building when congress is in session. Although you could make a compelling argument that the pilot did us no favors, the pilot would indeed follow his/her orders and training. Having been in the military I have no doubt.
Clearly I was not, and am not now, officer material for responsibilities of that nature. So be it. I intervened a couple of times in SEA as an NCO when troops under my supervision were abusing unarmed civilians and luckily never had to make the BIG decisions of incinerating many thousands on the say-so of some other higher-ranking officer (see WWI “staff wallah”) or civvie bastard at Foggy Bottom.
And I do not stand (or actually sit) in any kind of judgement on those officers who made those decisions in Japan, Germany and on 9/11. A higher authority than mine will be involved.
Ray wrote:
“The people, soldiers, would have carried out their orders. The training in the military is such that such orders, when given, will be obeyed without question. Movies such as Crimson Tide are a fantasy and would never happen in the real world. The training, the excersizes are such that people that need to carry out such decisions will do so with the proper authorization.
A lot of this was learned during the wars we have been involved with. The pilot and crew of the Enola Gay carried out such orders without question. The same would be true today. Silo commanders and crews were carefully screened and trained to flip the switch that would destroy thousands of people.”
IIRC in Crimson Tide the captain had received an ambiguous order that was not completed before receipt was interrupted, therefore he had no authorization to launch. And a good thing too, in the setting of that movie.
I think the Enola Gay crew and silo commanders are in different situations for several reasons. The Enola Gay crew knew they were training for something special, were told after take-off what would happen, and had hours to ponder the situation. And they’d been at war with Japan for years. The silo crews would suddenly get a message to launch when they were not (to their knowledge) at war. That would be harder because you weren’t firing missiles at someone you knew to be an enemy and you had no time to psych yourself up.