A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:

On 18-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Science probably can either prove or disprove
the existence of God, if and when our scientific understanding advances to
the point that we can identify the concept.

Religions define their gods quite well.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with what I said.

You're grasping at straws here.
Probably because so much of your "scientific" training comes from
science fiction.

And you're a moron with an IQ of 40 who drools on his keyboard.


Nor does it disprove it.

Thank you for restating what I keep on saying.

You appear to be saying that God does not exist and that belief in God is
proof of a lack of intelligence. Since you've just admitted that science
cannot disprove the existence of God, that would appear to impeach your
intellectual credibility somewhat.


Evidence, however, is a rather more abstract
concept than proof.

This is weiser at his absurd best.

Are you saying that evidence is equivalent to proof?


Only if one pre-accepts the premise that the
occurrence of a highly improbable event is a matter of random chance would
this logic apply. On the other hand, if one posits the hypothesis that
because an event that has occurred is highly improbable, it is reasonable to
suspect some factor other than random chance is involved.

Just because it is improbable doesn't mean it is impossible.

No one suggested it was. Simple logic tells us that if it's improbable, it
cannot therefore be impossible. What does your inaccurate statement have to
do with anything?

If it occurs,
nothing changes.

Another logical failure. If something "occurs," there is, ipso facto,
"change."

If you are overly focused on the probability,

The question is whether I am overly focused or whether you are
insufficiently focused.

then you start
searching for other excuses for your lack of understanding.

Um...that's called "scientific inquiry." When one does not understand
something, one examines evidence and uses reason to come to a better
understanding.

If there is a
legitimate reason for doubting, the Bayesian approach is valid. What the
"intelligent design" advocates ignore is that there isn't a single roll of
the dice.

Incorrect. Intelligent design does not posit a single roll of the dice.
Nothing in the concept of "God" precludes active intervention in the process
or a long, complex "programming period" before the experiment is left to
run. The concept of Intelligent Design is little different than any science
experiment where the preconditions are created, the process set in motion,
and the results observed and tabulated. It merely posits that God works on a
somewhat larger scale.


less energy dense fuel than oil

The problem with hydrogen as a "fuel" is that is contains no energy
that wasn't put there by someone. It isn't a fuel, merely a means of
transporting energy.

It's both, technically.

It doesn't address an energy problem, only a
portability problem. There is still a requirement for a source(s)
of energy and the "hydrogen economy" conveniently ignores the
associated costs and problems. In the end, hydrogen is a way of
reducing the overall efficiency of an energy system. That's not
a solution.

That depends on what the problem is that you're trying to solve. If the
problem is one of energy availability, I agree. If however the problem is
one of pollution, then the energy expended in producing the fuel goes
towards the pollution budget of the system. If one can create hydrogen by
fracturing water with electricity produced by solar panels, then the
pollution budget may be lessened, if the production of the panels can be
kept "clean" too.

Since the major concern is CO2 and hydrocarbon emissions, the use of
hydrogen as a fuel, although less efficient than oil, provides substantial
pollution budget reductions, though at not inconsiderable costs associated
with producing the fuel.

It all depends on what we're trying to accomplish.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

A Usenet persona calling itself rick wrote:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article , Scott
Weiser at
wrote on 2/19/05 3:14 PM:


snippage..


Can you post one verifiable reference to a patient in Canada
who died
waiting? Good luck finding one. But the way you are talking,
you should be
able to find hundreds! You really don't know what you are
talking about, why
not just admit that?
===========
Nice little set-up. You know that hospitals cannot release
patirnt info, like names, especially they won't when the system
would look bad anyway. So you know that your demand for real
names probably will be hard to find. Yet, many groups and
angencies, in Canada, claim that these deaths do occur.
http://www.nupge.ca/news_2000/News%20May/n12my00a.htm
http://www.cato.org/dailys/07-24-04.html
http://www.utoronto.ca/hpme/dhr/pdf/Barer-Lewis.pdf



Places like Canada are the ones that are promoting the
differences between the haves and the have-nots.
http://www.angelfire.com/pa/sergeman...oysplight.html

tell me a 2 1/2 year wait if the boy does have cancer won't
effect the outcome of his life, and that if the family HAS the
money, they won't get one privately in Canada or the states.



snip...



Thanks for doing the homework.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

rick says:
=============
Take a look into low birth weight babies born in Canada vs the US.
================

Rather, take a look at more meaningful statistics, like infant
mortality.

Rank Country Rate
1 Hong Kong 3.2
2 Sweden 3.5
3 Japan 3.6
4 Norway 4.0
5 Finland 4.1
6 Singapore 4.2
7 France 4.6
7 Germany 4.6
9 Denmark 4.7
10 Switzerland 4.8
11 Austria 4.9
12 Australia 5.0
13 Netherlands 5.2
13 Czech Republic 5.2
15 Canada 5.3
15 Italy 5.3
17 Scotland 5.5
17 New Zealand 5.5
19 Belgium 5.6
19 Northern Ireland 5.6
21 England and Wales 5.7
21 Greece 5.7
21 Israel 5.7
21 Spain 5.7
25 Portugal 5.9
26 Ireland 6.2
27 Cuba 7.1
28 UNITED STATES 7.2
29 Slovakia 8.8
30 Kuwait2 9.4

OK, given the wonders of privatized medicine, I'm curious why we don't
find the USA at the top of this list. I don't know about Hong Kong, but
the next 25 nations all have some form of "nationalized" medicine.

What say you, rick?

frtzw906

A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:

On 18-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Proof? Refugees come from around the world. Terrorists tend to
be well funded and arrive carrying briefcases.

No, they come looking like refugees,

You're making this up as you go along. You still provide no proof.

Don't blame anyone for your problems.

I'm not blaming anyone,

Then quit whining. You have a problem - fix it and get out of everyone
else's face.

But the whole point is that I want to get IN your face and force YOU to fix
it by threatening your economy. It's so much cheaper and more economical to
do it that way than to try to close the border.


Case in point: the terrorist
with a vehicle full of explosives caught entering the US from Vancouver at
Port Angeles just prior to the Millennium celebration who planned to blow up
the Space Needle in Seattle.

One example vs the twenty plus that came into the US directly from Saudi
Arabia. The problem is still yours.

It's your problem too, which you will someday come to find out.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Weiser says:
===================
Which is fine so long as the government isn't artificially limiting
wages,
as it does in socialized medicine.
===========================

The government, in theory, can artificially limit wages.

The government, in theory, can murder all the Jews. Strawman.

In practice,
doctors in Canada know how clout they have. They act as anyone with
power acts (they've learned well from trade unons): they withhold
services.

Ipse dixit, quod erat demonstrandum.

And they continue to withhold services until the fee schedule
looks like they want it to look.

And patients get sick and die as a result.


So, it is the marketplace insifar as there is a marketplace when one
party holds monopoly power. The doctors play a significant role in
determining how much they get paid. Doctors can go on "strike" and they
have done so -- because they're doctors, they never call it anything
nearly so crass as a "strike", but the net effect is the same.

Thanks for proving my point. Doctors in the US don't go on strike because
they are not granted a government controlled monopoly. If one doctor locks
his doors because he's unhappy with his income, patients just find another
doctor. Up there, if the doctors get testy, everybody suffers.


There's no need to hold any tag days for doctors up in Canada, Scott;
they're doing just fine.

While the patients get sick and die as a result.


Weiser says:
====================
Compared to US doctors? Please.
=======================

That begs the question: could it be that American doctors are overpaid?

Nope. They get paid exactly what the consume thinks their services are
worth.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:

On 18-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

however, what a 50% reduction in agriculture in
California means to the nation as a whole, and to our needs for foodstuffs.

Before you fret about what that reduction would do to the population,
take a look at the rate at which Americans waste food.

Why? It's our food, we can waste it if we want. Fact is that the US is the
largest exporter of food aid to other nations on the planet, and has been
for a long, long time.

As well,
consider the volume of produce from California that is exported (at
a cost to the US taxpayer, due to subsidies to allow CA to compete
with 3rd world countries on price).

Which brings money to the US and stimulates the economy.


California's agricultural production could be reduced considerably
with no negative effect on Americans, but that would free up water
for other uses.

Ah, and we finally come to the real agenda...what "other uses" do you have
in mind? Supporting your plastic boat? That's an inefficient use of a
valuable resource. Your recreational desires are way down the priority list.


And then there's the issue of what happens to the ag lands once the
production is stopped.

Let the desert go back to desert.

Why? We have the capability to make it bloom, so why shouldn't we?

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

rick says:
=============
Take a look into low birth weight babies born in Canada vs the
US.
================

Again, I prefer to look at more meaningful statistics. Let's look at
life expectancies. Out of 8 countries (USA, UK, Canada, Germany,
Mexico, France, Italy, and Japan) the USA ranks 7th in both men and
women's life expectancies. The USA does fare better than Mexico on this
measure, however. Since you're comparing, Canada ranks 4th among these
nations for women and 2nd place for men.

What in hell is going on here, rick?! This is all wrong! The
conventional wisdom just screams that the USA should be at the top of
the list. Somebody must be ****ing around with the statistics, eh?

frtzw906
==========

A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:

On 18-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

You have it exactly backwards. All powers not *specifically* reserved to the
federal government by the Constitution are reserved to the states, or to the
people.

Please post the relevant parts of the US and Canadian constitutions that
define federal vs state/provincial right and powers and demonstrate
your claim that US states have more power.

Look it up yourself. It's in the Amendments section.


As far as US states having more power than EU countries. please identify
which US states have their own seats in the UN, and on various international
bodies reserved for countries.

All 50 US states have seats, through the federal government. Frankly, I
would just as soon the US had no seat (and nothing to do with) either the
WTO or the UN.


Your clueless rambling is getting tedious.

And yet you just can't stop...Netwit.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Weiser says:
===============
Well, that's impossible because we do not have a "secret police" force
================

And you actually believe this!!!???

Indeed. Care to identify this "secret police" force? The FBI? Nope...nothing
"secret" about them. How about the CIA? Nope...not police at all, having no
authority to arrest anyone. The NSA? Wrong again, they just collect
intelligence data. The Secret Service? Sorry, you lose. They're not secret
either.

So, who, exactly, is the "US Secret Police?"

Today you've really got me in
stitches ROTFL. STOP!

And your rant about taking out human and material targets -- PRICELESS!

Why thank you. Please go on underestimating me, I'm much safer that way.

You are one funny guy. When you don't do humor, do you have a day job?

But of course. Several in fact.
--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

rick says:
================
Take a look into low birth weight babies born in Canada vs the
US.
=================

rick, you wanted to play a statistical game. Here's a tip, next time,
before you try that tactic, know what the statistics say in advance
(and don't use them if they make you out to be the fool).

On healthcare spending: On a per capita basis (1998) USA - $4178
Canada - $2312, Sweden - $1746...

Crissakes, rick, this can't be right!!! All that money, and the highly
touted privatized medical system to boot, and the USA still can't beat
Canada on any meaningful statistics like life expectancy and infant
mortality. Playing this game with you, rick, is like Canada playing the
USA in hockey: you lose before you've even laced up your skates.

rick, I look forward to the next big load of health (Or education. Or
crime. etc) statistics you want to bring up. At the risk of mixing my
metaphors (hockey to baseball), I feel confident that I'll blast them
out of the park as well.

cheers,
frtzw906