You understand more about this than I do. I just looked up "temperature of burning jet fuel" or something similar to get a quick estimate.

Yes, the heat being spread throughout the steel column of the building makes sense. It seems a ridiculous idea to think that fires from an exploding plane could compromise an entire tower like that.

And as for what we can do...well, we can spread articles like this to other people.

What does "perturbé chats" mean, btw?

Event horizon has become a bit of a buzzword, hasn't it?

I always thought it had to do with black holes and the boundary at which light would be pulled back in or something...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event_horizon

I think describing humanity as being the event horizon is a little anthropocentric, a little like how in traditional Chinese or Japanese philosophy, you'd have a similar idea expressed by the calligraphy piece of the three characters:

天...Heaven
人...Man
地...Earth

Man is at the convergence of the infinite and the finite, or the infinitely large and the infinitely small, or the divine and the secular...or however you like to describe it.

There are programs already that have adaptive subroutines. Of course, their basic programming stays the same, but so does ours. I cannot train my heart not to beat or my eyes not to see. These things are also "hard-programmed" into our mind.

When I am sitting at my computer, I am not quite conscious of myself thinking, nor am I quite conscious that my foot is resting on the floor, at least until I take notice of it. Nor am I quite aware of typing - I have become so used to expressing my thoughts through the keyboard that typing has become a very fluid way of expressing myThese things run in th thoughts. We have certain things that run in the background - what we're unconscious of - and other things that run in the foreground - what we are conscious of. Likewise, a computer may have processes in the background and foreground.

Lastly, one may imagine a computer program that is adaptive, that takes in hundreds of types of input, and reacts. Subroutines can be created that monitor these reactions and evaluate these reactions. Now, certain subroutines may be more important to the task that is being performed, where as other subroutines are secondary - such as minor maintenance of systems and information storage. This actually very similar to how human bodies work, so if a fairly simple program can be created to do something along these lines, perhaps our minds and bodies run a very sophisticated version of this program.

Finally, defining consciousness as awareness of thoughts or of everything around us is perhaps not the best definition.

As for being self-aware and animals...

Many animals seem to be self-aware. If we define animals to be self-aware, then they are conscious. And if they were not conscious, then they'd be unconscious. Well, we all know that animals don't go around "unconscious," so probably they are conscious on some level.
Notice, though, how in this self-awareness argument, I could replace "self-aware" here with "alive" and the argument would still make sense. This suggests that being self-aware is perhaps just one condition of being conscious, but not the defining condition.

Lastly, let me point out how I said that animals are probably conscious on some level. In this case, could we say that a very sophisticated artificial intelligence may also be conscious on some level? Also, could we say that any animal who evolves to be able to think and express ideas might reach *our* level of consciousness then. Thus, could we think that some *crazily* advanced AI robot may also reach our level of consciousness?

Wow, that's quite a big conspiracy you got there. I agree that they may have the capability of finding a cure if we'd just invest a bit more in research and education. Of course, America has been too busy spending 10 billion *per month* on the war in Iraq, which has killed nearly 1 million Iraqis and +4000 American soldiers. Not to mention the seriously injured and the destroyed families...

But, like always, I digress. >_O

As for already having a cure for cancer...that I don't know. However, you may be right. Every couple months, someone comes up with a experimental, likely cure for cancer, but it's always failed finally. Maybe some of those cures passed the initial testing phases fine, but some government payed off this and that person to make sure that the next phase of testing did not happen. O_o I'll not rule out the possible, lol.

And as for creating viruses in labs to kill us with...that's a little too much for me. Still, possible. We do hear every once in a while some Illuminati-esque talk about secret organizations planning to kill off large sections of the population or something. Perhaps they're already doing it by falsely teaching doctors to use a lot of antibiotics. You know that in the end, over-use of antibiotics just breeds stronger, more resistant bacteria?

It's scary to think that NYC's public water supply has been shown to contain small amounts of antibiotics! What I heard is that it seemed in from human feces deposited somewhere...to think that our crap has enough antibiotics to influence our water like that...

Yeah, like Species 8472.


Last time I go to Fluidic Space, that's for sure!



...*cough*

Wow, the stimulus package is unique 'cause *it don't got no* earmarks and pork barrel spending.

A quick google of "pork barrel Feb 2009 stimulus package" gave me this article to confirm what I've heard.
http://www.examiner.com/x-1172-Birmingham-Progressive-Politics-Examiner~y2009m2d3-There-is-no-pork-barrel-spending-in-the-Stimulus-package

Many of the things that the GOP is labeling pork barrel and that don't directly create jobs seem to me like they'd indirectly create jobs anyhow. For example, who is going to build the Homeland Security building? Who is going to build the dams in MI? Who is going to make government builds green? etc etc...All of these things require workers.

And as for Obama's first two weeks, I don't feel let down too much. I knew he wasn't going to fix everything as soon as he stepped into the office - of course that isn't possible. He seems to be doing all right considering the steaming pile of **** W. left him with.

Obama's first calls to foreign offices were, reportedly, to Pres. Abbas of Palestine, Pres. Mubarak of Egypt, and Prime Min. Olmert of Israel, and to King Abdullah of Jordan. That's sounds like like our Pres. knows what international issues get first priority if you ask me.

P.S. Should I feel like a total loser that I've got my name as the last post for the top several threads at 4:34 AM? It's gunna be a long day...

That's quite significant. Thank you, nogames.

I checked some of the facts presented in the article. Steel does in fact melt at those high temperatures (http://education.jlab.org/qa/meltingpoint_01.html). Also, burning rocket fuel can *reach* 5800°F (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_engine Look under the section "Cooling"), but this is when it is being burned inside a rocket under *high pressure*. There is no doubt in my mind that in an relatively open environment, like the floor of an office building, rocket fuel would burn by itself lower than 250°C or ~500°F.

Well, what should *we* do about it? Maybe I'll high light the article, print it out as pamphlets, and distribute them all over Lower Manhattan. That's what us ultra-liberal, protest-obsessed college students are supposed to do, right?

Would any of you guys in my area want to join me? (No stalkers and rapists pls thx!) lol

By my understanding, if the dollar shot through the roof, no one would ever buy *any* American goods or come to America *at all* for tourism. It'd almost be like a one-way close on our borders, and we'd hardly be able to sell our own domestic products to ourselves because everyone else's stuff would be so much cheaper by comparison (look at how virtually everything we buy is made in countries with weak currencies and cheap labor).

Finally, if what I wrote above is correct, wouldn't us raising our currency be like shooting ourselves in the foot? Granted, the American people would be happy 'cause what we'd be able to buy imports easier, and those with money would be able to travel all over the globe much more, but our economy would totally be in the drain.

If Jesus was around now, I'd give him about two weeks before the Vatican or the American government assassinates him. In the old days, that sort of stuff took time. He had several months or more until he was crucified. (Sorry, am I being *really* offensive?)

Also, we don't need Jesus to stand up for us. I'm sure he hoped that *we'd* stand up for ourselves.

Finally, I think a tax revolt at this time is one of the worst things we could do. Most importantly, taxes means no public education. For everything else - roads and transportation, national defense, etc., I think the private sector would take up those responsibilities. After all, businesses need transportation to ship and receive things, and although national defense may go down the tubes, regional defense might not. The military would become 100% privatized like Black Water and a mercenary army might enforce martial law in America. Then, it may start going to other countries to create war because, well, war is profitable.

I know raiderfan will call all this "Fantasy," and in this case, I'd have to agree. I do think that removing taxes would destroy the power of our government, though. Without any power, because our country is so capitalistic, because businesses already have so much power, and because the military-industrial complex is so well-developed, I do think a stop of tax revenue would be the end of America. It may not happen quite like I say it, but I contend that it is a possibility.

Lol, Beijing has some pretty nuts architecture. ^_^ I really feel bad about this fire thing. I love that town.

I remember riding my bike through that city gawking at all the interesting buildings, old and new alike. I sort of wish we had more crazy buildings like that over here in NYC. It'd certainly make the skyline more interesting. ;-) We do have a few here and there though...

Well, are you asking me to hi-jack a plane and fly it into the Empire State Building? Listen...I'm no terrorist, and you're no Osama. All we can do is analyze what happened and try to make sense of it.

Personally, it doesn't make sense that a well-built building like the Twin Towers would crumble when a place flew into them so far up. If the plane hit between the 1st and 10th floors, then maybe I'd agree with you. I've seen pictures of buildings after a bombing and large parts of the building are still standing. I've also seen buildings being demolished with charges set up inside the building at key points. It collapsed sort of how the WTT collapsed. What's more, I've heard it said several times that the WTT shouldn't have collapsed the way they did.

Well, it's not like I believe and support either argument completely. I acknowledge the possibility of both.

And raiderfan, even if you are correct, who can you hope to convince when you come off so defensive? Your position is challenged and you begin swearing and making fun of people, just like you did in the thread about gun ownership.

I think this question has been posed to several comedians. I saw it posed to John Stewart, or perhaps someone else. Whoever it was, he said he's overjoyed to see the man leave office.

Personally, I think having Bush in office was like having truckloads of cannon fodder for the comedic engine. Post-W, comedians will actually have to think to come up with material. ;-)

Nope, nothing good came out of the Bush regime. I even heard it said on CNN or NBC that never in history has an American president come to office with something *seriously* wrong with literally *every* aspect of the country. E.g. Bush eff'ed up literally *every* major and important aspect of the country. I can only find trivial areas where he might have had a negligent or positive effect (comedy is one of them).

No apology needed. drinks

*nod* I'm totally burned about that. None of the European countries were willing to accept many Jewish refugees in the aftermath of the Holocaust. So...what, feel guilty about it and let Israel do what it wants? I'm sure there's more to it than just that, but really...

What's even more Ironic is that Arab countries accepted tons of Jewish refugees when European countries wouldn't. Israel turns its back on that kindness, marches in to Palestine guns-a-blazing, stealing land and killing people. And *they say that the land was largely uninhabited* when they got there. No wonder most Arabs don't think much of the Israeli government. No wonder Hamas, the only party in Palestine that isn't in the pocket of the Israeli government, got elected. And the Israeli government thinks continuing to mistreat the Palestinians will fix the problem? How idiotic.

If you stab yourself with a pen and you realize it hurts, would you keep doing it for 60 years? I guess the Israeli government doesn't realize what they're doing hurts themselves and their people.
"Father, forgive them; they don’t know what they’re doing." Lol...

Are you making fun of me, or did you misspell that accidentally? =\ I blame my parents' being foreigners for my not having a good sense of when someone's being sarcastic.

No, unless you were being totally sarcastic with that question, I think a response was appropriate.

I sincerely doubt that Russia would have dropped their bombs on the US as a test, just as we didn't use Russian civilians to test ours. Remember, at that time, Japan had no nukes, so we weren't afraid of so-called MAD or Mutually Assured Destruction. If we accept that we also used the nuke to scare Russia, then obviously we were hopping Russia would back-off their nuclear bomb project out of fear.

After we dropped the nukes, Russia did NOT back-off. We know this because...the Cold War occurred.
Remember that Russia first tested their bomb only in 1949, where as we had already *used* two of ours in 1945. Seeing us drop our bomb probably frightened the Russians quite a bit, which, I'd imagine, only led them to accelerate their atomic bomb project. Bottom line, maybe Russia got its nuclear bomb in 1949 and not later *because* we nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Maybe if we had not given the impression that we were "trigger-happy," tensions would not have risen so high between Russia and the US. However, I do think MAD would have still been an issue.

Personally, I think a much more effective message to send to the Russians would have been, "We have this scary bomb, and we know you're about to get one too. However, we don't want to use it on you guys, and I'm sure burning the flesh off our civilians isn't your idea of a good time either. Let's figure out a way to put our hell-weapons down and talk about this like civilized people."

Imagine you invited me to your house for dinner to discuss some business. Half-way into the discussion, I told you I had a gun in my pocket and that if you don't do what I say, I'll shoot you. You'd be willing to do what I said...but only grudgingly, right? And if I went to the bathroom, you'd probably get your gun and shoot me right away, correct?

Now, is this the kind of international environment you want your kids to live in? One of threats and coercion? It's ridiculous. We're treating everyone like a bunch of idiotic, blood-thirsty dogs who only understand the lash of the whip. I wish we could remember that we're dealing with human beings, not mindless brutes. I wish we'd think for a second how we'd feel if the roles were reversed. Finally, I hope we'd come to the conclusion that the old-hashed "do it or we invade" stuff isn't the best way to do things - it can only breed animosity.

And it was Eisenhower who said:
"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex."

Sometimes I wonder if going to war with Iran is avoidable at all? The American military-industrial complex is a well-oiled machine, well-versed in deceiving the American people. In an age where war has become profitable, no nation or people is safe.

Iran has been 100% compliant with UN nuclear facility inspectors. UN reports said that Iran, even if it were to get the enriched uranium to increase its nuclear energy capacity, would be years away from developing a nuclear weapon. What's more, even if Iran develops nuclear weapons, it would not drop them on Israel. Israel has between 75-100 nuclear warheads, so unless Iran wants to be wiped off the face of the Earth, nuking Israel is a no-go.

Probably, the best course of action to end the tension in the Middle East is to work extremely hard at resolving the Israeli-Palestinian Impasse. Arabs will support the US and won't have any new reasons to hate the Israeli government.

Hopefully, Obama doesn't wait until the last months of his term like the past few presidents did to deal with this issue.

Way off-topic but...here goes my rant:
Concerning the 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza Conflict --

Even Hamas wanted a ceasefire, at least until Israel broke the recent ceasefire by bombing Palestinian trade tunnels (which were smuggling mostly food and medical supplies). (And by the way, the tunnels existed in the first place because Israel was not living up to its end of the bargain in allowing enough humanitarian aid past its blockade. This resulted in starvation and death.) Hamas, of course, responded the only way it could without losing support - Hamas responded with some missiles (which killed less than 10 people). What was the Israeli reaction? A full-scale invasion resulting in the death of thousands. Already, the Palestinians were starving...now this?

...I'm probably about to become very unpopular in these forums though. T_T What I'm writing is totally off the US party-line.