Looking for Questions Without Answers

"So you can make a leap of faith apparently without any evidence whatsoever"

My evidence would not be acceptable to you, so why bother?

"you apparently cannot even keep track of more than one conversational string at a time, and so your response is to allow yourself the luxury of personal insults."

That sounds like a personal insult to me!

"Can you actually define the meaning or origin of the word cheesy?"

Yes, I can!~~~~~~~~~

Main Entry: cheesy
Pronunciation: 'chE-zE
Function: adjective
Inflected Form(s): chees·i·er; -est
1 a : resembling or suggesting cheese especially in consistency or odor b : containing cheese
2 : SHABBY 3c, : CHEAP <a cheesy movie> <cheesy motels>
- chees·i·ness noun

~~~~~~~At the risk of being cheesy myself, I would say that if I was speaking to someone in reply to something they had said to me, whether or not others were listening, I would not suddenly, without making any kind of verbal or non-verbal acknowlegement that I was now talking to someone else, actually start talking to someone else. Yes, of course, duh, I figured out your comments on French Wars were not meant for me! Actually, the M-W Thesaurus has a better entry than the Dictionary:

Entry Word: cheesy
Function: adjective
Text: 1 marked by an obvious lack of style or good taste <cheesy plastic knickknacks lined the fireplace mantel> -- see TACKY 1
2 of low quality <a cheesy toy that broke the first day I played with it> -- see CHEAP 2

So, would you have preferred it if I had said that your reply was "marked by an obvious lack of style?"

"Don't you at least have any good jokes to tell?

You mean you didn't like my joke about Darwin?

How about this one:

Two strings walk into a bar and ask for a drink. The bartender says, "Sorry, we don't serve strings in here!" Dejected, the two strings go back outside. One of them says, "Wait a minute, I have an idea!" He takes his top and loops it around itself in the shape of a pretzel, then pulls it tight. Then he unravels the loose end, letting all the fibers just hang out in a big mess. He does the same to the second string. They go back inside. The bartender looks up at them and says, "Hey, aren't you the same two strings I just threw out of here?" The first one says, "No, I'm a frayed knot!"

I like that one

No Catholic-Priest jokes, but as this is an engineering forum, I thought it better to try to stay on-topic as well as everyone else here. Hence,

French Military History in a Nutshell

Gallic Wars: Lost. In a war whose ending foreshadows the next 2000 years of French history, France is conquered by of all things, an Italian.

Hundred Years War: Mostly lost, saved at last by a female schizophrenic who inadvertently creates The First Rule of French Warfare - "France's armies are victorious only when not led by a Frenchmen."

Italian Wars: Lost. France becomes the first and only country ever to lose two wars when fighting Italians.

Wars of Religion: France goes 0-5-4 against the Huguenots.

Thirty Years' War: France is technically not a participant, but manages to get invaded anyway. Claims a tie on the basis that eventually the other participants started ignoring her.

War of Devolution: Tied; Frenchmen take to wearing red flowerpots as chapeaux.

The Dutch War: Tied.

War of the Augsburg League/King William's War/French and Indian War: Lost, but claimed as a tie. Deluded Frogophiles the world over label the period as the height of French Military Power.

War of the Spanish Succession: Lost. The War also gave the French their first taste of a Marlborough, which they have loved ever since.

American Revolution: In a move that will become quite familiar to future Americans, France claims a win even though the English colonists saw far more action. This is later known as "de Gaulle Syndrome", and leads to the Second Rule of French Warfare: "France only wins when America does most of the fighting".

French Revolution: Won, primarily due to the fact that the opponent was also French.

The Napoleonic Wars: Lost. Temporary victories (remember the First Rule!) due to leadership of a Corsican, who ended up being no match for a British footwear designer.

The Franco-Prussian War: Lost. Germany first plays the role of drunk Frat boy to France's ugly girl home alone on a Saturday night.

WWI: Tied and on the way to losing, France is saved by the United States. Thousands of French women find out what it's like not only to sleep with a winner, but one who doesn't call her "Fraulein." Sadly, widespread use of condoms by American forces forestalls any improvement in the French bloodline.

WWII: Lost. Conquered French liberated by the United States and Britain just as they finish learning the Horst Wessel Song.

War in Indochina: Lost. French forces plead sickness, take to bed with Dien Bien Flu.

Algerian Rebellion: Lost. Loss marks the first defeat of a Western army by a Non-Turkic Muslim force since the Crusades, and produces the First Rule of Muslim Warfare -"We can always beat the French." This rule is identical to the First Rules of the Italians, Russians, Germans, English, Dutch, Spanish, Vietnamese, and Eskimos.

War on Terrorism: France, keeping in mind its recent history, surrenders to Germans and Muslims just to be safe.

--Europium

Before Caesar conquered the Gauls, the Gauls terrified the Romans for hundreds of years and sacked Rome.

Charles the great, Charlemagne in French, conquers and reunites the Western Roman Empire.

The Normans (French Vikings), conquered England in 1066. For years the English Aristocracy spoke only French.

The Spanish and French war for centuries, and the Spanish, not the Italian city states, defeat France in Italy.

Ben Franklin spends the American Revolution in France begging France for help. Without the French Navy, victory over the British would have been extremely difficult.

20 years later Thomas Jefferson repays the kindness of the French aristocracy by encouraging the French Revolution. It would not be our last time justifying our inconsistencies with distorted ideals and half truths.

Napoleon pretty much destroyed all the major powers of his time and basically killed monarchies in Europe. It took his massive ego, a vicious Russian winter, and all the powers in Europe united against him to stop him. He returns from exile, builds another army, and barely loses the second time at Waterloo.

World War I - England and the French fight Germany to a stand still. America becomes rich supplying both sides in the war. Towards the end, the US joins the war and troops begin to arrive in 1918. The war ends later that year. Revisionists paint this as an American victory even though they hardly played a role in the war.

World War II - French get their butts kicked. Americans, England, and Russia bail them out. The Nazis kill 10 million people, we call them evil. Stalin is busy killing 20 million people, we call him an ally.

US and Russia divide Europe in half. Charles de Gaulle voices concerns against American Hegemony in western Europe. Culture of American "French Bashing" begins. Revisionist history paints the French as weak and effeminate.

The French, as allies and members of NATO, assist the US in the first gulf war, and later in overthrowing the Taliban in Afghanistan.

The French, along with Germany oppose the proposed US invasion of Iraq, declaring there is insufficient evidence of weapons of mass destruction. US declares it a matter of national security and launches the second gulf war. No evidence of WMDs are ever found. The US paints the UN as weak and effeminate.

Hopefully, the Aussies don't cheese you off, unlike the French.

Did you mean to respond to me? I was just pointing out that the French are not nearly as weak as we Americans like to pretend.

Roger, do the French really need defending? If you would ask the average Frenchman, he would probably say, "NO!"

BTW, I can verify how much the French STILL hate the Germans, but still like us Americans, at least outside of Paris. Only a few years ago I was working for a Swiss-German machine tool company as a Project Engineer, and while taking customers on a driving tour south of Strasbourg, France, across the Rhine from the German town where our factory was, I took a wrong turn and ended up in the town square of this small rural French village. I was driving a company car, which had the company name and address, in German, on the side. I pulled over next to this streetside cafe where several locals were enjoying their morning espresso. Not knowing ANY French, I tried to ask directions in German, thinking that a border area like this was more likely to have German as a second language than English. I was TOTALLY IGNORED. Not one face even looked up to acknowledge my existance. I tried several times. In frustration, I switched to English. Immediately, everyone at the cafe (half a dozen or so) looked up and one old (what is the French word for "old fart"?) gentleman came over to the car and said in very broken English, "Oh! You are American!" and proceeded to give me very nice directions, and wished me "Au revoir!" as we left!

About five years ago I went went to Europe for two weeks, starting in Naples and ending up in Nice. Great trip. I didn't know what to expect out of the French, being from New York, I thought I had an idea about Italians, and I was right (I love Italy). Anyway we arrive in Nice and went out that night, just like every night we were in Europe. We were walking around the city drinking beer (You can drink pretty much anywhere) and none of us spoke a lick of French. My one friend was fluent in Italian, the other in Spanish. I can only speak English. Anytime we wanted something, we tried all three languages until someone knew what we were saying. They never got mad, they were always patient and kind and almost always spoke two or three languages.

Anyway, fast forward to about 4 or 5 in the morning, I'm not sure. I'm stumbling home (to the hotel) and I've gotten separated from my friends during the night. I'm pretty buzzed and I have only a vague idea of the name of the hotel we are in (my friend was in charge of the hotels, not me). So I'm basically wandering the streets of Nice at dawn and stumble into a bakery. At this point I figure I might as well see if these people could help me since I was going nowhere fast. Keep in mind I had no money.

So I go into the bakery and start speaking English, the first person has no idea what I'm saying but knows I'm speaking English so goes in the back and grabs the one person in the place who can speak it. I explain my situation and the guy grabs a map of Nice and we try to figure out my hotel based on my vague recollections, I don't speak any French so I can't remember my hotel's name or any of the streets around it. Anyway, after a while we figure out where I probably am staying and it's about a mile away. We have a good laugh over the situation and he gives me fresh bread for free for my trip. They were the sweetest people ever.

In my two weeks in Europe, I never saw a fight, I never ran into any trouble, and people went out of there way to help us. Personally, I think France gets a bad rap.

How much time did you spend in Paris?

Same company I worked for had an employee who was our primary German translator. He also facilitated events for the company where being bi-lingual was helpful. One year he went to a trade show in Paris (many Germans also go to the same show).

During his off-time he decided to do a little sightseeing, but, unfortunately, as you did, became lost. As one might do here in the US he approached a policeman for assistance. However, my friend spoke almost no French. Thinking that Paris, being a cosmopolitan city, might have police officers who were somewhat more educated and might speak another language, tried asking directions in English, but got only a vague stare and a few words back in unintelligible French. So he tried German, same response, only a little more irritated. My friend also knew a little Italian and tried that, now being totally ignored by the gendarme. Frustrated, and about to give up, as he was about to turn away, the officer turned toward him and spoke, in French, very curtly, a few words that my friend WAS able to translate: "I speak FRENCH, and so should YOU!"

I've heard similiar stories about Paris, but I myself have never been there, so I don't know if it's true or exaggerated. I can only speak about my limited experiences in southern France, which were all positive.

As an American, in Alsace-Lorraine, my experiences were good also. When they thought I was German, not so much!

I didn't mean to offend you, Roger. Such a ludicrous 'history' could be (and probably has been) written of any group - including Americans (and especially of Americans; not that we have any reason to complain). That I picked on the French can be blamed in part on my having a very frogophillic, very French fiancée (very French indeed!). In her defense, I must say that she saw this so-called "historical" account as being nothing more than a ludicrous and deliberate distortion of history and, as such, found it to be really quite funny. (my apologies again, Roger, if you did not). A confirmed sociocentric's Warped View of Reality, more or less. After all, how can something so obviously biased and distorted at the same time claim to be an objective account of historical events? Clearly, it can't.

And therein lies the "rub."

--E

You mean like the story about transmissions in Italian Army tanks having one speed forard and 6 in reverse? Of course, these days we would change Italian Army to Saddam's Iraqi Army!

Pretty much! But with a twist...

It is a little-known fact that this business with the Italian tanks was actually the result of a simple misunderstanding between the Italian Army (such as it is) and their civilian subcontractor, Fiat. The reality was this: the transmission was fine and performed flawlessly, as expected, having actually been manufactured by Porsche, a little-known German sub-subcontractor. The real problem concerned the interior seating arrangements. As it turned out Fiat, in its compassion for its countrymen, maintained that even if their compatriots were forced into the heat of battle, they subsequently shouldn't also be forced to witness the action. For one thing, this approach drastically reduced the need for PTSD counselling and its attendant cost to the 43rd Italian Government. Yet, needless to say, there was much finger-pointing on both sides (and not a few other, more poignant gestures as well). The dispute was finally resolved when the Pope stepped into the frey and demanded, on pain of Eternal Damnation, that the subcontractor fix the tracks.

-E

Europium,

You didn't offend me. I'll try to explain why I responded with a list that countered your own. Anyone who creates a historical timeline like your own knows the complete history, so I knew if I created a list of French victories, it wouldn't be anything you didn't already know. I was pretty sure that you created the timeline as a joke, which if you know the whole history is funny for it's unashamed onesidedness and delivery, like: "French Revolution: Won, primarily due to the fact that the opponent was also French." So as odd as it might sound, I enjoyed the post.

But here's the problem. Some people wouldn't get the post. I'm not talking PC people, I could care less if they can't handle it, I mean people who don't know or know or understand history enough to realize that it was purposefully absurd. They can latch on to your "timeline" as confirmation of their ill formed prejudices. I guess what I'm trying to say is that every american (myself included) like joking about the French. Unfortunately, there is a sizeable number who believe the French to actually be inferior, which is dangerous. I put my post for balance.

Now in hindsight, I should have written something to make that clear to everyone like: "Europium, I know you meant your list as a joke, but in the Frances defense, and we know they can't defend themselves, I though I should make a list of their victories". I dropped the ball on that, so I'm sorry.

Why Roger, I don't believe the French to actually be inferior, [WARNING: IMPENDING HUMOR ATTEMPT!], I believe them to actually be posterior! You know, like Harold Ramis' character says to his Army Basic Training buddies in "Stripes":

Russell Ziskey: I've always been kind of a pacifist. When I was a kid, my father told me, "Never hit anyone in anger, unless you're absolutely sure you can get away with it." I don't know what kind of soldier I'm gonna make, but I want you guys to know that if we ever get into really heavy combat... I'll be right behind you guys, every step of the way.

No problem whatsoever! I posted my message at some risk, but I should have done so with apologies. Lacking that preface, I think your post was necessary to put things back into equilibrium. I just didn't want you to wander off offended at my lame attempt at some simulated sociocentric bigotry.

BTW, my fiancee jokingly calls me "An Ugly American." And as you surely must know, humor often has at its core a kernel of truth. For her part she is correct: I am an American. Not only am I an American but, as she further points out, I do, in fact, exist in the singular.

Thanks for your post!

-E

In Post #59, you write: "Is there a god and how can proof be demonstrated? The answer must be NO, unless there is proof."

In Post #93, you also write: "1. Faith is not proof... 2. Belief is not proof...."

Applying your own criteria #1 and #2, above, to your own assertion that the "answer must be NO, unless there is proof" directly implies that your assertion cannot be:

1) Based on faith.

2) Based on belief.

And must be:

3) Based on proof.

Care to spread the wealth?

--Europium

Perhaps I was being too kind in even suggesting the possibility that something or someone that is apparently (according to theists) existing without evidence should even be discussed until there is some evidence.

What an odd conclusion. (?)

--E

Call yourselves engineers. If you are then stop talking about this made up character called god.

The only reason this exists is because of thousands of years of rape, pillage and good old white human batterering.

god, allah, zeus, ra, budda are story book characters. It because your too thick or too arrogant to accept there really is fuck all out there.

Death is final. There are no ghosts, mummys, gouls, angels, horsemen of the apocolypse, yeti's, loch ness's, vampires etc....

So, take it how you want to, but PLEASE leave this character out of the engineering formus, and start talking about the real things in life.

If you cant, sod off, cos its ok. Gob, Got or whatever her name is will make sure you go to heaven where all your dreams come true. THE END.

Ironic then, isn't it, that an atheist brought up, and insisted we discuss, the question of God's existance in this forum in post # 7, 59, and 89!

True, shall we go to war now?

No, I think we should just agree to disagree!

You realize your basically an Atheist Fundamentalist right? I mean, you have a belief system that cannot be proven or disproven that you present as fact. You condemn and belittle all other belief systems and wish to impose your own on other people. Awesome.

No. I would belittle anyone who believes in anything other than fact.

If anyone wants to see GOD (non biblical term), then i suggest they look in a mirror. Humans are the most advanced beings in the universe. Therefore all 6 billion of us are GODS.

I am not an atheist as such, as the term means a disbeliever in god. I am a mere mortal and understand there never has been or will be a supreme being that made and controls everything. I believe in myself, my own destony and the actions of my own doing.

Again, ALL POWERFUL BEING 0-1 DUAL2MAX.

I don't see how you can say God not existing is a fact, anymore than you could say God existing is a fact. The truth is either belief is a matter of faith. I'm personally not concerned with proving one or the other correct, because it's impossible. What disturbs me is when a man or woman suggests they can know something that is impossible to know.

You say Humans are the closest things to Gods? I guess that means Chimps, who share about 95% of our DNA, are Demi-Gods? Or did something in the last 5% of DNA changes make us so much different than chimps that we are so far superior to them as to be godlike in comparison? I wonder if chimps would see it that way.

Of course, we must assume that there is no other intelligent life in the universe. It must be great to be certain that amongst the Sextillion (billion trillion) stars in the known Universe, no other intellegent life exists, despite the ease with which Earth developed life (within a few hundred million years as far as we know right now, basically instantly). I'm afraid I'm not as certain as you.

"Chimps, who share about 95% of our DNA"

I think it's more like 97 or 98%. I think it could even be more than 99% Pretty amazing if you think about it. Locked in that small percentage though is an amazing amount of intelligence.

"...despite the ease with which Earth developed life (within a few hundred million years as far as we know right now, basically instantly)"

Actually, that depends on your definition of life: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Earth

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life

"I think it's more like 97 or 98%. I think it could even be more than 99% Pretty amazing if you think about it. Locked in that small percentage though is an amazing amount of intelligence."

No, it's 95-96%. It was revised down after a extensive study of the Chimp genome. Here is a link, here is another . Of course, the point is that Human and Chimp dna are very close, just as Human and Chimp actions are very close. Just like an interior designer can look at two shades of blue and say "those are completely different, one is Azure and the other is Cerulean". That's what we do when we compare our intelligence with monkey's intelligence. We are much too impressed with our limited smarts.

"Actually, that depends on your definition of life:"

I'm counting single celled organisms that reproduce as "life", which is consistent with biological definitions. Here is an evolution timeline. Please note that we have evidence of life from 4 billion years ago. Considering how hard it is to find rock from 4 billion years ago, that's impressive. Also keep in mind that the Earth itself formed 4.5 billion years ago and the crust took a while to form. From that standpoint, I think it's fair to say that life happened fairly quickly.

Some estimates put the origin of life as you describe it at 3.5 billion years ago and self-replicating molecules at 4 billion years. This gives the earth a good billion years to develop life. Also, don't forget how extremely well situated Earth is; we have a perfectly sized sun, we are just the right distance away from it and we have a decent sized moon to stir our tides. My point is that it wasn't really "easy" (a kind of silly term I guess since I don't think anyone really "made" the earth) for life on Earth to form so we shouldn't be surprised that we haven't seen evidence of other intelligent life in the universe, no matter how big it is.

My other point was that it doesn't really matter how similar our genome is to chimps, we far outstrip them in our capabilities for reasoning, computation and language. It's less like cerulean to azure and more like very light grey to jet black if you ask me.

You wrote: "Also, don't forget how extremely well situated Earth is; we have a perfectly sized sun, we are just the right distance away from it and we have a decent sized moon to stir our tides."

If evolution has taught us anything, it's that if life were placed in a less "ideal" environment, life would have evolved in such a way so as to make that environment ideal for life. From a numbers standpoint, It's almost statistically impossible that we are the only life out there. There are a billion trillion stars. Even if Earth like planets are 1 in a trillion, that would mean there are 1 billion Earth like planets out there.

Although I disagree with you on this, I admit there is no evidence at present of life outside of Earth, so I can respect your opinion that there is none out there. Until there is proof, either opinion is merely conjecture.

You Wrote: "My point is that it wasn't really "easy""

Actually it really was very easy.

I would ask you give these geological and evolutionary timelines a glance in the link below. It will show what I mean by life appearing almost simultaneously with the formation of the Earths crust and oceans. Here is the timeline, Here is another, Here is another (it makes the distinction you suggest regarding life (3.6 rather than 3.9), notice the crust forms around 4.1 BYA.

What is difficult is not life, but multicelled organisms, which took 3 billion years at least to evolve.

dual2max writes: "god, allah, zeus, ra, budda are story book characters. It because your too thick or too arrogant to accept there really is fuck all out there."

First of all let me say that I stand in awe of your sweeping eloquence and profundity. What else can I say?

Your point is well taken: I can indeed confirm that I have right here in my library a number of books which do contain the storybook characters you mention: God, Allah, Zeus, Ra, Buddha, and many others. You are obviously quite correct.

Pulling one such book from the shelf, I heft it in my hand. I feel its weight. It is real. It exists. Inside? A storybook character, Jesus. Grabbing another book, I see more characters. Another book: more characters. And another. And another. Jesus. Mohammed. Jupiter. Diana, Rama, Vishnu. Atlas. (atlas? oops! how'd this get in here?)

You, however, are not like them. You are simply a series of transient, ephemeral, flickering phosphorescent dots on my computer monitor. An artifact of an aging display technology. Mere pixels, nothing more. One simple flick of the switch, and you're gone.

Poof!

And so we have, in terms of having any objective existence at all (even if only as a storybook character):

Storybook Characters: 1 / dual2max: 0

--E

hey guys can we get back on track? plz read my question if u tend 2 foget it!

Elika, if you haven't found a few "questions without answers" by now, you haven't been paying attention...

-E

In post #3 I listed several unanswered questions in science. Did you have any comments or questions about these or are you just compiling a list?

Also, Elika, if you had a specific application in mind when you created this thread, it might further your interests to say something about it. For my part, it's a lot simpler for me to respond with a relevant answer if I first have some of idea of the context in which the question is asked.

On the other hand, you may simply be compiling nothing more than a list of such questions, as suggested.

-E

I agree. Hopefully, you have enough questions by now, Elika. Time to move on to something else.

This will be my last post on this thread!

thanx all of u!!!!! (at least u stopped fighting over it after my last post!)