This is exactly the proposition that I have argued against.
Well, instead try to be reasonable about it. What facts support your hypothesis? If your hypothesis is (and it is) that "most wars and deaths have been because of two opposing sides worshipping different religions," then this appears to be an objective assertion that can be tested, and evaluated as being objectively true or false:
"Most wars"? Which ones? Factually, which wars have been "because of two opposing sides worshipping different religions," and which wars have not been because of that? How many of each? What is the factual truth?
Your "own feelings" pertain to whether you are in pain, or whether you are comfortable; whether you are happy, or whether you are sad; whether you are angry, or whether you are calm...
Your BELIEF about the cause of this or that war, or about how many wars for this cause and how many wars for that cause, may be a result of prejudice and your emotions pertaining to your evaluation of whether that prejudice is secure or threatened, but otherwise is not a matter of subjective "feeling," but of objective fact, and to what extent, and for what reasons, one can be confident that this IS objective fact.
If you would be credible in your discussion of objective considerations, it is worthwhile to reason accurately, since your assertions pertaining to such considerations, are significant to your fellows, based upon whether you speak/write truth or falsehood. Claiming that you speak only of what you feel, is fine if the subject of discussion is your emotional state, and not the reality of our common world, in which the difference between truth and falsehood, matters as a basis for making consequential decisions. You can talk about your feelings, if we are talking about you; but we are not. We are talking about war and the causes of war, and the meaning and effect of religions. What is the truth about THAT subject?
It has often been alleged, that religion is the principal cause of most wars; but I very much doubt it.
Instead, it seems likely to me that the majority of wars (like conflicts among humans, generally) are caused by competition for resources - such as land (and water), minerals, trade routes, slaves to provide labor, access to sexual partners, etc. People often wage wars, also, for (political) power - which is simply another aspect of a competition for resources: in this case, not direct competition over control of the resource, but indirect competition, by way of determining who shall later decide the control of the resource.
Religions are often the guiding social structures of populations, and it may therefore be supposed that the religious disagreements are, themselves, the cause of the conflict, but one could as well suppose that wars are fought because of disagreements about whose political system should be regarded as superior, or whose geographical home-location should be regarded as superior, or whose skin color, language or musical-style preferences should be regarded as superior. Peoples (of different religions) fight with one another, because they are different peoples - who are in competition with one another over something; the religion may be an identifier, but it is not necessarily a cause.
Make a list of all the wars that you can think of, and see how many of them can really be attributed specifically to disagreements about religious (or other) ideology, and how many would be, instead, more reasonably attributed to disagreements about control, over natural resources or the populations that control them.
This is not to say that differences of religious beliefs cannot be a cause of war; but ultimately, the fight is not about what will be believed, but what will be done, and who will decide that, and for what purpose, and for whose benefit in contrast to whose loss.
It looks somewhat decent, from what I can see, but better pictures would provide a general view of the entire track. It seems to me that, if you are trying to attract people to download your track, then showing them your car, is of no use for that purpose. Show the TRACK, in a way that is most illustrative of it, as a whole (and perhaps other pictures of particularly interesting features, if applicable). Notice that the various tracks in LFS, are shown for purpose of selection, as an overhead schematic; this is the best way to provide the most information, in a single picture (however, pictures of layouts should not be mere schematics, since the materials out of which the layout is constructed, are significant; I recommend an overhead, perhaps slightly angled, screenshot, if this is feasible).
Yes; it seems that you are right about that. It is nice to know that ramps are available on any BL track (although it would be even better if they were available on any track at all, and could be adjusted to any height/inclination).
Pretty cool-looking layout. Thanks; I will try it out.
I am curious: I thought that ramps are available only on AU; is this not so? If it IS so, then how did you work around the restriction? (If it is NOT so, then I am sorry for being so ignorant.)
I am curious to know what, precisely, you mean by the phrase "exit strategy." My understanding of the essential purpose of the Iraq invasion, is that it was to eliminate the condition of Iraq's being ruled by Saddam Hussein. It has been, and continues to be, my understanding that the military occupation would cease, upon completion of Iraq's transformation from that condition, to a condition wherein Iraq is politically stable as no likely source of harm to (e.g.) the USA and its people. The particular methodology of removing the occupying forces, would seem to be better characterizable as a matter of tactics, than of strategy, and the participating military organizations are presumably capable of accomplishing this, by means of transportation vehicles.
Perhaps you mean that (e.g.) the USA did not have a sufficient understanding of how the intended transformation of the political system of Iraq, would be accomplished. That is a fair enough complaint, I suppose, although warfare always brings its surprises, and it is often regarded, in many contexts, as being desirable to pursue a critical purpose, with less than a perfect plan involving perfectly confident knowledge about what the particular challenges might be, and how well one can achieve one's goals.
Trauma surgery, for example, is often initiated with considerable doubts about what will be the precise procedures to be performed, while the "exit strategy," I suppose, is to discontinue the surgery when the patient has been returned to a state of health or, at least, when one has achieved the closest approximation to that goal, that he thinks that he can; and whatever may be the doubts, one attempts such surgery with a general expectation that the result will be preferable to the expected result of not attempting it.
Well, there is a considerable number of reports by soldiers having participated in the Iraq war - including those who have (eagerly?) re-enlisted, and others who have expressed eagerness to return to active duty after becoming injured - passionately stating their understanding that, rather than being mere "cannon fodder," they are instead doing something necessary and, to them, desirable (especially, expressing their joy at seeing the Iraqis with whom they have associated, develop into an enthusiastically free people, from having been a fearful and subjugated people, under the rule of Saddam Hussein).
Everybody has his own opinion, I suppose (and, presumably, his own sources of information).
This makes sense, since I had a biology teacher who (reasonably) explained "intelligence" as being modifiable behavior - so that, the more intelligent, thus the more variable and diverse the possible behaviors, and the greater the probability that some may be characterizable as "deviant."
Sure. And similarly, it is a difference between an animal's doing something beneficial, by instinct or conditioning, and a human's doing something beneficial, by choice - which is why I attempted to point out that (on the positive side, among all the condemnation - even of the entire human species) humans do ethical philosophy; they very often work very hard to discover what is the right thing to do, and even sometimes are willing to suffer (anything from social criticism, to physical damage and even death), in order to do it. The "deviants" aside, humans (including American soldiers) are not too bad.
Oops! I did not read carefully enough, and I failed to recognize that you were already aware of available hardware (although I also consider other readers, when posting; moreover, I didn't know that you already had a webcam, which I do not have; I interpreted your question as, basically, whether LFS supports headtracking). Sorry.
Also, I recommend LytE (layout editor), a very fine program that facilitates making layouts for LFS (although not for all tracks). Search the forum for it.
Well, I can suggest that you try to keep some perspective, in regard to your view of human beings. Put a bacterium in a petri dish full of agar, and eventually you may find that the agar is all gone. How self-destructive is that?
Perhaps you can even find some small reason for joyful appreciation of the fact that Man, while horrifically pursuing the destruction of himself and all that he sees, has - as a result of that, and using the same tools (capabilities) - gained some ability to distinguish between what is good and what is evil, what is beneficial and what is harmful (to himself and to others), and has sought to pursue the good and extinguish the evil, to some noteworthy extent, while even so remaining not satisfactorily wise and benevolent, since it's still a pretty complex world, that he lives in.
Anyway, I think that you're just being pessimistic. Man is good and evil, it can be said, and it's probably not a good idea to obsess over the fact of one or the other - even while nevertheless recognizing that one is more likely to be happy, while directing his attention toward the good stuff, and more likely to solve the problems, while thinking that this is something worth doing, rather than thinking such as, simply, that "humankind is the cancer of the earth" (which, btw, is also not a nice way to characterize one's associates, although it is somewhat unlikely that they will take it personally).
Also, whether "there's way too many of us," and "we defy nature's ways," is (for both propositions) disputable. Some might say that the more of us there are, the more helpers, sources of knowledge and invention, and causes of inspiration there are, for us to enjoy; and while it is recognizable, in the abstract, that overpopulation is hazardous, what quantity of persons would constitute "overpopulation," has been widely debated. And some might say that the bacterium is defying nature, by eliminating the agar that it had found in the petri dish; the distinction between human artifact and "nature," is itself a human conception, a way that Man identifies himself and distinguishes himself from his environment, while it is characteristic of all life, that it alters its environment.
Robert Heinlein wrote that he was often amused by hearing people express condemnation of dams built by humans, and then hearing the same people express admiration for dams built by beavers. So, there's something to cheer you up (or maybe give you some more reason for pessimism).
One common (informal, "slang") usage of the word "toast," is as a metaphor to suggest that something is destroyed, or defeated: "he's toast" - as if being toast (cooked bread) that has been so excessively cooked, that it has become burned.
"Toast" is also used (formally) to denote a celebratory drink (usually, of some alcohol-containing beverage): "let's [drink a] toast [to] your victory (or new job, or marriage, or something)." I have no idea how, if at all, this pertains to cooked bread.
No. Ethics is a branch of philosophy - an intellectual consideration of the basis and value of morals. Group norms (instinctive or learned), of behavior - basically, the equivalent of morals - is not the same as ethics, which is why I proposed that ethics may be uniquely human.
A market economy is cyclical, where the cycles, of up and down, exemplify the oscillations of a self-correcting system. Attributing a specific cause, to a particular up or down, is risky, since the oscillations are inevitable in any case, and an economy as a whole, is profoundly complex.
On the other hand, there is a species of wasp that paralyzes an animal, lays its eggs within it, and the hatchlings eat their way out. Also, I've been told that some cats enjoy "playing" with captured mice, in a manner seeming to be cruel (although I've not personally seen such behavior), and dogs, monkeys and apes are sometimes similarly "cruel" in their behavior toward one another.
More noteworthy, perhaps, is that ethics may be a consideration that is uniquely human, although all social animals are likely to exemplify empathetic, as well as savage, behavior.
This is a wondrously thought-provoking statement. Thanks.
The US Constitution divides warmaking Powers between the President and Congress. The President is Commander-in-Chief, during war, since strategic decisions must often be made rapidly, which is most effectively accomplished by a single person. However, inasmuch as a decision to embark upon a war, is consequential for the entire nation, and tends to require the support of the entire nation, therefore it is a decision appropriately made by the entire people, which is accomplished through their congressional representatives.
Congress stated its intent to wage war, against Saddam Hussein's Iraq, thereby satisfying its Constitutional function, in this regard. That this intent was stated as "we authorize the Commander-in-Chief to wage war," rather than "we declare war," is without any Constitutional significance that I can recognize.
Additionally, it has been reasonably argued that, inasmuch as Saddam Hussein repeatedly failed to comply with the terms of the cease-fire that suspended (most of) the armed conflict (the American participation in which, was also authorized by Congress) that resulted from his invasion of Kuwait, and inasmuch as he continued to wage war, by repeatedly attacking American and British aircraft flying defensive patrols of the "no-fly zones," therefore the invasion of Iraq was not even a new war, requiring a formal declaration, but merely a resumption of the greater hostilities of the first Gulf War (which resumption was regarded as arguably more urgent, since the USA had become aware of the extent of the threat to it, posed by Middle-Eastern terrorists, along with a recognition that Saddam Hussein - with his enmity, wealth and weapons - would be a capable, and likely willing, resource for assisting them).
In any case, you have not satisfied my curiosity, with regard to your assertion that
which Constitutional requirement is unknown to me, and would seem to be too nebulous in meaning, to be of practical value as determinative Constitutional law.
You should probably think about this, a little more carefully, unless you want to cause huge problems (for yourself, and others) - including getting persons expelled from schools for violating Honor Codes, inasmuch as "lying," for writing the incorrect answer to a question on an algebra test (or maybe you would argue that Aristotle was "lying," before Copernicus came along, or that Newtonian physicists were "lying," before Einstein came along, or that generations of parents, and teachers, were "lying," in describing their understanding of things, before a better understanding was achieved). My description of the characteristics of a "lie," represents the dictionary definition and the common meaning, as well as the reason that "lying" is regarded as representing dishonesty, different in meaning from (e.g.) the widely-used phrase "an honest mistake" - which, by your definition, would be an oxymoron - or, for that matter, irony, a metaphor, a written novel or a joke (these being but a few examples that immediately come to mind).
Instead, it is the frequent, political misrepresentation of any inaccurate statement, as being a "lie," that is cynical, false and therefore problematic.
You should notify President Thomas Jefferson that his sending of marines to Tripoli, to fight the Barbary pirates, may have been unconstitutional, and why.
BTW, just for fun, here is what a "lie" is:
1) It is a statement
2) that is false
3) and known, by the speaker, to be false
4) and intended, by the speaker, to deceive his audience.
Most persons already knew this, by the time they were about 3 years old.
The most conservative estimate that I've read is ~20,000. I have also read that it's virtually impossible to count the dead, accurately.
I am, of course, aware that it's cynically useful to assert as high a number as possible (as if the number really matters, anyway), just as it is cynically useful to assert that "Bush Lied!", "the war is illegal," "Bush did it for his daddy," "the war is to steal oil," "the war is to enrich Halliburton and US VP Cheney," "the war is racist," and even (I've actually heard this one, in person, at a rally) "the war is for the purpose of oppression, by the bourgeoisie against the proletariat," etc., etc., etc.
Oh, yeah; I forgot one of the favorites: "it's American imperialism."