na85

FYP --- I don't think anyone today really qualifies as a neo-conservative. The movement has largely evolved into other ideologies.

I'm waiting for you to admit that the overweight black man with a pug nose is not Bin Laden. It's not bin Laden

All right Poly, I've watched that Osama tape. I am uncertain about its authenticity. I could be persuaded either way. It's possible it could have been faked. Now then, as you said you would, please let me hear this explanation about the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

I seem to recall that when the Maple Leaf we see today was originally introduced, there was a negative reaction at the fact that it only uses red and white, which also happen to be the colours of communism

Begun, the hyperbole war has.

I don't think she's our troll. She hasn't posted any flame bait, for starters.

Not since the Magna Carta --- I don't think a dictatorial PM would be able to do too much. The PM has lots of power, sure. However, he holds less power than a United States President. The PM is still subject to the whims of the Supreme Court.

Yes, we are. Don't lump us all in with Poly, though. I like to think I'm fairly level-headed.

I've visited the tomb in Ottawa. We stood outside in the pouring rain for twenty minutes in silence, most of us cowed by the quiet dignity of the tomb. It's a very sombre and moving monument. I can understand the government's position here, but I agree that The Unknown Soldier is a testament to the bravery of all soldiers, everywhere. The Victoria Cross should not be awarded to him, despite his bravery.

Haha, the sheer contrast between these two posts was great. Silliness aside, geoffrey makes an excellent point. The question is too broad, you're going to want to narrow it down a little. I really can't say one way or the other. Sorry.

I haven't watched them yet, I'm busy studying for midterms. I'll watch them later this week and get back to you.

Oh please. S is used for all kinds of things. Entropy, specific gravity, the length along an arc, etc. Drop the ad hominem attacks.

The building wasn't in equilibrium while it was collapsing. That's your proof? The building wasn't in equilibrium? Please explain how the second law of thermodynamics was violated.

Too true. This is not necessary for the building to collapse. It is eminently possible for the concrete to merely have been fractured during the collapse - i.e. broken into smaller chunks which are not structurally competent.

For those of us who are not very scientific; Entropy is, at its basic form, chemical/molecular disorder. If you think of a rock, its molecules are more or less fixed in their relative positions. If you compare that rock to a gas (whose molecules are free to float around and bounce off of eachother and other things), you will find that a rock has less entropy than a gas.

Yes it does and I have a degree in electrical engineering. Any engineer that says this is possible is a fool or a liar. If the buildings fall straight down its a violation of the second law of thermodynamics. Its impossible - or about as possible as dropping 3 basket balls and have them land directly on top of one another. The second law of thermodynamics? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA... *cough* *wheeze* oh man, that's a good one. The second law of thermo states that the entropy of an isolated system will increase over time, unless the system is in equilibrium. What on god's green earth does this have to do with a plane hitting a building? Neither of those two objects are isolated systems (thermally or otherwise). Since there's a gaping hole in the building, heat and mass are free to flow across the system boundary. Poly, PLEASE tell me how a jet hitting a building is in some way NOT increasing the entropy of the system. Please. I would LOVE to hear it. --- I've looked at some of the materials on Hoffman's site, and the manner in which he "debunks" the scientific articles and "exposes" the "lies" are laughable. His argument merely appeals to the layperson's general lack of knowledge of the exceedingly complicated science of structures and materials.

It's not just the subway that's at capacity either. Apparently the gardiner expressway (an elevated highway, for non torontonians) was not designed with this many cars in mind. According to the journal I read, the sheer weight of the vehicles on it is damaging the support structure.

I am a civil engineering student and the explanation given by the NIST and others is quite plausible; just because a building collapses downward into itself does not mean it was done by controlled demolition.

That's a good idea.

I think we also qualify as a Parliamentary Democracy

Gah! Sorry, double post removed. Stupid internet.

Don't you think that you're overstating your case just a little? The electorate would not stand to see the draft reinstated.

A lot of the things of which you accuse Harper can be equally applied to liberal candidates, namely

Actually I left it out so that it would be evident to which part of your post I was responding, but thanks for insulting my intelligence. You're referring to this definition, I presume. Perhaps YOU lack reading comprehension. It says right there that the term was contrasted with governments in which leadership is hereditary. In a monarchy, leadership is passed by heredity. Ergo, a Republic does ****NOT*** have a monarch. (Don't want you to miss that "not" again).

Really? Looks to me like you just suggested that a Republic can have a monarch.