Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

File talk:Pb300dpi.png

2007-03-24T06:20:29Z

Noodles:

Shoot, this is a sexy logo. Man, I vote for this -[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 01:33, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
:Yeah! The glaring flaw at the bottom really highlights the farcical nature of this project! --BillOReillyFan

== An Objective Review: ==

* Technical Execution: D-
* Colour/Contrast: F
* Style/Impact: D-
Admit it people. The 20 minute giggle I put together with my kids is the best you're gonna get.
-- BillOReillyFan

: Dude, chill. There's a small rectangular flaw at the bottom that I have no doubt Phil can correct. The rest of it, though, is pretty hot. I love it, Phil.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 01:48, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

::Why exactly is he still on the site? Dig the logo Phil. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 02:14, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
::: Because I don't want proponents of this abomination to think their anti-intellectual religious masturbation is going to be tolerated and accepted.
::::you are intolerant?

Pastafarian

2007-03-24T06:15:32Z

Noodles:

'''Pastafarianism''' was a [[religion]] created by a group of [[atheist]]s which believes that a deity known as the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" created the universe. This belief system was brought into the public eye by Bobby Henderson when he wrote to the Kansas School Board when they were teaching intelligent design, and demanded that all forms of [[Intelligent Design]] be taught.

Talk:Liberal

2007-03-24T06:11:29Z

Noodles: /* How can we forget the fact that... */

This site is a joke. Compare to wikipedia which has an intelligent hisotry and dicussion. This site has the same level of intellect as George W.

This page has been certified as ART by BAR CORPORATION. It can be found in our archive under the moniker "cert. art #996" in the "Narrative Fiction" category. Congratulations!

prohibiting prayer in school is not a liberal objective. Mandatory prayer over a loud speaker, however, should be prohibited. Talking to God does not require infringing on other children's right not to have to engage in such activities.

How is gun control liberal? I mean like, doesn't sound conservetive? --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 18:14, 3 March 2007 (EST)

::The Constitution allows us to own guns, liberals want to confiscate all our guns in spite of the Constitution saying that is illegal. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 17:59, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:Actually, I've been intrigued and annoyed at the one-dimensionality of the political spectrum in the United States. I can't honestly quarrel with Aschlafly's list. If this were Wikipedia I'd want to see a source for it... and of course it has a conservative spin ("protection of obscure endangered species")... but it wouldn't surprise me if you could pull that list, or something very like it from election-year national Democratic Party platforms.

:But isn't it weird? These positions have very little to do with each other. Years ago I was trying to explain American politics to friends from the Netherlands and they found it baffling. They didn't see at all why someone who was for gun control would necessarily be expected to support legalized abortion, why someone who supported legalized abortion would necessarily be expected to support environmental protection, or why someone who supported environmental protection would necessarily be expected to oppose prayer in schools.

:I don't know where this one-dimensional polarization comes from. Perhaps the two-party system leads to political leaders trying to sort political positions into neat packages and sell the public on an "us-versus-them" situation.

:I always thought Jimmy Carter got a bad rap, and that part of the reason was that he actually ''voiced moderate positions,'' and that he did ''not'' fit neatly into a one-dimensional political spectrum. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:22, 3 March 2007 (EST)

:The two-party system and its polarisation are the cause of almost all that is currently wrong in US politics. It has created an environment where only the extremists have any chance of getting to the top - a moderate, or any sensible person, will succeed only in incuring the wrath of both liberals ''and'' conservatives. - Suricou
::But that's assuming liberalism and conservativism lie at polar opposites. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:34, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

== European Liberals ==

This part near the end of the artical is totally wrong: "Note, that liberal in the European context refers to moderate and center-right parties, often with a pro-business stance."

Best example is the UK Liberal Democrats, they are Left. How can Liberal views like wealth distribution be mixed up with a "center-right" stand.

This is what happens when you giving editing rights to just one, presumably American person. --[[User:Mj|Mj]] 10:05, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Sort order of priorities ==
How about sorting the points in the artical in to some more meaningful way. Maybe you could even break off core belief's, like wealth distribution from current issues like abortion. --[[User:Mj|Mj]] 10:05, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Parochial definition ==

I have long had a real problem with the way that this word is defined in America.

Yes, I know this is Conservapedia and we are all about American usage. But the way this particular word is defined in America seems, in some ways, perverse. I wonder if this definition ought to be a little broader. I am prompted to say this because of the line in the article that says '"Liberal" today means the disfavoring of individual responsibility in favor of collectivism or egalitarianism'. That is almost the opposite of my understanding of the word. What about John Stuart Mill and the freedom of the individual? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 19:14, 3 March 2007 (EST)

:Well, for purposes of this article, I'd suggest: slap a qualification on it: "In the present-day United States, the word liberal means..."

:Then start another section or something. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:22, 3 March 2007 (EST)

:P. S. Don't you just love it that the traditional dead-white-European-male Harold Bloom, "Western canon" educational curriculum is known as the (wait for it...) '''Liberal Arts?''' (rimshot) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:24, 3 March 2007 (EST)

==Vandalism?==

The last three listed "characteristics" of liberalism seem to be sarcastic caricatures of conservative positions. I'm especially suspicious because the evolution reference seems redundant, and it also directly states that creationism is not science. I think I'm going to remove the last three. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 20:52, 7 March 2007 (EST)

== Aliens? ==

Do Liberals really attempt to achieve amnesty for illegal aliens? --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 21:05, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Some do. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 21:05, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:So does George W. Bush. --[[User:Gulik|Gulik]] 22:49, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

But are they not aware that aliens are sometimes really dangerous? It is O.K not to hate every foreigner, ... but aliens? --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 21:07, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:If my ancestors had had your attitude, we'd all be speaking Navaho today. --[[User:Gulik|Gulik]] 22:49, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
:Or you'd just be speaking your butchered version of English, moron. [[User:Opacic|Opacic]] 05:21, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
::Are you advocating genocide? Or are you saying a genocide wouldn't have happened? [[User:Mustaine12390|Mustaine12390]] 16:35, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Why were my changings reverted? ==

I made some changings to the article, by adding some more information. But they were reverted without any reason. I think the main reason why this project was started is because they used to revert imortant contributions to articles in wikipedia. So there should not be removement of important facts that are added. Or do I get something wrong? --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 21:27, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:The "reversion" key does not allow explanation. Let me explain here. Your additions were not factual enough. Saying liberals want "reform" is meaningless. You said they want more wealth for the poor. No one is against that either. The point of this entry is to describe how liberals distinguish themselves in their beliefs. No one favors harming the environment either.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:36, 7 March 2007 (EST)
:: The "reform" comes from "American Heritage Dictionary". Of course no one is against more wealth for the poor. But the liberals are tending to take a lot of money from the rich to achieve that. And of course no one favours harming the environment. But most just do not really care. Look who is driving the hybrids. Most of them are liberals. No American but Japanese cars. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 21:41, 7 March 2007 (EST)

== Foreign Treaties are liberal? ==

First off, treaties by their nature are foreign since we sign them with other countries. So that is redundant. Secondly, many conservative presidents have signed treaties, so how can they be a "liberal" goal? Thirdly, conservative presidents have signed disarmament treaties, or has everyone forgotten Reagan and Gorbachev signing the INF Treaty in 1988? --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 10:29, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:Well, President George W. Bush has made it clear he's not going to obey any treaties that might endanger America, so he's not as liberal as SOME presidents. --[[User:Fullmetajacket|Fullmetajacket]] 00:30, 11 March 2007 (EST)

::I believe that any President is bound by the Constitution to honor treaties that have been ratified by the Senate. To do otherwise could well lead to a breakdown of constitutional principles such as separation of powers.[[User:Cracker|Second Amendment]] 01:27, 11 March 2007 (EST)

::President Bush has also made it clear he is also not bound by the "separation of powers" if it might endanger America. --[[User:Fullmetajacket|Fullmetajacket]] 16:31, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

== References for the "typical" liberal positions? ==

Please add references for each position and maybe try tor sort it. I would do it if i would be competent on the american political system and culture; sadly i am not. Maybe one could sort it into the categories "economic beliefs in international trade", "economic beliefs regarding financing public services" and "relation between state and citizen". So something like "funding abortions from tax money" is a combination of "health system funded by taxes" and the belief "abortion is a personal health decision by the women" (i am not judging about either of the claims; my opinion is that the state should do everything to decrease the reasons for abortion. It is a shame for any industrialized nation that pregant women see economic causes as a pressure to commit an abortion.).

So clarify the fundamental opinions by references.

== Reference to socialism ==

It used to say that many views of liberals are similar to socialism. This just shows little knowledge of socialism, and the context it operated in. Socialist regimes were often bad for the environment, let criminals and gays in disappear in gulags, were very restrictive on immigration (see guest workers in East Germany), were critical of evolution, oppressed independent trade unions (Solidarnosc in Poland), engaged in the arms race, were militaristic, supported para military organizations, and some even were outright opposed to abortion (Romania). Also issues such as welfare didn't apply, since these countries didn't know this concept.[[User:Order|Order]] 13:45 (AEST)

== Increased taxes? ==

I find it interesting that "increased taxes" is listed among the goals of liberalism. Granted, there is among liberals a generally greater emphasis on social programs geared towards helping the less-fortunate members of society. Since those programs cost money to operate, there is perhaps a tendency towards taxes higher than we would otherwise see without those programs in place. But it seems a bit of a stretch to say that liberals are focused on raising taxes for the sake of raising taxes. Why is "increased taxes" listed?

: Welcome, and please sign your entries with the signature button at the top. Increasing taxes is a way of increasing government power and equalizing wealth, regardless of whether the money is really needed for government services. Liberals support increasing taxes even when there is a budget surplus. Liberals never, ever call for cutting taxes. Please provide an example if you disagee.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:46, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:: "Liberals never, ever call for cutting taxes." That's a pretty bold statement. John F. Kennedy, for example, called for one of the biggest tax cuts in history in 1963. See http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=9387&st=Kennedy&st1=tax.--[[User:FPiaco|FPiaco]] 19:19, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Provide an example saying conservatives '''never''' raise taxes then Aschlafly. It's easy to say something and then say "prove me wrong". If you're going to make a claim like "Liberals never, ''ever'' call for cutting taxes" it's up to you to prove it, not someone else to disprove it. Take a look at your court system if you want to see this in action. [[User:Dallas|Dallas]] 06:40, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== Re: Increased Taxes ==

I didn't notice the signature item earlier. I'll be sure to use it from now on.--[[User:Blr|Blr]] 01:23, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

== Commandments? ==

Doesn’t this list break some or all of the following commandments?

1. Everything you post must be true and verifiable.
2. Always cite and give credit to your sources, even if in the public domain.
6. Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry.

:*Agree. I'm new here but I've already noticed that people don't seem to cite their sources...

So - if this breaks the commandments - shouldn't' it be deleted?

The commandments state: "Edits which violate these rules will be deleted. Users who violate the rules repeatedly will be blocked."

So should not most of this be deleted? It's almost all all unsubstantiated, unverified opinion, and the commandments don't allow for discussion - they just say edits which violate these rules will be deleted.

[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 15:44, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Look, if we held people up to the commandments aschlafley would had to have been blocked ages ago. --[[User:Jack|Jack]] 00:00, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

== Liberal outside of the US ==

You cannot call liberals outside of the US ''socialists''. Neither are ''socialists'' abroad liberal. In many countries, the ''Liberals'' are either moderates or right-wing. Examples are the UK, the Netherlands, Germany, Austria. The Australian PM, from the Liberal Party, is one of the staunchest supporters of President Bush. -- [[User:Order|Order]] 12 March 2007, 23:11 (AEST)

: For ''liberal'' parties in Europe check [http://www.alde.eu/], for socialist parties check [http://www.pes.org/]. These are different organizations, different parties. -- [[User:Order|Order]] 12 March 2007, 23:41 (AEST)
:::Yes, that is one definition of liberal. But, as conservapedia aims to maintain a pro american stance the American definition of liberal is important too. The British Labour Party (who fit the US definition of liberal) are socialists as are many other european parties.--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 08:50, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
::: Does Pro-American mean Anti-World (or "ignore that US-people are less than 5% of the world and that there is a world outside"?) If you write about liberals outside the USA, you have to see what liberals outside the USA are. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 19:40, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

== So why were MY changes deleted? ==

Regarding the taxes issue: In the discussion above, [[User:Blr|Blr]] had a good point. Liberals do not support increasing taxes for the sake of increasing taxes. They support expansive government and social support programs (welfare, Medicare, etc.) that require funding. This creates an increased tendency to raise taxes, but does not mean that liberals necessarily ''want'' to. Additionally, in the above discussion, the justification for keeping the statement on the page was a comment by Mr. Schlafly, stating "Liberals never, ever call for cutting taxes. Please provide an example if you disagree." I did provide an example, and then changed the page; my change was erased within 1 minute. If this site wants to be unbiased, it ought to follow its own first commandment: "Everything you post must be true and verifiable." The support for the increased taxes claim was negated using a strong counterexample. So how does the claim remain "true and verifiable"? With its support gone, the claim is just opinion and does not belong in an encyclopedia. --[[User:FPiaco|FPiaco]] 09:39, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree. As noted above, this page seems to violate three of the site's commandments. Given that there are only seven of them that's quite good going. [[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 15:48, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== Incidentally ==

It is impressive how you make no attempt whatsoever to make this a respectable encyclopedia. I would have thought you people would keep your bias more subtle than this but apparently not given that you seem to think "support of gun control" and
"taxpayer funding of abortion" are the two views which are most synonymous with the liberal cause. I imagine that seeing as you are all true patriots and believe in freedom of speech and democracy, this post will probably last a little less than the amount of time it took me to write it, but at least I got it off my chest.

: Spanky, did you completely make up your entry about [[Peter Singer]]? Is that a liberal thing to do?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:39, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== Links? ==

I was quite a bit disturbed to find that most issues here don't link to their corresponding articles. I created an account to try to make them links and found that the page is protected without even using the template to say that the page is protected. --[[User:Chuck SMITH|Chuck SMITH]] 06:21, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== False Statement ==

The statement that Liberals wish to prevent prayer in schools is false. Liberals wish to prevent '''organised''' prayer in '''public''' schools. [[User:Nirgal|Nirgal]] 13:36, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Why can't this page be edited? ==

It seems to me that this "conservative" effort is little more than a means for some to vent their frustration with the Wikipedia audience. If this were meant to be comparable in scope and superior in quality then more due diligence would be done so that pages were considered accurate, not just conservative. In evaluating the liberal page, it seems that a concerted effort has been made to infuse conservative bias into the definition of the topic. That, to me, is the very definition of propaganda. Unless editors choose to make edits that reflect the truth,and not just conservative spin, this site will become irrelevant. [[User:Menkatron|Menkatron]] 12:19, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:Yeah, that's the feeling I've been getting too. I think it's just that certain people here don't like being proven wrong, so when someone like me attempts to put up factual statements (or at least remove false ones), those certain people (or maybe person) lock the article. You can see the "discussion" about increased taxes above. I'm still waiting for my changes to be incorporated into the article. Good luck in removing the propaganda. --[[User:FPiaco|FPiaco]] 09:36, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== Giving to the poor ==

I am surprised to see "distributing wealth from the rich to the poor" listed as a "liberal" belief -- seems to me this is (or ought to be) a Christian belief, as Jesus himself says to the rich man "sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven" (Mark 10:21).

[[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 12:29, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:Sounds like you are trying to say Jesus is a Democrat? Hardly. Besides, I think you are taking that Bibical statement out of context. Just an FYI. Also, aren't the liberals the ones behind the "warming climate hoax"? [[User:Miles|Miles]] 17:57, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::No, I don't think that Jesus Christ endorses any political party. But His teaching has consistently been that it is the obigation of the wealthy (and indeed, of everyone) to give to the poor, as well as to minister to the sick, visit those in prison, and otherwise render comfort to their fellow men. See Mark 12:41-44, Matthew 25:36, and many other passages. The way in which any given political party, or person interprets or applies those teachings is up to them; it just seemed to me odd that this idea, phrased this way, would be attributed to "Liberals". [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 18:05, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::You appear to be tarring alot of things with the same brush, Miles. That is a gross generalisation of liberalism. Also, given that it is unclear whether climate change is because of human activity how can you say "warming climate hoax"?[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 18:07, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I thought it had been proven to be a hoax, sorry if I am wrong. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 18:08, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

== Alternate defintion of liberal ==

Currently we have an alternate definition of liberal that is "anything that is not conservative" while we have a definition of [[conservative]] that is "one who adheres to principles of limited government, personal responsibility and moral virtue." This strongly implies that liberals do not adhere to personal responsibility and moral virtue. Isn't that needlessly inflammatory? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 15:31, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== Liberal Beliefs ==

I am not sure that you guys understand what liberal means. Here is a list of things that are not liberal on the list you provide:
support of gun control,
taxpayer funding of abortion,
support of gun control,
distributing wealth from the rich to the poor,
government programs to rehabilitate criminals,
increased taxpayer funding of public school,
taxpayer-funded rather than private medical care,
increased taxes,
support of government programs such as welfare,
teaching of evolution (this isn't a set belief by liberals or conservatives, generally though liberals favor the teaching of evolution, however, this should not be added as a set belief)

The problem with this list is that you say it is the beliefs of liberals. However, these are the beliefs of Democrats and not liberals. You guys are making a common error that many citizens make. The error is using liberal as a synonym of Democrat. Democrats though are not true liberals. Democrats are economically conservative. The party that is a true liberal by definition would be the Libertarian Party. Essentially what a true liberal wants is no government at all. In a truly liberal society there would be total anarchy. Liberals want people to be free to do what they want as long as it doesn't hurt other people. Increased taxes is conservative economic issue which Democrats would, yes, be in favor of, but liberals would not be in favor of it. Gun control is another issue that is wanted by some Democrats, however, this too is a conservative belief. Surely this site should know what its beliefs are if it considers it to be a conservative site. This site could be considered a liberal point of view due to the economic views expressed on this site. However, really this site should not consider itself to be liberal or conservative, but rather a Republican view. The website should be www.Republicapedia.com. I don't see how you people can consider yourself conservative when you don't know what conservatism is. Republicans are the biggest bunch of liberals I know.

Minors under 16 years use this site. So I feel that this site should be as accurate as possible and not lie to the innocent children viewing this site.
--[[User:Liberalmedia|Liberalmedia]] 00:38, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

I must admit that I would have thought the same thing - but not being an American citizen - I assumed the word had acquired a different meaning over there. Presumably this explains why none of the entries actually links to anything to source the apparently unsubstantiated opinions expressed here.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 16:01, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:It would help to have some subheadings in this article - the bulletpointed list could be put in a section entitled 'Liberalism in America' or suchlike, and have another section on the libertarian/right-leaning definition more commonly used in Europe etc. --[[User:Rafa|Rafa]] 17:52, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

== Unlock Page ==

Could you please unlock this page so that people can edit it. {{unsigned|Liberalmedia}}
: [[Conservapedia:Request Unprotection]] is thataway. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 12:53, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

== Nonsense ==

This article is a study in overstatement, overgeneralization, and innuendo. Since it violates the first of the Conservapedia Commandments, I propose it for immediate deletion. [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 11:07, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
:Those things are ok sometimes depending on who wrote them. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 11:19, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

== Liberals and Saddam ==
::The portion about being supportive of Saddam is particularly egregious.--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:53, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

This article is unfair to the many liberals who oppose any dictatorship. The piece about liberals is just there to infume them. Lets be fair, because we wouldn't like it either if the article on ''conservative'' said that conservatives have no problems with human right violations and murder, such as in Chile under Pinochet or Burma now, as long as the regime works with them. [[User:Order]]

:This is an undeniable fact. In 2003, so-called liberals were ''the only'' group who (a) identified themselves as liberals and (b) opposed Iraqi human rights and democracy. No one else shared thier views. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:37, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Actually it's a steaming pile of, er, lies. --[[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:24, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::Rob, get your head out of the sand. Every American is in favor of Democracy, for the love of God, get that into your head. Liberals, like me, were opposed to the war because it was poorly planned, poorly committed, we knew it'd be poorly executed, and it was inconsistent with previous stated U.S. policy (see the [[Powell Doctrine]] which I'm sure isn't up yet, since it's a liberal topic). We knew it would end in a quagmire. Liberals would line up 'cross the board in support of spreading democracy if we thought it would be easy in and easy out, but we weren't deluded into thinking it was. You were.
::Ooooh, and guess who was right?-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 20:42, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:[[User:RobS| RobS]], it may be that liberals are not in favorite of human rights, lets not forget that the only conservative who had some courage and decency to take a stand against torture was McCain. So do you want the article on conservatives to say: ''As the discussion around Abu Graib and torture legislation has shown, conservatives do not believe in human rights, and would like to torture at will, and for no good reason, and all the reason that we had to invade Iraq to bring democracy and freedom, was obviously a sham'' just because a few vocal and irresponsible conservatives don't get that these practices are plain wrong, who hardly represent the mainstream conservative position. You should allow both sides to have their share of lunatics on the fringe, but we shouldn't make it part of how we define the mainstream. [[User:Order| Order]] 23 March. 11:50 (AEST)

:: Let's not forget the "Torture Memo," [[user:Order]. I submit one final question to you, [[user:RobS| comrade]]: based on what we now know about how the war should have been executed, should have been planned, what the troops should have gotten before the war in the way of training and armor...
:: ...who really supports the troops? Hint: '''not''' the Bush administration.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 20:57, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
:::AmesG: So your psychic powers told you it was poorly planned, etc., and that's why you went about disrupting public support for the War. The Powell Doctrine is a restatement of Clausewitz, adding "overwhelming use of force", etc. But (a) the Powell Doctrine only referes to conventional type Cold War conflicts with large standing miltiary establishment, fixed targets, etc, and does not address the problems of '''modern 21st century warfare'''. Further, the business about "exit strategy" was always controversial, because it only applies to what Clausewitz refers to as "A War of Limited Aims".[http://www.clausewitz.com/CWZHOME/VomKriege2/BK8ch05.html]
:::Order: That discussion is already in the mainspace at [[Abu Ghraib]]. Arundati Roy, ''et al'', are self identified comrades with murderers and [[terrorist]]s. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:35, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::::I don't need psychic powers to tell me that a war without an exit plan is poorly planned. And it's not me that misinterpreted the type of conflict awaiting in Iraq: the government has consistently treated it like a Cold War style conflict, so conceding your point, your own argument bites you. Seriously, that this war was bungled from the start was never an issue. No exit plan = poorly planned. And Powell thought it applied; that's why he quit.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 21:37, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::We're still waiting for the exit plan from the Korean War, considering it was the policy of contianing Soviet expansion that got us in there, and now with the Soviet Union defunct, we're still waiting on the exit plan.

:::::Point is, only in a war of limited aims can there be an exit plan. And not all wars are wars of limited aims. Idealy, in a perfect world that would be so. But we all know the truth of that matter...

:::::As to it being a Cold War style conflict, as the saying goes, we always plan to fight the last war. Cold War military and 20th century military establishments are not designed to fight modern warfare against terrorist cells. It's a learning curve, and the US is deveolping the special skills needed. Us oldtimers can only give our experience, but if the US is to survive, the present generation must revamp the idea of what soldiering and war is to deal with this enemy which is intent upon destroying Western Civilization, and probably will never quit.

:::::The War on Terror, or the War in Iraq, is not just another "frisch, fröhliche krieg", as the Germans say, a brisk, jolly little war; and comparing it to the Cold War is an understatement, too. Neither is it like both World Wars which were total war between nation-states. But I'm afraid you have (and probably the sources you get much of your information from) drawn too heavily upon these past experiences to base your analogies on. It is an entirley different kind of war that needs entireley different approaches and solutions. Complaining about the things you've stated solves nothing. The John Kerry Administration or Al Gore Administration would be facing these identical problems, so your reservations literally have no merit whatsoever other than ill-founded partisanship.

:::::So then, what do we do? Hide our head in the sand and pray to Allah that the problem will go away? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:16, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::: Your knowledge of German attitude towards war is a bit dated. This was the pre WW-1 mood, about one century ago. There was no "frisch, fröhliche krieg" sentiment at the beginning of WW-2. If anyone was looking for a jolly little war in the last century, then it was mood by the neo-cons (who by my account aren't conservative) prior to the Iraq war.

:::::: There were people with precongnition. Even part of the bush administration was able to have an appropiate plan for the war and its aftermath in iraq. Unfortunately this plan was made by the state department. The Pentagon decided to disregard the recommendations in that plan, ignore the warnings in that plan. They kind of followed a recipe for disaster that was painted in the plan by the state department. There were sufficient people who warned, but the white house and the pentagon decided to ignore these. [[User:Order]] 23 March, 15:30 (AEST)

::::::: A frisch, fröhliche krieg would describe something like Granada or the Falklands, yes there may be real fighting and valor, but ultimately it's more like a game of touch football where nobody gets hurt. So what are you saying? Saddam randomly putting a person in a wood chipper every few months to keep the population terrorized is preferable to 650,000 casualties in building a democratic Iraq? Case closed. Nobody ever said democracy and freedom come cheaply. Liberals abandoned thier long held advocacy of democracy and human rights when they opposed the war. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 01:13, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::::P.S. And all you have are lame partisan arguments that do nothing, absolutely nothing, to further the cause of democracy and human rights.

:::::::: So, the well executed post war planning by the state department was partisan? Just accusing liberals all the time doesn't solve the problems. This administration messed up. And not because it is conservative or liberal, but because they have contempt for experts. They think that these expert also just have an opinion even valid as their own opinion. Interlectually dishonesty is the problem, and I can't see any conservative value in that. It is you who casts everything under sun in partisan terms. [[User:Order|Order]] 23 March, 16:30 (AEST)

::::::::Not wanting to endorse a poorly planned war that could never accomplish its goals - as much as I hope it still will, as do all Democrats - is not the same as not signing off on the goals. I think it'd be super if man could land on Mars, but I'd rather not try to get there in a Cessna 152. My recalcitrance at using such limited means, though, doesn't mean that I dont' think we should at some point land on Mars... -[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 01:19, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::So is the argument (again) that because ''didn't'' have operational capability in WMD that we should have waited until he did, then we could have sent the troops in harms way with the assurance that would suffer a chemical weapons attack. And then that would justify everything. But you and I both know, in that scenario, all we would hear would be "Wjhy didn't we get rid of Saddam ''before'' he had WMD? Why did they wait too long? They knew and they did nothing!" Youn know the script lines, and play the part well, but let's be honest with the folks viewing at home, all this refernce to Bush, Cheney, Powell, etc. is bogus, and has nothing to do with the real matter. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 01:32, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::::::You just come with your ''talking-points''. The ''talking points business'' an insult for any conservative who is able to think for himself. Anyway, tell us what the matter is? What does your ''talking point list'' say about this topic? [[User:Order|Order]] 23 March, 16:40 (AEST)

It's really hard to argue that the world is a better place without Saddam in it. I'm not even going to try. But what I can argue is that liberal thought maybe... juuuuuuuustt maybe... the administration shouldn't have gone in there with such a rosy picture of what was going to happen. George H.W. Bush knew what the consequences of a Baghdad invasion would look like. He knew it in 1991. W didn't have to listen to liberals to figure out what would happen, he just had to call his dad.

And let's not forget... Saddam was contained. His ability to mount any kind of offensive war was extremely limited, he was under constant surveilance. Time was our ally here. We lost that ally like we did the rest of them. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 01:43, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::It was easy to predict the failure of the Iraq war based on the worldview of those who planned it. Neoconservativism has always been scoffed at by all serious foreign policy experts because it fundamentally misunderstands the nature of power and the role of nationalism in political behavior. It is why all of Bush's policies have been failures--because he tries to implement conservative policies and conservative policies are fundamentally flawed because they are premised on false assumptions about authority and erroneous predictions regarding human behavior and how it responds to authority.--[[User:Jack|Jack]] 00:13, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

==Liberals in Europe ==
I saw that you changed that liberal in europe from "center to right wing" to "so-called center and right wing". Tell us what is "so-called" center and right wing about the liberal parties in Germany, austria or the VVD in the Netherlands? They are centre or right wig.[[User:Order|Order]]
:This refers to the Left/Right Spectrum Theory, as we have discovered in the most recent example--Iraq, is totally devoid in understanding politcal groups, coalitions, parties, groupings, ideologies, or loyalties. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:35, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:: So why do you use it? And what does that have to do about the fact that Liberals outside of the US, do not fit this defiition of liberal. Do you actually know what liberal parties in Europe stand for, say VVD in the Netherlands, FDP in Germany, Venstre Parti in Denmark, or FPÖ in Austria? Where they position themselves in the political spectum? Or do you know, to mention a non european example, what attitude the leader of the Australian Liberal Party has towards the war in Iraq? I guess you just don't know it, and therefore try to change the subject. [[User:Order|Order]] 23 March 15:40 (AEST)

== Gun Control ==

Liberals don't want gun control. I would like to see sources that state otherwise. Liberals are all about individual freedoms and gun control takes away from their freedoms. Just because Democrats want gun control doesn't mean that liberals want gun control. This is the definition given by dictionary.com [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal]
:''favorable to or in accord with concepts of '''maximum individual freedom possible''', esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties. ''--[[User:Liberalmedia|Liberalmedia]] 23:15, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:In US, a liberal who doesn't want gun control is a libertarian. [[User:Noodles|Noodles]] 00:31, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Libmed is right [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:09, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Cites==

The citation to http://www.economyprofessor.com/economictheories/economic-liberalism.php would, IMO, be a '''conservative''' economic goal. That is, limited governmental interaction within the markets.--[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 23:16, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:*Hey, Cracker. I understand why you think that it is a conservative economic goal. The reason why you think this is that Republicans are wanting these same economic goals. However, the mistake you are making is that any goal on the Republican party's platform must be a conservative view. However, this is not true. Economic liberalism is wanting essentially no governmental interference on economic policy. Also, if you check out wikipedia (Sorry) they will state how economic liberalism is the Republican's ideology on economic matters.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States)] Any view that is against government controls is a liberal view. Any view that gives more power to the government is a conservative view.

::Yes. We're in agreement...I think the original citer saw "economic-liberalism" and ''assumed'' it MUST be a politcally liberal idea!

::The current crop of "conservatives" seem to forget they're for SMALL government and less economic regulation. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 23:51, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

== Protection ==

The protection log says to see the talk page. As there is nothing on the talk page, I thought I'd put something here. So... protected again, huh? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 03:50, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

*Well, it said for David (Hoji) to see it. ;-) I meant to only protect against unregistered users, and that I fixed. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 03:59, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::I thought only registered users could edit at all. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 04:10, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

*Nope, not according to the protection choices. I can protect against everyone but Sysop's, unregistered users only, or make it normal, which, I am assuming, since it gives me the other choices, means unregistered users. Who knows, lol..not like there is some instruction book. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 04:42, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Unregistered users are blocked across the entire wiki. That's why you don't see lots of edits by IP addresses. If you can stomach it, check out a popular wikipedia page and look at the history. Lots of edits are from unreigtered users. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 04:45, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

*Man, it's almost two in the morning here, and I am in real need of a Stoli and completing my daily quota of email/spam/crap, lol. (ADDED) I only know those are the choices I am given. I've never tried to edit as a unregistered user.--~ --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 18:12, 23 March 2007 (EDT)[[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 04:53, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Broadest possible application==
The article currently lists "Broadest possible application of the Geneva Conventions and the American Constitution", and someone added "(except the 2nd amendment)". What does this mean? I've never noticed that liberals want applications of the Geneva Conventions and the American Constitution that are any broader than anyone else. Maybe they are more willing to alter constitutional principles to promote their agendas, but they don't broadly apply the constitution. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:00, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
*Yes, I agree, however Democrats in both the House and Senate actually have campaigned to try terrorists, or non-uniformed enemy combatants in civilian courts, rather than the Geneva Convention mandated Military Tribunals. That, I guess, users might class as their "proof" of wanting broader applications, lol. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 20:45, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== How can we forget the fact that... ==

... liberals eat aborted fetuses while smoking pot and having homosexual sex while burning flags and bibles? Oh, and worst of all, they believe in... ... ... scientific process and objectivity. Wicked, evil things, they are. Spreading their ''bias'' everywhere like a plague. --[[User:BillOReillyFan|BillOReillyFan]] 22:30, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::actully liberals believe in subjectivity, as in subjectiveness of morality, not objectivity.

*What? --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 22:39, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== Isolationist vs Interventionalists ==

The repeated edits and reverts of the "support of/opposition to an American foreign policy that supports ..." are annoying. Mostly because this is more a difference of opinion between ''isolationists'' and ''interventionists'', and not between liberals and conservatives. You can find isolationists and interventionists on both sides of the political divide. [[User:Order]] 24 March 13:30

Separation of church and state

2007-03-24T05:08:22Z

Noodles:

'''Separation of church and state''' is a very loose interpretation of part of the [[Establishment Clause]] of the [[United States Constitution]]. The section in question reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof....".<ref>[http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmenti 1st Amendment of the US Constitution]</ref> This phrase is commonly interpreted to mean that all issues regarding the [[Government]] and those regarding the [[Church]] be kept seperate. However, strict-constructionists insist that the constitution must be interpreted verbatim.

[[Thomas Jefferson]] first coined the phrase in 1801.<ref>[http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06-2.html Religion and the Federal Government], ''LOC.gov''</ref>, in his letter to the Danbury Baptist Association<ref>[http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/dba_jefferson.html Letter from Thomas Jefferson to the DBA]</ref>

The [[Treaty of Tripoli]], drafted during Washington's presidency and ratified by John Adams, states that "The government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."<ref>[http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/barbary/bar1796t.htm Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11.] Ratified in 1796 and again in 1797.</ref> Many proponents of a Christian America point out that the treaty was superseded by the [[Treaty of Peace and Amity]] in 1805 (although the superseding of the treaty does not change John Adams' secular view of the United States).

== References ==
<references/>

Conservative

2007-03-24T05:07:41Z

Noodles:

A '''conservative''' is one who adheres to principles of limited government, personal responsibility and moral virtue. He or she may agree with the statement in George Washington's [[Farewell Address]] that "religion and morality are indispensable supports" to political prosperity.<ref>http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/49.htm</ref> Conservatism arose in the 19th century as a response to [[liberalism]], particularly as manifested in the [[French Revolution]].

== What is a Conservative? ==

Jonah Goldberg wrote a excellent piece on this in [[National Review]] Which is quoted, in part, below...

"In the United States, conservatives are generally characterized by the following beliefs:

# A deep suspicion of the power of the state.
# A preference for liberty over equality.
# Patriotism.
# A belief in established institutions and hierarchies.
# Skepticism about the idea of progress.

Points 2, 4, 5, run obviously counter to the idea that things can ever be perfectly harmonious. Preferring liberty over equality means preferring inequalities in some circumstances. Acceptance of established institutions and hierarchies is obviously anathema to those seeking an organic balance where everyone fulfills their destiny equally and happily. Ditto acceptance of elitism, which is simply the belief that at the end of the day there are some people who are going to be better at a given thing than other people, and education, welfare, and other “interventions” by the state won’t change that. In other words, point 1. As for point 5, this runs against the grain of Hegel-based worldviews that assume that merely ripping pages off a calendar gets us closer to the eschatological kewpie doll at the End of Days.

All that leaves is point 3, patriotism. Now, patriotism and nationalism are very different things and there are many people on the right and left who think nationalism is definitionally conservative or right-wing. This is nonsense on very tall stilts. Patriotism, however is merely the devotion to a set of ideals, rooted in history, and attached to a specific place. And once again we are spun back to [[Hayek]]. To a certain extent patriotism is conservatism, in the same way that being a [[Christian]] involves some level of conservatism. It is a devotion to a set of principles set forth in the past and carried forward to today and, hopefully, tomorrow. (I wish it weren’t necessary to point out that this is a non-partisan point: Patriotic [[liberals]] are holding dear some aspects of our past as well.) What we call patriotism is often merely the content we use to fill-up the amoral conservatism discussed above. Axiomatically, if you are unwilling to conserve any of the institutions, customs, traditions, or principles inherent to this country you simply aren’t patriotic and, as a side note, the more you think the [[United Nations]] is the savior of the world, the less patriotic you are."

[http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZWMxNWNiNDJkY2JmNTExY2E1MzdkYWU3MWU1MTBiOGU=]

==Conservatives in the United Kingdom==

In the United Kingdom the present parliamentary opposition party is called the [[Conservative party]] and as it's name suggests hold traditional conservative views. Its current leader is [[David Cameron]]. In politcal policy the UK Conservatives are more closely aligned to the US Democrats, despite them being the most right of the main 3 parties.

Up until the mid-19th century, the forerunners of the Conservatives were known as [[Tory|Tories]], and the name has persisted as a common nickname both for the political party and those believed to be in agreement with it.

There is generally a strong bias towards the nuclear family over other forms of cohabitation. Since the late 1970s, UK conservatives have been defined by an advocacy of [[Laissez-faire]] economics, privatization and lower taxation.

Religion as a whole and biblical literalism in particular play only a very minor role in UK politics (arguably with the exception of Northern Ireland).

In common with conservatives in many other countries, UK Conservatives tend towards a [[Nationalist]] outlook, and are traditionally sceptical of the [[European Union]], although it was the Tory Prime Minister [[Edward Heath]] who took Britain into the [[EU|EEC]].

== References ==

Conservative party UK <http://www.conservatives.com/>
[[Category:Politics]]

Conservative

2007-03-24T05:07:26Z

Noodles:

A '''conservative''' is one who adheres to principles of limited government, personal responsibility and moral virtue. He or she may agree with the statement in George Washington's [[Farewell Address]] that "religion and morality are indispensable supports" to political prosperity.<ref>http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/49.htm</ref> Conservatism arose in the 19th century as a response to [[liberalism]], particularly as manifested in the [[French Revolution]].

== What is a Conservative? ==

Jonah Goldberg wrote a excellent piece on this in [[National Review]] Which is quoted, in part, below...

"In the United States, conservatives are generally characterized by the following beliefs:

# A deep suspicion of the power of the state.
# A preference for liberty over equality.
# Patriotism.
# A belief in established institutions and hierarchies.
# Skepticism about the idea of progress.

Points 2, 4, 5, and 6 run obviously counter to the idea that things can ever be perfectly harmonious. Preferring liberty over equality means preferring inequalities in some circumstances. Acceptance of established institutions and hierarchies is obviously anathema to those seeking an organic balance where everyone fulfills their destiny equally and happily. Ditto acceptance of elitism, which is simply the belief that at the end of the day there are some people who are going to be better at a given thing than other people, and education, welfare, and other “interventions” by the state won’t change that. In other words, point 1. As for point 5, this runs against the grain of Hegel-based worldviews that assume that merely ripping pages off a calendar gets us closer to the eschatological kewpie doll at the End of Days.

All that leaves is point 3, patriotism. Now, patriotism and nationalism are very different things and there are many people on the right and left who think nationalism is definitionally conservative or right-wing. This is nonsense on very tall stilts. Patriotism, however is merely the devotion to a set of ideals, rooted in history, and attached to a specific place. And once again we are spun back to [[Hayek]]. To a certain extent patriotism is conservatism, in the same way that being a [[Christian]] involves some level of conservatism. It is a devotion to a set of principles set forth in the past and carried forward to today and, hopefully, tomorrow. (I wish it weren’t necessary to point out that this is a non-partisan point: Patriotic [[liberals]] are holding dear some aspects of our past as well.) What we call patriotism is often merely the content we use to fill-up the amoral conservatism discussed above. Axiomatically, if you are unwilling to conserve any of the institutions, customs, traditions, or principles inherent to this country you simply aren’t patriotic and, as a side note, the more you think the [[United Nations]] is the savior of the world, the less patriotic you are."

[http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZWMxNWNiNDJkY2JmNTExY2E1MzdkYWU3MWU1MTBiOGU=]

==Conservatives in the United Kingdom==

In the United Kingdom the present parliamentary opposition party is called the [[Conservative party]] and as it's name suggests hold traditional conservative views. Its current leader is [[David Cameron]]. In politcal policy the UK Conservatives are more closely aligned to the US Democrats, despite them being the most right of the main 3 parties.

Up until the mid-19th century, the forerunners of the Conservatives were known as [[Tory|Tories]], and the name has persisted as a common nickname both for the political party and those believed to be in agreement with it.

There is generally a strong bias towards the nuclear family over other forms of cohabitation. Since the late 1970s, UK conservatives have been defined by an advocacy of [[Laissez-faire]] economics, privatization and lower taxation.

Religion as a whole and biblical literalism in particular play only a very minor role in UK politics (arguably with the exception of Northern Ireland).

In common with conservatives in many other countries, UK Conservatives tend towards a [[Nationalist]] outlook, and are traditionally sceptical of the [[European Union]], although it was the Tory Prime Minister [[Edward Heath]] who took Britain into the [[EU|EEC]].

== References ==

Conservative party UK <http://www.conservatives.com/>
[[Category:Politics]]

File talk:ScriptAmesLogo.jpg

2007-03-24T05:05:01Z

Noodles:

Again, I release all etc etc. -[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 00:54, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

I hate to be picky, but i think it's too bold and too fancy. In fact, I think the first one was just about perfect. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 00:56, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:Isn't the position of the text too low? Wouldn't it be better in the middle?

File talk:ScriptAmesLogo.jpg

2007-03-24T05:04:41Z

Noodles:

Pastafarian

2007-03-24T04:51:39Z

Noodles:

Fire

2007-03-24T04:50:57Z

Noodles:

'''Fire''' is the result of a [[chemical]] process that produces [[heat]], [[light]], and [[smoke]]. Fire is dependent on oxygen for combustion and will spread if not controlled. Most cultures associate fire with [[evil]]. The symbol of the [[Holy Ghost]] is fire and it is used frequently to depict [[Hell]].

Fire

2007-03-24T04:50:46Z

Noodles:

'''Fire''' is the result of a [[chemical]] process that produces [[heat]], [[light]], and [[smoke]]. Fire is dependent on oxygen for combustion and will spread if not controlled. Most cultures associate fire with evil. The symbol of the [[Holy Ghost]] is fire and it is used frequently to depict [[Hell]].

Pastafarian

2007-03-24T04:49:43Z

Noodles:

'''Pastafarianism''' is a [[religion]] created by a group of [[atheist]]s which believes that a deity known as the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" created the universe. This belief system was brought into the public eye by Bobby Henderson when he wrote to the Kansas School Board when they were teaching intelligent design, and demanded that all forms of [[Intelligent Design]] be taught.

Pastafarian

2007-03-24T04:49:26Z

Noodles:

'''Pastafarianism''' is a [[religion]] created by a group of [[athiest]]s which believes that a deity known as the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" created the universe. This belief system was brought into the public eye by Bobby Henderson when he wrote to the Kansas School Board when they were teaching intelligent design, and demanded that all forms of [[Intelligent Design]] be taught.

Pastafarian

2007-03-24T04:49:09Z

Noodles:

'''Pastafarianism''' is a [[religion]] created by [[athiests]] which believes that a deity known as the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" created the universe. This belief system was brought into the public eye by Bobby Henderson when he wrote to the Kansas School Board when they were teaching intelligent design, and demanded that all forms of [[Intelligent Design]] be taught.

Emacs

2007-03-24T04:42:36Z

Noodles:

{{stub}}

Emacs is an open source text editor which is used mainly by luddite computer programmers. It is designed to be arcane enough that it requires an extensive amount of time to learn to operate efficiently.

== Emacs Lisp ==
Emacs Lisp (often known to professionals as elisp) is the programming through which Emacs operates. The majority of Emacs features and tools are written in elisp, running above an Emacs ''kernel'' that is written in C. Emacs users commonly spend a great deal of time customizing the elisp portion of Emacs in order to better tailor Emacs to their needs.

[[Category:Information technology]]

Pastafarian

2007-03-24T04:40:56Z

Noodles:

'''Pastafarianism''' is a [[religion]] advocated by many [[atheists]], which believes that a deity known as the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" created the universe. This belief system was brought into the public eye by Bobby Henderson when he wrote to the Kansas School Board when they were teaching intelligent design, and demanded that all forms of ID be taught.

Pastafarian

2007-03-24T04:40:10Z

Noodles:

Pastafarian

2007-03-24T04:34:17Z

Noodles:

Pastafarian

2007-03-24T04:33:41Z

Noodles:

'''Pastafarianism''' is a [[religion]] advocated by many atheists, which believes that a deity known as the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" created the universe. This belief system was brought into the public eye by Bobby Henderson when he wrote to the Kansas School Board when they were teaching intelligent design, and demanded that all forms of ID be taught. It has as much credibility as any other religon.

Mac OS X

2007-03-24T03:30:13Z

Noodles:

[[Image:Tiger.png|thumb|right|Mac OS X's Aqua graphical user interface]]

'''Mac OS X''' is an operating system developed by Apple Inc. It is a Unix-like operating system with a hybrid-kernel based on technologies NeXT Software, Inc. developed for its NEXTSTEP operating system, and code from the FreeBSD project.

The graphical user interface in '''Mac OS X''' is called Aqua, which includes a Dashboard that allows for mini programs called '''Widgets''' to be placed on the desktop. All applications included in OS X follows a well defined set of Human Interface Guidelines giving them an intuitive, consistent user interface. Aqua also comes with a dock similar to the taskbar found in Windows operating systems, that displays an icon or thumbnail for running software applications.

[[Category:Information technology]]

Mac OS X

2007-03-24T03:29:42Z

Noodles:

[[Image:Tiger.png|thumb|right|Aqua GUI]]

'''Mac OS X''' is an operating system developed by Apple Inc. It is a Unix-like operating system with a hybrid-kernel based on technologies NeXT Software, Inc. developed for its NEXTSTEP operating system, and code from the FreeBSD project.

The graphical user interface in '''Mac OS X''' is called Aqua, which includes a Dashboard that allows for mini programs called '''Widgets''' to be placed on the desktop. All applications included in OS X follows a well defined set of Human Interface Guidelines giving them an intuitive, consistent user interface. Aqua also comes with a dock similar to the taskbar found in Windows operating systems, that displays an icon or thumbnail for running software applications.

[[Category:Information technology]]

File:Tiger.png

2007-03-24T03:29:01Z

Noodles:

Mac OS X

2007-03-24T03:26:28Z

Noodles:

'''Mac OS X''' is the operating system developed by Apple Inc. It is a Unix-like operating system with a hybrid-kernel based on technologies NeXT Software, Inc. developed for its NEXTSTEP operating system, and code from the FreeBSD project.

The graphical user interface in '''Mac OS X''' is called Aqua, which includes a Dashboard that allows for mini programs called '''Widgets''' to be placed on the desktop. All applications included in OS X follows a well defined set of Human Interface Guidelines giving them an intuitive, consistent user interface. Aqua also comes with a dock similar to the taskbar found in Windows operating systems, that displays an icon or thumbnail for running software applications.

[[Category:Information technology]]

Mac OS X

2007-03-24T03:25:51Z

Noodles: New page: '''Mac OS X''' is the operating system developed by Apple Inc. It is a Unix-like operating system with a hybrid-kernel based on technologies NeXT Software, Inc. developed for its NEXTSTEP...

'''Mac OS X''' is the operating system developed by Apple Inc. It is a Unix-like operating system with a hybrid-kernel based on technologies NeXT Software, Inc. developed for its NEXTSTEP operating system, and code from the FreeBSD project.

The graphical user interface in '''Mac OS X''' is called Aqua, which includes a Dashboard that allows for mini programs called '''Widgets''' to be placed on the desktop. All applications included in OS X follows a well defined set of Human Interface Guidelines giving them an intuitive, consistent graphical user interface. Aqua also comes with a dock similar to the taskbar found in Windows operating systems, that displays an icon or thumbnail for running software applications.

[[Category:Information technology]]

Normed vector space

2007-03-24T02:59:15Z

Noodles: New page: A normed vector space is a vector space equipped with a length-measuring function called the norm. Category:Mathematics

A normed vector space is a [[vector space]] equipped with a length-measuring function called the [[norm]].

[[Category:Mathematics]]

Manifold

2007-03-24T02:47:50Z

Noodles:

An '''n'''-dimensional manifold M is a [[topological space]] such that every point in M has a neighbourhood that is [[homeomorphism|homeomorphic]] to '''R'''''n''.

[[Category:Mathematics]]

Manifold

2007-03-24T02:45:17Z

Noodles:

An '''n'''-dimensional manifold M is a [[topological space]] such that every point in M has a neighbourhood that is [[homeomorphic]] to '''R'''''n''.

[[Category:Mathematics]]

Manifold

2007-03-24T02:45:00Z

Noodles: New page: A n-dimensional manifold M is a topological space such that every point in M has a neighbourhood that is homeomorphic to '''R'''''n''. Category:Mathematics

A n-dimensional manifold M is a [[topological space]] such that every point in M has a neighbourhood that is [[homeomorphic]] to '''R'''''n''.

[[Category:Mathematics]]

Global warming

2007-03-24T02:33:33Z

Noodles: /* Global warming advocacy sites */

The '''global warming controversy''' centers on the controversial theory that the earth's atmosphere is heating up at a dangerous rate, because of human activities such as [[greenhouse gas]] emissions from burning [[fossil fuels]] (see [[Anthropogenic global warming]]). Supporters usually feel that immediate (not to say drastic) action must be taken to reduce these omissions (see [[Kyoto Protocol]]).

The theory enjoys wide political support, but many climatologists and meteorologists disagree with it. The United Nations' climate panel ([[UNIPCC]]) has assessed the theory and found that there is a "scientific consensus" in favor of it. Scientists [[Richard Lindzen]] and John Christy, among others, deny that such a consensus exists.

The name is inaccurate, and should be '''Global Climate Change''', as the increasing amount of heat stored in the atmosphere has had disruptive effects leading to colder weather in some areas.

== Scientific background ==

The theory of climate change concerns many varied factors, but one of the most commonly cited is that of 'the greenhouse effect.'

This is what occurs when high energy solar radiation loses energy upon entry to the Earth's atmosphere. It then is 'trapped' inside it, thus heating up the Earth, to the extent of approximately 25 degrees Fahrenheit. It cannot escape, however, as it has a lower frequency and thus cannot re-penetrate the atmosphere. This is essential for the survival on life on Earth, but proponents of the Climate Change theory argue that this system is being unbalanced by a human-caused (anthropogenic) increase in levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, which trap more heat in, raising the overall temperature. They argue that this would have numerous adverse effects; it could cause polar ice to melt, thus raising sea levels, and could cause desertification to already vulnerable regions. <ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/climate/evidence/greenhouse_effect_img.shtml</ref>

== History ==
The scientific theory is widely accepted within the scientific community<ref>http://www.ipcc.ch/</ref>. Conservatives who are opposed to the political proposals that flow from acceptance of the theory, are skeptical of the theorists, and challenge the scientific validity of portions of the theory.

:1) The theory that we are currently in a period of climate change consisting of increasing temperature, which, if it were to continue, would have important socio-economic consequences well within the next century.

:2) The theory that this change is caused by increasing CO2 gasses and a resulting "greenhouse" effect.

:3) The theory that this change is caused by human activity, mostly industrial emissions of carbon-based "greenhouse gasses."
Much of the discussion of climate change concerns

:4) The proposal that global warming can and should be reversed by taking large-scale international action to reduce greenhouse emissions.

Point #1 has become very widely accepted in the past few decades, even by conservatives who were once skeptical, but argue that the rising temperature is due to other factors. <ref>http://www.nationalcenter.org/WCT012304.html</ref> <ref>http://www.californiaconservative.org/liberals/global-warming-an-ardent-liberal-opens-up/</ref>
<ref>http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/3/5/91239/48194</ref>

Point #1 is argued against by those showing record cold temperatures around the globe. These record cold spells tend to be in isolated locations, and the arctic and antarctic, telling indicators of global temperature trends, are both heating, and fast. <ref>http://www.physorg.com/news2860.html</ref> <ref>http://www.erh.noaa.gov/box/productDisplay.php?product=BOSRERBOS</ref> <ref>http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/12/07/D8EBMGIO0.html</ref>

Points #2 and point #3 are more controversial, although widely accepted by many scientists. Point #3 is the one most attacked by global warming skeptics.

Point #4 is what the political and international debate are about. Both climate change itself, and the very large-scale actions that are proposed to combat it, would have enormous economic effects with identifiable winners and losers, resulting in an intense debate. For example, since the industrialized nations emit most of the CO2, if it were agreed that these emissions needed to be reduced sharply, the burden would fall much more heavily on these nations than on undeveloped nations. {{fact}}

== Al Gore and politics ==
Al Gore, Vice President under President Clinton from 1992 to 2000, is a high profile advocate of the full global warming theory. Promoters of this theory, including many prominent scientists, call for international treaties, like one proposed in Kyoto, Japan, to limit carbon emissions using a combination of conservation and technological innovation.<ref>http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/kyoto/kyotorpt.html</ref>

The theory is widely accepted within the scientific community because of the vast amount of conclusive evidence {{fact}}, though that is not to say there is unanimity.<ref>Myths of Global Warming[http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba230.html]</ref><ref>No Evidence for Global Warming[http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed012298b.cfm]</ref> On February 2, 2007, an international panel of hundreds of scientists and representatives of 113 governments issued a report concluding:

The observed widespread warming of the atmosphere and ocean, together with ice-mass loss, support the conclusion that it is extremely unlikely that global climate change of the past 50 years can be explained without external forcing, and very likely that is not due to known natural causes alone."<ref>Borenstein, Seth (2007), "Warming 'Likely' Man-Made, Unstoppable." Associated Press, as published by Forbes[http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/02/02/ap3388409.html]</ref>

Al Gore's film [http://imdb.com/title/tt0497116/usercomments?start=60 An Inconvenient Truth] (already available on DVD that was reviewed by experts {{fact}} and in [http://www.amazon.com/Inconvenient-Truth-Planetary-Emergency-Warming/dp/1594865671 book format]) has recently been challenged by an entertaining and informative documentary on Channel 4 in the UK entitled "The Great Global Warming Swindle".<ref> http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html</ref>. Despite the popularity of the Channel 4 documentary, experts claim it has flaws and scientists appearing in it complained that they have been misled<ref>http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/papersonline/responseto_channel4.htm</ref>, and are is considering legal action against the documentary makers for misrepresenting him.

Criticisms of Mr. Gore have come not only from conservative groups and prominent skeptics of catastrophic warming, but also from rank-and-file scientists like Dr. Easterbook, who told his peers that he had no political ax to grind. A few see natural variation as more central to global warming than heat-trapping gases. Many appear to occupy a middle ground in the climate debate, seeing human activity as a serious threat but challenging what they call the extremism of both skeptics and zealots.[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/science/13gore.html?_r=1&oref=slogin]

== The conservative view ==
Just as the pro-global warming scientists are benefiting from promoting global warming, the global warming skeptical scientists have had funding from energy companies. <ref>http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2004397,00.html</ref> It can be said that they profit from energy stock, just as well as the pro-global warming scientists. However, the skeptics are not selling carbon credits, but they are profiting from selling alternative energy products and services. {{fact}}

In the UK, Conservatives propose a bill that will tax flights to combat climate change.<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6438685.stm</ref> Governor of California [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]] signed the Global Warming Solutions Act to try and curb global warming.<ref>http://gov.ca.gov/index.php?/press-release/4111/</ref> The Pentagon has told [[George W. Bush]] that global warming is a real threat.<ref>http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1153513,00.html</ref> [[George W. Bush]] admits that global warming is a problem, but that there is still some debate about it.<ref>http://www.people.com/people/article/0,26334,1210402,00.html</ref>

== Evangelical view ==
In Febuary of 2006, eighty-six evangelical church leaders backed an initative to combat global warming.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/08/national/08warm.html</ref> This call to action acknowledges the growing body of evidence that global warming is happening and acknowledges the pledge in 2004 that humans have "a sacred responsibility to steward the Earth and not a license to abuse the [[creation]] of which we are a part." <ref>http://www.christiansandclimate.org/statement</ref> This stance is not held by all evangelical church leaders; some of whom claim that this is distracting from other social issues.
<ref>http://www.creationcare.org/files/global_warming_briefing.pdf</ref>

A sharp difference of opinion over which issues ought to top the political agenda of Christian conservatives spilled out into the open at a March 8th meeting of the National Association of Evangelicals. Rev. Richard Cizik has been outspoken on the global warming issue, saying in a recent documentary that "to harm this world by environmental degradation is an offense against God." Cizik warned that "if you put the politics first and make it primary, I believe that is a tragic and fateful choice." The NAE has issued a press release which continues to back Cizik. <ref>http://www.abpnews.com/1833.article</ref>

== Conflicting Opinions/Data ==

The global warming theory is a scientific theory, that has been supported by many peer-reviewed journal articles, published in highly respected international scientific journals.

== Global warming advocacy sites ==
Many web sites, forms, blogs, and other web sites exist for educating the public about global warming. Here is a list of these web sites:
* [http://www.climatecrisis.net/ Climate Crisis] Educational website that offers information about An inconvenient truth.
* [http://www.stopglobalwarming.org/ Stop Global Warming] Sells books on stopping global warming, has a list of companies selling global warming items.
* [http://www.climateark.org/blog/ Climate Change Blog] Links to other global warming blogs.
* [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/topics/global+warming Huffington Post Global Warming Blog] Appears to promote news paper and advertising by promoting global warming.
* [http://www.updebate.org United Political Debate]
* [http://www.realclimate.org Real Climate] Scientific Blogs maintained by scientists in the field

== Global warming Skeptist sites ==
* [http://www.climateaudit.org/ Climate Audit]

==References==
<references/>

Michael Moore

2007-03-24T02:31:06Z

Noodles:

'''Michael Moore''' (born April 23, 1954) is an [[Academy Award]] winning filmmaker and bestselling author who presents [[liberal|left wing]] views in a polemical way.

Before producing "Bowling for Columbine," Moore was the producer and host of the television series "The Awful Truth," which was typified by a type of sketch-comedy activism that was often directed against large corporations and government agencies.

He is well-known as a practicing Catholic who tithes 10% of his income to the Church, a [[socialist]] and a member of the [[National Rifle Association]] (although Moore has claimed that he joined this organization in order to make it support gun control). <ref>http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel040403.asp</ref> He has been an outspoken critic of the administration of President [[George W Bush]].

Some of his work includes the documentary films ''Farenheit 9/11'', ''Roger and Me'', and ''Bowling for Columbine'', and the books ''Dude, Where's my Country'', ''Downsize This! Random Threats from an Unarmed American''. and ''Stupid White Men''.

His production company which produces feature documentary films is Michael Moore Films [[http://www.michaelmoore.com/]]

Moore has been accused of using deceit to make his points, especially in ''Fahrenheit 9/11'', many of the claims of which a number of people have questioned. <ref>http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/</ref>

Michael Moore was the subject of the 2004 documentaries '''Michael Moore Hates America'''<ref>http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0411646/</ref>, '''Fahrenhype 9/11'''<ref>http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0427228/</ref> and the 2007 documentary '''Manufacturing Dissent'''<ref>http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0961117/</ref>. He was also the subject of books include '''Michael Moore Is a Big Fat Stupid White Man''' by David T. Hardy and Jason Clarke<ref>http://www.amazon.com/Michael-Moore-Big-Stupid-White/dp/0060779608/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-2466588-5816760?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1174624100&sr=1-1</ref>, '''Forgive Us Our Spins: Michael Moore and the Future of the Left''' by Jesse Larner<ref>http://www.amazon.com/Forgive-Us-Our-Spins-Michael/dp/047179306X/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-2466588-5816760?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1174623950&sr=8-1</ref>.

A new Michael Moore film, ''Sicko'', is due to be released in June 2007. In this documentry Moore will advocate for a nationalized health care system.<ref>http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0386032/</ref>
==References==
<references/>

Common descent

2007-03-24T02:30:13Z

Noodles:

'''Common descent''' is a [[scientific theory]] in [[Biology]] it can be applied on two levels, with a [[clad]] or group of species being said to share a recent common ancestor, or the broader theory which states that all organisms on earth originated from a single common ancestor. The theory is usually used in support of the [[Theory of Evolution]].

Darwin wrote:
:"When I view all beings not as special creations, but as the lineal descendants of some few beings which lived long before the first bed of the Silurian system was deposited, they seem to me to become ennobled."

[[Jonathan Wells]] in his book [[Icons of Evolution]] mad the claim that many current biology textbooks use distorted pictures of vertebrate embryos to convince students that vertebrates share a common ancestor. [http://www.nmsr.org/jonwells.htm (Wells)] However, this statement has been heavily criticized by many scientist who have reviewed his book as being misleading in some cases and false in others. [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/haeckel.html] [http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/Coyne-IconsReview.htm]
[[category: biology]]

Michael Moore

2007-03-24T02:29:17Z

Noodles:

'''Michael Moore''' (born April 23, 1954) is an [[Academy Award]] winning filmmaker and bestselling author who presents [[liberal|left wing]] views in a polemical way.

Before producing "Bowling for Columbine," Moore was the producer and host of the television series "The Awful Truth," which was typified by a type of sketch-comedy activism that was often directed against large corporations and government agencies.

He is well-known as a practicing Catholic who tithes 10% of his income to the Church, a [[socialist]] and a member of the [[National Rifle Association]] (although Moore has claimed that he joined this organization in order to make it support gun control). <ref>http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel040403.asp</ref> He has been an outspoken critic of the administration of President [[George W Bush]].

Some of his work includes the documentary films ''Farenheit 9/11'', ''Roger and Me'', and ''Bowling for Columbine'', and the books ''Dude, Where's my Country'', ''Downsize This! Random Threats from an Unarmed American''. and ''Stupid White Men''.

His production company which produces feature documentary films is Michael Moore Films [[http://www.michaelmoore.com/]]

Moore has been accused of using deceit to make his points, especially in ''Fahrenheit 9/11'', many of the claims of which a number of people have questioned. <ref>http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/</ref>

Michael Moore was the subject of the 2004 documentaries '''Michael Moore Hates America'''<ref>http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0411646/</ref>, '''Fahrenhype 9/11'''<ref>http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0427228/</ref> and the 2007 documentary '''Manufacturing Dissent'''<ref>http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0961117/</ref>. He was also the subject of books include '''Michael Moore Is a Big Fat Stupid White Man''' by David T. Hardy and Jason Clarke<ref>http://www.amazon.com/Michael-Moore-Big-Stupid-White/dp/0060779608/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-2466588-5816760?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1174624100&sr=1-1</ref>, '''Forgive Us Our Spins: Michael Moore and the Future of the Left''' by Jesse Larner<ref>http://www.amazon.com/Forgive-Us-Our-Spins-Michael/dp/047179306X/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-2466588-5816760?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1174623950&sr=8-1</ref>.

A new Michael Moore film, ''Sicko'', is due to be released in June 2007. In this documentry Moore will advocate for a government controlled health care system.<ref>http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0386032/</ref>
==References==
<references/>

Michael Moore

2007-03-24T02:28:26Z

Noodles:

'''Michael Moore''' (born April 23, 1954) is an [[Academy Award]] winning filmmaker and bestselling author who presents [[liberal|left wing]] views in a polemical way.

Before producing "Bowling for Columbine," Moore was the producer and host of the television series "The Awful Truth," which was typified by a type of sketch-comedy activism that was often directed against large corporations and government agencies.

He is well-known as a practicing Catholic who tithes 10% of his income to the Church, a [[socialist]] and a member of the [[National Rifle Association]] (although Moore has claimed that he joined this organization in order to make it support gun control). <ref>http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel040403.asp</ref> He has been an outspoken critic of the administration of President [[George W Bush]].

Some of his work includes the documentary films ''Farenheit 9/11'', ''Roger and Me'', and ''Bowling for Columbine'', and the books ''Dude, Where's my Country'', ''Downsize This! Random Threats from an Unarmed American''. and ''Stupid White Men''.

His production company which produces feature documentary films is Michael Moore Films [[http://www.michaelmoore.com/]]

Moore has been accused of using deceit to make his points, especially in ''Fahrenheit 9/11'', many of the claims of which a number of people have questioned. <ref>http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/</ref>

Michael Moore was the subject of the 2004 documentaries '''Michael Moore Hates America'''<ref>http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0411646/</ref>, '''Fahrenhype 9/11'''<ref>http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0427228/</ref> and the 2007 documentary '''Manufacturing Dissent'''<ref>http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0961117/</ref>. He was also the subject of books include '''Michael Moore Is a Big Fat Stupid White Man''' by David T. Hardy and Jason Clarke<ref>http://www.amazon.com/Michael-Moore-Big-Stupid-White/dp/0060779608/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-2466588-5816760?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1174624100&sr=1-1</ref>, '''Forgive Us Our Spins: Michael Moore and the Future of the Left''' by Jesse Larner<ref>http://www.amazon.com/Forgive-Us-Our-Spins-Michael/dp/047179306X/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-2466588-5816760?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1174623950&sr=8-1</ref>.

A new Michael Moore film, ''Sicko'', is due to be released in June 2007. In this documentry Moore will advocate for universal health care.<ref>http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0386032/</ref>
==References==
<references/>

Emacs

2007-03-24T02:13:51Z

Noodles:

{{stub}}

Emacs is an open source text editor which is used mainly by luddite computer programmers. It is designed to be arcane enough that it requires an extensive amount of time to learn to operate efficiently.

== Emacs Lisp ==
Emacs Lisp (often known to professionals as elisp) is the prominent programming through which Emacs operates. The majority of Emacs features and tools are written in elisp, running above an Emacs ''kernel'' that is written in C. Professional Emacs users commonly spend a great deal of time customizing and supplementing the elisp portion of Emacs in order to better tailor Emacs to their needs.

[[Category:Information technology]]

Emacs

2007-03-24T02:05:49Z

Noodles:

{{stub}}

Emacs is an [[open source]] text editor which is used mainly by luddite computer programmers. It is designed to be arcane enough that it requires an extensive amount of time to learn to operate efficiently.

[[Category:Information technology]]

Emacs

2007-03-24T02:04:32Z

Noodles:

{{stub}}

Emacs is an [[open source]] text editor which is used mainly by luddite computer programmers. It is designed to be arcane enough that it requires an extensive amount of time to operate efficiently.

[[Category:Information technology]]

Fourier series

2007-03-24T02:00:01Z

Noodles:

Fourier series express a piecewise continous, periodic function as a linear combination of [[Sine]] and [[Cosine]] functions.

The Fourier series of a function ''f(t)'' is of the form:
:<math> f(t) = \frac{1}{2} a_0 + \sum_{n=1}^{\infty}[a_n \cos(\omega_n t) + b_n \sin(\omega_n t)] </math>
where, ''n'' is an integer and
:<math> \omega_n = n\frac{2\pi}{T}</math>    
:<math>a_n = \frac{2}{T} \int_{t_1}^{t_2} f(t) \cos(\omega_n t)\, dt</math>    
:<math>b_n = \frac{2}{T} \int_{t_1}^{t_2} f(t) \sin(\omega_n t)\, dt </math>    

Fourier series can be generalized to [[Fourier transformation]]s for non-perodic, piecewise continuous, [[square integrable function]]s.

[[category: mathematics]]

Piecewise Continuous function

2007-03-24T01:59:43Z

Noodles:

A piecewise continuous function ''f'' is a function whose domain can be divided into a countable number of pieces, and the restriction of ''f'' on each piece is a [[continuous function]].

[[category: mathematics]]

Fourier transformation

2007-03-24T01:58:34Z

Noodles:

Fourier transformation is an invertible integral transformation that decompose a square integrable, [[piecewise continuous functions ]] on a [[topological group]] into a linear combination of basis elements.

Often, functions which are difficult to analyze in one topological group become much easier to analyze when transformed to another topological group.

==Discrete Fourier transformation==
Discrete Fourier transformations are defined on discrete topological groups, and the integral is replaced by summation.

[[category: mathematics]]

Fourier transformation

2007-03-24T01:58:15Z

Noodles:

Fourier transformation is an invertible integral transformation that decompose a square integrable, [[piecewise continuous function]] on a [[topological group]] into a linear combination of basis elements.

Often, functions which are difficult to analyze in one topological group become much easier to analyze when transformed to another topological group.

==Discrete Fourier transformation==
Discrete Fourier transformations are defined on discrete topological groups, and the integral is replaced by summation.

[[category: mathematics]]

Fourier transformation

2007-03-24T01:58:06Z

Noodles:

Fourier transformation is an invertible integral transformation that decompose a square integrable, [[piecewise Piecewise continuous function]] on a [[topological group]] into a linear combination of basis elements.

Often, functions which are difficult to analyze in one topological group become much easier to analyze when transformed to another topological group.

==Discrete Fourier transformation==
Discrete Fourier transformations are defined on discrete topological groups, and the integral is replaced by summation.

[[category: mathematics]]

Piecewise continuous functions

2007-03-24T01:57:45Z

Noodles: Piecewise continuous functions moved to Piecewise Continuous function

#REDIRECT [[Piecewise Continuous function]]

Piecewise Continuous function

2007-03-24T01:57:45Z

Noodles: Piecewise continuous functions moved to Piecewise Continuous function

A piecewise continuous function ''f'' is a function whose domain can be divided into a countable number of pieces, and the restriction of ''f'' on each piece is a [[continuous function]].

Piecewise Continuous function

2007-03-24T01:57:25Z

Noodles:

A piecewise continuous function ''f'' is a function whose domain can be divided into a countable number of pieces, and the restriction of ''f'' on each piece is a [[continuous function]].

Piecewise Continuous function

2007-03-24T01:57:03Z

Noodles:

A piecewise continuous function ''f'' is a function whose domain can be divided into a countable number of pieces, and the restriction of ''f'' on each piece is a [[Continous function]].

Piecewise Continuous function

2007-03-24T01:56:54Z

Noodles: New page: A piecewise continuous function ''f'' is a function whose domain can be divided into a countable number of pieces, and the restriction of ''f'' on each piece is a continous function.

A piecewise continuous function ''f'' is a function whose domain can be divided into a countable number of pieces, and the restriction of ''f'' on each piece is a [[continous function]].

Fourier transformation

2007-03-24T01:53:46Z

Noodles:

Fourier transformation is an invertible integral transformation that decompose a square integrable, [[piecewise continuous functions]] on a [[topological group]] into a linear combination of basis elements.

Often, functions which are difficult to analyze in one topological group become much easier to analyze when transformed to another topological group.

==Discrete Fourier transformation==
Discrete Fourier transformations are defined on discrete topological groups, and the integral is replaced by summation.

[[category: mathematics]]

Fourier series

2007-03-24T01:47:08Z

Noodles:

Fourier series express a piecewise continous, periodic function as a linear combination of [[Sine]] and [[Cosine]] functions.

The Fourier series of a function ''f(t)'' is of the form:
:<math> f(t) = \frac{1}{2} a_0 + \sum_{n=1}^{\infty}[a_n \cos(\omega_n t) + b_n \sin(\omega_n t)] </math>
where, ''n'' is an integer and
:<math> \omega_n = n\frac{2\pi}{T}</math>    
:<math>a_n = \frac{2}{T} \int_{t_1}^{t_2} f(t) \cos(\omega_n t)\, dt</math>    
:<math>b_n = \frac{2}{T} \int_{t_1}^{t_2} f(t) \sin(\omega_n t)\, dt </math>    

Fourier series can be generalized to [[Fourier transformation]]s for non-perodic, piecewise continous, [[square integrable function]]s.

[[category: mathematics]]

Fourier series

2007-03-24T01:45:07Z

Noodles: New page: Fourier series express a piecewise continous, periodic function as a linear combination of Sine and Cosine functions. The Fourier series of a function ''f(t)'' is of the form: :<m...

Hilbert Space

2007-03-24T01:34:17Z

Noodles:

Hilbert space is a [[inner product space]] that is also a [[complete metric space]]. A Hilbert space is always a [[Banach space]], but the converse need not hold. Hilbert space is named after mathematician [[David Hilbert]], whom used it to provide a natural context in which to generalize the concept of [[Fourier series]] and [[Fourier transformation]] in terms of arbitrary orthogonal functions defined on infinite dimensional inner product space.

[[Category:Mathematics]]