Rostere

Well... Sweden has been reluctant to hand over prisoners to the US in the past, because of fears of torture (Guantanamo) or capital punishment. If that appears to be a serious risk, I don't think and I don't want Sweden to hand him over. On the other hand, if it appears very unlikely he'll recieve any of those punishments, I don't see how we could NOT hand him over.

BLOPS is like Powerthirst and "The Machurian Candidate" mixed together to make a CoD game.

The last post I have seen from you was something like TROLTROLTROLTROLTROL, and now this. Can you teach me to be a verbal hero like you? I simply had to reply to that post. "Seppukuk" would be a very peculiar dirty word joke in Swedish. Since I am a very humble person, I wouldn't advice you to listen to my advice about writing. Coincidentally, I'm reading Borges' "On Writing" at the moment though, which I would strongly recommend to anyone interested in mastering the craft of prose, even if it's more centered on thematics than communicating through holophrastic interjections such as "TROLTROLTROLTROLTROL".

Ban this sick filth! LOL...

WTF!?

NK simply wouldn't have the resources to fight a war. Sure, they could cause massive damage to civilians. But if you just look at the resources they have on paper, without foreign aid, very large parts of their population would be starving to death very fast. I've already stated that the reason a war can not be fought is that it would lead to massive civilian casualties, and also millions of refugees. Every war would eventually lead to the inevitable collapse of the North Korean state, however. North Korea has no chance of winning an offensive war against anyone, all they can do is hold South Korea hostage and threaten to mistreat it's own population.

Yes, I believe that is a good assumption. However, I am not arguing anyone should start a war, because of other consequences that might have. Also, a war-time NK without foreign aid would starve itself to collapse almost immediately. Solely from a military perspective, they don't stand a chance. However, if you have even the vaguest of humanitarian concerns, a war is unthinkable.

Someone said that China was a economically successful totalitarian state. You know, that's what they all say when global circumstances makes your economy boom. But sooner or later, things will get out of hand - and the people responsible will have to take the blame. This is basically what has happened to every authoritarian state that has crumbled in the 20th century. The difference between democracy and a "successful" authoritarian state is that a democracy can handle the unrest when things go bad. Civilized societies are naturally tending towards democracy, because it is a stable system.

You do realise that North Korea has the fourth largest army in the world? It's not a question of just walking in there and taking control of the place, but refraining from it due to a potential humanitary crisis. Hell, the reason they are in that shape is because it's not a country, it's a support structure for a massive army. I very much doubt the morale and equipment of the NK army. When foreign aid is cut off due to a war, NK won't have enough resources to feed their country, probably not even their army. Who? Are you asking who don't usually take care of refugees, or who eventually will take care of the North Korean refugees in case of a war?

Nobody wants a war with North Korea. Keeping in mind they can barely support their current population as it is, a war will cause the worst refugee disaster we've seen since WW2. I don't think anyone is afraid of the North Korean army crossing their borders, however noone would like the entire population of NK starving and flooding over their borders. While I can understand that some countries don't usually have problems with these kind of things, eventually someone will have to take humanitarian responsibility for all the displaced and starving people.

The Grand Diviner 16% Strength, 12% Bloodlust, 60% Intelligence, 44% Spirit, 24% Vitality and 24% Agility! "Masters of predicting the future, Grand Diviners are deadly opponents. Using their foresight, Grand Diviners can easily and effortless outmaneuver a foe and launch a flurry of countercounts before the opponent can even react. Furthermore, by knowing exactly what will happen next, Grand Diviners can plan out their moves and attacks more carefully thus allowing them to better convserve their energy and allocate it to where it's most needed. Although Grand Diviners specialize in water based magic, they are proficient in the other basic elements. However, their mastery over water far exceeds that of any of the other spellcaster classes allowing them to manipulate the water more skillfully and effortlessly. For example, Grand Diviners can more easily transform water to ice and steam, and they can even manipulate the water within the blood of an individual to control them like a puppet. Their most power spell, Absolute Zero, completely freezes any opponent in a giant, unmeltable sphere of ice."

I'd pick Spain personally and head down to Andalusia to see the Moorish forts and the old Islamic Europe. Some of the mosques and forts down there are very beautiful - with clear Spanish/Roman and Islamic inspiration. I've been there myself, and although there were some places worth visiting, the countryside (where I lived) felt very spoiled and polluted. The Spanish you'll hear in Spain is also absolutely dreadful, nothing like the Spanish you'll hear in Latin America or the Caribbean, where you can actually make out what they're saying. I've also spent some time a spring two years ago in an old castle in southern Italy (in Campania, I think), and I've also visited Rome. I must say that I'd take Italy over Spain any day, because of the higher density of sites of archaeological interest. The coast if Italy is also very beautiful throughout, and nothing like the Spanish (mainland) coast. To resort to a clich

While it is true that white dwarves are much more compact than the Earth, that would only reinforce the statistical argument against LHC creating a cataclysm through black hole generation. Some white dwarves and neutron stars do have much stronger magnetic fields though, which in some interpretations could cause problems, since these would cause some incoming ions to decelerate. Compare it to a magnet. In some places, ions would be accelerated towards the magnet, and in some, deflected. I'm not sure if that would be a worry (I'd say it definitely isn't), but it makes the statistics harder to calculate.

As an opinion from someone going through a five-year university education in physics, I'd say that while it's clear that WoD (as well as other forum members) do not know physics very well, the point is that even those who DO know physics are not sure of what will happen. While I personally believe it is unlikely anything catastrophic will happen, no one can be sure. While neutron stars and white dwarves provide a statistical argument that nothing dangerous will occur, the unknown is in the nature of the experiment. If you had known what would happen afterwards, there would be no need for the experiment. Trying to predict results with existing theories is slightly contradictory since the experiment is made for the purpose of doing (or perhaps observing) something completely new you do not know the result of. So while in practice we would say the we have no reason to believe we will cause a cataclysm, in theory we can not exclude the possibility that something will indeed happen.

Neat!

Well, that wasn't very hard! http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11...hoices=9txl05lv

TROLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

I played the BLOPS campaign and I actually liked the game. I like it how in a recent turn of events, as RPGs have been dumbed down and adventure games disappeared, FPSs have "smartened up" and gotten more focus on story. Sure, it's silly at times, and it's much more forgiving than older FPSs, but it has some kind of charm. Especially the "swimming around in Vietnam", the Baikonur mission and the mission in the Arctic are very beautifully crafted levels. If I weren't used to violent computer games I would probably have laughed my ass of how exaggerated some parts of the game are. Maybe I play too few games these days and tend to forget how many men are in the industry compared to women (with all the ideals and stuff that entails), and how jaded these men are from playing thousands of violent computer games while never having witnessed war themselves. The game really takes itself seriously and if you're a stranger to similar games or movies I doubt you will find the SP playable at all.

The thing that is unique with the LHC is it's ability to create focused collisions between these particles, and to measure what happens after those collisions precisely. The accelerated particles are nothing special, the collisions between these are of course rarities (considering it's lead we're talking here) but definitely not something unique. It's possible to count on these things however, and (with some approximations) determine how rare these things are on Earth.

They're actually accelerated by electric fields.

This.

I think it's a scam.

What the... I just don't follow the line of reasoning here. You argue that: 1. Some people are biased against you for your nationality (that judging people because of their nationality is bad) Therefore, 2. All people from those countries are pricks (you judge people because of their nationality) Is it only me or does (1) and (2) contradict each other in a moral sense? The only way you could morally go to (2) from (1) is if you somehow wanted to be a prick yourself. And I don't think that is the case. Although I must add that from the posts that I've read authored by ~Di, she would be classified as a fringe right-winger in the political environment I'm used to. I can't see how that is more of an insult than if ~Di would say that I would vote for Dennis Kucinich or Ralph Nader if I had lived in the US. I'm also having trouble interpreting this statement. Somehow it is important to inform some of us that we "don't really matter" and that you're proud of your own country - because we have a superiority complex? I thought, that you had a superiority complex if you were a person who was keen to point out how little others matter, not if you simply criticize the behaviour of others (regardless of who "matters" or not)? This response is of the same category as the one I quoted first. You percieve bias on basis of nationality, so you counter with the same. You percieve a superiority complex, and counter with displaying a superiority complex yourself. It does not surprise me that you are an atheist, because you do not seem to have learned the lesson of turning the other cheek

http://www.xkcd.com/810/