random n00b

Oops.

The difference is that evidence seems to indicate that at some point, amino acids and organic compounds will arrange in a system that is complex enough to be considered the most basic living thing. We just don't know how the process goes exactly, and thus cannot replicate it. However, there's no evidence to support spontaneous generation... not even at the most basic level you're thinking. Spontaneous generation isn't "incredible", it's simply an outdated scientific notion that has been disproved (as much as proving a negative is possible) by observation and modern science. Well, the obvious difference between the examples you brought up and Evolution is that those are mathematical principles, valid within the abstract realm of mathematics (and even then not necessarily universally valid) and Evolution is a theory... just like Relativity. When either of those meet the criteria require to become Laws, then opinions will become largely irrelevant. But even a Law is only a theory that has been proven true in a well-defined framework, with a clear scope. The Law of Gravity was completed and expanded by Relativity, for instance. I know I'm rambling, but yeah, you can (and physics buffs do) have opinions on Relativity.

...or logic and facts. Because, you know, the Germans do everything in their power to police their territory and hunt down terrorists? Jeez. Much the same...? Much the same as when Nazi Germany invaded?! Genuine resistance? Again, against what? Their own democratically elected government? The troops that help keep the peace for that newly formed and fragile government? That's genuine, alright. Genuine terrorism. No, I didn't address it because I thought the Iraq example illustrated it enough. So, pray tell, what has been accomplished with NK? A promise that they will not continue to develop nukes... even after their so-called "test" resulted in an abject failure that seems to indicate that they never had the capacity to do so in the first place? But also, you fail to understand that economic sanctions DO NOT weaken totalitarian regimes - more like the opposite. It's the people who suffer the consequences of economic sanctions, not the state. And since within their boundaries information and opinions are controlled, such sanctions only serve to rally people AGAINST those who enacted the sanctions. Fortunately, people in charge realize that there are threats to national security that don't need to take the form of a standing army ready to invade. Terrorism is one of them. No, there isn't. Really. When your enemies are spread far and wide and hiding behind human shields and hit-and-run attacks their are their standard modus operandi, some policing is in order - especially when the governments of the countries where those terrorists take refuge refuse to take action to clean their own turf. Funny. Because when it's the US applying double standards, then woe is me. But it's rare to see anyone complaining about the systematic violations of, well, pretty much every regulation on warfare on the part of those they fight against. So, yeah, I'm pretty happy with the US applying double standards... which actually aren't.

You sure about that, bub? How about policing their own territory and making sure the US have no reason to cross over and make a mess? Oh wait, I forgot. The US weren't really after terrorists - they were bombing towns indiscriminately, for fun. My bad. I don't know where you're from, but I don't recall any instances of insurgency causing hundreds of civilian casualties by targeting markets during rush hour, in WW2. Might be wrong, though. But even if they were, not only were they terrorists, they were a bunch of cowardly douchebags. edit: just realized you're probably Greek. For some odd reason I was under the impression that you were Argentinian... What, you mean how Iraq was sanctioned to the point where the "Food for Oil" programme had to be enacted to prevent a mass famine - and even now nobody's quite clear on what exactly did Saddam do with it? Yeah, that approach works real good. Or the security of another's. The right is given to them by the American people. They have the ability and the duty to protect their country, and their responsibility is first to the US citizenry, and then to the rest of the world, in that order of priority. Sorry if you don't like how things are, but the US isn't an NGO, nor should it be.

No, I meant effective at what they aim for. Namely, social order, repression of liberties and imposition of an ideology or other by means of opinion control, genocide, systematic rights violations, etc. Controlling the people, in one word. Those are all in an effort towards ensuring that the status quo is maintained, and therefore, the continuation of the institutions and organs of the state is guaranteed. Nobody has argued that the aim of those regimes is the development of humanity and the overall happines of their people, but you can't really deny that they are good at what they do. In that sense, it's not great as far as developing the country is concerned, compared to other systems - but this doesn't imply it's necessarily ineffective as both China and the USSR prove (for a time at least).

No. In fact, there's more examples of successful oppressive regimes than there are successful revolutions. And the American Revolution is a special case, and a very bad example of what you are saying, at any rate. The Soviet Union, the Third Reich, the Red Khmer regime, the PRC, North Korea, South American Juntas... even Iraq. there's plenty of examples that show just how effective totalitarianism can be, if implemented properly. So effective it's scary, actually. Of course successful revolutions get greatly publicized as a triumph of freedom and the power of the people and stuff... but the grim reality is that most of those attempts are met with an early, brutal end. I think the most important factor is not only fear... but the degree of paranoia caused by the popular support such regimes have. It's difficult to be a revolutionary when your neighbor next door could be a secret police agent... or confidant.

You know, you may be on to something, there...

I take it that's the close to a mullet the game allows for, Bok? Great pics, btw.

We are doing your homework with this, aren't we? Anyway, I don't think Evolution concerns itself with the early origins of life. It could perhaps be construed as "spontaneous generation" when amino acids and other organic compounds arrange themselves into the most basic and simple of structures that can be considered to be alive... but the process is poorly understood, and it could require very specific conditions to take place (conditions that so far, we have been unable to determine). Meaning, it could be no more "spontaneous" than a nebula collapsing on itself to form a star - which is more an "inevitable outcome" given initial conditions. At any rate, I don't think what you posted is what's generally understood by spontaneous generation - the meaning you seem to be giving to the term "spontaneous" leans more towards the thermodynamic definition than what it's supposed to mean in this context.

lol drama

Schopenhauer would agree.

That would be "Vault Dweller" of NMA "fame" (lol). You gotta have your paladins of bitterness too.

Yes, that's not indiscriminate. It's a mistake, at worst. But on the Internet, everyone's an analyst, right? Again, what is THE POINT of killing innocent civilians, just for kicks. Give an answer, and explain what the US leadership get out of it, exactly. More inane appeals to emotion. Seriously, can you make one single post without trying to bring a tear to the eye? People die in war. Yes, that includes children and women. Nobody, as far as I know, is reveling on that fact or asking for MOAR. It's a sad and ugly fact. Happy? You can focus on that all you want, and on the fact that the US started an illegal war and stuff. And all of it is true. But that doesn't change the fact that it's the insurgents that have kept the war going since 2003. Without them, there would be no need for airstrikes, shoot-first-ask-later policies at checkpoints, and many other nasty things. Yeah, they are defending their country yadda yadda. But from what exactly? Democracy? Progress? Yeah, I guess nobody likes their totalitarian, mass-murdering government that starves its people to death taken down and replaced with a system that doesn't favor a minority over the rest. I'd probably be pretty pissed about it, too. Great. The intellectual equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and going "LALALA I'M NOT LISTENING". Yeah, you sure showed me how one participates in a rational discussion, with great arguments. I bow to your superior conversational skills.

We know she's playing it and having a blast too. So how about it DR, is it good? *Ahem* I mean, how badly does it suck and how much do you hate Beth for defiling the true spirit of Fallout etc?

I wonder... have you even read any of the links you posted, or you just copied the first handful of links that Google turned up? Because, how does any of that lend any support to your original statement that the US bombs Iraqi towns indiscriminately? They hit targets, military targets, and civilians are in the way... because that's the way the insurgents want it. Do you really believe that if clear, safe insurgent targets could be attacked, the US would kill civilians just for kicks? Of course, you also conveniently disregard the fact that it's not a war against a standing army, but against a ragtag militia... a collective of unlawful combatants. It's no wonder most of them are labeled as "civilians" when making the bodycount. Of course, there's no excusing faulty intelligence when conducting air raids, but really, I think you need to get things back in perspective by reading some about real "indiscriminate" bombing. Wait, wait. Are you accusing me of not being rational and lacking proper arguments when just a few pages back you were proposing that we look up to John Lennon's Imagine for inspiration? Lol, serious business! Yeah, yeah. Appeal to emotion all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that you made a statement that's not only impossible to prove, but also highly unlikely if you think about it, for the reasons I stated in my first and subsequent replies. That's called making fallacies, btw. Those who haven't experienced it don't really know what they're talking about, and those who have experienced it, don't really want to talk about it...

Heh, very emotional post, but I thought you understood realpolitik. In every war there's at least one side which doesn't fight in self-defense, guaranteed. Because, by definition, there needs to be an aggressor. And that aggressor always has its reasons, good or bad. In this case, the reason was a mix of resources and politics. Wars have been fought over far less. For good or ill, war in one form or another is an integral and fundamentally defining part of most cultures, if only because those cultures for which it's not tend to be destroyed. It may look like we're trivialising the issue, and we probably are, as most folks here haven't experienced war first-hand. But there's no escaping one truth: the world is an ugly, nasty place - and to think the human race has (or should have) advanced enough to put war behind us completely, if such a thing is even possible is self-deceit. To what lengths are we willing to go, how much are we willing to compromise to avoid war? Is war really the worst choice, in all circumstances? The answer to that is neither simple nor unique.

As far as I know (and I'm by no means an expert), the biggest problem with recycling highly elaborated products (electronic components and stuff) is that the cost offsets the advantages, and so it's simply more cost-effective to keep mining and processing ores. With an essentially unlimited power supply, electrolytic processes and other separation and refining techniques which may not be commercially viable ATM, could be so in the future.

Yeah, fusion power is pretty much the industrial Grail of our day. With an arguably limitless power source that's as clean as it is cheap, sustainability problems go *poof*. I have two questions about the article, though. First of all is, as always, a matter of source, statistics, and interpretation and conclusions reliability. When raw data and how that data was obtained and processed isn't made available, I'm a bit suspicious - what with things like "in 2030 we'll need the equivalent of two Earths". Not necessarily an issue with the study itself, since it may be BBC who cut that out. And then, I think there's the issue of WHO is paying the price, as net global "debt" may not be as bad as reported, given the fact that the study seems to be tailored around consumption per country as opposed to total surface/total resources. This would mean that underdeveloped and poor countries bear the excess load, and when the crack comes around, it'll be them who suffer the most. If so, it wouldn't be surprising that this little detail was omitted, so as to preserve the shock value of the article.

Seriously, WTF? Anyway, didn't know there was a 60's Italian Job - I'll have to dig it up.

Well, it's a good thing you didn't actually say what you bet, because you'd lose... if we were to judge from the huge amount of examples YOU provided to back your point. \o/ At any rate, you misrepresented what I said, in another sad, blatant attempt at trolling. I said nothing about "going to war ASAP", neither did I intend for my example to be taken as a rule of thumb to be applied to any and all nations, under all circumstances - as evidenced by the fact that only your stunted understanding took it that way. The sort of rhetorics, demands and stance used by Nazi Germany aren't very different from what some groups use now... with the only difference that the Third Reich wasn't to be taken lightly. There, was that enough for you? If you were hoping for me to draw some doodles to help you understand, I'm afraid you got the wrong thread. No. You seem to fail to understand, among many other things, how things work in a discussion. You make a random statement, you come up with the arguments to support it before anyone takes it seriously. I guess Lennon didn't make any songs about it. Yeah, who does, anyway? Have Dubya or any of his cronies ever appeared on TV advocating the general extermination of the Iraqi people? Good thing we have you and Lennon to tell when violence is "necessary" and when it's not. I feel better already. Precisely. Taking anything Lennon said seriously is a painful exercise in mental age regression. Props to you man, not everyone would be able to do that. I know I wouldn't. But yeah, he'd have made a real fine Prime Minister, for sure!

FALLOUT IN NAME ONLY! Ahem, how's HtH combat, anyway?

Hahaha. You drew the wrong conclusion from what I wrote, as per usual. I said nothing about "going to war IMMEDIATELY!!1", or suggested anything of the sort. It was pretty obviously a one-time reply to the point Volo brought up about WW2. But I didn't really need to explain that to you. Not even you can be THAT daft!

Heh. Well, I know you're the Magical Volo and you post before thinking, but did you even click the link I posted? A part of Czechoslovakia was given over to Nazi Germany in a (failed) attempt to placate their expansionist urges. Yes, that was BEFORE the war. But it gets better, because it's one of the most glaring examples of why one shouldn't negotiate with that sort of international scum. So it was actually an argument in support of what you said, in a general sense at least. \o/ No. You are the one claiming that the US military bombed Baghdad indiscriminately. You come up with the figures, buddy. Only in the day of mass media, wars are fought as much in the homefront against the attrition in the public opinion, as they are on the battlefield. You can't just firebomb a city to rubble nowadays and expect to get away with it. Oh wait, you can, if you're Russian. But yeah, it's no fun bashing anyone that's not America. It's not surprising that after such display of one-dimensional thinking one can make arguments such as this, and keep anything resembling a straight face: Yeah. Good ol' Johnny is right up there with a bunch of other all-time greatest political theorists such as Che Guevara and Khomeini.

Gameplay IS awesome (does that count as advertising?). But I'm going to wait before ordering, see what folks have to say on how it runs, stability, etc.

We know you have a fetish for nekkid Frenchmen, where's Volo? Hey Kafty, I think she just invited you to take part in a threesome!