Humodour

agreed which i suppose coupled with not hearing about them is why i drunkenly discounted them

It's not false. But it isn't the driving force behind evolution. Hmm can type. In many cases it doesn't apply (e.g. small populations) and in the case it does apply it should usually be reworded as "survival of those who aren't particularly unfit". But claiming that it's entirely false? Well, you've a lot of explaining to do. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift...ersus_selection http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_theor...cular_evolution

If I understand your point you are incorrect. There are a wide variety of directed energy weapons available. As has been reported in the popular press. yes i recall france adopted some sort of enerby beam weapon based on climate. but there's always MEDUSA beam. SEE NUMBER ONE 1. http://www.p2pnet.net/story/12661

Hmm. Didn't know about that one. Still, it sounds more promising than Goners (because a it isn't a supernatural thriller, and b it is a TV series rather than a movie).

jodss hates father and questions his sexuality. p.s. he is working on 'goners' the end p.s..s that means hhe took a like 4 yr break

****ing i dontm think thsat laser pistols existan any time soon yeah?

You can nicely ask a moderator to clean up a thread because it has gone off topic, but you cannot dictate who posts in a thread and whether or not they're allowed to post criticism (I think it's implied that some level of purpose/productiveness should exist for the post). I agree that posts which are intentionally derisive, trolling or inflammatory are unnecessary, and because these fall outside the forum guidelines, a moderator will probably delete them if he feels they are causing a problem. But moderators have more important things to do than spend their graciously volunteered time trying to cater to the whims of every thread starter who disagrees with the opinions expressed in his thread. Moderating is a tough enough job as it is; you've got to reply to the PM requests and post reports you get, check every thread in your respective forums for problems, decide how to intervene if it is necessary, cast your vote and opinion on group decisions in the mod forum, all in your spare leisure time whilst probably holding down a job, study and social life (e.g. family, friends, girlfriend). Yeah, I obviously think that considering I said I am really starting to enjoy Atlantis again and that I think season 4 is a lot better than the previous seasons. Uh, no. I'm fairly sure 'replicated' is a common English word meaning "reproduced, usually exactly". But don't you think that from the perspective of storytelling it ruins a lot of the atmosphere associated with the Stargate universe? Discovery of lost civilisations, ruins, artifacts, struggling to apply them to current Earth or situational problems, assessing their impact and consequences in the grand scheme of things, not having full control of the discovered technologies, etc. When you just hand a bunch of seemingly all-powerful, all-capable technology to your protagonists on a platter, you can't tell me that doesn't interfere with atmosphere and storytelling? Granted, they've tried to devise interesting ways of limiting the power and potential of the Ancient technology (some broken, some with drawbacks, some requiring huge power amounts, etc), but I'm not convinced it fixes the problems entirely. Anyway, despite my misgivings I still enjoy the actual show. It's not like I'm incapable of suspending disbelief. I guess I just have to change my suspension of disbelief when watching Atlantis after having watched SG1 for so long. The problem is that they are so closely intertwined. True that. Atlantis IS a different show, with different themes (namely exploration not war, as you suggested). I'm sort of glad Carter won't be returning in season 5. I loved her in SG1, especially the start, but I don't think she worked that well in Atlantis. I guess maybe they need somebody who isn't all-caring, all-loving, and cares more about the protection of Earth and his own skin. With that in mind, I can understand how the Atlantis leader for season 5 is an excellent choice. Heh heh. Speaking of suspension of disbelief, anybody know if it is true that humanoid Cylons supposedly have fibre optics in their brains? Considering human/Cylon hybrids and the fundamental uselessness of fibre optics for small-scale use, I'd be just a bit perplexed if the show actually made this claim. But then, the show also claims that all 12 human colonies were habitable planets in the same solar system, so maybe I shouldn't be so surprised. BSG was always more about the drama than the science.

But that is easy. Remember, some of the worst dictators of the world were either voted into power, or might as well have been. Historically, people are known to willingly give away their freedoms and their rights in order to attain security and prosperity. That argument hardly holds water. No style of government stands up to a belief held by an entire people. The idea is that democracy is more suited for normalisation of extremes than any other system; not the prevention of extremes completely. This is true. However, I would argue that such things are products of cultures which already enjoy strong protection of their human rights; something a democracy is inherently geared towards.

Anybody know if the Terminator TV series has been renewed for a second season? I was really getting into it, but the last 2 eps left more questions than answers. I think my favourite episode in that season was 7, where Cameron dances. A big "in your face" to Derek. I didn't like this series at the start, but I felt it really picked up momentum at the end (without being like Heroes, which had plot holes, WTF moments, and unanswered questions left hanging every which-way). It had just enough mystery and intrigue to keep things interesting, and answered questions at an acceptable rate. Heck, I felt that even the actors of Sarah and John finally fell into their roles for the most part, near the end (6 through 9 perhaps?)

Stargate isn't some holy scripture beyond criticism. I am a big Stargate fan. In fact, I've seen every episode. But since when does that mean I have to like everything about it and suppress any knowledge of inconsistencies, errors, and plots holes? You claim to desire discussion about this TV show, yet flame me when I do so. If you find my posts overly offensive, please feel free to put me on your ignore list. Here's the link: http://forums.obsidianent.com/index.php?ac...amp;CODE=ignore Anyway, I think whether or not they do well at creating stories and plot arcs based on current science and technology does mean something, contrary to your claim. I know I'm not the only one who especially enjoyed the early seasons of SG1, for example, because they used just the right mix of technical jargon, accuracy, and speculation. It made for some great technologies and plot arcs (e.g. the episode where the culture has nanites that augment their brain, but they harvest them from children - not only was this a great episode, but the technology was displayed well and it was believable). So basically I think whether or not they do well at introducing new technologies/science DOES mean something - it means atmosphere and depth. These things seem kind of important to a space opera if you ask me. Remember how the Zats in season 1 disintegrated a person if you shot them 3 times, and the Stargate co-ordinates were based off constellations? While in the first few seasons of Stargate SG1 (for example), every technology had pre-planned consequences and/or limitations and appeared to be a real invention by a zany scientist or have a rich background in an entire culture (e.g. sarcophagus, energy staves), in Stargate Atlantis it seems more like they just pluck a cool new concept out of the air and give it to some character, only later making up limitations or consequences to fill a plot hole. I don't find there's as much of a feeling that these technologies were actually made by real people or cultures. It's like half of it is handed to them on a platter by the Ancients. There's less of that feeling of human beings struggling to understand strange new alien ideas with current earth technology (as in SG1), you know? It's like on Atlantis they just take everything for granted. It's no longer about the human struggle to figure out our place in the world. Nothing is new to them. I think that rubs off on the viewer, but in a bad way. Heck I think a lot of it has to do with the Wraith, too. As far as enemies go, I don't find them particularly compelling (they aren't evil or motivated so much as animals/predators) - although season 4 has done a fair amount to try and improve this (hence the whole Michael plot arc I guess). I don't know, the Wraith just seem static, unchanging, predictable. Every episode with them as the main antagonist feels like more of the same. Actually I think the Goa'uld were one of the most compelling enemies; they were selfish, manipulative, honourable, good, evil, stealthy, evasive. Basically they had many human traits, but it kept you on your toes in terms of what to expect with any episode that had them in it. And the fact that each Gou'uld was an individual with its own agenda (despite rank or power) helped make things believable. In Atlantis, each wraith is just cannon fodder for one big wraith. I'll put it this way. Three of the episodes in season 4 that I actually thoroughly enjoyed were the one where they get trapped in a crumbling mine network, the one where John meets a space-faring culture, and the wraith attack on mid-way station. These episodes were great. They didn't need a Deus Ex Machina, they didn't pull random technologies or explanations out of nowhere, and it wasn't a unified wraith offensive; just one rogue faction that wanted Earth all to himself (seemingly). But it's be expected; they're not the same show (SG1 and Atlantis). I have in fact significantly enjoyed season 4 of Atlantis, and it has moved from a show to watch when I am bored, to a show I actively looked forward to the next episode of. Heck, maybe it's just because I'm not a 10 year old when I watch them any more. Its been what, 10 years since the first episode? Also, I never said Beckett was a replicator. I said it doesn't make sense that Michael replicated his thoughts, if you'll read the original post properly. How do you propose Michael recreated Carson's personality, mind, memories etc, hm? I wouldn't suggest 'genetic memory', since Carter debunked that idea in a previous episode. Actually, I'm not really a fan of Wraith mind control in general. That becomes fantasy, not sci-fi. SG1 used the concept sparingly, and only in the hands of super-powerful or rare beings. Just a note: this isn't your thread. You started it, but you do not own it. Certainly within the forum guidelines, it would be appropriate to keep it on topic (discussion of Stargate), but you do not have any power or say over who gets to post in your thread, and whether or not they are only allowed to say about it things which you deem appropriate. I think it's an insult to Stargate and its creators to place it above criticism. If you'll read any of the interviews of the actors and writers, you'll know that they themselves are certainly extremely critical of it (in an effort to create a better show, certainly).

Dunbar's Number, and it is approx.150. Nevertheless. I think there is a general impression in our society that globalisation means locality is being replaced by the global and we will soon have to think and do everything in global terms. I don't think that's true, for reasons Krezack pointed out; that is ultimately unsustainable because humans (as we know them) simply can't care enough or understand enough about such large scale operations. What globalisation will do is, in time, retain the compartmentalised nature of our societies and activities but control the type of localities that spring within those 'compartments'. In other words we're not replacing 60 countries with 1 megacountry; the 60 countries will still exist (and may evenb reak down further), but there will be a sort of 'global committee' over the top of these countries that control the doors that open, the passages that link them, the ideas that float in the air infectiously across these countries. The 'committee', of course, is actually nonsubjective, so this is not a conspiracy theory. Agreed. It is my hope (and belief) that this interdependence of 'compartments', and uncontrollable proliferation of ideas between them, will gradually move humanity away from war. Of course, this does hinge on the belief that protection of human rights is the inevitable path any sufficiently advanced society will follow. Which pretty much rules out any fascist, communist, totalitarian, etc society. Basically, I think democracy is inevitable for any society, and that democracies are far less prone to acts of war or hostility by their very nature; you have to influence the consensual opinion and morality of an entire society, not just an elite few.

By design. It seems humanity proliferates better by compartmentalisation than globalisation and homogeneity (in fact this is true of many species). E.g. the needs of the individual come first, but the needs of the group are often important and worthy of altruistic behaviour, however the same is not true of the needs of the species (that is: we're only altruistic to those we've got some sort of bond or relationship with). The stronger the bond, the more altruistic (e.g. compare how you act to your friends in your social circle, with your family, and then how you act with your friends compared with your city/town in general) I imagine it's optimisation that has occurred since the dawn of familial society in primates (protection the self, but also the family). The practical impacts of it should be apparent; protection of the individual and group from abuse by others, whilst simultaneously producing advances beyond what any one individual could accomplish alone. In fact I read a study that suggests the human mind is fundamentally designed for interaction and relationships with a small, finite number of individuals (below 50, IIRC).

walkerguy: Yeah which is bull****. Stargate is stretching the truth more and more when it comes to science and technology, as time goes on. It pisses me off (especially Atlantis). I mean they just made up the lame excuse that Michael replicated Beckett's thoughts. ****ing lame as. At least the electronic transferral of a mind has some sort of basis (however flawed, considering the fundamentally unknowable nature of the human brain as the sum of inputs of a set of vastly complex interlinked neural nets, among other things). And why don't the macro-replicators in Ark of Truth spontaneously reassemble like in days of old? I mean, it make more sense, but still it's a plot hole.

How? I seem to only have the option to block all Obsidian images (Firefox).

Funny; I doubt the people of China are especially comfortable, on average.

Good question. Answer is no. When it comes down to a choice between America and China, America is fundamentally better. Yes, you have to make that judgement call. I believe democracy, freedom, diversity, multiculturalism are better than China's totalitarian approach to things. Not to mention that while America doesn't have a good track record of the Environment, it is now working to curb that. China is only just getting started. Further, America is smaller and has a stable and fairly sustainable infrastructure (especially compared to China); they are fundamentally better suited to regrouping and rebuilding for the future. Can the same be said of China? China would add on the population of America in a couple of years. It would keep doing so. There would be no relief; and the problem would arise all over again, if now in the form of civil war. So I choose to save the few in the hopes that they have a bright and prosperous future without the plagues of the past. For if I were to choose the many, how would I be alleviating the problems of the many? Nothing about their situation would change.

or would you actually end up with the body of a 920 year old? taks Nah Doctor Who says you get to choose.

I thought the cast changes weren't too dire (for SG1). Mitchell filled his role pretty smoothly and Vala actually brought something extra to the show, rather than being a filler tag-along. But there were times when I wasn't sure if I was watching Farscape or Stargate.

The red bits are blood from a serial killer he just chopped up.

It's getting better now. I think Season 4 was, on average, a lot better. For obvious reasons (SG1 is finished). Although it'll be interesting to see what happens to clone-Weir/repli-Weir considering she saved a group of rogue replicators, but refuses to star in season 5. Personally I never liked Weir myself. I thought she was played by a very bad actor, and her personality was just plain **** (black/white, but would give into pressure at the drop of a hat).

Well, about 2 minutes ago I spent a good minute laughing at this: http://forums.obsidianent.com/index.php?sh...mp;#entry834523

Does morality exist in hell?

Will there be mounts in Alien? And by mounts, I mean motorbikes. P.S.: This is me with my motorbike.

You guys should read some books by Peter F Hamilton.

Goon. Man I love goon. Unless it's red. Because then the walls get painted red.