213374U

Antibiotics misuse may very well prompt that, sooner than we'd like to believe. However, we don't really know of any prior industrial societies that succumbed to their own weight, resource depletion or nature's control mechanisms for overpopulation. Once the acquisition and implementation of knowledge is systematised, all bets are off. Colonisation of other worlds may be one way to minimise the risk of one black swan wiping out the human race. Chances are it could be made to be profitable too, eventually.

It's like heroine. You know it's bad for you, you know you can't get caught admitting you do it, you know it'll eventually turn you into a wretch of a human being... but you can't help it.

OP can you post the link to the source? It's actually linked off the front page, so I dare say we're allowed to link these scans. Just click on the pics http://www.segabits.com/?p=1617 It's all in spanish though. The reviewer complains mainly about the technical aspect of the game, and for him it's what had the most impact on the score. On the other hand, things like bad AI and what are potentially serious game balance issues (punching > shooting) are mentioned in passing only. He also seems to be utterly convinced that AP is essentially an action game "with a few touches of roleplaying" (what would Bloodlines be?) -- which may explain why C&C isn't understood to be the central game concept and doesn't seem to have been fully explored in the reviewing process. It's also worth noting that the writing isn't mentioned once in the whole article... which leads me to believe that either the author is a total douche, or he just didn't play much further than the tutorial. I mean... is the writing good, bad, average? Can it carry the weight of the game? Are characters credible? Are the premises absurd? How clever are Mike's lines? No idea. But oh, look! I can blow up a tank with a rocket launcher! This is why I never read mags.

It's all quite neatly summed up in the old commie saying: "no war but class war" -- by blindly following Marx's mad ideas on "class struggle", anything is justified.

I just remembered that case a few years ago which also had "scientists baffled". It involved a Lebanese girl crying diamonds or some other stupid ****. She also claimed to be receiving divine messages. She stopped shortly after becoming famous. I wonder if we'll see this guy parking at McD's in a few months, too? No, but he needs to rely on chemical energy (photosynthesis or Krebs) OR electrical energy (photovoltaic). Those are the only possibilities available to him by just standing in the sun. Or maybe he just doesn't believe in the laws of thermodynamics.

So only the Gov't or Congress can actually violate constitutional rights? An interesting view, but I don't think that's correct. You'd think wrong, then, because it is. The purpose of the bill of rights is to protect individual rights from the government. You cannot sue an individual for violating your constitutional rights, it just doesn't work that way. Nobody said anything about suing individuals. However you can very well sue the school as an organism, the NYPD, etc. Those aren't "the government" per se, they are services provided by the state, but not part of the executive branch of the administration. You're going to give constitutional law lessons too, now? This thread sure is going places.

For reference: an actual "biological transformation"

So only the Gov't or Congress can actually violate constitutional rights? An interesting view, but I don't think that's correct.

Unless he's some sort of biological heat pump (now that would be something worth studying), I don't think so. It would have to be one hell of a "biological transformation" for him to go from being Krebs cycle-powered to photovoltaic, involving changes as insignificant as growing electric motors and/or electrochemical reactors. Plus, he doesn't look green to me, so that kinda rules out photosynthesis. I wrote all of that from divine inspiration, I have never opened a science book in my life. True story.

I have no plans of getting into teaching. I also believe (and this is also pretty clear from my previous posts, I think) that teachers generally encouraging "niceness" and stepping in before fights break out is the way to go. This, however, has no relation with the original argument that "you have an obligation to be nice". I don't see how you can jump from what I said, to your broken dam analogy. Maybe you're confusing me with somebody else (Volourn? I wouldn't know, I have him on ignore)? And your particular professional modus operandi is a universal law how? I'm not arguing it's not the most effective way to go about your work, I'm not arguing it's not a fairly healthy attitude (for you and others), I'm not arguing you should stop it and let kids grow into little barbarians. The code says it pretty clearly: "5) follow each teacher's classroom standards". That's great. None of that means that there's no room for non-nice folk in our happy little world. I may have been condescending, but it's obvious that you cannot or just don't want to understand what I meant by that. I recommend you re-read both threads, if you feel it's the same.

Yeah, wasn't the Mitsoda/Carlson AP writing basically scrapped when the game was reinvented from "Syriana" to B

No, I'm just attacking the idea that an obligation exists to "be nice to other people". Actions should be taken in order to avert the possible violence... not because there is a "right not to be baited".

*BUZZ!* Almost, but no. (1) It wasn't an outburst or an aggression or anything that could have been averted with enough self-control, because they didn't feel they were doing anything wrong, nor have they been shown to afterwards. The VP being overruled later on further supports this. (2) LOL! I can accept that the kids intended to bait... but how does that constitute a breach of anyone's rights? Is there a "right not to be baited", now? (4) "Appropriate" social behavior is terribly vague. The fact that you can find many people in this very thread (and the school, etc) that seem to believe the kids did nothing wrong completely buries your argument that the kids were behaving in a "socially unappropriate manner", as by definition, it's a matter of opinion. I wish people didn't have such a hard time telling the difference between their own mindsets and categorical imperatives.

It is false that "not being nice to other people" equates to "not being able to function in a community" -- much like being an asshat at the wheel doesn't mean you must break the traffic code or be otherwise unable to drive. I'd like you to define what exactly is "being nice", and how this is written into your school's conduct code, thus making it an obligation, rather than just one of the pedagogical guidelines teachers adhere to.

bah

Because it's your obligation as a human being to be nice to other people. That is a personal philosophy that i wish that many would follow, but alas not many do. That is why there is a system of laws to begin with. But since it is a personal framework for social conduct, it can not be made mandatory to others. Honestly, have you even worked in the private sector? And i do not mean the local supermarket, i am talking about multinational and global coorperations here. There you can most easily see the manifestation of this. You would be surprised how fast this obligation is thrown out of the window. The only obligation to be nice (mostly to customers) is in the self interest of the person/company to get more money/power/influence. Not by a sense of altruism. Or, alternatively, just drive in any highway.

I still don't understand what exactly is it you want. If westerners aren't as eager for violence against the Muslim world as you claim the opposite to be true (don't buy that btw)... is this a bad thing? We built our democracies based on a set of principles aimed to prevent anyone from abusing power to oppress others. There are self-protection mechanisms in place to deal with those that would pervert those principles and misuse them. The battle for secularizaton was long and bloody because religious structures were often one and the same as power structures, something which doesn't always apply elsewhere today, and by no means can be taken to imply that religion is innately more appealing to people than reason. I contend that there is no need for special measures, as these attacks aren't a significant structural risk. The law however, needs to be applied for this to be true. They need to be treated as the criminals they are -- there is no political statement and if there is, it's rendered invalid by the means used to forward it. By listening to their rants, giving extensive media coverage of their antics and overreacting to their hissy fits, we are making them greater than the pathetic misfits they are. I'm under no illusion that immigrants in general intend to integrate seamlessly into the society that takes them in. I don't have a problem with this, either. But I draw the line when they try to change our customs and uses. So don't make the mistake of believing I'm a multiculturalist -- I'm not. However, I refuse to let their actions plant a seed of fear that has the potential to undo and corrupt what took centuries and millions of lives to establish... and replace it with something much darker. Keep saying that we're losing this battle of ideas and eventually enough people may believe it. At that point and not before, we will have lost. Btw, I live in Spain, one of the countries in the whole EU with most immigration, a large portion of which is Muslim (Maghrebi).

What, I live in a country with ~40 million hispanics, of which I'm a part of. I couldn't get out of here soon enough. Just wipe off that puke and lighten up, will you.

Lol, you got more Hispanics living in there than Spain. I don't know how you can endure that. I know I couldn't.

Well I doubt you could have convinced John Stuart Mill that "positive" discrimination is useful or desirable. Mainstream western liberals today are about as genuine as "socialists". But other than that I agree. That's why armed policemen enforce the dictates of our judges. That's all the show of force that's needed. Pick them up. Put them in jail until they feel like playing nice. Or insta-deport them. I'm not sure what's exactly what you'd do. What encourages further attacks is the law not being applied as it should, and people relenting because of fear. 1) If you've met the kind of scum that makes up ultra groups, then you know that these morons also follow a philosophy of violence. Get caught by them alone and wearing the wrong tee or scarf, and you're guaranteed to end up in a hospital. It's the perceived connection of these Muslim agitators to terrorism that gives people the impression that they are more dangerous and better organized than common criminals or violent hooligans. 2) I saw the video. The cops were all over him, douching him with pepper sprays in like a fraction of a second. What I didn't catch is, did he continue the lecture after the attack? He wasn't seriously injured, so he could have. He should have.

I doubt liberalism is the problem. Freedom of speech, civil rights, political freedoms... those things are what social and political liberalism stands for. Nah, people just don't care -- they'd rather "avoid getting in trouble", than get in trouble to defend that. I'll concede it's a problem, though. From the article Mes posted below: That scares me ****less. When people are too afraid to stand up and fight for what they believe in, all is lost. Well, you can pretty much substitute "muslims" with any other fringe group with violent tendencies, and the statement doesn't lose an ounce of truth. Supremacists, nazis, extreme left, cultists... you name it. Only, our tolerance threshold seems to be higher for religious fascists (unless they are Christians). This would end if we stopped considering their message at all and considered only their acts. In a democracy, violence and threats are not accepted as a valid way to convey one's message. Therefore, they are criminals. Punish them as criminals. That's all there is to it. I wonder if there's some hard data on how statistically significant are these attacks compared to say, hooligan violence, regular violent crime or just random nightclub brawls. Because unless they are, it's only as serious as people allow fearmongering to affect their thinking. But hey, what the hell do I know. My fellow citizens elected our current president at gunpoint, so perhaps it's time we had a big ol' world war to remind all those yellow-bellied wankers that the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

Well, that's kind of the point. If those elected have in their agenda the abolition of democracy and the outlawing of all parties... I don't know much about Nepalese politics other than there's like 5 different "Communist Party"-s, so that may or may not be one of their goals. Also, lof's attempt to appropriate the transition to democracy in Nepal for the CPN(M) doesn't look particularly fair and balanced.

Wow. Warrior, philosopher, statesman. And he bagged his maths tutor, all according to Wiki. He also speaks Mandarin Chinese and has a career in MI6. Looks like someone to listen to.

Why, because a bunch of ****heads went and tried to beat somebody up? So, what else is new? Seriously, it's not like the news is that Iran finally has the bomb. Those asswipes can get thrown in jail like the common thugs they are. Why do they deserve special attention?

Yup. I know a lot about failing at humor, so I can relate to that awkward feeling. No worries, it'll fade with time. Possibly. LOL! You're my new fave poster of the week.