213374U

I doubt he can give any, since it's doubtful he's ever murdered anyone. So he wouldn't very well know what a "realistic murder simulation" actually looks like. Sleep tight, Hurlie.

Look up "Blowing Up Russia". The book was banned in that country, for one reason or another, and was authored by that guy that was killed with Polonium in the UK a few years back. And don't forget to polish your tinfoit hat.

You obviously forgot about the small "incident" that the Ottomans once almost took over Europe in a very brutal way, right? What, you mean the 14th century Ottomans? I was specifically referring to the Caliphates that filled the power vacuum left by the collapse of the Western Roman Empire... six centuries earlier. Your bringing up Ottoman expansionism in response to my point about religious tolerance in Al-Andalus makes about as much sense as comparing the Crusades to the US invasion of Iraq. A bit too much Medieval Total War, perhaps?

So, God would have indeed created a stone so heavy it could not be lifted, not even by Himself. Welcome to the realm of theology, where logic is often the first thing to go out the window. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irresistible_force_paradox If you haven't yet, try to get Demon: the Fallen from White Wolf. It's pretty cool, and unlike actual theology, reading the mythology chapters doesn't feel like a complete waste of time afterwards -- you can excuse yourself by claiming you're setting up a game...

If my country did that, I'd GTFO. We are supposed to have a professional military over here... only, "professional" is the one word you'd never use to describe it. Low morale, outdated practices, dismal preparation, gaming the system as a form of life, chronic equipment shortages at all levels (I remember the ****ing recruiter jokingly telling me "you'll jump, if there's money for fuel, hopefully" when I enlisted for airborne service) -- that is the sort of traits that will draw your attention from my country's military. Of course, my view may be a bit jaded by the fact that our army was "professionalized" (LOL!) overnight, so to speak, to fulfill one of the promises made during campaign time by the party in power. The result was disastrous, and the force is, from what I've seen, professional on paper only. Further, the military estate has a terrible reputation and has to bear some very ugly stigmas that stem from its role in the civil war and following dictatorship, and as a result, nurturing the military is very unprofitable business, from a political standpoint. So I guess the answer is very much dependent on where the person giving it hails from. I not only have intellectual compunctions against conscription (here's a little something: try to find differences between that and slavery), but also experience that leads me to believe that a conscripted fighting force can only be truly effective if the homeland's breadbasket is being overrun by waves of panzers, perhaps. On the other hand, I agree with Mes, and some good things can come out of a little military duty. The best thing I got out of my time there was the bit about knowing myself and my limits much better than I previously thought possible, but this was only after spending a few hellish months in the green berets capacitation (basic) course. And I know for a fact that 99% of personnel don't come anywhere near that sort of physical and psychological exertion, so there. I also agree with Wals that some sort of "give back to the community" compulsory period wouldn't be too bad, if only because that forces people from different backgrounds to live and work together -- that sort of reality check is invaluable and very difficult to experience otherwise. That is the only other positive experience I got. Eventually, I gave in and played the system to weasel my way out of that ****hole as best I could. So that's the story of how what is for all intents and purposes a conscription military can ruin a military vocation. I'd hazard a guess and say that's universally a bad thing and the exact opposite of what is intended. So, as a rule of thumb, conscription = bad.

Nah. He had voiced his support for the putsch. That by itself may not be a criminal offense, and it's not the same as being involved in the coup itself.

Can't argue with that, that's for sure... You misspelled "Wrath of Dagon." I lol'd

That's interesting, but I'm inclined to believe it actually works the other way around: media outlets are more popular the more they say what people want to hear the way they want to hear it... being EXTREME is usually a synonym of being biased. Or that's the common perception, anyway. Nobody's preventing anyone from going to the party for somethingorother website for their news, right? But they'd rather browse the NYT...

Fair enough. I personally don't have an opinion on the issue of whether it's possible that such a thing as man-made warming could be happening -- I'm not qualified to judge, not by a long shot. But the more I read, the less convinced I am that presently science is close to accurately explaining what's really going on, so preditions shouldn't be taken as gospel. The ostracization of scientists that don't subscribe to the mainstream opinion doesn't help, either. However, having seen first-hand how petty, unprofessional and most importantly, unscientific some scientists can be (scientists are people, too), I'm not going to trust either side just because they say I should, especially when the results of their work aren't what is advertised. It can't be stressed enough that climate modelling is a work in progress, and therefore the debate is far from closed (this constant need for adjustment and revision of predictions is what denialists use as ammunition against AGW). I guess my stance on this could be summed up as "hold your horses", until the job is done and the data cherrypicking shenanigans and political bull**** is finished on both sides. For reference, the "changelog" between TAR (2001) and AR4 (2007) models: http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/ipcc/model_docum...l_evolution.pdf As you can see, we aren't quite there, yet.

Who needs friends when you have MS points.

Huh? You mean you are actually learning stuff? I thought people went to college to experience the decadent American college life, centered around scatterbrained hotties, frat house partying and illegal substance (ab)use. You have failed me for the last time.

Uh-huh. At least one good thing will come out of this healthcare bill thing -- from now on Hades will have no excuse not to have his medication upped.

"Economics and Political Science" How is it/why did you choose that?

Thoughts?

Back off man, I saw him first!

Hold on. Who is qualified to judge? Physicists? Anyone with a science degree? Someone involved with the IPCC? Those whose opinion supports your own? Just who, exactly? And weren't you saying just last page that "the ability to read and basic understanding of science" was enough? Which one is it? Yeah, the problem is that, in science, it's also necessary to deal with the data that doesn't agree with one's hypothesis. And I was told that it's also important to try and maintain perspective of the limited application value of one's model, considering how other factors aren't well understood and therefore left out or parametrized: Bohr wouldn't have tried to use his model to predict the emission spectrum of carbon. Also:

Well, I can only recommend that you read the article if you have the time, then. It highlights some admissions made in an interview by one of the big time scientists that worked for the IPCC, to make the point that the observed warming is well within normal parameters. The guy was hit pretty hard by the whole "Climategate" thing, apparently. It also mentions a few other interesting details I particularly hadn't heard, but overall the tone is fairly hostile to the man. The fossil fuels issue is only mentioned in passing, I think. Hey, who knows. Maybe we can actually get this thread back on track and leave the philosophy of science for another day...

I'm sure that any member of a special police unit/spec ops outfit can reasonably level the same criticism against gunplay in games... only most people haven't experienced the real thing and can't very well compare. Interesting read, Enoch.

Then it would simply not be published anywhere other than perhaps the author's website. I can guarantee that there would be no censorship proper. Hell, probably somebody has done that already, or worse. You know this guy Franco? You wouldn't believe the things people draw with him as a theme, around here. Nobody other than the usual suspects is tearing their shirts over that, as far as I can tell...

It wasn't. Not as far as providing an explanation for the emission spectrum of hydrogen goes, at any rate. In a general sense, yes, it's wrong -- though I've mostly heard it described as "incomplete" and "limited". It wasn't meant to explain ALL reality at the subatomic level, FOREVAR. Unlike your mind, science isn't a 0 or 1 thing. Well, it must be nice to have faith in something at least. Good luck with that. Btw, that's an informal fallacy. (argument from authority)

Nice, because other than this, there's nothing in your post I disagree with. So, other than dotting the i's and crossing the t's in Wals' post (and sending some happy feelings my way while you're at it), what do you have to say about the OP?

No ****, Sherlock! What was the model originally posited for, genius? Did it serve its purpose? At any rate, re-read what Walsingham said, think how Bohr's model illustrates his point, and rethink your ridiculous statement that "a model that cannot be used for any form of prediction is worthless". I'll be waiting. I already explained how AGW isn't even up to "theory" standards, as far as the scientific meaning of the word goes. A hypothesis with a basis on highly contested data and woefully incomplete and fine-tuned mathematical models? Sure. A "theory"? Perhaps, but only in the "I have a theory: you are a moron" sense. So tell us, what is AGW, according to you? A scientific Law? An epistemological imperative? A palindrome? PROTIP: It's also useful to explain HOW the argument you are trying to refute is wrong. The catch is that bluffing is much more difficult.

Nah, I restate my points in as derogatory a tone as I'm capable of when folks refuse to address the points and instead have a go at me. It's simple, really. It doesn't say much about you that you haven't been able to recognize this pattern yet. Oh, by the way, people who disagree with you are not necessarily wrong, nor are their opinions meaningless. That may actually be the case, but it's up to you to write a convincing rebuttal. Observations that do not agree with the model serve that purpose. If new, reliable observations do not agree with your current model, your model is wrong. Obbie, meet Bohr's atomic model. Bohr, meet Obbie. Etc...

I love neat sounding quotes. They are an awesome resource for when one has nothing original to say, and they can make you look real smart when delivered well and coupled with a good use of the eyebrows. A few off the top of my head: "When I let go of what I am, I become what I might be" - Lao Tzu "Stop quoting the laws, we have swords" - Pompey "I divide my officers into four classes; the clever, the lazy, the industrious, and the stupid. Most often two of these qualities come together. The officers who are clever and industrious are fitted for the highest staff appointments. Those who are stupid and lazy make up around 90% of every army in the world, and they can be used for routine work. The man who is clever and lazy however is for the very highest command; he has the temperament and nerves to deal with all situations. But whoever is stupid and industrious is a menace and must be removed immediately!" - Kurt von Hammerstein-Equord "No citizen has a right to be an amateur in the matter of physical training... what a disgrace it is for a man to grow old without ever seeing the beauty and strength of which his body is capable." - Socrates

In an ideal world where every listener is at least as educated as every speaker, hate speech would be pointless, and therefore there would be no need for it to be banned. This is far from being an ideal world, though, and we all recognize the dangers of demagoguery and populism. I'm not arguing for absolute, 100% pure unadulterated free speech. The problem lies, as always, in the proverbial line on the sand.