metadigital

Yes. You may have a small point that I might have not been more than 100% correct about the preceding approximation with respect to the correlation to real world events.

On the bright side, " looks like the smilie has pair of crotchets near his mouth.

So it wasn't an absolute list of priorities, it was a list of priorities based on your existing local conditions.

Reagan, hands down.

Why don't you explain this notion a bit more, because it's not very clear to me. Does consciousness (awareness of thoughts) scale? Does a person have more than a dog, who have more than an insect? What is the point of giving consciousness (or awareness) a new label?

Windows 386 Rap (For all you young'uns, that's the version of Windows 2.0 that was "boosted" to run on the 386. Notice the comparison with OS/2, and the reference to Lotus 1-2-3, as Excel wasn't a market leader, until it was boxed with Word and called "Office" ... :D )

I wondered why I could never catch them! "

Apparently the Company of Heroes DirectX10 patch is due out in March ...

That's because of the speed of the lizards running away, of course; the ones that run towards are red.

There is some sort of block on the quotation mark ... we've tried: " """" """ "" '"' without success. :confused:

Do you want to elaborate a bit on that swingeing generalization? And everyone else (not mentioning any names) pleaes try not to make blanket statements, as they are often offensive and ALWAYS wrong.

Also :ph34r: is ninja! (This is all Fionavar's fault!)

Is this directed at me? Volunteering for action and then deciding that he didn't want to do his service is even worse than being drafted, yes. But either are indefensible from the point of view of the social contract. And No, I wouldn't be on the boy's side. Duty is duty, it's not an arbitrarily determined role (or punishment), it is every individual's implicit contribution to the society to form a part of its collective defence. This doesn't prevent anyone from exercising their own right to protest or conduct political activities to try to change the policy; it just means that individuals are not permitted to counter the will of the society (Rousseau's "sovereign"). Again, if you don't want to be a member of the US society, then migrate. You might also try to sway public opinion to what you think it ought to be, too. The tyranny of the majority can affect society in a number of ways. John Stuart Mill illustrated it well How this relates to the Presidential Election? Can you see the way that a minority might be biased against? By the way, I would seriously recommend reading some of these classics; JS Mill's On Liberty is less than 130 pages: one could read that in an afternoon, instead of watching television, for example; this would help make more informed personal decisions.

Makes no difference. The government REPRESENTS THE WILL OF THE SOCIETY. If the government decides that it needs all citizens to to bear arms for the collective good of the society, then any person(s) who renege against the state are illegals. To quote Jean-Jacques Rousseau, I'll need to define his terms: Now, what are citizens' responsibilities to this body politic (he terms the sovereign): So the state would not survive long unless it is built on robust and equal membership of all members to form a common agreement. What is this common agreement? Well, Rousseau illustrated how people might live together, under the only equitable basis, the social contract: The freedom he defines cleverly (see below), and further explains the difference: Now, any contract has an exit clause, and that has conditions: Basically, using the duty of soldiership as a political weapon is not appropriate (much less fit for purpose). If you don't like the government policy, make them change it through the political system. Otherwise you will just destroy the society.

Yes. The ONLY circumstance that allows a soldier to not follow orders is if they contravene the Geneva convention. So the soldiers in Abu Graib should have disobeyed orders to torture civilians.

It's irrelevant. He signed up. There is no back-out clause. You don't have a full set of citizens' "rights" as a soldier, you have orders and you must follow them or be court-martialled, which (in times of war and depending on the country) can punish the guilty by firing squad.

It's a remake, for a start, of a classic film (with Christopher Lee!), and I don't think it survived the process intact ... though I haven't seen it.

People invading your personal space. It peeves me (not a phobia, just a BIG annoyance). Also I saw Jaws 2 at the cinema when I was about six and I still have an irrational fear of sharks (not quite so overpowering now, though).

donare (to sacrifice) First Conjugation (-are) If = "Si" We want the Active Imperative, which is a type of Subjunctive (the mood represents ideas, possibilities or necessities; often translated into English with auxiliaries: may, might, could, would, should or must): you must: pecuniam dona = you (singular) must give money pecuniam donate = you (plural) must give money pronoun: you ("to" = Dative declension of the noun) singular: tibi plural: vobis noun: saxum (neuter) "a rock" and Future tense of the verb "to hurl": iacere First Person Singular, Third Declension = iacam (or it might be iactam ... I'm not sure ) Si non pecuniam donate, saxum vobis iac[t]am! If you (pl.) don't give me (your) money, I'll hurl a rock at you (pl.)! I'd like someone to check that, though, I'm not an expert.

noun: catapulta, ballista (both female) declined for the (direct) object of the sentence (accusative case), is -am The verb "to have" is habere, conjugated for first person singular to "habeo", BUT, to say "I have a ..." you say "is mine ..." which is "est mihi", so: "est mihi catapultam" Just looking up the other stuff ...

If you are suggesting that the discussion has no more to be said, without going off-topic, then I will be pleased to close it. (I see you didn't add anything to the original discussion, either.) The person enlisted as a soldier AFTER the war had been declared. He then decided that he would NOT follow orders. When one enlists in the armed forces, certain civilian "rights" are suspended. It's in the contract that everyone signs when they enlist. The armed forces have their own rules and ways of keeping discipline. (Also in the contract.) For example, the British had thousands of soldiers attempting to desert in WW1,and chose to execute hundreds of them (mainly those who had deserted multiple times, up to about ten). So this person wasn't within any "right" to desert his tour of duty. He is merely trying to make a political statement, and using an inappropriate mechanism to do it. Soldiers don't have the same rights as citizens. He would be better picketing Capitol Hill.

Nightmare on Elm Street scared the bejesus out of me, when it came out. The thought of the surreal contents of my dreams having consequences in the real world; that an entity could invade my personal spaces and pollute them ... it was very effective.

Thanks. I'll check it out (even if no-one else does :D).

First, it's not certain exactly what the US was doing in the area. Yes, this guy was probably just a doctor. No, I am not a conspiracy theorist. However, I can imagine that the US could be using him for espionage. (We certainly wouldn't know.) That said, it's a real shame that the Tribal Elders can't be convinced of the good that a Polio vaccine will bring to their people. That said, if they don't want it, they don't have to have it. Let them keep getting Polio. Sooner or later they'll work it out.