Death_By_Pod

I don't exactly agree with that; I like to dream of things such as that there are galaxies out there that are entirely made of anti-matter (thus would annihilate with matter to a 1:1 ratio) and that there are other parts of the universe where our laws of physics don't work. The fact remains that our universe is generally isotropic (the same in all directions). If you can show that something applies in one section of space then there is no reason for it not to apply in all sections of space. This can be seen with observations such as the background radiation and galaxy distribution, so why shouldn't it apply to things like gods? If you have a statistically large enough area and god is not present there then the likelihood of god being somewhere else is infinitesimally small. How could we ever make any judgement if we do not assume the universe is isotropic? Gravity might be repulsive somewhere else in the universe, chaos might work in the opposite direction somewhere else in the universe, there might be an invisible pink unicorn somewhere else in the universe etc. If we conclude there is no god in the here then what makes it likely he is somewhere else?

There has been no evidence of Noah's ark being found. Here are a couple of articles on the hoaxes and alleged sightings from Christian aligned websites. http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a001.html http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i4/report.asp The whole idea of the Earth being flooded is ridicules, you need to get the volume of water somewhere in the first place and it needs to disappear somewhere for the flood to subside. Also it wouldn't be able to explain ancient cultures such as the Aboriginal Australians which lived in Australia for over 40000 years (not to mention they have lived in Australia longer then the Young Earth predicts). Have there been any evidence of the more outrageous events (if discovered would mean the bible has to be true) of the bible? I'm not talking about things like the Dead Sea scrolls but things like Noahs ark, Tower of Babel etc. Also using ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅEvolution is just a theoryÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

If youÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢re running away from something, you must have spotted it in the first place in order to identify it as a threat. If they are wearing a police uniform, chance is the person is a policeman. You even said it in your own words "Runs and shouts at you." Firstly you can see them running at you and if they are wearing a uniform (after all they are the police). Secondly they are shouting at you, they are shouting things like stop itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s the police or I'll shoot at the very least this should get you to turn around. The only situation where you might run away without spotting the person is if someone starts screaming for no reason. Do you honestly run way away from someone screaming without looking at them or listening to what they are saying; are you that jumpy? I guess 99% of the world's population would end up dead in the gutter according to you. I can honestly tell you if a policeman shouts and runs at me I will not try to run away from me, if they are running after me chances are they are not going to stop if I start running; I don't know why you can't do the same.

I really don't think thatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s the case, how could similar morality arise from nations that were totally disconnected from the main world. Are you saying that tribal cultures (such as the Aborigines and American Indians) have no morality because they didn't hear the bible's passage of "doing good"? Sure they had their own religion but if every religion teaches the same morality and this morality is documented and passed down by people then wouldn't it be fair to say morality rose from people instead of a higher power? It's exactly the same reasoning for things like culture and language. Did religion tell us how to talk or express ourselves? Then what makes morals different from things such as language and culture, they are just as intangible and subjective as morals. A pretty simple explanation for helping family members in terms of evolution would be: ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅPeople who help their relatives may not themselves have so many offspring, but as a result of their behaviour the kin group will have more surviving offspring who will carry the genes of the self-sacrificing individuals. Thus the genes that dispose people to behave that way will not be eliminated by natural selection but will in fact do well in competition with the genes of people who do not help relatives.ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

Pretty much, I would like to add that they don't say that they have been collecting information about the suspects for well over a year. The government has for the past few decades and always will monitor its citizens. We have advanced monitoring equipment that detect the topic of phone conversations, intercept radio and satellite communication and read emails all done autonomously with any overly suspicious activity reported to relevant authorities. I don't think computers target certain people or religious persuasion, do you? Also it is not a good idea to attempt to run away from the police, it doesn't make you look innocent. People who have nothing to hide don't fear the police.

I should probably start off saying that intelligent design is just a tool used by some Christians to assert their morale beliefs on others. Below is a list of their goals and time frame for them with some links at the end for further reading. GOALS Governing Goals * To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies. * To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God. Five Year Goals * To see intelligent design theory as an accepted alternative in the sciences and scientific research being done from the perspective of design theory. * To see the beginning of the influence of design theory in spheres other than natural science. * To see major new debates in education, life issues, legal and personal responsibility pushed to the front of the national agenda. Twenty Year Goals * To see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science. * To see design theory application in specific fields, including molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology, physics and cosmology in the natural sciences, psychology, ethics, politics, theology and philosophy in the humanities; to see its innuence in the fine arts. * To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html No one calls evolution a law. No one wants to call any of their theories a law because it is possible that it is in fact not a law. Take a look at Newton's LAW of gravity, it is wrong. However it does describe our world accurately (you can even use Newton's laws to calculate how to get a space ship to another planet rather accurately) but it fails to take into account things such as pressure influencing results slightly. As a result no one wants to call theories a law because we don't know everything in 100% detail but it doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t mean we don't know things 95% or so. Pretty much we don't call things laws because of a technicality; I would like to see every law called a theory because we can not prove 100% that these laws hold. They only seem to hold in our part of the universe, we havenÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t tested the laws everywhere in the universe. Microevolution is the same thing as macroevolution. You may consider forming a new eye to be macro evolution but in fact it consists of many microevolutions. In fact there is no theory of microevolution since it was a term made up by creationists to help dismiss evolution as a whole. And thatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s why it shouldn't be taught in Science classes, because I.D. doesn't have a testable hypothesis and hence is not a scientific theory. It is more philosophical theory then scientific theory; however you don't see them petitioning to get their theory taught in philosophy classes or even religious classes. It is because they want to try and stop a scientific idea that goes against their belief that evolution means that their bible is one big lie and they canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t let it happen. Classifying it as a sc (Just using your quote as a basis for this paragraph, not arguing against you) [/url]

Here is a sampler: http://www.tindeck.com/audio/files/24fhc-Stabilizersamplerfull[extension not allowed] ..and here is a link to the album: http://mecca.hostdime.com/AProjectCalledRed.zip Try to keep the links in the forums please since they are not mine and I don't expect these forums to put a huge burden on the files if you want to give you friends the album use the B.T (the speeds on the BT are good but the links are at request).

Songs produce a pretty unique fingerprint which would be very hard to decipher. However I guess it would be possible to make sheet music out of a single instrument playing if you know the timbre, but for band music it would be practically impossible. Look at some of the images below that have turned up in certain songs, what notes would you classify them as? It would be a nice feature as IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ve always wondered what certain notes were played in certain songs but it's pretty much impossible.

The DSD is part of the ECHELON network, It's not clear if they can directly monitor Australian citizens but they sure can indirectly monitor citizens from its partners on the ECHELON network (US, UK etc. for example Australia monitors America and America monitors Australia). If you look at that site I posted earlier the mere fact that they have a section on "Privacy Concerns" and protocol on dealing with Australian communications should give you the hint that they are capable of getting Australian signals. I donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t know if itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s any different but the DSD works inside of the Department of Defence, not the Federal police. I donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t think the military have things such as warrants however I could be wrong. What will they warrant for anyway? ItÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s not physical property.

SO we lose our right/ability to use a phone for private convosation?! The only reason to use a phone over other methords is for privacy. You can be monitored by the Australian (any other country for that matter) government at any time, however they will not release any information about you unless itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s for a serious crime, terrorist threat etc. http://www.dsd.gov.au/about_dsd/privacy_safeguards.html There is no where in the world where you can have 100% privacy, so get over it. I don't know about you but I use a phone because it is more convenient then visiting the person, rather then privacy.

So why are America forcing people to have biometrics taken of people entering the country. Photos and fingerprints etc? A real suicide bomber isnt going to care if you take his picture and prints, hes not gonna be around for you to prosecute him afterwards It is not fear, it is precaution. Everywhere you go and see people take precautions, many times to the point where anything bad happening is statistically zero (or very small). You might not be scared of robbers breaking or entering but you still have a lock on your front door, the government might not be scared of people paying their taxes but they still have a tax collection agency and as a last example (for Americans) you might not be scared of people taking your rights away but you still own a gun, the world wouldn't exist with precautions. Now you might not think its right or that itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s racist (I doubt they specify any race in legislation, so the people singling out Arab people over white suspects would be the ones to call racist) but it happens all the time. There have probably been many other pieces of legislation that have taken away your rights (See ECHELON) without you even knowing, this one has just got sensationalised by the media because it concern terrorists. Or you could be from the other point of view that when you do an action you do it out of fear and in most cases itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s true. However that also means we are afraid of almost anything and I don't think thatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s the definition Bush uses.

Dreamcast was released early and that did well didnt it? High tide occurs at 7am which is also the peak time for traffic crossing the bridge overhead of the water, therefore high tides are caused by heavy traffic. There were a half a dozen reasons why the dreamcast failed which can't be compared. DreamcastÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s lack of DVD, easy ability to pirate (it was pretty much a standard cd-rom), bad reputation, debt and best of all really poor marketing in Europe contributed to the death of the dreamcast. I should also mention it sold 10million units in its short life span, half of the game cubes total sales. Not too bad for a "failed" console.

Terrorists are the new communists (replacing a long lineage of scapegoats). Don't think this is anything new; it has been going on for centuries. People will always find something to be afraid of; I think it's a rather natural thing to fear something out your control donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t you? In a couple of decades it will pass and then we will move on to something bigger and better (please be granny killing robots). If you take a look at the past there were just as many cover ups with the anti-communism movement. E.g.: [/i]"ECHELON is thought to be the largest signals intelligence and analysis network for intercepting electronic communications in history. Run by the UKUSA Community, ECHELON can capture radio and satellite communications, telephone calls, faxes and e-mails nearly anywhere in the world and includes computer automated analysis and sorting of intercepts. ECHELON is estimated to intercept up to 3 billion communications every day. The UKUSA constituent agencies are: * Australia - Defence Signals Directorate (DSD) * Canada - Communications Security Establishment (CSE) * New Zealand - Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) * United Kingdom - Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) * United States - National Security Agency (NSA)"[/i] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON And to think our communications have been tapped for decades without our permission. Have you heard of any false arrests because of this system, some evidence that the government doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t care about you if you are not suspicious. Seriously the government has better things to do then to track what internet sites your going to or what you are planning to do with your friends. You are not important/the centre of the universe in the eyes of the government. However on the other hand it depending on what level and how the shoot to kill policy is implemented it could be dangerous. If the policy applies to any police officer I can see accidents arising, however if only allowed by high ranking and trained officers I could see this as a good thing. Overall I donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t mind losing civil liberties (who said we were entitled to them in the first place?) in order to gain something in return. Although currently monitoring is only done for specific reasons, I hope in the future we will invent technology that will form a self aware network to prevent and stop crime.

I was talking about in-game video. I know the difference between a CGI video and in-game footage, I wouldn't use CGI as an example of power since all the work is done before you view the video leaving my argument useless.

full settings on a computer are almost always better than looking than on the current console. only times it isnt is when a new console comes out, and for a little while after. Doom3, Half-life 2 and Halo2 are pretty good at matching up to the computer. Although they don't look like max setting games (probably medium settings) they sure run well for something less then 1/3 of a computer that handles max settings. If you had a computer with the same stats as the Xbox the games wouldn't even run. However this isn't the Xbox; the xbox360 has statistics quite a bit better then computers today (compared to the mediocre stats of the Xbox). The architecture for the graphics card is next generation in terms of speed and a couple of generations ahead in terms of features (a large cache next to the GPU and unified shader pipelines). Also the 3 CPU cores with 2 threads each running at 3.2 GHz (so thatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s what 9.6Ghz of raw power) pretty much dwarfs current computers whereas the Xbox barely kept up with my year or two old computers. Also I would like to mention that games will not age as fast compared to the Xbox. The first generation games are already starting to look photorealistic (have you seen the sweat on the basketball players in NBA2k6) with future generations looking much better as programmers get use to the XboxÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s capabilities (compare Halo 1 to 2 or Project Gotham 1 to 2). Sure there will be some nice new graphics effects that will come out but they won't be as big as 4x Anti-Aliasing, motion blur or bloom effects (which gives graphics a lot greater realism) ; not to mention the graphics will output at details that will approach computer monitors.

Can you name any computer which will run the most current games and doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t need to be upgraded for about 5 years? Most computers will be lucky to last 2 years (although more realistically you are looking at 1 year). I brought my 3 GHz P4 a couple of months ago and it can't play games on full settings anymore, Doom3 even lags a little but it might be the cheap 3d Card. At least when you get a console game you know you are going to get something that will have optimal performance for the platform.

Well, You said youÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ve known here from sophomore year (you specifically stated the year) rather then the generic term of high school, you state it's your senior year now (which I'm guessing isn't your final year of college), you are a captain of a football team (most people who go to college go because of academia and focus on this rather then their sporting achievements), you fail to spell simple words which could have been avoided if you used a spell checker and most important of all you are asking an internet forum for dating advice. From this I can conclude that you are indeed high school students and therefore the relationships you have in high school are high school relationships. Pretty simple huh? It doesn't matter if your 18, do you think your body magically switches of and you turn into an adult. Being 18 is a legal requirement, not a biological one since your question fall's in the biological realm rather then the legal I will focus on your mental maturity and biological development which means your age matters. ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅAdolescence is the transitional stage of development between childhood and full adulthood, representing the period of time during which a person is biologically adult but emotionally not at full maturity. The ages which are considered to be part of adolescence vary by culture. In the United States, adolescence is generally considered to begin around age 12-13, and end at 17-18. By contrast, the World Health Organization (WHO) defines adolescence as the period of life between 10 and 20 years of age.ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

1. I mean casual events not dating (not for a private relationship). 2. So how many years have they been together out of high school? And how many other relationships (including everyone else in the year) have failed in that period? High school relationships are not completely useless as they do provide experience but if you seriously expect a deep and long lasting relationship to form during a period over which you mentally mature, you have to be either (really) old fashioned or crazy. Sure it could happen but the likelihood that you both develop in a way which you can still relate to and love is rather small and any occurrence I would regard as a freak (being lucky) case. People do not have the mind set that they need to find someone and settle with them, women have more freedoms are less likely to find the nearest man to marry. It is expected in society that women spend time single rather then a shotgun wedding to save face in their community. Marriages resulting from high school sweat hearts are a thing from years gone by.

Wow sir this thread is going to go gold 55555! :roll: Please close this topic as it is regarded as spam and generally a useless post for most people. (This thread is not actually about stairs but is a secret handshake a certain group does to associate with each other under the guise of a simple question. No I'm not going to reveal the second part of the handshake. OP why do you need to see if other members are on this board with you, it is irreverent?) Actually I have 3 flights of stairs to my apartment, so stairs are a must for me.

I'm probably going to go against a lot of people's opinion here and say do whatever you feel is best. It might not always be in the best interest to reject her only because she is going with your friend, friendships and the feelings involved change all the time especially at that age. She has a crush on you and if I were in your shoes, I would offer to go out with her and do things with her (maybe you guys are mature enough to realise that going out with people doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t mean you are dating), maybe she will get over it or maybe not. ItÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s not like your stealing his wife away from him or anything; youÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢re in high school relationships in that stage of your life barely work out.

:roll: What till your in your twenties and you will look back and realise how immature you are. You have no idea how immature kids can be because youÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢re a kid yourself. YouÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢re in the friend zone and it seems like you will never leave that zone. Some Girls are like that, once you are their friend you can never be their girlfriend. Stay friends with her and you never know maybe she will change her mind as she gets older but I doubt it.

Even with The reason here is the weather (environment), pretty self explanatory. If you are getting ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅdepressionÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

Addition/Subtraction: (a/B) + (c/d) = (a*d + b*c)/(b*d) (a/B) - (c/d) = (a*d - b*c)/(b*d) Multiply: (a/B) * (c/d) = (a*c)/(b*d) Division a/b/c = (c*a)/b

You do know that most of the money iTunes makes will go to RIAA (and in return go to the labels and artists) since Apple works on a commission model. There is no way you can say that iTunes made the best use out of mp3's sales. I don't know a single person that uses iTunes yet I know most (if not all) download mp3's, I think the prices offered on iTunes is still way too expensive. I paid $10 (AUD) to get a good quality (no scratches and marks on CD and booklet) second hand CD and shipped from the other side of the world; When I would have paid about twice that to get a digital copy of the album (which has no booklet and is lower in audio quality). I done a quick google search and even the big anti RIAA site agree (even though I don't agree with how they present their propaganda): http://www.downhillbattle.org/itunes/[/url]

I read it and the only thing I think has any relevance to what I posted was that of out of print or rare albums. I have no problems with people downloading rare or out of print albums, I have a problem people downloading cd's you can buy in a music store. She responds to RIAA's misleading statements which I agree with (which are pretty stupid like the number of black cds that "might" be used as music cdÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s). Then she goes on about copy protection which I agree with (anyone with who is a little above average with computers will know how to bypass the protection) and poor royalty fee's which I also agree with. She says there are only 4 major labels left which is true but you think if there were some really passionate artists out there that they would band together to form a new anti-RIAA label? It doesn't matter that they don't have their back catalogues any fans would still pick up new albums by them and over time they would actually get big enough to combat the major labels. If anything it would get them more sales from all the people (which is starting to grow) who refuse to buy RIAA albums. 10% of all cd's in America are not from a RIAA label which is a fairly significant number, so it isn't a lost cause yet. I just think the artists are too lazy to care because if they did they would have already done something about it by now. Music artists are just a flock of sheep they just follow the leaders which is a real shame because you think that a few big guns would pool their money together to do something about it. You canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t tell me that itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s not the artists fault that most labels are apart of RIAA, if they didnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t like it they could wait to the contractÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s over and switch to a non RIAA label.