Death_By_Pod

Yea I read *most* of it... and I noted the end, however it was irrelevant to the point I was trying to prove - my point? They fudge fossils, and people blindly buy into it because it "proves" evolution. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html What because one person fudges a fossil that the other 8 existing collections of Archaeopteryx (if you look at the images some look pretty complete) are invalidated? There is always someone out there that wants to become famous due to a great discovery. It's just not the scientists, how many people do you see who advertise their goods and claim if you don't buy it youÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ll burn in hell? :roll: Look at all these religious movies and Da Vinci Code I don't think any god would be pleased that some people are making a buck from his name.

The people who say that god made the world and evolution took off from there are actually supporters of evolution. Evolution makes no claim to as how we got here but is only describing the process of change. It is pretty clear just looking about that things change and adapt and that's all evolution is about. When comparing Evolution with Creationism (or intelligent Design), it is not the theory of god (or "something") creating the universe but god (or "something") crafting every single species. That is what we are talking about the animal part of creationism as Evolution makes no claim about where the universe comes from. If you want to compare all of creationism with something you will need to compare it to a theory of everything since creationism is the bible's 'everything'. So tell me does it really make sense that something out there hand crafted every single animal out there, why? It is clear we have a mechanism for change (reproduction) and a reason for change (the environment) so why would we according to creationism be unable to adapt? Why did god create 85,000 species of Diptera (flies), 38 species of mice and only 12 known species of man with only 1 being alive today? There just seems too much of a coincidence to see a correlation between the number of species and how quickly a population can grow. This doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t sound terribly scientific however it is just a logical observation. There are dozen's of pieces of evidence for evolution. This pretty much sums it up: Looking at this: You begin to see why people can be sceptical about evolution. We can See A and B but there are so many shades in-between that makes it seem like it's doing nothing. This also brings up the idea of speciation and when it happens. Someone said earlier it is when two animals from the same species can't produce offspring but why does nature all of a sudden stop allowing species too reproduce the line can seem almost arbitrary. Finally I want to say that you can have an effect without a cause. Depending on how you define it I personally think that Quantum Tunnelling and Quantum Fluctuations (such as particle-anti particle pairs coming in and out of existence all the time) are two good examples of that. Whoever said that evolution only has a 1 in 10^256 chance of happening; lets assume this is true, then what if there were 10^256 alternate universes then the chance of evolution and hence a living consciousness existing in a universe is 1. If you attempt to understand the concept of nothing you quickly see how silly the idea that our unique universe and anything else doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t exist, it makes you wonder what would make our universe unique and everything else nothing in the first place if there was nothing previous to the big bang. The only logical way I can think about it is that there are an infinite number of alternate universes to counteract the idea of nothingness outside our universe otherwise the chances of me typing this post is worse then the probability of the theory of evolution existing.

I think square is considering xbox360 for the MMO's because of it's online capabilities but hey havenÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t said anything else apart from the FFOnline deal. I wouldn't put it past Microsoft to do almost anything to get an exclusive from them however. Some magazine scans which say the Killzone trailer was rendered at about 5 frames per second and sped up to 60 plus some other nice looking screenshots (multiple pages, go back and forth at the bottom). If they released enough titles I like I would consider buying it. It looks like the PS3 can do some form of justice to them. How much we don't know yet. http://www.jeux-france.com/images2_4_10872.html And finally here are the confirmed games for Xbox360 so far.

I can melt gallium... In my hand.

I don't think you have to go the entire way to communism. Actually I think that a planned economy can provide more then communism without the inherent corruption and waste that communism brings. The longer we live in a free market the worse off people will get. It is not the companies/government that is flawed but the system they are allowed to trade under. If you promote a widening profit line then you are always going to have a loser as the people with the power will always get their way (i.e. more profit).

Insider trading and fraud does hurt people and quite badly. What if you invested a large sum in Enron and are banking on the hopes that an energy company is a safe and sound investment so you can make some money to live off from. It's not fair to invest in a company who is fiddling their books, if I changed my books to say that I'm getting record profits when in fact IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢m losing money is just an outright lie and investors can get screwed over by it. Remember when you win on the market most of the time someone else is losing, same thing with Stewart. If you buy when you know your going to make record profits or make a deal which will make the company lot's of money is cheating and deceitful to the shareholders. I have no sympathy for people who cheat on the stock exchange, sure the other people did do some bad things but I feel fraud has far wider effects then killing 1 person or molesting a few kids, Fraud can affect and ruin thousands of peoples' lives.

http://society.guardian.co.uk/societyguardian/story/0,7843,540194,00.html "The creative minds behind a Dutch government report - visionary to some, scary to others - suggest just this for a site at Rotterdam within spitting distance of mainland Europe's largest port. The scale is vast: imagine 10 football fields laid out in a rectangle, roughly 1km by 400 metres, and then six floors of equal area, a total of 200 hectares (500 acres) stretching skywards. Within the building would be animal production, aquaculture, vegetable and insect growing. The complex, known as Deltapark envisages 300,000 pigs, 1.2m chickens, tens of thousands of fish and a giant vegetable growing area all under one roof." - Farming is a waste of floor space when you can stack it on top of each other without losing anything. Ohh no the animals arenÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t on the ground? It just makes no sense, after all we sit inside buildings all day and we are just as much an animal as they are. I don't know about you but our nuclear reactor is about 2 kilometresÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ (~1mile) away from residential buildings and about 17km (~10 miles) away from me. It's probably that far away because it's on top of a hill and on government property, land that isn't too keen for development. Yes it's small and probably wouldn't do too much damage but it's nowhere near the 30 miles youÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢re talking about.

LetÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s start farming in buildings because that is one of the biggest space wasters on earth. We could free up huge amounts of space if we farmed animals in building's or done hydroponicsÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ in buildings. Let's start thinking about space wasted as a whole before we complain about nuclear waste. Proposed solutions to nuclear waste include using mountain sides which are of no use for us to build on. What do you mean reactors last for 50 years (is that from Sim City 2000 or something)? Reactors could last longer a lot longer if properly maintained, the fuel used in reactors are removable these days hence you don't need to build a whole new building if you want more power, just replace the fuel rods. Just like a car, you fill it the tank up with more fuel instead of buying a whole new car. I guess reactors would last less then 50 years because technology would render the old reactors uneconomical. Who uses 50 year old cars or computers (even homes need renovations to stay useful)? Once you put all the radioactive material in safe containers your free to remove the building since it's not radioactive. Chernobyl can't really be compared to anything it is in a class of its own; if you want to compare the safety look at the Three Mile Island meltdown which occurred in America. It happened BEFORE Chernobyl yet the meltdown was completely contained and no casualties occurred. The threat of something like Chernobyl is minimal; I would say youÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢re just as likely to have a problem with a coal plant. There is so much safety policy that any problem in the design and running of the plant would get it shutdown. Safety increases the cost of nuclear power. Solar power will take years to get a return. It would take hundred's of square metres to power one home, it's completely unfeasible.

With the exception of the nuclear waste left behind. No one is entirely sure how long it will take for the waste to become safe, and current laws on how to store it are causing more harm than good. However if we reprocess the uranium into Cesium-137 (with a half life of 30 years) it would take a few hundred years for it to be less radioactive then what it was originally in the ground. A few hundred years is nothing and we would find out a new way to get rid of it (I think something like sending it to the sun, via a space elevator would be the best way to deal with it) also you cant use Cesium-137 as a nuke in the conventional sense (it can be made into a dirty bomb however but you would be crazy opening a crate of it). The storage of it poses no problem the crates are tested like nothing else (after all the controversy the last thing you need is people claiming the storage vassals are not safe). The best bet is to store them somewhere that won't change much and is safe from attack. A good location would be in the side of a mountain (pretty much what those impossible fortresses of evil are based on). If given the choice I would rather live around the corner to a nuclear plant then 10km away from a coal plant. The waste from a coal plant may cause big problems (reports of it killing up to 30k people in the US a year) whereas the only waste that can affect you from a plant is non-radioactive steam (the water that comes out from the plant is on a different circuit to the power source so it can't be contaminated).

Blaming communism for blatant human mistakes when building that reactor is a bit off... What happened at Chernobyl was caused by a number of security measures not being stuck to. An experiment was scheduled, was executed with too small a number of scientists, the control staves (I hope that's the correct English word in this case) were too big for the mediator, so the controlled chain reaction (supposed to happen in a Nuclear reactor) turned into an uncontrolled chain reaction (supposed to happen in a Nuclear bomb), and to top it all, the concrete roof came off in an explosion, blowing millions of heavily radioactive particles up to two kilometers into the sky. The fallout affected most of Europe, and even today radiation levels at the Chernobyl site are way above average and the effects of the fallout still contribute about 200 microSievert to the amount of radiation European citizens yearly suffer. You canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t blame it on the person without taking a look at the motivations behind their actions. If you look at the causes it becomes quite clear why their actions might have been influenced by a demanding communist regime. Just to let you know IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢m not anti communist, I actually am a supporter of a planned economy (government control) rather then a free economy. I just blame the corruption and inefficiency that it brought. After all why would people circumvent the security features when their lives and the lives of many (it was next to a city) where at risk. ItÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s like pulling a pin out of a grenade because you will be able to use it faster when you need it (I.E. a disregard for even the simplest safety). From http://www.chernobyl.co.uk/causes.html: Causes of Chernobyl: - There were months behind schedule, they rushed it and didn't care. If they made this a success it would boost the morale of the people and it would create envy from other nations. - See below why this would become a problem. Might I add that technology has come a long way? It has been alleged (I don't have any sources on me) that the new series of reactors have so many safety features that it is impossible for it to blow up like it did in Chernobyl. -The head technician wanted to get the test done no matter what, it was behind schedule and if it passed it would look favourable on his record for a promotion he wanted. Thus he violated a lot of safety and didn't even ring up the head of operations when the problem began.

Yes; that's due to a chemical absorbing the smog and then drifting in the wind. After a couple of hours the chemical releases the smog. So depending on the wind smog can appear over area's that wouldn't normally have smog. I put a bit of blame for global warming on the greens. They go around and preach about alternative power sources which are unfeasible on the large-scale. It's given green energy a bad name leaving many to think that coal and oil are the only way to go. When in matter of fact Nuclear power in my opinion (as a studying physicist) is the safest and most environmentally friendly power source out there. The Chernobyl was not caused by Nuclear power but by Soviet Communism. I find it unfortunate that poor design and management from Chernobyl have put so much fear in nuclear power that I don't think people will change their minds until green's demand nuclear (fat chance). ItÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s probably affecting our country the worst; Australia a large user and exporter of coal. ItÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s allegedly causing our worst drought ever and when a state premier (governor I think is the American equivalent) mentioned using nuclear the media sensationalised it and portrayed it as a big evil. It makes me sad but if people want to destroy the planet itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s their choice.

Not really; previous to the great depression government investment was never usually considered to kickstart a recessive economy. It was thought that you should let it ride out and I would tend to agree with it. I personally don't like loans and would rather live with what I could afford then to take out uncesseary loans; but then again I don't run a country. Ohh yeah as an aside giving rich people more money should theoretically create a flow down effect. They have more money to spend so they are more inclined to pay for goods serviced by people of a lower class. If it works or not is another matter. I don't think any of the governments ideas are good but I'm a radical so my idea's will never usually get implemented anyway. John is just the better of two evil's in my book.

If you buy an album by a band you like that doesn't mean you have to like EVERY song on the album. Yes you don't have to like every song but there is no point in skipping songs as it ruins the flow of the album and is disruptive. I would rather let it slide then do something about it. But hey an opinion's an opinion.

You have to be a little more specific; I pretty much listen to all albums without skipping. What is the point of the album if you skip; are your ideas so entrenched in pop culture where music is all about 1 hit singles? That's what makes an album an album, it is more then the hits. The only thing I really skip are large gaps of silence and up until the last few listens NIN-Closer (because I was sick of people singing/playing it and proclaiming it the best NIN song ever). Most of my favorite albums are probably by David Bowie (only because I have most of his albums and they all sound great but then again most albums I have sound.).

They are not called ugg boots they are called sheepskin boots. The term 'ugg' has been registered as a trade mark in the 90's regardless of the fact it has been used as a generic term for over 70 years prior. Score 1 for the American free market and litigation system :roll:

I think having no HD is a big turn off, which most people agree on at another forum (bigger and generally more mature then tip.it :P) I visit. People just thought it was a way to make the PS3 sound cheaper, more competitive and create a memory card scam (people I know have up to half a dozen cards for the PS2) but at the same time Ken's going on about using the thing as a computer?!? I think there is a huge draw back being restricted to memory card (even using a 1gig memory stick) as you can't cache as much and you have limited functionality such as no sountracks for sports games and little room for bonus content (1 gig will not get too far if you are downloading HD content). I think this is one of the major factors why Square Enix is doing MMO's on the Xbox360 (they even said in an article that they didnt want to pay for Sony's "online Cell space" only amplified by MMO's having large thumbprints). Also if he is claiming to use it to do things such as Linux, Photo/movie editing then having no HD out of box would discourage development in this area (as well as discouraging things like MMO's and creative use of HD for increased gameplay). I don't know, with this and Sony's decline in the electronic market (they are posting big loses, who is suprised if they are selling ~ 8 types of earphones for under $50 as well as a decline in quality) this console could be a make or break for them. It will not get rid of Sony outright but they may be forced to cut back on lavish expenses.

You might well be right, not saying you're wrong at all, but the question is there. When I saw it I couldn't believe it was real-time. Then apparently Sony said it was. I don't know. Anybody checked on that lately ? I've stopped following that controversy. Agreed with Y2g too, this article is harsh on the PS3. Some of it may be true but it's clear he's not a Sony fan and it's slightly biased. A small repost with some added info at the end. Pre-rendered: -Presence of ambient occlusion -Radiosity (even more advanced than ray tracing) -Massive, MASSIVE polycount -View distance -Advanced fluid simulation -The need for a couple gigs of texture memory, at the very least. If this is being rendered in real time, Pixar, ILM, Dreamworks and every other CG house should throw out their multimillion dollar render-farms and buy a couple PS3s instead, huh?!? Again, there is nothing at all that suggests this was rendered in real time or on a PS3 at all. For example, Real-time ray tracing in Quake 3 (this is less CPU intensive than radiosity) was programmed by uni students and it took a 20 1800+ AthlonÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s to render it at 20 FPS! http://graphics.cs.uni-sb.de/~sidapohl/egoshooter/ The cell processor is not something revolutionary, it can't even do graphics. It was originally planned to be a general processor but later Sony was forced to buy an NVIDIA GPU because of cell's poor performance. I will go as far to say that Ken Kutaragi is somewhat insane with his claims. Even if you get past the relatively poor translation the interview still defies logic. Lets not put a HD on the PS3 because no matter how big we make it, it still won't be enough so we won't bother?!? http://www.gamespot.com/news/2005/06/09/news_6127219.html "As it happens, Intel's was not the only alternative chip design that Apple had explored for the Mac. An executive close to Sony said that last year Mr. Jobs met in California with both Nobuyuki Idei, then the chairman and chief executive of the Japanese consumer electronics firm, and with Kenichi Kutaragi, the creator of the Sony PlayStation. Mr. Kutaragi tried to interest Mr. Jobs in adopting the Cell chip, which is being developed by I.B.M. for use in the coming PlayStation 3, in exchange for access to certain Sony technologies. Mr. Jobs rejected the idea, telling Mr. Kutaragi that he was disappointed with the Cell design, which he believes will be even less effective than the PowerPC." http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/11/technology/11apple.html?pagewanted=2 I think those two links tell you not to believe everything they say.

Yes this is true however: 2 (single CPU) Mac G5's have less performance then the 3 CPU Xbox 360 with next gen. graphics card. The Killzone 2 trailer was made with a render farm. This level of graphical quality will generally take one hour per FRAME to render and is something obviously way out of the PS3's capabilities.

I would have to say Baldur's Gate is better but then again it's personal opinion as both games have universal acclaim. It boils down to style and for me the classic D&D theme wins it over Final Fantasy any day. FF is not the only king.

I live to become a doctor... of Science. CanÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t wait till next semester, looks a lot better then the stuff we are doing now. First couple of years are going to be the boring basics and tough on my maths ability but after that things should pick up. Other then that itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s do whatever you want, because in the end things go back to naught. This is probably is one of the major motivators for making me want to get a doctorate, so I can be called a Dr. Yeah lvl'ing up my skills :roll: to get a title.

Not true then. Halo 3 will be terrible anyway. What can they add? Terrible story? Lacklustre weapons? Rubbish level design? Moderate multiplayer? I'm pretty sure Bill Gates said it in time magazine (the one with him and the xbox360 on the cover of course) so donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t quote him on it (he isnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t bungie). If they released it then I don't think there will enough time for bungie to develop the game properly (since the others took 4 years to do) unless they had a secret development team making it. What do you think all game sequels rely on? They all use new stories, weapons, level design etc. Otherwise it will be the same game. Look at GTA 3 new levels, crap graphics, crappy I wanna be a gangsta storyline and no multiplayer?? It pales in comparison to GTA 1 and 2, at least Halo 2 was an improvement over Halo1.

There is no evidence at all that someone put it in her bag, none whatsoever. Unless you call CorbyÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s plea evidence but people always say that they are innocent and thus not considered evidence. What test is there that can prove her innocence? Finger prints wouldn't show up if it was planted by a professional, ever heard of gloves? If anything it would prove she is guilty (she probably handled the bag at the Bali airport as well) as if she was clumsy and didnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t use gloves the prints would show. The tsunami disaster has nothing to do with a court case and is a disgrace that people are even considering wanting their money back. The two events are mutually exclusive! By the same token we should stop giving food aid to countries in civil war because they are fighting and it is not nice!

I see this as perfectly legal in America but Ill have to say America does flaunt some laws that most 1st countries adopt. American parents have the right to do almost anything to their child if they are under 18 even send them to [detention] 'camps' in other countries for being bad (which can be anything ranging from not following Christianity, swearing or staying out too late. While I agree that some kids need to be sent to such a camp, the parents of these kid's in most cases can not afford it.). This ruling is just an extension upon the parentÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s rights to control their minors. If the parents were together then they could mutually come to an agreement to ban their child from Wicca but failing that they attempt to facilitate this through the law. It is not the law ruling against religion but the parents using a legal contract (instead of marriage/shared responsibility) to do so. The justice of this ruling is another question (I believe the American legal system fails spectacularly in this area).

WHAT!!! if she was tried in australia she would have got like 5 years witch i things a load of BS! going to jail for having something that grows in the dirt. a natural plant is bloody insane :x herion,crack all them i can understand but really it grown in the ground. Capital punishment is also a load of BS and that for DRUG SMUGLING!! that shouldnt even be given to murderers. they can rot in there cells for the rest of there lives, but death for having plant matter on you is down right stupid i think she did do it but should have been taken to Australia and tried by a jurie of her peers But she was not in Australia hence, Indonesian law. What is the point of different legal systems over the world if you end up wanting to have a trial under Australian law no matter which country? You are taking the countries right to be free and independent and you are also being rude disrespecting their way of life. It is not the plant that is the problem as such but its effects. The plant's goal is not to grow and get burnt by people but to exist and grow naturally. It is like saying it is BS for someone to go to gaol for murdering someone because the knife is just made of something that is found in the ground (iron and [cooking] coal). But selling drugs could be considered murder; overdoses, degrading of the body to a point of disease, removing someone judgement (which can lead to death). Ohh yeah not to mention that crack-cocaine and heroin are both also made from plants... the leaves from the cocaine plant are still used to make coca-cola flavouring even today (with the drugs removed from them of course). So please get your facts straight before posting again.

Wow just wow... psst 90% of Indonesian's are Muslim; I also heard that there are some practicing Hindu's in Bali but that's still not Buddism.