venomai

I believe that global warming would be at a minimum if human's weren't here. Since we are here we should be taking better care of the world we live in. One thing I don't like is how wasteful we are. In the US alone over 50 million pounds of toothbrushes are thrown out every year. These could easily be made with recyclable plastics such as high density polyethylene or polypropylene. Right... I think warrior is talking about the professional and mature scientists who (1) know how to spell and (2) back up their statements with a good thesis and plenty of evidence. Most of those scientists aren't very stubborn and are open to new ideas.

I think it's horrible how they treat certain animals. I love eating meat, I just try not to think of how it got there. :) It's not hard to provoke a debate when you make such a ridiculous claim in such a serious tone (sarcasm is difficult to detect in text). If you find this surprising you have a lot to learn about the human ego.

From what I understand that site gathers Wikipedia articles before they are officially submitted. Perhaps somebody you know is trying to write a wikipedia entry on your spoof.

Interesting topic, good luck with it... A great flash game: A great Java applet which runs as smooth as any flash game:

Drinks like absinthe and hemp beer usually give a "different" buzz. Depending on quality you might even feel stoned. If you're looking for absinthe here are some tips: - Get it from Europe. If you don't live in Europe you'll want to order it online. - It's a powerful alcohol. I wouldn't go over two shots. Just try to enjoy the buzz. - Drink it traditionally with the spoon and sugar cubes... Lots of fun with friends. - Sebor Absinth is pretty popular because it has lower alcohol content. - See here for absinthe FAQs. Good luck. :) I'm traveling to Spain next month, I'll try to find a good brand of absinthe while I'm there.

Technically, an IQ of 160 would make you exceptionally gifted. Approximately 1 in 30,000 people have an IQ of 160 - 175. Wikipedia adds: In my opinion, true giftedness lies in the personality and talents of a person. People who are truly gifted will succeed in life, whether or not they have a ridiculously high IQ. What an egotistical thread. :roll: We may as well be comparing the size of our [bleep]s.

What's the point of a thousand armed citizens if they never have to use their weapon? :? And who says they won't use their weapon maliciously? @Bufoman's article: Guns can work well on a small scale. Communism can work well on a small scale, too. All I'm saying is that when you introduce these things on a much larger scale, complications start to arise.

Agreed. Unfortunately, not everyone's able to pull off a sexy look merely by showing skin. Short skirts are sexy. I never understand why women wear them, though... :-k

Ripping is simply using somebody elses work (that you have no rights to) and passing it off as your own. Tracing is usually still considered ripping by most artists. If you plan to use somebody elses work as a base, I'd suggest asking permission first. :) However, if you're just going to use it as a reference, then you probably won't need to ask permission. Just my two cents... :-w

Sounds like he's saying that Americans need to take law into their own hands; become vigilantes. :-k The idea of armed citizens scares me. :shock: This seems to further promote the idea of vigilantism in America. :-# http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0224/p02s01-usju.html

Don't quote me on this, but I believe modern psychology can usually "fix" (for lack of a better term) one's morals. Yes, it's impossible to stop these acts from happening. But, with a lack of weapons, these acts would be far less damaging. :) Basically, your morals are only right if they follow the legal morals of your country. Otherwise you may need medical attention, depending on the severity of your beliefs. :-# Most people don't like to think of it that way, though.

Parenting is only a minor reason for school shootings. Divorce, abuse, alcohol etc. all contribute to violent nature, but they are rarely the main factors in such large-scale violence. In the case of Seung-Hui Cho, it's a much more serious matter. He was born with mental illness and his mind worked differently. He needed serious treatment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_illness I believe it's just a question of morals. Some people can kill without feeling anything simply because they have different morals than the rest of us. And it also has to do with beliefs. People might believe that they are serving God (or the country) by killing.

Sorry ktmcf121, my bad. #-o My original post was in reply to vilageidiotx's post (who was replying to an earlier post of mine). When you quoted me I wrongfully assumed it was him replying and didn't bother to check the name. Anyways, after reading your original post I have a few comments to add... :) I see what you're saying. Hypothetically this could have prevented a lot of deaths... But the main problem would be with responsibility. It's very difficult to know who's truly responsible with a gun. Also, the student wouldn't be able to party much, and certainly wouldn't be able to get drunk or high (this isn't a problem for some, though). Another problem is friends -- the gun & license would have to be kept completely secret from friends. If the word gets out, the student would become a target. Not to mention theft, it wouldn't be hard for a buddy to grab it out of the student's bag while they sleep. I have to ask... what kind of student would willingly pay so much time and money for a license they probably won't get? And if they manage to get it, how much time and money must they spend practicing regularly? Once they get the gun, what will they do with it? Put it in their pocket for 99% of their school life, waiting for the right moment? The whole thing seems like a waste. The idea has potential, but it would never work and would probably just increase gun use in schools. On the other hand, hiring armed security and posing them as students could work, for a few reasons: 1. Their job is to carry concealed weapons at all times, even if there is no immediate threat. 2. They won't actually be in school so they won't lose study time. 3. Many of them have already gone through extensive testing to ensure they are responsible with weapons. 4. They are experienced with guns and fighting, and they are trained to react calmly in dangerous situations. 5. By not socialising with students/teachers at the school there won't be the same risk of others knowing. Either way, the government would consider it a waste. They wouldn't spend that kind of money just to save a few lives. The money would be better spent controlling gun use across the country.

did you even read my post? not every "angy and irrational-thinking" student would be allowed to have a weapon. it would be a long drawn-out process to obtain a liscense. and i don't even mean at high schools, you would still have to be of legal age to carry a gun. next time try reading the WHOLE post please. #-o I did read your WHOLE post. :roll: It's worth pointing out that it had no mention of any legal process whatsoever, you simply stated that armed students/teachers would have helped. Something tells me you have little experience with major high schools or universities. :-k When fights break out the last thing you want is a teacher/student with a gun.

Giving students weapons is a poor idea. The last thing we want is angry and irrational-thinking students carrying guns in their pockets. Same goes for teachers. They can get angry a lot easier than most students...

I'm sure Cho would have used explosives if he had them. However, since the general opinion on explosives is "I don't need them for protection," the demand is very low. Lower demand means they are much harder to get, especially for a student. If the demand for handguns was as low as the demand for explosives, then there would be far less shootings simply because most people wouldn't have the resources needed to acquire such illegal weapons. Just my two cents.

I can't even imagine how painful it must be for all those afflicted. :( For those interested, I found a decent article on Cho. http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/ ... orontoHome

I agree with Dalcyte, putting an immediate ban on guns would only make things worse. Demand would skyrocket, people would still have them, and people would use them more. Personally, I believe the only way to lower gun crimes is to actually change the opinion of the general public. Right now the general thought in America is: "I need a gun for protection." This thought needs to be reversed. If nobody wants guns, then demand would decrease, and eventually so would gun crime. Only then could gun laws could be passed without causing problems. Eventually the country would become a safer place, and there would be significantly less shootings. I don't really understand the whole idea of "guns for protection." Anyone care to explain that?

Eliminating guns from America would be an extremely difficult process, and it would take many years to complete. Nobody said it would be easy. If the Virginia Tech attacker had used a knife, the death toll would have been far lower. If only that was the case... :(

Of course, but with strict enforcement and a better light from the media gun use could be down to an extreme low. How about making guns illegal for everyone? Not just teens. Most kids can easily acquire guns from their parents as it is.

How many school shootings does it take before the American public realises guns are extremely dangerous? Angry people retaliate with whatever weapons are immediately available to them. If there is a gun, they use it. If they can't acquire a gun, they resort to a knife. If the knife isn't available, they resort to fists. Take away the guns, and there won't be so many shootings. Seems like the obvious choice...

Haha, wow. You probably could have typed the link in less characters than your reply... :lol:

Very nice work. I'm jealous :) I'd love to see a photo of it printed and framed.. computer monitors don't do it justice. =D>

I disagree. Typography is an important part of any graphic design. (Hope you don't mind some c/c) The text is horrible in this sig. Small, very difficult to read, completely covered by the background shapes. It shows almost no effort put into the typography -- you would be better off leaving text-less out if that was the case. The background is cool, but the blur is overdone. We see too much of it, and it seems to overpower the sharp shapes. The sparks add a nice touch, but the green dots in front clash with the blues imo. Needs a border on the sides. Overall, nice looking eye candy, but not enough attention to colour and composition.

6. Yes, mostly the same. 7. No. It only refers to the tablet's active area (ie: the drawing surface). The tablet itself will be bigger (around 8x8 inches for Graphire4 4x5). 8. Yes - but only if you can find one within your price range. Intuos3 is around $200 USD at Best Buy, which is a pretty high price. I was lucky enough to buy mine first-hand for far less at a small computer store down the street. I'd suggest calling around, it's not hard to find a good deal. Also, try to bargain if the store is small. :) PS: Learning to use a tablet takes a lot of practice. Here's a good place to start: CGTalk Daily Sketch (see stickies) ConceptArt Daily Sketch