obfuscator

Optimal realism? The problem with classifying them is that they all depend on perspective. Where I may have a pessimistic view of a certain situation, someone else may have an optimistic view. And we could both be correct...

Perhaps the campus doesn't know. How did you get the invitation? (@ OP) The campus sent it. A professor is in charge of the local chapter. It's legit, but there's apparently a controversy because the people who actually run it seem to just keep most of the money and only give out a pathetic sum of money for scholarships. The only value is for the CV, but I have read on various forums that people who are on admittance committees for grad school "don't give two shits about stuff like that." Personally, I wouldn't bother with it.

Occasionally, I've found that I've clicked cancel by accident or the box has even not appeared; but yes - I believe that exception will show up when the applet hasn't been permitted to execute its "unsafe" components.

You didn't miss much. Although there was a dude in a toga on a tightrope.

Perhaps the campus doesn't know. How did you get the invitation? (@ OP)

Not even close. Eli is a great quarterback (that stings as a Packer fan, but I will admit it), but his success largely comes during the postseason. It depends on whether or not you define a great quarterback as someone who plays when it counts most or who can play consistently over the course of a 17 week season. Eli is a great playoff quarterback, but Peyton puts up much higher and more consistent numbers. Then again, is it not in the clutch moments that you truly define yourself? I'd say Eli is definitely the better clutch quarterback.

Of course - I'm just trying to object to his claim that we should never attempt to behave other than how our biology dictates.

I watched half of it. I can't say I'm surprised, although I didn't think it would be quite that close. I was thinking 30-20 NYG.

Well, there is some evidence to suggest that homosexuality is nature rather than nurture; if this is true I don't think it would be much of a stretch to say pedophilia is somewhat dependent on nature as well. But it is still up in the air... Doesn't that seem kind of unfair? Good point. I'll say I believe it's because sexual orientation and attraction has little to do with nature at all. It's not advantageous from an evolutionary standpoint to be anything other straight and attracted to people of "breeding age". I believe sexual orientation is a construct of our society, much like marriage.

If someone is biologically wired for pedophilia, would you still say it's beyond their control? Sorry, kind of a non sequitur...but I'm curious to see what you think. I think humanity is best defined as being better than our base biology.

I can easily flip that on it's head and say that just because many animals aren't monogamous, doesn't mean we should do it that way. The fact is, if you're looking at the "most natural" aspects of sex, reproduction is a key facet.

I don't think it's "natural" at all. If you look at the "nature" of sexual relationships, they involve courtships of some manner in order to determine the partner's suitability as a father or mother. In the case of humans, that courtship is usually much longer. As most "open" relationships tend to not be fore reproductive purposes, I'd say it's not particularly natural at all. Exactly - which is why your claim that "things would be better if we were all in open relationships" is probably not correct. Humans will never have perfect harmony in relationships; either monogamous or otherwise. I agree that, in the long run, in most cases, many casual relationships are probably a more likely source of hapiness than one open committed relationship. But I think one closed committed relationship offers humans the most possible happiness - for the price of hard work, of course.

Because I believe monogamy is better. Thought so. Do you consider it to be better for basically the same reasons that Duff said? Similar ones. My biggest issue with your claims is that you say there is no connection between sex and love; yet it's well known that the hormonal changes involved in love are often triggered by sex. In short, you cannot love one person while having sex with many as much as you can while having an exclusive sexual relationship with them. I've seen plenty of anecdotal evidence of "honest, open relationships" going south because one of the partners has fallen in love with the lover.

Because I believe monogamy is better.

Or, you know, we could just maintain monogamous relationships and not cheat.

Ahh okay, I understand. I don't care who the sitcom is focused on at all...as a matter of course I think sitcoms are stupid. But that's for another topic. Well, that's not entirely true. In theory, a WET operating in the exact same manner as BET could show programs consisting solely of white people - I can't think of a single show that follows that standard currently. Two things with this post. Firstly, I wasn't aware there were channels specifically for Hispanics and Asians. Although in retrospect I supposed I should have assumed that, but my point still stands. Second, thank you for implying I'm a racist. This is why these discussions can never go anywhere - because if you're white and have a problem with preferential treatment of other races or some other kind of segregation, you're labeled a racist. I expect your next post to be an apology, or I'll stop bothering to respond to you.

Haha Brooks "Phaneuf" Orpik :P Leafs beat sens 5-0. Reimer with two consecutive shutouts...where did that come from?

So for African-American comedy/Drama etc I go to which channel? Other than BET I mean. A program that's focused solely on black people? I've no idea. My point is that any of the programs on BET could fit onto another channel. Yes, it is a risk for networks to play black-oriented programs; not nearly as much to start a channel specifically with white people in the same manner as BET. I have no issue with there being television programs focused on a certain race. It does irk me, however, that shows on BET, for instance, are allowed to have people of only one race; and every other show has to be multi-cultural. My issue with BET is the double standard - that's all. If there are a group of people who only want to see black people on television - that's fine. Doesn't bother me. What bothers me is that if you apply that to any other race it's called racism and would never happen.

:roll: I really wish you would elaborate on your disdain for the article (assuming you read it) with a rational response, rather than simply rolling your eyes and dismissing something because it's challenging your beliefs. How are people supposed to evolve if they dismiss every foreign idea proposed to them? My opinion is that that kind of article is an attempt to justify the increasing lack of self-control people today have.

Not sure what you're trying to say?

There is nothing that you could put on WET that couldn't fit under another channel, just as there is nothing that is on BET that couldn't fit under another channel. You make it seem WET only couldn't exist because there's "no market" - completely ignoring the racial PR implications of creating it. Hence my point about no production company creating.

I'm glad you're in favour of WET, but surely you admit you're in a minuscule minority. WET could be created tomorrow; it would just be a huge money sink. BET exists because it has an audience that wants things not shown on any other mainstream channel. What would be put on WET that you couldn't find on every single other channel currently in existence? WET could be created tomorrow, eh? Pray tell, what media company would volunteer to sponsor that PR nightmare? The one you offered enough money to. I answered your question now please answer mine. "enough money" would have to be twice the net worth of the media company to get them to do that. And what shows are there on BET that aren't suitable for another channel?

Hey all, Sorry for the noob question (I've been retired for several years and just came back) but I was wondering about the best way to train my agility from level 72 (current) to level 80. I recall that the ape atoll agility course was the best when I quit (or something like that). Is this still the case, or is there a better option? Thanks in advance for the help!

So you should understand the difference between a poorly designed product and a poorly supported product. Poor design goes the way of the dodo unless the product is adapted quickly and with organisational objectives and user interface in mind. There's no money to be made if your product's crap. Organisations tend not to touch much in the way open source/free because of lack of support, it's usually buggier and it's slower to evolve, even if it's very good. They're not comparible because commerical ones wouldn't make the money to keep them commercial and they can be adapted to suit the organisations wants/needs in a timely fashion. These are basic fundamentals *you* should know as a developer. I do know those fundamentals, and in my experience the scenarios you mention are often not true. I've seen plenty of commercial applications that are both poorly designed and poorly supported, terribly buggy, and extremely slow to evolve. The point I'm trying to make is that crappy software comes in both varieties; commercial and open source.

Yes, of course. The downfall of any innovation...it must be economically feasible. If you can't profit off it, it won't go anywhere.