mmmcannibalism

Do you have a parent/sibling who would be willing to pay off the debt until you could repay them? If you have anyone close, they should be able to understand your problem.

If you look at the middle, you can see the bow clearly thickens like the stock of a cbow heres hoping we get a dragon cbow :pray:

Look at the middle of the bow; you can see it thickens just like the stock of a cbow

Which would likely lead to a type of cybernetic brain that would be a synthetic lifeform. Remember, our brains are just a collection of electric signal devices(albeit a giant collection) so there is no reason it wouldnt be possible to make a similair structure out of non biological components.

no way for them to walk to an island out in the middle of the water So an island is a decent choice; as long as it has a source of food and water. Actually I bet there are a few islands in the Mississippi river that would be decent; current is going to wash almost all the zombies past functioning like a deep water island.

Out of the celebrities who are/would be likely to die within a few weeks from any point micheal jackson was one of them Secondly, its like saying 9/11 was predicted because a fortune teller said the country was in for danger Third, shouldn't this be in the mj topic anyway?

k tyvm; question changed

Zombies can walk along the bottom. So they suddenly have weights attached to their feet? A normal human can't even walk along the bottom, and with any sort of decay/bloating with gases after death a zombie is only going to get less dense. It will float, and probably not swim. Actually I think normal people don't float because they have oxygenated blood? Or maybe I'm an idiot? But I think the ZSG mentions zombies walking along the bottom. Well, a normal corpse will still float, I think. They get real bloated with gas under water. I don't know how zombification will effect that, if it will, but even if the zombie desn't float, it probably won't be able to physically walk along the bottom of the ocean. In deep water, there's the pressure issue, as well as current (does current exist at the bottom?). Not like the zombie suddenly has lead boots to walk along. Plus, even if they can, so what? If they're unintelligent, they won't have any desire to. They'll lose the scent underwater, especially at the bottom of the ocean, no matter what.Escaped prisoners used to run across rivers and streams so that chasing dogs would lose the scent. I think that was disproved on Mythbusters, but only for a small stream. So the zombie would then be underwater, lost, and fishfood. Then we might get zombie fish, but that's an entirely different issue. Humans bloat because of bacteria that are eating the body putting off gas, zombies will sink to the point a human body would naturally. Of course, water currents will probably kill a zombie quicker as the loose flesh will be washed away exposing the muscles and other important parts. Also, there is nearly 0 current at the very bottom of deep parts of the ocean, but at that point the zombie would be crushed to nothing a few times over.

Im interested in how a potential lawsuit could play out in this scenario. Im nowhere near familiar with law, but the court decision only allows a suit against the school district not the administrators involved. I think what it will come down to is "did the school district set up or allowed policies which enabled this type of situation".

What are people's opinion of the new 2mil price of the whip? My main question is that I sold a whip at 1.97mil and I was wondering if you think it will crash below that soon?

The supreme court has left open the possibility of suing the school district, but not the individual administrators under what is called qualified immunity(this was a more contested point of the decision) Im not sure if any administrators have been reprimanded or fired.

Its possible you could fire blast moss giants for gold charms; selling the big bones might bring you near break even.

Which is exactly what the court said; the school was justified in holding the student and searching her purse and pockets. What the court ruled was that the school violated her rights because they did an intrusive search without justification for such a search. For instance, if they were told she had a bomb and after searching her purse they heard ticking from her underwear(no jokes im being hypothetical) a strip search would be reasonable.

I think what you are thinking about is the fact that they have made robots that have been trained to show some appropriate emotional responses to something like yelling at them.

Unless if a park member pushed you in, then you're on no basis to. The girl didn't choose to be picked on by the other girl. Sometimes the means justifies the ends, but not this time. This isn't the cops having done a multi-year investigation on a mafia-leader but not having legal clearance to get him. I would shoot the bastard. But this school case, all the school had is a lead from a bad-behaved girl to a good one. That immediately should raise a flag. But what should of stopped this whole thing was that it was after Ibuprofen. Some people don't seem to grasp this. It isn't nuclear weapons, it isn't a weapons cache, it isn't even a knife. But painkillers for Christ sake. While it is unfair for her to go thru college for free and many others not, that isn't her fault but the anti-socialist feeling of this country. Education should be free. She actually has Ibuprofen. The school does nothing. She gives it to another kid, they OD and die. The school is even more screwed. All threats/suspicions are to be taken seriously. Someone says you are a terrorist; the swat team enters your house on a warrant, while no threat is visible, you are killed by the swat team when it appears you are about to draw a gun. Upon inspection, although you had no weapons in your house you were reading some literature by a group that could be considered terrorists. All threats/suspicions are to be taken seriously. Ignoring that, all they had to do if they thought the Ibuprofen was a threat is take her to the principal's office and make her wait there until her parents and possibly a child advocate arrived. If the warning was that she had a gun then bring her to the principal's office with multiple officers present and pat her down to check for weapons. If you can't verify the threat at that point call her parents and keep her under close surveillance.

Did anybody retaliate against America when they invaded Iraq? Neither will they when we bomb North Korea. And Iraq wasn't in many countries' "Hate List". :lol: The other countries would fear they they are our next target. I honestly think that there is an AntiAmerican group of countries out to get us, considering that we are the world's only superpower. China is a superpower, the EU collectively is a superpower Also, the US retaliating against an attack from NK is about 20 leaps from them going to war with a country we have no justification to attack.

So your saying half of the world would attack the US for retaliating against NK? Thats nearly impossible, no major country would be willing to defend north korea; China values its economic gains from America over a weak alliance with NK.

Because its possible god created the universe to develop life through natural selection and evolution, but he allows humans to continue living in a different way after they die. Not that I believe in this necessarily, but its an answer to your question.

This is of course entirely true and important. The problem is all politicians are so caught up with special interests(even if they arent necessarily businesses ex. acorn) that removing it from politics would be impossible. This is one of the main reasons I have no faith in America's government, both parties are just trying to make their special interests and target groups vote for them(regardless of whether they are helping the country or not).

Didn't we basically do that in Iraq? At any rate, North Korea would retaliate against South Korea, with their thousands of artillery tubes.. They said the same thing about the Iraqi republican guard; who then proceeded to surrender en masse. North Korea would be a lot more problematic since they have a stronger military, but the idea would be to hit every single military target presumably through a combination of SK's artillery and US cruise missles. Admittedly, there would be casualties if North Korea attacks, but a lot less then the "brilliant" plan of "lets nuke nk so they arent a problem" people keep coming up with.

No, it means you believe in reincarnation; you wouldnt say someone was automatically a christian if they believed in god. Nadril said that those who voted nothingness are Atheist... So... Oh, Im not sure if you were using the hindu argument to make a bit of an attack on that or not so I cant respond properly. My bad if I missed something simple there. edit--reincarnation is part of a few religions; hinduism and buddhism are the two I can think of off the top of my head but Im sure there are a few others. Only reason I know the reincarnation one is that Buddhism grew out of the teachings of the budda similair to how christianity came out of judaism; in buddhism the reincarnation came from its parent religion.

You have one less net that could potentially be reworked to be used as a fishing tool.

No, it means you believe in reincarnation; you wouldnt say someone was automatically a christian if they believed in god.

I wish I hadnt lost the link, but theres a study that shows some of the genes that cause male homosexuality cause increased fertility in woman(genes get passed down maternally most of the time). So basically, for every homosexual guy these genes form they are creating 1.1(arbitrary) people by increased fertility to make up for it.

[hide=] [/hide] Sorry if I offended you, I figured since the old thread was dead and the ruling was such a signifigant development it would be appropriate to start a new thread to discuss the ruling. edit-- . I have mixed feelings about this; I think she is entitled to something, but Im worried this is going to become a ridiculous amount of money. I totally stand by the legal ruling from the court, but if she sues for millions of dollars I will be rather disheartened. Of course, there isnt an arbitrary line, but if she sues for say $250,000(US) then I would consider it a reasonable settlement.