mmmcannibalism

So if the police get an anonymous tip that there's a man with C4 in his vest somewhere in the New York subway system, they shouldn't be able to close it down and search the people inside? a. the police usually have supporting evidence on all tips they take seriously, this was taken solely on hearsay with no corroborating evidence b. the situations are extremely different. With someone handing out medication the only people harmed are people who took drugs from a non authorized person(doesnt justify bad pills but puts some blame on the recieving party), in the case of c4 there is a serious risk of death to many persons. Secondly, the school didnt have a student ill from medication reporting it just a student so they had no reason to believe the pills were a severe threat.

why could something not exist with an infinite amount of causes? If we assume the cause for the big bang can be explained scientifically then an infinite amount of cycles of big bangs and big crunches makes perfect logical sense.

She was supposedly handing them out. this isnt a police state, I demand something better then hearsay to violate someones right to privacy The article never stated that she was forced to strip. Only partially relevant, its been held up that minors have to be protected, they never got her a lawyer/child rep and did not call her parents.

I'm no scientist but doesn't the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics prove that the universe did not exist for an infinite amount of time? I remember reading something like that from Insane's posts. The second law of thermodynamics simply proves that the universe hasnt been in a steady state for ever. The main focus with entropy is that things tend to spread out evenly over time in an isolated system. When we have universal gravitation to take into account its reasonable to assume the universe simply cycles between spreading out then being sucked back together by gravity. As to the multiverses, its a very interesting theory but I dont believe there is any way currently to begin even testing the liklihood of it.

I take it your a fatalist?

:lol: yes, they should be charged with manslaughter, simply due to the method of exorcism they used on top of the fact they certainly appear to have been negligent. If they had used incense in the ceremony(hypothetically) and she had an allergic reaction to the smoke it would be a different matter, but I see no reason to justify pouring water on someone for hours.

[hide=] Only one disease has been completely eradicated by human vaccinations(smallpox). And the only reason we could do that is because it could only be spread directly from person to person, it was not airbourne and not sitting on any touched surface. Vaccinations only keep those who get vaccinated safe. They actually hurt those who don't, because the disease gets stronger trying to outdo the vaccination. All the more reason for others to get vaccinated. Exactly. It's too late now to go back to no vaccinations, as these diseases are now so strong that 2000 years ago, something like our common flu would wipe out over 50% of the world. Some people seem to forget how lucky we are with dieases sometimes. Just imagine if HIV/AIDS was an airbourne disease. [/hide] I am imagining the world having noone left.

TANK. Adrenaline just became a very bad idea for everyone involved. any effect of adrenaline would be gone over 24 hours to zombify

I think hes talking about an iphone/ipod app

sitting calmly as you burn to death is in fact badass

perhaps there is some medical application, my main concern is that I dont think anything beyond normal levels is a good idea mid combat

I dont think using adrenaline injections would be a good idea, you want to be calm when fighting zombies not be in berserker mode.

ew, why al gore? For all the previously stated reasons. like being able to give a video presentation?

chuck norris may be able to run fast enough to go around the world and punch himself in the back of the head but that doesnt help when you cant find your opponent.

[hide=] [/hide] Wow, I think we found a winner :shock:

the degree to which that is true is painfully frightening; thats why I refuse to watch hannity and some others. I have this policy I call "only watch people with brains"

Are you seriously telling us that a person with Down's Syndrome doesn't know they exist? Bull. Indeed. Just read my posts like two pages ago.... Those who are mentally [developmentally delayed] are aware that they are alive. They are just less intelligent. There are varying degrees, sure, but they are aware that they are alive and are capable of enjoying life. A baby with anencephaly has no brain. It has a brain stem. In other words, it acts COMPLETELY instinctually. The brain stem is responsible for unconscious bodily processes. There is no baby there, just a husk of what could have been a baby. Comparing it to a goldfish might even be giving it too much. An ant would be more like it. Someone is intelligent. And you must remember, you are talking to a scientist who bases all his "opinions" and "views" on logic and reasoning, rather than religion and culture. For example, shaking hands, kissing on the cheek and bowing are three distinct types of greetings in different human cultures. I favor none of them and think none is less correct than the others, because scientifically there is no reason to. So I simply use each one depending on who I am interacting with, in order to please the people I interact with. If I were given control of the world and was allowed to choose which type of greeting must be used by all people, I would determine, using logic and reasoning, which was the best choice, instead of picking my favorite, which would be impossible anyways since I do not have one. We don't have enough scientists in the world. :( But when dealing with a life or death moral judgment, you can't only use science. You can use it to provide the facts, but the facts can only go so far when making such a decision. this is somewhat vague but from a legal perspective heres the best I interprate it(personally think she should be allowed). a. under roe v wade and quite a few other reasons the right to abortion covered by the right to privacy was affirmed as a fundamental right with limitations(such as state allowed to institute waiting periods) b. while the state normally has an interest in protecting the child, this particular child due to its medical condition is not in any way of interest to the state.

[hide=] Why? It is her body - not the school's. Using that same idea, am I allowed to bring what ever I chose to school? Am I above the rules? The law? the difference between having ibuprofen and a gun is that you arent posing a threat to anyone with pills; detaining the girl to prevent her distributing drugs is fine but everything the school did was over the top and not thought out. The media is the last source we should be using for this kind of situation. I disagree about pills being not threatening; they can do a lot of damage in a matter of hours with no inkling as to their destructive results. Let me refine that statement The difference between a gun and pills is largely in the possible outcomes; while there are plenty of "good" reasons to have ibuprofen at school, there is no reason at all for having a gun at school. Secondly, while pills if tainted could be used to poision a person or persons, in this situation there was no reason to believe there was such a threat(always considered but no support for it here). Taking the girl to the office for holding while her parents came and possibly a later controlled search by police(if a crime was still believed) would have been fine; searching the girl without calling her parents, without getting an attorney, and without hesitating to strip search her was ridiculous. Now, if a gun was suspected and substantiated the school would have the full need to do a pat down search and detain the girl for as long as needed to get the police and her parents to the school. You cant attack someone with a pill, so this girl was nowhere near the threat of a gun/knife/bomb. This girl was supposedly handing out pills like candy. While I agree someone should have been called, you have to ask yourself if she actually said no to the search. Even if so, is a nurse not qualified? In the United States anyways, I was legally, as an intern, allowed to view areas not covered by a bathing suit with consent. Then only issue here is that she shouldn't be her own consent as a 13 year old. The article is blatantly biased to cause commotion as there are few statements to any of the persons involved. And drugs don't have to be tainted to be dangerous - it's all the same. A police officer would have no more qualifications than a school nurse in this case, if not less so. The girl would have also had a higher chance of having an opposite sex search her. It was poor judgment with good intentions, the same as the girl. [/hide] a. one person said she had drugs, she wasnt accused of mass distribution. If she was such a big dealer this wouldnt be a controversial case because they would have found drugs on her person pre strip search b. a female police officer should have done the search as a matter of procedure; however, I dont object to a school official if they had training in such matters(which is possible here) c. agreed, she shouldnt be her own consent d. this search was unreasonable because the immediate threat was not considered relative to the violation or rights. As supreme court cases have established, rights can be curtailed to an extent to protect the population. The problem is they violated her rights far beyond what was needed, simply taking her to the office(remember they had only hearsay as evidence) and giving her parents time to come and be involved in the schools action was all that was needed. Detaining the girl was perfectly fine and a good administrative choice, everything beyond that was handled horribly.

Why? It is her body - not the school's. Using that same idea, am I allowed to bring what ever I chose to school? Am I above the rules? The law? the difference between having ibuprofen and a gun is that you arent posing a threat to anyone with pills; detaining the girl to prevent her distributing drugs is fine but everything the school did was over the top and not thought out. The media is the last source we should be using for this kind of situation. I disagree about pills being not threatening; they can do a lot of damage in a matter of hours with no inkling as to their destructive results. Let me refine that statement The difference between a gun and pills is largely in the possible outcomes; while there are plenty of "good" reasons to have ibuprofen at school, there is no reason at all for having a gun at school. Secondly, while pills if tainted could be used to poision a person or persons, in this situation there was no reason to believe there was such a threat(always considered but no support for it here). Taking the girl to the office for holding while her parents came and possibly a later controlled search by police(if a crime was still believed) would have been fine; searching the girl without calling her parents, without getting an attorney, and without hesitating to strip search her was ridiculous. Now, if a gun was suspected and substantiated the school would have the full need to do a pat down search and detain the girl for as long as needed to get the police and her parents to the school. You cant attack someone with a pill, so this girl was nowhere near the threat of a gun/knife/bomb.

1. for whatever reason I pick at my hair/nails or whatever out of nervous habits even when im not nervous 2. The main thing I learned from AP Us history is that humans are stupid creatures, and that very few politicians care about their country 3. I hate people that take classes in school they arent going to work in then complain its too hard(just when its the workload, hating the teacher is fine)

Why? It is her body - not the school's. Using that same idea, am I allowed to bring what ever I chose to school? Am I above the rules? The law? the difference between having ibuprofen and a gun is that you arent posing a threat to anyone with pills; detaining the girl to prevent her distributing drugs is fine but everything the school did was over the top and not thought out.

as much as I hate Sean Hannity for making all conservatives look like idiots; the hate on america bandwagon is pretty pathetic. This would be funny to watch, in fact I hope he does, really really badly.

From what I am hearing, the actual virus is just a bad flu and not that dangerous; the main concern is the virus mutating into something worse that would be fatal more universally.

in general for deadly stuff like polio definitely for the flue; vaccines should be highly available and offered to risk group patients although not a mandatory vaccine.

Does anyone know approximately when this is going to be ruled on?