mmmcannibalism

that was a called for and inventive way to attack the US for no reason. On topic I get the feeling we will either manage to nuke our population back to a sustainable rate before we actually starve to death. Then the old superpowers will manage to rebuild from what is left and we will move forward(especially if there are moon colonies to aid in the rebuilding).

They just lost my sympathy, I had some sympathy for the fact they were trying to make money in a really terrible country. If this is true though, we are going to have to start defending ships with some strong military support.

changing opening post to discuss all pirate attacks in somalia; but seriously, I just posted this now because the story got a lot of attention same thread would be made if it was any nationality. So lets talk about somalia in general now, and give up on the immature America hating.

Im glad the UN found a use for their funding, I know they have had a lot of trouble with the current lack of starvation, disease, and attacks on human rights that has recently sprung up.

why thank you :thumbsup:

[hide=]didnt see a thread on this and it seemed noteworthy enough to discuss http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/12/world/africa/12somalia.html?ref=africa--first thing on google news. just wondering what everyones thoughts on this were. I am seriously concerned we are going to let the pirates get backup and get away; better to see a firefight then let the pirates have a free escape. I think this is the first pirate attack on an american ship since around the war of 1812.[/hide] story that prompted me to post this in hide tags Since everyone was wasting time attacking America, lets just discuss the general problems with Somalia and its pirate "business"

You're preventing global warming. I dun get it. Ye be a pirate, matey. Arrr. Or, a pirate wench. WWFSMD? Arr matey, me don't understand yer sense of humor. Parle? Ye salty dog, do I have ter spell it out fer ye? Pastafarianism, the religion of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, relies heavily on pirates. It has been displayed that there is a direct correleation bewteen the dwindling numbers of pirates and the advancement of global warming. By being a pirate (albeit a music pirate, not a "real" pirate), dizzle is helping to prevent global warming by lessening the loss of pirates. Also, that first sentence could totally have been in a porno. only cutlass using pirates prevent global warming, its specifically mentioned on the churches site.

you could try ranarr farming, its pretty simple but not boring also wouldnt hurt to try some slayer.

From past experience and the common knowledge that there is a far greater supply of rune ess than there is of pure ess I could easily explain why you're totally wrong in thinking that the merged essense would be only 20 gp less than pure ess but why bother even getting into that hypothetical tedious debate when I can simply ask this: Why on earth would beginners, aka new f2p essense miners, lose money when the ess that they cultivate is guaranteed to increase in price from 43 gp? hes not saying mining would lose money, ftp crafters would lose money runecrafting up until a very high level.

there are some differences if they can run a. need a larger defensive perimeter since they have faster movement b. close range combat with a hoarde will be much riskier since fleeing will be nearly impossible.

Glass anyone? :twss: I love eating glass

"Strongly disagree"--most big corporations are greedy, exploitive parasites. I reckon it is a little biased. I also think some of the questions are poorly thought through. Take the one about abortion, for example: saying "disagree" would imply that you're pro-abortion when you may not be. The should have mentioned the child; just because I wouldn't want to bring a baby into the world to suffer terribly or die doesn't mean I approve of abortions. I'd also point out this one: I know, I didn't know what to put for that last one. Because technically, that is an advantage of a one party state. Yet I would never endorse a totalitarian system. I had the same trouble with that, decided on disagree eventually since no arguing causes problems.

[hide=] Please explain the logic behind that statement because I can't think how removing the Queen and economic depression go together. Perceived governmental instability. Removal of the reigning monarch and dissolution of the current political structure would, despite what they would outwardly say, give the other nations, and more specifically the leading companies/investors in those nations, the impression that England was not a stable place to invest or do business. Reduction in trade with other countries, especially in a country as small as England who has no hope of producing everything it's industries need, could easily lead to a recession. A recession would lead to companies laying off employees or closing altogether. That, in turn, would lead to increased unemployment which would further increase the impression of instability and cause more countries/people to pull their investments out. It's a vicious downward spiral which can be very difficult to pull out of. I'm glad you cleared that up but I still don't agree. Its pretty well known by anyone who has any dealings with Britain that the Queen has little practical power and that the powers she does have are ceremonial in practice. I don't foresee any perception that the country will become unstable if the Monarchy goes. We've got a long established reputation for global trade that I can't see being obliterated overnight by getting rid of the Royals, if the British are known for anything it is for being 'civilised' there is little chance of any dissolution ending up in a constitutional crisis (not that we have a written one anyway but now we're splitting hairs). In short, the dissolution of the Monarchy would have zero, or negligible, effect on our system of government in practice which is the cornerstone of your theory. [/hide] I think there would be some small effects, just a weird economic tendency to overreact to everything.

you'll love his nuts

It's not? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipton_Three considering one of them admitted to having been trained as an islmaic militant and another refused to take a lie detector I would say its not. Secondly, most of their abuse claims are patently ridiculous, I would suggest you stop drinking the kool aid. It is apparent the gitmo situation was a bad move. We can play demonize everyone involved for the rest of eternity or accept the fact that it was not nearly as bad as you want to pretend. A small civil rights violation of people who were involved with al queda isnt exactly terrible. If there were people detained on nothing then they should recieve fair compensation and a review of the detention process is warranted, that doesnt mean we should abandon the holding of people that are a threat.

Which is ironically a good thing, if you think about it the fact we had nukes and knew what they could do probably prevented the cold war from becoming a hot war(excluding proxies)

That same argument was made against independence in America in the 1700's. America was bound to become independant eventually, its economy and therefore its influence were becoming to strong for an island to rule a continent.

You "Mossiah" is already doing that. Now anyone under the age of 13 can't buy a dirt bike because they are afraid they might lick the gear box. That is defiantly not controlling my life! When they became a terrorist they gave up their human rights. They can step all over every other persons but when they get caught they go and hide behind the rights they just so blatantly blew up. You say that the torture encourages terrorism... Who did what first? They attacked us, we retaliated. Point Blank. Robert keep on fighting. Messiah? I assume that you're calling me an Obama freak. Well first of all, I don't live in the USA, and second, even if I did I wouldn't have voted for Obama. Your understanding of terrorism and its causes is so simplistic its actually making me cringe reading your post. There are lots of reasons people become terrorists, some are our fault, some aren't. For example, overthrowing a democratically elected government in Iran in order to install a dictator who was sympathetic to Western interests causes future generations to hate us. Decades of imperialism in the Middle East causes future generations to hate us. Never criticizing Israel, regardless of their disproportionately violent retaliatory attacks against Palestine on a UN school and supply trucks during agreed cease fire time, as well as their treating of Palestinians as animals, causes the Middle East to hate us. (Palestine aren't perfect either, don't infer that I'm saying that, but we're always quick to criticize them.) Having secret prisons where people are tortured (most of which have never been charged with any crimes) causes the Middle East to hate us. I'm not justifying terrorism, so don't even try to pull a Giuliani on me, but if you're not going to admit to the West doing anything wrong at any point, then frankly you're just in so much denial that you don't know what reality is, or you're just blind. We aren't against combating terrorism. What you're arguing for is the violation of basic human rights. You want the government to have a ridiculous amount of power that they WILL abuse. History has shown that governments cannot be trusted with so much power. I don't know about you, but Robert_de_Sable is certainly an authoritarian and a totalitarian, which basically means he wants to subject his will onto the people without any sort of democratic process, without anyone having a say, and with the government dictating personal freedoms regardless of public opinion or international law. You say, "when they became a terrorist, they gave up their human rights." Again, you're assuming that the people we're torturing ARE actually terrorists (even if they were, evidence has shown that torture only leads to bad intelligence and further recruitment propaganda for terrorist groups as well as further disdain towards the West in the Middle East) even though most of them have never been charged with any crime. Do you understand what this means? THEY HAVEN'T BEEN CHARGED WITH ANY CRIME. Look, this all comes down to what you want to happen to the world. You have the warfare mentality (hence the "keep on fighting Robert" comment) so naturally you view everything as an "it's either us or them!" when in actuality there are resolutions to these issues. If you want to actually stop terrorism, or at least get it to a minimum, we can't be torturing people. You can call this appeasement if you like, but it isn't. What you advocate is ridiculous. You don't understand the role of government in society and you don't understand what government is actually meant to exist for. What would you say if Obama decided to lock you up for the rest of your life hauling rocks up and down hills, just for being right wing? That was nice True, I will however point out that most if not all of the guantanamo detainies were captured in combat whether or not they have been formally charged. We should give them due process, but its not like we just grabbed a bunch of guys in afghanstan and threw them in prison.

I just lost the game:( and that story is funny every time I read it.

most start at 4chan, I believe there is something called the something awful boards that started a few.

"Strongly disagree"--most big corporations are greedy, exploitive parasites. I reckon it is a little biased. I also think some of the questions are poorly thought through. Take the one about abortion, for example: saying "disagree" would imply that you're pro-abortion when you may not be. The should have mentioned the child; just because I wouldn't want to bring a baby into the world to suffer terribly or die doesn't mean I approve of abortions. that strongly disagree would be the type of thing that puts you in the center. I never really felt a bias toward authoritarian or libertarian, but some of the questions relating to corporations were worded in a way that makes people answer in a more leftist fashion in my opinion. For the best for is best for question, I said strongly disagree but if it was worded in a way such as "what benefits business is usually good for everyone" I would merely disagree moving me farther right.

how did you answer the question that was worded approximately "the best for the biggest corporation is the best for everyone"? you gave me support for my theory this test pushes everyone a little left economically :D

romero are the most feasible because they are the least "complex". A virus taking over the brain of an organism and controlling it is a lot less biologically challenging then a virus taking over a body and rebuilding it(which would require a ton of calories).

Its due to the nature of this test, its solely trying to check how much you believe in personal liberty and how much you believe in government regulation of the economy. I believe in social darwinism(just that most things are partly genetic) and think that eugenics in its proper form(just sterilizing not killing) could be very beneifical to humanity. However, since I dont believe in controlling peoples personal lives this test will still say im fairly libertarian.

[hide=] I believe thats unitarian philosophy, noble in thought but it kind of breaks down here. Not going to get into abortion for obvious reasons, so lets look at something more expressive. Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal" is a satirous article about eating babies to solve hunger crisis(good read btw). Technically each baby is helping around 4 people survive but that doesnt make it right, while we can sort of equate life to life in what ratio do we equate life to standard of living? Ah but having babies to eat them is monstrously inefficient. Due to the respective laws of conservation of matter and energy, all the energy gained by eating the baby is used up by the extra food the mother needs to use to eat. Just like how eating soybeans and vegetables straight is much more efficient (I think you lose 90% of the nutrients) than eating cows, you lose an additional 90% of the energy used when eating a baby. The article is much more meaningful when you consider overcrowding in England, especially of the lower classes, not in terms of food gained. [/hide] Im familair with the energy pyramid, just figured swift was a perfect example here.