dusqi

I was always surprised how many cheaters who were banned started a new account and started paying straight away again. I think in an MMORPG, that community ties are so strong, that when a serious player is banned, he doesn't know what to do with himself, so just starts from scratch again. Of course in Runescape, it's a lot easier to get levels and gold when you're a member than when you're not - so the cheaters sign up again. On another subject, I'd far rather that games let you trade ingame items for real life money. Sure, some items should be just available through ingame prowess ('bound' items) - but I think that integrating ingame and real-life economies is a very interesting thing to do.

34th And I agree with Muppets Christmas Carol. I don't like the muppets much anymore, but I still like that movie :P ditto to both of those movies :D

haha, awesome - I'd love a conservatory with a hot tub in it... and a big t.v.

Fine. I used to tick a box. Maybe you should suggest to your school that they make new forms that don't waste your time. Apparently you won't believe me when I say that "the government" departments are split up, and don't share information as a default, unless there is specific legislation in place in order to do it.... and that's for a reason - to protect privacy. There is no central database that 'the government' takes information from. Your principal doesn't check your criminal record, despite the police and the education sections being part of "the government". The crux of the problem is that I wouldn't want my information given to the military from my school, and apparently you don't mind it. It's lucky that you live in America and I live in the UK then. For your information, we don't have "selective services" either.

- You resubmit your information: they probably give you a sheet with their current information and you just tick the box at the bottom which says that nothing has changed. So of course they already have it. But when you fill out other forms, the information isn't already there - you don't just tick a box to say that the information hasn't changed. That's because you're giving them the information for the first time. - I don't know what the "selective services" is. I don't think we have it in the UK. Or perhaps we have a different name for whatever it is. - There are various public databases of addresses and things. The telephone book has records of everyone with a phone number. But it'll just be the number of the person that owns the telephone (your dad/mum), and probably few teenagers are in there. And also, you can opt to not be in it (ex-directory). I tell my school my mobile phone number. That doesn't mean that I'd expect them to pass it into anyone else. Schools have privacy policies, just like anyone else that has a database of information, and that includes not passing your information on.

I like Christmas, because it's a chance to spend time with the people you love :D

Just because the tax part of the government knows how much you(r parents) earn, it doesn't mean that your school has access to that information. Apart from perhaps the intelligence services, the various government departments (in the UK, and I assume in the US as well) don't normally have access to each other's information. If you apply for a college, I assume you have to tell them seperately your financial status, because even government colleges can't just get that information from the tax department. Every time I fill in a form, even for the government, I have to write my name, address, date of birth, etc.etc. over and over again. Because they don't have that information already. And it's a pain, but at least it means that I know who has my details, and I can choose not to give them to someone if I don't want them to have it.

To those saying that "the government takes the census, so of course the army has access to everyone's names and addresses" - the UK government takes a census, and I've never had an army recruiter phone me up or anyone else I know. The UK army shows up at campus careers days and has a stand, and they also have adverts on the t.v. - but just because they're the army, they don't get free reign to spam and annoy.

I'm interested to know how much of a sports team's budget is spent on paying players? Maybe if someone calculated that, and then told everyone that.. say.. ticket prices would be $10 less per game if only players weren't being paid so much.. the public would have a change of heart about what they're willing to pay for sports figures.

Though I'm not accusing you of making up these statistics, I'd be interested to see a source for them still? :) To see if there are other statistics on there and perhaps to see if 1999 is a representative year for black vs. white murder rates compared to the last decade. Anyway, my major point is that it is the race of the victim that seems to hold some sway in death penalty decisions when it shouldn't. Yes, but I'd be happier if judicial systems which are fundamentally flawed didn't have the right to dole out life and death. The difference between going to prison for 20 instead of 15 years isn't as great to me as the difference between being in prison for life and being killed. I'm more happy with a flawed judicial system that can only be biased in its prison sentences.

love: life, and Mad hate: the game Jagged Alliance, and my impatience

Insane, sorry if I was unclear. When I was talking about innocent people being killed, I meant the innocent people that are killed by the death penalty by mistake. If the justice system was perfect, then we wouldn't mistakenly sentence the death penalty on innocent people. MyPurpleCrayon, your fixes are right.. and yet this is what I say to them: - The death penalty is used on innocent people Sometimes, but so is jail and every other type of punishment. But jail isn't irreversible - The death penalty is applied racistly Sometimes How can we seperate the times that race has affected sentencing, and times when it hasn't? All we can do is look at general findings of lots of cases, and note indescrepancies with what we 'should' find (that race doesn't matter) - The death penalty does not deter crime You're right... but what does? But a lot of people who support the death penalty are under the mistaken impression that it does deter crime, and it is this mistaken belief which sways some people's opinions when otherwise they'd be against the death penalty.

But the same argument applies to innocent people being killed. If the justice system was perfect, then innocent people wouldn't be killed. If the justice system was perfect, then it wouldn't be applied unfairly. Sadly, as far as I can tell, it is applied unfairly - because we're not perfect. Why is killing another person justice? It's just revenge, and that doesn't get anyone anywhere. For the family who has had a loved one killed, it must be awful - but if they want revenge, then it will just create another family that has had a loved one killed.

1. You guys aren't bringing up any better statistics are you? Your arguments are just coming from the standpoint of "I don't want to believe it, so I won't." 2. Financial status is an issue, you're correct. So poor people deserve to die more than rich ones? Are you saying that "the capitalist system" is the one that should be used to deal out life and death? As far as I can see, "the capitalist system" isn't very good at doling out justice. Extreme versions of "the capitalist system" doling out "justice "exist in poor countries where the rich just buy or bribe their way out of guilt. As the religious might say, only God is qualified to deal out life and death - because he's the only perfect one. Anyway, financial status does not account for the difference between killing a white person and killing a black person - whether or not the defendant is white or not. There are four curves on the graph, not two. Look at the difference between a nonblack defendant killing a nonblack vicrim and killing a black victim. Facts are: - The death penalty is more expensive than incarceration - The death penalty is used on innocent people - The death penalty is applied racistly - The death penalty does not deter crime - The death penalty is immoral (less of a 'fact' I guess) The only worthwhile standpoint on the side of the death penalty is the fact that it exacts revenge. But what kind of a judicial system do we have if we're just preoccupied with revenge? Edit: Okay, I realise that my argumentative tone isn't helping anything, in my defence it's just something I feel strongly about. My goal isn't for anyone to post saying "oh, dusqi, you were right after all, I'm sorry for being so wrong." What I would love though, is for people to look again at these points that they probably didn't know before, with an open mind, not just from the standpoint of "I've already made up my mind, how can I attack this other person who disagrees with me?"

www.deathpenaltyinfo.org "After controlling for levels of crime severity and the defendant's criminal background, the average death sentencing rates in Philadelphia were .18 for black defendants and .13 for other defendants, which amounts to a 38% higher rate for blacks" deathpenalty.info factsheet "98% of the chief district attorneys in death penalty states are white; only 1% are black. (Prof. Jeffrey Pokorak, Cornell Law Review, 1998)" "A recent study in California found that those who killed whites were over 3 times more likely to be sentenced to death than those who killed blacks and over 4 times more likely than those who killed Latinos. (Pierce & Radelet, Santa Clara Law Review 2005)"

These quotes are from Amnesty International: "Scientific studies have consistently failed to find convincing evidence that the death penalty deters crime more effectively than other punishments. The most recent survey of research findings on the relation between the death penalty and homicide rates, conducted for the United Nations in 1988 and updated in 2002, concluded: '. . .it is not prudent to accept the hypothesis that capital punishment deters murder to a marginally greater extent than does the threat and application of the supposedly lesser punishment of life imprisonment.' " "Recent crime figures from abolitionist countries fail to show that abolition [of the death penalty] has harmful effects. In Canada, for example, the homicide rate per 100,000 population fell from a peak of 3.09 in 1975, the year before the abolition of the death penalty for murder, to 2.41 in 1980, and since then it has declined further. In 2003, 27 years after abolition, the homicide rate was 1.73 per 100,000 population, 44 per cent lower than in 1975 and the lowest rate in three decades." These findings are from a study by the NY Times: "The dozen states that have chosen not to enact the death penalty since the Supreme Court ruled in 1976 that it was constitutionally permissible have not had higher homicide rates than states with the death penalty, government statistics and a new survey by The New York Times show." "In a state-by- state analysis, The Times found that during the last 20 years, the homicide rate in states with the death penalty has been 48 percent to 101 percent higher than in states without the death penalty." "Indeed, 10 of the 12 states without capital punishment have homicide rates below the national average, Federal Bureau of Investigation data shows, while half the states with the death penalty have homicide rates above the national average." To add another fact about how the death penalty is doled out unfairly: "The death penalty also has been employed much more often when the victim was white ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ã

Fact is that past behaviour is the best predictor of future behaviour. People should be given a chance to change... after all, people do give up smoking for example - it's just that out of all the times that smokers try to give up, the likelihood on each occasion is that they won't. So, give past-transgressors support, but don't expect miracles.

Hmm, that's a good point - sorry for misunderstanding you. Still though, I don't really trust their judgement, because as far as I understand it was essentially the policeman's boss that undertook the inquiry, and he would not want to show the policeman in a bad light. Firstly because it would draw negative attention to the police training methods which certified this policeman, and secondly because tasers are still a fairly new tool for policemen - and one that policemen find extremely useful - and he wouldn't want to draw attention to their negative aspects and possibly risk a public backlash against them.

Assuming that he thought she was dangerous before the first tasering - and not just frustrated that she wasn't obeying orders. I can't even imagine what justifyable thoughts could have been going through the policeman's mind which made him taser her the second time. If he really still thought that she was dangerous after hearing her scream the first time and looking at her writhing around on the floor, then he isn't a very good policeman. Sounds like the type of person that would shoot you for sneezing. I'm sorry, but your comment sounds like "trust him, he's a policeman, you're not, he knows what's best because he was there." According to your signature, you don't trust your government to tax you, so why do you seem to trust policemen?

I know your question wasn't about this at all... but if I had a site like tip.it - I'd tailor the adverts so that they're more interesting to the people that use it.

I used a digital piano to learn, and it was officially accredited with being good enough to have piano examinations on. In other words, it played like an accoustic piano. The keys were weighted and if you pressed them too softly they didn't play. That was 12 years ago at least, so probably the current digital pianos will be even better. Size and cost are the biggest issues, mine was the equivalent of about 2000 euros, and it was really big so had its own stand, and couldn't just be put away. Have a look around, if you buy a decent digital piano, then you won't notice much difference from an accoustic one. It's also worth bargaining. When we got the piano, we went in the first store and got a 5% discount, then went to another one and they gave us 10%, then we went back to the first one and they said that they were 'allowed' to give up to 10%, but they shouldn't really go further. So they'd let us have 15%, if we bought it there and then. Which we did.

The reason that the news was on New Scientist was because after an investigation the officer's bosses have decided that his actions were "an appropriate way to apprehend someone non-violently resisting arrest, as she may have had a concealed weapon in the car". So, it's apparently not the case that the officer was "badly trained", since his bosses are backing him up on it. I don't know about you guys, but I worry that pretty much anyone can have a concealed weapon in any situation, unless they're walking around completely naked, and that means that most people are "fair game". What about when she was on the ground and he zapped her the second time? She was screaming and crying and obviously defenceless, it was completely unnecessary.

The video is awful, but not graphic. Her screams and convulsions are frightening, but there is no blood or anything. I think it is important for people to see this, since this is "real life", rather than scripted T.V. drama. http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/conte ... deo3a.html I discussed this with Wyrm, and he wondered why the cops don't have settings on their tazers that will administer smaller shocks, for situations like this where the rich female SUV driver wasn't likely to be a threat.

I think that the Kansas School Board has a point. The theory of evolution is just a theory, much like the theory of gravity, and as such it is not proven and alternatives are possible. For this reason I think it is right that 'inteligent design' is taught. However, it would be wrong to limit the classroom to just one alternative theory. Another equally valid theory is that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. This alternative theory has already received some support from President Bush as well as some of the members of the Kansas School Board.