warri0r45

I went 49-12 on domination on Favela yesterday. I love that map for domination. My killstreaks were predator, harriers and stealth bomber, but I only got two kills with the bomber, so most kills came from my SCAR, semtex, predator and harriers.

Yes. It was part of the 10th hack. I got a challenge lobby. Im not a douche. I got 10th prestige and some guns with a puke colored camo on them. Its a game. It's annoying, stupid, and defeats the purpose of even having such aspects of customization in a game. In all seriousness, you disgust me. It's sad that someone like you had to make this thread. Whys it such a big deal? Like really. OMFG I HACKED MY LEVEL. Who gives a flying rats [wagon]. Be a man, suck it up, and wait till someone that hacked it proves they are good. Its a level goddamnit. And Sir, you disgust me. You come into a thread just meant for a good discussion about a game, and start talking trash and bashing on the guy who hacked his level. I tried to be nice to you guys, and just drop the subject that Im a 10th prestige. But you people just decided to keep you internet ego high because you think your a badass. If you have a problem with people who hacked, just stop replying here. Its that simple? I guess its too hard to understand that a symbol with a number beside it relates nothing to skill."Oh waaaaa you hacked 10th prestige because your a panzy loser whos afraid to get it legit!!' Yeah. So? What are you gonna do about it. Thats what I thought. Just [bleep]ing drop it and lets talk about the GAME like this thread was meant for. Jesus Christ. How about let's not do that and everyone can dig the boot in for a few more pages. Everyone of sound mind hates people like you for a reason, you know. It doesn't matter that its just a game, it's still a poor reflection on your character that you feel the need to cheat to gain prestige.

Encountered boosters in a non-FFA match for the first time (domination). I stopped them early on but the guy still got a nuke. I also got one of my best scores ever in a match of domination on sub base - 37 kills, 2 deaths. My second supernatural accolade so far.

There's no such thing as "skill" in a video game. Video games revolve solely around reaction time. I personally think it's just arrogant to ride around on your high horse proclaiming that your favorite gun isn't one that is classified as "overpowered". Sounds like you have a very narrow definition of skill. I got my first non care-packaged chopper gunner the other day. I've been getting heaps of pavelows and emergency airdrops lately as well. I'm loving the 5/7/8 or 5/7/9 setup. I've also improved on my best killcount - 43 in domination on quarry.

I've found most of the well established scientific articles to be just fine. Generally the only errors I can find to fix are grammatical.

SCAR + extended mags + scavenger = win. Got my highest number of kills yet with this setup - 35, and with 5,6,7 killstreaks only.

Amen to that.. have you seen any of Sandy Ravage's videos on youtube? They're hilarious. I've only encountered boosters a few times, and screwing up their plans was really fun.

Taxation isn't stealing.. even if you don't like it, it doesn't make it stealing, it's just something about society that you don't like.

Can't argue with that - I'd like to add this to my previous post. Obviously you're not going to just give an insane man a slap on the hand and let them go if they might do it again. The thing is, with some mental disorders your capacity to make rational judgments like anyone else is impaired. Take bipolar disorder for example. In a manic state, people with bipolar can behave impulsively and choose to do risky things which they wouldn't have done beforehand. Surely this should be some sort of defence against, say, driving your car through someone's fence? It's not as simple as reducing it to "we all run on brain chemicals so we're all equally in control of our behaviour." Taking up on your other point, say a child who was bullied murdered his bulliers. Unless he had a mental disorder that screwed up his judgment, I don't think he should get off. However, his history could be used to argue for a lighter sentence, or perhaps a different approach to punishment (counselling, minimum security prison, some other form of rehab, combination of the above..). So in a way, his history is still a kind of defence to his actions. It really depends on the situation. Obviously a murderer who kills people and has no remorse or planned to do it shouldn't get off so lightly.

How about we make it compulsory that they get help for their problems and if they don't (or if they refused help prior to the crime), charge them like anyone else. I think acquittal could be given a few circumstances: 1) It's proven by experts that the person has a mental disease 2) It's proven by experts that the mental disease significantly effects the person's behaviour It's debatable how significant the effect would need to be, and I don't particularly want to get into that, but I think these rules are reasonable enough.

I sometimes ask myself that and I've come to two conclusions: 1) Who says there has to be a point? Surely humans want to rationalize why things happen, but maybe there just isn't a point. 2) Flip it around, why are humans here? Clearly an atheistic standpoint, but sometimes I wonder myself. The Bible says to 'bring' glory to God, but why does God need glory? My point in asking those questions is really to show that Christians think they have a purpose to their existence for the same reason atheists with an existentialist philosophy do. Presumably, Christians want to go to heaven because they will enjoy it, which is exactly why atheists don't just mope around or go all suicidal on everyone - we're rather fond of life. We enjoy it, so we stick with it. (I like your thinking in those responses, though)

Life isn't pointless if there's no god. You just have to make one for yourself. A lot of non-religious people get a lot of joy out of life, whether it's from friends, family, a job, charity work, whatever. What is the point in God existing? What is the point in going to heaven?

I take it you've never studied biochemistry or molecular biology? We know that lipids agglomerate to form cell membranes due to hydrophobicity, we know that hydrophobic amino acids cluster together in the centre of proteins by the same mechanism. We also know this is how different proteins can cluster together to avoid the aqueous environment in which they find themselves. We know that certain amino acids can donate protons/react with certain molecules in other ways to facilitate chemical reactions in cells (i.e. catalysis). We know that complementary, single stranded DNA molecules join by hydrogen bonding and this is the basis of reproduction (four bases where A binds T and G binds C leaves few options for mistakes or deviations from this plan). We know that adding a phosphate group to certain proteins can modulate their shape due to local electrostatic interference, hence changing the active site of the protein and changing it's ability to do its job. We know how amino acids join by dehydration reactions and even the biochemical pathways by which they are formed (either from sugars or other amino acids, mostly). We know how inactive proteins can be activated by having part of their amino acid sequence chopped off by other proteins. We know that certain charged amino acids are attracted to others of an opposite charge, and we know how hydrogen bonding between amino acids can take place to form secondary structure, both helping form the shape of proteins. We know the pathways by which sugars can be broken down for energy or stored, or how they can be partly broken down and converted to fats. We know how oxygen can complex with the heam group of hemoglobin in red blood cells and be carried around the body.. We know all this, and a heck of a lot more. The problem in creating life from scratch is not with our knowledge, it's with the application of that knowledge. It's just impossibly impractical to create life at this stage. I have taken those classes, but those concepts are still all elementary Biology and Chemistry. What I'm talking about isn't the chemistry within living cells. We can recreate these things, yes, but it's not practical or even possible for us to comprehend how all of these properties come together to form an entity that can preserve itself and reproduce. One of the main things I find most "alarming" is that nature ALWAYS does things that require the least use of energy, but reproduction and the creation of life basically kicks Nature in the balls. DNA and proteins shouldn't be coding for and creating other proteins when it's obviously more efficient to just hang around in a liquid medium in a shape that minimizes polar/non-polar interactions. And even if this were possible, why do these chemicals (after all, life is just a jumble of chemicals) insist upon recreating copies of themselves? This expends vast amounts of energy and it isn't beneficiary to the individual cell in any case. Think of how efficient bacteria would be if they didn't feel the need to devote a large portion of their cell cycle into reproducing. Sure, it creates genetic variability, but what does that contribute to the individual? Think of all the things you posted, and then think of how emergent properties could possibly combine all of those things and contrive what we call life. It's just not within our current knowledge. I don't think I quite get your point, sorry.

hydrogen will never be effective because we currently lack any materials that are actually strong enough to store it in high enough quantities to be used for medium length trips. ever see arny actually drive his hydrogen powered hummer around for anything other then a meeting with enviromentalists? There used to be a car that was made in california that was completly electric and had good enough milage for the average american to drive. But the project was scrapped and replaced with... get this... the hummer. If anyone wants to find out more look up the EV-1 i think it was called or rent or buy the movie "who killed the electric car". And i hate that you used the term deniers in your post. No one thinks that the climate is not shifting. What is doubted is whether or not humans are actually the cause. Yes polluting is bad but have you actually seen any of the stratagies that people are proposing to stop climate change? I'll never forget one "scientist", i use that word with the utmost distaste, wanted to create a massive human made volcanic eruption.. And the carbon credit thing that was proposed by al gore i think it was? doesn't do anything to actually help the environment. its just a tax to be sent to all companies who pollute and offers no incentive to actually stop that. How is a carbon tax not an incentive to stop polluting? I'm seeing a trend where climate change skeptics seem to be preoccupied with proposed policy on climate change rather than the science behind it... Either that or picking up on mistakes or infering a global conspiracy from isolated incidents. Its the same theory that raising taxes on smokes or alchohol will stop people from smoking and drinking. Raising taxes on it is a good first step but if there is no method that is cheaper or at least on par with current power generating techniques then all it does is drain money away from buisnesses which will then raise their own products price to compensate and just make everyones life that much more difficult. And the reason why we are so foccused on the policy instead of the actual science is because we have no idea right now what scientific reports are actaully scientific. First off if you look closly at the graphs that are used to show how co2 levels rise when the earth heats up you'll notice something. co2 doesn't actually start to rise until "after" the temperature starts to rise. but if you compare a graph of the suns sun spot activity to the earths temperature you'll see a pattern that is alot closer then the co2 levels with global temperature. Second off alot of the temperature sensors that have been used to moniter the current global temperature have been set up in cities, some even set up right next to heating exhaust vents. And it has been proven that cities and towns are actually warmer then the surrounding environment. Third is that of all the green house gasses co2 makes up less then one percent, man made co2 is even less then that. And we are expected to believe that co2 is the only reason that the climate is changing. In fact the largest green house gass in the atmosphere is actually water vapour. And that's only 3 of the many debates going on as to climate change. and a fun fact is that the head of the IPCC doesn't have any degree whatsoever in climetology or anything els similar. He's a railroad engineer. Yet we are supposed to believe anything he says with out question? As for how CO2 increases after temperature, this is because of Milankovitch cycles. First, the cycle brings us out of an ice age and warms the oceans, releasing CO2 which then amplifies the effect of warming. We know that CO2 causes warming - there is no debating that point. As for the urban heat island effect, don't you think thousands of scientists working on the same problem for decades would have figured this out by now? It's obviously not the only source to form the global temperature record. Take satellite data, for example. As for how prevelant CO2 is as a greenhouse gas, your argument doesn't really mean anything. Small changes don't necessarily mean small effects. In fact, scientists have never claimed that it's all about CO2. It's also about methane and deforestation, for example, which both contribute to warming. Water vapour is a constant (and clouds actually cool the planet by reflecting incoming radiation), but the balance of carbon-based pollution in the atmosphere has shifted dramatically since the start of modern industrialisation (current levels of CO2 are about 380ppm where as they were below 300 prior to the industrial revolution for hundreds of thousands of years). It's fairly clear from modelling that we're partly to blame for global warming. As for the head of the IPCC, you're really not helping your cause by making stupid points like this. The head of the IPCC doesn't write the reports - the expert scientists do. You really have to look at the reliability of the source of the information, and the majority of earth scientists with expertise in how the climate works clearly think that we're contributing to recent warming. As for your argument against a carbon tax, it's a fair point. I would have thought, however, in the long-term it's still an incentive (at least in part) for businesses to go green.

Actually, I'm pretty sure he's just joking. I've never once seen anyone actually seriously believe in satirical religions.

Do any of the PS3 players here get automatically signed out for no reason whatsoever? It's annoying the hell out of me and any suggestions to help stop it would be great. Basically, at any random time either during a match or in a lobby, an error message will come up that says I've been automatically signed out of the playstation network.

Because that + (your sig) I'm a Pastafarianist - I belong to the Flying Spaghetti Monster religion. R'amen. = not an atheist. The FSM bible states numerous times "he" (the flying spaghetti monster) exists. By following it as a religion you can't class yourself as a atheist which makes pretty much 99% of your arguments on this topic hypocritical. You claim to be a follower/believer in FSM and yet class yourself as atheist. The FSM never once denies there being a God its just an alternative concept for a divine being like it was intended to be. To me it looks like you want to be a religious rebel, but fail to get out of the stereotype boundaries it gives. Google -> why god doesn't exist Second result, this article strange hey? Like I said in my second post this has been ton so many times the article is a bore to read. Over 9,780,000 for the same search you did to get this article. FSM is satire.. It's not a serious religion that people actually believe in (I hope - there could be someone crazy enough). It was invented by a university student who basically said if you want to teach ID in schools, teach pastafarianism as well. And to DialgaPoke, spontaneous generation certainly is laughable, but evolution is perfectly consistent with the known facts of biology. In fact, it puts them all into a context which makes sense of them in a clear and coherent manner. If you want to add to your post with some kind of argument I'm all ears.

First of all, it hasn't been proven that global warming is all a fraud. The very proposition is absurd. Sure, there have been some mistakes along the way, but mistakes are weeded out and corrected. This is the nature of science. In over 200 years of research, every single bit of evidence we have in the biological, geological and paleontological sciences supports evolution. But you might argue that dispite all this, in science we can't ever know things with 100% absolute certainty. This is true, but would you stop taking antibiotics because of the possibility that microbiology is wrong? Of course not. There's so much evidence supporting the fact that antibiotics work, so people accept that they do and move on with their lives. It's only when science contradicts creation myths and other religious dogma that people question it. Why not just look at the evidence - the real facts that we know and judge for yourself whether they support evolution? Just flat out claiming that scientists are wrong wont get you far.

There's a major problem with the typewriter analogy to evolution. Natural selection would keep each letter that contributes towards making a shakespearean sonnet, while the monkeys don't. Their actions are pure chance, while natural selection is not. So there was a first cause and we don't need to know where it came from. And you don't find this reasoning to be rediculous? It's perfectly reasonable to question where everything came from, but to say that someone else did it and pretend that where they came from doesn't matter is pretty rediculous. It really defeats the purpose of questioning where everything came from. The point he was making in the article is that if there is a first cause, it doesn't prove that it's a god with supernatural qualities. It could just be a natural occurance.

I already knew the majority of those arguments, and agree with most of it. I think the only thing I really disagree with is that omniscience contradicts free will.

I take it you've never studied biochemistry or molecular biology? We know that lipids agglomerate to form cell membranes due to hydrophobicity, we know that hydrophobic amino acids cluster together in the centre of proteins by the same mechanism. We also know this is how different proteins can cluster together to avoid the aqueous environment in which they find themselves. We know that certain amino acids can donate protons/react with certain molecules in other ways to facilitate chemical reactions in cells (i.e. catalysis). We know that complementary, single stranded DNA molecules join by hydrogen bonding and this is the basis of reproduction (four bases where A binds T and G binds C leaves few options for mistakes or deviations from this plan). We know that adding a phosphate group to certain proteins can modulate their shape due to local electrostatic interference, hence changing the active site of the protein and changing it's ability to do its job. We know how amino acids join by dehydration reactions and even the biochemical pathways by which they are formed (either from sugars or other amino acids, mostly). We know how inactive proteins can be activated by having part of their amino acid sequence chopped off by other proteins. We know that certain charged amino acids are attracted to others of an opposite charge, and we know how hydrogen bonding between amino acids can take place to form secondary structure, both helping form the shape of proteins. We know the pathways by which sugars can be broken down for energy or stored, or how they can be partly broken down and converted to fats. We know how oxygen can complex with the heam group of hemoglobin in red blood cells and be carried around the body.. We know all this, and a heck of a lot more. The problem in creating life from scratch is not with our knowledge, it's with the application of that knowledge. It's just impossibly impractical to create life at this stage.

1) Really? When did you choose to be attracted to women? Could you just choose to be attracted to men? Sexuality is not something you choose, it's something that's inherent in us. It's pretty clear that no homosexuals feel they have a choice in the matter. 2) What exactly do you mean? That it doesn't produce babies? Of course that's true, but that doesn't make it "unnatural". Homosexuality is very much a part of the sexual behaviour of many animals, as it is with humans. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals Added, there are a lot of things that are man-made that people have no problem with, so why is this supposed to be a good argument against homosexuality? 3) Being a form of sexuality, of course homosexuality has to do with lust, as does heterosexuality. That's not to say that homosexuals can't genuinely love people of their own sex. The only thing that will convince other people that your arguments are true is if they are logically coherent and rational. You've not even bothered to make an argument (you've just asserted things as fact), so what do you expect people to get out of your post?

I've heard about this before - it's very interesting. I wonder, if there is other life out there, is it based on proteins? What amino acids do they use? I'd love to be alive when we discover some of these things.

Just had some great fun screwing over some nuke boosters. This is the first time I've encountered them, and after the first game (where they got a nuke) everyone seemed to catch on and screwed up their plans.

So if someone is handicapped they should be treated same as everyone else? Equality does NOT mean everyone is treated the same way, it means that those who are not equal receive certain benefits to make them as equal as possible (for an extreme example, a student without hands should be given a sort of help with his homework or with exams and such, a sort of help that other students do not receive). The thing is though, this can be taken to far. Take African Americans for example - they're now equal under the eyes of the law and have equal opportunities for healthcare, security, work, education, literally everything. Sure, it's OK if you want to help disadvantaged black people get a place in a univeristy or whatever, but the same should apply to any disadvantaged person, no matter what skin colour they are. That's the point I think Serephurus was really trying to get at.