warri0r45

They HAVE been growing world wide. Since the dawn of history. It's funny how we label racism as "hate-crimes" as if it's a recently provoked violence. How can you be so sure?

Haha, always advertising gorod. :P Whats your favorite song from the new album? Probably Disavow Your God. That could be because it's the one I've heard the most, though. All of the songs are really good. And yeah, I'll definitely keep advertising them. I genuinely believe they should be at least as popular as other big tech-death bands like Decapitated, Anata, Necrophagist, etc. They're just that good.

I read the list, and I all I saw were 21st century minds bashing a 2,000 year-old book for not having 21st century facts. Great job you intelligent "freethinkers"... :wall: The point of listing such faults is to argue against people who take the bible as literal scientific truth. It's not arguing against the more rational position that takes it as a flawed document constrained by the knowledge (or lack thereof) of the people who wrote it.

Average. Not hot. These huys are hot: http://www.myspace.com/gorod

Generally speaking atheists don't believe anything happens when you die. For example, if a relative of mine died, I don't believe I'll be seeing them again. As far as we know your body decomposes and that's it.

The drums were programmed? Thats kinda sad. Mastodon - Crack the Skye [album] It would be better if they were real, but I have to add that the arrangement of the drums is very good. It would take massive skill to drum like that, but it still takes some skill to know how to compose them.

I saw the first one, but I was a kid at the time. Suffice it to say I lost interest long ago and I wont be seeing this one. I'm really not much of a kid's movie kind of guy.

Why's that? Do you know something about how different sound frequencies affect things like this?

Science isn't the opposite of god. Science would be the opposite of religion. Saying that evolution starts with science doesn't really make much sense, since science is just our understanding of what is already out there in the universe. Whatever did start evolution would already be out there, if we understood it or not. But we do understand it. It's called the carbon atom. The carbon atom has nothing to do with evolution - the process could work just as well if we were all silicone-based life forms. The first 'life-form' was probably an RNA molecule, since it can both perform metabolic functions and replicate, two crucial parts of living (even though it is made primarily of carbon atoms). Saying the carbon atom is responsible for the origin of life is a bit.. not well thought through to put it nicely. It's not that stupid. I think what he was trying to say is that the properties of the carbon atom are a necessary prerequisite for life as we know it. The number of bonds it forms with other atoms and it's electronegativity compared to that of oxygen and hydrogen are two key properties that make life what it is - these properties pretty much single handedly dictate molecular shape and polarity (and therefore molecular interactions).

Hackled in Gore by Scrambled Defuncts (album). Brilliant. Apparently the drums are programmed, though. That's a shame - I was thinking how talented the drummer was, but..

Interesting, but it hasn't been tested in a scientific study yet. He would need to do a valid statistical test and submit it for peer review to make me think it could be real. Who knows what else the subject was doing in the test to make her bust grow like that? Also, there's not enough data to inform him of the effectiveness of the ringtone, if any. Correspondence from people who think it's had an effect is statistically meaningless, because a) you don't know what else they were doing that could have contributed to the result, and B) people who don't see any effect aren't going to email him to make the sample representative. Other people would need to repeat his study to prove it definitively and perhaps pick up on some points that he missed.

Except that in most cases the user wouldn't have bought the product anyways, effectively causing no harm at all. You can't remove revenue if you wouldn't have bought the item in the first place. :) And then one could go on to talk about the word of mouth advertisement that they would get from you telling others about the album/band. It's not all black and white. I did say if you bought it legally, but you're right, I can't fault your argument. My point was probably too simplistic. I would question your argument for more well known bands, though. If they're popular enough to be known and their music is freely avaliable either in store or on the internt (e.g. itunes or something like that), then the avaliability of illegal downloading probably puts a dent in sales. I've not done any hard research into that, though.

I fail to see how something so successful can be natural though. Life is so conditional and circumstantial that it baffles me how I have the ability to type this very sentence. It seems much more likely that natural evolution wasn't such a perfect system. I forget the term but it's something along the lines of "everything eventually fails". Evolution (natural) seems to be the opposite of this. Evolution by natural selection isn't perfect, though. It's constrained by what it has to work with. For instance, mammals probably can't evolve a new optic nerve to eliminate our blind spot because of the way the nerves are hooked up to our photoreceptor cells. Instead, evolution has chosen to make the nerves themselves more transparent to light. We could have used a mollusk optic system, but that's not how it turned out. Another point I would make is that life and the biological systems that make it up can and do go wrong - take any number of genetic diseases like lysosomal storage disorders, cystic fibrosis or huntington's disease, for example. All natural selection does is allow the best of an average lot to reproduce more, hence the optimisation of the system. The final point I'll make is that different studies have shown that computer programs can evolve complex functions by random variation and natural selection. [1][2] The second link is particularly interesting.

Yeah, that's the one. It's very good. It took me a few listenes to fully "get it", though. I'd say it's a more technical album than their previous two, so there's a lot to try and wrap your head around.

How can a concept with no autonomy be responsible for efficiency? Nature is clearly autonomous. So is evolution. Horrible word choice, my mistake. My point is that I don't see how it's possible for something to be naturally efficient. Efficiency kind of implies that there is some sort of mind work taking place. Not necessarily, if a natural process exists that optimises biological form and function. That process is natural selection.

Agreed, Gorod is amazing. Have you checked out their new album yet?

How can a concept with no autonomy be responsible for efficiency? Nature is clearly autonomous. So is evolution.

Gorod. http://www.metal-archives.com/band.php?id=44494 http://www.myspace.com/gorod Catchy, well composed tech-death. They should be as popular as The Faceless or other trendy "techy" bands like that, but I suppose hailing from France doesn't help that much. Edit: Just because I'm listening to them right now, I'll add Scrambled Defuncts, a Russian brutal-technical death metal band. http://www.metal-archives.com/band.php?id=858 http://www.myspace.com/scrambleddefuncts Their 2005 album is some seriously impressive technical mastery. Check it out if you're a fan of brutal/technical metal.

That image is a really stupid justification for piracy. Pirating a copy of a CD effectively removes the revenue that the band would have otherwise received if you bought it legally. It has essentially the same consequence as stealing.

Process of a New Decline by Gorod (album). Wow. Certainly doesn't dissapoint.

I agree. Society's obsession with celebrities is a distraction from what's really important. People should be more interested in politics and news, but unfortunately they aren't.

The child should be taken away if the mother doesn't have the capacity to care for it. I can't really judge whether that's the case from one news story.

That was only speculation. It wasn't in the plan at all.

Censorship for adults is wrong, but it is necessary for children. Censorship for children is to be at the discretion of their parents. I'm completely fine with warning labels and age restrictions to a certain extent, but the government should have no right to impose restrictions on adults. I'm not a child any more and I have the capacity to judge for myself what is or isn't appropriate for me to watch. I'm not interested in government-sponsored nannying. That's not their business.

Despite whether those "Americans are stupid" videos are legit, there's one massive problem with making an inference about Americans based on them: it's statistically invalid. The makers of those videos can freely pick and choose to get the dumbest of the dumb, thereby skewing the sample significantly so that people make false inferences. They're not going to keep every video of every person they meet because they're not trying to show a representative sample of the American population. If you want to get accurate, reliable information on the mental capacity of Americans, check out something like school performance of the general population. I'm sure you'll find a distribution of achievement not unlike Australia, England or any other western country.