warri0r45

I find the idea of ruling through bloodlines completely irrational and archaic. There's nothing about Elizabeth II and her forebears that makes them any better at leadership than any number of people who could be democratically elected. So yes, I think the Queen is essentially useless. She seems nice enough and I can appreciate the sentimental feelings some Brits have towards her, but the British government doesn't need her help for anything.

I'll have to check that one out... Have you heard Deathcult For Eternity: The Triumph? Currently listening to Joe Haley from Psycroptic. Damn he's good.

Try George. The album Polyserena is excellent.

I love it when people use this argument. The 4th doesn't only protect against wire tapping. It protects against searches without probable cause as well. Meaning that a cop could barge into you home without justifying himself or waiting for a warrent. Including protecting you against strip searches. 13 year old girl strip searched in front of school staff ironically the pricaples defence was the same as yours, that since they found nothing she should have nothing to complain about. I think I'd find a strip search or barging onto my property a fair bit more intrusive than wiretapping. I can't say I'm that concerned about it to be honest. I can't bring myself to care and all the slippery slope arguments seem like over-baked conspiracy theories. It's amazing how the left and right can both play on people's emotions with fear.

I'm a big fan of the metric system and the few countries that haven't converted from Imperial should. It makes much more sense with everyone running on the same system, hence why American scientists use metric these days anyway.

Ah, I see. Middle Ages experimentation > Modern experimentation. Makes perfect sense. Are you saying that spontaneous life is possible? Try it for yourself, in this experiment they were just as spot on then as we can be now. There are viable biological mechanisms though not all of the gaps in knowledge have been filled in yet. The main problem for abiogenesis is that we just can't recreate those mechanisms in their unbroken entirety yet. We might be able to make amino acids and nucleotides from inorganic precursors, polymerise amino acids and nucleotides on the surface of a particular clay, form autocatalytic and self-perpetuating polymers and induce the formation of lipid vescicles for them to go in, but we can't create life reminiscent of modern day bacteria from a bunch of chemicals yet. That's a bit of a red herring anyway since abiogenesis doesn't propose the creation of modern day bacteria from inorganic chemicals. The most important thing to remember is that the process of abiogenesis is more of a continuum as more primitive 'life forms' were being constantly refined by natural selection. So far abiogenesis looks nothing but possible, and even probable given the size of the universe and the abundance of the chemicals needed. If you want I could point you in the direction of more information.

Sometimes the fairies can keep you company and help you when you fall down in the garden, though. ;) And sometimes it's worth facing the reality that you're keeping company with thin air. Real people will keep you company just fine if you fall down in the garden. They're more talkative, too. ;)

You have to base laws on something, and more often than not those laws are based on the moral zeitgeist (in an open and progressive democracy, at least). I can't really see it working any other way to be honest. Ideally those laws will be both secular and rational. Secular so everyone can practice what they believe without the state forcing religious beliefs on them and rational for obvious reasons. As for swearing, I tend to think social attitudes towards it are pretty stupid. "[bleep]" is a great word as far as I'm concerned. I'm sure you've all seen the videos of how versatile a word it is. :lol:

Exactly. I have that attitude as well. There is still a lot more study involved, though; it's not like just being interested makes all the hard work disappear.

Here's a little trivia for you: MacArthur used a building in my hometown as Allied HQ for the campaign in the southwest Pacific. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacArthur_ ... ,_Brisbane As for what I've picked up recently: Polyserena by George: Unity by George: Badmotorfinger by Soundgarden:

The first stark reality you need to know about is that assessment tends to get harder as you go on. If you want to go to university or do any other tertiary education you'd better kick the X-box habit or else your results will suffer. What you really need is some will power. There is no silver bullet solution when it comes to school/uni work, I'm afraid.

We don't know that. It could be two common genes that when they are crossed you get a homosexual person. If anyone had the choice to be homosexual or heterosexual I don't think they'd be homosexual for the simple fact that it wold basically isolate them from a majority of the population. The only way to really know if homosexuality is inherited would be to trace it through many generations, and the science hasn't been advanced enough to do that for that long. One of the main ways researchers have sought to establish a genetic component to homosexuality is through twin studies. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 205430.htm You also have to take into account that it's a complex trait and it's not just based on genetics or explainable by simple genetic models.

Polyserena by George (album).

It's not as simple as that. One of the main ideas to explain male homosexuality that's come out in recent years is sexually antagonistic selection, which is where a trait provides reproductive advantage to one sex but not the other. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 204459.htm This article suggests that mothers of homosexuals are more fertile than average. It also explains the mode of inheritance: at least two genes, at least one of which must be on the X chromosome (which is always passed from mother to son). The final paragraph of the article is especially interesting: So it would seem that male homosexuality actually makes us a more fertile and reproductively stable species. Ironic huh? Everyone decrying homosexuality as the bane of our existence and a threat to survival yet it's probably the opposite. This research doesn't cover female homosexuality though, so I'm not sure about the possible mechanisms there. Perhaps research like this can serve as a starting point to figuring it out.

I don't consider myself to be an [wagon], so I certainly wouldn't have thrown out the sim and kept/sold the phone. I'd probably do what you ended up doing - give them my address to come pick it up. No disadvantage to me and they get their phone back. :thumbup:

Just read an interesting report from the Australian Institute of Family Matters. Current evidence suggests there is no significant difference in psychological adjustment between children of homosexual parents and children of heterosexual parents, more research is needed. http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/pubs/f ... m59/vr.pdf The most interesting part of this article, though, is the survey-based study they did. They basically asked a whole bunch of school kids who have homosexual parents about their experiences with bullying, teachers and friends. They suggest better education and tolerance of diversity could help, as could better support groups. Good ideas. :thumbup:

Laws being in place for a long time has no bearing on whether they should be changed. If there's a good enough reason, they should be. In the case of gay marriage, I suppose it's because homosexual partners wish to have the same recognition as any other couple. I think this is a case that requires quite a deal of empathy - say you loved someone very much but the state said that you couldn't marry them. Would you be happy with that? I wouldn't, and if my relationship with this person was of no harm and with full consent, then marriage shouldn't be a problem. I certainly wouldn't force churches who oppose gay marriage to consecrate them, but that doesn't mean other bodies can't make it official with all the "I do's" and whatnot. Your assertion that homosexual couples are of no benefit to society is wrong. They can easily be productive members of society and contribute to it. I find the idea that you'd be against homosexual couples because of society's reaction to them pretty sad. We should be looking to change intolerant attitudes towards homosexuals, not allow them to go on and use them as an excuse against homosexual couples. In any case, many people are more tolerant of homosexuality these days and they most certainly aren't alienated, unless they're stuck in the deep south of America or somewhere similar. I know that in Australia, at least, it would be pretty unusual for someone to speak out against a homosexual neighbour or coworker. I wouldn't be so quick to say that homosexual couples can't raise a child, either, even though that's not the topic here. What psychological literature do you have to back that up? Something reliable, please. I think allowing gay marriage is a great step forward. Hopefully a bit of empathy will start to remove some of these negative attitudes towards homosexuals you talk about.

World Downfall by Terrorizer (album). Pete Sandoval is awesome.

Just expanding on death metal a bit, I'd say Decapitated got me into tech death and Suffocation got me into brutal death metal. Two great bands that I still love.

Sermon Of Mockery by Pyrexia (album). A rare brutal DM gem that doesn't suck. Sure, it is heavily influenced by Suffocation like many bands are, but if there's a right way to follow in their footsteps, Pyrexia did it on this album.

Slowly We Rot by Obituary (album).

I can't wait to hear Gorod's new album Process Of A New Decline. I must have listened to the new song on their myspace page 10 times now. It's just so ridiculously good. I just can't wrap my head around how they go from flashy riffing to the most epic, awesome bridge I think I've ever heard in a death metal song. How the [bleep] does this genius band do it? I know I sound like such a fanboy right now but I don't care. http://www.myspace.com/gorod

It's a stupid recommendation and obviously won't fly in Australia (or any other western country for that matter). Every religion or belief system should be open to criticism. Anyone who doesn't like that concept needs to grow up and come to terms with the reality that not everyone agrees with them.

I don't mind piercings, but I don't have any. Some can look stupid, though, especially if you have 20 of them on your face.

An old demo by Cynic. The one from 1990.