warri0r45

I'm not sure whether this is of interest to anyone, but I suppose it's topical. http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/ ... 09?sp=true

Any of the Aussies here know of the "whale" trick with the $5 note?

If you're into skull-crushing death metal, try Suffocation, specifically their debut album Effigy of the Forgotten.

Habitual Infamy by Suffocation. Puts most other brutal DM I've heard to absolute shame.

What textbook was this in, by the way? I find it hard to believe that an educational tool could contain such an uneducated argument.

There are certain aspects that you can consider advantageous to your family, such as extra years to spend with them. Everyone likes that. Also, though in pain, it could give a person time to think about their life and what they have done with it, and maybe get a few things done relationship-wise with a few people. See, it's this attitude towards life that annoys me. That you should stay alive because friends and family want to be close to you. If one of my closest friends or a member of my family was finding life so unbearable, and they'd tried everything to feel better, I wouldn't want them to stay alive just because they think I'd miss them. To me, that just seems incredibly selfish. If I was half the friend I claim to be, I'd respect that it's nothing personal and they'll be happier in death than in life, so it's the right thing for them. Asking someone to stay around just because you'll personally miss seems natural but also very self-centered. I'd take pretty much the exact same approach. Their life isn't mine - it's entirely up to them whether they feel they can go on in that situation.

Wow, that's a quadrupling of funding. That's great news, Trapical. Given how cheap the medication is for it and how simple it is to prevent by sleeping under a mosquito net, I'm sure that this disease can be seriously reduced, if not eradicated by the given deadline. It's about time the human race grew a collective backbone to fight things like malaria head on. It's the kind of disease that we can cure, it's just a matter of wanting to get up and do it. Again, good to hear that we're doing just that. (By the way, I would have thought that this would be on the 6:00 news, but I didn't see a thing on it)

Haha, sorry, I missed the astronomer comment. I basically wrote out that post as a generic response to the last few posts and thought it would be topical to add in your post as a quote above it. Apologies if it was a bit full on with jargon, I'd gladly explain any point of it more clearly but it looks ike you got that with venomai's link, so that's good.

Hoyle's fallacy highlights one of the fundamental problems with trying to argue the odds of abiogenesis. The assumption that life requires a specific subset of enzymes and in a specific sequence is wrong on two levels. First, the definition of life is biased towards what we know today - it's only ever phrased in terms of cellular life, which of course requires a specific subset of enzymes to work at all. However, theories of abiogenesis never propose that this subset of enzymes evolved all in one step to form cells from amino acids - that's rightly called absurd. Abiogenesis can create "life" in the form of autocatalytic systems of oligopeptides or oligonucleotides that direct their own "reproduction". A gradual change in sequence (catalysis without the complex cellular machinery we have today would have been inaccurate) coupled with natural selection can add to the complexity. Eventually, cellular life resulted and gave us the genetic system and subset of enzymes that we all use today. My analysis is a gross oversimplification, but it adds one crucial dimension that Hoyle neglected - no one's saying that modern enzymes were made from scratch. No one's saying that life as we know it evolved enzyme for enzyme in one fell swoop. They eventuated over vast amounts of time through numerous small changes. The second reason calculations like Hoyle's are wrong is that they likely assume (I don't know for sure) that one specific sequence of each of these enzymes must be the final product for it to work, however, that's biologically absurd. Many amino acids in a given protein are variable which means that they can change with little or no functional difference to the protein. The main conserved (i.e. functionally constrained) parts of an enzyme are amino acids at the active site and any that are crucial to 3D structure. Having said this, the first reason is the biggest contention against Fred Hoyle's analysis. By the way, Hoyle wasn't even a biochemist or molecular biologist. He was an astronomer.

Ok, so YOU find it ok that THEY are in pain before they die? That's just plain cruel. He finds euthanasia ok when they're going to be in pain before they die.

I don't at all support suicide when it's merely a case of bad debt, etc, but what's stopping people now? The law? There is no recourse for their actions if they kill themselves now, so I hardly see how suicide rates would rise if it were legal.

It's not perfect here, but I wouldn't really expect it to be. Sometimes there's a drop in good posts or topics, but every now and then there might be something interesting to post in. I suppose the real reason I keep coming back is the people, though. There are some pretty decent people here.

People should have the right to end their own lives if they have a terminal illness such as late stage cancer, etc. Simply keeping them alive (as is the only goal with many terminal illnesses) because that's the way it's done is an archaic belief that needs to be thrown out in my opinion. I don't want people dictating to me whether I must live or not if it comes to the prospect of writhing in pain because of some horrible disease. It's my life and should be my choice to make if need be. Having laid down the principle of the matter, there are some pragmatic issues to consider. Firstly, it's probably best to give candidates a full psychological run-down to make sure they're not just going through depression, etc. The emphasis should be entirely on their wishes when in a clear state of mind.

Into the Grave by Grave (album). Sounds good so far.

The above is simply a narrow expression of how you personally feel the rest of us should live. (1) This is entirely dependent on the individual. To some, "making things just to sell" (i.e. profit) can bring more joy than production for personal use. (2) This too is dependent on the individual. After a long day of labour, the last thing on my mind is more labour. (3) True happiness can come from both production and consumption. For me, kicking back with a beer and/or a joint and "consuming" the beautiful view of an open lake brings me a great deal of happiness. Others may prefer to "consume" artificial imagery on a television screen. Who are you to tell me that these feelings of happiness are "not real"? :lol: Welcome back, Trapical. I'll leave you with a quote. I urge you to take its advice. :) Vigorous writing is concise. A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary parts. This requires not that the writer make all his sentences short, or that he avoid all detail and treat his subjects only in outline, but that every word tell. -- William Strunk Jr. Not every piece of writing in life is supposed to be "vigorous". I'm sure you could knock a good novel down to a page, but it takes all of the heart out of it. I read Trapical's post and got a lot out of it. Not in the sense that I see all of it as fact or completely relevant to me, but in the sense that Trapical has shared some things he's worked out in his own life when it comes to happiness. If nothing else, I found it an enjoyable read, so well done Trapical, and thanks for breaking up the usual monotony of Tip it posts. Having said that, I did resonate with much of what you said. (By the way, Trapical, you should save this one on your computer this time! :P )

Winds of Creation by Decapitated (album). Easily one of the more instantly appealing bands in death metal. Instrumentally, they're excellent. It's a shame their drummer died, he was incredibly talented, and at such a young age too (he was around 15 when decapitated recorded this album).

Good to hear you liked it. :) And for aquariusman: try Cynic for some awesome prog/jazz fusion death metal.

Try Death. An awesome death metal/tech death band.

"And that's the problem", apparantly. Maybe they've gone all Cosmo and dedicated the issue to anti-wrinkle cream.

What a beat-up. The critics are making an issue out of nothing. She looks fine.

Believe it or not mine is... Studying gets you good marks. Go figure.

I know, it's not entirely accurate. It basically keeps the atmospheric conditions of earth and just changes the location and landscape. I'm not sure about your version, but in the latest one you should be able to choose the location (in a drop down bar) in the same window that lets you choose the geographical location on earth. EDIT: [hide=here's where you do it][/hide]

[hide=penguingeek3] I don't think it's when something is simply called stupid. This sub-forum has been known to get into some pretty long religious "debates", if you can even call it so (debating religion is an oxymoron). There are quite a few people with varying belief who just straight bash someone else's faith. Now it's nice to be able to talk about more mature opinions, but not in such a stupid manner. That's why I like posting here, because of the people who don't do that. So do you think something should be banned if you don't like it? Are we going to ban the people in MM&T who say "rap is stupid", too? It just so happens that some people, for whatever reason, think those things. Hell, I might cringe everytime I see a completely incoherent post from someone saying "God sucks, lol" or "rap is stupid", etc. I'm sorry, but I'm really not the kind of person who wants to dictate censorship of opinions because I personally don't like them, especially not when there are a million forums out there and people can choose the crowd they're with. When it's a reasonable debate, with knowledgeable posters and all that, it's fine. But when people start saying things like "CHRISTIANITY SUCKS BALLS" then...I think that crosses the line. I'd consider that flaming, and last time I checked, constant flaming is against the rules. The thing about a religious debate being an oxymoron is just a technicality, like others have pointed out. [/hide] I know constant flaming is against the rules but that's not really the issue here. I just don't think that calling something stupid should be against the rules. Ideally, as Lionheart said, people will put some reasons behind their criticism because that actually makes for some kind of discussion. Of course lines are crossed when it becomes mindless, habitual and over the top, but again, I'm talking more about a general criticism of things like religion, etc. Not allowing those things just puts ideas on a pedestal where they can't be touched. [hide=Lionheart] Absolutely correct. There is a difference between bashing, and criticizing. People find it easier and much more often bash something rather then criticize it. To criticize something is to call it stupid for a reason. A reason does not include cause of a belief is different, but because something factual gives it a negative light, or it has some sort of negative affect on some people. (I.e. I think the CHURCH of Scientology is stupid because it has hurt/killed some people.) To bash something is to simply call it a name cause you want to. (Which by the way is ALREADY against the rules.) [/hide] I suppose that's a fair distinction to be made, but if I'm allowed to ask, when was the last time you cautioned or banned someone for just calling something stupid? If those are the rules, then obviously I'm going to have to grin and bare it. Stupid rules. In all honesty I'm more concerned with not being able to criticise something (in the sense you outlined), but you agree so that's good. When it comes down to it I doubt many people would seriously think we should ban dissenting viewpoints because they offend others or are critical of their beliefs.

:thumbup: You should listen to the whole album Harnessing Ruin, it's amazing!!! Still on recommendations: Human Circles by Benighted, an old school sounding new death metal band!!! Not as old school sounding as some recent stuff, but still damn good. Thanks for the recommendation. If it's anything like Dawn Of Possession, I'll definitely have to check it out. As for the topic: After My Prayers by Immolation

Dawn of Possession by Immolation