warri0r45

I wouldn't say that's the same. In your example it's just a person walking around killing random people in, say, a city. People he doesn't know at all; he doesn't have any form of relationship with any them, it's just random people. However, a kid walking into school with a handgun shooting at his fellow students and teachers with the intention to kill them, that's a whole different level of messed up. Even if he doesn't know them all, he at least recognises a vast majority of them, and has probably spoken to some of them at least once. Personally, I'd have less qualms with shooting a guy I've never seen before in my life, than I would shooting a person I've seen everyday for several years, and spoken to, even if it's just a "hello" or whatever and even if it just happened one time. So yeah, I definitely think this deserves media coverage. People should be aware of what's happened. Just like Virginia Tech and the Columbine shootings. I know more people died there, but if this guy had perhaps planned it a bit better, maybe had an accomplice and more guns, it could've been just as many victims. In my opinion, all school shootings should be treated the same. I can definately see that side to it, but as a viewer, I'm not going to be duped into thinking that what I'm watching is the most meaningful just because it made it on the news. I value 8 lives all the same, irrespective of their relationships with the other victims and/or perpetrator.

Depends on the post. Generally not much but I can be a bit picky when getting my post right, which can sometimes leave me unhappy because I think it looks crap or I got the wording wrong. I guess I'm just picky sometimes. As for other posts, well, some of you may have seen my post on global warming citing the scientific journals and those sorts of things - that took a while. Someday, given the right topic, I've got a post which took hours. It was mostly just to satisfy my own inquisitive curiosities on the topic and I found researching it very interesting. There were a few others I did a little reasearch for to get some facts right and sometimes I even do a little research, satisfy my curiosities and just don't bother posting for some reason or another.

Not even on the news here.... It was on the news here. No offence to the victims or their families, but I'm not surprised that it's not going to be on everywhere. People die of gun crime often. I'd hasten a guess that something like 8 people could die at the hands of a gun of an ordinary day around the world quite easily. It's only a news story because it happened all at the hands of one person and it's inevitably going to be Finnish centered news because it happened there.

What a nutter. Another tragedy. At least he chose to naturally select himself out of the gene pool.

*watching video* If you want facts, get new sources. Your video has all the markers of a conspiracy theory. It claims to be factual in nature, then spouts a bunch of unsupported crap about planetary systems colliding with ours. The human skull with an egg head attatchment and mention of one of the planets of this system harbouring life and planet X being a "battle station" is just hilarious. :lol: It caused the sinking of Atlantis and Noah's Flood? This is nuts. Definately a conspiracy theory. Haha, It's so rich how they cite a prediction as fact. They don't know the definition of the most basic scientific terms. This just gets better and better. :lol: "The following is a photo taken from a most southern area of the planet, it's real!" - It's "real" alright, and aparrantly the most southern areas of planet earth are home to tropical trees. And, of course, the obligatory fictional movie video clip to add a little more "credability" to this conspiracy theory. To top it all off, the essential obligatory authority figures are covering it up tag, you're in the dark tag, and they know the truth and you don't, but you do now! tag, with no citation of NASA, the vatican or any other body claiming this. Thanks for the laugh and I'll say it once more, if you want facts, get better sources. No rational human being in thier right mind would be gullible enough to take this video as truth.

If I were to vote purely on ads I'd vote Rudd. I don't think I've seen one positive ad from Howard with no mention of Labor or which wasn't a retort of some other Labor ad. Although I don't like the smugness of Rudd's ads, at least he participates in some positive policy proclaiming rather than straight out degradation of the opposition.

They haven't been talking nearly enough about water. I'm not sure yet who to vote for.

Line 6 Spider II FTW. 150W for me. :P But no pedal as of yet. :(

I like their live in texas DVD, but I wouldn't call myself a fan, i.e. I'd probably never buy anything else of thiers (actually my brother bought the DVD) or even bother downloading any of thier stuff. I'm with Nadril. Their lyrics aren't all that meaningful and there are way better bands with a way better grasp for writing out there. As for their new album, as I said, I'd never buy thier stuff, but I wouldn't even touch thier new album if I were infected with anthrax and the cure was taped to it.

Guitar. Ibanez S-470. I love to play Tool: Sweat Hush Jerk-Off Opiate Sober Bottom 4 Degrees Undertow Stinkfist Eulogy 46&2 Aenema The Grudge The Patient Ticks and Leeches Lateralus I also like to play some RATM: Bombtrack Killing in the Name Take the Power Back Settle for Nothing Bullet in the Head

A company dosen't care, it's a profit machine. The people who are part of a company may or may not care about serving the customers with a good product or service.

Being an Australian, I'd like to focus on water policy, namely - - more dams where necessary and, of course, only if applicable. - more water recycling plants. The science has spoken - it's safe and the 'yuk factor' can stay with those ignorant of how safe it is. - more desalination for the major cities if applicable. - programs to focus on water saving - water tank subsidies, advertising programs, home water wise service subsidies. The evidence is in these strategies being used in my home city of Brisbane. We've become the most water frugal city (a city of 2 million people, mind you) in the developed world. - Strict watchkeeping on business to ensure they are saving water where they can and not wasting it. Just for good measure, I'll throw in a power policy, global warming being such a hot topic at the moment - - a shift to nuclear, geothermal, solar and wind for baseload power over coal by 2050. - research into the viability of geothermal and the development of more and more efficient, and thus cheaper, solar power technologies. - subsidies for home solar panels. - research into hydrogen powered car technologies - solar powered 'petrol' stations to use electricity for electrolysis of water into H2 and O2 for fueling cars. See how that pans out. Also, research into hydrogen storage via chemical complexes under pressure to drastically reduce leakage, storage space and energy needed for gas compression.

I have a phobia of reading halfway though a book only to discover it's a piece of crap.

Purple watermelon raindance cult. Japanese midget railroad builders. Something like that would be an obvious choice I feel.

No clock changing for me thanks to Queensland Govt. I don't understand why they didn't at least do it for Brisbane but then again I don't understand the whole concept much at all. :? I'm glad that we don't. Life is easier this way :) I suppose it would be a bit more controversial if there were actually a population mirroring something like Brisbane directly over the border in roach terrirtory. Then I could understand lining up the times to avoid mass hysteria between the two places. But, just over the border you get half of Tweed Heads, little town called Kingscliff (nice place), and a little drive to Byron Bay. Not really as big of a reason to line the two time zones up under daylight savings.

No clock changing for me thanks to Queensland Govt. I don't understand why they didn't at least do it for Brisbane but then again I don't understand the whole concept much at all. :?

I am more interested in hearing alternate viewpoints based on literature sources to counter my points than just hearing silence or trying to obliterate those who say things like "we're not the cause of it". I'm also more interested in hearing alternate viewpoints based on literature sources over someone's opinion as if it's solidly based in fact or as if it really matters (especially when it's a statement with no reasoning behind it). There are people who get paid to study this. There are people who learn the science for years to get thier doctorates. There are people who work maticulously on reports which go through the criticisms of others in peer review. The end product is unsurpassed knowledge. It may be right, it may be wrong, but it's more reliable than any abstract opinion anyone may just happen to have, I'm quite certain of that. Everyone gets knowledge from somewhere, it's a necessity of knowing anything. I just prefer getting mine from teachers, lecturers and scientific journals rather than news tabloids, the media, hype or straight "it feels right" opinion. Please don't bite me, I actually agree with you! The skeptics (and conspiracy theorists - sometimes it's hard to distinguish) are everywhere in all forms. There is no particular reason to trust this one or his explanation at all over others or over thousands of reputable scientists in the mainstream. I, like you, choose to go with the peer reviewed literature over anything based in conspiracy theory or rhetorical device.

I am more interested in hearing alternate viewpoints based on literature sources to counter my points than just hearing silence or trying to obliterate those who say things like "we're not the cause of it". I'm also more interested in hearing alternate viewpoints based on literature sources over someone's opinion as if it's solidly based in fact or as if it really matters (especially when it's a statement with no reasoning behind it). There are people who get paid to study this. There are people who learn the science for years to get thier doctorates. There are people who work maticulously on reports which go through the criticisms of others in peer review. The end product is unsurpassed knowledge. It may be right, it may be wrong, but it's more reliable than any abstract opinion anyone may just happen to have, I'm quite certain of that. Everyone gets knowledge from somewhere, it's a necessity of knowing anything. I just prefer getting mine from teachers, lecturers and scientific journals rather than news tabloids, the media, hype or straight "it feels right" opinion.

This gets more and more fun every time. It's amazing what you can learn with a little research. General Reading: [1] [2] [3] [4] EPICA Ice Core data aligns with previous Vostok Ice Core data to reconstruct CO2 concentration and align it with temperature changes over the past 700,000+ years. Articles: [1] See figure 1 in detail. Notice the strong correlation of CO2 concentration and 'delta D' - a temperature proxy. Also notice the correlation of CO2 concentration and 'delta O-18 (isotope of oxygen)' - a proxy of ice volume. Also notice the maximum CO2 concentration for this 260,000 year period was found to be around 290ppm. [2] See figure 3. Again, notice the correlation of CO2 concentration and temperature. Also notice the maximum CO2 concentration for this 400,000 year period was found to be around 290-300ppm. [3] See figure 4 in detail. Again, notice the strong correlation between temperature and CO2 concentration. Again, notice the maximum CO2 concentration for this 200,000 year period was found to be around 290ppm. See figure 3 in detail. Notice the rise in CO2 concentration up to around 340ppm prior to the year 2000, uncharted territory for hundreds of thousands of years. [4] Notice the current atmospheric CO2 concentrations are in excess of 380ppm. [5] Notice this summation of CO2 concentrations, in ppm, over the past 400,000 years, in line with the data already presented. Now, notice the huge deviation from the trend of CO2 concentration from around the year 1800 on; the time of the industrial revolution where masses of CO2 were being pumped into the atmosphere. Connect the dots. I conclude, from this little data gathering exercise, that it is ignorant to claim that CO2 concentration increases have nothing to do with modern warming trends and that human activity has nothing to do with these concentration increases. Ergo, we are contributing to global warming. This is nothing new. The consensus is that human contributed climate change is supported by the evidence. [6][7] So what of the argument that Mars is experiencing global warming, therefore it must be the sun and thus the sun is making earth heat up too? [8] [9] [10] So, according to these sources, albedo variations, which are the determinant of sunlight reflection back into space, are changing due to dust storms which act somewhat analogously to CO2 and the greenhouse effect - trapping solar radiation within the atmosphere. No excess solar output required. [11] Here, another suggestion for the changing climate on Mars is put forth - periodical planetary orbital wobbles and tilts akin to Milankovitch cycles on earth - the orbital and tilt shifts which are suggested control the ice ages. Now, for the idea that the sun alone causes climate change or that it's not humans that are the main contributors: [12] [13] [14] [15] Your turn. Why do we humans have no effect on global warming?

I heard about that. Something like 9 major inconsistancies or misstatements of fact or soemthing like that.

The legal occurances are new. They have been picketing thier nonsense for many years and purposely have legal ties and know how to keep thier bigotry going, hence the "at last" part. The law finally caught up with them and the common indecency that any regular joe can see has finally been legally challanged.

Science isn't a matter of options and which you choose to believe. Either a theory has scientific support or it dosen't (or one much moreso than another). That's what you teach. Whether you like that and believe it thereafter is your choice.

Yes. Point one is that the actual topic (you know, that which gives the whole post context) says nothing about christianity in general, just Phelps and his church. Point two is that these people didn't just crop up overnight and I (and I'd bet others) have known about them for at least months and there was actually a topic on them on this very forum a few months back. By the way the fact that some people don't know about these people is irrelevant to the fact that the topic maker actually did as he mentioned the topic of a few months back.

While I haven't seen it, I'd have to say no. Science in the science class. Politicians documentaries in.. documentary class. Show the students how to spin an issue in a documentary showing them "the great global warming swindle" too. Seriously there are much better resources elswhere.