FuBai

"The following statement is true, the previous statement is false" That paradox can actualy be solved by classical logic - Bertrand Russel managed it by devising a complex logic system. The Sorites paradox is a real [female dog], and it gave rise to "fuzzy logic". The basic problem was proposed by the Sorites as an attack on the logicians. It goes, there is a heap of sand, if you remove one grain, is it still a heap? If you take another, how about then? And if you keep taking them until there is only one grain left, is that a heap? There have been two proposed solutions, but both have problems - the first one is (and the most obvious one), is that "heap" is the incorrect logical term to describe the object as. What we should do is describe everything about the object possible, thus, when one feature of it is removed, it ceases to be what it was originaly. This means that we would never be able to discuss anything, as there are an infinite number of characteristics to every object, it would take an infinite amount of time. But it does make logical sense, even if it isn't practical. The other solution is the "fuzzy logic", where, rather than have a 1/0 truth value, you have various degrees of truth, so we can say that, if the heap contains 100 grains, then to remove 1 grain makes it 99% still a heap...well, this is infact incorrect and a bad and splistic way of putting it, but it helps illustrate the idea nevertheless. There are quite a few logical paradoxes, and many of the methods that philosophers and mathematicians tried to unify the braches of mathmatics on a single ground have run into problems because of it. It may simply be that Witgenstien was right, and that all human languages are naturaly illogical and inherently metaphysical, so it is impossible to discuss true logic in them.

Wake up early to the sun streaming through my windows, set in a cloudless sky. Have a shower, not too hot, not too cold (actualy get the darn knob of my shower thing to work properly for once), get dressed in some new clothes that I like, and have a breakfast of fruit and a coffee. Go for a drive down to the house of a girl I like (kinda going out and not going out at the moment), pick her up, go to a coffee house in a village near where I live, chat for a while, go for a walk or sit in the park, then drop her off at her work place for her lunchtime shift, go and meet up with my friends and have a smoke in the park, perhaps go to the noodle bar for lunch. Drop my car at home, get a friend to give me a lift to thier house and pick up that girl again, watch some tv or just chill out at thier house, and have a house party in the evening with plenty of drink, pills and coke (thier legal substitutes of course :)) with all my friends. Stay the night and then get a lift home in the morning. To be honest having sex with the girl is irrelevant, I just like talking to her, and I wouldn't want to rush it or whatever.

So why make such a big deal about legalising illicit drugs, when just as many people would like open access to pharmaceutical drugs. I see it as a double standard to use personal freedom as an excuse for legalising illicit drugs yet giving a blind eye to the restrictions imposed on pharmaceuticals. I see it as a tough time convincing people that you shouldn't have to get a doctors advice before taking any medication, I don't see it as any different for any other drugs. Why should a doctor have to prescribe a drug with serious side effects such as psychosis, liver, kidney or lung damage, yet you propose to legalise illicit drugs with the exact same side effects. Sometimes people need to restrict liberties in order to protect them. How do you reconcile your right to personal liberty and your right to being informed without restricting either liberty? If you need to inform someone before letting them take a drug, then it really isn't freedom. I don't think I ever said that we shouldn't have a free supply of pharmacuticals...a concept which, as you point out, is naturaly cohesive with the one I presented. I do in fact agree with you - and I say that all pharmacuticals should be legalised for free distribution (i mean free as in liberal, not free as in terms of payment). There is another benefit raised by your post that I had not considered - but it would be possible for people to ask thier doctors, if all drugs were legal, as to wether the medication they are taking for something will have importunate synergistic effects with a recreational drug they try to take. It could increase awareness of the risks of synergism, and make the risks more publicaly available. As to wether freedom is limited by risk information - it could equally be argued that risk information actualy increases freedom. In fact, there is a better argument - that to be able to make a free and rational descision about taking a drug, you should know as much about it as possible, or your descision will be neither free or logical. It also divorces the state from the problems incurred by drug use - we told you the facts, we made sure you knew them, you told us you knew them (when you signed the disclaimer), so you made an informed descison. All we can hope to do is inform your descison, but we can not think that we should forcefully impose our own descision. You are an adult, you must make your own choices in life. Freedom includes the consequences of your action. In a way you are free to perform an action, but you must also be free to accept those consequences. The only way to understand the consequences is by being adaquatley informed. I agree to a certain extent that true freedom would include the freedom to take a descision without knowing the consequences that must follow from it. But here we enter a mire of litigation - where people sue comapnies for not warning them of the risks. To avoid such a legal ruckus, the risks will have to be publicised. This is a pragmatic idea, not an idealogical one, and it is unfortuante that here, like in so many other areas, inevitably ideology can only function so far. You could try to turn that argument back on me - that the liberal ideaology cannot, pragmaticaly, include drugs too...but as I have demonstrated, I beleive it can.

nothing makes someone do things like drugs...especially heroin and crack...they will do ANYTHING....for a high, regulated or not, they can't hold a job, thus must do crime to get the money for the next rush.... can't hold down a job? 50% of those earning over 200,000 pounds a year, in Britain, take cokain. In a covert survey conducted by an Italian news group, 1/4 of the italian parliament had cokain traces in thier body, and 50% had THC. There was a survey carried out last year on the tops of toilets of bars and public ares in Britain - the highest level of cokain was found in the house of commons toilets. Can't hold down a job eh? I'm thinking he was referring to dependant addicts on heavy drugs. Not everyone who takes drugs, even heavy drugs, is an addict. Coke remains in the blood stream for only 24 hours - so the fact that so many were found to have it in thier blood stream when tested suggests that they are regular users...or all of the tests were done after some huge party...which seems a trifle unlikley.

neuclear - efficient, relativley cheap, tiny production of green house gases. It was even recomended by Lovelock, the arch-ecologist and author of Gaia, that neuclear energy was the only way to begin to stabilise the planet.

nothing makes someone do things like drugs...especially heroin and crack...they will do ANYTHING....for a high, regulated or not, they can't hold a job, thus must do crime to get the money for the next rush.... can't hold down a job? 50% of those earning over 200,000 pounds a year, in Britain, take cokain. In a covert survey conducted by an Italian news group, 1/4 of the italian parliament had cokain traces in thier body, and 50% had THC. There was a survey carried out last year on the tops of toilets of bars and public ares in Britain - the highest level of cokain was found in the house of commons toilets. Can't hold down a job eh? And I repeat, wether or not the drugs are harmfull to the individual is irellevant, so long as the individual is consious of the risks. The right to self-determination and individual liberty is the corner stone of the societies we live in. Leaglisation expands this liberty, and it is not the buisness of the state to prevent us from harming ourselves, that is the buisness of the individual - it is only up to the state to make sure the risks are publicised. As to whether or not I am open to a change of mind - when I first heard this argument I agrued verciferously against it. I had done the DARE programme, I had read the news articles etc. But it occured to me that in my belief system there seemed to be an inherent contradiction - if I beleive that I should be able to do what I please, so long as it does not NECESSITAE harm on others (note NECESSITATE), then how can I logicaly argue against this on the grounds that it is harmful? Yet there seem apparent benefits from legalisation as well. It took me a while to reconcile my self to this view - it opened a window of possibilities which I had not percieved before - I had simply beleived that drug taking was wrong, almost that it was morally wrong, and an inherently bad act, akin to theft or murder. Yet I suddenly realised that this is not the case. The person who presented me with this argument was my father. I have wavered on it a few times scince then, changing my mind, buffered by the opinion in school debates and the sage advice of my teachers, but I still find it to be logicaly sound. I am in no way a zealot or a preacher on this particular issue, and I am very open to other opinions, so long as they are well thought out and logical - and counteract the points I have raised.

You can say the same about alcoholics and people with gambling problems. You can say the same about anyone who has an addiction that can only be sustained with money they no longer have. That "selective presentation" as you call it is FACTUAL.....no, you can not say the same about other addicts.....the study of criminal statistics show that over 80% of all violent crime in the US is drug related ....does that number sink into your brain? over 80%...you don't see gamblers going on violent killing sprees in Las Vegas, the gambling capital of the world Thats an unfair comparison and Ill try to explain why. The illegal narcotics trade is a multi-billion dollar industry that is effectively monopolised by organised crime groups, since the industry is such a huge earner for criminals there is going to be side effects such as gang violence & robbery. Now if this trade was made legal (I'm not advocating that it should be but I'm playing Devils Advocate here) it would be under strict legislation that would essentially take the money away from the criminals much in the same way as when prohibition being repealed took the alcohol trade away from criminals. The gangs who are killing each other over the drugs trade do so because of the money thats involved, the fact that the money comes from drugs is incidental - they used to kill each other over booze during prohibition. Gambling on the other hand is legal in certain areas of USA and is under strict legislation. This means large corporations can control the industry which keeps the money away from criminals and it creates a safe and controlled enviroment for gamblers. Gambling, in states where it is banned is controlled by criminals. What I'm saying is that any industry that has a sufficient demand & is made illegal will inevitably be controlled by organised crime. Basically all they're doing is filling a demand however, it does have its consequenses. Legalizing it will not fix the problem. Do you think the multi billion dollar illegal drug trade "industry" will just pack up their bags and go home....relax in retirement? Nope, the drug trade will still flow, the only thing would change is the price would drop, they would undercut the "government taxed drug"...and the broke druggies would flock to the lowest supplier...crime would continue...nothing would change. Along with that, the druggies would still perpetrate crime as they still can not hold a job, and must do what they got to do to fill an ever rising need. Columbian drug lords (country whose main export is drugs) would not stop producing, and there is no way the US government would enter into trade agreement with them as a supplier of the "legalized taxed drug" trade as they are murderous thugs who have terrorized families in columbia for generations. Sounds like a great idea to the potheads to legalize it, and in fact they have gotten somewhat of a victory in California by having "pot stores" for "medical purposes"...where the latest gimmick is you pay a doctor $50-$150 for a prescription for your "headaches" and off you go to the store to purchase your legal pot......got to love that crap....but then again, that is california where most of the population is made up of secular progressives who are bound and determined to take the country down with them. Be interesting to see how far that goes. Hmm...do you work in "law enforcment"? Yes, I should imagine you have had some involvement with that area of government at least. But you seem to be underestimating the government's ability to control the market. In the UK (and I don't know much about the US), sometimes, very rarley, cigarettes are smuggled into the country to avoid the tax. But I know a lot of smokers who really shouldn't be able to afford cigarettes - I have never seen or heard of any of them looking for these illegal cigarettes. They all buy them from shops, where they don't have to worry about wether the filter is good, wether the cherry will drop off half way through, wether it has been blended with dirt or privet leaves, wether any of them contain impurities, wether the tar count is as is says on the packet etc etc. And I have to say one thing - the reason that smuggling like that takes place very rarley is because it is uneconomical. The people shipping the illegal cigarettes demand a lot to do it because of the risks involved. This occurs with drugs. If all drugs were produced within the company laboratries and green houses that sold them, they were packaged and sold legaly through legal outlets, there would be no "risk compensation" as dealers and shippers expect. Because the shops could do it with no risk of litegation they would be alot cheaper. Cokain, cannabis, ecstacy, MDMA and heroin are actualy remarkably cheap to produce. Then why does and heavily cut gram of cokain (50-70% of actual cokain to 50-30% sugar/flour/rat poison) cost around 45 pounds (according to my friends)? Because of the risks involved. MDMA can be synthesised easily and cheaply in someone's house, if they have a chemistry degree and the right equipment - we know this because some people do it - and yet the pills cost 2-5 pounds each 9usualy cut to contain only 5-15% MDMA), and a gram of pure powder costs 45 pounds. Because it's illegal. We could produce amazing strong ecstacy pills at about 10-20p each, manufacturing costs, I would guess. We could put tax on them so that at point of sale it would cost 2 pounds each per pill, maybe more. People would buy them because they wouldn't have to worry about the purity, they know they will be safer (a lot of people that I know who have taken drugs are absolutley paranoid about the things they cut it with), and, because they are pure, they would be alot stronger than the illegal pills currently on sale for 2 pounds each. You have said 80% of violent crime is related to drugs. Yes it is, because it is illegal. The drug lords and dealers fight for territory, and try to create monopolies in thier towns on a specific drug. A huge amount of that crime is because dealers are getting angry with pushers or thier own suppliers. Moreover, if it was taken out of the shadows, people could get support and help to quit alot more easily.

people should have to sign a discalimer at the "drug shop" saying that they understood the risks. I think people should do that for [bleep]s too, in a way.

I was expecting frenzied criticism...or at least some response quickly, seeing as it is contraversial :? .

Drug Legislation In most countries certain popular substances that are used to produce psychotropic, stimulating or relaxing effects are banned, and to be found in possesion of some of them can earn you 7 years in jail and an unlimited fine. These drugs include the popular cockain, ecstacy, LSD, heroin and canabis, amoungst others. Information on these, and the effects they produce can be found here. There are many reasons for this, but the most prominent is that it is damaging to the health of the individual. I personaly beleive strongly in the individual's right to self determination, wether this is euthanasia, suicide or taking drugs. We all know that tobacco, alcohol and even caffine can have detrimental effects upon the health of the individual, if taken in to large quantities, or even at all. We also know that by making the drugs illegal we push thier production into the "black market", where profits go not to the good of society as a whole, but to gangs interested in profiteering whatever the cost and to extreemist organisations, most notable of which is Al Qaeda, whose funds were based largley upon the illicit production of the opium poppy in Afganistan. That such organisations are prospering is doubly to the detriment of society - they are taking money that would otherwise stay with in the economy and they are using that money to inflict harm upon society. Of course, this argument cannot stand alone in forwarding the legalisation of all substances, as you could very well argue that "if taking away gang revenue is the only reason we legalise this, we must leaglise all the other methods they use to raise money too, and this is clearly irrational". So we cannot take this reason alone, but it must be a contributory factor. So, we have discussed the right of the individual to self determination, somethign which you may not agree with me upon, and we have disscussed where drug profits go. Now we should look at it from the prospect of the individual once more. At the moment the individual goes to great risks to obtain the drug they wish to consume. Not only do they have to flout the law and evade the police, they must establish links with trustworthy dealers, and they must pay vast amounts more than the actual worth of the product. Moreover the purity of the drug is never certain - drugs have been known to be cut with anything from ground glass and gravel to rat poison. In fact purity discrepancies account for a large amount of overdoses - an addict has built up a tolerance to the usual, 50% pure heroin he is used to injecting himself with, so he knows how much he has to take to get a "high". One day his dealer sells him a very unusualy concentrated and pure "bag" of heroin, and he, unknowing of this, injects himself with the usual amount, killing himself from the massive overdose. So there are great risks involved for the consumer - this suggests that people ARE willing, no matter what the risks are, to take and use drugs. No matter how hard the police try, they will never eradicate illict drugs from the country. So what does banning do? It simply pushes the sales of these substances into the shadows, away from government control and regulation, where users find it difficult and dangerous to seek help with thier problems. What is even more odd about the drugs legislation in Britain, and other countries, is that it is very contradictory. Whilst certain psychotropic drugs are banned, there are a great many that are completely legal to sell, and which produce very similar effects. We have already mentioned the obvious ones of tobacco and alcohol, but others are available. For instance this site runs a mail order shop for these substances. To take one example, that of the Hawaiian Baby Woodrose Seeds, the effect and the substance itself is almost identical to LSD. Yet LSD is banned, and these seeds are still for legitimate sale. Some people say that the legalisation of these drugs would increase burden on the National Healthcare System (NHS) and the state in general. I disagree. Most addicts die relativley young, as do smokers, and there by save the state the cost of paying for thier pension or geriatric care. The costs of these are far greater than the costs of treatment. Moreover, the drugs would give a large amount of revenue that could be used to help cover the NHS's deficits. So I do argue verciferously for the leaglisation of all drugs. Yet there must be, I feel some restrictions. No advertising promoting the sale of drugs, even at the point of sale, a VAT style tax of at least 100% on the drug, 50% of the revenues from which will go into the NHS and into advertising demonstrating the horrible effects drugs can have, and government regulated market with assured purity and advice on dosage, every packet to have warning lables on describing, in a simillar manner to cigarette packets, the problems that may ensue and for drugs only to be sold to people over the age of 18. I also feel that stringent measures should be placed upon the consumption of drugs - that smoking of them should NOT be done in any public place, be it open or enclosed, or within two metres of anyone under the age of 18, and that all actions performed under thier influence should be dealt with in the same way that drink related crimes are dealt with today. Here are some pictures of the Legal Products and thier Illegal equivalents: is a replacement for whilst this replaces this: and this: replaces this: Thoughts, anyone? (if you read it all, thanks for giving me your time)

http://www.dancewithshadows.com/images/skoda-fabia-1.jpg This

The validity of science is based upon it's central assumptions and premise, which is where it returns to it's roots, the study of philosophy. Of course, science is invalid as it stands if we were to suddenly prove a completely different epistemological stand point than that upon which we are now pearched. If it could be demonstrated that reality was no more than an illusion of thoughts, then science would only apply to the world of sensation, or that in which we currently believe ourselves to subsist. Here we would not be able to say science is valid because it cannot determine the truth of that reality as it now stands, but only the one of sensations. Yet it seems to me impossible to prove that what we percieve to be reality is infact not reality. As Bertrand Russel says, we cannot prove, deductivley, that what we percieve is reality, and in the abscence of this deductive proof we should rely on an inductive one. The suggestion of the inductive evidence points towards this being the reality. Scince science operates in a deductive frame from this point onwards, we can only query the first step, that inductive leap.

I spend alot of time with the people who smoke in my year, because we all go to the same spot to do it. So I am friends with alot of them. To be honest the only people I am really friends with are people who i trust and have respect for, and who trust me and show me some respect in turn.

none. A boyfriend of a friend got a lip piercing and he looks pure dirt.

destination calabria - Alex Gaudino

tarantula - pendulum destination calabria - Alex gaudino Du Hast - Rammstien Feuer Frie - rammstien

smoke.

I should simply imagine blood runes will decrease in price. There is not a massive demand for blood runes as it is, they only being used for higher level spells. We have seen, in recent times, blood runes decrese from 600 ea to 500-550 ea. I have even seen people selling them for 490 ea. Demand for the blood runes is unlikley to increase, unless a new spell that uses them and is very popular comes out with the update. All that is happening is increased supply. Maybe for the first week p ess prices will rise a little, as rcers rush to try out this new rune to see if they can make a better profit from it, but in the long term I see the ess remaining roughly the same, and the runes decreasing in price. The greatest example of this is the introduction of the death altar, which decreased death prices slightly. I expect to see a bigger change in blood runes as they, unlike deaths, cannot be sold at the thazzar shop to buy furies. Also bloods have a more limited use for high level mages only - you only really start chewing up bloods once you get past lvl 80 mage.

To be a satanist is to pick the losing side of the cosmic war.

I think that a fair mix of both would need to be taken into account to come up with this 100% AVERAGE LVL As getting 200mil cooking exp with 300mil total exp would work out rather odd indeed :wink: But anyways... 1827 total lvls / 23 total skills = 79.4 So ROUGHLY all lvls around 80 for me 8-) You would probably want to include total xp for somepeople - for instance, this would seem to suggest that zezima and someone with only 13m xp in each skill were equal. But thier total xp would show thier great disimilarities

73.6 on levels I did the same for experience (total xp/23) for an average exp per level of 1902908.48 (to 2 dp)

This is an exert from a story I am writing called "A Metaphor". I will give it no explaination, but ask only what you think of it. The door opened to allow the hazy blue smoke out into the cold air. It spiraled away, dancing under the nicotine lamp lights, before finally drifting into the sky, to dissipate amongst the clouds. William pulled the door fully open, and glanced in tentatively, with the air of someone who wants to know whatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s going on, but is unwilling to alert anyone to his presence. This he failed to achieve, as all eyes fell upon him with brief, searching glances. He noticed the occupants all seemed to be wearing what he imagined to be the traditional gear of a country gentleman ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ãâ tweed jacket complete with school-masterly elbow patches, braces and white shirts, brown leather lace-ups and some even wore monocles. One stood up, rising in a cloud of billowing smoke, and strode over to him, as if to give him a more precise appraisal. He stopped a foot away before raising his hand, which William noticed to have a black-brown hue, and, placing the hand on WilliamÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s shoulder enquired ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅTo what do we owe the pleasure, old chap?ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

I thought 70 prayer was required to get the insignia of a god in your house - thus the highest functional level for prayer is 70?

bank: Tarn's Lair bank or Keldagrim Gen Store: Isn't there one in rekella or keldagrim? But probably still the one under miscelania, even though I used that when doing the quest, thus using it more than I have in West Ardy etc...actualy, the one on ape atol is pretty under used At the person who said the rune store on the Lunar Isles isn't used much - I used to merch runes from there, because few people ever used it. It was ok cash, but a bit slow for my liking. Perhaps the rune shop on ape atol is less used? Or that construction shop in keldagrim...Most of the people I've seen going into that shop (all two of them) have party hats on.

it looks wiered...but it's a high lvl