Anesthesia

I hate all commercial adverts. I don't hate adverts for a good cause, like promoting road safety or giving money to charity. I do all I can to avoid them. On TV I flick over to a channel that isn't having an advert interruption, on my computer I have hyper-zealous ad-blocking software.

When I played, around 5 years ago, tip.it was more useful than the rs.com boards for buying and selling. I registered so I could buy an adamantium square shield from Fook A Ji.

Still it depends on the definition of altruism - a father would gladly sacrifice himself to save his son, one has to decide whether his doing this grants him pleasure/does him good even in death.

One could argue that you always put yourself first - by putting someone else first you hope that it will benefit you in some way; be it by gaining their affection, getting something back from them in the future or making yourself look good to them or someone else. One can argue that there is no such thing as true altruism.

It's a theory. There is not proof for it because that would require them having been there at the time. The reason the theory exists is because there's evidence to support it. Why not look at the wikipedia page for it if you need extensive info?

I got banned once, though not for being naughty. I was talking to a mod at the time on MSN and, as I often do to people who I talk to from the forums (not just mods), I asked him who he'd like to see banned from the forum - out of interest. However, he misinterpreted this as me offering to ban someone using some exploit or other - it just so happened that there WAS such an exploit floating around. After that I got banned just in case that was what I meant, though admins at the time explained that it was just as a precaution and I'd be unbanned as soon as the exploit was fixed. Coincidentally this was at the end of scapeboard, just before it DID get hacked.

I have a headache and this identity swapping certainly isn't helping. Only now do I realise how much I relate posters to their avatars and signatures. Now that apinagez has mine I am getting severely flustered. When I'm looking at a topic that I've replied to I generally search for my own avatar to see where I last replied so I can catch up from there...

Haha, I remember that. I've still got the chat log which led to others being banned for abetting.

its 276 bhp @ 6500 RPM :-w I thought that sounded fishy because on Top Gear they said there was a 340 one, so I looked on wikipedia and it seems that here in the UK there are indeed ones which come in at 320, 340 and 400 BHP - named the FQ320, FQ340 and FQ400 respectively.

That would ruin the fun. Such a list would likely be smaller than you think, anyway. If you weren't wanting to ask in case it was a no - more fool you because it would be a yes.

I don't have a problem with someone using my avatar or signature so long as they ask me first. That doesn't mean 'ask me and I'll be happy for you to', it means 'ask me and I'll consider how I feel about it based on who you are'.

Because a government is generally composed of representatives elected by the people; it is not in their interest to take away all freedoms because if they start doing things that people don't like they won't get elected again. What's more there is nothing to suggest that what you said will ever happen, whereas there are centuries of history to suggest that it won't.

I have to say that that is a very ignorant viewpoint.

I think that would be wise.

I think it is unreasonable to expect anyone to hold themselves to something regardless of what may befall them. That would just be punishing them for an oversight on their part, it is possible to break a promise without being thoughtless or uncaring. That said, it is obviously also possible to break one uncaringly. For this reason I see a promise not as something that is set in stone, but more as a statement by a person of how much something means to them. Something which they would like to commit to but shouldn't be held to should unforeseen circumstances arise.

So far my favourite is Advanced Network Technologies (deals with emerging network technologies). ANT is very difficult, simply because the guy who teaches it is so incredibly knowledgeable about it (designed missile guidance systems & military networks for many years) and often just assumes we know what he's talking about. Another reason is that I don't know much about wireless data comms; only wired. It is very interesting though.

Did you just google "media violence study" and copy & paste the first links that came up, regardless of their content? Not one of the things on that [ludicrously conservative christian] link mention violence. That's not a study. That is a list of articles from newspapers (sensationalism, anyone?) and quotes from books (personal opinions, anyone?). This one talks about people hitting a DOLL in a study. Ross Parke (1977) has not provided any evidence, for example how aggressiveness was measured. Leonard Eron's study does not show cause & effect, only correlation. The same goes for William Belson. The rest are either irrelevant or just show correlation. You failed to cite a study which shows cause & effect. Just a bunch that show correlation, some which have nothing to do with violence, some which are irrelevant & some opinion pieces. What's more, you have failed to prove what I asked you to prove - that music can cause crime. The first study only showed that music can cause people to talk nasty. Here's a REAL study that doesn't find a link between media violence & real violence.

If there are tons of articles (polls just solicit opinions so they're irrelevant) proving this then you won't have a problem citing some, will you? Also remember that they have to establish cause & effect, not just correlation (I'll bet at least 50% of all criminals smoke or drink alcohol, but that doesn't prove smoking or drinking cause crime).

65daysofstatic - The Fall of Math Mine coming soon. Edit:

This part makes perfect sense. It's a contradiction within the school system. One cannot logically exist with the other. Here you go then: Using bad language in the context of art is fine, as is using nudity. It is about context. An art class can study Michelangelo's David, the Venus di Milo, etc. and still punish people for being nude in school because it is not appropriate in that context. An actor may speak some of the most offensive words that exist in the context of the film he's acting in, but if he speaks that way to the director he might get sacked.

I think the core issue here is that basic survival instincts beat morals any day. A consciencious vegetarian (i.e. one who doesn't eat meat on moral grounds) who has had no food for a month is not going to ignore a pile of freshly fried bacon. I'm willing to bet there are no people like that in places where famine is common.

Bubsa, there is nothing wrong with saying you don't know. Those I have a problem with are the ones who act all high and mighty when they have no idea how they'd act in such a situation.

How about another scenario: You are in a mountain hut, hundreds of miles from any civilisation. A man has taken you and your (wife|brother|loved one) there, he has been torturing them for the past hour whilst you've had to listen to their screams. His intention is to kill you both, but only after he's tormented you both some more, as he has repeatedly stated. There is no chance of getting help or reaching civilisation without him hunting you down. You notice that he has his back turned to you, whilst he's busy having his wicked way with your loved one. He has a gun on his belt and one on his ankle. You notice that he has left another gun just within reach from your restraints, you can grab it but if you fire you will have to kill him, or else he'll just grab one of the weapons he has on him and kill you both. What I'm trying to get at is that this person is an abomination and the only way you can stop him is to shoot him and kill him. This is called a hypothetical situation and if you can't understand the purpose of it and try to make up some other way you can get out of it (are there any steel bars nearby, could I kick him in the nads, etc.) then don't bother responding. You still wouldn't shoot him? I think if you were actually in that situation you wouldn't even hesitate. I could kill a man, it wouldn't have to be in extreme circumstances as that. If they posed a threat to someone I cared about (not necessarily the threat of death) and there was NO chance of repercussions (don't mention religion because this is talking about me here, there's no after life for me). If I thought they had abandoned their right to life then I would kill them.

Example: A person has your family tied up, he is in the process of torturing them to death. There is an impassable wire fence between you and him, you have a gun. You wouldn't shoot him?

At least 3, not counting forum software upgrades. I'm talking about different places the boards have been hosted.