Anesthesia

Did they teach you that in church? Not knowing whether a god exists. I think you'll find it is a defence against crimes of specific intent, reducing the liability to the offence's basic intent counterpart.

I guarantee you that you won't be able to play WoW with an 800MHz CPU. Minimum requirements for games honestly don't seem real nowadays - to even suggest that you could use a 32MB graphics card is just stupid; we've tried with a 2.4GHz/512MB/FX5200 256MB and it was barely playable. I also think it is safe to say that none of the upgrades blade995 suggested will NOT work with your system. All the graphics cards were PCI-E and all the RAM was DDR - both technologies weren't introduced in home PCs made at the same time as yours. The same goes for the graphics card that Ard Choille recommended. Even if you got an AGP card it would run much slower than expected as it is unlikely you'd have AGP 8x.

There's no simple answer to either of those questions. Whilst there are some default windows things that have to be loaded at startup, there are other things that you might need which aren't standard windows components such as driver programs, antivirus programs and so on. As for fragmentation, it depends WHAT you are doing each day. If you are installing/uninstalling lots of things or basically if there's a high data turnover then it will get fragmented quickly. If you just use it to play solitaire all day then it will get fragmented slowly. Edit: also, MSConfig isn't the only place that programs to run on startup are set. A freeware program to show a more complete listing is called Autoruns and is available here. But if you have to ask what is needed then you shouldn't be using that program anyway.

Why didn't you read the stickies?

What a strange idea. If they're going to give cash on a card, why not just give cash?

I was just pointing out where your responses to him were flawed, the cannibalism analogy in particular.

Hey I'm not saying that 'because animals do it, it's okay' - that was someone else. I was pointing out that because so many do it then it must occur naturally - it is obviously not the 'natural thing to do' (in a general sense) or else no species would succeed. Humans used to cannibalise a fair amount before we developed too though, as some tribes still do (Kombai tribe for example, in Papua New Guinea) - it occurs naturally but now we (for some reason) consider it uncivilised. Don't ask me why, I'm not an anthropologist.

Because homosexuality is something practiced between two consenting individuals whereas cannibalism generally isn't? What you are proposing is totally flawed, you don't consider how it affects others too. The same as from the euthanasia argument where you likened euthanasia (where the person to die is consenting) to murder (where the person to die has no say).

Why do you find that so astonishing? So many species sometimes eat their young... Are you saying that every time that happens it is them defying your god?

I always thought they were similar if not the same, or that it was just a word used in place of smacking in different dialects. Regardless, the moral issues are the same.

I always thought a spanking was something like this: [image] I've not seen or heard of anyone doing that in this country at all... All I've ever seen or heard of is them just hitting the kid where they stand, be it on the head, face or arse - thats including all the children I've ever seen hit by their parents be it in public or in private. I know the picture that you posted was the traditional image of spanking but I thought doing it like that was confined to before 1950... Why would anyone pull the kid's pants down? For some weird sexual gratification? If the answer is to cause more pain then either the adult is insanely weak or they're hitting them far too hard as it is.

Calling atheism a religion is like calling baldness a hair colour.

Can't watch the TV? When I was grounded it just meant I couldn't go out and see friends. A pretty effective punishment as a mid-teen when it is important to keep up appearances.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaporizer When I said it was safe it was relative to other drugs including alcohol. Pretty much no drug is safe, which is why I said at the end of my post that I'd see them all banned. That's just my opinion though, and seeing as they aren't all banned I don't have a problem with my friends smoking a joint because to me that is much less offensive than them getting drunk.

You are an idiot because you know nothing about what you're talking about and make things up that you think will strengthen your argument. Give some evidence that ONE PERSON has died from smoking marijuana. Here's evidence of THE ONLY PERSON whose death was ruled by a coroner to be from smoking marijuana - as you will notice it is then refuted by medical experts who say the evidence wasn't good enough: As for people becoming homeless because of it, I think you'll find that if anything, they are homeless due to to the more addictive drugs such as crack and heroin. Cannabis only has minor physiological withdrawal symptoms compared to those of the afforementioned alternatives. That's correlational, it doesn't establish cause & effect. The people who were willing to try marijuana were already willing to try illegal drugs and so I submit that they were therefore predisposed to breaking the rules and that marijuana played little to no part in their willingness to go further. People who drink alcohol are many times more likely to get introduced and addicted to other drugs such as meth and cocaine than those who don't drink alcohol. Alcohol. Need I say more? All of those things happen all the time because of alcohol - are you campaigning to get that banned? Got any evidence for that? Or is it just the hearsay propaganda that most people manage to come up with? I hate it when people spout crap about drugs when they don't know anything just as much as I hate it when people blindly advocate their use. I hate it when they just regurgitate whatever GI Joe (or whatever lovable character) taught them in a cartoon or say it must be bad simply because it is illegal - alcohol was illegal for a while too. Illegal doesn't automatically mean it is bad for everyone, and I feel sorry if you don't have the mental faculties to question your government & laws because frankly you're being walked all over and told what to think. It's obvious (from personal experience - friends & family) that cannabis use can be safe and totally fine when used responsibly by people of the right mindset, however the government can't screen everyone so they make it illegal. It's not okay for just anyone to use it and some people will overdo it or do something stupid like operating any form of machinery whilst under the influence - still, both of those things can and do happen with alcohol more frequently. That doesn't make alcohol totally okay, both are substances to be respected. I don't use marijuana, and I don't advocate its use. If it were up to me it would be banned, as would alcohol. However, seeing as alcohol isn't banned and won't be any time soon I see the law on marijuana as a double-standard.

One could hit a child too hard by accident and cause some damage, they could also hit a child and knock them over into something. Grounding, on the other hand, takes a long time - if someone started keeping their child locked in a room for example they would have plenty of time to reconsider before it became extreme. It doesn't answer your question, but it is another difference between the two.

Yes, because spanking a child is much more effortless than grouding them. :-s Hit them once and it takes a couple of seconds; ground them and you have to make the punishment stick over however long, putting up with their moans and so on. However that is largely irrelevant - at least where I come from the age for grounding starts pretty much when the age for spanking would end.

By your very own dictionary.com: It was hasty and unthinking of him to say it without thinking it could annoy someone who wasn't from his country and/or didn't know the history of the phrase (basically most people outside the US). Take 100 English people and call Bush the "leader of the free world" in front of them and I guarantee you that you'll have 95 black eyes. On the subject of 'uneducated', perhaps our dialects have served to antagonise the other once again: I'll readily agree that I know little on american history, but to say someone is not educated (at least here) means they have received no education in general.

See my post above for why I used the word. Dictionary.com is an american source, and so wouldn't contain it. The reference I cited was from an English dictionary and so it did contain it. If you don't want to scroll up, here it is again with some elaboration: I've now found the sense in which I used the word, and discovered it is a UK term: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define. ... &dict=CALD 2 UK INFORMAL not polite or respectful: Ignorant lout! To brashly state that your president is the leader of the free world is not polite or respectful to people from outside your country. When I accused him of being ignorant it was based on the facts of what he said (namely that Bush is not my president and I live in a free country) and it was neither polite nor respectful - whereas your (implied) accusation of my being uneducated was baseless - you know nothing about my level of education. I could be the world's most learned scholar on the subject of botany and not know about the history of your country or its slang - but would that make me uneducated?

I used ignorant because I couldn't think of a better word for it. Are you just arguing about my choice of words now, or can you agree that not thinking about what you say does not equal being uneducated? Edit: I've now found the sense in which I used the word, and discovered it is a UK term: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define. ... &dict=CALD 2 UK INFORMAL not polite or respectful: Ignorant lout! To brashly state that your president is the leader of the free world is not polite or respectful to people from outside your country.

Do stuff like what? The quality of being educated differs greatly from that of considering what you say. By his own admission the topic starter said he didn't consider its meaning, and to anyone 'on the other side' of such a phrase it can be offensive. If you don't consider the implications of what you say then to me you are ignorant - ignorant of the meaning of what is coming out of your mouth, you haven't bothered to think about what the words you are saying mean.

I am indeed a jerk, and proud of it. I also appreciate you telling me (inaccurately) what I think, what would I do without you... However, I don't resort to namecalling because in England we grow out of that after primary school.

You're saying that based on what you've seen, Europeans are 'jerks'? I don't think I even need to attempt to argue with you based on that line.

I didn't say anything about you not being raised properly. I said that spanking is the easy way out, for parents who couldn't do it without spanking them. If it is possible to raise a child without hurting them then WHY hurt them? Because its an easy way out, because it would be too much effort to do it without hurting them. There are millions of children who were raised well and without spanking, that fact alone proves that it is possible to do it. When you know it is possible and it is your child in question - what sort of person would choose to hurt them? Why would you choose to hurt your own child if its possible to raise them without doing it?

Very well, then the statement I stand by is this: Anyone who uses/defends that 'nickname' is ignorant for either not considering its meaning or arrogant for believing it is true. To continue to use it regardless of whether you believe it or not is to believe that its meaning and implications are trivial, when they are not. To accuse me of being uneducated is irresponsible; you know nothing of my age, background or areas of knowledge. I happen to be older than you and I am just as educated, if not moreso, only in different areas. Whats more, to relate level of education to such a matter is equally irresponsible; I think you'll find that american history isn't such a hot subject outside of america. It was the casual use of such a loaded phrase that I objected to.