BlueTear

Best way to illustrate why it's impossible is to picture something at the temperature of 1K. Want to take this down to 0K. Alright, you manage to cool it by an order of ten; it is now 0.1K. Hawtness. Well, not really, but you get the idea. So you cool it by an order of ten again! 0.01K. Hmz... You've cooled it by an order of 100 since you started, yet it isn't 0K. You can keep this up indefinitely, and you'll never hit 0.

... you have a lot of PvP experience playing as a warlock with a non-SL specc?

Which, on basis of alcohol use and any heavier drug, I still say just isn't true. Illegal or legal, people still elect to use drugs. Legalization of softer drugs - ignoring the fact that I don't agree with the originial posters definition of softer drugs - will not draw users away from heavier drugs. Unless one of us can find some scientific evidence one way or the other, there's just not much point in taking that line of reasoning further, because all my arguments will be based on that same basic premise, and yours won't. Mightily impressed you actually read the article properly enough to spot the bit about the drug dealers. Personally, I consider that BS, since IMHO people search out drug dealers to buy drugs, rather than drug dealers mysteriously convincing you how you just Have To Try This. You don't get addicted to heroin because you met a drug dealer, you get addicted to heroin because you made the choice to try it. I'd like to add a caveat there and note that it's definitely not a greater threat than alcohol. That does not mean it's beneficiary, or even neutral. (And yes, I say that realizing that it counts as an argument in favour of legalizing). Like the use of any intoxicant you impair your judgement. This can lead to a wide aray of issues, everything from causing traffic accidents, neglecting what you're meant to be doing in favour of a high - whether this is caring for a baby or studying - and so on and so forth. ... isn't there a song that goes something like "Because I got high, because I got high..." and then he lists a bunch of things he missed? Fair enough. I'm not all that sure it's a something worth trying without serious research on what the effects are - because if it goes the wrong way, there's no room for 'oops', there'll be thousands of people with ruined lives. But the effects of alcohol are far easier to predict in relation to actual usage. Heck, one could even argue that "responible use" of alcohol is possible. But responsible use does not prevent a randomly occuring flashback, and that scares the [cabbage] out of me, as well as being my primary objection to legalizing marijuana.

You reduce the THC levels, you make the high less "high". The entire point is getting THC into your system. I don't follow how legalizing it, and then imposing regulations that would make it less of an attractive intoxicant if aquired legally, would actually make it more attractive to anyone but the people who are so caught up in how cool they are holding a joint the actual high is more of a side-effect. In short; You'd end up with a black market for "better" marijuana. And legalized drugs do not reduce the use of heavier drugs - as I've said, alcohol is a perfect example of this - and some studies even suggest it does the exact opposite. I was still adressing your originial point 2. from back on page 4, where you argued that high prices of marijuana lead to other crimes to raise money to buy it. As I said after that sentence though; Yes, if you make something that was illegal legal and you will get charge less people with. The same argument applies to all kinds of crime though, and I question whether that should, at any point, be considered an argument in favour of legalizing anything. (Though of course, it could be counted as a positive side-effect) Care to offer some actual numbers supporting that idea? It sounds nice in theory, but that assumes that legalizing marijuana means there won't be an increase in "unresponsible use" with actual costs attached. No, they drink vodka because they enjoy the taste? Alcohol is a drug. I know you agree on that. People consume alcohol - not because everyone who does it classifies as physiologically addicted - because they want the buzz, the "high". The chemical effect on your brain. The exact same reason why people go for heroin, the difference is that heroin is a heckuvalot stronger. But people still make an active choice to consume alcohol, and the people are beyond that well into alcoholism, still made an active choice to consume alcohol in the first place. You don't consume intoxicants if you're not looking to get intoxicated. And - again - since alcohol is available as an intoxicant, and people still elect to use heavier stuff, we have a clear, practical example, of how legalizing any other soft drug will not affect heavy drug abuse in a positive way. As long as I'm sure you've gotten the point; The fact that any drug is beneficial because it can b used medically, is definitely not an argument that means it should be used recreationally. Which you suggested in page 4, point 6, unless I misread that (which, looking back on it, I might have) Scientific evidence that suggest these people aren't either 1) statistical anamolies 2) talking out of their [wagon] 3) unaware of their own, however slight, craving.

Lol, talk about completely derailing an interview. I want to gank him =/

http://www.jet.efda.org/

THC is the active substance in marijuana. Marijuana has never killed anyone. So just how dangerous is dangerously high levels of THC? And dealers accidentally mixing the [cabbage] with harder drugs is just another piece of evidence that the whole getting "less drug dealers" is not a major factor. Exactly? Alcohol is a cheaper, less hazardous intoxicant. Yet people still choose to use heroin. See, I didn't pick heroin and morphine out of the blue, I picked them because they have the same physiological effect; Heroin just acts faster, and requires less mass to acheieve the same effect. But the actual effect is the same; A smaller dose of heroin can be used to cause the same painkilling relief as morphine. Properly dosed, it won't damage patients any more than morphine will. Medical use does not make it fitting for recreational use (And that being said; Not using it medically is pure idiocy considering the various uses). I orginally read about in a book I found in a library on a break a few years ago. It was on one of those "PICK ME!" shelves so I picked it up and skimmed parts of it. The thing worth noting about the book is that the primary argument it was making about marijuana is that the current drug classification is wrong; It is nowhere near as dangerous as the other drugs in the category (and while I agree with that assessment, I'm not quite willing to stretch that into making it legal - though as I said, medical use is one thing). It noted that while there is a drop in learning etc. these effects were reversible, you just had to stop. But these effects outlasted the high's by quite a while, and frequent use would still cause an impairment - albeit not permanent. Since I don't remember the name of the book, you'll have to settle for section from this .gov site I caught off a quick google; And after looking around, I'm really quite confuzzled about the whole non-addictive thing. I was fairly certain it was less dangerous/addictive than alcohol, but near enough as I can tell, that's not quite the same thing as being actually non-addictive in the physiological sense.

krunk already explained the gist of it, but just to emphasize a point; It won't work with instant casts, only channeled spells, like shadowbolt. The global cooldown is "hard" and you can't do [cabbage] about it. Quite annoying as after having played for as long as I have, I've got a fairly well developed sense of how long a global cooldown really is. If I have worse latency than usual one night my DPS will go down, I'll get a lot of "you can't do that yet" and I'll piss myself off because I have a tendency to play by lifting my fingers when chaining long strings of attacks so my DPS rotation just plain dies on me. And you don't really need a high ping either; If you shave just 0.1 off each shadowbolt cast, you'll have an extra global cooldown after just 14 casts. Over a longer fight, like a raid boss, this will be noticable.

... but surely qualifying as someone's favourite author doesn't actually require a mark of approval from a literature critic? And what the heck is "writing for artistic reasons" anyway? Fairly sure Shakespear would've starved if his plays hadn't generated some form of money.

... an example of such a substance would be? "Need"? Capitalism involves "supply and demand", not "need". And control and regulation of the substance - which you're also advocating - is one more thing to deal with. Under that logic, no one would be addicted to heroin 'cause alcohol is legal. Reality says; Not true. No, it doesn't, 'cause with that logic we should legalize heroin, because hey, morphine is a legal pain killer! Still ignoring both the drop in mesured drop in intelligence assosciated with use of marijuanna as well as flashbacks.

On the contrary, it'd still be an issue due to the global cooldown being elongated. Difference is you can't actually work around it by faking a better sync as you do with a /stopcastingsequence macro.

Could latency be an issue? Casters who use spells with a casting time can fool the client by using macro's involving /stopcastsequence (or somesuch). If you try using shadowbolt while your client claims shadowbolt is casting, you'll get a "can't do that". But if you abort the cast - depending on latency - at 0.1-0.2 seconds before your client says it's finished, the order to abort won't reach the server until after the shadowbolt is away. But your client is still going to interprate it as an aborted cast, and allow you to begin casting a new shadowbolt. The end result is that you shave a fair amount of casting time of your casting cycle, improving your DPS output. And in reverse; Bad latency will lower your DPS because your client-server sync will be off.

Maybe I'm just misreading that? If the resultant force is 1N in any given direction, the object will accelerate. And accelerate. And accelerate. And accelerate. Newton's Law; An object is either in rest or in constant motion when the resulting force is 0. To maintain a constant speed of 40mph you _are_ however applying a constant force, but sheer friction is providing an equal amount of force in the opposite direction. In an example with a universe filled with only a planet and a lead ball, we have no friction - blatantly ignoring the fact that the vacuum of deep space isn't really empty, and at high enough velocities even the occasional helium particle is going to count as friction (heck, so does photons). But yes, it would not reach the speed of light. The energy added to the kinetic energy of the lead ball by acceleration would eventually just go straight into the mass of the lead ball. edit: Fixed glaring error involving the phrase "it would not reach the speed of light". Lol.

I'm quite perplexed by your reasoning. First you state that marijuana not addictive. We'll treat this statement like we're talking about a new pair of pants. Now, unless I suffer from some weirdass disorder, I'm not going to be addicted to buying new pants. Therefor, as a - relatively speaking - well-adapted individual in modern society, if I found a pair of pants I want that I couldn't afford, I would not engage in illicit activities to make the money to get said pair of pants. Stealing to be able to afford a new pair of pants I want just isn't an option; If I can't afford it, I don't buy it. I don't get any new pants. Waitamainute, you say, we're talking about marijuana here! Oh right you are. So if I'm such an intelligent well-adapted individual who just likes to experience an higher state of mind, and who is absolutetly not addicted to any kind of drugs ohno, why can't I do like normal people do when they can't afford something; not buy it? See where I'm going here? Connecting crime rates with marijuana because marijuana is expensive is a ridicolous idea; The reason why junkies steal is because the need for the drug is bigger both than their personal economy and their ability to withstand not having the drug because they couldn't afford a new fix. If you're not addicted - assuming you have no other faults - being without the drug until you *can* afford to buy is not a problem. In short, you're making a contradictory argument. Secondly, a substance not being addictive means you can quit, it doesn't mean that while you use it - and I'm not just meaning the high's - that loosely quantified thing we'll call "intelligence" goes down. Which is what the guy you quoted was commenting on, and IIRC is a proven fact of marijuana use. Call me silly, but isn't this a bloody bad thing rather than something that can be brushed of by noting "well, once they quit, their intelligence will return back to normal, and quitting is easy!" Oh, and about "maximizing their profits", just why the heck do you believe any legal venture to sell marijuana would - in a modern capitalistic society - not go in for maximizing their profits in turn? Mate, I'm not going to claim to have statistics on how many of the people in american jails for drug dealing went in for dealing in marijuana and only marijuana, but I'm more than willing to claim that the drugloards in south america with a budget larger than the nations they live in do not gain their ridicolous amounts of money from selling pot. Now, this thing called cocaine on the other hand... Underground drug rings would not magically dissappear. (And again with the stealing.) That ever killed anyone or caused any kind of harmful effects? Has no bearing on actually legalizing marijuana for recreational use, just legalizing for medical use. And I'd still like more on the flashback thing... Surely any drug that can cause a perceptual distortion at a random time, random place doing a random thing makes it hard to argue anything involving "safe usage in your own home", 'cause you can have a flashback while doing something completely different. There you are, cheerfully driving a bus because you happen to be a busdriver. Oh no, LSD flashback. Oops. edit: So you're telling me there's actually smokers who aren't addicted to nicotine? Where?

Yet it is one of the top selling works of fiction, ever. Define "not that good" in a way that doesn't involve any phrase meaning the likes of "It's not that good in my opinion", and start building a case from there. 'cause the fact is, using actual sales and recognition as a basis for counting score, Rowling is way up there above more than a fair few of the "classic authors". Why not? While her target audience is clearly adolescent, she has managed to write books that has been read and liked by a lot of people of all ages.

Actually, there is at least one test reactor, a fusion reactor where the energy used to maintain the fusion reaction is "slightly" larger than the actual output. Joint European Torus or somesuch.

I don't get it. If you use Newtonian calculations you'll be way off by the time you reach anywhere near the speed of light. You use non-Newtonian calculations, they all involve the speed of light as a constant and while it's been a while since I juggled those formula's, I'm fairly sure they break down and start returning values like "infinity" once you get close enough to 'c'.

What about flashbacks? If memory serves me, both cannabis related drugs and LSD comes with the risk of flashbacks occuring a long time after consumption has stopped.

Robert Jordan. He creates a rich world with many, many rich characters and manages to maintain multiple plotlines, managing both to advance them, intertwine them, and not lose sight of the main plot. I can't wait for him to finish the last book in the series, but man, am I going to hate reading the final chapter... (And how's JK Rowling only writing Harry Potter not a feather in her hat? A fair of the other authors mentioned trudged along making novels that gained fairly little recognition until they got the big break. Surely managing to get the big break on your first novel means you're good)

The only way you'll get above a century's worth of supply is if you start recalculating the supply based on a higher price of uranium. To use an analogy; If there were lakes of oil on Mars that wouldn't be mean [cabbage], because it'd be too expensive to get it back to Earth. If the price of oil however, rose to high, like, really high price levels however, it would sooner or later be economical to retrieve said oil. Uranium is the same. Using a preset-day-price comparision, we've got, what, 80 years. Using calculations involving dredging sea water for uranium particles, and then using them in reactors with the whole breeding thing, then woho, we've got a lot more of supply to speak of. This does not mean that dredging sea water for uranium is an economically sane way of going about things today. (In fact, it's easy enough to argue that it will never be economically sane; because in the timeframe before we'd get to that point, we'd start using fusion rather than fission). That being said, I believe that nuclear power is a much better alternative than coal - and any political party around here that suggests further dismantling of our nuclear power programme is never going to get a vote from me, because importing german coal power is NOT helping the environment - but compared to developing solar, wind and wave power... Meh, it's the best bet in the interrim. Would you equate the flourishing of nature to the continued existance of human civilization as we know it? edit: Didn't want to double post but I missed a reply worth responding to.

Going back to uni to finish my... uh... what the heck's it called in english... Hmz... I think it translates to a Master's degree in Science, far from certain though. Spent this year fiddling around doing military service.

See now, that's just asking for yet another copy and paste from some questionable site using loaded language to talk about a series of conspiracy theories in which Canada and Mexico would fiendishly take over the USA. But meh... Now I'm curious too =/ So please tell us; Why abandon the dollar, which for a fair few practical intents and purposes is already a world currency (...if the euro could just get those oil trades...)?

You'd think that, until you realize that the earth's supply of uranium - while theoretically reproductible (I think it had to do with algae or some [cabbage]... It was weird, because you'd be "breeding" radioactive materials) - is also fairly limited. Sure, less of a war for oil, less pollution than coal but not quite as long-term and wave, wind or solar.

Actually, that also depends on culture and time. IIRC Tibet had some sort of multiple-husbands-and-a-single-wife going for a bit. The point is that in order to encompass all of these unions you really do have to keep the definition of marriage - more than a bit IMHO - vague. An artifical institution that formalizes a bond between individuals. The exact nature of this bond is - unless you start involving various religious texts, and even then it gets a bit fuzzy - vague. No reason why it shouldn't include people of the same sex forming an exclusive bond, and society recognizing it as such. Humans would have to be biologically wired in a radically different way for the bonds that form the basis of our losely defined marriage to not occur naturally. Because marriage is not a cause, it's an effect. Talking about how marriage affects human history isn't really relevant, because it's just a formalization and recognition - that means different things to different people in different times - of what's really going on; Love. Meh, I hope I managed to keep that reasonably coherent despite a certain sleep deprivation.edit: Fixed glaring error where don't turned a sentence into do, which made even less sense than usual.

It's worth noting that marriage has not always been an affair between a single man and a single women. Nor has it, throughout the ages, been an arraignment with fidelity in particularly high regard. So feel free to explain where you're going and what you really mean by "marriage".