BlueTear

Does what exactly? Heat up, or just release a lot of greenhouse gases?

*raise eyebrows* So the fact that there are democratic countries in which women are underrepresented in office or the fact that women get paid less for doing the same job as male counterparts aren't really worth sympathy 'cause hey, they wouldn't take your seat on a bus?

Well, without breaking out any physic books or looking anything up, and going purely on memory... The universe expands at the speed of light. To "catch" the end, you would have to travel faster than the speed of light. Just assuming we're watching our cute little starship - with a chimp called Irma onboard to perform the arm-waving experiment at the edge of the universe - as it hurtles through space, accelerating towards the speed of light. When does Irma the brave space monkey reach that speed? Never, assuming Einstein knew what he was talking about. And if we did - this may or may not be accurate as I'm still working from memory alone - reaching it would take an infinite amount of time. (Assume Irma the space-monkey accelarates at 100 km/s^2. What does that actually mean? It's a increase in velocity per second. What's a second a unit of? Time. What happends to time as Irma approaches the speed of light, compared to us "static" observers on earth? It slows. One hour for Irma is a year for us. One second for Irma; a decade for us. One planck second for Irma; Such a large unit of time that speaking of it has no meaning in the physical sense. It is... Infinity)

I may support wars for just causes, but I do not laud the deaths of innocents. Luckily, modern technology allows us to be more picky about who we kill. Unfortunately, mistakes in that technology lead to civilian losses. In addition, our fight in the Middle East has seen the death of many civilians not due to American attacks, but attacks by insurgents and Al-Queda bombers who simply do not care who they kill. Likewise, I support the search for a cure for Diabetes (my mother died from it, and I will probably have it), but what about the innocent bystanders without a say in their deaths? In war, it is the civilians who have no choice in their death. In this matter, it is the unborn (and don't give me that "life begins at birth" bullhockey, it's not like the Ob/Gyn breathes life into the child when it exits the womb by smacking it's butt.) who are casualities...of what, pray tell? Their parents not caring enough about them to let them live? The child has no say in their death before "life". Any general worth his rank in the history of man who has gone to war has done so knowing there will be casaulties. I'm fairly sure most of them were even perfectly aware that among these casaulties there would innocent civilian bystanders. As of late in the history of man we've taken to minimize these casaulties, because as our technology improves, our ability to inflict savagery on these civilians just gets better and better. In any case, no matter how just a war you believe yourself to be fighting, only a fool goes to a war expecting there to be no civilian casaulties. A general goes to war knowing, fully and well, that there will be civilian casaulties. Thinking, living human beings with their own lives, thoughts, emotions, hopes and dreams. Eradicated as collateral damage to a just cause. You're willing to support the unwilling sacrifice of these lives for a just cause, yet you oppose the unwilling sacrifice of cellstructures without anything remotely resembling the neural framework able to from something remotely akin to the thought processes of what a newborn baby will have. The fact that these cell structures tends to come from labarotary performed inseminations (I don't know where this whole abortion thing came from, but... I'm fairly sure the bet way to get stem cells 4-5 days old does *not* involve a woman having an abortion. And if it did, the abortion would most likely been had anyway. Toss me a source someone?) at fertility clinics - where their potential to be either a new Stalin or Einstein is exactly zero, like with most aborted featuses - is just icing on the cake. You can look me in the eye and tell me the lives of thousand of civilians was worth it in Iraq because of the tens of the thousand of lives Saddam Hussein could've taken if he'd remained in power, yet you'd oppose the sacrifice of unwanted cell clusters produced - not breed - for the specific purpose of science, to save millions. I think that's downright grotesque. (And insane... Ask your friend just how the two would be technically connected, so you can explain it to me. 'cause quite frankly, no matter what classes your friend's taking, it makes to sense to me. Manipulating a genome - and by the way, I'm fairly sure the human genome is fully charted, we know what goes where, we just don't know what it does - in a grown invidivual is just... Well... Not likely anywhere else but X-men, no matter how much science we perform. I'll readily buy modifying the genome of a blastocyt so that when the child has grown up, he'd be more intelligent that natural, and I do think that poses a serious legal and ethical question. But that's still genetic manipulation, not stem cells.)

First of all, the most likely results of stem-cell research does not involve targetted genetic manipulations. In fact, I'm not sure it would lead to that at any point of research. A stem-cell is a cell that can divide itself "indefinitely". At it's very basic form, like the ones in blastocytes, a single cell can be made to form any of the celltypes in an adult human. In practice, if we advance it far enough... You have a faulty heart? Rather than sitting around waiting for someone to die and leave a heart for you, we grow you a new one in a lab. Faulty kidney? Grow you a new one in a lab. Thumb fell off after frostbite? Grow you a new one in a lab. There's a whole host of diseases and conditions out there that could, in theory, be cured or alleviated using stem cells for tissue regeneration. I don't really see how fiddling with the human genome - an entirely separate field of research, unless I slept through some important biology class somewhere? - would be affected by the tissue regeneration research on steam cells. "altering some of your genetics" and growing yourself a new heart or curing cancer aren't quite the same thing?

*shrug* Compared to gender inequalities (sometimes refered to as the 'patriarchal oppression'), the still widespread lack of individual rights, the occasional complete disregard for those rights, discrimination against just about any individual perceived as different, little kids saying "bad words" and an earlier sexual debut seems like a more than fair tradeoff.

... why would liberalism lead to decadance? Barring an unforseen disaster I think it's here to stay for quite a while. Although stuff like this mostly fluctuates, the liberalism of today is an inherent basis of pretty much all western societies. Sure, feodalism was once a pretty solid basis for human socities, but with today's technology I think liberalism is the best way of maintaining political, social and economic equilibrium.

I've watched it on and off, but I don't watch TV that much in general. The diary format is quite interesting, and usually you can watch a single episode and still find it enjoyable, in difference to some other shows. I got to say, I really prefer House as far medical TV shows goes. Has me laughing every time, and the medical plot is usually quite interesting as well.

Taken into perspective Poland was last invaded what, World War II? Modern warfare now isn't the same thing as modern warfare then. Aerial superiority. Laser guided bomb clusters from stealth planes. The first Gulf War killed more than 100 000 iraqi soldiers, while something like 1100 allied soldiers died. And a fair few of those went under due to friendly fire. If my fighters can aquire target locks and fire at a range of 125% of your fighters, your figthers die. The idea that technology doesn't lend a huge edge in warfare is ridicolous, and putting large sums of money into research isn't exactly deterimental to your nations ability to wage ware.

There's a considerable difference between being able to kill a soldier in your own country, and defending your capability to wage war. Any idiot can kill a single soldier using household supplies and your average bomb guide off the 'net. Actually crippling a well oiled war machinery of a nation with that kind of military budget? Yeah, right. As for democracy... Democracy has two major things going for it that is often neglected, neither having to do anything with "freedom" or "justice". First of all, there's the whole war thing. Look up how many democratic states have declared war on other democratic states. Or just name an example off the top of your head. Secondly, there's something as mundane as food. Democratic governments don't let their citizens starve. For some weird reason, a democratic government that doesn't have a civil war, ethnic cleansing or some other odd crap going on internally, usually manages to feed it's citizens as well. Again, look it up. How many democratic countries - without wide-spread corruption, civil war etcetc. - experience famines?

The US has a military budget six times larger than China, and in a top 20 in military budgets, the size of the US military budget alone could take on the 19 runner up's. With that kind of size disparaties in budgets, number of soldier's doesn't really matter, because the difference in equipment is going to be felt quite heavily.

QFT. And throwing the rocks would be the same people cheerfully playing along, 'cause hey, they know the guy...

Well, I'm impressed. That actually does show some guts. Not to mention making sense. ... I'm not sure why, but I'm not quite comfortable with "those people" making sense.

Canada employs a 'first past the post' system. I'm not quite sure how you manage to end up with a minority government though, nor how the opposition - if it isn't forming a government, then it surely can't have a majority? - could veto anything? (... if you could see me face, there'd be this glowing "oooo, new knowledge, tell me!" expression radiating from it). Still though, that's not the same thing a majority coalition government, as in that case - by definition - the opposition is in minority and won't be vetoing [cabbage]. What's this about failing their education? They did decently well in their education. In that particular non-public school. But in comparison to other private schools and public schools in the region, they underperformed. The problem was that the private school - and it most likely still does - churned out students with less downright knowledge than other alternatives. I question whether this is acceptable in a democratic society. We do that in my country. Quite frankly, I think it works great, except the state should pay a lot more attention to who it gives the money to, and whether the people who get the money are actually competent. Mostly, I'm thinking of various religious schools that teaches things strictly against the swedish "lÃÆÃâÃâäroplan", a basic set of instructions regarding what the schools for various ages are meant to be teaching. Common violations are stuff that belong in the category "How To Teach Kids To Be Good Democratic Citizens".

They call them "majority coalition governments" and while they have their con's, they most definitely work. edit: I'd also like to point out that the end result of the "first past the post" system used in the UK and the USA still makes it entirely possible that the winner of the election is not the guy with the most votes. I have vague recollections of G.W.B. in the 2000 election actually recieved something along 500 000 votes *less* than Al Gore? Recieving the support of the majority in a democratic system based on "first past the post" is overrated.

You know, I'd like to see some of these activists actually show some guts. Small furry animal of choice get released from captivity. Animal scurries away whoever released them. Animal dies from starvation, if we're lucky. If we're not lucky, animal runs rampant in an eco-system that was A) Most likely not prepared to handle quite that many of the animal B) May not even be the animal's natural habitat, at all. So, they wreck havoc in the eco-system. GG, really. But, obviously, activists believe these actions server a purpose. Well, I can see one. Do enough economic damage to the people who do it, and they might just have to turn to something else for their daily livelyhood. It's brutal economic warfare, but it *might* just work. Of course, if we agree that releasing the furry animals just changes where they die - a death that is just as man made as the one they would have gotten otherwise - or whether they get to inflict some eco-damage before dying, the logical option that is both economic warfare and "Right" is to kill the furry animals themselves, in a way that causes maximum economic damage to the farmer. But no, no, we can't kill the poor things... Just condemn them to a death in some outdoors environment that might not be their natural habitat and upset the local eco-system while we're doing it, but never actually get the blood on our own hands...

(For the duration of this post, 'public schools' will refer to schools run by the state, not the way the phrase is used in england. I confused myself for a bit there hehe) Nice enough in theory, but in practice it requires the sacrifice of children's education. After all, how else are you meant to measure the effectiveness of a school? You need students. Take an elementary school. In sweden, that's 9 years of education. You run a kid through nine years of private education starting at the age of seven. Kid then get's the choose where to studies, and finds this nifty public school he'd like to attend. He goes there, and quickly realizes that compared to the other students, his actual knowledge of the subjects is sub-par. If kid is asked whether he'd go to the private school if he go to do it all over again, he says "no way!". This isn't a box of cereals. If your kid doesn't like the cereal, you don't buy the cereals. But if your kid isn't learning enough to be competative with children at other school, how do you as a parent evaluate that? And how do you evaluate it in time to do something about it? And that's assuming there's actually an alternative to move your kid to. Maybe it's the closest school and you don't have time/money to transport your kid to the "best" option. Maybe the "best" option is too expensive for you. I'm fairly sure some of the posters here knows what it means to have to buy food that tastes crap, but hey, it's affordable! Or a computer with less performance. Or a used TV. Do we really want to do that to the education of our children? That being said, I don't think private run schools are a bad thing. I think completely entrusting the education of our children into their hands is stupid idea; Economic competition alone will not be able to keep the quality of education up. But throw in a few public schools. Let the private options compete with public schools. Legislate a bit to make eliminate money as a factor in the choice of where to place the kid (call me silly, but I really don't think you can have a democratic society where the quality of basic education depends on the wealth of your parents) so that the school you choose is chosen for it's quality of education; Not because it happened to be the cheapest local alternative. And in a democratic state where the state is made up of representatives for the people, by the people, of the people, I'd say we can't categorically rule out the idea that, once in a while, the state is actually going to be able to provide the people with what they want?

No, but it aptly illustrates that the literal meaning of an object - be it a building block of matter known as the atom, or the sum of the space-time continuum we call the universe - has no meaning in the actual sense. The universe is still the universe; The entire space-time continuum, as defined. Postulating the existance of something outside "our" space-time continuum, depending on your multiverse theory of choice, doesn't alter the definition of the universe we live in.

Stay away from home, and any place where anything that could be regarded as "fun" might arise.

And the literal meaning of the word 'atom' comes pretty close to "indivisible". Doesn't mean anything. A universe is what it's always been, and the sum of all the theoretical universes is the multiverse.

As opposed to what, "pretend" poker? There's plenty of examples of people who've made silly amounts of money from playing internet poker, and the biggest reason it's "dangerous" is the same reasons "RL-poker" is, not because it makes people overestimate their own abilities. Well, not overestimate their own abilities more than a RL poker game requires anyway.

Since when did the number of feet matter when it comes to intelligence/tool-using/dexterity? I'll cheerfully buy that a handlike structure would - if not be required, at least highly useful - but feet...? *scratches head* IMHO, a quadruped does not exclude some sort of gripping limb. Just look at elephants.

Webster's New MillenniumÃÆââââ¬Ã¾Ãââ Dictionary of English - Cite This Source Main Entry: google1 Part of Speech: verb Definition: to search for information about a specific person through the Google search engine Example: She googled her high school boyfriends. Etymology: trademark Google Usage: googling n Webster's New MillenniumÃÆââââ¬Ã¾Ãââ Dictionary of English, Preview Edition (v 0.9.6) Copyright ÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâé 2003-2005 Lexico Publishing Group, LLC www.dictionary.com. FTW etcetc. I used to use a variety of different search engines when I wanted to find facts on the internet years, and years ago. One day a mate convinced me to include this new search engine called google in the list of search engines I used. Eventually, I just phased the use of every other out, 'cause google found the most relevant links on a single page, where as earlier I'd have to grab links from different search engines to get around. I like google because quite frankly, as far as search engines goes it's the best out there.

So... You don't think Google's huge popularity originates from the fact that what it really is - what the founders actually invented - was a search algorithm more effective than anyone else's at finding appropriate pages?

But no gaming experience quite beats working togheter as a team to figure a new encounter out, and then defeating it. Well, mastering it is kinda nice, but that first kill when you finalize your tactics based on previous runs... Analyzing what went wrong, discussing how to fix it, and then actually doing it. They're remarkably good at constructing encounters so that even the ones where you can adapt strategies from other, easier encounters, there's a new element that has to be taken into account.