Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 5/5/07 02:04 PM, Cybex wrote: In what way is that racist?

Exactly.

Normally, scammers are indiscriminate about who they target. They dont care who gets hurt be they black, white, asian, latino, old, young, struggling families, single parents - the list goes on.

Plus theres no malice as such; the scammers see this as a faceless and therefore victimless crime.

Definately not a hate crime

At 4/30/07 10:40 AM, Brick-top wrote:

You do realise that the UK has other tourist attractions other than the royals? Just go to Endinburgh castle, it has more forigners than the surrounding population.

Thats reverse logic. I wasnt complaining about tourists. I was saying that Scotland never sees the money from the tourists the royals attract. Therefore from our perspective, the royals are outmoded and pointless.

Yes there are other tourist attractions, but what does that have to do with Scots hating the Queen.

At 4/30/07 08:35 AM, Brick-top wrote: I prefer the being united. The scottish will hate the queen either way. But if it does get it's independance they will have an excuse lol.

The Scottish you mean. Scotland. Proper noun. Capitalised. Thats at least the second time Ive seen it on this thread.

And anyway, back to your point. The Scottish have always had reason to dislike the royals. All they do is bumble about the place sponging. And since the main argument is that they bring in tourism money, Scotland still has reason to dislike. All the tourist cash goes to England and London specifically.

At 4/30/07 08:17 AM, emmytee wrote: If people wan independence I say they vote SSP. That bad lol.

Theres no way in hell I will be voting for the SSP.

For the million against the millionaires? Piss off! IF you confiscate wealth from people who have amassed their ofn money, then what incentive is there to get ahead in life.

Break down the police boards into smaller regions? Hello bureaucracy!

Free heroin for junkies. Im an alcoholic. Honest. I want free beers now.

A maximum hospital capacity of 85% to cope with surges. Meanwhile people are turned down "just in case we get a surge"

A ban on consultants working for the private sector. This is sounding more and more opressive. Sure NHS trained staff should be forced to do a period in public service, but then its up to them where they want to go.

The phasing out of all private healthcare. So Im not allowed to want better treatment for my family, and pay for that peace of mind?

Without going through the rest of the points, suffice to say I really dont agree with the SSP. Nor the greens for that matter, or most of the SNP, BNP, Labour and conservatives. Or the lib dems.

I feel a spoilt ballot coming on

I've always maintained we need a "none of the above" box to tick

At 4/29/07 08:44 PM, emmytee wrote: Scotland will be poor and shitty if we break away. The SNP have crap policies apart from independence (a crap policy in itself). We elect them, they seperate us and they ruin the fucking country.

An extra 2 police officers for each station was a good policy. If another party could promise somthing like that Id vote for them.

The SNP are catering to all the loudmouths who complain about being attatched to the English, because they're still pissed off about Bannockburn and the wars of independance.

Lowest common denomenator

At 4/27/07 07:06 AM, positively-negative wrote:

At 4/27/07 06:58 AM, Boltrig wrote: I agree with sending him there, but what would a DNA test do?

Well there has always been speculation that Harry was a child of Diana's lover and not Charles, so if it was confirmed and he did get killed, it wouldn't be such a disaster. He would be just another victim, not one of the members of the family many of my countryfolk idolise.

Why would anyone idolise the royals? Monarchies are severly outdated. You get to be top dog because your ancestor was the best at kicking the crap out of his opponents?

Its parliament that does all of the running of the country, the royals are just there for the tourists and to make a speech at Christmas.

Back on topic, even if he wasnt Charles' son, hes been accepted as being his son for so long that it would still be as big a deal if he was catured or killed. Well, the media would make it seem a big deal

At 4/27/07 04:18 PM, Cybex wrote: Argh! I felt like punching my computer screen. He's like "we waited 100 years and theres still no new life". Well the earth's billions of years and this new life thing only has to happen once. Once in a billion years! A 100 year experiment to see if any new life is formed in a jar of peanut butter is hardly good enough.

Indeed. Plus a jar of peanut butter is hardly ideal conditions for life to grow. The tightly packs goo leaves no room for oxygen or moisture.
Once the lid is opened, exposing the surface to oxygen, moisture and heat, its likely to go mouldy.

Whaddaya know! Life!

To a certain extent. Might take a while to evolve into anything other than mould.

Survival of the fittest doesnt really apply to mankind any more in the same way that it does to other organisms. Mankind has other qualities besides fitness.

Take a fox, or other urban scavenger. If its born ill or contracts an illness, its unlikely to survive long with the amount of dangers in an urban situation, and therefore unlikely to pass on its illness.

Humans have to work on an entirely different set of principles though. Take Prof. Steven Hawking. Severe motor neuron disease, but you cant say he's weakening the species. Humans are intellectual creatures, and as such cant be judged on physical condition alone.

At 4/27/07 10:13 AM, morefngdbs wrote:

At 4/25/07 10:34 AM, Boltrig wrote: Take a look at this proposal.

Im tempted to take up smoking, just so I can get paid to quit.

;
Hey, its your body.
Your profile says your old enought to buy smokes, go knock yourself out.
I am now a non tobacco smoker.
I started in grade 6 & really got cool by grade 7 smoking because I needed that sweet ,sweet nicotine.
I found quitting to be ..... difficult.
When I go to the bar & meet up with friends who smoke it is like there is a cloud of stench around them. Even if they haven't had a smoke recently, you can still smell it.
It is gross, but you won't find me trying to talk you out of taking up the habit.

I was being a little sarcastic and a little incredulous.
Just walk into the works car park with a ciggie hanging from my mouth and immediately insist on being sent to a clinic for a sit down and some nicotine patches, while still being paid for my reguar job.

Im asthmatic, so smoking would probably kill me within a week, I just want whatever benefits people are getting for skiving off work.

At 4/27/07 06:07 AM, positively-negative wrote: I say let the guy go play soliders. I mean if the british government have paid for his training and shit and he wants to go, let him go, he won't be much use at home. And I'd also get a DNA test, I mean I'm not to sure if he really is of royal blood, if you get what I mean.

I agree with sending him there, but what would a DNA test do?

The descision is being reconsidered because he'd be an excellent morale weapon in capture or death, and may prove to be specificly targeted.

Wether hes actually a royal or not wont matter, as its semi celebrity status that matters in that case.

Shit! Its Dr Duane T Gish!

I dislike the man intensly, but not for is creationist views. I dislike him cause HE CANNOT GOOGLEWHACK

For more information on this refrence, look up Dave Gorman's googlewhack adventure. It rocks!

At 4/26/07 12:43 PM, Der-Lowe wrote: Electronic banking ftw

Ah, but money still exists, its just the physical representation of it that has dissapeared with ebanking. In this case (according to the topic starter) the rich can still opress the poor.

At 4/26/07 05:12 PM, Battl3Mast3r wrote: The man is a soldier of the English Army, he is to serve his country just like any other soldier. There is no exceptions for the "higher class", there is no exceptions for anyone.

No one is above English law, No one is above the law.

Period.

As an aspiring Thirteen-Alpha myself, I take this very seriously.

Unfortuneately, your rantings are highly unlikely to change British command's mind on the subject. They'll do what they please.

If that means them avoiding a crisis if/when the prince is captured/killed by causeing a PR crisi now, they'll do it.

No one should be above the law, but......

I wondered how long a thread on this would take to appear.

I think its a bit shit to be frank. He's trained for years for this, and he knew full well there was a war on.
If the military had concerns about his potential as a morale weapon in case of capture / death, then he should have been found another job years ago.

As it is, they let him train, so now he should serve. I support him when he says he will quit in protest if he's kept back.

No doubt he'll get special treatment if he does though.

At 3/22/07 07:44 PM, Memorize wrote:

What's ironic is how I don't hear Europe complaining about how the US handles illegals coming from Mexico anymore.

Why would we? Its the US' issue, and its their choice on how they want to deal with it.

At 4/26/07 09:03 AM, Drakim wrote:

Yes, but as each person make their own moral code, not all moral codes are equally effective. But, if God itself wrote a moral code, wouldn't this moral code be a lot better than any of those we have?

But God hasnt. EVERY religion's moral code was man made. They may claim to be from god, but it was a man who wrote down the code. The origins of all the major religions are lost in time, so all that can be said for certain is that a man wrote the actual words down.

Unless an almighty being appears to the world and lays down a moral code, each religions is just as valid.

But then I guess all religions bar one would be superfluous

At 4/25/07 11:11 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:
Sense

I am slightly worried to find myself on the same side as cellardoor...

Anyway, Im all for helping people to stop smoking, but the fact is that in the UK you can be prescribed nicotine patches by your doctor, there are free clinics, free support groups.

Hell, even the number you call to find out where your nearest support group is is free!

Smokers have enough help availible without being allowed to skive off work!

At 4/26/07 03:39 AM, Drakim wrote: No, I'm asking if some religion on this planet really has the word of God, and other religions don't, then shouldn't that religion stand out more?

But the thing is every religion claims to be the right one, and no one religion can provide more physical proof of any other.

They all have their own moral code, and if the followers believe their religion is right, then they will obey the commandments of that religion.

I mean, if religion X has gotten God's word for how to live a perfect life, and religion Y follows a man-made concept on how to live which they think is the word of God. Then, shouldn't religion X followers generaly stand out more than religion Y? If they don't stand out, it would that suggest that religion Y's manmade concept is equaly good to God's concept over how to live a good life. And if so, what is the point of God giving us guidelines to follow if we can make our own that is just as good?

Religion Y believes they have the word of God too. Its all belief. Theres no hard evidence that one religion is the right one (no right or wrong answer either) so they're all on a level pegging.

Because, as far as I know, the prison population for the mayor religions does not seem to indicate this. Instead, it is the small groups who tend to have on avarage less people in jail (note the avarage! don't reply and say that it is because they are so few people >>), ect.

Each person makes their own moral code. Wether a religion has handed down a code or not, individuals will choose to follow it or not. If you believe in a God then you believe thet They gae man free will, and that extends to choosing wether to follow the moral guidelines or not.

Communism is great in principle, but is not possible due really to human nature.

Think about someone who goes to school then college, then uni, med school, spends years training and becomes a brain surgeon.

Now consider someone who works in a cafe, waiting tables.

Waiting tables may be a hard job, physicly taxing and whatnot, but you dont need to spend years training for it.

So all the people like the brain surgeon and other professionals think "why should I bust my ass with 16 hour operations and difficult procedures when I could get the same amount of resources as a waiter"

Plus you've got the people in charge. Power corrupts, and soon they'll have better stuff than the rest of the country.

Everone is equal, some more than others.

At 4/25/07 10:57 AM, Elfer wrote: Ehh, they still have to attend clinics and shit to get paid.

And? Thats not what they were hired to do. The company hired them to do a certain task, and if theyre away getting help to quit smoking, then they are not performing that task. Why should they get paid for it.

If the business thinks it will increase productivity enough to offset the costs, they can go ahead and do whatever the hell they want.

Thats the thing, none of them do. Its all being recommended by an external group.

Take a look at this proposal.

Im tempted to take up smoking, just so I can get paid to quit.

As smokers themselves keep saying, smoking is a choice, so why should the non-smoking majority be forced to pick up the tab while the smokers are off getting counselling?

Some amount of bullshit these days.

At 4/25/07 02:17 AM, EndGameOmega wrote:

If any one here has a subscription to nature An experimental test of non-local realism. I really have no further comment.

I read an article on entangled particles not long ago. It seems to be an interesting concept but a bit sneaky in its application

The article stated that two particles that were completely in sync, so that one was the inverse of the other, could be separated, and taken to different locations. However, by measuring one and inverting it, you could determine the behaviour of the other paired particle, thus overturning the notion of locality.

Thing is you're not really measuring what the other particle is doing, merely deriving it. If you were to completely obliterate one particle, the other one would be unaffected, so as I see it, locality still stands.

Thats just me though, Ive not done physics in 3 years and Im a bit out of touch. Always happy to be corrected.

At 4/24/07 11:41 PM, WolvenBear wrote:

At 4/24/07 10:32 PM, Boltrig wrote: Homeowners should be allowed to own a ranged tazer in case of such an event. Should a perp enter your house with intent to steal or cause harm to you or your family, you fire at them, incapacitating them, and then get help from either a non - jammed or still connected neighbour,

Awesome! One shot! Better not miss...cause the perp sure as hell didn't bring only one bullet.

Who cares how well it works...its an alternative!

Look, at least Im putting forward an alternative. Gun ownership doesnt cause such a stirring of emotion in the UK, so its an alternative to bringing back firearms.

By your logic, anythings better than being completely unarmed.

At 4/24/07 11:42 PM, Memorize wrote:

I think i'd rather just shoot and kill them on the off chance they try to sue me in court.

Still no luck here. Few years back a farmer with a legit shotgun licence shot and killed a teen that was breaking into his house with intent to rob him.

The guy did time.

At 4/24/07 11:39 PM, Demosthenez wrote:

At 4/24/07 10:23 PM, Boltrig wrote: It shows that faster than light travel is impossible.

Thats a rather bold assumption considering how little we know about the Universe. Based on the knowledge we posess now, that is correct. But we do not know everything so I think an absolute statement like that is rather presumptous.

Well it'd need to be a hell of a breakthrough in quantum mechanics to allow faster than light travel. In fact, it would just need to break quantum mechanics!

Better looking at folding space and wormholes.

You dont seem to get it.

The amount of energy tends to INFINITY. INFINITY!

So matter how much energy you produce, more is required.

At 4/24/07 10:26 PM, ForkRobotik wrote:

At 4/24/07 10:19 PM, Boltrig wrote:

Not to say they wouldnt give it their best shot though

"Hmm, should i round this up or down?" lol

Lol indeed. Epic dilemma!

I just saw Korrikens post containing a hypothetical housebreaking situation from way back on the thread.

There was a piece in a national newspaper that I remember seeing and agreeing with completely.

Homeowners should be allowed to own a ranged tazer in case of such an event. Should a perp enter your house with intent to steal or cause harm to you or your family, you fire at them, incapacitating them, and then get help from either a non - jammed or still connected neighbour,

Makes sense to me

At 4/24/07 10:17 PM, LordJaric wrote:

I wouldn't say that they are unachieceable objectives, even though Enstin said he can't travle at the speed of light, he could be wrong, there could be some thing out there that can grant us these capabilitys.

Not really. Einstein's theory wasnt wrong, just incomplete. I posted the complete one on a thread not long ago. It shows that faster than light travel is impossible.

The gist of it is that the faster you are going, the more energy is required to get you going a little faster. So when your going 99% light speed, the amount of energy required to get you going 100% light speed tends to infinity.

So no warp speed for you!

At 4/24/07 10:10 PM, ForkRobotik wrote:

You forgot Phones!!!

So thats finally come about. I saw an ad back in the day, but I think it was hypothetical back then. Anyone remember it, some guy was stealing pennies from a fountain to get a drink from a vending machine, but some chick just bluetooths some money across.

Also, revaluing the currency is a bad idea. When europe switched to the euro companies used it as an opportunity to jack up their prices and gouge the purchaser.

Thats slightly different. That was a currency change rather than revaluation. If you had a defined system where you divided all current prices by say 5, itd be harder for retailers to rip folk off

Not to say they wouldnt give it their best shot though

indeed. Look what we got that you dont. Nyah nyah..

style of thing