652 Forum Posts by "Boltrig"
At 4/24/07 10:09 PM, LordJaric wrote:At 4/24/07 10:06 PM, Boltrig wrote: Nukes! One attack, multiple warheads.I don't know if you realize that this is about other worlds not just one.
i think you mean a singular device that will destroy the planet in one go.
No such weapon will be developed, since your country needs land to exist on, andif you destroy the whole world, that kinda leaves you in a jam.
Yes, but war with the other world would require interstellar travel, some form of delivery system for the weapon, and mostly that there are developed beings, capable of communication, hostility and agression on a global scale.
Since this is a lot of impositions and as of yet unachieveable objectives, that would leave the superbomb with only Earth to target.
At 4/24/07 09:55 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: [infact, probably in 100-200 years we'll be able to invent weapons which can destroy the planet in one attack].
Nukes! One attack, multiple warheads.
i think you mean a singular device that will destroy the planet in one go.
No such weapon will be developed, since your country needs land to exist on, andif you destroy the whole world, that kinda leaves you in a jam.
Its all going the way of credit and debit cards now.
I dare say that in the future there will be an embedded chip that will contain all the relevant finincial data. A quick swipe and off you go.
Then you get the fanatics wailing about the rapture though.
Ive just put up a new navbar to my site, but I cant get the spacing right.
If you take a look here.
I cant get the black spacing between the buttons to dissapear, despite the fact that Ive put the border=0 on every one.
Any suggestions?
Thanks in advance as always guys.
I tried that one.
I dont know if I was clear in what Im trying to do.
I have a 1280 x 960 picture on my server, and the thumbnail is a direct resize of that file.
What I want to do is have the clickable thumbnail open the 1280 x 960 file direct from the server.
Im adding a new section to my site for gigs Ive been to.
What I want to do is have 3 thumbnails in each row, linked to the full sized picture.
Ive got the thumbnails part down, but I cant get the linked picture to work.
Can anyone tell me the code for linking to a file on the server. (a href"adress") (/a) doesnt seem to be the right code. (i know its < > and not ( ) )
Thanks in advance.
At 4/20/07 12:25 PM, SomeNick wrote:
In space you should be able to atain infinite speed (or at least close to ligth speed, if you trully believe it is the top speed) if you don't stop accelerating (progressively). That could be done with nuclear / fission rockets because they would not deplete in years. We can't do this with liquid fuels, it would get sucked up fast, and tanks would become empty.
Just reviewing the thread and came across that bit ^.
Just to put that misconception aside, light speed is not possible with a ship of any mass using conventional means.
From http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativ ity/SpeedOfLight/FTL.html
It is a consequence of relativity that the energy of a particle of rest mass m moving with speed v is given by
E = mc2/sqrt(1 - v2/c2)
As the speed approaches the speed of light the energy approaches infinity. Hence is should be impossible to accelerate an object with rest mass to the speed of light and particles with zero rest mass must always go at exactly the speed of light otherwise they would have no energy. This is sometimes called the "light speed barrier" but it is very different from the "sound speed barrier". As an aircraft approaches the speed of sound it starts to feel pressure waves which indicate that it is getting close. With some more thrust it can pass through. As the light speed barrier is approached (in a perfect vacuum) there is no such effect according to relativity. Moving at 0.99999c is just like standing still with everything rushing past you at -0.99999c. Particles are routinely pushed to these speeds in accelerators so the theory is well established. Trying to get to the speed of light in this way is like trying to get to the pot of gold at the end of a rainbow.
From what I can summarise and remember from my physics days, I think its saying that the faster you go, the more energy is required to get you moving a little bit faster. So at 0.999999c (c being the speed of light) you need an almost infinite amount of energy to make you go just a little faster.
Ergo, Vis a vis, concordantly, light speed is impossible by solid fuel / nuclear drives.
At 4/20/07 10:41 AM, XChainsawX wrote: true. every man has the right to choose what he wants to do with his life,
but no, the government wants you to pay tax, it's oh so important.
if they would allow suicide, the poor little government will have less and less people to leech on.
I dont know if thats the case. As a lot of people here have said, If someone attempted suicide, they would no doubt be sent to a facility where they could be observed and their mental condition assessed.
Someone who is in a hospital / asylum being cared for isnt going to be working and paying tax. Dependant on how the doctors diagnose them, they may not be able to work and pay tax again.
At 4/19/07 10:27 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:At 4/19/07 09:40 PM, Boltrig wrote:I love it. Once it becomes apparent that you entirely lost your whole basis of argument you retreat and try to pretend that you're taking the high road
Anyone whos interested, he's bashing me on __is better than America as well.
You're a joke.
No, I just object wit having to deal with you in two places. If I wanted to skulk off, I wouldnt have highlighted the other thread.
Now wait for him to come in with his ultimate desire to have last word
At 4/19/07 10:04 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:
Arrogant is an adjective open to interpretation.
Arrogant (pronounced /ˈærəgənt/) is an adjective that may refer to having excessive pride in oneself. A person who is arrogant may exaggerate their own worth or importance in an overbearing manner.
No interpretation needed
I'd say that YOU are more arrogant than I am. Because it's not arrogant when my "arrogance" is based on facts. YOUR "arrogance" is based on nonsense, and irrational, misguided falsities that you've seemingly been indoctrinated with through your culture.
Wrong facts though. You seem to assume ive been indoctrianted by my culture, because it suits you. It lets you completely disregard anything I say.
Therefore I was disproving myths, that was the intention. I was enlightening people. If I took the rout that British people use to bash Americans, I would do what you do which consists of mindless, uneducated hypocritical political rants with no basis in reality.
That sounds like "exaggerate[ing] [your] own worth or importance in an overbearing manner."
All hail cellardoor, bringer of enlightenment. See, biased. If you were being objective you would say : look at these facts and draw your own conclusions. I looked up my own facts because your original thread linked to in your OMFG BRitz Suxxorz! thread had a source that requires login. They said UK and US were on level pegging education - wise.
Im not saying your overbearing manner isnt justified. Its only justified to you though. Im not convinced in the slightest.
fact: Americans have the highest education attainment out of any major industrialized nation. Americans are more likely to be both highschool and college educated than Brits. Look at the FACTS in the thread I linked to.
Love to, but its a site requiring login (possibly subscription, I forgot to check)
Therefore that is FACT that that myth by repeated by Brits is false and that I disproved it. Just because it is construed as arrogance by some disgruntled Brit doesn't mean that my intention was to belittle their country.
Even if it wasnt your intention, its what you did. Not caring wether you did or not is where your arrogance comes from.
I don't think that many people don't HATE the US. They do however have a desperate desire to bash America and criticize America no matter how irrational and hypocritical they are in doing so. I've travelled all over the world, and it seems that the people who criticize the US the most are the ones who are the MOST hypocritical in doing so.
So you keep saying. And your widely travelled ass is therefore the most poised to comment on issues in every country you visited. Gather round fellow inferiors. Cellardoor visited your country for a short time, and now will point out its deficiencies. Lets listen in abject awe.
It's not just NG users, I've been to your country, I lived there for 2 months. And I experienced the most ignorant, uneducated anti-US bullshit spew forth from the average British youth. It's basically a national passtime in the UK to find any possible way to bash America in any issue. The majority of British comedy will have some jab at the US in some form or another.
How can you form an average in the space of 2 months? To travel all round the UK in 2 months, stopping at every villiage, youd have time to talk to one person in each town at most.
What I especially love is how Brits call Americans racist, yet Brits treat international immigrants like complete and utter shit. Does the term "Paki" mean anything to you? Yeah? Because you Brits treat Pakistanis and any middle-eastern looking person like shit. I know that not ALL Brits to this, but you have a much more racist society, especially among youth, than Americans do. Yet Brits will be the quickest to call Americans racist.
This is almost a straight copy and paste from another thread. Its as invalid now as then. YOU of all people CANNOT use the term "you Brits." Thats racism there then man. You are generalising every person in the UK into a category that are racist, US haters, based only on your 2 month shit-fest of a trip round the place. If you spent 2 months here, doint nothing but talking about politics, then its no wonder you had a shit time.
And besides, if you speak with the same manner in reality as you do online then its not a surprise you got negative reactions.
You think that being vehemently against another country is an actual mental deficiency?No, the way that most people with anti-US views think is a mental deficiency. You have mental blindspots where you intentionally disregard and ignore the inconvenient facts, while overemphasizing certain facts that don't depict the entire situation.
Just like how you criticized the US for "a war for oil", yet I'm sure as hell that you haven't been so vehement about criticizing your country about the fact that it invaded Iraq in 2003 as well, and was just as enthused about it. And even if you pretend that you do, you still used it against the US in an issue where you held your country to an entirely different standard. You said the US should be considered as a warmonger if it attacked Iran for arming our enemies, your justification for this was because the US fought "a war for oil" yet I'm positive as hell you'd have no criticism for your country or a compatriot of yours if he criticized Iran for supplying your enemies directly.
And also, I was anti war. As your so fond of pointing out, we're involved too, which also means an anti-war movement in this country.
So now its not the UK, its specifically the Scots troops that went to war?Um under the UK the Scottish still have a semi-independent military force. Such as the Royal Scottish Dragoon tank force that participated in the invasion of Iraq. The reason I specified that Scottish troops participated specifically is because I'm sure you'd do what other Scots have done when the issue is brought up, you'd just say "well we're in the UK so it was mostly the decision of the English to go to Iraq"
Fuck you man. Make up your mind. Your either slandering me as a Scot or a Brit. SO your saying that the UK decides as a whole that we're going into Iraq, but Scotland could have said "do it without our tanks" The UK's millitary is centrally controlled. The scottish regiments are proud of it and carry on their traditions and standards. This does not, however, constitute an independant force.
You keep re-iterating Im anti American. You cant tell me what to be. Im not anti-American, not matter how much you want me to be / make me out to be.Yet you take irrationally anti-Us views in every issue. You criticize the US for things that the US does, but you do so hypocritically by ignoring facts that are inconvenient to your views.
I criticise you, for your arrogance, skewed views yada yada. The fact that youre an American means you jump on my statements as anti American. Its your unique talent for twisting words.
And how do personal attacks further your agenda? I know I insult you quite a bit, but thats because you infuriate me with your skewed views, twisting of words and xenophobia.You anger me because of how utterly delusional you are. Even when your point got entirely destroyed, you still found some pathetic way of covering your tracks.
Look man, you keep re-iterating that Im anti American, delusional etc. Its getting old. I know what you think of me. I dont give a rats ass. I know its just lashing out. It was your oh-so-knowing socio - political comments, generalising my country based on a 2 month trip that did it.
"Oh it doesn't matter because I don't support the war" when the issue wasn't YOUR personal views but the policy of your country.
So im now responsible for making the UKs policies?
Im going to bed now. Its 3.40 am here, and Ive heard enough xenophobia for one night. Ill see which of your points you repeated almost verbatim in the morning.
At 4/19/07 09:31 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:
Where is your logic? Your overall amount of gun violence has gun up since the handgun ban, more than twice as many crimes involving handguns take place in the UK than before the ban.
Yuh huh, and how many people using guns in crimes had licences for the guns I wonder?
Why the hell does it matter of massacres of larger scale don't take place anymore if more people still die over all?
Criminals have guns in America too. Rising gun crime is due to (wait for it) criminals! You think regular people having guns will solve that?
You're allowing your emotional response to a single incident cloud your judgment. Yeah Dunblane was bad, and a similar situation hasn't happened since, but the over all gun crime went up exponentially and is still doing so. The handgun ban DID NOT work. The fact that a similar shooting to Dunblane hasn't taken place has nothing to do with the handgun ban, how could it? Especially all while gun violence in the UK over all is going up continually?
It has everything to do with it. Thomas Hamilton had a firearms licence. His gun was legal. If guns are illegal, then you can be certain that only criminals have guns, rather than be suspicious of everyone who has one.
If you are adamantly in favour of having a gun, even for "defence" then it proves you have the mind set of someone willing to kill. Thats not a healthy state of mind.
Im sure everone on this thread is getting tired of cellardoor calling me anti-American and me calling him arrogant, so I'll stop posting here and let you get back to debating Iran's involvement with the Taliban.
Apologies and thanks for the use of space guys and gals.
Anyone whos interested, he's bashing me on __is better than America as well.
At 4/19/07 09:08 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:
It's a 'fact' that Americans are arrogant, even though the adjective of arrogant is an opinion itself?
Oh my fucking God. Please please look at what I write and stop twisting my words. I called YOU arrogant. YOU. The fact that you happen to be American is unfortuneate, since you seem hell bent on discrediting me with whatever I say on the subject.
Can you perhaps provide an example of our horrendous social situation? Maybe? Please? Id love to see what you come out with.Oh I made a whole thread about it. I made that thread to dispel myths made about Americans by Brits. And in these aspects, Brits are actually STATISTICALLY (not opinion) inferior. In aspects of education infrastructure, educational attainment, economic performance etc... Take a look
Hang on, is that you trying to make yourself appear superior by dint of showing up other countries. By jove it is! I smell the tang of hypocrisy in the air.
I don't belittle other people's countries just for that purpose. It only appears that way when I am defending the US and showing that actually their country is inferior in aspects that they criticize the US for. I don't belittle intentionally, it's just a byproduct of the facts.
No its a byproduct of you putting forward some facts and adding your spin. You are completely incapable of making an unbiased statement.
As A PS, since your original thread's source contains source material not readily availible to the web, All I did was google literacy UK and literacy USA. Guess what.. both 99%!!
People are ignorant of the truth and they repeat myths and misconceptions about Americans, I correct them with facts, in a contentious way yes, yet I still use facts instead of mindless myths. Thats the difference, I may be bellitlling their country in their eyes, yet that is what they are doing the whole time.
But society is so used to anti-US nonsense that they think it is the truth. When they have their false views proved wrong right before their eyes, their only way to cope with the loss of the foundation of their political belief system is to accuse the American or arrogance.
I dont know why you think everyone hates the US so. If its cause people on the BBS bash America then you need to get a life.
They think that simply defending a country is arrogance when its America being defended, when they defend their country it's just defending against Americans being a bully. When a country is bashed by an American, it is seen as belittlement. When a non-American bashes America, it is seen as cool, and insightful.
For the record. Its is seen as arrogance and belittlement when you "defend" the US or bash another country. Thats because irs your style.
Anti-Americanism is a mental deficiency. You have proven it.
You think that being vehemently against another country is an actual mental deficiency? Well since it could affect someone from anyone, from any country, we need a catch - all name. One that would apply no matter what country was baselessly hated. Cellardoor Syndrome? Maybe?
Who didnt see that one coming = P
I love it how in the other thread you attack the US for a 'war for oil" yet you find your country blameless. Even though, if it really is a war for oil, the UK, and Scottish troops specifically fought a war for oil as well.
So now its not the UK, its specifically the Scots troops that went to war? I suppose you now say the majority of English, Welsh, and Irish troops stayed in the barracks and bashed America for the duration?
But of course you love to just ignore that, otherwise your irrational, misguided anti-American views would be compromised, thus shattering your isolated little view of the world.
You keep re-iterating Im anti American. You cant tell me what to be. Im not anti-American, not matter how much you want me to be / make me out to be.
Um notice how I said "only". Because yea I mix in a few insults periodically. But I was referring to bcdemon when I said that (which you left out) and his ENTIRE tactic revolves around personal attacks, he doesn't do anything else.
And how do personal attacks further your agenda? I know I insult you quite a bit, but thats because you infuriate me with your skewed views, twisting of words and xenophobia. You insult everyone "periodically". No ones that angry surely?
Well I lived in the UK for 2 months and whenever a political discussion would take place a Brit would say what amounted to: "Yeah you may be stronger military and economically, but you Americans aren't as civil and sophisticated as the British. You may have a more popular culture, but that is just because your culture consists of mindless and brash entertainment that appeals to the mindless mases, we Brits appreciate the finer, less conspicuous parts of life"
A source that no one can corroberate and your period of 2 months spent in another country. That totally gives you endless and faultless base to criticise. Plus whoever you were talking to sounds quite deluded as well. The UK is quite capable of coming out with its own mindless pap for the masses.
At 4/19/07 09:05 PM, Debauchery wrote:
The thing that pisses me off about all those Islamic extremists is how much they're holding us back! It's so dumb. We have to go onwards, into the future, not fighting a few crazed pricks.
Its the effect those few pricks have on the global situation though. Some pricks hijacking planes or blowing up tube trains has a devastating effect, and highlights a situation that needs remedying.
And for all those who said a mission to Mars would be dumb...
You know what the point of humanity is? To explore, it's what we do.
I guess humanity will get out there eventually. Its patience that the key
At 4/19/07 08:58 PM, TheMason wrote:
1) I do not believe a resident alien should be allowed to own firearms. Like voting, there should be rights that are a privilidge of citizenship.
The second ammendment, which is so frequently qouted in situations like this states that it is the right of "the people" to own firearms. I think (not 100% sure) the constitution would need to be changed again to allow the kind of control you propose.
2) There needs to be a closer look at a person's mental health. I'm not really sure how to apply this however. I am not advocating mandatory mental health screenings for anyone who is buying a gun. Furthermore, I do not believe having a history of mental illness should necessarily lead to the lifetime repurcussion of being barred from buying a firearm. There are some people who have a one time breakdown but are then cured. However, people who are deemed to be a danger to themselves and especially others should be prohibited from purchasing a firearm...just like Cho.
The problem is making the second point into a practical system.
Indeed. Some people with mental issues can be perfictly lucid at times. How would you tell someone who was cured of a previous condition from someone who was on his meds on the day of the exam only.
At 4/19/07 08:47 PM, LazyDrunk wrote:At 4/19/07 08:44 PM, Boltrig wrote: The only thing Ill say on this topic regarding the Dunblane tradgedy and ensuing tightening of gun laws, gun crime may have gone up, but name me another massacre of that proportion that took place since the laws came into effect.When one happens, will you eat your words and support his cause with as much vigor as you are showing now?
Or will you break it down, scenario by scenario and point out the distinct reasons behind the next massacre?
NO, If another massacre on the scale and horrificness of Dunblane happens in this country, I will indeed eat my words.
But my point is that one hasnt happened since then. So far its working (and by that logic nobody can comment on the effectiveness of a law without the qualifier "so far")
At 4/19/07 08:44 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:
You're delusional... I don't contradict myself. I actually base my views on facts, you base your views by ignoring the facts and overemphasizing others. You don't actually have the desire to find out the truth or base your views on the facts.
Hmm, the way you contradict my accusations of hypocracy and contradiction is to simply state you dont. Nice move. Are you running for office at all?
The only way to explain your behavior is that you have a predetermined goal of bashing the US because your real goal is anti-US in nature, not anti-chemical weapons, anti-terrorism, or anti-war even. You only want to discredit the US, you have no desire to see reality.
The only goal I have is to have a good argument. If that includes dicrediting you before you infect other BBS posters with your skewed, blinkered logic then its just a bonus :D
PS, My behaviour can also be explained by the fact that I dont like you much, but I wont say thats the official verdict.
First of all, I don't think it was a war for oil.
Yuh, thats your blinkers at work again.
Secondly, YOUR COUNTRY FOUGHT IN IRAQ AS WELL!!!
Yeah, and I think Labour is likely to be ousted as a result. The difference between us is that I accept my country went into Iraq, and advocate support for the troops. I do not however advocate the war. Subtle difference that gets trampled by your level of "patriotism"
See how your mind works? This further validates your anti-US mental deficiency. Your country does the exact same thing the US does, but you still find a way to blame it all on the US if you disagree with the deed.
NO, my above point explains it. I dont hate the US for it. I disagree with the war as many in the US would, but I tihnk that the troops sent inot (very) hostile territory need backing. Theyve been sent to do a job, however the decision was arrived at, so get behind them.
Get a glimpse of reality. Your anti-US bias in this issue is entirely hypocritical. Your entire political philosophy is an oxymoron. Your desperate attempt to discredit all things the US does actually causes you ignore reality.
Even IF (keyword IF) I was anti US, I would still not be a hypocrite. I dont bash the US, I bash you. Not for the sake of it, but because you have a horrible skewed outlook on things and I really cant just suffer it in silence.
Fact is im not anti US so in the words of my 9 year old self Nyah Nyah!!
The only thing Ill say on this topic regarding the Dunblane tradgedy and ensuing tightening of gun laws, gun crime may have gone up, but name me another massacre of that proportion that took place since the laws came into effect.
At 4/19/07 08:24 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:
No, it's just losers like you from other western countries focus all of your attention on the US and ignore how fucked up your own society is. Especially you Brits, your culture REVOLVES around the US. Basically the only way you can boost pride in your country and make you feel better about the horrendous social situation in your country is to rag on America to make your country seem better by default.
"Lolz Americans are fat, dumb, lazy, arrogant"
Ive never advoated that an American is any of those things apart from saying that you are arrogant, and thats not opinion, thats horribly solid fact.
Can you perhaps provide an example of our horrendous social situation? Maybe? Please? Id love to see what you come out with.
The only thing I can think of that would make you so hyper-patriotic is that you really have some identity issues and the only thing that brings you comfort is that you are American (hell, Im prod to be a Scot) Youre so adamant that you are American and you > everyone else that you lash out at whatever isnt from the US of A and belittle other countries.
Meanwhile, The EU has a higher obesity rate. Americans work longer work weeks and have more productivity at the national level. Americans have higher educational attainment. And in most cases, Americans are too busy with their own lives to give a fuck about what some dumb Scotish douchebag with an inferiority complex thinks about them.
Id just like to post this little jewel from cellardoor6 for those of you who arent involved on the other thread:
At 4/19/07 07:31 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:
I love it how your only tactic you can ever use is to use personal attacks.
I doubt you've been to the US, I bet just like your own society, you base your misconception on what your media tells you. But I've actually been to your country and I have a point of reference and frankly, Europeans, especially UK citizens are by far more racist and arrogant as a nation than Americans are.
Ive said it in other posts and Ill say it again. People are only horrible to you because you generate some kind of ara that makes people act that way.
I have actually been to the US. Ive been on holiday twice. Once to Florida, once to NYC. Im not going to pretend (as you do ) that gives me the basis to judge your country, and Im above bashing others to make myself seem good, but to be frank, I quite liked the US. The culture was good, the people friendly.
No doubt you'll jump on that statement and say something along the lines of "Hah, you like the USA so we > U! "
Americans may be proud of their country, but at least they base their pride on facts instead of the mythical superiority Brits think their society has due to their imaginary "civility" they claim to have that makes them superior to Americans.
Please include in your relply a quote from someone in Europe that claims they are better than America because of their civility.
At 4/19/07 08:13 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:
The US is your scapegoat, you benefit from what the US does, but when you find it morally questionable and want to salvage your national pride, you immediately ignore your own country's faults and its own history, and overemphasize what the US did.
I cant believe the rhetoric you spew forth disguised as sensible arguments. You contradict yourself so many times thoughout the BBS! Overemphasising the US seems to be what you do best, but here you portray it as a bad thing!
So anything we do will be seen as the aggression in the eyes of the fucking morons of this world.
And who's fault is that? You fought a war for oil and tried to give it the moral high ground with the cry of WMDs.
Plus, you put down others for personal slander, then call everyone who disagrees with you a fucking moron.
Dont pick on the word "everyone" in your reply, I want to know how you can justify that phrase Ive quoted without being a hypocrite.
At 4/19/07 01:11 PM, Bajjer wrote: Trust me, I'm sick of how people somehow think anyone is superior :/
Im sorry to break it to you, but it tends to be people who are resident in the US that hold this view...
I would agree, but I think the BNP are only adapting to negative trends.
No one looks at blacks and thinks of them as any different any more. Now the naggling little part of the British voter's brain is looking with increasing concern at the Eastern block immigrants.
As with south park: "They took our jobs" is the BNP cry.
If the SNP adopted the philosophy of less paperwork for police, then they'd be a shoe-in for me
At 4/19/07 07:31 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:
I love it how your only tactic you can ever use is to use personal attacks.
That was just a precursor
First of all, I'm sure you can't provide a link to document that...
But never mind the fact that multiple countries were supplying Iraq to the best of their ability, the US wasn't the only country to give Iraq material for chemical/biological weapons.
OMG! Cellardoor6 admitting the US isnt perfect.(but trying to lessen the admission byinvolving other countries) Ill faint when Ive finished this post!
And the only reason Canada only gave what it did is because Canada doesn't exactly have the capability to give much more aide than that, or the political inclination. However, the DECISION to aid Iraq was the same in Canada as it was in the US.
I love how your only way of defending your country's actions consists of "well, we did it only a little bit."
So you DO think that aiding bio and chem warfare programs is on a level pegging then. No surprise.
Blah blah blah liberal hysteria.
Blah blah blah blinkered ultra-patriotism
The difference is, Iran has the luxury of seeing like the victim here. If the US attacked Iran for what it is doing, or worked against them by other means, YOU and other people who have your wacky, tainted mindset would be screaming bloody murder.
No, if the US attacked Iran, it would be seen as another attempt at warmongering by a power (and prehaps attention) hungry country. Not saying I see it like that, just guessing as to how it would be construed
So Iran can arm our enemies, but we can't do anything about it or even complain about it because "what goes around comes around."
Ooo, using another words to an ironic end. Your so witty. I think Ill ignore your skewed politics seeing as how you entertain me so.
One for the Brits, spec Scots. Anyone else who can be bothered to get to know their facts - lets hear what you have to say too!
I got an election leaflet through the dor the other day from the BNP (British National Party) [For all those across the water, the BNP were known for being stoicaly anti-black and such back in the day.]
From the leaflet I kinda got the impression that:
A) They werent ripping on the black community any more
B) They had shifted their focus onto the influx of Eastern Europeans that have arrived in the UK
C) Overall they were less extreme and made a lot more sense than before.
One of their policies that I wholeheartedly agree with is getting the police officers out from desks creaking with paperwork and making sure the local areas are safe.
If only they didnt make theor staple arguments against immigrants I would be more than tempted to vote for them.
As it is I might have to go with SNP.
At 4/19/07 07:19 PM, SomeNick wrote: Well, I think delaying the mission to Mars to 2060 may actually be a good thing. See, today's starship are pretty crappy.
Indeed so
I think it was once suggested that at some point starships would be nuclear or fission powered, instead of liquid fuel powered. That would make the startships go a heck of a lot faster, since nuclear energy depletes VERY slowly, and they would not need to shut down the engines on the trip to Mars. One such Starship could get to Mars in around 3 weeks, whereas todays' starships would take up to 1 year. So... isn't it worth to wait till starship technology is a lot better?
Valid point, but I would say that the mission to Mars should be delayed until the current global political situation has calmed down a little bit.
I think there has been progress, slow, but still. How about the few space tourists? That could be some kind of progress, even if most would disagree.
I think Richard Branson wants to get a Virgin owned space tourism setup on the go by 2008. Not true orbit, but enough to be considered an astronaught by both American and European standards.
And the space station... Well, it isn't a Clock Crew flash, so it cannot be rushed. Its good to take the required time. One fuck up, and game over.
Incisive humour, I like! =P
By 2060 technology should be just amazing, starships included (if HUmanity doesn't blow each other up to hell). So why go on a poorly designed mission when it could be kickass?
The very essence of my viewpoint Sir! You are applauded!
At 4/19/07 06:53 PM, Mr-Snickers wrote: Summarized it means.
Child labour is good because it gives children money for food, education and gives them work experience in areas that are too poor for 2 or one parent to support themselves and a family. It states bans against child labour are bad as they remove child labur jobs forcing children into bad situations such s child labour or other black market crimes. K?
You say that chilb labour is needed, but taking it away forces the kids into child labour. Chasing your tail man.
The thing is, if you condone it and say it is needed, things are unlikely to change. As I said in my last post, you want a state of affairs where the parents are breadwinners and the kids are learning for their future.
At 4/18/07 09:22 PM, Debauchery wrote:
THERES NO FUCKING FRICTION IN SPACE! Once you get up to 100,000 miles an hour, you're gonna stay at 100,000 miles an hour.
Not technically true. Theres untold billions of minute dust particles. Every time you collide with one you slow down. Its negligable, but still exists. Just thought Id be pedantic.
Heres the other thing though. I forget what book it was that made the point (possibly deception point by Dan Brown) but why arent corporations sending manned missions into space? Surely there must be some profit in colonising the moon?
At 4/18/07 06:13 PM, zzzzd wrote:At 4/15/07 08:34 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:
Nonsensical, skewed bullshit
Attempt at reason
Man, youre talking to cellardoor6. Heres something that will save you a LOT of time.
1) Shut down computer.
2) Push chair back from computer
3) Turn to face wall
4) Strike wall with forehead
5) Repeat as necessary or untill unconcious.
Either way the effects the same
At 4/19/07 10:53 AM, morefngdbs wrote: Now I expect to have some of you point out, our sciences, music, etc. are great things mankind has developed
Thats because they are very valid points
None of that can take away from the murderous, prejudical, religious & self centered extremeism that is present everywhere on this planet.
Yes they can. They all do. It is animal instinct to preserve the self and any other being that is carrying your genetic material, especially through vilence to aggressors. The fact is humans have just become exceedingly good at it.
While this does not immediately explain religious extremeism and the like, if you think about it, other religions could be construed as a threat (in misguided minds, but then it tends to be the misguided ones that are extremeists)
The fact that humanity has begun to shrug off the animalistic instinct of the past and move towards helping others and building a better society is incredible. How many scientists woking on a cure for cancer actually have cancer? Thats not self-centred. They could esily make their money elsewhere, but curing a terrible disease is a worthwhile cause, and would benefit everyone.
Back to the topic though, why does everyone associate intellegent life with visits to this planet? If there were intellegent life up there, whats to stop them being at a pre - space travel level of development? They could be there, just minding their own business with nothing more than a wondering gaze skywards, same as us.
Im loathed to post this in general, because you tend to get the more intellegent people in politics.
Is it possible, in theory, to deconstruct molecules down to an atomic level and reconstruct them as more usefull elements.
I was reading another thread that put me in mind of a device in doom 3 that was made for that purpose. Granted its just a videogame, but what I wanted to know is Is the theory sound?
In the future, with a higher technology base, would it be possible? If not what are the barriers?
Think about it. Nuclear waste isnt a problem any more. Landfills will be olsolete. Exit gasses from power plants / factories could be trapped and turned into pure O2 before release. Most problems would be pretty much solved.
Please dont reply with all sorts of insults, I know nothing about chemistry / physics. My course is in computer programming. This is a genuine quest for enlightenment!
