Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 12/28/06 07:16 AM, The-evil-bucket wrote: Just out of curioustity, do you even know how many countries in the world are not metric?

Three. The United States, Liberia, and Myanmar.

According to:
http://lamar.colostate.edu/~hillger/internat. htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_system

On a side note, I do think we would be better off if we used the Roman mile instead of the English mile. I think 1000 double steps (5000 feet) is a nicer number for the weak of mind who find math too challenging. If we still used the rod, 5280 would make sense, though.

At 1/7/07 03:31 PM, Jose wrote:

At 1/7/07 12:01 AM, thatguy2 wrote: If the ever reinstate the draft, hopefully I will be able to get to Canada (on a side note I would have less of a chance getting picked because females will be involved in the selection process now).

Canada changed their draft dodging laws after vietnam. They catch you, they send your ass back to America, and you go straight to jail. Either buck up and go to war, or accept the jail time. It is one of the downsides of living in modern civilization.

That's why dual citizenship kicks ass. You can maintain it at least until you are 21, and if you dodge the draft by going to Canada as a Canadian citizen, you won't get sent back.

Let them-- as long as they do not approach other soldiers of the same gender.

One major flaw I am seeing over and over again is the assumption that big government equates to effective regualtion. This is completely and entirely untrue.

In no way does a large, bloated government ensure better regualtion or enforcement. In fact, it is only more likely to impede the investigation and prosecution of criminals and weakened the ability of the government to react coherently to a problem.

In truth, the size of a government has very little effect on the ability of that government to regulate, with the exception of available manpower in extreme cases. A small government is superior for the things government actually effects, such as the efficient spending of money, successful research, and civilian prosperity. Regulation has nothing to do with it.

You call that "hard right," Begoner? That's called public opinion. I question your perception of the primary ideological viewpoints and your belief that any bias at all requires an absolute stand against public opinion on specific issues.

Also, I do not believe most of your demands are reasonable, such as your demand that the news outlets should have called Bush a liar when we attacked Iraq when no one was aware of the unreliability of the Intelligence we had received.

Your own bias, however, is blatantly obvious. Perhaps the news media is the "hard right" to you because you are the "hard left" and the media is too moderate for your tastes.

At 1/5/07 06:47 PM, Begoner wrote: opposing viewpoint to the hard-right one offered by most mainstream news channels.

. . . how old are you again? I am quite sure that most mainstream news channels do not favor the hard right. Or really, the right at all.

That poppyseed thing is a myth. You would have to eat absurd amounts of poppy seeds (twenty plus pounds of the seed alone or something) for it to register as opium in your blood.

Employers do drug testing for plausible deniability. "Oh, my employee is doing cocaine, heroine, and marijuana and ODed yesterday? Well, we had no idea! He passed the drug test!"

At 1/3/07 12:37 AM, candymancan wrote: Why should they get higher pay when they're not even doing their job?

I can't even count the number of unconstitutional laws they've let go by in the past couple of years, not to mention the fact that they legalized gay marriage, which was none of their business to begin with, because it wasn't a legal matter.

What the hell are you talking about? They can only declare things unconstitutional if they arrive as a case in front of the Supreme Court. They don't have a choice about those laws until that point. They never legalized gay marriage, either.

So what are you talking about?

At 1/2/07 10:00 AM, tawc wrote: I don't understand why americans hate france, The way I see it is that france is americas first and greatest ally,

But they aren't. France was never our ally, and in part the anti-French sentiment is a reaction to the false belief that they assisted us. The French just continued their own feud with Britain, they weren't our allies in any sense except as enemies of our enemy.

Currently, most anti-French sentiment comes from the stark cultural and ideological differences between our nations. France is the birthplace of Communism, and still an active supporter of Socialistic policies. Americans hate that. Their ideas are polar opposites of our own on most issues, so Americans make rude jabs at them occasionally, although the sentiment never hardens into bigotry.

3,000 deaths is significant, but practically nothing. More than 168,000 civilians have died from car crashes alone in those four years; nearly 10 million Americans died in that same time. How many of those deaths are mourned to this degree in the media? By anyone not close to the individuals, even?

3,000 deaths is significant because any death is significant, but it is actually a very small number considering the situation. It is something to be proud of, even though we mourn it.

Uh, no.

Being racist is much worse because it is you who are making bigoted decisions based on unsupportable, unfair opinions and who refuses to change. Do you not remember that entire era we went through just to pound this point into people's heads?

At 12/28/06 09:20 AM, The-evil-bucket wrote: Some people just have the kind of body that most people consider "fat". They are born that way and it's almost inpossible to change that. Would you like to give up Newgrounds in order to have enough time to work out in the gym?

I don't buy it. You are not born fat. Yes, during childhood and puberty there are natural patterns of weight change, such as gaining significant weight for three months, then growing several inches and losing the weight in the process one month later, but there is a limit to what is "natural."

Anyone who becomes obese as a child is not just born with that "kind of body." Obesity is a life-threatening state which practically cuts a child's lifespan in half if they do not fix it. Overweight, etc. are reasonable, but there is a limit, and beyond that no excuses can be made; action must be taken instead.

At 12/28/06 06:00 PM, packow wrote: But arresting millions of people for not harming anyone DOES serve a positive purpose? It's been proven countless times that the war on drugs has not even put a dent in drug use, why continue ruining otherwise productive and harmless lives?

And when did I ever say I supported the "War on Drugs"? I think it is a poorly managed, pathetic waste of money that would be much better used the in the NASA budget. But I don't support any positive legislative actions towards marijuana, either-- at most, it is a neutral thing, an issue to mostly ignore, but not something that should be legalized.

There is no law against abusing medication. It's not good, but there's no law against it. Don't make up shit. And there's a difference between recreational use and ABUSE.

Yes, actually, there is a law against abusing medication. Just as there is a law against obtaining perscription-only medications without a perscription.

Recreational use is abuse for virtually all drugs-- marijuana included, alcohol not except for binge drinking and parties.

You can't become physically addicted to marijuana or harmed in the long term, unlike many perscription drugs.

That's a lie. You can become addicted, and be harmed, regardless of how propagandists paint it. I've seen it happen first hand for both marijuana and perscription medications.

Except for the fact that the vast majority of DOCTORS (not politicians, DOCTORS) support the legalization of cannabis for medicinal purposes.

Only in California, bud. Also, "medicinal purposes" is far different than recreational use, the real goal of pro-Marijuana activists. We can't ignore that "medical purposes" is only a stepping stone to a later legalization in this argument.

You're very uninformed, and It makes me nervous that anyone (especially people like you) can just say anything that sounds like it makes sence and ruin people's lives.

Ruin whose life? The people stupid enough to start smoking marijuana? No one forced them to do it, and according to you, nothing is stopping them from doing it. If they get screwed over by their own decisions, they hurt themselves-- and if they're not hurting anyone else by what they do, didn't you say we should leave them alone?

At 12/27/06 05:15 PM, SolInvictus wrote: keeping what i said valid and relevant.

Regardless of what minor point you were addressing, you logic is wrong. There is a distinct, unignorable difference between each of those substances. Tobacco is nowhere near mind-altering, nor is caffeine, they are simply stimulants. Alcohol can be considered effectively mind-altering at high levels, but it is really only a depressant. Marijuana is a stragiht up mind-altering drug.

At 12/26/06 06:52 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 12/26/06 06:34 PM, TheApple wrote: But because Marijuana makes you high, it can't be legal.

with that logic technically alcohol should not be legal either.

Alcohol is a depressant that is valued primarily for its minor consumption effect-- you don't have to get totally drunk, and most people don't. It is more safe than water and has a completely different effect and set of consumption circumstances, so the "logic" of marijuana does not apply to alcohol at all.

Nonetheless, binge drinking is actually discouraged and in many places around the world, like Britain, new laws are being made to fight against it. Also, drunk peoploe are not allowed to drive or do many activities.

no more tobacco because it can give the smoker a mild buzz and energy from the nicotine,

Tobacco is on the way out. Ohio recently approved a statewide ban on smoking in public places. Legislation is tearing down tobacco companies. It's dying, slowly.

coffee would have to go because it stimulates and gives one energy

Logic? You call that logic? Caffeine is a stimulant-- it makes you more active, not a strung-out washout. I disapprove of it personally, but it is in no way similar to marijuana and actually serves a positive purpose in our country.

and forget things like prozac and other medication, we certainly can't have people feeling anything.

Don't be a fool; all medication has usage limits, just like alcohol where a little bit is fine but too much is bad. If you abuse medications, you are breaking the law. If you use only the recommended dosages, you can't become addicted and you are operating within the law.

Notice also how most medications require a need first before a doctor will prescribe it to you-- no recreational medications.

Marijuana is illegal because it is not like alcohol or medications. It has no positive purpose, it only has one state, it is a smoked substance, and it makes you high. It's illegal because it has the wrong traits.

At 12/25/06 06:37 AM, Shawtey wrote: yeah... where thew fuck did 212 and 32 come from?

0 degrees Farenheit is the lowest temperature achieveable by a salt/water mixture before it freezes. In the real world, that translates to the temperature at which road salt ceases to function. 100 degrees Farenheit is the approximately the hottest summer temperature reached in England during the Enlightenment era.

212 and 32 are coincidental-- the boil of water is entirely irrelevant because you're dead if it gets that hot (and that's only the boiling point at sea level). The 32 is only important as an approximate value-- water will begin to freeze at higher temperatures and remain a liquid at lower temperatures; the ground temperature also influences the freezing of water, but that rarely is measured.

The point of the Imperial system is that it is based on human experience, something every human can relate to and easily deal with, while Metric is based on two points almost completely irrelevant outside of science. Kelvin is much better than Celcius in terms of science, though, so even for that use Metric is flawed.

100 and 0 makes alot of since ... this way when im talking to a Canadian friend and i go god damn its 104 degrees outside they wont think water is boiling when in reality its just fucking hot...

What kind of idiot would make that mistake? You're dead by 60 degrees Celcius. Humans will never experience that temperature.

At 12/24/06 08:09 PM, leelee974 wrote: Because african americans have been stolen, enslaved, raped, murdered, and oppressed by the white man. The white man auctioned off family members during slavery breaking apart families. Shit segregation hasn't been illegal very long.

"The White Man"? No. Not "The White Man." It was white, Southern, middle and upper class people during a single century just prior to a massive, violent purging of those people from the US. It was the Democrats (the party of slavery, or didn't you know?) and the frightened, humiliated poor white workers. It was not "The White Man."

Most of the white population of the US is from immigrants after the Civil War. Very few people who can trace their ancestry to that era still exist. Beyond that, the same is true for hte black population-- most of them never even had a single ancestor in slavery. It's all a sham based on racism-- by both the blacks and the whites of modern times.

At 12/23/06 03:05 PM, Neoptolemus wrote: The fact of the matter is many scientists are estimating the cut off point (which is if we act after that we cant stop it) as being in about 20-30 years.

But those scientists are completely wrong. They really have no idea at all how the environment will change, as demonstrated by their complete surprise at the reappearance of El Nino this year, and the recently measured cooling of the world's Oceans by 0.1 degrees Celcius. The weather this winter is based on El Nino, not Global Warming at all. Those scientiss don't know anything about what will happen.

At 12/22/06 03:11 PM, teh-God-Father wrote: But then again, you have to remember that women are physically inferior in every way compared to a man.

And that, there, is the bigoted root of the problem. This absurd belief in both men and women that women are naturally inferior in every physical sense except for flexibility. It simply isn't true. It is true that men often work out more, and 18-22 men are strong, but women can be equally as strong, just very few do strength workout routines to become strong. It would be entirely correct to assume that, instead, many of those women are doing "beauty" routines while the men workout.

At 12/22/06 02:40 PM, TheMason wrote: Then early Christians in Rome decided to move the feast (which they were celebrating BEFORE moving it to December 25) to coincide with the birth feast of the Sun God that the then Roman Emperor was worshipping to make it more palatable to the Romans for a variety of reasons.

Actually, that date is not so much important as the date of a Roman festival, but because it was the winter solstice under the Julian system of dates. Under the Gregorian system, which we now use, December 25th is no longer that same date.

At 12/14/06 07:32 PM, plasmasnake1 wrote: but we dont know if the universe is expanding because what we are seeing right now is what we see now is what was happening 30 billion years ago or whatever

We can observe the doppler shift of the incoming light and date the light based on how far it has travelled, so we do actually know that the expansion is speeding up.

At 12/12/06 09:54 PM, Elfer wrote:

At 12/10/06 04:12 PM, Excalibur27 wrote: Well, this is pretty stupid.

your aware your arguing ease of measure vs ease of calculation.

Its unwinnable from either side.

No, metric is easy to measure with too. We're arguing ease of calculation versus random shit that makes no sense.

No, you're wrong. Imperial is much easier to measure, and the system already in use. Even if we convert to Metric now, it would be a century or more before we could actually stop using Imperial, and maybe not even then.

At 12/12/06 06:15 AM, internet-lord wrote: What do you think it would be like when humans reach the edge of the universe

We can't. Technically, the "edge" is the farthest distant photons from the origin. We can't travel faster than the speed of light, so we can never reach those photons.

At 12/11/06 11:36 PM, JaredC4 wrote: First off I'd like to say, no one has actually stated Religion for what it is, a theory, aka, the theory of God, or Gods.

Not even close. It is not the "Theory of God" at all, but the Axiom of Deities.

A theory requires an observation first, then proof supporting that explanation for those observations. Religion is founded on the assumption first of a deity, then on justification of the world based on that assumption; proof is actually frowned upon by most religions!

Some of you have spent all this time saying "Oh there's no proof, so your talking BS" when clearly, you haven't looked at what you are saying or imposed the same restrictions on your own arguments.

And where, specifically, do you see that double standard? The entire problem here is that believers don't apply the restrictions of logic and proof to Religion, but demand it for everything else.

Anyways... uhh, self replicating RNA molecules arose from the basic elements present in what has been coined the primordial soup on well..primordial Earth, laboratory tests have been carried out mimicing these conditions (high pressure, heat, UV, etc, etc) and very basic self replicating molecules have been produced.

Wrong. No self-replicating molecules have ever been produced through such attempts, and the closest anyone has come is the creation of organic molecules in one controversial (and essentially disproven, at this point) set of experiments that no one could replicate. We are still very unsure about the exact composition of the ancient Earth atmosphere.

All in all, every discovery anyone ever makes will only inevitably lead to more questions, so where does it all end? God? sure, whatever allows you to sleep at night and not worry about all the molecules in your body flying apart in a million directions as all your ionic bonding systems crumble under your failed logic.

Paragraphs next time, please.

This is a demonstration of Democracy in action. No matter how much you say "Those people should just go elsewhere," that is a major inconvenience, and you can never be sure what you receive from restaraunts. If the people want to force restaraunts to make healthier cooking choices to promote the general health of consumers and increase the ease of eating healthy, that's perfectly fine.

At 12/11/06 09:55 PM, 1flyboy wrote: hell not 1 person has ever died from it i think it shude be leagle

Not one person has ever died from my Deathray of Doom. I should be allowed to build it!

Sorry, but that's just a pathetic justification for allowing something. Marijuana is unnecessary, a smoke-based substance, and mind altering; I say leave it in the trash. The only reason to legalize it is if you are an addict (or want to be one) and want to justify yourself and protect your substance.

At 12/11/06 03:07 AM, EKublai wrote:

At 12/9/06 09:46 AM, cold-as-hell wrote: Prove that he does exist

Just think it would be fun to try the other side for once. :)

But that's not "the other side." It's always believers demanding that non-believers disprove their deity, since the believers have created a foundation of "truth" based on non-proof, and they even brag about their lack of proof. It is always the other people, the ones who want proof, who are burdened with disproving something which should even be assumed in the first place.

What do you think the last one was about? It was the urbanized North against the rural South.

But no, there isn't going to be another civil war.

At 12/3/06 06:20 PM, DaveTheBarbariaN wrote: The difference between a woman slapping you and a man punching you, is that the women isn't "fighting" you, she's just expressing her anger and getting all mad. She's not trying to beat the shit out of you.

Did it ever occur to you that a woman might punch? You're sexist, and you beliefs cloud your view of reality. Women can be and are just as physically capable as men in fights, and no one "slaps" anymore-- this isn't the 1850s.

Sorry, but it's been proven that buttered toast has an equal probability of landing on either side. The reason people most often see it land on the buttered side is because they start with the buttered side up, then tip it off their hand and it does not have time for a full rotation. When dropped from a random side at sufficient height, the butter is negligible.

Also, cats do not always land on their feet. Only when the cats have a controlled fall can they twist their bodies to orient their feet to the ground. If the cat does not twist for some reason, or does not have control, then it will hit randomly.

Going even further, if you attached butter toast to a cat's back then either side can hit the ground because technically the other side is not actually landing on the ground. Since each statement is false, and the situation itself is irrelevant, then no paradox exists.