16,951 Forum Posts by "RedSkunk"
I'm going to Oktoberfest. I don't care if the only people who actually go to it are American / Japanese tourists. I'm still one of the select few.. tourists. ;-)
At 9/8/05 02:49 PM, Engelsman wrote: America will probably go through loads of different currencys like over here. (guinea, crown, florin, shilling, groat etc)
You people use goats? YOU SICK FUCKS!
At 8/26/05 11:51 PM, _FLAGG wrote: I hate to be the asshole everyone always forces me to be...but what's everyone's problem with the IQ test?
And, if the IQ test is 'insufficient' for measuring intelligence...what is an adequate measure of intelligence? How do we 'tap into the full intelligence of one's mind' (as someone felt the need to put it)?
The problem with IQ tests is summed up in one of the comments following the story:
Let's not ignore the fact that researchers believe about 20-25 IQ points are influenced by environmental factors. And the fact that test scores are adjusted for gender anyway as males tend to score higher on some factors and females on others. This is not a pure measure of intelligence, but a human-devised Western (and usually male and white) instrument.
Flo, Malvern, England
Environmental factors. Say, gender, race, geological location.
An adequate measure of intelligence? I can't immediately think of one. There are too many ways to measure it, too many avenues for intelligence to take. There is virtually no way to have a comprehensive 'test' to measure intelligence. In my opinion.
At 8/26/05 12:24 PM, LadyGrace wrote: I think it's just like studies finding whites are smarter than blacks. blah blah blah
Maus said it more succinctly, but you were both spot on.
I didn't bother reading the second page.
Now, the last part of Shrike's post was more interesting. I'm not sure men would simply "forget and move on" if a study found the opposite -- there are tons of dumbasses who would pitch a fit. But... Surely you must understand why the difference in response, Shrike. Even if you don't necessarily agree with it. A study like this upholds past gender roles -- it condones a male-dominated society. Just as in race relations, you'll always get a bigger outcry if you go along with past injustices (instead of imaginery ones like placing, say, women or blacks over their counterparts).
I was not very clear, but it's late and I don't have time. Take it as you will. =]
At 9/6/05 03:47 PM, specimen56 wrote: ICH BENUTZE EINEN ON-LINE-ÜBERSETZER, Ich KANN Nicht An ein WORD DES DEUTSCHEN Mich ERINNERN!!!
ICH VERSTEHE NICHT! MEIN DEUTSCH IS SEHR SCHRECKLICH! ICH SPRECHE IM GROSSE WORTEN!!
At 9/6/05 03:43 PM, specimen56 wrote: NEIN! SIE SPRECHEN DEUTSCHES!
wow... my german is really sucks... I can't remember a word of it... Or how to use it gramatically...
SPRICHST DEUTSCH DU! ALLES! SCHNELL!
At 9/3/05 08:13 PM, ThemonkeyonNG wrote: No matter what, smoke + in your body = no good
Partly true, however it's not just a matter of "good" or "bad". You know how much smoke you inhale just walking alongside the road?
In regards to the "safe" cigarette idea -- it's already been done. In multiple ways. The most recent attempt that I've heard of, are cigarettes made out of.... eh.. corn? Some vegetable (I can't immediately google it because a search for "safe cigarettes" nets a whole lot of other crap, understandably). The ingredients are entirely a vegetable, and while, yes, you do get some of the carcinogens from the smoke, they are much more healthy than your typical store-bought smokes.
also, you can't really make a "SAFE" cigarette because its the nicotine in the tobacco which gets people addicted... you'd have to come up with something as addictive, and have it be safe...
This is also somewhat untrue. People aren't only addicted to the nicotine -- most are addicted to the very act of smoking. It is soothing. Something to do with your mouth, and your hands. This is why people who try to quit smoking sometimes chew gum or have those stress balls. So they have something to do. And this is where a "safe" cigarette could come into play.
Good topic rugby, made me chuckle. =]
Wow, you're all incredibly stupid.
I read the same article earlier today.. Eh, I'm skeptical. I don't expect any new-found balls to last long.
At 9/5/05 05:01 PM, -Illustrious- wrote: Skunk, that's great. I would have loved the opportunity to study abroad. Are you in the Rhineland, or are you studying elsewhere in the nation?
Mein gott... When I type in google.com, it automatically redirects me to google.de...... Anyways.. I'm in the extreme SW of Germany (red dot). Coincidentally, I have a HS friend in the military, who is currently stationed in Germany (blue dot). It's only about 100mi away. Say.. forty minutes on die autobahn 6? =P We're definitely meeting up sometime, go to a biergarten or two.
Yeah, looking back I'll prolly be glad I went. But right now, I'd give anything to be back in the states. It's not that I miss anyone -- or anything -- in particular. In the US I can walk around cities I've never been before, and feel at home. But here.. I think the primary reason I'm not enjoying myself right now, is just this feeling of being so utterly helpless, barely being able to speak the language. Of being so foreign and alien. It's not even that different from back home. The weather, the trees, the occasional pasture of cows. Hell, the people feel the same until they open their mouths....
Meh. I just wish I could find the thing I had read about the various emotional states one goes though. Because I'm definitely in a lull, although I thought people were suppose to peak at first. =\
At 9/5/05 03:57 PM, Gunter45 wrote: And since when did Germans discover the computer, I thought America kept it a secret.
I brought one with me by mistake... You know, they are a very industrious people. With this technology, I think some more of you might want to start learning the language....
Hey, they have the internet on computers -- in Germany! ... Finally.
Fairly fast connection in my room, sure as hell beats my home dial-up.
ng still sucks though. (<3 luff)
less regulars too
I miss America... really, really, really bad...
Hell, I'll quote the applicable section:
The world's glaciers have, on average, lost more ice than they have gained over the past century, so they have a "negative mass balance". This meltwater inevitably makes its way into the oceans, where it contributes to sea level rise. Estimates from thousands of gauges throughout the world suggest that sea level has been rising about 2 mm a year for most of the century. Most of this sea level rise is due to thermal expansion of the ocean as the world warms, but glaciers also make a significant contribution.[8]
While it is clear that overall mountain glaciers are losing mass, some of the Earth's glaciers are growing. However, this is not inconsistent with projections of human-induced climate change because precipitation is expected to increase in the high northern and southern latitudes in response to warming temperatures. High latitude precipitation has increased over recent decades9; in some cases this could have counteracted the loss of glacial mass due to warming.[9]
At 8/27/05 04:04 PM, Jordannguyen wrote: yes i see that temperature may be a bad example...but what about the growing of glaciers?
Well, for one.... It's not true.
At 8/27/05 03:29 PM, Jordannguyen wrote: more glaciers have been growing than glaciers that melt -
-from 1986 to 2000 antartica has cooled .7 C per decade
-radar shows antarcic ice is growing at more than 26.8 gigatons per year in the west
im saying all of this because 90% of all the glaciers on the earth are in antarctica...actually....antarctica has been melting for 6000 years.....but recently it has been cooling and creating more glaciers....
Changes within a decade or two are meaningless when talking about this subject. Additionally, you can't just look at temperatures at certain parts of the globe. "Global warming" will create much more than warmer temperatures. It involves more 'extreme' weather overall. Which will mean harder, sometimes colder winters as well.
But, to reiterate, a fourteen year old period is meaningless when talking about general trends.
At 8/27/05 03:22 PM, specimen56 wrote: I think (but don't quote me on this) that the earth is supposed to be in the same place as we were in the first ice age (in relation to the universe), which could explain the shift in temperatures, which has a knock on effect with the CO2 rising...
Think it would have such a large effect in the last two hundred years? And that it's a complete coincidence that it happened exactly when humans began producing monumental amounts of emissions?
At 8/27/05 03:08 PM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote: Cuba is a Communist state isn't it? America Hates communism so it does sor tof make sense to try and hinder Cubas progress...but syaing that I don't think they've done anything to china have they?
In the rhetoric, of both America and Cuba, it's communist. But in reality, it's not. Economic stratification, goods not equally distributed, a monetary system.... Not communism.
Neither is China. But you brought up a good point. We don't punish China for pretending to be communist. We trade freely with them. And they are beginning to liberalize their economy. A result of being greatly involved in the global economy perhaps?
At 8/27/05 03:10 PM, specimen56 wrote: Mkay, I'm gonna say something thats probably gonna get me flamed, but what the hell.
From what I understand there is no evidence of the o-zone layer depletion being caused by the rise of CO2 emmosions.
The hole in the ozone layer was caused by chemicals in old aerosol cans. These chemicals, CFCs, was banned in most of the world, a decade or two ago, and the hole is now decreasing in size. Rising CO2 emissions creates more "ozone", however it is much lower in the atmosphere, and creates a multitude of problems. Different problems.
At 8/27/05 03:02 PM, red_skunk wrote: In the past 100 years, the temperate has gone up closer to .7 or .8 a degree, celsius,
Silly me. Substitute "global temperature" for "temperate", and here is the pesky ol' source.
And to make this post-worthy, let me include another pretty graph.
Here's that "inconsequential" temperate change, in perspective.
At 8/27/05 02:44 PM, -TheRat- wrote: K, I'm a meteorologist student, I don'y believe Global Warming is much of a problem.
mmm.
In the past 100 years, the highest a temp has gone up is .5 degrees. Not a lot if you ask me.
In the past 100 years, the temperate has gone up closer to .7 or .8 a degree, celsius, and that's a very large increase in a very short amount of time. If you ask me. Oh, and the bulk of the scientific community, some who must be at least a little more worldly and educated on the subject. Than either of us.
No, it's really happening. And a large part of it is human caused. This is all accepted by the bulk of the scientific community.
The only thing in question now is how to respond.
Ripped from cubacentral.com:
Throughout his first term, and now moving forward into his second, President Bush has acted, again and again, to tighten the regime of sanctions against Cuba, punishing both Cubans and Americans.
The President has taken these steps in spite of growing public and Congressional support in favor of easing restrictions on travel, travel, trade, and other forms of contact between Cuban and American people. Some of these actions by President Bush include:
* Targeting academic exchanges by eliminating all study abroad and University sponsored trips shorter than ten weeks.
* Blurring the line between church and state, by granting religious licenses only to those individuals and groups who stated purpose of travel conforms to the official U.S. policy on regime change.
* Punishing Cuban Americans with families still in Cuba by cutting the permissible number of trips from one per year to once every three years. In addition, travelers may no longer obtain permission to visit family members outside their immediate family (parents, grandparents, children, and spouses), and no provisions or exceptions have or will be made for emergencies such as serious illness or death.
* Placing extreme limits on direct humanitarian aid, by limiting travelers to Cuba to carrying no more than 44 pounds, and the amount of cash that can be carried by family members for the purpose of direct aid has also been slashed from $3000 to a paltry $300.
* Denying routinely applications for visas to travel to the United States by Cuban writers, painters, musicians, and dancers.
* Clamping down on the sales of food by American producers to Cuba. Although a cash-for-food system was introduced following Hurricane Michelle in late 2001 that allowed for the sale of both food and medicine, this program has been tightened such that U.S. carriers can no longer even leave port in Cuba before being paid in full.
* Eliminating completely the category of "hosted travel," by which individuals could travel to Cuba if their expenses were fully covered by a host.
What is the purpose of cracking down on Cuba today? Can anyone think of any other reason than to try and win votes from Cuban-Americans in Florida?
Is this a worthwhile political issue? Focusing on punishing Cuba? This policy seems to only hurt the Cuban people. It also isolates Cuba from America, stopping economic and democratic reforms from taking place.
What's the point?
THEYSE VUH-GINAS R SIDEWAYZ!
At 8/18/05 01:02 AM, TheShrike wrote: Including before you or I came along. This BBS is like watching a dog vomit, then eat it, then vomit again... ad nauseum.
Yeah, basically. But when you're new here, the whole dog vomiting bit is "cool" and "exciting", so you don't notice that it's vomiting all over your shoes. *shrug*
At 8/18/05 11:51 AM, Proteas wrote: This place lost a lot of steam after the last major American Presidential election. Ever since then it's been kind of a rehash of old topics.
"Ever since then"? You're a funny guy Proteas.
At 8/18/05 08:51 PM, BrickMurus wrote: I highly doubt that I would have garned as much animosity as this person.
That's what you think. =]
-
Can't wait to get the hell out of Dodge. Less than two weeks. I'm sick of my parents, I'm sick of work... And I don't see the few friends that I'm not sick of, enough. I think I figured it out - I really do hate people. Not individuals, just collectively. Individually, I can't think of anyone I really, truly hate. But in groups, man..
