DeathBug

[quote name='ShadO MagE']I would just like to point out the person denying Global warming, if the signature is not some sort of joke, is a conservative, therefor pro-big business. So logicaly he would deny global warming, because it costs the corporation more. (generalization based on the U.S. president''s actions.)[/quote] Soo...rather than give actual evidence for global warming, as others have done, you're going to tos stones at me based on a string of large assumptions. Good job there, Skippy.

The sciences that the global warming theory is based upon is shakey at best, and just as much evidence poiints towards it as points against it. It became accepted as fact in the '80's because it was an effective scare-tactic for enviornmentalist groups looking to increase their political power. Don't take any of it too seriously.

Well, then don't you forget the events of First Contact, where Piccard and Data managed to kill the Borg Queen and save not only all of hummanity from being assimilated, but the entire Federation as well, since at that point, the VUlcans didn't have the technology to defeat the Borg either, and their infestation would have spread. Granted, the Queen was in Voyager, but it wasn't explained if it's the same Queen, or if, due to the mechanics of time travel, she never died, since the events of First Contact wouldn't have happened had they returned before they left. But then you get into time travel paradoxes, and that's where I walk away.

[quote name='Lord Dante']klingon beats vulkan any day.[/quote] Well, hang on now. Spock still pwns, no matter what system of measurement you're using.

[quote name='Baron Samedi][size=1'] Ask yourself what kind of life it is to not know anything. Or to have no control over yourself. .[/size][/quote] Well, that could describe the condition of mental patients, the very old, the mentally retarded and alzhiemer's patients. Should we kill them?

I find that it's easier to become addicted to the simpler games than the more complicated ones. It's like there's a voice in your head telling you, "It's so simple: just get the frog across the street! Why can't I do it?!" Tetris owned me for two years...

I think Ken is a worse role-model than Barbie, all things considered. Ken has no job, no personality, no friends and no arm articulation. He's merely an accessory, with no more importance or personality that Barbie's inflatable loveseat.

I think it's worth mentioning that Picard is the only person in history to break away from the Borg collective and return to his original states. (Seven of Nine doesn't count; she breaks away from the collective, but she is clearly still a Borg.) He then went on to kick the crap out of the entire Borg race in "First Contact", and constantly outwitted an omnipotent master alien. (Q, who is an awesome character any way you look at it.) Piccard's crew is also far better than Kirk's; with the exception of Spock, I'd take Worf, Data, Riker, Geordi or Crusher at my back, rather thant McCoy, Chekov, Sulu or Scotty. And, yes, Wrath of Khan is a good movie, but let's look at some of the other first generation movies... Piccard pwns Kirk.

[quote name='ShadO MagE']In any other case I wouldn't say this. But if he truly think's it is wrong to keep her alive, against her wishes, then he should divorce her and let her parents take care of it. That or keep her alive until her parents die then take the feeding tubes out.[/quote] Well, the only person who claims that it's against her wishes is Mr. Schiavo, based on a conversation he claimed to have had with her prior to the accident. Thing is, he never once mentioned this conversation for [i]seven years[/i], and suddenly he saus she wanted to die. His announcement of this happened to coincide neatly with his new engagement. If this were a trial, we'd call that "reasonable doubt". {QUOTE]This isn't the first time this has happened. My grandfather did not want to be kept alive on machines when he was dieing, cancer, should the state have stepped in and told us he had to be?[/QUOTE] Apples make cider and oranges make sherbert. Your grandfather made the request to die himself; in Terri's case, the decision is being made for her by a man with curios motives. That is the important factor in this case: Terri is not making the decision. [QUOTE] The reason this is playing out in the media is purly political, with our fearless leader (President Bush) [/sarcasm] stepping in to pander to the christian conservative right.[/QUOTE] Damn those conservatives for doing things for the people who elected them! What, do they think they represent those people or something? The bastards! [QUOTE]truly conservitaves think the government should stay out of personal affairs.[/QUOTE] Well...I still haven't seen them doing anything improper. It is within the right of Congress to determine the jurasdiction of a case if they so choose; see Article III of the Constitution. The new judge upheld the former decision, and now the parents are taking the case to the Supreme Court. The only other legislature that's passing regarding this is "Sherri's Law" through the Congress. Where has the state made the decision?

[QUOTE=Japan][COLOR=Navy] If this was the case for all people with disabilities, our country will act much like the citizens in Sparta.[/COLOR][/QUOTE] No, our country would be acting like Germany in the '30's. Remember, Hitler "mercifully" killed all those with disabilities before he started on the infirm, the gay, and the Jewish. Yeah, that pretty much sums up my opinion on this case. It's a disgusting travesty, and, quite frankly, rather disturbing. It bothers me to learn the opinions of folks around me regarding this issue, and how many want to kill her.

[quote name='Arcadia][size=1'] Too bad for the females, though. Damn kids.[/size][/quote] Pity the females; they stay by the kids as soon as the eggs are laid, until they hatch. She doesn't eat during this time, and starves to death after the kids are hatched.

Wow, replies! Godel: I've never had to write a report for this professor before, and I never will again; so, I'm writing reports as I always do, and assuming that my audience only has basic knowledge of the concepts. Baron: My use of the phrase "dilly-dally" was from the octopus' perspective: from its point of view, the researchers' activities are useless and just odd; I was trying to avoid a conversational tone. James: In reference to the mythology, octopi and squid are often interchangable. For example, in the version of original "20,000 Leagues Under The Sea", there was an illustration of a creatures Vernes calls a squid, but the picture is clearly an octopus. However, my research was all involving octopi; I didn't get any information on squid. C_E: Yeah, I know there's been further study, but that information wasn't readily availible to me in time to write the report. Thanks for the feedback.

I think what's different now that marks social decay can be boiled down to two factors: a lack of responsibility, and a lack of shame. It's hard to suggest to people that things happening to them might be their fault, and it's equally hard to suggest that they should feel bad for certain things they do. The social trends if toward immediate narccisism.

Well, I can't comment on everything, but: Card names in Yu-Gi-Oh! aren't totally in Viz's control, because Konami/Upperdeck also have rights to them, and don't want their products "misrepresented", or whatever. Usually, what happens is that the card will be introduced by its trading card name, and then referred by its manga name for the rest of the book. It's not really Viz's fault. Similarly, there is a "Maximillion Pegasus Starter Deck", so they probably couldn't change his name either. And, from what I can tell, the humor in Shaman King is still there, or at least hasn't been blatently changed. ("They clanged Ryu's bells!) Hikaru No Go did have Tetsuo smoking a cigarette, and putting it out on a Go board. And I can't comment on the rest...

[quote name='duoikari']Oh, yer what about Greenday and Ozzy Osborne they all have families but they still keep up their showbiz life :animecry: , take Mr manson for insteads he going to get married but he still keeping his career going.[/quote] The decision to balance a career and a family is always a difficult one, and the circumstances are different in each case. I think Blink is doing their family a favor by dropping out of the limelight for the time-being, instead of turning them into a circus like Ozzy Osborn did. You can argue about whether or not their decision was valid or not all you want, but it still won't change anything. They apparently felt their careers were overwhelming their responsibilities to their families, and that's all there is to it. [QUOTE]And they have slit up, i have the Kerrang issue with it saying that they have gone a 'Highatis' or sometime and there is no signs of them ever working together again. It a good thing i went to see them when they played at wembley otherwise i'd have never seen them again. Also if you go on their website it says that have slit up[/QUOTE] A "hiatis" is a break; they've "split up" because they're going back to their respective homes and won't be working together for the time being. If they were breaking up, they would have used that phrase. ("Breaking up.) Are there signs that they won't be working together ever again? They don't have any projects currently; that's it. Again, I highly doubt that they won't get back together, simply because it's very profitable. And can you direct me to where on their site it said they'd "split up"? I couldn't find it.

They haven't broken up; they're on sabatical for at least a year. You have to keep in mind that these guys have been touring and producing almost continuously for a decade, and they've been neglecting their personal lives to do so. They're all married with children, so it's only natural that they'd want to spend time with their families. They haven't decided what they're going to do in regards to the future of their band, but I highly doubt they're through. At least, I hope they're not; their last album was excellent, and I wanted another in that vein.

Excellent point; you see, [i]a[/i] hurricane in Floridia isn''t odd at all. We have them every year, in what we can our "Hurricane Season". Four major storms (I believe all four of the names were retired) within a two-month period is incredibly odd, and was/is the subject of much discussion.

You know what's really crazy? Four hurricanes in a row. Yeah, us Floridians top ya'll. =P

I haven't noticed much editing in the SJ manga, mostly because they've obviously selected manga that correspond to the teen age-group. Let's see...there's death, violence, profanity, drug/alcohol use and sexual scenes; where's the editing? No, really, I'm curious. Anyway, if you're interested in Naruto alone, just buy the graphic novels. I subscribe to SJ, and buy the novels of my favorite manga in there. (Hikaru No Go, Naruto, Shaman King, Yu-Gi-Oh!, and Bleach).

This just be the report I've gotta' turn in to my Marine Bio Class. Privatly, I call it: [center][b]Octopi: Probably Smarter Than You[/b][/center] The popular image of octopi in the human imagination has been that of a violent, gigantic monster that poses a constant threat to intrepid sailors. As with many legends, though there is some basis in reality, the majority of this image is both exaggeration and fabrication. Ignoring the fact that most octopi are about the size of the average dog (or smaller, with a few exceptions), the entire temperament presented in these tales couldn?t be further from the truth. Not only are octopi rather timid when it comes to mankind, they are also thoughtful, sensitive creatures. They have demonstrated intelligence time and again; the question is, how intelligent are they? When one regards intelligence in animals, one has to understand that some creatures simply cannot be very intelligent for purely biological reasons. A frog, for example, does not have the physical brain necessary to demonstrate high intelligence compared to, say, an average mammal. Octopi, however, have physically large brains, for two reasons: their eyes and their arms. It takes a great degree of motor skill to control eight incredibly flexible limbs, especially considering that the arms serve not only as appendages but also as sensory organs; an octopus has an incredibly sensitive sense of touch. In addition, the octopus also contains a sophisticated eye, capable of focusing, dilating and perceiving color. The combination of the sophisticated eye and the complicated arms calls for a relatively large amount of brain matter to process information and effectively control these organs. The presence of more brain mass allows for the combination of more neural pathways, which allows for a higher degree of thought. It is also worth noting that the octopus? eye is incredibly similar to that of human beings and primates, and that the eight arms are analogous to our manually dexterous fingers and opposable thumb. Once it has been established that octopi is physically equipped for relatively high intelligence, their behavior must be examined, to see if the behavioral traits of intelligent animals are there. The octopus is a carnivorous predator, a group that generally displays more intelligence than herbivores; a wolf is much more cunning than the lamb it feeds upon. However, the octopus is also a solitary creature, which is a serious impediment to intelligence in a species. Social animals tend to pass on the knowledge they have to the offspring they raise, and pack hunters usually process complex hunting strategies that must take into account not only the prey, but also the abilities of the others in their pack. It has been suggested that intelligence is spurned forward by the need to solve social dilemmas (Humphrey, 1976), and the octopus lacks the social catalyst to develop further. The final limitation to an octopus? mental development is its short lifespan; the female octopus only lives until reproduction, or about two years. Males can live up to twice as long, but that is still only four years to develop, in isolation. As long as these factors remain in place, there is effectively a limit on how smart a single octopus can become. So, the octopus is essentially a creature that is both biologically equipped and biologically limited when it comes to mental development. However, given its limitations, the octopus is very intelligent, easily the smartest of all invertebrates. The octopus is an incredibly pragmatic creature, using their arms, ink, funnel, and environment?s resources to their advantage whenever necessary. Take the well-protected clam, a prey animal the octopus enjoys. If the octopus? strong arms and powerful sucker disks cannot pry the shell open, it will not hesitate to smash the stubborn mollusk against the rocks around them, or use the poison and enzymes from their beaked mouths to eat away at the muscles holding the shell together. Essentially, the octopus will do whatever is necessary to accomplish its objectives. This pragmatism is further demonstrated when the octopus is taken out of its natural habitat and placed in a controlled lab setting, in this case, a maze. The maze walls were clear plastic, and at the end of the maze was a delicacy: a lobster. The octopus could see the lobster, but soon understood that there was a barrier between it and its lunch. So, the octopus, knowing it cannot simply go forward, will spread its arms out in all directions, feeling the obstacle with its sensitive arms. When it feels a discrepancy in the wall, the level that opens the door in the wall, it investigates, manipulating the lever and opening the door. It repeats these steps until it reaches its goal. However, there is a clear limit to the cephalopod?s abilities. If an octopus is placed in the same maze, it does not remember the exact maze, and its order of levels and switches. It will repeat the same investigative actions, but it cannot be fully determined if this is because the octopus remember this scenario, or is merely reacting to the scenario without prior recall. At least, it cannot be determined based merely on this experiment. The answer becomes obvious when an octopus is observed in other situations, especially interacting with humans. Octopi tend to react to humans with a mixture of fear and curiosity, at least at first. When it determines that the humans mean it no harm, the octopus will usually feel this new creature with its arms, trying to perceive the human with its most pronounced sensory organs. (This is actually the biggest threat that octopi hold to human swimmers and divers; if the diver panics, the octopus can unintentionally cause him to drown by keeping him underwater. Octopi have been known to pull out divers? breathing masks in the process of feeling the diver.) Once the initial contact has been made, the octopus will generally ignore the humans, provided the humans ignore the octopus. If they pursue the mollusk, it will flee, retreating to its lair or any available crevice. However, what normally happens in the process of studying the creatures is that the researchers present the octopus with a crab or lobster to win the animal?s trusts and compliance. As time goes on, the octopus will actually approach humans, learning that treats may follow. In addition, the octopus will tolerate a great deal of, to it, useless dilly-dally on the part of the researchers, knowing the rewards that will follow. However, within their interactions with human researchers, several octopi have shown what can be called personalities. Some octopi are naturally playful, and volunteer for interaction far easier than shy, reclusive octopi that need constant attention and reassurance to cooperate. There are even aggressive octopi that will refuse to cooperate unless rewards are constantly presented, and become belligerent towards their handlers if they are not. Despite their inherent limitations, octopi are intelligent animals, even though their thought processes are far more alien to us than those of terrestrial mammals. Had they more longevity and a more favorable social structure, they might have had intelligence comparable to simpler primates, rather than rodents or domesticated pets. ---- Hope it was interesting reading.

Lately, I've found myself addicted to those new Butterfinger bars. You know, the "Crisps" with the waffers in them? I went through an entire bag of fun sized bars in an afternoon, then felt sick, then rationalized it as being worth the pain. I need help.

This evolved into a grammatical debate very quickly. Which begs the question: do athiests believe in grammar? Probably.

[QUOTE=Mitch] Think for yourself. Be your own individual. Don't let hoo-hah like this net you in and make you live such a lie of a life.[/QUOTE] Thank you, jackass. The person who has so little to do that he's taking the special time to demean on the basis of faith is telling us to not "live a lie"? If your useless, petty insults are all you can contribute to this conversation, then maybe you should go elsewhere. I'm sure your nihilism provides you with a rich, fulfilling life, so go live it somewhere else.

The irony of the question is not lost on me; a classmate of mine in high school once wore a shirt from the National Athiest Council. My only question was, since the only given common thread between these guys was their lack of a religion, then...what, exactly, do they do at meetings? Design the shirts? Anyway, to believe in the removal of all religions isn't a requirement for athieism; that tends to be politically motivated in the public arena. To answer your question, it's not a religion; it's really more akin to a philosiphy. Simply believing in something doesn't make it a religion.

Well, as a Christian, I place my faith in the Gospol, because, as was pointed out, it is said in Revelations to be the final revision of the Book; that division is what seperates our faiths. I believe that Mohammad was a great man, but I don't believe he was a prophet, because after Jesus Christ, all the prophesizing was over (According to the Christian faith.) Granted, this is not a matter of proof; it's a matter of faith. For example, your recitation depends upon accepting that an angel visited Mohammad. Now, to me, that's an acceptable foundation for the events, but again, I already believe in such things as an immaculate conception and Resurrection. A person who does not believe in any such things can't accept either of our faiths because they're based upon divine actions, which calls for the acceptance of Divinity. No Divinity, no acceptance. Now, if we're going to call into question the validity of any/all Holy Scriptures, I have to say, I know that all of them have been changed over the years. Recall how intermingled with politics religion has been over the past centuries; you cannot tell me that the scriptures haven't been changed, ever so slightly, to suit the needs of those in power. After all, an entire arm of Christianity was based upon a king's desire to divorce. So, the two points I'm getting at are: Belief in divine actions first depends on an acceptance of Divinity; you can't convince someone whose mind is closed to that possibility. Holy Scriptures contain the overall message of the faith, but due to the failings of hummanity, it is most likely they have been slightly altered over the centuries. Very nice thread.