AzureWolf

[COLOR=maroon]I've had [url=http://www.amazon.com/Nike-Converge-Laptop-Messenger-Black/dp/B000G1OLJ4/ref=sr_1_12/103-3670854-2306260?ie=UTF8&s=apparel&qid=1183915069&sr=1-12]this bag[/url] for quite a while now. I have the beige verison, which looks ten times better than the black one, although I couldn't find a picture of it. Messenger bags are great. They free up my pockets. I put everything in there, and consequently take it everywhere with me. The only things I keep out of my bag is my cell phone and, depending on where I am, the HBLR (for home), Metrocard (NJ-NY), or SmartTrip (DC) metro cards. Public transportation rocks when you have to move around a lot and don't like the smell of gas, haha. There's this one zipper pocket that's sits right against your back. It's a great breath of fresh air because it's harder for pickpockets to steal anything but really quick access for my keys, usb pen, and wallets. If there's something I want to do, I don't have to constantly make sure everything's secure or put away: everything that I may always has a space and not dependent on how many pockets my choice of clothes for the day has. I used to use those lanyards (and they still are on my keys), but the dangling became an issue when they would sometimes hit my face or other regions of my body that I'm sensitive about. I always wanted a wallet version when I used it, but could never bring myself to cut holes in my wallet.[/COLOR]

[COLOR=maroon]Lunox, everyone's favorite (in that disturbing, pedophilic sort of way) Korean gal to the rescue! That's a cute message. I'm hackneyed bilingual, in that I can't speak my native tongue, but understand it perfectly. I used to think that was weird, but thanks to Neuroscience, I actually understand how that could happen (knowledge is power!). I'm also moderate at reading and writing Latin, but that doesn't count. Languages, in general, I think are important to learn the "right" way, because otherwise it gets harder to progress and the level of potential fluency declines. That's how I am with Latin, and - well, it's hard to "unlearn" haha. Make sure when you learn a language, do it in an "immersive" style, not relying on your dominant language to learn a new one.[/COLOR]

[COLOR=maroon]IMO, I think you should put up a hentai forum. After a week at the most, everyone who fought for one will realize that it's nothing more than "oh yeah, baby, that was hot when x did the y right on the z using the iron lid with the casket for SSJ4." How one can hold a meaningful discussion about porn is beyond me.[/COLOR]

[QUOTE=Desbreko][color=#4B0082]Microevolutionary changes in a species don't require any new genetic information (DNA). The information required for an emerging trait, such as a bird's beak becoming harder or a human producing lactase, is already present in the species' DNA. Macroevolutionary changes, on the other hand, do require new genetic information. Larger scale changes, such as the evolution of birds from reptiles, would require huge amounts of new genetic information because reptile DNA just doesn't contain the information necessary for many avian traits.[/color][/QUOTE] [COLOR=maroon]Before the discovery of DNA, these definitions might have had some validity. To see if two creatures were from one species only required the mating of the two and seeing if a fertile offspring arose. However, once DNA came into play, the definition of a species became stricter: its genome, [i][B]which includes alleles[/B][/i]. By definition, if there's no change in the DNA, there is no evolution. If we are arguing semantics, it doesn't matter because change in DNA has been observed as well as no changes to DNA... And changes in gene expression happen all the time, day-to-day in our very bodies. We are not undergoing microevolution everyday. If we were to call this microevolution, then certain cancers are evolution, as are natural processes in our bodies. Natural, inherent responses to stress and other environmental factors has never been considered evolution. Evolution requires more than just an individual. If microevolution is just a phrase for what is natural adaptation, then the word is a useless pseudonym designed to confuse people. If I ran a marathon everyday, my body would ADAPT, not microevolve, to better handle environmental factors (altitude, hardness of ground, etc.) and my lifestyle (diet, etc.). Well, I did a quick google search, and although I couldn't find a publication (mostly because all these discoveries are really old), this guy is an Oxford dude. That's gotta count at least more than my word. [url]http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file021.html[/url] Nerdsy's definitions from the dictionary are a little easier to swallow, although I feel since the mechanism and underlying process are the same, that there's no need to differentiate. As for your question on a genetic link and two different species, Nerdsy, I read this article a long time ago (a year the latest). A quick and lazy google search turned up nothing, but I'm sure there were people saying some nonsense. Although technically expression of certain genes (and therefore proteins) are altered in extremely obese people (IL-6 and other inflammatory signals (google "is obesity an inflammatory disease" and I bet you'll find something)), I think they were talking about those who relied on their brains for survival versus those who relied on their bodies.[/COLOR]

[quote name='Jeremiah']Macro-evolution is the scientific creation myth...[/quote] [COLOR=maroon]The black-colored text is a link to evidence that proves to the contrary. Also, macro-evolution (or correctly, evolution) is the amalgamation of small changes over time. The theory of adaptation is not micro-evolution. Examples of a theory of adaption would be natural selection, nomogenesis, and even intelligent design (or, how evolution works). Again, if that was the difference between those pseudonyms, then there's no difference.[/COLOR]

[COLOR=maroon]Oh God (how fitting, hehe), I swear if I hear the pseudophrases microevolution and macroevolution one more time... Ok, there's no point in differentiating between the two freaking things because both are inherently the same. Secondly, I've been lazy in searching for it (and I still am), but [url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html]both have been observed[/url] (yes, those references are legit, but I'm lazy to look for online references which also exist). All these people whose only salvation to religion was the lack of macroevolution need to find some other, more honest way of keeping their beliefs in science and God harmonious. C'mon guys, you knew it was coming (technically, it came out decades ago, but you get the point). Phew, anyway,.. I don't know if mankind is going to evolve to adapt to the fat diets per say, but there has been belief that the more fit and the less fit, as the obesity trend continues, will eventually split into two incompatible species. The fundamental problem with certain trends and habits, such as fat diets, is that they are detrimental to all forms of life, so I don't know if evolution is called for in such a situation. Evolution tends to arise from a necessity to adapt, and having a bountiful amount of food and comfort is the opposite of that.[/COLOR]

[COLOR=maroon]What about a cushy medium? The actual finalization of any TV... thingy, is expensive and puts everyone in the red. The profits come from when people purchase the result. Producing the DVDs themselves are dirt-cheap, going for even - dare I say - three bucks and still getting a net gain compared to what it takes to make the DVD. So, you have three factors: Initial, flat cost of making DVD CONTENT: thousands-millions Cost of getting one DVD and putting created content: cents-2 dollars Pricing of DVD: 5-100 (you can add in TV airings or whatever, but the basic concept doesn't change) The key problem is overcoming that initial dip in $$$ from investing in anything, and it's expected that the net gain (dvd pricing minus cost of making dvd), with enough number of sales, will overcome that and even succeed significantly past what was lost. Based on the consumer base, the price is either high or low (small base, high; huge base, semi-high) A smart idea for a blooming industry such as anime in the US would be to promote early adoption of content, thereby increasing awareness and number of consumers. That is, have anime DVDs cheap upon initial release and then recoil to a flat, generic price afterwards. Fans will be tempted to buy early, and intrigued shoppers and people will have incentive to give things a try. Also, the illusion they are saving will make them buy more impulsively. Take it another way: the first DVD is dirt-cheap, and all additional DVDs are normal/reasonable prices. Same result. Of course, the main problem with this idea is that the actual content on the DVDs would have to worthwhile, which it's not. That's the main problem anime has: it sucks. I apologize for generalizing, but anime's content is weak and has little intrigue and originality. There's very little human connection involved, where people can associate with the show in some way. Those few animes that do have a more popular counterpart that does it better. The anime fanbase are mainly those who are proudly "different" from everyone else, and in this case, it's not a good thing. That is why prices must remain high for anime and smart marketing strategies cannot be implemented. You can confidently gamble with a good hand, but when you have a bad to ok hand, you might as well take the stable road with little reward and low chance of losing.[/COLOR]

[COLOR=maroon]Like all things, there are going to be ways a good thing can be used wrongly. I see online dating as a tool that can be used to make the more insecure and closed people of society a little more open. A step in the right direction if you will. But again, this can go too far. If they aren't using the internet as a stepping stone for socializing but instead a replacement, I can see the problems one could associate with it. Think about it: it'll be easier to handle a rejection online than in person, for both the dumper and the dumpee.[/COLOR]

[COLOR=maroon]Lunox, I've been in your situation, with a school I was dying to go to. I didn't get in, but 2+2=4 whether you go to Harvard University or Skank College. College is what you make of it, what you make yourself get out of it, and there is little (VERY LITTLE) effect which college you go to has on who you become. Do you think a Johns Hopkins dropout is any better than a Florida State dropout? How about all those people who earned Nobel Prizes and didn't attend Harvard? School rankings are overrated: the degree you get at one school is no less worthless than a degree at some other school. When you interact with people post-college, you realize this fact because they're no smarter or dumber than you. As far as those "perfect" students who don't get in, schools look for diversity these days. That's the key point: if you are a 4.0 bookworm with nothing "fresh" to bring to the school, that's much different than a 3.2 ex-LA gangmember who turned his life around and made his neighborhood a safer place for the sake of future generations (true example).[/COLOR]

[QUOTE=Lunox][color=dimgray] When people make this: [img]http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/5/58/250px-Zelda2005-Link.jpg[/img] into this: [img]http://xs313.xs.to/xs313/07135/zelda.jpg[/img] Goddamit. [/color][/QUOTE] [COLOR=maroon]Your avatar says different. :-P [quote name='ForgotteÑ-HerÖ']Something else that grinds my gears, people who start fight over pety reasons.[/quote] OMG! WTF is wrong WITH YOU?! CAN'T YOU SPULL RITE?! OMG, IT'S F###ING PETTY. TWO T'S. OMFG, YOU MUST BE THE BIGGEST JERK IN THE WORLD! MAKES ME WANNA FIGHT. All irony aside, what grinds my gears is when people brag about how they are unique or different. Most of the time, the people who say this are trying to say an unoriginal idea is somehow their original idea, or one they came to without knowing it was popular/mandatory/safe.[/COLOR]

[quote name='Aaryanna][COLOR=DarkRed']Well even though I'm fourteen and a virgin, I still have to counter with the statement, what's wrong with not being a virgin? Why is it so flaunted as being a good thing? I can understand from the standpoint of practicing safe sex, but to be a virgin just because of a religious idea that it somehow makes you better makes no sense. And I'm going off of what I got told over and over when I did go to church, as if losing your virginity was a complete and horrible sin unless you were married. [/COLOR][/quote] [COLOR=maroon]That's a very good point. It used to be embarrassing to be a virgin, and suddenly it's something to brag about. I remember the days (man I'm old!) when you kept it a secret that you were a virgin because it was cool to have gotten someone in the sack. Anyone else remember those days? However, I do see the quality and respect that goes with being a virgin, especially nowadays where almost no one demonstrates any form of self-restraint. Being a virgin shows certain qualities and characteristics that are regarded as rare and enviable. Why else do you think people who've either drank or had sex try to get those who haven't to do the same? It's because they lost the ability to boast certain traits and don't want people to one-up them or look better in any way (it's a subconscious thing, not intentional). Think about it: it's easy to lose your virginity. Even if you "try/sample" sex once or whatever, it's gone. On the other hand, you can not be a virgin very easily. Just let yourself go once or all the time. Anyone can do that, it's not all that impressive. That's all there is to it. I just realized the interesting wording: the "absence" of having sex is something you can "lose," instead of gaining sex or something like that.[/COLOR]

[COLOR=maroon]I like the non-intrusive look of Facebook. MySpace, however, was open to everyone far earlier than Facebook, and so most of my friends who don't have college connections in the states rely on MySpace. They aren't social website whores, so they only joined for the sake of staying connected, and are really just too lazy to switch over. Simply put, the timing for Facebook was poor.[/COLOR]

[quote name='2007DigitalBoy][COLOR=DarkOrange']A friend of mine thought of the best weapon ever. A squirtbottle full of AIDS-infected blood. If someone pisses you off, you pushe the nozzle in their mouth and watch them freak out. Sweetest revenge ever.[/COLOR][/quote][COLOR=maroon]Only downside to this idea is the potential *sod-dum-ee* backlash you'd most likely experience...[/COLOR]

[COLOR=maroon][url=http://www.metacafe.com/watch/291232/weapon_of_choice/]WORD is my weapon of choice![/url] I'm sorry, I couldn't resist! =D[/COLOR]

[COLOR=maroon]I've been in this situation (going through a similar one right now, in fact, although I'm only involved indirectly). At this point in time, you won't be able to get both: you get the girl, you lose your friend. You keep your friend, but in order to do so, you'll have to forget the girl. There's an old saying, "Bros before hoes." The reasoning is that girls will come and go (minus "the one" that is special to you), but your friends, thick or thin, will always stick around with you (well, unless you tried to date them, haha). The only way to get both is to wait your friend's crush out, and if it never runs out, then you won't be able to get her without losing him. Things might patch up between you two, but it'll always be different. Look at the worst scenario and go from there. Think about everything carefully and see if [B]a girl[/b] is worth your friend since she isn't [b]the girl[/b] (i.e., assuming worse-case scenario).[/COLOR]

[QUOTE][color=deeppink]My argument deals entirely with the morality of doing drugs. I'm perfectly fine with laws being made to keep save people from harm. Hell, I'd go as far as to say that it's immoral not to step in and save someone from harming themselves. But I don't think that self-harm is immoral.[/color][/QUOTE][COLOR=maroon]That's cool. But then, I have to ask: what's your stance on suicide? Shouldn't be done but not immoral? IMO, it's immoral, that's why I ask. ^^[/COLOR]

[QUOTE=Nerdsy][color=deeppink]*raises hand* I hate parties. They're loud, almost always have terrible music, everyone is obnoxious, and none of the activities hold any interest for me. I've actually gotten into (verbal) fights with people who keep trying to get me to go to one. I'd much rather curl up with a good book.[/color][/QUOTE][COLOR=maroon]So you dislike big, bad parties. Try some small, nice parties with only close friends, not people that have probably never met or only once seen each other in the hallways. I hate those parties too, but good parties are... well, good![QUOTE][color=deeppink]I simply don't see how taking drugs, even the most self-damaging ones, is immoral. The only thing I can think of is that they're illegal, but it is illegal to perform a puppet show in my state. I'd hardly call that immoral. That doesn't even concern drinking for those of age.[/color][/QUOTE]IMO, it's probably a bad choice of words that's making the problem in this thread. Maybe drugs aren't immoral at all. But, consider this: if you see a person running onto a street and going directly into a car's path, is it immoral to not do anything? Technically speaking, it's not immoral, but you should do something for the person. You aren't doing anything wrong, even if that other person is doing some type of harm to himself. Is it immoral to go out into the blazing cold to get medicine for a sick stranger even though you're the only one who can? Drugs are the same way. Sure, they aren't immoral per say, and people shouldn't care what others do per say... Yet there are a lot of drugs that, taken once, will define a good part of your life forever. Regardless of how many people who have done one drug fifty times and never experienced a side effect, that doesn't change the fact that others do experience them. LSD, for instance, is a drug that stays with you forever (ok, technically it doesn't, but its effects do). Relapses - however short or momentary - are forever imprinted in your head, waiting for a trigger to pull you back. It may not be addictive in the least, but your reality will never be... umm... real?[/COLOR]

[COLOR=maroon]Frankly, I doubt the situation is as bad as it seems to you. Everyone has stuff they complain about, but that doesn't mean they want some drastic changes to fix it. I'm sure if the parents adopted her, they won't be quick to toss him/her out. Everyone acquires different social experiences and views, so being "sheltered" isn't a big deal.[/COLOR]

[COLOR=maroon]I think it's more an article than a forum-esque post. Or maybe... his intention all along was to make us talk this pointlessly from the beginning![/COLOR]

[COLOR=maroon]Mom's are always right, especially when it comes to their own kids. You are a problem, and so you need to fix yourself and listen to your mom. Unless you want your family to break up, start being your mother's boy (or girl). You can wallow in your own self-pity, or accept it and change it. Be a man (or a woman).[/COLOR]

[quote name='Lonley Fighter']To simplify this...is everything that we feel and see actually real or just an illusion of the mind? :animeknow[/quote][COLOR=maroon]Well, if nothing else, everything that we feel and see is at least an "interpretation" of the real world. We have different systems for "detecting" reality, such as smell, touch... uh... and the other three senses. Anyway, all these forms of detection are ultimately transformed into a common form of information: electrical. One that the brain can interpret and submit to you, the conscious being. There's a condition whose name escapes me simply because it hurt my tongue. I remember agreeing to call it "syntaste" since that's so much friendlier to my mouth. It's a condition where one sees sounds and hears colors. Basically, the detection or processing parts of the two senses are switched, and... wikipedia it.[/COLOR]

[QUOTE=Lunox][color=dimgray] Retribution got it right, but I wouldn't say "no" to any theories of an ingrained fear for all humans. Although they would be mostly philosophical, because the only thing I can come up with is Jung's universal unconscious. Er, although that's more a literary thing. But to be more specific: pale beings=ghostly dark, sunken eyes=evil razor sharp teeth=able to injure you, or alludes to some animal beast elongated faces= unnatural Um, yeah.[/color][/QUOTE][COLOR=maroon]pen's=able to do you... hehehe [/potty mouth] There are ingrained fears, supported by the "baby + glass floor" experiment demonstrating a natural fear of unhealthy heights. Theories behind the source of such natural fears, such as Jung's, make for interesting discussion (how I'd love a psychology thread with peeps like Lunox - as well as with Koreans j/k). While we can be conditioned to face our fears and learn not to be afraid of these things, it doesn't mean they are unnatural. Of course, I'm just repeating what Retribution has already said. It's interesting to note that (supporting Jung's collective unconscious) as a species through time, our innate fears are shared. Freud's time had to deal with fear of hysteria, and hysteria itself. Come 1990s and 2000s, the innate fears such as hysteria seemed to have died away and made way for new scares, even though there are a lot of people in this world who have never met or interacted in any way. Hysteria simply disappeared, as did all cases of it.[/COLOR]

[quote name='Sara][color=#b0000b][size=1][i]Why in the sweet name of heaven would you want to do that?[/i][/color'][/size][/quote][COLOR=maroon]If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. Of course, I'm talking about the OP, not you, Sara. (or am I? *dun dun dun*)[/COLOR]

[COLOR=maroon]This reminds me of a thread from way back, where Transtic Nerve said "masturbation" as his spare time thing, which wound up with [B]EVERYONE[/B] saying that's all they do. It was funny as hell... ...which is where people who masturbate go to! *dun dun dun*[/COLOR]

[COLOR=maroon]Isn't it a little late in the year to bother even calling it 2006?[/COLOR]