Red

The problem with free speech lies in interpretation. Anybody could, and should, have any view they wish - how it's perceived by other people when they proclaim it is normally where difficulties stem. I don't necessarily agree with a troupe of Neo-Nazi's repeating histories mistakes, but that's just my opinion. They have every right to voice their opinion under the idea of free speech, just like everybody else can have a go at things they don't agree with by using their own views.

My theory is that if you want to spend all your time making theories and trying to deduce reasons as to our existence, you're wasting your time. The best answer to the meaning of life or why we're here, for me, has always been Hitchhiker's 42. Personally, I have very little respect for religion, or a desire to join one. My mind remains open about whether or not there's such a thing as God, but I'm not going to constantly ponder as to whether or not he/she/it exists. It's not like I can whip out the ol' deity detector, wiggle it & wait for the beep, then start asking myriad questions about the meaning of life, so I'll just keep on living mine. Who knows, maybe there is an afterlife, where the bread never goes mouldy and country music doesn't exist - but the beauty of that perception is that there's only one way I'll ever find out, and (hopefully) it will be a long time before I receive that answer. We all could have some massively grand purpose for being here, not that we know what it is, even if we were to fulfil it. Until we're specifically told what that purpose is (if there's even one in the first place), we won't know. There is certainly no religion, person or group that can be sure of what we're here for.

[quote name='Harry']You do realize that the gulf of mexico was very active like this from around 1900-1960, and then stopped around 1970? Care to explain your theory on this or keep up your knee jerk reactions?[/quote] If you're talking about weather activity, I would've included that were I not replying to single quotation. Or a knee-jerk reaction, whatever you want to call it. All I was basing my argument on is the fact that nothing outside of natural occurences has ever caused global warming before. I can only assume that the thirty (?) odd landfalls that took place are due to the temperature cycles the Atlantic ocean undergoes every few decades, one of which we are supposedly in now (from the beginning of 1995). They have been discussed and 'reported' as far back as 1700. I'm not exactly a climate expert though (and I never claimed to be particularly knowledgeable, merely citing what I've observed or read). At the same time, even the experts are debating the causes of irregular extreme weather patterns that take place all over the world. One thing that's generally accepted is that global warming means warmer waters. What can result in hurricanes? Edit - forgot to mention that there's still a whole host of scientists who say hurricane frequency has zilch to do with global warming - there's still plenty of other horrors with it though. This is still all pointing towards [i]one[/i] potential after effect of global warming, not even touching on things such as Conveyer failure, a lack of gulf stream, rising water levels, blah blah. My point is that citing a time where the effect we had on global temperature pales in comparison to today, where the implications for society could be massive. It isn't chuck a few billion dollars at the problem, remember those lost, and continue about your merry lives. And where does the gulf coast go when the oil's not around?

I adored it. Barely 10 minutes into the movie and it's clear to see how much effort has been put into the aesthetic side alone - despite some of the shortcuts they seem to have (albeit deservedly) taken. The body movement alone is astonishing, I sit next to a team of 3D animators at work who spend days trying to get a hand to close correctly, a footstep just right, let alone oodles of hyperactive swordplay, running & jumping. On the graphics side of things, it's a shame they weren't able to include HDR (high dynamic range lighting, where the computer determines the sun as the only constant light source and calculates reflections/brightness/refraction/reflection accordingly, see [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_dynamic_range_imaging]here[/url]), as it really would've made a heck of a lot of difference. In the end, though, it would've cost them too much time, a real shame but the final product is still incredible. The sound effects were something I certainly wasn't expecting, and it's the first time I've really noticed them in an animation. Every creak of leather, flap of cloth, even when [spoiler]Tifa's in the church and slides backwards on her feet[/spoiler], the sounds seem perfectly placed and seems to add a great deal more to the whole experience. What I didn't enjoy were the classic anime fallovers - camera shot of Tifa? Make sure it's from the midriff, looking up, and so on. I'm sure breasts with a bajillion polygons are all well and good, but once in a blue moon is enough. I don't know if this would be counted as nit picking a tad too much, but after seeing it in nigh on every anime movie so far it starts to drag a bit. And despite the story being enough to carry the movie through for me, I thought it borrowed from that "new uber-enemy using small tie ins from previous uber enemy" pot anime seems to dip into all too often, again carried onto this. But as Hevn said, it's good to see some FFVII again & nice to see some sort of extra ending to the previous story.

[QUOTE=Sage]This is something to think about the next time global warming and the Kyoto's climate convention comes up in the discussion... I truly hope that the government of the USA finally signs the convention so we can stop ruining this world of ours before it's too late. We humans only have ourselves to blame.[/QUOTE] Except for the fact that the link between global warming and more common/stronger hurricanes hasn't been proven yet, and Bush won't sign up to Kyoto due to the seperate agreement put forward by him. It's true that in the future global warming may result in us seeing fierce hurricanes on a more regular basis, as you can't deny that globally warmer waters - what powers a hurricane in the first place - won't have an effect. For now, though, the argument is that the Atlantic ocean is going through one of it's 'cycles', where the ocean temperature peaks before dropping down.

[quote name='Sage']I think you missed Bloodseeker's actual point by going into the details, Red.[/quote] I went into details because bloodseeker didn't - shoving "the gist of the problem is..." into a post where generalisations about upbringing are the sole reason for a person being whatever way. Your post, on the other hand, involves all the factors that can affect the growing of a person. I was replying pretty much solely about upbringing because genetic heritage & environmental factors didn't seem to be part of Bloodseeker's argument. ;)

[quote]From the age of five until puberty, the house itself is being built. At this point, the kid has a fair amount of understanding of what he or she is seeing, and begins to build the skills and values that are going to define them as an adult.[/quote] Someone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know this takes place from the age of two onwards. Self-awareness triggers a whole new stage in the development of a child. When they're aware of what and who they are, they're more able to build on what they see around them and act on their own thoughts. [quote]Kids that are raised around cars are likely to take an interest in them, kids that are placed on sports teams are more likely to be atheletic, and kids that are raised around lots of technology are likely to be more interested in computers and videogames.[/quote] Wow, where do you pull this from? That's one heck of a generalisation. The principle of monkey see, monkey do is pretty clear cut among children with their parents. The likelihood of what they're going to take up as an interest is anybody's guess, though. What about the Chinese kids who have nigh on zero experience with technology who are coming in their droves to the US & UK to study IT-related courses? Children are the easiest people to mould, but they're also the most likely to break completely from whats set out in front of them. There are so many factors involved that saying someone is 'likely' to be interested in something because of their surroundings is a bit rash. [quote](keep in mind that the parents do not make up the entirety of people that make an impact on the kid... friends and teachers make just as large of an impact)[/quote] You seem to be forgetting their own experiences, thoughts, feelings & values. Influences from the outside are acted on by the child and in the end, they'll decide what tickles their fancy. [quote] But much more important to the point, this is also the time when kids learn their values and many of their essential skills. Kids that aren't forced to work for their rewards are going to expect things for free, kids that don't recieve consequences for breaking the rules aren't going to understand the idea of consequences, kids that don't experience failure aren't going to understand the value of winning and doing well (and are going to be less motivated as a result), and kids that don't experience social hardships aren't going to know how to handle them when they get older.[/quote] That's about as far off the point as you can get, and yet another brash generalisation of upbringing being the deciding factor in personality. Of course, in some cases, what you say can be very right. But that doesn't apply to [i]everyone[/i]. There are so many different experiences that could trigger these sorts of responses in the future life of a person - you can't just point to a factor in their childhood and say that's why. I have friends who were handed everything on a silver platter as children, yet work themselves to the bone now with no financial support from their parents or outside sources. You make it sound as if the things that happen in childhood correlate entirely to how they'll be in the future life, I suggest you talk to a child psychologist. [quote]If you raise them in an environment where they're not going to experience any of these things (failure, social problems, work), they're going to turn into slackers that won't know how to handle life when they step out on their own. I'm sure that almost of all of you that are in your late teens to early twenties know, or at least know of, several people that are older than twenty and still living with their parents because they don't feel motivated to step out and step up.[/quote] Yep. I'm nearly 19, living with my parents & motivated enough already, thankyou. Calling me a slacker last year wouldn't have been far off the mark, but I pulled myself out of that little hole using, oh you know, [i]freedom of choice[/i]. The same applies to someone who wants to stay inside. It's their decision - if something from their upbringing is really affecting them that much, they should seek ways around it. Of course there are more deep-lying problems such as childhood abuse that can absolutely shatter the adult life of a person. It has been shown time and again, however, that these problems can be overcome too. [quote]The biggest contributer to this mentality of wussification is our schools. Many schools have rules set in place that teach kids not to stand up for themselves. At my old school, if somebody attacked you and you fought back, you were up for expulsion just like the other guy. They'd prefer that you get sent to the hospital.[/quote] I think they'd rather teach you the lesson that an eye for an eye isn't always the answer. In adult life - throwing a punch back can have implications against the punishment your attacker is going to receive. I hardly see why they shouldn't teach this to children, that your actions have consequences; whether in retaliation or not. I have [i]never[/i] seen a school deliberately set out to teach a child not to stand up for themselves. I know first hand that while punches are being thrown you can't exactly call over a nearby teacher or adult with ease, but as I said, knowing your attacker will face harsh punishment can be good enough. Many schools do go about things such as bullying the wrong way, and I think it's more of an issue of them catching up with modern social issues than anything else. Still, though, putting yourself in no area of wrong makes the whole process far more streamlined and possibly with worse consequences for the person who initiated the problem. [quote] In some schools, the color red has been banned for grading papers because "its a negative color that represents failure". What would you call getting a question wrong on a test? That's definitely not success.[/quote] I think this is more to do with the way a child's brain interprets things such as colour more than anything else. Subconciously, the colour red might add onto that feeling of failure. It might sound stupid, but psychological studies are there to determine whether these things are true or not. ;) [quote]And what about including every kid in that award ceremony? Including the ones that didn't do any homework? They didn't do anything to deserve that award.[/quote] They must've won an award for a reason. If not, wouldn't the achievement feel pretty empty? [quote]Same thing with that kid that sucks at soccer and still got a spot on the soccer team. I've even heard of schools that have rules that prevent kids from excluding another kid in social activities.[/quote] Because being constantly excluded from social activities as a child doesn't exactly make it enjoyable, maybe? Oh and as for a kid that 'sucks' at soccer - how is the child supposed to get better without any practice? ;) [quote]You know that guy that annoys the hell out of you? You can't ditch him, nor can you tell him to go away. That's grounds for suspension.[/quote] Why can't you report this sort of thing to a teacher? They can hardly force you to put up with a person who's causing you problems. [quote]If that kid wants to join you and your friends in a round of Halo, he's going to have to gain your aproval by learning to not be so annoying. That's life. A society free of social problems and failure is not.[/quote] I'm sure that kid will just go and find a group of friends who can appreciate him for who he is, rather than find him annoying. [quote]Now all of this isn't to say that person can't change once they hit the age of 21. But just like adding a fireplace and an extra room on a house, it would have been much easier on them if it had been added during the building stage, and chances are that the price wouldn't have been so high.[/QUOTE] Really? Because your whole post seemed to point to upbringing being the deciding factor. Not a very good way to say that change is possible at a later stage.

From across the pond, this entire fiasco has looked rather disturbing. To me, at least. There's always been mumblings of what should/shouldn't be taught to kids about where we may have come from all those years ago, but it's always been very divided. Ironically, both words cover an enormous, branching subject. Evolution has many different theories & explanations; and it's plain to see there are many religions, thus differences in how they describe our coming to be. Both can whittle an argument down to "well if [i]this[/i] made [i]that[/i], how did the [i]this[/i] come to be in the first place?" when it comes to an attempt at disproving the other. At the same time, I think science classes should remain firmly rooted in their namesake. I agree whole-heartedly with teaching children about the various religions and their beliefs, but imposing what (from the outside) appears to be an entirely Christian view is wrong. Over here (and I'm sure in some capacity, in the US too), we have religious education classes. They cover ID fine all on their own, while managing to keep a steady distance away from science [i]and[/i] teach about all kinds of different religious theories as to our existence. I fail to see how one can say that ID belongs in a science class. The word covers the idea of tried & tested methods, with theory thrown in for good measure. However, nothing is [i]ever[/i] certain until it has sufficient evidence to back it up - when has this been the case with religion? People were even skeptical of Einstein for years! Religion is belief, science is method or attempt at proving/doing so. How you can bring something which, in scientific terms, has no [i]real[/i] evidence, into a class where facts, figures, results & specific details behind why things occur matter so much? Evolution, on the other hand, bolsters it's scientific position year after year. On the other hand, I agree with Drix's (bloomin' fantastic) post. Open discussion about who in the monkeys (;)) our creator might have been would've been fantastic when I was still in school. Forcing a particular view into a field it has no place in, in my opinion, is wrong.

[quote name='ChibiHorsewoman]I said I wanted to hear what you thought, I [i]didn't[/i'] say I would agree with it or make a comment.[/quote] Er, at which point did I say you had to agree with me or not make a comment? lol. [quote]Perhaps she does have an agenda to get more people on her side I have noticed that Bush has been protested at the last two stops he's made- Hell even the Mayor of Salt Lake City turned out to protest him yesturday. Maybe all she wants is attention, well she's got pleanty now.[/QUOTE] Well, she has a good base (although they are based on misfortune and loss of life) to nab media attention. If more did this it would probably cause quite the ruckus. As for people joining the military for specific reasons (no moolah, stuck with no qualifications, etc.), that's all well and good, a few friends of mine have joined the military on similar grounds. I don't think it's acceptable as a reason for attacking the government, though, as some parents have done over here in interviews and so on.

[quote name='ChibiHorsewoman][color=darkviolet']While I will give you the top comment I dissagree with teh bottom. How can youdecide what is a right way and a wronmg way to grieve for everyone? [/quote] You asked what everyone thought - I told you what I do. ;] I didn't decide what isn't and what is the right way to grieve for someone, that's up to the individual. What I'm saying is that it sounds as if she has an agenda, one that gets the current situation nowhere. [quote]People deal with their emotions in different ways maybe she feels that she's doing the right thing. So Bush's vacation gets ruined ah well. [/quote] I would think it's more attempting a push in the wrong direction for Iraq due to what happened to her son, thinking that Bush will actually listen. Somehow I doubt one woman could ruin a President's vacation. [quote]And in the end, America has an all volunteer military, these men and women know that joining the military there is a chance that they will be going to war. Parents can griecve what ever way they want, but they should also realize that their kid knew what they were in for signing up.[/color][/QUOTE] Exactly!

[QUOTE=Ilium][COLOR=DarkRed] Even before she started this, the war approval rating was only 39% or even lower. If only those 11% had pulled their heads out of their ***** before the last election... Um, anyway, does anyone know if she could even be legally imprisoned for this? So far as I know she hasn't broken any laws... It's either an empty threat or they plan to throw yet another illegal prisoner into some shithole prison. *sigh*[/COLOR][/QUOTE] Let's hit edit and get the cursing out of the words, it doesn't get a point across any better, hence why there are 400,000 words to use. Not to sound horrible, but you should consider thinking before you write. Biased & uninformed arguments help nobody - you can't tell what people are thinking, you can't tell how they were brought up, you can't tell what their views are in the world. For whatever reason (which would be debatable forever, hence the beauty of it), we were put here with freedom of choice. If someone decides that they support or oppose [i]x[/i], that's their decision & opinion. You can try to change that forever, but unless they're willing to adopt a new mindset it's not going to get anywhere, and you have to accept it. Your opinion is more than valid, but hurling insults doesn't make it so. And if you're going to plug facts, put some [i]research[/i] behind them! 39 + 11 per cent just doesn't add up (39 + 61 does, though ;]).

[quote name='ChibiHorsewoman][color=darkviolet'] . G. W. Bush says that while he sympathizes ( *cough* bull crap *cough*) with her, pulling out of Iraq would bad. How?[/quote] You don't really know if Bush doesn't sympathise with her. I doubt that even with all the things you could verbally hang him for doing, he doesn't feel some sort of sadness when people he helped send to war die. Pulling out of Iraq would be bad for reasons that should be affixed to gigantic flashing signs, the main one being that once something has been started, it better damn well be finished, and properly. Most people (including me) had their large reservations about any sort of action in Iraq, but now that it's happening pulling out would be pure insanity. Considering the country is having a good wobble while trying to stand on it's own two feet, I think there's a long way to go before the support should be retracted. Can you imagine the British walking up to the local Iraqi police commander and saying: "Sorry mate, going back home for a cuppa and to see the wife - don't accept any hugs and run when you see a jeep! Cheerio"? The forces required to uphold the law and the administration behind it is [i]far[/i] from being firmly in place yet, let alone the current state of attacks on citizens, soldiers, politicians & police. [quote]I think it's rather admirable that this woman is willing to risk imprisionment just to get her point across. Now what do you think?[/color][/QUOTE] I think the woman has found the wrong way to grieve her son's death. She can look for any explanation from Bush that she wants, the pure & simple fact is that he [i]chose[/i] to sign up for the military. Part of that decision is acknowledging that you could be sent to war, any time, any place. If she wants to lobby, she should be questioning why the promised enforcement of law across Iraq has been not been successful. But then, there are myriad reasons as to why that isn't the case, which I doubt the forces there are completely ignoring.

[QUOTE=Ilium][COLOR=DarkRed] Global Warming isn't all bad, you know.[/quote] I can't wait until people who say this have children, and have to explain all the things that go with global warming that will be left to generations down the line to 'fix'. [quote]At this rate, in less than 100 years, the North West Passage, above the Artic, will have opened up, dramatically inscreasing countries like Russia, Sweden, and Canada's abillity to trade throughout the world. Overall this will leade to a dramatic increase in prosperity for the entire world.[/quote] Dramatic increase in prosperity? No. If it were the case, it would be at the cost of higher temperatures, ice sheets & glaciers melting resulting in higher sea levels, increased carbon dioxide levels, species extinction, habitat destruction, drought, and so on. The increased extremes of destructive weather (hurricanes, storms, tornados, and so on) would be enough to offset the 'increased trade' with the cost of rebuilding, let alone half of what I've mentioned. And that's just the tip of the iceberg, so to speak. ;] To Raiyuu - a few meters could be an underestimation. The area of Antarctica alone is a formidable 13,200,000 square kilometers, coupled with an average ice thickness of 2.7km, you have yourself quite a bit of water locked away. [quote]Yes, the ice-caps are melthing, but that too isn't as bad as it's made out to be; even in 300 years at this rate the Ocean levels will only rise by a few meters or so.[/quote] It's not made out to be as bad as it actually is. Watch the videos of kilometer-long chunks of ice falling off the antarctic edge and tell me again that it can't be that bad. Read above for the part about sea levels. [quote]This means that the most we'll see is a slow-but-steady increase along costal areas; but it will happen so slowly that it can be easily prevented; Florida would lose a few cm of coast, Indonesia would lose a few KM of land, and overall the world would go on.[/quote] All I can say to this is do your reading first. :p [quote]The biggest problem is the GreenHouse gases, but even then those are actually on a [I]decreese[/I] from the years where people were burning unaltered petrol left-right-and-center.[/quote] Can you please show me the scientific evidence behind this? I have seen nothing but to the contrary for years. Car petrol is not the only cause of increased carbon dioxide levels - and altered fuel or not, an inefficient/old engine will do little to compensate. Considering that it seems physically impossible for emissions to have gone down when nations like China are industrialising at a pace only matched by Russia in the 30's, and China is investing a lot into coal-based power. [quote]By the time more of the heavily populate countries move on and put in place these fuel-restriction laws the Greenhouse effect will DRASTICALLY decress, and the world will continue as it was.[/quote] Again, please do at least some research. [quote]The biggest threat right now isn't the girl down the road in a Hummer who puts 50 lieters in her car to roll on down to the gasstation, it's countries like China that have a massive population and ****-all for pollution control.[/quote] Really? If you'd care to look on the top polluter's list, you'll see your friendly down South neighbour has no qualms with the greenhouse effect & more than happily laughed in the face of Kyoto. That isn't to say the recent agreement between the US and the other nations won't have an impact, but considering Mr. Bush's reasoning behind not signing up to Kyoto, we will just have to wait and see. Oh, and that agreement includes China. The country that, as you so eloquently put it, does **** all for pollution control. ;] As for oil/petrol, the prices here in England are very inflated, and I couldn't be more happy with that being the case. I'd be far more worried about what we do when it runs out, and the fact that we don't really know how much is left.

Good luck to all those getting their results either tomorrow or in the coming weeks for GCSE, hope you all did your coursework. Never done an A-level besides a mock ICT, but I've seen the stressed faces. :]

[quote name='ForgottenRaider']This day and age? Heh, I'm just impressed how civil people have been about this sort of thing for the last four hundred years or so.[/quote] It's been going on for thousands of years, gauging general opinion and attitude towards it is impossible. I'm sure reaction changes from person to person, irrespective of in what time frame it happened. [quote]My limited knowledge in this area suggests that death has been treated far more seriously recently and stealing, damaging, and attacking graves is no where near as bad as it was before this time.[/quote] Treated more seriously - what do you mean by that? If someone really wants to steal from a grave, they will. How serious it's taken these days won't really fall into the equation, and how serious a person takes it is all down to their views on death. [quote]So isolated cases of the work of some stoner's or drunks can easily go by without a problem.[/quote] Because people who aren't drunk or stoned never commit crimes? This is the kind of generalisation that gets people nowhere.

[quote name='Sage']Because today's nations are rapidly pushing apart from the church, many people don't believe that dead people are something to respect. They just see them as corpses, shells of what they used to be. Thus they think "stealing" from the graves is impossible, for how can a corpse own anything. Those thieves just took what was left lying unguarded.[/quote] I doubt that the Church is required to have any sort of respect for the dead, more plain ol' freedom of choice. What they think is entirely up to them - until somebody finds out the reasons behind it assumptions won't do much, eh? No offence intended but in this day & age this kind of thing is bound to happen. It's not uncommon, it's thousands of years away from being a new occurence, it's just human nature. For some people, freely available item = theft. Big old block of stone in the ground = graffiti spot, and so on until we're all blue in the face shouting atrocity & outrage. It won't change, there are just too many people on the planet.

Something I think that Londoners knew was coming eventually, but weren't quite fully prepared for. I turned up at the station near my house only to find that line of the tube suspended. A normal morning for most - a recently renovated tube line seemingly brought to it's knees by what we were told was a power surge. I can barely explain how utterly bizarre it is to see one of London's huge parks bulging with silent, mostly suited pedestrians. A few words would be exchanged to do with directions, but despite the fact that nobody knew what was going on that eerie hush was maintained; seemingly because we're all meant to be used to strange happenings. After it became apparent that there had been attacks, seemingly every method of communications jammed up like a margarine convention. I've never seen anything quite like the mass rush to phones, instant messengers and e-mail like then. Even stranger to see were the people in the streets, either dropping everything to help a lost person, comforting those who were worried sick & later on the in day, just plain facing up to the problem. Apologies to prattle on, but it's very hard to describe how the whole city seemed to take one huge kick between the legs, realise it needed to wear a cup more often and get straight back up again. It seemed that in the space of two hours, every single Londoners attitude had changed - the same look on thousands of faces is hard to miss. Unfortunately, in some ways the attacks have 'worked'. 70+ bomb scares alone in the past week on the tubes causing further chaos hasn't helped the nerves of many, putting a bag down and standing up will reward you with a few rigid stares. A little more weariness could go a long way though, when you consider that it's nigh on impossible to apply stringent security across the underground without huge expenditure or massive delays to passengers. The sad thing is that I can envision all this being used as large amounts of ammunition by Tony Blair. The issue of ID cards and their supposed security potential (which is pretty darn low) is ever looming. Mr. Blair has faced challenges in explaining exactly how the technical aspects of the cards will work (biometrics, a central database, card usage tracking and so on), having yet another reason for the security argument could sway less technically-aware towards the scheme while side stepping more important facts. Then, of course, there is the war. How the British government will continue it's reaction considering all four men were born & bred here is beyond me, but I assume further towards the push of 'ending global terrorism'. Lord Dante - [url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4678837.stm]take a gander here for information about the bombers.[/url] Hopefully that all made some sense.

[quote name='Harry'](most) Woman are not equal to men in combat situations, no matter how much garbage they spew to the contrary. They should only be allowed in case by case situations.[/quote] Haha - how exactly did you come to that conclusion? I know a few women who have joined the army and are now in Iraq. They went through the same training as their male counterparts, the same tests & the same troubles once they got there. How would being a woman make them any less capable in combat situations despite the fact that they've equalled (and sometimes surpassed) the men they're fighting alongside? The entire argument of 'natural strength' becomes irrelevant once you put people through training. If they can pass, then obviously they up to the standard the army expects. In terms of what happens when they become POWs; I'm sure that if somebody is willing to do something regarded as horrible to a woman, they would do something with relatively equal implications to a man. Maybe not using the same methods, but the desired effect would still be reached. If anything I'm surprised this isn't regarded as highly sexist. It implies women aren't as capable as men, which through the years has been shown to be more than untrue.

Excellent points in your post, Roxie. ^_^ [quote name='Baron Samedi']Yeah, I use ZoneAlarm firewall too. Forgot about that.[/quote] Which is rated as one of the most incompatible & poorly built firewalls available. Does that make you clueless? ;) [quote]Maybe clueless idiots is a bit harsh, but there ae so many people who go ahead and use IE, Kazaa, and download and install everything from MySearch Toolbar to Desktop Buddy.[/quote] And what would you suggest they use as a browser? The points in my original reply to your message still stand (considering you're pretty much saying the same thing), I don't think I should copy & paste. Things like toolbars can be 'downloaded' through a simple misclick, even the most advanced users do it from time to time as it's hard to avoid. Some deliberately download because they think it will enhance their browsing experience - how is an inexperienced user supposed to be able to tell the difference? [quote]I'd wager that most people are aware of the problems all of this could potentially cause.[/quote] You would be wasting your money. [quote]But then, the users complain when their machine gets taken down. Clueless is definitely the right word... and I think that helping to protect my 'new toy' would be a relatively important concern.[/quote] For the sake of argument, let's say you buy a shiny new top of the line car (an analogy already used in this thread), and you know nothing about the intricate workings of it. The various buttons - controlling everything from air conditioning to a glutaeus warmer - are numerous and their functions are difficult to understand; let alone looking under the bonnet. You want to try and see what this car is capable of, what it's ideal settings are, but what happens if you hit the eject button while barreling down the road? You'll have to shell out for a new car, hardly a cheap commodity. At least, that's what most think. Maybe the car isn't wrecked, but the internal temperature's stuck at -34 degrees & the engine sounds like a bear on fire, how would an average/casual driver know what to do? Of course users complain when their machine dies. Again, why do car recovery services exist? Not every single person is a mechanic, able to stop by the roadside & attempt to fix whatever's causing problems. As for thinking it's relatively important to help protect your new toy - how can you protect against something you know nothing about, or not have knowledge of it's existence? ;) [quote]"49,818,775" downloaded is over 4% of the market share, I'm positive. I thought Firefox had around 12%....but not too sure about that.[/quote] Hmm, my mistake for thinking of the previously released 4% and not the recently published results. However, Firefox could have 5 billion downloads and still be left with 1% of the market share - the number of downloads is simply a statistic of how many times it's been taken off the host server, not how many unique machines are using it. Since Firefox has no true patching method (a new version of the browser is an entirely fresh install), people who already it & are just updating add to that figure. Network admins mostly allow their users to choose what browser they'd like to use, so multiple downloads are recorded from one IP... and so on. 7 years ago the way I used my computer was atrocious - if I used my current machine the same way now I'd be better off setting it on fire for a light show. Over time, I learned how to make it a bit of a tougher nut to crack & [i]why[/i] it needed to be so.

[quote name='Lord Dante']that's true. i know someone who tried to write a virus, and an antivirus for it, and then send out the virus, and charege people like £100 for the antivirus. thankfully, he got hit by a virus before he could complete his. ahh... the irony.[/quote] Since this would pretty much count as extortion, I'd be pretty interested to see how (or if) he got away scot free - virus writers are hit pretty hard with the legal book for acts like that. Also, how he managed to write something that couldn't be picked up by the pattern engine of a decent anti-virus program. [quote name='SunfallE']It wouldn't surprise me to find out some of the virsus actually came from companies that produce anti-virsus software, or any other company that would get a financial gain from the virsus causing problems.[/quote] Judging by the amount industry loses every year (an estimated $10-15 billion in 2004) to virus attacks [i]alone[/i], I very much so doubt that within the realm of technological possibility a company would be able to send a virus out for financial gain without it either affecting them at some point, or it not being traced back to them. [quote name='Godelsensei']Simple solution: get a freakin' Mac. There's a certain smugness that attaches itself to one after being told that file that was not compatible with your operating system was some kind of hard drive-destroying son of a ***** worm or whatever.[/quote] Sorry, a Mac isn't a solution at all, it's a preference. The lack of widespread malicious software for the Mac is a phenomenon that can normally be put down to it's complete lack of market share when put up against Windows-based PCs, as SunfallE has mentioned. There are an abundance of competent coders who could easily spend a short while whipping up a reasonably damaging Mac-based virus. But to what end? The idea of a virus is that it is a self-propagating piece of software - malicious damage intended or not. With Mac's as they are, the effort a coder has put in is overshadowed by a complete lack of capability in terms of damage done. Something like MSBlast was so effective due to it attacking an exploit in a service that is, by default, running on every Windows machine. That kind of exploit doesn't exist on any Macs; even if it did there wouldn't be enough of them to effect. [quote=Baron Samedi]This is what happens when [b]clueless idiots[/b] use [b]IE[/b] to troll through dodgy websites, download [b]Kazaa[/b] and generally don't run any tests. I use Firefox, run AdAware and AVG regularly [AVG every day, AdAware once a week] and I don't download and install things I know nothing about. It isn't difficult to avoid malware [be it viruses, spyware, adware etc.], all you have to do is take sensible measures. Or use a Linux build.[/quote] Clueless idiots? That's a rather misinformed stab in the dark - I can't see how bolding would help that leap to a conclusion. When a person buys something new their primary concern isn't necessarily whether or not something that comes from nowhere will destroy their new toy. Unless you're running a firewall with that pair of programs, your machine is probably more infected than you think and open to further attack attempts. Also, Firefox being more secure than IE is a common misconception - it's just a browser that barely holds 4% of the worldwide share at the moment. It's the same principal as Macs, it just isn't popular enough for someone to bother taking advantage of it's vulnerabilities. The Mozilla team simply [i]update more often[/i], Microsoft don't. As someone who took advantage of exploits, would you rather attack something that 84% of users run, or 4%? Kazaa is hardly a malicious piece of software, rather more like an advanced cookie. And "sensible measures" would be the internet equivalent of fortifying your computer, you need more than just what you're running to keep your machine completely safe/clean. Linux builds are irrelevant, as it's designed for more advanced users. At the core of it all, developers are what eventually allow malicious software to do it's thang, so to speak. When creating software more security testing needs to be done (especially as applications grow larger and more complex), but this costs time & money, something which big companies are not too fond of. Knowing why virus writers do what they do? Well, you'd have to ask them yourself. Political reasons, boredom, money, personal reasons... with some coding knowledge it's not the most difficult thing to accomplish. If anybody's interested a far more comprehensive computer health guide will be stickied in [url=http://otakuboards.com/forumdisplay.php?f=14]PC/Mac[/url] in the coming days. The current one is rather dated. ;)

[quote name='Nefertimon'] Basically, I see ghosts in random places, and especially in this cemetery I pass by occasionally, where there's a group of them that does random things every time. One ghost there actually puts on a sort of fireworks show... And not only that, I occasionally talk to a few ghosts--a couple are actually like friends which some real people consider "imaginary". [/quote] This is the sort of thing that confuses me a lot when it comes to the 'supernatural', a lot of claims but seemingly no evidence.. If it happens "every time" - bring a camera or some sort of recording equipment along and provide proof.

So many people claim to talk to the dead, see the dead, exchange insults with the dead and so on until they're blue in the face - yet there's little (if any) evidence to back it all up. In terms of believing in the 'supernatural', I'm on the fence. There are far too many claims, along with the myriad of blurry images that offer 'proof' in the form of something easily re-created in photoshop. At the same time, there are many unexplainable events & goings on in the world, although giving reasons such as ghosts for these happenings isn't exactly built on a solid foundation of research. We have yet to explore the many avenues & truths there could be in the subject; but until I see/experience something concise I'll still dismiss it.

[quote name='ChibiHorsewoman'] I think it's alwful that she was allowed to starve to death.You can't even do that to an animal. But heck, do it to a human and it's considered allowing the person to die peacefully.[/quote] Again, what other method would you propose? Even if she was able to feel pain, morphine was administered after the tube was removed. According to various studies into comatose states, she would have been completely unable to feel pain or suffer - the morphine was simply a precaution. Somebody couldn't just kill her, that could be considered inhumane by one person just as removing the tube is to another. I'm sure you would be able to remove the feeding tube from a comatose animal, were such a situation to arise.

[quote name='Chaos']Typical underage attitude. Lock 'em up and throw away the key. Seems like it would work. Too bad we as tax-paying citizens pay for their housing, upkeep, and general living establishments. And at the rate in which people are convicted, we'd be making more and more prisons than we already have.[/quote] I doubt very highly there's such a thing as "typical underage attitude". ;) You're hardly paying for a five star hotel for these people to live in. You said it yourself, prison is not the most pleasant of places to reside. As an American tax payer you're currently helping to pay $4 billion a month for the war in Iraq; peanuts compared to what you'll be paying to keep such a terrible criminal behind bars. As the population increases, so will the amount of crimes being committed. More prisons will be required. The number of criminals in prison that aren't on death row far outweighs those that are; leaving them on 'normal' sentences would not be a massive drain on resources. [quote]Because the people that do the sentancing are voicing the law. They just represent what your parents and forefathers voted on. Plus they didn't slit a throat or pull a trigger. They happen to be, for the most part, upstanding citizens working for the government.[/QUOTE] Who still order the death of a person. Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't there other sentences that can be handed down that don't involve the penalty - regardless of crime? Personally, I see the death penalty as entirely pointless & an easy way out. I would much prefer to see my cousin's killer face a lifetime in jail so that he might be able to think about what action he took that day, and face due punishment. Time is a very precious thing - taking it away from someone can make them at least think; releasing them from it's constraints (despite the monumental amount of time they spend on death row) is an escape, to me at least.

It's a terrible thing to have happened, although I think the anger towards the shooter is well placed. Despite how troubled a person can be - there [i]are[/i] solutions to the problems that they face, it's simply their decision to take a different course of action. There are many individuals firmly sat on rock bottom who would not carry out such an act; even if they can't see a way out for themselves.