Dak

If it makes you feel any better, i'm only 26 and i can still remember getting a NES. and it being 'advanced'. oh, and i can remember before the internet existed. I may as well get a morris minor and wear my trousers up by my nipples (if that's too british for you: I may as well get a gun and sit of a rocking chair in my portch) ---- whilst i don't generally buy into the whole 'violent videogames breed violence' thing, what'd'y'all recon to the observation that we, as societies, have, over time, become more tolerant and desensitised to violence in videogames. I remember when games used to have to have green blood to avoid the censors; now you can blow peoples heads off. Granted, you never had age-ratings back then, but still...

Vexer has been suspended as the next natural step in SFN's crusade against him, and it was is in no way simply because we got pissed off with him disrupting threads to tell us about this crusade that we are waging against him for no reason at all!. Vexer, when you come back: drop it. ---------------- drochaid: banned at own request.

Natural selection does still work on the population to week out 'bad genes'; it's just that we're good enough at surviving and altering our environment that lots of genes that would have been bad now aren't. short-sightedness might be a good example: it's generally a 'bad gene', but, with contacts, it doesn't really matter. maybe NS doesn't operate on short-sightedness, but, then, it doesn't matter that NS doesn't operate to lower the frequency of short-sightedness, because it doesn't matter if someone's short-sighted. If we hadn't managed to make short-sightedness irrelevent, it would matter, and NS would still be operating to supress short-sightedness (because being short-sighted would be relevent, and so effect one's survivability). iow, NS will tautomagically work on things that it needs to work on, and not on irrelevent things that it doesn' t need to work on, if that makes sense? as for eugenics: we don't know enough about exactly how genes interact with oneanother, or the exact effects of any actions we take, to tinker with our genome imo. better leave it up to time and evolution.

I'm lazy, and if something boors me (eg, maths, which i'm actually naturally quite good at) i'll have a great deal of trouble bringing myself to study it (hence why i've overcome my natural talent and managed to become hopeless at maths). The number of entire university modules that i learnt the week before the exam is stupid

AVG free 7.5 is quitting at the end of may (also known as the end of december, apparently). It's being replaced with AVG free 8.0

as well as the obvious scientific question of how dangerous it is, there's also the social angle (i.e., most people want cannibis to be quite illegal), and the policing angle (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7227651.stm) with the police apparently advising reclassifying it to B (tho the argument seems, to me, to be "we should make it more illegal so that we can make it clearer how illegal it is" or something...). it's still a dumb thing to do imo, but I guess we don't live in a scientocracy. classify B -- goes against scientific advice leave as C -- goes against police advice decriminalise -- goes against what people want eco: class A drugs (like heroine, cocaine, acid, extacy, etc) tend to get you big penalties; class B drugs (like speed) get you smaller penalties; and class C drugs (like cannabis) get you relatively small/no penalties http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/drugs/drugs-law/Class-a-b-c/ (hmm, apparently majick-mushrooms are class A drugs now...)

anyone got any idea why this doesn't work? also: thanks again to Aeternus for helping on irc. basically, even tho i'm trying to set the trace on the last Entry box's textvar, it insists on setting it on the first one i created... from Tkinter import * #what I want is a variable number of Entry boxes for the user; # so, when the user starts to fill in the last box, I want to # generate another one for him class ThingyForTheMiddle(): def __init__(self,parent): self.box = Frame(parent) self.x = StringVar() self.xEnt = Entry(self.box,textvar=self.x,width = 10) self.box.pack(),self.xEnt.pack() class Preferences(): def __init__(self): self.prefs = Toplevel() self.middleBox = Frame(self.prefs).pack() self.middleBit = [] #list of frames in the middleBox frame self.newBit() #makes a new Entry #trace Entry so we know when to make a new one self.activeTrace = self.middleBit[-1].x.trace('w',self.watchme) def newBit(self): self.middleBit.append(ThingyForTheMiddle(self.middleBox)) def watchme(self,x,y,z): #delete the old trace self.middleBit[-1].x.trace_vdelete('w',self.activeTrace) #make a new bit for the middle # print '1: ',self.activeTrace self.newBit() # print '2: ',self.activeTrace #try to set the trace up on the new Entry box... self.activeTrace = self.middleBit[-1].x.trace('w',self.watchme) #commenting-out the above line shows the trace is # being correctly deleted... but then it's re-instated to # exactly the same box (even tho ~~middleBit[-1] is now different). # print '3: ',self.activeTrace root=Tk() myPref = Preferences() root.mainloop() any clues would be appreciated Don't worry, finally figured out how to work around it: def newBit(self): while 1: self.middleBit.append(ThingyForTheMiddle(self.prefs)) self.prefs.wait_variable(self.middleBit[-1].x) OTOH, i'm still curious as to why the original way didn't work... anyone recon it might be a bug I should report?

ok, bit of wp-related cheatage and i got no. 30 (must have tried every single possible p* that meant a similar thing, barring the right one), and am officially embarrased, given the site we're on, that 28 was the only one i couldn't get Mind, i allways forget that number. And i'm still officially a genius, according to Some Website on the Internet, so nya http://www.intelligence-test.net/part2/

apart from the fact that 'recognised' is more common in the UK, whereas 'recognized' is the only correct way in the US

ah, i was thinking HB was [hide] holy bible[/hide] doh! me 2, from your clue told you it would be obvious.

doh! i tried all the b* things i could think of, then looked it up on wp. bit embarrased i didn't think of the right term would ATM have gotten 28? [edit] 5 Tails on a Five-tailed-goat is my best attempt so far [/edit]

I thought so. i had: [hide]6 bats to an outing in cricket[/hide] and i've tried various other similar terms... hmm... not really. it's pretty global. hint hint hint.

no, it's eeeeeeeeeeeeasy I can't get 10 28 30 31 I'm realtively sure 10 is obvious...

@OP: probably not accurate at all. [edit]29! woot! eat mah dust, sayo [/edit]

what do you mean? If you mean 'the magazine doesn't print skeptisizm on the core parts of GW', then sure. that's because there's no longer any justification in being skeptical on them, barring remembering that any accepted idea can actually be false, and giving new evidence a chance to sway your beliefs away from GW. that skeptisizm is ok, but unless any new eveidence emerges that throws doubt on the main claims of GW, you're left pretty-much forced to accept -- at least tentatively, and based on the evidence -- that GW is happening, and is significantly caused by humans. and will suck. otoh, the more peripheral parts of GW and 'GW-related stuff', such as the exact accuracy/interpretation of the predictions, the claims of what H2 power will do, etc, seem to still be being viewed with some skeptisizm by the magazine (just guessing from the article titles)

otoh, astrology comes with the implicit suggestion that it is true. Many people use it for a bit of a laugh, but many people belief it is real, which is a belief that is fostered and capitalised on by some for profit. which, at the end of the day, does involve taking money off of people whilst only pretending to provide the (impossible) service that they believe they will get (for people who believe astrology is real -- for people who don't, presumably they're paying for a bit of fun sillyness, and getting it: no problem there) all good points. however, i think you have to differentiate from valid philosophical points (as your points above) and what people will actually do (suggest that the pond-water cures wrinkles without actually comming out and saying that they do -- they're still, knowingly, profiteering from protending to provide a service). hell, you could simply set up two legally unrelated companys -- one to promote the use of snake oil as an anti-pimple agent, and one to sell it. notwithstanding what you said (which i do agree with), people will end up encouraging peoples beliefs that pond-water cures wrinkles, and profiteering from selling people this pond anti-wrinkle agent, knowing that's what they'll buy it for, and knowing that it doesn't do that. that, right there, is wrong; it's just hard to think of rules that couldn't be circumvented and that aren't heavy-handed that would stop it. anyway, i get the impression that this suggested legislature is more to do with outright making claims -- e.g., that psychics claim to be able to speak to dead people/see the future, as opposed to claiming to be pretending to do so.

well, i haven't read any of the articles so i'd be limited to making assumptions based on the article titles (e.g., 'the problem with predictions' sounds healthyly skeptical); however, there is a whopping great big difference between skeptisizm and denializm: skepticizm is the reluctance to accept a new idea, whilst denializm is the refusal. skeptisizm is 'belief inertia', where it requires a lot of weight to move your beliefs but they can be moved, whereas denialism is 'belief immotility'. i'd guess the magazine feels that we've reached a point whereby, as iNow's pretty-much allready said, it's sufficiently proven to not warrant any more skeptisizm for the core propositions of 'anthropogenic global warming theory' and we should now accept it, and the burdon of proof lies with those trying to argue that, no, actually, against all the evidence accumulated so far it's actually false; and, given the weight of evidence, refusing to acknowledge this crosses over from skeptisizm into denialism. in fact, skeptizism would now demand that all claims that AGW is false be treated with skeptisizm and reluctance to accept, and it's our belief that AGW is real that should now have inertia and require oodles of evidence to change. I assume this'd be the thrust of the 'how we know GW is real' article. at the end of the day, any individual skeptic can choose to allow the article to sway them or not, but allowing enough evidence to sway your beliefs, and exposing yourself to such evidence, is a part of skeptisizm. otoh, the newer ideas associated with AGW theory should still be met with skeptisizm, hence (i'd assume) 'the problem with predictions' (i.e., not all of the science is 100% reliable -- skeptisizm is still justified here)

it's a 'global warming' special issue (as it says on the cover) as for no skepticizm, read the article list: 'global warming skepticizm and the problem with predictions', etc.

and also about freedom of speech, which would probably be hijacked in this case. But I want to say that I can speak to people's recently deceased relatives (for money)... Personally, I don't see how seers etc. are any different from anything else. If i say i will do x for £y, then merely appear to be doing x, then that's fraud.

why would it not be hand-developed, out of interest? also: don't use 'leet-speak' for you thread name/in your post, it's gay

which ethics regarding sex

"pay $x that you don't own or we will cause you > $x" == blackmail.

otoh, (rounding off alot for convienience): wallmart had given her $500,000 medical fees the judge decided that she deserved $1,000,000 the truck company gave her $1,000,000 wallmart want to reclaim the $500,000 medical fees they have payed. she should be left with $500,000+$1,000,000-$500,000 == enough to cover her medical fees (according to the judge). however, once you factor in the $600,000 legal fees she's left short; so, she needs to keep the wallmart money to counter her legal fees. should wallmart effectively pay her (extortionate) legal fees? should the truck company pay her (extortionate) legal fees? or should she, the one who chose to use an extortionate legal representative? basically, the way i see it either she/wallmart should sue the truck company for legal fees, or she/wallmart should sue the lawyer for charging too much/giving poor advice. either way, i don't see how wallmart should foot the bill when she obviously payed far more than is neccesary for legal advice (which, i assume, is why the trucking company weren't forced to pay the bill). btw, wallmart doing either of the above would sort the problem out without wallmart having to pay out money they don't owe and thus setting precedent -- wallmart would reclaim their $500,000, she'd still have the full $1,000,000 medical fees she needs (after a $600,000 refund from the lawyer/truck company), and the lawyer or truck company would have less money (serves him/them right). meh. some of the worst things companies do are 100% legal.

correct me if i'm wrong, but doesn't the contract with wallmart look like it essentially guarantees a certain amount of money? i.e., if you get injured and can't sue for damages, wallmart will provide $x; if you can sue for < $x, wallmart will top it up to $x; if you get $x, wallmart will give you nothing; thus guaranteeing you $x. wallmart gave her the money, she sued for a similar amount, now wallmart take their money back. their guarantee that she'll recieve $x has been fulfilled, as she has recieved $x (not only that, but she didn't have to wait for it, as wallmart provided it to her before the case had been completed). I'm with doG here: i really don't see what wallmart are supposed to have done wrong.

ah, i see. that (and paranoia's post) puts it a bit more in context, but i kinda meant just the comments that were quoted in post #1. taking a bit of a guess at what was meant, it seems to be: a whine about US drugs policy? whine about racism in the US I'm with pangloss on this one tbh comment on US hypocrisy. Not saying that any of the above are necessarily right, but they're certainly valid criticisms imo. what's so bad about a US citizen criticizing US drugs policy, internal race-relations, and the general hypocrisy of the US regarding terrorism? or have i misinterpreted the quotes?