Dak

i was talking about killing the whole crew, which is easier to get away with outside of civilisation than it is withing. eg, most burglars won't kill an entire household to cover their crime.

actually, on a boat, in the middle of the wilderness, is exactly where i'd want a gun. i wouldn't want to let them board, as then it'd be up to their (possibly non-existant) mercy to not kill me. i'd rather fire upon them before they boarded. 'course, i'd be mighty unhappy travelling with other armed people if they hadn't had training, and would get some training myself first. and without knowing more of the situation i don't know if i'd have fought or surrendered in that case, but i'd have liked both options. in a city, it's different. killing you in your home is more trouble than it's worth, as it turns a burglary into a murder. in the middle of no-where, you could get away with it. so i don't think your example is that good, tbh. in fact, in a city, if you want the police to spend less effort on your case, not murdering someone is the way to go. in the middle of nowhere, murdering someone is probably the best option, as it leaves no witnesses.

this is the more common edit in the uk. because, apparently, 'americans can't shoot strait, but still shoot. alot. generally at us and hospitals' sells more papers than 'americans at least half competent'. most british losses in a conflict to american troops = american troops are dumb. only british tank loss in a conflict to another british tank = weeeel, fog of war, what chaps? can't be helped. this is kind of the point. in the uk, we've never had as many guns as you do in the US. and we also are at no more risk from our govournment than you are from yours, plus we're significantly at less risk from each other, as most of us have no guns. so, protection against the state is neccesary, but protection against the state by owning guns is not. you could always just not pay taxes, riot, etc... anyway, look at terrorism. i think 'resorting to violence' isn't really a good check. in the old days, it had a veneer of democracy, in that you needed alot of people to rebel with you to have an effect. increasingly, tho, you need a smaller and smaller minority to rebel and have an effect. not paying taxes, striking, rioting, etc all seem better options imo, as they still have that 'democracy at it's basest form' element (ie, need lots of people for it to be effective)

i think it's probably closer to: non-americans percieve you as being stupid in this area, and people are dying as a result of your stupidity. like if the uk had -- by a massive amount -- the highest fatal road-traffic-accident rate of developed countries, and we also had the laxest controlls on cars. wouldn't you (continually) try to get across to us, for our own benifit, that we should probably restrict car ownership a bit more, so that only trained and responsible people owned cars? then get a bit peeved when we said "but people have a right to transport themselves! if we regulated cars, then only the criminals would have cars, and who would be able to catch them then??!?" then peeved summore when you said 'but our countries have strickter car control, where you actually have to be trained for months in safe car usage, before you're allowed one, and less people die in car accidents in our country', only to have the brits turn around and say 'nah, tighter restrictions on cars wouldn't work 'cos criminals, being criminals, would ignore them; and besides, it would be taking away our rights (presumably meaning our right to drive a car even if we do not know how to, and are deminstratably irresponsible)'. "cars don't kill people, people kill people; so, we obviously shouldn't regulate cars then" not presenting that as an argument, just saying that's how it seems from non-americans povs: americans arguing in favour of guns seem to be a bit stubborn, and non-americans, not being used to guns and getting on fine all the same, seem to not understand why and get peeved as a result. you realise the distinction is an artificial one? if you agreed with the IRAs struggle, then they'd be a bunch of civillians mass-resisting. if not, then they're a bunch of terrorists.

i don't believe we're talking about how to execute a tree... jackson, i believe the intent with salt is to screw with osmotic potentials, so that the tree has a harder time sucking water out of the ground and dehydrates, rather than getting the tree to take up the salt.

laptops are harder to upgrade, and more expensive spec-for-spec than desktops. also: no. people i know who have spilt liquids onto their laptop's MOBO, killing it: several no. people i know who have done the same to their desktop: 0

Hi, and welcome to the board Please only post one thread, in one sub-forum, per topic. Your other two four have been deleted. so there

which is what a retrial is for. do you think that a randomly selected group of people would likely think that the non-guilty homeowner should risk his life -- even further -- for a situation that the trespasser is responsible for creating? (the answre is no) if, given the specifics of the case, any action other than outright killing carried a percieved significant risk to the homeowner, and a jury would agree that they weren't over-reacting, then outright killing them becomes legal. if, given the specifics of the case, other non-fatal actions carried no or insignificant percieved increases in risk to the homeowner, and a jury would agree to this, then outright killing them becomes illegal. again, it just boils down to 'kill them if neccesary, but not otherwize'. avoiding taking huge risks with your life counts as 'neccesary' whilst fleeing unarmed just so they wouldn't burgle you again doesn't.

1/ far less criminals have guns in the UK than in the US, and they're hardly ever used for most crimes (muggings, etc). armed robbery (with a gun) is much rarer than in the US. 2/ as john cuthber said, the police have guns, so we're hardly all cowering in fear from armed criminals. consider this: it's illegal to carry knifes in the UK so, obvioulsy, only criminals carry knifes, and if one mugs me i'll be unarmed and unable to defend myself. however, it's also true that most criminals don't carry knifes (as those that do tend to fall victim to random police stop-searches, and get arrested), which i doubt would be true if knife-carrying wer legal; and we're certainly not all at the mercy of knife-wielding criminals because the law abiding citicens must walk unarmed, thanks to the police.

you forgot fleeing. he shot them in the back as they were unarmed and fleeing @ParanoiA it was determined in court that he didn't do it for self-defence, rather just because he was pissed off with them for robbing him, making it murder. also, noone is suggesting anyone need be an expert in anything; rather, than they don't go all yosemity sam and just shoot without thinking 'should I' first. ----- by-the-by, farmers' shotguns are a perfect example of when guns are actually justified as self-defence tools (farmsteads are generally too far from police stations to rely on police for defence from violent burglars), and also the fact that automatic and consealable weapons aren't neccesary for self-defence (shotguns under 24" are illegal, as are ones that hold more than 3 shells at once.

"use reasonable forse (reasonable being what most people would consider reasonable)" basically translates as "if you're a psycopath, it's your responsability to realise that you're a psycopath, and be more restrained than you naturally would be" or, in other words, "no you can't kick someone to death just because the situation justified 'self-defence', unless it specifically also justifies lethal self-defence". or in other words, "we're gonna assume that you're a responsible person, who can use, but not abuse, the right to self-defence. if you prove otherwize by going too far, you'll be punished". bear in mind that in the uk, only a percieved threat, that most people would agree was reasonable, is neccesary to claim the right to self-defence (allowing for pre-emptive self-defence, e.g. hitting them first if you think a fight is unavoidable). this is what allows my 'sneaking up behind them and stabbing them in the leg' example to qualify as self-defence (tho 'reasonable' is debatable). wer it not for both 'reasonable's, i could hit someone in the face with an improvised weapon for looking at me in a way that I thought suggested he was thinking about hitting me. which is a tad harsh. basically, it means "defend yourself as much, and whenever, as you think is neccesary, but if you can't justify you're actions, then you'll be punished". which is why i never understand the complaints about these laws: if you can't give a decent justification for your actions, that's probably because you don't have one, and you went too far.

lmao also, if you just take mathematics science, you'll be on average a level higher than if you multiclass mathematics/computer science. Wissan, we're just joking with you in what way do you mean 'better'? mathematics/computer science (presumably meaning stuff like programming, and the kind of maths that are used in programing) is better for computer-related stuff, whilst mathematics science (presumably maths in general) is better for... well, general maths stuff.

requiring us to only use reaonable forse is, by definition, reasonable. what the hoo-haa is generally about is people thinking that we'll get into trouble for hitting burgalars, or for stabbing them if they have a knife, which is not the case. 'reasonable' is determined by a jury, and so if most people agree with you're reasoning, then you're fine. i.e., if i find an intruder in my house and sneak up behind him and stab him in the leg with a knife just in case he's armed (whilst intentionally stabbing him in an unlikely-to-be-fatal place), as long as the jury (a representative group of 'the people', remember) think that's justified, then it is. if they dont, then i've gone too far. all the law requires is that we dont use exess force, which is fair enough. 'exess' and 'reasonable' being determined on a case-by-case basis by 'the people' through the jury.

indeed, science seems to be one of the places least in need of this... there are no barriers to women going to college, not even the barrier of it being male dominated as a hang-over from when there were barriers (as sysiphus said, its slightly dominated by women), and, once there, progression and success is inherently based upon aptitude, not arbritrary facts such as gender. post-qualification, i'm not aware of women being under-represented in labs. so, why is this neccesary? i'll reluctantly concede that stuff like affermative action may be temporarily benificial in order to hurry the normalisation of black representation (i.e., hurry the dissipation of the white-dominance of workplaces that are a 'hang-over' effect from when racism was allowed) which could otherwize take some time, but this seems unnessesary... it'll actually generate an over-representation of women, surely? unless it's 'women with babys', in which case it makes sence.

because if you don't, then you take away their ability to catch people who have snuck in in the easyest way possible. which (in this case) makes getting away with sneaking in easyer, so more people do it, so less people buy tickets, so everyone (who actually buys a ticket) has to pay a little extra to make up the losses. yes, it'd be more eloquent to stop 'em sneaking in in the first place, but catching them afterwards works too. same with trains (at least in the uk, you have to keep your ticket and show a ticket inspector). take this option away from the people in control, and stopping people from sneaking in becomes effectively harder. harder = more expensive; so wether due to lost profits, or extra expense in stopping people sneaking in, prices would go up for everyone who's payed. would you rather the majority be impacted by extra effort (carrying a ticket around) or by extra expense? either way, the majority are impacted as a result of the minority. with gun control, i guess it becomes: should the majority be subjected to regulation that a minority need, or should the majority be subjected to an unregulated minority? either way, the majority have to tolerate something because of a minority. incidentally, i read a somewhat sarcastic rant about the above once (on wikipedia, iirc), that basically said 'we need a rule to stop x happening again' generally boils down to 'jef has screwed up again, and done x; we need a rule to stop jeff doing x again', whereas the more eloquent solution would be to fire jeff this works too, but would require sorting people into the responsable majority and irresponsible minority, and only allowing the majority guns. this would, of course, require rather extensive training then testing, so i doubt that it'd be done. as i understand it, requiring that people be forsed to actually undergo extensive training in firearms before letting them have one is unconsitutional. i'm just glad that cars weren't around when the constitution was written ----------- with the UK gun thing: bear in mind that wen guns were legal, you weren't allowed to wander round with them, or (iirc) own one without a licence, which weren't granted to most people. so not much has actually changed. and i'm pretty sure that UK gun crime tends to be for the uber-criminals(in the form of armed robbery, and criminal assasinations), rather than muggings and gang fights.

that's (neccesarily) the case in most instances, tho. eg, i'm sure most people could self-regulate their alcohol intake before driving, but enough people cant (and people would die as a result) that all are limited to 2 pints before driving. i'm sure it's the same with most laws; its usually a minority that neccesitates the law to protect the majority from the minority. on the subject of cars, you have to get full training in how to use them properly and safely, and then follow a plethora of rules in their use (including not using them when drunk), or you aren't allowed to use them. i really don't see why guns shouldn't be like that.

untill someone takes a gun in. then they're victim zones with guns. are you suggesting some kind of armed response unit made up of teachers? (not mocking; it kinda makes sense. schools train for fires, i guess they could also train for shootings.) ah, right, cheers. i allways get confused about american schools/colleges/etc.

that implies that the correct responce to school shootings is to allow the kids to carry guns into school.

if we take the first two base sequence that's not given a Tm: 3'-AC-5' this, with it's complimentary base pairs is 3'-AC-5' 5'-TG-3' if you look through the list of ones that have Tm's given, you'll find GT. or, in other words, you'll find 3'-GT-5' 5'-CA-3' which is the same two base sequence with complimentary w/c pairs as above, just written different. so the missing one's Tm would be the Tm of it's compliment backwards, if that makes sense? (above: AC --compliment--> TG --backwards--> GT)

well, given how old my pc is, we're probably on socket z by now as long as my FSB won't explode, that's the main thing. cheers

are you basically saying that educational institutes just train people to have useful job-skills and don't focus enough on intelectual development, so we need some kind of intelectual schooling/development thing? kinda like mensa for non-mensans? "IQ of 99? come join the non-mensan society, and develop your intelect to it's full (average) potential"? I kinda agree, but i think that too many people just don't care about being intelectual, same as the way most people don't do keep-fit. it's usually those who are naturally fitter than most who get into the whole fitness thing, to maximise their natural gift. Not saying that's how it should be, just that that seems to be how it is.

i was wondering what to look out for when upgrading processors? I have a socket-A connector (so gotta get a socket-A processor)... I've narrowed down my MOBO to something very similar to this (it's model number is one off), which can take AMD thunderbirds up to 1.4G (which is what i have my eye on... dirt cheap on ebay). i'm not too sure about the front-side-bus thing... if i buy a processor designed for a FSB of 266MHz, and my FSB is only actually 200MHz, what'll happen? will the processor just go slower, or will my FSB explode? any other annoying little things i have to look out for when chosing a processor?

no direct contribution. BUT, some of them have PhDs and stuff, along with a vested interest in disproving evolution. I think it's safe to say that the creationist PhDs have looked at evolution with a mind to finding it's flaws much more than you're average non-creationist PhD who works with evolution. So they've kinda peer-reviewed the modern synthesys, and -- by their failure to refute it -- allowed us to be slightly more certain of the theory. which is kind of a contribution. i betcha if there's ever a flaw introduced into the modern synthesys, theres a high chance that a creationist will help by pointing it out

are you being ironic?

Actualy, i am gonna winge about labours attempts to disreguard the spirit of democracy. This is the consrvative party political broadcast* http://www.webcameron.org.uk/ (labour one for refference http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=theuklabourparty) now, it's still 'political', in that it's saying alot without saying much and is more about spin and image than honesty, but at least you can discern parts of their general philosophy/policy. easiest to spot: they want to give more power over local matters to local communities they're green they dont like the nazis (BNP) they think we should make amends, but not appologise, for our historic role in slavery that's more than can be gleaned from the labour party political broadcast, which simply says 'we payed for an expensive advert'. also: webcameron... wtf * for the non-brits: as an indipendant public service, the BBC is required to give equal air-time, running up to elections, to the main parties for 'BBC party political broadcasts for the blah party', which is what these clips are.