Dak

i seriously think that the correct thing to do would be to sort the problem out, and that 'affermative action' and 'positive discrimination' would be equally ugly, tho probably justified, solutions to the problem as they are now. to those of you speculating about a turner-diary-esque situation whereby white people are the majority, but are treated as an oppressed minority, i'd point out that the main benifit of democracy is that it stops the majority being shat upon by a minority, so i really don't think 'white subjugation' will ever happen in america.

hotcommodity, if you quote me, and edit the quote, could you indicate that with ommission marks ( [,,,] ) so? 'their' culture? so far, you've only mentioned four 'bad' aspects of 'black' culture which are pervading your society: materialism, baggy trousers, jibberish, and music about sex and drugs, which all either are, or have been, assosiated with various cultures, both black and white. given that white sub-cultures, say, spoke jibberish before your country was even settled, then how can you blame black culture for promoting the speaking of jibberish within your country? why not, say, that white culture promoted the speaking of jibberish in black culture, which then plays a role in back-promoting jibberish to a new generation of both black and white people? or that white culture promotes the speaking of jibberish within white culture, as they've been doing it for longer than they've been cohabiting with black people? or that the speaking of jibberish is a natural thing, desighned to convey membership to a group, and naturally occours in any culture (ie, all cultures develop it independant of one-another)? why must it be promoted within the white community by black culture? same argument with the others, all of which have, at various points, been common within white cultures in the abscence of black people. why is it that, having invented these things and had them before even starting enslaving black people, let alone freeing them and allowing them to contribute to culture, white people suddenly only have these things in their culture because of black people, who, assumedly, cannot use the same argument and blame white culture for promoting the prevalence of these things within black culture in the first place? and, again, stuff like wearing baggy trousers isn't going to degrade your culture nor country, and it's incorrect to presume that stuff like rap represents black culture any more than rock/punk/pop represents white culture. using black sports stars as an example of black people promoting materialism is the same as using white sport/movie stars as an example of white people promoting materialism (tho, i forgot, they only do this because of the influence of black people, dont they )

theres something about the fact that 'the authority' (be it teachers or enployers) feel that they can dictate something as arbritrary as how i dress that's allways bugged me... nothing too lude or rude, fine... but something as strickt as 'shirt and tie' makes me feel like they're trying to make me their bitch: the first thing i'd do on a school/work day is put on the clothes that they chose for me to wear... i'd say im against uniforms, but i see klay's poin re: truanting.

pcages: how does it end up in stalemate? is it a massacre, with both sides loosing so many pieces that the game is unwinnable, or is it that whenever you get to a point from which you could win, your opponent tricks you into putting him in a position from which he cannot move, thus sneakily forcing a stalemate rather than loosing? or one of the other sneaky means to get stalemated?

apparently, just before that started, he'd been heckled and called something like a 'white-ass cracker honkey-boy' (hence why i thought he might have been trying to make a point). a few things i find odd: i understand holding people in the public eye to a higher standard than normal people, but why is the fact that the black guy was also being racist -- and was racist first -- being overlooked? why did the audience initially laugh?

tbh, when i saw the footage, i thought that he was making a point... i thought he was going to end up saying something like 'see, was that acceptable? no? then dont be a racist shit to me, either'. then it went on a liiiiiiiiiiiittle too long, and the point never came. about half way thru, it stopped looking like it was leading to a point, and just looked mental. i'm torn between thinking that he was intending to make a point then got carried away and forgot what he was doing, or that he went bannanas, or is a racist shit.

^^^ i think your missing the point. a crime (almost allways) requires two aspects -- actus rheus (guilty act) and mensa rhea (guilty mind) for murder, the mensa rhea is intention to kill -- either direct (where you try to kill someone) or oblique, where you dont care wether they live or die (like section 18 GBH -- kicking the shit out of someone to the point where they could dye, if it can be established that you dont particularly care if they live or die, is (attempted) murder). for manslaughter, the mensa rhea is irrisponsability. hence, DD cannot be considered murder, unless you could establish in court that they at least didn't care whether someone died or not (when, really, i think most people would be able to establish that they were just to stupid to consider that it might happen) as i see it (tho IANAL), if you were pissed and intentionally aimed your car for someone, without actually trying to kill him, or if you were pissed and joy-riding, then i think you'd get done for attempted murder with oblique intent, otherwize it's manslaughter (which carries a sentance of 'up to life', so it doesn't really matter) 'causing death by drink/driving' = 10 years (uk)

the desktop gets cluttered, and takes longer to display. given windows track-record with malware, it might be to allow for the auto-scanning of anything written to the folder, or setting the os to auto-sandbox anything run from that folder, run them with limited privelages etc. maintainance programs could auto-delete/archive the contents of the downloads folder every now-and-then... who knows? i guess m$ just thought it'd be a useful convention.

if you quote me, then someone else, could you make sure you attribute at least the first non-me quote to the originator please, otherwize it looks like your attributing all the quotes to me. 1/ wear baggy pants the link to madness wasnt completely irrelivent. punk first had one dress-code, then another, then became very tight-leather-centric, then became very bright and baggy. whilst i dont particularly try to fit into any particular style of dress, i'd say, if i had to classify my 'style', it'd be punk. bright, garish, hawaian shirts and... zomg... baggy trousers. it's a distinclty punk/rock thing, at least in this country. ie, not neccesarily attributable to black people. in fact, given that racism and naziism used to be a fashionable part of punk, i'd say black people were underrepresented in punk, and can't really be given credit for any fashion changes in the punk movement. this is, of cource, ignoring flairs, which were the fault of white people (insert joke about white guilt here), and baggy pantaloons in iirc tudor times. black people did not invent baggy trousers. 2/ listen to music centred on sex and drugs most music, from all contemporary cultures, focuses around sex. see: pop. lots of music focuses on drugs aswell. black people did not invent music about sex and drugs (sex, drugs, and rock and roll anyone?). unless you want to classify, say, the beatles as a black-rap group. 3/ talk jibberish this is, again, common to any group of people, and is a natural effect of them spending time semi-isolated from other cultures. kids generally over-emphasize it to exclude adults. agian, not the reserve of blacks. hell, lots of people 'talk jibberish'. im sure it sounds at least semi-jibberish if i say 'get yer bloody trousers off the pavement, yer wanker'. shakespear wrote in jibberish. in th' coon'ree, ae bis spee'in' loike this, and th' grokles no be understandin a wor' e bis sayin. ahch, tha wee bairns in scotland be heatherin lahk this*. we even do it on teh interwebz lolly rox0r roffle-copters. basically, i dont see how any of this is attributable to black people, or even how it's 'negitively effecting our societies'. i'm going to give you slightly less benifit of the doubt than sysiphus. your oppinion of black people and parts of your society is, to put it bluntly, very stupid. of all the wrongs in this world, ventelated clothing, rude songs, and slang probably rank extremely lowly, and are not attributable to black people. by judging all black people by the ones on tv and the popular conception of 'gangstaz' (which it appears you're doing), your basically doing the equivelent of judging all white people based on tom cruse and the popular conception of rednecks. and, jezuz, are you really trying to say that the fact that white people are also materialistic and criminal proves your point that it's the black peoples fault? the uk analogue -- 'positive' discrimination -- is applicable to any minority, from blacks to gays/women/transexuals (even, under some circumstances, white males), so i guess it might stick around in the uk for these newly not-discriminated-against groups. maybe similar will happen in the us? heterosexual guilt? the whole unfair discrimination thing just needs to be sorted out once-and-for-all, imo. ---------- * actually, i think that might have changed from scottish to yorkshire to brummy, but you get my point.

i dunno man... i've seen cars nearly crash from swerving out of the way of crap cyclists, and a kid/OAP getting hit by a cycle could still get limbs broken.

file edit etc are familiar. change for the sake of change sucks, cos then you dont know where anything is. also, the file edit etc layout is the norm for most OS...

that's exactly what i thought. would it be possible to block the transfer, with say metal wallpaper, or a faraday cage thing built into the wall? not that you'd be able to use a mobile then...

well, the biological computation that is done by cells is usually done by phisical-feedback. eg: if you can transform protien P1 --> protien P2 using enzyme E, and you want x amount of P2, and the level of P2 that currently exists is z: on a computer you could (using pretend-code) say something like: get E to do (P1-->P2) x-z times #(x-z being the difference between the P2 you have, and the P2 you want) or something like: while z < x: #(untill the desired level of P2 is reached) tell E to (P1-->P2) #(make P2) either of which would result in transforming P1 into P2 untill the actual level of P2 (z) is the desired level (x). as to how that works on an electrons-flowing-through-silicon-stuff level, that's beyond me. in a cell, what you'd do, is youd desighn E so that P2 suppresses it by binding to it and changing it's shape, thus deactivating or slowing it down. if you balance the amount of E and the effect that P2 has on E properly, then the result should be that, as z approaches x, E will be increasingly inhibited, and the rate of E(P1 --> P2) will decrease. when z = x (when you have enough P2), then E should be completely deactivated, so no more P2 is produced. the effect is the same as the pseudocode examples: P1 is transformed into P2 untill you have the desired level of P2, at which point P2 production ceases. similarly, if gene G makes enzyme E, you could desighn G so that E binds to and suppresses it. do it right (ie, get the amount by which E suppresses G right), and G will continue making E untill the correct amount of E is produced, at which point thered be so much E that G is totally silenced, and doesn't make any more E untill the level of E drops to a level that 1/ requires more E to be made to maintain desired levels, and 2/ is low enough so that G is no longer being totally silenced (see how it works?) in cases such as the regulation of the cell-cycle, mitosis etc, this is actually quite complicated, with check-points that check certain conditions are met, and dont let the rest of the cell proceed untill they are (thus coordinating the whole thing, and making sure that, say, the chromosomes dont migrate to opposite poles of the cell untill they've been sorted into two groups, and that the cell doesn't divide into two untill the chromosomes are out of the way of the point at which the cell pinches into two -- which, coincidentally, is, through a chain of chemical interactions, guaranteed to be at right-angles to the poles to which the two chromosome groups migrate, thus ensuring that the pinching-into-two actually segregates the two groups of chromosomes). the point is that cells, using just interaction between molecules, can process information to quite a high level of sophistication, and react to environmental 'input'. if we can desighn a computer that works on molecules and that is programable (ie, useful), the idea is it'll be: a/ really tiny -- smaller than current computers (good for data storage), and b/ much faster in certain respects. as for how contemporary man-made biocomputers work: i have no idea tho, i think lamp-posts could be seen as a bio-computer (or at least a chemical-computer: not sure what the difference is). the pretend-code would be: if light-level < x: make light else: dont the way that this works is that there are chemicals on top of the lamp-post that react to environmental light; when environmental light goes above x, the molecules are stimulated into inhibiting the lamp-post. when the environmental-light drops below x, the molecules become de-stimulated, and stop inhibiting the lamp-post, which procedes to make light. or something. very very simple computation, but computation (and reacting to external input) non-the-less. the question is: how can we make them more complex, and prefferably programable. hope that all made sence.

impressive, and congrats

out of interest, is that an american term? i could have sworn it was scottish? as i said, it's not enough, after decades of inherent racism, for a few polititians to simply go 'hey, let's not be racist anymore'. when black people came to our countries, they were slaves; then, they were officially second-class citizens; then, they were unnoficially second-class citizens. if we (read: 'the govournment', i suppose) force black people, as a whole, into a situation whereby they're poorer, less well educated, under-represented in the workforce, and with a whole other set of crap to put up with that white people, generally speaking, dont have to put up with, and then go 'hey, we'll stop being racist now -- if you guys, with your lesser access to education due to your povery, and your lesser access to work due to your lesser education, can claw your collective way out of the shit-hole that we've buried you in, then you can: we won't stop you just cos your black', whilst all the time racism is free to continue slyly due to under-representation of black people in the workforce, govournment, etc, then we're essentially allowing the effects of the subjugation of black people to continue weeeeeeeell after it's officially stopped. i see 'affirmative action'* and 'positive discrimination' as (rather ugly) ways of avoiding the above. now, then, black people should have, or should be approaching having, equal status as white people. any inequalitites that are attributable to ye olde subjugation of the blacks would be the inequalities to which i was reffering, and they'd be inequalities which might justify continuing with the AA/PD thingies. and, to clarify my statement: the fact that experienceing america/britain with the inequities that are the 'echos' of the black subjugation is better than living in africa does not excuse those equalities, any more than the us or uk could inpose discriminatory laws and say 'meh, if is better than living in africa, which is where you'd still be if we hadn't enslaved your ansestors' only tangently related, I also think it's inportant that our govournments pays punitive costs. next time the govournment consideres tolerating the unfair subjugation of a peoples, maybe it'll think twice, knowing that, if it's ever proved to be an unjust subjugation, all its people might have to end up footing the 'fine' in order to sort the mess out. ---------- *barring the bit about white families paying black ones. that's just stupid.

that doesn't excuse any inequality in present day america. it'd be basically saying 'hey, sucks to be you -- but it could be worse, so that's ok'. not a very good argument imo. methinks you're relying too much on MTV for your oppinion of black people. afaict, most whites and blacks in the us aren't like the above. tho, there are many -- both black and white -- that are. unless you want to tell me that there are no rich-ass materialistic white people, who show off their new car, or 50" widescreen? and no of them break the law to get material luxuries? both black and white youth (and adults): 1/ wear baggy pants 1 2/ listen to music centred on sex and drugs 3/ talk jibberish to, i would suggest, an equal degree.

Que? doesn't argentina speak spanish?

i dunno... i'm definately not an animal-rights nazi, but i do think we should be cautious with how easy we are with their lifes. whilst i'd personally refuse to do so, disecting frogs in class is a valuable teaching-aid to train biologists. selling dead frogs in boxes is not. i doubt that much learning will result from their deaths, so imo the frog-in-a-box is wasteful of animal life. genecks its not a whole animal, but you can get a, say, sheep's heart in a butchers. hearts are interesting to disect imo, and you can eat it afterwards

nil problemo. you might have a point there. in the khn'ree (english countryside), theres much less of a social stigma against drink driving, simply because: a/ everywhere is so far from everywhere else, and b/ theres little public transport. everyone considers it ok to drive home from the pub, unless your absolutely legless, because how else are you going to get home? which probably makes you one of the people who don't need this measure to make you drive responsably in the first place

Gutz: infra-red spectroscopy. same way that a fire-alarm tells the difference between smoke from a fire, smoke from a cigarette, and steam. IR is emitted at a frequency that is adsorbed by ethanol, so, if there's enough ethanol in your breath, it'll adsorb the IR and prevent it from reaching the sensor. iirc, heavy-meat diets and (possibly) diabetes can cause false positives due to the presence of molecules with similar IR adsorption spectra in the breath. an inconvienience in road-side breathalisers, a bit more of a problem in this case. ---------- maybe a firmer hand is needed? this is what i meant about attetude. i really find it hard to understand how you (pl.) can take the oppinion that someone who gets in a car, which can kill people, and drive it whilst drunk -- let alone actually crash it seriously enough to total it -- should be allowed to continue driving. from your source: in the uk he'd have lost his licence if he even drove his car whilst pissed: http://www.thinkroadsafety.gov.uk/campaigns/drinkdrive/drinkdrive.htm http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/28.htm#5 39% of [acr=fatal road traffic accidents]FRTA[/acr]s in the us alcohol related 16% of FRTAs in the uk alcohol related http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-driving-statistics.html http://www.thinkroadsafety.gov.uk/campaigns/drinkdrive/drinkdrive01.htm cource, that might just mean the british are more prone to, say, speeding that you americans, thus overshadowing the DUI deaths, and theres also a lot of propoganda against DD (see last source) in the uk, but i think the wussyness of enforsement in the us -- the fact that lots of police dont have breathalisers(?), the fact that the punishments are more lenient, and the fact that it's less socially unnaceptable -- probably plays a significant roll in the problem. if they drive whilst drunk, take their licence away for a while -- if they drive again after that, put them in jail, and possibly give whoever lent them their car penalty points -- by all means require them to have a breathalyser-lock for x years when their disqualification expires, but, by allowing them to endanger other peoples lifes and still continue driving, do you not think that you're sending out the message that DD isn't that serious a crime?

dont you have to register cars? ie, if the DD says he doesn't have a car, could the judge not just look it up in a database and tell that the guy's lying? incidentally -- and this is more anecdote than anything else -- but you americans seem to have an appauling attitude towards DUI. do most americans really think that DD is just 'one of those things that happens' and is an ok thing to do? that was the impression that i got when i went over there.

iirc, crypt32.dll is something to do with NT encryption -- its started by winlogon, and the registry key that starts it (under winlogon/notify) is called crypt32chain. so... if you have a file, called crypt32.dll, that's reffered to in the startup moniter as crypt32chain, it's fine If you have an actual file called crypt32chain.dll, it's a trojan, trying to spoof the legitimate file.

a quick point: in international circles, i believe transgrettions expire after a century (possibly?). if 'black people' were a different country that america had screwed with by enslaving them, then the country of 'black people land' would still be demanding reparations, and, being that it was so recent, i believe international oppinion/SOP might be that the US should recompensate 'black people land' for their recent, and quite nasty, insult. does the fact that they're not their own country, and that some americans just screwed with some other americans, make it that different? should america, the country, not recompensate the people whom it shat upon, and who are still (on average) in a lesser position because of it, just because they're members of america and not foreigners? well, if we dont, what's to stop us using that advantage to keep that advantage for a looooooooooooong time (wether we intend to do so or not)? [disclaimer]i'm kinda playing devils advocate here: i dont neccesarily think the above is true. i'm also assuming the US's 'affirmative action' is pretty-much the same as the UK's 'positive discrimination'[/disclaimer]

^^^ one of the best disclamers ive heard I dunno. i suppose, after years of institutionalised racism, it wasn't really enough to just go 'hey, we wont be racist ****s anymore'. black people were, by and large, much more poorer than white people, had crappyer jobs, less education etc; i'm guessing it would have taken yonks for the situation to rectify itself, and for the new equality to actually 'trickle down', and for black people to get equal educations, then equal job prospects, etc -- and, in all that time, with mostly-white work-forces etc, institutionalised racism could have effectively continued in an unnoficial way. so, i think 'positive' racism was probably a good move to quickly equalise the situation, and espescially to break the 'whites only' attetude at the time, but is still definately a wrong -- still unfair on those discriminated against, still breads racism, still gives nazis* ammunition -- but one of those cases where 'two wrongs kinda do make a right', by fixing the situation quicker. i definately think it should only be a temporary measure, tho, and i'm not sure it's still justified (in the uk at least). ---------- * in the uk, we actually have a nazi party (BNP), and they actually do use this 'suppression of the masses' as a recruting chant, and nearly got elected in a few constituencies last election.

im with jeremyhfht: the release of the ps3 is an omen, indicating that the time to buy a ps2 is nearly upon us. dirt cheap console, with dirt cheap games. it also, in theory, marks the point at which people stop caring enough about ps1 games that d/l'ing the roms from the net will become as quasi-legal as d/l'ing snes roms. hopefully.