Dak

just because... umm... i'm... 19, doesn't make it any less harsh -- if anything, it's more harsh 'cos 19 year olds are less used to this -- and comments like 'awww, your upset. go have sex with her' are a bit tactless. ooh look, a knife, lets twist it!

sorry, should have made it clearer (i edited some '^^^'s in) it was aimed at the empathically-crippled mr d hmm... i guess i'd disagree that disreguard for the law is immature, or even neccesarily bad; but, that's a subject that could drag this thread OT, methinks.

^^^ are you retarded? 'hey my gf just hurt me by cheating on me. i think i'll nob her, even tho i'm not currently happy with her. and the person who helped her cheat on me, even tho i probably dont like her. that'll be fun. as opposed to painful.' or 19 and mature enough to drink; surely your second point rebukes your first? if laws do not dictate what is right and what is wrong, then surely he can be 19 and mature enough to drink, so ignoring the law is ok and not neccesarily immature?

aye, theres that (which, tbh, i didn't even think of). the main problem for me, tho, is that if they cheat on you then fess up and appologise, then they've done one thing wrong, which they're sorry for, and want to do the mature thing: own up, accept the repercussions (which might include loosing their partner), and make an effort to make it right. if they cheat on you, then dont tell you, they either aren't that bothered by it, or, even if they are, they descide to keep it from you, which, imo, is worse that the actual act of cheating -- repeatedly lying to you and allowing you to continue to believe that they've been faithful. either way, it'd be dumpage time if you find out, imo.

do you know the sequence? how often do you have to do this? repeatedly, or just a few times? am i right in thinking that the objectives are to have multiple 300-500bp fragments that, between them, represent the entire genome? ie, actual randomness of fragment production is not neccesary as long as the above objective is met?

now that's odd. your taking the law as gospel (he's too young to drink by law, ergo he's too young to drink) and critisising him for disreguarding it, whereupon you proceed to ignore the law and replace it with your own oppinions on what should/shouldn't be done at his age (he's old enough to have a sexual relationship and get married, but sod it, he's still too young for a serious relationship). peculiar indeed. which is it? should he adheer to the law, or should the law be disreguarded and replaced with ones own desisions? you seem to be giving conflicting advice.

i dunno. again, i think it comes down to how you find out. if someone confesses, and you wouldn't have otherwize found out, i think they can be forgiven once.

i guess theres no real right or wrong answre, as each couple is different, but, from personal experience, you have to consider wether or not your actually capable of forgiving her. saying 'ok, sure, your sorry, and i forgive you' is one thing. trusting her, and not being uber-paranoid and possesive, is another, and if you cant do that -- if you cant act as if you've forgiven her as well as merely saying it -- the relationship won't work. from personal experience: no trust = she'll cheat on you a million times more, even if it's only in your mind. plus, it wont be a nice relationship for her. if you cant actually forgive her, then i'd simply reccomend not forgiving her. try to part nicely, but dont continue going out with her; it'll only end in tears. hmm... on the other hand, i've helped people cheat on their partners many times, who have genuinely loved their partners. cheating doens't neccesarily mean she doesn't care, nor, for reasons that i can't actually understand, that she doesn't care about your feelings. tho i still think that if she breaks an inportant promice to you, it's dumpage time. but that's just me.

quick question: as long as the js encryption is asymetrical, could you include, as part of the encryption prosess, something dependant on, say, the time/date. thus, the password will not be the same twice, and resubmits would be easy to spot. not that making asymetric encryption keys sounds all that easy

sounds like he understands fundamental religon quite well. his quotes, whilst untactfully worded, dont sound bigoted per se, tho he may be over-generalising. i must say that anyone who is willing to dismiss any amount of evidence in favour of what they arbritrarily feel, for any number of not neccesarily particularly good nor accurate reasons, to be true, then they are, in actual fact, not rational. i think it causes alot of the 'evils' in this world, from bigotry to violence, and, well, is just a bit silly really. it looks to me as if he's equating 'believing in a god, and his teachings, in the face of evidence' (eg, creationism rather than evolution) with the above, and 'stupid' with irrational. he kinda has a point. 'i believe in god, for no particular reason, who says x is true' equates roughly to 'i believe in x for no particular reason'. by all means believe, but surely, if evidence is provided that you are wrong, you should modify your belief, rather than being so pig-headedly arrogant, or just plain stupid, as to say 'meh. i believe x, thus x is true, even if it really seems like it's not'; sticking 'in god, who says' in there doesnt change the fact that the above is stupid. you believe in god, who says x. we can see x is not true. ergo: your belief in god is wrong your belief that god said x is wrong. god is wrong the assesment that x is false is wrong are all possibilities. and this is the 'stupid or not stupid' point. people who will simply say 'the assesment is wrong 'cos i beleve thats the case' are, in actual fact, stupid, and the more this is done -- the more new beliefs are adopted to resist admitting that a prior belief (such as 100% litteral truth of the bible) is wrong -- the more one moves further and further away from reality and into cuckoo land. thats genuinely not meant as offensive to religos people -- like i said, believe in god all you want; that is not stupid. it's the belief in stuff that we can tell is wrong, that is stupid, espescially when it gets to rediculous levels. tho, he could do well to remember that not all religos people trust the bible above evidence. many christians will believe in god and parts of the bible, but disbelieve the parts that are contradicted by evidence, so i think 'all christians are stupid' is a tad unfair. eg: a person who accepts, or simply knows nothing of, evolution, and believes in god would not be stupid. a christian who knows of evolution, and who believes: god exists genesis is litterally true god planted false fossils radio carbon dating is wrong the evidence suggesting radio carbon dating is correct is wrong the evidence suggesting that the evidence suggesting carbon dating is wrong is wrong is, itself, wrong evidence of speciation is wrong speciation cannot occour, even tho no mechanism to prevent it exists scientists, from all nations and walks of life, are part of a conspiracy to disprove god, yes even the religos ones. any other evidence contradicting the belief that genesis is litterally true is wrong. all to avoid, for no rational reason, admitting that either god doesnt exist, god was wrong, or -- a pretty easy one to admit -- genesis is not, for whatever reason, 100% litterally true, is, in actual fact, stupid. ones belief does not trump evidence. to think otherwize is stupid, not to mention arrogant and, when we move into ethics, dangerous. so... i dont nessesarily agree with dawkins (possibly) generalisations, but his central points, if applied to the correct type of religos people, are correct. they are stupid and dangerous. and, unfortunately, too common for confort, and in positions of power.

actually, have u (cally) considered pologamy? if she doesnt want an exclusive relationship, and you only want one because it's the default/expected, mebbe it'd be best for all if the relation was non-exclusive (assuming you can forgive her, of course)

im sure i speak for all of us when i say that we fully support your lifestyle disisions and accept you for who you are. i think it was "You can't trust women period" thats causing the kufufaw. my first 4 girlfriends cheated on me, respectively: #asking my best mate for sex (who said no) #infront of me, then, after i forgave her, asked my kinda-friend for sex, who said yes and was later slightly unconfortable when he found out she was my g/f (then told me) #with her ex #with some random bloke. and her ex. at this point, I couldn't trust women, at least as monogomouse partners, which is significantly different from your statement. fwiw, i've since had 2 gf who have not cheated on me (which was nice). aren't women nice, as long as one has some discresion in who to go out with.

thanks, i've allways wondered what the antonym of mysogony was. i've just been using feminism. most rap afaict (got me hoes/wiki wiki wah/ shut up hoes/ wikkety wikkety woo/ gonna shoot me sum hoes) i dont really think that the songe you quoted was masogonistic btw. i feel that was rhetoric, but i think it should stand as a valid question. should we indeed? after all, if they're the facts, then they're the facts. surely it's not misandry if its true?

to play devils advocate: how did u find out? if she told you, then i guess i'd be inclined to forgive. for me, being cheated on isn't about the sex -- in all my relationships, i'd've been totally prepared to 'grant permission' for my gf to have sex with others (in fact, i wont have an exclusive relationship anymore), but still, when i've been cheated on, the prinsiple is what (really) hurts -- the fact that someone who's supposed to love, or at least really like, me, is willing to do something that afatct will really hurt me. going out with someone prepared to do that is a silly idea. if she fessed up, tho, it at least represents imo a fundamental honesty and respect for you. 'hey, i ****ed up, sorry' is much, much better that 'hehe, i had a threesom and i doubt i'll get caught -- w00t!'. so yeah. it depends alot on yourself, and wether youd actually be able to forgive and trust her again, but personally: if i found out from her, fair enough; if not, dump her ass. then nob her sister.

expressing a derogatory view about a group of people, or publically claiming that they are wrong, or even being intolerant of a group of people/their beliefs is not, in and of itself, bigotry. bigotry requires that the view/intolerance essentially boils down to 'i dont like it, 'cos i dont, so they suck', or 'i dont like it cos its not what i think/would do/etc, so it's bad'. not saying that dawkins isn't bigoted (i've not read his books, and am only vaiguley aware of the foundation for his oppinions), but, afaict, he bases his views on reason, which would make them valid (note: valid does not neccesarily = correct) and thus not bigoty. a mid-US christian fundamentalist will, according to the steriotype, not use reason, instead basing their intolerance upon their views and the bible, irreguardless of wether others accept it, and essentially is, therefore, a bigot. not neccesarily saying that all mid-us christian fundies are like this, but you were comparing to the steriotype, which is quite different from dawkins imo. tho i'd be inclined to agree (but would refrain due to lack of adequate knoweldge about his work) that he is bordering on zealothood... a fundamentalist atheist

theres broadly speeking two types of muscle: red and not-red (possibly white, or possibly white is just one type of non-red muscle, i can't remember). ok, actually that's a gross oversimplification, as there's striated and smooth (and cardiac striated) muscle, but, of the muscle that we're talking about (striated), it can be divvied up, for convienience, into red and what im going to call white. red muscle is for 'raargh, me man' type strength. weight lifters have lots of it. white muscle is for more explosive, rapid moovements, but is less strong and 'burns out' quickly. ie, someone consisting entirely of red muscle will be relatively slow and sluggish, but really strong. someone consisting entirely of white muscle will lightning fast, but have very low stamina. it accounts for why big strong animals are red meat, and smaller, faster ones are white meat. maybe we traded strength, not just for dexterity, but also for speed? apes seem not to be capable of as fast moovment as humans, afaict, so maybe we have less red muscle, but more white muscle, than other apes? yeah, i know i could easily look this up, but im really tired so i'll leave it to someone else

as in, iirc fungi imperfecta are 'fungi that we dont know which order they belong to', hence 'protists' are 'thingies that we dont know which kingdom they belong to'. they seem pretty-much already organised within that system? eg, chlorophyta go in the 'green algi' bit problem is, you get different groupings dependant on wether you divvy them up cladistically, genetically, or by ribosomal-subunit ananlysis (to take the three examples from my text book). so... for a text book, i guess there's little choice but to use k.protista untill there's actually a consensus as to where these clades go. it would suck, for example, if a text book taught the classification that you linked to, only to have most scientists choose a different one a few years later. having said that, i kinda like the way my text book deals with it -- making it clear it's a 'misc' kingdom, and then going on to deal with them cladistically for ease of study (eg, flagelates, algi, etc -- tho, looking at the green algi, rhodophytai, chromista groups in your link, i guess that 'algi' doens't make that much sence apart from as a learning aide) iirc, choanoflagellates contain dinoflagellates, which bear a remarcable resembelance to the cells that sponges use to trap their food, hence the suspicion that evolution may have vaiguley gone dinoflagellates --> sponges --> other animals. [edit] actually, it's not dinoflagellates, but i can't remember which group it is[/edit]

it's nice (but sad ) i like the rythm -- its kinda disjointy and never quite fits imo (which adds to it)

if not, you'd have to call them 'misc' or 'unclassified', which is pretty much what protista means

no, sweety, what they write down on paper does not ameliorate the fact that they do hurt and cause the deaths of animals in order to 'save' them. the situations are analogouse because both groups are hurting those that they are trying to save. by releasing animals (wether destined for food or research) into an environment where they will just 1/ die and 2/ be immediately replaced they are increasing death, just as the SLF would be. more animals are slaugtered in the (probably now dead) animals stead to feed humans. more animals are tested on to re-do the experiment foiled by the liberation of the (probably now dead) lab animals. the really stupid thing being that scientists are legally and ethically obliged to design the experiments as to limit suffering of the animals, and the are forsed to repeat them (and thus subject more animals to experimentation) when the ALF 'rescue' them from the immunocompromise suite pretty unarguably 'hurting' the aminals. not to mention that violence against humans (which i've already mentioned) prettymuch belies their intent to 'not harm animals' (interesting that you glossed over that question), not to mention that the bold bit specifically mentions not hurting humans. as i said, writing something down isn't the same as doing it. if you dont agree with the above: same question, but alter the analogy so that the slavers shoot runaway slaves, to discourage running away. now, the SLF analogously liberate many slaves to death. justified? to steal bascules wording, 'rescued to death'. the ALF release animals, but they invariably die. and, if the above is true, then surely, every day, 100's of animals are 'tortured and killed' that would otherwise be left alone, simply to compensate to loss for from the ALFs actions? i've certainly never not been able to buy a burger due to ALF-indused shortage. not only that, but they give no thought whatsoever to the effect on other local wildlife when they are 'rescuing' animals. in some cases, they have released animals that are not natural inhabitants of the local country, and upset the local ecosystem, or released diseased/poisoned lab rats into the local environment. i bet the local wildlife are really grateful for the ALF. can you say w00t i dont think britains lack of fur coats can be attributed to the ALF, and it's easy enough to buy a leather jacket. for the rest: so? a few people have chickened out due to the ALF. animal research still continues. your arguing that the ALF's actions are morally ok: then, how about this. say i form a club of retaurds of my own. say we don't like the cruelty to animals that the ALF is commiting -- we don't like the needless deaths of animals by the ALF's hands. say we, then, publically announce that for every animal 'liberated' by the ALF we will immolate two. the ALF free 100 rats, we burn 200 to death. yes, we're harming those we are trying to save, but eventually, the ALF will learn that their only choice is to ceace their actions, reguardless of the fact that they think they're justified, in order to stop our violent ways. if we dont do this, no one will, and these animals will continue to suffer at these people hands. justified? bearing in mind the animal immolation front would be acting with the best interests of animals at heart. hmm... question (that you might know the answre to): how cum if i, say, have a pet rabbit, cut it's ears off, and keep it in a box only barely big enough to fit it into, i'll get arrested, but battery farms are legally allowed to do similar?

untill the protists have actually been put into other kingdoms (afaik, there's no consensus on where most of them should go), i guess k.protista is still usefull, as a kinda 'kingdom errata'. like the imperfecta order(?) in fungi.

[edit]whoops, padren hadn't posted when i started writing this. great minds think alike, i suppose more slaves and human fish[/edit] one word IMM: insurance. even ignoring that (i.e., the fact that the fishery may not have actually suffered that much financial loss), given the little that it actually accomplished with reguards to saving fish, were the 15,000 fish's lives worth £500,000 worth of spiting? yes. not that i agree with the ALF nor their tactics, but, from a tactical pov, for their methods to work they'd have to do it alot more. atm, they're ONLY upping the deaths of animals. in other words, they should step up their attacks, or step down completely (from an ethical POV, the latter). as a human example, imagine the following situation: a handfull of people go to a country where slavery is still alowed, and, not liking slavery, start to kill slaves. if they did this enough, then, yes, maybe slavers would give up, and abandon slaves as uneconomical. do it a little, however, and you get the following situation: sans SLF: one slave. random family of four people. with SLF: one dead slave. one (different) slave. random family of three, because one member, who would otherwize have been left alone, has been kidnapped by slavers to replace the dead one. see why i think the ALF are tossers? do you really think the ALF are helping animals? do you claim the above analogue represents a group who's actions are helping slaves? animals would be much better off without the ALF. there are documented cases of the ALF torturing people. at least one springs to mind of a reporter who had 'alf' carved in his back[edit]1[/edit], not to mention numerous death-threats to animal researchers. anyway... aren't we working on the presumption that animal lives are at the very least of comparable worth to human lifes? the ALF are definately guilty of mass animal murder, which, by their own rules, should be comparable or equivelent to mass murder of humans.

im not really an 'anime fan' as such, tho i do like it (and all animation). there are two things i mainly like about anime: 1/ it's special effects. once you've realised that the simplistic lines represent chareceture'd people, it can seem remarcably realistic. i wont boor you with the 'science' behind it, but briefly: the minimalistic approach leads your brain into essentially 'filling in the gaps' in the drawing, hence making it seem quite vivid, and also the charecetureisation makes everything look 'more real than reality' (sortof). 2/ it's random wiredness -- resultant from it mainly originating from an entirely different culture, with entirely different myths etc -- appeals to my crazy british sence of humour. tho, i admit that the random rapings, and espescially the paedo, have always slightly conserned me. tho i do kinda think things are funny in inverse proportion to their appropriateness, so i kinda laugh at them anyway.

are you really naiive enough to think that, over all, this helped the fish? the supermarkets aren't going to go 'oh dear, someone has vandalised a fishery, no fish for us this week, that is a shame to be sure' they'll just buy from somewhere else untill the fishery has recovered, or from somewhere else permanantly if the fishery doesn't, meaning: exactly the same number of fishes killed for food (other fisheries will take up the slack to meat the demand for fish, either temporarily or permantly) PLUS up to 15,000 fish killed for absolutely no reason. is it truly better that one fish dies without feeding a human, and so another one is killed instead, than for just one fish to be killed to feed a human? 1 fish... 2 fish... hmm... i may be an omnivore (and more carnivore than vegetarian), but i do have ethics in this area. admittedly, they're more damage-limitation than refraining from doing it, but i dont buy battery produce, i dont eat animals that were killed as babys or childeren (lamb, for example), and i prefer to eat larger animals (cows: 1 death = several meals; chicken: 1 death = about 4 meals), so, for me, this is completely unethical. normally, 1 fish death = 1 fish worth of food for a human. add retards into the equasion, and 2 fish deaths = 1 fish worth of food for a human; 1 by the ALF's hands, and one more to take it's place on the dinner table. not to mention that, presumably, lots of the fish were young, and would have lived to adulthood if they remained in the fishery. wasteful deaths that do nothing to limit human consumption of fish, even over the very short term, and only serve to temporarily increase the number of human-induced fish deaths, all in the name of protecting fish. and you think this is good, IMM? bascule excellent title, i actually lol'd. 'liberated to death'

tis true, but also redundant. your saying that a local change in allele frequency to less than 1 does not equate to a species-wide evolution i agree, and never said otherwize yes i do. we could say that the local human population has adapted, which, imo, is evolution, albeit local evolution. what the rest of humanity descides to spend it's time doing does not change this. to say that any shift in allele frequency is not evolution, but the last, tiny, step where the less-common allele drops out of the population is evolution seems entirely arbritrary to me. for an over-simplistic example: imagine a population of animals. each gene has two alleles: c and g (crap and good). for each gene, the freqency is c:0.99 g:0.01 ages later, the frequency is c:0.1 g:0.9 has that species not evolved? is an average member of the species initially posessed mainly of crap alleles, whilst, ages later, is posessed mainly of good alleles, hence the average suitability of the members of the species inproves over time (alternately: the basic description of the species changes over time) without alleles becoming exclusive. anyhoo... with only one allele form, evolution can't happen: hence, evolution must happen with more than one allele present. to say that the evolution 'hasn't happened' untill it has 'become complete by making an allele exclusive' (which is what it seems you're saying) is, tbh, rather bazarr