A Tripolation

And many historians believe exactly that. There really was no alternative that would have been less evil.

Well said JillSwift, that is how I feel as well. Even though it was his fault, he doesn't deserve to be condemned to death (by refusal of medical care) for one mistake. But most people read them because they think they are funny, which imo, is a deplorable thing to do. I myself almost caused a bad accident when I pushed the clutch in on a tractor while it was going downhill. I thought it was the brake, and since this tractor relies on engine-braking to stop it from careening down a hill, my action was incredibly stupid, and would've resulted in severe injuries had the other people not been paying attention. That would have merited a Darwin Award had someone been killed, and I personally do not see any good that comes from posting such Darwin Award stories because of a person's mistake at some point in their life. I despise people that feel they can judge based on so few actions.

Wait, what's the point of this thread? And why shouldn't I watch the video? Is bascule screwing with everyone?

I reiterate: The technological singularity either leads to amazing wonderfulness, or we're all screwed and everyone dies. I don't want to find out. And that was kinda mean, iNow.

I think this about sums it up: Credit to Pangloss for the gif

dr.syntax...I'm afraid to say I must agree with Ms. JillSwift. Primal Therapy has obviously been shown to not produce any positive therapeutic outcomes...and those are peer-reviewed studies saying that. You can't argue a point and expect the other person to ONLY argue from that point as well. That would make theological discussions SO much easier Me: "Jesus exists." Them: "Prove it." Me: "The Bible says so." Them: "Damn, you're right." You see how that just isn't fair or right?

Dr. Syntax, it seems to me that iNow has linked to peer-reviewed articles, which is considered a valid way to oppose an argument. It's not really Appeal to Authority, which would be iNow throwing out one Dr.'s name and saying "Since he doesn't agree with it, it's wrong, and he's right, because he's a doctor and he must know exactly what he's talking about." Now, what I know about psychology is probably equivalent to that of a small gerbil's, but using my common sense, I do not think Primal Therapy would work. Why would I want to scream about stuff that makes me mad? It seems that that would just heighten my propensity to just scream whenever something makes me mad, instead of me addressing what is exactly making me mad, and then seeing if I am in the wrong, or if I could help "enlighten" the idiot that is making me mad. That's how I feel anyways.

From what I've read, even after they were hit with the nukes, the war council was deadlocked 3-3 on whether or not to surrender. The Emperor broke the tie and decided to surrender, and many attribute that to the fact that he saw that the atomic bombs were as devastating as those fire bombings, but they only needed one bomb and plane to do it. He feared that America had many more than the two we dropped on them (we didn't). Judging from how they fought to the bitter death to hold the islands in the pacific, I think it's a pretty safe assumption to say that we would've had to invade the actual island of Japan and fight its every inhabitant to get the Japanese to surrender. I think more civilians would've died that way than anything else. I think the Bataan Death March and all the other war crimes committed by the Japanese justified the act of dropping the nukes on Japan for most Americans back then.

I don't know that they overlap that much, but I would say that it would be helpful to read iNow's book suggestion first. That's what I'm planning on doing when I get the money and time. Timo had an excellent suggestion though, of just browsing through your local uni's book collection, should you have the good fortune of living near one. Good luck on your learning.

I got some real nice suggestions when I asked this question. Hope it helps

Just now went to it. It's amazing. Really easy to use too.

And though I'd really like to see one...I mean...come on. Anyone discussing on the side of religion is going to lose...badly. We have no evidence and are making an incredible claim. As such, the burden of proof lies on us and we are not able to fulfill that. Though there could be some very interesting discussions if they were held to the level of opinion that the politics forum was, and not, say, the Physics forum.

Only the creationist trolls do that. The rest of us will sit back quietly until we are addressed specifically about our religious beliefs.

I think those teens should be cited. They were acting like douches, holding up the line and making everyone's life harder. All in an attempt to be...well...funny. Now tracking them down was a little extreme, but still, I don't mind them being cited for it. They were acting like jerks.

Cool, I'll have to check it out. Thanks for the reference, ydoaPs.

And what standards are you applying that disallows them from being called a news program? True, it's often silly, but the information that they talk about is news. So long as the news is reported, they are a "news" organization in my book, though not the one that I have idealized in my mind, as complete objectivity is impossible in humanity.

Ha, no problem bascule. The more people that see my awesomeness, the better. Matter of fact, I think the Daily Show could be considered a news program. Though they do have a *bias*, they report the news, and the issues are still painted in a decently fair light.

Goodness no, Dr. Syntax. You misread my question. Notice the "?" at the end of the sentence. I was asking RyanJ to elaborate on his view that an AI's benefits would outweigh the risk of having an AI. Here is his post that I mentioned in my post. I do not think a true AI could ever be justified. I watch too many sci-fi movies.

Oh wow, no I haven't. Though I am now against giving micro-robots sentience.

Because corn roots aren't like tree roots. They go deep relative to what they are, but they don't extend for very long. And even if they did, it wouldn't harm the plants any. Lots of crops are in such close proximity to each other that roots are bound to intertwine once in a while, but no harm done.

Dam you padren and your sound logic!!! Well, you really got me there. Uhhh...I dunno. Edit* There are two good answers right below me, padren.

You make really good points bascule. But like Syntho-sis said, so long as people keep referring to MSNBC as news, I will do the same for Fox News.

Ok, they "organize" political events and take bias to an extreme. I will admit that. But they still do report on news, right? Doesn't that make them a de facto news organization or something? I really don't like Fox, I'm not defending them. What's throwing me for a loop is that they are CALLED Fox NEWS...