Sayonara

In what context? Economic?

Without the RAM, you just can't. You could conceivably write a script that programmatically displays chunks of it though.

lol 100Gb? Seriously?

This is probably the "most obviously missing" forum we could possibly have, so meh: http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=99

Moved to the spanky new Ecology, Populations and Habitats forum.

What I meant was that Queen Lizzo will probably fight to keep them in the Commonwealth. Kapow! Royal Rumble.

True, but then they aren't all in charge of foreign policy or the armed forces - not even indirectly. At this point people would usually say nasty things about the advisors to the president and the joint chiefs, but given recent history I have to wonder if their reputations are deserved. It appears more likely that they just don't get listened to, or any caveats they raise are ignored. I think you're probably onto something with your observations on China, but I have not really explained myself well here. I meant that whatever China does is not proof for you or myself, due to the fact that (a) I called it a tendency, which means not every nation will inevitably develop democracy, and (b) we can't observe China's entire history yet. Sorry, I was pushed for time. The overall point is that we should be more critical of our own motives abroad before we act, more responsible and less self-oriented in our dealings with other nations, and not afraid to face our past misdeeds with objectivity and accountability. The idea of overt nationalism within a global community is symptomatic of backward and dying societies.

I think they are independent but afaik they are a Commonwealth nation, and Lizzie heads the Commonwealth.

You'll have to fight the Queen for them. She won't go down easily.

So just about the right level of flexibility then?

Welcome to the forum. If you mean what I think you mean, then posts made in General Discussions don't count towards your postcount. Neither does anything moved to the trash bin. The idea is to make the postcount a better reflection of how much members contribute towards the sciencey threads.

I do not misunderstand its purpose at all - I am decrying the readiness of nations to wield it without more discretion, and to wield it so readily outside their own borders. If I stand on my front lawn shaking a stick at some local ragamuffins, I'll be considered within my rights since they were throwing stones at my windows. If, however, I chase them down the street with a stick, I will be arrested for causing a public disturbance and threatening actual bodily harm. The analogy may be crude, but the same principles are supposed to be observed in international law. But then, as I have said many times before, I don't really consider wading into random countries with the army o' death and toppling governments to be defensive measures. How crazy I must be. Perhaps I am some kind of liberal and don't realise it. I don't see how that's relevant. Were these the days of the Empire I'd likely be making similar points. You disagree in the sense that you don't think democracy has a tendency to arise, or in the sense that you don't think the nation has to be ready? Picking out one example of a nation that hasn't achieved democracy is fairly unproductive, seeing as I said "tendency", and also because of inconvenient words like "yet". It's not the diplomacy itself that's the problem, it's the implementation. Let's not shoot the messenger. I don't think I implied that to be the case, but if I did it wasn't intentional.

Your supreme law comes from a document that keeps getting amended? How confusing that must be for the average citizen.

You mean the "Team America: World Police" thing is intentional? While the latter half of that is more or less true, let's not pretend that the the protests against America started with Iraq. The organised world protests and general shouting started during the war in Afghanistan, a year beforehand.

Yes, I have this problem too. Unfortunately I think we may be stuck with it, since it's largely caused by the vagaries of different browsers' cookie handling methods. I'll see if I can find out more.

...or learned behaviour.

Apologist creationists aren't responsible for evolutionary theory though - so if we're talking about evolutionary theory, who cares what they argue?

I don't really feel that I need to. Wielding the stick at all is questionable in itself, and to a certain degree so is diplomatic meddling. Democracy has a tendency to arise when the society is ready for it. Our attempt to enforce democracy could be catastrophic, and it will most likely hurt them the most.

So what if they do? You don't kick-start democracy by force or threat of force in other countries under the guise of freeing the people from tyranny' date=' then complain because you don't like what they do with that freedom. That's called hypocrisy. [i']I[/i] want the US and UK out of the Middle East. Does that make me a terrorist? Anti-American? Anti-democratic? A deeply bad person? No. The democratic status of a nation is not defined by what its people want or believe. If we've learned anything over the past few years, it's that calling things you don't like "Anti-American" is a complete farce. This seems a lot more rational to me. Even so, we simply have to accept that certain things cannot be predicted or controlled. It is not up to us to determine the "right" course of action for other countries, especially those we claim to be helping towards democratic civilian governments.

That's not really proof of the theorem.

There are TCP/IP problems that degrade networking performance after installation of SP1 and SP2. You need to install the relevant patches.

The Baftas say otherwise: Half Life 2: - Best Game - Best Online Game - Best Action Adventure - Best PC Game - Best Art Direction - Best Animation Halo 2: - Best X-Box Game (lol)