Sayonara

The reason why "but only the law-abiding will hand in their guns" is not a bad thing has already been demonstrated in the UK to great effect, and indeed discussed in this very thread.

Yes, him personally - I don't think he allowed civilians to bunk down in his palaces. Not necessarily. If Iraq had agreements with AQ in the past, which deteriorated to the point where AQ were asked to leave, there may well have been discussions that escalated towards open threats. I don't suppose we're likely to find out.

There are several optical camoflauge systems available today. I imagine they're all (with the exception of front projection) more effective at night.

If that's true, and we are going to remain democratic and civilised, surely we should approach allegations against Hussein in this matter in the same way you insist that we approach the allegations of lying made against Bush and Blair. After all, for all we know AQ could have been allowed to stay in Iraq because they threatened to plough 747s into one of Hussein's palaces.

Maybe so, but now we at least have opposing examples. It seemed to be okay for you when it was just the view from your side. *suspicious looks* We've been over all this already (at considerable length). The right to own or purchase a thing was agreed to be contingent on the intended use and design purpose of that thing. The argument is that people will not be shot (i.e. attacked with a gun), not that they won't be killed (i.e. attacked with anything). In the case of shootings per se, corrolation and causation actually do coincide quite well, what with you needing a gun to be able to do it. It seems to work okay in other countries. In the UK for example, although we might occasionally like to shoot a mugger in the face to teach them a lesson, we tend to just get on with our lives instead and allow criminals to face actual justice.

And yet staggering numbers of people still get shot and killed every year, both in and outside of their homes. Imagine that happening even with all those guns around.

I'm fairly sure that this has come up already, but here it as again anyway: Corrolation is not causation. [edit] to post #588

You're missing out the fact that I added a caveat along the lines of "if we're assuming that we have the technology to go to other stars, I'm going to assume we have the technology to map where we are while we're doing it". Actually the term navicom is a common contraction of "navigational computer". I've never heard it mentioned in Star Trek. Such devices exist - you can buy them for your cruise liner, 747, car etc. It's just a generic name for any device that computes a route to a point from the origin. [edit] In fact you must be thinking of something else entirely, because Federation vessels navigate by means of the subspace beacon network. [/edit] Good luck with that.

No, I was more making the point that we aren't a good thing to compare other species to in terms of relative superiority. Blame technology.

What they may not have mentioned at the time was that those ties were of a "he didn't like them very much" nature.

I was discussing this with atinymonkey the other day. He mocked my suggestion of using a navigational computer that tracked key star positions, and said he was going to do it all by eye. Not very helpful at all, I know. But there we go.

If he is doing nothing, he is still draining resources.

Very well. Here are some random pages from typical degree-level biology text books. Apologies for the poor scans - turns out the rising hinges on my scanner actually don't make book scanning "better". Figure 1 is page 117 of Biostatistical Analysis, Fourth Edition, an entire 750 or so pages purely devoted to the common maths of biology. Figure 2 is page 20 (the maths starts early in this book) of Population Biology: Concepts and Models. Figure 3 is page 34 of From Individual Behaviour to Population Ecology, Second Edition. Figure 4 is page 101 of Evolution, Second Edition. Stryer's Biochemistry, Fourth Edition would not fit in the scanner.

Given that most of biology is described in terms of the underlying mathematics I say "ha ha ha ha" to that.

There comes a point where someone along the line has to accept responsibility for the mistake, whether it be a mistake made by their department or their subordinates. This should definitely apply where massive consequences result from policies that are based on the mistaken advice. This doesn't necessarily mean that you have to trace the information back to the original source. Anyone in a position of responsibility using that information should know better than to base policy on it without corroborating the content elsewhere. As it stands, it appears that the government is eschewing all accountability, which I suspect is why they have slightly alienated some people.

If they do they will have to use the non-closed thread YT.

Please check for similar threads before you start new ones.

He hid from the first one like a big girl. We all mocked him so he's running towards this one with his arms in the air, shouting.

Blike runs around a lot.

One does not respond to a question with a question. He asked first. "If nobody calls him a liar, then he has never lied" is not exactly a good foundation for trust.

That's irrelevant. If he did not need to know he would not have asked. In future, please exercise better discretion before posting.

To which anyone with the most basic grasp of scientific method replies "it doesn't matter whether God did it, or it just happened."

http://www.onlineconversion.com/ [edit] I realise that this does not really answer your qustion, but it is unceasingly useful.

It's from the "It came from outer space!!!!!" poster. I was trying to find a 50s sci-fi poster that had "science!" on it in that cheesy shock-horror font, but I couldn't find any, so the red text had to do "Progress - No one could stop it!" is next.

What post (or Bush quotage) are you referring to?