Sayonara

Biology-less biology doesn't "just happen" because you want it to. There's no existing mechanism for what you are trying to do. "If we had these proteins in our eyes, we would be able to see IR" does not mean you can just squirt a load of junk into your eyes (or eat lots of potatoes - whichever) and grow a whole new organ. It still assumes adaptive radiation.

"OLD" There is no missing dollar, just bad maths.

Rattlesnakes don't see in infra-red, they have 2mm-wide pits in the skin on their face that are able to detect heat. It's a separate mechanism to the eyes. Something tells me you are going to have trouble finding food with a suitable protein in it, much less get that protein - intact - from your digestive system into the rods in your eyes.

You can't seriously expect to be able to dismiss common frames of reference as "mere technicalities".

Cataclysmic - I like that word. That's going to be word of the day on my blog

I think my particular talents could be utilised better than just expecting me to explode at a strategically advantageous moment.

If I have to explain it to you it just won't be funny any more.

Screw you hippies, I'm going home.

The only time I queried the functional definition of "war" was in response to YT's post. Semantics has nothing to do with my original post re: human nature needing to change. A fair enough point, but they are just as likely to solve it with a couple of strategic marriages, thereby strengthening the genetic integrity of future generations in their own tribes. If you disagree, then you're lending strength to my "human nature needs to change" argument. Another good point, but the extinction of this trend was actually what I was discussing, not some magical pixie land where it doesn't exist. I know I asked you how war would occur with no militaries, but the question is meant to be answered under the assumption that we removed the military due to the changes in our nature I was discussing. Blike: I know what you meant; the spirally badness of the thread is making me lose track of who's replying to what

It's better than spiders carrying herpes.

From BBC.co.uk: Britain is preparing to repel an invasion of midges carrying the bluetongue virus, a disease which can rapidly lead to the death of up to 70% of sheep in an infected herd. The bluetongue virus has been a problem in Africa for many years but recently has begun to spread North as the range of the Culicoides midges which carry it has increased. Efforts are underway to develop more effective vaccines to protect the national stock of sheep in the event that the virus reaches the UK. The virus exists in a wide band up to 40 degrees North and 35 degrees South, but recent outbreaks in Europe as far North as 44 degrees indicate that the range of the carrier midges has increased by more than 800km. After the foot-and-mouth outbreak that recently decimated animal herds in the North of England procedures for livestock control and quarantine protocol have been reviewed significantly in order that future efforts may be directed more efficiently and in a shorter time period. Affected animals suffer extensive swelling and haemorrhaging in and around the mouth and nose. They also go lame and have difficulty eating properly, and may suffer from blindness. Full article here. Note: Image shows Culicoides imicola midge, which spreads the disease.

High gravity would result in a race of Captain Dylan Hunts.

The comments (1180 of them) on that article I posted to slashdot are very interesting.

Still avoiding the issue. For the sake of argument (so to speak) I'm going to take your word for it that those studies are infallible. Dudde does raise some interesting points however. Clearly I did not: I still don't believe you are stupid - all evidence ever collected suggests otherwise. One person's assumption that a single post is made as a pseudotroll is not the same as specifically calling somebody a pseudotroll, particularly where it has become clear that the post in question was due to mutual misunderstanding. Apologies if you were offended - it was not intentional.

lol ^^ Did anyone see that report into CD backups being 'unreliable' due to corrupted dyes?

Thank you Skye If anyone thinks that's "wishful thinking", they may try considering what that phrase actually means.

Stupid "takes time to write scripts" aspect of reality Anybody fancy doing some images? 100px*50px "construction and research item" things and so-forth... ps - ::hey there, blikey boy:: quick reference tutorials are now going up in the beta testers' section on the forums.

What's that got to do with changing the legal landscape? (Or is the mention of large amounts of money a subtle hint?) I still see 3&4 as being somewhat speculative. Not so much because I don't believe the applicable research, but because group behaviour and individual behaviour don't always coincide - especially in a causally exotic situation. But then this is probably what comes of growing up in a country that laughs at people who use psychologists. I'm also not the only person you've called a cretin. Most managers, supervisors etc - in fact anyone in a position of authority - is normally aware that if you're going to berate your subordinates, you don't do it in public. Forget it. Seriously. We're on different channels.

How exactly would that occur? That looks like evasion of the "What you are talking about when you say the "government would be regulating production" is the decriminalisation of a whole variety of offences, most of them far more serious than 'using drugs'" point to me, because it doesn't really matter who is producing the drugs - numerous major laws will have to be changed. So basically the way you see the solution to this problem is: 1) Make drugs legal 2) Make drugs readily available, cheaper than on the streets even 3) [something happens] 4) End to drug-related crime 5) All addicts decide to give up 6) No need to produce drugs except in small amounts for letting those wacky kids experiment when they start getting rebellious. What goes in step 3? Yes, ex post facto. You also forgot to put the words " or at least the ones you mentioned" between 'factors' and the comma. Sardony is easier and faster to type than sardonicism, and most people accept it as being a proper word It's not the choice of the word 'cretin' that's unprofessional, it's the fact that an admin calls members that in the first place. I didn't say you had. The phrase also means "to create an air of superiority". But that's just my interpretation of the way in which you posted - feel free to completely ignore it, as I'm well aware that my posts read like they were made by a grumpy pompous arse too. What I originally meant is so redundant now (in terms of where this thread has gone) as to be hilarious when compared with what you think you're arguing against.

As opposed to defining "soldier" other than how it has already been defined? That's inferred in the question

Why not?

I can't comment on your utopian, godly society but here in the UK cigarettes are sold illegally by the million every month because it's cheaper to take a trip to Amsterdam and buy 2000 than it is to buy them here. I accept that this is going to be less of a problem in countries where fags - for example - are cheaper. The cost of 20 is now approaching £5.00 in the UK (a crime in itself). The comparison ultimately falls down because people supplying cigarettes have either bought them outside the country or stolen them from a supplier/distributer. Production cost: Zero. There is a black market for all sorts of things, knock-off Gucci handbags and Rolexes for instance. The fact that pharmaceuticals with closely guarded formulas and expensive, proprietary manufacturing techniques are more expensive to produce than crack or heroine is neither here nor there. What you are talking about when you say the "government would be regulating production" is the decriminalisation of a whole variety of offences, most of them far more serious than 'using drugs'. This is worlds away from legalising use. Do you honestly think that "legalising drugs" would spur a sudden group decision on the part of drugs producers to start trusting the government and carrying out business with the same people who have been trying to shoot them dead for decades? "Duh" indeed. Yes, I'm so embarrassed. What a great example. As we all know kids, when prohibition was repealed violent crimes related to alcohol just vanished overnight and have never returned to the US of A. Score one for US.gov! People who have committed crimes to feed their addiction will still be charged with the crimes they have committed. Hello? What sort of an idiot is going to declare "drugs-related crime amnesty for all users!" and expect a quiet weekend? The concept of 'seeking help' only actually appeals to a minimum of users in this situation regardless. And let's not forget there will always be people hooked on drugs who cannot pay for them - no matter where the drugs come from, and with new members joining the club every day. I don't assume that my logic is better. I have no interest in disputing those studies. What I ridicule is the act of using that as the basis of an entire argument without giving due consideration to the other factors, and speculation as to how the rest of the system will adapt if it has that to hang off of. If you use sardony to illustrate a point, it's "ok" - but if I do it it's "ignorance and a cretinistic display"? I don't think so. That point was so loaded as to be quite obviously not the product of ignorance. You may also want to look up 'cretin' as you seem to be using it a lot against users (and does that makes me laugh when you tell the mods you want this forum to look professional) despite the low probability that they are all suffering from cretinism. If you want to offend my intelligence, 'fool' will suffice. Stop throwing your weight about. "I am right and anyone who disagrees will be crushed" is not good enough reason to actively quash any chance of participation in a discussion (even if the discussion is way off topic). Your second proposal there does not make any logical comparison. *Sigh* I said that "reported use would drop" referring to the old principle of "if we don't call this a crime any more, then it won't officially be happening as we only count crimes". The relevance of the media to this is obvious.

Doesn't that depend on how you define "war"?