Sayonara

(i) I said she might not accept your values (IE - your decision to only allow non-carrier <> non-carrier copulation) as your own. You said she would have no choice. Cleary she does, because if she does not copulate with you as she does not advocate or accept your values she is exercising a choice. The only situation where that choice is removed is if she is raped (not by you of course, by 'one'). (ii) Yes, it would. Would that somehow prevent carried genetic material from being passed on to her offspring? (iii) Only if everyone on the planet comes to the US to breed using your system, and any other form of procreation is prohibited globally. (iv) There's nothing to debate because the genetics speak for themselves. It would NOT be significant in an evolutionary sense.

Like faf doesn't log everything and store it FOR ALL TIME

0 + 1 (&1) = 1 (&1) ?

To be fair there were people on my honours degree course who were more familiar with the subtle nuances and shifting patterns of city fashion than they were with the scientific method.

Undertaking a recreation of the provings under DBPC conditions would indeed give the study a scientific foundation (regardless of the actual results). However, this would only demonstrate that the expected results (IE, a cure) can be obtained using the remedy in question, and would not validate any conclusions or theories as to the mechanism. Different and more complex studies would be needed for that. One does not need to be a homeopath to study the effects of homeopathy in a scientific fashion - what you need is access to a fully staffed lab for a couple of months

Indeed.

From BBC.co.uk: The Hubble telescope has discovered the smallest, most distant objects in the solar system - three ice bodies which are relics of the formation of the solar system. Such bodies can become comets if they approach the sun, as the heat form the soalr wind blasts away their surface as a billowing gas. The article states: "The planets formed over four billion years ago from a cloud of gas and dust that surrounded the nascent Sun. Tugged by gravity, the fragments of ice and dust stuck together to form lumps that grew from pebbles to boulders to city- or continent-sized so-called planetesimals. Around 1950, astronomers Gerard Kuiper and Kenneth Edgeworth proposed that in the region beyond Neptune there are no planets capable of dispersing leftover planetesimals. They postulated that there should be a zone - now called the Kuiper Belt - filled with small, icy bodies." Astronomers are puzzled because while there ought to be very large numbers of these objects, only 1000 have been found since the first observation in 1992. Collisions between Kuiper Belt objects may have reduced many to dust, which could explain the lack of identifications being made. Full article here. Note: Image shows comet C/2002 V1 passing the sun during its 37,000 year orbital path, just before being hit by a massive solar eruption. Article.

There will be a public bonfire in Dudde's garden at 19.00 tomorrow - bring all your evil technomalogicoid things!

It has a poorly wing? (You didn't say which Ibis )

Because it's easier to talk to your fellow SFNers in IRC without having to be making a point, and without every post seeming like the booming voice of a sterile, humourless drone.

Blike: "I don't believe you're stupid enough..." etc was for fafalone. Faf does not need to have said anything about the media for me to bring up the subject. His dismissal of the point with "Who said anything about the media..." and a lack of any further consideration infers that he does not believe the effect worth mentioning, whether he wants to discuss it further or not, which is clearly a fallacy since the legalisation of drugs by an administration would be an absolute media circus that will affect the outcome of legislation and political directive. Thread: The argument for legalisation of drugs so far in this thread is nothing more than one big hole surrounded by a thin strip of reasoning. Yes, legalisation will through necessity bring about government-sanctioned supplies which will be of a higher standard than those found currently on the streets. This does not mean that street supplies will magically disappear. Theoretically the problem could get worse: * Street suppliers can undercut the government by providing an impure supply, with no cost due to changes of methods. * The government can either expend exactly the same amount of money dealing with illicit suppliers AND the extra legal costs of setting precedent for dealing with these people without the facility of having the law on their side in terms of prosecuting for possession, or they can drop the cost of legally obtained drugs which will no doubt mean further costs to the tax-payer since they are purer and will require more advanced refinement technologies. * Survival of street suppliers in an environment where making a sale is potentially more difficult means adaptation. As we know, adaptations to hostile environments are usually extreme. I'm thinking this will probably mean increased violent crime, but thankfully one might reasonably expect that to be between drug barons and dealers so frankly 'who cares', as long as they keep the collateral damage down to a minimum. * People who are already involved in a life of crime that began as a means of funding their habits are not likely to suddenly and magically be able to afford drugs with 'clean' money just because they are legally obtainable. * People who are developing a drug habit - whether using legally obtained drugs or not - are not affected by whether the actual acquisition of the drugs themselves is a legal transaction if it is necessary for them to turn to crime in order to feed their habit. * "It's not illegal so people won't bother to do it" sounds like a great plan. Let's make theft, rape and murder legal too, then they won't be 'cool' any more and only the hard core posse will commit these crimes.

I don't believe for an instant you're stupid enough to not know what I'm talking about so I have to assume this is some kind of deliberate pseudotroll. Anyway, I'm tired and I have a headache (can you tell?) so I'm going to bed now.

I'm confused that I'm only allowed to discuss aspects of the problem that fafalone is discussing, as dictated after I've posted.

Does that mean anything?

If that's so he wants to be less glib about his responses. Faf strikes me as being particularly well-suited to a career in US politics. "Who said anything about the media" is a fairly skilled way of dismissing the point from the discussion despite it being completely valid.

There would still be war? Really? How would this happen (bearing in mind that I already know what your answer will be and have formulated a response ).

(i) Unless you're discussing raping someone, yes she would (ii) The position of each choice is irrelevant. What matters is the genetic fitness of the population, and the movement of information. (iii) Yes - and the only population that will affect significantly is this conditioned US population. See where this is going? (iv) No, it wouldn't. See all of above posts.

So where does "people worrying about being caught" come in then? (Excuse paraphrasing). If you're saying that the existence of scientific polls means there will be no media interest in this massive social change, or that the fact that such polls may be executed means that you personally can accurately predict the results with no surprises and no chance of being wrong, then my response will be to laugh. Lots.

All you've done is restate your last post as an illustrated example. Your assumptions are: (i) She'll accept your values as her own, (ii) She won't mate with anyone else [whether she is a carrier or not], (iii) You are not a carrier yourself, (iv) This effect would be significant, even if every US citizen made it their duty to mate with "an outsider". (i)-(iii) are by no means certain. Actually I find (i) and (ii) to be very unlikely. (iv) is clearly not true, for the reasons already stated.

Potentially they can have an infinitely small overlap too. For instance I might be able to rationalise launching kittens into a steel blade fan in order to prove "why" fans are dangerous However as an experiment into the "how" of fan danger this is unlikely to be considered a merit-filled method

HOW usually leads to WHY, but it takes longer and requires more effort. Not to mention merit.

"Why" people don't like that, they think it's boring. Also, the big numbers give them belief/computational problems.

There's a difference between "reported use" and "reported use". A government that ushers in a grand new age of legal drugs is hardly going to wave every report of drug abuse they get in the media's collective face. If it's not a crime, it's not going to be reported as such. That doesn't mean it isn't happening.

No... I'd buy one though

I think it was "he's a quack".