Sayonara

Where this falls down is that applying the scientific method to an allegedly crackpot idea is not the same as "disregarding" it.

I really don't see how the argument can continue in this thread now - it's like the movie version of iself, in which the 100-ft tall Mokelosaur just ate Crackpot Towers.

It is because the monolith has entered the Jovian atmosphere, and has begun to reproduce.

I don't really see how that makes the trophic network any less irreversibly disturbed. I do not prefer one state to the other. Attaching the sentimental value of "goodness" to a pond being polluted simply because a species of frog is using it as a refuge is an arbitrary value judgement. Because of this, I am not arguing that we should knee jerk and go the other way just to be contrary - I am making the point that the frogs' plight should not necessarily be considered in the ecological analysis of the pond. Furthermore, it would be entirely fallacious to consider "helping" a threatened species to be the same thing as safeguarding the ecosystem we happened to find it in (and in fact safeguarding ecosystems in the first place is essentially unpredictable meddling too, but that's a whole other thread right there). Now it is you who is contradicting yourself. You have no information about the lake other than (a) it has this one species of bell frog in it, and (b) it is considered polluted, which we can assume to be in comparison to some former state. I think we both know that - based on that meagre information, and a modicum of ecological knowledge - if the lake was cleaned and all the frogs died, biodiversity would still increase, not decrease. I also don't see how being a "threatened species" increases the "value" of an organism. What units are you working with there? And since when was extinction not an ecological product?

I love the explanatory flash movie http://www.globalorgasm.org/demo.html

I always thought the "being" in human being denoted the additional aspects of psychological states and self-awareness, as opposed to simply "human", which is a biological identifier.

But now they know it is there.

And, in all likelihood, compounded damage due to your body desperately expending everything it can in a frantic bid to restore balance.

At which point it becomes the fault of the Federal Government...?

It was the one where Mrs Garrison tries to block gay marriage.

Most effective for doing what?

I am setting homework for this thread. You must all watch South Park episode 910: "Follow that Egg". There will be a test.

Which is a question that arose after I first pointed out that the maximum strength of great apes is not necessarily always greater than the maximum strength of humans. I am surprised you provided this; it doesn't sit well with the rest of your post at all. It is anecdotal and not representative of species traits. Although it is amusing. I am not trying to prove anything here, I am simply - as I often do with the meagre time I have for discussing such matters on this site - ringing a little alarm bell when I see a potentially flawed piece of reasoning being picked up and carried in a thread. And I thank you for it, they were very interesting. Largely because that is not an efficient use of my time. I am lucky if I get to log in each day and carry out my admin duties; I am hardly likely to go and do research that the thread starter is perfectly capable of. No, I am emphatically not making such an argument. I am attempting to instill the idea that the reasons why the hypothesis was being carried forward in the earlier posts in the thread might not be the right reasons, which your detailed posts have now illustrated and which is therefore no longer an issue.

I should certainly hope not, or we'd have to intervene. And considering the thread so far you'd probably end up with a lifetime AOL subscription

The best option available to you is revenge. Have a non-drunken threesome with a clown and a midget, and post it on YouTube. How is it that wandering drunks always manage to find internet access?

Isn't this essentially saying that a virtuous woman is highly prized, with the inference being that they are rare?

As you have no doubt gathered already, all large scale changes to the forums are announced in the "Announcements" forum, for that is its purpose. Failing that, there is an advanced search function. We don't want to "make them relevant". What we want is for science-relevant philosophy to stay here, and for religion-relevant philosophy to go to the new religion forum. Which is exactly what is going to happen. You have not raised a single issue that the staff have not already discussed at great length.

I have had this problem for a long time under XP. It doesn't seem so bad under Vista. Following a suggestion I disabled the Wireless Zero Config service in Windows XP earlier today, and I have not had any of the poor connections or periodic cut-offs since.

Right, foot down time. Flat comparisons of ape/human relative strengths that do not relate to the O/P are OFF TOPIC.

Well, that was kind of my point. I was trying to say that the simplistic and polar view of "apes have strength, humans have dexterity" is a dangerous basis for making any arguments in this thread. Yes, in counter to Rebiu's examples of humans exceeding the maximum strength of great apes. Big deal. When I say that I know men who could rip the arms off a chimp, I am not denying that chimps have great strength, nor am I making the claim that humans are "by default" as strong as chimps. I am demonstrating firstly that such limb-tearing strength does not lie exclusively in the domain of the great apes, but also in that of humans, and secondly that in the case of humans such capabilities can be attained voluntarily. Which, I was trying to point out, is not a useful generalisation in this discussion, since it neglects the fact that manual precision and strength are not mutually exclusive, and it also fails to take into account the voluntary plasticity of human individuals as far as both strength and dexterity go. These discussions where we compare humans with animals always seem to go the same way. I think this is going a bit off-center.

Perhaps you should think about whether you should influence the system, rather than whether you can. If this particular set of lights is a problem for you, then they are probably a problem for others as well. It may be worth writing a letter to the relevant authority explaining how the system is failing, to see if they can implement a more permanent solution that is not going to put people at risk.

And I know plenty of men who could rip an adult chimp's arm off. As I indicated above, human strength is not so easily generalised because we can voluntarily control our muscular proportions.

Will that make us a better society then? What if it turns out that the flavour of steak is FEAR?

Philosophy is common to both science and theology, and as such should be accommodated on both sites. Don't forget that philosophy is more of a way of thinking than a "thing" to think about.

So much so that this was in fact used (under-used, imho) as a device in later episodes to show that it's easy to support such moral positions when your critical resources are essentially free. In the context of this thread, I feel this is a lesson that is becoming increasingly more important in the developed world. The fate of all ST races which were introduced as "hostiles" but simply weren't credible as such.