atinymonkey

I don't really understand. Live 8 was Midge Ure and Bob Geldofs second attempt at alleviating the famine and distress in Africa. The first attempt, Live Aid in 1985, was focused on gaining funds. This one was focused on dropping the Debt and increasing aid to Africa, something that was quickly achieved. I'd like to think that the G8 summit would have done this independantly, without the need for popstars to voice a bizzare political opinion, but in reality I think they did need pressure to reach that decision. As neither Midge Ure or Bob Geldof spoke out against the war in Iraq (indeed, both are supporters of Tony Blair) or in any way referenced the situation, I don't see why this Christopher Hitchens is suggesting that they should have focused on Iraq when there was a debate over the legitimacy of the War. His logic seems to be inconsitant: - 1) People spoke out against the Iraq war, I'll label them PC liberals as it makes it simpler to dismiss those opinions. 2) People spoke out about the fact that one person dies every 4 seconds* in Africa. That sound like liberal talk to me, it must be the self same hippies. 3) Oh God, I've got to put some disjointed and ill researched opinion into my article before my 4pm deadline 4) Damn liberals. 5) Arrrggg Hitchens is saying that any charitable enterprise not involving Iraq is hypocritical, as there was no charitable drive to declare war on Iraq. I find that idea inconsistant, as for the life of me I can't imagine any institution campaigning for a 'charitable' war. Even if I was an active campaigner for the war in Iraq, my other commitments would not be suspended and my other charitable interestrest would not be put on hold. Basically, Midge Ure and Bob Geldofs Live 8 was a rather odd and annoying way of alleviating the horrible situation in Africa, while giving massive publicity to popstars, and that all there was too it. If Christopher Hitchens doesn't like it he should just learn to live with it, and not cry about the unfairness of it all. *I think, I didn't really listen

It looks like a basking shark to me. They look weird when the rot, the nose is left protruding when the sides of the mouth rot off. But that's just my opinion, see what you think. Fresh Basking Shark: - Slightly Rotten Basking Shark:- Chinese hulk:- Very Decomposed Basking Shark: - Last Reminants of Basking Shark: -

Presumably you think P knew. After all, Genesis is P's reinterpretation of the story of creation. It was not intended to be a 'record' of creation when it was penned, how can it be interpreted as such now?

God. I wish I knew. I have three, and 98se. It can't be good

I suppose that, despite the reasons and the debate, 60th anniversary of the Hiroshima bombing is something that every person should feel guilty about. It may be that the US has a particular amount of national self-flagellation, but I doubt that they stand alone on that aspect. Anything that encourages a nation to think as individuals about other individuals in foreign lands and the impact of war, can't be a bad thing. At least it keep's us distant from the old lie 'Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori'.

Ah. I think Media Player has prevention's on copy protected software that prevents the streaming images being captured. There would have to be an intermediary piece of software/hardware to capture them, such as a video camera recording back to the HD. Of course you could only legally copy the movie if you had bought a copy, which would make the question of how to record it a little pointless. If you really wanted pirate movies there are share sites where you can get them for free, with much less effort involved.

What, you don't like my sassy, inyourface, street attitude? I'm hurt. FYI - if you want to pick apart spelling, at least attempt a spell check yourself. That way I'll not laugh at you for your smug 'atitude' Name one Biologist who has ever suggested that the process of Natural Selection, the variance in biological species over time either by ecological selection or sexual selection, can in any way account for the origin of life. How? How could you possibly think that natural selection is the answer to abiogenesis? Actually, it is wrong. It's wrong by definition. Natural Selection is defined, we know what it is and we know what it is not. It doesn't matter what you happen to think about it.

Pardon me?

Not quite. He was invulnerable, but still aged. The crux of his story is that it was foretold that if he fought at Troy, he would become a legend and die in the process. If he didn't fight, he would have a long but unremarkable life. The only immortality Achilles could grasp was the one of his legand.

Achilles was mortal. And died. Quite famous of the death part, actually.

Oh, super. No. Abogenesis is not connected to natural selection. You are mistaken.

CEO's who publish books, how to or management guides, usually have a number of steps (according to Dilbert) 1) Start as a mail runner etc 2) Work hard and get minor promotion to mail sorter ***large unexplained gap*** 3) Invest newly acquired millions of dollars in a new company 4) Reap benefits 5) Write 'how to' book

Yes. The Silmarillion covers the first age of Middle earth when Sauron was a young pup. There are also companion books like Morgoth's Ring and Sauron Defeated that expand on the origin stories. On top of that, Tolken produced a number of books detailing the history of Middle-Earth, which expand on the events in Lord of the Rings .

If it were only a measure of potential, it would be called Intelligence Potential and not IQ. Education is related to IQ. Teaching someone how to think is part of an education. It's still a pretty crap argument, isn't it? Honestly? Crap? Isn't It?

Probably. I'd probably not accept Microsoft Encarta as a good source, but it's good enough until something better is presented. I have a long standing opinion that decisions on what constitutes historical fact are based more on the eloquence of the Historian than they are on actual evidence. Decisions made on interpretations and reinterpretations of history bring an inherent instability to the term 'historical fact'. All of history is rather pragmatically passed on via word of mouth, which is a form that lends itself to the eloquent rather than the factually correct. Even with copious references a historian can be basing a theory on utter horseshit, safe in the knowledge that few people will fully check the references. If the references are wrong, they simply apologise and reference something else. Nothing outside of living memory can really be known to have happened in a particular way. As conspiracy theorist have proven, almost any idea can be supported with references if nobody can prove what happened beyond dispute. For instance, I'm sure it would only take a days work to chuck in supporting references for these two contradicting ideas on the War of Independence: - http://www.illuminati-news.com/antimasons.htm http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=1885 All that is to say History is a true academic pastime, and it's probably best to treat idle amateur discussions on historical subjects as academic. It's not as if anyone is going to take us seriously, anyway

Yes, that's true. But the progressions are usually on one chipset design for a year or so until a new design beats it. At the moment the IBM 'Grid' processing theories are still on top. I doubt the would be on top if Cray was still alive, but there you have it. Because the PS3 has dual processing technology and the (comparatively) huge processors designed to take advantage of dual processing, I'm still hopeful that the PS3 will outstrip the home PC capabilities (on a single processor system, anyhow). It'll certainly beat your PC, anyhow

I'm not sure I've come across an approach where historic theories have to be supported by historians to be valid. The normal method is to reference evidence, primary (eye witness) secondary (related account of events) circumstantial (accounts of the time, not from the time). This tends to be more effective than relying on historians accounts, or referencing other historians, as it demonstrates things more clearly. The theory is that primary evidence should overrule any historians description of events, because a historian can only have an opinion on events and not direct experience. Notable exceptions are historians like Borman, who witnessed the events they describe.

The days of the home PC being superior are limited, and the PS3 will be the most impressive platform outside of a games development lab. Er, that's not a good example. Your problem here is that your assuming Sony cannot produce a chip that fast. But it's not just Sony, its Sony/IBM/Toshiba. The 'tests' were not bias, the processor is the fastest currently on the market. IBM are using the chipset in new servers, which represent the cutting edge of processor design. If the processor could not do what it claims, IBM would have lost billions of pounds in revenue. Just for info, proof IBM have the fastest processors in the world: - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3983131.stm

It may be hard to assess what is really going on. Military trials are usually a closed process, and sometimes completly archaic. Plus this trial is not involving just the US, legal representatives from around the world are involved. The trial is one of the first none UN international military trials since Nurenberg, and the confusion could be a result of the process to adapt the trial to an international standard.

FiReaNG3L - Your registration system is not working, which may be why you are having fewer members join than you hoped.

No Mart. It's not what I wrote, nor what this thread is about. If you wish to discuss the points I've raised, please reference the points directly. If you wish to raise your own points, please don't do it by creating false quotes. Thanks.

No, they have similar point in them but they are not the same. The point you are constantly removing is the differentiation between abusing a foetus with alcohol/drugs and the clinical process of ending the gestation of a foetus before the pregnancy comes to term. If all your intent on doing is discussing a perceived fallacy that many people have explained is not a fallacy, is it any wonder I'm getting a little exasperated? Brick wall, head, banging, my? *Steps around the spit* I didn't put words into your mouth, I explained my perception of your position. It's a process used in communication so that you can understand my position. If I didn't you would continue, blind of how your posts were being read, and that wouldn't do anyone any good. It's an inconstancy that nobody else really seems to see. Trying to redirect the thread to reassess the same flawed inconstancy is not really going to be effective. Trust me. Huh. I see. Well, I'll have to assume you don't have any qualification to make that decision. If you want the posters in the thread to keep stabbing in the dark until they hit on whatever you consider and 'appropriate' response, you should have put this in the puzzles forum. I'm sorry. Because you have been to school and attended your philosophy classes that somehow your opinion has more weight? You are implying that I/we haven't taken the time to understand these issues? I think you ought to reassess that attitude before we progress much further. Not only are the people you are lecturing to considerably more experienced in this area that yourself, such a patronising attitude is not welcome from anyone regardless of experience.

Huh. Are you deliberately ignoring the previous points? Do we have to continue reitterating that damaging the fetus is not linked to the decisons behind abortion? At this point, would it be as well to start drawing out the relevent laws in relation to the subject? It seems as thought you are intent on painting a picture of abortionists as people who would inflict damage on a foetus, permanently, or carry out an abortion. As if in some way it were a choice between the two.

The PS3 will rule. It has the fastest chipset on the market. It will make the Xbox 360 look like a large pile of diseased gorilla poo

Most of this thread is missing out what the effect of performance enhancing drugs is. It pushes the body past it's normal limits, causing it extra damage. The athlete cannot properly judge when an injury is coming on or when they have a serious problem while using steroids et al. Now while this may mean that there is an increase in shin splints, osteoporosis, arthritis, spinal damage, torn muscles, stretched tendons etc it also means there is a massively increased risk of heart attacks. Under proper guidance an already fit athlete can benefit from steroid use, but if they have no training programme they could main or even kill themselves with the excessive exercise. Call me picky, but I'd call that an unjustifiable risk.