You prick. Couldn't have at least had a spoiler warning on your title...
The episode in question aired like over a year and half ago! That's just crazy...
oh, by the way: spoiler alert.. in Gone With the Wind, the South LOSES the Civil War.. and, in King Kong, a bunch of biplanes shoot up the Gorilla off of the top of the Empire State Building. Darth Vader really is Luke's father. Gandalf really does die by he is sent back as Gandalf the White, with some kick butt new powers as well. Elric kills Moonglum to have strength to blow the horn of fate, and he brings in the new world, and then, Stormbringer kills Elric at the end, saying, Farewell I was a thousand times more evil than thou. Oh, and Jason isn't really killed at the end of Friday the 13th.
As someone who is about 3/4 of the way though the 3rd season, all I can say is: Fuck you, asshole
I believe that's Frak You. Also, in case you missed, Darth Vader REALLY IS Luke's father but he is somewhat redeemed by turning against the emperor and saving Luke's life. Meanwhile, the rebels succeed in lowering the planetary shields to the Death Star and successfully assaulting the main reactor. Han's worries about Luke as a rival to Leia's affections turns out to be misplaced, as Luke turns out to be Leia's sister, leaving fans to wonder what exactly the nature of the kiss in the Empire Strikes Back was really all about.
So what your really saying is that free speech is dangerous and must be controlled? Good to know where you stand
I think the point is that free speech is free because it implies that the participants want to coexist in a civil democracy. Nazis do not want democracy. They are Nazis. The Fuhrerprincip, racial organization, are all at odds fundamentally with the American constitution and so, no, the USA should not repeat the same mistake the Weimar Germans made. WE should not let Democracy be used as an vehicle to destroy itself. Sorry, but we already lost 50 million people fixing that mistake and I don't think we need to do it again.
. Don't forget this was the English ruling class bowing to pressure from peasants...
Except that, they weren't peasants... the instigators of the American Revolution were all fairly wealthy men by their day. Indeed, Samuel Adams and John Adams were among the richest businessmen in the world at that time. The American revolution was a bunch of rich people throwing off a monarchy so they could get richer, and they got the "peasants" to go along by doling out incredible amounts of land to everyone.
Most importantly it follows mathematical formulas that predict how traits change in populations,
We're a little ways from that...
Evolution negates divinity
But it doesn't, you see, at least not for me. The thing is, the simpler our universe is, when all the rules are discovered, the more likely it seems that it was designed by a genius. Science has this faith that the rules of the universe are essentially simple but undiscovered... and one has to ask, why should the universe be simple?
I see our universe as a giant screen saver... asking us to prove God would be like asking a pixel to prove its in a computer.
We seem to be viewing this as a web site is speech issue, but I question whether that premise is valid. Is a web site merely speech? I think the interactivity means that the answer is no.
A web site is more than speech, that's the thing. A web site is a vehicle for organizing like minded people and as such its a conspiracy aid - especially if you put a forum on it, or allow you to reach out to other people who are also on the site.
I think in this case, the Hitler test is in fact non-Godwin-able. It's one thing to dress up as Hitler in Illinois and declare yourself a hater of the various races, but, its quite another to create an instrument where like minded people can congregate and organize. Do you want to allow Nazi groups to coordinate their activities? Even now, there is project underway on some sites where a bunch of Nazis are organizing to move to a small state in the USA so they can essentially cleanse it and hijack it. What if child molesters and predators did the same thing?
We need to have some practical tests as to what sites can and should be blocked, and what constitutes unlawful access and what doesn't.
If the government is to block sites, then, all of the following are mandatory.
a) Only sites that facilitate organizing of like minded players in conspiracy against the law should be blocked. child porn sites can be blocked because it is illegal commerce. nazi and commmunist sites can be blocked, because, well, nazis and communists suck. some consideration should be given to allow parody and public discussion of blocked content.
b) Any block list must be public.
c) Any site hosted within a country's borders can only be blocked with due process. There needs to be a process in place for sites that are unjustly blocked to become unblocked. Additionally, the government MUST provide a reason a site is blocked.
d) There needs to be a process to allow third party and watchdog groups to visit blocked content. This is essential to check the government.
e) Any block should redirect to a block site that lists all of the sites that are blocked and organizations that independently review this content, and their contact information.
OF course, then you have a problem, of who watches the watchers.. What if a nazi or pedophile group becomes one of the third parties, then what...
You clearly do not understand the scientific method. Science requires solid fact and the data to back it up.
I certainly do understand the scientific method and what you are doing is undermining it. By leaving out the idea of a control, you are lowering the bar to what constitutes science so that you can have more people with Phds pretend to be scientists, and they are not. Smart people yes, researchers, yes, curious yes, producers of facts, no, and in doing that you have let faith creep back in.
The only way for a fact to be genuinely assertable is if it is repeatable and with a control. For classic physics and chemistry problems where the conclusions are simply drawn, and the cost of the experiment is not so great, science works really well. But the gray areas come because some other experiments are not so repeatable. The inclusion of other kinds of knowledge as science are not so hard of a fact as, you say, the computer that sits before me...
Like, let's take global warming, for example. Right now, the informed opinion is that CO2 contribution is raising the temperature of the earth. It follows that we ought to be able to prove this. To prove this, we need to lower the CO2 and see what happens. How fast will temperatures lower? Some say 50 years, some say 1000 years. What will be the effects if we don't? And, what's the actual probability of actually being right. Bottom line is, we don't know what will happen and the lack of a suitable control, that is, another earth, makes it impossible for us to credibly put climatologists into the same category as the guy shooting particles at a thin strip of gold in order to discover that atoms do not have a uniform density. It's not the same. Physicists are scientists. Chemists are scientists. But climatologists, psychologists, evolutionary biologists, etc, all these other people, that's not science. Good stories, sometimes useful information, but you can't repeat climate, can't repeat psychology, and you certainly cannot repeat or predict evolution. It's not because they are less well meaning or that there is somehow a God making things. It is because the nature of the thing being studied means that experiments cannot be performed that satisfy the basic requirements need to claim something as a fact. It is only because of social pressures at a university that these sorts of researchers are even called scientists at all.
It's all not science, and sitting there and claiming that those branches of inquiry belong on the same lofty perch is simply undermining the good facts that we have. Is the evolutionary biologist better than the creationist? Yeah, because he's got some provable consistency to his arguments. But are they absolutely facts. No, they are not, because you can't test them.
Now, to bring me back to the point. You argue that there is no faith required to have science. That argument stands only so long as you can show that your facts are absolute. For physics, chemistry, the hard sciences, you are right. Those things can be tested, repeated and shared and they are hard fact. Cold Fusion, as you pointed out, was quickly found, well, because, if it was a miracle in a jar, we wouldn't be worrying about windmills now, would we? But you see you've included other disciplines into "science", and that's the hole I'm driving my faith through. When we say that CO2 will do this or that, or the dinosaurs died from this or that... that's a certain amount of faith involved. You really can't know... because you didn't see the dinosaurs die, have woefully little data compared to the data that is possible, and so any claim is a good tale, interesting, fits the pieces of puzzle together based upon what we know... but its not absolutely fact, and never can be. WE can't go back in time, or see every detail of the climate...
Have you, or anyone you know, been able to verify what you have stated? Moreso, why is death the ONLY way to verify this "God"?
It may not be the only way, but, it is a way. But it is based on the "theory" that there is some sort of afterlife governed by some God, and the only way to really know about it is to get there.
Insurance claims per mile driven is the correct accusation
And then we might have ourselves another story. Cars like that are a bit pricey and one has to wonder, just how much more insurance fraud there is, once those $700+ payments begin to sink in.
By its very nature, a supernatural being cannot be tested and no direct physical evidence can be brought forth to validate its existence.
NO, we will all find out for ourselves when we die. Either there will be black and nothing, as our brain shuts down, or there will be some sort of a spirit moving onwards. If you want to know right away, if there is a God, shoot yourself. I just don't need that verification right now!
you are starting with a conclusion... science ends with one.
That's actually not true either. It's not how people work. Everyone that invents some theory has a preconceived vision of how the universe works and they put out there vision bolstered by some experiment or set of experiments. It's only the notion of test that gives us a winner and validates a given model and then only for a particular domain.
But the larger point is that science itself, despite its falsifiability, still requires a faith. The minimum notion of science is that if someone else does something, you can do that thing yourself. It is this and this alone that makes science fact. While this may be theoretically true, its certainly not practically true for most people. If the LHC people come out tomorrow and say they found the Higgs, how could I, myself, ever test that? The Higgs could have just about any number put to it and it would not make any difference to me as I could never know the absolute truth firsthand. You have to have faith in the process and the people and the institutions and the education, all that somehow its not being made up. For a lot of inquiry, you can assume that this is not the case. But, for some things, where there is big money involved, political preference, then we cannot be so sure, and those that are, doing so out of faith.
Absent faith, science would fall apart just as fast as some religions do, and I would be willing to bet that the level of cynicism and distrust and lack of faith in our society has more to do with public decline in science than people realize.
You need to read Motortrend and Car and Driver to really understand -which- cars you can genuinely drive like a madman. Those are cars that "communicate the road", so that, an attentive driver can understand when the car is nearing its limits.
BMW's are famously good for this, particularly the 3 series, but others are getting better as well. The Caddy CTS is pretty close, as is the Chrysler 300. Of the Japanese cars, the best are said to be the Evo Lancer and the Suburu WRX. Toyota need not apply.
But overall, the moral of the story is that you need to pay attention while you are driving. Any car gives you some cues as to when you are in trouble, but you can't tell that you hit a different patch of pavement if you have the stereo blasting, can't see a sudden curve if you fiddling with the cell phone.
By all means, if you are distracted while you are driving, slow down.
I'm a fairly deep believer in God and it always puzzled me why someone would have a problem with evolution.
I'm not asking you to believe in God if you don't, I honestly don't care. What I am saying is that those who believe in God and doubt the science should look at the story science teaches us for what it is and see the grandeur in it. Our universe is so big and so old, that it is a thing that a God would make, not some puny planet but a tree's age old.
We always ask, believer or no, could God make a stone so large that He cannot move it? Maybe he can and he did, a simple set of equations that shape time and space into our universe that yields practically an infinity of variety, and is why we have free will.
Once we get better at it though, we ought to be able to detect bad genes before child birth or even have some sort of birth control that even prevents the egg from implanting if it has undesirable characteristics. Why even have genetic disease, criminal behavior, and other problems when you can simply prevent those people from being born? You could just vaccinate women against carrying defective children to term, with some sort of an executioner nanobot.
I dunno. That whole Indian thing was pretty fucked up.
We won. And the fact is, if the roles had been reversed, they would have done the same thing to us. They were doing it to each other, but just weren't very good at it.
You didn't click on any of those links did you? Because if you had, you would be the one being rounded up and killed.
Well I think you look for extremes, you know. An accidental click or set of clicks is not indicative of deviant behavior. If you go to slashdot once, that's ok. If you post there ten times a day, you are probably deranged!:-)
That society is, like it or not, cultivating sexual predators
Evolution cultivates sexual predators. Darwin doesn't care how women get pregnant, only that they do. So therefor it stands to reason that some men might be wired to just rape a chick and move on. It's a breeding strategy. Some subset of those are not wired to properly discern age. They will keep coming back, because evolution and mutation dictates that they will, so you have to kill them otherwise they infest all of humanity, just like you would a weed in a lawn.
It's brutal, but simple, and most importantly, true. Until people are willing to admit that some subset of the population needs an ongoing pattern of extermination, humanity will never improve.
My point is that we live in a society that keeps its mouth closed with regards to sex,
That's ridiculous. There's sex -everywhere-.
Thus, your belief that "everyone's happy", is a really distorted view on reality.
For the most part, everyone is happy, at least sexually, and if they aren't, then its not my problem. If they want to make it my problem, then they have to accept my decisions. If they don't want to do that, then to hell with them.
All we really need to do is just cull a few freaks out of the herd and we'll be good to go. It would minimize the need to have a dialog and make us all much more productive. You want to talk about child molesters or rapists? Ok.. let's talk. Which do you prefer, hanging them, shooting them, or electrocuting them... or maybe we could make some really big microwave and hot dog them to death?
Slashdot Mirror
You prick. Couldn't have at least had a spoiler warning on your title...
The episode in question aired like over a year and half ago! That's just crazy...
oh, by the way: spoiler alert.. in Gone With the Wind, the South LOSES the Civil War.. and, in King Kong, a bunch of biplanes shoot up the Gorilla off of the top of the Empire State Building. Darth Vader really is Luke's father. Gandalf really does die by he is sent back as Gandalf the White, with some kick butt new powers as well. Elric kills Moonglum to have strength to blow the horn of fate, and he brings in the new world, and then, Stormbringer kills Elric at the end, saying, Farewell I was a thousand times more evil than thou. Oh, and Jason isn't really killed at the end of Friday the 13th.
As someone who is about 3/4 of the way though the 3rd season, all I can say is: Fuck you, asshole
I believe that's Frak You. Also, in case you missed, Darth Vader REALLY IS Luke's father but he is somewhat redeemed by turning against the emperor and saving Luke's life. Meanwhile, the rebels succeed in lowering the planetary shields to the Death Star and successfully assaulting the main reactor. Han's worries about Luke as a rival to Leia's affections turns out to be misplaced, as Luke turns out to be Leia's sister, leaving fans to wonder what exactly the nature of the kiss in the Empire Strikes Back was really all about.
I'm still bitter about Col Tigh being a Cylon.
Still bitter.
Curse you, Ronald Moore.
OR is their stock too low for that now.
Illinois Nazis. I hate Illinois Nazis...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t101rO7WuAM
So what your really saying is that free speech is dangerous and must be controlled? Good to know where you stand
I think the point is that free speech is free because it implies that the participants want to coexist in a civil democracy. Nazis do not want democracy. They are Nazis. The Fuhrerprincip, racial organization, are all at odds fundamentally with the American constitution and so, no, the USA should not repeat the same mistake the Weimar Germans made. WE should not let Democracy be used as an vehicle to destroy itself. Sorry, but we already lost 50 million people fixing that mistake and I don't think we need to do it again.
You can bet that IBM is going to dump those people fast
True, but SPARC and storage are still doing pretty good these days.
. Don't forget this was the English ruling class bowing to pressure from peasants...
Except that, they weren't peasants... the instigators of the American Revolution were all fairly wealthy men by their day. Indeed, Samuel Adams and John Adams were among the richest businessmen in the world at that time. The American revolution was a bunch of rich people throwing off a monarchy so they could get richer, and they got the "peasants" to go along by doling out incredible amounts of land to everyone.
Except for the employees of Sun. Update your resume now
Hmmm.... wouldn't be so sure of that. I'd be willing to bet that these people are pooping some square ones.
http://www-03.ibm.com/systems/power/software/aix/index.html
Most importantly it follows mathematical formulas that predict how traits change in populations,
We're a little ways from that...
Evolution negates divinity
But it doesn't, you see, at least not for me. The thing is, the simpler our universe is, when all the rules are discovered, the more likely it seems that it was designed by a genius. Science has this faith that the rules of the universe are essentially simple but undiscovered... and one has to ask, why should the universe be simple?
I see our universe as a giant screen saver... asking us to prove God would be like asking a pixel to prove its in a computer.
I'm normally against mergers but I think this is one move that actually helps both, where synergies do apply.
We seem to be viewing this as a web site is speech issue, but I question whether that premise is valid. Is a web site merely speech? I think the interactivity means that the answer is no.
A web site is more than speech, that's the thing. A web site is a vehicle for organizing like minded people and as such its a conspiracy aid - especially if you put a forum on it, or allow you to reach out to other people who are also on the site.
I think in this case, the Hitler test is in fact non-Godwin-able. It's one thing to dress up as Hitler in Illinois and declare yourself a hater of the various races, but, its quite another to create an instrument where like minded people can congregate and organize. Do you want to allow Nazi groups to coordinate their activities? Even now, there is project underway on some sites where a bunch of Nazis are organizing to move to a small state in the USA so they can essentially cleanse it and hijack it. What if child molesters and predators did the same thing?
We need to have some practical tests as to what sites can and should be blocked, and what constitutes unlawful access and what doesn't.
If the government is to block sites, then, all of the following are mandatory.
a) Only sites that facilitate organizing of like minded players in conspiracy against the law should be blocked. child porn sites can be blocked because it is illegal commerce. nazi and commmunist sites can be blocked, because, well, nazis and communists suck. some consideration should be given to allow parody and public discussion of blocked content.
b) Any block list must be public.
c) Any site hosted within a country's borders can only be blocked with due process. There needs to be a process in place for sites that are unjustly blocked to become unblocked. Additionally, the government MUST provide a reason a site is blocked.
d) There needs to be a process to allow third party and watchdog groups to visit blocked content. This is essential to check the government.
e) Any block should redirect to a block site that lists all of the sites that are blocked and organizations that independently review this content, and their contact information.
OF course, then you have a problem, of who watches the watchers.. What if a nazi or pedophile group becomes one of the third parties, then what...
You clearly do not understand the scientific method. Science requires solid fact and the data to back it up.
I certainly do understand the scientific method and what you are doing is undermining it. By leaving out the idea of a control, you are lowering the bar to what constitutes science so that you can have more people with Phds pretend to be scientists, and they are not. Smart people yes, researchers, yes, curious yes, producers of facts, no, and in doing that you have let faith creep back in.
The only way for a fact to be genuinely assertable is if it is repeatable and with a control. For classic physics and chemistry problems where the conclusions are simply drawn, and the cost of the experiment is not so great, science works really well. But the gray areas come because some other experiments are not so repeatable. The inclusion of other kinds of knowledge as science are not so hard of a fact as, you say, the computer that sits before me...
Like, let's take global warming, for example. Right now, the informed opinion is that CO2 contribution is raising the temperature of the earth. It follows that we ought to be able to prove this. To prove this, we need to lower the CO2 and see what happens. How fast will temperatures lower? Some say 50 years, some say 1000 years. What will be the effects if we don't? And, what's the actual probability of actually being right. Bottom line is, we don't know what will happen and the lack of a suitable control, that is, another earth, makes it impossible for us to credibly put climatologists into the same category as the guy shooting particles at a thin strip of gold in order to discover that atoms do not have a uniform density. It's not the same. Physicists are scientists. Chemists are scientists. But climatologists, psychologists, evolutionary biologists, etc, all these other people, that's not science. Good stories, sometimes useful information, but you can't repeat climate, can't repeat psychology, and you certainly cannot repeat or predict evolution. It's not because they are less well meaning or that there is somehow a God making things. It is because the nature of the thing being studied means that experiments cannot be performed that satisfy the basic requirements need to claim something as a fact. It is only because of social pressures at a university that these sorts of researchers are even called scientists at all.
It's all not science, and sitting there and claiming that those branches of inquiry belong on the same lofty perch is simply undermining the good facts that we have. Is the evolutionary biologist better than the creationist? Yeah, because he's got some provable consistency to his arguments. But are they absolutely facts. No, they are not, because you can't test them.
Now, to bring me back to the point. You argue that there is no faith required to have science. That argument stands only so long as you can show that your facts are absolute. For physics, chemistry, the hard sciences, you are right. Those things can be tested, repeated and shared and they are hard fact. Cold Fusion, as you pointed out, was quickly found, well, because, if it was a miracle in a jar, we wouldn't be worrying about windmills now, would we? But you see you've included other disciplines into "science", and that's the hole I'm driving my faith through. When we say that CO2 will do this or that, or the dinosaurs died from this or that... that's a certain amount of faith involved. You really can't know... because you didn't see the dinosaurs die, have woefully little data compared to the data that is possible, and so any claim is a good tale, interesting, fits the pieces of puzzle together based upon what we know... but its not absolutely fact, and never can be. WE can't go back in time, or see every detail of the climate...
Have you, or anyone you know, been able to verify what you have stated? Moreso, why is death the ONLY way to verify this "God"?
It may not be the only way, but, it is a way. But it is based on the "theory" that there is some sort of afterlife governed by some God, and the only way to really know about it is to get there.
Insurance claims per mile driven is the correct accusation
And then we might have ourselves another story. Cars like that are a bit pricey and one has to wonder, just how much more insurance fraud there is, once those $700+ payments begin to sink in.
By its very nature, a supernatural being cannot be tested and no direct physical evidence can be brought forth to validate its existence.
NO, we will all find out for ourselves when we die. Either there will be black and nothing, as our brain shuts down, or there will be some sort of a spirit moving onwards. If you want to know right away, if there is a God, shoot yourself. I just don't need that verification right now!
you are starting with a conclusion... science ends with one.
That's actually not true either. It's not how people work. Everyone that invents some theory has a preconceived vision of how the universe works and they put out there vision bolstered by some experiment or set of experiments. It's only the notion of test that gives us a winner and validates a given model and then only for a particular domain.
But the larger point is that science itself, despite its falsifiability, still requires a faith. The minimum notion of science is that if someone else does something, you can do that thing yourself. It is this and this alone that makes science fact. While this may be theoretically true, its certainly not practically true for most people. If the LHC people come out tomorrow and say they found the Higgs, how could I, myself, ever test that? The Higgs could have just about any number put to it and it would not make any difference to me as I could never know the absolute truth firsthand. You have to have faith in the process and the people and the institutions and the education, all that somehow its not being made up. For a lot of inquiry, you can assume that this is not the case. But, for some things, where there is big money involved, political preference, then we cannot be so sure, and those that are, doing so out of faith.
Absent faith, science would fall apart just as fast as some religions do, and I would be willing to bet that the level of cynicism and distrust and lack of faith in our society has more to do with public decline in science than people realize.
You need to read Motortrend and Car and Driver to really understand -which- cars you can genuinely drive like a madman. Those are cars that "communicate the road", so that, an attentive driver can understand when the car is nearing its limits.
BMW's are famously good for this, particularly the 3 series, but others are getting better as well. The Caddy CTS is pretty close, as is the Chrysler 300. Of the Japanese cars, the best are said to be the Evo Lancer and the Suburu WRX. Toyota need not apply.
But overall, the moral of the story is that you need to pay attention while you are driving. Any car gives you some cues as to when you are in trouble, but you can't tell that you hit a different patch of pavement if you have the stereo blasting, can't see a sudden curve if you fiddling with the cell phone.
By all means, if you are distracted while you are driving, slow down.
I'm a fairly deep believer in God and it always puzzled me why someone would have a problem with evolution.
I'm not asking you to believe in God if you don't, I honestly don't care. What I am saying is that those who believe in God and doubt the science should look at the story science teaches us for what it is and see the grandeur in it. Our universe is so big and so old, that it is a thing that a God would make, not some puny planet but a tree's age old.
We always ask, believer or no, could God make a stone so large that He cannot move it? Maybe he can and he did, a simple set of equations that shape time and space into our universe that yields practically an infinity of variety, and is why we have free will.
Well that's cool then. If states are building manufacturing with it, then that's really good.
The moral of the story is, until recently, Octopuses were one of the dominant species of the planet. At least until man came around. Now, we eat them.
Haha, our 8 tentacled friends... two hands with opposing thumbs have you beat!
Once we get better at it though, we ought to be able to detect bad genes before child birth or even have some sort of birth control that even prevents the egg from implanting if it has undesirable characteristics. Why even have genetic disease, criminal behavior, and other problems when you can simply prevent those people from being born? You could just vaccinate women against carrying defective children to term, with some sort of an executioner nanobot.
Because funding in alternative energy, scientific research, and infrastructure does not create "genuine" engineering jobs at all.
SO like, can you name me one product the stimulus actually creates then? I think it doesn't do anything or make anything.
I dunno. That whole Indian thing was pretty fucked up.
We won. And the fact is, if the roles had been reversed, they would have done the same thing to us. They were doing it to each other, but just weren't very good at it.
You didn't click on any of those links did you? Because if you had, you would be the one being rounded up and killed.
Well I think you look for extremes, you know. An accidental click or set of clicks is not indicative of deviant behavior. If you go to slashdot once, that's ok. If you post there ten times a day, you are probably deranged! :-)
That society is, like it or not, cultivating sexual predators
Evolution cultivates sexual predators. Darwin doesn't care how women get pregnant, only that they do. So therefor it stands to reason that some men might be wired to just rape a chick and move on. It's a breeding strategy. Some subset of those are not wired to properly discern age. They will keep coming back, because evolution and mutation dictates that they will, so you have to kill them otherwise they infest all of humanity, just like you would a weed in a lawn.
It's brutal, but simple, and most importantly, true. Until people are willing to admit that some subset of the population needs an ongoing pattern of extermination, humanity will never improve.
My point is that we live in a society that keeps its mouth closed with regards to sex,
That's ridiculous. There's sex -everywhere-.
Thus, your belief that "everyone's happy", is a really distorted view on reality.
For the most part, everyone is happy, at least sexually, and if they aren't, then its not my problem. If they want to make it my problem, then they have to accept my decisions. If they don't want to do that, then to hell with them.
All we really need to do is just cull a few freaks out of the herd and we'll be good to go. It would minimize the need to have a dialog and make us all much more productive. You want to talk about child molesters or rapists? Ok.. let's talk. Which do you prefer, hanging them, shooting them, or electrocuting them... or maybe we could make some really big microwave and hot dog them to death?