Not necessarily. If someone was setting bombs or hurting people in resistance to military action, that could legitimately be called anti-war terrorism.
Of course, all the recent examples have been police plants and false accusations...
Do you think that there is something after death? If so, why extend life?
I don't see what longevity has to do with the afterlife. If you live for 50 years or 5000, you're still going to be dead for exactly the same length of time.
Well, if you were honestly that nihilistic, you probably killed yourself ages ago.
Even from a purely materialist viewpoint, we live because we wish to accomplish things, improve the world for those we leave behind, or at the very least, experience the pleasures of life. Extended longevity allows more of all those things.
Yeah, I thought so too... though I never thought the kid holding his breath was very plausible. I mean, I got a professional anesthesiologist for having my damn teeth pulled, you'd think they're be at least that attentive when dealing with interplanetary travel and the risk of permanent psychic trauma.
So... what we were talking about again? Oh yeah. AAAAAAHHH IT'S LONGER THAN YOU THINK AAAAAAA [plucks out own eyes]
I don't think there's any aspect of the system that needs a full remodeling more desperately than hit points. Subtracting random numbers from a "health pool" until someone reaches zero is no way to model the dangers of combat.
The land now used for growing corn would be used for growing hemp. Whether that land is used for corn, hemp, or sawgrass it's land. It doesn't matter if the corn's turned to fuel or not grown at all, that's corn that's not going to feed any people or cattle.
Incorrect assumption. Cellulose, in theory, can be grown on land unfit for corn or other food crops. It can also come from the waste products of other crops, like corn stalks and sawdust. Some of the grasses proposed for cellulose production have excellent carbon- and nitrogen-fixing properties, so they can be used in crop rotation to improve soil quality and promote sustainable farming.
Greenpeace represents the majority of enviornmentalists... they are the most mainstream and popular enviornmental group, and most people calling themselves "enviornmentalists" get their talking points straight from Greenpeace's website.
Really? According to whom, exactly? I agree that Greenpeace has a good deal of popular support, but they're clearly too militant to be considered mainstream.
Now, if you had said The Sierra Club, or The League of Conservation Voters, then I think you would have a valid point. And you would be right that these groups have been highly critical of nuclear power, but I think they would argue that these criticisms are pragmatic rather than dogmatic, based on unresolved issues surrounding nuclear waste.
The validity of this last point can be debated, of course, and that debate has already started. Still, this doesn't support your argument that Environmentalists are universally against nuclear power, and it certainly doesn't support the previous Anonymous Coward's claim that Environmentalists will shut geothermal power development just for the sheer love of shutting things down.
I absolutely loved TV Wheel, and I still have friends who quote Pumpernickel the Happy Monkey. Is this an experiment you would ever consider revisiting, or did you simply find it to be impractical?
On a slightly broader note, has Internet based media made you want to retry any of your stranger concepts?
I don't know why you're so convinced that Slashdot is populated entirely by Physicalists. Perhaps this is fallout from some earlier discussion about Evolution?
Even if it was an accurate statement, human rights can be based on rational and objective grounds, and do not require a specific deity, much less the Biblical God. Frankly, in recent history, I've seen a lot more respect for human dignity from the Atheists and Transhumanists than many self-described American Christians.
"Remember when the platform was sliding into the fire pit and I said 'Goodbye' and you were like 'NO WAI' and then I was all 'We pretended we were going to murder you'? That was great..."
You know what I love about the climate change denial argument? It rests entirely on ad hominem fallacies, without ever addressing what is or is not happening.
You're missing Knara's point, Dave... Google's project isn't any more of a "me too" than WoW is. Second Life is a awkward failure, the same way most early MMORPGs were, and Google is (theoretically) trying what Blizzard did to those games, which is to say make something worth while.
As much as I admire your gritty individualism, the government has ample resources to answer to Smith & Wesson. And it usually involves blowing you and your entire family to bits.
And you're still ignoring the existence of algae tanks, increased bio-mass production though agriculture, and the carbon storing properties of switchgrass roots. I think you're being deliberately misinformed.
Even then, I hear neither of them were really entirely satisfied by the end product... so it's not the best example in anycase. Anyone curious about Gaiman should start with his writing; Sandman: A Doll's House, and/or Good Omens are the best places to start.
Slashdot Mirror
There are some gameplay videos on YouTube such as this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnHRiHCxtOE
Oh god, the eyestrain is all coming back to me now...
Yes, but I believe the previous poster meant remaking Total Annihilation without ruining it.
HISSSSS...
Not necessarily. If someone was setting bombs or hurting people in resistance to military action, that could legitimately be called anti-war terrorism.
Of course, all the recent examples have been police plants and false accusations...
Refugees fleeing drought zones is covered by "Generation Exile"
Do you think that there is something after death? If so, why extend life?
I don't see what longevity has to do with the afterlife. If you live for 50 years or 5000, you're still going to be dead for exactly the same length of time.
Well, if you were honestly that nihilistic, you probably killed yourself ages ago.
Even from a purely materialist viewpoint, we live because we wish to accomplish things, improve the world for those we leave behind, or at the very least, experience the pleasures of life. Extended longevity allows more of all those things.
Yeah, I thought so too... though I never thought the kid holding his breath was very plausible. I mean, I got a professional anesthesiologist for having my damn teeth pulled, you'd think they're be at least that attentive when dealing with interplanetary travel and the risk of permanent psychic trauma.
So... what we were talking about again? Oh yeah. AAAAAAHHH IT'S LONGER THAN YOU THINK AAAAAAA [plucks out own eyes]
"Ohhh, thingy! Well.. it'll certainly make chartered accountancy a much more interesting job."
I don't think there's any aspect of the system that needs a full remodeling more desperately than hit points. Subtracting random numbers from a "health pool" until someone reaches zero is no way to model the dangers of combat.
The Young Republicans need somewhere in the military they'd be willing to serve...
Incorrect assumption. Cellulose, in theory, can be grown on land unfit for corn or other food crops. It can also come from the waste products of other crops, like corn stalks and sawdust. Some of the grasses proposed for cellulose production have excellent carbon- and nitrogen-fixing properties, so they can be used in crop rotation to improve soil quality and promote sustainable farming.
Really? According to whom, exactly? I agree that Greenpeace has a good deal of popular support, but they're clearly too militant to be considered mainstream.
Now, if you had said The Sierra Club, or The League of Conservation Voters, then I think you would have a valid point. And you would be right that these groups have been highly critical of nuclear power, but I think they would argue that these criticisms are pragmatic rather than dogmatic, based on unresolved issues surrounding nuclear waste.
The validity of this last point can be debated, of course, and that debate has already started. Still, this doesn't support your argument that Environmentalists are universally against nuclear power, and it certainly doesn't support the previous Anonymous Coward's claim that Environmentalists will shut geothermal power development just for the sheer love of shutting things down.
Ah, I see your problem; you assume that Greenpeace represents all Environmentalists. Your assumption is incorrect.
On a slightly broader note, has Internet based media made you want to retry any of your stranger concepts?
Even if it was an accurate statement, human rights can be based on rational and objective grounds, and do not require a specific deity, much less the Biblical God. Frankly, in recent history, I've seen a lot more respect for human dignity from the Atheists and Transhumanists than many self-described American Christians.
... Whut?
"Remember when the platform was sliding into the fire pit and I said 'Goodbye' and you were like 'NO WAI' and then I was all 'We pretended we were going to murder you'? That was great..."
You know what I love about the climate change denial argument? It rests entirely on ad hominem fallacies, without ever addressing what is or is not happening.
You're missing Knara's point, Dave... Google's project isn't any more of a "me too" than WoW is. Second Life is a awkward failure, the same way most early MMORPGs were, and Google is (theoretically) trying what Blizzard did to those games, which is to say make something worth while.
Well, okay. Show us that then.
No doubt... but if the government in his day had tanks and gunships, we wouldn't be reading about Thomas Jefferson.
As much as I admire your gritty individualism, the government has ample resources to answer to Smith & Wesson. And it usually involves blowing you and your entire family to bits.
Yes. Hence the term carbon neutral.
And you're still ignoring the existence of algae tanks, increased bio-mass production though agriculture, and the carbon storing properties of switchgrass roots. I think you're being deliberately misinformed.
Even then, I hear neither of them were really entirely satisfied by the end product... so it's not the best example in anycase.
Anyone curious about Gaiman should start with his writing; Sandman: A Doll's House, and/or Good Omens are the best places to start.