dwar0123

It is good to be the king. I like the idea of someone slugging their way through the fetid masses to become the most worthy challenger of this year and to attempt to unseat the king and ascend to the throne. It is inherently more dramatic and while it may not be the most fair way of determining the best player of the year, it is a way of pitting the best(or perhaps 2nd best should he lose) player of this year against the best player of a previous year. Sure, maybe the current champion might have been better prepared had he played through the tournament, certainly true in tennis where being match tough is very relevant. Or perhaps the challenger will be at a disadvantage having expended so much effort just to get there. No matter, this format determines something fairly, it may not be the something you wanted but what that something is is really arbitrary. In this case, it determines who the champion is rather than who the best player is. They will often be the same but not always and when they are not it is because it is harder to become the champion than it is to be the best player of the year. Making the achievement more worthy and granting you the champions privilege in future years.

I talk about 100's of millions, perhaps billions being displaced/starving and you call it preserving the political climate? I am not sure we are talking about the same thing.

With regards to judging climate change as bad. We humans are adapted to the climate as it was. In the sense that we populate areas based on their present fertility and access to water. Change is very bad for those area's that will be negatively effected by climate change. Of course other areas will benefit, perhaps Canada and Siberia will become the new bread baskets of the world, but not many are living there and while it might bring great fortunes to those that do eventually live there, the people that are stuck across the border are going to be in some deep trouble, Humans are not good at just up and moving people from one location to another across political borders without there being a whole lot of pain and suffering involved. Heck even if it is within the same border, Cities and infrastructure are not easily mobile.

They really need to enable down voting in this thread. I feel so much frustration, having learned that its better to not respond directly but still wanting badly to show my disproval.

An interesting read that I ran across that relates to this thread. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie Personally, I feel that the problem it presents should be resolved something along the lines of Gödel's Incompleteness theorem. If a P-Zombie can be created, we will completely understand it. I am pretty sure we will never completely understand consciousness for the same reasons that Gödel's theorem exist. Which isn't to suggest we won't ever be able to create human like AI, it just means we won't be able to fully describe what we created. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems

Supply and Demand. There is a demand and there is a supply, simple economic forces that have played out countless times before throughout history. Nothing particular about the economic times, someone will always work to see to it that demand gets its supply. If history is a guide; demand will remain long after supply gives up the ghost, dooming the species in the wild. You can protect them 24/7 with armed guards, but that is just delaying the inevitable and leaves quite a lot to be desired for the idea of them living in the wild.

That had to be some of the most pointlessly nauseating video editing I have ever seen. An ant can lift some large multiple of it's own body weight. I can still crush it without even noticing it was there. Strong or not, a 5 year old just does not have the size to impact a large grown adult.

In practice, human intelligence is flawed by inexplicable artifacts and inadequate sampling. Really just a flaw in human intelligence, not so much a flaw in computers simulation of it. What we really need is a Monte Carlo simulation of Monte Carlo simulations of human intelligence. As for Age of Empires, I know a disgustingly large amount about that game. I played it an obscene amount and worked on the test team of one of its successors(age of kings). There are really two aspects of AI in that game. Unit AI, which is mostly about pathing. Finding the best way to get from point A to point B. In Age of Empires it was done individually for each unit. In later installments they did it for groups of units, which made it a lot more efficient. Need to do a lot fewer pathing calculations when you are dealing with much fewer items to move and not only that but when you order 30 individuals to all move to the same location, they have a tendency to get in each others way, much better to order 30 individuals to move together to that spot. Then there is Computer player AI, which never cheated by knowing anything a human player wouldn't know from their position, but had enormous advantages in resources. This was just a script to do certain things based on the situation and was readily editable. Zero town centers, build a town center. Have an army, send it to enemy location. Don't know where enemy is, scout. Low on food, build farms, etc.

Which opens up another possibility, someone was trying to make her look stupid!

The question is a semantic illusion. If intelligence is defined as something only humans can possess. Than intelligence is nothing.

How does that logic hold up if computers can do everything(intellectually) that humans can do?

Well something bad must have happened, because the obvious line(to me) looks very unlikely to fail. K of hearts(if both follow, than J, else take Q), diamond ace, ruff diamond, KQ of spades pitching 2 diamonds, back to hand with club ruff and pull any outstanding trump.

Being on-topic is still off-topic! Considering the topic!

The funny thing is that his argument is flawed on both ends. 1. The framers made it very clear what they meant in other writings. 2. The framers also made it very clear that society should adapt the Constitution to their own needs, that it is not a suicide pact. Hence the ability to amend it and for the supreme court to interpret it.

The government bans guns because they fear the people will vote them out of office if they don't. Which is a right and good reason. The government has absolutely no fear of the wack jobs who talk about overthrowing the government should it try to take their guns away. They fear the NRA because the NRA has money and money can buy influence with people, people who will vote to keep them in office if they support guns. This delusional idea that arming the public is a check against government tyranny is astoundingly absurd. First of all, the 2nd amendment was meant to allow the state's to arm a militia to keep the federal government in check with respect to the states. Which worked not at all in the 1860's. It was never meant to arm the public at large against a democratically elected government. The notion is absurd on so many levels.

Ah, that explains the lack of police and prisons in this country. If all the rights rests with the individual than there are no laws, no police and no prisons.

I wouldn't expect you to be consoled, but it is more likely that your wife and children will be killed by your guns than saved by them. It is also more likely that your wife and children will be killed as innocent bystanders from someone else guns, than saved by your guns. I don't expect you to be consoled then either. I do not expect anyone to be consoled by the existing laws when their wife and children die under any circumstances, that isn't the point of the laws, the point is that they don't need to be consoled to begin with. The government does have the right to make that trade for you, it makes countless trades for you already, its the price you pay for living in a civil society. Remember, it is, in theory, a government of the people. You may not believe that I have the right to make that trade for you just as I do not believe that you have the right to make this trade for me. But the government, as it acts through the people, has the right to make this trade for us.

The problem Bill, is that while we acknowledge that in a country of 300 million people in which a large portion of the population owns gun, that there are 100's of examples when guns were used successfully for their intended purpose. You, however, do not seem to acknowledge the vastly larger number of times that guns ended in unnecessary tragedy. That woman and her children were saved by the gun. How many innocent woman and children have died due to this countries gun culture? And let us not forget, no one is talking about banning the type of gun she used nor banning her possession of it in the place she used it. There is a sane middle ground, people have just got to stop following in line with the NRA's insane pro gun culture. Something the NRA supports mostly for the profits it generates for them.

This painting is a self portrait and your agenda is terrifying.

Far be it from me to suggest that the stars are not a goal worthy of pursuit but they will never be a solution to overpopulation. Short of discovering "Stargate" level technology, there is no way to move people off Earth faster than we make new ones. It isn't even close, if you plug in the actual numbers its actually laughably silly. It would be like trying to hold back Niagara falls with a Dixie cup. Getting into space is about taking all of our eggs out of one basket, the problems of Earth will still have to be solved by those on Earth. Not to mention no matter how bad things get on Earth, existing on Earth is still going to be vastly cheaper and easier than anywhere else in this solar system.

Do it using 2/1, normal gadgets for I/A players, nothing too exotic. [hv=pc=n&s=shj875dq96543ca73&n=sq6hat3dakj8ckqt2&d=n&v=b&b=13&a=1dp1h1sdp]266|200[/hv] x = support double.

So they are withholding a vital test to help catch a rapist, which is probably a direct sin under their religion. Based on the possibility that someone else MIGHT commit a sin(in their eye) by getting an abortion? That is like seeing 100 dollars left on the floor of a poor house and then killing everyone in the building so they won't be tempted to commit the sin of stealing it.

That's an odd thing to refuse to do, the rapist must have been of the clergy. Seriously though, why?

Well, I don't read German so perhaps I am about to speak out of my ass BUT I am willing to bet that the 'refuse treatment' means refused to supply morning after pills and/or some other form of abortion/pregnancy prevention method. I would be shocked if they actually refused any other type of medical treatment and personally believe that using the phrase 'refuse treatment' for assistance in ending a pregnancy, which isn't generally a medical emergency, is disingenuous at best. If they did refuse to provide emergency care, than shame on them.

Good to know, I tend not to like ur responses anyway :)