Zombieneighbours's page

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Plastic is today.

But we are in the early days of a revolution in genomics which is which looks likely to do some very funky things indeed with synthetic biology. Add to that the current nanotech advances.

Metal-like polymers are a near inevitability.

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Orthos:

You live in Tennessee.

To my knowledge, you've never lived in the United Kingdom.

You didn't have to live through her reign of terror.

I guess you don't have your nations hands stained with blood thanks to her cozying up to Augusto Pinochet.

To my knowledge your not living through an era dominated by her ghost, in which unlike many of our neighbour, the rich are getting richer and richer, while the rest of us get poorer.

With all due respect, perhaps if anyone is going to take your advice to "Then don't post, and/or hide the thread", it would be better off you.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Setting aside old milk snatcher's many less desirable characteristics, is this really a time when we should be spending money on a state funeral, for a millionaire.

I know the cost is a drop in the ocean, but seriously it is more than a little gauling that within a week of a deeply regressive "bed room" tax we have it anounced that we will be paying for this.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I want to back this project, but the shipping to the UK is so exorbitantly expensive that I simple cannot justify it. Especially when their are options like Terraclips and Hirst arts, which work out cheaper, and/or provide a greater variety

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think "I am uncomfortable being in a position of authority, when your judgement is impared, if you wish to drink, that is fine, but I cannot include you in the game while you do" would be a reasonable position for DM to hold.

Similarly, "I do not wish a narcotics to be consumed in my home", is reasonable reason for a host to ban alcohol in his house.

If you as a player, I think the most reasonable positions is "I am made uncomfortable by alcohol consumption. I would rather we did not drink while gaming. It is your choice if you do, or do not, but if you do, I will have to withdraw. Your choice."

2 people marked this as a favorite.

In that case, I will have a think, and some prep, and we might be able to make it a reality.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sissyl wrote:

Good for you. I prefer not to have to manage thousands of pages of rules. It gets to be so much that I lose track of it between sessions. This cuts deep into prep time. If nothing else, I have to rebalance encounters to allow for hyper optimised characters. I think my players prefer good preparation than using all the books. What I do, though, is use the books as tools for making settings, and at that point I choose to include all of books X and Y. Everything else is specific approval.

Hm?

Simplest just to keep books on hand and then reference them when a player asks you about some obscure PrC or whatever than memorizing thousands of pages of stuff.

As my Chemistry teacher always told me "References are made for a reason. Work smarter, not harder.".

That would work fine, in a world where we didn't have a subset of anti-social players who consider it their right to make the most powerful character they possible can, regardless of setting, theme, their own concept, the concepts of other players, agreed power level of the game being played and any other concern, or if the system itself did not because of its complexity produce emergent properties in characters, where feats, class abilities and spells synogies in ways that produce significant spike in the power curve.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Solar energy? As in, solar energy of the 80s? A technology which has matured for 35 years since and is STILL not feasible for large scale energy production, that is your serious suggestion for becoming energy independent in the eighties?

No further questions, your honour.

Save that this is at least partly codswallop.

As pointed out before, Germany already produced around 20% of its electrical base load via variable renewable as is on route for a doubling of this in the next few years. Already, on the best days, they are exporting large amount of solar derived energy. Large scale micro generation, is a bid part of the problem, but it needs a storage infrastructure, which is difficult to build....

Save that we may well not need to one, last years car of the year, the tesla is a very large battery. If all cars are electric, then the grid has a massive storage pool.

Add in non-variable renewables, new cleaner fission reactor types, foodwaste/sewage powered bio-ethonol reactors, and you start to get a power system which works on a far lower carbon budget. Which gives us more time to work of fusion.

And thats before you start on reducing demand, via greater energy efficiency in design. We have a twelve watt 12 LED bulb with 1600 lumens, literally about to hit the market.

Simple schemes to help home owners insulate their homes properly, can have significant effects.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Its important for the philosophy of science, which means its not important.

While a agree with a lot of what you have said(there are some theories which are in all practicality, factual; at this point we just arn't going to decide evolution doesn't happen for instance. ), I have to disagree with the above quote.

While it might have no practical impact in the daily lives of your average lay person, that distinction is immensely important. It functions to keep science one of the least dogmatic areas of human endeavour.

The fact that we never know anything with absolute certainty, means we are always willing to look for a better explanation, which is a good thing.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Of course the "conspirators" themselves told of the glacier error. Otherwise, it would look even more like a conspiracy, this way they had to settle for "people with lacking quality control that happen to be extremely enthusiastic about spreading the message of impending doom". It is not enough, however, to say that it is one error in 3000 pages. The fact that they took this data from a non scientific journal means directly that someone in their quality control machinery felt that the impact of the rest was not good enough, that the political impact of this data was more important than it being true, or simply did not check. All of these reasons show poor quality control or a cavalier attitude to truth compared to their Cause. Otherwise put: the same quality control they put the rest of the data through is inadequate. THAT is the very specific problem. Not whether that glacier will melt in thirty years or two hundred. So, yes, the IPCC has cooked their books, that is pretty well documented. It is interesting to note that their QC work has been discussed at length and is not, apparently, what you would call an open process. As I understand it, the politicos do the last view themselves. I believe Phil Jones himself complained about this process in one of the second climategate emails.

Understand that money IS a measure of loyalty for most people, and that their next paycheck is far more important than their integrity. Finding a scientist willing to find stuff supporting a specific viewpoint is no big deal.

Let me get this straight.

There have been one(maybe two)identified issues, and four smaller areas requiring additional work, with the fourth assessment report, a document of nearly three thousand page, at a small print size. A document with 450 lead authors, and 800 contributing authors, the vast majority of whom contributed their time for free, and that is a sign that the IPCC is lacking quality control.

The IPCC is an organisation with 10 full-time staff in its secretariat and small technical support staff, and it pulled of a level of accuracy in its work that most governmental and corporate bodies can only have wet dreams about, and it is a sign of conspiracy?

This is reality calling Sissyl, reality calling Sissyl. Come in Sissyl.

Occums Razor:
Which is more likely.

A small number of very minor mistakes got through into a very complex, multiples author report on a technical issue, and where later caught by people with a vested interest in keeping their work accurate.

or

the three working group chairs, the secutariat staff, support staff and 1250 unpaid contributors conspired to intentionally add errors, which they would later reveal as false to make their work look more credible.

Edit: Oh, and their doing it for the money, because many of them are highly qualified physicist, working in pure research academia, rather than in the private sector, so their clear in it for the money...

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah. Come back when you have outgrown this inane conspiracy idea. Why would big oil do this? Because they like to mess with people. Sorry. It is just too unrealistic.

Because oil companies make large profit. The longer we continue to dither about acting on climate change, the longer the oil companies will continue to make very large profits.

Individual executives within said companies receive bonus based upon profitability and share price.

It costs them very little to fund research, compared to the ongoing gains of continued business as normal.

This is not far fetched. It is not some wacky conspiracy theory, it is a documented fact that other industries and political causes have used exactly this tactic in the past. And all ther evidence of both current behaviour and financial actions both major oil companies and these think tanks suggest it is happening again.

And seriously, those who think that "evil IPCC has taken control of the peer review process, and CRU engaged in academic fraud, but weren't censured for it", should be careful what they call an Inane conspiracy idea.

Edit:Doesn't hurt that companies select for Psychopathic traits in their leadership.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

So everyone who criticizes AGW is being paid by Big Oil to do so? Sorry, I can't take you seriously if you can't back that up with evidence. And when you whine about a conspiracy to discredit AGW, it's again difficult to take you seriously.

*Facepalm*

It isn't just that it is the oil industry is funding contrairian research, it is the way in which they are funneling money to it.

The george c marshall institute, The Cato institute, Heartland institute, and others.

These groups and many of the scientists they fund, (such as fred singer), have a history producing sceptical research, on a number of subject, always favouring which ever business is funding them this year. They have collectively been on the loosing side of tobacco, acid rain, CFCs and more.

Unlike the evidence less conspiracy you repeatedly posit, this one has evidence.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Subduction, has nothing to do with this process, it may be a result. (We know the mountains are growing, whether rock is equally being shifted down is a theory, a likely one, but a theory)

You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means.

Seriously, a theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."

To say something is a theory, is the highest form of praise there is for an idea, it means it is the best explanation available for what we see, and is almost certainly not wrong, with very high degrees of certainty.

You use it to imply that an idea is somehow shaky. "It is only a theory." but such an implication shows a profound ignorance of science.

In the words of United States National Academy of Sciences

"The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics)...One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed."

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I just wonder why is it okay to mock people who are willing to question things in case they've been lied to, no matter what the source of the information is. Is it okay to cover your ears and yell loudly when something might become questionable just because "the guy telling you looks trustworthy" or something? That kind of blind trust will just lead to ruin one way or another, especially if everyone chooses to be a blind sheep following the damned herd. Then again, something tells me that you guys are just going to pick some part of this post (or earlier ones) and continue with the snark instead of actually adressing the question itself...

Because some ideas have failed, and failed so spectacularly that holding onto them is an act of ignorance, worthy of mockery.

Flat earthers, and creationists are amongst the best examples of this.

Their ideas are so weak that they must create grand and elaborate lies, which clearly fail the parsimony test, just to support their own belief. That behaviour is both funny and sad to many outside observes.

Let me be clear, Climate scepticism does not fit into this category. There are perfectly legitimate scientists, with expertise in climate science, who are climate change sceptics. There are many fewer than those who accept the hypothesis that human activity. Only about 1.35% survey did not believe human activity was having any effect climate, while about 15.1% thought the effect would be minor. It is relatively reasonable to be a climate sceptic.

And no one here is being mocked for being sceptical about climate change.

If any one is being mocked it is not for their sceptism about Anthropogenic global climate change, it is because the ways in which they try to defend their position are so badly formed that it makes them look like creationists.

example:

Sissyl's belief that their opinion on climate change is as valid as a specialists in the field of climate science, when talking about that subject.

It is of course a ridiculous notion. Climate is an immensely complex subject, one which to understand in any depth takes years active study. Specialists are a requirement of modern science, a lay person can no more model the climatic effects of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, than sequence a genome.

However, when told that their opinions are unlikely to be accurate, because of a lack of expertise, Sissyl's responce is to claim that they are being denied their opinion.

Which is of course, codswollop. No one is saying Sissyl cannot or should not have an opinion, we just don't consider it likely to be accurate, especially when it conflicts both with our understanding of the availible evidence, and the consensus opinion of legitimate authorities on the subject.

Almost every discussion with Sissyl in this thread, appears to have gone along these lines

sissyl: "this is true..."
everyone else: *evidence it is not*
sissyl: Option A - You just don't get it/you don't understand science
Option B - Your sources are untrustworthy, but mine are
Option C - Your denying me my opinion
Option D - There is a massive conspiricy

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I chose the example of squirrels because I talked to a biologist who told me that you simply don't get funding unless you relate the mating habits of squirrels to climate change, specifically AGW. I don't expect you to believe me with n = 1 or anything, but it is something I have discussed with people in related fields.

What a pile of utter codswallop.

A snap shot of research undertake just by teaching staff for my first degree.

Prof J. Cooper:

Deeming, Charles and Hodges, Holly and Cooper, Jonathan (2011) Effect of sight barriers in pens of breeding ring-necked pheasants (Phasianus colchicus): I. Behaviour and welfare. British Poultry Science, 52 (4). pp. 403-414. ISSN: 0007-1668

Deeming, Charles and Hodges, Holly and Cooper, Jonathan (2011) Effect of sight barriers in pens of breeding ring-necked pheasants (Phasianus colchicus): II. Reproductive parameters. British Poultry Science, 52 (4). pp. 415-422. ISSN: 0007-1668

Deeming, Charles and Hodges, Holly and Cooper, Jonathan (2010) Increased spatial complexity of breeding pens affects fertility of commercial pheasants. Avian Biology Research, 3 (3). pp. 128-129. ISSN: 1758-1559

Vinke, C. M. and Hansen, S. W. and Mononen, J. and Mason, G. J. and Korhonen, H. and Cooper, Jonathan and Mohaibes, M. and Bakken, M. and Spruijt, B. M. (2008) To swim or not to swim: an interpretation of farmed mink's motivation for a water bath. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 111 (1-2). pp. 1-27. ISSN: 0168-1591

Albentosa, Melissa J. and Cooper, Jonathan J. (2005) Testing resource value in group-housed animals: an investigation of cage height preference in laying hens. Behavioural Processes, 70 (2). pp. 113-121. ISSN: 0376-6357
Fukuzawa, M. and Mills, Daniel S. and Cooper, Jonathan J. (2005) More than just a word: non-semantic command variables affect obedience in the domestic dog (Canis familiaris). Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 91 (1-2). pp. 129-141. ISSN: 0168-1591

Cooper, Jonathan J. and McCall, Natalie and Johnson, Sharon and Davidson, H. P. B. (2005) The short-term effects of increasing meal frequency on stereotypic behaviour of stabled horses. Applied animal behaviour science, 90 (3-4). pp. 351-364. ISSN: 0168-1591

Cooper, Jonathan J. and Albentosa, Melissa J. (2005) Behavioural adaptation in the domestic horse: potential role of apparently abnormal responses including stereotypic behaviour. Livestock production science, 92 (2). pp. 177-182. ISSN: 0301-6226

Fukuzawa, M. and Mills, D. S. and Cooper, J. J, (2005) The effect of human command phonetic characteristics on auditory cognition in dogs (Canis familiaris). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 119 (1). pp. 117-120. ISSN: 0735-7036

Albentosa, M. J. and Cooper, J. J. (2004) Effects of cage height and stocking density on the frequency of comfort behaviours performed by laying hens housed in furnished cages. Animal welfare, 13 (4). pp. 419-424. ISSN: 0962-7286

Cooper, Jonathan J. and Ashton, Clare and Bishop, Sarah and West, Rebecca and Mills, Daniel S. and Young, Robert J. (2003) Clever hounds: social cognition in the domestic dog (Canis familiaris). Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 81 (3). pp. 229-244. ISSN: 0168-1591

Cooper, J. J. and Appleby, M. C. (2003) The value of environmental resources to domestic hens: a comparison of the work-rate for food and for nests as a function of time. Animal welfare, 12 (1). pp. 39-52. ISSN: 0962-7286

Cooper, Jonathan J. and Albentosa, Melissa J. (2003) Behavioural priorities of laying hens. Avian and Poultry Biology Reviews, 14 (3). pp. 127-149. ISSN: 1470-2061

McAfee, Lynn M. and Mills, Daniel S. and Cooper, Jonathan J. (2002) The use of mirrors for the control of stereotypic weaving behaviour in the stabled horse. Applied animal behaviour science, 78 (2-4). pp. 159-173. ISSN: 0168-1591

Cairns, M. C. and Cooper, J. J. and Davidson, H. P. B. and Mills, D. S. (2002) Association in horses of orosensory characteristics of foods with their post-ingestive consequences. Animal Science, 75 (2). pp. 257-265. ISSN: 1357-7298

Mason, Georgia J. and Cooper, Jonathan and Clarebrough, Catherine (2001) Frustrations of fur-farmed mink. Nature, 410 (6824). pp. 35-36. ISSN: 0028-0836

Prof. Danial Mills

van der Zee, Emile and Zulch, Helen and Mills, Daniel (2012) Word generalization by a dog (Canis familiaris): is shape important?. PLoS One, 7 (11). pp. e49382. ISSN: 1932-6203

McBride, Sebastian D. and Mills, Daniel (2012) Psychological factors affecting equine performance. BMC Veterinary Research, 8. ISSN: 1746-6148

Racca, Anais and Guo, Kun and Meints, Kerstin and Mills, Daniel (2012) Reading faces: differential lateral gaze bias in processing canine and human facial expressions in dogs and 4-year-old children. Plos One, 7 (4). ISSN: 1932-6203

Wright, Hannah and Mills, Daniel and Pollux, Petra (2012) Behavioural and physiological correlates of impulsivity in the domestic dog (Canis familiaris). Physiology and Behavior, 105 (3). pp. 676-682. ISSN: 0031-9384

Hayes, William A. and Mills, Daniel S. and Neville, Rachel F. and Kiddie, Jenna and Collins, Lisa M. (2011) Determination of the molar extinction coefficient for the ferric reducing/antioxidant power assay. Analytical Biochemistry, 416 (2). pp. 202-205. ISSN: 0003-2697

Mills, Daniel and Redgate, Sarah and Landsberg, Gary (2011) A meta-analysis of studies of treatments for feline urine spraying. Plos One, 6 (4). ISSN: 1932-6203

Wright, Hannah and Mills, Daniel and Pollux, Petra (2011) Development and validation of a psychometric tool for assessing impulsivity in the domestic dog (Canis familiaris). International Journal of Comparative Psychology, 24 (2). pp. 210-225. ISSN: 0889-3667

Williams, Fiona and Mills, Daniel and Guo, Kun (2011) Development of a head-mounted, eye-tracking system for dogs. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 194 (2). pp. 259-265. ISSN: 0165-0270

Cracknell, Nina and Mills, Daniel (2011) An evaluation of owner expectation on apparent treatment effect in a blinded comparison of 2 homeopathic remedies for firework noise sensitivity in dogs.. Journal of Veterinary Behaviour, 6 (1). pp. 21-30.

Mills, Daniel (2011) Behavior problems and psychopharmacology. Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research, 6 (1). pp. 96-97. ISSN: 1558-7878

Braem, Maya and Mills, Daniel (2010) Factors affecting response of dogs to obedience instruction: a field and experimental study. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 125 (1-2). pp. 47-55. ISSN: 0168-1591

Racca, Anaïs and Amadei, Eleonora and Ligout, Séverine and Guo, Kun and Meints, Kerstin and Mills, Daniel (2010) Discrimination of human and dog faces and inversion responses in domestic dogs (Canis familiaris). Animal Cognition, 13 (3). pp. 525-533. ISSN: 1435-9448

Mills, Daniel and Zulch, Helen (2010) Veterinary medicine and animal behaviour: barking up the right tree. The Veterinary Journal, 183 (2). pp. 119-120.

Mills, Daniel and De Keuster, Tiny (2009) Dogs in society can prevent society going to the dogs. The Veterinary Journal, 179 (3). pp. 322-323. ISSN: 1090-0233

Guo, Kun and Mills, Daniel and Meints, Kerstin and Hall, Charlotte and Hall, Sophie (2008) Left gaze bias in humans, rhesus monkeys and domestic dogs. Animal Cognition. pp. 409-418.

Braem, Maya and Mills, Daniel and Doherr, Marcus and Lehmann, Doris and Steiger, Andreas (2008) Evaluating aggressive behavior in dogs: a comparison of 3 tests. Journal of Veterinary Behavior- Clinical Applications and Research, 3 (4). pp. 152-160.

Cracknell, Nina and Mills, Daniel (2008) A double-blind placebo-controlled study into the efficacy of a homeopathic remedy for fear of firework noises in the dog (Canis familiaris). Veterinary Journal, 177. pp. 80-88. ISSN: 1090-0233

Mills, Daniel Simon and Ramos, Daniela and Estelles, Marta Gandia and Hargrave, Claire (2006) A triple blind placebo-controlled investigation into the assessment of the effect of Dog Appeasing Pheromone (DAP) on anxiety related behaviour of problem dogs in the veterinary clinic. Applied animal behaviour science, 98 (1-2). pp. 114-126. ISSN: 0168-1591

Fukuzawa, M. and Mills, Daniel S. and Cooper, Jonathan J. (2005) More than just a word: non-semantic command variables affect obedience in the domestic dog (Canis familiaris). Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 91 (1-2). pp. 129-141. ISSN: 0168-1591

Mills, Daniel S. and Riezebos, M. (2005) The role of the image of a conspecific in the regulation of stereotypic head movements in the horse.. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 91 (1-2). pp. 155-165. ISSN: 0168-1591

Fukuzawa, M. and Mills, D. S. and Cooper, J. J, (2005) The effect of human command phonetic characteristics on auditory cognition in dogs (Canis familiaris). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 119 (1). pp. 117-120. ISSN: 0735-7036

Cooper, Jonathan J. and Ashton, Clare and Bishop, Sarah and West, Rebecca and Mills, Daniel S. and Young, Robert J. (2003) Clever hounds: social cognition in the domestic dog (Canis familiaris). Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 81 (3). pp. 229-244. ISSN: 0168-1591

McAfee, Lynn M. and Mills, Daniel S. and Cooper, Jonathan J. (2002) The use of mirrors for the control of stereotypic weaving behaviour in the stabled horse. Applied animal behaviour science, 78 (2-4). pp. 159-173. ISSN: 0168-1591

Mills, Daniel S. and Alston, Robert D. and Rogers, Victoria and Longford, Nicholas T. (2002) Factors associated with the prevalence of stereotypic behaviour amongst thoroughbred horses passing through auctioneer sales. Applied animal behaviour science, 78 (2-4). pp. 115-124. ISSN: 0168-1591

Cairns, M. C. and Cooper, J. J. and Davidson, H. P. B. and Mills, D. S. (2002) Association in horses of orosensory characteristics of foods with their post-ingestive consequences. Animal Science, 75 (2). pp. 257-265. ISSN: 1357-7298

Mills, Daniel S. and Macleod, Claire A. (2002) The response of crib-biting and windsucking in horses to dietary supplementation with an antacid mixture. Ippologia, 13 (2). pp. 33-41. ISSN: 1120-5776

Mills, Daniel S. and Ledger, Rebecca (2001) The effect of oral selegiline hydrochloride on learning and training in the dog: a psychobiological interpretation.. Progress in Neuropsychopharmacology and Biological Psychiatry, 25 (8). pp. 1597-1613. ISSN: 0278-5846

Mills, D. S. and Mills, C. B. (2001) Evaluation of a novel method for delivering a synthetic analogue of feline facial pheromone to control urine spraying by cats. The Veterinary Record, 149 (7). pp. 197-199. ISSN: 0042-4900

Paul Eady
Gay, L. and Brown, E. and Tregenza, T. and Pincheira-Donoso, D. and Eady, P. and Vasudev, Ram and Hunt, J. and Hosken, D. J. (2011) The genetic architecture of sexual conflict: male harm and female resistance in Callosobruchus maculatus. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 24 (2). pp. 449-456.

Arnqvist, Goran and Dowling, Damien and Eady, Paul and Gay, Laurene and Tregenza, Tom and Tuda, Midori and Hoskin, David (2010) The genetic architecture of metabolic rate: environment specific epistasis between mitochondrial and nuclear genes in an insect. Evolution, 64 (12). pp. 3354-3363.

Gay, Laurene and Hosken, David and Eady, Paul and Vasudev, Ram and Tregenza, Tom (2010) The evolution of harm: effect of sexual conflicts and population size. Evolution: International Journal of Organic Evolution, 65 (3). ISSN: 0014-3820

Hudaib, Taghread and Hayes, William and Brown, Sarah and Eady, Paul (2010) Effect of seed moisture content and D-limonene on oviposition decisions of the seed beetle Callosobruchus maculatus. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata, 137 (2). pp. 120-125. ISSN: 0013-8703

Gay, L. and Eady, Paul and Vasudev, Ram and Hosken, D. J. and Tregenza, T. (2009) Does reproductive isolation evolve faster in larger populations via sexually antagonistic coevolution?. Biology Letters, 5 (5). pp. 693-696. ISSN: 1744-9561

Brown, E. A. and Gay, L. and Vasudev, Ram and Tregenza, T. and Eady, Paul and Hosken, D. J. (2009) Negative phenotypic and genetic associations between copulation duration and longevity in male seed beetles. Heredity, 103 (4). pp. 340-345. ISSN: 0018-067X

Gay, L. and Hosken, D. J. and Vasudev, Ram and Tregenza, T. and Eady, Paul (2009) Sperm competition and maternal effects differentially influence testis and sperm size in Callosobruchus maculatus. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 22 (5). pp. 1143-1150.

Laurene, Gay and Eady, Paul and Vasudev, Ram and Hosken, David J. and Tregenza, Tom (2009) Costly sexual harassment in a beetle. Physiological Entomology, 34 (1). pp. 86-92. ISSN: 0307-6962

Rugman-Jones, Paul F. and Eady, Paul E. (2008) Co-evolution of male and female reproductive traits across the Bruchidae (Coleoptera). Functional Ecology, 22. pp. 880-886.

Rugman-Jones, Paul F. and Eady, Paul E. (2007) Conspecific sperm precedence in Callobruchus subinnotatus (Coleoptera: Bruchidae): mechanisms and consequences. Proceeding of the Royal Society: Series B, 274 (1612). pp. 983-988. ISSN: 1471-2954

Eady, Paul E. and Hamilton, Leticia and Lyons, Ruth (2007) Copulation, genital damage and early death in Callosobruchus maculatus. Proceedings of the Royal Society, London B, 274 (1607). pp. 247-252. ISSN: 1471-2954

Deeming, D. C. and Birchard, G. F. and Crafer, R. and Eady, P. E. (2006) Egg mass and incubation period allometry in birds and reptiles: effects of phylogeny. Journal of Zoology, 270 (2). pp. 209-218. ISSN: 0952-8369

Eady, Paul E. and Rugman-Jones, Paul and Brown, Denise V. (2004) Prior oviposition, female receptivity and last-male sperm precedence in the cosmopolitan pest Callosobruchus maculatus (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). Animal Behaviour, 67 (3). pp. 559-565. ISSN: 1095-8282

Brown, Denise V. and Eady, Paul E. (2001) Functional incompatability between the fertilization systems of two allopatric populations of Callosobruchus maculatus (Coleoptera: bruchidae). Evolution: International Journal of Organic Evolution, 55 (11). pp. 2257-2262. ISSN: 22572262

Eady, Paul E. (2001) Postcopulatory, prezygotic reproductive isolation. Journal of Zoology, 253 (1). pp. 47-52. ISSN: 1469-7998

Note: Paul eady's work on C.Maculatus is amazingly interesting, and those weavels have seriously scary genitals.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The Decepticons are Transformers too, Klaus. Seriously, you're not qualified to make arguments in this discussion. According to the IPTT, a coronal mass ejection on that scale would be one of the few things that could save us.

This line again?

Look, germany, fifth largest GDP in the world, supplies 20% of its base load, through variable renewable micro-generation, with a massive potential for growth, and is heading for more. Their economy has not suffered.

I'd love to see a quote from the IPCC calling for a zero growth economy.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Only just saw this. get better soon joshua.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

"The alleged burglar".

Yeah, he broke into the house and caused the family to hide in the crawlway because he was actually there to deliver flowers.
Of course that's why he was there. the family should be ashamed of themselves for imagining that the guy who's broken into their house and rummaging through their things is a burglar. [/sarcasm]

This looks to me like a case of a responsible gun owner who's using their family's personal defense weapon for its intended purpose: to defend their family. Shooting the guy 6 times, 5 of which were in the face? well, if the man managed to flee afterwards then evidently it was neither overkill nor being 'trigger happy' (If the first shot had downed him and the rest had just been to make sure he was dead then I'd say it was trigger happy behavior.)

What's the bet he tries to sue the mum for damages? Ok, now I am stereotyping the American justice system, and I should stop.

It is alleged that he was a burglar.

That remains the case until he has been tried by a court of his peers.

It is a simple concept, that we are all Innocent until proven guilty.

I have little doubt that he will be found guilty, but until he has the right to not be refered to as guilty of the crime.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Zombieneighbours wrote:

Kthulhu wrote:

Better for me to kill an non-violent criminal than for a violent criminal to kill me and my family.

And what if said 'criminal' is not a criminal at all, but someone with a mental health issue? Or a local child with poor boundary issues. What if they are a dementia sufferer. I've had three breakins in houses I have been living in, during my life one was a robbery, the other two a neighbour suffering from dementia.

Then they need a more capable handler. What if you stand there thinking "what if" while the "maybe harmless" kills or rapes a child? Or is it ok to gamble with other peoples kids to you? You want to risk your safety and life have at it but do not dare try to force that russian roulette of "maybe" on others

First of all, what libertarians dystopia do you live in where A, a mistakes being made = some one needs a better 'handler'(the term is carer, elders are not animals thank you), and where it becomes okay to shoot an old person or someone with a mental illness because they have in a moment of confusion broken into your home.

Yes there is an attendant risk, however small to any intrusion, but that is precisely the reasons I have advocated removing your self and your family from the area to minimise that risk.

I don't have to stand there thinking 'what if' because i have taken simple precautions to ensure that we should not be put in that position.

Should a confrontation become unavoidable, their are more than two choices. It isn't just a case of shot the guy, or watch children get raped.

I have lots of other options; fleeing, physicial restraint, compressed air horn at close range, improvised weapons, personal violence and so on, none of which require(assuming I am at my grandfathers) I stop to spend two minutes to go to his office, recover the safe keys, open up, unchain the twelve gage, and load it. In that two minutes, we can all be out of the house and half way to our neighbours, with the added advantage of me not killing or injuring an individual who is almost certainly unarmed.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Zombieneighbor, I find every single post you've made on this topic to be offensive to my morals. I think it highlights a vastly different way of looking at the world.

If you are a criminal and are shot as a result of breaking into someone's house (whether to hurt them, rob them, rape them, ect) I have zero sympathy for you. I don't care if you have no intention of harming them and are only in it for the stuff. If you are shot and killed I have no sympathy for you. The moment you make the decision to invade someone's home or intentionally harm them I could care less if you die as a result. Period. End of story.

I don't care about the criminals rights, because he does not care about my own.

First they came for the communists,

and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for the catholics,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a catholic.

Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.

This man was a criminal. It appears he was engaged in an act of trespass. But he is still a human. If we are to have a system of rights he is entitled to the same rights and protections we all are. I'll speak up for those rights. In fact it is so much more important that someone stands up for people like him, because they are so often people form intensely vulnerable background, who have themselves repeatedly been victims.

My belief that violence against the person is tragic, does not extend to 'nice people' alone. But I also have not said that she should not have the right to defend her own life, or the life of her children.

I do not comfort myself with lies such as 'some people are just bad', or 'they are dirty criminals, so they get what they deserve.' Because I have seen enough of the world to know that any of us are but a few bad decisions from being in his position, and know enough of psychology to have serious concerns as to the meaning of 'choice' in the first place.

Equally saying that the decisions of victims of crime play a significant part in setting up the conditions in which they will become victims(a stand point reflected by almost every anti crime initiative going by the way), is not the same as saying that they deserved it, or that it is their own fault.

Lastly, if offence is to be allowed as a form of argument at all, then let it be known that i am offended in my deepest moral character that so many of you would crow with such obvious delight, that another human being had been shot.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Zombieneighbours wrote:

Hiding in a crawl space, where she could be trapped and forced to use potentially lethal violence in front of children...

It seemed to have worked out ok.

In what bizarre-o land is does nine year old children being witness to a shooting = things having worked out ok?

It certainly isn't the worst of all possible outcomes, but things worked out okay, is pretty far of in the direction of "guy never breaks in in the first place, family sleeps safely though the night and have pancakes for breakfast."

Quote:

not purchasing an escape ladder so she can get her self and the children out...

So you're going to unravel an escape ladder and get two sleepy 9 year old kids down it, without them falling off it and without alerting the guy with a crowbar where you are?

Uhm.. no.

Funny, my school seemed to be able to get some two hundred odd students out of the building at two in the morning, during raining in about three minutes... I guess that is what you'd called trained preparedness.

not having purchased a very loud panic button based alarm...

They are useless. People assume they are car alarms and ignore them.

When i get my place, this is what burglars will hear upon opening the door...

Yes alarms have little effect if your neighbours don't know you, and don't care for you, but neighbourhood which spend time building close relationships do respond to such things. I make a concious choice to investigate every alarm that sounds within ear shot, and we have agreements with neighbours to come around, contact the police and check if we hear one another alarms.

also their is also plenty of academic study that has shown the usefulness of measure such as alarms in detering intrusion to begin with , and causing intrusion to stop once triggered.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Zombieneighbours wrote:

Hiding in a crawl space, where she could be trapped and forced to use potentially lethal violence in front of children...

not purchasing an escape ladder so she can get her self and the children out...

not having purchased a very loud panic button based alarm...

Do you think that particualr robber will try to rob another house?

Once he has recovered and spent time in prison, he is statistically likely more likely to re-affend than a non-offender is to offend for the first time. If the social and economic pressures on him are strong enough, I have absolutely no doubt he will. The criminal record he will aquire also make it more likely that those pressures become significant enough to trigger recidivism.

The factor most likely to prevent it, is long term physical or learning disability resulting from the injuries. But hey,that means he is less likely to become a successful member of society, and because of the way american health and social care provision seems to work, he will likely bedependant on a friend or family member, there by pushing them closer to the point where criminal activity becomes attractive as a way to make it in the world.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

This isn't about the NRA. This is about this one specific event.

A woman protected her children from an intruder after trying to hide from them. Only when confronted did she shoot. This is a best case scenario involving firearms for home defense.
Then ZN comes up with "maybe he was a homeless guy looking for food". I dunno, do you suppose the woman and her children were hiding in the refridgerator? Seriously?

No, they where in a crawl space. The location where families often store items that have value, but which they no longer use.

Valuables = food and shelter for months to come.

He probably wasn't homeless and looking for food, and I specifically said we do not know all the details, based on the available reports. Which is why I said we shouldn't jump to conclusions.

That argument goes for my first statement. For instance their maybe good reasons why she was unable to get herself and family to safety, rather than hiding in a dead end.

Other assumptions; that an intruder equals a danger. Violence rates for burgleries is around 7%, and of those 61% the burgler was unarmed. In only twelve 12% of violent burglaries, does the assailant have a firearm. Most burglers are not looking for a violent outcome. So just cause you've been confronted, does not mean you are in danger.

By no measure was this an ideal outcome. A guy was shot, in front of terrified children.

Crime does not happen for no reason. People commit crimes out of needs and wants which they cannot achieve in other ways. Even though he probably was not homeless, there are certain predictions you can make about him, which are likely to be true. He was probably known to the family, he was probably living close to or below the povity line, and he was likely a drug or alcohol addict. The guy who broke in, is almost certainly, in some way also a victim(not including those five shots to the face) not of the home owner but of the society in which he lives.

American scores worse than almost every other developed nation, no nearly every measure of societal health.

Given that gun ownership, death penalties, and prison are of questionable efficacy in preventing crimes, while better home security, rehabilitation focused interventions and treatment for drug and alcohol problems are all effective means of reducing it...perhaps it is time you stop as a nation trying to solve crime with guns, and start treating the underlying condition.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Translation of Zombieneighbours' comments: "I am a smart british man, while this was a stupid american woman. I wouldn't be as stupid as she was. It was all her fault."

Blame the victim. Nice.

Wo what I should ignore the fact she made bad decisions, which lead to her shooting someone in the face, five time, in front of her children?

I am not "blaming" her. I am just not ignoring her bad decision making.

It's not really fair, either. An untrained civilian in what was probably her first exposure to this type of situation? I wouldn't expect her to think of the most prudent course of action.

She thought about it enough to purchase a gun.

It does not take much effort to go out and get the informaion needed to reduce your risk of crime, and to put in place a simple plan for getting to a place of safety in a emergency in your home. Less effort than purchasing a firearm and firearms safe, and arranging its instilation. I mean, she does have a firearms safe right? She does live with her children after all right?

I am very happy that both the woman, and the children are safe.

But the article does not provide evidence that they where ar risk, only that their was an intruder. For all way know we are talking about a hungry and desperate homeless guy who broke in, discovered them by accident and got shoot for his attempts to get some food. We don't know all the details, so I try to avoid jumping to the conlusion that this is a simple case of "woman heroically defends family with guns which are awesome!"

2 people marked this as a favorite.

And now for a an alternate view form a gun owning family, and victim of crime.

Crime and violence are most effectively dealt with by preventative measures. There is no evidence I am aware of which suggests that gu ownership decreases the likelyhood of being the victim of crime. Infact their is significant evidence that weapon carrying increases your risk of being a victim of crime. There are measures that demonstrably decrease the likelihood of a break in however, such as appropriate locks, external property lighting, active neighbourhood watch schemes, alarms, and avoiding displays of conspicuous wealth.

I trust each of these infinitely more to ensure the safety of my partner and myself than I ever would a gun.
Should in the statistically unlikely event of a burglary occur, under the even more unlikely conditions that we are present when it occurs, then our household SOP is to identify where the intruder is, and leave the house by a route that will not bring us into contact with the intruder, take shelter with neighbours, and call the police via mobile phone or neighbours land line.

The family firearms do not factor into this plan for one very simple reason. We are responsible firearms owner, our arsonal of a rifle, and three shotguns is securely locked in a firearms safe. Getting them out of the safe prolongs the risk period of encountering the intruder, which increases the risk of violence in which my self, or a family member, or even the intruder might be injured. It is simply far safer to leave.

And that is before you take into account the fact that I am in no way certain that any member of my family would be able to pull the trigger on another human, or the fact that the weapon might be taken from one of us, increasing the risk, or the police mistaking use for a danger on their arrival(not so much an issue here in the UK because our police are not as a rule firearms office).

- Things I would not do, get myself cornered in a crawl space.

- Get my self into a position where my children have to witness me shoot some one.

- Get myself into a position where I feel I have no option but to shoot some one, and there by have to live with the fact I had done so.

I grew up with guns, in a way that most brits do not. I love my grandfather guns, and when my grandfather passes, it is my great hope that I will inherit them.

I was shooting under controlled conditions form around 6 years old, Hunting both with air rifles and shotguns is something I have been doing since about the age of eight(though my first hunting experiences go back as far as four, watching the local hunt, and helping with coursing with our lurcher). Because of all this, one nursery rhyme was drilled into me more than any other.

If a sportsman true you’d be
Listen carefully to me. . .

Never, never let your gun
Pointed be at anyone.
That it may unloaded be
Matters not the least to me.

When a hedge or fence you cross
Though of time it cause a loss
From your gun the cartridge take
For the greater safety’s sake.

If twixt you and neighbouring gun
Bird shall fly or beast may run
Let this maxim ere be thine
“Follow not across the line.”

Stops and beaters oft unseen
Lurk behind some leafy screen.
Calm and steady always be
“Never shoot where you can’t see.”

You may kill or you may miss
But at all times think this:
“All the pheasants ever bred
Won’t repay for one man dead.”

Keep your place and silent be;
Game can hear, and game can see;
Don’t be greedy, better spared
Is a pheasant, than one shared.

Like I said, I love my grandfathers guns, but I don't do so because of some silly notion that they make me safer. I laugh at the idea that they protect my liberty in this day and age. A Military family has taught me enough to laugh at that idea.

They are tools, used for hunting, and dangerous tools I wouldn't let a single one of my friends get within ten feet, let alone touch.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Superman, for these reasons NSFW

3 people marked this as a favorite.

bugleyman wrote:

Andrew R wrote:

The anti gun folks think it is your responsibility to have the funds to move if you feel any danger and to live close enough to the police for them to show up in time. and too bad for you if the family is raped and killed, small price to pay for their piece of mind that you cannot hurt others.....

I've got an idea...why don't you let the "anti-gun folks" speak for themselves? Maybe you could explain your position, which you (hopefully) understand, instead of trying to explain theirs?

That is exactly what you ARE saying by wanting to take the guns. and some have flat out said it, better for the innocent to be raped and murdered than armed.

An argument based on the assumption that tighter gun control will be causative of a higher rate of rape and a higher rate of murder. Yet nations with tighter gun control often have lower rates of both.

Japan has some of the stricted gun controls in the worlds and experiences almost no gun crime. Surely by your reasoning japan must be a rape hot spot right?

Rape
Nation 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 2010
USA 32.2 32.3 31.8 31.5 30.6 29.8 29.0 27.3
Japan 2.0 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.1 1.0

Rapes/100,000 of population

Turns out not to be so. Now Japan isn't perfect when it comes to issues of sex, but the lack of guns doesn't mean that people are out their getting raped.

But that is only half the picture. Maybe you have it right about murder, right?

Murder (most recent data from UNODC)
Nation Murders/100,000 of population
Japan 0.3
USA 4.2

Nope, apparently not.

Japan is only one nation ofcourse, but the theme runs pretty much through the crime statistics, nations with lower rates of gun ownership tend to be safer. There are statistical outlier, but generally your better of living in a nation with stricter gun control.

By the way, the fact you even made such an argument shows a profound misunderstanding of rape. It is an argument based upon the myth that rape is something that happens on darkened streets, late at night to woman who are walking alone in short skirts.

In reality, rape is something that happens in homes. Spousal and date rape are disproportionately the most common forms. A hand gun is of little help when your drinks have been spiked to death and someone you thought was a friend is bundling you into a car, then into your home and then taking advantage of you. Hand guns are of little help when you wake up in the night to find your spouce raping you in your sleep.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Something I've found with players who optimize characters a lot can be very predictable as to what feats they have and the type of spells or weapons they use

Was anyone else found this ?

Yes, I term it "the narrowing of range".

When I get onto the topic of optimisation that narrowing of range is my primary with the optimisation.

Optimisation is a useful skill so long as the question is, "how do I make this concept work the best it can."

It become destructive when the question becomes "which concept should I play to be as optimal as possible."

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I love Warhammer fantasy roleplay.

By which I mean...

I love first edition because it makes me nostalgic for gaming in my early teens with my "surrogate brothers", kim and olly(family friends where where a few years older than me.) Or later playing through the enemy within at university.

I love second edition, because it took the game I loved, and fixed on or two glaring flaws, extended the range of option the game provided greatly and gave the system a magic system that made more sense, even if i would have liked to see some of the classic forms of magic return within that frame work.

I even like 3rd edition, as an independant game with interesting mechanics. But what it isn't, to me, is WFRP.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Kthulhu wrote:

hogarth wrote:

Personally, I would probably call Masks of Nyarlathotep a "mega-campaign" (or something) rather than an "adventure path". Why? Because my understanding is that a large portion of it doesn't need to be played in any particular order, which is the "path" part of "adventure path". (Pleas correct me if I'm misremembering.)

Well, how about Horror on the Orient Express? It's definitely on a defined path. You could even accuse it of railroading.

Ouch.

I know, the pun was painful ;)

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Samnell wrote:

I stopped at the first blatant lie. That took 24 seconds. The first thing you can do is learn to spot lies better.

Maybe I missed it...what "lie" did you hear?

Just curious...

That would be "where their are socialists, communists are never far behind."

Which is demonstrably false.

The vast majority of western and northern europe, are social democracies. They have never been communist states, and communism has never really stood a serious chance in these states.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Let's ask the question in a different way:

- What RPGs have good quality linked Adventures or Mega-Adventures that perform the function of an AP? (i.e., provide the roadmap for a campaign)

What follows is my opinion:

The episodes one, two and three of the 'enemy within' for warhammer fantasy roleplay is easily better than the vast majory of all pathfinder adventures paths. Book three, the power behind the throne is easily the best pre-written adventure ever.

The power behind the throne is a sprawling city adventure that has at its heart a multi-pronged political conspiracy. The most of the adventures actions takes place over eight days of a large festival, and offers 21 significant NPCs, whom the PCs must befriend, cajole or black mail, to uncover who is behind a series of bizzare taxes that seem designed to weaken the mountaintop city's defences.

Each Major NPC gets a fairly large chunk of background, interconnected motivations and quirks of personality and appearance, which mean they are memorable and relatively easy to play as believable individuals. They also each have different bits of the story, and might or might not give up such details to the party, over the course of a number of meetings at various festival events.

But the talky isn't the whole story. Their robbers, mutant attacks, kidnappers to kill, tests of arms to undertake at the festival, and A climactic battle with the shadowy power behind the throne. My foundest memory in role-playing was throwing his butt over the edge of the via duct to what I thought was his death.

Then there is the festival itself. Part of what makes the enemy within so awesome, is that the PCs don't have to get involved with the plot at all to enjoy every minute. Their are a thousand distractions and subplots scattered throughout the city, a character can become the Graf's champion, she can win singing/poetry contests, she take part in archery and swordsmanship competitions. She can dine at fine restourants with paramours or slum it in drinking dens. Their are cults to bust, pockets to pick, and stds to catch

From the outside it looks like a glorious mess, which never plays quite the same way, but from GM's side of the screen it is tightly ordered, with pre scripted events and set peices, allowing numerous opportunities to bring the PCs back into the main action if they so desire.

It is amazing

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Zombieneighbours wrote:

Alitan wrote:

In case anyone was missing it:

Disney=Evil+Bad Productions.

[There are 9 Muses, not 5. Heracles was the bastard offspring of an extramarital affair, and Hera SENT the serpents to slay him in his crib. The Little Mermaid turns into sea-foam at the end of the story, because she cannot bear to use the cure for her legs: murdering her prince. Etc., ad infin. Disney couldn't make a proper movie about ANYTHING that actually existed before they pissed in it.]

Not really true. Disney has been making some really pretty great film in recent years. I mean, just look at the avengers...

As for your complaint about 'meddling in stories.', think your miss understanding their reasons for doing so. They ain't 'meddling for meddling sake', nor is is wholly about making 'wholesome family entertainment'. The big picture is related to IP. If today, you where to make a animated film of the classic fairy tale, the princess and the pea, and it where a success, it would be very easy for others to ride the films coat tales(and their by dilute your own financial success) When disney makes these changes, such as having robin hood be a fox, it becomes much harder for people to produce tie in merch without succumbing to your "army of enforcers."

Their is a reason they put "Disney's" in front of the name of the material they draw from the public domain.

No, I haven't looked at the Avengers, because I've already given up on anybody making a decent comic book movie. Hollywood, Disney, et. al., have already demonstrated to my complete disgust and dissatisfaction, that they are incapable of the task.

As for fairy tale adaptations, I don't care WHAT their motivation is: if they can't (won't) get it right, they shouldn't be making the attempt.

Fiddler's Green retelling of little red riding hood.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Orthos wrote:

Anything sex-related is a major WTFNOTHX for me. I blame part of it on my being raised that way and part on being asexual. It's just extremely uncomfortable to have to see, especially when it's just tacked onto the story for fanservice ("okay yes they're in love/lust and sleep together, why can't they just fade to black and get back to the story" is what I usually think), and I'd just rather have nothing to do with it.

Well that sure seems like you're not asexual at all. Being asexual would mean that you would just not care about those moment, because you don't understand or you're not interested by them.

Being Extremely uncomfortable means you have some kind of shame or something about it, and that's a problem in American Culture. I totally agree with Icyshadow here, in most culture it's not taboo at all...

Asexual is no innate interest in sex.

Up bringing, can create an aversion to subject.

The two things are not incompatible.

Orthos is both a sexual, and very prudish. I ascribe nothing negative to that prudishness, other than my afore mentioned consideration that it is a pity because it excludes some of the greats.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

my theory with regards to the whole pirates franchise basically boils down to this.

When you encounter some one who loves them, ask them to mentally have some one else play the part of either Jack Sparrow or Hector Barbossa.

Now ask them if they love the films.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Okay, so just finished Accelerando by Charles Stross, however I have read a lot of charlie in the last two years, and I want a rest for a while. However, it was a great book. I have also been checking out eclipse phase a lot lately.

The net result of these combined facts...

I want some suggestions for good transhumanist science fiction. As a result putting out this simple query to the mechanical turk that is the Paizo forum.

"Where would you suggest I go next in my reading?"

1 person marked this as a favorite.

princeimrahil wrote:

Imagine a world... where Disney owns all of the old IP.

Imagine a world... where people have to suddenly come up with NEW ideas for movies, books, and television.

Now imagine a world...where Disney's lawyers scrutinize everything new that comes out to make sure it doesn't infringe on their IP, and sue the creator's pants off if the new work looks even slightly derivative.

And in that same world, the rules that govern human creativity work like this..

1.
2.
3.
4.

12 people marked this as a favorite.

“There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.”

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Umbral Reaver wrote:

Calistria is about jealous, spiteful and vengeful lust, not love. Not quite the same thing.

Exactly right.

It's a snarky annoying deity; if it was "Miss Free Love" there would be no problem, but as written she's just a horrible person on every level.

Its like some kind of Jersey Shore Goddess.

She isn't a person.

She is an archetype, an aspect of elven (and human) nature.

She is aphrodite, lifted and slid into whole into a fantasy setting.

Just like Aphrodite, she is vain, ill-tempered and easily offended. No doubt, just like aphrodite she would start wars that shake the world, just to win a contest of beauty.

In short she rocks as a story telling tool.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

bugleyman wrote:

Now, now people: You can agree with DD, or you can be wrong. Didn't you get the memo?

The same thing can be said of you.

You didn't have to jump into this thread. You didn't have to limit your posts to attacks. You chose to do that.

DD, the only reason the vast majority of people are posting here is that your epic fail, and poorly concealed trollery is a source of lulz.

We have explained this stuff to you time and again.

Atheism is the state of not actively believing in god/gods
Theism is the state of actively believing in god/gods
both of those can break down into strong and weak states.

Gnostic is knowing the state of something.
Agnostics is not knowing the state of something.

They are two different axis, so a person could be an agnostic atheist, agnostic theist, gnostic atheist, or gnostic theist.

I have never knowingly meet or read the work of an individual claiming to be Gnostic Atheist. But I can't move without bumping into Gnostic theists(though I know lots of very reasonable and nice agnostic theists too).

Atheism is not a religion in itself, though you can have atheistic religions.

Burden of proof lies with theist to demonstrate the existence of god, and it is irrational for them hold onto such a belief withou substantial
evidence.

Lastly, neil is almost certainly an atheist, his stated description of his views is entirely consistent with that, but he clearly does not want to become involved with the culture wars, which would no double be a result of him coming out.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Oh my god, I must have this!!!!

1 person marked this as a favorite.

And how is voting for a third party supposed to stop earthquakes?

Don't you know? HAARP works by converting sheeple votes into earthquake rays!!!

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Zombieneighbours wrote:

GM Elton wrote:

Aretas wrote:

Hey has anyone seen this flick? What did you think of it?

I don't have to see it. I've pretty much studied the endgame and I've already made plans on where to be. In order to understand how the endgame is going to play out, I studied the ancient past.

So, I don't need Obama's 2016 to scare me. All I can do is make plans and get ready to be in the right place at the right time of where I need to be. 3 and one half years -- that's it. That's all I have to wait. And the first phase of the Endgame for America is over.

Then it really gets FUN!

You sound boarder line delusional, and over the event horizon of paranoid.

would you mind elaborating a little, to maybe easy my concerns for your well being and sanity?

Okay in order:

1. Hyperinflation of the dollar.

2. Fall of the American petroleum industry -- it will start in the south and work it's way north.

3. Fall of the American banking system and utter bottom out of the dollar. With the Eurobanks also in trouble, those in power will save the Eurobanks over the American banks. This happens because the number one motivation of Americans is money.

4. America will roughly suffer four quakes. One in the middle of the Country, one on the West Coast, and 2 in the Mountain States.

5. The Government mobilizes and then implants RFID chips in everyone. At first, it's voluntary, at second it's involuntary. If you resist, they tattoo your head or chop it off.

-- So, how can you slow this down? Really, I wondered what would happen if the General Public refuses to vote in the General Election for either party and voted for a third party. Any candidate, including the Communist candidate, would be voted for other than the Big Two. Vote 3rd party and don't vote for either the Republican or the Democratic Candidate. Give both parties the bird.

HERE

3 people marked this as a favorite.

You really want to know? Well you asked for it.

1. That the emerging picture of human decision making effectively means that codes of law derived from the Code of Hammurabi are intrinsically flawed. That "the entire idea that we can maintainsocial order by obtaining voluntary adherance to a code of permissible behaviours, under threat of retribution-- is fundamentally misguided."

From Milgram to the present, their is a train of evidence slowly building to suggest that 'free will' is merely an illusion. When Neuroscience has demonstrated that decisions are made before we are even aware of them, and our decision making can be reliably co-opted by influence as simple as the presence of "a man in a white coat", can it be effective or ethical to punish people for their 'decisions'?

Then their is massive cost of incarceration(an estimated £40,000 a year/prisoner in the uk), and the relatively common occurance of miscarriages of justice in judgements on capital crimes.

In the worlds of Judge Learned Hand, "Our procedure has been always haunted by the ghost of the innocent man convicted. It is an unreal dream."

In such a world, prison is an expensive folly and capital crime an evil we should be rid of, because their are better ways of dealing with crime.

We are for the first time, starting to understand enough about the factors that govern human behaviour that we can start to build into our society ways to prevent crime, and its recurrence.

For instance, if you decriminalise drug use, and make the most highly addictive and damaging drugs available for free to existing addicts, in a chemically pure, and relatively safe form, you reduce the need for criminality on the part of the addict to fuel their addiction. That removes the cost of incarceration, which can be funnelled into provision of the service, which will cost far less than the incarceration. Whats left over can be use to fund public health work, from HIV monitoring and treatment amongst drug users and sex workers, through to addiction treatment services, and still likely have money left over. You also break the income stream of the criminal organisations that produce the substances.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

So the questions are sourced from the "christian science monitor".

Most of the questions are pointless science themed trivia, that convay no information as to an idividuals ability to either understand scientific theory, or unravel a scientific problem. Oh, and a few of the answers appear to be incorrect on top of that.

Nice.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Cato, Heritage, and George C. Marshall; Liers for hire.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

So, "Things you just don't like in your fantasy RPG", left me feeling more than a little excluded. When it comes to fantasy, I have one hard and fast rule, so long as it feels like it could work in the specific setting, I'll happily go with it.

There basically isn't a fantasy trope i won't play with, if the setting is compelling and it is well done.

Dinosaurs don't drive me nuts! Guns don't get my goat! and i can enjoy grimdark(though I hate the term) and get behind "happy-fun-time-adventure-world" too.

I do however have preferences, things I default to if left to my own devices. It is pretty late, so I am not going to share them right now, but until I can, I'd love to here what elements you love, and why you love them.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Not sure what your point is Kryzbyn.

It is an accepted element of climate science that solar output is a major factor in global climate. It is in fact, by its very nature, the single largest factor.

However, you must understand that just because solar activity has an effect on climate, that it does not mean that levels of CO2 and CH4 do not have an effect. We are very sure(so sure in fact that outside of the kind of hedging of certainty found in science you might as well say "know for a fact") that these and other molecules have a profound effect on climate.

We also have fairly good reason to believe that the CO2 and CH4 produced by human endeavour are of a quantity that they raise the temperature independently of the solar forcing.

In other words. If we had the same levels of solar forcing that article describes now, the evidence tends to suggest that more energy would be retained within the atmosphere, likely resulting in a higher global average temperature.

Also, the reason for the use of global climate change rather than global warming has nothing to do with "Nobody will argue that the climate doesn't change. Well, somebody will, but...yeah."

It is just more accurate(as a by the by, it is actually much scarier prospect if you understand the implications.)

Global warming was always a bad term, because while changes in average global temperature is a likely outcome of increased or decreased energy within the atmospheric system, it is hardly the only one.

When people say words to the effect of "Nobody will argue that the climate doesn't change. Well, somebody will, but...yeah", it is my experience that what they actually mean is "Nobody will argue that the weather doesn't change. Well, somebody will, but...yeah."

Weather changes from day to day,and year to year, but the patterns of weather that make up climate largely stable. Climate does change, but it usually does so over periods measured in geological time. Swift and drastic changes to climate are far less common than the slow change over time

Change in climate means long term and global changes in weather patterns. It means areas once suitable for human habitation becoming desert or tundra, mass extinctions, floods and much more besides.

Now changes in climate can be natural. But that does not mean that they are desirable. Saying that 'it is natural and has happened before, so it can't be bad' would be an Argumentum ad Naturam.

Nor does this article do anything to detract from the fact that it is fairly likely that human generated green house gases are responsible for very steep rises in global temperature at a time of stable solar output.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

We can remove sex from games, we can remove violence from games, we can remove occultism references, actually we can remove whatever we want but it won't change that focusing on symptoms instead of the disease is misleading ourselves!

Of course it's easier to oppose gaming industry than the government of an "ally-country" that forbid women to drive or consider indecent they could expose nail varnish in a commercial mall...

Gaming industry is new and as such might make mistakes from times to times... But we're speaking about games, they do not shape reality, quite the opposite!

I'm happy for Anita Sarkeesian that she got more than $150,000. But without any study I can tell her that over the last four decades (the very beginning of videogae industry) women's life in occident improved while in other areas out of reach of gaming industry it worsened! So...

But I must be an uneducated misogynist troll to be shocked that $150,000 are used to "study" stereotypes in games when everyday, everyday, women are beaten to death or end in urgency because of domestic violence.
Some will say "it's linked", unfortunately I don't believe so as it started much much before sexist-games were created.

How ironic to think we helped a woman that didn't need it while ignoring women who need so much! But maybe it'll help Lara Croft...

Sorry, but your wrong.

We have known for more than a few decades now that observed behaviour influence our behaviour. see the work of Albert Bandura

Video games, and other media do shape the reality of our social behaviour. For instance, soap operas have, and very often are, successfully used to promote everything from spouse abuse awareness to uptake of literacy campaigns world wide. Computer games have a part to play in influencing the way woman are treated, and making the world a better place.

While we are at it, helping with this does not exclude me helping with the other. Fact is I give £10s a month to charities which work around the world on issues including female genital mutilation, while I gave $1 to Anita Sarkessian's work

2 people marked this as a favorite.

EntrerisShadow wrote:

QXL99 wrote:

Accountability is key--AA works because of the buddy system. If this person lives alone, it's much harder--when you have others in the house/apartment, make sure the computer is where anyone nearby can see what's on the screen.

Actually AA's success rate is vastly overblown. While I agree support groups can be healthy I mention it because I think it is necessary to start exposing how fradulent and cultish the organization is.

Similarly, a lot of anti pornorgraphy groups are similarly cultish and anti-sex. They would simply trade one neurosis for another.

It really comes down to the nature of the problem. If your friend's problem is financial, it seems like there should be enough free service to overcome that hurdle. (I hear adult entertainers complain constantly that the net is killing their industry.) Barring some bizarre fetish, there should be enough content.

If it is pathological, then self help ain't gonna cut it. He needs therapy. Obsessive behavior is difficult to overcome without professional help and possibly medication.

I find this quite interesting. The way you feel about AA is how I feel about the culture of therapy, 'professional help', and medication.

Fraudulent, cultish, and self-perpetuating.

One of the fundamental elements of AA is treating individuals as though they will always be addicts. In AA, no one ever gets better, they merely stave it off.

Actually medical and therapeutic methods work towards the day where you will no longer need the treatment.

Also claiming that forms of treatment which have to under go double blind placebo controlled trials for efficacy and safety before they can be licences, are fraudulent while one that requires no proof of efficacy or safety is not, is for the most part a little silly.