Durakken
-
Posts
2381 -
Joined
-
I've heard that name somewhere not connected with spiderman... wonder where. hrmmmm
-
Quote:Godwin's law is simply that if the topic goes on long enough Nazi germany will be brought up, not that you lose...Originally Posted by Coin
................OMG!!
People, I was asking about rocket ships, space ships, not a political debate about population control and agriculture!
Anyway, I see some links to check out, so thanks for the people who actually stayed on topic, thankfully the thread has been Godwin-ed, so we can go about our lives now
Makes you wonder, on forums that are about World War 2 and Hitler, do they have an Anti-Godwin rule?
Also..we're talking about space :P just not outer space. -
Quote:Oh yeah that was part of the second time i tried to respond to you. If what you said was accurate America would have the largest population on Earth, Europe would have like no population. That's sorta the problem and one of the reasons that the model you are talking about is completely idiotic. We've shown the model doesn't work by the fact that the two extremes are in a stable state of population growth while the middle doesn't. We can also show that the two biggest population growth places have completely opposite extremes as to the ability to produce food. Africa has lots of arable land, but not the technology or infrastructure to get it to everyone and China has nearly no arable land Yet both of these areas have population growth problems.Originally Posted by Organicide
Edit: Please don't lose any sleep about my aspiraitons for public office. There aren't any. Why you'd be so fearful of such confuses me. I never said I wanted to see people starve.
Venture,
If you would've read prior to posting you would've seen that we've been over Industrialized birth rates ad nausem and it's been shown that the 1st worlds birth rate decline DOES NOT cancel out the robust 3rd world birth rate increase. The net result is an increase in the global population, not a decrease. This was my point the entire time. Please read through the posts before you start your crusade.
This shows that the model you propose doesn't just have a flaw in it or is better explained with a different model... the model you propose is COMPLETELY 100% wrong -
Quote:Us vs Them mentality (ie tribalism) is only good when moderated. When it is the dominant force it is only a force of destruction. Just about everything that you think is bad with this world or was bad was and is the result of tribalism. (like the holocaust and other genocides) Everything good is pretty much people over coming tribalism. (like the ending of slavery in parts of the world and the 1st amendment)Originally Posted by Organicide
Tribalism works well for human beings as a whole. Any anthropologist who studies these societies would echo this.
-
Quote:Are you serious? Dawkins is a Evolutionary BIOLOGIST first and uses that for any thing else that he may argue for. He has shown himself to be quite... what's the word... not quite as studied in other areas that he argues in. I have no problem listening and seeing what he says, but his opinion on those matters are equal or less qualified than a lot of other people.Originally Posted by Organicide
Dark,
Calling Richard Dawkin's work a "navel gazing book" is a glaring misnomer. He's arguably one of the formost ethologists and evolutionary biologist of our time. I suppose if you have a beef with his work, that'll have be bewteen you two. Your mention that it makes us more destructive than other species when I pointed out that other species are prone to wasteful behavior as well makes me think you're not reading all I've posted. Again, I think you're mistaking our culture with our speices. Two distinct things. As for the NTY article, if proves Richard Dawkin's point. What you're seeing in that event is the letter of the law (of limited competition). What you failed to mention was human encroachment as a leading factor in the chimps motives for seeking new territory. I go on to say that I never mentioned that pre-agricultural tribes were complete angels. Only that they had in place a culture that was sustainable for the continuation of our species. Tribalism works well for human beings as a whole. Any anthropologist who studies these societies would echo this.
The meme that human beings are inherently evil or seperate from the rest of the natural world is absured. There is no evidence that I've seen, read or heard about that would place humans in this light.
Also I know for a fact that the origin of your statements do not come from Dawkins and even if they were you're parroting something that is known to be wrong. -
Quote:Just give up Dark ^.^Originally Posted by Dark One
Sure it makes us more destructive. Killing far more than what you need for survival is part and parcel of being overly destructive.
You're using an argument from a navel gazing book to reinforce your point? Come on man. There is a reason to hunt down and eliminate other tribes, namely the fact that in the future, your own progeny would then have less competition for the resources available. You must be unaware that animals like chimps do wage war on neighboring groups for resources. It's not something that is limited to humans. And said warfare is also practiced by the hunter/gatherer tribes that you seem to hold in high regard. This pretty much directly contradicts your second paragraph.
... Why am I the one telling others to give up this time? -
You know what... i explained exactly what the problem is AGAIN. And the same **** happened again.
Organicide, again, you are wrong. Everything you are saying is out of the mouth of someone who wrote it like a hundred years ago and has since been proven completely wrong.
population growth is caused by stupidity (but is nullified generally by another stupidity), poor farm families as Dark One said, and War because when war happens human instinct is to **** like rabbits
Humans have never been in balance. We've always changed (threw things out f balance) things to make the world better for us and it has always been 1 of 3 things we've done... Hunted things for food, Taken Prey from predators, or killed for protection... in every area of the world humans went into and this has been recorded as far back as humans have been alive big and strong predator animals die out shortly after humans enter their area. I'll put my bet on the first 2 99% of the time while leaving the 1% for the smart guys who did it on purpose.
Space is the savior of man kind because it gets us away from tribalism where that tribalism effects us and we can't do anything about it for the most part. If China wants to do something it ends up with it just doing it, us going to war, or us negotiating and them still doing it until it's solved. On a colony that would be different... Also it's just plain stupid to not get off thi rock as fast as possible... there are too many threats that could wipe s all out bcause we're still stuck on this rock. -
Quote:I had a long post but the stupid system logged me out... basically... No, you're wrong and most of what you said shows a lack of knowledge in history, politics, and many other areas. Excess food doesn't cause population growth, Humans have never lived in balance with nature, and colonizing other planets would very much change our ability to sustain such environments.Originally Posted by Organicide
The intellectual approach would actually be to reduce the amount food we human's are producing. Our unchecked totalitarian agriculture policy is what is fueling our exponential population growth and is the primary reason we're exceeding the human carrying capacity of planet earth. Like the war on drugs, the war on hunger cannot ever be "won". More food actually translates into a greater precentage of starving people and suffering. It also leads to the stripping of the planet's bio-diversity as we remove hundreds of native species (both plant and animal) to make room for a very narrow number of new ones to feed us.
I do believe that humans have a place here on earth (we're here, after all). We're not an inherently flawed creation that our culture and religions would have us believe. We've simply been living in a manner that isn't sustainable for the last 10,000 years or so. The goods news is that 10,000 is a small percentage of time. Not only for the earth but for **** sapiens sapien as well. We lived in sustainable ways as modern humans, no different than we are today, for some 200,000 to 300,000 years prior to our current culture that was derived in the fertile cresent a mere 10,000 years ago.
Is space flight and space travel stimulating and interesting? I would argue "yes" in a heartbeat. It is both those things and I'm not aganist the practice in any way. It isn't a true solution to our problems either. Even if we could colonize the Moon, Mars and all the places of the Solar System, it doesn't change the fact that we aren't living in a sustainable manner. It may alleivate our problems of over-population but would be little more than a band-aid. We'd still wind up in the same pickle as it were. -
The species known as **** sapien sapien will not be alive on this plant in 4-5 billion years. We won't be here in 2 million years. We'll be all dead, evolved, or in a digital form. The Earth will have changed too much in 1 million years for us in our current form to exist.
And saying all those other types of animals doesn't work because when you talk about humans you mean a specific creature. Where as when you say shark or dinosaur you are talking about a general type of creature. Obviously a specific creature has a shorter longevity than a general type. -
Quote:I didn't say they weren't as valid...in fact the rest of post sorta says that explicitly. I'm saying that a written contract takes precedence over a verbal one. It's more a matter on the proveability of the contract and the concreteness. I'm ignoring the instances where it is only a legal contract if it's written and speaking more in general terms.Originally Posted by Local_Man
Sorry, but it doesn't work that way.
You have mixed up a bunch of legal issues in this discussion.
1) Oral contracts are as valid as written ones, with certain exceptions. Oral contracts are usually more difficult to prove, but are equally valid. The main exception is the "Statute of Frauds" which requires any contract regarding real property or a contract which is to be performed over a period of greater than one year must be in writing. Of course, there are exceptions to that, too, where oral contracts can still be held valid.
I only said ambiguous language makes it mucky and nothing else. I'm referring to using wordings that are subjective like "within a reasonable amount of time" different people have different amounts of times that they'd view as reasonable.Quote:2) Ambiguities in contracts is an entirely different topic. There are two primary types -- Patent and Latent Ambiguities. Patent are ambiguities which are obvious on the surface, like where a contract describes something one way in one place and a different way in another place, but they were supposed to be the same. A Latent ambiguity is something that is not obvious on the face of the contract, but becomes evident when the contract is applied to the real world -- the classic example is when a contract called for goods to be shipped out on the ship "Peerless," but there were two ships with that name.
Sorry about the switching perspective...I thought i caught myselfQuote:3) as for the shoe shine example, you have a lot of problems. One, you change perspective in the middle of the example. Second, even if someone provides a service for free, they are not obligated to continue to provide that service for free, as there is no "consideration" which is required to create a contract. Plus, a service provider can change his prices as long as the customer is notified before the service is provided. Finally, the "American Rule" does not allow a party to recover attorney's fees in court unless there is either a contract provision or a statute that specifically allows for the recovery of attorney's fees. That's why all these contracts have attorney's fees provisions in the fine print.
With every one of these legal principles, there are exceptions and exceptions to the exceptions, but that's a quick run-down.
(Local Man is a lawyer in real life.)
Note that the example has the person asking for money after the fact and after a pre-established pattern which is important and agrees with what you're saying.
I thought the person suing always had to pay for a defendants legal fees when the suit fails unless the court itself waves that due to whatever reason.
Anyways thanks for clarifying. Maybe one day I'll refresh myself on these things as I have a book with all this stuff in it that i got when i took a class on business law ^.^ -
Quote:Somewhat true...Originally Posted by Forbin_Project
So not only was Kirby fully aware of what he was doing he agreed to it each time he cashed his check.
It doesn't matter what a contract is written on. It could be written in crayon on toilet paper, as long as it's signed it's still valid.
Written contracts take Precedent over verbal and witnessed over written and notarized over witness, but there is also how the parties and the understandings of what is said in the contract that matters.
It's really mucky if you have any ambiguous language involved, but we make legal contracts all the time though our actions without realizing it..
For example if I were a shoe shiner and every single one of my clients paid me $.50 every time I shined their shoe, but whenever I shined your shoes you never paid me... then if you suddenly asked me to pay you one day out of no where it would be up held as you are in the wrong as the previous actions imply that no money should exchange hands in this situation, but all future shoe shines I would be able to charge you as the precedent of asking has been set. Also if this went to court I'd end up paying your lawyer fees.
On the other side of that is that if this was my first time to shine your shoes and you tried to not pay you'd be liable to pay me the $.50 and i could sue you for it...however I don't get my lawyer fees paid if I win unless the judge deems it.
Any time service, goods, currency are exchanged for service, goods, or currency a contract is being agreed upon. -
I can't help but point out you never here this kinda of **** from the descendants of the guy who invented the light bulbs we've all been using for like a hundred years now. Guy went to work, had his stroke of genius that made the light bulb better and the company he worked for took all the credit.
You also never hear this from anyone's descendants that created an invention and sold it to someone else.
The only reason these people get away with it is cuz we're all suckers and think that art is somehow intrinsically owned by the artist and hate companies which is utter nonsense... I'd love to see the reaction of you all if those very same artists came into your how and took all your comics away. You'd tell them to get lost. You paid for them. You own them. And yet you still think that when DC paid Seigel and Schuster for Superman Seigel and schuster still owns it. -
Quote:I like the genre of... Good ^.^Originally Posted by Clave_Dark_5
You might not like what I like, so giving you 'good songs, artists, albums' might be tough here... what genres do you like?
Just suggest some stuff you consider good and i'll go listen to it lol -
For those of you who don't know Spotify has launched in the US and to get in on free side you need a invite... Easily gotten by giving your email on the site.
It has a large library and it's free as long as you have a connection to the net and your on a PC or Mac. There are 2 plans for $5 and $10 that give offline options and non-ad settings, but I don't see that as needed for if you just want music on your PC. The ads are either short audio or on their browser ap which are non intrusive (so far) to other things.
A large free music library that's legal. If you've been looking for a solution to music problems this is a great one so I recommend it from my short time using it today...
Also since I got this and suck with song names and such name some good songs, artists, and albums! -
Quote:You know, reality TV isn't that bad. It's actually something at might be good in the long run as a "oh that's us...we shouldn't be like that" and that drives people to change...however it's a bad thing if people go "oh those people suck... I'm glad I'm not one of them"Originally Posted by Dark One
Then that behooves the People to elect representatives that are more than just talking heads sniping at each other.
But then that goes back to previous statements about the public only being interested in reality tv shows, which celebrity is sleeping with which other celebrity, and stuffing their craw with whatever falls near at hand. In other words, it'll never happen.
The former makes people examine the situation, why its like that, and how to make it better while the latter allows people to arrogantly assume their superiority when they really are the same. -
Quote:*looks in email*Originally Posted by Kinrad
Nifty, I certainly hope it ends the disease. (even if it is ultra ultra rare).
The work they've done here may pave the way for some even more remarkable cancer research.
Oh look, new spam...
"New Elpehantitus pills. You too can now have things the size of elephants!"
You know it's coming... just enjoy the laughter! -
Quote:here's a perspective for you... Humans may likely be one of if not the first species out there at our level. As far as we can tell we developed as soon as it is possible to develop and the universe in terms of how long we think it will last is young. Young as in the 13.7 billion years the universe has been around is less than 1 year old on a time scale that take into consideration how long it will be able to support life in some fashion. I know we like to dreams of species that are far older than us and have been around for billions of years, but that is pretty much unlikely... Of course we've been at our intellectual abilities for about 200,000 years and considering how fast tech grows once it starts a race that is thousands of years ahead of...centuries of years ahead of us, is possible, but that's hard to say because we don't really know what kicked off the leap from tribes to cities, from basic tools to more complex tools. That alone may be a 1 in a billion chance of happening so we may find that there are billions of sentient species at our level of sentience, but far below our level of tech simply because that initial spark of genius never came or that something about their environment is lacking and they're unable to create our level of tech no matter how hard they try... I mean imagine if we just happen to have not had gold in our environment. A lot of our technology couldn't exist.Originally Posted by Nightphall
I don't know if other races and species are out there, but if I were to guess, they've probably passed their "savage species" times. (No, we don't have gladiator death matches anymore, but we are nowhere near a utopian or even a peaceful society)
If they aren't laughing at us (I would) they are probably saying "not ready to join the interstellar community"
And I agree. The rich and politicians would immediately seek ways to accumulate more money and power if we were suddenly introduced, instead of trying to learn to co-exist. It's just my opinion, however. -
I don't see the difference from a current stand point between government and corporate space travel... save for one.
Companies can be held more accountable. Governments get a relative free pass, even though they aren't supposed to be there isn't much anyone can do about it in most peoples' minds. Companies on the other hand people see themselves as investors and customers. A company lies to you, or puts out a crap product, or something like that you as a customer or investor want answers. Further, as an investor or company you don't want to put out bad products or get a bad reputation because if you do you get less business and its hard to turn it around.
As far as economic growth/stability anyone with a brain knows that continuous growth is dumb and predicts a huge fall. You want large growth followed by relative stability followed by more growth. If you just grow nothing can keep up and no stable ground is being set so at some point when the growth out paces the ability to demand or vice verca you collapse and instead of hitting that stable base you continue to fall, sometime all the way, sometimes half the way, sometimes it's just a fall to the core stable base and depending on how it goes and other factors that society either completely crumbles, fades slowly, or hits that base and starts working towards a better base.
The good thing is that we're in a global world and when the collapse hits us (wear just experiencing the warning signs now) everything won't be lost. It'll just be that some areas are better off than others. The real big threat is after that point because of migration and resources...and that's even within country borders, especially places like america. The last place you want to be is Nevada or Arizona when this hits. You'll likely not survive if you're in that area. Places like New York and Detroit and places in the food belt will face local wars.
Once all that's over we'll likely see the better off communities reaching out to help rebuild infrastructures and new nations will be born or old ones will be reborn.... and likely old rivalries will be put aside and our now global roots will make a strong global community. ON the other hand that's a lot of mass death and a lot of mistrusting people and if the mistrust out weighs it the human race will die away either through fighting or stagnation and the best case scenario in that is that a few swell off places can hold on and eventually regrow as world super powers because those places after a century or so will be so far ahead that noone else will be able to stand against them save for the other super powers.
Of course, that's worse case scenario without the other problems. More than likely america will slowly fall as most current government become more of a global hum in the background as new ideological nation states pop up (or possibly retake over) and they will become the warring parties with many many war grounds where one party suppresses the others or a or multiple parties are able to some how block out the or get away from those other parties. These battles are already going on all over the place and it's more of a open hot cold war... I think we need a new term to describe it because it's not military so much as it is a propaganda and ideological war fare and that's neither hot nor cold >.> -
As of current the best things in comics is...
Ultimate comics
Batfamily books
GL books
And currently Marvel has decided to re-re-restart Ultimate again stupidly
The Bat-family are being torn to shreds
The GL books are being more or less worthless
I think both Marvel and DC are complete idiots at this point, but whatever.
What DC should do is wipe the slate completely clean and create a DC Ultimate universe and keep the current DC comics.
You say some of the DC comics aren't selling well....well get rid of them. You don't need to sell 50 comics where 25 of them aren't selling well Sell 25 test stuff with the other 25. -
Quote:The little girl maybe, the boys however are likely in the lap of luxury having their every whim granted.Originally Posted by RemusShepherd
Yeah, this is funny. Until you realize that most likely, those kids were sold into sex slavery. Then the tragedy sets in.
Human beings, feh. Be better if we just ate our young like civilized animals do. -
On a serious note... This is likely a spin used to make gaming look bad and not true. There is limit to how many children you're allowed to have in China and there is a high demand for males in china as well.
In china this can be looked as capitalism's find a need, fill a need... This type of stuff goes on all the time in china so its fairly obvious that it's the link to gaming is whuy we're haring about it rather than the general immorality of it or the act itself. We're left to draw the conclusion... look at what these bad people did and they're gamers. If you're a gamer you're bad too. And that type of reporting sickens me. -
The next step for government space travel is an Electro Magnetic Rail Launcher or a Carbon Nano-fiber elevevator. Both of these have not been tested nor have they been put into prooduction and it is unlikely they will be for a while...
The next step for space travel in general is privatization which is under way, however I don't think it's developing fast enough.
I can help but think this is a rather stupid move in general for our species. We're in 4 crisis in the next hundred years we can see coming
Economic - Let's not discuss that
Energy - Depending on how technology goes this may or may not be an issue. We'll know by 2040 though because if we don't have a solution by then there isn't enough time to integrate it before 2050 and 2050 is pretty much the end of fossil fuels a its current rate of consumption. The lack of fuel will drive war and funny thing rockets aren't powered by fossil fuels so we'll still be able to kill all of us easily but we won't be able to communicate or anything that we're used to any more on a local level.
Global - From global warming, to general pollution, to super volcanoes. There is a lot of stuff like this going on that could easily kick us into the deep end and make the other crisis worse by magnitudes, but generally speaking as long as things progress as they are we should b ok here.
And lastly, the major one, that could or could not happen, but as of right now if it does we're screwed pretty much and that is...
4. The possible Asteroid collision that is possibly an extinction level hit that may occur in 2040s? I believe it's the 2042 but not exactly sure. If this thing gets on a collision course we have no way of diverting it or anything right now.
Rght now it's like being called out to a possible gun duel and obstinately declaring that not only are you getting rid of your gun you are putting an end to bullet manufacturing and the only bullets that will be made from this day forth is those creates by individuals. It doesn't stop the gun duel from happening...it just leaves you defenseless. -
Quote:Can we bring that promotion to america?Originally Posted by Necrotech_Master
if you didnt think prison gold farms were bad, heres a couple that sells their children to fund their online gaming, they sold a girl for approx $500 and 2 boys for approx $4600 each (original article here).
-
Quote:And alive...thus retconning Identity crisis which is one book they said they weren't going to retcon...Originally Posted by Samothrake
Ralph and Sue Dibney? Dating, but not exclusively.
-
Quote:Why wouldn't students and partners of Bruce's students be considered part of the family?Originally Posted by Forefinger_
I'd define the "family" as anyone who works/worked with Bruce regularly and actually knew that Bruce Wayne was Batman. In a very literal sense, I guess Bruce's family is Dick, Tim, Damian, and Cass, since he's adopted or fathered them all.
why wouldn't actual family and those considered by those members as family not be part of the Bat-family?Quote:To me, it just looks like you're playing 7 degrees of Batman instead of considering an actual Batfamily.