SamHughes

You can use Objective-C++ on the iPhone too. So C++ is also fine.

D is a cool programming language; you should rewrite Discretion in D2. You're welcome.

narutard.

None of the above.

Make up your mind.... are they in an investigation? Claims by detainees? Written confessions? Where are your sources? Anyone can say this on a forum without any fact. Without citation this is just bull!@#$%^&*. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Google's your citation; just search for "Breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees" And was it not posted,

Pleasurable? I think the goal is simply humane treatment. There is a very good reason to treat people with dignity. It's the moral thing to do. I don't think anybody has forgotten 9/11, except maybe my -year-old grandmother. The disagreement over war in Iraq and how the US is responding is a question of what is the best and most practical way to prevent terrorism -- our invasion of Iraq may be setting off more terrorism than before. The dislike of the Bush administration comes from a whole bunch of angles. There are the people who hated Republicans already. There are the people who disagree with the war in Iraq because they think it's actually helping fester terrorism. Their beliefs may turn out to be correct. On the other hand, it may be that this war will burn democracy into southwest Asia much like Napoleon did with Europe. The second reason for disagreeing with the Bush administration would be the people who disagree with the war in Iraq because humans are dying. People who like to count American deaths are simply selfish and I have no respect for them. There are the people who dislike the Bush administration because they are totalitarians. Totalitarians who believe in elections, but there are even Republican-types who would think that pushing off elections is a valid option if a terrorist attack happens that day or just before. Those people are simply scary, and one has to wonder what they are up to. They have vastly expanded government powers, and it is currently possible for a U.S. citizen to be arrested and held indefinitely without trial. It could happen to you, Aileron; all they have to do is claim you are a terrorist. It's also possible for the government to seize your belongings and search your house or apartment without a warrant, and you'll never know it. Again, all they have to do is call you a terrorist. I thought that unlimited government ability of search and seizure was one of the gripes against the British before the Revolutionary War. Generally speaking, this destruction of all liberty has been justified with excuses of security. But the same excuses could go for regular, non-terroristic crime, and the same logic could be used to justify warrantless arrests and search and seizure in those cases. This logic is clearly wrong, unless you actually think a police state is a good idea. The administration has gotten its support not by appealing to people's rational side, but instead it has appealed to their emotional side. The people who have "forgotten 9/11" are simply the ones who have gone back to thinking rationally. Five years ago, if somebody were to describe to me a leader who appealed to people's emotional side and and gave excuses of "security" to increase government power, remove freedoms, and start war, I'd think he was talking of somebody who gained popularity seventy years ago. If we're going to hold suspected terrorists indefinitely without trial, why not hold suspected committers of other crimes indefinitely without trial? Releasing them would be "insane."

What is interesting is that after the feeding tube was removed, if somebody charged in and shot her a dozen times in the head, it would still be considered murder.

Settings are the heart of a SubSpace zone. If you can't even do settings, then you have no zone to speak of. Why would somebody help you; they could just go create their own with just as much work.

I define lameness as the polar opposite of stupidity.

and a third time -Aileron

That God wanted him to be president can be proved logically. Let me prove it by contradiction. If God had not wanted him to be president, he would not be. Q. E. D. This is a fallacy on multiple counts. You are !@#$%^&*uming that God either wants Bush to win or he wants Bush not to win. God could be indifferent. Also, if God were to want something, that does not mean he would therefore cause his desire to be satisfied. A sample size of 1 is meaningless.

You are mis-informed. Water is denser than ice, which is why the ice floats on top. As a result of the Archimedian principle, if you melt an ice cube that is floating in water, the water level will not change. But if you melt an ice cap that's sitting on land (Ã la Greenland and Antarctica), all that water runs into the ocean.

"We had to destroy the village to save it." What's the purpose of saving a species if it's not even the same species? Furthermore, what ethical reason is there to prevent a species from going extinct?

For the same reason that text/html is used for HTML do!@#$%^&*ents, image/jpeg used for JPEG images -- so clients can recognize the filetype and act accordingly.

Gene therapy is not an issue. It does not affect the human gene pool. More dangerous is the replacement of genes at the zygote stage, in order to cure diseases. These changes can alter the human gene pool, and there is no distinct line between curing congenital diseases, fixing pseudo-problems, like ADD or obesity, and adding enhancements, such is greater height or intelligence. Modifying genes at the zygote stage is unnecessary anyway, because the doctor could easily throw out that specimen and choose one that doesn't have the genetic problem (a method which of course leaves the gene pool untouched). But why should we care if we modify the gene pool? Well, if we modify the gene pool, we'd soon be producing beings that are barely human. Bigotry and elitism will happen on both sides. Also, we'll get an arms race of genetic modification. We might at some point be able to give our babies 150 IQs, but ten years later, we'll discover genes that give them 170 IQs and amazing athletic ability. All people would grow up knowing that they would quickly become obsolete. That doesn't sound like a happy society. So, conventional gene therapy doesn't matter, and gene replacement in the pre-embryonic stage, the dangerous activity, is completey unnecessary for birthing a healthy child. Non-person-producing research doesn't threaten society, so I don't see any problem with it. Chimeras pose an interesting problem.

Left-wing? The Republican propaganda machine sure has worked well on you, because Kerry's a moderate.

One bomb is not the same thing as stockpiles. It could have entered the country from elsewhere, or it could have been the one bomb that didn't get destroyed by Saddam. We really don't know. This incident does not particularly add to the amount information that we have on weapons stockpiles. In addition, I'd hardly call that bomb a WMD. Remember that WMD is a weapon of m!@#$%^&* destruction: i.e. one weapon that can kill thousands, or even millions. How many people did that bomb kill? If I remember correctly, it was zero. It might have killed a few more than that. However, it is by no means a WMD. Machine guns, on the other hand, they are WMDs.