Bak

from other topic: this seems stupid to me. religious beliefs don't give you permission to be incompetent. If i had a religious belief that prevented me from bringing my sick children to the hospital, I would undoubtedly be prosecuted for homicide when they die. when people go to a licensed doctor they expect to be given unbiased medical opinions. i've heard cases where doctors/nurses wouldn't bring up abortion as a possible option because they felt it was morally wrong. They wouldn't refer you to another doctor since this would accomplish the same thing as telling the patient about their medical options. if you go to a doctor and he doesn't give you the medicine you need then he's not doing his job and should lose his license.

in god we trust started in the 1950s out of fear of communism, unless you're saying america was founded in the 1950s? Anyways, here's what separate but equal does: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/11/9/9356/17632. Nothing more christian than taking adopted children out of homes and putting them into foster homes.

It'll happen within one generation. Source: University of Michigan, Center for Political Studies (2004)

i like how they back a separate but equal status for gay couples... that's worked well in the past

link please?

well.. people would need to adjust... but if they were used to it I think responsibility would triumph... especially after everyone who doesn't has a few kids of their own... they'd go get the shot at that point. maybe religious ppl would just instead have lots of babies until they go broke. I think the unintended pregnency rate among birth-control-using ppl would go down eventually though.

lol wat! I think it would go up for the first two years, then go down

country won't implode. mccain is one the good ones. stupid republican base makes him look bad. obama is much better though . let's hope he does what he says or a generation of youth will dissociate from the democrats realizing neither party can drive substantial progress.

i dunno, osama released one right before the election in 2004 to put bush over the top... X5Ph8msKo0whttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5Ph8msKo0w

whens the next osama video coming out?

it sounds good, but it's nonsense. what do you MEAN?

l63SRpGXBHEhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l63SRpGXBHE Killing innocent people. For example, going up to my neighbor and shooting him with a gun.

Societies that allowed murder either changed their ways or died off. Two points here. First, this doesn't work because I'm applying my values to the way you're being treated. Suicidal people would go on murderous rampages. A better one is treat others the way they want to be treated, and even that has problems (morality is a complicated issue, we can't just list a concise set of rules and turn off our brains). Second point is other "christian morals" include selling everything you own and taking no thought for tomorrow. The bible has a lot of crap in it too, you can't call everything current society accepts a "christian value" and ignore everything else.

Great questions, let's look at them a little bit deeper. Currently it's impossible for a human to exist without destroying some forms of life. On a small scale, your immune system destroys bacterial life constantly. You personally kill countless insects. Indirectly you support the killing of large mammals for meat and necessary drug testing. It's not the destruction of life that you're protesting, but rather the destruction of human life. What makes humans unique that they should be preserved? Is it a heart beat? No. Brain waves? No. The main thing that separates humans from animals, from insects and bacteria, is consciousness. But then it's still not okay to kill someone as soon as they are sleeping (unconscious). My personal conclusion is that it's not just consciousness in the present, but consciousness in the past, and potential for consciousness in the future. In this sense, it's okay to pull the plug on a brain-dead woman since there is not possibility for future consciousness. Additionally, before a human becomes conscious, killing them is no different than killing a mammal. The difficulty is finding the point where this consciousness begins. My earliest decision-making memories occurred when I was around 6, however I've heard people say it's much earlier. There's obviously some variance here from human to human, and we want to make sure we get a safe lower bound. I'm not suggesting we allow killing all babies under 6 years old. However, I've yet to meet anyone who claims to have been conscious at the moment of conception. To answer this question, explore the question of why killing is wrong (set biblical reasons aside for a minute).

personal beliefs are debatable. You could convince me with reason that some of my personal beliefs are wrong, and I would change my mind. Also personal beliefs aren't based on values from 2,000-10,000 year-old societies, which are bound to have some out-of-date items.

You might be able to use pointers to rotation/scaling nodes to speed things up. well it still allows you just just change one rotation value and have it effect an entire set of objects... even though it might not be super-efficient. Just a good abstraction

joe or john?

Discretion doesn't use a scene graph currently. Although it may be a neat thing to put in at some point.

hmm you might be able to compile the modules directly into the executable instead of having .dlls. It's probably easier than starting from scratch.

it was mccain's best debate so far, although he definitely appeared mean-spirited. also: lol @ plumber making $250,000/year. what exactly was the issue with him again?

holy !@#$%^&*, i went to school in troy

such a pessimist...

why

the wiki's fine, just needed to be updated

I noticed this one live: WI0iIOqPGakhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WI0iIOqPGak