>> ^bmacs27:
Now, the real problem here is that what we mean by "evolution" is a moving target. It's so broad it's meaningless.

Indeed. I would much prefer more specific designations for particular ideas within evolution (micro, macro, etc). "Evolution" seems to have a different meaning for everyone so at times it's difficult to know if two sides of a conversation are discussing the same idea.

If it helps, I never thought you were advocating for creationism. =)

If you've got me pegged as a creationist/ID proponent, you've got me pegged wrong. I specifically said, filling gaps in knowledge with divine intervention is obviously not valid. My point is simply that many who claim ID is unfalsifiable also claim irreducible complexity as impossible to demonstrate, thus they might open evolution up to the same criticism. I don't really care what side I argue for, I'm just interested in hearing a higher level of debate. Frankly, I didn't want to talk about logical fallacies, I wanted to talk about biochemical processes, like opsin barrels, and energy barriers. That shit is dope.

Now, the real problem here is that what we mean by "evolution" is a moving target. It's so broad it's meaningless. In many ways "Darwinian evolution" has been falsified hundreds of times, much like Newtonian mechanics. It was wrong in the details. In fact, almost every rule I was ever taught at an elementary level about any sort of obviously falsifiable detail of evolution has turned out to be false in some weird or possibly limited case (e.g. epigenetics smells awfully Lamarckian). Still, we don't say "Darwin was wrong." You can't falsify evolution in the broad sense the same way you can't falsify gravity. At this point it's common sense more than science. It's more like a world view we use to form specific falsifiable theories than a theory itself. It's a world view that has been shown to be extraordinarily enlightening for sure. So much so, that at this point even with that Hippo fossil, I don't think people would change their minds.

That's fine. I just get worried about how far people push the assumption of natural selection (e.g. evolutionary psychology). I feel that there would more constructive arguments resulting from a healthy skepticism about it. I understand that there is a sociopolitical undertone to the whole debate, and I respect that. I just happen to think that those with the better arguments will win (natural selection). So often I see bullshit jive being put forth as reasoned debate, which I think is what happens when ideas gain too much popular acceptance. Thus, I'd like to see an elevated level of debate about the topic. Since you aren't going to get QM to form a coherent paragraph, I might as well be the uke.

Leaker doesn't like leaking when it's about himself. Film at 11.

Quite frankly, the U.S. military just needs to man up and stop giving a $#!+ about what other people think about their actions. If there are abuses that are brought to light then they should just handle them internally and tell everyone else to go take a long walk off a short pier.

Chasing around the ever-moving target of public opinion (especially as defined by the East Coast Media Monopoly) is a fruitless, pointless endeavor for a military organization. Here is how a military works when it is trying to actually ACCOMPLISH things...

1. Military decides on an objective.
2. Military goes about accomplishing target objective as quickly & efficiently as possible.
3. Military succeeds.

Here is how a military runs when it wants to repeatedly EPIC FAIL

1. Let civilian politicians and media twerps decide the objectives
2. Constantly redefine objectives to meet the shifting standards of aforementioned politicians & media twerps.
3. Military fails.

The military only needs to say one thing to any reporter. "It's war. People die. Deal with it."

You bagged it. Good shot.

Just remember, lead your target.

Be looking for you around. Good luck.

In reply to this comment by spawnflagger:
Thanks. Was chasing a moving target for a while there...


In reply to this comment by chicchorea:
Belated congrats on the Bronze.

Thanks. Was chasing a moving target for a while there...


In reply to this comment by chicchorea:
Belated congrats on the Bronze.

>> ^entr0py:

If they manage to shoot down any small rockets or mortars with that thing, at ranges greater than existing systems, then I'll be impressed. But as for UAVs, 1. Enemy UAVs are not a problem at the moment. 2. If they ever are a problem they can easily be given a reflective paint job that would protect against this laser.


Once you can track a moving target using photon laser based technology, it isn't hard to adapt it to other systems, like focused microwaves which aren't easily reflected. And in reality, it is hard to keep the shine needed on an airborne system traveling through normal atmospheric conditions. In reality, I think it is the lack of indirect fire, and the problem of blooming that keeps directed energy technology from becoming the end all of weapons. With that said, close proximity target interdiction is where directed energy weapons shine.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

That's a good point, "HD" is kind of a moving target and more about marketing to move TVs than an actual benchmark. >> ^geo321:

I think I have to abstain from voting and go for none of the above on this poll. The trend is for vids of all kinds to become better quality. And to be offered in different qualities depending on a person's bandwidth. Places like Veehd and Vimeo are quickly the norm while google and youtube have been lagging but say they'll catch up (if they want to be relevant they have to, they've been taking they're people for granted).
I don't have a strict belief on the issue, I'm just thinking about implementation within the changing times and it't relevance.
A HD tab is new and different because NSFW, LONG, and BRIEF will be constant within the life of the video having the same content. Having to relate that to quality is another dimension.
Over time all videos will be gradually increased in quality by people deading old ones and putting better quality in, So I think a channel maybe to firm for HD. HD is relative in itself. What is the benchmark? 720?

>> ^Crake:
muahaha! moving target ftw! i have no affiliation! i have no mission! i reject your whole logic-based paradigm!


Best statement of political self-identification evar.

>> ^rougy:
^ You know, Crake? I used to think the same thing until you said that.
EDIT: I read your posts and I can't figure out where you stand!
Perhaps an Aussie bounder. Not infuriated enough to be a Yank. Still a bit rough to be a European.
But that's just me.
You know what pisses me off about my country, America? Kids being labeled sex offenders for "sexting" each other.
I mean, really, how much harder can we try to fuck up somebody's hormone-enraged life?


muahaha! moving target ftw! i have no affiliation! i have no mission! i reject your whole logic-based paradigm!

Hitting a moving target isn't so hard if it's thrown at the exact same velocity and direction every time.

You know, shooting moving targets basically nullifies all the "tech" you guys are talking about. Dude has skillz.

All I saw was a counterbalance, a level, and a honkin big arrow rack. What did you guys see? Lazurs? GPS tracking?

The management of 3D was monumentally incompetent. They had very few goals, and what goals they had were moving targets. "When it's done" and "Best game EVAR!" when combined are unachievable. Feature creep destroyed this game. George Breaussard would start the game, then some other BETTER game would come out that made what they were working on look behind the times and they'd have to start all over. If they didn't start over, then whatever they released would have been savaged in the press because it had been in development so long, but looked worse or was less interactive than stuff already in the marketplace.

Half Life 2 put a stake in the heart of DNF. The Source engine was capable of moving stuff around, gravity tricks, gravity gun, Portals, and all the stuff DNF bragged it was going to be able to do. And it game out YEARS ago. And it looked fantastic. And it was modular. And Valve kept making it better. 3DRealms had no chance. Crysis was just icing on the cake.

Breaussard and Miller had a tiger by the tail with thier claims and brags about how DNF was going to be so great. With such unfocused goals and impossible standards they could never have lived up to them.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
I politely disagree with your assertions as they are emotion based opinions rather than facts. America did not create 'a problem'. Hostile terrorists existed long before the US was settled. The US is not a worse people for trying to defeat terrorists. That is an value based opinion subject to debate. And terrorists hate anyone/anything that is convenient to thier cause du'jour. Pinning that sort of moving target onto ideas you disagree with politically is spurious.


I see we can add "Lacks reading comprehension skills" to your list of character flaws.

I said "we created this problem", an obvious reference to the current rash of so called "islamofascist" terrorists, not terrorism in general. Throughout the 1980's this country covertly spent one billion dollars to fund the Afghanistan Mujahideen in order to drive the Soviets out of Afghanistan. And then when they succeeded the US cut off all ties to the Afghani people, refusing to provide even one million dollars in aide to rebuild schools. And because of it, a power vacuum formed that allowed the Taliban and al-Qaeda (the CIA assets led by Osama bin Laden) to seize control and turn hundreds of thousands of young men against the US. Or as the man behind the money for Operation Cyclone, Charles Wilson, once said, "These things happened. They were glorious and they changed the world... and then we fucked up the endgame." So yeah, the US created this problem. Try getting your history from somewhere other than Faux News.


As far as 'reaching out' being the solution to 'the problem'? In a remarkably short period of time, Barak Obama has very effectively proven that reaching out is an incredibly ineffective tactic. Reaching out efforts from Barak Obama have been rejected by France, Germany, England, Russia, Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuala, Nicaragua, Hamas, Al Quieda, and Somali pirates. Why should I ascribe to the notion that 'reaching out' is going to decrease hostility when all factual examples contradict that concept? For example, Clinton 'reached out' to terrorists and a fat lot of good it did him in Mogudishu.


Actions speak louder than words, and sadly diplomacy is really just a lot of empty words. But with the current economic climate, we're really at a loss to be able to do much more than talk. Regardless the damage done to diplomacy by the previous administration will be a constant burden for years to come.

In the not too distant past we have had it within our power to improve the quality of life for millions of people in third world nations. But whenever we make an effort, we do the least we can and often leave places in worse situations than we found them.

Face it, you and your ilk would rather rationalize torturing, fighting, and killing our "enemies"; than to admit that we created this problem, that we have the tools to fix it, and yet we refuse to be the better people and reach out to end this nonsense. You just cling to the myth that "they hate us for our freedoms." No, they hate us because of people like YOU.

I politely disagree with your assertions as they are emotion based opinions rather than facts. America did not create 'a problem'. Hostile terrorists existed long before the US was settled. The US is not a worse people for trying to defeat terrorists. That is an value based opinion subject to debate. And terrorists hate anyone/anything that is convenient to thier cause du'jour. Pinning that sort of moving target onto ideas you disagree with politically is spurious.

As far as 'reaching out' being the solution to 'the problem'? In a remarkably short period of time, Barak Obama has very effectively proven that reaching out is an incredibly ineffective tactic. Reaching out efforts from Barak Obama have been rejected by France, Germany, England, Russia, Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuala, Nicaragua, Hamas, Al Quieda, and Somali pirates. Why should I ascribe to the notion that 'reaching out' is going to decrease hostility when all factual examples contradict that concept? For example, Clinton 'reached out' to terrorists and a fat lot of good it did him in Mogudishu.

Hilarious, but in Palin's defense, I believe the question was to name the countries in NAFTA, not just North America. Editing the FTA off the end of the question makes her look more dumb. Honestly, she's a slow moving target. Was the edit all that necessary?