If you're high on something there's a good chance you're living in a free country, so I would mostly agree with you.

I think I'll opt-out of this society because I no longer wish to be indecently exposed to such idiocy.

Surely there comes a time when such atrocities are so far behind you that they no longer feel like 'our fault'. When this time comes, they can serve as a useful indication of how much better things are today (particularly to remind those who would wish a return to those days).

I appreciate your response and can also see your point of view. I understand that, for you, a hunter is more than a person who hunts: he must also hunt for the right reasons.

I can imagine a lot, perhaps most people who hunt to live, do so without any pleasure for the actual killing. I can't fault those people. The moral grey area comes with those who hunt for sport, since already the aim is enjoyment and taking satisfaction in the creatures death could easily be part of it.

To be clear, I'm not talking about the satisfaction of a job well done: I'm talking about taking pleasure in extinguishing life, for it's own sake. This is what disgusts me personally, and I think it does you too.

So if that's how you feel, I'm glad we agree. Just don't assume that everyone who hunts, does so for the same reasons as you. And don't assume that everyone's definition of 'hunter' is the same as yours.

I'm pretty sure it's bloodlust such as in the parent post that DogDude was talking about and it doesn't take great leaps for a person to follow this bloodlust into hunting, so I'm confident holmedog's generalisation is wrong. Looking at the moderation though, it would seem slashdotters would prefer what he said to be true and so have modded him informative.

I personally differ with people who want to turn creatures into clouds of blood, and share DogDude's sentiment. If you consider this an irrational stance to take, I would agree that it is, along with caring about other human beings and the like.

Thank you, Slashdot, for giving me one more way in which I'm more like a woman than I am like a man. :(

Given that the driver ran the red light, there's zero chance you will have predicted it as opposed to MIT's nonzero chance.

That isn't to say your method doesn't have it's advantages, but so does assuming everyone will run the red light. What matters more is how you use that information and whether the reactionary costs are outweighed by the potential costs of not acting.

That should be SPHERESs then.

To say that 0.999... = 1 is undeniably the case is just not true.

It's quite possible to define a number system that has numbers separated by an infinitely small gap just as much as you can have numbers so large they can only be expressed as bigger than all numbers of a set. It's still maths and it still produces true statements.

Maths will only ever churn out true statements based on the assumptions you make, it's your philosophy that will tell you what assumptions are meaningful.

...if they'd imagined it 23 years earlier.

These values are measures for the quality of the air surrounding the huge weather balloon. The weather balloon is huge and it glows. The huge glowing weather balloon was made by students at Carnegie Mellon University...

You're repeating yourself. You said that already. You're just saying the same thing over and over.

So there is in fact no option 3?

This poll is a travesty!

Not sure why but I find the thought of a loads of little boosters gliding into base kind of funny. Why is it that weapon delivery systems can be cute too?

0:40-54 Why does he say speed and energy have a cubic relationship? Kinetic energy is proportional to velocity SQUARED which is a lot less than cubic. So 10 times speed is 100 times energy not 1000. Also it's more likely to LOSE energy at greater speeds so it's likely to be even less than that.

They really need to stop using thier gene sequencers to search for porn.