Sleep deprivation and loud music both strike me as forms of torture. Are they not legally considered that? I was under the impression that torture was causing pain and discomfort and possible permanent damage in a controlled setting (otherwise it's just assault or something).

Sleep deprivation can cause massive headaches, hallucination, and if prolonged it can cause death.

Loud music can cause headaches, ear aches, disorientation, dizziness, and permanent deafness if exposed too much. And I'm assuming we're talking about something more than what people subject themselves to or it wouldn't be particularly effective.

That isn't torture?

You have points here but I think that in this case, it would be considered the best "reasonable response." It's not even like they sought this person out, he came to them and asked about it. They said no.

They can't protect everybody, but when you are going to choose possibly the biggest symbol with the worst common connotation, they made the right move. I mean when you see it, are you going to see a Hindu symbol? No. Of course not. To put it in perspective, I think in some instances even the devil is less scorned than this symbol. He is, after all, used by a lot more than just the religious crowd. But you're right, I mean really, they should be equal across the board...

So let me get this strait. Someone playing CoD wants to use the Swastika as logo in a WAR GAME. And he wants to be all preachy about it's different meanings when they say no?

The Swastika had all sorts of positive connotations UNTIL some idiot decided to fly it over their artillery. And you are different how, Mr. "I want to use a positive religious symbol in a war game?" Get with it buddy. Maybe you aren't committing genocide but you're still perverting the symbol.

If there wasn't and kids were buying R rated movies, would you support both laws or neither?

Sure they weren't coming back. But when they left, they left because their home was no longer home for religious/political reasons or because they expected something better when they got to where they were going. Big trade or some such.

People who will be going to settle Mars will be leaving without their families, abandoning their homes never to return, and they gain nothing of material value, especially if they aren't coming back.

That said, I think a lot of people would still volunteer to go. I just wouldn't be one of them.

You know, I'll probably go see this in 3D. But it'll probably also be the last 3D film(s) I'll see. I can't wait for this.

I understand why a lot of people didn't like XIII but just about the point where I was getting fed up with the party limits, the game finally came around and I was quite pleased with it. Yes it was very, very linear. It was very tube like. But it was also a beautiful game. The graphics were great and if you didn't want to go backwards and could get beyond the occasional cliche one liners, you'd find a very fast combat system, a decent story, and a lot of things to look at. No it's not like the previous entries in the series, but it's Final Fantasy and that's how they roll. It's still a quality game if it came from any other developer.

Course, I had XIV pegged as a failure since day one.

I mean, how evil of EA to do this. Here they are being so offensive to YOU, violating your rights to a game not tarnished by this group or that group. I mean, really, the nerve! You know, the removal of this word from the game is so offensive, maybe YOU should exercise your right not to buy the game. Right?

See, what happened is EA decided that to do something that could potentially hurt their profits to appease their sense of morality. They didn't violate your rights or actually offend you. No, they tried to take the high road.

This group... Did they ask that the game not be released? No, they asked for one word not to be used ONLY in multiplayer. The Campaign is left alone. The story is the same. The game is the same.

You? You just decided that you were going to be a righteous bastard. You decided that you would be "offended" because these people who were ACTUALLY offended were appeased. This game is made for people like you who want to PRETEND that you are the kind of person that these people are related to.

MAYBE it's arguable whether this word hurt anyone and whether removing it mattered. One thing is certain though, there is never anything wrong with respecting the wishes of these people. There will come a day when somebody uses a word you don't particularly like around/at your wife/daughter. Somehow I doubt you'll swallow your words at that point.

I agree it's used for good. I also think that the fact that it's supposed to remain stable is kind of crap. Simply put, somebody who is under stress isn't going to score as high as they normally would. period. It's a nice indicator and guideline but it's hardly a science. It's just a very sad stepping stone on the path to quantifying the brain.

As for these mice, I think these are great findings. But like you said, it's a double edged sword. I believe it's been proven that older adults can come to accurate conclusions as quickly as younger adults because of their experience and the ability to automatically and effectively remove unimportant stimuli. If we learn to absorb everything, we might lose the ability to find the important aspects of information effectively.

I do have hope that we'll learn how to make our brains FASTER rather than just smarter. I think that's really the goal we need to accomplish.

Right, but whether or not you seek to take the test shouldn't have any impact on your score. IQ is supposed to be a number that doesn't change for your entire life. If you got a 120 when you were 5, you should still get a 120 when you are 55 and that Environment and education changed a lot in 50 years. Really, you can only argue that people who have a genetic disposition to intelligence also have one to seeking to take an IQ test (I.E. dispostion to show it off). We know that's probably not the case though since a lot of intelligent people are actually withdrawn.

Also, most people DON'T seek to take the test. Their parents or school do. Most IQ tests are taken when people are young as a way of checking for disability or for advanced placement in the education system. Very Rarely does someone go to a Psychologist and say "I want to take an IQ test." Trust me, your insurance doesn't cover a four hour IQ test administered by a Psychologist just cause you want to take one.

Unless you mean those flimsy online IQ tests? You know, the ones that take 10 minutes?

The President is more than just the Executive Branch. He is also the leader and he is supposed to speak for us. His hands are tied as to what he can DO about it but that doesn't mean he can't say it's wrong. This is basically just a public version of him showing up at the guy's house and saying "I can't MAKE you stop but you really should," except with less armed guards on the doorstep.

In case you didn't notice, we're already condemning them with bullets.

Well whether he's harming anybody else or not, we aren't sure yet. It hasn't happened. But he is certainly gambling and I'm pretty certain that gambling with people's lives isn't protected anywhere. Hell Gambling itself is illegal in plenty of places.

Also, Voltaire didn't say anything about giving the guy he's defending a a Megaphone.

Well go ahead and burn the Quran, see how long it is until Muslims go strait for Christian people. You aren't just going to get people that just keep burning books at each other. You're going to burn the books KNOWING that it's going to piss off a bunch of very violent people. And you think that they aren't going to start attacking churches with Zeal? Tell me you can't see this starting a religious war. Because really, making a statement by burning books to fuel your ego is really more important than any lives it may cost.

The reason the Dutch Press got in trouble is because all of that stuff went by editors and it STILL got printed. This information is unedited. This is closer the company owning the land these people are own, those same people putting up a sign that says "Join us for a Quran burning on Saturday!" and the company kicking them off saying "Hell no, not on my property."

I really don't see the cowardice in that. You think Rackspace went "OMG, people don't even know we're hosting this site (because next to the psycho priest, who cares who's HOSTING it) but we need to pull it down before someone attacks us!" Get real. Odds of that versus odds of respecting our troops and trying to do what you can for THEM for a change - what do you think is more likely?