Mnemolth

Are you serious? You only get ONE code?? Good grief! :eek: I didn't know that....sad....oh well I didn't really needed, I just thought I'd take it for a test drive since everyone seems to be doing this sorta thing of late... :D

Hmm....so if I wanted to get my own LJ, is there anyone out there willing to invite me? :) I heard you needed to be invited or something...oh and I'm asking cos I prefer LJ (although most of them are the same and some even have identitical codes)...:)

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Saiyan_monkey [/i] [B][size=1][color=blue]Gee Mnemolth, you love long posts don't you?:p Nah, I'm just kidding you. Long posts are better than one word posts (or no posts at all). Anyway, to get back on topic... Just thought I'd tell everyone that the AFL (Australian Football League) grand final was today (I had a post about this a few days ago but I thought it would be relevant to post it in here) and the Brisbane Lions won:D! They beat Collingwood by nine points. Thats good cause I wanted Brissy to win. I'd rather the West Coast Eagles had won but they weren't in it...ANYWAY, thats all from me. BTW, I just thought I'd add that Aussie football isn't the same as American football...I'd explain it to you but I don't know to much about the rules of the game, I only know which teams I like and don't like:p...so, yeah.[/size][/color] [/B][/QUOTE] Well you know what they say, the older you get the longer you tend to crap on....;) I usually don't post as often as I have lately. I normally go through an entire year with less than 100 posts, but you've all been fortunate enough to have caught me in an active period. ;) As for Aussie Rules, bah humbug, WHAT RULES?? :D :D :D But its great for chicks to watch. Big, strong atheletic hunks in tight shorts and sleeveless shirts, running about like some gladiators and flying through the air like Jordan. Plenty of swoon material....not exactly bishie type...hey, you can't have everything! :)

All relationships are two way streets James. You may feel that way with your friends, but to dispell my theory, your friends would have to feel exactly the same way about you. And how would you know that's the case? :)

General, and vague and confusing? Who? Moi? *innocent smile* I'd love to refer you to an old movie, When Harry Met Sally, but alas you don't watch TV. What a shame. Don't you know ALL the great lessons of life are learned through TV?? :D :D And by 'sexual tension' I mean EVERYTHING. I basically think its impossible for a guy to be 'just friends' with a girl. I'm not saying that the guy or girl is gonna do anything, I just happen to think its impossible for them to completely ignore their sexuality. Let's put it this way, if you lock a guy and a girl together in a room for a long enough period of time, chances are, they're gonna end up together. :)

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by PiroMunkie [/i] [B][color=indigo]... If I am perhaps part of that pair you mentioned, I do apologize. Mockery was not my intent.[/color] [/B][/QUOTE] Oh my. How gentlemanly of you Piro. Me on the other hand...well, let's just say I wouldn't want to be accused of being, heaven forbid, 'nice'? :laugh: PS: Oh I'm just EVIL! Evil, evil, evil! (sorry folks, just a little inside joke)

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Cera [/i] [B]I don't suppose I could really say anything about male-male friendships, but I believe I'm friends--in the given context--with two guys. We're also buddies, goof off a lot...but yeah, we talk about serious things and what is bothering us, sometimes. Not a really regular event or anything, mind! I have to admit, I'm really not good at talking to people about "[i]what really bothers me[/i]." To be honest, girls confuse me more than guys.... [/B][/QUOTE] Well that's cos at least with guys you KNOW what they want... ;) but back to the topic at hand.... Can guys have friends? Sure. But then if you are to redefine friendship to a very naroow context, such that it only refers to the kinds of friendships like that amongst girls, then I'd have to say probably not. But the premise is wrong. Friendship is not so limited. You can know a guy, and know his feelings, and have a tight and close relationship with him without endlessly burdening him with your 'emotions'. Of course this is a contentious issue, but I believe its less likely that a girl can come between two male friends then a guy between two girl friends. We share our feelings. We just do it differently than girls do. Girls shouldn't compare themselves to men, and men shouldn't compared themselves to girls. A more interesting question, and one which would probably illicit great debate would be, whether guys and girls can actually be 'friends' with girls without any 'sexual tension'?? Now before you respond, think about that for a moment. :)

Congratulations on finally reaching 3000 posts Cera! *bows in reverence* You've been admitted to the hallowed halls of 'No Life' fame! Glorious be thy name and long and merciful be thy reign. :D :D :D PS: Darn there's no bowing emoticon! :bawl:

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Cera [/i] [B]Murder tends to be frowned upon.... [/B][/QUOTE] ::points at Cera:: Daria! Daria! Daria! 'Fraid you can't escape your nature my dear...:D

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Cera [/i] [B]I love to sing, I really do. I'm no longer in any music groups at my school, though... [/B][/QUOTE] Oh? Why is that? I can't really sing myself.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by gokents [/i] [B]I would rather help someone help themself then just give them what they want. amazing I liked something I heard Al Sharpton say "if i knock you out of your chair, thats my fault, but if I come back next week and your still laying there, thats your fault." Lets try to help people meet standards, not lower the standards so the same effort gets them to the new level. does any of that makes sense? sometimes I just bable, sorry. [/B][/QUOTE] *rips hair out in frustration* Okay. :D :D :D Maybe its my fault. The word REDUCE in my example might have misled people. Take the same example with the same race, what you want to do is freeze the white guy on the 10M, get the black guy to walk up to the 10M line and then resume the race. This way the finishing line will be the SAME for both parties. Does that make it clearer? You get blacks into university so that they can help themselves! So they can have better qualifications, get better jobs, so that their children WON'T need affirmative action or its ilk! I thought I explained this above... You don't get the brightest blacks into university and then just rubber stamp their degrees and shoe them into 6 figure salary jobs. They have to work for their degrees just like everyone else. They have to pass the same exams, etc. Hmm...maybe I should stop posting in this thread for a bit. People don't seem to read my posts or understand them, or at least choose not to. Think people. Think for yourselves. Don't just believe OR dismiss what you hear and read. Weigh up the arguments.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by wrist cutter [/i] [B]Of course blacks make up a lot of the prison population. Where is most crime committed in America? The ghetto. Who makes up most of the ghetto population? You guessed it. Again, I really must point out it isn't my fault for any problems [i]any[/i] individual has (for the most part). I don't care what color they are, we're all in the same boat. Think of it this way - should basketball teams accept white people for doing their damndest, even if there is a much more capable black guy to do the job? [/B][/QUOTE] Again, you've managed to entirely miss the point. If everyone was 'in the same boat', there'd be no racial problems in America. It is precisely BECAUSE not everyone is 'in the same boat' that SOME (and I emphasis this) differential treatment is applied. You don't pick a black person because he tried the hardest, you pick him because he is the best one for the job, GIVEN THE CIRCUMSTANCES. This is not about pity, its about giving a minority an EQUAL CHANCE to prove himself. If he does, great, if he doesn't then he's out. In your example, how do you determine that a person is capable, ie makes the team? Let's assume you do this by testing how good they are at shooting (there are other skills yes but for illustration purposes let's keep things simple). You put the black guy on the free throw line, and you put the white guy outside, on the 3-pt throw, then you just give them both 10 throws and count how many make it. The higher score is the one more capable. Gee, the black guy scored higher, that must mean he is more capable. He should make the cut, no? What's wrong with this picture? The problem is you can't just count how many baskets go in, you also have to take into account where the guys are shooting from! And if you haven't still got it, let me provide one final example: You have two guys doing the 100M race. How do you determine who is faster? The first guy that crosses the finishing line right? This happens to be the white dude. This makes him the better sprinter, right? He is faster right? Trouble is the white guy had jumped the gun and is already 10M ahead before the starting gun fires. So what do you do? Normally you would just restart, the only trouble is we can't travel back in time and change our mistakes (ie you can't go back and white wash the effects of slavery and discrimination and blah blah blah). The only thing we can do when we see the white guy already 10M ahead before the starting gun is fired, is to then REDUCE the finishing line for the black runner by 10M. Again if you were to keep the finishing line the same for both parties, and say the first one through wins, is patently unfair. On the surface it looks fair, that's how we see races run, that's what comes intuitively to mind, but to think like this is a mistake. Cos it matters not only who finishes first but WHERE THEY STARTED FROM. And if you're saying, 'I'm not responsible', then maybe the analogy you're looking for is a 4 x 100M Relay, with you as the last runner. You didn't bolt before the Baton was passed to you. You didn't break any rules. The trouble is, the first runner on your team jumped the gun. So does that make you responsible? No. Does that make it fair that you should be deemed faster than the black kid who ran the last leg of the race just because you crossed the line before he did? No. Of course people will believe what they want to believe, and 'w*nking' on internet Boards is hardly gonna change anyone's perceptions...*shrugs* As for the women/men thing, if you're saying women shouldn't be in frontline physical combat positions, my question to you is why? If you're gonna say well men are just more physically stronger and agressive than girls, then my answer to you is sure, I agree, IN GENERAL. If the criteria is strength and aggression (again simplifying for illustration purposes), then shouldn't THOSE attributes/traits be the things that determine a person's suitability, and not the person's sex? Because when you say NO women should be in the frontline infantry positions, what you're really saying is ALL women are weaker and less agggressive than ALL men. And that's obviously not true.

Far be it for me to put words in Duo's mouth but...I'm gonna do it anyways! :D I think what Duo meant was that he would fight against terrorists, but he was not going to gang up and beat on a kid just because he happened to be laughing at the time. Remember this little thing called the law? And justice? And freedom of thought and religion? Two points here: The first point is that you don't just go in and hammer a kid just because you don't like the fact that he's laughing. If he's doing something wrong, then law will take care of it, or the teachers (they should but some are just as prejudiced so *shrugs*). There's a reason why America is governed by a rule of law (supposedly anyway) rather the rule of men. There's a reason we don't condone lynch mobs. The second point, one which Duo might not make but I will anyway, is that, in America today, even with this level of paranoia, its a person is still free to -think- what they like. If I think a couple of planes flying into a couple of tall buildings and killing thousands of people is funny, I'm actually entitled to laugh. Of course, if I incite people to kill by [b]seriously[/b] telling them to kill Americans cos they're all children of Satan...well then that's different. Thinking is one thing. Doing is another. If the kid sent money to terrorists or harbored one in his house, then that would be wrong. But if he just -thinks- its really funny, it may be rude and insensitive, but its not legally wrong, and it certainly doesn't give you the right to beat him to a pulp (though it might allow you to argue provocation but you'll still be in the wrong). I think what Duo is getting at is that he is perfectly willing to fight terrorists, but that the kid is not a terrorist, and so he's not gonna mess the kid up. You do not make people understand by bashing them up. You only make things worse. Winning the war on terrorism is about winning hearts and minds, and not just about killing terrorists (which of course is necessary but not enough by itself).

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by DuoGod of Death [/i] [B]Speaking of Japan I wish someone would please talk about them...Whats going on in Japan I would love to hear about it.l. Oh well. Yeah I agree there are alot of people that live in America. I wish it was more culturaly diverse (no offense to my fellow Americans) but I am truly sick of listening about America too! [/B][/QUOTE] Disclaimer: I vouch FOR NOTHING in the following opinion. Read at your own risk. :D Well, Japan is an odd country. The Japanese language is significantly influenced by Chinese. Though just don't mention this to any Japanese people. They'll chuck a huge ruckus. Many, many hundreds of years ago, Japan did have a language, but they had no scripts. So they adapted some of the characters from the Chinese language. I think they're called 'kanji' now. If you're fluent in Chinese you can make out plenty of words in Japanese writing. The other Japanese character sets are Katakana and Hiragana. The Japanese also use the Roman alphabet to communicate with Westerners, this is the Romanji, its basically a phonetic construct of the Japanese language. The Japanese are also an extremely insular and homogenous society. Much more so than say any of the countries most of us come from, the US, UK, Canada or even Australia. Something in the order of 95-98 per cent of Japanese are of the same 'ethnicity'. Its a monoculture society. But there are a group of 'indigenous' Japanese. I think they consist something like 2% of the population. These are the Ainu. They are now restricted to the north of Japan, Hokkaido. They are basically you're hunter gatherers. A lot like the Eskimos of America. Sometimes the Japanese refer to them as 'dojin'. Its not very nice but you get the idea. The homogeneity of Japan is legendary. Its hard to find many countries where 95-98 per cent of the population share the same customs and culture. This can create problems as well have its advantages. It means the Japanese have a very strong sense of identity. his helps them to do things like rebuild after WWII. It also means uniformity and lack of change as things have a tendency to remain the same, very people want to break the mould. In Japan, people don't really want to be different, they want to be the same. It may also explain why its so tough to get Japanese citizenship. Unlike many countries in the world, in Japan, you basically have to be born there to gain citizenship. Its not enough that you may have been living there and working there for many many years. If you marry a Japanese girl and you two have a baby, the baby can get Japanese citizenship but you can't. ;) There are exceptions of course. The Japanese economy today is a mess. Its been in recession for more than a decade. The stock market is now worth half as much as it was 10 years ago. Its still struggling to come to terms with the excesses of the 1980s when Japan almost looked like it would overcome the US economy. The problem with the Japanese economy is many, the most pressing problem now is money. The banks have huge amounts of bad debts on their books they have yet to offload. The thing is Japan has a complicated and interelated industrial structure that makes change difficult. The banks are cosy with business which is cosy with the government, and it goes down to small medium size companies. It is a structure that worked well after WW2, it allowed long term planning, but it is now a structure in need of a revolution. And no one in Japan seems to know what to do. The Japanese political system is so full of patronage, there really aren't many leaders who could shake themselves from the influence of certain interests. A crunch is coming, and since Japan, even in its sick state, remains the biggest investor in South East Asia (its bigger than all the other economies in the area combined!), the reckoning that will come when Japan goes under will be devastating. Oh, and Japan is one of the few countries in the world with an actual communist party that's not a complete joke (I think they consistently poll around 10%). But enough with the politics and economics. :rolleyes: Culture wise, the national religion is Shintoism. Its the religion of the royal family. Under this religion, the Emperor is deemed to be divine. But that was changed after WW2. About 26 young American lawyers, under the supervision of McCarthur, wrote the Japanese constitution. Embedded in this constitution was a VERY strong protection of the right to freedom o religion (this was made cos it was thought that it would help weaken the Emperor to a figurehead). It has the side-effect today of delaying action against 'cults' as they claim themselves to be religions. The popularity of cults in Japan is also a by-product of a very uniform society under significant stress, and with many of the young spiritually devoid. In Japan, many of the youth, like elsewhere in the world I guess but probably more so, don't believe in anything. They will celebrate Xmas and such (Xmas is actually a 'romantic' kinda holiday for young Japanese couples, go figure), and they'll have white weddings, but they're not Christians. They just like the ceremony. The Japanese LOVE ceremony. About Japanese youth... They have a coming-of-age ceremony at 20. That's the legal age in Japan. Its not 18 or 21, its 20. In Japan is REALLY REALLY hard to get into university, or at least a decent university. That's why many of them have private tuition in high school. The top university in Japan is probably Tokyo University (not to be confused with Tokyo Metropolitan Unversity). But once you're in Uni, the courses are a LOT easier. The young in Japan are shrinking. With better medicine and care, people are living elsewhere, and people are having fewer children, this is happening everywhere in the developed world, but in Japan is almost getting to a crises stage. Few young people = Less working people = less tax revenue for government => but more old people means government needs MORE money...crunch! Which is why so many people in Japan are saving, cos they are afraid of losing their jobs and also for retirement. Only problem is since so much is put in savings and no one is spending, it just makes the economy even more sick! Tid bits about Japanese girls: - They like cute things. I've never meet a bigger bunch of people so obssessed with cuteness. - They like 'fun'. Love is really only an idea. Esp if the girl is young (less than 20). A BF is more of a status symbol than a relationship. Its about presents and being treated like a princess, etc, etc. Yes this applies to most people, just seems to me more so to J-girls. - many of the'older' J-girls now are refusing to marry and often stay at home. They are referred to as 'Single Parasites'. About manga and anime... Its a 'relatively' new phenomenon. Its really only about 50 years or so old. It really only took off after WW2. Unlike the idea of comics in the West, to the Japanese comics is just another medium to express themselves, they don't see it as a child's preoccupation. In fact, many government pamphlets and brochures about the law, or any civil matter, have comics in it to show as an example. You'd be hard to press to find it as common in the UK, US, or Australia (there are some of course, esp those targeted as kids but on the general no, its thought of as childish and immature) Most Japanese girls can draw a cartoon or two. What else? The Japanese have a tendency to be fatalistic in nature. It may be due to the fact that their island is prone to major disasters, but many of them have an outlook on life far from rosy, but that doesn't stop them from BEING rosy! ;) Oh, and in case many of you aren't aware, the sexual appetite of the Japanese is large and diverse....erm....that's all I'm gonna say about that...:) The Japanese LOVE baths. Esp the old. Its like a tradition. Steam baths and bath houses are very popular. It can be a bit of a problem. Studies have suggested there's some link from hot baths and sudden deaths. May have something to do with the large differential in temperature from winter japan outside and the hot steaming water inside. Hm....what else? Gah...I've been rambling too long...so I'll quit now. :D And no I've never ever set foot in Japan. So if anyone feels obliged to correct any of the above, please feel free to do so. :)

Leaving school is just a stage in life. Its not really 'the best' or 'the worse' thing. That happens outside of school, with family and friends. At least it does for me. What did I do after I left school? Went to uni, bleh bleh...and the rest of my boring life... ;)

Nothing can beat the original TF for me. By original I mean the very first series, I think there were few seasons. The earlier ones were better than the latter ones. Starscream was a riot. Optimus was righteous, and Megatron was ultra cool. The later series with Galvatron was good. But Rodimus couldn't really fill the boots of Optimus. And tho Galvatron was better he was no Megatron. And I missed Starscream. :bawl: The Head Masters was trash. Beast Wars? Good first season. Then it went downhill. The whole idea about the planet and the alien was kewl. But the second and later seasons just made it really absurd. Haven't seen the others.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Endymion [/i] [B]FYI: A 4.8 on the rictor(sp?) scale is "stuff falls off the shelf, things loosen up" power. A few things might fall apart, but there shouldn't be many (or any) casualties. The rictor scale is a logrithmic scale, so there's a bigger difference between 4 and 5 than there is between 3 and 4. [/B][/QUOTE] Yeah...what she/he said. :D Also it was news cos the UK rarely gets an actual quakes. Even Australia has more. And US more than Australia. And Japan probably more than US...not sure maybe about the same. In any case, Japan is a really bad place to live if you're afraid of quakes. :)

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Panny Chan ;) [/i] [B]Out of all the relationships I've had, all of my boyfriends cheated on me. It's kind of sad though, because two of my boyfriends went out with one of my friends and she knew that we were going out. However, I would never cheat, what exactly is the point? I really don't understand. Is it variety? Is it to be more happy with yourself? or is it to be the "mack daddy" or so-called "player" in their school, neighborhood, or community? I can't really say...you be the judge... [/B][/QUOTE] There are lots of reasons for cheating. But mainly guys cheat cos they can, and girls cheat cos they want something else. :D

Play an instrument? Yes I do. Why? Because its extremely enjoyable. Share it? Erm...only with the one I love. ;) I can't believe no one's taken this bait, you guys must have very clean minds...:D

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by wrist cutter [/i] [B]So basically, minority groups need us to wipe their a[i][/i]ss? Is that what you're saying? Because of their background, they do not need to work as hard... I fail to see the logic.[/B][/QUOTE] You're missing the point entirely. Its not that because of their background they don't need to work as hard, quite the opposite. Just because of their background, they shouldn't need to work HARDER than everyone else. That is the point. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by wrist cutter [/i] [B]What on earth does it matter if your parents went to college or not? As long as the option of going to college is available, the standards should be the same for everyone. We're all people - we all have brains. Those with good ones should be accepted... no matter what their background may be.[/B][/QUOTE] What on earth does it matter whether parents having gone to college or not matter? Well, if they did go to college, chances are they're better educated and qualified. Being more educated and qualified probably means they are more likely to get better jobs with better pay. If student B has such parents he is likely to have certain advantages. These break down into three basic categories. 1) Knowledge. Parents are going to know the value of education and show more interest in it on the kid's behalf. Also parents will have read more and so can impart more knowledge to their children. This is via a process of osmoses, your day-to-day interactions. 2) Environment. Parents with better education and income are likely to be better able to take care of their families. This means providing a suitable nevironment for the child to learn. It means the kid's schooling doesn't have to be CONTINUALLY interrupted by family crises, eg the child may not have to look after smaller siblings ALL the time because both parents are working long hours due to low pay. If both middle class parents work, maybe they can afford a baby sitter. The child may not also be forced to work part time to supplement the family's income. He may still do so, but that would be for other reasons, like developing character, or learning to budget or buy things he wants. It won't be because his mom and dad don't have enough money to put a roof over their heads and feed them properly. 3) Income. Better education and better income also means better neighbourhoods, better schools, and even private tuition. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by wrist cutter [/i][B] Maybe think of it in this sense - should a rich black guy have a better chance of getting into college than a poor white guy?[/B][/QUOTE] I was never talking about individuals (there's an easy way to fix this anyway, ie by income and asset testing for scholarships). Are you saying that the AVERAGE black man's income is the SAME as that of the AVERAGE white man? I believe not. In fact, I believe that the AVERAGE white man's income is SO SUBSTANTIALLY higher than that of the AVERAGE black man in America, it demonstrates discrimination in the society, discrimination that needs to be rectified. And you don't just put any black people in college, you put the BEST and BRIGHTEST black people. What needs to be understood is that there WILL be white folk who score better than black people and they WILL get into college. Then they'd be black folk who score so much less than the entry score they WILL be REJECTED. The only time it MIGHT be contentious is when a black man and a white dude score about the same, then affirmative discrimination may favour the black person. Is that unfair for the white guy who is so close? Sure. But that's life. As long as the disparity between black and white are so obvious and so disadvantageous to one group and so advantageous to another group, then we must ACTIVELY try to narrow the gap. Once they are both roughly in the same ball park, once they both roughly have the same advantages and disadvantages and live under the same kind of conditions, then we can do away with preferential treatment of minority groups. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by wrist cutter [/i][B] The playing field is even - everyone is human. Nobody needs to be treated as 'not as intelligent'. [/B][/QUOTE] As long as the rules of the game favour one group over another, it is unfair to ask everyone to play by the same rules. Its not a matter of treating some people as 'not as intelligent' at all. Its more a question of giving some people a CHANCE to DEMONSTRATE their intelligence, a chance they would NOT otherwise have had. Its simple. It makes sense. And yes, it would hurt some people, but it will help a lot more. And in the long run, it'd be good for society as a whole.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Transtic Nerve [/i] [B]Who cares about any of that stuff. As long as you love the person and they love you back, personality, looks, and everything in between doesn't matter anymore. I believe happiness is the key to love. [/B][/QUOTE] Happiness is a fleeting dream. It is as illusive as the Holy Grail and just as insubstantial. Basing your life on the pursuit of happiness is, to many people who think about these things, one of the great sins of Western civilisation. Many people believe that there is so much anxiety and unhappiness in the Western world PRECISELY because so many people are looking for happiness. Trying to capture and hold onto happiness is like trying to catch your own shadow. You just do what you need to do. You do what you think is good and right. And hopefully, happiness will follow. And many of you here seem to think that love is something static and permanent. It isn't. And that's only a bad thing if you take it the wrong way. Love is dynamic, fluid, and flowing, and that is as it should be. Experience, growth and diversity are essential ingredients to a full life. You live and you learn. If you are still one of those people who believes in 'the one' then good for you. It just seems to me rather foolish to think that any person can find their 'one' out of 6 billion other souls. To me its more likely that there is a combination of 'you're with the one you love' AND 'you love the one you're with'. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Cera [/i] [B]And maybe love is the key to happiness.[/B][/QUOTE] Love the person, not the idea...and for those of you who think they already know this, you're probably mistaken, cos its harder than you think. Both of the points I outlined above can only truly be understood through experience. Just talking about it is not enough. And frankly, I doubt many of you are old enough to have had sufficient experience. So I'm probably wasting my breath.... PS: Probably at this point James, and most of the board would be thinking I'm such an arrogant, patronising a**. Oh well... :blush:

Huh?? How is overall quality gonna be lowered? The places offered to minority groups represent a VERY small proportion of the overall population of universities/colleges. Its unlikely that they will have an impact on the curriculum. And even if this was so, all you have to do is keep the standard high by continuing with the same level for passing. SO even though minority groups may be able to get into colleges/universities with lower scores, they will be competing at the SAME level at the university/college. Just cos they can get in doesn't mean they can get through. Nor does it mean they can get through with honours. What it does mean, though, is that they are given a chance.

I'm not going to preach here about what's right and what's wrong (at least not for the moment ;)). People who have made up their minds will think what they want to think. But for those who still have an open mind, here are some questions you should consider: 1. What advantages does a girl have in playing in a sport with males? If men are 'stronger and 'faster', what's she gonna do? Distract them by flashing her boobs at them?? If she's at a disadvantage, what exactly is the harm in letting her play? On the other hand, if we assume that men are 'stronger' and 'faster', what advantages does a guy have in playing in a sport with girls? I think that's quite obvious. If there is an advantage based just on sex, then isn't it fair that such an advantage is not allowed? 2. Discrimination and minority groups. If you have a minority group that, ON AVERAGE, is OVER-REPRESENTED in jails, and UNDER-REPRESENTED at universities/colleges, that, ON AVERAGE, has a MUCH lower level of income than the majority group, and a group that has a KNOWN and LONG history of being discriminated against, then the question is how do you even up the 'playing field'? Take an example. If everyone to enter university or college were, let's say, to need a certain score on the SAT, to get in, then isn't that fair? I mean minority groups or disadvantaged ones can study hard and do the test just like everyone else, right? All they have to do is make that score, right? Well maybe, maybe not. Let's say student A is from minority group and student B is from the main group. Let's assume that the parents of student A never went to college, in fact no one in his/her direct family graduated from university. Then let's assume B's father did go to university, got his degree, and so was able to earn a decent living for his family. Family A is poor, family B is middle class. If student A and student B were to take a test, and assuming the test is fair, who do you think would score better? The theory behind affirmative action is to 'break' the cycle. By lowering the score for student A to get in, it is hoped that he will graduate, get a good job, and that by the time he has a child, that child would NOT need the lower score but may compete on the same terms as the main group. Usually this takes more than a generation (I'm just using a single generation example to illustrate the principle). Well, that's all fine and good, but what about NOW? Isn't it unfair for student B to get rejected from university even though he may have a HIGHER score than student A? Kinda sounds unfair right? Well, its only unfair if you think they both were competing in a 'level' playing field, that is, it is only unfair if you think there was not discrimination against the minority group in the first place, if you ignore history. But demmit, what about student B? His dad got in with the same results he did, why should he be punished for something he didn't do, something that happened decades or more ago? Some would say it is STILL going on, others might say, simply 'tough'. What's the alternative? To kick student A out and keep student B would be to continue the 'cycle'. A doesn't get a degree, his qualifications are lower, he goes for a job and is beaten by some other guy with better qualifications, he gets a lower class job, with less money. He gets married and has kids, his kids get the same scores he did, don't make it into university, don't get the good jobs because they are not qualified, brings up their children with lower income, and so on... Someone has to break the cycle. [b]IMPORTANT: this was a grossly exaggeraed example to illustrate a principle. Also note that AVERAGE person in a group, not those who may be very successful/unsuccessful.[/b] As for minority groups being allowed to make fun of main groups and not the other way round, the assumption is similar, namely that the main group can take care of itself because it has a lot more power. You can't do it the other way round, because by DEFINITION, the minority group is vulnerable to majority rule. Basically, the majority can protect itself, the minority can't.

Well, that's what helping around the house is meant to do, convince him that you're serious and that you're not gonna be bored with PS2 in a few months and want something else. If you show some effort in trying to get what you want, it makes it easier for him to believe you.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Defcon5 [/i] [B]That is what I mean but we are not allowed to just move the decimal place over. We have to use a formula. Other wise it will be marked wrong. The formula is somthing like this. 1kg 1000g ---- ------ 1kg But i'm not too sure how it goes, and that is what I am trying to ask. [/B][/QUOTE] That formula doesn't look right to me dude. Are you sure its [i]exactly[/i] like that? If ou can give me the exact formula I can work out how it goes. Hmm...or are you actually asking me for the formula, cos if that's the case, I have NO idea! :D Son Goten: A=lw -- Equation 1 ie A = l times w [EDIT]Rewritten formula is l = A / w (ie A divided by w) -- just divide both sides by w. To use this forumla substitute A=24ft and w=8ft l = 24 ft / 8 ft l = 3 (just like below)[/EDIT] Equation 1 (substituting A=24ft and w=8ft) is: 24ft = 8ft times l 24ft / 8ft = l -- just divide both sides by 8ft this is the same as: l = 24ft / 8ft l = 3 -- (the units of measure cancel each other out, and 24/8 = 3)