AngusThermopyle

Unintentional irony alert. Hmmm, more insignificant squeaking.

Did I just hear the insignificant squeaking of a mouse?

Water.

Well it does have a kinda catchy ring to it.

yep, nothing new here. I know all about this, I lived for 9 years with the Bitch Queen of the Universe.

Point and snicker. That should do the trick.

Look over DM's posting history, if you find anything resembling signs of intelligence let me know because I must have missed it.

You truly are amazing. Amazing because you consistently post items with less value than what I deposit in the toilet every day. Just how does one go about becoming so inane and obviously challenged?

May I ask, when do you speak the truth quote miner?

Was I talking to you quote miner? How bout I pass on the stroll and the person making this claim just backs it up instead.

I don't think he has one. Unless he's pleading the "my heart bleads for everyone" case. in that case it is inconsequential, have we all not cried about perceived injustices when we were young and stupid?

Anything to back this up? A link, some empirical data, a fortune cookie? Anything?

Some beneficial advice for you. Do not try to use the study of Human Biology or discuss it. In doing so you only expose your lack of knowledge on the subject to a greater and greater degree. It is not as you claim a matter of "connecting dots", further, the use of analogies referring to eye and hair colour has very little to do with it. Those are merely indicators of the effects of outside factors influencing adaptation and as such have almost nothing to do with the Human Genome, which as has been mentioned previously has material shared in common with the Great Apes, about 98% in common actually. To use these arguements you must first understand them beyond the most basic level. From what you post it is obvious that you do not.

Rather ironic when in another thread you proved that you don't even have a basic grasp of "sandbox" math. You should try to stay away from mathematical arguements. Okay, lets take that as a given. It would appear you contradict yourself directly at this point. So, does it matter or not? Who set the time as 50,000 years for something to "matter", I've looked but can't find any such statement from any reputable source. Another irony is the fact that you discredit a source then turn around and use the same source as your proof of statement, not really a technique designed to garner credibility for yourself. Actually the Geographic DNA project is recognized as ground breaking, a Rossetta stone if you will. Because you have no understanding of the Genome project does not discredit it, in fact the use of Human DNA as an identifier has become pervasive in not just our society but our entire world. As always it is based on the Scientific Method and as such will withstand scrutiny by the finest minds on the planet, much less the scrutiny of yourself.

You might also want to do so. Actually your time frame appears to be out since the latest evidence would indicate one wave of imigration was the Solutrean migration, this is thought to be about 50,000 years old. There is strong evidence that they influenced and bred with the other waves. One very compelling piece of evidence is that Solutrean stone tool working techniques are almost identical to Clovis techniques, just far older. DNA evidence indicates that the Solutrean migration originated in Europe. Recent DNA evidence also indicates migrations from Africa, Polynesia and Tahiti. The North American natives have been traced back to Siberia, it is believed that apart from some limited breeding with the denizens of South America they are pretty much confirmed as being of Siberian origin. This migration is commonly accepted to have occured far later than the Solutrean, African and South Pacific migrations. So the question of who was here first (a juvenile question) is rather moot as there were at least several migrations from various parts of the world. This more recent information does however show the "name" First Nations to be somewhat misleading and innacurate. Niow I'm going to be really nice to you and do something you are incapable of doing, I'm going to provide you with a link to a highly reputable source. If you spend time here you can learn far more than I have time to talk about. Good Source

Well it may only be a factor of my personal perception but it would appear that you are assuming one person. In fact it appears to be pretty clear what you mean when you go to the trouble of bolding the before the word person. That is, you believe only one person was involved. As for the hacking, I probably missed it but I don't remember anyone saying anything about hacking a wireless signal. The whole hacking thing will bear more scrutiny. Did this person construct a Cantenna (simple to do really) to intercept the signal, did they use a backdoor trojan, was it a Zombie Bot? All these questions will have to be answered and the answers will provide evidence of collusion by others, or lack there off.

As it appears from your comments that you have the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, maybe you should just jump into the fray and settle the entire matter right now. Or could it be that you are just voicing an opinion based on your own bias and prejudice?

And there you go, assuming that it is just one person, nothing conclusive as to who was involved has been determined yet and will not be until the investigation has concluded. It would appear to be quite a stretch to assume that this person operated in a vacuum and no one else had the slightest inkling of what was going on. In fact its such a stretch that reality would have to be viewed as highly elastic in order to blissfully assume such a conclusion.

Sure thing, you should lead by example. I'll watch your example with disinterest while I chow down on a nice slab of beef. Being an omnivoure thats a pretty natural thing for me to do.

You really think this sounds like a minor issue? I disagree, it sounds to me like a huge issue. A commission with huge discretionary powers resorting to the behaviour of the lowest of the low. this has nothing to do with right or left and everything to do with abuse of authority. This entire issue merely serves to illustrate why these commissions should be scaled back drastically in the authority they both wield and abuse. You should, because it is hacking. Illegal and unauthorized use of someone elses' account is hacking. It doesn't matter if you hack a hardline or a wireless signal, it is still illegal and it is still hacking.

Actually the analogy (as you incorrectly identify it) is simple to understand. The math used originally was just nonesense and could not exist. Mathematics are obviously not your strong point or you would see that even changing it from over 50% to 50% does not really impart legitimacy to the "analogy". Obviously 50% graduated in the lower half of the class, it would be impossible for them to do otherwise. For instance if 40% graduated in the lower half this would be mathematically impossible, they would have to graduate in the lower 40 percentile. Do you see the inescapable logic in this? I forgot to add. The rest of your post could have had merit and some interesting information but all of it is unsubstantiated. If you'd provide a link or two for the points you make then it would have legitimacy. As it stands it can only be seen as so much vapour and as such unworthy of serious consideration. A few double blind studies would serve to eliminate any doubt as to the veracity of that being proposed.

The answer to this one is yes and no. Certainly the Burmese are poor, China much less so. In my line of work I spend a considerable amount of time reviewing blueprints for various buildings. North American standards are very stringent when it comes to the codes we use to erect buildings, further to that inspections by governing bodies are strict and allow no leeway in erection practices. Our methodology encompasses many aspects, from the actual materials and methods used to the safety of the people who are actually doing the work. Neither China or Burma utilize such methods, methods that have developed slowly over time. Neither of them have a system such as COR in place (although there are rumours that China will adopt the COR system). As such one can expect shoddy construction and workplace injuries and fatalities, I've stated before that life is cheap in many countries and will stand by that comment. COR in and of itself does not address codes or techniques utilized but it does stand as a very important component of the entire process. If COR is actually adopted by the Chinese it is very probable that other factors of the industry will be influenced to a noticeable degree by this policy. The Chinese in particular have an absolutely abyssmal record when it comes to structures collapsing and workers being injured or killed on the job. This can be more closely associated with the lack of controls on the erection process than with poverty. Corruption amongst officials tasked with over seeing the process contributes far more to the sub standard methods utilized than the wealth of the nation in question. So, as I said, the answer is one of those yes and no types of thing.

Hey now! Don't diss the Pit Bulls. I've owned two of them and they are fantastic dogs, they've become my favourite breed actually. They're gentle, affectionate, loving, loyal dogs, not some cartoonishly scary monster.

And your point Is? Do you have a point?

Face to face appears to be their great downfall. When propaganda is countered with reality it always seems to degenerate to an emotional arguement unfounded in fact. Something that devolves into statements of opinion, nothing mnore than that.