confused04

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy @confused. I think the point about more American teenagers having jobs is the fact most have to pay for university and the related costs. While in the UK many students will get grants, loans etc etc and for some there really isn't the need to get a job early in life. Many then get their first job while at university to help with normal living costs. I was somewhat surprised to hear the woman who supplied the beer to the teenagers will be going to jail. I understand why but think it's somewhat hardline. She did ensure their car keys have been removed and all had arrangements to get home. I do find it somewhat strange that in the majority of US states the drinking age is still 21. I personally believe that allowing teenagers to experience drinking at home under supervision is a good thing and ensures they appreciate it and understand what they should and should not do. Of course not all those that had liberal thinking parents have ended up good drinkers, but that's just a fact of life. Some people can drink and not have any problems while for others it can prove a major issue. In regards to drink driving, I think the penatly for it should be alot stricter, personally I would like to see anyone caught banned. It's a total disgrace and drink drivers not only put themselves at harm but other road users, they should ashamed of themselves. In Northern Ireland drink driving is falling, although we do have very strong anf graphic anti drink driving tv ads, some are very very strong and to honest I think they have started to do the job. The problem will not be solved until the in-car technology has progressed that shuts a cars engine down the mouthpiece picks up alcohol on the drivers breath. These are some links to the road safety ads shown in Northern Ireland, not sure what kinda ads are shown elsewhere, but I think these are some of the best. http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Zpr5P9yL4l8 - Speeding http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=JSK5BOTHNLE This ad won an international award and was broadcast in the run-up to Christmas to deter drink driving and it worked, powerful video http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=AeHTRwqQf4k quote> In terms of teenage employment, there has not been a link to higher education and working in highschool. Regardless of future plans, students in the US are more likely to work even if college is not in their future. Its a societal expectation to get a job as a teenager. This could be a result of a "money runs everything" attitude or "If you want it, get it yourself" mentality ingrained in our youth. And although our education system isn't "free" by European standards, of which the UK no longer fits that description either, American students can also get loans, grants, and scholarships. Very rarely will students be asked to pay out of pocket despite what people claim. If you are asked to pay out of pocket, that is because you do not qualify for financial aid (i.e. your parents make too much). The only problem is AFTER you graduate will you then have to pay your bills (which I admit, are astronomically higher than European higher education systems). Most students in highschool do get a job and a few will save for college, but the vast majority are short sighted and pay for the All-American CAR! I would probably attribute the desire for a car as the number one reason why kids have jobs, closely followed by "having spending money" with "paying for college" ranking very low on the Why I Work scale. This is particularly true on the pre-18 scale.

Originally posted by: Mikemat5150 I think the biggest thing about Alcohol is the differance in lifestyle between Europe and the US. I woul say as a whole Europe is a much more responible society than the United States, there is much more emphasis on learning to drive that would make American kids crazy. I mean I have to do 50 hours and I get to drive. Also I Europe people don't drive as much. The US needs cars to get arund which increases accidents and such.quote> I'd really have to disagree with saying that the US is a "less responsible" society. Most, if not all states requires young drivers to submit to classroom time which is about 35 hours I believe, then 9 hours behind the wheel with an instructor and 40 hours on the road with a parent or guardian with "adverse weather and night driving included". On top of that we have three tiered permit system that varies in age by state but the jist goes... Permit: instructional permit to learn to drive from one guardian; illegal to drive with 3rd passenger (technically) and definitely illegal to drive without a guardian. Provisional License: Depending on the state, you are able to drive alone or with a guardian. Other passengers are allowed only if an experienced driver is in the car (again, this is depending on state and is rarely heavily enforced). Full License: No restrictions Moving Violations in the first two tiers resets the duration in which you must retain that permit or license before advancing to the next. Alcohol prior to the 21st birthday in ANY stage is grounds for license suspension in most (if not all) states. We take driving and drinking seriously. Its not like we just put kids and cars and thats that. We are also stricter on drug and alcohol education that European countries that result in a much lower alcoholism rate (as I cited earlier). Lets not label other countries as "less responsible". If anything, I find Americans can be far more responsible since most get jobs at younger ages then their European counterparts (The US has amongst the highest teenage employment rates in the developed world). I found it particularly weird when I lived in England how immature students were at 18 and 19 not having done much on their own before, I had seen this with students on the mainland as well. I saw many students drinking four or more nights a week with an average intake of 15-25 units per night. Something MOST American students avoid or limit to the weekend only. I remember my first week at the University of York where students told me that Monday night is a certain bar, Tuesday night a certain club and so forth and so on because the deals were that great. I never thought people would be doing more than one of these per week but boy was I proven wrong.

Originally posted by: The Terminator Originally posted by: confused04 I certainly don't think 16 year olds should vote since most don't take the time to even know who's ACTUALLY in the campaign and are unwilling to even look up the facts.quote> Yes, But not all 16 year olds are like that, Look at me and Adam. we keep informed about our democracy. I think, that the only 16 year olds who would vote, are the ones who care, just like it is at 18. quote> But there's no way to tell if one 16 year old is more mature than another 16 year old. On top of that, as you are still a minor, parents are still capable of vote tampering through parental oversight. 16 year olds could be at the mercy of the parents. Many parents would use their position of guardian to force their children to vote as they do. If you say 16 should be the limit, then whats to say a 14 year old can't vote, or 12... What's the lower limit? 16 might be very convenient for you cause you've reached 16. 18 is an appropriate, even if arbitrary age, as pointed out earlier, coincides with adulthood. I am quite satisfied with 18 being the age for purchasing cigarettes. I do feel the drinking age should be lowered to 18. You're an adult at the age, you can die, vote, get married... you should be able to drink.

To be honest, age restrictions are put into place because generally those below certain ages lack the maturity to handle a particular right, privilege, product or service. As mature as you might feel at age 16, 18, 21, 25 or whatever, you really aren't as mature as you could be. You know how many people claim "I'm mature enough to smoke just one cigarette every once in awhile" and end up going through a pack every few days? Restrictions are there because teens are quite frankly the most likely to abuse privileges. I certainly don't think 16 year olds should vote since most don't take the time to even know who's ACTUALLY in the campaign and are unwilling to even look up the facts.

Glaciers account for majority of sea level rise According to this article based on some unspecified study, approximately 60 percent of sea level rise is due to melting glaciers (i.e., not Greenland or Antarctic Ice Sheets). I would really appreciate reading the study to see what their methodology was. But if they are indeed right, then writing off these glaciers as "insignificant" can be a huge mistake. Thought I'd update a little.

Originally posted by: Boggy1 Technically, Oil is renewable. It is made from the compression of dead plants and animals. Unfortunately, this process takes millions of years to form into crude oil, so is not at all useful to us. But in the sence of it being renewable; it is. It will only stop being renewable when the world comes to a literal end. But the theory that Oil is produced by hydrocarbons is quite stupid; if it was produced Abiogenicly, then there is no way it would produce enough oil in a period of time to satisfy even 3% of world demands. Peak Oil; when the production and extraction of oil becomes so expensive it is economically unviable to do so will happen within the next 50 years; most likely by the year 2030. Even if more oil fields are found, it still will not be enough, we have already exahusted most of the world's major oil reserves. This presents a major problem for the people of Earth. Not only is oil used for power generation, and fuel, is is also used to make all kinds of plastics. You can grow a type of oil in plants, that could be used to make plastics, but it is doubtful it would be enough. We have only a few decades to find a new source of power and fuel. It is quite a scary situation.quote> Technically oil (petrol) IS a mix of hydrocarbons. The high energy bonds are what we take advantage of in combustion. I'm presuming you meant produced abiotic synthesis was ridiculous and I'd have to agree. I don't doubt that hydrocarbons can and are routinely synthesized in this matter, after all, we can do it in the lab given time and energy. But at the speed and quantity necessary, definitely not. I read somewhere that the amount of petrol consumed per year is the equivalent of 400 solar years of energy (amount of energy stored in decayed plant matter) Source: Six Degrees of Global Warming (citation within book but I don't have it with me). Both processes of creating oil is ridiculously slow, one is just much slower and for the most part likely not to exist.

I love SPAM. Its an integral part of Filipino-American cooking too. I should go visit this castle. I live right in the Midway area so I could just go down Snelling to West 7th and take a turn somewhere down there and BAM! Mall of America

Originally posted by: ExiL3 To those who say cold is better, then come to Norway in the winter and experience cold before you go around saying what's best! I don't even want to start about how much worse it is to be cold, than being warm. Here is another thought: If you just drink enough water in the heat, you'll be fine. It won't work the same way with cold weather. take care,quote> And I bet not many Norwegians die from the cold. Not to say its not deadly or anything, or even excruciatingly painful, but heat is still the number one killer. Also, I'm from Minnesota which is quite cold with records in my city at -40 C and the state at -51.7 C.

R3dK3n .... don't ask We'll see when I can actually get on Xbox Live since I have to register it with the university and apparently it takes "a few business days".

Originally posted by: Cjah One of the driest and coldest years for CA... I welcome the heat... better for economy better for health better for attitude.... the heat helps here in CA...where we have grown used to it...good luck to Canada,,,quote> Actually, heat is not better for your health. Of all weather related disasters, the single largest killer on Earth is heat. Most people do not realize the highest death tolls occur in heat waves with very relatively few dying in winter. The heat wave of 2003 in Europe is just one example. Deaths in general are not good for the economy due to the strain that can be put on emergency services, tourism, energy services, and agriculture.

Originally posted by: cologned91 haha two storms so far. First one was SUB-tropical storm that didnt even hit the land and the second would just barely classify as a severe storm in most of the U.S. considering how the severe thunderstorm classification level is 58 mph sustained winds. Saying that the hurricane season is already above average isn't really all that accurate. Those storms can barely be considered tropical depressions. Back to the topic. Today up here in idaho it got 102 in the direct sunlight. Its terrible.quote> I was working on a mere technicality, but the point still sticks... even if it was sub tropical and the second was weak, its more than the average which is.... 1 storm every two years. Just because these storms were not intense, it doesn't mean we aren't above average saying June and July storms are notoriously weak to begin with.

My advice... Relax... Things are rarely ever as bad as they appear and worrying about something or taking the wrong actions in response only worsen most situations. Just relax, as long as you are motivated to do well, then the only thing you need to work on is relaxing. Go have fun, just make sure you get everything done. Don't be afraid to ask for help either, too many proud students can fall at the wayside cause they were afraid of asking for help and looking bad. Live a little, you're gonna make mistakes, learn from them and move on.

I'm taking.... Invertebrate Biology Environmental Studies Senior Seminar American Foreign Policy Politics and Society in Developing Areas Research in Biology kinda full but I managed to get Tuesdays free!

Originally posted by: Codythemonkey lol they did predict a severe hurricane season for 2007. Wonder what happened? quote> Originally posted by: Sirithil Originally posted by: haljackey Holy Crap! In the Great "White" North (AKA Canada), temperatures hit 43 degrees with the humidity where I live. My little Igloo is melting LOL... Thats global warming 4 ya!quote> No... no it's not. As any environmentalist will haughtily point out when you mention the winter we had, weather is not climate. On another note, any word on where exactly that ridiculously busy hurricane season is that all these climate wizards were breathlessly insisting we would have this year? ...or, for that matter, last year? Wow. Maybe the models are...wrong? quote> In regard to the 2007 Hurricane season... it technically is ALREADY above average... for this time of the year. On average there is ONE storm every TWO years in the month of June, and this year we've had two. On top of that fact, June and July are notoriously inactive with the "action" not coming until late August and peaking in mid September. Finally, a third note, the "above" average isn't really predicted to be that far above average. The UK Metoffice started issuing hurricane forecasts this year and actually predicts a slightly below average year. Not that any of this matters cause it only takes one hurricane to screw everything up.

Originally posted by: Gozer_Jep why should there be a north american building on the list? it's not about nationalism or something, but just about beautiful buildings, or buildings that were difficult to make with the knowledges of the time.quote> Why shouldn't there be? North America lacks anything beautiful? Lacks ingenuity? No marvels? PLEASE! That makes the list somewhat B.S. I mean, not to say that those currently on the list are not "neat", "cool", "sexy" or marvels in their own right, but not a single marvel from NA? Seems kinda wrong. I'm sorry, I just don't think that Rio's statue is that impressive, neat looking, or for that matter, aesthetically pleasing. I realize that is my taste, but surely, there are SOME things in the US that are better than that statue or the Statue of Liberty. Surely Canada has a right to put the CN tower on the list. This list in itself just reminds me of Eurovision... politics disguised as a non-partisan contest. Britain didn't lose Eurovision because they sucked, they lost because of pure politics and this is nothing more. If they had the more than seven, perhaps the list would be better.... But on that note, I'll return to my unremarkable, uncreative, unimaginative country I call home...

I have a problem with just Seven Wonders? Why can't we just keep adding to the wonders list. We don't have the "Seven Historical Sites of the US". We just have a historical society that keeps track of all the historical buildings. If we want to talk about engineering, there was nothing in tribute to the advent of skyscrapers. That to me is an important engineering feat that revolutionized how we lived yet there were no "wonderous skyscrapers" I also would like to have seen ONE North American wonder. This list just insinuates that we can't build anything. Not only can we build things, but we've built so much in a span of about 450 years. Yet the only thing that I know of making the list for voting was the Statue of Liberty... hardly a wonder. So many sites in the US could have been called a wonder. And Canada has its fair share of wonders as well starting with ... what, I don't know... the tallest free standing structure in the world (for now).

It got up to 99 in the Minneapolis-St.Paul area before a SWEET round of thunderstorms moved in and dropped the temperatures to normal, and now they are falling below normal. The weather is fantastic.

Question 2. To lock pick, you point your left joystick in the direction of highest vibration and leave it there for a few seconds, once it stops vibrating, move it in any direction and that tumbler should be complete. Do the same with all of them and the door should unlock. As to Question 1. I'm too busy trying to not kill everyone that I haven't gotten that far.

To be fair, the 17,000 "detractors" of anthropogenic global warming is technically a sampling bias. The petition draws upon the fact that the minority (whether it is perceived or genuine) will be galvanized to speak up. Where as the silent majority, satisfied by the status quo doesn't feel the need to sign petitions SUPPORTING A.G.W. Quite simply, these numbers mean nothing. 17,000 people signing it doesn't necessarily make it the larger side of the argument. Does anyone not remember the exit polls for the Presidential 2004 where it looked as though Kerry was going to sweep through Iowa and Ohio? What ended up happening was that the Democratic base was more willing to answer an exit poll and skewed reality. This is just another form of sampling bias. EVEN if we took the numbers at face value, most of them are as you have pointed out not in the relevant fields, and secondly, their data are quite lacking. A simple literature review and research will show that there are hardly ANY anti-AGW studies to begin with. Detractors tend to pick and choose PIECES of each study to claim support and while I do support scrutiny of every study, picking and choosing is hardly science (from both aspects). If detractors want to be taken seriously, they need to actually provide more in depth studies. You must admit that even if the data is question on the PRO side, at least they have far more mountains of data. Regarding the whole corrupt agenda-ridden IPCC... you can say the same with non-supporters making this argument a completely useless point. I can come up with any crap-shot agenda theory and find some convoluted way to make any of them look like they are supported by Big Oil (which some are) and destroy their validity.

One of my best buds back in Britain.

I'll see what wisdom I can give as this is my fourth year of living in a dorm. I agree, a set of kitchen supplies for two to four people is very handy for take out... snacking... homemade meals. At the very least, having a larger set of dishes allows you to go longer periods of time without doing dishes (within reason of course ). Cups are definately a must and buying a good 5-10 will be quite necessary. Tissues will come in handy for when the flu invades... Some kinda plastic organizer bin. Just to keep your crap contained. Laundry detergent, two sets of bed sheets (at least), dirty clothes hamper, trash cans and other necessities just for getting by. I presume you have a computer and possibly a stereo. When the dorm parties get started, having a little music going is nice. Don't forget to bring headphones for those room mates and pesky neighbors that don't like your music or at least not at a specific time of night . To spice up your room, brining a bit of personal decoration such as posters, pictures, trinkets, souvenirs and what not can turn the average white washed room into something a bit like home. Books are good thing to fill some of your shelves... makes you look smarter at the very least. Ummm... thats about all I can think of. Good luck

Originally posted by: SkiGeek Yikes. A few days ago on the news, they were commenting on the floods that were here last year. The state of Maryland alone lost 6 people due to flooding then. I don't know why I think dying from a flood was something that only happened "back then", kinda like cholera or something. Obviously that isn't the case. I hope things ease up over there soon. Floods can be awful.quote> I was just reminiscing about that. Some areas received 15 inches or more of rain and when I visited in August 2006, I saw where the flood damage was. There is still a huge uproar over the slow recovery on the Eastern Shore in areas such as Dorchester County where some of the damage roads have STILL not been repaired and looked as they did on June 26th, 2006. Many people on the eastern shore are getting fed up with "disaster" relief as places are still trying to fix themselves up from Isabel which struck back in 2003. Its a bit frustrating.

Originally posted by: Boggy1 Guys, this topic is not about the corralation between violent video games and violence in real life. Don't make me ask the topic to be closed.quote> Its part of the topic as to why people agree or disagree with the banning, I think its well within the scope of the discussion.

This is outrageous! Do as they wish, but jeez... The only connection that violent video games have with psychotic murderers is that violent people would be drawn to the game. Statistically speaking, you can't conclude anything about the effects of something when that something is voluntarily purchased. This game doesn't cause people to become violent, violent people buy the game (as well as non-violent people). Why is it that the same super violent games exist across the globe, yet the violent crime rates vary, particularly with the sky high American crime rate (when compared to the industrialized world). Its because other factors have a MUCH larger role in determining violence... video games are not part of the equation. I might start thinking that when holodecks are made, but people are not that stupid, we all know what a simulation is. Just because you become desensitized with the "motion" of killing, killing is still an innate fear and traumatizing event that all of us will avoid. Why is it that after extensive training, soldiers get PTSD. Its because simulation versus real life are not comparable.

Originally posted by: Equilibria The issue here is not parental control. I think a lot of the efforts to restrict and ban games, both in the UK and elsewhere, aren't necessarily aimed at minors who will learn the wrong lessons from the game, although those are the sob stories that the censors use to defend their actions. The issue here is governmental control of its citizenry. The people that the censors wish to restrict are not minors at all, but rather the 20-30 year-old age bracket that will supposedly become enamored to violence. They can buy guns and knives, and if they decide that those are tools to solve their problems violence will increase, or so the logic goes. More than that, even, this is the case of a censor looking at a game, like so many here have done, and saying "that is just SICK!" If you believe this game is sick, you won't buy it, you'd be offended by having it in your home, and you will be ashamed by association to see your countrymen buy it. When Hillary Clinton sees GTA, she can't believe that any of her constituents should be crass enough to play it, so she sees no issue with banning it. Above all, this is the government believing that they are the parents of a nation of children. Just as any right-thinking parent would be offended to see their children playing this game, so the government is offended that their subjects are playing it. Therefore, it must be banned.quote> I do not think 20 to 30 year olds are that impressionable. Just because you are capable of purchasing certain weapons, it doesn't mean that some video game will influence your established personality and mentality to buy weapons. To be honest, research has shown no correlation between video games and violence in teens or kids. This issue is a freedom of speech issue and I do find the banning a bit over the top. People need to grow up. Not like kids don't play with sticks and use them as swords... should we ban lightsabres in video games? How about baseball bats? scalpels in biology? All of those mimic an attack action or are often used in attacks but we don't ban them. If you ban the Wii version of Manhunt 2, then any game or entertainment that mimics any form of inflicting harm that requires more than pressing a button should be banned.