dangerdan

It's interesting that you mention the Hitler Youth. What do you all make of the fact that Pope Benedict XVI was a member, albeit he says compulsoraily?

Russia lost the most lives in WWII but I don't believe the Russians were systematically singled out in the same way the Jews were. People all too frequently associate Nazism purely with their racial and anti-semitic policies. For example in 1933 the Nazi's introduced what were, at the time, pioneering animal rights legislation. They also had a strong anti-tobacco campaign and very good healthcare systems. The Nazis also famously created Volkswagen ( the peoples car) - a car that every German citizen was supposed to be able to afford. As with virtually any government, there were pros and cons. For me, and I don't think it would be an overstatement to say the majority of the world, the Nazis cons far outweigh their pros.

Euthanasia is clearly a problematic issues are cases are so individual and different that you could even base an opinion on the subjecting around every single case needing special consideration, akin almost to a trial, to determine whether it is acceptable. It is where the two coincide that will give the best social outcome. I look at the issue from a utilitarian viewpoint that aims to achieve maximum 'utility'. I think the key considerations should be social consensus and morality. A social consensus is required in order for any law regarding the subject to be obeyed. Therefore it is, in my opinion, what is socially acceptable on the issue that should ultimately be the law. If there is enough pro euthanasia opinion circulating, then there should be a referendum. Secondly, from a moral point of view it is, in my opinion, to forcibly prolong life through the use of modern medical techniques when doing so causes undue or unnecessary pain, particularly when the person would have passed away without the use of such medicine. Obviously I do not disagree with modern medicine per sé but when it is being used solely to prolong life that would otherwise end, especially when causing pain, then is obviously a clear case for euthanasia. Any euthanasia law would be problematic to implement and police, firstly we would need to be extremely careful in defining the criteria by which a person can qualify for euthanasia. There are serious issues regarding the need for screening the mental health of anyone considered for euthanasia to ensure any decision was not made non compos mentis (not of sound mind).

I'll begin with what I hope is a useful point for the topic starter."I would think that a democratic government is a better government than the other ones (Like the one wherein there is only one ruler, and what he/she says goes)"Other forms of government to democracy include fascism, communism and socialism though these often become construed to some kind of dictatorship. Autocracy is often cited as the antithesis of democracy. However it is problematic to officially say what any form of government is (unless it is a democracy.) Another form of government outside of these two is a theocracy - a government based on religion - of which the most obvious example is an Islamic Republic such as Iran or Afghanistan.And now for my thoughts regarding democracy, I would also like to know what you think about the issue! Should voting in a democracy be compulsory? The ballot slip would therefore could a box to abstain but the point is that people would still have to turn up and vote for abstain. I think it would be problematic but with such low voter turnouts how can any society truly claim, in my opinion, to be a democracy.

The point is that the affected only THINKS they are walking on water, they may even see it. But to an outsider not high on mushrooms it would definitely not appear that he was walking on water at all!

I think it depends on what kind of a concept of the Illuminati your talking about.networker you roughly define it as "Apparently they are a group of people who have controlled the world for a few centuries both economically and politically." In THIS sense the people you mention would be considered members of the Illuminati because of the economic and political power you mention.On the other hand, there is the more extreme David Icke version of events as juandelacruz briefly mentioned. Icke goes a step further and claims the Illuminati are descended from a group of lizards who came to earth 1000s of years ago. Slightly less plausible if you ask me!

A very good point yordan (if that is you ). The "second coming" would be no more proof of the biblically referenced Jesus than the Bible account in itself.It appears to me there are potentially two issues being discussed here.Firstly, as the title says, whether or not Jesus was a real person. And secondly, what connection, if any, the Christian church has to psychedelic mushrooms or other substances.Indigenous peoples all over the world use shamanic rituals, often involve psychedelics, to transcend this world into the spirit world and view, what are in my opinion mere hallucinations, what could be interpreted as miracles.

Another interesting article about the subject http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8084726.stm

The increasingly global phenomena of the internet is anarchic, without frontier and unpoliced. The US government shut down a company Pricewert who, they claim, hosted "child pornography, botnet command and control servers, spyware, viruses, trojans, phishing-related sites, illegal online pharmacies, investment and other web-based scams" for other customers. Fair play to the government, right? But that isn't the full story - Pricewert is a registered company in Belize but most of it's employees are thought to be in Eastern Europe. Full story available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8084726.stm I don't want to become too bogged down in this particular example because it is just that, an example. The wider point is that the people BEHIND hosting all this illegal content will probably never be brought to justice because of the numerous problems regarding proof of identity on the internet as well as the issue of anonymity. The fact that the internet is so user and content driven is, in my opinion, both its greatest strength and its biggest weakness. This may sound like an oversimplified dichotomy but; a 'good' user will come up with innovative content or infrastructures, whereas a 'bad' user will host illegal content or come up with one of these web scams. Ultimately, I think that the users will always stay one step ahead of "the internet police" ( a term I coin jokingly). How, in your opinion, will the regulation of the internet take shape in years to come? And how effectively can we ever hope to 'police' the internet.

As we are all aware, the Microsoft OS is by far the most popular in the world. It also comes packaged with (typically) Internet Explorer, Media Player, a trial for the latest edition of Office, Media Centre and MSN messenger amongst others. I'm sure the first thing you notice is that all these are Microsoft products.Microsoft have had several high profile court cases regarding the way all of products are packaged together and how other developers can frequently experience compatibility issues. With Microsoft being so dominate in the market there is no incentive for them to get better or improve. Look how many people hate Vista but don't really have an alternative, the most common being to opt for an Apple Macbook - which many people dislike too.I can see Google attempting to branch into the OS market soon, their web browser - Google Chrome - is sleek and stylish and proves Google know how to make a good interface. If Google do this and start to give consumers a CHOICE of OS when they buy a new PC or laptop then they could very quickly overtake Microsoft - but then how long will it be before someone levies the same criticism at Google?

Graph is a piece of freeware available at http://www.padowan.dk/download/ that allows you map functions simply by inputting an equation. Top features; Fantastically easy to use and navigate Inbuilt functions such as sin, cos and log for ease of use. Can evaluate the area under a graph between two intervals (i.e. integrate) Input cartesian, polar or parametric equations I have this freeware particularly useful when trying to 'visualise' mathematics problems especially ones using trigonometric or exponential functions. As freeware I would give it 4.5/5 easily.

Spotify is a music streaming program that emerged just a few months ago. You can stream almost any song virtually instantly. And the best part is its legal. There are currently two membership types, free and premium. Spotify Premium is available in Austria, Belgium, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, The Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Sweden, Switzerland, Spain and the UK. The free version is only available in Sweden, Norway, Finland, the UK, France and Spain and in some of those countries an invitation is required. It is not currently available in the US or Canada, however they planned to launch it in the US by the end of next year. The site is not yet making any money in the fierce music market, but it has signed a deal to sell music downloads via online music store 7digital. Further information and an interview with the owner http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/ and a link that explains the technology behind it pretty well https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spotify

This technology seems utterly revolutionary and cutting-edge! yuhuu you touch on a very interesting point though - the scope for this technology to be used for evil. If nanotechnology is capable of being harnessed in such a way as to make it a weapon then this is extremely worrying - the micro-Antithesis of the nuclear bomb. (Small scale technology that could have similar genocidal outcomes.)Obviously this technology does have a significant amount of 'good' uses. Also obvious is the fact that the cost of the technology is astronomical (no pun intended ) and it will probably be a long time - I'd say upwards of 25 years - before this technology becomes a deomestic possibility.

Ah, I see the point your making about the false paradox. You say "This is not really impossible, so this does not prove that this guy did not exist." but by the very same logic it is inconcluvsive proof either way. The fact the miracles he 'performed' in your view are 'possible' does not confirm that the event (s) happened or that Jesus' exists.Ultimately, it was over 2000 years ago now, so I do not think we will ever get a definitive answer to this, unless of course he comes again as is prophecized.

No exactly the problem requires a joint solution!Can you explain a bit more about nantechnology and in particular how it can help solve the problem? As well as nanoparticles and their potential to reach brain cells? Sounds extremely interesting!!I read your other post on nanotechnology. Can you just explain the nanoparticle concept please?

yordan are you trying to imply that Jesus' was from a more technologically advanced era that we are currently at?I highly doubt Jesus' use of " fast-walking with helium-filled bubble shoes, water-beam turbines for instance" because for a start nobody knew what helium was, let alone that it rose above air and could be placed inside a "bubble shoe". Highly, highly infeasible if you ask me.

I think one of the main problem regarding this is the fact that we can not, on the one hand, morally justify not allowing developing nations to industrialize but on the other hand we now realize, as you say, how much damage industrialization does to the natural environment.This dichotomy between the developed country worried about the environment and the developing country worried only about development is one which is fundamental to the problem, and thus to the solution.

I'm not sure either way whether he was real to be honest. What I particularly doubt though is his ability to perform miracles such as walk on water or turn water into wine. I think the Bible is meant allegorically or as a morality tale at best. Yeah, I am an atheist. My inclination is to say that he didn't exist, and if he did he was no more the "son of God" than you or I (and remember that I don't believe I am).

Your the incredible one. I hate people who oppose anything that the West says on the very grounds that the West has said it. It's self defeating.But ultimately I'm not an idiot. I think critically about everything I get taught at school or university as well as what I read or see in the media. I'm as sceptical as the next person. But my scepticism does not induce neo-Nazism, Holocaust denial or the advocation of world terrorists. If you think the Nazis and Osama bin Laden were/are good people, then it is TRULY you who needs to open your mind and analyse. I'm not saying George Bush is perfect, far from it, I think he's a war criminal, but just because I think that doesn't mean I have to sympathise with terrorists either. I would never condone either theirs or the Nazis actions.Can I ask where your from fermin? Do you happen to be German by any chance...?

e-democracy in all it's glory! the increasing ubiquity and interconnectedness of multimedia devices means that every can get their voice heard and conduct public discourse. (e.g err THIS FORUM!! ).just look how many TV shows let you "vote" on who you want to win. Big Brother season 10 has just started in the UK and is often cited as the first to fully utilise phone voting. I think the internet is a very useful tool for the achievement of democracy. But of course there are problems with it, such as anonymity and proving age/identity especially where voting is concerned.Very interesting topic, thanks for that!

I'm a little confused as to why nobody will say his name lol. Anyway, I completely agree that non-proliferation is the ultimate long term goal. However, it takes very strong leadership across many states (e.g. not just the US) to disarm your own nukes when ultimately others could keep theirs and then your country is defenceless. This is conversely how arms races like this in the first place begin, take the glaring example of the Cold War. Would you advocate US non-proliferation when other countries, again notably NK and Russia, could maintain theirs and instantly became the worlds hegemonic power.Non-proliferation is something I completely agree with. Countries waste millions on defence rooted in fear. If all countries were to take a course of non-proliferation countries defence budgets could be halved (or more) overnight with little impact.Of course this is a very idealist way of thinking about it, and the realist would argue that any nation that cuts its defence budget simply becomes more vulnerable to an outside threat, which in this world of increasingly global terrorism is a view you do have to give some weight to.However, I do not think the use of nuclear weapons should or would ever really be considered as an option by anywhere. The bombs used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki during WWII showed us the catastrophic effect these bombs can have. The two bombs that killed over 200, 000 people and razed both cities to the ground are now outdated by about 65 years. Fury you raise a point that is often overlooked but in my opinion very important. "bullied by the rest of the world for being communist". There has been a trend in the Western world to impose democracy upon other countries, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are prominent examples. However, in his recent speech in Cairo President Obama said the USA would no longer seek to impose political systems on to other countries. And I quote "So let me be clear: no system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other." -Barack Obama.

The United Kingdom's position within the European community is something that is widely being debated in the media at the moment, probably because of the ongoing European Parliament elections (results are due by Sunday night). On the back of the economic crisis and the recent MP expenses scandal (a newspaper systematically released stories day by day that revealed what politicians had been spending 'expenses' they are entitled to on - they range from duckhouses to moat cleaning as well as claims of tax evasion - BUT this isn't what I wanted this to be about!!!) Suffice to say, people are pretty outraged by politicians and this combined with the ongoing debate regarding immigration given the EU's open borders has meant that a lot of parties ran in the aforementioned European elections on a manifesto of "upping the draw bridge" to Europe. Parties like No2EU, UKIP and even the BNP (an extreme far-right party) have made significant gains on the basis of a disillusionment with mainstream politics and politicians. However, I think the argument to pull the UK out of Europe is fundamentally flawed. Firstly, the EU currently contains approximately 500m people in what is called the 'Single Market' because of the free movement of the factors of production across borders - including labour. This represents such a significant opportunity for businesses that it can not be understated in my opinion. Consumers also benefit as they can import European goods cheaper. Secondly, I feel there are issues of overlapping social consensus that merit pan-European law. I feel this includes issues most fundamentally like discrimination on the basis of race, age, gender, religion, sexual orientation or disability. I also feel pan-European law is required on issues such as welfare and rights for workers. Thirdly, while many people complain of too many immigrants coming to the UK especially from the Accession Countries (essentially the Eastern European former satellite states) they forget that many British people have taken the opportunity to go and work or live across European in it's entirety. Finally, I feel that there is a definite need for a European solution to climate change (you could argue global, but its much more difficult to coordinate), international crime and the global economic slowdown. In this globalizing world an isolationist approach will get you nowhere.

Yeah exactly sanctions don't work with them. The fact that China and Russia are sympathetic to them is also a bit worrying in my opinion.

Freud argues that all dreams are mere 'wish fulfilment' - i.e. if it's something good then its what we want to happen and if it's bad (a nightmare) then the wish is that it doesn't happen!I'm unconvinced of the extent to which this is true however I do believe that there is some weight behind it. But then Freud also said that we all want to kill our fathers and have sex with our mothers....

https://www.yahoo.com/ "Steven Spielberg was on hand to introduce a prototype camera Monday that can be used as a controller for the Xbox 360. Codenamed "Project Natal," the camera can track a player's full body movement while responding to commands, directions and a shift of emotion in voice without the need for a controller....." Sounds amazing! Innovation to rival the Wii if Microsoft can nail the technology! Wouldn't be surprised if they hashed it up though...