CosmicCastaway

The thing is, traditional cross polination and selective breeding is always essentially 'kept in the family' so to speak. A species of wheat, cross bred with another species of wheat to introduce a favourable charactaristic. Or a type of flower cross bred with another to develop a new colour, etc. You can't tell me that introducing a gene from a fish into a vegetable is in any way comparable? That's not something we have anything to refer to, it's all new ground. We have no idea of the consequences. Something like genetic modification of that type, with the potential to screw up something so inherently essential for the survival of all, deserves a significant amount of research and testing before it's even considered commercially viable. But as I said before, profit tends to come first.

The whole thing about them being natural genes already present in the environment is all well and good, but never ever ever in the natural world would you find a tomato incorporating the genes from a fish. It just doesn't happen. That is something entirely of our doing. The reason the insects have most likely not become resistent is because there has been no need, as they have been able to survive on their chosen food source without encountering it. Introduce it into the food supply, and to coin a cheesy phrase 'nature will find a way'. Although now you would also have insects running around immune to said substance, so the plants would have to be re-engineered once again, introducing another bactierium into the equation, (or some other method of killing the insects). Insects become resistant, plants re-engineered, it's a nice little circle (but admittedly job security). I'm not questioning you're moral values, I'm not particulary concerned as to the moral reasoning behind the individual scientist. The issue is that the corporation employing said scientisits, are ultimately profit making entities, and as such products tend to be pushed through without sufficient research into the long term, or far-reaching consequences. (usually exactly because the research would take a long time, and hence cost money). Everything in the environment is connected, and has evolved as such. When we start adding what are essentially 'new' species into the system, we have absoltuely no idea what the consequences could be. Generally though, the profit making capacity takes precedence, and any potential issues are played down or not even researched.

With things like genetic modification of plants, whilst it can provide benefits to the human population (not to mention profits to the companies that produce them), there are definate fears (especially in Europe) about the supposed 'contamination' of the natural environment. The issue of plant species 'escaping' into the wider environment is quite real, the long term effects of such contamination are yet to be determined however. (Most studies up to this point have been woefully inadequate) Perhaps a more important issue with the modifaction of certain plant species, would be the adaptation of the insect species to the changes. There are certain crops that have been modified to produce their own insecticide. Whilst this may be effective in the short term, nature has a knack of adapting to changing circumstances, and it would not be long before a more adapted variant of the plants previous pest popped up. But as we can see from cases such as the 'Golden rice' possibly preventing blindness (they used a gene from the Daffodil for that one), the need is generally very obvious, whilst the ramifications of such modification are much less so. So, genetic modification has potential, however as with most things the development of such technology is driven by the need for profit. (Not a sense of altruism on the part of the companies involved) As such, the promotion of the widespread use of such technology is being pushed, generally with very little long term testing and study.

They've been denied that luxury. If they shoot someone, they are open to being tried under the British judicial system. Just watched that on the BBC, so you'll probably be able to find info about it on their site shortly.

From the Darwin Awards site.

Six dead according to this...

I'm with you on that one. YIKES!

The one country that's least likely to disagree with anything it's government says. Likes to have gun ownership as a given right, just in case their elected representatives get out of hand? Nice.

Grrrrrrrr. Facts damn you MSNBC facts! The guys British.

Common sense is obviously a trait in short supply these days. We'll just have to agree to disagree. Because there was always a responsible majority arguing the case. More people with your approach around, and I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't long before we saw something in the UK placing even more restrictions on replicas and airsoft. I bid you adieu!

My point was not to do with the kids age, but the fact that by your reasoning the fact that he was on his property (in the family car), made it quite alright for him to be brandishing the toy gun. Even though there was the potential to cause alarm. The fact of the matter is, if you're using your airsoft in your back garden and people are even remotely likely to see you do it, it's a bad thing. People are fearful of such things, and using airsoft in an irresponsible manner (regardless of whether or not you are on your own property or not), just adds fuel to those fears. It makes life harder for all the other airsoft fans out there.

That's the one. Animation Shop comes with PSP7. Use that, it's a piece of cake.

PSP7 comes with a gif animator as standard. It's a separate program though, you should be able to find it under the start menu somewhere.

Sure it's not against the law, but surely somewhere in the back of your mind 'common sense' rears it head and suggests that it might not be a good idea? Sticking your hand into a working blender or stepping out in front of a speeding truck, aren't against the law either. But common sense dictates that it's not a good idea to do either of those. The same goes for using an airsoft weapon where it has the potential to cause alarm. I'd say that includes your back garden, as it's obviously in view of you're neighbours. Strangely enough I saw on our local news channel yesterday, that the armed response unit was called to a high street because someone saw a gun being pointed out of the back of a car. Turned out to be a 13 year old boy with an airsoft M16 that his dad had given him. But they were ordered out of the car on hands and knees with the barrels of a number of very real firearms pointed at them nonetheless. By your reasoning there was nothing wrong with this, as the child was inside the family car. Wheras I would say; common sense should have stopped the father giving such a young child the airsoft weapon in the first place, and most certainly should have stopped him from letting the kid carry it in the back of the car in full view! Common sense, just a little thought about the ramifications of your actions in the future.

Neighbour reports firearm in your back garden. Police are called, as they don't know whether or not said firearm is real, they err on the side of caution and send an appropriate response. If you live somewhere like I do it doesn't take long for news of something like that to spread. Before you know it, you have articles in local papers, and worried parents lobbying the council for a ban. = Lots of annoyed airsoft fans thanks to one moment of thoughtlessness. If we're going by the letter of the law here, unless your garden is out in the countryside it's an offence (punishable by a Å1000 fine) to fire an air-weapon within 15m of any public right of way (roads, paths, other peoples houses etc etc). So if you're living in a mid-terrace house just watch yourself. I have no major problem with people shooting targets in their own back-garden, as long as that garden is well covered, out of the sight of the general public and the use of airsoft there is not going to freak out any neighbours / people visiting nearby that might not know it isn't real. The thing I feel strongly about is people with little regard for common sense, ruining the situation for the rest of us.

Perhaps they perceive it the other way round. They see Americas contribution to the situation as being wholly one-sided, hence some begin to see them as targets?

Diplomatic convoy attacked... Hell on a handcart i tells ya

All images produced with it will be watermarked with the personal learning edition title/logo. So that shouldn't be too much of a problem.

It only takes one report to get people sticking their noses into the issue, and causing trouble for all those people that treat their airsoft equipment and people around them with respect. Just because it may not be strictly against the law, doesn't mean you should push it. It's just common sense people (a quality I realise is in short supply these days). Expecially in the UK the general public are extremely paranoid about guns and prone to quite extreme knee-jerk reactions. So just bloody well use your heads and think before you wander out into public with your airsoft gun, or blast away at targets in your back garden.

I don't think that is the intended aim. Just keeping Syria in the Americans line of sight will probably do for now.

"Some assembly required"

Lots of people said that about another recent military action, but that didn't help much then either. It'll be interesting to see how the U.N and the U.S react to this.

http://www.actiontrip.com/reviews/freedomfighters.phtml

Each to their own. I would disagree. I find it to be the most fun I've had in quite a while.

The couple of places I only ever play Bf1942, try any of those things you mentioned and have yourself nicely banned. It's a fun multi-player experience, but it's not for everyone. Personally I thought it was quite well put together, providing a nice venue for large multi-player, land, sea and air battles. The unecessary butchering of the historical aspect was a shame. But hey, the mod community made up for that. If you had the bad luck to play on a server full of numpties, no doubt your view of the whole experience would be somewhat tarnished.