Whenever I used a frisby I tend to think how it would be cool to put knives around the edge and let them flick out from the centrifugal force. I am not an especially violent person (though I do enjoy martial arts movies and occasionally martial arts as well), I just think it would be an interesting weapon:p Frisbees are great fun on their own, and very intuitive to curve and direct once you have your throwing techniques down properly, so they'd probably make pretty good delivery systems for explosive and such in certain situations. You want to be careful about the wind if you're going to launch at a steep angle though, otherwise you may find that your frisbee is acting more like a boomerang:)
It's sad that the AC is either not from the US just trying to bag on us, or is from the US and entirely ignorant about the current state of affairs across this planet. Just about everyone not part of the west wants to take it down. Oh, the irony!!!:s
How exactly is one bomb in India a 'global threat' unless it's a high yield atomic one? There are over a billion people in India, good luck finding and controlling/eradicating the crazy terrorist ones!:p In fact I really hope your whole "we need to start paying attention to this global threat before it is too late" is just meant to be some kind of ironic joke, because it's very sad if that's the way you think of every other country, as a "possible threat" rather than a possible ally. Both are true, but just because some idiots set off a bomb in their own country doesn't mean that the whole country will start attacking the US (I think I can safely say you are from the US).
Well, I meant more the 'black holes' topic context, which is normally related to physics, and the discussions that arise in the comments tend to be physics related. I know what you mean about describing, but yes I was talking about being able to describe to a perfect level where IMO everything would be predictable (if you could model everything perfectly at a quantum level, or any levels that may be below that!).
And yes about the universe I don't mean so much as to how it got started, I mean as to how anything that enabled the universe to start could always have existed. I never quite manage to get how awesome that is out in words. It's mind meltingly strange that something always was. And if there really wasn't always something, how did it start? It should be impossible by any system. Most people only think back and argue about more recent things like where life came from, but it would be far more astounding to know where nothing can come from.. or rather how it can just be, because the concept of "come from" would not exist:p One theory I saw on wikipedia mentioned somethin about a vacuum existing then a small fluctuation causing in space time causing some energy to pop into being, then the curve pinged out like a rubber band (any physicists are probably laughing or getting annoyed, I know I can't remember the description exactly) and then spawned our own Universe (not necessarily in the same "place" that the original fluctuation happened). That is interesting, but how did the concept of a vacuum or energy start existing? Where did the energy come from? That's the kind of thing that I find mind bending to think about, and probably is outside the "fundamental limits on what we can know" about the Universe I guess, tho if scientists keep studying the big bang the we will get a bit closer to knowing at least. The same problem exists for me with God, where would this God have come from? I'm prepared to accept that a God could already exist, possibly even evolved from some other Universe that needs its own explanation of origin. The whole situation is just fantastic, awesome, crazy, and I'd have bet 100% impossible, apart from the fact that I'm here to bet on it.
People are competitive. Given any event like the Olympics you're always going to end up with people crazy enough to devote their lives to it. Even when the games started over 2000 years ago these skills were no longer essential survival skills anyway. Some people just enjoy athletics. I think it was better in those days because they had to do all the events though, not just single events? That left things a bit more balanced and perhaps less freakish in your books?
The natural win is more legitimate because that athlete has worked at developing the muscles to win, rather than just bought some spring loaded legs and strapped them on, which doesn't take any dedication or training (apart from to run on them without falling over).. training to run fast is in no way 'unnatural' either, I don't see how you could think that even if someone is training their legs with weights. As long as they don't use steroids or other performance enhancing drugs, it's all natural, baby!:p
I'm pretty sure it's impossible to put an exoskeleton inside your body, because then it by definition becomes an endoskeleton;)
It's pretty ludicrous that this guy is allowed to compete in the normal olympics. Obviously like everyone else I feel bad for the guy if he was wanting to be a runner and then lost his legs, but basically he should now be competing in the para-olympics, or starting some special sport for amputees. It would be pretty cool to have a mixed sport where amputees could compete with normal humans on powerisers:)
Doesn't this guy have a bit of an advantage at a lack of weight, or are his prosthetics quite heavy?
'providing a nominal reason for people from different (often politically adversarial) countries to mix and experience each others' cultures, to enable greater understanding and tolerance to develop by beating foreigner's asses to the ground in mostly non-violent but still satisfying events.' There we go, fixed that for you:)
You're talking about being able to fly! I'd seriously consider it. I'm sure you could get attachments to put over the jets to let you walk a bit too.:)
Well, on any surface ranging from completely solid, to custard, I can think of ways in which it could land on its side. Custard being an obvious one in that it can just slice into it:p With more solid surfaces it seems entirely plausible than even if the coin is rotating a lot, certain first landings will be able to reduce the speed of rotation of the coin (assuming if it was rotating in the first place) to an extent where it isn'g going to topple over once it reaches its side. I would expect the shape of the coin to be quite important though, some are more easy to balance than others. There must be a reproducable way of firing a coin up into the air in such a way that it rotates but then comes to rest on its side. Especially the for the thicker ones with flat sides (british pound coin would be a good example). I've thrown smallish empty plastic bottles across a room and had them end up upright on their base:p In that case the base is heavier, but you wouldn't expect it to be able to get from rotating to a bounce on the floor to then finally landing upright really.
So basically, unless he's only referring to a specific type of coin, or is discounting flipping a coin in a vacuum and such-like (where I'd expect there is a way to bounce the coin so that even one with a very rounded edge can balance), I think he's talking out of his ass.
Pi is just a number, it's not even an equation. I'd say if you want to describe the Universe you'd have to create more of a class structure than just a single numberic variable. Are you just talking about an equation that if you feed into it all the physical elements in the universe, can predict where any one element is going to move in the next whatever-you-use-to-define-time-which-may-in-fact-be-infinitely-divisible?
It's all very well having an equation if you know what you're trying to find out, but otherwise you're looking for an answer without a question (insert HHGTTG reference here), and all this talk of a universal equation is nonsense. If you're just talking about a "grand unified theory of relativity" or whatever then that makes a bit more sense, though probably it's still not going to be just one equation
Well it was inferred from context. Good luck ever describing yourself describing yourself describing yourself describing yourself describing yourself describing yourself describing yourself describing yourself describing yourself [ad infinitum]. You are never going to be able to describe everything (which would presumably cover politics and society etc) in an absolutely up to date manner. You're going to have to limit what you mean by 'completely described' if you think that's ever going to happen. Having physics completely described makes sense, but when you get to stuff like biology and consciousness, the resultant systems become a lot more complicated than simple physics. They can maybe all be predicted by using a complex particle physics simulator, but describing them gets rather complicated. And I really doubt anyone is going to be able to 'describe' how the fuck anything exists in the first place.. not a lot of people seem to notice the absurdity of that, maybe just because they know they will never understand it..
I am a committed atheist and believer in evolutionary biology Isn't that like saying "I am a committed non cinema-goer and believer in people having to eat otherwise they will die"?
Would you say you are a "believer" in gravity too? Those just seems to be a strange choice of words to me if you consider the theory of evolution to be valid, and you think God doesn't exist. How can you be a "committed atheist", does it involve the difficult task of making sure you don't go to church on sunday, don't ever read the bible and never accidentally exclaim "oh, God/Jesus/Buddha/Allah!" if something horrific happens in front of you?
It sounds like you are being just as religious as religious people. I'm not saying that any higher power or intelligence in the Universe would necessarily conform to anything that people currently consider to be God, but it seems to me that the only way you can be "committed" is by purposely ignoring any ideas that involve any higher forms of existence. Generically sweeping away certain ideas just because you have committed yourself to a different set of beliefs seems to be a bit foolish. As someone who considered themself a Christian for the last decade but have recently been having doubts and exploring other ideas because of the growing evidence support evolutionary theory, and just some of my own internal conflicts, I'm definitely not being hypocritical by saying that:p Saying I'm an atheist and I'm a believer in the same sentence just seems totally contradictory!
I think it's time for science to step up and say something about how we live our lives and structure our societies, however, the obstacles are immense. Scientist: Uh, hi.
Totally hawt babe: Hi! What's up?
Scientist: Uh.. I have the results of our latest cultural analysis.
Totally hawt babe: Yeah that's why I'm here! What's next for me?
Scientist: Well.. we have to have a one night stand. Possibly two nights, the data is currently a bit unclear.
Totally hawt babe: Let me see that!
Scientist: You know that's against the rules! Security! Take this woman to my living quarters!
I'm left handed so I probably have it a bit easier that you when it comes to left handed finger speed:p I also can apparently type at around 100wpm so that's nice too. The solos for the last 10% of the set list on Expert are just crazy though. Even on Hard I'm not sure I could get through the solo on 'One' without any Star Power - I'd say it's something like 9 notes a second or more, and you need to move at least 2 fingers to do it, whereas on a real guitar to play 3 notes you can get away with just plucking a note, doing a pulloff then hammering onto a different string..
Yep, a lot of tunes just involve moving between 3 or 4 different chord positions then fingerpicking (I tend to much prefer fingerpicking songs than just playing boring old chords all the time like a lot of people do:p ). Songs like My Name is Jonas would be pretty easy if it weren't for that, though you would still have to move your left hand for the hammer ons and pull-offs. I've not had an issue with timing either, apart from a few songs that I just had never heard before playing GH3. I got a torrent of all the tracks though and listen to them at work;)
Hehehehe.. can't help but being reminded of Kim Jong Il - he should look into this sonic weapon thing too, he'll have to do a bit better than "I'm So Ronery" though, that's a beautiful song:p
Aye, his punches were pretty pathetic. Just flailing his arm round rather than driving his fist using his chest muscles and body rotation. Me and my brother sometimes do the flaily arm thing just for fun - you're probably more likely to hurt yourself doing that than someone else, I think I managed to hit myself in the face before:P
For some reason the thing that I dislike most about the ads is the style of the writing of the title at the end. It just looks so fake/computer generated compared to the originals. Perhaps it is in 3D or something, I can't remember. Whatever it is, they were trying a bit too hard!
Also, one of the people in our group either started crying during the final race or had an eyegasm from the preposterous, yet somehow enjoyable, visuals. I've decided I don't want to know which or why. I actually find that pretty easy to believe, I strangely felt very emotional at a couple of the scenes where the family was breaking up/making up. Heh. I had had pretty messed up sleep patterns in the week before though, so it was probably just a result of tiredness:p
Slashdot Mirror
Whenever I used a frisby I tend to think how it would be cool to put knives around the edge and let them flick out from the centrifugal force. I am not an especially violent person (though I do enjoy martial arts movies and occasionally martial arts as well), I just think it would be an interesting weapon :p Frisbees are great fun on their own, and very intuitive to curve and direct once you have your throwing techniques down properly, so they'd probably make pretty good delivery systems for explosive and such in certain situations. You want to be careful about the wind if you're going to launch at a steep angle though, otherwise you may find that your frisbee is acting more like a boomerang :)
How exactly is one bomb in India a 'global threat' unless it's a high yield atomic one? There are over a billion people in India, good luck finding and controlling/eradicating the crazy terrorist ones! :p In fact I really hope your whole "we need to start paying attention to this global threat before it is too late" is just meant to be some kind of ironic joke, because it's very sad if that's the way you think of every other country, as a "possible threat" rather than a possible ally. Both are true, but just because some idiots set off a bomb in their own country doesn't mean that the whole country will start attacking the US (I think I can safely say you are from the US).
Lead is pretty scary.. get some in your water supply and you'll eventually turn into a dumb aggressive maniac.
Well, I meant more the 'black holes' topic context, which is normally related to physics, and the discussions that arise in the comments tend to be physics related. I know what you mean about describing, but yes I was talking about being able to describe to a perfect level where IMO everything would be predictable (if you could model everything perfectly at a quantum level, or any levels that may be below that!).
:p One theory I saw on wikipedia mentioned somethin about a vacuum existing then a small fluctuation causing in space time causing some energy to pop into being, then the curve pinged out like a rubber band (any physicists are probably laughing or getting annoyed, I know I can't remember the description exactly) and then spawned our own Universe (not necessarily in the same "place" that the original fluctuation happened). That is interesting, but how did the concept of a vacuum or energy start existing? Where did the energy come from? That's the kind of thing that I find mind bending to think about, and probably is outside the "fundamental limits on what we can know" about the Universe I guess, tho if scientists keep studying the big bang the we will get a bit closer to knowing at least. The same problem exists for me with God, where would this God have come from? I'm prepared to accept that a God could already exist, possibly even evolved from some other Universe that needs its own explanation of origin. The whole situation is just fantastic, awesome, crazy, and I'd have bet 100% impossible, apart from the fact that I'm here to bet on it.
And yes about the universe I don't mean so much as to how it got started, I mean as to how anything that enabled the universe to start could always have existed. I never quite manage to get how awesome that is out in words. It's mind meltingly strange that something always was. And if there really wasn't always something, how did it start? It should be impossible by any system. Most people only think back and argue about more recent things like where life came from, but it would be far more astounding to know where nothing can come from.. or rather how it can just be, because the concept of "come from" would not exist
Shouldn't they call it Ovarietine then?
People are competitive. Given any event like the Olympics you're always going to end up with people crazy enough to devote their lives to it. Even when the games started over 2000 years ago these skills were no longer essential survival skills anyway. Some people just enjoy athletics. I think it was better in those days because they had to do all the events though, not just single events? That left things a bit more balanced and perhaps less freakish in your books?
:p
The natural win is more legitimate because that athlete has worked at developing the muscles to win, rather than just bought some spring loaded legs and strapped them on, which doesn't take any dedication or training (apart from to run on them without falling over).. training to run fast is in no way 'unnatural' either, I don't see how you could think that even if someone is training their legs with weights. As long as they don't use steroids or other performance enhancing drugs, it's all natural, baby!
I'm pretty sure it's impossible to put an exoskeleton inside your body, because then it by definition becomes an endoskeleton ;)
:)
It's pretty ludicrous that this guy is allowed to compete in the normal olympics. Obviously like everyone else I feel bad for the guy if he was wanting to be a runner and then lost his legs, but basically he should now be competing in the para-olympics, or starting some special sport for amputees. It would be pretty cool to have a mixed sport where amputees could compete with normal humans on powerisers
Doesn't this guy have a bit of an advantage at a lack of weight, or are his prosthetics quite heavy?
You're talking about being able to fly! I'd seriously consider it. I'm sure you could get attachments to put over the jets to let you walk a bit too. :)
Nobody said anything about fair! There is still a finite probability that the coin could land on its side
Well, on any surface ranging from completely solid, to custard, I can think of ways in which it could land on its side. Custard being an obvious one in that it can just slice into it :p With more solid surfaces it seems entirely plausible than even if the coin is rotating a lot, certain first landings will be able to reduce the speed of rotation of the coin (assuming if it was rotating in the first place) to an extent where it isn'g going to topple over once it reaches its side. I would expect the shape of the coin to be quite important though, some are more easy to balance than others. There must be a reproducable way of firing a coin up into the air in such a way that it rotates but then comes to rest on its side. Especially the for the thicker ones with flat sides (british pound coin would be a good example). I've thrown smallish empty plastic bottles across a room and had them end up upright on their base :p In that case the base is heavier, but you wouldn't expect it to be able to get from rotating to a bounce on the floor to then finally landing upright really.
So basically, unless he's only referring to a specific type of coin, or is discounting flipping a coin in a vacuum and such-like (where I'd expect there is a way to bounce the coin so that even one with a very rounded edge can balance), I think he's talking out of his ass.
As long as I had plenty of pork futures to potentially munch on then I'd be happy
Pi is just a number, it's not even an equation. I'd say if you want to describe the Universe you'd have to create more of a class structure than just a single numberic variable. Are you just talking about an equation that if you feed into it all the physical elements in the universe, can predict where any one element is going to move in the next whatever-you-use-to-define-time-which-may-in-fact-be-infinitely-divisible?
It's all very well having an equation if you know what you're trying to find out, but otherwise you're looking for an answer without a question (insert HHGTTG reference here), and all this talk of a universal equation is nonsense. If you're just talking about a "grand unified theory of relativity" or whatever then that makes a bit more sense, though probably it's still not going to be just one equation
Well it was inferred from context. Good luck ever describing yourself describing yourself describing yourself describing yourself describing yourself describing yourself describing yourself describing yourself describing yourself [ad infinitum]. You are never going to be able to describe everything (which would presumably cover politics and society etc) in an absolutely up to date manner. You're going to have to limit what you mean by 'completely described' if you think that's ever going to happen. Having physics completely described makes sense, but when you get to stuff like biology and consciousness, the resultant systems become a lot more complicated than simple physics. They can maybe all be predicted by using a complex particle physics simulator, but describing them gets rather complicated. And I really doubt anyone is going to be able to 'describe' how the fuck anything exists in the first place.. not a lot of people seem to notice the absurdity of that, maybe just because they know they will never understand it..
Would you say you are a "believer" in gravity too? Those just seems to be a strange choice of words to me if you consider the theory of evolution to be valid, and you think God doesn't exist. How can you be a "committed atheist", does it involve the difficult task of making sure you don't go to church on sunday, don't ever read the bible and never accidentally exclaim "oh, God/Jesus/Buddha/Allah!" if something horrific happens in front of you?
It sounds like you are being just as religious as religious people. I'm not saying that any higher power or intelligence in the Universe would necessarily conform to anything that people currently consider to be God, but it seems to me that the only way you can be "committed" is by purposely ignoring any ideas that involve any higher forms of existence. Generically sweeping away certain ideas just because you have committed yourself to a different set of beliefs seems to be a bit foolish. As someone who considered themself a Christian for the last decade but have recently been having doubts and exploring other ideas because of the growing evidence support evolutionary theory, and just some of my own internal conflicts, I'm definitely not being hypocritical by saying that
Totally hawt babe: Hi! What's up?
Scientist: Uh.. I have the results of our latest cultural analysis.
Totally hawt babe: Yeah that's why I'm here! What's next for me?
Scientist: Well.. we have to have a one night stand. Possibly two nights, the data is currently a bit unclear.
Totally hawt babe: Let me see that!
Scientist: You know that's against the rules! Security! Take this woman to my living quarters!
I'm a scat singer who got lost on the tubes, you insensitive clod!
Likewise. What chance do we have at creating imperishable media if even God is having troubles?
I'm left handed so I probably have it a bit easier that you when it comes to left handed finger speed :p I also can apparently type at around 100wpm so that's nice too. The solos for the last 10% of the set list on Expert are just crazy though. Even on Hard I'm not sure I could get through the solo on 'One' without any Star Power - I'd say it's something like 9 notes a second or more, and you need to move at least 2 fingers to do it, whereas on a real guitar to play 3 notes you can get away with just plucking a note, doing a pulloff then hammering onto a different string..
Yep, a lot of tunes just involve moving between 3 or 4 different chord positions then fingerpicking (I tend to much prefer fingerpicking songs than just playing boring old chords all the time like a lot of people do :p ). Songs like My Name is Jonas would be pretty easy if it weren't for that, though you would still have to move your left hand for the hammer ons and pull-offs. I've not had an issue with timing either, apart from a few songs that I just had never heard before playing GH3. I got a torrent of all the tracks though and listen to them at work ;)
Hehehehe.. can't help but being reminded of Kim Jong Il - he should look into this sonic weapon thing too, he'll have to do a bit better than "I'm So Ronery" though, that's a beautiful song :p
Aye, his punches were pretty pathetic. Just flailing his arm round rather than driving his fist using his chest muscles and body rotation. Me and my brother sometimes do the flaily arm thing just for fun - you're probably more likely to hurt yourself doing that than someone else, I think I managed to hit myself in the face before :P
For some reason the thing that I dislike most about the ads is the style of the writing of the title at the end. It just looks so fake/computer generated compared to the originals. Perhaps it is in 3D or something, I can't remember. Whatever it is, they were trying a bit too hard!