Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 2/15/09 11:57 AM, poxpower wrote:

At 2/15/09 11:39 AM, JeremieCompNerd wrote: Just as a question, Pox, can you make a list of 5 things that you have thought about, that nobody in the history of EARTH has ever thought about before?

- A bunny named Jeeves who eats pickles
- A Time machine that only travels to sunday march 5th, 1954
- My awesome website
- This stupid reply
- The theory of 51 dimensions

Nice list. I especially like the bit about your website. It saves me from the effort of pointing out how irrelevant all of these ideas are. :)

Anyways, just because his helicopter didn't work based on the technology they had availible at the time, didn't mean he wasn't genius for thinking of the idea that a spinning motion of sufficient speed and blades at a specific angle could produce lift. Just because everybody thought it was a joke at the time, doesn't mean that Jules Verne didn't have an enormous amount of imagination to produce a vehicle that could travel underwater. You don't think that these people and their discoveries are important, just because the idea didn't work with the tools they had on hand to build them? Try removing them from our timeline, and watch our modern society fall back into the dark ages for another 300 hundred years. You can't have progress without dreams of a future. Unless someone thinks of the things that nobody else is interested in, that nobody else believes in, then humanity will never advance beyond the slow pace of immediate need. We couldn't see genes with the current technology when we began breeding plants to produce more food, but how much smaller would our population be if we still had the same size plants we had a thousand years ago? Corn used to be tiny, wheat was far too easy to kill, and now we have sufficient food for a much larger population. None of this would have been possible without the geniuses you claim were exaggerated.

Just as a question, Pox, can you make a list of 5 things that you have thought about, that nobody in the history of EARTH has ever thought about before? They don't even have to work perfectly. Just a concept. I'll make it easy, you can include original plot lines for books/plays/tv series/whatever. I don't think you have an original bone in your body not specifically programmed for trolling.

I should point out now that I never said all war games were American or patriotic I just stated that to the best of my some-what limited knowlege of the subject, America churns out more of them. I also find the number of American war games with military advisors on staff to be a disturbing coincidence. It could be that the companies really did pay the military to ensure that they got everything as accurate as possible, but I personaly find it more likely the military payed them to manufacture these interactive ads.

At 12/17/08 07:33 PM, poxpower wrote:

Yeah that must be the only reason why Togo doesn't make war games for the PS3.

I will assume you mean Togo the small country? I have difficulty reading sarcasm so if you're making a joke you may need to explain it a little better... Togo the country can't afford the tech to make games like that, but there are several countries that can afford to do so. By and large though, most of the war games I've heard of or encountered were American made games where you played as an American. Perhaps, though, this is because I'm currently in America. I don't have much knowlege of foreign games.

Hah. At the school I went to they were lighting trash cans 20 years ago! Someone lit one and then the principal came out of his office to talk to someone, and the can started up behind him when he wasn't watching. Caught his shirt on fire if I remember right. The wall is still burned to this day since they haven't repainted.

Because games like that aren't patriotic, they're recruitment tactics. Hook young minds on the glory of winning all the time, teach them that getting shot makes them see red for a few seconds while they hide and then keep going, teach them how to aim and find cover and identify targets, make it real enough that they become good soldiers but fake enough that they don't realize the horror of what war really is. Then wait for them to come to you and ask for a gun and a passport. The reason no other country makes games about war is because only America is so callous that they can make war a game.

At 12/17/08 02:21 PM, dySWN wrote: Or, more likely, we'll end up with a generation of /b/tards and leet speakers with no real-world social skills.

Social skills??? Those got pwned years ago. :P
Nah, in all seriousness I think the next few generations will be the smartest yet, just because they are being exposed to more information during formative years.
As for L33T, all languages have words added, removed, changed in spelling or meaning, etc. If that's how we learn to communicate more effectively, then fine. I doubt it will be though. It's more like ghetto slang. It's going to be around in some form or other for a long time, but never really make it as mainstream language outside of a few isolated areas.
And truly, social skills are just a measure of your ability to understand and follow society's rules. If everybody lacks social skills, then it's no longer a lack of social skills but a new set of social rules. I'm not lacking, I'm just WAY ahead of the curve.... BELCH!!!!

Sounds like someone wanted to prove he wasn't as good as he thought. Perhaps an angry parent who's kid followed this guy's rules and still got kidnapped. Maybe a rival anti-kidnapping expert tired of playing second fiddle. Could even be kidnappers getting tired of his lessons being passed on to their prey. In any case, he should have remembered to use his voice.... :P

This is very much the case. Many people are dragged into religions or lifestyles or ideals that they don't really agree with, but they never had access to any other way of living. After a while, complacent acceptance becomes fervent hatred of anything else. So the cycle would have continued until so recently we discovered a way to communicate other ways of living one's life from all around the world. Now kids have a choice in what they believe and what they don't, and with that choice comes the ability to logically debate between conflicting viewpoints. The internet is a very important cultural exchange that has greatly weakened the once-all-powerful hold of the parent's viewpoint over the child's mind. More power to it that it can do so in any language, and almost any location. Within a few short generations we may very well see a world where young people are no longer enthralled by calls of patriotism to go to war, where religion is a personal belief that grants one strength to endure rather than power to crush others, where folk tales and myths are relegated to the use of bad puns but never treated as absolute truth. A world of logic, understanding, diversity, intelligence, and most importantly choice.

Since this thread has degenerated quite nicely into theological debate, as always, I propose repourposing this thread. So, for expedience I will assume everyone wants to actually talk about aliens and will then bring up the subject "The Universe : Alien Faces" and ask if anyone else watched it and had any opinions about the idea of predicting the evolution of specific lifeforms based on environments. Consider the above officialy brought up. :P

At 12/15/08 05:25 PM, marchohare wrote:

At 12/15/08 05:05 PM, Conspiracy3 wrote: Getting a loaded gun past the secret service into a press conference is much harder.

Obviously, however, not hard enough. A few years ago, PBS ran a series on "spy tech," and some of the inventions they demonstrated would blow the minds of most of the folks here on Newgrounds. I think my favorite (not that it would work in the scenario we're talking about) was an umbrella that injected a tiny metal ball coated with ricin. The assassin only had to pretend to stumble and touch his umbrella tip to the back of his victim's calf. The victim didn't even know he'd been injected. Because ricin takes awhile to kill, the assassin was long gone before the victim exhibited the first symptoms of being poisoned, and ricin has no antidote. You get stuck, you're dead, it's as simple as that.

The same could be done with the tip of a shoe. All you have to do is accidentally step too far while walking behind them, and hit the tip of your shoe just above their shoe. Another way is to use food. Don't put all the poison in one thing though, feed them "a" in potatoes and "b" in steak and when the two interact it becomes a toxin. Many cool ways to kill someone.

I had never thought of that one. A poisoned plastic spike in that shoe could have actually killed him. Gets through checkpoints easily enough, no metal to detect, a little hard to aim perhaps..... Maybe we need to implement more complete security exams for Pres. Obama. Let's practice on Gov. Bush in the meantime by throwing more blanks! I want to see the look on his face when he tastes foot. :P

At 12/14/08 10:14 AM, D2Kvirus wrote:
I can't be filed under "Freedom of Speech", as there is no speech involved.

Freedom of Speech can be used in cases such as the attempts to ban Lady Chatterly's Lover as it was the printed word, Hustler magazine was not and is not. There's nothing wrong with porn, but to say it's allowed by the First Amendment is laughable.

I should point out that Garfield is, by your definition, unconstitutional. Any image can be described as a work of art by it's producer. Art expresses things that are dificult or impossible to put into words. Nobody would have told a Greek sculpter that he had no legal right to creat a nude statue. Even if it doesn't fall under freedom of speech, it still gets scooped up by freedom of expression.

At 12/14/08 06:47 PM, Sajberhippien wrote:

No, it's a way to say that even such things as freedom of speech can't be unlimited. To draw a parallell, freedom of movement doesn't allow you to occupy someones home, or walk on a person sleeping on the beach.

I agree, but they never said anything about a verbal threat that I saw, and it sounded more to me like the "excess" they were against was people who didn't like their views. I guess that's just me being cynical, but that's what it sounds like. If they had mentioned hate speeches or death threats I might have let the comment slide, but if they mean anything along the lines of simply dissagreeing with the church then we have a problem.

I must be misreading this... You make it sound as though they called freedom of speech a good thing, then said too much of it should be discouraged. That sounds like a really pathetic way of saying "agree or shut up".

At 12/14/08 02:55 AM, catman03 wrote:

At 12/13/08 08:50 PM, JeremieCompNerd wrote: I would love to see the day that the military is no longer needed, but there is no true trust in the world of today.

In the world of today? There is no true trust anywhere. Anyone who honestly believes that were all laws dropped, and they became defenseless, that anyone would hesitate to kill or enslave them, that things wouldn't descend into chaos, that they don't need any threat to protect yourself, is either a hopeless idealist or a naive fool. Trust is a concept that reality tends not to justify, unfortunately.

You would be surprised. I trust my friends with my life. The problem is that there are so many people on this planets we don't see ourselves as humans first, nations second anymore. In order to trust someone you have to know them. That won't happen until the human brain and the human society both make major changes.

At 12/13/08 09:09 PM, jakobhummelen wrote: Sounds to me like you have a pretty bad way of dealing with your emotions or you may have autism or some weird social thing.. I suggest you take the world a little more seriously since it really is.

Not to nitpick but I suppose depression is more healthy? Laughter is the raising of one's hackles and baring of ones teeth, then barking. Laughter is very similar to anger, resentment, the agressive stance towards an unfair event. You have your way of dealing with death, I have laughter. Apparantly so does the OP.

Actually I have quite a collection of horrible jokes for every occasion. Try "mould box" instead of coffin. Really messes with the salesmen. :P

Don't wake me up....... I'll do it myself. Night.

I would love to see the day that the military is no longer needed, but there is no true trust in the world of today. Until all nations can trust each other not to shoot them in the back the moment they let the forces go, nobody will take the first step. A shame, given that if any of the larger nations did drop all forms of military, including ICBM's, war machines of land, air and water, and human resources, then the other nations would be more likely to perceive that they could be safe without such measures and your dream could be realized.

At 12/9/08 09:15 PM, altanese-mistress wrote:

At 12/9/08 02:17 PM, JeremieCompNerd wrote: Straight line is one, square another, we live in the third, time is one higher than us, and it keeps going in a pattern of dot,line,fold repeat.

Time and space exist as one, you know.

In the same way that flat, two dimensional shapes exist in the same world as the three dimensional existence we live in.

Too literal, I meant the earliest timeframe in which we could survive given our equipment.

Again, impossible, and still not recommended. If time paradoxes are possible, we could wipe ourselves out on accident. If paradoxes are not possible, apparently we still get fucked over.

I suppose so, but if traveling through time causes you to jump into parallels instead of apearing in the original timeline you came from then we would be wiping out a totally different Earth and it would have no bearing on us.

True, but we constantly change which atoms are in our body so it's not like we would all up and explode at the same time.

But it could cause all kinds of rips in space-time for matter in one universe to suddenly disappear inside of another.

Possible. Possible. I won't say that it's not, I'll just say that it's equally likely that no such thing would happen. Nobody knows, and we won't until the day comes that we have to actually try it.

Love to. Never gonna happen. We have an instinct for self preservation and unless we evolve out of it we will do anything we can to ensure our survival.

I think that as we evolve, our frontal lobes will become larger and more dominant, especially if we're supposed to reach god-like technology. So instinct would, eventually, step to the side.

I'd like to think that's possible, but even without instinct we would want to preserve ourselves for other reasons. I for one would not die willingly for any reason because I find value in the pursuit of knowledge and I would continue learning quite happily for all eternity given a choice in the matter. Instinct or no, the human race won't go quietly.

At 12/13/08 08:23 PM, Achilles2 wrote:

At 12/13/08 08:17 PM, poxpower wrote: Of course they still deny evolution...

As a liberal Catholic, I try to find everything that could make my religion modernized. The Church's position changed significantly during Pope John Paul II's reign. Now, the Church accepts evolution "as a possibility", and nothing more. If you were to ask a Cardinal, he'd probably say that God caused Evolution.

Within seven days you mean? Something tells me even though they try to be politically correct, they don't really listen to themselves very closely...... Not trying to sound snobbish it just comes off that way. I can't really think of a more polite way to say it at the moment. Sorry.

At 12/13/08 06:49 PM, poxpower wrote:

Yeah, lots of speculation that doesn't really make sense and gambles on the fact that I would give out a cookie-cutter answer like "man I'm straight so I can't even imagine fucking a guy, I'd probably explode and the world would end so wow I totally see your point now that maybe gay people think vaginas will swallow their souls!".

I never said that other things didn't factor in and I wasn't saying that straight people couldn't act gay or even do gay things or vice versa, I was saying that it wouldn't be their first choice and that people should try to understand that.

My point was to be honest with each other. Let's stop pretending like everyone is either gay, straight or bi and that's that.

And it's a fair point, I was just pointing out that it is very possible to be born gay and not have a choice in the matter. They could still choose to pretend not to be who they are, but that's like me pretending to be black. Quite bluntly, it just isn't true. There are many places to be on the scale but where you are can only be influenced so far from where you started.

We're all a mix of something. Some parts are genetic, some parts are lies, some parts are social stigma, some parts are habit etc.

Agreed. These are a few of the things that can influence to what extent you are gay, but they aren't necessarily the deciding factors.

I think it should be scrapped, but I think we need to have the new constitution ratified by popular vote, house, senate, and supreme court. There needs to be near unanimous consent to a new Constitution. Anything less and we could just be making things worse.

So we should all buy stuff from Alabama because he stood up for what he believed in? A boycott like this won't go anywhere. This is best left forgotten and we should all move on. If Alabama supports his decision he did the right thing and if they don't he won't get reelected.

At 12/13/08 09:56 AM, poxpower wrote: It's my firm belief that everyone is a mix that falls on whatever side they let it fall on.

Quite frankly I think it's a myth that a person's sexual preference is set in stone, I'd bet everything I own that you can bend it just like you can bend what your favorite food is.

It makes no sense, given evolution, that there would be completely gay/straight or bi humans. There's just horny humans.

So for that reason, I think that anyone who claims to be a super-strong gay/bi/lesbian/straight is a douchebag and usually they'll act like so.

Super-straight = always trying to assure everyone of being straight, acting horrified at the idea that a penis could go into a dude's ass

Super-gay = always milking the intolerance card, acting flamboyant, challenging people with their sexuality

Bi = acting like they're hot party animals who crave sex so much that they'd stick it in a barrel of oatmeal of they could.

===========

Whatever, it's stupid. No one cares what you do with your genitals.

I should point out that the human body on both sides of the gender line is proven to respond to hormones/pheremones released by other people. It's also a valid point that since all humans start in the womb as girls and half of them then become guys that some people are somewhere inbetween. If you start out as a girl and your body stays that way but your brain begins to change and respond to female pheremones, you are medically lesbian. If you start out a girl and your body changes but your brain still responds to male pheremones you are medically gay. If you pop up somewhere inbetween you could wind up responding to both kinds and be medically bi, or even not respond to either kind and not be turned on by anyone. This isn't strictly an evolutionary issue but one of extremely common and benign birth defect. No different than being born with a genetic predisposition towards anything else. It is possible to ignore that, but it would be distasteful to the person. A gay man being asked to sleep with a woman could very well be as undesirable for him as if he had asked you to sleep with a man. See where I'm going with this?

I should point out that we have seen the dark side of the moon.......
Also, yes I do think there is other life and some of it is intelligent, but I don't expect to meet it in a billion years and it's likely that most intelligent species capable of interstellar travel come along so rarely that they all die out before a new species of that level of intelligence evolves.

At 12/9/08 07:02 PM, homor wrote:

At 12/9/08 04:23 PM, JeremieCompNerd wrote: Actually this doesn't surprise me. The vatican isn't against a lot of insane things. Like the sun orbiting us.......

except they haven't beileved that in hundreads of years. and nothing in the bible says anything about it.

its still a good swing though, maybe next you'll bring up the crusades that haven't existed for hundreads of years ethier?

Actually I was just about to. Just because things like that are in the past doesn't mean they hold no relevance to today. These two historical facts prove that large groups of organized religion can cause people to ignore evidence and start wars. When any group becomes powerful enough to prevent it's followers from listening to reasonable arguement they become slaves. When any group becomes powerful enough that it can convince it's followers to kill other human beings for a difference in lifestyle, that group becomes dangerous.
It is my firm belief that the Vatican is both capable of enthralling victims into servitude and enciting them to riot. Most religions are capable of this. For that very reason the Pope has a duty to display tolerance and peacefulness, and to show a willingness to question everything including that which his predecessors claimed as fact, so that no future version of the Vatican will ever drive willing slaves to war for no reason. I'm not accusing him of anything just pointing out that the past shows this could all go south very easily.

Actually this doesn't surprise me. The vatican isn't against a lot of insane things. Like the sun orbiting us.......

At 12/9/08 08:34 AM, altanese-mistress wrote:

At 12/9/08 08:16 AM, JeremieCompNerd wrote: My money is on you both being wrong. By then, we will have found a way to travel through higher dimensions,

Current science only theorizes other dimensions, eleven in all, with none 'higher' than any other.

Straight line is one, square another, we live in the third, time is one higher than us, and it keeps going in a pattern of dot,line,fold repeat.

like time for instance, and either gone back to near the start of the universe

Impossible and not recommended. Do you know how dese and hot and radioactive the universe was for the first few tens of billions of years?

Too literal, I meant the earliest timeframe in which we could survive given our equipment.

to repeat for another almost infinite amount of time or jumped ship altogether and gone to a different universe.

Atoms have a half life, and there is -no- way increasing half life. It'll take many trillions of years, but eventually all matter -will- break down, atoms will be unable to hold themselves together, and the very basic laws of physics will disappear. Moving to another universe won't change this fact about our atoms, which have existed since the beginning of all things.

True, but we constantly change which atoms are in our body so it's not like we would all up and explode at the same time.

At the rate our technologyis growing we will eventually kill ourselves or exceed all limitations.

So we can't just make great accomplishments in the time we have and go out with a noble end?

Love to. Never gonna happen. We have an instinct for self preservation and unless we evolve out of it we will do anything we can to ensure our survival.