3,623 Forum Posts by "Ravariel"
Poor Mother Teresa seems to have passed gently into that good night.
At 11/27/09 11:38 PM, Mechwarrior300 wrote:At 11/27/09 09:38 PM, Ravariel wrote:At 11/27/09 07:26 PM, Mechwarrior300 wrote:Because time is defined by finite value. You cannot measure infinity in hours for example.If all dimensions incorporated the same time and had no beginning, then time itself must be infinite, and that is not possible.Why not?
...
.......
.........seriously!?
That's your answer to that question!? No wonder... y'know.. fuck it, I'm done. You're just too stupid to even try to reason with.
At 11/27/09 07:26 PM, Mechwarrior300 wrote: Ah, I see what you mean. But isn't the idea of multiple dimensions still finite?
Not necessarily.
If all dimensions incorporated the same time and had no beginning, then time itself must be infinite, and that is not possible.
Why not?
If you will permit me to say so, God is infinite and above all things we see in the physical realm.
If it's not possible for time to be infinite, why is it possible for God to be so?
At 11/27/09 05:36 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:At 11/27/09 02:35 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: we should abolish state-recognised marriages completely :O :OBut since that will NEVER happen...may as well open up the benefits (and headaches) to everybody.
A girl can dream...
At 11/27/09 04:46 PM, Mechwarrior300 wrote: There are many different forms of the theory. Most DO involve explosions.
Expansion =/= explosion.
As far as I am concerned, all BB theories incorporate an infinite timeframe before the cause.
Except they don't.
In most atheist versions, matter was eternal before the BB.
Wut? Since when?
In this case, they seem to readily accept eternal figures when not dealing with a supreme being.
We have no problem with the infinite at all, really... just the idea that the universe "must" have a "beginning" and that those rules don't apply to the explanation for that beginning.
Also, we know that matter is neither created nor destroyed.
Except it can be.
Therefore, saying that every type of atom existed before the BB is ignoring the known chemical reactions that would have happened long before the BB (assuming infinity is involved).
"chemical" reactions make atoms? News to me.
Now most forms of the theory claim that there was absolutely nothing. Then, out of nowhere there was something and it began to balloon into what we know of as space (Not an explosion). Most people think of an explosion because it "makes since" to them. But in reality, nearly every BB idea seems to say "it just happened on it's own for no reason".
Except they don't say that at all. Physicists might not claim to know the reason, but none of them say there isn't one.
Similarly, we cannot prove creationism. Creationism depends on faith, and it can only be proven by disproving the theories that the science community comes up with. Then again, nearly all origin theories cannot be proven. They rely completely on faith.
You with your misunderstanding of the words "theory" and "proof" and the relationship between the two...
[mass becomes dense substance and explodes.]
[nothingness spawns a dense substance and explodes.]
[eternal mass finally decides to expand.]
[mass becomes dense substance and expands rapidly.]
[nothingness becomes matter spontaneously.]
[two colossal heavenly bodies collide with one another in an epic event horizon.]
[every form of matter appears and expands.]
I've heard many different ideas. I'm not sure which one you are thinking of exactly.
None of those matches with even the most simplified versions of our current theories.
Google and study these terms: Hawking Radiation, Quantum Foam, No Boundary Proposal, M-theory, Loop Quantum Gravity... Hell, everything you can find on theories of the early universe, including cyclical ones. Any or all of those issues pretty much clears up every problem you've stated with the current theories.
At 11/26/09 11:25 PM, Mechwarrior300 wrote: Logically, it makes more sense for everything to have been intricately designed much like a computer rather than an accidental, random happening. You realize how unbelievable the odds are against this? [1 in 10^340M]. And that's just for the simple cell.
Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise.
~Douglas Adams
See, Pro... that's how you kill a conversation! ;-)
At 11/22/09 09:47 PM, Proteas wrote: What? Y'all act like you've never seen a giant single celled amoeba monster the size of Wal-Mart before.
You leave my sister out of this!
At 11/18/09 09:24 AM, gumOnShoe wrote: Unpredictability =/= Indeterminable
Huh? The very nature of something being unpredictable is that it's future states cannot be determined from previous ones.
And Cellular Automata doesn't really prove that or appear to be nondetermined. The fact that it has rules means it is. And from what I've seen 1 state always leads to another specific state. Otherwise spaceships couldn't exist inside of it. Just like the Game of Life, the rules set out a pattern of behavior that must happen.
Except that, like i said, even with the same rules and the same starting values, the outcomes differ. The basic tenet of determinism is that if you know the rules of the game and the starting values of all actors in it, then you can calculate the outcome of ever action therein. By being able to actually concoct an "experiment" that allows for this idea to be tested, we see that it is, in fact, very simple to create undeterministic events with rigid rulesets.
However, as long as state A can only go to one specific other state B, then it is a determined system and I don't see how what you have suggested proves otherwise.
Again, rigid rules, state A to different following states on different run-throughs. If determinism were a fact, the ruleset could only ever produce a single pattern, as each starting state could only produce one resultant state based on the rules. State A can go to multiple states, as evidenced by the different patterns the ruleset produces. Granted this is an extremely simplified illustration of the possibility of a ruleset to allow for multiple options when moving from state to state.
The point here is not that this proved free will, merely that it suggests an easy way that it could be possible. Randomness has little to nothing to do with free will, it merely states that among possible options, one is not bound to a single choice. As the automata illustrates... even without a conscious "will", a set of "deterministic" rules can produce different outcomes. Thus as long as the "rules" governing our thoughts and logic, are as complex as rule 110, we can make choices.
I'd like to introduce you all to a little thing called Cellular Automata and Rule 110.
Simple set of rules that creates an ordered, yet UNPREDICTABLE outcome. Same rules each time, same starting value: different outcomes.
Suck on it, determinists. :D
At 11/16/09 07:26 PM, SevenSeize wrote: WHAT ELSE DO THEY WANT????? :-(
...order them all assasinated. Hit play. Guards will come and kill everyone in front of the palace, lulz ensue.
I think I may have found your problem >_>
At 11/11/09 06:24 PM, Korriken wrote: speaking of which, how would one go about getting his stories copywrighted so no one can find my work and steal it?
One of two ways:
1) Submit the story to the US Copyright office to be copyrighted. They store it in the archives and register the copyright. It costs money.
2) Print the story, with the little c in the circle in the title, along with the date, then mail it to yourself. Viola, copyright'd. As long as you can legally prove you wrote the thing before they did, the copyright to the words defaults to you.
You need to teach that bird some new songs :P
At 11/10/09 06:38 PM, Ravariel wrote: Does that help? It'd be easier if I could draw it in real time, and shift the perspective, but that's the basic idea.
In fact, it occurs to me that you don't even need the central assembly to make it all hold together. You could probably throw together a test piece that mimics the outer ring of the pendant and it would hold together. Alternating single and double rings (doubles sandwiching the singles) then, connect the doubles by rings that fit inside the singles and viola. Then just build the central assembly and Bob's your uncle.
At 11/9/09 10:01 AM, Proteas wrote: I wanted to post this last night but my connection was acting weird. I found this chainmaile pendent I wanted to try and make, but I can't quite figure out part of it. So I'm going to post a picture of the pendent here with an explanation, if anyone want's to take a crack at it, it would be greatly appreciated.
Looks fairly simple to me, honestly. Then again 3-D puzzles have always been easy for me. Here's the gist:
1) The double-rings you indicated as being "no problem" sandwich the single rings you're having trouble with.
2) The double rings connecting the "no prob" rings are INSIDE the "problem" rings, as is the single ring connecting them to the central assembly.
3) Thus the "problem" rings are trapped in their positions without ever actually being interlocked with another ring.
Does that help? It'd be easier if I could draw it in real time, and shift the perspective, but that's the basic idea.
At 11/10/09 03:16 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: If Private Health insurance is notoriously "Bad" They can buy the government plan. It's that fucking simple.
The problem with this is that health care is not like a car. When you buy it, and it turns out to be shit, with the car you're stranded for a short time, and out some money... with insurance, you're out a life savings and pretty well fucked... possibly dead. Finding out you've bought a lemon with insurance basically ends you when you need it most. Lack of any regulation whatsoever will allow companies to perpetuate scams and sharking to a level unheard of before. Regulation and competition act as a system of checks and balances that let neither the State nor the COmpanies to stray far from the lawful path and gain too much power.
I'm wondering why this has devolved into an all-state or all-company debate, as if there isn't any middle ground to be had? Just as much as we need private companies and competition to maintain and even improve the price and quality of the product, we need regulation to keep companies in check (if you trust them so implicitly with the welfare of their customers, you're as naive as the people who think that the State will be perfect), and we need the State to provide options for people who legitimately cannot afford insurance. I don't pretend to know the perfect plan or resolution to the competing perogatives, but there is one in there.
At 11/10/09 05:43 PM, poxpower wrote: We're not talking about ethics, we're talking about laws.
And laws are based on objectivity as much as possible
They are? News to me.
The law shouldn't be made in accordance to how people are currently being stupid.
Welcome to the world where people are not emotionless, bias-less robots. Enjoy your stay!
Your very idealism about how things SHOULD be runs counter to your claim that everything should be perfectly rational. Nevermind trying to figure out exactly what "rational" is.
At 11/5/09 09:35 PM, Korriken wrote: wtf is this world coming to?
Best part? Graduated from V Tech.
I'm going to hell for thinking that's funny.
At 10/31/09 09:31 AM, Proteas wrote: Well, I'm probably going to get some hate mail over this.
Shit, even the videos are remarkably similar...
I wonder how long that question will keep popping up...
At 10/25/09 08:43 AM, HarryControl wrote: At lest believing zealously on one side is better than being on the fence.
How so?
Same thing happened to my sister. My grandfather had an ornery little Daschund which chased her through our yard once... hated that dog from that day forward. Me and the dog got along fine, but it was an uneasy alliance...
At 10/24/09 05:47 PM, Proteas wrote: From the looks of it... not gay at all. If she had her eyes closed and her legs together it would be considered a piece of photographic art instead of erotica. But that's me.
Actually, it's the balance between the blue eyes (which are hard to see in the little pic) and the blue scarf that makes the girl really pop. But yeah, if she had her legs in a slightly more... demure... pose, I would agree that it would become art rather than erotica. I forgot I even had the pic... I was just surfing through my large collection of (not entirely nekkid, I swear!) pics and found it and was like "holy shit, where did this pic come from!?"
Doublepostlove
RIght... fav musicians of the moment...
Lacuna Coil is one I can't get enough of. Jamiroquai is another (you may remember them from the late 90s and that fukkin sweet vid for Virtual Insanity).
At 10/24/09 01:37 PM, Proteas wrote: I'm fascinated by the playing of Erik Mongrain of Spain, especially after seeing videos of him perform his songs AirTap! and Fusions. Even if I never could play that well to begin with, it's got me inspired to tune up my acoustic and start practicing again.
I had a similar fascination with him and that style of guitar, too when I first heard his stuff. The I listened to a bit more, and he gets really repetitive after a while. Uses the same rhythms and figures all over the place. I'm still fascinated by the playstyle, but aside from a couple of Mongrain's songs, he doesn't do much for me any more.
Will send that pic over no prob (uncensored and all!)... actual pic is huge and has amazing definition. How gay is it that I think the blue scarf/dress thingy on the couch is what really makes the pic?
At 10/23/09 07:44 PM, TheMason wrote: Good point, but why is war with China, Russia or India unlikely?
For China, the current economic climate. Barring any complete fubar over Taiwan or North Korea, I can't see China trying anything that will threaten their massive investment in US consumption. For India, I think our alliance is on good terms at the moment. They're trying to help us with Pakistan and we've been good friends for a long time. I really don't see any aggression starting between our countries. Russia is the only one I can forsee any issues with in the next 10-20 years.
Unless there is information I'm missing...
From what I understand we are not laying any new airframes, which means the number will be halted at 187. This will produce a very significant interruption if we need to restart the line.
When is the last of those set to be finished, do you know?
But we do need to cut somemthing and I think that is the F-35. They will not be operational until 2016...and obsolete by then. There is very little justification (when as Gates says, we don't have money) for a plane that will be obsolete before it is operational.
Agreed.
It is economical. A new F-15K (built for the S. Korean Air Force) costs about $100M, a new F-22 costs about $143M. Now one thing about when we build a fighter for someone else, if we're not building something better, it does not have the avionics the US version has. So I think new build F-15s will be about $120M.
$143M seems like a lot, but I understand what you're saying. How much does the F-35 cost to produce per plane? And how many do we have on the ordering block now? Basically, how much can we save by cancelling the F-35, and will that net us a large enough number of F-22s if we just go dollar-for-dollar?
Yes, as I've been saying on this topic. The aircraft are two light. They cannot carry the Fire Control RADAR (FCR) or other sophisticated avionics. Nor can they carry as many air-to-air missiles as the F-15 and F-22.
Do we not plan to build larger, sturdier versions that might be able to carry the FCR and more air-to-air missiles? Or do we run into control issues when the planes get that large?
At 10/23/09 07:04 PM, Proteas wrote:At 10/23/09 04:25 PM, Ravariel wrote: Current paper is NSFW... probably wouldn't be appropriate to post :PThat's when you go into mspaint and censor over the naughty bits with awesome faces, or simple black bars.
Your wish is my command... hooray for bad MS paint ruining the pic, but keeping it safe for virgin eyes! If somehow this doesn't work and/or it won't load the safety-awesome, mods feel free to baleet.
At 10/22/09 09:49 PM, Proteas wrote: (^^)
WALLPAPER CHECK!!!
Lounge? This is Justine Joli. Worship her accordingly.
I'd hit it.
Current paper is NSFW... probably wouldn't be appropriate to post :P
At 10/21/09 02:31 PM, TheMason wrote: I predict that the F-35 will be severly cut because it will be obsolete in 2016. Why throw money at it?
Note I wasn't advocating continuing the F-35... I agree that we shouldn't continue developing a plane that will be obsolete by the time it sees action. That IS dumb. And from what I understand we're not canceling completely the development of the F-22, merely lowering the number we're making.... for now. When will the last of the F-22s we currently have orders for roll off the line? If it's a significant point in the future, then couldn't we add more orders to the list at a later date? And if that happens, then wouldn't it defer the cost to that later date? Would there be a significant interruption of parts/production if we did this?
2) The F-22 is replacing an airframe that:
a) is old.
Cool, replacing old planes I'm all for... I just want to make sure it's done in a way that is economical.
b) UAVs have not demonstrated any air superiority capability. They are incapable of carrying Fire Control Radar (FCR) which is necessary for using things such as radar guided air-to-air missiles. While UAVs are making F-16s, F/A-18s and A-10s obsolete...they are not making F-22s and F-15s obsolete.
Yet. I honestly don't know what the development curve on UAVs is, but I would assume that such feature will eventually be able to be included. Is there some logistic reason that they continue to be unable to carry the kind of tech that will allow them to perform similar roles to the F-15 and F-22?
As for other countries: the Chinese and Russians are developing "Raptor Killers". There are Chinese/US Tensions, Chinese/Russian Tensions and Chinese/Indian Tensions...anyone of these could draw us into a Great Powers war where air superiority will be vital to military operations.
I agree that we need to keep up with the Joneses. However, our production capability so outstrips other countries that it seems to me that keeping our production of the most advanced planes modest, until it becomes obvious that we'll need a larger number of them, and then turning on the production again, will keep us out in front without spending too much money.
Actually, some people believe we will have biological immortality by the year 2050.
