885 Forum Posts by "TheloniousMONK"
At 2/5/06 11:39 PM, sea_food wrote: Yup. A lot of people expect that.
Like I said before, no one in their right minds expects that.
List some basic political ideology. I guarentee you it is a lot more complex than God creating the universe and asking people to love him and one another.
Two completely opposite political ideologies explained in simple terms.
Capitalism: This is like a race or a marathon, there can only be a few winners but the fact that there is a prize at the end makes everyone as strong and as fast as they can be, or else they'll have to sit on the bench and collect towels.
Anarchism: They're sick and tired of running races. Those that want to go jogging, go jogging together. (anarcho-syndicalism) Those that want to go take a nap in the forest, go take a nap in the forest. (anarcho-primitivism) Those that want to go play haki-sack, go play haki-sack together. (classical anarchism)
That is so ridiculous. Analogy is one of the greatest deceivers. Just look how biased that analogy is and you can see why.
He's mastered enough to be able to convey any emotions, feelings, wants, needs. If he's hungry he won't say "my eating-hole feels sad"
Sure whatever.
Amazing argument, you sure did put me in my place.
You are Canadian. The reason you are not attacked is not because you guys are so much more "aware" of the world than the US, but rather because you are inconsequential and uninvolved in the world.
Now, this may be just because I'm Canadian and have never witnessed the American educational curriculum, but when you compare the politics to, let's say, math ratio, isn't the time spent on politics a small fraction fo the time spent on math and similar topics?
You guys can waste your children's time all you like up there. A final caveat: if you teach your children about other forms of government, economics, etc... they will want Canada to be the 51st state of the US.
At 2/5/06 08:44 PM, Geordi_LaForge wrote: Newton's Laws aren't accurate.
Newton's Laws are very accurate at the readily observable scale.
Einstein disproved Newton's "laws" with his general theory of relativity.
Einstein also reinforced the laws of conservation with E=mc^2.
Have you any idea of the power of magnetism and magnetic fields? Part of the reason why the sun is so insanely hot is some spots is due to twisted magnetic fields.
You have to ask yourself is it the charged particles creating the magnetic field or the magnetic field creating the charge.
Like pox said, science isn't set in stone, it's just a set of observations.
Science is both theory and observation. Sometimes theory leads to observation and sometimes oservation leads to theory. But when there is a conflict between the two, it is often theory that wins, unless it is a case where the theory was just a small or special case of a grander theory. While it is possible that this is the case for the conservation laws, I find it incredibly unlikely. I refuse to accept what mainstream science suggests is impossible without a detailed study that confirms these observations reported by your "sources."
At 2/5/06 05:01 PM, -poxpower- wrote: That's why its awesome, it goes against the law of energy conservation :o Or, it seems to.
Therein lies the problem, ignoramus. How can it be a law if it is violated? Either the conservation laws are not laws or this mystical fantastic "N machine" is a farce. I cannot believe you insult people for having faith in God while you assert that you can pull energy out of your ass.
At 2/5/06 04:54 PM, Imperator wrote: And it's pure stupidity to assume that our boys are over there taking potshots out of boredom, JoS. That's disrespectful, they live their lives in danger on a daily basis, I don't think they're exacly "bored", or as bored as you'd have to be to take shots at random moving vehicles........
I can see them getting really bored, but that would never stop a soldier from doing his job as best he can. And why not? Because it saves people's lives. That is the reason you always stick to SOP 99.9% of the time. No one wants to see their buddy dead and no one wants to live with killing someone for the rest of their life.
At 2/5/06 03:52 PM, sea_food wrote: I think we can both agree that infants are infants, and should be left out of this.
You said people expect children to understand religion from birth with the example of Catholic baptism.
How is that different from understanding basic political ideology? It isn't, both stem from core ethical beliefs.
List some basic political ideology. I guarentee you it is a lot more complex than God creating the universe and asking people to love him and one another.
Are you implying that a 12 year old's creative writing, syntax, or spelling is the one at fault? Or another one at that.
I am implying that a twelve-year-old has not mastered language or ethics, .
Welcome to the global village. If everyone had been aware of international issues, 9-11 would've never happened.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHA
AH
HAHAHAH
H
AHA
AH
HAAA
AH
A
No.
For some people, nothing is more important than television or internet drama or otherwise still superfluous issues.
So you want to force them to take more courses that they have no interest in? The main purpose of primary education in the United States is to produce basically educated citizens with a good since of civic responsibility, which includes understanding the political climate and inner workings of the United States.
At 2/5/06 03:10 PM, sea_food wrote: Then why bring your 5 year-old to church, synagogue, temple, etc?
I said infant. But a five-year-old is capable of understanding basic religious principles, gets a good influence and possibly role models, makes friends, and I would not have to pay for a babysitter.
My example of being able to master ethics, languages, etc. was reffering to children around more or less 12 years of age, as not every child has the same mental skills.
I am not quite sure what you mean by ethics and language. Have you read anything written by a twelve-year-old?
You never learned about other, or alternative, forms of government.
I learned about other governments and economic systems in high school. Why should I need to learn that in elementary and middle school? That stuff was not pertinent to anything in my life at the time, unlike American government.
Nothing is more important than knowing how the world is controlled.
I did not have to read a textbook to figure that out.
At 2/5/06 02:40 PM, sea_food wrote: Well I think that's a big load of shit. If children are expected to understand religion as early as birth (being baptized, as an example)
No one expects an infant to understand anything; they are less intelligent than dogs.
and are able to master something as complex as algebra, physics, language and even ethics!
How old are we talking here? When you say children I assume you mean under thirteen.
then they would certainly be able to understand how the governments, media and economic systems work.
In elementary school we learned all kinds of things about the US government like the Constitution, the three branches and their checks and balances, bicameral legislature, etc... I would argue that children under thirteen do not need to know about the economy or the "media," whatever that means, and should focus on more important studies.
At 2/5/06 01:26 PM, red_skunk wrote: It depends on what you're talking about. Biodiesel and cellulosic ethanol produce enough net power to be viable, it's really just an economies of scale problem right now.
We are talking about two different things. Biofuel cells use bacteria to break down organic compounds and release energy, which is what I thought he was referring to since he mentioned meat. Biodiesel is amazing and is just as efficient a fuel as normal diesel. Personally, I feel that biodiesel is more practical for widespread use than hydrogen.
At 2/5/06 12:05 PM, AntiangelicAngel wrote: Hey, genious, it work by stripping the H2 molecules of their electrons, making H- ions, running off of electricity, not combustion.
No shit? Look on the internet, what I said is true. You will find that two pounds of hydrogen has the same potential energy as a gallon of gasoline (I used thermochemistry to calculate the combustion of octane to make it a little more simple, but gasoline would actually net even more energy). Then, if you convert two pounds of hydrogen to moles, you would find that it is about 450 moles. Now use the ideal gas law at STP and you will find that it is about 11,000 liters.
The only thing that I did not account for is the efficiency of engines running on both sources.
At 2/5/06 12:28 PM, Wesley_Crusher wrote: Lolz, I remember reading about these robots that could run off of organic material like plants or meat.
Yeah those are biofuel cells. The problem is they produce very very little power.
At 2/4/06 05:55 PM, -poxpower- wrote: And does anyone here have any links to articles that show this as a hoax? I'm ready to believe it is, it sounds pretty amazing, but please stop being a bunch of idiots and actualy show me instead of going "NOOOOOOOO ITS NOT POSSABLE OMG NO EISNTEINN NIOOOTON"
If you had a basic understanding of physics then you would probably be saying that, too.
"Anybody with even a basic degree in Hyperbolic Topography should be able to understand this." Gotta love those Simpsons.
The US would win because we would just attack everyone else early since we seem to be the only ones who understand preemptive attack.
At 2/4/06 12:53 PM, Wesley_Crusher wrote: The hurdles aren't that huge.
The hurdles are making it widely available safely, efficiently, and economically. We are far from there.
This is the dumbest thing I have ever heard of. The most theoretically efficient engine is the Carnot heat engine, which is not even possible to build. Perpetual motion and so-called free energy is nothing but a pipe dream.
Hydrogen power is extremely over hyped. Using simple thermochemistry you will find that the volume of hydrogen that is energy-equivalent to a gallon of gasoline is 10,900 liters at STP with three significant figures. So this means that to fit those 10,900 liters of hydrogen gas at STP into the same volume as a gas tank, you would have containers of a highly volatile gas (which can be made less volatile with impurities like metals) with an incredible amount of pressure, which makes them very dangerous.
I submit that the US begin taking more advantage of biodiesel. Bush spoke about it briefly in his address. Europe and some American universities have been using it in their public transportation for almost twenty years now. It burns almost completely clean, is more viscous than normal diesel, so it actually cleans your engine while cooling and lubricating it, and can be made with a wide range of plant and animal products. I made some myself with a friend of mine just for the hell of it while we were in junior high. I went to McDonald's, asked them for some of their used cooking oil, bought a couple over-the-counter ingredients, and had my own biodiesel (and soap, which is a byproduct) a few hours later with the use of a blender. I have only named a few of the advantages of biodiesel, but best of all when it burns it smells like FRENCH FRIES. Check it out.
At 2/3/06 01:59 PM, -poxpower- wrote: then why'd you post?
I was doing you a favor by actually contributing something interesting.
Actualy its 1.6 million
Let's see here. Should I trust the AMVER officer who briefed us on it, or you, a Canadian who obviously has no sense of the quantitative value of life. Tough call.
At 2/3/06 12:05 PM, JoS wrote: On the ground, a warning shot from a pistol, rifle, or shotgun is fired into the air, and is a sufficiently aggressive act to demand attention, and alert onlookers that they might be shot if directions are not followed. Notice the term fired into the air, as opposed to fired into the engine block of a slow moving car full of diplomats.
That is just not how the military operates, especially when we are talking about vehicles.
Read this souldier's blog, not for the brilliant commentary about the Italian event, but for the good description of standard SOP for stopping vehicles.
Pointless topic, but interestingly the average life of a human being is worth $2.1 million to the US government.
You know what is hilarious? Saddam would get more due process in a US military tribunal than he would get in civil courts in just about anywhere else, including Iraq, the UK, Antartica, and CANADA. Sucks to be Saddam.
At 2/2/06 09:33 PM, cylon wrote: But instead of greed we'll have the greatest motivator of all - some deadly space anomaly that has us by the balls!
Resistance is futile...
At 2/2/06 11:19 PM, Imperator wrote: Excuse me if I don't trust the Wikipedia right off the bat......
Where are our army guys out there? Little help?
Not exactly Army, but close enough, I suppose. The information in Wikipedia is true. The only thing that I take issue with is some of the stuff it says about Delta Force. But then again, no one really knows too much about them except the Pentagon brass and those who are in it, and my information is probably as likely incorrect as Wikipedia's.
I think that given the circumstances and time that vision could be reached. Think of how much hate and inequality would be settled just by having everyone's material, energy, and medical needs satisfied. Then consider how much a couple hundred years of progress would do. Think of how far we have come in equality in the past decade. And after that, the things like world government would just fall into place. But of course I imagine the world of Star Trek still had its share of human terrorist groups.
I think the most difficult part of that vision to reach would be the whole thing about humanity no longer reaching out and discovering and making progress motivated by greed, since there is really nothing to gain than fame anymore, but rather through determination for self-betterment. I could easily see us move away from a technically oriented civilization to being more arts and culture centered.
I suppose the question to ask is whether or not humanity explores out of a calling to reach out and discover -- or if it is just a matter of greed and the desire to accumulate more things.
At 2/2/06 06:45 PM, JoS wrote: Also I can tfind the story right now, but a US Army unit (I think rangers) lost in a war game to Canadian reservists.
Yeah, and US Air Force F-15's lost in war games to the Indian Air Force. So what? No one disputes the fact that if we were to actually engage them in combat the Indian Air Force would be easily defeated. The same is true of Canada.
It is Army SOP to give all necessary signals to halt a vehicle before opening fire. They do not even have to give warning shots, so be grateful that they did. My guess would be that the Canadians were not paying attention, did not understand, or ignored the signals. I find it EXTREMELY unlikely that US troops just decided to say heck with the SOP and start shooting up cars that do not pose an immediate threat. Especially, when you have a convoy of five humvees full of troops presumably corroborating the story purported by the military.
The United States is a republic. Always has been, always will be. If you fail to see that, you are bind.
At 2/1/06 10:25 PM, Tyler_Durden0 wrote: This may seem out of place but my friend brian is an aspiring writer and told me this one day. Its a bit of a story, which may seem out of place at first, but if you read it all the way to the end, it will all make sense.
The difference is simple. We like living in the US and having the freedoms and securities that are provided to us as citizens. The Iraqis were slaughtered and tortured wholesale by their own government, women were exploited, and civil rights were suppressed. That stupid story speaks more to the American Revolution than Operation Iraqi Freedom.
At 2/1/06 10:43 AM, Slizor wrote: Don't mope, it's unbecoming of you. Anyhow, I thought you were "the bigger man" who didn't "stoop" to random insults. Obviously intellectual honesty is not your strong point, although I fail to see what could be.
That was not an insult. I think the American need for more English training is about on par with the Brit need for more critical thinking training. Questions?
At 2/1/06 09:40 AM, Slizor wrote: I personally think the US needs to focus on writing - there are enough examples around this board to show you why I think this.
If that is true then the UK should focus on critical thinking.
At 1/31/06 11:19 PM, BeFell wrote: Wan't the theory used in Quantum Leap something like time is like a wadded up string with several points touching other points making it possible to "leap" at those connections?
Yes, one can "leap" between times in ones on lifetime (except in the case where Sam leaped into his great-grandfather during the Civil War).
...
And for the record, I love Quantum Leap.
At 1/31/06 11:24 PM, Imperator wrote: didn't you mention the f-22 as one of these "unneeded" technologies....?
It is true. The F-22 is definitely unneeded, but has fortunately made up for itself as a testbed for new technologies. The breakthroughs in stealth, thrust vectoring, and avionics were the most important part of the F-22 program. As far as the F-22 itself goes, we do not need it. The F-22 is an air superiority fighter, meaning that its primary role is intercepting and destroying other aircraft. This role is already more than fulfilled by the F-15 and does not justify the cost of the F-22 program and the cost of an actual F-22. The F-35, however, will prove extremely useful in future operations with its air-to-ground capabilities.
But as I was saying earlier, the technological capabilities that the F-22 demonstrated will prove to be extremely applicable to aircraft that we have a use for. Check out the FB-22 and the MANTA. Just thinking about it gives me goose bumps.
