venomai

that's some serious origami you got there =D> I see your Dollar Shirt, and raise you a Dollar Koi Fish. :)

The purpose of living is to survive another day. Humans, and any species that can question this basic need to survive, may be motivated by other factors. For example: religion, spirituality, morals, family, money, happiness, experience, etc. I personally view life as an experience that is to be enjoyed. :D

Rehabilitating a developing teen would be far better for them than life in prison. Crazy world where sitting in a small jail cell is what we call "taking responsibility" for your actions.

Of course, due to natural selection, the evolution of humans is not just a random process. :lol:

This isn't an extinct or unknown animal. It's a decomposing raccoon. See the hands and skull. http://flickr.com/photos/smashz/5257082 ... otostream/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/campnaturalist/490424505/ (Alternatively, it may be some elaborate hoax tied in with the Montauk Monster story... But it seems more likely that it's just a dead animal.)

Chances are, they do exist. Just not here. Chances are, they don't. Y Guy is correct. Got anything to support that assertion? Given the immensity of the multiverse, it would be irrational to believe that Earth is the only planet which can bear life. :lol:

Chances are, they do exist. Just not here. Sorry, no aliens today. What makes these three days any different?

I'm coughing up a lung after one tobacco cigarette. How much we can smoke is dependent on how much tolerance we've built up to the drug. Of course, most people will pass out after that much cannabis. :lol:

Are you referring to the clearly visible car on the old $10 bill? http://www.snopes.com/business/money/model-t.asp I'm not aware of any microscopic cars on the newer bills...

The Origin of Life Made Easy The series begins with the history of the universe. Highly recommended! This is explained by a number of logical errors and a general misunderstanding of evolution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoyle%27s_Fallacy This is an article I often link to that explains alien life for laypeople. It's a little outdated, and purely speculative, but it's an interesting read nevertheless. http://www.krysstal.com/extrlife.html You might also be interested in reading about the Drake Equation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation "Frank Drake's own current solution to the Drake Equation estimates 10,000 communicative civilizations in the Milky Way. Dr. Drake, who serves on the SETI League's advisory board, has personally endorsed SETI's planned all-sky survey." From: http://www.setileague.org/general/drake.htm The results of the equation largely depend on the accuracy of the given variables. Here is a calculator that you can fool with: http://www.activemind.com/Mysterious/To ... ation.html

Strunk isn't suggesting we knock a novel down to a page. He is suggesting that we remove superfluous material to ensure that the work as a whole has meaning, rather than only particular sections having meaning. Trapical's post certainly is a breath of fresh air, and I greatly appreciate somebody who takes the time to write down their thoughts in full, structured English. However, I feel that his writing style can be greatly impproved by choosing his words in a more concise manner. This is, of course, just a piece of advice, one which he is welcome to reject. :lol:

Sure you can. Nice scapegoat, though. :lol: The effects vary widely depending on the drug and its usage. The use of drugs such as alcohol, heroin and tobacco can potentially lead to many negative health effects. However, this does not mean that the use of these substances will always cause harm. A drink of alcohol a day, for example, has shown to be benefitial to one's health and longevity. It is misleading to claim all drugs are harmful, yet not extremely.

Less harmful in what ways? Care to elaborate with some sources? :)

The above is simply a narrow expression of how you personally feel the rest of us should live. (1) This is entirely dependent on the individual. To some, "making things just to sell" (i.e. profit) can bring more joy than production for personal use. (2) This too is dependent on the individual. After a long day of labour, the last thing on my mind is more labour. (3) True happiness can come from both production and consumption. For me, kicking back with a beer and/or a joint and "consuming" the beautiful view of an open lake brings me a great deal of happiness. Others may prefer to "consume" artificial imagery on a television screen. Who are you to tell me that these feelings of happiness are "not real"? :lol: Welcome back, Trapical. I'll leave you with a quote. I urge you to take its advice. :) Vigorous writing is concise. A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary parts. This requires not that the writer make all his sentences short, or that he avoid all detail and treat his subjects only in outline, but that every word tell. -- William Strunk Jr.

You'll find that most debates don't end in "proven" conclusions. Conclusions, especially those about metaphysics and morality, do not need to be reached by means of empirical evidence. It's not unheard of for a theist to turn atheist after thoroughly debating the mere logic and reasoning of god's existence. As your definition shows, the question of god's existence has nothing to say about religion. Certain religions may include the question of god's existence, but that is not the only question that is asked in a true religious debate. I disagree. Conclusions about god are made all the time through the process of discourse and critical thinking. Whether or not the conclusion can be supported by concrete empirical evidence is irrelevant. To illustrate my point: I've come to the conclusion that flying pink unicorns do not exist, but I cannot prove that they do not exist.

By that logic you keep moderation at a moderation and therefore do something insane instead Everything in moderation, including moderation, but not including any further moderation of moderation. :lol:

Thanks for the link. Neat stuff. On a similar note... This week, MESSENGER made its second fly-by of Mercury, snapping some angles and close-ups that we haven't seen before. You can see the new photos here: http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/gallery/sci ... te=2008-10

Everything in moderation.

Debates require logic, not empirical proof. Debates on metaphysics and morality, for example, need not rely on empirical evidence in order to create an interesting and thought-provoking discussion. And "religion" does not equate to "theism." If this thread -- which is about religion -- was to evolve into a debate, there's no reason to assume it must also degrade into "There is a God" vs. "There is no God." With that said, even a debate as straight-forward as that can have a great deal of substance to it.

I find it a bit excessive that they need to add 3D and animation capabilities to a photo editing tool. 'Content Aware Scaling' is perhaps the most interesting feature in the new release. The quick brush resizing will also be useful. Otherwise, the extra junk is not worth my money and hard drive space.

I think a distinction needs to be made between those who have a naturally thin body type (genetics, environment, lifestyle) and those who force themselves into a thin body by means of an eating disorder, such as anorexia. Should we support the latter as an attractive image that young men and women should strive for? If the inability to gain an appropriate amount of weight becomes a problem, the individual should speak to a doctor and/or do some research online. Usually the issue is resolved through a well-balanced diet and a change in lifestyle habits (e.g. exercising more often). Zox: Please quote and cite the text which you did not write. I hate to see you take credit for another artist's work. If discussion on the mere politics of copyright infringement is disallowed here at TIF, I suspect the act of copyright infringement would be met with even harsher reactions.

Again; that is a subjective effect, and we are talking about objective, observable health effects. We don't need to try acid to understand how it affects our body and brain. :lol: I've been smoking marijuana for years now. Aside from the rare psychedelic, weed is my drug of choice. I've got plenty of experience with it. Of course, I'm not ragging on the drug itself; I'm simply ragging on the foolish and blatantly incorrect claims you are presenting here in this thread. PS: That code of yours is a myth. Good setting and a well-taught technique will be sure to get most first-timers noticeably high and enjoying the effects. The two first-time smokers I was with last weekend were far more baked than I.

How doesn't it tell us much? I had a completely different view on drugs before I ever tried them. I really don't think there's anything out there that can compare to a personal experience. I was changed in much the same way after trying drugs for the first time. The subjective experience will show us obvious things like: smoking a doob won't kill me immediately, won't lead to me wanting to kill my family, won't lead to hearing dogs talk, etc. But to understand how the chemical interacts with the body/brain, as well as understanding possible risks associated with regular/chronic use, we will need to study the drug's objective effects on humans. That is the sort of understanding I was referring to in my earlier posts.

Nicotiana tabacum is the "purely natural" plant that is cultivated into recreational-use tobacco. Tobacco plants naturally contain small amounts of nicotine. Commercially manufactured cigarettes have a number of additives for flavour and other attributes (just like a juice box has chemical additives). If you hand-roll cigarettes with tobacco, like you would with cannabis, you can eliminate some of these additives. The process that goes into cultivating any illicit drug, though, is far from "natural." Many different chemical sprays are used in the process of growing decent grade bud. Some chemicals are used to keep the plants growing strong, and others are used as "additives" for flavour, appearance, texture, etc. Simply because a plant grows naturally doesn't mean that the mass cultivation of the drug is equally as clean and "natural." More importantly, natural doesn't necessarily mean healthy; and conversely, synthetic doesn't necessarily mean unhealthy. Datura, tobacco, Amanita muscaria: these are some examples of naturally occurring drugs which can lead to serious physical and/or psychological consequences (in the case of datura and the caps, potentially fatal) when consumed. A physical addiction is also something that you can get over. However, for some, a psychological dependence can be far more difficult to rid than a physical dependence.

Subjectively feeling high might help you better understand what it personally feels like to be high, but it will give you no insight as to how the drug affects your brain and body. Ok. :lol: Have you actually got anything in response to my earlier post? Sometimes I would agree with you, but when we are attempting to better understand the effects of a drug on our body and brain, subjective experience does not always tell us much. ;)