assassin_696

Don't set up strawmen and assume that i'd discredit that love. The only reason I'd consider discrediting it is because the child is unlikely to be of an age where she can reasonably decide whether or not to reciprocate, and so the adult might take advantage. However I wouldn't be so quick to assume that the forty year old's feelings weren't genuine. Besides, the comparison is not appropriate and I disagree with your final statement. Clearly you can apply different standards to people of different maturities in life. Why equate theft to biological attraction? They're clearly not appropriate to compare.

Nice thread. Although the pages of history are littered with stories of incredible scientists, none seemed to come to mind at first for me. The areas of science I know most about are not to be full of people who are advancing medical science, or indeed science with much practical application. But a scientist who I think is by and large underappreciated is Michael Faraday. His work on electricty and magnetism pioneered the way for electrical engineering and the link between the subjects, with obviously incredibly many applications nowadays. However he was not born into any kind of wealth, and worked his way up as a scientist with little formal training and being largely self taught. When he gained recognition he used his reknown educate the public with exciting and vivid lectures (see the Faraday Cage). In his later life he spent a great deal of time and effort on public service duties as well as continuing his research. He also refused to develop chemical weapons for the Crimean War for ethical reasons. Unlike many brilliant scientists of that era, I think Faraday was a wonderful person as well as wonderful intellect.

Haha, snap. Have you heard that Vol VIII that he's released? I think it only came out this December, it has a strange title. I haven't heard it yet.

This is where the balloon analogy starts to fall down. For it to work you have to imagine that the entire Universe is on the flat surface of the balloon, and this is all we know. The analogy is useful because we can obviously see the other dimensions which the balloon can expand in, we are one dimension higher than the balloon world inhabitants. To extend the balloon picture to three dimensions is harder (I've never really been able to do it) because we live in a three dimensional (spatial) world, and so can't easily imagine four dimenions. Yes, Andromeda is coming towards us, but I believe this is simply due to loaclised gravitational effects. Nearly every other galaxy is redshifted.

The complete West Wing DVD set, a few books, Baileys and some chocolates. :)

It's only 4:30 and I already seem to have a thick head.

42 more minutes to go for me, but merry christmas all the same! I hope everyone has a great day.

I read an interesting explanation of why homosexuality as some sort of genetic trait (and not a specific gene) might be preferentially selected for. If the gene (for want of a better word, since there will be no single 'gay gene') improved fertility in women but increased homosexual tendencies in men then it could have an advantage. I found this interesting because homosexuality seems like a counter-intuitive thing to be preferentially selected for, although I suspected there was some deeper reason why. On a slightly more idealistic note, to those who insist it isn't a choice: if you've ever fallen in love with someone, did you make a conscious choice to do so? It doesn't matter what sex the person is. This is partly rhetorical, because in my own experiences being attracted to someone isn't something that you can switch on and off, it's not a choice you can make. Yes, there are choices that you make that perhaps lead you to being more or less attracted to someone, but at the fundamental level I don't think that there's much choice involved. If this is the case for heterosexual attraction why should it be different for homosexual attraction?

McCarney's 'secret' project. Their old stuff is suposed to be pretty good as well. I must admitt that I've only heard the new record, which was alright. But in time of the first album nobody knew that Paul was behind it. He also didn't lend his vocals to the project. I wonder how it sounds. I like it because of the secrecy behind it. You hear the stuff he gets onto the radio and it's pretty decent but middle of the road pop music, and then he's got this creative outlet generating all this great alternative music. I suppose it's not like he needs the money from attaching his name to the project, but still.

Saw it last night, not particularly out of choice but it wasn't drastically bad. I just found the contrast between the typical teen behaviour going on all around these Byronic mysterious vampires quite funny. I also liked this song that played over part of the film, apparently the guy (Robert Pattinson) who plays Edward wrote it: WVHqNZy68Qs

Labrador retrivers or golden retrivers. We always used to have black labs, but I fancy a golden retriever myself when I'm older. I also quite like some larger breeds, like those huskie dogs and Saint Bernards. To be honest as long it's a reasonable size, I hate small yappy dogs.

Universal Here, Everlasting Now - The Fireman Restored my faith in Paul McCartney with a vengeance.

I despise The Sex Pistols, but like The Clash, Stiff Little Fingers and The Ramones.

I'm failing to see the ethical dilemna in destroying three potential lives in order to save an actual life. And as Lateralus said, if I was the brother who donated blood I think I'd be quite proud that I was actually brought into this world with a good purpose in life, and then could live my own.

You May Me Feel Like Crying - Roy Orbison God this guy had a voice.

I know, my modern popular science reading was in part a bizarre attempt to make myself more attractive to Cambridge and other universities on my personal statement, and partly because there seemed to be so many interesting things out there that I had to know about. I'm trying to wean myself back onto literature but books seem to accumulate on my shelves faster than I can read them, so I've still got a lot of science ones to 'get through'. I've bought The Brothers Karamazov though and will probably start reading it over Christmas, I also dip into Shakespeare and poetry every now and again. I find the talent of Shakespeare really astounding when I read his stuff. Haven't read Young Contrarian, it's on my Amazon wishlist I've just never got round to getting it. It looks good though, although I'm not entirely sure what it's about. Primarily advice to someone on how to be an individual thinker isn't it?

I can't exaggerate how much I love reading and books generally, my only regret is that I don't spend more time doing it. Because I like this kind of thing, I've kept a list of what i've read this year, personal favourites are in bold. [hide=]1. My Booky Wook - Russell Brand 2. Enhancing Evolution: The Ethical Case For Making Better People - John Harris 3. The Fabric Of The Cosmos - Brian Greene 4. Finding Moonshine: A Mathematician's Journey Through Symmetry - Marcus du Sautoy 5. The Audacity Of Hope - Barrack Obama 6. The Importance of Being Earnest - Oscar Wilde 7. Chaos: A Very Short Introduction - Leonard Smith 8. The Golden Age Of Mathematics - Keith Devlin 9. The Economic Naturalist: Why Economics Explains Almost Everything - Robert H Frank 10. Northern Lights - Phillip Pullman 11. Relativity: The Special And The General Theory - Albert Einstein 12. The Subtle Knife - Phillip Pullman 13. The Amber Spyglass - Phillip Pullman 14. Origins: Fourteen Billion Years of Cosmic Evolution - Neil degrasse Tyson & Donald Goldsmith 15. The Black Hole War: My Battle With Stephen Hawking to Make the World Safe for Quantum Mechanics - Leonard Susskind 16: Breaking The Spell - Daniel C Dennett 17. The Age Of Turbulence - Alan Greenspan 18. The Portable Atheist - Christopher Hitchens 19. Casino Royale - Ian Fleming 20. Live and Let Die - Ian Fleming 21. The Comprehensible Cosmos - Victor J. Stenger 22. Moonraker - Ian Fleming[/hide] I'm currently reading The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing by Richard Dawkins, Hidden Unity In Nature's Laws by John C. Taylor and The Picture of Dorian Gray by Oscar Wilde.

[hide=] [/hide] I know it's beautiful, but I find that song quite eerie and difficult to listen to. For Emma - Bon Iver

They're fantastic live, you'll enjoy :)

I've taken this a few times with school activities and I consistently get the INTP type. Given that it's typically quite a rare type I find it interesting how many there are on here (or INTJ), which I suppose goes to show how likeminded people tend to congregate, roughly. When I've taken it with friends three of us were INTP's and one was an INTJ.

Don't underestimate the power of language. It might be a name, but the connotations are undeniable and obvious. Those parents are completely irresponsible.

This isn't a typical trade-cycle recession. It's the most significant financial event since 1929.

To be fair on Bush, that was one hell of a dodge.

Those parents are idiots if they think that this is a clever little stand against prejudice and bias. Who on earth could possibly say they loved their child then give him the name that possibly has the worst connotations of any other? If they don't change it that child should be taken off them.

Do you dream? Because if not i'm not interested. It's an interesting idea though, one I could see myself possibly pursuing when I was older and could get away with being a little more eccentric.