assassin_696

There's no ifs or buts about it, the world is not going to end. If world destroying black holes could be created by these kind of collisions they would have done so long ago in the upper atmosphere through cosmic ray bombardment. People keep going on about how no one knows what's going to happen. That's true, to an extent, because we've never had detectors the size of cathedrals up in the atmosphere, but whatever happens we can be damn sure that the world won't end because cosmic rays are far more energetic.

Yea, Blood on the Tracks is so amazing. If You See Her, Say Hello, oh I love that song. And Idiot Wind. And a lot of other songs. Still, there's so much amazing material. It's hard to choose. Have you listened to those Bootleg albums? If You See Her is pretty much my favourite Dylan song ever. Actually the first time I heard it was Jeff Buckley's cover, but I think the original is just perfect. I haven't heard any of the bootleg albums, are they any good? I always thought I would prefer his original recordings over those. Going To Your Funeral, Pt. 1 - Eels

I have a friend who swears blind that the moon-landings never happened. We were away on a holiday when the argument happened so we couldn't check the internet to back up our arguments so it didn't really go anywhere. Conspiracy theories always sound so compelling because it's much more interesting to believe it's all a coverup.

Whoa, that is interesting. Where'd you find that? I wanna read a bit more about it. Victor J. Stenger has explained the concept in some detail in his books, but since I can't find any online sources that quote him directly i'll point you to a review of two of his books, here. From the review: I'll try and find some better sources or just read the books and put it into my own words.

Those lists are always clichés, often the voters just seem to go for their favourite songs with guitars in them, not necessarily solos. I can't really be bothered searching, but Maggot Brain by Funkadelic doesn't appear to be on there (at least not in the top 40), which frankly throws the rest of the list into question.

On reflection, this probably just belongs in this thread. It's just a different take on what aspect of the relationship the advice is about. Locked.

Pretty much the same concept as this thread. Locked

She sounds charming.

Interestingly, with regards to the origins of matter/energy, there's no particular reason to believe why nothingness should be the default position. In fact, all the evidence points towards nothingness/vacuums being inherently unstable, quickly decaying into "something". Therefore it would be far more curious if there was a sustained period of nothingness, this would be more likely to indicate divine intervention.

[hide=] Why not? The 9th and 10th Amendments. I'm not saying they should ban it at all, that would be as invalid as mandating it should be legal. It should just be left to state legislatures. Right, and there are state legislatures who have bans ready and rearing to go if Roe vs. Wade is ever overturned. So I ask you this: what other things would you leave only to the state legislatures? I asked Jack about the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which technically by your definition is unconstitutional. This is exactly why I cannot stand our Bill of Rights, and why I agreed with James Madison. I know people who do not think Universal Health Care is a "right", simply because it's not listed in the Bill of Rights. [/hide] Fair enough then. I'm not American, and know very little about the Constitution or Bill of Rights. I was just following the 9th and 10th Amendments to what I thought to be their logical conclusions, clearly that's problematic. I think i'd agree with James Madison as well.

Normally I can work with any kind of music in the background, but when i'm reading certain books or struggling with some difficult concept i'll tend to just mute it so I can focus for a bit. I've also found Sun Kil Moon is nice music to have on in the background when i'm somewhere in between.

Rarex, I know you've got it endlessly in this thread but i'm genuinely being sincere here: stop being so cocky, and have a little humility. I like the idea of a thread where likeminded individuals can post and chat about working out, but it's just no fun to post in when you're endlessly judging other people, bragging or being condescending. You're probably reasonably strong, it's okay, we get it. But there's always going to be someone bigger than you and you have to learn to accept that. I find people who are honest about their weaknesses are much more interesting to talk to.

My favourite Dylan album :) Jailbreak - Thin Lizzy

I think i'd most likely be someone who would love to see my children grow into independent, rational adults, since I love and respect knowledge. I'd want my children to grow into individuals, I wouldn't push my own agendas or perrogatives and would always try and respect their opinions and wishes. Generally, i'd probably be pretty laid-back and flexible with regards to most things. I think i'd always try and have fun with my kids, and get a lot out of it. I have a young niece, who I've seen grow from a tiny baby into almost a little girl now, and I adore her. But no way am I ready myself, not for a long time.

Please use the sticky for this request.

Sounds intense as hell.. I've been an avid gym goer for some 7-8 years but don't think I've heard of that method before. Can 10x10 rep sets really build mass... Guess I've got to take the articles word for it. I still stick to mass basics for the upper body; Though I've modified it over the years... I do 6 reps at 90% of my max, 120 second rest between sets, and repeat 4 times with final set on 100% of max, 2 reps. Doesn't take long & has brought stable results. When I tried it I struggled to find the right weight to do 10x10 at, I think I went a bit low so it never really felt like I was pushing it even on the last set, but I think much heavier and i'd have been really struggling. By the sounds of it we do similar routines although I'm probably still trying to eek out more reps even close to my max. I find if I can do one or two I can usually do a few more on top. My biggest gripe with chest is that because I don't train with anyone I don't have a spotter, so i'm reluctant to go balls to the wall in case I just can't push it up. Which is why I tend to try and break my records with the dumbell press and then see if they translate to the bench. Usually they do.

I got really into them about the time they released Zeitgeist last year. I don't really have any particularly favourite albums, although I don't really think they ever did anything better than Mellon Collie or Siamese Dream.

Stone The Crow - Down Hell of a song

Aw what the hell, I haven't done this kind of thing in ages: The White Stripes Bon Iver Fleet Foxes Eels Tool Radiohead The Smiths The Black Keys Bob Dylan Wolfmother

Out of curiosity has anyone here ever tried German Volume Training? A guy who I see at the gym now and again swears by it, and I tried it once on my chest day but it just didn't quite feel like I was pushing myself like I was with my normal workout. But maybe I need to stick at it a bit longer, I just wondered if anyone here had had any experience with it.

Not the raw results, but the overall results i'm sure will be widely read and reported in a way that will be understood. I'll take a stab at explaining the Higgs boson, what the machine was primarily built to discover. The Standard Model of particle physics is an extremely accurate and powerful theory, however if you take the equations to their logical conclusion then they say that every particle should be massless. Clearly this isn't the case, so there must be something wrong. To rectify this problem, a Scottish physicist, Peter Higgs proposed that there is a field that permeates the entire universe, and whether or not particles interact with the field determines their mass. For example, the neutron "talks to" the field in a special way that determines its mass, whereas the photon, which is massless, doesn't, and passes through the field. Peter Higgs explained it like a room full of people. If I (a photon) walked into the room, no one would take any notice and the room would remain normal. But if a celebrity (neutron) walked into the room then everyone would crowd round them and their movement would be slowed. Since every field has a particle associated with it, the Higgs field must have a particle, the Higgs boson, which is what the LHC will be looking for. However the Higgs boson is predicted to be very heavy, and like most other heavy particles, will probably decay very quickly. Therefore the LHC will never actually "see" a Higgs boson, instead the detectors will look for the telltale tracks of two muons which the Higgs decays into. If they repeatedly see these predicted muons tracks in hundreds of repeated experiments then the LHC can claim to have discovered the Higgs boson, and the mechanism for how particles gain mass will be verified. If they don't, it means the theory is wrong and we're missing something really fundamental, and that's quite exciting too.

Sometimes the great discoveries have been made when we've been researching simply for truth's sake. Besides, who's to say what should take precedence when universities and benefactors decide to allocate money? If people really didn't think this was important, it wouldn't have got the funding. But it did, and that's democracy.

There's possibilities of finding the Higgs Boson, fixing the holes in the Standard Model and quantum gravitational data that might even lead to a theory of everything. I'm really excited about it. ... So? I'd rather be curious and know the world is a better place than have answers and yet have a good proportion of the world dying from hunger and diseases. Thanks. Such a cliché, as if throwing money at the third-world is going to solve all its problems.

A lot of the biggest breakthroughs throughout human history have come about through research with no obvious uses. Penicillin I believe is one of the big examples. As for a better use of 4 billion, that's subjective, but in my mind there is no better way to spend money than these kind of investigations into the truth. People's default reaction when they hear large sums of money seems to be that it should be spent on hospitals or education. My response would be that the money has come from many, many different contributing countries, and when broken down isn't much more than the operating budget for an average sized university. A lot of medicine has to thank CERN for side research they've done into things like NMRI scans and radiotherapy. The Apollo moon landings inspired a generation of scientists who helped improve the standards of living for all of us. It might just take another experiment like this to inspire the next generation. There's also the case for spending money on science, simply because it's interesting, which I think should be much stronger in most people's minds.

She's Lost Control - Joy Division