assassin_696

Meh, I listened to three songs of his and ordered his new album and the old one he did with that other group. So yeah I'd say so :P

So I was poking through the iTunes Blues section yesterday looking to see if there was any new original blues music, and I came across this guy; Seasick Steve. Apparently he's become a bit of a cult figure at all the festivals he's played across the UK this summer. He's a Mississippi bluesman who dresses like a tramp, a one man band with an old battered three string guitar he bought for $75 (he tells the story of how he was ripped off) and a wooden box with a bit of carpet which he stamps on for percussion. And he's absolutely fantastic. a video of him playing on the Jools Holland show. He's properly, properly raw, and just what I think the blues should sound like. Has anybody else heard of him or listened to any of his stuff? You might have to be a blues fan to really like him, but I would have thought anybody could appreciate how fantastic this guy is. Have a listen, you can get a few MP3's of his off his website.

We can't really prove that we exist, but solipism is a completely unsatisfactory and unfullfilling world view which can lead to nihilism and depression. If everything is a construct of your (my) mind, then so are the plays of Shakespeare, the mathematics of Russell and the symphonies of Beethoven. Which is unlikely, I think it over-eggs the power of the brain. Anyway, you can't refute it, but that doesn't mean it's satisfactory. Philosophically it's a fairly sterile viewpoint. I don't think that means it's not worth discussing though, people like the Matrix and that deals with a similar kind of outlook, except with more leather.

Girls, on tap, bearing steaks. *sigh*...one can dream...

There is no "science belief system", science is not based on quasi-religious/mystical beliefs or superstitions, it's based on evidence and fact. So yeah, you're right that astrology doesn't fit with any experimental evidence.

The Lyre of Orpheus - Nick Cave & the Bad Seeds

I can be a complete introvert at times, and I've never been bullied in my life. I suppose i'm kinda lucky because people at my school recognise me as someone who's quite smart and will probably help them out with their homework if they ask, so I guess it would be a bigger loss for them than me. :P There's no point pretending that i'm super tough so I've never been physcially bullied, but i'm not an easy target. I'm not especially large but I can handle myself, and going to a school where how you play rugby means a lot, i'm lucky that I can get well into a rugby match and I play for the school team, so i've never had to put up with physical bullying. It's the verbal stuff which I'd find harder to deal with, I find it's best to just laugh it off. The more you get wound up the more you let them win. Give 'em the silent treatment and they'll find it harder to react.

I don't think selfishness is a necessary pre-requisite for higher order species, and in fact we're probably the only species which has evolved genuine altruistic tendencies. If anything i'd say we're moving towards a more global, altruistic community, although it will take time. I don't see why intelligent extra-terrestrials would be cruel, selfish and manipulative, viewing the Earth as a big experiment. And I'd be willing to bet the corollary is true. I think if we could travel to other planets we'd go in peace. Another point, if they are sufficiently advanced to travel across vast regions of space presumably relatively quickly, don't you think they might be slightly better at avoiding detection should they wish to? Either way, it doesn't fit.

You might wanna keep your tone a bit more civil Nightsword, watch who you call an idiot.

http://www.pandora.com Stick in a band you like, and it'll come up with alternatives that you can listen to. Or try http://www.last.fm

Add God and that's about it... *steps back* :P Seriously though, astrology is just a non-science which tarnishes the name of astronomy, a proper science. There was a TV program on a couple of weeks ago called The Enemies of Reason, hosted by Richard Dawkins. He did an experiment where he gave a card for next weeks astrology predictions for Saggitarius to people who weren't Saggitarians. But they were told it was for their star sign. They were then asked whether or not it matched up with what they were expecting. 50% said yes, a small minority said no, and the rest didn't believe in it (astrology) anyway. The only Saggitarian also said no. The only reason it fits with some people is because the descriptions, definitions and predictions are so vague they could apply to roughly anybody.

Statistically speaking, it's highly probable that there is intelligent life out there in the Universe. It's also very unlikely that aliens could ever visit us, and even if they could why the heck would they only do it on blurry videos and/or abduct farmers in the mid-west of Texas? Seriously people think about it, if there was alien life out there that had the potential to visit us and was not hostile (they seem like teases more than anything) why wouldn't they show themselves officially, formally? It's completely illogical, and irrational to suppose that all these mysterious shaped objects in the sky must be UFO's, ever heard of secret planes being tested? As for ghosts, well, they don't exist, period. Sadly "ghosts" are very easy to perceive in seemingly harmless photos, images etc. Again, why all the mystery with ghosts, why don't they just come out to the world?

Feel free to repost this when you actually have something to post. Locked.

Sorry, but this is an idea that's been done many-a-time before, and there's a sticky at the top of this fourm for posting screenshots anyway. Your intentions are good, but if everyone did this kind of thing there'd be no point in having that sticky. Locked.

Let There Be More Light - Pink Floyd

The vast majority of people who are committed to pro-life stances are religiously motivated. Although it wouldn't really constitute a proper study, this forum thread shows evidence in favour of that. Of course, the inverse is not true, i.e. all religious people are pro-life, or all atheists/agnostics pro-choice. And that still doesn't answer the question.

Correct me if i'm wrong, but intuitively, the light that we would see would have left earth 200 years ago by the time it got back to earth (100 x 2) would it not? I'm tired, I could be wrong on this.

BlueLancer and BlueTear's definition of the cut-off point beyond which it is unacceptable is the exact same as mine. I'll just clarify a bit on my thoughts (again). When the foetus is capable of being supported outside the mother's body by medical science, and the mother is no longer contingent to the baby's life, that's the cut-off point for me. The earliest a premature baby could be reasonably expected to be kept alive by advanced medical techniques is probably about 24 weeks, although the baby will still potentially suffer serious long term damage if it is born so early. Before this point in my mind the baby cannot be considered viable as a seperate entity and so cannot be defined as a human being and so aborting it is not murder. That does not mean abortions should ever be done lightly, but before that point it should be the decision of the mother who has ultimate control over the baby. I've stated these opinions before, hopefully this makes them slightly clearer. An unconscious person, or a comatose person can clearly be considered viable as a seperate entity so this reasoning does not apply to them. Another point of interest for religiously motivated pro-life people to consider is this; if a zygote is so precious, so special and so sacred, why is it that biologically 1 in 3 pregnancies results in a miscarriage?

A curious consequence of relativity theory is that relativistic mass does increase with speed. But invariant mass (how many atoms are in stuff) does not increase with speed, and is fixed. The use of the word mass to mean relativistic mass confuses lots of people (myself included) when they talk about mass increasing with speed. The rest of the article can be found here http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/R ... /mass.html

Damn, I don't think I could make that list better myself. Only one i'd add would be Steve Vai, for sheer technical virtuosity. As for my personal favourites, Jack White for those killer raw blues riffs, Clapton for the sheer energy and emotion he adds to his playing, and Gilmour for...well just writing some of the most powerful solos ever written. No one has a sense of melody quite like Gilmour.

Sorry, but as the guy above has shown, this idea is on the list, so topics like this will be locked.

We kindly ask that you do not post topics suggesting ideas on that list in the guide at the top, they would just clutter up this board irrelevantly. Sorry, but since this idea is on the list, i'm going to lock this.

Don't worry, i'm not offended at all. :) My school makes the double award scheme compulsory. We cover all the sciences, get 2 grades and it gives us the chance to take more subjects as well, and apparently universities don't look on it any less favourably than triple award. Personally, I would have preferred doing triple award, but that's really just because I like science. Double award is no disadvantage. Heh, nah. I mean that guy probably imposes that kind of routine on himself, but other than that I just guess there are quite a few bright ones in my school. :P

Hehe, you think i'm nerdy? One of my friends came top 5 nationally in 5 subjects out of 10 :shock: He makes me feel postively stupid :P Thanks though mate. :)

Thanks for pointing out that topic, didn't see it. I've merged the two, hope that's okay with everyone. :) Well done in your As levels, you did awesome Ginger. As for my A's, English Lit is a bit dodgy, the headmaster says they're going to inquire because practically no one got an A* in that, music... well I never really could play the guitar, and who needs religion ay? :D