assassin_696

Fly - Nick Drake

I'm torn between Reckoner, The National Anthem, 2+2=5 and Karma Police. I also love the live versions (from the I Might Be Wrong album) of I Might Be Wrong and Like Spinning Plates The mind-melting light show of Paranoid Android when I saw them live also makes that song pretty special for me too.

Grow Till Tall - Jonsi From the new album by the Sigur Ros singer. Beautifully epic.

See The Sky About To Rain - Neil Young Beautiful

Didn't bother with the stress of trying to get a weekend ticket since I didn't know what the lineup was and who was going. Not a great lineup in my opinion but I'd be tempted to get a ticket for the Saturday lineup (although it's the Friday for Leeds). The Gaslight Anthem, Modest Mouse(!!), The Libertines and Arcade Fire or Pendulum would be a good day but we'll see. GNR are well past their prime and I'd be tempted by LCD Soundsystem and Yeasayer (seen QOTSA) but otherwise nothing special, and the Blink 182 day really isn't my thing, except for Band of Horses.

Read both of the websites below in their entirety. Do what you fancy. http://startingstrength.wikia.com/wiki/Starting_Strength_Wiki http://www.crossfit.com/

Now you just seem to be arguing against the data. You don't need a perfectly flat alignment of all the atoms in the universe for a flat universe, it just refers to the what geometric laws the universe obeys on a large scale. A torus shape could still constitute a flat universe. What's this condition that you keep referring to that if you don't have absolute perfect flatness everything will suddenly curl up into a sphere? I don't see why you're dragging Heisenberg into this either. It doesn't matter what makes sense to you, the evidence is showing that the universe is flat. To argue against this based on vague analogy seems to make even less sense. You don't think they didn't think to take this into account? The measurements of the flatness of the universe necessarily takes these factors into account because of their effects on the shape of space. Whatever they are, dark energy and dark matter are clearly having an effect on the large scale structure and so if measurements of the large scale structure show flatness then they must have had an effect and been taken into account. Well the existence of tachyons has never been proven or disproven so to postulate their existence to make the universe rounded seems a little silly, there's also a lot of theoretical arguments against their existence but whatever. Studies have looked for the evidence of tachyons, so I don't know what fundamental concept of relativity you're referring to since a passing faster than light particle would be observable. Why the hell are you dragging the Higgs field into this now? We haven't detected individual Higgs particles but if they exist and have mass then they will have been 'counted' by the experiments that look at the shape of the universe. Again, they didn't determine whether or not the universe is flat by looking at every single particle.

All very interesting but although of course I agree that the evidence shows that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate, I disagree with your conclusions about the shape of the universe which is the more relevant issue here. http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.html http://www.universetoday.com/guide-to-space/the-universe/shape-of-the-universe/ Feel free to point me towards any new data that contradicts this.

If you're going to sound so confident of your own knowledge at least maybe do a little more research before spouting such dogmatic statements. Of course there's 'fancy' maths, the size of the universe is a problem largely investigated using General Relativity, the maths of which is pretty damn 'fancy'. What scientific evidence have you provided? Hubble's constant (it's actually a parameter because the error boundaries are so large) tells us that the universe is expanding, this has nothing to do with the potential for the universe to be infinite. Don't let your intuition as to what infinity is guide you because intution doesn't work with infinity. And don't try and sound smarter than you are. Here's an interview with Joseph Silk, the head of the astrophysics department at Oxford University. The full interview is here

You could still have an infinite universe if the boundaries of the universe (whatever that means) were expanding faster than the speed of light so light from those stars could never reach us. Same principle as the horizon problem I see no physical reason why an infinite universe couldn't expand, so I don't agree with the bold bit. Either way the infinity or not of the universe is an open question, no one knows if it's infinite or not, although people have their hunches, it's all just maths. But about aliens, I agree with Arthur C. Clarke:

Are you suggesting more money shouldn't be allocated to researching issues like climate change instead of things which have less importance for our immediate future? Of course there's money in it, there's money in it because it's a pretty important issue. As for the topic, I have no problem with looking into genetically enhancing humans. I think the knee-jerk reaction to it being morally wrong assumes that all genetic enhancements would be the same. Anyway, this book by Robert Harris puts forward a good ethical and moral case for why you'd want to enhance humans.

I'm pleased Button did well, I think he's a great guy. Hamilton wasn't best pleased after though, probably understandably. And Vettel keeps being alternatively helped by his car's speed and screwed over by its reliability.

Kanye has more talent in his little finger than most of the other people you listed. And what about Jay-Z, is he not considered rap anymore or something?

I can do dead lifts quite well (i.e 305lbs 3 times just did 205lbs 15 times with a lot to spare. Well that's great but if you're lifting heavy with a weak lower back you risk injuring it if you accidentally brought it in too much into the lift. I'm not saying don't deadlift, I'm just saying strengthen your lower back more with core stuff before trying to deadlift like Andy Bolton.

Omlette's are seriously easy, I make mine with 3 eggs, cheese and bacon. Fry a rasher of bacon in the pan first then add the whisked eggs. Make sure the egg isn't sticking at the edges and is cooking uniformly, when it's almost done add some cheese if you want and let it melt a bit. That's a pretty high protein meal, I'd normally have it for breakfast. For lunches I often do tuna and pasta, boil the pasta in the normal way then drain it and add a can of tuna to the pan to warm it up a bit. You can add some cheese too if you want, tuna is high in protein and low in fat and CHEAP. Another favourite lunch of mine is to buy chicken breast pieces (tend to be cheaper than actual breasts, but better meat than legs), fry the chicken in olive oil and have it with a baked potato with some melted butter on it and some salad. All those meals take less than 20 minutes to prepare and are easy to do.

I have a 12k erg to do this afternoon with a hangover. Urrgh.

Not really, earthquakes are caused by plate tectonics which are driven by internal convection currents in the mantle. Besides, assuming large-ish earthquakes are random events in the sense that their precise periodicity isn't particularly well known, then a sudden clump of earthquakes could just be a coincidence. That's how random processes work, people expect a uniform distribution of events over time/space to be random when in reality they might just as easily clump together.

It's all relative anyway.... Just travel at 476.23km/h for a bit relative to the Earth and your time will dilate enough to correct that. :wink: Yes, I'm procrastinating.

7am, 7k erg. Not fun.

Be VERY gentle if you do any deadlifts, I'd probably avoid them for a while until you feel it's a bit stronger. What everyone else has recommended is probably what I'd recommend too. Don't worry about weighting any of the exercises until you find them easy though, they're not muscle building movements and you don't want to injure anything. Daily stretches would also be good.

I'd agree with mullen in that explosive lifts are the way to go, and if I were you i'd spend a little time learning some of the olympic lifts. The snatch and clean and jerk are two lifts that when done correctly are very good for full body explosive strength and power. This article is pretty good, and the training plan at the bottom looks pretty sound: http://articles.muscletalk.co.uk/article-olympic-lifting.aspx One thing which puts a lot of people off olympic lifts is that by their nature they're quite technical. I think you could teach yourself them, but if you have a coach who could help you out learning them that might be useful.

It's not immoral, it's just moronic. This is a pretty serious scienfitic issue, so people should look well beyond the media for their facts when it comes to this to make up their minds. You don't learn about astrophysics by watching one or two documentaries on space. Climate science is complicated.

But what if the "adaptaion" is the loss of thousands of human lives in freak weather events as the global climate becomes more unbalanced, thousands of species die out, and millions are displaced due to the changing global landscape with sea level rises etc. Taking a priveleged western view of how easy it is to 'adapt' doesn't help.

Had a great erg session last night, 6x500m at 1.45 average splits. Should put me on course for a 7 minute 2k sooner than I expected.

Frosty outing this morning, did some race pieces. Decidedly average. But just did a 30 minute erg at 2.00.7 which was good.