warri0r45

I'm just contemplating the reasons why those topics slid down the ladder in the first place. Perhaps they just don't want to talk about them anymore, which is fine. And there are some other resons I can think of too... but they would make me sound arrogant. 0_o Anyway I was just wondering if people value the truth as much as I do (as egocentric as that sounds; I know others do, of course :XD: )

Call it minor paranoia. I'm not really all that fussed, but curious. How do I come across? (as in do I push my point too much) Some people may know I've got some topics on evolution which stir up emotions in many and I was just contemplating bumping both of them but am holding off for now. You could say I have an obsession for the truth, hence why I openly invite people to throw ideas around as to why evolution is wrong i.e. what limits it, what science goes against it, etc. I'll always, through some sort of obsession you could say, go where the truth does. I want to know all there is to know and what I can rule out. I'm not exactly sure why, I guess I was just born this way. So, the question is: do you see this as an unhealthy obsession? Something not worth all of the angst and skepticism? Or something you agree with? Is an obsession with truth for the good or the detriment of society? If you say what you really think I'd prefer it. Now I can invisage this going a few ways: 1) A certain topic that's been done to death flame war. 2) Everyone calls me an idiot (You can if you really think that :P ) 3) We actually get some sort of discussion going out of this. Lets try and go for number 3) and a bit of number 2) if you are so inclined. :P

now i don't know what i'm missing... :? i guess i just got confused by your sentence structure? Maybe i stuck a period in there instead of a comma. #-o Ok. I originally said that not everyone would look outside the square at the problem like you, I or others here have and may adopt the argument as an excuse to proliferate the more crude, 'redneck' ideology of guns. You thought I said you weren't looking outside the square. I highlighted this part of my original post - to alert to your attention that I wasn't saying you are one of the narrow minded ones. Hope this clears it up.

I totally disagree with that. I think rappers need as much talent as a guitarist, maybe even more in certain situations. Almost all good rappers write their own music, they don't go around looking for writers. -.- To make good bars, it's not as simple as writing words on paper, like you make it sound. Writing a song, in ANY genre, requires extreme skill, you need to make sure that the words flow well with one another, ESPECIALLY in rap/hip-hop. On top of that, they have to go well on a beat, and traditionally have to rhyme or be assonances. A rapper spends years perfecting his rhymes, flow, style, and melody. You don't just wake up a master lyricist. Bottomline: Rappers spend years perfecting their lyrics just as guitarists spend years mastering the guitar. Firstly, in response to your previous post, you shouldn't stoop to a stereotypers level, even if you're not serious. Water off a ducks back. Just let them believe what they do ignorantly (or correct them, if ignorance annoys you to the end of your sanity). Secondly, I'd bet commercial rap vs. commercial rock are relitively even talent-wise these days, but if you were to compare say, underground prog metal and underground rap, I'm sorry, talent-wise I'd say the metal would take it out (although this is perceptive unless you compare hours practice to get where they each respectively are, which is what I was getting at). As hypocritical as it sounds me saying this now, we really shoundn't try and compare music in terms of talent as if it's a judge of how good a genre is. There are good and bad acts in every genre.

My tastes are as wierd as heavy metal to jazz/the blues, which isn't all that special, to be realistic.

The chasers! They're hilarious! :lol:

That's major ROFFLECOPTER material. Chuck Norris would have the highscore, hands down. He's the baddest badass of all time. :P

If people don't like your leader, they should vote him out. They can all do it, but it's not mandatory in America. I've never really knew why... any help?

once again, you are bringing up the argument that guns shoot themselves. GUNS ARE NOT THE PROBLEM. the problem in most all school shootings like this is that the shooters were neglected, often picked on, and if/when they tried to get help, they were rejected. people need to be more aware of potential dangers, and try to help people in need. Of course the problem lies outside the avaliability of guns. It's the carrier of the weapon that makes it lethal. So to an extent I agree with your argument, we must educate more and help keep weapons away from trouble cases. Saying guns are not the problem, however, is not entirely correct. Thier avaliability is partly to blame. Perhaps I didn't specify this in my original post. Overall, I was commenting on the mentality that throwing more guns at the problem would fix it, which it wont. Keep in mind others that have this argument wont look outside the square like you, I or others here have. I know it's not a real big deal in the scheme of things, but try and read a little more carefully next time please.

Stereotype? You know you're only the second person to mention that any NO ONE has had a bush bash yet. Lets not give them ideas, ok? :-$

they have direction and magnitude...they are forces No, they really aren't. There are 4 forces- gravity, electromagnetic, weak and strong. You could be inaccurate and call them "forces of nature" if you wanted to. so what do you call when someone pushes on a block? you say they exert a certain force on it... dunno why every1 here has to be 100% accurate about anything anyway...nonetheless...what do you call that ^^? there are more than 4 forces...those other forces are BASED AROUND those 4 you listed... Actually no. There are only 4 forces in science, end of story. We might say you exert force on something when you push it but technicly thats not correct. When you push on something I actually dont know what you should call it, but it involves things like kinetic energy. Heres how you can tell them apart. Gravity (the weakest of the 4 forces) always happens. On earth gravity never stops and you dont need to do anything to m,ake it happen. If you drop a pen on earth it will ALWAYS fall to the floor because of gravity. Now take an eleastic (someone I knew tried to teach that elasticity was a force =D> its actualy a propertie of a material). If you set it on the table it wont do anything. You have to put potential energy into it (via stretching) to make it do anything. When your pushing on something, its like the elastic, you only pushing, while, when your pushing. When you stop there is no longer any energy exerted on whatever you were pushing. A force is something that always is working, it never stops, and it needs no help to work. And we know that the stong and weak forces work because we dont fall appart when we move and atoms dont just fall apart. And whoever said nuclear fission wasent natural was correct, but nuclear fusion is quite natural (stars anyone). And all neutron stars are magnetic, magnatars just have much stronger magnetic feilds which can rip you apart because water molecule are bi-polar(i think. There not balanced magneticly anyway). Ther average magnatar would rip you apart at the same time its gravatational feild got you. Yes, they're polar and have an electric dipole (see the 'molecular dipole' section).

if you couldn't tell from the rest of my posts on the 3 topics that encompass this subject, i've been running every possible solution that anyone's come up with through my mind. i'm as confused as anyone as to why something like this has to happen, what motivates a person to do something like this, why it couldn't have been caught and stopped sooner. after nearly a week of reading news articles, listening to the opinions of others, i've come up with a solution that i believe would help the problem. just because i choose to defend my argument doesn't make me narrow-minded, nor does it mean that i'm not considering the opinions of others when they argue that my solution wouldn't work. so keep in mind that when i argue with you, i need to have read and considered your argument before i can counter it with my own. I'm missing something... Right? I didn't thoroughly document all of your posts on all three of the other topics, sorry.

Essentially every organism requires food for energy, thus, the food they eat contains energy. This can basically *most of the time* be traced back to the energy plants get from the sun. I've always thought that chemotrophs don't get engergy from the sun at all considering that they get their engergy from the bacteria that thrives at the openings in the ocean that release chemicals from the Earth. There isn't any sunlight down there. yeah i thought about it again and said that... :) (sorta) lol Fixed. :P I was going more generally with my original posts. There are other origins of biological energy, I'm sure. Edit: Way cool. Thanks for the links, Militaris, I've learnt something usefull about oxidation other than electrochemical cells. :P

I'm sure that ideology would be a bit exaggerated, yeah? Or is it fully like that? :? :ohnoes:

everyone judges everyone! something that is very hard to do, though is not say what your thinking. Kepp doing what your doing, and youll have plenty of friends. But some people, like me, are far more judgemental than others >_<. I confess to being terrible at phone conversation. I confess to hating phone conversations, and more recently, email. :wall:

Hmm. So these 100 people saw your name and copied it? Or did they just happen to have the same name? If it's the latter (which I'm thinking it is, correct me if I'm wrong), then no, they didn't steal your name.

[bleep]ing sadist. That's awful. If I were in that ladies position, I would be shattered. Try and show more empathy next time.

Bah, beat me to it. Definitely this, without this we'd all be just protons and neutrons and electrons with no place to go. And gravity is WEAK relatively compared to the others, although it has been hypothesised that this is because it acts on a much larger multi-dimensional scale, so is dissipated over a larger area and hence seems weaker to us. Even if it's not on a multi-dimensional scale I'd say it's strength lies in it's ability to affect stuff...hear me out...over infinite distances. So if you multiply the strength of the force by the distance over which it operates (as I consider this a vital point to consider), and no matter what fraction you set for the lower value of distance, you'll still find that gravity beats your patheticalyl powerless "strong force". IMO the interactions should be called the weak force, the return of the weak force, electromagneticism and GRAVITY, KINF OF FORCES. *dramatic drumroll* But maybe that's just me. GOGO GRAVITY. Anyway, I still hope they're one and the same eventually, atleast for my sanity. Damn quarks, messing up the theories of good scientists. You have a point ktmcf121 but that's a very extreme example. A black hole with that kind of tidal gravity would be very rare, and even then there are different theories as to what would actually happen if you fell into one. Also Korla, think gravity is strong? Lift your hand up. That's the entire gravitational force of the Earth pulling down on your hand but you can easily overcome it. I also wasn't aware that gravity can act over infinite distances (large® yes, but infinite?). Otherwise why isn't everything in the universe being pulled towards the object with the largest mass? I might be missing something. :P Perhaps there's an asymptote in a graph of the mathematics of it, which would mean the effect would be infinite yet increasingly infinitesimal the longer away you take a measurement. o_0 Lol, I have no real idea, I'm just playing devils advocate. :P

once again, you are bringing up the argument that guns shoot themselves. GUNS ARE NOT THE PROBLEM. the problem in most all school shootings like this is that the shooters were neglected, often picked on, and if/when they tried to get help, they were rejected. people need to be more aware of potential dangers, and try to help people in need. Of course the problem lies outside the avaliability of guns. It's the carrier of the weapon that makes it lethal. So to an extent I agree with your argument, we must educate more and help keep weapons away from trouble cases. Saying guns are not the problem, however, is not entirely correct. Thier avaliability is partly to blame. Perhaps I didn't specify this in my original post. Overall, I was commenting on the mentality that throwing more guns at the problem would fix it, which it wont. Keep in mind others that have this argument wont look outside the square like you, I or others here have.

You are partly correct. But it is bacteria colonies which use the thermal vents for energy not plants. P There was life for millions of years before photosynthesis (Gaining energy from the sun) occurred. In fact once Photosynthesis become common the Oxygen it created poisoned the atmosphere which caused widespread death and extinction among the early form of life. More reading here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_Catastrophe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaerobic_organism Fair cop, I didn't take into account pre-photosynthetic metabolic pathways. The basic pathways given in your second article use glucose to create ATP, as is done in us but I'm not overly sure as to how anerobic organisms get thier food or did when there was no photosynthesis to create glucose. Any ideas?

Yeah, kinda let science take hold of me... :anxious: :P Anyway, as a destructive force, I've always found strong winds pretty intimidating. Although I've never been in one, I'd imagine a strong cyclone (or hurricanes, as many of you blokes would call them) would be scary. There was a savage one about a year ago up north from where I am and it totally killed a costal town and the bananna industry. They've both recently got back on thier feet, though.

Essentially every organism requires food for energy, thus, the food they eat contains energy. This can basically all be traced back to the energy plants get from the sun.

Full points. Sunlight is the precursor to all life. Water is another big one, being essential also, but sunlight is the key to photosynthesis or, to be crude, creating energy from carbon dioxide and water. To break it down entirely, your muscles can move as an indirect consequence of the nuclear fusion in the sun.

The whole they won't pipe into south east QLD thing? It'll kill the fishin' industry, apparantly. I think we should weigh this up, I mean, fishing is great, but let's put this on a balance - Drinking water <----> Fishing. Hmmm... The thing is that it's our water. And this whole pipe would cost millions of dollars which probably could go to recycling water or something How so? :-k Flows from QLD to NSW?

Lol. The one the cops don't know about, you mean. :P Basically everyone does it at that age. I remember a party when I was around 14. I don't want to give kids any ideas, but that was when I was introduced to cask wine... But these days I loathe the stuff.. :-X :anxious: Overall, beer is my drink of choice; has been for donkeys years.