warri0r45

Easy by Faith No More. An awesome cover of the Lionel Richie song.

I agree with Lateralus. It's pretty shocking to see how archaic people's thoughts turn when you dig beneath their skin with a really emotional issue. I don't see how bloodthirsty vengeance can fit in a society which values a civilised judicial system. We can't say something is wrong then stoop to their level to punish them. Punishment and justice should primarily be about making sure they don't have the freedom to reoffend, not an eye for an eye.

1500+mg of sodium per meal in the long run is asking to get clogged arteries or heart failure. Not that it doesn't most likely taste good (never had it yet), but it's CRAZY to eat so much salt with one meal. I did some nutrition programs earlier and I'd go nuts if a guy/girl said they've been taking in so much salt for years. Nutritional recommendations for sodium intake regardless of body mass index is about 200 to 600mg per day. Over that and you risk getting serious health problems. Don't get me wrong, I wasn't saying that this intake of sodium is healthy, I know that many westerners overdo the reccomended sodium intake daily. I just didn't think that a meatball sub had the equivalent sodium content of 18 packets of chips and that was borne out by the maths.

I remember seeing this system used when the screensaver of the computers involved was up. It had something to do with protein folding/structure.

i saw a programme on tv a while back about sandwich outlets and the ingredients they put in them...... there is the same amount of salt in a meatball sadwich as there are in 18 packets of salted crisps :ohnoes: think about it :shame: I seriously doubt that. A 377g meatball sub has 1590mg sodium in total (a BMT actually has more sodium, no surprises there to be honest). [1] A 100g packet of smiths chips would have around 596mg sodium. Multiplied by 3.77 gives about 2247mg sodium in 337g of smiths chips. [2] So pound for pound, chips (crisps) do have more salt than a meatball sub. It certainly doesn't take 18 packets (a total of 10728mg / 10.7 grams sodium) to make up the amount of sodium in a meatball sub, or any sub for that matter. It would take 1590mg / 596mg = ~2.67 packets of chips to equal the sodium in a meatball sub. I knew that just had to be way off the mark. Edit: actually, the 377g sub is a 6". Multiplying the result by 2 should even things out: ~5.34 packets of chips are needed to equal the sodium in a meatball sub.

Can't argue with that. It's probably in my top 3. Another in that category has to be a chicken teriyaki. But perhaps my favourite sub is an italian BMT with all salads except tomato and southwest sauce. I just had one today. :lol: As far as fast food goes, Subway is right up there for me. It beats the crap you get at mcdonalds any day.

I think that the ultimate torture would be to live forever. Heaven and/or an endless dream state would be absolute torture. Life would serve no purpose because there is no end and no motivation to do anything. Sex would be dull after a few years, chocolate would start tasting bland, and video games would become boring. How is an infinite length of existence NOT torture? Don't you think you'd run out of things to dream about over an infinite amount of time? Pretty much mirrors my view on eternal existence.

Well I would think it would seem plain to anyone. You can clearly hear accents of people from New York, the South, or some other places. It's not really just California though. When I was in Montana I didn't hear an accent. That may have been because I never left the airport though. I don't think people from D.C. really had accents either. Not everyone lives in America, jack. You're really not helping the image of the stereotypical American. Here, let me give you an example of why the Californian accent isn't "plain" to "anyone": I'm from Australia. You might have to turn the globe anticlockwise a little. The other side of the Pacific Ocean should do it. Seriously jack, no offence and i'm sure you're a great guy in real life but you're probably the most frustrating person to talk to on these forums.

Chess Boxing

Steady Mr.Pitt by Slowly Building Weapons. A lesser-known metal band from Sydney. Now broken up, unfortunately. Their one and only album is great - I picked it up today.

Ok, so you're saying that people who aren't from California hear an accent in the way Californians speak? That's what I'm saying as well. That just means you're in the exact same boat as everyone else. Because, you see, if I just listen to a Californian person speak, I hear the rolled 'r's of the American accent. It's not "plain" to my ears - it's all subjective and depends on where the listener is from. I know if you are form somewhere else any place sounds different. All I mean is that Californians speak in a kind of simple, plain. It's like news anchors almost. So you mean the way Californians speak is simple and plain? Simple and plain according to who? To people from California? So that means it's not so simple and plain to others, right? Ok, glad we cleared that up.

That's a natural reaction to have, but it's an irrational one. Chances are you will never experience anything like this, let alone be the victim of it. The link between greyhound busses and this kind of act is merely in your mind.

Nothing, probably. As people have said, think of what it was like before you were born. All the more reason to enjoy the life you have now, I say.

Woke up ~ 7 am, went to uni to do a biochem prac, bought some CDs (Opeth, Death, Faith No More, Between the Buried and Me) and came home. Currently listening to CDs. :thumbup:

Ok, so you're saying that people who aren't from California hear an accent in the way Californians speak? That's what I'm saying as well. That just means you're in the exact same boat as everyone else. Because, you see, if I just listen to a Californian person speak, I hear the rolled 'r's of the American accent. It's not "plain" to my ears - it's all subjective and depends on where the listener is from.

I agree on Dimebag. I should have said David Gilmour as well.

Informal Gluttony by Between the Buried and Me.

Everyone has an accent. It just depends on who's listening. It's not like there's one brand of people who are the "accentless" standard.

I've been listening to them a bit on youtube/myspace recently. Very cool. I'm thinking colors is the next CD I'm going to buy.

War Pigs by Faith No More. A cover of the Black Sabbath song.

Probably the New Zealand accent. It's bloody hilarious. :lol:

It's not just the ability, which most agree was very good (not technically the most brilliant in the world, obviously), but it's the songwriting ability and flare the guy had. Listening to albums like Are You Experienced and Electric Ladyland just blow me away. Having said that, I'm a tad perplexed that he consistently gets the top spot as "best guitarist of all time" in all those lists you see. That kind of thing is very subjective to judge, really. It depends how you define the "best".

You mean the "terrorist fist jab"? :lol: Oh man, the media is just hilarious some times. I just love how all these media commentators came out and protested the New Yorker cover when it was the media in the first place that made up the fiasco. Anyway as for who I think would be better, on face value both have good and bad points and Obama is a breath of fresh air as far as face value takes me, but I'm always suspicious of politicians. If for no other reason, I'd want Obama to win to see if his actions are true to his ambitious words. I'm sure I could sit down and compare issues to see the pros and cons of both candidates, and i would if I were American, but I don't have the time right now.

I've already explained why, abyssal. The sword cuts both ways - you haven't touched my point about the doctor and garbage man. Having said that, principles are all well and good, but reality is sometimes much harder to deal with. I can see the point you're making with the police dog and murderer example. If it came to something like, say, deciding who to kill out of those two if I had to, I don't really know which I would choose. i thinked I've banged on about the principle enough so I'll not repeat myself again.

Oh please. If not studied rigorously, miracles can be interpreted with any preconceived perceptions of reality. Some people are more critical than simply converting on the spot because they hear stories and I suspect you or any other Catholic would be just as critical as I am of any alternative faith that puts the anomalous, unexplained or unknown in their own worldview. But to be fair, I've heard of the Lanciano miracle and it was in fact studied by a man called Odoardo Linoli. The paper is in Italian so unfortunately I haven't been able to read it and see the results for myself. However, it only takes a bit of critical thinking to dispute the claim every Catholic is more than willing to make. Firstly, the study on this miracle hasn't been repeated at all. If you want any scientific credibility, your results simply must be repeated. It's really a non-negotiable because ideas don't get up in science except through years-long disputes over whether the results of a particular study have been verified enough and potential faults ironed out. I would expect the same rigor times ten over to confirm a miracle, of all things. If youre in the business of breaking well defined scientific laws which have been confirmed over centuries of repeated study, then please, come to me with more than one solitary piece of work. You wouldnt trust your life on one single medical trial performed by a few men, so why do you trust your faith on the same degree of rigor? But, of course, thats faith for you. Fair enough, Im not going to dig the boot into your beliefs any more than I perhaps already have. In all honesty I respect your right to have them. Back to it A single study done in the 1970s under the auspices of an Archbishop and by the authorization of Rome (which means the Vatican, I suppose) is hardly equivalent to undisputable proof. Reference used by wiki from the Eucharist Miracle page. There are all sorts of potential issues there despite the study not having been repeated, including conflicts of interest, the absence of modern studies using modern techniques to support this one and of course just plain old error in analysis of the sample. At this point in time, you may bring up the supposed repeat of Linoli's study by the World Health Organization. Somehow, I doubt that claim. Why? A quick search of the WHO site (here) returns zero results for the words Lanciano and Linoli. There is a Bertelli, but its an L. Bertelli, and it certainly has nothing to do with a Eucharist Miracle. Also, there is one result returned for Eucharist, but it certainly has nothing to do with a reported or studied miracle. At the end of the day, if true, you could interpret the results of Linolis study as evidence of the Christian god and proof of your religion, which youre entitled to do if youre so inclined, or you could interpret it in the light that our knowledge of the degradation of proteins, etc is partially wrong and needs a rethink. I think Ill choose option c for now, that being show me more repeated evidence before you expect me to believe that scientific laws confirmed over centuries have been proven wrong. All of this flies in the face of the portrayal of the issue by your very Catholic source. No surprises there. Finally, your argument that pretty much nothing will change the mind of someone like myself is entirely wrong. The fact of the matter is this: that which would change my mind is severely lacking. There's a huge difference between those two positions.