Greatsilverwyrm

Dwarfie: I'm not a christian, but, just to play the devil's advocate.. You seem to be arguing sin in a sense of semantics. In my view, if an all-seeing greater being did exist, then he would have created us, along with the "sins" that free will implies, with full knowledge. He did this because the advantages of creating a world outweigh the disadvantages (sin).. If that makes sense to you.. That sort of gets us into a whole other fun existential side of things.. Why were we created?

Exactly, my point exactly. Lionheart was saying that an infinite number of moments has passed before now, and I think that isn't possible, because you would have to assign a value to this "number". No, by my definition we can never actually show, in actuality, all of the digits in pi. Just like there are an infinite number of points F between points A and B, doesn't mean that there is an actual infinite - it's just a theory, because these points don't take up time/space - if we tried to write them all down, it would be impossible, because there isn't enough time/space to hold it. You're looking at time the completely wrong way. A: time doesn't need a spatial area to exist, so, no ammount of time can be "too large for space". B: You're trying to quantize time. Time isn't quantized in the sense that, say, apples are quantized. Time is measured by it's passage.

That one was hilarious.. I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the sprint one.. Guy one: My phone has television. Guy two: So does mine, and I can do this other thing too.. Guy one: I can check my e-mail.. Guy two: Mine can do that.. and I have anti-theft protection. Guy one: Oh yeah? Guy two: Yeah, try to grab my wallet Guy one: Ok.. *tries to grab wallet* Guy two: *WINGS THE PHONE AT GUY ONE'S FACE* Guy one: OW! *falls over* *random sprint stuff* Guy one: *says something* Guy two: *WINGS THE PHONE AT GUY ONE'S FACE AGAIN* God.. that was so freakin' awesome..

Unnecessary. Automatic loss for you. Aw c'mon.. you don't agree that he's absurd? :) You're using a false analogy. Bush and his administration might be absurd in your opinion, but the idea that they exist is not absurd. The idea that an actual infinite can exist, is absurd, especially when talking about time. Think about it - if an infinite amount of moments had to have passed before this - then this moment could never have to pass, because each moment (including this, and every moment after this) would just become part of that infinite amount of time. Therefore an infinite amount of time can never pass, because you can always add one more moment to it. I don't see how the analogy is false.. You basically said that infinity can't exist because it's absurd. But now you've got actual reasoning, so.. Though I don't agree with your logic, nor really even see where it's going.. Are you saying that time can't be infinite because there will always be other moments? That doesn't really work, because the added moments just add into infinity. You're trying to assign a value to infinity, which isn't possible. I guess I'm still just not seeing your logic...

Once again, simply because you do not understand something, doesn't mean it's absurd. And even if it was absurd, which I could see arguments for, doesn't mean it can't be logical and factual. Bush and his administration is absurd. Does that mean it/they don't exist? Unfortunately, no.

Aah, so an infinite amount of time has passed before this moment? I don't think so. That's logically, scientifically, and mathematically ludicrous. I don't think so. It makes more sense to me, and seemingly sounds more scientifically accurate that time has existed forever and will exist forever. Simply because we haven't the mental capacity to truly grasp infinity doesn't mean it's ludicrous.

If that actually happened, I wonder why it exploded... Keep wonderin'. It's taken scientists years and they still haven't worked it out. Actually, they have. The Universe was initially a huge thingy of energy. The energy was compressed into something smaller than a atom. Then Time/Space began as the energy singularity exploded, then turned into matter and anti-matter. As the result of the explosion the "walls" of the universe are still expanding(This has actually been proven by the Hubble Space Telescope). Sooner or later, some astro-physists believe that the universe will colapse back in on itself as the strain of the mass grows too large for the "walls" of the universe to hold. However even if they add in vast amounts of Dark Matter the amount of it goes nowhere near enough to collapse our universe. The "end" of our Universe will most likely come when all the matter in the universe meets the anti-matter. When this happens the matter and anti-matter cancel eachother out and produce massive amounts of energy. This energy will most likely result in the creation of another big-bang. Where the energy came from or why it compressed is a mystery. Many claim this as the proof of Gods existence. I was reading a small article on dark matter a few weeks ago.. and I agreed with what it had to say, which was basically that dark matter doesn't exist. The only reason scientists theorize darkmatter is because supposedly things don't fit into the equations we have, the author of the article surmised that our equations were simply wrong, and it makes more sense to just rewrite the equations. Make a square hole. Don't pound a square peg into a round one. Then how do you explain the gravitic anomalies that we keep recording around certain quasars and black holes? And for the record... Dark matter was not contrived because some equations did not fall-out clean. I think you are referring to the theory that the Universe will collapse back in on itself because of the "Weight" of all the mass on the "Walls". However when put into equation the amount of mass neeed to collapse the "Walls" of the Universe was actually quite larger than the actually amount of recorded mass in our universe. Therefore to explain this lack of mass the astro-physists tried to put a significant amount of Dark Matter into the equation. However even then, there wasn't enough. However Dark Matter was first proposed to explain the gravitic anomalies not the lack of mass. I guess I'm not farmiliar with the gravitic anomolies.. could you explain them, or provide links to readings on the subject? Re-reading the article, the equation(s) are those of gravitational pull, that galaxies don't have enough mass to hold themselves together in the way that they do, and that they should be falling apart. I dunno, I obviously am not extremely knowledgeable on the subject... so, let me know if I'm just spouting crap. (none of the above was intended to be rude or otherwise insulting)

If that actually happened, I wonder why it exploded... Keep wonderin'. It's taken scientists years and they still haven't worked it out. Actually, they have. The Universe was initially a huge thingy of energy. The energy was compressed into something smaller than a atom. Then Time/Space began as the energy singularity exploded, then turned into matter and anti-matter. As the result of the explosion the "walls" of the universe are still expanding(This has actually been proven by the Hubble Space Telescope). Sooner or later, some astro-physists believe that the universe will colapse back in on itself as the strain of the mass grows too large for the "walls" of the universe to hold. However even if they add in vast amounts of Dark Matter the amount of it goes nowhere near enough to collapse our universe. The "end" of our Universe will most likely come when all the matter in the universe meets the anti-matter. When this happens the matter and anti-matter cancel eachother out and produce massive amounts of energy. This energy will most likely result in the creation of another big-bang. Where the energy came from or why it compressed is a mystery. Many claim this as the proof of Gods existence. I was reading a small article on dark matter a few weeks ago.. and I agreed with what it had to say, which was basically that dark matter doesn't exist. The only reason scientists theorize darkmatter is because supposedly things don't fit into the equations we have, the author of the article surmised that our equations were simply wrong, and it makes more sense to just rewrite the equations. Make a square hole. Don't pound a square peg into a round one.

Didn't know Norton could do something that stupid.. He had to have done it on purpose as a joke or something.. right?

It depends on how big of a problem you're talking about... I'm sure there have been very few people to put in everything properly the first time, have everything wired precisely correctly, etc. etc.. Unless you've done 30 or so exactly similar computers.. Both computers I've built have had several problems.. The first one wouldn't boot for a long time and turned out we had wired the power switch improperly.. The second one I couldn't get the PSU to fit at first, and it wouldn't boot either until I figured out it needed some 4-pin auxillary power cable..

Technically speaking your entire body is covered in the exact same type of skin. Things like your knees, your elbows, your feet, etc. are tougher because of the life they've had. In the case of your elbows, you move your arms all the time, right? That stretches the skin there, and eventually all of that stretching causes it to be tougher. Not to burst your bubble, but, I'm a cynical [wagon].. That's actually really not very deep, especially if what you thought/theorized is exactly as you've put it down here. If the particles were right next to eachother, they would've exploded into eachother, most likely. Also, just because they were created out of the same material, doesn't mean at all that they would've acted exactly the same.

If you go read the game section, the gameplay actually sounds fairly good, if it actually turns out the way they say it will.. Not to mention the countless cool stuff that will happen if they let people create mods based on their engine. This could be the next "Source".

That's what you get for shopping at Wal-mart. ;)

At the moment there's no way of creating hydrogen that's environmentally friendly; pundits keep saying that an efficient and viable method of creating hydrogen is right around the corner, but I've yet to see anything close. The real problem with hydrogen, though, is building the infrastructure. Think of your city - think of how many countless petrol stations there are. All of those would be fairly useless for hydrogen refeuling. If we can find a viable method of hydrogen creation, then it might be viable as a whole in the long run, but we'll pay through the nose for it in the beginning to create the infrastructure. I really beleive that the future is in creating more efficient batteries for hybrid or even entirely electric cars. Though I did see an interesting segment on television about air-powered cars. They aren't for highway-driving at all, top speed of I think 35 mph, but for densely populated urban environments they seem ideal. About 1/10th as much as gasoline, more or less quiet, and 0 emissions. So, really could be interesting if they caught on. Especially since there's no infrastructure to build, all you need is an air-compressor. Pretty sweet if ya ask me.

I wholeheartedly agree.. Fart jokes haven't been seriously funny since I was in.. let's see.. 4th grade-ish.. :-/ The story also seems to have some underlying racism, but, I won't go there.

The FAQ is hilarious... probably the best part of the site...

Aww.. The people I hang out around use owned and etc. a lot, but we're all computer nerds, so.. I don't think I've ever heard too many non-nerdy folk saying it, except one or two guys I know who are really into Halo.

The point was that cornflakes don't make you shoot people up, nor do computer games, because, to use your words, those people are "batsh*tf'in-loco to begin with". Whether something is violent or not is beside the point. The people who would shoot people because they've done so in a computer game are the same people who think the coca cola commercial ('Holidays are coming, holidays are coming...') will come true if they can find enough magic pixie dust. Seriously. And even if you don't agree, according to American politicians it's perfectly alright if people buy a real gun and go to shoot on big cardboard plates that look like people, but doing so in a computer game, oooooh no, that must be horrificly bad, since it's so realistic when you play it on HD TV! Which is still the wrong way around if you ask me, but anyway... The devil's advocate would say that indeed, computer graphics are more realistic mentally than shooting a cardboard plate with a shilouhette on it, what with the extremely life-like graphics, realistic sounds, beleivable gore.. But let's not go there. I think we can all agree that if you're going to commit violent crimes in the first place, not playing violent video games isn't going to stop you from commiting said crimes.

Hannibal, Putter, sorry, your satirical analogies are completely false, and don't help support your argument. Of course corn flakes and coca-cola won't make you want to shoot-up your school. Legolover is right, to be honest.. or at least kind of. Violent videogames do put those kinds of violent thoughts into your head, they do. Unless you're going around GTA saying "Wee! Feed the kitties milk!" as you bash their head in with a baseball bat. Maybe you do, I dunno, but prolly not. However, the real distinction is that sane people don't act on those thoughts. Or at least don't act on them anywhere where it would actually matter. Yes I think video games do slightly contribute to the problem, but the fact that the people who do this stuff are batsh*t f'ing-loco to begin with is 99% of the problem.

Reminds me of Everyone Else Has Had More Sex Than Me.. god I love that cartoon..

I love how you bumped your dead 10 day old topic that had little content to begin with just to try and sound clever. I love how you try to sound clever by acting like you're superior to everyone by replying with nothing but cutting remarks when really, you could be a bigger man and just let it die. Note that I fully realize the irony of this post. Sh.

Just because you're doing a pale white/blue color scheme doesn't mean everything has to be pale white and/or blue. Sometimes a litle contrast can have a big impact. (I'd go for the pink)

Yes.. they really were that good.. at least the ones listed were. Let's not talk about Mario Bro.s 2 on NES.. and I can't even recall whether or not there was a mario on the SNES?

Technically, they're very nice, like all your work, but, again, like all your work, it seems compositionally boring, and all-around drab. Sorry.

One good example would be that you are intelligent, but your character has a very low intelligence. So, somone says __ artifact is cursed. But you, having low intelligence, pick it up anyway. Your arm is severed. Any normal person would stop there, but, since your character has low intelligence, you pick it up again, and again, until all of your limbs have been severed no less than 3 times each.. One of my friends actually did that... meh Obviously not always exactly like that, but that gives you an idea of it. Also, the DM doesn't neccesarily have to come up with the complete story beforehand. That would limit him to a structure too much. He comes up with the basic plotline, the basic structure of everything, etc. Then he improvises the small stuff, just as the characters improvise while roleplaying.