Greatsilverwyrm

People Like You

In what way? He certainly laid groundwork for future research, but I don't think all our theories on improbability are suppositions from his work.

From my limited understanding about quantum physics, Insane: As of yet, we have no good model to accurately depict the motion and position of subatomic particles. I beleive at the moment we have theorized that it is actually impossible to make a good model, due to the nature of the movement of these particles. All we have now is ideas of probability. What that particle is probable to do, where it's probable to be. That means that it can violate this, because it's only a probability. It's possible that if you poke your finger at a peice of wood constantly for your entire life, there will be one instant where the subatomic particles are so perfectly misaligned that you can stick your finger straight through the wood. It's just highly improbable. What does this have to with free will and cause -> effect? I think what Death_By_Pod is trying to get at is basically to disprove your core premise, that everything follows a cause -> effect relationship. I don't think he was trying to say that illusions of free will originate from the inherent unpredictable nature of subatomic particles.

HeadOn: Apply Directly to the Forehead! HeadOn: Apply Directly to the Forehead! HeadOn: Apply Directly to the Forehead!

It is, by the definition of logic, equally plausible both ways. You have no tangible evidence that matter has always existed. All you have is evidence that matter has existed for x amount of time. An eternity is impossible to prove. Impossible. Thus it is just as illogical as my belief. So, it's more logical to take this hunk of iron and say "Yes, this exists, therefore it has always existed in some form or other." Than to say "There's an all-knowing, all-seeing being, that exists, somewhere. You can't see him, but he created this hunk of iron, simply by saying a word. You must take it on faith that he exists. That's what he wants, as opposed to showing us himself in some obvious way." Yes. That makes absolutely perfect logical sense. As I said, don't confuse beleif and logic. Your beleif is intrinsically illogical, that is why it's a beleif. You dodged my argument - prove an eternity please. My argument was implied I thought. It is more logical to say something we know exists has always existed than to say something we don't know exists has always existed, and created the things we know exist. We can assume that the hunk of matter has always existed because we as of yet have found no possible way to create matter or energy, simply ways to change it's form.

I passed the first time with only a couple minor errors (in parallel parking, honestly, who gets that fully right anyway?) and one "major" error. I was turning left downtown and didn't look long enough, started to turn without realizing there was somone crossing the street. Meh. I had never driven except during class, so I think I did alright.

It is, by the definition of logic, equally plausible both ways. You have no tangible evidence that matter has always existed. All you have is evidence that matter has existed for x amount of time. An eternity is impossible to prove. Impossible. Thus it is just as illogical as my belief. So, it's more logical to take this hunk of iron and say "Yes, this exists, therefore it has always existed in some form or other." Than to say "There's an all-knowing, all-seeing being, that exists, somewhere. You can't see him, but he created this hunk of iron, simply by saying a word. You must take it on faith that he exists. That's what he wants, as opposed to showing us himself in some obvious way." Yes. That makes absolutely perfect logical sense. As I said, don't confuse beleif and logic. Your beleif is intrinsically illogical, that is why it's a beleif.

Yeah. Chris is a filthy bugger. Filthy. (I'm jealous) (It is Chris, isn't it?) I have two, would love to have 4 in a 2x2 mount....

Yes, but now we reach the eternal question. If God being higher than us, created us, must there not be something, by your own logic, higher than God? Who then created God? And who created God's creator? If "God has always been", why then can't the universe "always have been" ? To be blunt, I think it's ridiculous that you're calling something that is a beleif, logic. It is, by the definition of logic, more plausible that something we have physical, tangible evidence for is more likely than something we only have empirical evidence to back. I'm completely fine with your beleifs, and completely fine with you beleiving them, but don't call it logic. Humans, by nature, are irrational. You must decide for yourself if it's more important to be rational, or hold to your beleifs. Don't get me wrong. I mean this in a completely objective way. We have so many connotations associated with the words logic and rationality. It's possible that we are all wrong, that we're hard-wired to be irrational because the truth is inherently irrational when compared to what we can observe. Again, you have to decide for yourself whether you should stick to your beleifs, or to go along with what everyone else thinks as correct.

But out of all the things I read, this one takes the cake. Seriously man, you of all people have no right to talk about insults. What? Besides this topic, in which I noted I realized the irony and (minimal) hypocrisy. I was simply saying that beleif and firm non-beleif aren't as logical as neither.

The hell? Are you dealing with some obscure form of logic that's exclusive to strange worlds of non-reason? I wasn't going to post much on this topic, but now I will. It is the most logical thing to be agnostic. There is no real proof that god exists, and there is just as much proof that he doesn't. The only thing you can site on either side is fundementally empirical and subjective. Why does it have to be indecision? What's wrong with deciding simply to not beleive in anything? And no, it's not beleif, it's disbeleif, that's the point. That may sound highly nihilistic, but, so be it. Can we do anything without resulting to personal insults? C'mon. At least construct a post without logical fallacies. Oh, wait, that's right, you come from a place where "logic" means "chocolate". And yes, I realize the irony and hypocrisy. This is one place where I must, unfortunately, agree with you somewhat. Your post would've been fine, BlueLancer, however it seems to be worded in a way that tries to make beleif in either side something to be looked-down upon. I say live and let live. If you want to beleive, fine, if you don't, fine, but don't try to force me to another side. If you want to have a discussion, that's also fine, but at least try to be careful to word it in such a way that nobody is being put down?

Simply because there is currently no proof does not mean something doesn't exist. Beleiving that is being terribly naive.

But didn't god create Man in his image? And wasn't Jesus God's only son?

I'd like to point out another reason Opera is still on the low-end of the user list. As much as I hate to admit it, it's not as user friendly. I don't see that as a flaw, however. To increase user-friendliness they would have to severley decrease functionality. What you call "clean" and "simple" I call "flat", "boring", and generally not as useful. If all of the people who tried Opera took the 10-20 minutes it takes to do a little research, learn some things, and customize it even a little bit, I'd place money on at least 50% staying with it. Especially the 50% who aren't idiots. Firefox users always say they like modularity, they like being able to customize things. What they don't realize is that Opera is, in some ways, far more customizable. Opera is built on a core of very strong, mostly useful features. Then it allows you to take those features, and access them any way you want. You can change the feel of Opera in more ways than there are permutations of a Rubix Cube; in my book, that's better than being able to add a bunch of plugins that should be on a browser in the first place. If you're going to be using a peice of software for hours on end, every single day, it should feel and work exactly like you think it should, and that's what Opera lets you do. Random Notings: [*:l6hp6bk8]Opera's rendering engine is incredible. This is why Opera is the browser of choice on 90+% of mobile devices, including now the DS. [*:l6hp6bk8]Opera, until recently, had a smaller download and program file(s) than firefox. It at the moment is only ~1mb larger. However it has so many more features. What does this tell you? [*:l6hp6bk8]Please, for the love of god, stop saying Opera has tabbed browsing. Opera is above tabbed browsing. Opera has a fully-featured Multi-Document-Interface. Basically, it's tabbed-browsing's daddy. It's also something nobody else seems to have caught on to. [*:l6hp6bk8]All of the benchmarks I've seen on the last version of Opera (8), showed Opera to be the fastest browser on windows machines. I would assume the new version is similar. [*:l6hp6bk8]Opera has a huge community too. You should see their beta testing forum. Hundreds of people testing and re-testing the weekly builds. [*:l6hp6bk8]Opera is currently the most standards-compliant browser.

True, it wasn't a "law" as we consider "laws" today, but it had similar standing. And you're not getting my point- as I said, the laws we hold to be true exist only as far as they're not proven wrong. Know something cool? All of the lwas concerning momentum, conservation of momentum, forces, etc; basically all of newtonian physics - doesn't work at all on the quantum level. However it's the best way we have at this point in time to describe things on a macro scale, so that's what we use. Again- they're only laws becuase they seem to be right, but haven't been proven wrong. They're not infallable.

Oh noes, it's against the law?! Well, that'll stop them. :roll: is fully constituted.

Laws aren't as definite as you think, Tigra. The earth-is-the-center-of-the-solar-system theory was a scientific law until it was proven wrong. True, based on all our information at the moment, it appears that we cannot create machines that produce 100%, over, or anywhere near 100% efficiency, but it could be possible. Just like it may be possible to create matter, or travel beyond the speed of light, or discover something we don't even know about now because our sense-organs aren't equipped to pick-up on it.

Uhh.. this was debunked about a week ago. Dunno the article off-hand, but it was pretty much obviously a scam from the get-go. The website was too pretty. Engineering firms don't have pretty websites, it's another law of physics.

I just bought a new router, a Netgear WNR834B- I can connect to wireless when there's no encryption, but as soon as I try it encrypted (WPA2-PSK(AES), the only available option), I'm unable to connect. I get the message "Windows is unable to connect to the selected network. The network may no longer be in range. Please refresh the list of available networks, and try to connect again." The same thing happens on another laptop I tried, which has a completely different wireless card. The last router I had I beleive would let me connect on WPA2-PSK, so, I'm really at a loss. Any ideas?

Great things about Opera: [*:1g2ave7e]Free, free, and free. [*:1g2ave7e]Many, many themes. [*:1g2ave7e]Customizability[*:1g2ave7e]Completely and totally customizable interface. [*:1g2ave7e]User JS, somewhat similar to Extensions [*:1g2ave7e]Custom buttons[*:1g2ave7e]Many of the most popular Firefox extensions are features built-in to Opera. [*:1g2ave7e]Built-in (amazing) mail client, and chat client. [*:1g2ave7e]Small [*:1g2ave7e]Fast (fastest browser on windows in all benchmarks I've seen) [*:1g2ave7e]Fantastic community, with many less fanboys and pundits than other browsers. [*:1g2ave7e]Revolutionary rendering engine. [*:1g2ave7e]all pages/images/anything are fully zoomable Really though, choose for yourself.

I have a 4gb mini, which I've had since about a month before the nano was released. (Damn you apple.) I still have about 2 years left on the replacement plan, so I keep hoping the bugger breaks so they'll replace it with a nano. I love it though, I listen to some obscure music, and none of the radio stations around play anything even remotely similar.

You should have them prove it anyway. It's really very fascinating how some of the things we take as basic are really rooted in some very high-level mathematics. Math is fun!

Unfortunately not, I think. Normal printers can't do full-bleed images. Basically meaning they can't print all the way to the edge of the paper. I just rasterbated a few things.. soo cool. I wish I had a bunch of ink and shiny paper.

That's incredible. On like .. 50 different levels.

You forgot to switch the greater-than when you divided by -18