BlueTear
-
Posts
649 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by BlueTear
-
-
Yeah your rogue seems so awesome I created one myself. I am also trying hunter out too (dunno which race to pick though. It will definitely be horde). One thing I don't get is why dont I ever see rogues in instances. I think out of all of 'em I have done I've seen maybe two. Where are they? Is it coincidental?
Either you play on an odd server, or in the wrong level range. Rogue's are one of the most popular classes generally, due to their abilities in PvP, usefulness is in raids (good geared rogues is your melee DPS. Or, well, used to be when you had 40 man raids anyway) and handiness in instances: Sap makes an excellent crowd control, blind is useful temporary crowd control and stunlocking allows rogues to essentially take a mob out of the fight and solo it. While dealing loads and loads of damage. Some of the best instance runs I've ever done has been with rogue + mage + warlock (me) using our crowd control, to keep the fights under control, and our DPS to own things.
-
It depends on how you got your current grades, rather than what they are. If you had to spend lots and lots of hours studying outside classes in high school, expect nothing less at the uni level. If you could've studied more but didn't because you couldn't be arsed and the grades you got were enough to get you were you wanted to go, well, you can use the same approach - you're just more likely to spend more time doing it.
Personally, I wouldn't say it's more difficult, it's just different in terms of how you study. You need to take an active role in your learning, you need to plan when and how to best study - because as you'll notice, there's a whole lot less coddling students who are unwilling to accept responsibility for their own studies.
-
I learn a lot from coming here and participating in various debates. Thoughts, opinions, facts.
-
I repeat, "Mars is *heating up*", not "Mars is hotter". Mars could indeed have a higher percentage of Co2, but that is irrelevant, considering it is actively rising, and there is nothing on Mars to actively raise Co2 levels. Not sure if there are even active volcanoes on Mars, but if there is, you can't place the blame there, otherwise the "cars are doing it" for Earth goes out the window anyways.
Could you toss me a source for that? I seem to have missed it.
-
Context is everything, context is EVERYTHING! Oh please, you honestly think college guys are going to go into a room full of naked good looking chicks for the sole purpose of just feeling free, that their naked themselves?! You're kidding me! :roll:
So you havn't actually tried it, but assume - not based on past experience's of the event in question, but on your idea of how much a male thinks about sex, which are far more likely to be based on culture rather than science - how it would work out?
-
To claim the US should "stop whining" about rising gas prices because members of the EU pay twofold the price is ridiculous. Firstly, all members of the EU have equal chance to elect EU members, the same EU members who enacted the COE bills (and the other green-bills) that force up gas prices. Trying to distance yourself from this responsibility is precisely the same as Americans distancing themselves from George W. Bush's War in the Middle East.
You're completely missing the point behind the comparison.
If the citizens of the EU, who on an average has a lot lower income per capita than citizen's of the US (I'm actually being lazy and not bothering to check this number, so if anyone feels like checking that I didn't just make that up, I'd be pleased) can pay twice the gas prices without reaching financial ruin, use less than half the amount of gas without cutting down on transportation options, it stands to reason that citizens of the US would A) On the whole, be financially able to pay higher gas prices B) Use less gas.
It has nothing to do with whining about how expensive gas in the EU is compared to gas in the US.
-
I would agree with you in that case if you weren't walking around naked. You don't realize being a female, that any young adult male walking around next to good looking naked felmales aren't going to be raging with hormones, and therefore thinking lustful thoughts. Males don't operate like females in that respect. I can understand that you may not be having sexual, lustful thoughts, but any male over the age of 16 would be no matter how much they say they aren't.
I'll ask you the same question as I asked MPC a few pages back then; Have you actually been naked in a room with both males and females?
Nudity in itself has nothing to do with sex; Context is everything.
-
If you actually think that a guy in a room full of naked girls isn't think about something sexual, well... then you probably don't know what it's like being a guy.
Insane is basically right, they might not be "gawking" at each other, but they are probably thinking about it none the less.
Ever tried being in a room full of both males and females where everyone's naked?
It's perfectly possible for it to be an experiences without any kind of sexuality in it, nor objectification.
-
I'm not going to argue against the biology but I will argue that 12 year old issues stop short in comparison to more teenage issues, which, in turn, stop short of adult issues. You can't compare your 12 year old friends calling you fat to drug abuse as a teen or relying on government payouts so you can exist as an adult.
The fact that you can look back today and say that these are minor, or aren't really, issues isn't the same thing as they weren't issues when you experienced them. Argument is a strawhouse; You had just as many issues when you were younger, they were just of a different kind, just like your future issues are likely to be of a different kind than your current ones. You still can't disregard the first decade of human life as something insignificant.
As a response to another aspect of your post, I wasn't asserting that a 12 year olds opinion is less valuable than someone with more life experience. Quite the contary, actually.No you weren't, that was just me being lazy and continuing my little rant. Part of it were more or less directed at Bubsa's originial post, and parts was just me typing out things I've thought about on the subject over the past few years.
-
If you're getting at what I think you are, that's very misleading. I can say with complete honesty that I have lived through 100 times more issues in the latter third of my life thus far than in the former two thirds (I'm 18, the math is easy). I'd say this is true of most if not all people.
Generally, you lose the vast majority of memories of anything below age 10 because of hormonal change. You can remember specific events with clarity, but five years ago for a 12 year old and five years ago for a 20 year old in terms of recollection ability is vastly different. This doesn't mean you spent the first decade of your life living a sunny existance without issues that played a major role in forming your character. Oh sure, the events - even if you could remember them, which you can't, due to biology - wouldn't seem that big a deal today, but they were definitely issue's back then. Denying this is like claiming you grew up as a potted plant without thought or emotion, an appendage to the unit of your parents rather than as a person.
Which is [cabbage]. A 12 year old has issues, a 12 year old has thoughts, idea's and opinions. Discarding them as insignificant because they have "insufficient experience in life" is silly, not to mention deragotry to the person in question. "You should be more humble in presenting your opinions, because you havn't experienced what I've experienced so your opinions aren't as well-formed". Sure, a physic's degree gives you more clout when it comes to related subjects. Living for six more year's is not a carte blanche that makes your opinions more thought-through, more valid, or more worthy of careful consideration.
-
In real life, you can't do much except suck it up and make little mental notes on stuff you'll do when you're old enough to.
On the internet... Don't lie. You don't want to be fitted into a slot based on your age, and being fitted into another slot based on some made up age isn't much more fun. That, and the cold calculating part of me notes that unless you're going to stay dettached you'll just end with a tangle of lie's about your life that are hard to keep track of. And if one thing is true about the internet, it's that everything is in writing.
But don't reveal your age. There is, for the most part, no practical reason for you to say your age. Your opinions and arguments should be valued in their own right, not by your sociological background. Participating in a political debate has no age requirement. And when people fit you into an age related slot, they'll fit you based on how you act.
The only thing that bugs me about them is how devoted to an opinion of theirs they are, when they haven't even begun to experience life.I have no idea how old you are Bubsa, but does 12 years constitute less or more than 50% of the time you have lived?
-
Scientology was created by a science fiction writer.
Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Mormonism, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc were created with the purpose of being non-fictional.
It's not a matter of whether or not you can prove a metaphysical concept, it's a matter of what the original purpose was.
For instance, the roots of Scientology, Dianetics, was first established in a magazine titled "Astounding Science Fiction." Don't you see the difference? One was established with the original intent of non-fiction, whether or not you believe it - and one was authored by a writer of science fiction.
I'll actually settle for reasonable doubt here. Yes, it was started by a writer of science-fiction who has been accredited the quote "religion is where the money's at" (though last time I tried to actually look up exactly what he said, it all seemed a bit like some form of anti-propaganda rather than something he actually said). Yes, he originially published his thoughts in a science fiction magazine. But then again, he was a science fiction writer. Magazine's like that were the medium he worked with. Publishing what amounts to a religious thought in a paper relating to his _profession_ does not automatically mean he was just making things up to make more money.
Nor does it really show that he was just out to make money.
-
I'm not surprised most of the members here allegedly don't drink...same reason I foresaw the fact that noone cares about what they wear in the "fashion" thread a few weeks ago. We all know what kind of people visit these forums, I don't have to say it out loud, we all know.
I am, seeing as the majority of replies in this seven page thread says the exact opposite?
-
Here's another classic.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 3921358869
I really recommend letting the song at the end play it's full course as well.
"You're not leet enough for Molten Core!". Lines from this provided plenty of raiding giggles back in the day, hehe.
There's an impostor among us!
-
Let's draw an imaginary line.
On one side we have the occasionalm or not so occasional, snide remark and name calling done in the heat of a discussion. These can be used as tools in underscoring, or downright hammering, a point. They spice up the discussion a bit, makes it a bit more interesting to read, and sometimes it even manages to be funny. The difference between a good poster and a mediocre one often lies in the ability to use this in a proper fasion.
We cross the line and end up posting snide remarks and calling names not as a literary tool, but so we can jack off to our own brilliance and bask in the admiration of our cronies, because we are oh so witty. Usually, this tends to lead to a degradation of quality as well; After a while we become so convinced of our own brilliance we don't really take the time to come up with something actually clever. We said it, so obviously, it has to be witty.
It's not offensive, it just isn't funny anymore.
-
Last time I saw some actual studies on underage drinking - which was in relation to a seminar when I first started at uni - they mentioned a considerably increased set of risks assosciated with how early you start drinking. For every year of age you subtract from when you start drinking, the risk of future health problems, including alcoholism, is increased. Supervised or unsupervised drinking.
Contrary to popular belief, a beer belly isn't caused by beer. All it does is make us more susceptible to eat bad food like pizza, macdonalds or whatever. Haha, c'mon all you drinkers, you know it's the truth. God knows I don't think about salad with a six pack under my belt. :PYou ever figured out how many burgers a beer equals in terms of carbonhydrates? They've been showing the comparison on TV around here and it's kind of frightening.
-
Not knowing the exact shedule this might be impossible, but have you tried arranging it so they hook her up with a visa before you leave for Spain?
-
this is why we.. as proper human beings.. have the right to put all these backwards weird little countries in their place. If they cant accept that their way of doing things is just plain wrong then there is no helping them.
Seriously.. im fine with other religions but this is just taking the piss.
In fact, should we chose to invade, the citizenry should be grateful as we have brought through civilization to them at last!
Wow, that's so neo-colonialism it actually scares the [cabbage] out of me, while at the same time explaining why Iran might just not be too fond of "the west".
-
Boulderfist (EU) - Calixtus, lvl 70 warlock
-
Whups, sorry, was a bit sloppy when I removed the bit he quoted from you to avoid quote stacking. Corrected.
-
So until that little detail is overcome mules support the idea that macro evolution doesn't happen.
Err, no, 'cause the female mules are fertile, and can mate with both horses and donkey's. Depending on the exact genetic mix and the father, you can get a horse, or a you can get a donkey. Either way, the female remains fertile. The fact that a combination with 63 chromosones has yet to manage to luck out and hit some concept that would become dominant in a population - nor is it ever likely to now that humans fiddle with the mix - is in itself rather irrelevant. There is no theoretical hurdle for a species of mules arising from the cross of two separate species.
Though by now, I've lost track of how that relates to macroevolution. It's an hybridization between two existing species giving rise to a third, possibly with better rates of survival. Not the most common method of macroevolution, nor is it neccesary for macroevolution to arrive at the modern word - which is nicely outlined somewhere in the links Death By Pod posted, though as usual they were not read.
Actually scientists have developed a pretty detailed time line of the order they say animals evolved so you had the problems I described in my above post happening on a broad scale with many animals at once in a restrained time frame. There is just no way...???
Horses and donkeys can mate. They have different number of chromosomes. And that's one example, of mammalians. There's other examples, with wider genetic differences, and let's not even touch flowers cause that's just painy. Add to that Downs syndrome and the other assortment of various interesting genetic conditions, and we've clearly shown that animals _can_ gain more chromosones than their parents, as well as lose some. This directly refutes this statement by you; "The odds of that are insane since we don't even know if an animal can mutate to a higher chromosome level in the first place.". We do know. As is shown by the example of the mule, we don't even need two mules - which is way it's worth noting that the male is sterile, but the female isn't - a fertile female mule and something else can still manage to pull something of.
Ergo, I'd say it is now relatively safe to say that a changing number of chromosomes is not an evolutionary hurdle - something that is also stated amidst the links posted by Death by Pod, though you have to dig a bit deeper to find it - it can happen, and given time, it will happen.
By the way, the process in which the number of chromosomes is altered is called Robertsonian translocation, and quick explanation can be found here. The important bit would be "A Robertsonian translocation is a type of nonreciprocal translocation in which two nonhomologous acrocentric chromosomes (chromosomes with centromeres near their ends) break at their centromeres, following which the long arms become attached to a single centromere. The short arms also join to form the reciprocal product, which typically contains nonessential genes and usually is lost within a few cell divisions."
Alrighty. In Down syndrome there is extra genetic in the 21 chromosome. It usually results in mild to moderate [developmentally delayed] and is a factor in many negative diseases or afflictions to the person that has it. Additionally like mules males are sterile. Females have about a 50% chance of their child having Down syndrome.Down sydrome... macro evolution in action?
If the extra copy of chromosome 21 leads to an increase in intelligence, how many generations do you reckon it will take before natural selection has made the extra copy a standard of a what - when compared to the species where the error first occured - is a new species? Either way, clearly the number of chromosomes does not pose a hurdle for macroevolution.
-
As to the mule it does raise many concerns on the viability of macro evolution in my opinion.
According to macro evolution at some point as lifeforms were advancing a new creature was born that had more chromosomes than any other creature alive. It would be that shining moment when the freak productive mutation had taken place and a new species had blossomed. Since it would have been the most advanced life on Earth how would it have mated when creatures as similar as a horse and donkey that do contain the same number of chromosomes couldn't mate?
... 'cept horses have 64 chromosones and donkeys have 62?
Several things would have to occur for the species to propagate.1. It would have to be asexual. (This would rule out mammals and most other classes of animals from ever evolving past the lowest levels existing in that class)
Of course, there are mules who are fertile. Because they have 63 chromosones it's always female mules - just as is the case with ligers. Male mules are always sterile because like humans, sex is decided with an XX and XY setup. The problem is getting them to mate and then to luck out like there's no tomorrow in the combination of gene's to create a viable featus. But you know what they say; The probability of whatever happenening taken over the entire existance over the multiverse in the entire span of the multiverse is 1. Or, if you don't want to go quite that probability physics, there's always the whole "a million years" thing going.
The odds of that are insane since we don't even know if an animal can mutate to a higher chromosome level in the first place.Because no one has ever been born with an extra chromosone?
-
They nerfed Limited Invulnerability Potions.
Now how the heck will I survive being squashed by raid bosses and adds =/
-
Yeah, what's up with all this chatter about mutations? Random changes in the genetic code of individuals has precious little part in evolution beyond the single-cell stage (some bacteria share DNA so freely you don't even need it to progress behind that to get some seriously freaky combinations). After that _natural selection_ and the natural genetic variety that arises from sexual reproduction takes care of the rest.
Less X-men, more evolution.
Underage Drinking
in Off-Topic
Posted
It seems better to trust the judgement of someone who's been rigorously trained in the use of a deadly weapon, than to trust someone who's judgment is chemically impaired?