fastortoise

My favourite is by far Irish car bombs : 1/2pint guinness, 1/2shot jameson, 1/2shot baileys. Add both 1/2 shots into a shot glass and drop it into the guiness, chug it all before it foams up (in less than 5 seconds). Tastes like chocolate milk and gets you hammered :D My bartender friend made me all kinds of other drinks of that sort but I can't for the life of me remember any of their names... colourful though.

I noticed something with the common morals going on in this thread. Good guy in X-Men movies Bad guy in X-Men movies

But if you think about it, if we can revert cells back to their omni, pluri or even multipotent states then there would be no need for embryonic stem cells. Wouldn't that be great? It's just my opinion that we should do what we can to take away our dependance of embryonic stem cells. Although, the Bush administration was definitely a hindrance on research. The USA is still very far behind on this technology even after Obama lifted the ban, I heard some of the greatest scientists took their labs to countries like Singapore or something.

Yes. I must say, you made me rage really hard at this. Congrats.

Finally, the pain is gone.. the Habs are dead. It was brutal watching them in the playoffs. One good forward line, no defense and an unstable goalie? They shouldn't have been there in the first place :(

If you had to carry around a ten pound plant in your body for nine months and go into labour for half a day just to get it out I think you'd want to keep that plant for awhile and not just toss it in the trash at first sight. Let the lady think things through.. you obviously aren't putting yourself in her shoes or you wouldn't be so quick to judge.

Proof that the Bush administration actually had it's good sides. Their ban on embryonic stem cell researched forced scientists to do studies like those mentioned in warrior's post. Embryonic stem cells aren't very common, so adult cell conversion back to stem cells solves this limitation. I'm all for embryonic stem cell research as well though. I don't understand why people have the idea that scientists are evil people who rob newborns and turn them into stem cell smoothies with their blender in the lab. Their source of stem cells come from either aborted fetuses or from the embryos not chosen after an IVF & genome test.

No bikini shots, no interest :thumbdown:

Crosschecking someone in the face is not reason enough for suspension? Are you kidding me? Although I used to have some respect for Lucic since he is such a great hitter and a skillful player at the same time, that crosscheck was really not called for especially when they were winning 5-1 when he did it. The only reason why the Bruins are doing so well is because of Tim Thomas, that guy is a freaking WALL.

I strongly believe that suicide depends on the height at which society places the bar for reasons to commit suicide. Here's an example from Malcolm Gladwell's book The Tipping Point to demonstrate my (or his) point. There was a secluded island in the Caribbeans where suicide rates were rock bottom low. This is because suicide was considered the worst possible solution to a problem, and was never justifiable to the townspeople. So, if a farmer lost his land in a flood and could not feed his family anymore, he wouldn't kill himself as opposed to someone in the US for example. Their society placed the bar for reasons to kill themselves really high. One day, though, a romantic was caught having to chose between two lovers for marriage. To him, someone who did not conform to societies rules (he had 2 lovers after all), this choice was unbearable and he off'ed himself. The bar was lowered. A month later, after a heartbreaking breakup, a young teenager commits suicide. Another month later, more and more of the village's romantics kill themselves. Perhaps now farmers who lost all their crops will convince themselves to commit suicide. I think you get my point now. Sure, there are mental factors to consider in suicide, just like there are many factors in every aspect of everything. But the driving force behind killing yourself or not, according to me, is that bar set by society. This philosophy also explains why there are different suicide rates in every country, even in every town.

I'm so disappointed in my town's team (Montreal Habs). They lost both their away games due to indiscipline, getting the stupidest penalties and our starter goalie is worthless. Hopefully they'll shape up in our next two HOME games. That said, Detroit is obviously taking the cup again this season :(

That's what excites me. Before Einstein, forward travel was a mystery as well. Who knows which next brilliant mind will theories how to travel back in time? \

The Church of the Churchless, where everybody embraces reality

So the population [bleep]es even more and overpopulation becomes a bigger issue than it already is? The same goes for ending disease and war. These things are necessary. Not quite. The poor are the ones who die due to wars and illness, not the rich. First World Countries are the ones with much lower death rates but use the majority of the world's resources. Indeed. I'm tired of people like Deiophobus who justify famine and epidemic diseases like malaria that cause suffering for millions as "necessary for population control". If you guys are worried about the eventual lack of resources in your country, please go off yourselves. We don't need your selfishness and abuse of your lucky disposition around here.

Not so. If we perfect cloning we could un-extinct any non-human organism, as we could take a sample of the DNA from the organism before it dies out, implant it into an egg then use a similar species as the surrogate mother. Easy. Doing it before it dies out isn't "un-extinction." It's cloning an endangered species. And we've already done that. But as I said, there is an extremely high failure rate for the transplantation and any species that can afford to wait on that can probably recover naturally. Look at the buffalo. You can't do it with a similar species either. Human and apes as I'm sure you've heard share 99% of their DNA. But can't reproduce with each other. While you skip the incompatibility somewhat by preparing the fertilized egg beforehand, there are all kinds of problems you could run into during gestation. That just adds another factor for failure. Once we get to know the exact biochemistry of omnipotent stem cells we'll be a big step further towards efficient cloning. We will be getting there. No doubt about it. And then we don't have to clone a whole organism, but rather single organs, or organ systems. I did research on preserving and stimulating hematopoietic stem cells, and I must say, it all looks very promising. It's all extremely cool stuff. My professor and I were talking about families who have a first child with leukemia, and with the help of geneticists, they select another child with matching tissues to serve as a transplant donor. Instead of one unhealthy child, they have two healthy children. Then I asked my teacher if it would be unethical if we clone ourselves but turned off the main genes that form our head & brain, so we'd be left with perfect organ matches without the head just waiting have it's organs harvested. He said the surrogate mother would freak out when they'd give birth to a headless baby :lol:

I remember being fascinated by the nuclear fusion phenomena when I entered college, which inclined me to go into engineering. However, after realizing the sheer power behind DNA and recombinant technology, genetics was the obvious academic choice for me. :geek:

Personal transportation that gives me the ability to fly would definitely improve my quality of life.

Here is an easy explanation for those who are brain dead when it comes to math (hey, didn't everyone here have 130+ IQs? hmm). Anyway, let's pretend that when the first mathematicians had to define a term to represent a number that increases forever (infinity), they defined that term in such a way that 0.9999... = 1. If they had done it any other way, our modern calculations could possibly have be different, but since "advanced" math is based on this, there's no escaping it. End of discussion.

Wanna explain to me where you got the [s - (1/100)S]? Look at the two lines above it. The bottom is subtracted from the top, so the terms "99/100^2 + 99/100^3 + 99/100^4 + ... + 99/100^n" are all deleted, which gives the result you see. Well if we are going to be scrutinizing over grammatical errors, sentences generally end with a form of punctuation. There's a difference between backing up an entire argument on "collage professor > teenager" and not ending a sentence with a point. Especially when the former was wrong :thumbdown:

If my proof included the infinity you speak of, the limit of the function I set up would be undefined since infinity is not approaching any number, that's how infinity works. However, that's not the case (why can't you see this?). Yes, the number 0.999... is increasing infinitely but it's converging to a number (1). Every part of that proof is proper math, have it peer reviewed by all the apparent geniuses that teach at your school. And collage is spelled college, professor :roll:

Are people here really rejecting the entire use of limits in this thread? Come on guys.. Without simple calculus, we'd still be stuck in the stone age. Come join our advanced society by reading http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Calculus/Limits That wiki page explains the last part of this proof, which seems to be the part you people can't grasp. The other stuff is cal2 material, but anyone with a right mind can understand the general gist of it... I only used that complicated stuff in order to set up the last part of the proof, the limit part.

I remember posting this on the last 0.999.. thread [hide=][/hide] everybody can shut up about this now. unless they have questions about my proof of course

Played squash for 2 straight hours with maybe 12 of the best people in my gym class, undefeated 8-) In 3 weeks I went from average to top player. :thumbup:

Shoulda pushed him under the bus. You'll know better next time :)

After thinking about it, my opinion on incest stays unchanged. If it were not for the taboos associated with incest, there would be so many chowderheads (for lack of a better word) producing genetically unfit babies with their siblings. Even if both parents are consenting, I do not expect everyone to fully understand the risks of having a baby with your siblings. In short, it's like taking 10 flowers, purposely selecting the worst trait each have, and combining all those to make a genetically unfit plant. It may not harm you directly, but do you really want your country to pay millions of dollars in order to keep such a baby alive? The only way to prevent having these genetically unfit babies is to make the entire ordeal taboo (which is what has been done, and is proven to be successful). However, with bestiality, no such consequences are possible. Also, we've done so much to animals lately that it may finally be time for bestiality to be accepted. I mean, we slaughter them at a national scale, use them for harsh drug tests, some even tamper with their genomes to create mutant versions of the species. So what if you want to put your ramrod in them? Let's face it, society's needs will always involve animal cruelty, why not give them a little love for once?