waterplant

If the perpendicular force has a greater velocity than the object then it would increase in speed (see billiards). It shouldn't turn but continue in a straight line in a new direction.

Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem is a good example.

Agreed. Leaving unproven concepts open for discussion (criticism being an essential part of this process) may be a good way forward. btw I believe that humans are still way off establishing even the fundamentals of what is. Some of the most bizarre sounding ideas have, and will continue to become, 'common' knowledge.

Niemand, if your assertion was sincere then I would listen to what you had to say if only to get an insight into your radical state of mind. Concepts often predate proof, often by centuries. Originally Posted By: CRISIS on INFINITE SLARTIES I have less patience than Niemand and I'm just going to say it's baloney. Prove it, or it's baloney, because it sounds like baloney. 'A little nonsense now and then is treasured by the wisest men' (& women I presume). Willy Wonka

Originally Posted By: Dantius Originally Posted By: waterplant The Moor's Last Sigh by Salman Rushdie. I wish I was Salman Rushdie. You wish you were permanently in hiding so you wouldn't be executed with a meat cleaver in the middle of the street by Muslim extremists? True. He probably lives an ok life considering... Maybe being Milan Kundera would be less bothersome.

Originally Posted By: Ephesos Originally Posted By: waterplant Philosophically speaking anything can only exist in relation to it's opposite. Then what, pray tell, is the opposite of a giraffe? An anti-giraffe. Niemand, just because you regard philosophy as gibberish doesn't mean it actually is (ok it is in your version of the world but maybe that's because you haven't tried to understand it). To say what is is fine, especially if you have evidence, but to automatically dismiss an idea without said evidence (of disproof) is not sound scientific practice.

The Moor's Last Sigh by Salman Rushdie. I wish I was Salman Rushdie.

Originally Posted By: Dantius Apparently they give insight into what happened in the first few picoseconds of the Big Bang when there were roughly equal potions of matter and ant-matter, but then they annihilated each other and created the universe or something. Apparently not. If this occurred then there would be nothing (this is where the mystery lies). Perhaps what was created from the big bang was smaller than matter (energy?) and this product plus it's counterpart came together to form what we know as matter i.e. matter and anti-matter exist as the same entity and are in the process of annihilating each other. Or maybe anti-matter isn't here - meaning that it doesn't exist in this space/time where matter exists (or at least not yet). Philosophically speaking anything can only exist in relation to it's opposite.

Originally Posted By: Lilith so did you just like completely skim over the word "easily" there or what Originally Posted By: Lilith i will defend the position that your post was more correct than a randomly-generated string of words would have been although "correct" is probably a misleading word to use anyway Abandon punctuation all Ye who enter here!

Ham and cheese I believe, unless you specify the vegetarian option.

Originally Posted By: Dantius Originally Posted By: CRISIS on INFINITE SLARTIES What's special about math that makes it a priori the definition of all relationships? Because everybody is egotistical enough to think that it is their chosen field of study is the best and purest and awesome-est field there is, and that us plebeians should just shut up and be in awe of them. Historians do it, teachers do it, scientists do it, mathematicians do it, engineers do it, manual laborers do it, politicians do it, everybody does it. They're all wrong, of course. But noone will admit it. Philosophers suspect that all disciplines have the capacity to be regarded as best/purest/awsomest - if one is prepared to take a broad enough veiwpoint.

Originally Posted By: CRISIS on INFINITE SLARTIES I don't think I was explaining myself very well as far as the ease of translating (not literally) the building blocks of language. Let me try and explain it more concretely with one example: If you are a fluent, native English speaker (or a speaker of most any language), you know how to distinguish nouns and verbs grammatically. You know how to do this even if you never learned what a noun or a verb is. In fact, you know how to do this correctly even if you were taught incorrect definitions ("action word" and "person, place, or thing"). You might not be able to answer technical questions about nouns and verbs on paper, but you can USE them correctly -- even in unusual and intricate situations. You understand those two categories of words, even if you don't have the vocabulary to talk about them. So, when you learn a foreign language, when you are putting together the paradigm for that language in your head, you can -- and do -- reuse most of the parts of the English paradigm. So if you get no explanation, or a bad explanation, of how nouns and verbs work, it doesn't really matter, because you already have the mental tools to use them. On the other hand, if you get no explanation, or a bad explanation, of what exactly the square root of negative one is, it takes a lot more work to make up that ground yourself. Many people can do that on their own, but not everybody -- and that's the difference with languages. I'm not sure if I totally agree here. People learn their native language only how they're taught it - if taught incorrectly then one will speak that way. I live in a country where I don't really speak the language and also I didn't learn so much the parts of speech at school and what they are called. So when I try to assemble a sentence myself in German I often get the order wrong, however I can get it right, if I've learnt a particular phrase, by keeping the structure of the phrase and substituting the words I want. When someone tries to explain to me why a sentence is how it is grammatically my brain fogs up since I didn't learn grammar that way. When you speak of 'building blocks' of language I think they are more varied and fundamental than you mention - being able to distinguish between nouns and verbs only gets you so far and could be equated with, say, addition and subtraction. There are a myriad of other things that you have to be made aware of and actually learn, same as learning that there is a square root and the what, how and why's of it.

Originally Posted By: Dantius So basically a game where you slaughter indigenous people with superior technology and viruses. I agree with you; I'd totally buy that game. *bottomburp*

Yep, awesome. I look forward to reading more. Dire wallabies disturb me...

Without wanting to punch-on with anybody (nikki), as far as we actually know this planet of ours is the only place anywhere that currently sustains life yet humans treat these rather sophisticated lifeforms like they just exist for us to trash. I see a huge void between the act of eating meat, and the abuse and excess of modern food production and consumption.

The graph in the article is interesting in that Obama's election coincides with a steep decline in casualties.

How a war differs from 'combat operations' seems a bit vague to me - kind of like the US wants a presence in Iraq without the 'bring it on', as a former President once put it. Obama can now focus on that other unsolvable dilemma/ black hole of the domestic economy.

Everything in moderation isn't a bad way to go.

Originally Posted By: Handyman waterplant: I suppose you're right about physiological dependence; although that would only worsen the withdrawl, and (depending on the drug and severity) introduce health risks. Excepting the health risks, it's a difference of degrees. one dollar: Experience in general changes the brain. PTSD, for instance, is not a drug. My initial comment in this thread wasn't thought through - looking at addiction from the outside can cause a superficial 'get over it' attitude. Reading the wiki page on gaming addiction was humbling and disturbs me still. I am usually against regulation but, seen simply as a helpful reminder that gaming has risks, a notice on the package regarding gaming addiction is a good idea.

waterplant senses that Dikiyoba is not his usual self - that he is in a bad space or surrounded by stress. waterplant sends phloem.

Originally Posted By: Lilith right now i'm basically living off rental income from the properties my family owns i'm pretty sure that technically makes me a capitalist ;_; No, it makes you a feudalist - a 'Victorian' in the purest sense. Sorry, Queenslander jokes don't even raise a smile any more - Victorians are much more fun.

Hardcore. That's truly shocking.

Hang on. Yes I do. You're talking about scientific method rather than what it may or may not prove, right?

I agree. Simply giving examples that aren't repressed memory doesn't prove much. Originally Posted By: Lilith remember, science isn't something that is; it's something you do. we don't call a lucky guess scientific. I don't follow your here, however.

Are there?