iglak

and, if changing the past IS possible, then the farther back in time, the less you can impact the past without changing the future. if you went back to the birth of the earth, dropped a piece of paper into the lava, then went back home, everything would be completely different. although, my personal theory is that when you go back into the past, you are in the past, which means that it already happened, which means that despite your efforts, you were not able to change it... etc.. a.k.a. the present is a result of the past, and the past is just that, the past.

okay... responding by paragraph: 1) i was reffering to a common point among ALL people, not just blike, my community, other forums, or whatever 2) sorry, i assumed you did because of what you said, sorry. btw, what did you read that was the entire plot? a.k.a. how did you read the entire plot? 3) okay, i didn't understand that before. 4) exactly what i was trying to say 5) i agree 6) i agree, though i didn't pick up many of the religious references or cultural artifacts... 7) that's a good point. though at the end of "matrix" it is inferred more as we have taken the matrix, and will now fight for the real world. 8) R&R forms the story of the war that immediately follows "The Matrix." it doesn't really hook back into the animatrix, and i haven't played the game so i don't know about that. i heard that the game made a big contribution to the plot... 9) a) cable fighting? of course not. although, in revolutions, neo and smith fight while they are flying... not easily done very well. c) when was bullet time used before "The Matrix"? and was it used as extensively as "The Matrix"? d) what do you mean by "blend theological and cultural themes"? can you give me an example of when they did that? 10) i agree with half intensity... 11) the plot was just that there was a war going on, and that the matrix is part of it... what else is there? there are the sub-plots of: the whole Smith thing the architect/oracle thing the machines being everywhere thing... what else? i don't see how the plot doesn't make sense, can't support it's own weight, and isn't needed at all.

but, if there were no variables effecting speed other than the bbs, then if we shot these bbs at the boulder, wouldn't the boulder not be able to reach 100mph? the faster the boulder goes, the less effect the bbs have on it, because the slower the bbs are going in realation to it, and the less energy they transfer on impact. thus, it will take infinite bbs to push the boulder 100mph, a.k.a. infinite energy. and back to the big bb, inertia causes it to lose as little kinetic energy as possible, but since the boulder is directly in it's way, the only way to keep kinetic energy is to transfer enough energy to keep the boulder ahead of it and about the person seeing the ship coming in at a certain rate... the person will actually probably see the ship closing at abou 1.2c. since time dialation is ture, it takes more for movement to happen. people see at 30 frames/second. the faster you travel, the slower time is for you. you'd still percieve it as normal speed, because you frame rate will decrease with the decreasing time rate, and your movement speed will decrease with the decreasing time rate. so, the closer you get to the speed of light, the closer you get to infinitely fast, from your perspective... MUAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

hmm... so a bb with more mass than the boulder would knock the boulder faster than the bb was traveling... so ALL of the kinetic energy must be transfered to the boulder (minus friction) wait... if this were to happen, wouldn't the boulder be knocked at 100mph, and the bb would just slow down a little from the impact? wouldn't the bb transfer only the energy needed to push the boulder 100mph, and keep the rest to sustain it's own movement?

no, blike didn't, but other people did (not neccesarilly on this forum). the ending to this revolutions is quite different than the ending to the original, and it does, in fact, end the trilogy. there is some minor philosophy: -choices 'n' basic chaos theory. -what are we fighting for? then there was some mythological lore: -vampires 'n' ghosts 'n' stuff i probably am more easily pleased than others, but you just said why without knowing it. the first movie was just right: -a good amount of fighting -little philosophy, but all understandable -special effects that changed the world of Hollywood -started a plot about a war the second movie was okay: -a good amount of fighting, but the fighting was kinda corney -too much philosophy, resulting in not much understanding -special effect were the same as last time -the middle of the war the problem with this was that people expected it to change the world again, but it didn't the third movie was good: -a lot of fighting, but excelent use of special effects -very little philosophy, but what little there was is pretty corney -special effects were slightly improved -the end of the war, and unexpected happy ending i have no idea what was expected here, but the i think many people don't understand the ending, or expected the humans to miraculusly build a bomb that blows up all of the machines... P.S. wait a minute... "I for one feel that R&R fall well short of expectations, and I am not impressed." r and r? YOU SAW REVOLUTIONS!!!!!!!!!!! YOU'RE A TRAITOR TO YOUR OWN BOYCOTT!!!!!!!! lol

terrible ending? i disagree. i think anything else would have been corney and predictable. what questions are you reffering to? well... i didn't really look for symbolism, and didn't find any. (assuming you mean looking for a moral to the story expressed in symbols in the movie). all i saw among the trilogy was: war starts action why war thoughts war ends COOL!!!!! i think anyone looking for anything deeper would be dissapointed, but why war thoughts can get pretty deep P.S. the only question i had unanswered was: why the heck does everything only happen in one city? if there are so many people being grown, why isn't the whole world filled, and agents everywhere, and possibly other matrixes?

i just saw it...... it... was... 4\/\/350/\/\3!!!!!!!!!!11 i don't get why people think it was bad the ending worked very well, and ended the trilogy anything else would have been corney, stupid, and predictable sure it had some corney philosophy in the beginning, but so what? i think that was a big turn off for people, and they didn't pay any attention to the movie afterwards. so they lost understanding of the plot. kinda like Reloaded, where the fighting was kinda corney, and didn't change the world of Hollywood at all. so people bacame uninterested and didn't pay attention to the plot. thus, making them write reviews that there was no plot... well i have something to say to those people... pay attention next time!!! those who say there is no plot, and it doesn't end, didn't pay attention to the movie, and are just spouting :bs: P.S. the fight scene between neo and smith was really cool. if anyone here has seen any Dragonball Z, did the fight scene remind you of it? when i saw the fight scene, i thought, "OMG!!! it would be SO cool if they did something this real looking with DBZ characters. they could shoot energy balls and turn super sayan!!!! that would be so cool!!!" P.P.S. if you shot your energy at me, i will just become SUPER SAYAJIN!!!!!! :flame: .... or maybe my head's just on fire...

i just saw it an hour ago... IT WAS AWESOME!!!!!!! i don't get why people don't think it's good. sure the philosophy was corney, but there wasn't much of it. i think just that there was some corney philosophy in the beginning was a huge turn off for people, and they didn't really pay attention afterwords. what's wrong with the ending? it was a perfect ending. anything else would have been stupid and predictable. if you think it wasn't really an ending to the trilogy, i think you need to pay more attention to the plot. :rant: P.S. this is not directed agaist blike. so don't kill me!!!!

is that the reason? or is it just that light always travels the speed of light (or slower in a medium), so it takes time for light to travel that distance? yes, too much energy, but it is supposedly not a finite amount of energy. as things gain speed, they actually gain mass (called "relative mass," but acts the same as normal mass) so, the closer the trains get to the speed of light, the more energy is required to increase the speed of the increasing mass. although, this could just be because of something else (a theory of mine) that i can only describe through an example: -let's say we have a perfectly spherical planet made completely out of evenly spaced... alluminum molecules(any solid will do). -lets say we have another perfect phere made out of the same material about the size of a boulder. -now, lets say we have ten silos full of ball bearings (bb's). -connected to these silos, with an automatic feed, is a rapid fire, automatic gun that always shoots these bb's at exactly 100mph, and any rate of bb's/second -now that all of the specifics are done, we fire these bb's at the boulder. -no matter how many we fire at the boulder, and no matter how many we fire per second, the boulder can never be propelled faster than 100mph. even if it could, the bb's wouldn't be able to hit them to move it any faster... now, if nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, how will we ever find something that can to propell our faster-than-light travel? could this be the increase in mass as things approach the speed of light? if not, what could be it? P.S. can gravity an magnetism travel faster than light? P.P.S. did i get anything wrong if you know?

actually, it's semi-oxymoronic, like my entire sig. sorry, just had to say that.

if you just make a plain electromagnet with like a billion wraps of wire, or more, wouldn't that be a very strong magnet even with a plain D battery? how strong do you want, and do you want a permanent one?

yeah... everyone i know who saw it said they didn't like it... but i am going to see it anyway. other than the fact than reloaded was kinda corney compared to the first one, i liked it. sure, it didn't change the world of film making like the original, but does that make it bad? at about this point, i don't really care about the story... i just want to see the special effects and cool choreography, and find out the end to the story (which i heard wasn't much of an end). P.S. and you call yourselves nerds, you're all discraces to the good name of geeks everywhere. lol

and even if that upper limit is reached, the brain most likely has many ways of compensating for it.

sorry to be the third person to quote this... often times, the parent does not understand the potential outcome. sometimes people don't understand the facts that the child is a temporary parasite, the birth is painful, and the costs of raising a child are high. and, as dudde mentioned, problems could arise after the decision was made

counter argument: So if you were walking down the street and somebody was being raped in an alley, would you turn the other way and say "at least they will have a happy life with a beutiful baby"??This is... i can't think of a simple word to describe it..., and the rapee should be able to at least partially undo that horrible experience. there are many ways to think about this: most organisms try to find the best genetic material for their offspring, and want to have children that they can fully say is their own. if genetic material is forced into you, would you want to raise it. you would know that that person't genetic material is inferior, having the unstable mentality that resulted to rape. why would you want to raise an inferior baby? it is a life, and all life should have the chance to live and prove themselves. birth is a painful experience that no one wants to go through unwillingly. if against one's will, the mother will not be mentally and/or physically ready for raising the child, and could make poor decisions that will make the child live a terrible life. if the mother is not ready, they could go through that painful experience and give the baby up for adoption. generally, once they see the baby, they don't want to give it up to a potentially worse life or death. the world is getting overcrowded anyway, so one life won't matter. ... and a few others that i am unaware of or haven't mentioned. in my opinion: it is a moral decision that the mother should make. knowing full well that it is a life, and it could be a good or bad life. also with knowlege of what is likely to happen if they do or don't have an abortion. the government should not make that decision for people because 1) governments are notoriously, steryotypically wrong; and 2) what right does the government have to say that a person must give birth. people should be able to chose what genetic material they want to pass on to future generations. without natural selection, there is little or no medium-scale evolution, and our species will not advance very far. P.S. something i don't understand is why does the majority want to have privacy from the government, but many, many people want the government to make all decisions, including very personal ones, for them. P.P.S. in my opinion, and the dictionary's, taking life is much different from refusing to give life.

hmm... if they have the same basic skull as ours, then i would say we develope things faster than they did because we have a bigger emphasis on inventing things in today's society. i would say that if i didn't have any knowlege, and the Homo erectus (or whatever) didn't have any knowlege; and if we kept our personalities, then i would be able to invent more than him/her, because i come from a society that puts a lot of emphasis on the ability to invent things, and the ability to make connections between pieces of information. but, i don't think it is because we have a more evolutionally developed brain. i think we have more developed brains, but not primarily because of genetic evolution.

i agree, but what level of caveman are you talking about? at some point along the evolutionary line, we developed big brains... are you talking about cavemen before, after or during that process? also, who's to say that our brains aren't still slowly evolving bigger? when i say big brain, that can include brain ability, it does not have to be limited to size. time could be a factor, but it is also possible that if they had little time, then they would have tried to find a way to get more time so that they could discover things. if they were determined, they could have possibly found a way. P.S. i don't know if a "normal" caveman could do the things i said, if they had the time i implied and the need i implied. that's the semi-unanswerable question that you were asking... and i can't really answer....

as a baby... it would be hard to build anything since i don't even really know how to walk, lol. as a caveman outcast that was never aloud to learn anything... i would have seen people with clubs, so i could make that. if i find a pointy rock, then after some random/accidental experimenting, i could make a pick. from that pick, i could quickly learn about axes, and make a crude axe. if, at one point in time, i accidentally drop some flint i picked up, and it lands sharply on another piece of flint, and there just happens to be some flammable matterials that the sparks from the flint hit, then i would see fire, and would be able to reproduce it. from that i could quickly make a torch. after much sitting under a tree, protecting me from the rain, i could possibly find a few logs, angle them correctly, throw mud, dirt, grass, twigs, and leaves over it, and make a primative shelter. if i notice that logs float, and i happen to like riding on logs in a lake. i could possibly learn how to paddle, and possibly be carrying a big piece of bark, or a big leaf to offer better shelter. if there happened to be strong wind, then it could push the bark/leaf, which would push me, which would push my log. then i could carry a big piece of bark with me whenever i traverse the lake, so that, if the wind is blowing in the right direction, i could let it push me. i might be playing with a pointy stick one day and poke a pile of leaves. i would notice that the pointy stick would poke through the leaves, and pick them up. i could figure out that i could pick up many things with a pointy stick. i might even poke it at mild animals (not anything that can really protect itself) for food. i probably would not develope a throwing spear though. that's about all i can think of again.

that depends. do i have any knowlege of today's world? what function am i trying to make something for? how much primative knowlege do i have? without any knowlege, i could probably make: a club, an axe, a basic log bridge, a fire - by trial and error, and by observing that hitting two pieces of flint together makes sparks, possibly some sort of primative shelter, possibly a spear, possibly a sail boat - if i noticed that wind pushes things and bowls float, and a working electric generator ... wait i probably wouldn't be able to make: a saw, a bow & arrow, a good sailboat a good shelter any sort of string anything similar or above those... i can't currently think of anything else

well actually... no, lol. i meant brand as in what you thought, but i said "the brand you should trust is marked with BS 7114." as in, generally specific brands are marked with that because only specific brands have been inspected and given approval. generally there won't be one type of firework that is bad within a company. it is usually that all of them are bad, or none of them are bad (i think). so, i meant brand in the way you said, but i meant mark also in the way you said. i'm kinda tired, so... i hope that makes sense

i think of myself as a lot better thatn the average (steryotypical) man, who i think of as a tiny bit better than cavemen. we have an intellectual environment, yes, but most of us are a lot wiser that cavemen. knowlege has absonutely nothing to do with genetics, and we live in a world with a whole lot more knowlege than the cavemen did. our ability to gain knowlege faster and make connections between sets of knowlege is what makes us different from cavemen (supposedly), and is probably somewhat genetic. also, our physical features are different from the steryotypical caveman.... well, that's my 2 cents.

i said/meant a brand that is marked with that. i couldn't think of a way to phrase it when i said it, so i did the best i could... nevermind, it's not important.although, i did not know that the mark stands for British Standards for safety.... well, now i know... and i hope i would have known if i lived there, lol.

no, that's not at all what i was saying... i was just pointing out some semi-funny things in a serious e-mail post.... should i not do that? i don't have to ever make a joke again. i am sure fireworks without that label are fakes, and i wouldn't buy one either. i always do what that e-mail says (except wearing glowes while holding sparklers). i wasn't saying the result was funny, just that it is kind of ironic that the brand you should trust is marked with BS 7114. i am sure everyone knows that the BS does not stand for what i implied, which is why i thought it would be okay if i implied it, i guess i was wrong. also, that second thing i said wasn't supposed to be funny or ironic, i was making a legitimate point, and asking a legitimate question. why don't these sort of safety precautions ever say what types of injuries are common. hand and eye are not "types" of injuries, they are areas of the body. just as important as where the injuries are is what the injuries are. knowing how the most common injuries result and the severity of the injuries helps people understand how to prevent them. all hand and eye says is "dont hold them when you light them and don't point them at your face." that is not useful information. now what you said IS useful information: a large scar across one eye, and a permanently severed limb. this is more descriptive and promotes more safety. it says to be aware that fireworks can change direction unnexpectedly, and that poor fireworks can explode as you light them. this is very useful information. P.S. i was not disagreeing with anything in there, just pointing out two interesting things.... although when it says gloves, it implies huge chemical protective gloves, which is jotally overkill..., but other than that i think it's great that the company sent that e-mail out (promoting common sense is a good thing). sorry if you took it that i thought otherwise...

:ripped:.......rofl

i just want to point out two interesting things 1) i find it funny that, when in the UK, you should only buy fireworks marked with "BS" 7114 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .:haha: 2) hand and eye are not really types of injuries, they are merely areas of the body where injuries can occur. a type of injury, and even more important than where injuries commonly occur, is things like: burned skin, punctured skin, severed bits, tiny cuts, explosions, etc..