Callipygous

WTF? so yt, you seem to say its a "primary explosive" as though that means it should be treated with extra caution. are primary explosive more powerful(pound for pound) than secondaries? or just easier to set off? or none of the above?

you guys realize all of this is defacing government property and is therefore illegal, right? "primary" explosive?

i have the answer! after much consideration i have decided that the best, most informative, descriptive, and accurate answer is: STUFF.

i may be wrong, but i think he means exactly what he said. in order for us to maintain orbit we would have to be gradually getting closer in or gradually slowing down.

who said thats better for reproduction? there could be any number of reasons why that isnt the best way for our species. maybe the womb cant support that many well enough to get a reasonable survival rate. maybe that forces them to come out less developed, like rat babies, and we cant protect them from the elements and the beasts well enough when there are that many of them that are that fragile. maybe its our size, elephants dont have litters either. were significantly higher on the food chain than animals that give birth to litters. maybe there is a reason?

who says you control it? just get it pointed the right direction and take a leap of faith. thats the way real men do it...

yeah, 40. last ones a pain. the only suggestion i have for people who are struggling: turn on expert mode. its under options, it makes the whole board rotate. its supposed to make it harder, but on the last one i found that the fresh angle actually helps.

why would you bother? you would be burning momentum going up instead of forward.

its not whether or not its beneficial, its whether it results in a higher likelyhood of reproduction. if we didnt have glasses then people with 20 400 vision would struggle to get by on a day to day basis. who is going to hire someone who cant see? how will they support themselves? how will they survive to reproduce? i should also note that this is kindof a packaged deal. its not just glasses, its our standard of living. in this day and age a person who cant see does have a way to support themself. (obviously, i didnt mean to say blind people are incapable. not that im worried about having insulted any of them, how would they ever get this message?) but if we were still hunter gatherers who were fighting off the cougars then blind people wouldnt get by. the point is our entire society has changed in such a way so that we are halting our own evolutionary progress.

does it matter? so people would gradually evolve with tougher eyes... same idea.

i think your fighting the wrong points here c60. you would have better luck (at least with convincing me) if you brought up the fact that all this technology is ruining evolution. normally people with bad eyesight would be cougar food. thanks to glasses we have people running around blind as bats. just think how much better our sense would be as a whole if we didnt do things like this. same thing goes for diseases. diseases weed out the weak spots (malaria/sickle cell aside) in our gene pool. someone has a gene that makes his immune system weaker? oh well, at least he wont be spreading that weakness to future generations...

like that other person said. its having less mass to accelerate that saves gas, not less weight. wings add air resistence and mass. (that wasnt directed at you ecoli, just a response to the thread in general : P)

from what i have heard, yes. impacts will make magnet weaker.

now thats just plain fing stoopid. there is no way that any heated discussion you got into with her MOTHER is enough to cause you to split with her. there is something else wrong dude... single arguments with the person dont ruin relationships, there is no way you managed to blow it all away with one discussion with the persons mother.

im confused about what being an atheist has to do with lying. Believing in god does not remove the option of lying, nor does being an athiest mean you dont have moral standards to uphold.

because thats the best guess, statistically. after seeing one white swan out of a hundred you would probably not be very confident about the color of the remaining 99. after seeing 50 you would probably be expecting most, if not all swans to be white, but not enough to be sure. after seeing 99 white swans you would probably be fairly certain that the last one is white as well, but not absolutely sure. hence, varying degrees of certainty. the fact that the last swan is not actually white does not change the fact that after seeing 99 white swans you are fairly certain that the last one is too. being wrong doesnt mean you didnt have a greater degree of certainty that you did at the beginning. i believe another problem lies in how you are quantifying it. after seeing 2 white swans the probablity isnt 2/100. if all other swans were black the probability of getting 2 white ones in a row is 2/100 X 1/99, which is 2/9900. which makes this a pretty unlikely scenario. if 50 swans are white then the probability is 50/100 X 49/99, which is 2450/9900, making it far more likely that there are 50 white swans in the bag. the problem here (that i cant figure out how to quantify) is that given this logic the most likely possibility, after drawing ANY number of swans, is that they are all white, which probably isnt the assumption most people would make. does anyone know how to work this into the equation?

"just make sure its wide enough that if you were to draw a cirlce with it the other circle would have a tangent point, but never outside" you move it along toward the circle, when you hit a point that is going to be outside of your new line, widen it until you just barely draw over a point but dont cross it.

everything in that post seems arbitrary. why, after pulling 50 white swans out of a bag would you assume that half of all swans are white? thats just totally illogical. i would expect a child to reach that conclusion but not anyone with any knowledge of statistics. any educated person, after pulling 50 white swans in a row would be of the belief that much closer to 100% of swans are white. but besides all that, how does that counter what he said? the fact is, as he stated, some things are not random chance, they are determined by physics, probabilities are our way of expressing the fact that we dont have the facts to determine which way it will go. if we knew each and every one of the forces acting on the coin we could determine which way it will land, but we dont. so despite the fact that the coin WILL land a certain way, we dont know which way, it is our lack of knowledge that makes for the 50/50 chance.

i have been in that situation many times myself. while that may be a good way to handle it if they bring it up, if they dont i still think its better not to say anything.

the one that i really like is when they ask me "what? and we just HAPPEN to be on the planet that life sprung up on? out of all the billions of planets in the universe it just magically takes place on OUR planet? what are the odds of that?" /chuckle (almost gives you a headache to even read it, doesnt it?)

i would put the point of the compass on the edge of the circle, and then widen it to the farthest point on the other side of the circle. (just make sure its wide enough that if you were to draw a cirlce with it the other circle would have a tangent point, but never outside) i would use that to make a line elsewhere (pretty hard to pinpoint the tangent point) the same length as the diameter. bisect it, set the compass to that length. put it back on the edge of the circle in two different places and draw circles, where they intersect is the center. (this maybe a very round-about and possibly inaccurate method, i havent done much construction besides the basics in geometry class 4 years ago : P)

i like it a hell of a lot better when people tell me what they are thinking instead of beating around the bush. please dont tell me its because im pro "choice" and you cant "choose" your beliefs... thats just lame.