Daecon

Yep, that's a livestream spambot.

Well I finished reading it. I enjoyed it mostly, but I did find it very hard to follow at times due to having difficulty in visualizing what was being described on the page. I found myself having to re-read some paragraphs a few times before I could fully understand what was supposed to be happening. ...and I just realised that makes me sound like someone who only enjoys a book if it has pictures. Oh dear! I'll give the book another go next week before I return it to the library.

It depends on your idea. Lots of people claim to have ideas.

I've just today got this book from my local library (they were kind enough to purchase a copy after I filled out a suggestion form a few weeks ago) and have started reading it for the first time. Has anyone else read this book? What did you think of it?

Humans are warm-blooded, mammalian vertebrates who are not plants.

Being able to choose how and when to die should (in theory) be better than randomly dying from accident or illness. I think the main issue with suicide is when it's a response to an external situation which may only be temporary, and that taking such an irreversible course of action may be premature.

A justified comment put to anyone wanting to promote their new Earth-shattering, groundbreaking, epoch-making, paradigm-shifing speculation is "where's the math(s)"? For people with active imaginations but lacking in mathematical training, what would be the best way to try to address this criticism and provide the maths to back up their ideas?

0*1*1=0 1*2*2=4 2*3*3=18 3*4*4=48 4*5*5=100 5*6*6=180

Maybe we should come up wih a term, like "autobehavioural awareness incompetence" or something?

Isn't it just hypocrisy?

I think it's technically a berry.

Yes. The Platypus is a mammal.

My mum has a Staffordshire, apparently she's a rescue dog and really friendly and well-tempered. I still find myself subconsciously flinching when I'm petting her and she makes a sudden move. I guess I'm just not a dog person.

Did they say why?

So if I suggested a scenario like the following: "Say we had a hypothetical Universe that measured 500 units across with an expansion rate of 10% an hour. In the first hour, this Universe would expand from 500 to 550 units across - so the measured expansion would be 50 units per hour. But in the following hour, the Universe would expand from 550 to 605 units across and the expansion would be measured at 55 units per hour. This way, the expansion in our hypothetical Universe is measured to be accelerating, even though the percentage is constant." But that's inaccurate to describe the accelerating expansion which is actually happening in our real Universe?

Sorry, I missed your previous reply, Strange. Has the rate of acceleration been determined? For example, if the Universe expands by x% over a certain amount of time, then the expansion would naturally accelerate as time goes on, wouldn't it?

Oh, does the Queen move in the same way as the chess piece? I overlooked that the first time.

Can they pass over squares they've already visited, or just not land on the same square twice? How are diagonals calculated? Can they go in circles or just straight lines?

I have a question which may be slightly off-topic, but what might our measurements of the Universe look like if expansion was at a constant rate and not accelerating?

I'm not sure I'm following the paradox here?

So... gay people don't live in houses?

My IQ was a lot bigger in my early teens when I had it tested. I'm dumber now.

If you're going to define stars as being alive, then couldn't that definition logically be extended to ordinary fire?

Gravity curves space. Light follows the curve of space which is caused by gravity.

I wonder how that sounds...