aswokei

You don't like girls?!! What are you? An 11 year old trapped in an 18 year old's body?

Buy hookers! I've heard they're good in Canada. But then nearly all chicks in Canada are hot. Yeah, that's what I would do. Get as many girlfriends as you can.

That link just took me to an empty page. Why is the idea impossible to implement?

I was thinking about how nanotechnology will let us manipulate matter on very fine scales. Is it conceiveable to develop a technology that will make all particles in an object vibrate in a way that will cause macroscopic locomotion on demand?

This speculation is based on the principle that all objects are made out of particles moving and bouncing off each other in random directions. The faster and more random the activity, the "hotter" the object is. But what if it were possible with radiowaves or magnetism to synchronize the movements of those particles to suit a useful function, like concerted movement?

What if an engine were designed to work on a concept like this. And it was able to absorb the random kinetic movement from its immediate environment to produce mechanical energy. Sure, it would get cold. But you could always couple it to a PEM fuel cell. That would give it some heat to work with. And give you enough juice to play your minidisc player.

Man, that would be sweet.

Dak, you female or male?

It's actually the same thing for me. When I let out the air, I just sink quicker. Swimming takes a lot of energy for me.

My body fat percentage is less than average even though my BMI tells me I'm overweight. I guess it's all the weight lifting I've been doing since I started college.

Hey, I Googled around and couldn't find the article. Throw me fricking a bone here .

I prefer eating things that have feelings.

If you expand the sample size enough (across numerous individuals as both the victim and agressor, across cultures, locations, mode of dress, etc), and *still* get an effect that's independent of all those (the independence can be checked statistically), there's something to it.

Are you just musing or are you doing this for real? If so, how many experiments are you going to do? Heh, seems pretty risky. You'll prolly get your ass beaten a couple of times.

I wear them to block UV. They are also polarized to block glare so I can look clearly into the park pool where I work. I can see kids underwater.

 

I also use them to check out boys with sunglasses. They wonder if I'm looking back

 

Bettina

Nice relevant post.

I also use them to check out boys with sunglasses. They wonder if I'm looking back

You certainly like to think so, don't you?

This could be made into a really interesting thread. I'm sure we've all had these feelings before; I know I have.

I had a gut feeling once. It was right before I got my ass kicked. I remember the feeling distinctly. It wasn't quite like anything else I've ever felt before. If I could translate the feeling into English it would be: there is something wrong. Something is going to happen. And indeed it did. As I walked from the music department back to study hall, some thug came up to me and beat my ass.

It was the only time I remember it ever happening.

As for scientific explanations, I can only go so far as Freud. The gut feeling is your subconsciousness speaking to you. As is scientifically evident, you absorb a lot more information than you are aware of. And in my experience information in the underconsciousness makes itself useful through feelings.

If you are a musician you can certainly relate with what I am saying here. When you lay your hands on a guitar or piano everything you do is pure emotion, especially when it comes to writing music. It's completely different from logical mental activities. Much more transient and flowing. I know when I am writing music, I usually just play random notes and wait until something evokes an emotion and then I write a song about that emotion. A single fleeting emotion can entail a lot of information which higher parts of the brain can transpose into notes and music.

We operate on feelings predominately and these feelings (whose origins we are not aware of) can easily carry their momentum over the brain/body synapse into a physical feeling.

I'm not sure if I told you anything you don't already know... but that's what I got.

I never thought about that though perhaps somewhere in my subcutanous layers of thought. It feels that way anway. It very well could be true. And yes, I have noticed in myself that I tend to think that people with sunglasses are watching me. It could also be in part to how egocentric I am though.

I wonder how you could test it though... I'm thinking it would be hard because there is so much diversity and abberations in human behavior to take into account and trying to circumvent the problem of diversity by testing it on one male specimen would be difficult because of obvious reasons.

Damnit. Oh well, there is always a solution. Have hope. Good luck.

I never had a growth spurt. I just grew at a constant rate. I was always a relatively huge kid, so I figured I would always be a relatively huge person. Well, I was wrong.

I wish I was big.

That's freakin' hard.

I've heard rumors that PS3 is going to be using blu-ray.

I like 17. I don't know why.

Seriously though. What are you talking about? The significance of the number 1?

It's the smallest absolute value whole number ever. Why 1? If there were several difference consciousnesses that perceived different parts of a chair (legs, seat, back), then there would be no one perception of a contiguous whole. There would be several consciousnesses that were aware of only different fragments of the chair. One is the only way things make sense for us.

Tritium laser. (Nope.. doesn't really make sense)

They do use tritium, but don't really have anything in common with lasers, except that they both produce light.

Reverse:

But what kind of dumb are you talking about?

I'm talking dumb in a very general way. She's incredibly beautiful in my opinion, but she has that vacant look on her face all the time. Plus, she has a very expressive face and extraverted personality, which makes it all the more obvious that she's lost. She has no place to hide. But she has amazing boobs.

What part of the earth did blond originate from and why…

Are the Vikings to blame.

I've heard a theory that blondes got their color because their ancestors hunted in the snow. Those with lighter hair weren't seen as easily by prey and were thus advantaged. But I don't know how true it is. Could be BS.

Do blonds have more fun?

I don't, but I'm a guy. I suspect that the girls do, however. Could have to do with the fact that they get more attention from men. Plus society expects blondes to have more fun, so that perhaps enters their subconsciousnesses.

Coral Rhedd:

Now that I am older, I wish I had understood that men thinking you are dumb is not always a disadvantage.

Correct, but if it makes you more attractive, then it is almost always an advantage. Then you are more able to take your man of choice because you are more valuable as a blonde. It's all economics.

I'm blond and I'm pretty dumb.

BTW people. When in reference to something female or feminine, it's blonde. If it's male or masculine, it's blond. Also Jessica Simpson is a certified nitwit. You cannot fake that kind of dumbness.

I live in the US and I acquired a traser via Ebay. I bought it from some store in Australia. I really wasn't expecting to get it because it's radioactive and it has to go through customs.

It spent about 2 weeks in Customs, but surely enough it came through. And the thing is pretty damn cool and I got it for like $10. Trust me, get one. They are the ultimate geek item to own.

Mokele:

That there is such variation, in my eyes, makes it hard to explain the attraction in cultural terms; if it's based on us learning "what's attractive" from the culture, shouldn't there be little, if any, variation among individuals, since they're all seeing the same message from the culture?

If our attractedness to breasts is based soley on cultural values, then it would seem that there would not be any variation among individuals. But that's very likely not the case, which isn't to say that culture doesn't play a role. I'm sure it's a mixture of many factors. However, aside from a couple of freaks in here , it seems the vast majority of men appreciate a set full and firm boobies.

A traser is kind of like a weak fluorescent light. This is how it works:

It's usually composed of a sealed container of tritium gas, which is a radioactive hydrogen isotope with 2 neutrons per atom. I think it gives off beta particles which stimulate a phosphor coating on the inside which produces photons continuously with no external power source for between 10-15 years.

http://www.unitednuclear.com/traser.htm

Pretty danged cool.

In my experience RealPlayer has always sucked. Most of the time these days when you're downloading media, you have an option to use either Quicktime or Windows Media Player anyway. REAL PLAYER SUCKS.

To answer your question, no. I don't think it's possible to run realmedia on Quicktime or Windows Media. I would just give up and use Quicktime or Windows Media.

I would consider waiting 1-2 months on that front - they're just startng to bring out the Athlon64 X2 (dual core processors) which promise to be quite good.

Yup.. that's what I read on Tom's hardware guide. Even if you decide dual core is a waste of money, their presence will surely reduce the price of other existing processors. I would wait and get a dual core though, depending on how expensive they are.

The beam is not visible in lighted conditions unless you look straight down the pen.

!!!

Not a good idea, Buddy!

I suppose you know what you're doing.. but then if you did you wouldn't be looking into laser light. GREEN laser light. heh.

tell ya what IS fun with a laser, you`ll need a mirror and a long room or hallway.

put the mirror on the other end of the hall, fire the laser at it and look at the reflected pattern that bounces back to the opposite wall, not sure what causes it, but it`s certainly odd looking

Probably just a magnified reflection of the imperfections of the mirror.

Wow, you guys REALLY like lasers. (What do you all think about trasers?)

So now you're supporting an everyday connotation as a scientific definition? That's very weak, and not even an argument.

It's not connotation. It's denotation. That is the definition of personality you would find in any dictionary.

I looked up the acronym DNA in the same dictionary and got this:

A nucleic acid that carries the genetic information in the cell and is capable of self-replication and synthesis of RNA. DNA consists of two long chains of nucleotides twisted into a double helix and joined by hydrogen bonds between the complementary bases adenine and thymine or cytosine and guanine. The sequence of nucleotides determines individual hereditary characteristics.

Anything unscientific about that? You seem very reluctant to give information about your own "ideas" ie., if you find my definition of personality unsatisfying, why not correct me and show me yours. This is a matter of learning and enlightenment, not a display of who's smarter than whom.

No, those are not psychological traits. They are reactions to a given environment. Traits imply stable things produced by the person.

 

This is very clear. If you're going to run away from the clear point, don't bother trying to argue.

Hardheadedness isn't a pyschological trait? Are you sure you want to argue that? Don't cop out on me. Give me some psychological traits if hardheadedness is not one.

You're employing fallacious reasoning. As if you can't have you can't have stable traits that are reactions to environment. If a girl gets angry every single time someone takes candy from her, that's a trait (indignance) which is also a reaction to environmental happenstance (someone taking away the candy) You're implying that it can only be one or the other when in fact, it's always the two together. (Genetics determine how you react to stimulus)

How do you think infants know how to suck nipples so well without having done it before?

Have you heard of the User Illusion?

No.

That's called determinism. You will regret being a determinist: it makes little sense and is oppressive.

 

It is very clear that genes do NOT determine the degree you react to your environment, but that the environment does. I'll give you an example. Respond to this example if you want to continue.

 

Child X and Y are two different kids. Let's assume an unfounded assumption that Child X's genes make her a bit more "passive" while Child Y's genes make her a bit less "passive." However, what do we mean by passive? Passive to what? In environment X, where let's say there is an abusive party, Child X becomes passive and depressed, what they call "learned helplessness" if you've heard of it. Child Y gets aggressive. Determinists such as yourself would say that the genes contribute to the difference. I say the environment contributes to it, and is the only important causal factor. Because in Environment Y, where there is no abusive party, Child X and Y essentially react the same way.

This is a really messy hypothetical situation, but here goes. If both child X and Y react differently to a similar environment, that's an indicator of the importance of environment how? If environment is the only important causal factor, in environment X, both of the children should have learned to react the SAME WAY because they were in the SAME ENVIRONMENT. You contradicted yourself. Do you see? You're tripping all over yourself.

Also, you imply that I'm a determinist. That I believe genes determine how a person is. But you say that environment is the primary force in personality. I don't see how that's not determinism either. That describes a person who just reacts and does not have free will.

No, you're playing with the semantics of "importance." What do you mean? Important in terms of existent causes, or important in terms of important? Sure, let's ASSUME genes allowed someone to resist a deficient environment, an assumption that has minor evidence to support it in the first place. But let's assume it, as I agree that it has some minor merit. Genetic composition X allowed person X to resist better. This is only important in the sense that genes existed as a causal factor, not that they are important as a causal factor. Since in environment Y, which is not deficient, person X and Y are equal, the environment is what matters.

Actually, you were the first one to 'play with the semantics of "importance"'.

So a genetic cause might signify the importance of the environment, as opposed to the importance of genetics.

You're right though. I really shouldn't stoop to your level.

Goodness, what a waste! I thought you were going to show me something scientific, not media! And to think that people like you go around acting like they know stuff!

 

Just to elaborate on at least one core mistake in the twin study, which any sensible researcher will recognize, both kids lived in the same ****ing environment! Well that doesn't say much now does it if both environments are deficient! Lol...what a joke!

I thought you said you were openminded. I guess only when information serves your own purposes. How do you explain this? And do not cop out on me.

The only things the twins really had in common is that they grew up in white, middle class, blue collar homes. But they were different homes with different families whose habits and traditions probably vary just as much as ordinary folk. That is does not mean they lived 'in the same **** environment!'.

And despite having never known about each other's existence, they had all of these facts in common:

1. Both were named Jim by their adoptive parents.

 

2. Each had married two times, the first to women named Linda and the second to women named Betty.

 

3. Jim Springer named his son James Allen, while Jim Lewis chose James Alan.

 

4. Both had dogs named Toy.

 

5. The two drank Miller Lite, smoked Salems and drove Chevrolets.

 

6. Both shared carpentry as a hobby and had built identical benches around trees in their backyard

 

7. They hated baseball and loved stock car racing.

 

8. They chewed their fingernails obsessively.

 

9. They both spent time as sheriff's deputies

 

10. Each was an average-to-poor student in high school.

 

11. They had voted for the same candidate in the past three presidential elections.

 

12. Each Jim doted on his wife by leaving love notes for her around the house.

 

13. Both had had a vasectomy.

I've read about this story in other places too. It turns out the twins also scored identically in IQ and personality tests.

Environment does not explain Jim. They lived separately in different houses and with different families with different ideals, philosphies, politics like you and I. According to the logic you used, it shouldn't be odd for my brothers and I to share traits the way the two Jims do. But we know that's not true. More faulty reasoning. Do you ever stop?