forufes

i think tell them since they're babies, raise them on reality.

:eek: and it doesn't have to be your tissue and bones either> man that's awesome..so parasites with electrodes?(although i favor pure adrenaline)

but why not the opposite? i.e each photodetector regulates the wheels' speed on its side(brighter==slower), it would be as easy as modifying one line of code, and the performance would be the same[?]

but, in the same way the parasiten makes the rats attracted to cat pee as means of infecting more animals, it may unfasten the self safety restraint in people so they overwork their muscles to harmful degrees in order to dodge Mr.skeptic's swings and infect him along others..meh, it may even evolve that ability after a couple of generations of slow or normal moving hosts bite the dust.. like continous over doses of adrenaline..and the zombie party is complete. p.s. is there really a self harming limit implied subconsiously on the human body, which in emergencies get released? not only in the muscles, but different senses too. wouldn't an absence of some of those limits explain all the super odd balls in human history? like this guy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon_Shereshevsky

i tink it's kinda useless tying to postulate what advanced species would do, because for them to be truuely and seriously advanced from us, they should be able to predict any behaivours we are bound to take... including our attempt of predicting their behaivour.. if they were more evolved than us in the scientific sorta way but not that intellectually advanced to easily fool us, i wonder what exactly did they evolve from their "evolution"..

well i'm not sure you should be looking at it from a "benifit" point of view, even that usually helps, rather, shouldn't it be something like this: why would the first ever being with a brain mutated with a crossover reproduce better? and i don't know but maybe because if the right side of the body gets damaged you can still control it with the brain that's on the other undamaged side (but then you can't control the undamaged side of your body cuz it's controlling brain is damaged)? waaaiit a second.. the ear sack thingy with the fluid inside used for balance, it's directly connected to the brain, no? so maybe it's easier or more accurate to sense imbalance of a body if you're connected to it from afar and not ON it, like the tail blade in helicopters, it's small, but due to the long arm it keeps the main body pretty steady relatively effortlessly, as opposed to it being so close to the main body, cuz then you're magnifying any "turbulence" or imbalances for easier detection AND correction.. so it could be the same, the sack sensor can sense imbalance in one side of the body better when it's actually on the other side, and it may have been more convenient(supposedly there's no such thing in evolution) to switch the whole two brain halves then switch the sacks and keep them connected to their halves on the other side.. haha, i'm a genius. nice thread btw.

i'm going to take over the world someday, and having my pic here would link a treasure trove of info on me to others, and info is power, which i'm not so keen on leaving laying around for my enemies.

well in red alert 2 there were those tesla towers, when soldiers get close they get zapped by lightning.. i think it's possible if you over charge the towers and have the ground insulating and level enough for there to be no discharge until a conductive "pointy" guy comes along..and then....BBQ.. IOW, potential difference (in voltage)

why ask?

if sky diving or wearing condoms reduces survival, those "carrying" it will eventually leave the gene pool. bad mutations have to happen first before natural selection chooses against them.

voted supernova, biohazard is too awesome for scienceforums

GREAT thread..thanks to all..i'll link some of my friends to it definitely worth a read.. yeah..but what about the rest? we take religion's good points for granted, which are out weighting its bad points, and wail over the bad points which we imagine will go away if we remove religion, which are not the CAUSE of religion, but are simply a misuse of it.. radicals will blow up buildings, for religion or otherwise, wars will be waged, for religions or otherwise, old men will use their position to abuse young women, in churches of religion or anywhere else.. but for example, what can substitute the moral code of a belief in god, for those many who hold none but it? the downsides of religion as a school of thought, are they because of the core teachings of the school or the wrong carrying-outs of them? i was surprised by #10 as well, it seemed too ...one sided..

but as i said, there IS a game, called portal, you open two portals in any place, go through one and you're out the next, you can use the holes as mirrors to see your back, you can make one in the ceiling and one in the ground where you'll drop and keep falling to the depths of eternity, you can use them as catapults because they conserve momentum, the game is funny like hell, the setting unorthodox, and the puzzles are pure mind blowing.. a favorite to who ever plays it. highly advise buying it, here are some spoilers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal_%28video_game%29

Portal!!!

i thought they were joking with you...? i even considered(since this is the first time i see you on the forum) that there is no one "bob", that they take turns logging in by that name and race to who would kick him first, then they'd swap places and so on..

What warrents a ban on IRC?

shouldn't there be 10 uniquely distinct loose ends for every one continuous link? 10 different branches for every one trunk? shouldn't the negative mutations be many times more frequent than the positive ones? shouldn't the fossils of animals with such mutations be found as much as if not more than the complete successful links? why do we keep finding the one lucky intermediate form and miss all the other poor ones which reached the dead end? if you say because the successful link reproduced enough to dim out the rest, then i tell you remember all the millions of years evolution takes!! also, what does the successful intermediate form do, other than start branching into dead ends for some other millions of years, before the fortunate one emerges? for every one good mutation there should be several bad ones, where are their fossils? fossils of animals which are NOT intermediate stages?

regardless of whether the ban is lifted quickly or not, it still is a humiliating punishment which requires a proper reason. such reason should be declared somewhere for those who use IRC to be aware of, just like the forums. if there are no reasons for bans from IRC -unlike the forums- then that should be declared so those who use IRC be aware of it too. i just want to follow given rules..objective ones, it's much easier than trying to enforce my subjective ones. and the debate that entails such path. you see..i don't mind whether the rules are fair or not, being able to play by them is enough for me.. .. so am i to conclude that banning out of IRC doesn't follow rules??..and doesn't have penalties for crossing said rules? that it's a "no trial - immediate sentence" zone? a tribunal where the mod is judge, jury and supreme court?

sheesh i asked a simple straight forward question, why can't i get a reply in kind..what warrants a ban?..you're saying an insult of the mods..or that there's no reason; it's done on a whim..which is it? not to mention are you actually one in the position to answer..as i'm asking the rules which you're supposed to follow, not rules which you administer.. and fuzzwood, i didn't mind the kick you gave me, that's why i said the first sentence..

and i'm not talking about the kick flinging contest mods start every once in a while.. so, what gives a mod the right to ban somebody from IRC? and what penalty is there for a mod who issue an unjust and prejudiced ban? edit: also aren't all bans in SFN subject to the notification of the duration of the ban? aren't you allowed to know when the ban will be lifted?

tell it to Fuzzwood. not only are the quantites different, but one is conservative and the other is not, and so i said that i don't see the logic behind his choice, still i honestly thanked him for it, as most people didn't bother contributing at all, i also -in case you noticed- didn't call him a retard, and i wouldn't have banned him repeatedly if i was able to. i'm also curious to what you think of the rest of the post you quoted, insane alien.

fuzzwood, thanks for sharing, though i can't see how you chose B and explained it by A..also the transition from UNconservative force to conservation of energy..but thanks non the less.. now lets take a more objective approach. everyone please re-read part B in #3..and notice the "un" in there.. http://www.health.uottawa.ca/biomech/courses/apa4311/energy.pps seventh slide.. well? which is correct and which is not? the info in the slide or statement B? and hence, which of statements A and B is downright wrong?

... 1- is there a way to reproduce the chat history? 2-if i truly did as i am accused then: a- i deeply apologize for doing so. b- i deeply apologize for lying about it, and would like to point out that, may that be the case, i was and still am unaware of it. 3- could you please tell us what you think regarding the issues i raised in the op and #3?

so in your opinion the proposed new term doesn't give a better insight about how torque is doubled from an unchanged force because of a simply longer lever? it doesn't lift some of the confusion to why is the torque doubled? it doesn't have a higher logical explanatory value? though maybe a lower mathematical computation value? thanks a lot for your input, appreciate it. p.s could you answer post #3?