Curious layman

2 hours ago, CurseNight102 said:

I am asking a sincere question

I believe you, but this character you describe is so violent, most people would shit their pants around them.

If you to toned them down a little, actually quite a lot, you could have an interesting character to play with.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dexter_(TV_series)

5 hours ago, CurseNight102 said:

12. This highschooler boy is very brutal and ruthless towards all types of evil people such as gangsters, criminals, bandits, religious terrorists, political terrorists, greedy mercenaries, greedy hitmen, serial killers, warlords, ruthless murderous corrupt politicians, racist terrorists, etc. The brutalities that he performed against evil people includes skinning alive, burning alive, piercing the body full of needles, being slowly squeezed flat by a machine, evisceration, slowly pulling the torso from the lower body, being impaled from the anus outwards the mouth, vertically cutting from the genitals towards the head via power saw, slowly pulling the arms, the legs, and the fingers from the torso while the victim is still alive, being forced fed with sharp metals to mess with the stomach, etc.

5 hours ago, CurseNight102 said:

So how will the highschool personnel and highschool students react to this type of highschool boy?

What's his name?, Vlad jr?

Tell him to enroll in some ethic classes. Then speak to his doctor. 

Thats if there still turning up for school. 

Just now, dimreepr said:

But that's my point... It's your fault (the writer)... 🙄

I agree with this. At no point have I put the blame on the reader.

Just something for people who post to think about. Including me.

12 minutes ago, Curious layman said:

It might make sense to you, but that doesn't mean it makes sense to someone else. There's a lot of information that relevant that you didn't type, it's just something to be aware of when you post stuff.

Just now, dimreepr said:

I get what you're saying but the onus of understanding is not their's, you're the teacher...

That's my point, I'm not saying it's their fault (the reader), it's just something to remember when someone responds in a way you didn't expect. 

It might make sense to you, but that doesn't mean it makes sense to someone else. There's a lot of information that relevant that you didn't type, it's just something to be aware of when you post stuff. 

11 hours ago, iNow said:

Then start making your points more clearly and succinctly. If you can’t explain it on an index card, then you don’t understand it well enough yet to try. 
 

What if that's why you're asking, to get a better explanation from someone who does?

14 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Tell me about it....

I stand by what I said. 

When your typing on the internet, you need to be aware that's it's sometimes difficult for the reader to translate it the way you want it to be. So sometimes there will be friction. So don't take it personally.

Whats your problem with this, it's true.

You're doing it now. 😂 

26 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I read them EXACTLY the way they're written

That's kinda my point. When people type and say it to themselves in their head, it's not going to sound the same to the person reading it.

19 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

so please tell me what the spirit of these forums are?

Arguing with each other.

something you might find interesting,

Quote

Genetically speaking, studies have found that certain genes affect the density of dopamine receptors in the brain; dopamine is a neurotransmitter that helps us to recall episodic memories from the past. In the study, those with certain geneactivations enjoyed a higher density of dopamine receptors in the hippocampus, and also had stronger powers of recall as they aged.

https://www.scienceabc.com/humans/why-do-some-people-have-a-better-memory-than-others.html

from the Genetic and Biological Advantages (Nature) part.

26 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

I am asking because I think your subliminal prejudices are causing you to draw conclusions about me that I reckon are far from the truth.

Tell me about it...

I can't comment on your threads, 

but you've got to remember that when someone reads something you post on the internet, they don't read them the way you wrote them. They dont know why you wrote it, they have to assume that themselves, so sometimes there's a bit of friction. It's never personal. It's your idea they attack, not you personally. 

this? 

What does the first bit, up to the equals sign, mean? The 0 r  and the triangle over the d specifically. Please.

is it the angle of the light? The 0 r

that thing over the d, a hypotenuse?

these replies don't give much away. 

you've got to know your shit to work out how big your telescope's going to be from that link Swansont.

Quote

If all parts of an imaging system are considered to be perfect, then the resolution of any imaging process will be limited by diffraction. Considering the single slit expression above, then when the wavelength is equal to the slit width, the angle for the first diffraction minimum is 90°. This means that the wave is spread all the way to the plane of the slit and will not contain resolvable information about the source of the wave. This leads to the simplified statement that the limit of resolution of any imaging process is going to be on the order of the wavelength of the wave used to image it.

It's a sci-fI book, not a thesis. 😂 

19 minutes ago, ahmet said:

just for now,I can say that some narrowed areas might be available. (some keywords: gtp, g proteins, colours, race, human ,animal vision system.)

Shit, totally misread this bit. I'm so sorry Ahmet. 

Thank you for your reply. I will do.

1 minute ago, ahmet said:

no, you can learn even if you do not ask.

I have some particular wordings on this issue,but i think I don't interest.

just for now,I can say that some narrowed areas might be available. 

 

 

This site has experts who understand this stuff and can explain it far better than I can interpret it from just reading.

FFS, were not going down this road again...

5 minutes ago, ahmet said:

to me, it is not a meaningful question,sorry. 

 

 

I think one of the people who know about this stuff can maybe write something about it. Something I'll find interesting.

Maybe they won't, and it's a stupid question, but I'll never know if I don't ask. 

Your also looking into this too deeply, I can feel the suspicions already. Don't bother, it's just an honest question. 

9 minutes ago, ahmet said:

 

one think I wonder: why have you opened this thread ,for what?

Edited just now by ahmet

The answer. 

Yep, you can change it to Russians, Asians too if you want. Choose anything you want.

i've always been under the impression the way we look is to do with where were born, the climate, position on the globe etc.

so it's just a curious thought that popped into my head whilst reading wiki.

And this site has people who have knowledge about this type of stuff, so I thought i'd ask...

22 minutes ago, Area54 said:

You're not a member of the British Royal Family are you?

Lol, nah, was on stormfront website, and they (not me) were talking about race and stuff. So now I'm on wiki looking at Skin colour, wiki, to be honest,  it's a lot of info to take in, (hence, why I'm asking here), this stood out:

Quote

In general, people living close to the equator are highly darkly pigmented, and those living near the poles are generally very lightly pigmented. The rest of humanity shows a high degree of skin color variation between these two extremes, generally correlating with UV exposure.

So I'm curious, will african Americans eventually turn white, and will white Europeans who moved to Africa turn black?

If I (white guy) were to move to South Africa and only have children with white women,  would my descendants eventually turn black?

If yes, How many generations would this take?

15 minutes ago, CharonY said:

And from what I understand trans-men are allowed to compete without restrictions.

You know, I never thought of this before. Very good point.

Sorry if you've already discussed this and I've missed it, 

but would it not be better to base the minimum wage on how many hours you need to work to pay the bills. So instead of $15 an hour, make it 15 hours work to earn the median rent etc?

4 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

I'm getting a little tired of this assumption; present your argument...

Relax, just a bit of humour Mr cryptic. Apologies.

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

Society is not limited to either.

You Stoned?

57 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Where does integrity and honesty fit into your perspective?

I think people with these WAG are interesting. so what if it's wrong and they refuse to budge. I've got a friend who's a flat earther. So what, who cares. I like listening to his conspiracy theories.

From the outside reading these types of threads, you learn more. There's generally more explanations from more viewpoints. Their good for the site. 

San Jose should put theirs up to $20.

85 hours a week, that's heavy.

I earn about $15 an hour, takes me about 23 hours to earn my bills. I can't imagine having to work 85 hours a week just to pay bills. 

1 minute ago, Area54 said:

You ask what harm can having odd ideas do. Ask that of the families who lost members to covid because they thought it was all a big conspiracy, or that mask wearing was an infringment of their civil liberties.

You make a good point, but there's a big difference between anti vaxxers and people with different/wrong views on philosophy.

8 hours ago, iNow said:

It’s not clear what problem you think you’re trying to solve here

I'm not trying to solve any problems. I have been reading about it in the news, some US states were bringing in bans against them competing.

Which got me thinking, will sport need to change, if so how. So I posted here and asked. The answer seems to be no. Which I accept. 

https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/mississippi-bill-transgender-athletes-female-sports-teams-ban/?__twitter_impression=true

https://legiscan.com/MS/text/SB2536/2021

just read this, maybe I've read it wrong but it seems only to apply to male to female transgender athletes.

Regarding your post below. That's a fair comment, You're totally right of course.

52 minutes ago, Area54 said:

frustration at yet another new member arriving with the same tired ideas to challenge science, thinking they have arrived at something original and penetrating. You have not.

Is this really such a bad thing? 

If somebody wants to believe in their own ideas where's the harm.

If you offer them advice and they choose not to take it then that's their prerogative, just move on, there's no need for hostility

Note: This wasn't directed at you personally, I've just used your quote.