iglak

there are only 2 choices right? a guy comes to your door holding a random chicken and your pet dog. he says that unless you kill the chicken, he is going to kill your dog. that's fairly airtight right there, the question is: do you 1) walk away, allowing your dog to be killed or 2) take the chicken and chop it's head off. #1 would mean that you are indirectly killing your dog, since you had the chance to prevent it's death, but the direct blame is put on the other guy. #2 would mean that you would have to live with striking the killing blow of a living being, but you would have your friend back. i'd chose #2, definitely. if it were 2 people that the guy was talking about, one my friend, and the other some random person that i don't know, then... that would be... extremely tough...

YES!! AWESOME!! XD i'm going slightly nearsighted, and i have resisted glasses for that reason. a couple years ago i kind of lost my motivation to do things... i wasn't depressed, just bored but after reading that, i feel motivated again. i don't care if it's true or not, but now i know that it can be done. which gets me thinking, maybe i lost my motivation because people, in general, forced into my mind the idea that some things were impossible (my eyes will just get worse, i need glasses... people have to train for years to be able to do stunts like that... things like that). i don't know exactly what it is, but i have my motivation back thanks > (the "enjoys the thought of the upcoming challenge" face) <edit> i only wish i had read that when you posted it... 18 days ago...

i'm falling asleep a lot easier than a year ago... i don't like it because i feel less intelligent than i used to, since i don't spend that time to ponder things. it is also an indication of how bored i am with school, i think, and how much i am interested in learning what was taught at school. i'm gonna try to start pondering things again...

lmao! now THAT's actually quite on topic. showing how some things that can be used as weapons can also be outlawed as weapons... quite on topic to swords and whatnot

yeah... that's why i stopped posting on this thread. i remember that katana post and i believe the fear thing was me too <edit> P.S. i believe this post is my best and last post on this thread (i didn't look any farther).

that's exactly like me... i don't know how they can go to sleep so quickly i, however, am a very heavy sleeper. i expect this will change in college (out of necesity), but i can sleep through my alarm clock for 30 minutes, then if i'm still tired, and don't need to get up, i can go back to sleep and wake up an hour later (alarm clock still active). i've found out that my alarm clock rings for 2 hours....

my response to that site: ... O.o ... o.O ... >_< ... roflmfao funny hate mail... LOL! not a very good sniper though...

17/M/USA

reason to own a gun: for practicing and because it looks cool. just like any other weapons.... so the big question i saw posted was this: do we change people's minds, making the laws irrelivent; or do we change the laws, making the people's minds irrelivent? if all we do is change the laws, then we'll just have another black market to fight, IMO. when changing the laws, it's rare that everyone follows them. like drugs.... that's a very good question....

maybe they didn't, maybe they crashed due to sabotage or an internal struggle. >_> but yeah, i think that if they had the technology to travel faster than lightspeed, then they would either communicate with us openly or just stay away from us uncarringly.

awh fohsiglahksin eaohoihfoiuh haieofljkgf or something along those lines i needed a name for something a while ago (i forgot what, maybe it was a D&D thing...), so i typed in random letters and looked for one in the letters ^^; i found something close to a name and just went with it

although in the USA there are THOUSANDS of scholorships that WANT to be given out. all one needs to do is find that special book of "1001 scholorships that are easy to get"... (yes, they exist). plenty of scholorships aren't ever given out, and a third of the scholorships only require you to be either poor, female, or a minority, then you go in for an interview or write a 100 word essay about whatever they ask and you pretty much automatically get the scholorship... but about the education system in highschool... it sucks. there is no motivation to learn and become intelligent and creative, and there is no motivation to be healthy. grades do not reflect intelligence, they have very little to do with intelligence. grades reflect how hard you work... bad system. lucky for me i go to a school where 90% of the teachers just love teaching. they try to teach us creativity and intelligence while also making us work hard for the grades (homework takes so much time out of my life...)

would it be ok to use someone else's rough draft if you clearly state that it is their work and not yours? but yeah, if you beg, you should bring along the friend who's work you used (assuming you didn't steal it without semi-permission, and assuming he is still your friend). <edit> all of it. there are stories that HS teachers tell us about people that got expelled for copying one sentence fragment without citing their source.... another question, what if it's 5 words in a row that are just a coincidence? could one appeal saying that they did not plagiarize and that those 5 words were original, but coincidentally the same as someone else? i mean as long as the whole paper is not earily similar of course...

the challenge of being able to use a skill better than other people, or being able to improve your own skills. also sometimes for practice so that they could use the skill on something else. yes, plenty of movies show that. i can't name any at the moment, but almost any hero vs. villian movie will have that element in it (the villian always has innocent lackeys )

you can see this easily on helicopters, cars, pretty much anything with a propeller or something with a distinguished shape that rotates quickly. it does not require artificial lighting.

you could convince anyone of anything... unless they trust no one, which is rare. as long as you keep acting like you are serious and thinking that you are serious, you should be able to do it in... a short while (yes, that is an objective word, but it still fits nicely ).

Commit Seppuku!! it's that suicide thing that Samurai do, with the stabbing, and the cutting off of the head... of course, i wouldn't want to do that if i was going to stay alive for a while without unbearable pain... the other option is something heroic. saving a bunch of people's lives in a heroic way

honestly... i'd probably kill (or send to a secluded planet or something) all humans that refuse to listen to people that don't agree with them. or better yet, i'd eliminate the allele (or set of alleles) that causes that panic reaction. if i were to kill them, i'd make Earth anime style, change myself into an anime style look, and i'd make myself a master of all weapons... then you can guess the rest. >_> once that was done, i wouldn't really have any reason to be god... since i am under the impression that all "evil" comes from fear. i would want to learn everything... but i wouldn't want to make myself a master of all arts. this sorta contradicts what i said a bit before (about the anime thing)... i think i'd be much happier if i mastered all weapons (and other arts) the old-fashioned way. of course, i'd have to make myself live for ever and have a permanent re-raise spell cast on me (i can revive myself when i die, or something). i wouldn't want to be invincible, then there's no challenge. oh, and i don't like getting sick, so i'd make myself immune to all sicknesses (that might get rid of my allergies too ). basically... if i were god, i'd want to be a mostly immortal human (i would want to die eventually, like when i've mastered everything, but that would take a long time considering the size of "everything" ).

what the ratings try to do is a good thing. kids shouldn't be subject to excessive violence that puts the kid in the place of the victim of the commiter. kids shouldn't be subject to... porn, simply put. but the rating system is done completely wrong. for example: it was recently debated whether or not to make all movies that show someone smoking a cigarette rated "R". that would cause almost all "G" movies to be rated "R" (WTF!?), since most "G" movies show the "bad guy" smoking. the biggest problem is that all rules for what rating to give a movie do not take into account context. i think age 10 is a bit too young to see "Kill Bill". i think age 13-15 is when kids are able to understand it and other "R" movies (or the equivalent in games)(i still haven't seen Kill Bill , and i am not a very good judge of what age is able to understand, since it is a wide range) unrelated (for the most part) to what i just said, but i think that kids should be able to see whatever they want, as long as the parents aren't afraid of what could happen to their kid after seeing the movie. everything evil always ties back to fear at the basic level...

we can relatively trust any facts the media gives us. we can't trust any analyses of any facts. we can't trust any absence of facts. in the case of the cloned baby, the only facts we had were that that group of people claim to have cloned a human baby. that's it. and if any statistics are presented, we know that one study showed those results, but we still have no idea how many studies did not show those results, and if that one study was faked or done wrong. if the media were to flat out lie to the viewers and give us completely wrong information about war or whatever... then all too many people would believe it. the world would be doomed. DOOMED! like 1984

our eyes can only "refresh" about 30 times a second (as an analogy, TV screens refresh 62 times a second) if, within that thirtieth of a second, the propeller makes almost one complete revolution (or just less than any multiple of one over however many sides there are on the propeller), then your eyes will see it as if it moved in the opposite direction a bit.

ah, ok Glider, that makes more sense. i thought this was english or history essays or something. btw, sorry about being offtopic ;

really? that's quite odd, since those abbreviations have changed into a milder, less direct meaning of what they abbreviate. in today's English (American, not English, i suppose), without the abbreviation, extra emphasis is put on the "not", making the exact definition of the abbreviation slightly different from the non-abbreviated form.

We have defined color as a a specific wavelength of light, or a combination of specific wavelengths. Color is also defined as what color of light an object would reflect if it were in white light. in red light, a box of crayons would still be whatever color they are, they would just appear as a different color, more red, thus function incorrectly (as YT said). we all sorta know this, but i felt it needed to be directly mentioned

black is the absence of color dark is the absence of light color cannot be detected without light the absence of light would appear as the absence of color