keelanz

Gravity is a constant

E-ink is specific technology, its not for gaming or films, its purpose built and if your a reader then its still the best technology

weed

i thought this thread would be for yogurt flavours lol, apple and gravy all the way

what? <^,^> you could care less?? what??

learn ubuntu, if as you said you have nothing to hide, who needs windows and gates? As far as the actual security goes you have LOTS to learn, theres lots of ways of hacking and using exploits so best to start with learning ports and protocols, then maybe learning how people hack so you can take the appropriate means to stop it. As far as google goes you can try getting involved with a community that have the means of browsing the web without a search engine (I.E the forum has sufficient internet links for relative information in their own heads), other than that you may want to learn about proxy servers, mac address spoofing and general network goodies that hide your geographical location or spoof someone elses. im on the other end of the scale from you, i dont care about hackers, i presume im being hacked right now, infact i am but people have to learn how to somehow and the organism that is google cant survive without the parasites that are us. if you really want to use windows get familiar with admin tools, things like services, event viewer and msconfig can give you signs of hackers/general abuse command line tools help too, go to cmd and type net /? netstat /? netsh > interface (ask if you want a guide on this one, its very in depth) the above are all really usefull for overall networking below are a set of general commands ipconfig /all ping <specific ip> traceroute <specific ip> nslookup (outdated) finger telnet (outdated) also wmic is a nice command to get internal computer information great online tool http://networktools.nl/ if you want info on specific tools just pm me, as i said i really dont care about hackers or MiB, free source is free internet for all. by the way what is your actual fear? im slightly confused after re-reading your post, do you fear social engineering which may materialise as identity theft, your precaution of social networks would suggest so.

so if i got this right, you guys are saying the force of direction x has no effect on the force going in direction y? i think perhaps i presumed speed itself was a force, in my head my analogy still makes sense because as your body is moving --> that way; the force would push <-- that way regardless of acceleration even though acceleration would increase the force massively the force seems to exist, is this only external? I.E the force of air pushing my body?

Alright i was thinking about how cold my hand's get on my motorbike even with thermal gloves on and somehow i come up with an analogy to do with physics thats kinda confusing me. Basically if im on my motorbike doing say 60mph (96km) and inside my body my hearts pumping the good stuff so the blood is getting to my hands at 2 foot per second, would the force of my motorbike going left on the x axis have any effect on the blood which is trying to move at 1 foot per second right on the x axis? im guessing this has something to do with force im thinking if the blood gets slowed down by the opposed pressure while trying to get to the intended cells then this force would be canceled by the suction it feels when the blood coming back on itself is being being accelerated by the stated opposed force so essentially balancing itself or is the force of no consequence? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_flow <--- too much physics for biology

Pretty fun game, has nothing on AOE3 or medieval total war tho great learning resource

ill make the point. science is objective, its the difference between a theory and proving a theory is fact and hence having an opinion on a fact doesnt change the fact. morals are subjective if not inter-subjective and therefore let it be known science(fact from theory) only adds to the information we have it doesnt necessarily sway the outcome, infact its because the facts dont sway our morals that they are opinion at all 2+3(or the scientific data about child growth) wont ever change the fact i wont let a baby growing in me be killed even before it has a nervous system and it never will, you can tell me about the nervous system causing pain or eating lamp being an appropriate analogy of our evils, the outcome for certain individuals wont change, morals > science > nature > god Athena's point was that objectives have no place in certain subject's; and although science has new subject's the objective of that subject is subjective to itself and nothing else......? also id like to add that god has no place in science but it has a place in our morals; morals arent made more objective with science they are perverted from the nature of themselves, point made? Science is Amoral regardless of the scientist's, science itself in totality shows you how to make bombs and kill unborn baby's as much as it shows how to heal diseases and make life in general easier. maybe in greek times it wasnt classified as science but it doesnt change the fact that making a sword is defined in science, everything you need to understand the making of a sword can be explained in science, it may well be a technological advancement but technology can only be defined by science so i dont think my assertion that making a sword and making a gun are both scientific is false. if we use evolution as the base of science (a constantly changing framework of human understanding of the forces that be) then technology itself is scientific, ofcourse the evolution has a set of parameters by which that understanding is accepted it still wont change the fact that science is an evolutionary process of its own.

Tax, supply and demand as well as the amount of stock that country may hold for example here in england we pay much more for oil because 1) we get taxed alot more more 2) our country doesnt own much oil relatively to america or canada and 3) were a small country with a fairly high population, so we have a high demand to keep the economy moving.

you must be a genius forgot to say energy didnt come FROM the big bang, it just wasnt doing anything before it (apparently?) also if the big crunch is true, energy would have existed in a relatively similar manner before the big bang

no comment wait actually thinking about it a little more, energy is come from does?

you could probably have a good go if computers stopped evolving, you would have to limited yourself to programming syntax rather than learning every language, the fact things keep changing so rapidly means its impossible though

the creation of an axe is as much science as a gun is, sure the mechanisms are more advanced but the systems that we use are the same, we use past knowledge and understanding to manipulate raw materials to our own ends, that being said im sure less people have died from the human fist than materials we have manipulated to be a tool of death. It stands that war is started because of idealisms (mostly religious ignorance) and ends with science.....if i remember rightly it goes a little like this "stick and stoned will break my bones but words shall never harm me"

I believe were the same age; what base do you use for your independent research? were all very much aware that the bias of any article is always unfathomably due to the writers understanding of the subject, though any factual information is necessarily void of fallacy anything that isnt written by authority although isnt hard to understand by its truth value but is questionable in its essence. All these conspiracy theory's on the internet about our war on terror obviously have a truth value but its almost unduly eccentricated to fit its own purpose such that im yet to find a documentary that compares both sides of the story, its either really far one way or another. History breeds Bias into ones view of the world the same as being indoctrinated into one religion biases ones view on god.

why is the devil evil if he tortures the bad guys?

there will only be another brick wall at some other point in time though right? we as individuals have absolute choice in the matter but we as a human race are a democracy and our individual vote is alot smaller so the choice is alot more vague and to an extent feels less meaningful. an example would be that i hold an agnostic point of view about religion, i can philosophize and research religion as much as i want but im never going to conform to any particular religion i will just spread my intelligence around all the theologies and make my own fundamental belief in a god, which is fine thats my absolute choice nobody cna force me to believe something else, now when we include the whole human race we have lots of sub category's of religion which dictate my whole belief system which if it isnt enough on its own they also dictate my culture and mannerisms, this being said it feels as though choice is being taken away by indoctrination which leads me to the meaninglessness of our choice, if so many people are indoctrinated and hence have lost their freedom of religious choice by birth then what chance do the free thinkers ever have of changing people's religious outlook, im not saying everybody needs their religious outlook changing but when certain religious cultures are refusing to budge their beliefs even 1mm into a progressive new way of thinking then isnt the brick wall already created for us? to conclude i think im trying to say that we all have our own choice (given were not indoctrinated from birth) but that choice is almost worthless when compared to the ideology's of humanity itself, its almost pointless to even comprehend humanity in this way because its not as if we have the ability to change anything, which brings me to your thread on education, not even the best teacher in the world can change the idea's that stimulate devout christians, muslims or sikhs. we should only really have the power to change our own beliefs because any other power opens the door to abuse of beliefs, indoctrination and just down right illogical thinking.

I presume we all feel partly immortal due to the fact most of us (me included) cant actually comprehend death and to the most extent deny ourselves the truth that we will one day die. By that token if you told the world that everybody had 1 year left to live then im sure we would all conduct ourselves in a very different manner, there would certainly be no long term goal for oneself or even humanity which would lead me to believe things like our ego would be gone with the wind. Being immortal itself would have strains on your general outlook of life because things would loose an overall sense of purpose however if you are content with your existence im sure being immortal would be positive, however if you have to come to the conclusion existence is mediocre (which im sure you would have if your immortal due the amount of possibilities you can do) then existence could be loath-sum. my conclusion is that if you were actually immortal at some point in time you would get exhausted with existence itself and hence fed up of being immortal, you would however for a certain amount of time be very blissful in the ideology of being a sort of god of the natural world to which the rules dont apply, if we take a child as an example of someone being immortal (by its own belief) but within a set of constraints from society i believe life might start to show shortcoming perhaps before 18 years of existence at which point i presume we conclude death is imminent and a purpose must exist in some form. this seems like a good "modern" religious reference: enjoy. http://en.wikipedia....ki/Extropianism i would like to be immortal yes, but only through my own means, so euthanasia would still be possible by myself but no other mortal or immortal (so in other words i get to exist indefinitely until i cant bear existence anymore)

Ill call your bluff, Ron Paul told me never to believe Donald Trump Also capn is part of it all, osama is chillin with capn because he knew before the news, infact he knew before OBAMA himself that osama was dead....tellin yah man watch that capn guy he knows more than hes letting on (i know this for a fact because he told me on chat)

indeeeeeed

Yeh you are right, i didnt like that you said "Science has not killed as many people as conflicting theologies have. If anything, I think the more and more science advances, the more wise we will become as a species. Science is good enough." although i agree science is a means to an end, its only through science that so many people have died and you seem to shrug off the fact that science has as much potential for bad as it does good. i suppose thats what i was try to express rather badly. i do agree though that "You're comparing scientific advances to theology? Apples and Oranges. You need to be comparing "Scientific advances being turned into weapons" to "Interpretations of theology being turned into excuses to murder people". As in the Crusades. Jihads. Territory conflicts based on Holy Books. Ect, ect." i was trying to say that its only through science that theology has killed so many, were not comparing apple's to oranges, somebody can use both of them to do almost anything they want and you seemed to say its enough that the apple's are sweeter and the oranges have gone sour.....well i dont think it is. i do totally agree that my analogy was wrong and should have been worded much more like yours though. im not sure god does exist, unless we can get 6.2 billion people to agree upon its definition, if we can yaya..... maybe we can agree that....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02BUCVBHSKw

Honestly what point are you trying to make? i can deduct what your trying to say but it doesnt seem to hold a point? humans exploit civilization? really? do they?...... the purpose of education is not to meaninglessly argue, but to come to some mutual understanding both entities can agree upon and in most cases one entity will hold a higher capacity than the latter but the latter cant let go of some understanding that it already holds therefor will not conform and in which case education has no purpose. deferring violence is the civilized way even if no compromise is found.... as my profile picture shows(the chess boards revolution not falkes), sometimes being educated alone isnt enough for the right cause and letting go of whats civilized for what could be seen as politically incorrect is what has too happen, how else can society evolve? we have to be seen as well has heard....

theres no difference between character traits and the ego other than when the ego's dead so is the character beneath it....... i dont think we have a mutual understanding of what the ego is =D mine is a hybrid of the psychological ego, super ego and the spiritual ego whereby "wanting" makes you "do", you may "want" for a different reason than just pride or short term fulfillment, for example you could "want" the end of religion as to make area's of society more interactive, this may not have a direct implication on you but it would bring you happiness if you could reach that goal......which really is the point i was trying to make, although generally speaking ones ego causes another's loss in one form or another because humans by nature are greedy, its not always true that the ego acts negatively on mankind because its not true that the ego has such short term plans for itself and it may not see "itself" as an entity at all but mankind as an "entity" in which case killing ones own ego or humankinds ego certainly downplays the use of an angel in other words killing your ego doesnt make you any better of a person it simply destroys what you are, if it were actually possible to kill an ego im sure the ones who do it wont be angels but vegetables in a loony asylum. the ones with real big ego's are the politicians, actors, scientists, the people in control of the world who (although you may not agree) are trying to make big changes in the world for the better. (angels?) theres also the other ones with the big ego's like bankers that dont draw a line between right and wrong because if rights left then wrong must be right, they will see their ego as a single entity and act greedily for themselves (demons?)

by human nature we question things, being civilized simply means resolving problems by any means other than violence.