Members Metrosonus Posted May 5, 2012 Members Share Posted May 5, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Conbrio Posted May 5, 2012 Members Share Posted May 5, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Mediterranean Posted May 5, 2012 Members Share Posted May 5, 2012 Good observation Pogo:) I was born in 68, so I am 44.If I was born in 44, I would be 68. So it's not a coincidence [unless this rule only applies to you and me. Therefore we need more posters checking theirs, too, hahahaha] The rule is: both numbers will add up to 112 if the person is born from 1900 to 2012. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Mediterranean Posted May 5, 2012 Members Share Posted May 5, 2012 Rats, I just replied to a previous post. I breached the rule of this thread. Ban me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members pogo97 Posted May 5, 2012 Author Members Share Posted May 5, 2012 expurgation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Mediterranean Posted May 5, 2012 Members Share Posted May 5, 2012 Nope. I actually didn't since Pogo's comment wasn't previous to mine. Therefore banned I should not be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members TropicThink Posted May 5, 2012 Members Share Posted May 5, 2012 I disagree with everyone on this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MickeyKeys Posted May 5, 2012 Members Share Posted May 5, 2012 Indeed, I cannot think why the whole bed of the ocean is not one solid mass of oysters, so prolific the creatures seem. Ah, I am wandering! Strange how the brain controls the brain! .... No doubt there are natural enemies which limit the increase of the creatures. You and I, Watson, we have done our part. Shall the world, then, be overrun by oysters? No, no; horrible! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Conbrio Posted May 5, 2012 Members Share Posted May 5, 2012 Somehow then, during the time that past, we seemed to be. Plus and after that--marks the event horizon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members zoink Posted May 5, 2012 Members Share Posted May 5, 2012 Nipplestache is coming to get you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Plink Floyd Posted May 6, 2012 Members Share Posted May 6, 2012 Mister Mxyzptlk was stupid. The only way to defeat him was to trick him into saying his name backwards. Which he fell for every...single...time! :mlapecafnaillivrepus: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members theGman Posted May 7, 2012 Members Share Posted May 7, 2012 Yes, there is coffee in Frappuccinos! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members zoink Posted May 7, 2012 Members Share Posted May 7, 2012 As it turns out, the 70s really WERE that much better. [video=youtube;DSINZiPOVUI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSINZiPOVUI Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members pogo97 Posted May 7, 2012 Author Members Share Posted May 7, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members gregwar Posted May 7, 2012 Members Share Posted May 7, 2012 just played a Steinway from the 1920s 'golden era' at this lady's house. I miss playing the Steinway concert grands at my old university back home such a warm huge sound. not bass heavy huge like the bosendorfer at lowrey's but steinways have a beautiful tone as they age they built a million dollar acoustic shell around the main stage I always wanted to capture an impulse of that space hang on was that too on topic ? :banned: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Conbrio Posted May 7, 2012 Members Share Posted May 7, 2012 Since this is a "completely unrelated thread," I told all my relatives they can never post here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Plink Floyd Posted May 8, 2012 Members Share Posted May 8, 2012 I like eggs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Bernard Posted May 8, 2012 Members Share Posted May 8, 2012 The General synopsis at 0600 Low Scotland 1001 expected just north of Fair Isle 995 by 0600 tomorrow.The area forecasts for the next 24 hoursViking, North Utsire, South Utsire Southeasterly 7 to severe gale 9, veering southwesterly 5 to 7. Rough or very rough. Rain or showers. Moderate or goodForties Southeasterly 7 to severe gale 9 in far northeast at first, otherwise southwesterly 5 or 6, veering westerly 3 or 4 later. Moderate or rough. Rain or showers. Moderate or goodCromarty Cyclonic becoming northwest, 4 or 5. Slight or moderate. Rain or showers. Moderate or goodForth, Tyne, Dogger Southwest 4 or 5, veering northwest 3 or 4 later. Slight or moderate. Showers. Moderate or goodFisher, German Bight Southeast 6 or 7, occasionally gale 8 at first in Fisher, decreasing 4 or 5, then veering southwest later. Moderate or rough, becoming slight later. Occasional rain. Moderate or goodHumber South 4 or 5, becoming variable 4. Slight or moderate. Rain or showers. Moderate or goodThames, Dover, Wight South 4 or 5. Slight. Rain or showers. Moderate or good, occasionally poorPortland, Plymouth Variable 3 or 4, becoming southwest 5 or 6 later. Slight or moderate. Occasional rain. Moderate or good, occasionally poorBiscay Southerly 3 or 4, increasing 5 or 6, occasionally 7 in northwest later. Slight or moderate, becoming rough in northwest later. Occasional rain. Moderate or good, occasionally poorTrafalgar (Issued 2315 UTC Mon 07 May) Mainly southerly or southwesterly 4 or 5, increasing 6 at times, but variable 3 or 4 in southeast Trafalgar. Slight or moderate. Occasional rain. Moderate or good, occasionally poorFitzRoy Southwesterly, but cyclonic in far north, 5 to 7, perhaps gale 8 later. Moderate or rough. Occasional rain. Moderate or good, occasionally poorSole Variable 4 in east at first, otherwise northeasterly 5 to 7. Moderate or rough. Occasional rain. Moderate or goodLundy, Fastnet, Irish Sea Variable 4, becoming northeast 5 or 6 later. Slight or moderate. Rain or showers. Moderate or goodShannon, Rockall, Malin North 5 to 7. Moderate or rough. Showers, rain in Shannon later. Moderate or goodHebrides, Bailey Northeast 5 to 7, occasionally gale 8 in Hebrides, decreasing 4 later. Moderate or rough. Rain or showers. Moderate or goodFair Isle Northeasterly 6 to gale 8, occasionally severe gale 9 in east at first, backing northwesterly later. Moderate or rough. Rain or showers. Moderate or goodFaeroes, South-east Iceland Northeasterly 5 to 7, perhaps gale 8 later in east Faeroes. Moderate or rough. Rain or wintry showers. Moderate or good Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members pogo97 Posted May 8, 2012 Author Members Share Posted May 8, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Praxisaxis Posted May 8, 2012 Members Share Posted May 8, 2012 Some people take the Star Trek concept of "matter energy transport" for granted, without considering the difficult philosophical implications about Identity (let alone any physical implausibility). Exactly how these philosophical problems manifest depends on precisely how the device is supposed to work, but for any given theory, we run into trouble.For example, take the notion that the person being "beamed up" is scanned at the atomic level by the transporter, and reproduced on the starship by way of the transporter assembling atomic material using its scan as a blueprint (this is one of the theories hazily put forth in an episode or two). The scan, in this case, is resolved so finely that every physical detail of the person is preserved, right down to the memories stored in the physical configuration of their synapses, or whatever it is which stores memory and everything else besides in our brains. But this is where we find some trickiness, philosophy-wise. Does this transportation process actually mean that the person on the planet is effectively killed? Even if they are reproduced with such accuracy on the starship that the new ("beamed up") individual (let's refer to that person as B) believes him/herself to be one in the same as the previously planet-bound individual (person A), how can this alone prevent us from imagining that person A was in fact obliterated? Consider the issue by using a thought experiment: Imagine that the device malfunctioned (as it has been known to do during the series) and produced person B without "transporting" (i.e. destroying) person A. Both persons might eventually be brought into the same room. Now, would person A, upon realising the trouble, simply volunteer to then be "removed" by the transporter, in order to clear up the confusion? I would suggest not. Person A standing in the same room as person B would quickly come to the realisation that person B is separate, and though almost entirely similar, very much not the same person as A. This, A would surely understand, is because of things like B occupying a different spacial location to A, and being able to carry on different conversations and indeed think different thoughts, etc., etc. But in that case, why would any of the crew ever want to be transported? Just because person B believes they are a continuation of person A, doesn't mean that person A can rightfully look forward to being person B - our thought experiment where they are both present in the same room at the same time seems to suggest person A has no reason to look forward to being person B, indeed he/she may only look forward to being exterminated by the "transportation" process. But what if, instead, the atoms themselves are transported - thus in this case we might imagine that there is no "recreation" ship-side, but a reassembly of the very atoms that constituted person A on the planet. This seems at first to be less prone to philosophical trouble (if not physical or physiological). But as it turns out this has a share of philosophical trouble too. Insisting on those same atoms for reassembly seems like an arbitrary decision employed only to avoid the previous difficulty we just discussed, and as such has a fallacious ring to it. After all, we know from science that our physiology involves the frequent creation and death of the cells which comprise us, so insisting that a person's identity depends on not only an arrangement of atoms, but also those particular atoms, seems contrived. As the star trek transport doesn't really exist, it may seem like a moot topic of discussion, and yet it provides a good introduction issues about Identity, which is a topic that has a long history in philosophy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ronaldroy Posted May 8, 2012 Members Share Posted May 8, 2012 no Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BonsoWonderDog Posted May 8, 2012 Members Share Posted May 8, 2012 no REPORTED !!! :mad: :mad: :mad: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members angstwulf Posted May 8, 2012 Members Share Posted May 8, 2012 Avogadro's Constant is: 6.02214129(27) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ronaldroy Posted May 9, 2012 Members Share Posted May 9, 2012 I like traffic lightsI like traffic lightsI like traffic lights but not when they are red Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members zoink Posted May 9, 2012 Members Share Posted May 9, 2012 Perhaps determinism is behind all of this, after all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.