GKSB
-
Posts
76 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by GKSB
-
-
Nerds are smart.
-
I'd like to have a whale's penis.
I'd want a walrus penis. They have an actual bone, you know. That way, you're ready, any time.
-
I am Matthew O'Connell Holareth and I support this message.
Whoop-dee-do.
-
If you wear your non-allegiance to religion like a banner, go make a church or something. If there is one thing that is a main tenet of religion, it's giving people some pathetic banner to flail around as a label. Being really non-religious, not just pretentious and contemptuous, is in part losing the need for a label.
-
It's always your responsibility first, not the governments or anybody else's, to get you out of your shit. My parents would be in sorry shape - hell, my moms from a dingy farm in Iowa and my dad from basically an eskimo ghetto in Alaska- if they hadn't worked their asses off to get a college education and work their way up to high paying jobs so that we can live as we do now.
Don't give me that Social Darwinist bullshit.It'd be Social Darwinism if he said that people are poor because their race keeps them down intellectually or whatever other inherited trait. Death's saying that people put themselves where they are, there's always a way out except in the most extreme circumstances.
-
I despise talking on the phone with a passion. I text instead of talking as much as possible. Texting has its advantages because you can take a lot more time to think of your reply, you don't have to be consistent; hell, you can break a conversation if you're sick of it by claiming your battery died or you were coerced into a face-to-face conversation, etc. That's another benefit; if you're doing something else, texting is a lot easier than having to put all your attention into a phone call. I, at least, can't do anything else while I'm on the phone, texting I can read and type at the same time. Speaking of timing, it's easy to pick up, all I'm slowed down by is that fact that I hate T9/iTAP/insert brand-dictionary-here, since it always predicts wrong, and have to give a second to use letters on the same number (I'm no cool kid with a full keypad, regular flip phone). So, a paragraph probably takes me about 5-7 minutes, correct grammar except for lacking apostrophes.
-
What I mean is that it's dangerous to diet at a young age even though all the media does is go "you're fat! Lose weight!" NOT EVERYONE can look like those skinny, anorexic supermodels... though, it still helps to not guzzle horrible, atery-clogging food down your gullet like a maniacal glutton! Just eat right, get regular exercise (walks are so much fun, especially with calming music! I could walk for hours!), and remember that those diet magazines and weight-loss pill advertisers don't know what they're talking about!
Actually, all the media ever says is "the media always says you need to be super skinny to be sexy, but its okay, people are different." All I hear is "let yourself go". I don't value anorexia or bulemia, but I feel at least there is more respect for the people who try hard to go for whatever their definition of being healthy and attractive is, as erroneous as those definitions may be, than I can ever feel for some who is "being themselves" and sporting a giant gut and riding the handicap cart in the supermarket. People who try to lose weight, I will always respect. People who don't care, no, because they are far removed from the real human experience, by lack of conviction and lack of health - very few people were ever obese before our modern, saturated era.
-
Oh joy, I love pretentiousness loudly demonstrating humility!
-
Gauss what?
x + y + 2z = 0
3x + y + 2z = 2
2x – 2y + z = -6
x + y + 2z = 0
- 2y - 4z = 2
2x – 2y + z = -6
x + y + 2z = 0
- 2y - 4z = 2
– 4y - 3z = -6
x + y + 2z = 0
y + 2z = -1
– 4y - 3z = -6
x = 1
y + 2z = -1
– 4y - 3z = -6
x = 1
y + 2z = -1
5z = -10
x = 1
y + 2z = -1
z = -2
x = 1
y = 3
z = -2
-
I don't touch Christians. They touch me.
-
Think about gravity, and you'll understand why this was a difficult asteroid to spot and why it really was low threat.
So, things orbit in ellipses, right? The Earth's orbit is slightly elliptical around the sun. Now, since we don't know the origin of the asteroid, it could either be in an elliptical orbit around the sun or have entered into a hyperbolic orbit (where it enters orbit, is angled by it, and then escapes orbit again) around it. Either way, it's orbit's path was probably extraordinarily elliptical; and since it passed near earth, presumably on the same plane. That means, then, that looking at this asteroid as it approached was like watching a car at night approach on a flat road. The headlights obscure everything, and you can't really tell its approach or speed or much by it. Now, since it was so small this asteroid probably reflected very little light; now imagine a car with its headlights off and a bunch of cars in front of it with headlights on. Picking out this asteroid among everything else was very unlikely.
That elliptical/hyperbolic orbit is also important, because it means the asteroid probably would not veer off course. It is already propelled by the sun's gravity and its own inertia, the Earth and Moon's gravity are unlikely to have altered it significantly. That's why a hit chance is so low; these asteroids need to enter orbit around the sun in such a manner as to rotate on the same plane as the Earth, as well as having perfect timing. That perfect angle and orbit is further exacerbated by one very important specimen; Jupiter. Jupiter has much, much more gravity than Earth. It, therefore, alters the course of asteroids much more significantly; away from the Earth's orbit. Thus, it's no exaggeration to say that a significant, large impact is very, very, very unlikely.
I'd be skeptical about going off of laws based on observations made some hundreds of years ago, except they keep finding new ways to prove that the laws are sound. I don't think they screwed this up per se; they probably didn't have the equipment to detect the asteroid any earlier (it was detected in the end of Feb). And of course, there didn't used to be any such equipment at all, and we're all still here.Those laws weren't right, just generalizations. Relativity, a discovery of the previous century, makes a significant distance in the vastness of space; and physicists have plenty of equations to deal with them. We would have had a lot of trouble landing the Rovers on Mars if we had used classical physics. It was a difficult asteroid to detect.
As for the sun dying, you don't have to worry about that, they've managed to figure out from actual observations of other stars and such that that won't be for a good long time. They haven't found anything about our sun that would make it behave differently from other stars.The sun will become a red giant; but like any stellar process, it'll take millions of years. Several billion, in fact. Even I don't plan to be around that long. There's no reason to fret about the health of our sun, it's going to be almost exactly the same from when we are born to when we die except its magnetic fields' cycle.
-
I've been accepted everywhere I've heard from so far, two schools I didn't do early admissions on because they were binding, and I'm not about to dole out money if I'm going to get a larger merit scholarship at another school for it. April 1st, for both of them; I'm hoping I don't get them that day.
-
Was what I meant. I just suck at making a clear point. Still it's an odd concept, and it's not like it's a modern idea either. How did it live so long? Doubt it was like furrydom stuff ;;>> but still.
I'm pretty sure all historical instances of anthropomorphic animals occurred as a result of symbolism, connections with nature, and the properties of the natural world being put into a comprehensible form, rather than any of the much less elegant attraction of the modern era.
I mean, a common way of getting rid of unwanted cats was to drown their kittens in bags in a river. Gushy sentiment was probably not the reasoning behind having animal-humans identified as gods.
-
For starters, it's fairly common knowledge that men and women produce different amounts of horomones released from the pituitary gland (controlled by the hypothalamus). Much of the female frontal (higher functions) and parietal lobe (a bunch of stuff) is larger than the male's. Women have a larger hippocampus, and tend to use it to navigate differently than males do; this has been observed in rats as well as people. Males have a larger amygdala (emotional response) than women, as well as the corpus callosum. Since size increase is directly related to neuron count, and almost always will have some effect on function.
That's not neurological. That's a chemical difference which can easily be reversed - and moreover, the hindbrain has almost no bearing on thought processes, it is much better considered a non-mental physiological difference than one of thinking.. Also, the brain is not born developed; how you learn and are treated far into childhood drastically changes brain structure and the preeminence of some regions. Hell, even teenagers can have changes; for example, musicians consistently develop a stronger corpus callosum and larger temporal lobe than non-musicians, even when training starts as late as teenage years. I'm pretty sure that gender didn't determine that difference; how do you know that the deep-rooted difference in treatment of boys and girls - literally from birth- doesn't affect those different structures as well? "Neuron count" does not have an affect on function; size reflects more upon the connectedness of a lobe with the rest of the brain and its frequent use. It falls right in, then, that treatment of boys and girls differently influences what structures are 'important' in their development as a child and get more frequent use.
You probably know that male infants seem to pick toys like cars more often, while females pick dolls; this has been observed in monkeys as well, seriously challenging the idea that the difference is merely thanks to cultural norms.Yeah, I'd like to see some proof on that.
STILL MISSING THE POINT. Seriously. Read it again. The "social butterflies" part was intended to show the ridiculousness of the position.I tend to be hyperbolic, it is true.
-
You guys really are hilarious. It's because women are conditioned to pay attention to people; after all, aren't they supposed to be little social butterflies? Your logic on the supposed evolutionary need for women to have better hearing falls apart because, in that same situation, wouldn't the men have to have excellent hearing to be good hunters?
There's no difference neurologically. There's no difference neurologically. There's no difference neurologically. There's no difference neurologically. There's no difference neurologically. There's no difference neurologically. There's no difference neurologically. There's no difference neurologically. There's no difference neurologically
-
Similarly with intellectual capability, except that I believe that all people who haven't had some kind of physical accident has the same potential within their own heads. Even if this might not be true empirically, it is effectively--studies have proven that most people use much less of their brain at any given moment than they could.
That's a myth that's been going since the early 1900s. It's ridiculous to think that we would have an organ that consumes over 20% of the energy we take in, and not use it. You are aware of all your senses at any given time, yes? Since your brain is divided by sense, you are using, at the utmost minimum, the great portion of your brain dealing with sense (occipital and temporal lobes alone take up probably 30% of your cranium). The lower brain isn't used for conscious thought, it's always 'running' to maintain involuntary body functions like heart-rate or keeping track of time (internal clock). The frontal lobes are probably working, since you are conscious; that's most of the brain we've covered now that must be functioning. I can go further but why bother.
I really hate the "we only use 10% of our brain" myth. It makes no sense whatsoever, and certainly isn't founded on any of it.
-
I always did suck at biology. Well, now I know, right?
Seems the only reason then would be for purely aesthetic reasons.
If you like extremely high rates of transplant rejection, scars, weakened immune systems, and dead things hanging off your body (I highly doubt that it would be possible to link the nerves from another genus and our own, as each animal species varies in its peripheral nervous system), then yes. I can't see any aesthetic appeal even in idea, but that's just me.
You're going to have to keep animal adornment a strange fantasy.
-
Wings indeed would be useless, no doubt about it. Our bodies just aren't built for flying, period. Claws and tails though...What if we could make the claws retract? I'm sure one would think of that before doing it, as claws out would mean closing your hand would be hard without cutting your hand. Plenty of animals have retractable claws, if we were gonna do it, I'd hope we'd have thought of that first.
What happens to your fingers' bend-ability when you 'retract' the claw? It's not going to work like Wolverine, either, those would require removing the tendons that extend your fingers on the metacarpals. Animals with retractable claws can't do much else with their digits, as much as they may wish to; my cat gets on my keyboard all the time, and all she types is aoaaaaaaaaaaap[[opj and such. I'm fairly certain that, being our only other highly technical evolutionary trait besides brain power and bipedalism, one would wish to keep finger dexterity.
Tails...I'm not sure about this, but I heard it would be better for balance. I'm sure we'd have to get used to it due to not being used to it, but I'm sure it would be the case for any of this stuff.The only reason quadruped animals have tails is because they have unequal weight distribution. Noticeably, all animals which tend toward bipedalism have short or non-existent tails, like ourselves and our close relatives gorillas and chimpanzees. They get in the way of walking using two feet, and having already achieved a fine balance on two feet, using less energy than four feet plodding along with a constantly correcting tail whisking about, the tail becomes outdated. Evolution doesn't favor these things randomly.
Our bodies are only going to work well when they are fully human.
-
Mm, semantics, I love 'em.
The idea of mixing human and animal parts doesn't appeal to me at all; I enjoy my humanity quite so. If you think about it, even if you did contemplate some sort of 'mixing', the benefits would be minimal unless you plan on swapping brains while you are at it. The brain is designed to process information of only a certain type; that's why people need glasses, as their brains can't connect the image made by differently focused corneas (or whatever the problem). There's nothing inherently wrong with the magnifying effect of, say, near-sighted corneas, except our brains aren't wired to process that information as it is given. Transplanting animal parts, then, would never work (and the problem would not just be in the occipital lobe for sight, but throughout the brain because sight is such an integral sense). Same goes for any other sensory replacement. Most other body parts would seem useless and inhibiting, such as having a tail which I'm sure is the wet dream of many a furry; our bodies are precisely fitted to only our body parts. Claws would remove our dexterity, tails would remove our balance, full-fledged wings would be physically impossible to fit on our frame with proper lifting power, etc. etc. etc.
-
In regards to trends in the mental 'strengths' of one sex or another, those are skewed by social conditions; they aren't representative at all of any sort of neurologically proven differences. In fact, I'd say anything you cite about how women might "have been shown to be better in the arts/humanties, more emotional, interpretive elements, with no true correct answers." or how men are "better at Math and Sciences", is no different than saying that white people have been proven to be better at intellectual achievements than black people, who are better at sports. It's sociological, they've grown up in different environments and with different expectations and pressures and all that terrible baggage (to make a generalization for the sake of demonstration); nothing prevents any crossover except society. The same is with men and women. After all, it's pretty freaking rare where boys and girls, while growing up, are treated similarly; and the way you think is most malleable in childhood, the result being the difference we see today.
I mean, if it actually were biological, wouldn't we see far fewer cases of crosses between sexes in 'interests'?
-
You got trolled.
I'm pretty sure that generalization of the sexes isn't in the vogue anymore, let's talk about individual strengths.
Women can do more things than men can, they take care of the house, the kids and you. Atleast thats what i want my wife to be a housewife.Also this is seriously a classic chauvinist women-on-a-pedestal comment.
-
Come on, I was expecting some glorious full-length feature entertainment here, and all I get is a tease? You're very cruel.
-
And Texas doesn't suck!
Fun Fact; Texas is the furry capital of the world. There's like some sort of convention in Dallas all the time.
-
...or does anyone else feel like something bad is gonna happen?...
O.O
Every time I pass my cursor over those eyes and it turns into an I-beam, I feel like I'm wedging a stake into your eye socket. Is that it?
Is it just me... or
in Far from the Forest...
Posted
Well, usually discussion is only furthered by significant input on each part of the conversers...