Forum posts

The other games in the series are mediocre. Source games lack the Quake "feel" I love so much.

Heh, I always thought I was alone, I feel the same thing. I've missed the quake feel ever since I first played HL2.

they are not intended to eat meat

Just a reminder. As soon as you are speaking of intentions, you imply that there is a creator. Evolution has no intentions.

Sure we can survive by only eating vegetables, but there is a reason that we are so crazy about meat and that is because without it surviving is harder. Same reason earwax tastes like shit because to eat it is really not beneficial in any way.

Also, even if we can survive eating nothing but plants, we still need the other animals. We're all familiar with how the circle works, from plants to plant eater to meat eater and back again. And as Stu mentioned, we still need huge amounts of space to grow as much plants needed to feed us.
And building space stations for farming purposes is not a realistic idea.
And as mentioned earlier, creating life support on other places in space but earth and actually start growing things there will take a long time.


@Unbreakable: Not surprising actually. However cancer will always be a problem because everyone gets it if they live long enough. If we could learn how to spot it in time and actually cure all forms of it then we could boost the life expectancy even more.

We are far away from travelling vast distances through space, but we are close to curing everything.
And once we can cure everything, our genetic diseases will pass on to the coming generations who will be dependant of these medicines, and if anyone decides to take them away, or some sort of social collapse occurs, then we are all pretty much doomed.

Even if we manage to get to Mars the next year making the planet properly inhabitable will take a very long time.

I'm not being selfish. I'm being realistic. Obviously if someone closely related to me would get a serious disease I would want them to be cured, but would it really be for the greater good? Perhaps not.

And you won't find much food in space, and in the water I'm not so sure.

We are predators, we take up a lot of land and we kill any animal that gets in our way, sometimes for food but sometimes even just for fun. This distorts the natural balance. Imagine if we had 5x bigger population as you suggest there is room for, what about all the other creatures on earth, which we can't live without? Where do you want to put them? In space?

I read an article about some MIT researchers coming up with a new drug that supposedly is very effective against most virus and could cure anything from a common cold to Polio.

A swedish newspaper even speculated that this new drug might even cure HIV, but I've got my doubts, and this newspaper isn't really what you'd call reliable.

Anyway, this made me wonder, what if we actually could cure everything?
In a humanist perspective this would obviously be a wonderful thing, but in a more realistic perspective we need diseases to keep the earth from overflowing with people. We've got too much people as it is already, we don't have enough resources on this planet!

We know that there is a link between inventing allergy medicine and the present huge increase of people actually having allergies, this because those who would have died because of their allergies lived due to their medicine, and are now reproducing giving their allergy genes to their offspring. If we start curing serious diseases then we're going to have some serious problems in a few generations worth of time.

What are your views on this? Discuss!

Yeah I wonder what Valve is up to. Perhaps they got tired of delays so they'll just release Ep3 with a short notice. But still, it's gone a long time and you'd think that they'd focus most of their resources finishing their most anticipated game.

I'll probably buy it. I've got 1.6, CZ, and CSS, and I used to played all three of them A LOT. I'm guessing this won't be an exception for me.
Haven't really played any counter strike in about 3 years, if you don't count Huntey and Urby's last tournament. It was fun to load up 1.6 again for the first time in about 5 years.

Edit:
Looked up the real word for "rental residence" in english. So to avoid people not getting my point, I believe it's actually called "Leasehold estate" or "council estates", correct me if I'm wrong.

---

I'll give a short version of my opinion on this.
Next to where I live there is a huge neighbourhood of rental residences.
When an immigrant enters sweden, these are the sorts of residences they most likely move to since they have little cash and initially no jobs.

I believe there is some truth in that our cultures does not match up very well, because some of the muslim moral standards differ from our western moral standards. For example how they treat women and so forth. But more importantly, these immigrants comes from countries broken by war where there is little to no law. When they enter Sweden, they aren't immediately familiar with our laws and our moral standards which they do need to start aligning to if they are to be part of our society.

However, when you have these huge areas of rental residences all of these immigrants gather in one single place. This is not a good thing because then it's like they have their own little country in the middle of ours, and true enough, this neighbourhood that I speak of is one of the most crimefilled areas in Sweden. If you make them all live in the same place then they will never get used to our moral standards and laws, to them they are still back in their old country except there is no war. They've got no neighbours to learn from.

These huge rental residence neighbourhoods are spread out all over sweden, and it's not a coincidence that those are the areas where the most crime takes place.

These rental residences needs to be spread out all over the place so that they blend in with those who've lived here for a longer time, who've learned to addapt. I believe this would fix the problem, and we could all just live together in peace.

I'm not a racist, I've got plenty of immigrant friends who've learned to addapt to our society. But these kids who grow up in these areas aren't always that lucky.

Also, I'd like to add that not EVERYONE who moves to a rental resitence neighbourhood turns into a thief or a murdurer. A small percentage does, but that small percentage cause a lot of damage to our society.

Never heard of anyone getting killed by good ol' bean bags though
Bet that hurts

Edit:
Just looked it up, and it turns out beanbags are quite lethal in some situations as well

Oh, well in that case I agree with you 38.

And yes, calling in the military would probably be quite effective. Give them some non-lethal ammunition and let them patrol the worst areas, so that they can dispatch the police to the less worse areas preventing a spread.

Another thing that has me perplexed is that when people protest and then riot against continued police brutality, the response of the public is to ramp up the polices power to greate heights?

Well 38, they can't just stand by and watch now can they?
Things would probably get even more out of hand if they didn't attempt to take down the worst mobs.

Wow. sounds fucked up.

I don't like laws legalising weapons at all. It seems to create more problems than what it "solves".
If everybody has weapons, then it's all about who drew first, and most likely that will be the criminal. Because someone who isn't criminal would never draw the weapon unless he/she had to, and then it would probably already be too late.

The automatic mailing system on facebook made me want to shoot myself, but I guess we're all different. At least this would be voluntary.

nah, but that's just messy. Would you really use it? Imagine one e-mail for each response. It'd be like the facebook mailbox rape you get before you find out how to turn it off

Perhaps it should be slightly less discrete though. I'd never have guessed unless I was here when it was put there in the first place.

Perhaps there should be a button next to the

[Show Smilies]

[Show BBCode]

thingies?

There is a subscribe button for the threads. It's the slightly hidden [T] in the upper right. "Forums > Site Comments and Suggestions > [T]"

One should question everything, especially authorities. The church is an authority. The way I see it questioning something could never be a bad thing.

Scientific theories are questioned on a daily basis, and that is why we get progress.

But in REALITY, something happened and there were never 2 possibilities happening at the same time

I guess I can't argue against this because I could never prove the opposite, however all the experimental data and mathematics and theory seems to apply so perfectly to reality! Too perfect to be coincidental. And if the mathematics is right, then so is the theory.

Quantum scientists claim that the cat is in a sort of super state where it isn't dead nor alive until someone actually opens the box and by doing that collapsing the wave function. One couldn't possibly understand what that actually means, like they say; "if you think you've understood quantum mechanics, then you've not".

Perhaps multiverse theory comes in handy here. The universe is split into all possible outcomes, and by collapsing the wave we force our universe into one of those "paths".

Edit: Also, sorry if this wasn't related to what you said. Again my english fella bit short while reading your post. I think I understood it, but again maybe I didn't

Wow, that's kinda depressing to see. Hard to imagine that our galaxy is 100 000 ly in diameter. Our species will probably be extinct befor our signals reach any of the edges.

Also, you asked about how events at a quantum level can interfere with the real macro world. And that was what the "Schrödingers cat" thought experiment was all about. It can indeed have an effect.

I'm not a biologist but I believe that cancer caused by radiation is another slightly more common event where the micro world interacts with the macro world. You'll have to correct me if I'm wrong on this one.

Great! Thanks Pengy

Deep Purple - Perfect Strangers

Looks cool. How did you change it? :>

I had an idea this morning

Usually when I go to this site the first thing I do is to look at the five latest posts in the forums which are displayed on the front page, to see what's going on. I'm guessing most people do the same since usually there are five posts from the same thread showing up on the front page.

I figgure that if that was changed to show the five threads which were last posted in then there would be more topics going on rather than just one.
It could show exactly what it shows today for each individual entry but instead of the latest post it would show the most recently updated thread.

You can't help noticing that usually there is just one hot thread here on TWHL which everybody posts in, and I'm guessing that has to do with the front page. I think if we turned it into the five most recently updated threads instead then the lifespan of the threads would be prolonged, and there would be a wider range of discussions going on on the same time.

Do you guys agree, or is it just me?

If it defys the laws of gravity it couldn't possibly form a planet
I'm just sayin

As far as we can see (litteraly) the laws of physics are the same universally. I find that pretty amazing actually. And the fact that if you were to change a universal constant even the slightest then everything as we know is ceases to be. To me that is proof of the multiverse theory in a way. For there has to be at least one which allows there to be starts and planets and life. If there only was one universe the probability of it actually supporting life as we know it would be incredibly low

@Jeff: And that seems all fair and rational if you ask me.
You've noticed that the church is exploited by the wrong people and therefor taken a distance from it, and you know that the bible contains flaws.
And as far as I know, Jesus was a pretty decent guy. I just don't believe that he was the son of a god.
I can understand this sort of belief. It's all good.

But still, why call yourself a Christian? Sure you agree with the word of Jesus, which is good, but if you don't buy into the bible and you know that the church will always be exploited. Why not just say that you believe in Jesus and god?

And that makes it right? Real mature.

I never said that makes it right. But that was the only instance of it and
we all make misstakes including both me and yourself, as you yourself stated.
End of discussion.

Oh and as huntey said, Atheists celebrate the day but not Jesus. Some celebrate the winter solestice, and other just use the day as an excuse to be with their family. I'm one of the latter. Also, I like presents.

@Stu
May I ask if you believe in anything else now? Just out of curiosity.

I wonder why. Is sexuality genetic? That would explain why they don't.

@Crollo

NineTnine believes that some people can perform thought-based time travel because he read it in a book.
Know what else he believes in because he read it in a book?
Yeah.

Ninetnine had provoked us too. You get what you give.
That was the only instance anyone of us attacked him personally.

With such obviously flawed views (and that was only one example) which most sane Christians are sensible enough to disagree with, why do you buy into the other stuff? If half of it is proven bullshit, why do you insist on believing the other half?

So you're saying those views aren't flawed?
And the rest of it is a genuine question. If one half is bullshit and you know it, then why believe the other half? I don't see the problem with this quotation at all.

Why won't you think for yourselves?!

It's a follow up to the last quote and is almost a compliment since it means that they have the capability to think for themselves and form their own opinions instead of following an organised religion, but they choose not to. How come?

And you know goddamned well you're not going to get [polite] 'answers'.

Wow you proved your own point.

you're dropping comments that you know are going to provoke him

If you find these fundamental questions provoking then you are just another one of those who thinks that religion shouldn't be open for discussion.

you're still bringing up the exact same thing as before.

Because we still haven't had those questions answered. Even a simple "I don't know" would suffice.

But on the opposite extreme, if you leave them out of religion until they're older, then chances are they'd have grown up around a lot of atheist kids who believe religion is bullshit and people who believe it are complete morons, and then they grow up to hate religion.

Atheists have no orginisation. We don't gather a few times a week and promote our message as the religious do in their churches or synagogs or mosques. And we don't sit around and bash religion. I grew up with atheists and I found out about god and all that trough my Christian cousins and later in school. I decided for myself that I didn't want to believe in it.

The point Dimbark is that likely he didn't decide to be a Christian himself. He was raised to be a Christian. If the very same family lived in a country where they had a different religion most likely he wouldn't call himself a Christian today.

Being raised to believe in something takes away the freedome of choice.
A radical example could be; imagine if you were raised a Nazi. You would believe that all jews deserve death and since you were raised to believe that then to you everyone else is wrong and you are the one who is in the right.

I'm not comparing Christians to nazis, I just made a radical example to make a point.

I agree with Archie. We've said much harsher things to eachother when discussing other things, but once it comes to religion suddenly the rules change. It's unfair. We're not trying to pick a fight, we just want answers.

try this - not believing in something doesnt mean its not real.

for example, if someone says "i wont go to hell because i dont believe in it" doesnt mean that hell isnt real, simply because they dont believe in it

Try this - simply believing in something doesn't make it real.

for example, if someone says "when I die I will go to a paradise" won't prevent them from just dying and being eaten by worms.

What flaws do you find in a non-belief system Striker?

The word Dimension is often confused with parallel universe. Far from the same thing.

And I would say discussing religion is deep and also necessary. Some people say that "it's a sensitive subject" and "it might offend people". Fuck that it's just as important to discuss religion as it is to discuss politics, perhaps even more important. Just look at the US goverment..

You guys have strange views on time. It's just another direction which we can't see but only notice the effects of. Harness time? Superweapon? Wat?

Thought about the thing I said about travelling back in time and causing a paradox. If time really does branch each time an event with several possible outcomes occours then you could possibly just travell to another branch where you also have been/will be born (by bending the fourth dimension through the fifth) and that should not cause any paradoxes as long as it isn't connected with our own branch anywhere but in the past. However I don't see any technology ever preforming thas trick. You can't just bend spacetime around as you wish.

Going forward in time is fully possible but going backwards is a whole lot trickier (if even possible) and will probably never be made possible for humans. They are currently experimenting with sending back individual particles. I'm sceptical to the whole idea. It would be really strange if it actually worked. Seems to me as you would have to break a few physical laws to be able to preform it.

And going back in time could be so catastrophic so I imagine that even if we had the technology we still wouldn't do it because of the obvious huge risks involved.

your a tool for not understanding anything christianity!

Well a lot of your christian friends would most certainly say that I'd go to hell for that. And your god is still a dick for a long list of reasons.
His moral standards are just horrible.

but youd think im a bit weird.

Yes. Yes I would.

i have no evidence or arguement or whatever

like most ALL christians

"Partly yes"? That's your answer? Well that's just fantastic.
Next time you speak with god tell him to give me a call. Maybe he will persuade me into becoming a christian

Oh and if your christian god loves me so much, then how come he will throw me in hell for not having faith?
Your god is a dick.

ok maybe not 100% real. but you choose that theory over the others

Why wouldn't we? It's the one with the most evidence supporting it.
If I told you elephants were pink and archie told you elephants were grey you'd probably end up choosing archies theory because if you actually observe and elephant it's quite grey.. Or, well I guess that depends on which elephant it is.

We have responded to all of your claims. Now I'd like you to answer my question.

scientists say god doesnt exist because "how can you belive something you cant see" but they believe the big bang, which is also silly because no one has ever witnessed a big bang, nor is there 100% proof.

This quote contains a lot of fail.

First of. There are religious scientists so "Scientists say god doesn't exist" is false.
What I really reacted on however was this. "but they BELIEVE in the big bang"
No they don't. It's a theory! Get the difference. You can't have belief in a theory. You can only say that there are evidence which supports it and if you don't quite like the idea then you try to dissprove it.

There aren't 100% proof of the big bang as you say, but neither is there 0% proof of it. There are lots of things that shows us that something similar to the big bang is probably what happened.

However, there is absolutley no evidence of creation. If you do have some I'd love it if you shared it. I'm open for debate. I've got christians in my family and I respect them anyway.

Also. What do you know about interpreting the bible? Did god himself tell you how to do it? Or was it a bunch of very human people? You choose to interpret the bible as you wish to your own favour. This is why atheists can't reason with you but yet I find myself trying over and over because I have hope that maybe you will find reason instead of believing in something blindly. For your own good.

Observation:

many of their skeletons were found close together.

Theory:

tyrannosaurus rex's hunted in packs

Yet again a theory based on observation.
A theory doesn't have to be true. It's just a possible explanation which explains something that has been observed. In this case it explained a pattern.

That's not true at all. Scientists theorize all the time.

Well.. They theorize based on things they have observed.

Imagine if they made a theory about a phenomenon which has never been observed. That would be silly.

So in a way brednamint is right. Except seeing isn't the only way of observing something.

I did D: Twice.
Fuck english

It's when you start talking science you realise that even though you took like 10 courses you still can't talk about what you love.

I wouldn't mess with the theory of gravity Zeeba. It's pretty solid

Now imagine this: that energy has been emitted billions of years ago( probably 15, more or less) and it still exists. And that "energy" is actually something that is continuously generated out of... nothing(maybe).
It will only get "fainter", but never disappear.

I need somebody to explain this to me, it still boggles my mind.

Striker:
That energy was generated from the big bang. It was quite an energetic expansion. Those who represented the big bang theory infact predicted that there would be a universal electromagnetic radiation as a consequence out of the bang. That's why they got all excited when they actually accidentally found it So the energy didn't come out of nothing. Unless you count big bang as coming out of nothing which wouldn't be that far fetched actually.

A foton, or a lightwave, can interact with other things that doesn't fully absorb it. This will cause a transaction of momentum (even light has momentum even though it has no mass) which will change the energy of the lightwave. The lightwaves energy is dependant only of it's frequency and so that will be the only factor that changes as the speed remains the same (of course the wavelength also changes due to the fact that the frequency changes)
So if you let a foton bounce around in space for a few billion years it will most likely hit quite a few things within that timeperiod and therefore loose energy.

Eventually the foton will hit something that absorbs all of its' energy.

There was no need for that comment, I noticed my error and explained myself.
Are you going to nag on my flawed English or are we going to have a discussion?

Striker: I find it hard to even think about thinking. How do you do it?
Something that has bothered me is that when I think about a taste then I for a few seconds can actually somehow taste it, but then when I notice that I can taste it the sensation just disapears. Sometimes a similar thing happens when I try to imagine an image. At first I get a clear picture, and then it slowly decays and after a minute or so I can't imagine it at all. If I wait a while however I can repeat the process.

The human mind is not a simple thing. I know you want to be all "humans are stupid because look at war and hate and murder and blah blah blah," but for an object the size of two soda cans to be capable of metacognition - at all - is nothing short of miraculous

That's not how I ment it. I ment it as we can not imagine things beyond a certain limit. We can never imagine the microscopic world accuratly, we can never imagine anything above the third dimension, and we can never imagine what's outside of our universe. Perhaps I sentenced it wrong.

Obviously we are quite complex biologically. The complexity of the human body is facinating and mindblowing, but at least most of it can be explained, and what we can't explain about it today we will be able to explain in the future.

And don't make assumptions about what I want. That's just silly.

That one gets to me every time Striker. And it's so annoying since we can't possibly find out. To our simple human minds, what else could there be outside if not space and time? Something undefined.

The problem with particles and the micro world in general is that you can not apply the logic as you know it for it does not exist on such levels. Logic breaks down the further down into the matter you go and when speaking of individual particles then there is none of it left.

The electron is concidered to be a point particle. This means that it doesn't have a volume and thus is infinitly small in a way. The protons and neutrons however are made up by smaller things as you might know called quarks, but what's beyond that is hard to tell because smashing quarks open to see what's inside is quite a hard task.

Concidering that energy is quantizised I find it hard to believe that you will end up with smaller and smaller particles because eventually you will reach a lowest possible energy level and everything bellow that will be too unstable to exist for any real physical time period.

Also when speaking of infinities. It's easy to get infinities in simple maths. But when you get an infinity as the answer to a physical equation than something has gone terribly wrong. There can't be any infinities in the real physical world, imagen the consequences. Not even space can be infinite for it has an expansion velocity which suggests that there was a beginning.

Interesting subject. I often find myself just sitting around staring into mid-air thinking about things like this.

That's very little RAM. 1 gb DDR 1 won't take you far. That could be a problem. The CPU might be alright on lower settings. And as crollo stated you didn't mention what GPU you have, which makes it hard to tell