Why is grass green?
How is that question related in any way, shape or form to the previous question? Maybe it is a vital question? xD Or a fatal question? so if grass is not green we die?  |
|
|
|
Well, I don't know guys, as a swede I can confirm that very many girls over here has kinda big boobs… Anyway, what I want to know is (let us pretend it's not fake), how did they measure this?  There is not way that most girl in Sweden has over a D cup as the study says lol how, well they didn't measure they probably just asked trough limited survey I guess, or they tried to check some genetic data, but that doesn't make sens ^^ I doubt they took a meter and started measuring girls/women racks in the street everywhere in the world |
|
|
|
 Yes your gif has won the internetz for today, but tomorow when more leaks will happens there will be an even better one |
|
|
|
Yeah it is more likely a joke of some sort ^^ |
|
|
|
Why is grass green?
How is that question related in any way, shape or form to the previous question? Maybe it is a vital question? xD |
|
|
|
cut to right size and then strech it and you'll be happy man each time you'll look at your background Won't stretching it reduce the quality? it depends on how you'll do it, it should work fine as the initial picture is not very small^^ |
|
|
|
btw how an artificial island on an oil platform would look like , in a dozen of year they'll be a dozen of them free for use as the oil wells will get empty  and just for reference  Btw near the palm tree island there is this :  |
|
|
|
I've got better and more pressing things to do than argue with a blind-sighted fool in continual denial who is impervious to facts or reason and can't construct an intelligible point or argument, so I'll refute your (non-)arguments when I've got time, but the duration it takes me to respond to your nonsense is a petty and puerile matter. Why don't you take a couple of days to comprehend what I'm saying and do some research or, you know, actually make a valid point or argument? You've yet again provided nothing satisfactory or refuted any of my points with any facts at all; just incorrect opinion. Seriously, you're either really no good at comprehending or processing the information and facts I've given you or you're stupidly in denial and doing your best to avoid answering my questions. 1) You haven't clearly done anything and it's opinionated because you haven't provided any evidence of your argument other than your own opinion which has been based on your misunderstanding of quotes that you've not understood the meaning or context of. You said Einstein's work was religious in nature but where is your proof? And listen to what I've got to say now: My argument is not and was never to disprove the entire list of scientists and philosophers you gave, my point was you included three ones that weren’t in any way religious. Do you understand that? You need to drop thinking that you're somehow onto a winning argument here. You're asking me to prove a square is a circle. I never said they were. If you cannot comprehend this then there's no point continuing. Your only argument here seems to be a point I never made. And I proved that not one or two but all three of the people I initially pointed out are not religious, but it's becoming clear nothing will convince you otherwise. 2) Ah, so you're an anti-semite? Again, this is your misinformed opinion. Saying Jews aren’t an ethnicity is absolutely moronic and there's a difference between the people and religion whether you think it or not. Again, your opinion is wrong. Anybody can join the Jewish faith, but it doesn't give you Jewish heritage or ancestry. How can Sagan be Jewish? How can Woody Allen or Sasha Baron Cohen be Jewish and also Atheists? Or are they not to you? Maybe all their work is inspired by god too? Do some reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_ethnic_divisions. Jews are Hebrews and originated from Israel and surrounding areas, but have since spread throughout the world like most ethnicities. 3) Little of that makes any sense so if you care to rephrase it I'll have a go at deciphering your point, but your opinion of Sagan is wrong, just like everything else. He wasn't a theist. Where have I quoted that? Please read and process the information of what I've said in my previous message. 4) Seriously, is that the only argument you've got here? You are trying to win an argument based on a point I'm not making. I've proved without doubt the three are not religious with quotes from all of them but you disregard these. You have not read any of their works at all. Read them then get back to me. Your insistence on still trying to say that Hawking’s religiosity is debatable or 'disputable' is laughable, but it's clear your denial is not going to let you drop this. If you can't disprove the points I've made above in my previous message and just want me to try prove to you that squares are circles then there's really no point continuing this, but I will continue to answer you points in my own time if you so wish to do so, but answering the same unsourced and unfounded crap is a little boring. Better things to do? rest assured I've had a look on your comment history at the time before I advanced such a thing, I'm not stupid, I verified because you might have been absent, or busy, but it wasn't the case either way, your comment history for the last 2 days speaks for it self this is a FACT. Factual argumentation I don't need to derail or advance something which is not a fact and believe in it like you are doing here (you believe you've proved something without providing proves. 1- Again which opinion you are talking about? I don't recall my self giving my opinion on something, I reported scientific, and quotes from the person them selves I didn't advance anything from there, unlike you, I've pointed out each time you advanced something on your own. Shall I quote each time you've done this and list it below just to prove this once and for all? Also it's funny how now you've changed your reply from your list is fud (and I can quote you denying it) to there are people in that list that aren't religious? wasn't the whole argument here, that religion makes people stupid? and only stupid people follow religion? so the existence of such list that you cannot denies and one which you focus on one or two person to try discredited is a proof on it self that not only you are wrong, but your whole argumentation is unwholesome. 2- antisemite? what are you talking about here, I stated fact and to prove how your argumentation is malsain again you are derailing and not answering the facts I provided, Judaism is not a RACE or ETHNICITY it is a RELIGION, people who follow Judaism are Jewish as there are Muslims or Christians, this is fact, ANYONE can become Jewish or Muslim, or Christian being regardless of their ETHENICITY, there are Arab Jewish, Asian Jewish, Black Jewish, White Jewish, Berber Jewish... this is a FACT, I want to see arguing against this. As for the rest of you argument, there are people that claim to be things they aren't to benefit them selves, I saw people claiming to be Muslims to get feed during Ramadan for free or to get help from Muslim organization, I saw some other doing the same thing, to get free housing from Catholic organizations and help, I saw some claiming to be Jew, to get financial help for their business, this is a fact as well, I'm talking about people who believes and call them selfs Jew for a reason, and during the Einstein era, being a Jew in Austria and Germany was not an advantage in fact it was the total opposite sadly yet he always presented him self as a Jew (I'm not going to talk about the cruel things that Jews, gays and ethnicities (It wasn't only Jews for reference) suffered during the Nazi era and how those atrocities are horrible and makes sad that's a whole other debate). 3- there is nothing to rephrase there are some mistakes but as a whole the comment is clear, you Quote Sagan and Einstein and then you try and explain what they are saying putting words on their mouth and transforming the whole perspective and meaning of the quote. Not only but the quotes you used only proves my argument as explained, Sagan him self said he is an Egnostic and this is I'm sure something I said my self, and I said he is an Egnostic Theist, because he never denied GOD, and consider Atheism to be stupid. (see no opinions here only facts). 4- Only argument I have ? just a little reminder and to put things into perspective shall we : Original claim was : "people that follow religion are stupid, only stupid people follow religion, religion is the source of many problems"My original answer was : It's the religion fault but peoples stupidity that makes do stupid things, around half of the world most proficient scientist are religions, and I listed presenting a dozen of scientist that changed our world.
Yet you've claimed that what I said is FUD because there is one or two scientist that are not religious how is this even an argumentation, not only you cannot prove the list is fake/wrong/false which you are avoiding here, but you are trying to discredit by focusing on one or two scientist, that didn't say clearly, I'm Christian for example end of story (like the others did, they had a clear stance) like I told you whole argumentation is malsain The existence of only one proficient scientist proves my point (that there exist religious people that are as intelligent is not more intelligent than their atheist counterpart but I presented a list of people that changed our world and our understanding of science as a whole I also stated another fact is more than half of the most proficient scientist right now are religious. So not only you are nitpicking you are avoiding at all cost to talk about the rest of the list. Yes, but technology is not foolproof and all-knowing and omnipresent; accidents happen and people make mistakes. Human error is a factor in most accidents.
Indeed it is not, and never said it is, what I'm saying despite all the available means of collaboration, they are not using them and still posting contradicting and misleading informations. |
|
|
|
most probably not, if it has not been solved by now it's most probably gone for eternety don't you think?
Depends I suppose, how long is eternity? Shouldn't that be about… 10000 years? isn't eternity infinite or unending time ? Yeah but like, isn't 10000 years reaaaaaally long? It's all depends on what scale you are, 10000 is long in the human life scale, but on the universe scale 10000 years is not even a second of our life so which is it? |
|
|
|
Nice thanks for the information, Wacom presented a very wicked tablet and stylus in CES I don't recall the name by they say they'll come out Q2 Q3 2014 if I remember correctly |
|
|
|
...
i guess arab have a great mind by building this wonderful island
Imagination, a good plan, and tons of money. It sure does look beautiful. they have the means for their dreams they are also preparing for the post petrol era, such infrastructure is built for touristic and business attractive and that's not the only artificial Island and many are bring built right now in the region ^^ |
|
|
|
I always find animal cruelty horrible but feel a hypocrite for eating meat.
Animal cruelty isn't the same as slaughtering animals for food. I think slashing an animals throat and letting it bleed out is pretty cruel. Anything else seems like double standards. What about killing a dog then eating it? How is it cruel , if the animals dies instantly after it throat is cut completely ? the throat will be cut anyway, electricaly stunned or not, heck I find it worse when the electric stun doesn't stun the animal and had to live trought all the process and getting it skin removed while it is still alive. There is a huge difference between killing for food, and killing for self pleasure and satisfaction and not just killing but torturing and being cruel which only sick people that deserve being jailed who do that |
|
|
|
|
didn't expect the little voice, she is indeed hot on that video
|
|
|
|
|
Very cool drawing, you used a drawing tablet for that?
|
|
|
|
people like that make the world a terrible place
I just wish there were fewer people like her. at the same time someone got punished for hurting a turtle I don't recall which country but he got a fine to pay and got reprimanded, some people are stupid and need to be punished hope the law enforcement will deal with her
If he hurt the turtle on purpose or with intentions of satisfying his own sick needs then he deserves punishment but if it was an accident then he shouldn't be punished. he did it on purpose |
|
|
|
Not sure if this is outdated info now, but: The way activity is calculated:The activity number is determined in this way:
time = number of two-week periods in which you've posted since your registration
activity = min(time * 14, posts)
Activity is updated every 30 minutes.
It's still relevant, though it confuses many haha. There's an in depth thread trying to explain it here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=495948.0Not confusing at all ^^ you need to be familiar with some math signs ^^ : I'll explain the formula for those who didn't get it Time*14 with time = number of two-week periods in which you've posted since your registration, so what does this means, if you have posted during a two week period you get a 1 time , so you'll get 1x14 let's imagine someone registered a month ago with active posting (minimum of one post per two week) so a month is 4 weeks, so the guys will get on this side of the equation 2x14=28 if he only posted in one of the two 2 weeks periode of the month periode he'll get only 1x14=14 Now what does Min(time*14,posts) means, it just means that activity will equal the minimum value between the number of posts and time*14, if we take the example we used above with time*14=28, if the guy posted only twice during that months period his post count would be 2 so the minimum between 28 and 2 is of course 2 and thus 2 will be activity, on the other hand if they guy posted lets 1K post during that month, it will be 28 and 1K and the minimum would 28 instead as it is the min |
|
|
|
No, this is actually just FUD spread by Christians to try make some of their claims valid, when it's actually lies. Einstein being a Jew is irrelevant. Where is his work religious in inspiration? "Albert Einstein's religious views have been studied extensively. He said he believed in the "pantheistic" God of Baruch Spinoza, but not in a personal god, a belief he criticized. He also called himself an agnostic, while disassociating himself from the label atheist, preferring, he said, "an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Albert_EinsteinCarl Sagan was essentially an agnostic but against religion. Do some research. You might want to read his The Varieties of Scientific Experience: A Personal View of the Search for God book. And I have literally no idea what you just said about Hawking, but he's probably the most atheistic of them all, regardless of whether he comes out and point blank says 'There is no God', but clearly you haven't read his book The Grand Design ( I recommend you do): http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/7979211/Has-Stephen-Hawking-ended-the-God-debate.htmlSo please stop trying to claim prominent scientists as your own to further give any credence to childish myths. FUD ? What are you talking about, I didn't get some opinioned post like you did here, I got facts and clear quotes from the people here 2) Being a Jew is not relevant? this claim is plainly stupid do you even read what are you saying here ? and just another fact since you say that 3) Einstein believes in Spinozas God isn't that God, The God and not many? as in the main 3 religions where non of them says that God is human? and where is his work religious is inspiration? you don't see two of the most well known example in modern science I've mentioned? if you don't understand those just ask for explanation but don't go in denial as if I didn't back up what I said with know facts 4) Carl Sagan against religion? he was during much of his life an Agnostic THEIST, if he wasn't why would he say "Atheism is stupid." and other quotes that you are just plainly ignoring it again obviously because you can't argue against it. My comment on Hawking is clear you can read and reread it, also claiming I didn't read a book is a proof on it self on how you make your own thing and believes it but does that makes a fact NO it does not. 5) And as I said in my previous comment that you did quote if you want me to remove Hawkins from that list, as he did NOT start a clear stance about it I have no problem with that, but on the other hand how come you are just plainly ignoring the dozen of prominent scientist I mentioned, and focusing on one of them only, see where again you self denial kicks in and you just ignore as proven above again what was written So please stop trying to claim prominent scientists as your own to further give any credence to childish myths. for reference lol. You're actually wrong on every single point you've tried to make. 1) I find this very ironic. Your post is both highly opinionated, incorrect and is fud because you claimed those scientists to be religious when in fact they're nothing of the sort and the ones I pointed out are either atheist or agnostic, hence FUD which you continue to try spread. You didn't get any clear quotes and aren’t dealing in any facts at all but just misinformed opinion and assumption. 2) Clearly you don't know the difference between an ethnic Jew and the religion. Sagan was a Jew. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_atheism3) No. You're getting confused just because it has the word god there. Clearly you're not familiar with Spinoza's 'God'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinozism God is not literally meant as a god just like in the phrase 'God doesn't play dice with the world'. God in this sense means nature / physical laws, not a person or being. You clearly have trouble dealing with literal and figurative meanings (as do most religious people) and you still haven’t provided me with anything that alludes to Sagan being a theist (which he wasn't). He was actually a non-theist, but maybe you got confused there. I also still don't understand how you just saying Einstein's work on light & general relativity is religious in nature, especially with nothing to back it up but your opinion, so no, it's not clear. Please elaborate. A quote from Sagan on Einstein and Spinoza's god: "Some people think God is an outsized, light-skinned male with a long white beard, sitting on a throne somewhere up there in the sky, busily tallying the fall of every sparrow. Others—for example Baruch Spinoza and Albert Einstein—considered God to be essentially the sum total of the physical laws which describe the universe. I do not know of any compelling evidence for anthropomorphic patriarchs controlling human destiny from some hidden celestial vantage point, but it would be madness to deny the existence of physical laws." A quote from Einstein: “I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being.” 4) Again, you are taking the 'atheism is stupid' quote out of context and misunderstanding its true meaning / intent. The full quote: "An atheist has to know a lot more than I know. An atheist is someone who knows there is no god. By some definitions atheism is very stupid." He says atheism is stupid because according to him one cannot possibly know whether there is or isn’t a god. Charles Darwin also disliked the term atheist and didn't claim to be one. Are you going to try claim him as a prominent religious scientist now? If you read Sagan's works (clearly you haven't), whilst he never came out publicly and said he was an atheist, he was not a believer in religion or god, but to me he seems to be more of an atheistic agnostic, but if you watch this video from his lifelong friend James Randi he gives you an answer why Sagan never came out and said he was a full blown atheist: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hqkxo9gXzA5) You provided a list of allegedly religious people and I knew instantly three of them were not. I've already proved that they were not religious and essentially non-religious, yet you still seem to think they are based on nothing but your own desires and misinformed understanding. My argument wasn't everybody on that list but the three, so the rest are irrelevant to this. You really seem to go on the defensive attack and project your denial on to other people here. I really don't understand what I'm meant to be in denial about as I've backed up my points and you've either failed to provide any proof or continually taken yours out of context or misunderstood them completely, not to mention just making stuff up just to suit your argument. Took you 2-3 days to comes with a reply hmm. sure 1-How my post is opinioned when I've clearly posted, what the scientist said and did, the scientists I listed are not religious? but I don't see you challenging that, the only ones you are talking about of the dozen I mentioned is one or two, how come? this on it own is a prove and an admitting from your side that those relevant scientist that changed the world are indeed religious. 2- there is no such thing as a ethnic Jew, and the prove, is that Jews are from everywhere in the world and that anyone can become a jew like with any other religion, Jewish is a religion, and some Zionists wants to make it or make it look as an ethnicity as it serves their interest. so no you are totally wrong again 3- Both your quote do not contradict in any mean what I said, I clearly said that Sagan is an Agnostic THEIST and you've quoted that, as for Spinoza I've read that before I commented on the matter, it is GOD, I do not believe god is a Person or a Being, as God creats persons and beings You can find this notion clearly said in Islam, Judaism, the only religion that partially assimilated God to human is Christianity and even whiting Christianity and it branches it is a very discussed point. Also stop giving your own explication on other people quote, especially when they are clear, that's opinioning the words (see what I'm talking about here) 4- You didn't prove that 3 of them were not, One of them was disputable, and I removed him, the other two are not, not rather than trying to avoid the matter and derail, how about proving the others were not religious go ahead I want to see you trying. Back on topic:
I think they probably reached a deal to stop any bickering or further confusion if/when it was found. There seems to be a lot of confusion because I don't think anybody has established the true facts of what happened and there seems to be three or more parties involved in the search right now all operating on different knowledge.
In this day and age such thing should be inadmissible, means of communication are available, technological resources as well all they need to do is work together and set milestones, also I don't understand why china was disregarded in this matter, instead of waving their epeens on geopolitical matters, people should work together to solve this problem especially in the beginning where there was a chance of survivors, it is really outraging that in this day and age we still such attitudes |
|
|
|
|
just don't do drugs and drive. you can kill yourself all you want just leave others out of it ^^
|
|
|
|
not all asians have small boobs.  Not all. But most of them. Check this map:  This map looks so wrong in many aspecs, A-B Cup in whole Africa, over D In Russia and nordic countries and US I call this FUD lol . did they do the study for a specific age or something? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
