Questions you want answered.

Funkenpants wrote:

If they want to go that route, they should change the name of the network to "The Loosely Based on Cartoons Network"

I'd watch that.

Then you'd be stuck with a channel that shows a lot of Ben 10 and Scooby Doo movies...

As for a realistic answer to the original question, I'd say CN is showing more live-action stuff because the animation studios are probably having a hard time of creating new content. Except, apparently, "Total Drama Island" and "Jonny Test", which I'm betting are namely Flash-based animation, so that would cut down on costs a lot, I'd imagine. There is so much Jonny Test on Cartoon Network all the time it's ridiculous. I'd much rather watch repeats of "Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends" and "Flapjack". And those are pretty much the only reasons I ever tune into Cartoon Network anyway, aside from the Mighty Boosh on Adult Swim. But then, [as] is a category in and of itself, so I don't really count that as watching live action on Cartoon Network.

I was going to ask if the "Hello My Future Girlfriend" kid ever got a girlfriend.

IMAGE(http://www.kidblount.com/kidblount.jpg)

Then I found a page where he tells his story of that site.

It contained a link to his Myspace page, where he identifies himself as gay. Worse, under "Have you Been in Love:", he answers, "Kinda, but not loved back."

So I guess the answer is, no, she never came along.

*Legion* wrote:

So I guess the answer is, no, she never came along. :(

Is that why he's gay?

Anyone know a guy who lived single all his life? How did he end up? Happy or miserable?

My dad never married and he still had a couple of families and lives alone and he seems allright.

LobsterMobster wrote:
*Legion* wrote:

So I guess the answer is, no, she never came along. :(

Is that why he's gay?

They say it's genetic but you gotta wonder - if an entire Internet of women reject you, is one's desire to be loved so strong as to rewire that part of the brain? Like a survival mechanism?

Then again, it sounds like the gay doodz are rejecting him too, so maybe it's not a very effective one.

Nobody wants to touch that one with a 50 foot pole.

*Legion* wrote:

Nobody wants to touch that one with a 50 foot pole. :D

It is an interesting question, however.

Mex wrote:

Anyone know a guy who lived single all his life? How did he end up? Happy or miserable?

My dad never married and he still had a couple of families and lives alone and he seems allright.

How's it been so far, Mex? Personally, I couldn't see my life now without St.Hillary, but my last ex made me think about it. (Well, until I got to know St.Hillary, at least.)

*Legion* wrote:
LobsterMobster wrote:
*Legion* wrote:

So I guess the answer is, no, she never came along. :(

Is that why he's gay?

They say it's genetic but you gotta wonder - if an entire Internet of women reject you, is one's desire to be loved so strong as to rewire that part of the brain? Like a survival mechanism?

Then again, it sounds like the gay doodz are rejecting him too, so maybe it's not a very effective one. :)

Maybe it's a method of neutralization. Maybe he wants to believe the girls are all rejecting him because he's gay.

Kannon wrote:

Personally, I couldn't see my life now without St.Hillary, but my last ex made me think about it. (Well, until I got to know St.Hillary, at least.)

Way to cover your ass!

Why is it that people I work with feel the need to send me an email and then come visit me or call to tell me they sent me an email?

fleabagmatt wrote:

Why is it that people I work with feel the need to send me an email and then come visit me or call to tell me they sent me an email?

We had a guy here who would print out the email and bring you a copy.

LilCodger wrote:
fleabagmatt wrote:

Why is it that people I work with feel the need to send me an email and then come visit me or call to tell me they sent me an email?

We had a guy here who would print out the email and bring you a copy.

Did he also ask you if you got the memo about putting cover sheets on your TPS reports?

In Fast and Furious Tokyo Drift what part of America is the main characters accent from? It sounds similar to other American accents I've heard but it's also noticeably..... unique.

Higgledy wrote:

In Fast and Furious Tokyo Drift what part of America is the main characters accent from? It sounds similar to other American accents I've heard but it's also noticeably..... unique.

It's been a long time since I've seen the movie, but I seem to recall him having a really strong Alabama/Texas or otherwise deep south accent.

Clemenstation wrote:
Kannon wrote:

Personally, I couldn't see my life now without St.Hillary, but my last ex made me think about it. (Well, until I got to know St.Hillary, at least.)

Way to cover your ass!

Just poorly worded. Sick and tired does not make for good writing skills.

Clemenstation wrote:
Kannon wrote:

Personally, I couldn't see my life now without St.Hillary, but my last ex made me think about it. (Well, until I got to know St.Hillary, at least.)

Way to cover your ass!

Hey, just hearing about your ex made me think about it.
But it's good that your tastes have changed to much better things.

How many Grizzly bears does it take to kill a T-Rex?

tagg wrote:

How many Grizzly bears does it take to kill a T-Rex?

All of them.

Why is Quadrophenia so difficult to find on DVD? Why did they stop printing it?

Why is it you can buy a bag of raw whole peanuts, and a bag of roasted shelled peanuts, but you can't buy raw shelled peanuts?

LobsterMobster wrote:

Why is it you can buy a bag of raw whole peanuts, and a bag of roasted shelled peanuts, but you can't buy raw shelled peanuts?

Spoilage, I think, but don't quote me on it.

LobsterMobster wrote:

Why is it you can buy a bag of raw whole peanuts, and a bag of roasted shelled peanuts, but you can't buy raw shelled peanuts?

Because you touch yourself at night.

Ok, here's a physics question:

Go here and check out the image. It says that bubble is 5,200 light years away.

Ok, here's the question. If it takes light 5,200 years to reach us and tell us there is that bubble, then in the time it took that light to get to us, that bubble has been moving. Let's say it has been moving toward us. So doesn't that mean that the bubble is actually closer to us than the image we are seeing? But if that's the case, then shouldn't we just see the bubble that is closer to us, rather than the bubble that is 5,200 light years away. In other words, where is the bubble actually, right at this very moment?

I suppose it depends on the speed the bubble is traveling towards us. If it is only going 20km/h, then it's still more or less in the same area as it was 5,200 years ago. But if it's traveling closer to the speed of light, then it could theoretically be about to hit us.

Yes, in this case, by the time it reached us it would be dispersed. But what if we were talking about a gamma ray burst? If it's traveling at close to the speed of light, by the time the light reached us so we could see it, it would almost be on top of us. Is this the case, or am I missing a key concept?

Montalban wrote:

So doesn't that mean that the bubble is actually closer to us than the image we are seeing? But if that's the case, then shouldn't we just see the bubble that is closer to us, rather than the bubble that is 5,200 light years away. In other words, where is the bubble actually, right at this very moment?

In order for us to see the imagine of the "closer" bubble before the "farther" bubble, it would have had to have been going faster than the speed of light, which is impossible. If it were moving toward us, what we would see is a sort of sped-up version of it as that light reaches us faster than it was actually reflected. It is possible that it could hit us very shortly after we first see it, however, if it's moving at nearly the speed of light and directly toward us. We'd just see 5,200 years of that bubble's life compressed into however long it is between us first seeing it and the bubble itself arriving.

Fun thought: that bubble is very pretty, but as galaxies grow and mature they shoot out fireballs. Fireballs that can be millions of light years across and move at near the speed of light.

LobsterMobster wrote:

We'd just see 5,200 years of that bubble's life compressed into however long it is between us first seeing it and the bubble itself arriving.

So let's say the bubble is traveling at almost the speed of light, so that the time between us "seeing" it for the first time and it reaching us is only 1 year. If we had our telescope pointed at that spot in space at the exact moment it was formed, and reflected some light towards us, and we kept our telescope pointed at it for a year, that bubble would appear to travel toward us at the rate of 5,200 light years / 1 year? Would we see it screaming towards us at a speed that appeared to be much, much faster than the speed of light?

If so, have we ever seen something similar occur in real life? Do phenomenon that travel close to the speed of light appear to be moving in fast forward to us? This bubble is clearly not traveling close to the speed of light, since the website says it is 70,000 years old.

Montalban wrote:

So let's say the bubble is traveling at almost the speed of light, so that the time between us "seeing" it for the first time and it reaching us is only 1 year. If we had our telescope pointed at that spot in space at the exact moment it was formed, and reflected some light towards us, and we kept our telescope pointed at it for a year, that bubble would appear to travel toward us at the rate of 5,200 light years / 1 year? Would we see it screaming towards us at a speed that appeared to be much, much faster than the speed of light?

No. The light would be blue-shifted, but the image would be the same. This is the Doppler principle, as electromagnetic radiation works in the same way that sound-waves work. Whereas an an ambulance siren sounds higher as it approaches and suddenly drops to a lower pitch as it passes you, light does the same thing but goes from blue-shift (coming towards you) to red-shift (moving away from you). The image would be unaffected otherwise.

Here's one that'll blow your mind though:

Once car is moving at 60mph in one direction. A second car is coming in the opposite direction at 60mph. Their closure speed is obviously 120mph. That is, to the occupants of each car, the other would appear to be approaching at 120mph.

Now consider one object moving at light speed in one direction and another object moving toward it, also at light speed. Their closure rate? Light speed. Not twice light speed.

Enjoy that headache.

Why is this thread going in circles, while there are SO many interesting questions to be asked that don't give me light speed headaches?

fleabagmatt wrote:

Why is it that people I work with feel the need to send me an email and then come visit me or call to tell me they sent me an email?

I have to do that for people who take a week to answer emails. If I wanted it to move as slowly as the files on your desk, I'd send you a printed memo.

What are some of the more credible arguments against fatalism out there?