Questions you want answered.

Quintin_Stone wrote:

[color=red][size=18]REVOKED[/size][/color]

[color=red][size=18]*CENSORED*[/size][/color]

*Legion* wrote:

Going to the radio in search of music is like going to the sewer in search of drinking water.

I'm beginning to agree with this statement. See, I like some variety, but don't have an mp3 input in my car stereo and I don't like listening to my ipod while driving. I think it's time to either buy a new stereo or buy an adapter that I can plug my ipod into.

oldmanscene24 wrote:
*Legion* wrote:

Going to the radio in search of music is like going to the sewer in search of drinking water.

I'm beginning to agree with this statement. See, I like some variety, but don't have an mp3 input in my car stereo and I don't like listening to my ipod while driving. I think it's time to either buy a new stereo or buy an adapter that I can plug my ipod into.

You can also get little FM transmitters that attach to your iPod; just select a free station in your area and go. It actually sounds pretty good.

Rumor has it that the 3rd-generation iPhone/iPod Touch will have the FM transmitter built into the device.

MikeSands wrote:
Thirteenth wrote:

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

All the random stuff that happens constantly at the subatomic level?

The question is if it's really random or if we just haven't figured out the causes yet.

Questions of determinism, fatalism and nihilism are always uncomfortable for me because I really want to believe in free will, but whenever I explore the subjects that's not where I end up.

Thirteenth wrote:
MikeSands wrote:
Thirteenth wrote:

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

All the random stuff that happens constantly at the subatomic level?

That. There is the notion of "mechanism," which is the assumption that everything that happens in the universe can be boiled down to simple physical motions and that these motions follow a strict set of rules. I'm not anywhere close to being a physicist, so I don't have the first clues on what all those "random things happening at the subatomic levels" mean. Fatalism relies on the assumption that mechanism is true, so if it is established that the subatomic happenings are truly random, fatalism is false.

But is "it's all random" really any better (or different in effect) than "it's all predetermined"? Unless there's a God in the randomness, I guess.

So you're saying God is a seed in a cosmic random number generator?
I think I just blew my mind.

Zelos wrote:
Thirteenth wrote:
MikeSands wrote:
Thirteenth wrote:

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

All the random stuff that happens constantly at the subatomic level?

That. There is the notion of "mechanism," which is the assumption that everything that happens in the universe can be boiled down to simple physical motions and that these motions follow a strict set of rules. I'm not anywhere close to being a physicist, so I don't have the first clues on what all those "random things happening at the subatomic levels" mean. Fatalism relies on the assumption that mechanism is true, so if it is established that the subatomic happenings are truly random, fatalism is false.

But is "it's all random" really any better (or different in effect) than "it's all predetermined"? Unless there's a God in the randomness, I guess.

Better is subjective, and yes, there is a difference. Not a practical one, but people who think seriously about determinism generally aren't looking for practical applications.

Minarchist wrote:
oldmanscene24 wrote:
*Legion* wrote:

Going to the radio in search of music is like going to the sewer in search of drinking water.

I'm beginning to agree with this statement. See, I like some variety, but don't have an mp3 input in my car stereo and I don't like listening to my ipod while driving. I think it's time to either buy a new stereo or buy an adapter that I can plug my ipod into.

You can also get little FM transmitters that attach to your iPod; just select a free station in your area and go. It actually sounds pretty good.

Rumor has it that the 3rd-generation iPhone/iPod Touch will have the FM transmitter built into the device.

Yeah, the Griffin iTrip is very good, I still mourn the loss of mine.

I've started listening to talk radio now, I keep current and avoid the Pussycat Dolls.

Brizahd wrote:

IMAGE(http://i96.photobucket.com/albums/l193/brizahd/th_0427091839.jpg)

What are these mysterious spots that are now on my back!

Kind of looks like you was laying on or leaning against a playground step/swing.

Brizahd wrote:

IMAGE(http://i96.photobucket.com/albums/l193/brizahd/th_0427091839.jpg)

What are these mysterious spots that are now on my back!

It's probably lupus.

IMAGE(http://img128.imageshack.us/img128/4100/notlupus.png)

RedJen wrote:
Brizahd wrote:

IMAGE(http://i96.photobucket.com/albums/l193/brizahd/th_0427091839.jpg)

What are these mysterious spots that are now on my back!

Kind of looks like you was laying on or leaning against a playground step/swing.

Nope, only thing I've done out of the ordinary that comes close to explaining it is I fell on my back. Just seems like weird bruising to come from a fall, doesn't match the tile work either.

muttonchop wrote:

It's probably lupus.

Got to wait till the 4th of may but I'm going to mention that to the doctor.

LobsterMobster wrote:
MikeSands wrote:
Thirteenth wrote:

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

All the random stuff that happens constantly at the subatomic level?

The question is if it's really random or if we just haven't figured out the causes yet.

Questions of determinism, fatalism and nihilism are always uncomfortable for me because I really want to believe in free will, but whenever I explore the subjects that's not where I end up.

I'm a fan of determinism. Appeals to the engineer in me. However, the mathematician in me also notes that the ludicrous complexity of existence makes it computationally intractable, so that it appears no different from free will.

BadKen wrote:

So you're saying God is a seed in a cosmic random number generator?
I think I just blew my mind.

Mine, too. A brilliant idea.

What is a good, recent action flick available on DVD with solid acting, interesting setup that may or may not take itself too seriously? My wife and I are in the mood for a good action movie tonight and I'm kind of coming up blank. We just want something entertaining.

dhaelis wrote:

What is a good, recent action flick available on DVD with solid acting, interesting setup that may or may not take itself too seriously? My wife and I are in the mood for a good action movie tonight and I'm kind of coming up blank. We just want something entertaining.

The Italian Job. (The new one with Charlize Theron and Mark Wahlberg)

dhaelis wrote:

What is a good, recent action flick available on DVD with solid acting, interesting setup that may or may not take itself too seriously? My wife and I are in the mood for a good action movie tonight and I'm kind of coming up blank. We just want something entertaining.

District 13.

On the downside, it's French. And the story is stupid to the power of ridiculous.

On the upside, the action is bonkers crazy, and it's mindless fun.

I thoroughly enjoyed it. Available on Netflix streaming too

Jonman wrote:

District 13.

On the downside, it's French. And the story is stupid to the power of ridiculous.

On the upside, the action is bonkers crazy, and it's mindless fun.

I thoroughly enjoyed it. Available on Netflix streaming too :)

I enjoyed this one too! Watched it without subtitles, so I had absolutely no idea what was happening plot-wise. Some yelling, angry people followed by awesome freerunning, for the most part.

We made up our own story, which had something to do with breakdancing crews throwing down in sewers.

If I love playing adventure games, but really hate solving adventure game puzzles, why don't I just read books instead?

dhaelis wrote:

What is a good, recent action flick available on DVD with solid acting, interesting setup that may or may not take itself too seriously? My wife and I are in the mood for a good action movie tonight and I'm kind of coming up blank. We just want something entertaining.

Transporter 3.

No, really.

Stop looking at me like that, it's good mindless action fun.

BadKen wrote:

Transporter 3.

No, really.

Stop looking at me like that, it's good mindless action fun.

Oh god, please don't. While the first Transporter may have been mindless fun (and even then only borderline so) the third one was positively awful. Come to think of it, so was the second one. Ah, the joys of having a housemate with dubious taste in movies...

Well, it was the first Transporter movie I saw. And I enjoyed the ass-kicking action thrill ride. Watching him take out a gang of tough dudes using nothing but martial arts moves and his own clothing was awesome.. Plus underwater escapes, over-the-top chase scenes and introducing one of the main characters by driving a car into a house.

Plot? What's that?

Star Trek? =)

Uhm, I watched Crank and thought it was pretty good but I was pretty drunk at the time so I can't vouch for it confidently.
I have a penchant for the Die Hard movies, but I'm not so sure about "solid set up"...

Ooh, how about the new Bond movie?

Is it possible to have a planet that is so big, stars orbit it rather than it orbiting a star?

Montalban wrote:

Is it possible to have a planet that is so big, stars orbit it rather than it orbiting a star?

Orbits are simply a function of attractions between masses, so it's theoretically possible to have anything orbiting anything. The reason planets orbit stars has more to do with the way they formed than any intrinsic star-planet mass ratio.

In fact, all stars do indeed "orbit" their planets in a sense, in that they experience a gravitation attraction to the planet and thus describe a very tiny orbit (so small it's actually within the diameter of the star itself). This is the source of the star "wobble" that allows us to detect extra-solar planets. It's akin to a fighter getting launched from a carrier: the fighter getting shot forward on the catapult exerts an equal and opposite force on the carrier, but the carrier is so damned massive that the force has an almost indiscernable effect. Similarly, a gravitational force sufficient to keep an planet in stable orbit is only sufficient to create a very small movement of the star, due to its mass.

What's an interesting question, and one that exceeds my knowledge, is whether is would be possible to have a planet of star-type mass without it imploding and actually becoming a star. The forces at the centre of such a super-massive planet might be enough to start a fusion process, I believe.

Do I have the swine flu? Seriously.

Coldstream wrote:

What's an interesting question, and one that exceeds my knowledge, is whether is would be possible to have a planet of star-type mass without it imploding and actually becoming a star. The forces at the centre of such a super-massive planet might be enough to start a fusion process, I believe.

Thanks and yeah, that's what I had in mind overall. The physical possibility or impossibility of such a large mass that was in a recognizable "planet form" rather than a giant molten orb or worse. Maybe a planet made entirely of titanium on top of a molten titanium core? Something like that? Or a diamond crust on top of molten diamond? Should I take up writing fantasy novels?

Montalban wrote:

Maybe a planet made entirely of titanium on top of a molten titanium core? Something like that? Or a diamond crust on top of molten diamond? Should I take up writing fantasy novels?

Well, what you're looking at here is a question of density. Nuclear weapons use exquisitely-designed conventional explosives to drive a small amount of fissile material into a sufficiently small form to reach a critical density, at which point a self-perpetuating fission reaction occurs. Stars are sufficiently dense to use fusion, rather than fission. It strikes me that both a titanium planet and a carbon planet (diamond, of course, is just carbon atoms arranged in an extremely stable lattice, so I'm not sure "molten diamond" is possible) would be so dense that the core of the planet would be driven into a fusion reaction.

Now, if we created a giant planet out of styrofoam...

93_confirmed wrote:

Do I have the swine flu? Seriously.

Nope.

Coldstream wrote:

Now, if we created a giant planet out of styrofoam... :D

My question: where is the SF film that has the characters visiting the STYROFOAM PLANET?