all you motherf*ckers are gonna pay, you are the ones who are the ball
lickers! we're gonna f*ck your mothers while you watch and cry like little
whiney bitches. Once we find those f*cks, we're gonna make them eat our
sh*t, then sh*t out our sh*t and then eat their sh*t that's made up of our
sh*t that we made 'em eat. and then all you motherf*cks are
next. love, Jay and Silent Bob PS: that'll show those f*cks
Wii had SO much potential, then squandered it all making nothing but gimmicks. Sony's ripoff control system isn't as powerful, but when you look at the 3rd party games that use the Wii, they're mostly just tipping the sideways wiimote anyway. It's like Zelda and the Tennis clones that are actually using it like a wand. Therefore, sony wins. However 5 because there are a lot of Sony fanboys who can't appreciate nintendo's genius.
Mouseman: Atheism is a belief system, yes. However, it is not Godless, but FAITHLESS, b/c you can not believe in god and still be spiritual and this is a religion (think Shintoism). Atheism is a religion, but a faithless one.
BTW downations aren't censorship b/c the sites aren't deleted, they're just moved. Donation isn't about buying and selling, it's about using votes to make money for the site. Why not have it both ways? You can pay max to alter his front page one way or the other. It's a bidding war
To choose the default page layout, select a saved template as "default" in the "customize homepage" window.
Actually, I don't mind the color, I'd just like to see the NSFW corrections.
5 for presentation, -1 for lack of preloader, -1 for misconstruing the theory of Entropy. Also you're an idiot, b/c if your "first cause" argument is to be believed then God must also have a first cause. You're only applying the rules when it suits you.
You downvoters are RETARDED! "if you can anti-sposor ytmnds, no one would sponsor them at all!!!1" It's a damn rarity to see a ytmnd sponsored anyway! If your logic was true, everyone would sponsor everything all the damn time; they don't. Sponsorship, I mean REAL sponsorship, is a way of turning votes into money for YTMND. This would generate MORE money, since people would be in competition! You hear people say "No one will sponsor since someone can just downsponsor". But then couldn't you just...
push it down? This system generates YTMND revenue to pay the hosting bills for you ungrateful slobs, it allows the voice of protest to stand tall in the face of money, and it allows the TRUE heroes of sponsorship (the noname sites trying to get on the front page) a way to get up there in the face of a $100 atheism controversy because, if people will pay $100 to put it up, they'll pay $100 to put it down, allowing the smaller sites a chance to coexist with the big money.
Also to naysayers:
If it's really about bringing lesser YTMNDs to the front, then no one will Downate. If, however, the site being sponsored isn't supported by the userbase, then it will be downated. Think about it; if it was just any old site that no one had heard of and the user was paying some money to get it out front, who would waste their $25 to kill it? On the other hand, if it's a site that's well-known and controversial, why should the fans be able to push it up and the haters not be able to
Why not? People pay money to have their YTMND out front; but then people could pay MORE money to bring it back. And then MORE to bring it front again.
Okay, so say it was like this: you had to pay twice as much to downate, so a site would have:
Sponsored amount: $3.00
and then in the description it would have:
Donations: $6.00;
Downations: $6.00.
so you could see what i was being paid, but its rank on the sponsorship list drops. It's all just a way to make Max more money anyways.
who dictates the other aspects of existence. How do we keep the sun coming up? We offer loyalty, sacrifice, same as we do for the alpha male.
It's not that hard of a leap. And religion stays because, as long as there are things we do not understand, there are things God must explain for us.
Kookamachi's right, you know... though truth be told I'm confident Religion is also a survival mechanism. We, as a species, do not survive by adapting to the environment. We survive by adapting the environment to US. Therefore, the more we understand the happier and more successful we are. In order to understand the Sun, we need a God thereof. Why? because as pack animals, our mentality is to assume that, like the pack leader makes good things happen, there is an even GREATER pack leader we cannot see...
+2 for intro graphics. +1 for sound. +2 for disclaimer. -4 because i disagree (sad, but the way of the world). You really sort of prove the atheist point with this; people need religion because of fear and confusion, to explain the unknown. In the face of death, everything sounds like a good idea because what have you got to lose? you repent because its not worth it not to, because having a priest by your side makes death less frightening and terrible. Still, this is pretty cool to view.
+5 for that Carl Sagan speech, which is brilliant, -1 for the fact that something so awe-inspiring should be tainted with the very small-mindedness Sagan was cautioning against.
Again, though, "Look at it" only applies because in order to look at it, you must interfere with it. If, as the author said (in either this or the last one), you could shrink down to a microscopic size and watch it fly by, it would never have a wavefunction collapse because your observation does not interfere with it, causing its nature to change.
OOH! Do Schroedinger's cat and quantum suicide for the next one.
act? It's not because of some trippy psychobabble, it's because "observing" them by definition means interacting with them. The same is true for the photons; it's not, nor can it be with modern technology, possible to observe without interaction.
being in two places at once because it's not a conventional "THING". And we're not talking about the very act of observing the photon, we're talking about how "observation" in the world of quantum particles means "measurement", and placing any object in the potential path of a photon is going to alter its behaviour. Heisenberg isn't a principle only for subatomic particles: If you go into the wild and study primitive tribes, don't you think that the fact that you are there is going to change the way they
@thegoat: You don't argue with professors because in lower-level physics courses (not Masters Thesis stuff, just the basic prereqs) you'd rather pass that pick a fight. I've had too many foolish professors in too many subjects to take their word as golden. I'm not trying to refute any experiments here. I know full well what the double-slit experiment is and says. I'm simply trying to put it in a different perspective, void of all the stoner psychological implications. We're NOT talking about one thing
yes, technically the photon has no mass "at rest"... but the point is the same, which is that it is not an object in the conventional sense. It has mass for certain functions, but it is not a THING, in that its size is directly related to its motion. The point is not technicalities, it's to demonstrate that a photon is not an object (and I'd assume you'd agree), but can best be represented that way in our imaginations. I guess what I mean is the sooner you stop visualizing a tennis ball as your photon ...
@GDroxor (from Wikipedia, which is the first source I found):
"The photon is massless,[6] has no electric charge[7] and does not decay spontaneously in empty space."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photons
relevance of Heisenberg. As to the spin experiment, I may not iunderstand exactly how it was carried out, but if my comprehension serves me it is the fact that a tool is used to "erase" them that causes them to behave like waves again, not the thing being erased. See, they would not hit the erasing tool in a wave pattern, but leaving said tool they change, this time representing the set of "All possible outcomes between erasing tool and paper".
places. However, when a device used to measure their location is introduced into the system, they can no longer represent "all potential paths between laser and paper" because there are two distinct sets: "All potential paths between laser and paper" (the one slit), and "All potential paths between laser and measuring device". It is the device which interferes with their paths and causes them to behave as independent systems, rather than a single system. The measuring device isn't invisible, THAT'S the
of them that way. Likewise, it helps us to think of photons as particles moving in predictable patterns, but this is not what they actually are.
On another note, the idea that OBSERVING a photon's location forces it to act like a particle is not accurately represented. It is the MEASUREMENT of their location which causes it, because in measuring a photon its potential path has changed. If a photon has a series of infinite paths between the laser and the paper, it is considered to be in all of those
...to speak of and they're not OBJECTS. That a photon is representative of all of its possible paths (think the electron cloud model) is bizarre only because we try to compare them to things they are not. If we inacurately compare a photon with an object, then of course it is shocking. But photons are something else entirely. it is the model that is faulty. It's similar to how molecules are constructed for observation with little bars between them; they're actually nothing like this, but it helps to think
The thing is that this isn't shocking. Most people think of photons as infinitessimal THINGS being flung about through space, like microscoping tennis balls or atomic nuclei. They are not. Photons are "packets" with no mass; they're not physical things. They're a way of visualizing a subatomic force. We think of them as tiny dots being shot out of a laser and find is mind-boggling that they could be in two places at once, but the reality of the situation is they're NOT tennis balls, they don't have any mass
Toxikator's recent comments: