搜索结果: *

Moss 说:

I'm not saying he's perfect, but he's done an admiral job of trying to keep a country more like the Hindenburg than the Titanic afloat in the face of pretty damn strong bi-partisan opposition.

点击展开...

I do remember the 2008 elections having a "Obama is the new Messiah!" vibe, though (although that might have just been my area). People expecting Obama to lead America into a new age of prosperity, peace, honesty, etc.

I had a feeling that he was way too good to be true, and now I feel vindicated. 

Oyipggy 说:

I could study for my final on Monday, but it's open notes. That really means I just need to go through examples and make sure they're in my notes, which should take a while. Problem is I'm tired as ****. So, study, or take some painkillers/smoke weed and eat peppermint ice cream?

点击展开...

Take option 3: Sleep.

Then after the exam smoke ice cream and eat weed.

Chaos Gods, eh?


With servants like these...

Sir Saladin 说:

Why is an English translation of that book written in goofy archaic English? If you are going to translate something translate it into a language that living people use. People must think that thee and thou and shalt somehow make writing more holy, Allah is very old so he talks funny.

点击展开...

Perhaps in order to replicate the style of the King James translation of the Bible? For some, older forms of English (like Early Modern) bear a certain gravitas, sort of like the way Latin does for much of Western culture.

Ok, so I asked my brother what I thought was a fairly common question against Christianity and their envisioning of Yaweh:

If Yaweh is loving, then why doesn't he make everything perfect? Why bother letting evil and stuff run amok in the world, and why not just magic it all away?

His logic is this:

1) God is not only loving, but also just.
2) God also created a system of laws where, should a person violate one of those laws, that person has sinned.
3) Sin does not go unpunished, in the same way that crimes (when proven and the defendant is found guilty), ideally, do not go unpunished. God does so because he is just.

This can be compared to a father who has two sons. One son, let us call him Kobrag, has the **** beat out of him by another son, whom we shall call Bugman. It wouldn't be very fair for the father to simply magic away the beat down and pretend as if Kobrag's utter humiliation at the hands of his brother Bugman never happened. The father COULD do that if he had the ability; however, he chooses not to because he loves his sons (and he wouldn't be a very good father if he did such a thing).

Zaro 说:

Do you believe this conversation will be constructive?

点击展开...

In that I think I'll learn something? Oh yes. I don't really expect to end up having radically changed beliefs by the end of this, if that's what you're saying, but that's not why I agreed to talk with them.

Mage246 说:

Why is Christianity so radically different than Judaism? Why did God suddenly decide to change everything for absolutely no reason at all?

点击展开...

They've mentioned this before, but I'll ask them again. IIRC, they believe that God did have a reason (He believed that the Jews were, in essence, "doing it wrong").

Why would an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent (and frankly, genderless) deity need to father a child, when anything that a child could do, God could have just done on his own?

点击展开...

Dunno, I'll ask.

Ruthven 说:

"When will you return to your home planet?"

点击展开...

13 Spider Bloody Chain 说:

Do not post anything crude, insulting, or rude, as I won't bother asking them.

点击展开...

Raz 说:

Why is God sending me to Hell if he loves me so much?

点击展开...

The typical response to that, AFAIK, is that he isn't "sending" you to Hell, you've simply chosen (unconsciously, mostly) to do so.

...which in turn raises the question, "Then why the hell (har har) did God set up such a system in the first place?"

Lyze 说:

One thing you could bring up is, depending on how deeply devout they are, is their reliance on the bible.

点击展开...

I do need to question them more on this, but actually, they seem to take certain parts of the Bible fairly literally. I'm not entirely sure to what extent, but my brother did scoff at the current archaeological model on how civilization started in various parts of the world.

Which isn't to say that they're stupid. People call me intelligent ( ), but I would consider my brother and my sister in law to be smarter, or at least wiser, than I am.

AK47 说:

Err, I'm sure you can just introduce them to the forum and see what happens.

点击展开...

Erm...no. I really doubt that would end will.

I'd like to ask a question about deathbed conversions though. Quite simply: "Why?"

点击展开...

What do you mean? As in, "Why do people do them"?

RalliX 说:

Kobrag 说:

So is a Barrett .50 cal....

点击展开...

really?

点击展开...

According to its wiki page, it apparently is (check the first sentence of the article). And besides, a .50 rifle is a bit of an overkill on regular infantry unless they're hiding behind a concrete wall or something, particularly when a M24 is perfectly serviceable.

Fail thread is fail

urban_shieldbearer 说:

Mondos 说:

urban_shieldbearer 说:

Well yes, the purpose of a nut and bolt is to IN UNISON hold the item together... Thats it's purpose, therefore trying to use two bolts or two screws would be going outside it's purpose and in essence would not hold the item together... Thats the same with us humans...

点击展开...

Poor example. That's like saying I can only ever sit on a chair, nothing else. In reality, I can pick it up, throw it, stack it, put things on it. I can give it whatever purpose I want.

The purpose of anything is not set in stone. It can be changed in any manner that I/you want.

Otherwise, everyone would be just be reproducing constantly, that's our purpose, isn't it? /sarcasm

点击展开...

So if a chair was not produced to be sat on what was the purpose of the chair then? And if has not got a purpose, why was it crated in the first place?

点击展开...

It's...rather difficult to create something without a purpose.

@ Rallix: could you define what you mean by "natural"?

urban_shieldbearer 说:

Well yes, the purpose of a nut and bolt is to IN UNISON hold the item together... Thats it's purpose, therefore trying to use two bolts or two screws would be going outside it's purpose and in essence would not hold the item together... Thats the same with us humans...

点击展开...

I don't quite see what's so horrible about something being used in a way it wasn't necessarily designed for. Yes, using two bolts/two screws the way you describe it isn't the best way to use them from an engineering point of view, but i don't find anything horrific or morally bankrupt about such an act.

To the OP: it's your choice, but as the others have said, you may be putting your kids through a lot of trouble in their early years (and perhaps even afterwards) if you pick a particularly eccentric name.

That said, though, Ragnar's a kickass name for anyone, pets or otherwise.

Seff 说:

They wore thick wool, and several layers of it - IIRC.

点击展开...

It looks like Romans did fine with less:

Kissaki 说:

GodHandApostole 说:

Well, as far my studies go (not so far, so I'm not sure ) i thought that late medieval swords were actually designed to "chop" rather then cut against heavy mail...I'm not referring to plate at all, cause that is only true for a later two-handed sword. Still they sure don't cut but are more used as blunt, to stun mostly. And its true that is not a case that the swords we're speaking of are so "thinner" towards the point...they were used more to trust then slashing.
As i said I'm no expert anyway, correct me if I'm wrong 

点击展开...

Actually, it's quite the opposite. As armour became better and more prevalent, swords evolved from broad bladed cutting instruments to narrow, stiff thrusting blades.

点击展开...

On top of that, I'm also under the impression that most swords outside of chopping blades (machetes, etc) are inefficient as bludgeoning tools, due to the relative lack of mass on the striking point of the weapon, so designing a sword to stun an armored opponent seems rather silly. This isn't to say that a sword can't be used to stun an armored foe (I'm sure there are techniques that teach you to whap the enemy over the heat with the pommel or similar).

Just out of curiosity, Kissaki, what else about Clement's article did you find yourself disagreeing with aside from what you already mentioned? You're the first person I've come across to have any sort of critique on that article.

Could we please keep this as a sticky?

Archonsod 说:

13 Spider Bloody Chain 说:

What about Fable? I just finished the first one recently, and it was a blast.

点击展开...

Any game in which you can elect to be known as Arseface cannot go wrong ....

点击展开...

Chicken kicking: the sport of kings.