CβL

Cheers Wikipedia. I haven't looked much further, but at least that part of your "research" is incorrect.

In TCM, horrificly-tortured bear juice is good for you.

Good on ya' toby.

Thanks for the pictures. The first few peruvianus seem quite interesting indeed.

Over 450MB you say... Thanks for this great research. I will have to look more deeply into it to comment further.

Well done, well done. But the real question is: what can it sound like? ;o

I believe that the only way for one to live on in form after "death" is to live on within other beings. If I knew a great person, and I aspired to carry on their work, their ideals and their qualities - then just as Theseus's ship can be said to remain after each plank is replaced, as long as it remains a ship, and remains Theseus's - then I too can live on in form. If you believe that your consciousness remains exactly as it is, but disembodied after your death - then you must posit that energy is infinite. For it takes energy to store information (which consciousness is). All the consciousnesses of beings before and after, if they were not recycled, would require ever-greater amounts of energy to be stored separately as they pass into and out of physical existence. Alternatively, then these consciousnesses would be removing energy from the system, to be allowed to float around for all eternity at their whim.

Awesome plants bog! I really think you've got some awesome ones going. Also, I'm not so sure that two downward spines is a cuzcoensis trait at all. I reckon it's just a hybrid trait. It's just a feeling though, I don't have that much evidence.

Here is what I said: Did nobody teach you to read before you write? And the fact of the matter is, we do know shit. There's a reason you don't usually see large objects appear out of air, as quick as a blink. There's a reason that the moon doesn't disappear off into the distance of the night sky within the hour. There's a reason that light doesn't travel at a far-slower speed in near-space. So I think you'll agree that probability can be used successfully to determine that the moon will orbit in roughly the same manner as it usually does, most of the time. That light will travel at the same approximate speed in near-space (i.e. the solar system). So why does probability not apply to astrology? I have explained that statistical analysis basically says that any effect (if any) is negligible. You have completely misinterpreted what I wrote (or ignored it?). I said nothing in that vein. Nope.

Awesome plants man! :D

Just noticed this now. If I acted in a movie, and appeared to be shot, with blood splatting all over the place - is that fake? In ways, yes. The wound is fake, what happened is not. So things can be fake (seeming to be one thing), while existing as another. So astrology can be fake (seeming to be one thing), existing as another. Can fake nails exist? etc. But that's beside the point. Here is what else I said (conveniently ignored): Lastly, and most importantly - many people here are confusing possibility with probability! Just because something is possible, does not at all make it probable. I believe in the possibility of astrology just as strongly as I believe in the possibility of grass being green. But the probability... Not all possibilities are worth your time in this lifetime. If they were all equally valid - and you gave equal attention to each... you would not have time to take a step before ending in your grave. P.s. - guess my sign if you think people are that predictable. I'll then admit that you can characterize people somewhat.

So I just came across this photo here, which absolutely stunned me. Please add more, or just comment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ruq-xR0jUCE This dude is trying to make a serious point... Then he gets interviewed: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdKSqFdvD98 BAHAHAHAHA!! FUWAHAHAHAHA!!!! XD

Welcome to the forums, I think you'll enjoy your stay. ^_^

My entire point was: Which has been missed entirely. If it pleases the liches - may as well delete the thread. I'll even pay for buckets and sand so everyone can bury their heads whenever else they need to.

Images? You think they're just images? Something you can send to the recycle bin, and your computer nor you are none the wiser? Then I pity you.

No need to be ashamed about a lack of empathy. It requires empathy to understand that you should be ashamed. A bit of a catch-22. The point is that you have belittled the tragedy of 6 million or so tortured and then murdered humans, not what f***ing books they believe are true. It does not require empathy to understand that making fun of it is not acceptable here, as you have been told clearly. There's no Aspergers to fall back onto in this second case. Edit: Don't like it do you? Want to make it go away? It won't. Not until this kind of thing stops. As soon as we all realize that a part of us is being maimed and dies every time one of those seals' skulls are cracked open, as soon as this can stop. I don't quite know if farming cows is on the same level as this, as in many (but not all) cases, the cow's meat and milk were necessary for survival. But that's another story. I just brought it up to avoid it being discussed early on. So once the preliminaries are over, unleash the vegXan stuff. 2nd Edit: What I wrote in the first edit was not directed to you Psylo. It was toward synchro, and I decided to edit the post rather than make a new one, just as I decied to edit a second time.

The thing to remember is that although you are not hurting the situation by avoiding fur clothing, you're not helping either. It's somewhat analogous to the African crisis, where you avoid spreading AIDS. You're also not helping the situation with your kind sentiments of feather-weight. If you care, then you will help (money is not help, for the record), if you are not helping - then your care is just as tenuous as your help.

If you have nothing useful to post, why post at all? Do you get your jollies posting meme images? Are you rolling on your carpet - is that your goal? Do you think it makes you look cool and nonchalant instead of looking like a banal wastrel?

Alright, I don't know if this was obvious, but I felt it warranted discussing here anyway. After looking at quite a few large specimens (decades old) Trichocereus pachanoi plants, and reading the botancial descriptions (namely that as they age, they become less glaucous, and more dark green)... and looking at the 'Trichocereus Pachanoi' from Martin, which are unbelievably glaucous, I have "decided" that those Trichocereus pachanoi are actually hybrids with peruvianus (most likely progenitor). What does everyone else think?

Indiscriminate is not identical to random. The reason I used that word is that I have always had a certain connotation with 'indiscriminate' as being tragic. While randomness does not hold that same connotation at all. Maybe it's just me? Furthermore, Marcel, I think you are completely missing the point. The point is to spur some emotion over the senseless death that has gone, and that will come. Maybe a few of us will get angry and hurt enough to do something about it. I know for one, I will be doing something - when I think the integration of my resources and time will result in what I determine to be of maximum benefit to all of life (Lifekind, as I will now coin the term, if it has not already been). So I don't know how you can confuse that, with snuff porn. If it was not obvious, the subtitle was highly sarcastic (is that what confused you?). Looking at that absolutely colossal tower of bison skulls, sickens me in a new way. And it's not unique. This is occuring right now, with people, animals (not that people aren't animals), and plants (not that animals are more deserving of compassion than plants).

It's highly simple: If the universe was NOT right for us - we would not be able to even ask the question. But yes, I agree that this answer doesn't feel quite as satisfying as it should. But once you read about the other brands of chemistry, and realize that for life (not just carbon based life) to exist, you just need some special types of proliferating systems to exist (hard to elaborate more), then you can see that it's not as if we're even in the Goldilocks zone at all. There are MANY Goldilocks zones, and apparently even the surface of a neutron star could harbour life of some form. Here's where I speculate: As far as I can tell, for one, the environment requires some mechanisms for information to be stored. Information here means difference. If there is no separation (to even a weak degree), then no information or differences can be stored. The information itself will exist on different levels. For example, ATTAGCAGCGAGATGATCGATGATCGATGATCGAGGGA..............AAAAGGAGATTTCGAT is not sufficient for life. The rest of the information is encoded into the system itself (i.e. what the information means in a context). For example: The binary values 00, 01, 10 and 11 can mean something. But that alone is not sufficient to describe that system. The function is required as well. In this case, the function I have chosen is XOR, so the respective outputs would be 0, 1, 1 and 0. In a similar way, life needs contain a context (a function of sorts) for its own information to be meaningful. Our DNA means nothing without the cellular context around it. It just so happens that one of the purposes of DNA transcription is to create more of the cellular context. So it needs a context, to make a context... Self-reference seems to be an important aspect to life. As in computer programs, the first compiler of a higher level language is written from a lower level language. I guess that the "compiler" for life, would've arisen from a much lower process in the same manner, and so one and so forth, until one reaches the crux of the situation (or do they?). The life also needs to tightly couple to its immediate environment, as the life is not truly separate from the environment. Life is like an ocean wave in that respect. Hmmm, now if only I knew more and could invent a quick path to AI...

A related question: Can something be funny and highly offensive? Or are they mutually exclusive? I believe some people try and keep them mutually exclusive. And Psylo, your counter-example is not quite the same. We may mock Christians, or Islamists, for their views, but we don't make jokes about their torture and/or death.

The last two look a little bit like Mammillaria Plumosa, but it's hard to tell. I could be way off.

I was highly considering voting for these guys, not because I actually want them to get in, but because it's one of the best anonymous gestures I can do for decriminilization.