Lurker > Cheese_Crackers

TheVipaGTS posted...

to be far.....Back then, they used a hammer and chisel to make that...it was impressive...these days with advancement of technology and tools most skilled artists can do that.....its now about the emotion and meaning of a piece now...

...all that said, i agree...some people do way too much....i remember watching a video years ago, this girl at an open mic type of thing for art and poetry...her art....she laid butter on the floor and slid around on it....for a long time....she slipped, fell, etc...didn't say anything.....I was like.....Ummmm, ok...

...
---

Though the fear of death is a common one, the fear of life is a more rational one.

No. My roommate and friend has a collection of about 100 and it kinda turned me off from getting any of my own.

If I got any, they'd probably be from DBZ or Rick and Morty.
---

Though the fear of death is a common one, the fear of life is a more rational one.

Bryce by far. At least the rest of them seemed to feel some remorse or understood what they did wrong after learning their role in everything.

Mr. Porter is an interesting choice. I wouldn't say he's morally wrong, he just seemed to be overwhelmed by what Hannah was telling him. They also mention that he isn't really a trained counselor, so if anything I'd place the blame on the principal for hiring him.
---

Though the fear of death is a common one, the fear of life is a more rational one.

There is likely a black hole at the centre of our galaxy with the mass of ~4 million suns.
---

Though the fear of death is a common one, the fear of life is a more rational one.

If it can't be predicted or avoided, then there's no use worrying about it.
---

Though the fear of death is a common one, the fear of life is a more rational one.

LightHawKnight posted...

Don't they teach this crap in High School?

Definitely not. I had one semester of Family Studies where we did about a week's worth of classes of cooking (spread over the semester), and learned about other things like child safety and first aid. I think it's similar to Home Economics from what I've heard. But those cooking classes were a joke and were more about baking than cooking. I think we made pancakes and that's the only "cooking" we did.

We could take it in later years as an elective if we wanted, but no one encourages you to do it when there are "real" classes like science to take. I think it should be required to leave high school with a good set of cooking skills, but I know that's not gonna happen.
---

Though the fear of death is a common one, the fear of life is a more rational one.

Anyone can do math, depending on how much effort you want to put it.

Calc II is integration, right? If you did well in that without much effort, then you'd likely do well in DE and linear algebra, although those are generally a bit more proof-based than you're used to.

Beyond that, it's not really indicitative of easy success, unfortunately. First year calculus is not at all representative of upper year math, which is very logical and proof-based, rather than intuition-based.

Discrete math is much closer to a higher level math class that you might take, so I'd try to take that, if it's offered. If you have the option for a proof-based linear algebra class, then that'd be a great warm-up, too.

Not trying to discourage you from taking math, just giving you fair warning that calc II takes different skills to succeed in than proof-based math. I majored in math at uni and loved it, so I definitely recommend it, as long as you're open to something different!
---

Though the fear of death is a common one, the fear of life is a more rational one.

FFVII_REMAKE posted...

ZCheveyo posted...

FFVII_REMAKE posted...

How exactly can you tell whether or not the inside is cooked when you're simmering?

With a meat thermometer....are you fucking serious right now?!

How old are you?!

You literally never see any cooks using that crap.

It's a matter of experience. A good rule of thumb for cooking meat on medium heat is that it should be safe once the outside is nice and browned, but again, thermometers are a good safety measure, especially when you're starting out.

Hell, I don't cook meat often at all so I have to use one still.
---

Though the fear of death is a common one, the fear of life is a more rational one.

FFVII_REMAKE posted...

How exactly can you tell whether or not the inside is cooked when you're simmering?

If you're cooking meat then you should use a meat thermometer and make sure the interior reaches safe temperatures (which you can find online). Once you're more experienced then you should be able to tell by looking.

For soup, I usually just taste it until it's hot enough for me, or until the veggies are tender if it has them.

For most other things, like stir fries, my advice is to cook it until the outside is at the level you want and taste it. From there you can decide if you want to cook it more.
---

Though the fear of death is a common one, the fear of life is a more rational one.

FFVII_REMAKE posted...

I still don't understand how low heat will penetrate the core of a meat better than high heat. If you simmer your meats for half an hour and have another meat blast high on heat for half an hour, wouldn't the latter cook much better?

High heat will burn the outside before penetrating to the center of the food. Lower heat will cook the center without being too hot to burn the outside.
---

Though the fear of death is a common one, the fear of life is a more rational one.

ChromaticAngel posted...

Cheese_Crackers posted...

ChromaticAngel posted...

dark matter is entirely theoretical, there is no concrete evidence to support it exists. It has nothing to do with gravity outside of the formation of galaxies.

There is plenty of evidence for matter (exerts gravity) which is nigh impossible to detect with EM radiation (dark):
-galaxy clusters do not have enough mass to hold themselves together via gravity from stars and black holes
-rotation curves of galaxies suggests that the "edge" of many galaxies that we see is nowhere near their true edge
-unexplained instances of gravitational lensing

It's only theoretical in the sense that we can't say with any certainty what it is, but there are lots of good educated guesses.

It is a good theory, but science is as science does. It's possible we don't understand / don't know something about gravity that can disprove the need for dark matter in order to form galaxies.

There just aren't any other good theories other than Dark Matter.

That's true, but the simplest answers are often the best ones. Dark Matter is an attractive theory because it explains all of these discrepancies at once, along with some other phenomena that weren't thought to be related. There are definitely things about gravity that we don't know, so a working theory of quantum gravity could eliminate the need for dark matter, but gravity works so well for everything else at the scale of galaxies that no one is expecting that.

It'd be very exciting if you're right, and our understanding of gravity on large scales is very flawed, but there are reasons that it's not considered a good possibility.
---

Though the fear of death is a common one, the fear of life is a more rational one.

ChromaticAngel posted...

dark matter is entirely theoretical, there is no concrete evidence to support it exists. It has nothing to do with gravity outside of the formation of galaxies.

There is plenty of evidence for matter (exerts gravity) which is nigh impossible to detect with EM radiation (dark):
-galaxy clusters do not have enough mass to hold themselves together via gravity from stars and black holes
-rotation curves of galaxies suggests that the "edge" of many galaxies that we see is nowhere near their true edge
-unexplained instances of gravitational lensing

It's only theoretical in the sense that we can't say with any certainty what it is, but there are lots of good educated guesses.
---

Though the fear of death is a common one, the fear of life is a more rational one.

RedZaraki posted...

Cheese_Crackers posted...

RedZaraki posted...

Cheese_Crackers posted...

The observable universe is 47 billion light years in radius, due to the accelerating expansion of space and the inflationary epoch. We would have no trouble seeing light from an object which is 14 billion light years away.

Other than that little nitpick, gravitons are expected to be massless, since gravity and electromagnetism are the only forces with infinite range, and we know that photons are massless. Massless particles travel at light-speed, so it's expected that gravitons and thus gravity itself propagates at light-speed.

If gravitons do have mass, then we'd need to re-think why EM and gravity are the only forces with infinite range. Their masslessness is only a theory right now, but it's a more elegant theory than the contrary.

I always believed that photons were in fact not completely mass-less, but as close as possible to mass-less. Infinitesimal mass if you will. And so it would make sense, that if you were to have even less energy/mass than a single photon of light, you would be able to travel faster than light. Though you would no longer be directly observable. Such is the case for subatomic particles (neutrinos etc.)

Photons are massless; they have zero rest mass. They do have mass in the sense that they impart momentum, but this isn't what we generally think of as mass.

It can be shown using quantum field theory (our best theory of particles right now) and a lot of math that the mediator particle of a force which has the characteristics of electromagnetism must be massless. The photon isn't infinitesimally close to zero mass, it has exactly zero mass.

But it does have energy right? In a way, energy acts as mass to some degree. It's just that you need an extreme amount of energy to behave as mass.

The reason for the universal speed limit, is because any particle approaching the speed of light hits a vertical asymptote of required kinetic energy to keep that velocity. So much energy that it begins to drag as if it were mass. Diminishing returns unless you shed mass.

If a single photon is the smallest unit of observable energy, then it's own energy is what limits it's speed.

Things with less energy can more or less exist in two places at once. But again, they are only indirectly observable and rarely interact with anything.

The mass in E=mc^2 is rest mass, which the photon has none of. The full mass-energy equivalence is E^2=p^2c^2+m^2c^4; for photons this simplifies to E=pc, where p is momentum. So it's in this sense that photons have mass, but it's really misleading because momentum in full generality is not associated with mass.

You're right that, for objects with nonzero rest mass, they need exhorbitant amounts of energy to travel at higher speeds, approaching c asymptotically. Not so for massless particles.
---

Though the fear of death is a common one, the fear of life is a more rational one.

RedZaraki posted...

Cheese_Crackers posted...

The observable universe is 47 billion light years in radius, due to the accelerating expansion of space and the inflationary epoch. We would have no trouble seeing light from an object which is 14 billion light years away.

Other than that little nitpick, gravitons are expected to be massless, since gravity and electromagnetism are the only forces with infinite range, and we know that photons are massless. Massless particles travel at light-speed, so it's expected that gravitons and thus gravity itself propagates at light-speed.

If gravitons do have mass, then we'd need to re-think why EM and gravity are the only forces with infinite range. Their masslessness is only a theory right now, but it's a more elegant theory than the contrary.

I always believed that photons were in fact not completely mass-less, but as close as possible to mass-less. Infinitesimal mass if you will. And so it would make sense, that if you were to have even less energy/mass than a single photon of light, you would be able to travel faster than light. Though you would no longer be directly observable. Such is the case for subatomic particles (neutrinos etc.)

Photons are massless; they have zero rest mass. They do have mass in the sense that they impart momentum, but this isn't what we generally think of as mass.

It can be shown using quantum field theory (our best theory of particles right now) and a lot of math that the mediator particle of a force which has the characteristics of electromagnetism must be massless. The photon isn't infinitesimally close to zero mass, it has exactly zero mass.
---

Though the fear of death is a common one, the fear of life is a more rational one.

The observable universe is 47 billion light years in radius, due to the accelerating expansion of space and the inflationary epoch. We would have no trouble seeing light from an object which is 14 billion light years away.

Other than that little nitpick, gravitons are expected to be massless, since gravity and electromagnetism are the only forces with infinite range, and we know that photons are massless. Massless particles travel at light-speed, so it's expected that gravitons and thus gravity itself propagates at light-speed.

If gravitons do have mass, then we'd need to re-think why EM and gravity are the only forces with infinite range. Their masslessness is only a theory right now, but it's a more elegant theory than the contrary.
---

Though the fear of death is a common one, the fear of life is a more rational one.

In the EU (which isn't canon anymore, but still part of my head canon), force users will have a sort of "force bubble" around them that gives basic protection against enemy force users. That's why duels aren't decided by who can push the other off a ledge faster. They can only use their force against the opponent directly when their opponent loses concentration and their barrier falters.
---

Though the fear of death is a common one, the fear of life is a more rational one.

bknight posted...

Dexter

Syncronous posted...

Dexter

I just can't fathom thinking this...

Not saying you're wrong but to me, there was such a sharp drop in quality between the Trinity season (4 I think?) and the rest of the show that Dexter never even crossed my mind for this topic.
---

Though the fear of death is a common one, the fear of life is a more rational one.

Killed by a demon in WoW. Can't remember what kind but either way I'm sad
---

Though the fear of death is a common one, the fear of life is a more rational one.

DarkChozoGhost posted...

When does it stop being plug and chug? Learning the processes and formulas, then just going through the motions? Because nothing is more dull.

In my experience, the second semester of second year is when things became more about arguments, logic, and proofs than computation.

Up until then, even us math majors had to take calculus, linear algebra, and differential equations, which are all very computational and thus pretty boring (IMO).

In winter semester second year, at least at my school, we had to take real analysis, which on the surface is like calculus but has a very different flavour; calculus does "proofs by intuition" ("take the limit as the width of the rectangles gets small" or whatever) so you could apply the results to solve word problems, whereas nothing is left to intuition in analysis. Most analysis classes don't even assume the existence of real numbers; they show how to construct them from the rationals and set theory. The trade-off is that there isn't much time in the class for applications, but after building up all the theory, the applications you learned in first year are completely doable anyway.

I think this is the point when people in other majors (CS, physics) are likely to take discrete math, too. The computations in that class, from my understanding, are pretty standard, but it's very logic-based and this makes it challenging for non-math students, I think.

From there, we basically had to choose between applied and pure (theoretical) math. I went the theoretical route, so my math classes were, again, very proof-based and didn't worry about applications for the most part, although most of them did have applications if you cared to look for them. I think applied math also does a lot of proofs, but obviously spends more time on applications to the sciences.

Anyway, looking back, I agree that computational math is extremely boring and uninspired. It's unfortunate because most high school math curricula don't emphasize the other, more representative aspects of math at all. I thought math was basically like high school calculus forever, and I only majored in it because I was good at computing stuff. I even have some friends that I think would have really enjoyed my proof-based classes, but high school math turned them off from it.
---

Though the fear of death is a common one, the fear of life is a more rational one.

MixedRaceBaby posted...

for a second i thought i was on the blizzard wow forums during their weekly maintenance.

its been 16 years and yet EVERY TUESDAY when it goes down for maintenance, people say WHAT HAPPENED I CANT LOG IN ITS BROKEN!!

Lol
---

Though the fear of death is a common one, the fear of life is a more rational one.

organicbamf posted...

Cheese_Crackers posted...

What other classes did you take towards the degree? I'm working towards a math degree too :)

Numerical methods
Complex variable calculus
Combinatorics
Interest theory

And then the standard calc series, diff eq, linear algebra, modern algebra, and real analysis

I don't remember if my physical chemistry classes counted toward anything or not

Interest theory sounds neat. Did you like complex? It was one of my favourite classes by far
---

Though the fear of death is a common one, the fear of life is a more rational one.

What other classes did you take towards the degree? I'm working towards a math degree too :)
---

Though the fear of death is a common one, the fear of life is a more rational one.

Can't speak for Macs, but I and most of the people I know have iPhones, and they're not more durable by any means. One of my only friends has an Android (I forget the model) that has outlasted all of our iPhones.

Not that iPhones break more easily necessarily, but mine is a couple years old and is experiencing noticeable slowdown, while my friend's Android is 3+ years old and is more or less the same speed as it was when new.

Anecdotal evidence, I know, but I'm still not convinced that Apple products are worth the price either way.
---

Though the fear of death is a common one, the fear of life is a more rational one.