Next, UFC with pistols. Gotta keep pushing the boundaries.

Haha, I knew I'd open a can of worms....
I enjoy music of all types, trust me. I know the history. I grew up in a radio station, and remember when DJs were the rock Stars of the 70s.

I have no boundaries, and in fact, the more music pushes the boundaries the better, but I still have to feel the groove.
Often, "musicians," get caught up in the medium and forget the composition. I know - I'm an artist, I've been there, created works, not for composition, but to better understand my medium. It's still art, but it's not "ART."

See what I'm saying. There is a whole new generation of not just musicians and composers, but listeners. they have their own new sound, but a lot of the soul is getting filtered out while the artists explore the medium. I know it will come full circle, but I believe we are in a stagnant period of exploration.

And no, I'm not commenting on all those classical musicians, in fact, they are doing the opposite. There are many classical musicians that are taking their instruments in new directions - finally - and breaking out of the Bach & Beethoven standards. (Stereotyping here). My favorite is Stravinsky, who pushed every boundary of his day. and Guys like Rossini, who was the Heavy Metal Rocker of his day. But there comes a time, to break out and use the instruments differently.

And that's what they are doing right now. Breaking out and exploring. Which is great, it will define another period in music. But we're not quite there yet. Publishers and studios, are the bottom feeders, trying to keep the industry alive, but they are manufacturing the lowest common denominator, giving the public some of the most contrived music of our day.

It's okay to criticize music as it evolves and still like it.
If we don't criticize it, then it doesn't evolve. And I think the artists themselves would agree because, once you stop and consider your groves perfect, then there is no point creating more.

You can come to the defense of the genre, but not every piece is perfect. Yes there are better musicians out there, and some worse, and some I like, you won't like, and so on, that's what makes it great. I remember laying on the couch listening to Kraftwork's Autobahn for hours and loving it. That was over 25 years ago. And I've listened to so much more in between. I've heard it, I've studied it in school, spun discs and worked DJ booths, and was literally raised in a radio station. I've heard a lot, and have the knowledge to compare notes.

I'll end this, it's going too long - but suffice to say, this piece here, is okay, but has no crescendo, nothing to keep me on the edge. The grove becomes quite trance, while trying not to be. He's done a great mix up, and I see what he's doing here. He's taken video excerpts and contained and arranged them together. Great... he's experimenting. But it's not perfect, and that's okay. He's worked hard to create something, and as he evolves, he'll create better, that's what it's all about

I am not cleaning that up. That's outside the pool boundaries.

AAAAAAAAAAAAA!!! NO-NO-NO-NO-NO-NO-NO-NO-!!! This is why I never backcountry skied.
EDIT: even though this was within boundaries, it was still the fear that kept me mostly on somewhat groomed/cleared slopes.
They found both those guys right away, and it still seemed like forever just digging out their heads. Yoinks!

From teh Interwebs in case you're thinking the octopus is being abused:

SEATTLE (Reuters) - A giant male octopus caught on cell phone video scaling his glass display tank at the Seattle Aquarium and reaching several tentacles over its open top has sparked Internet speculation that the massive mollusk was trying to mount an escape bid.

But aquarium officials say the octopus, named Ink, was not attempting a jailbreak in the video, which has gone viral on the Internet, but simply learning to embrace his new home with all eight arms.

"It was not an escape attempt," aquarium spokesman Tim Kuniholm said of the video, in which Ink inched his way up the cylindrical glass tank to squeals from onlookers. "It's a new exhibit and the animal was exploring his boundaries."

A Seattle aquarium employee later put Ink's arms back inside the case, and a so-called "evening cap" was fastened on top to help keep the curious fellow in place, Kuniholm said.

"Octopuses are very inquisitive by nature, and in this case ... Ink is an overachiever," he said.

Ink is one of two new giant Pacific octopuses on display at the aquarium. Found in Puget Sound, they are the world's largest species of octopuses, weighing on average about 90 pounds (41 kg) and measuring 20 feet (6.1 meters) across.

Kuniholm said the two male octopuses are kept in separate homes at the aquarium because the species is solitary by nature, with males and females coming together only to mate during their short 3-to-4-year lifespan.

In the next year, Ink will be released back into the wild as part of an ongoing education and conservation program for the species, the aquarium said.

(Reporting by Victoria Cavaliere; Editing by Cynthia Johnston and Sandra Maler)

I'm not making up the definition, I'm stating my simplified interpretation of it, which by the way, doesn't counter anything you said.

You seem to think for other "universes" to exist, ours must have some physical boundary at the edge that we can observe. And crossing that would be the only way to get into another universe?

I'm simply saying that a place with a totally different set of physical laws, whether that resides in our universe, or we reside in it, can exist. We aren't able to rule that out.

There is also the possibility that another universe with the same physical laws can exist, but again, impossible to get to or observe.

Let's say I have a computer simulation of a world with no boundaries and AI lives in it. Wouldn't I then be able to duplicate that program, and run it on another disconnected computer? How would these two AI's interact with each other? Know about each other? Even if they are exact copies of each other? Yet inside their world, they have no detectable boundaries.

Let's say they figured out there was another "copy", it wouldn't ruin the physics of their world at all. It would just have to introduce to them the concept that something OUTSIDE their universe exists.

You may notice I didn't say we "know" things, I said the data highly suggests,,or,the preponderance of the evidence shows...

we have large amounts of data to show the universe is flat,homogeneous,and isotropic,,,those three observations, HIGHLY ,suggest an infinite universe.
The preponderance of the evidence is ,the universe has no edge. Or boundary,,and contains all there is,,,,that is in fact,the definition of the universe,the totality of existence...

You don't get to make up your own definitions.

A lack of proof ,is exactly that.

If I don't have to provide evidence, I can claim anything. Hence,creationism...God did it.

There is no evidence the universe has an edge or boundary,,in fact,that concept violates everything we know about the universe..
If anyone could actually demonstrate that there is an "outside"to the universe,they would be the most famous person on earth,,and,that would completely destroy every known model of the universe.

This.

Way to let your (hypothetical) medical conditions define you, guys. Careful not to push any boundaries.

Poisoning the boundaries. Yep. *quality

That depends on your definition of 'often'. Maybe about once a week on average.
It seems you're missing the point. Sometimes that person may interact with my dog without me being present (like in this video), offering no possibility to instruct them about my dogs diet requirements. When I am present, they almost always ask first, and I ask them about the treat. If it's grain free, she gets a free treat. If not, I usually offer the person a grain free treat of my own to give to my dog (person still gets to interact with dog, dog gets treat, every one's happy). I do not rush out screaming at people over mistakes, but I do tell delivery people about her diet and ask them to please not give her the wrong treats, or she'll suffer for it later. They have all complied, but some have needed reminding.
Then there are random people on the street/in the park with boundary issues that just come up from behind and interact with random dogs on leashes without asking, or reach through a partially open car window to pet and feed a dog waiting inside, I find that rude and inappropriate, treat or not. Maybe that's my problem and not theirs, but someone needs to explain why if I'm to understand.
I do it for my dog, not my sense of control. It's not easy, cheap, or fun for me to keep her grain free. She breaks out in hives if she eats too much grain product. It's like someone offering a random non-speaking child some reses...not knowing if child might have a deadly peanut allergy. I understand it's intended as friendly, but that's why you should ask first, it might be harmful or deadly.

Actually, the new theory is that the dinosaurs may have been 'wiped out' by an asteroid, but they were already far into an extinction event when it happened. This is proven well by the fact that there are not large deposits of bones in the K-P boundary layer. Climatologists and paleontologists are coming to understandings that the climate was changing on the dinosaurs, making most extinct long before the impact. It wasn't a dinotopia one day and wasteland the next.

Oh, and the rest of the first world IS on board with the theory, and most are more than alarmed. We are fairly alone in our stance that it's not our problem, odd since we (the US) created most of this problem. Our position makes us look like the least responsible country in history.

Expecting perfect prediction from an observational science of a chaotic system is hardly reasonable. Back in the 1890s it was predicted warming would follow the emissions. Limited in the kind of experiments they can do - climate scientists are bound to err.

It's not 'alarmists' saying the heat is being trapped in the deep oceans. At least not exclusively. It is an observed fact that there is more heat energy entering our system than is leaving it. This leaves some possibilities:

1) Our observations of heat flow are incorrect to a significant degree.
2) The laws of thermodynamics are nonsense
3) The heat is trapped somewhere on earth.

Without reason to suppose 1) and being able to reject 2) out of hand, we're left with 3). And from there, where is it? The classic answers would be

a) atmosphere
b) biosphere
c) cryosphere
d) hydrosphere
e) lithosphere

Some scientists proposed d) as an answer. This is at least partially true, the fist km or so of ocean is warming. It was hard to get measurements of the global deep ocean temperatures, it was hypothesized that some heat was down there.

Maybe they're wrong, and maybe the heat is somewhere else. This is the joy of science: the capacity to falsify ideas, even popular ones. But the heat is very likely here, and until we find it, it might be said to be 'hiding'. It may be that there is more heat going somewhere we thought we'd accounted for already such as 'the cryosphere'.

It's not happening at the litho-atmosphere boundary so much right now (the 'hiatus'), but that leaves plenty of stones to explore. It's still happening, and we're breaking post industrial temperature records almost annually (2014 looks like it'll be the new hottest year).

Hey robbersdog49, thanks for the level headed reply. I'll address your comments in a few pieces here:

The origin of life and Darwinian evolution are two entirely different things. Regardless of how you believe the first life came about we do know from the fossil record and evidence about the way the environment and climate changed on earth in those early millennia that the first life was simple single cell organisms.

In my study of the evidence from the fossil record, I found more evidence that contradicted the assertions of Darwinian evolution than confirmed it. The Cambrian explosion for example, where basically every type of animal body plan comes into existence at around the same time, contradicts the idea that these things happened gradually over long periods of time. In fact, a new theory was invented called "punctuated equilibrium" which says that the reason we aren't finding the transitional fossils is that the changes happen too quickly to be found in the fossil record. Instead of a theory based on the evidence, we have a theory to explain away the lack of evidence.

Evolution is the process which turned these very simple life forms into the complex forms you see all around you today. It's an ongoing process and the evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

The evidence for micro evolution is overwhelming. The reason we have hundreds of different breeds of dogs is because of micro evolution. Darwin discovered this and all the credit should go to him, but where the leap of faith took place was when he supposed that because we see changes within species, that therefore all life evolved from a common ancestor. This claim is not substantiated scientifically. You cannot see macro evolution taking place anywhere in the world, and you cannot find the transitional fossils to say it ever took place. You cannot test it in a laboratory, it is a historical claim based on weak circumstantial evidence.

Science doesn't know exactly how life first came about. It doesn't claim to. We know that it did because we're here, but how? Not sure. But that's not a problem, science doesn't claim to know everything. Science is a process we use to find out about the world around us. It's not a book with all the answers.

Science is all about what we don't know. It's a process of discovery, and you can't discover something you already know. Religious people like to show any gap in the knowledge of scientists as showing they are frauds, or know nothing and that this means their own views must be true. That's just a stupid logical fallacy. Just because no one else has the answer doesn't mean you can just claim your version must be correct.

Science not being able to tell us how life started has no effect on the validity of the statement 'God did it'.

The God of the gaps fallacy is simply a red herring in these conversations. I don't purport to say that because science can't explain something, that means God did it. Science is all about the principle of parsimony; what theory has the best explanatory power. I purport to say that the idea of a Creator has better explanatory power for what we see than the current scientific theories for origins, not because of what science cannot explain, but for what science has explained. I think the evidence we do understand, in physics, biology, cosmology and information theory overwhelmingly points to design for many good reasons that have nothing to do with the God of the gaps fallacy.

There is also it seems a point of pride for those who think the best position is to say "I don't know", and accusing anyone who thinks they do know as being wrong headed, arrogant, or whatever. It's a very curious position to take because there are plenty of things we can know. No one is going to take the position that if you say the answer to 2 + 2 is 4 and you deny that any other answer is valid, you are arrogant or using fallacious reasoning. Yet, it is arrogrant and fallacious to those who think that science is the sole arbitor of truth when someone who believes in God points to a Creator as the best explanation. They think that because they believe no one else could know the answer except through scientific discovery. You have to realize that is a faith based claim and not an evidence based claim. You think that way when you place your faith in science as what is going to give you the correct answers about how and why you are here. I like these quotes for Robert Jastrow, who was an Astronomer and physicist:

"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."

"Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation, but they are driven by the nature of their profession to seek explanations for the origin of life that lie within the boundaries of natural law."

As for the age of the earth, there's a huge amount of evidence which says it's about 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years old. That's plenty of time for evolution to take us from simple single cell life to the complex animals we've become today.

Have you ever studied the scientific proofs for both sides? There are some "clocks" which point that way, and there are other clocks that point the other way. The clocks that point to the old Earth have many flaws, and there are simply more evidences that point to a young Earth. That video I provided shows the evidences I am talking about.

@newtboy
thats why i love you brother!
it is your optimism that i absolutely adore,sincerely.

notice my wording:ideology vs reality.

in the first part of my argument i actually agree with you,though we may use different terms.

i think we may be crossing lines due to verbiage.
when i say "power" i am referring to what is my opinion,a plutocracy,so my argument flows from that perspective.

sheldon wolin makes an excellent example but uses the term "inverted totalitarianism" in his book "democracy incorporated".

you are making an ideological argument that is based on rights SHOULD be protected..in theory,but i do not see play out in reality.if you look at the history of how rights have been obtained over the past 100 years alone you will see that not ONE was ever just offered by our government.each and every one has been hard fought (and died) for.

now moving on to your texas reference,well...i totally agree with you but that is revisionism not indoctrination,at least in the manner in which i am referencing that term.

when i say this video makes a case for indoctrination i say so with my subjective AND objective understandings.
subjectively:i believe that the onus is on the very person,institution or government to prove they have a right to said authority.
objectively:this video...although extremely over-simplified..makes its case that there is a concerted effort to get very young children to tacitly submit to a centralized authority.

now when we consider what education actually IS,and this is not the thread to truly dissect such a complicated and multi-faceted subject but suffice to say,as succinct as i can:
education is the teaching of abilities,to consume data and information in order to come to informed and well-thought out conclusions,to better understand our:world,society and the reality we reside.

to be taught the skills the dissect and disseminate complex problems and the ability to formulate questions which can push boundaries and challenge pre-conceived ideologies.

so with that definition in mind.
how can we be expected to view this than anything other than a ploy to get that young mind to tacitly submit to a central authority?

and this is for 2nd graders? these kids are 8 yrs old!

education should be giving kids the tools to challenge and question not blindly submit.we might as well call the government jesus the way this thing is being taught.

so if you look at a religious family and find how they "indoctrinate" their young children into the ways of the church,then you should have the exact same problem with this tactic.

because the tactics being used are identical.