Wow, some warped kind of Fascism, gross.

Negative chronitom particles ejected at high velocity from phased plasma amplifier interact with low entropy bosons crossing the warp manifold event horizon. These bosons, now drained of trigonometric energy, collide with the gravimetric shielding surrounding the fusion relays thereby inducing oscillations in the ship's hull integrity field, thus producing low frequency oscillations in the ship's artificial atmosphere.

edit: Hm, that was supposed to be in response to raverman. Well, that doesn't make any sense now.

>> ^Zyrxil:

It's the Quantum Calmness Generator installed on all Starfleet ships to promote harmony and wellbeing between Borg attacks.

So you trek nerds how long would it take to get there with warp 5???

Yeah, the girl does just kinda warp.

However, I'd like to point out that the guy isn't a douche for punching, that's actually what I do if something startles me.

First instinct is to take a swing at it, I've had to check myself multiple times because I don't want to take a swing at my family.

[edit] Actually, no, the girl just happens to walk up along with the man. If you pause the video just as you see the red shirt entering the screen, you should just be able to see her shirt right behind him. Keep an eye on the feet while watching in fullscreen and you'll even see her turn around to stand beside it.

We better get working on warp drive, it's 600 light years away, that's roughly 3,600 trillion miles.

I got here a little late for the long page of text to be relevant, so I defer back to the context of the video. The term "Christian" isn't really a new thing as far as history is concerned. And it hasn't only been used to unify, but for discord as well. Just the other day, I was listening to old debate of "Are Catholics really christian?". One might imagine the same conversation about eastern Orthodox Christians. Conversely, back in the first crusade, Catholics defended the Byzantines (Whom were Orthodox), then killed Catholic Christians that lived among certain Muslim comunites. The term is simple, but its use is not. Just like when you call someone black. Black means a color, but it CAN mean much more. Like, that guy talks black. Black, of course, refers to something more than just color...and likewise, the term Christian takes on many different meanings given the context. It isn't new, nor is it unique, nor is it insidious by nature; rather, it is the general nature of language itself and man wanting to group things together, even if the word itself is a poor choice to do so (see again: talking black). So, while I sympathize a lot with the heart of Peen's message, I think it isn't exactly accurate.

A MORE interesting conversation is a warping of the founding fathers as some kind of super christians. Many of them would fail the "Good Christian" tests of today, like Jefferson and his Big Black Bible Blotter, erasing all the things he thought silly. A Christian of today would find that highly dubious, even demonic (as per the warning in revelation).

I too, @shinyblurry detest this new "anti-theism" movement, or as I dub it, the Angry Atheist Alliance. While I hold that the ideas in the bible are flawed and incomplete explanation to the answers of life, I don't hold that you have to be a great asshole about it, which seems to be the modicum of the day. You aren't a good atheist, it seems, unless you are being mean spirited about all matters of disagreement. If I have offered up this attitude to you, then I am shamed and offer my apologies. I can be quite curt if I feel someone is being hostile or unreasonable, and if they weren't then I come off as being that which I detest...an irony from my own position, and a hypocrisy from others.

The real issue is about would you treat your own children in the same way.

Is it permissible to test a person by taking such extreme measures. Would such an experience be psychologically safe and beneficial for a child? Is it suitable to test adults in the same manner.

It's just not a valid comparison, JohnBrown. You can't draw an inference as to what you might do in comparison as to what God might do. God is a much different sort of parent, who has a much different role in a persons life than that of a custodial guardian. He handles issues of life *and* death. Humans obviously want to go through life with the least amount of suffering possible. That isn't always good for them, and as anyone knows, sometimes you have to learn the hard way. Obviously God knows what we can and cannot handle, and what is or isn't beneficial for us.


What led up to his actions and what followed his actions are all digressions and diversions from the actual action taken - this takes away from the action and the conclusions that must be drawn from them based on the knowledge we current have in regards child rearing. Today this activity would at the mildest be called bullying and intimidation and more precisely as a threat of murder. Today we know that type of practice is damaging to the human psyche, it distorts a persons reality and their ability to function affectingly within the community. Today we know that this type of activity breeds and embeds dysfunctionality deeply into the psyche of society.

I'm not sure how you feel you can apply principles of child rearing to God, who handles all of the myriad complexities of the world, and of our individual lives. Do these principles include how to prepare ones spirit for eternal life?

To carry out the same or similar acts towards children or other people is clearly seen as dangerous and harmful. The danger and harm is perpetuated through its having become a part of the biblical and therefore the core of Christian teaching.

Now you segue into this very different subject which is specifically predicated on your unbelief. First you're talking about God hypothetically committing immoral actions, and then when you feel you've established it, you turn the argument into a problem with Christianity itself. The problem is that you haven't established it, and your presupposition about God being compared to a human parent is false.

The basis of the Christian belief system that the beliefs in part or in whole must come before all else is the greatest impediment we face in regards an obvious to provide sound and effective safety and protection mechanism in place to safeguard children from exposure to such violent thinking - more so when it is supported by an entire religious and belief system.

If God exists, obviously God comes first. Just like you put your family first before other people. Yet, this isn't a selfish thing. If you put God first in your life you are more likely to love other people. These are the two greatest commandments:

1. Love the Lord thy God with all of your heart, all of your soul, and all of your understanding.

2. Love your neighbor as yourself.

Jesus said that everything in the bible hinged on those two commandments. As you can see, God felt it was very important that we should love other human beings. This is hardly "violent thinking". Your problem, and the problem of every other atheist, is that in your desperate attempt to dismantle Christianity, you try to find something in the Old Testament to make your case, because it's quite obvious that Jesus taught us to be selfless, compassionate, and loving. You have no argument against verses like this:

Matthew 5:39-48

But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

So you try to find difficult verses in the OT and completely ignore all of the obvious good in the NT. It really shows the weakness of your arguments.

We know today that if we want to develop our full potential that we should provide a safe and protective environment. Religion can never provide that whilst ever it preaches these types of dysfunctional practices as a core part of their religion for to do so is to once again put the rights of their belief before the rights and needs of their children.

Full potential? Christians live longer, and are happier and healthier than non-believers:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8480505/Faith-good-for-your-health.html

We're also far more likely to give to charity, and when we do, we give four times as much:

http://therooftopblog.wordpress.com/2006/12/01/christians-and-conservatives-give-more-to-charity-abc-says/

Parents can never become genuine advocates for children and their rights while ever they hold the right of their religion first and foremost as this act places the rights of their children on a lower level. This is more harmful to the child when the issue revolves around an act of abuse or the threat of such an act. Most religions stack such a bevy of fear and phobias onto their beliefs and subsequently onto their children to such an extent that what is in actual fact an abuse of the child's right to be free from the fears and phobias of other; that includes their own parents and whatever rights they perceive to belong to them.

Children's rights, their safety and protection can never be first and foremost in a religion; their rights will always be secondary to the religion and the perceived right of the parent.

Ridiculous, and unfounded. Putting God first means to obey His commands to love one another, and to see all people, children and adult, in the image of God. There is no connection between putting God first and abusing your kids. Some people may used a warped understanding of Christianity to mistreat their children, but that is possible for any belief system.

>> ^JohnBrown

I tried to embed this
http://videosift.com/video/Time-Warp-rocky-horror-picture-show-NSFWish
but, it didn't take.

Just another example of the warped philosophy of religion...

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by Sagemind.

Condemning brutality—and, by extension, a seemingly endless list of military interventions motivated by a warped sense of self-interest—hardly constitutes "rooting against" one's own country. To me, the ones doing the greater harm are those who fail to criticize the aspects of the United States' foreign policy that have been, and remain, undeniably disastrous.>> ^ShakaUVM:

Disgusting how many people on this page are rooting against their own country ...

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

>> ^garmachi:
It's been many years since I studied physics. What does the lowercase gamma in the bottom left represent?


Me to, I think the answer is in here, but eff if I can remember.
Edit: ok I think it is the "Lorentz factor" . 7.089 Lorentz factor is 0.990 ratio to the speed of light (or very very close)


Lorentz sounds like it to me too. There are only a few other choices it could be, but I don't see them really relating very well to the what's in the video (gamma brightness for the "video", or gamma radiation factor from nuclear sciences--both I highly doubt).

Lorentz transformations (which is linked above by @GeeSussFreeK ) would be the way you would calculate many of the dilation effects caused by relativistic effects traveling near the speed of light.

Traveling at the speed of light you would have a pinpoint in front and in back. The light up front, the size of a point and basically nothing behind, as it would be shifted to very low levels of radiation. If you're going at the speed of light you wouldn't be doing any calculations as time has stopped, but from your vantage point everything happens at the same speed. As you slow down though far from the speed of light, in less than a second you instantly see things change all around you depending on how long of course you had been going at the speed of light (if you had been going that speed for 10 years you won't see too much; but, what about one billion years--can you imagine...).

But, to you a second was still one second even at that speed, or any speed, even as time slowed down the closer you got to the speed of light. Everyone else will of course still count their seconds the same as well. Hence, relativity.

If you did go that fast, yet had mass you would be facing some HUGE problems. At the front you would find a tremendous amount of energy (I'd guess all of it would be shifted to the highest energy level; one huge one-dimensional jet of gamma radiation) and at infinite amounts. In other words, it's impossible to do it. that is why a lot of Sci-Fi uses space warping/tearing/etc... to connect yourself to another place, like a wormhole; or bend space in front and back of you like Star Trek and use warp.

Gotta love Einstein and his little revelation--and all revelations in science or otherwise that add to the understanding, the expanses created, broadening our horizons, windows to the wondrous mountains of the mind put into view, and all of reality's grandeurs still there to be conquered and our dreams explored. It makes this world just a bit more interesting and worth bothering to get up every morning and go about our daily routines.

/corny

yeah somehow we've idly watched this go down. not everyone of course, but a very large percentage of the populace, whether through propaganda or socialization, is both complacent and stuck on warped ideas of status and achievement. We've idolized the rich, even though they mostly schemed their way to the top at the expense of everyone. But "consumerism" as a psychological movement has really supported these notions...and has really helped keep us self-focused and self-indulgent....and our focus on our own individual accumulation of goods, status, and wealth blinds us to what is happening all around us. we erect our own psychological barriers to higher awareness.

and there seems to be a vast difference between awareness and what we normally consider to be intelligence. what do you think?

Consumerism continually tells us how smart, special and awesome we are in order to sell us goods. They don't sell on the quality of the good. they sell to the emotional side of us. Like religion, they convince us that we're special, and entitled.

i think the problem with that is that when we buy into how smart, special, and awesome we are, our self-centered psyche then misses what is happening around us.
How smart are we when mass extinction is occurring on this planet, global warming threatens our very existence, and crooks are stealing our future from under our noses?
i think we need to get over ourselves
imho

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

They complain about Wallstreet greed---but isn't mainstreet evil too? (@NetRunner and @dystopianfuturetoday) The 99% must change first, me thinks... (P.s., I will still respond to the other thread--hopefully tonight. This comment was just a musing of mine.)

They're definitely not the same performance.... the TV is turned differently, and there's a little brown box in the corner of the TV in your link. I also noticed in the one I posted, Mario runs into a goomba near the beginning, which didn't happen in the other video, and he dies on the second world in the other video instead of getting to the warp pipe. I mean I'm fine if it's actually a dupe, and obviously it's not up to me, but I think they are the same guy doing different performances.

Warp drive, here we come!
(maybe)