I want him to do it again with a head mounted camera >

I loved the movie to bits, watched it twice in a matter of days, but I love this review also. Some people, like myself, may be perfectly aware of simplicity, cliche etc but still be able to thoroughly enjoy a film anyway.

When I saw the movie and they first mentioned Unobtanium, I though he was making a nerdy joke... if he had been it would have been awesome, unfortunately it wasn't and it's one of the very few and minor things I didn't like about Avatar.

They're crazy Poles For the curious, all he says is "on the outside one (lanee)".

http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/JoshU2uber

Small one was 1 cubic meter or 1000 liters or 1 tonne of water from 3 meters
Big one was 10 cubic meters or 10000 liters or 10 tonnes of water from 10 meters

>> ^MaxWilder:
A real man would never initiate violence against a woman. This is a rule that is biological in nature. For most aspects of life, I consider men and women to be equal, but not here.


Interesting you should point that out. I'm sure it doesn't necessarily extend to all dogs, let alone all animals, but I like watching my dog (an undesexed male labrador) taking just about any shit a bitch can dish out, and not falter in his advances. I've seen bitches biting hard and everything but it wasn't until she caught a more vulnerable part like an ear and he actually felt it, that he would retaliate, and even then it would only be reprimanding nip at the neck or tackling her to the ground. Or in human terms equivelent to a slap, or grabbing her arms to prevent further attack.

Top 15?

I don't claim to be an expert on the subject, but as I understand it, quantum mechanics is all about statistics and probablity. I have always thought of this experiment as an illustration of the idea that when you can't probe a quantum object to determine what state it's in, but there exists the probability that it is in one particular state or another, then the object can be thought of as being in both states simultaneously until such time as you can probe it, at which point you can know the state of the object in question and hence it is no longer in both states at the same time.

By my understanding you can therefore extend this further, by considering the probability of the decay having occurred and actually hit the detector at any given point in time. You could then say things such as: "At time A the cat is 5% dead 95% alive, while at time B it is 99% dead and only 1% alive" etc.

In saying that, I don't think I'm breaking the experiment, because no matter how much time passes you can never be sure whether it is dead or alive (short of life expectancy constraints) so it is still in both states. What the numbers actually tell you is, if you ran the experiment many times opening it at various points, what the ratio dead vs live cats would be after each given time interval.

LOL EDD, sorry to laugh at your expense but that was gold.

>> ^xxovercastxx:
>> ^mizila:
Oh and Grammar Nazi says it's phenomenal not fenomenal.

Definition Nazi says that's a spelling error, not a grammatical error.


Actually Definition Nazi says "Spelling Nazi says that's a spelling error, not a grammatical error."
The definition of fenomenal is not incorrect, it's non-existent, it's purely a spelling error. Yours was the definition error.

I knew this would be fun

I want one...

*sigh* searched the site again for dupes and found it... *kill

Just as bad...
http://www.ukimagehost.com/uploads/05e2120dc4.jpg