Jump to content
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Nathan

  • Rank
    Zep Head
  • Birthday 05/22/1987

Contact Methods

  • AIM
  • MSN
  • Website URL
  • Yahoo

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Cloud 9

Recent Profile Visitors

1,427 profile views
  1. Wait what? What's wrong with posting an image from the Pontiac video?
  2. Oh my god this thread... Quick question to OP. You know that we did indeed land on the moon, right? And that the earth is an oblate spheroid... not flat? But seriously... I never, in my life, thought I'd see a conspiracy theory about the audio used on a live show. We know exactly where the audio from The Song Remains the Same comes from. It comes from 3 shows at Madison Square Garden in 1973 (July 27th, 28th, and 29th). Some of the footage was shot on a sound stage, but the audio is all from those four shows. I noticed, OP, that you ignored SteveAJone's link to The Garden Tapes, which is a website that breaks down exactly what audio sources are used for Led Zeppelin official live releases, and how they're use. Here's that link again. I suggest you click on it and learn something... and stop dabbling in conspiracy theories, my dude. They aren't good for your mental health...
  3. Hey. Are there any updates on this? I've been hoping to see a torrent somewhere I could jump on, but haven't seen anything yet.
  4. How are you? This place has changed quite a bit since I last posted...
  5. First off... 'sup? Been a long time since I last posted here... Second... Major Major... I'm sure you were being sarcastic, but I'm going to post the link to a video that everyone who's even slightly confused needs to watch... TED Talk - Clay Shirky - Why SOPA is a Bad IDea
  6. Happy Birthday!

  7. Nathan

    The Recipe Thread

    I haven't posted here in, like, a bazillion years. Why not begin again in this thread, which I started? But first? Anyone made this? Can it be made without the milk and maybe less sour cream? I find my taste for creamy leaving and my taste for bittersweet growing (even with ice cream... I prefer a fruity ice cream or an Italian Ice to a classic ice cream these days). Also, I'd love to make a completely non-dairy version of this for those I know who are Jewish (for after a meat meal). Anyways... I have some recipes from this place called "Top Secret Recipes" run by Todd Wilbur. So here's one I will share. You all know the classic Auntie Anne's Pretzels, right? Well... I'm sorry to say that it's not one of his free recipes. (That's a link to the recipe page.) However, I bought it a long time ago, so here it is, in full: And here's a couple comments I collected from the recipe page: I really want to know how y'all did. When I made them, they turned out really, really good. They weren't exactly like Auntie Anne's, but they were the closest I've ever come to Auntie Anne's pretzels without actually buying one. Enjoy!
  8. Love ya Boss

  9. Oh most certainly. I hate to basically plagiarize another poster, but pretty much all activities use science in one way or another, mostly Physics. I don't really believe all that much in the spirit or spirit world, so... yeah... Here you go: http://forums.randi....ad.php?t=170707 Short thread... unfortunately, I probably hold a record for some of the smallest threads that have been replied to. The most replies I got in a thread I started was 56...
  10. Ah okay. I'm a Randi fan as well. I'm a member of his forum and everything, although I post very rarely there. If you're a member, my member-name there is NateHevens, and I started threads on the TempurPedic mattress, Electronic Cigarettes, and Tube Amps (guitar). I love the threads and stuff there debunking audiophile myths... they're brilliant. I have to agree with you, here. I view science as the only clearly legitimate tool we have to study the natural world and universe, and I'm not sure how Martial Arts fits into that category. I have, too, as I've said, but I've also seen someone get better on nothing more than a sugar pill. Placebos do work... otherwise they wouldn't be used as controls when testing new medicines. They just don't work often enough to merit being a legitimate cure. I would say it is bogus, although my advice to you would be to research it, if you want. Look it up and see what people are saying, both the critics and the believers. In fact, if you want, search for homeopathy at Google Scholar. You should get a host of scientific articles and papers about it. I apologize. I actually missed your line about Ki and Chi and my note about faith-healing was strictly about faith-healing, not Ki and Chi. I reserve judgment on Ki and Chi as I have no direct or indirect experience with either, so you could say I'm agnostic about them. I have to do more research before I can decide whether or not I consider them legit. I do have to say that I saw an episode of Time Warp involving an energy the Samurai believe in, and one of the hosts got a direct experience with it. Now I don't know about any supernatural experience or whatnot, but the host was certainly effected by something when the samurai merely lightly pushed him into a chair (that was, BTW, a really horrible description of what I saw... heh... ). But I reserve judgment on those barring further research and experience of my own I admit that I am always a skeptic and am always skeptical, but I'm also reasonable and refuse to dismiss claims unless I know enough about them to be able to dismiss them. I cannot dismiss Ki and Chi because I don't have the experience and knowledge I require to make any judgment. The problem I have with this view is that science has a control built into it to avoid such bias: the peer review process. The whole deal with the peer review process is this: a scientist is paid to prove that something works: let's say, a new type of medicine. He tests the hypothesis, and let's say he proves it. He then submits the scientific paper he writes for publishing. But for most journals it does not automatically get published. The paper is sent to hundreds of scientists, all of whom have absolutely zero stake in the outcome of the test (they're not being paid for this "cure" to be proven or disproven, and for some, they may not have even known what it was or that it was being tested until they were picked as part of the peer review process), who then perform the same test outlined in the paper as well as numerous other different tests. More often than not, the peer review process makes this original scientist look like an idiot, and the other scientists make no bones about saying such. That, BTW, is why you'll rarely if ever see an alt. med paper (such as a test on homeopathy done by "scientists" who already expect it to work) submitted for peer review. That paper will usually get torn to shreds. An absolutely brilliant example of the peer review process at work destroying bias is the case of something that, for a little while, at least, was touted as "the missing link" in human evolution. Darwinius Masillae, nicknamed Ida, was discovered in Germany and first heavily reported in May of 2009. Here's some links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinius http://www.revealingthelink.com/ http://www.plosone.o...al.pone.0005723 Curiously enough, the findings were not immediately submitted for peer review as is usual. The reason? Because Ida is no missing link: http://www.scientifi...ossil-darwinius http://blogs.abcnews...g-link-not.html https://webspace.ute...al_JHE_2010.pdf http://scienceblogs....us_masillae.php http://scienceblogs....issing_link.php http://richarddawkin...ropologists-say (It should be noted that this idea of "the missing link" is entirely arbitrary and not scientific... it could be argued that all fossils are transitional fossils/missing links, and even all currently living creatures, including ourselves, are the same.) I must admit it is somewhat of a shame to see the peer review process done so publicly, but it also beautifully highlights how science can weed out bias. Once alternative medicine crap like homeopathy starts subjecting itself to this same type of scrutiny, I may be able to start gaining a little respect for it. Until then... no. I look forward to it. Oh I see where you're coming from, now, BIGDAN. We are definitely experiencing a semantic issue, here. I don't define science in the same way you do, therefore martial arts doesn't fall under science as I see it. Obviously, that's different for you, and I respect that.
  11. So have I. I've also seen sugar pills work. All it proves is that homeopathy's about as good as a placebo. I also have a problem with the idea that water has memory (which is the basis of homeopathy). If water has memory, then how is it that water can remember, you know, tiny droplets of medicine, but forgets all about the fish poop, pee, semen, dead, decaying bodies, blood, etc? I would like to point out that I'm not trying to be mean or insulting, so please forgive me if you take it that way. I'm not a fan of Alt. Med at all. I've read too many stories and have too many personal experiences (with friends, and once with myself) to have any positive feelings about the industry. The only things I see in this "industry" are lies, false info, and snake-oil salesmen. People (like Deepak Chopra) praying on the... gullibility... of other people, and stealing their hard-earned money, selling them crap that will never actually help them. Personal experience with faith-healing: A friend of mine, when he was very young, was diagnosed with cancer. His parents, being ultra-radical Christians, refused to take him to the hospital, instead taking him to their pastor who "prayed" over him trying to "expel Satan's demons". His aunt (on his Dad's side) ended up kidnapping him to get him to the hospital. They did manage to save him, but had she waited one more day it would have been his death warrant. His parents did take her court, but, luckily, the aunt (and her husband, his uncle) won... they have custody of him and he refuses to even acknowledge that his birth parents exist... and yes, he's a staunch atheist and anti-theist. That, my friend, is the outcome of "faith-heeling". Here's some more stories: Faith-healing parents charged in baby's death Parents In Faith Healing Death Arrested Another Faith Healing Death Charges follow faith-healing death Not only do I not believe in it, but I think parents who refuse their sick children modern medical help and instead take them to pastors to be prayed over should be arrested for endangering their child's life. a. There's no need to get defensive. I'm not trying to insult you and if I did, I apologize. I'm simply giving my point of view. b. We're arguing semantics. We obviously use two different definitions and that's fine. I'd be happy to agree to disagree on this point. No, I understood it perfectly. I was merely pointing out that politics seems, to me, at least, to be more of a suspect here rather than science. That's all. Are you, or do you know, Randy James?
  12. I agree with religion and art, but I do not agree with your view of science. Science is the gaining of knowledge, but through empirical evidence. There is a reason there are rules on what science is. Astrology was once considered science. And could you imagine a world where Homeopathy, or worse, Faith-healing, was considered legitimate science? *shudders* Keep in mind that similar crap was once considered science. I believe that period of human history is known as "The Dark Ages". I have to disagree here. I honestly have no idea what you mean by "science" in this context. Ju Jitsu and Wing Chun are not science at all. I am not saying they are not legitimate practices, nor am I suggest that because they are not science, they are worthless. My Dad took Ju Jitsu and I have considered it and, in fact, still do (amongst many other martial arts forms). The only thing stopping me from training in such is a lack of money and time. I would, otherwise... in a heartbeat. I even enjoy meditation and, yes, prayer (as a form of meditation). Obviously I don't think I'm "connecting to a higher power". It's more just for relaxation and coming to terms with myself. But I don't see how any of that can be "studied as a science". What hypotheses are you testing? How are you testing them? Is there peer review? I know. Hence why I mentioned politics. You would have a slightly stronger case if you asked "is politics the new religion". I would actually agree that in many cases it certainly seems that way, although it fails due to the lack of political worship (which is also missing in science, BTW). Science is benign. It's only as good or as bad as the people using it. Again, Al Gore's movie was total shit. But Anthropogenic Climate Change is, in fact, very real, and it is high time we stopped using our planet as if it was filled with unlimited renewable resources. The Earth is alive, and the last thing we want for our descendants is for them to be born onto a dead, dirty, dry planet.
  13. Yes and no. I'm basing my conclusions on both mathematical and logical statistics. We know for a fact intelligent life evolved once (see: planet earth). So it's already not impossible. Statistically speaking, if it can happen once, it can happen again. Our universe is huge. Impossibly huge. We humans can't comprehend how big it is, and we probably never will. There has to be more intelligent life out there. I don't see how it's possible that we're the only ones, and I'm quite sure that the vast majority of scientists would agree. The only people in my family who seem to take issue are my Dad (a Hazzan), and my mom's dad (a Deacon). The rest seem absolutely fine with it. And here's why I'm not an agnostic: http://www.merriam-w...ionary/agnostic I do not hold any view that ultimate reality is unknown and unknowable. In fact, while I agree it may not be currently known, I in fact think it is most definitely knowable. I also am NOT unwilling to commit to a position. Here is what I say, specifically, about God and the supernatural: I do not rule out the possibility that my mind can be changed. If future evidence suggests that there is a higher power, then I will change my mind most readily. That said, my understanding of our universe (based on studying astronomy, cosmology, physics, biology, etc) leads me to conclude that any sort of creator is entirely unnecessary. Therefore, I lack belief in any form of higher power (or am otherwise skeptical). I believe the position is known as "weak atheism" or "agnostic atheism". I do admit that if definitive evidence of a creator came about, I'd most likely be a Jew. I love the culture and the civilization. So I'm no anti-theist (I was when I first lost my faith, mostly just out of anger that I lost my faith). I honestly don't care what anyone believes, as long as they don't try and force it on me, and, unlike some, I'm not interested in "spreading atheism" (which I think is incredibly stupid, quite frankly, especially since the lack of proselytizing is what first endeared me to Judaism). I am, however, quite vocally outspoken against religious radicalism (creationism, Sharia Law, religious-inspired bigotry, etc) and do in fact support anti-theism in response to religious radicalism (because while you can't fight fire with fire, you also can't put out a raging inferno with a light drizzle). Although I do think I'm starting to pull this thread off-topic. Sorry... Perhaps we should move to a private conversation or start a new thread if you want to continue with this? Fair enough. No. Light speed is the cosmic speed limit. From everything we know, it is literally impossible to go faster. The closest star to our solar system (that is not the sun) is Proxima Centauri. It is 4.2421 light years, or 2.49371841 x 1013 miles, away. Currently, the fastest vehicles we have are the twin Helios spacecraft currently in orbit around the sun. Using their fastest speed, it would take 18,110 years to get there from here (or from here to there). The reason light speed is basically an impossible speed barrier to break is because as matter goes faster, its mass increases. In order to reach light speed, we would need a rocket many times the size of our solar system burning more fuel than is estimated to exist in our entirely solar system... indeed, burning more fuel than our sun burns. Even if we were thousands of years ahead in technology, it would be impossible (the reason light can reach that speed is because photons basically have no mass, so there's no mass to increase). Yes, there are other ideas... wormholes, warp drives, etc. But none of these are currently technologically possible for us, and even Michio Kaku and Stephen Hawking have trouble seeing how it could ever be done. The amount of energy required would be ridiculously massive... making a supernova look non-existent by comparison, in fact. And there's no way of knowing what damage such a thing could do to the fabric of spacetime (and therefore existence), so even if it was possible, the question would then be, is it really worth the (possible) risks? We are currently not technology capable of understanding anything that could come from so far away. If the human species lasts long enough, I promise you that our great-great-great-...-great-grandchildren will likely not be alive to see the day we actually "make contact" with other life. We are currently just too primitive, and will be for an extremely long time. Let's be realistic for now and just look forward to landing the first man on Mars, perhaps a colonization on the Moon, and private/commercial flights into space. Those are more realistic goals with our current level of technology, and I can guarantee that most of us on this board will be alive to see at least 2 out of those 3 goals, if not all 3 (in fact, I would not be surprised if Jimmy Page, Robert Plant, and John Paul Jones live to see the first man on Mars... it will likely happen within the next decade). No, don't worry. Our TV/Radio signals die out before they even leave our solar system, so I Love Lucy will most likely never be heard/seen by anyone out there.
  14. emphasis mine And that right there is why I don't believe it. Clothes don't have souls, and they don't die. No way there are clothes of any kind in any afterlife world. Note: I'm only being halfway facetious.
  • Create New...