Messages

31

Off Topic / Re: Massive Rant 3: School and how unessesary it is (for the most part)

« on: May 20, 2013, 07:43:12 AM »

Uhm. This whole post makes no sense, esp the bolded part. Are you just mashing words and adverbs together to sound more dignified?

"You are the only person that's responsible for the quality of your life, ultimately" is scientifically untrue because there is no such thing as free will. I shouldn't have used the word "bullstuff" though; I was unecessarily harsh and I don't really know why. I'm sorry about that.
Anyway, as I said, saying things such as what you said might still help people, so it's still worth something.

32

Off Topic / Re: Massive Rant 3: School and how unessesary it is (for the most part)

« on: May 20, 2013, 06:22:03 AM »

The "system" in general has nothing to do with the education system, that's why I said it was irrelevant.

...

I know you weren't talking about the Dutch specifically, but I used you example to illustrate my points. The same arguments are valid for Norway, Germany, the US or any other developed country.

We have always had clothes. Bad argument.

"Obviously, that's going to happen". I was talking about sustainable economies that don't rely on import / export of goods. That would be the ideal communist country.  You saw what happend to the USSR...

The USSR was an ideal communist country? I'm glad you're here to lecture us

I never said I thought you wanted to get rid of education alltogether. I was just trying to explain why education (even math and stuff most people don't need) is important from a national point of view, nothing against you in particular.

why would you need to explain why education is important if I don't disagree with education?

you say the system and education are unrelated and then explain why education is important for countries

I don't even loving

33

Off Topic / Re: Google knows everything

« on: May 20, 2013, 04:37:55 AM »

It was an example.

Well help me understand what you meant, then. I don't even get what the example was, the services or the advertisements

34

Off Topic / Re: Dimitri Khalezov explains WTC nuclear demolition 9/11/2001

« on: May 20, 2013, 04:34:31 AM »

if it were actually a nuclear demolition, there would've been high amounts of radiation in the building and clearly, there wasn't. if there was then many of the people that were inside would've died before they got to the stairwell, which is where many of them were before the towers collapsed.

what can I say. empty claims. watch the video.

I thought you were better than this dude.

Do I know you...?

35

Off Topic / Re: Metal Megathread - The Best Music

« on: May 20, 2013, 04:32:00 AM »

I didn't like either of those songs :o

probs because it's mainstream pop...

36

Off Topic / Re: Massive Rant 3: School and how unessesary it is (for the most part)

« on: May 20, 2013, 04:29:33 AM »

Those statements are completely irrelevant to the discussion. Whether or not the Netherlands is able to create it's own power does not depend on their educational system. Also, according to Wikipedia, the Netherlands imported only 13-15% of electricity during 2005-2008. That's not half bad. Most countries do this. To fully comprehend the logistics and reasoning behind this, you have to get a good education with lots of math and an engineering degree in energy management.

Clothes and food is made 2389 miles from the people who buy them because Dutch soil isn't made for growing certain types of plants, such as cotton, pinapples or rice. Furthermore, the Dutch economy is based on the production of services and high-value technological goods. That creates much more BNP than aggriculture, and is thus better for the economic growth of the country. The production of food and clothes and other low-value goods is outsourced to low-cost developing countries in Asia and Africa. Why? Because it is cheaper, even with added transportation costs for the 2389 miles the goods have to be shipped.
Of course, this kind of economy isn't ideal from a global point of view. The best thing would be if all countries were self-sustainable, meaning they produce their own food and technology. Obviously, that isn't going to happen. You can blame capitalism, but our modern lifestyles require this kind of economy. For more information on this subject, I recommend that you pay attention in school, especially in math class, and follow up with a masters degree in global economy.

You quoted the wrong part. You quoted me talking about the system in general, not education. You also interpretated that I was only talking about the Dutch throughout, which I wasn't.

"Obviously, that isn't going to happen" well it's pretty useless to talk about it if you don't believe in change.

There's a slight difference between having a car and going to school. Cars aren't mandatory, education is. Cars generate lots of trouble (CO2 emmisions etc.), while education only provides benefits. Okay, you may be forced to waste a couple of years of your life learning something you will never need. But this collective constraint allows a country to generate knowledge among its citizens. That knowledge can be harvested later in form of high-tech. companies that create high-value technological goods (Shell, SBM Offshore, NXP Semiconductors). In other words, a lengthy and good educational system is necessary for a country to be a developed, first world country.

This is an unbelievably silly tangent. The driver's license was just an example to clarify my point.

You also seem to think that because I think there's something wrong with education, I don't think we should have education. That's illogical.

37

Off Topic / Re: The Fake Creatures/Gods/Beasts Thread

« on: May 20, 2013, 03:57:58 AM »

-soap-

You bring up one example of a theory you claim is bad, therefore science is bad. Yeah OK. Why is anyone even talking to you.

Science isn't the "ultimate truth".

Nothing is. Science is however the absolutely best thing we've got. Now if this whole argument is based on taking Neil deGrasse Tyson's quote as literal fact then I really doubt the value of this discourse.

And no, the Neck is not Norwegian any more than red houses or flags with crosses are, however the paintings you posted are Norwegian paintings.

38

Off Topic / Re: Massive Rant 3: School and how unessesary it is (for the most part)

« on: May 20, 2013, 12:33:59 AM »

There's so much wrong with the school system, and the rest of the system as well, that it feels kind of hopeless to even talk about it.

In school you get "taught" things, and then you forget them til the next week. There is no point to this. All that happens is that students read stuff right before the tests and then forget most of it. Ask people who went to school; if any of them remember much of it, they would probably also say it's because they had such a good teacher. Too bad not everyone has good teachers. Too bad there are so many bad teachers.

Why are dutch people getting power from russia instead of getting it 2 metres from their house? transporting energy all over the loving planet so that we can use it as unefficiently as possible is so dumb.
Why is food and clothes made 2389 miles from the people who buy them? it's loving stupid. These are just examples, but you get my point.

You are the only person that's responsible for the quality of your life, ultimately. If you don't enjoy school, it's because you haven't been able to figure out how to suck a meaningful experience out of it. If you don't have money, get a job. If you think you're fat or unattractive or whatever, work out.

Complaining gets you nowhere. Walking into the echo chamber of the internet and bitching about how unfair life is to you is the most unproductive and useless attempt at improving your life. Things get done by loving -doing- them, not talking about them or thinking them, but actually doing the work. You won't get rich putting in a couple hours a week at some skill. You won't get slim by going to the gym once. You have to have the determination and the nerve to carve out a lifestyle of self improvement for yourself- you need to get up every day and suck the marrow out of life, learn from every experience, think critically about what you do with every hour of your day, and loving improve your life.

Scientifically, this is complete bullstuff. However you might get a point because you posting this might improve someone's life, if you're lucky.

What I find difficult about school is that surviving both socially and academically can be tough. I mean a lot of the really smart guys I know have basically shut themselves from the world while the really social guys get bad grades but live in the moment. Doing both has been a challenge for me for the longest time. Especially Middle School because social survival kept you sane and not depressed (I was very depressed in 8th grade). I'm getting mainly B's, a C or two and one A. It's just a lot of outside factors beyond academics have really messed things up for me.

I think about how I could change a lot to be able to do more work, but on the other hand, I don't really want to adapt to something I disagree with. I don't want to become what I dislike.
It's like working towards a driver's license while disagreeing with the whole idea of cars in our society.

39

Off Topic / Re: Google knows everything

« on: May 19, 2013, 11:02:19 AM »

I use several of Google's services all the time (including Chrome and Android), and I don't mind that they gather information at all. I'd much rather see an advertisement for some cloud coding service than an advertisement for cheap bras from some Indonesian store.

If I think "Chrome" and "Android" I don't even see how you'd get advertisements based on the services themselves in the first place.

You pretty much gave up your "private information" when you agreed to the legal contracts when you signed up for their services

Most, if not all information they store goes towards advertising. Google isn't out to take over the world, it's out to make money and provide service.

If you're making enough money it literally means you're taking over the world.

Beer pong.

What am I supposed to make of this? Am I to assume that your arguments are based on vague beliefs rather than facts?

40

Off Topic / Re: Dimitri Khalezov explains WTC nuclear demolition 9/11/2001

« on: May 19, 2013, 10:53:13 AM »

What does that even mean?

It means that tonnes of steel floors collapsing on eachother does not occur at the speed of free fall. There is resistance.  

NO, IT'S BECAUSE THE SHEEPLE NEED TO WAKE UP!

It seems kind of respectless to call people sheeple... it's not their fault you know

41

Off Topic / Re: Dimitri Khalezov explains WTC nuclear demolition 9/11/2001

« on: May 19, 2013, 10:36:35 AM »

He's talking about thermo-nuclear demolition, which is real but it doesn't have the same effects as an actual nuclear bomb.

Anyway, this 'thermo-nuclear demolition' never happened. One of the towers begins to fall on itself from the middle, if a nuclear demolition would've happened the tower would've collapsed on itself from the bottom. There was also an explosion in the middle of one of the towers from the fuel and fire which caused it to fall and weaken the other tower.

A thermonuclear weapon is a type of nuclear weapon. Anyway, you should watch the video since you seem interested in the subject.

The island of Manhattan?

No.

How the hell would you know what the underground of Manhattan looks like? You live in Europe, right?

The Earth is made of rock.

But how does a building collapse on itself, that's not how they're designed! Oh wait, that's exactly what they're designed to do if they're going to fall!

They don't fall on themselves at the speed of free fall!

42

Off Topic / Re: Dimitri Khalezov explains WTC nuclear demolition 9/11/2001

« on: May 19, 2013, 10:26:26 AM »

The only reason I came here was because I didn't know the video was that long at first. Then I see trey's comment and I get disinterested, but then I saw your comment telling him he has to watch a 4 hour video just to able to write a post in this thread.

I made this thread for that video. If you don't want to watch the video, then what's the point?

Or, you know. Several thousand tons of steel, stone, and glass falling 100 stories to the earth won't produce the same effect.
Its obvious you have never seen any of the aftershots of the tower's rubble. Also don't you think if a nuke went off, there would be radiation?

Tons of steel crashing down on tons of steel does not happen at the speed of free fall. This is all covered in the video.
See how talking about it like this doesn't make sense?

Manhattan is mountainous?

Underground, yes.

I might as well pop out to see two films at the cinema the time it takes to watch this video. I mean seriously, who really even wants to sit in front of their computer for 4 hours watching a YouTube video about 9/11? Only about 2 people in this thread.

Too few?

43

Off Topic / Re: Google knows everything

« on: May 19, 2013, 09:58:57 AM »

Believe it or not, the higher ups of a 200 billion dollar business have more important things on their minds than your recent googling activities.

What things would those be? What exactly do all the secretive Google employees do? Do you actually know?

44

Off Topic / Re: Dimitri Khalezov explains WTC nuclear demolition 9/11/2001

« on: May 19, 2013, 09:50:53 AM »

There IS no point in commenting about a video if you have to watch it for 4 hours. That's insane.

Yet here you are.

Other than the fact that people saw the planes fly into the buildings, as well as had phone calls with people on the last plane who said that there was a terrorist on board controlling the plane.

If you know anything about this, you know there were a lot of people who didn't see any planes. Recordings of phone calls don't prove anything other than the fact that those words were spoken by someone.

THOSE WERE PAID ACTORS DUH.

Will you explain yourself soon?

9/11 was not a nuclear demolition

wtc7 collapsed in a fashion identical to conventional explosive devices used to collapse other buildings

i would assume a nuclear demolition would appear different.

A nuclear demolition would turn skyscrapers into dust, as with 9/11.

How could there be a nuclear detonation? Other than the fact that Manhattan would be near enough destroyed, The area around the crumbled WTC would be radioactive, which it clearly isn't.

Dimitri talks about these things, you know. I'm not an expert - he is. Although, it's kind of funny how you think mountain rock and air will react the same way to a nuclear explosion.

There is no way to argue with people that buy into stuffty conspiracies. They already have no basic reasoning skill because they loving believe in a conspiracy theory.

Again, if you believe 2 or more people to somehow be behind this (e.g. the hijackers), then you believe in a conspiracy.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conspiracy

If any of this was true why aren't the people that try to spread the so called "truth" killed? How is the government so powerful and all that, but still so incompetent.

Why would anyone bother with that when 99% just believe whatever they're told anyway?

A sane person and a loving nutjob like you have very different ideas of what solid evidence is. Nobody will listen to them because they're loving crazy.

You're not even saying anything at this point

45

Off Topic / Re: The Fake Creatures/Gods/Beasts Thread

« on: May 19, 2013, 09:30:37 AM »

Science isn't the "ultimate truth". Science proposes theories and models that explain the observed behaviour of a system. But those theories and models are just that; theories and models. You cannot find "truth" with science.

There's no "just" about scientific theories or models. It's the only way we find things out on this planet, and beyond. If there was a better system for finding the truth, we would use it.

Just think about what science was a couple of centuries ago: the earth is flat, there are only four elements, irrational numbers don't exist... the list goes on and on.

Good thing we had more drugs, common sense, religion, and science to fix that.

Also, nobody believed the earth was flat a couple hundred years ago.