jaychant

The replies came before the topic was closed.

First let me point out that your spelling of "jaychant" is incorrect. Anyways, on topic, I think that closing topics is not the solution. Moderators are not perfect, so if we rely on that, then spam will still get attention and replies. The topic I mentioned earlier was closed in a matter of days, but it still got around 100 replies. Besides, disciplinary action such as banning can have no effect on a user's behavior, or in some cases it could be exactly what they were looking for (especially in small communities where they will be remembered). Besides, it just means that they will misbehave somewhere else. The only true solution is to teach spammers that they will not get respect by posting crap like this (warning: don't go there if you vomit easily). It is really up to the members to avoid posting in spam topics and discourage noobs from posting in spam topics.

I gave up on the idiot. The last thing I said was something along the lines of "If you are wrong and Global Warming is real, you will live the rest of your life in shame". But I disagree with you: it wasn't a waste of time. The argument was under a video trying to claim that global warming is fake, so it could grab other non-believers' attention.

I think if there was a known cure we would know it. You can't discover a cure and then keep it secret; it will leak. It may be that people are not researching into finding a cure, but I doubt that there is a cure. Scientists don't want to keep their findings secret, they want everyone to know.

Yes, mother nature has a way of handling things, but usually life still gets extinct. For example, the world didn't die 65 million years ago, but all the dinosaurs died. And the worst mass extinction in the history of the Earth (which happened right before the Mesozoic Era) didn't mean the end of the world either. We don't need to worry about saving the world. We need to worry about saving ourselves.

I'm currently engaged in an argument with another user regarding this video, which makes a claim that humans have no effect on global warming. I'm trying to tell him that global warming is a real, serious issue and he keeps trying to tell me BS on how I'm wrong. Here are some examples: First of all, he mentioned carbon monoxide, which really has little to do with global warning. Plus he explicitly states that the hottest times were when humans weren't even here. Plus, the idiot claims that a single volcano is the same as 60 nuclear weapons, which is totally idiotic since nuclear weapons don't cause global warming at all (and in fact are more likely to cause catastrophic cooling, nuclear winter) and 60 nuclear weapons would be much more destructive to civilization than a volcano. This is one of the most idiotic sets of words ever written. First off, no one said that it was caused by painting houses. Second, he fails to realize that while the glaciers do always melt, they are now melting MUCH faster than they can refreeze. Plus he seems to think all ice sheets are underwater, claiming that they wouldn't raise the sea level. This is where I thought it couldn't get any worse. But it did. Before he said this, I had said that the world isn't dying; the climate is changing, and the changes will negatively affect us in our lifetimes. Yet he cannot comprehend that the planet will do fine on its own without life. More importantly, though, he claims that carbon dioxide was higher years ago because the dinosaurs "got so big". He fails to realize that us digging carbon out of the ground and putting it into the atmosphere as CO2 is much worse than normal CO2 waste product created by animals. Then he really go bad; He said that "[we] are idiots who claim [that an unproved theory is truth]"; This is where I actually called him an idiot on Youtube. He doesn't understand that a theory is about as certain as science can get, and discredits global warming because it's a "theory"! Now normally idiots like these wouldn't bother me. But global warming is a serious issue and idiots like these can be the end of all of us, because they were too stupid to believe scientists. I actually offered that he should watch "How It All Ends", a great Youtube video that explains what will happen if we do nothing about global warming. But I'm sure he didn't even peek at it. I also found it quite offensive that he was telling me to "relax" because it's "all about money", and he found it humorous. DOES THIS IDIOT HAVE ANY IDEA WHAT THE MAGNITUDE OF THE THREAT OF GLOBAL WARMING IS?!?!

How It All Ends: Mechanics of Global Climate Change on Youtube has a good chunk of information about Global Warming.

I see. You seem to be sure that you actually have a theory, not a hypothesis. I am interested in seeing the evidence that supports your theory. Until then, I would like to say this: How would two parallel universes stay parallel? If different things are happening at each universe, how could you prevent things like different evolution of life on each universe? With all this time (I think 15 billion years since the big bang?), the parallel universe by now would be very different than ours.

I never knew of a cure for AIDS. I know they have ways of slowing down HIV, but I don't think there's a cure.

Since you're talking about AIDS (the sickness) and not HIV (the virus which causes the sickness), here is why AIDS is much more dangerous than Swine Flu:1. AIDS is forever. Once you get it, it cannot be cured. Your immune system simply cannot fight it.2. Once your immune system is lacking in Helper T Cells (once you have AIDS), your body is immediately open to every disease there is. This means that even small diseases like the common cold will kill you.3. Because of #2, most people with AIDS die at a very early age.If you are talking about HIV (the virus which causes the sickness), I can see it as less dangerous (because it's not easily transmitted), but if you are, please use the correct term.

At some point, it may become possible to eliminate HIV. But as long as we can be careful to not get it in the first place, there's no need to worry about it. One great thing about HIV is it's so easy to avoid: just don't mix blood with other people.

Swine Flu is no different than regular flu. I don't get why people are freaking out over it. Of course people are dying. Old people and young people always die from the flu. It's not exactly something unique about swine flu.

I must have typed in a number wrong, maybe I put 360 for days in a year, or maybe it's because I didn't account for that 1/4 of a day. I kept out the "parallel universes" on purpose, for the sake of simplicity. Actually, I think if you figure that units of time can't get infinitely smaller (that there's a "smallest possible unit of time", i.e. when universes would change), then you can potentially calculate how many universes total there were at one point in time. But I have absolutely no idea how this would be done. I think I almost agree with the "parallel universes" idea, except that it seems to imply that what happens in this universe is fixed, i.e. can't be changed, which means you really don't have control even if you think you do. Personally I don't want to believe this. Assuming that there are parallel universes with different events, it goes like this: the universe we are in doesn't control our actions. Rather, it decides how we think. The way that we think then causes us to act in a certain way, which causes us to act in a certain way. For example, if you see something terrible happen in the future, and you stop it, it's because what you saw was in another parallel universe. In that universe, the terrible thing still happened. However, in this universe, you had the idea of looking into the future, so you were able to stop it from happening, and therefore it didn't happen. However, it just doesn't seem to make logical sense that there are a supergiant amount of parallel universes each with slightly different possibilities. Of curse, I'm just some guy and what I say means absolutely nothing, because I'm only speculating here.

Umm... I hate sounding like such a dork, but Japanese, Chinese, Korean, Arabic, etc writing are not "symbols" anymore than our alphabet is. Yes, translation systems can get the message across and can be understood. But they still suck, badly. My point is, like you said, it is no substitution for human translation.　There are some cases where the translation is totally inaccurate (like above), especially when slang or other unstructured language is used. There's a funny site called engrish.com that shows bad translations of meaning into English (usually in China ). I'd bet that a lot of those are a result of automatic translation, because the inaccuracies found there is almost identical to the inaccuracies you find in a translation system like Google Translate.

I highly doubt we're constantly moving to a brand new universe every instant. That would mean that there are... There are approximately 31,104,000 seconds in a year. If we figure that the universe is 10 billion years old (it is actually older, but these numbers are too large for calculators and 10 billion is easy to work with ), then the universe is 31,104,000 seconds * 10 billion years = 3.1104 * 1017 (311,040,000,000,000,000) seconds. Assuming that there is a whole new universe for every second, this is how many universes there are. If you assume that there is a different universe for every millisecond, then there are 3.1104 * 1020 311,040,000,000,000,000,000 universes in existence. If we assume a new universe at every nanosecond, that becomes 3.1104 * 1026 (311,040,000,000,000,000,000,000,000) universes. The numbers are huge, and while it certainly provides no evidence against your hypothesis, it to me makes it seem kind of crazy.

All automatic translation tools are weak. It seems that they can never be as good as human translators. But who knows? Maybe some day in the future, we'll be able to actually teach machines a language. That will be when machine translation starts to work. But it will also be when the machines start to take over... What do you mean you "tried it several times"?

I didn't say ads are nonexistent. I said they don't appear in Emails. Personally I don't mind the small text ads they show to you. The point is, they don't show them in my Emails, so my Emails look much more professional than places like Yahoo that send an ad with your Email.

You have to keep in mind, every mythological creature in history has been based on something. No myth was just created out of nowhere. And the thing is, considering how many cultures have dragons and how different they are, they couldn't have very easily originated in only one place. For example, your explanation works in the medieval world, but in China, dragons were considered sacred, not terrifying. You also have to keep in mind that the medieval age was certainly not a time of prosperity, and such a myth could not easily spread from medieval Europe to the rest of the world.

One reason Gmail is so great is because your account can never expire. I used to have a Yahoo account, but I got really irritated because I had to check it so often or they deleted it. Now I have a Gmail account, and it's awesome! Another thing is that Gmail has tons of space and it's free. They also don't force you to send advertisements for them in your Emails, making your Emails look more professional.

One thing of note: there are pretty much references to dragons in all ancient civilizations. There must be something that they are coming from, because I doubt that they were just transferred via cultural diffusion. Here are my hypotheses: 1. Dragons are based on dinosaur bones. This is the most probable reason. Dinosaur bones are found all over the world. In addition, since dragons are always described as serpentine, dinosaurs would be the closest real-world thing to them due to the fact that dinosaurs were reptiles, and therefore would would look somewhat serpentine. The fact that different dinosaurs are found in different parts of the world would also explain why dragons are different in each culture. 2. Dragons are based on serpents. This would also make a lot of sense, because dragons are in fact described as serpentine. In this case, cultures probably imagined giant, flying snakes. The fire breathing was probably added on later. These are the most probable origins I can think of. I don't think dragons ever existed. Their bones would have been discovered just as the dinosaur bones were discovered.

OK, so I'm in Japanese class, and for practice I wrote a story. The original story was written in Japanese and proofread by my teacher, who is very fluent (I assume it's because his wife is Japanese ). Anyways, after I typed the story, I thought I would feed it through Google Translate, and like I expected, it came out as a complete mess. In case you're interested, I uploaded the original (Japanese) story. It also has an approximate (actually, almost exact, to my knowledge) translation of what it says. Now here's what Google Translate spits out when I put in my story: As you can see, Google Translate didn't even come close and actually left some parts untranslated. In fact, it leaves a kanji completely untouched (大 [dai], meaning big or in this case great). Other than that, all the words you see in all caps are untranslated Japanese words. One of them makes sense and is completely understandable: SERAFATIZU is Seraphatis, and this is understandable because Seraphatis isn't a real word or name. Other than that, it is still a complete mess. You can see when comparing my translation and Google's translation that Google in many parts takes a completely different meaning. In conclusion, never trust automatic translation. It doesn't work. Only trust humans who can actually translate. Another thing of note: If you type in "dragon" and translate to Japanese, you get this　as the top translation: 龍 Technically this is correct. The kanji means dragon. However, it is an old outdated kanji that is not used anymore, in the same way that we don't say "thou" anymore. The correct kanji would be: 竜 (which it shows as the second possibility) Yet another example of why not to trust Google Translate. amberstory_jpn.doc

Interesting. Who would've thought? Nice find!

I agree. People should stop worrying about Swine Flu and making such a deal over it. It's just like normal Flu, the name kind of gives that away. Personally, I still wouldn't eat ham, because I never want to experience flu. Good thing I don't like ham, I guess.

I didn't mean that the population needs to keep getting larger, I meant that the population needs to not shrink. Currently, so few people are having kids in Japan that the Japanese government is worried, because once the aging population dies off, the population will be reduced dramatically. In this manner, the entire Japanese race could potentially disappear, and along with it Japanese customs, language, technology, etc. It is true that we don't want the population to grow too large, but we also don't want a situation like that, especially on a worldwide scale.

The greatest solution? Education. More intelligent people tend to have less kids than less intelligent people, so the key to preventing overpopulation is to educate. China's one-child policy is rather absurd. It isn't going to help very much. We shouldn't go to extremes to reduce population. Too little population growth can be bad for a country.