jaychant

You gotta remember, EVERYONE was a noob at some point in time. Nobody is born perfect.

No offense, but that is just ridiculous. We are putting so much carbon dioxide into the air that there is absolutely no way that the loss of CO2 would hurt the environment. If anything, it would slow down Global Warming so that it doesn't hurt us in our lifetimes. Don't believe in global warming? Watch this video and the expansion pack accompanying it. Even if your statement was true, trees wouldn't start producing CO2. Instead, excess trees would die off, stabilizing the amount of CO2 in the air.

If there was a true Communist society, that society would prosper, and everyone who lived there would be happy. Sadly, though, true Communism can't exist, so the best kind of society is a capitalist, democratic one like ours.

lol... civilization existed without electrical power for over 5000 years. Loss of electrical power would mostly just bore us and slow down technological advances until the power came back on. Heh... You do make a point. the end of the world would likely be no different than ordinary death. However, think of the way you die:1. If we cross the event horizon of a black hole, we will be pulled in and stretched until we were ripped apart, or crushed into singularity; very painful. 2. If we lose all our sunlight and food, we will starve to death. 3. If we lose all our water, we literally die of dehydration. So you see, it's much better to die naturally than to be killed by the end of the world.

If the Mayan predictions even exist, then they are probably referring to Global Warming. However, I don't think the Mayans even predicted the end of the world or whatever.But, the good news is if it's correct, I'll graduate from high school before it happens!

Yeah, I've already decided a couple weeks ago that I can never consider someone a friend unless they are a nerd. Like I said, I already left the group and now I tend to work with a kid who actually helps. As for me, my method is different: refuse to help them. Whenever someone lets you do all the work without lifting a finger, you can tell they aren't going to help, and that's when I do the exact same thing. It works; they see that you aren't doing anything and start doing the lab by themselves. And since I do well at tests, failing the lab won't hurt my grade. I think it's an inverse effect: All the guys at my school are extremely lazy and let others do everything for them, so naturally the girls end up doing things for them. Because of this, the girls tend to be more helpful than the guys.

One thing that sucks about being a nerd is that people tend to use you... a lot. This is because they feel that you can do it yourself, because you're smart. This is one thing I really hate. Why can't people understand that I don't want to do all the work myself just because I'm a nerd? Here's a real-life example I can pull out of my hat: My former lab group in Science just wouldn't ever do anything AT ALL. They would just leave me to do all the work, while they would go off and talk to friends. When I just couldn't do it, they wouldn't help until the last minute. I was so fed up with this, but I didn't leave the group. But one day, I had to work at a different lab group (teacher's order). So when I finished, I thought I'd go over just to talk to them. when I got there, one of the guys was already asking me what they needed to do. I wasn't bothered and told them, but then he asked me to do it for them, and when I said no, he said, "Why are you here?" This wouldn't have bothered me if he was laughing, but there was a serious tone to his voice. It gave me a very strong impression that the only reason he wanted me in his group was to use me. One thing I can say for sure is that girls don't seem to use people as much as guys. I don't know why, but it seems to be the way it works. Actually, there's a kid in my Science class who seems to hate everyone. I think I can see why; because he is used A LOT. Nothing hurts like being used. I'm talking about being used to do work, but I think this topic would also be appropriate for other ways people might be used (like making someone jealous).

One thing I really hate is when my classmates expect me to know EVERYTHING and be smart in EVERY field, just because I'm smart in one field. Has anyone else experienced this?The thing that nobody understands is that nobody knows EVERYTHING. Just because you're a computer brainiac doesn't mean that you understand cars, for example. Yet people just figure that smart people are just smart at EVERYTHING.Why don't people understand that there are many different fields of expertise, and we just can't be experts at EVERYTHING???

Well, good thing that Bush is out of office, for good. I just wish he hadn't had a second term.

We humans are in no way endangering our planet by polluting the air or any other stuff we do. Earth will survive. It's survived much worse. By doing what we do, we are only endangering ourselves as a species. Besides this, destroying all of our own kind would be madness. (Also, hate to get religious, but it's a one-way trip to the Devel's home if you ask me.)I should also mention that we really couldn't destroy the Earth. All we could do is wipe out all life as we know it on the planet, and even if we do that, life will probably be restored. Another thing to note is that cockroaches are protected from nuclear radiation, so they would possibly survive.Finally, even if we were able to destroy or endanger the planet, the Sun will engulf the Earth when it gets too big anyways, so why does it matter? (I'm just being the devil's advocate here, pointing out that this argument that humanity should be destroyed makes no sense.)

Yup, video games do have some benefits. It depends on the video game: for example, some might offer increased reflexes (FPS games, platformers), some might challenge your brain (strategy games), and some might teach you something (games based on history).

This just came to me. Last year, my health teacher said to us, "next time your mom or dad gets out a cigarette, ask them for one. See how they react."The next time your dad gets a beer, try asking him for one. When he says no, ask him why. The idea is it will get him thinking about how bad it is to drink. Then, maybe your dad will realize that he has a problem and get help. I don't know personally how well this works (no one in my family has a drinking problem anymore), but it's definitely worth a try.

In that case, he of course needs to stop drinking. This could be a problem if he is an alcoholic (addicted to alcohol), but otherwise it's really just a matter of choice. If your dad is addicted to alcohol, I think there are some programs that help people get over their addiction (somehow my dad got over his addiction to alcohol). Otherwise (if he's not addicted), it's a matter of choice, so someone has to convince him to stop drinking.

When people gamble, they often don't gamble responsively. They often bet all their money hoping to double what they have, which usually doesn't happen. And when they get lucky, they press their luck and don't ever stop until they're flat broke.Gambling is dangerous. Nobody should ever do it too much, and when they do, they should gamble responsively. For example, don't bet all your money. Bet a small amount, and if you win several times in a row, so that you win at least 10x the amount that you originally bet, you can raise it a bit. Then, when you lose, stop IMMEDIATELY, no matter what it looks like. This will ensure that you won't lose too much money, while at the same time you could possibly come out with a little more than when you came in.And the most important thing of all: NEVER drink an intoxicating beverage such as alcohol while gambling. Alcohol can make you make some really stupid choices, like obviously betting everything.Now I'd bet your dad is in fact gambling for the money. He probably has a determination to win big bucks by trying over and over again. This is persistence that is actually bad, because he doesn't know when to stop. My advice is, tell him that you don't think gambling is such a wise choice and that when he does gamble, he should gamble responsively. Chances are, he won't change his ways, but this is really the best you can do.

Regardless of propulsion mechanisms, the change in gravity could easily cause problems. Because of this, I think that 2D creatures would have another set of eyes and be able to move backwards. It would solve that problem.I guess we can establish that bird-like creatures would have to be upright, and flap towards the ground to stay up, then use something else to move them. For this, they would have to have eyes on either side so it could see where it was going.

If the 2-dimensional world was like a platformer game, all creatures would have very strange movements. I also can't think of a way that flying or swimming could be possible. Also, you have to consider that creatures wouldn't be able to turn, which means that for example birds would have to either only go in one direction their entire lives, or to go in the other direction they would have to turn upside-down, complicating movement even more. I don't think flight or swimming with a platform-like reality would be possible simply because of the way creatures do these in the 3-dimensional world. For example, fish have a tail that moves back and forth and fins attached to either side, but 2D creatures couldn't have either of these. Assuming the particular view, flight or swimming would be impossible. However, I think you're right about planets, stars, etc. Therefore, to solve this problem, creatures would have to move like a slug, snake, or worm and have two sets of eyes (one on each side). It could also be possible for creatures to adapt to rolling in order to get where they need to go. However, I fail to see how they would be able to successfully swim or fly.

I was considering that when I said "depth perception"; My thought, though, is that 2D creatures would evolved with incredible depth perception, boosting their vision even further. In the 2D world, there would be no such thing as the ground and it would be impossible to move up or down. So yes, they could not go over each other. It's kind of like us not being able to jump over people in a line. Don't think of the 2D world like a platform game. Instead, think of it as being like a top-down game. The only difference is that there is no floor. Since the third dimension doesn't even exist, 2D creatures would never see "below" them because there is no such thing as "below", in the same way that in our universe there is no such thing as a fourth dimension and whatever directions that dimension goes in. Another important thing to note is as 3D creatures, we would be able to see the insides of 2D creatures just by looking at them, while 2D creatures would have to dissect the other creatures to look inside them. For example, take a look at this picture: To us, this looks really ugly. But you need to keep in mind that 2D creatures can only see in one dimension. So to a 2D creature, it would look like this: Which means that what we were looking at was the insides of the 2D creature (heart, lungs, intestines, brain, etc), which is why it looked so ugly. The reason is because not having another spatial dimension, the creature could only cover it's outsides as they are in the 2D world. I expect that in the same way, 4D creatures would look at us and see our insides surrounded by our outsides, or skin.

The internet works across the world, but it wouldn't work going to another star lightyears away. A wormhole could easily fix this hole by decreasing the distance.BTW, flying cars do exist, we just don't use them because they're not practical.

I of course don't isolate myself. I do, however, get easily bored by others' conversations, often resulting in my mind drifting off to something else or me walking away (usually the latter) because I just don't see the point. BTW, the reason I have so many words in that post is because I am a better writer than I am a speaker; I can say more if I'm writing.

One of the things that I hate most is that I just don't understand how people can have conversations for hours about stuff that's pointless, obvious, or stupid. Personally, I can't say much about what I hear. I mean, what is there to say? If someone says that it's hot, I can never say anything but "yup", and yet other people will start talking about a time when it was really hot. I just don't get it at all.What bugs me most is, just because I'm a man of a few words, I have serious trouble making friends at school. People don't dislike me, I just don't talk to people because from my perspective, there's just nothing to say. And to make matters worse, anything I think is remotely cool (usually something I find on the internet), nobody has any interest in whatsoever. And yet they're entertained by "Oh my god, it was so hot, I was just dripping!" This also hurts because there's a good amount of common knowledge I don't even have simply because I don't talk to people my own age, which is irritating.And sports. How can you talk extensively about sports? To me, one team won and one team lost. That's it. Or one team will win or one team will lose. How can there be more to discuss? So irritating...

Apology accepted, and I apologize for calling you a republican fool or otherwise making fun of you.

@rpgsearcherz: First of all, you like many others confuse Communism with totalitarianism. Communism is nothing more than a socialistic economic system in which all a nation's goods are evenly distributed among the people. What you're thinking of is totalitarianism, where a single leader will take control of every aspect of life. But I think your claims of totalitarianism are absurd. Barack Obama only has four years in his presidency (or 8 if he gets elected again), and that's hardly enough time to replicate what Stalin did in the Soviet Union (which took, if I'm not mistaken, more than a decade). Besides this, US law was made specifically to protect the people from absolute rule, so even if I believed Barack Obama had the intent of controlling or monitoring every aspect of our lives, I wouldn't believe that we are on the verge of becoming a totalitarian state. I think you're just a republican fool who was told false information and now rant about it as if it were fact. This thought is easily supported by your claim that global warming is "totally bogus" @rayzoredge: Yeah, I think I will stop advocating that global warming exists and instead advocate that we should take action. I watched a video called How It All Ends, which does an excellent job explaining why we should take action against global warming.

I've read some articles and watched some online videos stating that since we 3-dimensional creatures view things in two dimensions, it can be inferred that 4-dimensional creatures view things in three dimensions. Does this mean that 2-dimensional creatures view things in one dimension? First, we must imagine what it would look like if this is true. First, let's imagine that there are three creatures: a red circle, a blue square, and a green triangle. They are lined up like this. Now imagine a 2-dimensional purple eye comes up to the line from the side. From our perspective it would look like this: That is what it looks like in two dimensions. Now we have to crop it down to one dimension. One dimension means that there is no width, only length. So from the purple eye's perspective the other creatures should look something like this: But there's a problem: the purple eye's vision would only have one dimension: length. However, if you look closely at the image, it actually does have a small amount of width. The reason is blatantly obvious: When you have a length or width of 0, you can't see anything. Which means, perhaps it can be assumed that 2D creatures can't see at all, and can never see simply because they can't see in two dimensions. On the other hand, if we delve deeper in, we can come up with a solution, and that solution is that 2d creatures' brains actually produce 2D images based on entry of light from one dimension. Using this analogy, one can assume that the three 2D creatures would look more like this to the purple 2D eye: So as you can see, by using this analogy, we can assume that 2D creatures do in fact view their world in one dimension. However, there's still one problem: How would this be at all useful? All that would be recognizable is length and color. It would be hopelessly confusing! But I can see a few solutions: 1. 2D creatures rely on color to guide them; instead of using shapes to guide them, 2D creatures would use color. They would live in a colorful world and learn to recognize where they are by looking at the colors. 2. 2D creatures rely more on other senses; this is a great explanation for how 2D creatures would navigate their world. Instead of relying on their limited vision, they could for example rely on echolocation. 3. 2D creatures have extremely powerful depth perception; With depth perception, in the same way we can look at things and tell that they're 3D, 2D creatures could use depth perception to sort of see in two dimensions. This is the one I think is most likely. With depth perception, more shapes could be identified. Interestingly and paradoxically, 2D creatures, using this type of vision, would only see prisms and cylindrical shapes, and might be confused by seeing two dimensions and only being able to travel in one of them. This could lead to absolute understanding of the 3rd dimension very quickly because if a life form gained intelligence, they would notice how they can't go "up", and hypothesize a creature that has the ability to move along this unknown, third dimension.

I think wormholes can exist. Einstein at first dismissed the black hole he thought he saw as impossible, but it turned out to be real.

Barack Obama can be DIRECTLY compared with FDR, who did the exact same sort of thing. We're not going to change into a Communist state. Personally I like what Obama is doing so far, and I certainly don't think he's invading our privacy any more than Bush did, if even as much.