This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - The Lord Slide Rule
Pages: 1 ... 113114115 116117 ... 144
3421
« on: November 01, 2014, 09:57:57 PM »
Nigger, Black Flag is brilliant.
I bet you like Black Cocks.
i bet u lik ur mums cock
3422
« on: November 01, 2014, 09:50:10 PM »
red is the one with most fat here
its my fav cause the subtle creamyness tickles my fancy
That would be blue then <.<
*babby
3423
« on: November 01, 2014, 09:45:40 PM »
red is the one with most fat here
its my fav cause the subtle creamyness tickles my fancy
That would be blue then <.<
*babby
3424
« on: November 01, 2014, 09:44:45 PM »
3425
« on: November 01, 2014, 09:39:42 PM »
skimmed=less fat
whole=most fat
?
No skimmed=srsly why don't you just drink water
3426
« on: November 01, 2014, 09:00:33 PM »
If you don't take your coffee black you're doing it wrong. Go back and start over.
3427
« on: November 01, 2014, 08:52:37 PM »
Come, leave the shit hole and join America Leave one shithole and move to another shithole?
I've seen better plans.
We could always create the nation of South Floodistan somewhere in Antarctica.
3428
« on: November 01, 2014, 08:43:39 PM »
This really isn't that funny, but College Humor usually isn't too me.
3429
« on: November 01, 2014, 08:38:01 PM »
Who?
Didn't expect you to be using Truth Revolt.
Is that one of those conservative conspiracy theory laden sites?
You tell me
Kek
3430
« on: November 01, 2014, 08:21:31 PM »
What kind of a complete fag downvotes Black Flag?
3431
« on: November 01, 2014, 08:18:36 PM »
Who?
Didn't expect you to be using Truth Revolt.
Is that one of those conservative conspiracy theory laden sites?
3433
« on: November 01, 2014, 06:53:19 PM »
> people that wish to live as they'd like in a secular nation
> extremists
But this also infringes upon free speech.
Yeah it is. I just pointing out how wishing to live in a secular nation w/of religious law is not an extremist view.
3434
« on: November 01, 2014, 05:09:01 PM »
...sperg?
3435
« on: November 01, 2014, 04:54:42 PM »
Who?
3436
« on: November 01, 2014, 04:51:37 PM »
Well, first of all, good fucking luck to the Russians if they want to try colonizing anything with their garbage economy and old soviet technology. Just thought I'd say that Russian rockets are really fucking good.
The N1 engines developed by the Soviets over 40 years ago are still the best rocket engines ever produced.
OT:
No. Mars is huge, any Russians bases on Mars would probably be limited to a few hundred meters at most. And even then there is no way they are wasting any mass on weapons on a interplanetary rockets. You take the essentials and only the esstinals, you can't afford to waste mass.
Anything like missiles are far too heavy to take to Mars anyway.
The only thing they could do is shoot down rockets that are headed to Mars while they are launching on Earth, or possibly in Earth orbit, but then they'd just start a war here on Earth.
> mfw the old N1 engine is probably the reason the Orbital Sciences rocket exploded on launch the other day.
Probably, they fucking exploded. Those engines were built over 40 years ago though, nothing to do with the design, they're just too old. But the fact that they're still willing to use them, and have been used successfully on past launches even though they're older than most people on this site should tell you how good they are.
Nigga, you know what I mean. They're old.
Considering that use of old tech has pushed Orbital behind now, I wouldn't entrust the future of my company on it.
The design for the engines is better than any other designed engines to this date.
The engines used by Orbital were built over 40 years ago, they've been sat in a storage cupboard for like 30 years, no matter how good the design, the metal is still going to corrode and get damaged.
The N1 engines are better than any engines we have at the moment, but metal still corodes, and using engines built over 40 years ago probably isn't going to end well, I certainly wouldn't use those engines.
Although to give credit to Orbital, they're good at using reusing old technology.
Hmm apparently the company that's responsible for retrofitting those engines and then selling them to Orbital has struck a deal w/ Kuznetskov to build more. So I guess I concede.
3437
« on: November 01, 2014, 04:29:14 PM »
> people that wish to live as they'd like in a secular nation
> extremists
3438
« on: November 01, 2014, 04:26:03 PM »
Well, first of all, good fucking luck to the Russians if they want to try colonizing anything with their garbage economy and old soviet technology. Just thought I'd say that Russian rockets are really fucking good.
The N1 engines developed by the Soviets over 40 years ago are still the best rocket engines ever produced.
OT:
No. Mars is huge, any Russians bases on Mars would probably be limited to a few hundred meters at most. And even then there is no way they are wasting any mass on weapons on a interplanetary rockets. You take the essentials and only the esstinals, you can't afford to waste mass.
Anything like missiles are far too heavy to take to Mars anyway.
The only thing they could do is shoot down rockets that are headed to Mars while they are launching on Earth, or possibly in Earth orbit, but then they'd just start a war here on Earth.
> mfw the old N1 engine is probably the reason the Orbital Sciences rocket exploded on launch the other day.
Probably, they fucking exploded. Those engines were built over 40 years ago though, nothing to do with the design, they're just too old. But the fact that they're still willing to use them, and have been used successfully on past launches even though they're older than most people on this site should tell you how good they are.
Nigga, you know what I mean. They're old. Considering that use of old tech has pushed Orbital behind now, I wouldn't entrust the future of my company on it.
3439
« on: November 01, 2014, 04:11:50 PM »
International Space Treaty prohibits colonization, so no.
Wait, really?
Does that mean any form of putting humans on mars or does it refer specifically to claiming territory for a country/state?
Pretty sure that's just the moon. Even then, if it's the one I'm thinking about, the only countries that signed were ones that couldn't into space.
3440
« on: November 01, 2014, 04:09:59 PM »
Well, first of all, good fucking luck to the Russians if they want to try colonizing anything with their garbage economy and old soviet technology. Just thought I'd say that Russian rockets are really fucking good.
The N1 engines developed by the Soviets over 40 years ago are still the best rocket engines ever produced.
OT:
No. Mars is huge, any Russians bases on Mars would probably be limited to a few hundred meters at most. And even then there is no way they are wasting any mass on weapons on a interplanetary rockets. You take the essentials and only the esstinals, you can't afford to waste mass.
Anything like missiles are far too heavy to take to Mars anyway.
The only thing they could do is shoot down rockets that are headed to Mars while they are launching on Earth, or possibly in Earth orbit, but then they'd just start a war here on Earth.
> mfw the old N1 engine is probably the reason the Orbital Sciences rocket exploded on launch the other day. 
3441
« on: November 01, 2014, 03:52:02 PM »
I'm arguing with a libertarian here. I figured I'd just allow him that.
I don't label myself libertarian.
Well whatever you are, you profess a lot of views shared by libertarians.
3442
« on: November 01, 2014, 03:49:28 PM »
It's not freewill when an individual's mental state causes them to take their own life.
>free will
>existing
Pick one.
I'm arguing with a libertarian here. I figured I'd just allow him that.
3443
« on: November 01, 2014, 03:46:34 PM »
It's not freewill when an individual's mental state causes them to take their own life.
You could argue that is the strongest freedom there is.
When that choice is made by an individual of sound mental state. However in reality it is demonstrably true that most people that take their own lives are in fact not of sound mental state.
3444
« on: November 01, 2014, 03:36:03 PM »
I did for a time, but now that's in the past. Mostly.
I figured out what I'm meant to do with my life, I'm working towards that and I'm happy with it.
Feeling like a useless fuck is what made me choose to pursue what I'm pursuing now.
3445
« on: November 01, 2014, 03:33:33 PM »
It's not tyranny when an individual does not possess the psychological stability to actually make their own choices.
It's not freewill when an individual's mental state causes them to take their own life.
3446
« on: November 01, 2014, 03:25:10 PM »
Cam has joined the dark side.
3447
« on: November 01, 2014, 03:13:10 PM »
I don't think I could ever handle the hallucination ones. I'll stick to Cannabis
Pot isn't a psychedelic.
3448
« on: November 01, 2014, 01:43:31 PM »
I know. . .I'm ashamed of myself.
3449
« on: November 01, 2014, 01:42:39 PM »
suk my wiener UglyPenisrahna
noufgt
How many thousands of years have we had time to come up with a model that could explain, within the bounds of the laws of physics, how the universe could come to be? I think we've had plenty of time to come up with something. If there simply is no model, then we can only assume it is a supernatural act that made the universe. If you are an atheist, you must agree the laws of physics are faulty. And by that reasoning, you are unscientific and inexplicably wrong.
Here are your choices broken down:
1. The laws of physics are wrong
2. A supernatural act occurred
To go with option one is rather ignorant and unscientific. Any successful atheist scientists are simply in denial, are reserved in their talents to reason to just their skilled profession. God must be real.
> thousands of years
Actually physics has only been around for 500 or so years. Cosmology only became a science last century even now it's not exact.
Are you implying the fact that we don't have a complete theory of reality means that God must exist(not that I think that's possible, ever heard of Godel's incompleteness theorem)? Are you retarded? God of the gaps much? When Isaac Newton couldn't figure out how his inverse square law of gravity could explain the movement of more than a couple of bodies he assumed god must be responsible, he was wrong. This is the same thing, you wanna try again?
That's still dodging the question. If the universe's creation happened naturally, why can't it be explained? You don't even need math or measurements to answer the question why we have something rather than nothing. A God is the only thing that could do that, and thus by process of elimination we have proved His existence.
In saying an absence of such a theory proves god's existence you are essentially saying, "I can't prove god does or does not exist, therefor god exists." Dustbin, pls.
3450
« on: November 01, 2014, 01:30:34 PM »
suk my wiener UglyPenisrahna
noufgt
How many thousands of years have we had time to come up with a model that could explain, within the bounds of the laws of physics, how the universe could come to be? I think we've had plenty of time to come up with something. If there simply is no model, then we can only assume it is a supernatural act that made the universe. If you are an atheist, you must agree the laws of physics are faulty. And by that reasoning, you are unscientific and inexplicably wrong.
Here are your choices broken down:
1. The laws of physics are wrong
2. A supernatural act occurred
To go with option one is rather ignorant and unscientific. Any successful atheist scientists are simply in denial, are reserved in their talents to reason to just their skilled profession. God must be real.
> thousands of years Actually physics has only been around for 500 or so years. Cosmology only became a science last century even now it's not exact. Are you implying the fact that we don't have a complete theory of reality means that God must exist(not that I think we ever will)? Are you retarded? God of the gaps much? When Isaac Newton couldn't figure out how his inverse square law of gravity could explain the movement of more than a couple of bodies he assumed god must be responsible, he was wrong. This is the same thing, you wanna try again? Actually no, this is even worse than God of the gaps. If I were to have a complete theory of reality I could prove once and for whether or not god exists. In saying an absence of such a theory proves god's existence you are essentially saying, "I can't prove god does or does not exist, therefor god exists." Dustbin, pls.
Pages: 1 ... 113114115 116117 ... 144
|
Show Posts
