Umbobo

Registered bored user

cjeffblanchr wrote:
Okay, this is kinda stupid...  Simulated Martian soil is made of volcanic rocks from Earth and Pig Poop...  and the put the worms in it--on Earth.  So we take things that exist only on Earth, keep it in Earth's environment, and this simulates Mars?
cjeffblanchr wrote:
punko I wouldn't count on it.  As long as it's making money, they'll keep putting out SW movies.  I would expect the movie franchise to outlive us all.
cjeffblanchr wrote:
layla_wilson I'm pretty sure that even that would not have made it seem legit.
cjeffblanchr wrote:
squrlz4ever Couldn't agree more.  When I was young, of course we did stupid things too, but nothing compared to this, and most of the moronic things we see youth doing these days.  It's a wonder more of them aren't getting killed.

Wow, I've become one of those old guys complaining about these "damn kids"...  when did that happen?
cjeffblanchr wrote:
People are getting lamer and lamer.
cjeffblanchr wrote:
normalfreak2 You're right--it's not fair to lump all liberals together.  We all have a tendency to do it though, talking about the typical "liberal" or "conservative" agendas.  But there's many different branches within each--so, my apologies...  What I really mean is the more extreme liberalism that does want all guns banned.

Just curious though, in this regard, what is the "common sense" approach to gun control?  And would it really, honestly--in your opinion--stop things like the LV shooting from happening?


cjeffblanchr wrote:
normalfreak2 It doesn't make sense, and I agree that it's not right..  Much of the entire issue makes little sense, from both sides.  But if the liberals had their way, no one would have the right to any guns whatsoever, and this will not solve the problem.  I realize this kook's guns were legally purchased, but, I think it still stands that if he wanted to kill people, he would have found a way, regardless.
cjeffblanchr wrote:
lockner01 I'm just saying that I think he's not answering because you've yet to admit that perhaps you've let emotion get in the way and read things into his comments that weren't really there.  It doesn't matter... we all do such things from time to time.  I probably wouldn't answer any direct questions from someone either when they can't admit even the slightest mistake.  I mean, I don't think I've ever made any comment specifically condemning pedophilia, so do you think that means that I don't?  I'll bet if you can admit a small mistake, monk will directly answer your question.
cjeffblanchr wrote:
5cats Yep, and I think it's pitiful that they use such a tragedy to promote their long standing agenda of getting rid of guns.  It's disrespectful to the victims.
cjeffblanchr wrote:
lockner01 The anticipation of this argument is killing me.  Which one of you will give in first?  I think it should be you, as you really did seem to attribute something wrongly.  All you gotta do is admit that and it looks like he'll give you an answer.  Please don't make me wait any longer.
cjeffblanchr wrote:
lockner01 You're reading way too much into that, man.  Just because someone doesn't speak the words you want them to speak, exactly as you want them to be spoken, does absolutely NOT mean that they don't condemn something.
cjeffblanchr wrote:
lockner01 Why don't you link to it?
cjeffblanchr wrote:
lockner01 It is if it's intentional.
cjeffblanchr wrote:
lockner01 So saying "wow" somehow expresses sexual excitement?  That's seriously what you're saying here...  all I can say to that comment is  "Wow".  Oh no!  Did I just sexually assault you over the internet by saying "wow"?  Get a grip dude.
cjeffblanchr wrote:
lockner01 It seriously sounds like you're the one with the pedo-issue there, bud.  You sexualized a non-sexual comment.  That one backfired on you, bro.  Get some help.
cjeffblanchr wrote:
5cats Yeah, I think I heard there's like 40 or so murders in the US every day.  Where are all the public tears for all of them?

Not saying it's not a tragedy--of course it is.  But this is just a plea to get guns banned--the same old tactic.  I think it's sad that anyone would use such a horrible event as the LV shooting to try to promote their agenda.  If people are sick enough that they want to murder a mass of people, they are going to find a way, with or without guns.
cjeffblanchr wrote:
Fojos By killing them?
cjeffblanchr wrote:
I love watching Fool Us.  Shin Lim is so incredible--his performances are art as much as they are magic.
cjeffblanchr wrote:
scheckydamon This might be an idea for a reality tv show that I could actually watch.
cjeffblanchr wrote:
I'm surprised they didn't remove or change the word "Creator" while they were at it.
cjeffblanchr wrote:
I hope is fellow inmates quickly find out what this sick SOB did and take care of him appropriately.  It's so heartbreaking to see stories like this, and to see the evil that is in some people.
cjeffblanchr wrote:
People amaze me.  If something's not dangerous enough, they have to invent new ways to make it more dangerous.  Personally I am not a fan of pain and don't look for ways of potentially hurting or killing myself.  Not that this one is as bad as some of the stupid crap people do, but still.
cjeffblanchr wrote:
I've always felt like a mind with a body, regardless of religious belief--even at a time in my life where was not much of a believer.  ButI feel like there is a third option.  Mind could be a function of the brain, thus a body with a mind, but i also feel like there is more, which I would call the spirit, independent of the two, though connected to them.

But, I did just get back from the hospital where I was under the influence of some heavy pain killers and apparently, according to my sister, when they put one of those oxygen tubes on my nose I became convinced that I was a Bogart Firebeast.
cjeffblanchr wrote:
squrlz4ever We don't really know what a soul is.  I don't personally believe that we as humans will ever create true artificial intelligence.  I think we will create things that have the appearance of being such, but they will not have true consciousness, or a soul.

But, if we could, then such an entity could exist either within a simulation or within a physical body that we create for it.  If this is the case, then I suppose it's possible for them to have a kind of after life.  I mean, if they exist inside a simulation, and before their simulated form is destroyed, we upload it's consciousness to another form or simulation or computer or robot, then it would be like an after life to them.  But being within the confines of our own world, it could ultimately be destroyed completely.
cjeffblanchr wrote:
squrlz4ever Well, if all that is the case, then I suppose when I die, I just die and I'm gone from existence.  If this is the case, then the question is...  what was their point in doing it?  If they have a powerful enough technology to create a simulation such as this, surely they have achieved artificial intelligence, which is exactly what we would be--programs running of their own accord inside the simulation.  Why should we think that there's no possibility of an afterlife?

Your scenario is only one of many that could be the case.  For example, why would there be no possibility of an after life for me?  Why would we have to think that those creating the simulation are an actual future human race rather than some unknown species in a universe far different than ours?  Why even think that those who have created this simulation are anything like us?

Maybe the creator of the simulation is the creator that we know as God.  That would actually make sense, as He would be outside of our space and time.