Rosbjerg

I don't have much time for playing anymore so I usually pick games that I can play once or twice a week without having to think to much back .. so it's usually stragety games! right now I'm playing Rome Total War with the Realism mod .. a good game to play for and hour once in a while!

:D damn you really don't take anything serious do you?? ^_^

I think you misunderstand me .. My point the entire time has been, that what you see is just your minds interpretation .. hence it's not trustworthy in a scientific sense! but really useful when searching for your own thruth and own meaning .. since you can analyse yourself by analysing your perception of reality! and my romantic view, I discovered, is very close to Robert M. Pirsig's concept of "Quality"! which he elaborates on in his books "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" and "Lila" .. which would take an extremely long explanation .. but in an essence, which is really not doing justice to the idea, it's saying that the world is composed of nothing but moral values!

digged up my Manu Chao - Clandestino from my cd pile .. great stuff .. especially for chillin'!

that should be good for all those Bao-dur lovers (and those who want that literally) out there .. ^_^ "only fair General .. I do owe you more than one!" haha

Well it *is* your peice of art! but I'm trying to make a Zen Buddhist sig now .. but I really stink! hehe ..but pratice never hurts (in this regard)! So wether draakh_kimera can use your Sig or not depends on my words, then I say let him!

and more importantly .. what's up with your Hasselhof fetich??

hehe .. nah it's just the cardinal! otherwise it's perfect, I just can't bend my mind around what I would replace him with, so I'm strongly considering about trusting in your initial artistic instincts! and since you have made it I feel kinda cheesy wanting to change it, I mean it is your art!

we've probably aint seen nothing yet! this is the time of milking, and SW is more than ripe for a sucking-dry-harvest!

I can repeat my former post, and you can repeat yours, indefinitely .. The problem is; you view the world in the 'classical' logical sense, while I view it in the 'romantic' one .. thus you will apply your rules to my world view, which can't be done, and I will apply mine to yours, which is equally futile .. But because I'm as stubborn as you I won't back away from an argument, so even though this is going to sound like a broken record .. here goes.. 1. I'm not confusing anything, I perfectly understand your way of thinking, I just don't believe in it .. and, in my opinion, if a part of a system is wrong, it's a general indication that fallacy is about! and you believe in the perfection (not as a state of perfection, but as a road to) of the system, which I don't either.. Since to me human perception is faulty and science *is* (in my view) based on human perception .. so no matter what it *will* (in my view) contain mistakes .. 2. and you can point all you want it still doesn't prove anything to me .. since you are pointing at your own interpretation of you percieve to be a computer .. which is something completly different to me .. for all I know we might not even see or experiance the same thing! indeed it might not even be there and this is just a very (very) strange dream of mine where I'm arguing with different sides of my own personality .. (and in a sense I am .. but that's another story for another time) and I don't need to prove anything, because I can't .. you (or anyone else) will *never* be able to see what I see .. hence it's futile! and how would you prove the computer exist? .. ahh see now I'm applying my rules on yours, since in your mind the computer exists simply because it's there .. and I won't trust my perceptions .. this really is quite meaningless! but fun nonetheless ..

okay then I'll withdraw from this discussion as I'm only drawing it offtopic .. :">

as I quoted and thus I quote again.. "Even more interesting, but also left unreported, is the fact that from 1946 until 1975, while industrialization expanded and carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere increased, urban surface temperatures actually cooled. At the time, many in the media feared a new ice age" plus there has been a decrease of 0.19 degrees on average 5 miles up .. how do you explain that? when the greenhouse theory states that all of Earth, including the atmosphere, should increase in temperature! and as I stated, and as every biologist will tell you .. if you increase the amount of CO

shh! that might attract Wieser .. but as I said I'm trying to mix something togehter as well .. But it's taking alot longer than I though, because I don't have alot of wierd images lying around .. and my photoshop-skills are .. well let's just say that my avatar is about the best I can do! " :">

I'm not disagreeing that the temperature will eventually rise, and that an iceage will come again .. but I don't think we are the cause of it, since the world has gone from searing hot to balls-falling-off cold several times before we even evovled (were 'invented'/made or whatever rocks your boat) .. I saw a Discovery program about the Cretaceous period, where temperatures where much higher than today .. and the general level of CO

Do you believe GW (Global Warming) is true? are we causing the increase in temperature of this planet? comment please.. and then my layout of the situation .. (I found a few websites which I agree on, so I will loosely quote them and copy parts of their text into my own), but to avoid being called a copycat I will link to their sites:

funny.. We are doing our taxes these days as well.. I got about 500 dollars back .. lovely! :D

well at thursdays it's 30 kr unless you come before midnight, then it's free .. but yesterday it was 150 for boys and 100 for the ladies (the disco is celebrating it's 10 year "birth"day), but since I know the owner I got in for nothing! hehe :D so it was dirt cheap alcohol and lots of drunk girls .. but we Danes can hold our liquor, so it was more like a party-frenzy than all out barfing! (no fighting suprisingly, guess it was due to the fact that is was 1 guy for every 3 gal') and that would be cool! .. a dark, make fun of popmusic, sig would be awesome!

there's free beer every thursday for a few hours .. this time it was just all night (free champagne as well) and every drink was 10kr.. same tonight! -> -> and to the last sig: lol, you know that you are going to be lynched if you use that right? ^_^ but it's mighty cool nonetheless!!

No, I'm not using science to define science. I'm telling you what science *is*. How to arrive at science. 1. You seem confused by proof. No, you can't prove a _negative_, but you can prove something does happen. Start with the same conditions, repeat the same steps, and get the same conclusion then you have science. It is this repeat ability, this testability, the verifiability of an experiment that makes things scienitific. If something fails and you don't get the same results then you go back and look at your experiment. Did you screw it up? Was something else different in the conditions? Etc. 2. Also, you seem hung up on the freshman psychology apparent paradox of perception and communication. When you start to speculate that our perceptions and understanding of the world is so fallible as to make science a matter of faith and not one of describing the actual workings of the universe, well, I have to ask you for the extraordinary evidence to back up your speculation. It is an extraordinary claim, so it would need extraordinary evidence to overcome, say, the evidence around that has come about since, oh, the Industrial Revolution. ;-) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> 1. Since we don't share the same world view I don't think we will ever agree on this .. you trust what can be measured, repeated and proved by math, I just view it as a religion like everything else .. Scientific theories can be seemingly perfect and all indications may point to the fact that this particular atom will do like this, but suddenly a new theory arises, on a even smaller scale it did something completely different, and the first theory was inadequate and even wrong .. So in my mind that makes the entire system fallible, since we will never (at least not in any comfortably forseeable future) be able to grasp *everything*, so we will never be able to fully explain the systematics of the Universe .. and when the picture is incomplete then you will never truely know if it's wrong or right, no matter how consistent it is! (imo) 2. I could ask you for the same .. prove that what you believe is 100% right! neither of us can .. sure you think you are closer since you have a more intricate system, but imo that's eluding yourself, like you think I am.. complexity and consistency is never foolproof evidence! but you are searching for a 'truth' none-the-less .. and I respect that!

Would you mind elaborating a little on that? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I thought you liked researching? " oh well .. it's a certain time of the year when the newspapers etc run out of interesting news and start focusing on less .. serious .. topics..

to summarize this topic .. (w00t) (w00t) :D :D :ph34r: (w00t) :">

When I look upon a flag waving in the wind .. I know that it is not the flag, but my mind that is swaying.. (and that's Zen not Matrix) It's all a matter of perspective .. and I won't agree with you on this particular matter since I believe (and I stress that word) you can't trust, in the scientific sense, on senses.. But I do respect your beliefs, I just wanted you to acknowledge that they were just that .. beliefs..

this is what we in Danish call "agurke-tid" or "cucumber-time" ..

Not quite. Science is verifiable, is testable. Religion isn't either of those. The best one sentence definition of science I've see is: Science is what you can write down, send to a colleague, and have them reproduce your results. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You are still using science to prove science.. that's like using religion to prove religion! Sure it seems very probable .. but that doesn't make it 100% right either! Science is theories, which are never truely proven! since it's impossible to do that .. + When you can't even trust your own senses, or perception of the world, how can you believe what others have observed and calculated with a set of rules made by third person? and knowing how fallible humans are, well .. I think it's very good to have a healthy degree of scepticism to everything around you, especially what others tell you is the thruth! (and I'm not saying that I'm telling it, since I don't have any 'true' answers either!)