Jump to content

Kazeko

Members
  • Posts

    1,521
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Kazeko

  1. I think because there's a lot more 'stereotypical accents' going on in America than there seem to be in other places. -shrug- Maybe because immigrants tended to come over in and/or fall into groups that kept their languages (and therefore accents)?
  2. No, because eating fried chicken in and of itself isn't stereotypical. A black person going out of his/her way to eat fried chicken every day, while loudly proclaiming "I love fried chicken!" or something similar... I don't want to say "setting his/her race back", because it's just fried chicken, but it is something that I'd find annoying. (Well, if it was *because* they were black, if they just like fried chicken then who am I to judge? So do I.)
  3. I don't hate races per se, but I hate the stereotypes attached to races, and I hate it when they're perpetuated (especially by people of that race). Like the "sassy black chick". Where did that even come from? Is it supposed to be funny? It's just annoying. :/ Although I suppose it's not such a good example because I would hate that behavior no matter whose it was.
  4. Navy FIRES THEIR LAZORS. Butseriously, did anyone else notice that the thing is called HEL, and it makes fire? HELfire? Oh, scientists and their punny acronyms.
  5. Lord of the Rings FTW! Epic fantasy, in both senses. Although have you read Earthsea? I'd say Ursula K LeGuin runs Tolkien at least a close second. ;D
  6. Birrrrrrrrrrds. Yesyes. Aves aves! <3 Me gustan mucho los pájaros. Also atm Hanna Is Not A Boy's Name. Idk why.
  7. OHMYGODTHOSEROBOTSARECOOL. Ah, if we had one, our robotics team would own x3 actually probably not, they'd be hugely hard to control. But wait till they download, say, Watson into one of those things. I'm betting that by 2100, we have androids integrated into society. Probably by 2200, we have android civil rights movement.
  8. My robotics team--FIRST, idk what yours was, but FIRST does have a Lego robotics division--uses Labview, which is an image language. Which is too bad for me, because I hate image languages. Apparently we just switched over from C++, a text-based language. Why couldn't we have stuck with that? Text-based languages make so much more sense... It is a language, after all.
  9. I have this recurring nightmare where I'm drowning in a deep river, the only water in an otherwise dusty, dead landscape. It used to be green, clearly, because there's small withered dead tree-shrub things everywhere, but now it's all cracked brown earth and dead brown plants, and a great big river. It varies slightly each time: Usually I'm walking with someone, but sometimes I'm alone; sometimes I fall, sometimes I'm pushed, sometimes I just decide for whatever idiotic reason to go for a swim. Sometimes I'm just drowning, but other times I'm being swept towards a waterfall... and I'm trying to swim against the current and reach shore, but it's much too powerful.
  10. At risk of killing the synesthetic-- "Alex"? How about "Daniel"? I think I'm mildly synesthetic--it's not something I notice normally, but some words have colors associated with them. "Alex" I would call a sort of medium purple. "Daniel" is a kind of orangey gold with maybe a touch of green.
  11. Do you read Discworld, by any chance?
  12. Some robotics teams use C++ to program their robots. I wish ours did--we use LabView. I'm much better at textual languages than image languages...
  13. I'm working on learning Python atm... Any other suggestions for languages? I should probably learn emacs, too. And Ruby. And does anyone use Java anymore?
  14. SWEET RAPTOR JESUS ON A BICYCLE. YES. Can we have lightsabers now? Please?
  15. Well, I know the foxes are real. I don't know if that particular site is legit.
  16. http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/03/...ls/ratliff-text http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enrLSfxTqZ0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDb27ZP9zEE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesticated_silver_fox http://www.sibfox.com/media/ I've been told this site may be a hoax, but I don't really trust the place I saw that--I wouldn't trust the site just to be on the safe side. I want one so badly. It'd probably be really expensive, though. And I'm off to college in a few years. And it might eat my birds. But I can still dream! So it turns out that tameness has a phenotype. What I'm wondering is, when will we start genetically modifying normally untamable animals into domestic subspecies? What will that mean for the wild species? It seems like it could work really well. In places with tigers or lions, for example, where the farmers are killing off the cats to protect their livestock--what better way to keep away the big predators than with a domesticated lion or tiger? Security would get ten times scarier, that's for sure. Apparently, National Geographic also thinks that elephants have never been domesticated. o_0 From that national geographic article-- "Wildcats are the only animals known to have domesticated themselves." Sounds pretty catlike to me.
  17. Ah, bearded dragon! I wanted to call it a chinese water dragon, so I wasn't half off. Except for that chinese water dragons don't look anything like that, but, well. Name-wise.
  18. Similar in purpose, yes. Different in method. Religion is primarily based around stories. Stories of how the earth was made, stories of why humans are human, stories of why rain falls or why tides change or why volcanoes exist. Which is all very well and good--stories in the right contexts can be very powerful--but doesn't hold up to examination. If you go and look, you'll see there isn't a dragon underneath that mountain, and that rain falls because water condenses in the clouds, and that tides change because of the gravitational pull of the moon (and to a lesser extent, the sun). I'm not even going to touch the first two, but you see my point. Science, on the other hand--good, hard science, physics and biology and geology--is the method of going and looking. Religion relies, in a sense, on the ignorance of its believers. Most myths are invalidated by knowledge (again, not touching creation myths). Science can be proven by anyone who cares to go look. Most mythology can be disproven by anyone who cares to go look, or at least be forced to change drastically. There's a very key difference there. If people put their faith in science, that is a problem, one that is caused by lack of education, among other things. If science is treated as a faith, then it ceases to be science. There's a major problem here: one thing that religion provides is a set of moral standards. Science is not a religion; science is a method of inquiry and logic. If a person tries to turn to science for their morals, then they will wind up a totally unethical being. I'm not saying that anyone who is not religious is amoral. I'm saying that anyone who equates science with religion, and treats it as their one and only religion, then they will become amoral.
  19. There's a reason GIRL is an acronym, you know. (I'm joking, people.) Although etymologically, "girl" used to be a term for any child, male or female. So if you tell any kid that "You throw like a girl," then you're right. Back OT, I don't have anything against online relationships, but I don't think I'd carry one on myself. I couldn't stand not knowing who the person really was who it said it was.
  20. Is that a--? Yes, I think I can say that it is. EPIC NOM. I always wanted a lizard, but for some reason my parents refuse to let me have scaly pets. (Aside from my birds, ofcourse.) That's a... what is that? It looks familiar but I can't for the life of me remember what it is.
  21. One of them. I think the four-wheels thing is just another kind of angel, not part of the cherub itself, but I could be wrong. Interesting fact (unless I'm talking out my metaphorical hat): "God" in the original Hebrew is referred to with a plural noun. However, it is treated as a singular noun in context, and is only treated as a plural when referring to non-Hebrew pagan pantheons. He. Pagan pantheons is a funny phrase.
  22. Kazeko

    2011-03-16 - New Eggs

    Caveborn, in fact, but yeah. Most sites have some similar term--on Magistream, it's SB (Streamborn or Shopborn).
  23. Er... what? You say you don't refer to scientology, but if so, what are you referring to? Science is not faith, not even close. Science is, in a sense, the antithesis of faith--specifically, faith is belief in something despite a lack of proof, or sometimes even in contradiction of proof or reason. Science, on the other hand, follows a predetermined set of logical principles and accepts nothing without absolute, irrefutable proof and copious experimentation. Science, in its purest form, is the definition of skepticism. Science is not religion. Not even close. That's not to say that there aren't those who treat it as a religion, but if science is religion, then it ceases to be science. Well, yes. o_0 That's part of the point of science, to explain everything. Therefore, science is far more interested in finding a way to explain things that it hasn't figured out yet. And if that explanation is "The whole thing is crap," well... what can you do? Although I will disagree with your phrasing. There's nothing science can't explain, with sufficient knowledge. There are only things it has yet to explain. "Soft sciences" are things that are considered suspect, because of the difficulty of finding proof, conflicting reports, difficulty in determining how to experiment, and that the findings cannot be duplicated. The paranormal is what I like to call a "pillow science", that is, really, really soft. Um, yeah, that's called "healing". And "scars". I'd like to see a report of these "demon attacks" from a reliable source. Has there ever been any scientific examination of these "hauntings"? Also, I don't think either of those angels are biblical angels. This is a cherub. This is a seraph. Seraphim also seem to be closely related to snakes. This is an ophanim. Hashmallim are described; Biblical angels are damn freaky, when you come right down to it. The second one is probably closer, but nonetheless, it's not a series of nested wheels covered in eyes, it's only got two wings, and only one head. Although as far as I've found, the Bible doesn't describe its angels very well.
  24. Kazeko

    2011-03-16 - New Eggs

    I freaking love those fuzzy hatchies. <3 and if they are what I think they are, the adults will be awesome, too. SO FREAKING FUZZY. -squee-
  25. Nah, I'm not saying what they're doing isn't harmful, or disgusting and wrong. I'm just saying, there are so few of them--and they're not exactly getting any more members--and they're almost all just this one guy's family--they're not worth worrying about. They're bugs. Cockroaches, if you like, but I kind of like cockroaches, so I won't make the comparison--but nonetheless, they're pests. Botflies, maybe. They're certainly disgusting enough. They're not worth hating. We could, maybe, try to smack them, but unfortunately there are laws about that, and most of the time they're good laws. It's just that they protect these kinds of trolls, as well as normal decent people. If they were on the internet, they'd be ignored (and probably banned from everywhere but 4chan); they're just trolls, and nothing more. They're not on the internet, probably because none of them knows two shits about computers, but there's no reason they shouldn't receive the same treatment in real life. The more attention they get, the more you feed the trolling. They can't be taken seriously. That just encourages them, and besides, the stuff they say makes no ****ing sense. I don't know if they genuinely believe what they say, or if they're mask-trolling, but anyone who goes bashing "Fag Jew Nazis (they're worse than regular Nazis)" just... can't be taken seriously. I mean, that's like bashing ninja pirate bears (they're worse than regular bears). Not only do they not exist, the idea is so patently ridiculous it's just... I mean, really?