Anonymous comments allowed.
#3266 - ferrettamer (11/05/2014) [-]
Math is a science, so yolo. Can anyone help me with this question?
#3264 - KINGOFTHESTARS (11/04/2014) [-]
I guess this is the most appropiate board.

Anderson cooper and neil harris are just as gay as perez hilton (since gay is an absolute)
why arent they faggots? Meaning, why dont they prance around like bitches and act all flamboyant?

Why is it that some gays act like women? Are faggots just being faggots or will they be inclined to act like women?

If women werent acting in the manners thst our society deemed feminine, would gays still act in a faggoty manner that we know of now? Or woukd they act in thatnfeminie manner that differs from our own?

If you could follow, try to explain this. I ask because its annoying as shit that the guy who lives next door to me wont stop being a faggot.

Also forgive my "language" im dead-ass serious asking these questions.

#3265 to #3264 - subtard (11/04/2014) [-]
Heterosexuals vary in how flamboyant they act too. The character Ron Swanson is probably the closest to zero flamboyance that I can think of. Daniel Tosh is higher up on the scale. But you can see from my graph that all gays are shifted to a similar distribution but at a higher flamboyance. I posit that once a gay person acts more flamboyant than the most flamboyant straight person, they achieve a state of superflamboyance which you may call a faggot
Within just the superflamboyant zone, as flamboyance increases, femininity increases exponentially. So I think gays only act more like societal females once they surpass the critical flamboyant point. If women acted differently in society, only the superflamboyant part of gays would change.
User avatar #3270 to #3265 - KINGOFTHESTARS (11/05/2014) [-]
Wait, so gay flamboyance before super flamboyance does not equal femininity?
User avatar #3271 to #3270 - subtard (11/05/2014) [-]
Mhm. Because if they're acting truly feminine they'll already be acting gayer than any straight man should.
User avatar #3272 to #3271 - KINGOFTHESTARS (11/05/2014) [-]
Thats gay.

Thanks for the response
User avatar #3261 - luigipimp (11/04/2014) [-]
is it safe to put nielmed and water into a enema bag and use it for a enema since it's just sodium chloride and sodium bicarbonate
User avatar #3275 to #3261 - coronus (11/08/2014) [-]
Probably not.

You would be drastically increasing the pH in your colon, and absorbing moderate strength base straight into your blood. While the blood is buffered against alkalosis, bicarbonate can settle acid reflux in fairly small amounts; so one can assume that blood, having a functional pH of 7.35 - 7.45, would be very sensitive to such an effective base.
User avatar #3277 to #3275 - luigipimp (11/08/2014) [-]
can i use just purified water?
User avatar #3279 to #3277 - coronus (11/08/2014) [-]
you could, but the best thing to do before trying an enema, or in conjunction with one, would be to use a stool softener and magnesium citrate.

If those don't loosen things up within 8-10 hours, then a water enema should be effective.
User avatar #3280 to #3279 - luigipimp (11/09/2014) [-]
i dont need loosening, just to cleanse
User avatar #3284 to #3280 - coronus (11/09/2014) [-]
In that case, go with the stool softener and magnesium citrate. It's the same combo used to cleanse the bowel for a colonoscopy, so it should suffice.
#3260 - anon (11/04/2014) [-]
Is there any evidence or logical foundation for the widely-accepted idea that there is an infinite (or at least very large) number of universes?
User avatar #3263 to #3260 - kugis (11/04/2014) [-]
String theory
User avatar #3262 to #3260 - sugoi ONLINE (11/04/2014) [-]
User avatar #3257 - rainbowrush ONLINE (11/03/2014) [-]
I'm doing some reading up on melatonin. If anyone want to point me at different kinds of research and tests involving melatonin, it'd help a lot. Or just some interesting stuff. I will be reading a lot on the subject, so what I find on wikipedia isn't necessary to comment on.
User avatar #3254 - suikerpapa (11/03/2014) [-]
I got an exam tomorrow for chemistry.
It's about acid-base stuff.
It's mostly pretty easy, once you get it. Especially things like buffers and amfolytes.
But I'm still stressing pretty hard.
Anybody who's good at chemistry got any tips to increase speed in calculating pH?
#3253 - alhemicar has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #3252 - zombiearmadillo (11/02/2014) [-]
Riddle me this, batmans.

Why does the exterior of a refrigerator hot but the interior cold? Hmmm? HMMMMM?
User avatar #3258 to #3252 - xsnowshark ONLINE (11/03/2014) [-]
Because the purpose of a refrigerator is to reject the heat that is inside the fridge to the air on the outside. It's the same thing that happens with an AC unit.
User avatar #3247 - sirnigga (11/02/2014) [-]
ok heres a joke why do niggers run so fast
natural selection
because the slower ones were eaten by lions
User avatar #3246 - ScottP (11/02/2014) [-]
Quick question:

If a person (a) of mass 130 kg and person (b) of mass 60 kg are standing a distance -d- from each other on a frictionless surface, and they are holding a light rope between them and they pull, the two people meet at a distance of 3.8 m from person (a)'s original position. How far was the original distance between them?

How do I go about solving this problem? I feel like the Fnet x) for both would be ma = Fpull 1 - Fpull 2, but I'm not really sure how to proceed.
User avatar #3249 to #3246 - carbohydrates (11/02/2014) [-]
Assuming they both exerted the same amount of force pulling them towards each other...
And also assuming my dumb brain is going about this problem the right way...

130/60=2.166, so then person B would be pulled 2.166 times the distance person A was pulled.
3.8*2.166=8.230m person B is pulled, add back in the 3.8m person A traveled, and you get 12.030m total.
Alternatively; 60/130=.4615, so person A traveled 46.15% of the distance person B will.
100 (% distance person B travels) / 46.15 (% of person B that person A traveled) = 2.166 (times more traveling).
Which leads back to 3.8*2.166+3.8=12.030m total distance traveled.

Or... To account for every decimal point 130/60*3.8+3.8=12.03333333 (repeating infinitely).
#3244 - dentalplan (11/02/2014) [-]
It's not rocket science that everyone needs a dental plan!
User avatar #3242 - darealsnooki (11/01/2014) [-]
South Carolina gets 1 inch of snow, but Oklahoma gets just only three snow falls a year, and are always thin.

#3267 to #3242 - anon (11/05/2014) [-]
Look up the principle of Continentality.
User avatar #3259 to #3242 - pinecest (11/04/2014) [-]
Oklahoma gets less precipitation than South Carolina because SC is in the swamps and OK is in the plains.
User avatar #3248 to #3242 - sciencexplain (11/02/2014) [-]
Honestly, I couldn't tell you why. I don't know much about US states or their locations to give you an idea of weather behaviour. Sorry.
User avatar #3250 to #3248 - darealsnooki (11/02/2014) [-]
You gave me a reply, so if that is all you can give, I'm happy
User avatar #3335 to #3239 - xtwinblade (11/23/2014) [-]
People still believe we haven't been on the moon?
User avatar #3238 - lyder (11/01/2014) [-]
I just wanted to share, though it might already be known.
A couple days ago in Biology they spoke of a natural process in all cells called apoptosis, and from what I gathered, it's "cell suicide", a process in which a cell offs itself if it is damaged beyond repair or otherwise cannot function properly anymore.
Cancer causes this function to cease, well, function. So cancer = no more apoptosis. If someone were to figure out how to reinstate this key natural function to cancer cells, boom, cure for cancer. My point is, in this case:
suicide is the answer.
User avatar #3240 to #3238 - thegrohltroll (11/01/2014) [-]
Chemotherapy does basically that but it fucks up the entire body. right now they can't target just the tumor cells.
User avatar #3236 - lolwtfbbqryan (10/31/2014) [-]
Alright guys, I'm thinking of doing a 118 part post. One for each of the elements. It would have facts, its properties, the person/institute that discovered it, ect. Just checking to see if you guys would be interested in it.
User avatar #3230 - xtwinblade (10/30/2014) [-]
in a way, in our contemporary world view, it's easy to think that science has come to take the place of God. But some philosophical problems remain as troubling as ever. Take the problem of free will. This problem has been around for a long time, since before Aristotle in 350 B.C. St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, these guys all worried about how we can be free if God already knows in advance everything you're gonna do. Nowadays we know that the world operates according to some fundamental physical laws, and these laws govern the behavior of every object in the world. Now, these laws, because they're so trustworthy, they enable incredible technological achievements. But look at yourself. We're just physical systems too, right? We're just complex arrangements of carbon molecules. We're mostly water, and our behavior isn't gonna be an exception to these basic physical laws. So it starts to look like whether its God setting things up in advance and knowing everything you're gonna do or whether it's these basic physical laws governing everything, there's not a lot of room left for freedom
User avatar #3245 to #3230 - nimba (11/02/2014) [-]
free will is just an illusion of complexity, anything else is a belief in magic
User avatar #3235 to #3230 - xsnowshark ONLINE (10/31/2014) [-]
There are portions of quantum theory that agree with the concept of free will.

As far as a person being like a system, that is HUGE over-simplification, but in general correct. Even simple systems can behave strangely, though.
User avatar #3221 - bionicpanda (10/30/2014) [-]
I think it's sad that i won't live to see the colonization or even exploration of deeper space
User avatar #3234 to #3221 - xsnowshark ONLINE (10/31/2014) [-]
I think that you might be a little premature in that statement.
#3192 - chimi ONLINE (10/29/2014) [-]
hey i was just wondering what you guys think of this quote
User avatar #3227 to #3192 - coronus (10/30/2014) [-]
The problem I have with this is that it makes a few assumptions about something nigh unknowable, and certainly not testable.

namely, that evil can't be part of a Gods plan, and that a being outside reality fits into human definitions of malevolence and goodness.

If able and willing, but also the creator of evil, then the question has to be why evil is, and what would make it necessary, if one is to defend God as omnipotent and/ or omniscient.

If one were to defend from the jeudo-christian perspective, then the first portion of genesis wherein evil has already entered the picture, and God still deems creation done and "good", and mandates a period of rest to celebrate, then evil is both inherently good, and apparently necessary. From the same perspective, the why would be for the change and regulation of creation's growth (death, disease and predation, i suppose), and for the personal growth of the species destined to be His "favorite creation".

Evil in the last case serves as the driving force behind human tragedy and cruelty, which in most cases leads to the personal growth and strengthening of the victim, and could be thought of as the impetus for the creation of altruistic values, organizations, and societal norms, which operate towards the active proliferation of good for humanity and its home. Without both, the world would be rather static and unsatisfying.
User avatar #3220 to #3192 - bionicpanda (10/30/2014) [-]
someone shop a fedora on his head pls
#3198 to #3197 - chimi ONLINE (10/30/2014) [-]
im aware, i put this on both boards because i wanted to know how both sides view the quote. simple curiosity
User avatar #3199 to #3198 - ecomp (10/30/2014) [-]
So are you saying that religious people don't know anything about science?
#3200 to #3199 - chimi ONLINE (10/30/2014) [-]
never said that. like i said, curiosity on the views of both boards on this particular quote
User avatar #3201 to #3200 - ecomp (10/30/2014) [-]
You implied it. Athiest shill
#3202 to #3201 - chimi ONLINE (10/30/2014) [-]
while yes i am an atheist i believe in getting both sides of the story hence this being on both boards and like i said before this is just curiosity. if you want to throw baseless accusations because you've been triggered then i suggest you take a moment and think of a reasonable response instead of jumping to conclusions
User avatar #3203 to #3202 - ecomp (10/30/2014) [-]
Why do you assume that only athiests are on the science board?
User avatar #3251 to #3203 - leightonsolomon (11/02/2014) [-]
Probably because 97% of scientists are nonreligious. He was just wondering what we thought
User avatar #3256 to #3251 - ecomp (11/03/2014) [-]
lol niggggggggggggaaaaaaaaaaaaa
#3204 to #3203 - chimi ONLINE (10/30/2014) [-]
again jumping to conclusions

1. me being one has no relation to why this is on the science board. there is no atheist board so i thought this is a good 2nd option


2. religion and science are often on opposing sides so i thought this would create a wider selection of views as opposed to putting this in the NSFW brony board

please refrain from putting words in my mouth.
User avatar #3205 to #3204 - ecomp (10/30/2014) [-]
CHIMI'S don't tell me what to do faggot MOUTH
#3206 to #3205 - chimi ONLINE (10/30/2014) [-]
you are a persistent troll indeed. hey i already said everyone gets a thumb up if they post regardless of stance. if that's what you're after just post a bunch of times you don't need me for a back and forth
User avatar #3207 to #3206 - ecomp (10/30/2014) [-]
You think I'm in it for thumbs? Try again, retard.
#3208 to #3207 - chimi ONLINE (10/30/2014) [-]
would you like me to downvote you then, is that what you're looking for buddy?
User avatar #3209 to #3208 - ecomp (10/30/2014) [-]
is that a threat?
#3210 to #3209 - chimi ONLINE (10/30/2014) [-]
no you honestly seem like that's what you're looking for based on that link, I'm just trying to accommodate since i said everyone gets voted up since that's what most people want but if you want the opposite just say so and I'll give them to you
User avatar #3211 to #3210 - ecomp (10/30/2014) [-]
I don't whore myself out, faggot.
#3212 to #3211 - chimi ONLINE (10/30/2014) [-]
that's good don't sell yourself short. i believe you can accomplish much more with your mind than with your body
User avatar #3213 to #3212 - ecomp (10/30/2014) [-]
Are you calling me ugly?
#3214 to #3213 - chimi ONLINE (10/30/2014) [-]
I'm sure you're a beautiful human being, I'm sure you'd make a fine whore if you so choose
User avatar #3255 to #3214 - ecomp (11/03/2014) [-]
User avatar #3228 to #3214 - ecomp (10/30/2014) [-]
#3232 to #3228 - chimi ONLINE (10/30/2014) [-]
yes you should strive for happiness for you deserve it friend
User avatar #3222 to #3214 - ecomp (10/30/2014) [-]
So now the world is ALL mine huh? What about poor kids in Africa, huh? What about them?
#3226 to #3222 - chimi ONLINE (10/30/2014) [-]
they'll never be as amazing as you
User avatar #3217 to #3214 - ecomp (10/30/2014) [-]
You support me selling out my body? I just told you that I DON'T
#3218 to #3217 - chimi ONLINE (10/30/2014) [-]
I'm sure you will excel in whatever field you enter, the world is your oyster. you can do it
User avatar #3215 to #3214 - ecomp (10/30/2014) [-]
So KNOW I'm a whore?
#3216 to #3215 - chimi ONLINE (10/30/2014) [-]
if that's what you want i support it
User avatar #3196 to #3192 - tmstyrant (10/30/2014) [-]
big booty hoes are dope
#3193 to #3192 - chimi ONLINE (10/29/2014) [-]
also anyone who comments gets an automatic thumb up from me, regardless of stance
#3191 - surveydude (10/29/2014) [-]
Hi. I'm doing some work related to sleep. If you could take 1 minute to fill out a survey, that'dhelp me a lot: You need to login to view this link
User avatar #3190 - alhemicar (10/29/2014) [-]
if the proportions of the tangents of the halfangles of a triangle are 6 ÷ 10 ÷ 15 (algebraic - tan(α/2) ÷ tan(β/2) ÷ tan(γ/2) = 6 ÷ 10 ÷ 15) and the half radius of it's circumscribed circle equals 7*√3, then how big is the angle θ under wich you see the median line of the triangle from the center of the circumscribed circle ?
 Friends (0)