You shouldn't have chosen that domain name. Otherwise it would have been double the funny due to being totally and utterly unexpected.
I'm still 5'ing it though.
I'm almost 100% certain this would not even have gotten above 4 were it not for the ending, but hell, it just works so amazingly brilliant that I'm fiving this because of it too.
I thought it was all right. Definitely edited really well. But then Sam yelled "WHOAAAAAAAA" and it was all over. Five'd and fave'd. You win the prize.
As I said above, I actually honestly don't know where I got this music. It was just sitting on my hard drive and I thought it fit perfectly, so I used it.
I don't care if this was taken from a magazine. The presentation was top-notch and added a lot more than what you get from reading a magazine. Great job.
And before someone accuses me of simply being blinded by hate or whatever due to my atheism, I'll say up front that I'm not atheist at all, and that I am, in fact, deeply religious - but I am such entirely due to silent contemplation about life and existence.
Of course, the obvious corollary of this is that it's of the utmost importance not to assure oneself of one's own perceived intellectual superiority and to question everything in life - to not simply believe in something without thinking about it. I'd wager, however, that certain people (cough, cough) find such a notion abhorrent, and would prefer instead to simply blame a group over there (atheists) completely separate from themselves (hint, hint).
Ultimately, people are led to mass murder based on blind faith and on the belief that one's own views are right to such an extent that one is led to feel that anyone who disagrees is the enemy who must be eliminated. This faith can be anything - that (insert minority) are inferior, that (insert religious adherents of your choice) are infidels, or anything else.
There's a fundamental difference between the motivations of those who went on the Crusades and those in the communist dictatorships of the 20th century. Those who went on the Crusades did what they did BECAUSE of their religion. Conversely, however, those in the communist dictatorships just happened to be atheist. Atheism didn't instruct them to kill anyone. Yes, communism requires atheism, but this does not mean that atheism will lead to communism or mass murder.
"Ugh. Let me simplify. If we can possibly know the path it took, it goesone definite path, and acts like matter. If we don't know and can never know the direction it acts like a wave." - Ah, okay, thanks; that's basically exactly what I wanted to know.
I'm not sure if I'm being clear enough regarding what I'm talking about, for which I apologize. I'm not talking about the detectors in part four, 5 light years away - obviously, this isn't going to happen. I'm just talking about a theoretical detector not found in these slides, much like the ones found in part 2, with the added features that it doesn't tell you what it saw until you ask for it and that you can erase what it saw without looking at it, and am simply curious what you'd see with it in use.
I'm not sure why you say that it can't be tested outright. Basically, my question is just this: if you can possibly know at a later time where the particle went, but if it's also possible for you to never know, which pattern would you see? Would the particle "know" in a sense whether or not you'd see the results in the future?
I also just realized that this was sortly partly answered above, for which I apologize. :) If you care to directly respond, though, it would be appreciated. This is fascinating stuff.
caused by a human knowing concretely the result, or if it's caused by a human having the POTENTIAL to know the result, whether or not he or she actually does.
Basically, the situation is that the information is stored, but the human has no idea what it is, and could conceiveably never know. Here's the question: would this produce an interference pattern or a non-interference pattern? Alternatively, if the detector recorded the info but could NEVER release it to the human (it always deletes it, say, a minute after recording, and produces no output), what would show here? I suppose the basis of my question is that I'm wondering if the non-interference pattern is
I have a question (that will have to be broken into multiple parts) I was wondering if you could answer, as this is really starting to get creepy in a "wow, that's really amazing" sort of way. Suppose you had a detector, but you rigged it such that it wouldn't tell you whether or not it detected anything until you prompted it for this result, and such that you could delete the recorded result, making it impossible to ever know what the detector saw.
Gabu's recent comments: