TheTickingTime-Bomb

There is a food chain and the last time I checked we're at the top of it. Cows are tasty and I'm going to keep eating them. Lots of them. And I'm going to keep drinking their milk. I don't care how they're slaughtered.

Like I said, if you don't want to talk seriously about this then shut the fuck up.

Tell that to the ants

What are you on about?

If you are trying to equate the nervous systems in cows which are sufficient to class as highly pain receptive to that of an ants, then once again; I'd ask you to read some books sir.

I absolutely loved this film.

I would urge Tarantino fan who has been put off him by the utter failure of Death Proof to give him another chance as this is now my favourite film of his so far.

The film jumps from arthouse to cartoon to stereotyped garbage, but somehow it is all brilliant!

Well, we can hardly release him on grounds that his conviction was a little iffy. He was convicted, and that is that.

Until proven otherwise, he should be treated like a mass murderer and rot in jail.

Guilty until proven innocent?

It's completely natural for us to eat meat, Chimpanzees, bonobos and other apes do. Just as choosing not to eat meat is natural(its a decision made by the human mind)

The only problem is that we have far too much of in our diets today

You give me the awful impression of someone who has never heard any of the arguments or read any of the books against your position.

The "natural" argument just doesn't cut it. We raped, killed and enslaved others in the past, so that is just as natural as eating meat. The problem isn't our health, it's the morality of our actions.

Eating dead animals is fine, but farming and enslaving them for our consumption is undefendable. Please read some books about this, I'd start with the Peter Singer edited Companion to Ethics and then start thinking seriously about it. Or if you don't want to think seriously about it - shut the fuck up.

I'm not a whiny vegan as I unfortunately eat meat and will not preach, but it sounds very much like people on this site haven't read any of the arguments from moral philosophers in the last 70 years, so it is the whiny "I've heard it all before" carnivores on this site who should shut the fuck up.

All I'll suggest is that you read at least some of Peter Singers books for a start and then maybe start to form part of an opinion in this debate instead of jumping in with the old "whiny vegan" routine.

I mean if we changed the subject ever so slightly to another highly unpopular moral progression then we have the almost analogous:

"I'm tired of these whiny anti-slavery people telling me to feel guilty and morally inferior. Oh and if someone tells me that they refuse to keep a slave then I just buy three!"

Gremlins....

I'm confused though...If you cant feed them after midnight when can you feed them.....As if you feed them at 8am thats after midnight or if you feed them at 10pm thats after midnight lol.....Am i being a dumb plum here?.

Nope I think you have a point.

Gremlins.

They are certainly the most poorly written of the mythical creatures.

Hans Landa made me want to exit the cinema. Creepy bastard.

He stole the show didn't he?

You've got to love the scene with Churchill and that english intellectual gentleman (and Mike Myers!).

The whole film was the most brilliant stereotype I have ever seen. The Yanks, Brits, French and Germans were basically cartoons, and at times it was like I was watching a TF2 "Meet the Soldier" video.

Meet the STIGLITZ!

Just saw Inglourious Basterds.

Yup.

Amazing.

Newsflash to OP, this drug is already available in Scotland.

Yeah it was a harrowing programme, but as usual, brilliantly made.

Not that many though, their studio trickery was mostly due to Martin. I'm not saying that there was no involvement from McCartney, Lennon et al. but they weren't largely responsible so to attribute advances in recording techniques to them is a little untrue. I would say on the whole that George Martin and Geoff Emerick were, for the most part, responsible for the studio trickery and recording techniques.

You miss my point though: The Beatles pioneered the conversion of the studio into an instrument. When Lennon decided to create (from the outset) a psychedelic song such as Tomorrow Never Knows, there was no precedent to the sound he wanted. George Martin was simply trying to do Lennons idea some sort of justice.

George Martin was good at recreating a live sound, but not until The Beatles asked him to had he ever thought of fucking around with the studio to make new sounds, namely because it was The Beatles that instigated it.

Read any account of The Beatles in the studio around '66 & '67 for a better insight into this.

The Beatles are by no means my favourite band, but I have perhaps the most convincing argument as to why they were the most influential.

The Beatles changed the face of recording by using the studio itself as an instument. Instead of trying to faithfully reproduce their live sound, they more than any other band managed to use the studio to create new soundscapes. They were the pioneers that laid the path all the way to Aphex Twin.

A few small notes aswell; The Beatles were the first band to include a lyric sleeve booklet in their albums, the first band to create music videos and the first band to use reverse guitar.

Nope nothing metaphysical about it. Light (is believed to) travel at a particular speed. It has a speed limit. For something to exist it must have either mass or energy. A speed limit sign on a road has mass for example. Where is the mass or energy of the law that says that light travels at this particular speed. These so called 'laws of the universe' possess neither mass nor energy so in strict terms these laws do not exist. Yet clearly they still apply. So perhaps all that stuff about something have to possess either mass or energy in order to exist is nonsense. It's necessary to take the blinkers off in order to grasp this concept.

I think I understand now.

You are saying that because the natural laws/universal constants themselves exist (we can observe the effects of their existence), but have no mass or energy, then we might be wrong about existing "things" requiring mass and energy. Well, just mass because all mass is energy!

Would this be analogous to asking why gravity which has no mass, exists?

Gravity is a force which is an effect of mass itself - so it does really exist in the form of mass. The laws of the universe are probably like this, an effect of the universe itself.

Existence really does depend on mass and energy. A thought for example has laws and is unobservable, but is simply an effect of physical activity in the brain which obviously has mass.

There is an accessible book about this sort of shit that I'd recommend called "The Never-Ending Days of Being Dead" by Marcus Chown which clears up in simple terms a lot of these beard-scratchers.

So your question was: where is the piece of mass, or quantum of energy that defines the speed of light. Or in simple terms where is that speed of light stored?

The answer is... in the photons which all light is made of!

Or do you mean: Where is the metaphysical idea of "the speed of light" as a measurement? Or something?

Science implies that for something to exist it must either possess mass, energy, or a combination of both. It also tells us that light travels at (hud on...) 670,616,629.4 mph.

So my question is: where is the piece of mass, or quantum of energy that defines the speed of light. Or in simple terms where is that speed of light stored?

Light is made of photons, which are particles (although they seem to think they are waves sometimes...) and hence mass.

This site gives me stomach ache.

I know it's all subjective, I realise you can't force personal opinions in matters of artistic taste onto others and I understand that there is fun to be had in guilty pleasure bubblegum pop music, but you are all fucking insane for even faintly enjoying the slightest segment of a subdivided fragment of that monotonous, wearisome and gravely appaulling "muzak".

Most of your guys questions would be answered by this:

Category mistake - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you are really interested, then read this.

Categories (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Aye, the decent beers ran out far too quickly last night. Silly busy as well, so it took even longer to get served by the pissed barstaff.

Thursday night was the bollocks, as it was relatively quiet and there was a full selection of beers.

Going to have to go back again today though, as i've still got 10 of tokens

Yeah, last night was very disappointing.

I only stayed for one and a half before deciding it was worse than Exodus.

Thursday was one of the best nights I've had this year though so it balances out.

This sounds like my cup of, err, beer. I shall seek it out tonight for sure.

It's in Bay 2 if that helps.

My hangover is steadily disappearing and my lust for "Trade Winds" is becoming increasingly apparent in my thirsty salivation.

I can't wait to try some more.

It's gonna be a good day!

"Trade Winds" by Cairngorm brewery was delicious and had a light fruity and elderberry aroma that I could smell from a distance! A perfect beer. Easily my top recommendation so far.

You should check out all of Highlands' beer. Orkney Best, Orkney Blast - all good.

Yeah I had one cider and it was a bit heavy for my tastes, but I can't complain about the beers as they went down beautifully all night.

It was drivel.

EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEgo.

Holy Jesus; this thread smells of the foul semen of desperate men.

Just get a fucking Mac.