Jump to content

EKen132

WFG Retired
  • Posts

    2.036
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by EKen132

  1. Hm, well I am 17, so that has quite a bit to do with it I bet. :)

    Also, I really couldn't advise you on how to train, especially since my body really leans towards the mid distance races, and yours towards ld. Oh, and I'm not a coach :P.

    I can't imagine going faster than 6:20 or 6:25 per mile for 10k, and your thursdays sound like a beast. Does "inc" mean incline? If you're retired and running 8 mile tempos like that, you have no right to say I'm any better than you! ;)

    Oh, and to answer your question, 7:30 for 6-7 isn't really any problem while in season, 7:00 is usually less talking (I run with my team), but towards the end of the season, we can talk the whole way through a 7 miler at 7:00. It's funny since below 7:00, the amount of talking drops off sharply, and at 6:30 pace, we're all pretty much silent... at least after the first mile, then we realize we should stop talking bc it's so hard!

  2. Do you have issues with which you have deep problems. I mean, are there ways that you have discovered either around you or have heard to exist somewhere that you have problems with? Why? What, in those ways, do they cause you some disgust or distrust? Is there something that you think fundamental that is broken in such way?

    What are you talking about?

  3. In season for track or XC, it goes like:

    Monday: long distance, 6-7 miles at 7:00-7:30 mile pace

    Tuesday: up tempo run, 3-5 miles at 6:20-6:40 pace. a 40 minute or so lifting routine

    Wednesday: track workout, typically something like 400m repeats at 82 seconds or so, anywhere from 12 to 25 times.

    Thursday: see tuesday, or a meet, which for XC is 3 miles, just over 17:00, or for track could be a 800m (2:05), or a 1600m (4:45)

    Friday: see monday

    Saturday: another meet in season, some easier practice out of season

    Sunday: the day of rest! Huzzah!

    Intense workout schedule = less stress, look good, can eat a lot mmmm :);)

  4. Yiuel, I like that you have so thoroughly tried to analyze the subject.

    As for the abortion thing, here's what I have to say. What is the difference between abortion and plain old infancticide? Six months, and a world of difference on the conscience. Or what about killing the mentally retarded, who make no contribution to society, all quibs aside? It's a terrible, terrible thing to do, even to think about, because they have done nothing wrong. But they aren't of great use to anybody, but just another human being to have to take care of, one more mouth to feed. But we shouldn't ever do that.

    Oh, and the "make no contribution to society, all quibs aside... done nothing wrong, aren't of great use to anybody, just another mouth to feed and person to take care of" comments all apply to the unborn as well. Again though, I don't think we should ever do that. Unfortunately though, this happens thousands of times each day in the US.

    Whereas John said if he were an atheist, he would have a totally different take on things, I would disagree. It's not just a religious thing, it's a humanist thing in general. I just can't see how it's not killing someone totally innocent, because it is so obviously taking away another human life. Heck, I don't even see how it's constitutional, but that's a story for a different day, right?

    Wrong. I mean this is really simplyifying things, but ask yourself is a fetus human? Yeah. Is it living? Yeah. Does abortion kill it? Yeah. Is it innocent? The worst charge that can be given against it is that is was an accident.

    And about the war and death penalty. I can speak only for the Catholic Church, which did not support war as a viable option when Bush declared war. They don't support the death penalty either, if Pope John Paul II's homilies were worth anything. The Catholic church tries to be unconditionally pro-life in every sort of situation, and I have absolutely no problem with that. Heck, I am Catholic. :)

    And my thoughts on the original subject... was it illegal? No. Should they have changed it? Yeah, I think they could have come up with something better to say, but it certainly gets one thinking anyhow.

  5. I'd doubt the phrase is actually supposed to be taken in it's true and quite vivid meaning, as it would be quite hypocritical. I think it's more of a statement, albeit a poorly worded one. But it got you thinking, enough so for you to make a post here, and that is what is supposed to do- shock people, make them think. I think their reasoning is that you can be appalled at the idea of aborting the congress, then you might just happen to also realize how apalling it is that thousands of babies across the globe are aborted every day.

    BTW, that's not violence, at least that's not the word for it in English. Violence, as in the kind at a rally, is physical hitting or throwing stuff or breaking or vandalizing. This banner is supposed to have a violent message, but that doesn't mean the protestors are violent.

  6. Cheezy, do you at least agree that if the ran an experiment with a few hundred people over a summer who were all working on a project involving creativity, if the moon really influenced how they worked, there would be a correlation between moon fullness and productivity, if only slightly?

    I mean science isn't trying to ruin it for you, it's trying to prove it for you.

  7. Hey Bobby, I can see where you're coming from with this, but I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with some points.

    Probability theory tells us if you flip a coin, the odds of it being heads is 50/50, if infact that were true then the coin would land on its edge every time.

    No, first of all, the probability of it being heads is .5, and the tails probability is the same, but that means if you flip a coin an infinite number of times (or approaching an infinite number of times), .5 of the total number of flips will be heads, and .5 will be tails. It says nothing of landing on it's side, which is pretty much impossible anyways.

    "You must believe this, if you don't believe it you're not a well educationed trendy witted person", well didn't those same people believe a completely different reality 15 years ago? "oh but we've got it right this time", how are we supposed to take that seriously when quantum theory changes it's mind every 6 months.

    First of all, ignore all end-all be-all laws. Nothing in science is ever EVER a law. The laws of Newton, as brilliant as they are, stood 400 years before it was realized they didn't apply to objects moving near the speed of light. They were impeccable in everyday physics circumstances, enough so that they are still used, but they aren't the whole truth.

    The point of science is to get further, not to reach the end, because, frankly, that end will never be reached. Some people in every generation are convinced that they have seen some of the final moments in science, just as some from every generation are convinced that doomsday will surely happen in their time... neither of these things have happened. Anyone who is convinced they have made the final step in their science has been proven wrong, or will be.

    For example, say you want to know how much current is flowing through a wire. Probability theory will measure the current with a meter (100cm), it measures them 1,000 times, takes those values, adds them together, dividies by 1,000 (average them) and then it tells you that this is how much current is flowing through the wire. You look at the value and see, you took 1,000 measures but you never got this number Well then they'd say you have to average the probability in - but if you took 1,000 measures and none of them are what your result is, why should you believe thats how much current is flowing through the wire?

    Again, if you took an infinite amount of measurements, you would have to get exactly the right number. The chance variations on either side of the true measurements come closer and closer to cancelling each other out as the number of trials increases. That will tell you the current in the wire, given that your instrument is not faulty or consisentantly measures either more above or below the actual measurement.

    We shouldn't be asking how the universe will end but rather why it exists in the first place

    Which is a matter for the realm of religion and spirituality, "an even more flawed institution", in your own words.

    I think you are being too negative. I marvel at how something like the rate at which the velocity of a falling object changes can be expressed in mathematics and numbers... why is it even like that? that almost everything we know (quantum aside) can be described by numbers and math, this simple stupid system we made up for counting sheep thousands of years ago.

  8. To clarify, Jason's quote about the Kavkaz center refers to the first google result for "US bombing anarctica". The Kazkav center appears to be a news source, motto: "news facts analysis", that gives, I think, mostly editorials. The news often presents very gruesome pictures of dead children and bodies in Iraq at the top of the page, and seems to consistantly present only one side of the viewpoint. Anyhow, nice "news facts analysis".

  9. Geez, I didn't find either of those funny. I wonder what's wrong with me.

    Vit, I sure hope they don't think that is a representative sample of the American population where you're from. But if you find that fearsome, they just might. You know, that is a just a small segment of the population, and the producer obviously thought, "I'm going to find the dumbest people possible, and have no one else on the video". If you have nothing better to do, you can find a few idiots walking the streets of a US city and get them to say country names for the camera and fail to recognize that Australia is not Iran. Please, it's not fearsome... you could find that for any country on Earth, the US far from most of which.

  10. I would personally doubt this, as it doesn't seem to make any scientific sense. My guess is that you first noticed a correlation, and later the tie between the two grew in your mind as sort of a "placebo effect". If you earnestly believe the fuller moon increases your quality of work, you are more likely to try harder when the moon is full, and less likely to put in as much effort if you know your attempts may be doomed by a less full moon.

    It would be interesting to run an experiment in which you lose all track of the stages of the moon, then work on creative projects every night for two months and record your feelings on the work you got done and how efficiently you worked.

    Or even better, run an experiment with 20 people doing the same things (working on a creative project/projects nightly) and have them record the following for two months:

    -quality of new ideas on scale of 1 (-) to 10 (+)

    -efficiency on scale of 1 to 10

    -tiredness on 1 to 10

    -hours of sleep previous night

    -quality of diet (figure out a numical way to record this)

    -etc.

    Then you compile all their data and then put in moon fullness to see if there's any correlation. Anyhow, that's a lot of work, but it would figure out what you need.

  11. Yeah, to reiterate what John said, the cross is more meant to remind us of his death because without his death, Jesus could never have risen from the dead, which is pretty much one of the most central beliefs of Christianity.

    And the fish was an acronym, not just a representation of charity and goodwill. There were some other symbols, some still exist. The dove, and olive branch, the shepard and sheep, the whale (Jonah in the whale 3 days, Jesus in the tomb 3 days), fisherman and even anchors (not positive of the symbolism of that- I think it was like "anchoring your soul in heaven" or something...).

    I learned a lot of this while touring the catacombs in Rome. There was a ton of art in them.

  12. Holy crap! That's what I'd call an interesting conversation on HG. I'd call it some other things besides interesting, but let's leave it at that. Anyhow, if religion is the crutch for those too weak to find life has no meaning, satanism is the crutch for those to weak to have integrity. Talk about bacchal.

    Anyhow, Caesar, I think that you did sum up the atheist philosophy pretty well, at least the biological side of it. Everything we know has been from chance, and the things that had the wrong odds failed to reproduce.

    Here are some semi-related, and very cool links that your post reminded me of:

    http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/java/sc...csu/powersof10/

    darn, can't find the other one. I'll post it soon.

    YES! http://www.bigskyastroclub.org/pale_blue_dot.htm

    Man is that awesome or what.

×
×
  • Create New...