 |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
|
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - - Posts by Kutske |
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 |
| User | Post | ||
Kutske                   Since: 11-19-05 Last post: 6659 days Last view: 6659 days |
| ||
| Power Menu (http://www.veridicus.com/tummy/programming/powermenu/)
It's for adding four options ("Always on Top," adjust Transparency, adjust Priority and "Minimize to Taskbar") to the sub menu when you right-click anything on the taskbar. It sounds like a great addon to me (I've been looking for a way to "Always on Top" at-will for a long while now) but I'm no super tech-head, so I figured I'd run this by you guys first to see if you can find anything glaringly wrong with it. Also, what does this mean...? Originally posted by The Website I Just Linked To They lost me at "command line arguments." >_> What? I'm err...better with DOS. Honest. Lemme know. |
|||
Kutske Since: 11-19-05 Last post: 6659 days Last view: 6659 days |
| ||
| I don't know how to set up a recorder, but I know someone who does -- a journalist. Many journalists do phone-interviews with people that they can't meet face-to-face, it's a common practice to my knowledge. Find out where your local paper is made, drive down there and ask around, I'm sure they'll tell you how they manage to record phone conversations. | |||
|
Kutske Since: 11-19-05 Last post: 6659 days Last view: 6659 days |
| ||
| While pondering the physics of a constructed world that I've recently begun to realize, I began to wonder if the entire world is actually submerged under liquid. Unfortunately, I am not very keen on issues of pure science, so I have a duo of questions. Please, if you know the answers, share them with us...
1) What are the properties of ultralow density liquid, as they relate to human-like organisms? Say perhaps, a liquid which was less than 1/1000th the density of fresh water at room temperature. Would the humanoid sink or float especially quick? Is it remotely feasable that this liquid could be infused with oxygen to the point where air-breathing humanoids would be able to effectively "breathe" while fully submerged in this liquid? 2) Conversely, what are the properties of ultrahigh density liquid as they relate to human-like organisms? This time, suppose the liquid were 1000x more dense than fresh water at room temperature. The same questions (sink, float, breathing) apply as above. Assume that any impurities in the hypothetical water/liquid are unimportant. Also keep in mind that I don't have a firm grasp of density -- it may be physically impossible for a liquid to be 1/1000 or 1000x the density of fresh water at room temperature for all I know, I just pulled the number "1000" out of thin air for the sake of argument, just to emphasize that I'm wondering about a liquid that was vastly less or more dense than water. |
|||
|
Kutske Since: 11-19-05 Last post: 6659 days Last view: 6659 days |
| ||
| I see, thanks for the heads-up. While on the subject - and keeping in mind that fans (of the likes of Star Trek and Star Wars) with too much time on their hands find ways to prove inertial dampers and Force shields scientifically plausible - what would you suppose the scientific basis is behind LCL in the anime Evangelion? It's a liquid, presumably artificial, which the pilot is submerged in while controlling the Eva. The explination they give is that "oxygen is supplied directly to the lungs," but that doesn't sound very well-thought out ("Time travel? Uhh...chronitons. Yep, that's it."); it operates more on suspension of disbelief than anything.
But then I got thinking -- fetuses in the womb during the third trimester are basically ready to come out and live in our world, but they obviously don't breathe air. Do they breathe at all? I would suspect that it's more likely that their blood is oxygenated by the mother, rather than the placental fluid being oxygenated and them breathing that. However, I just found this on wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_breathing The major problem with liquid breathing seems to be that it's easy enough to supply oxygen to the lungs with a fluid, but it's more troublesome to remove the carbon dioxide produced in what would normally be exhalation. Also, another problem exists in that liquid fluids are considerably more viscous than air, which means it's more difficult to breathe the liquid in and out, and the heart has to work harder for the same effect it would get while breathing air. But then I took into consideration superfluids, which have absolutely no viscosity...but those bring on a whole new host of problems, and I'm not that familiar with the subject, so I'll stop here. In short, LCL; what's the scientific basis for it? |
|||
|
Kutske Since: 11-19-05 Last post: 6659 days Last view: 6659 days |
| ||
| I don't believe in such a thing as "fetish," because the term fetish is defined as "sexual arousal differing from the norm," and I don't believe that there is a such thing as "normal." But I'll allay my own semantic fussybodiness and go on assuming the question is, "what is it that turns you on which you assume doesn't turn most other people on?" And while I can't neccessarily even answer that question, I'll relate an experience I once had.
Sometimes, in this life, you meet someone with whom you share a soulbound connection. Without even words, you understand one another. There are times when you wish to explore and further this connection of yours. In some instances, you might find a dear friend, in others, the love of your life. Then, there are times when your bodies cry out for one another, when the connection can only be explored physically, and you want to take things as far as you can. I met such a person once, and we connected to quite a degree. It was a crazy three months, and I don't want to give details beyond the "kinky" part, but we soon found that sex wasn't enough, the connection wasn't at it's strongest. There was a moment when I got an impulse and decided to go with it, for better or worse, so I reached to the side of the bed for her knife and made a small cut on her bottom lip, then proceeded to suck on the wound. She pushed me away and I thought I had crossed some unseen line, but to my surprise and delight, she picked up the knife and cut my top lip, so we could drink of each other's vitality simultaneously. It hurt, it did hurt and the pressure of the sucking intensified this pain, but for some reason, that envigorated me; it was more physically exhilarating than anything I had ever done before, and anything I've ever done since. I suppose now I understand why a person would jump bare-assed into a lake in the middle of winter. I've always said that pleasure and pain cannot go hand-in-hand, at least for me, because I have a very low threshhold for pain, but that idea was shattered by this experience, and I began to realize how much good pain does me. Because really, if one does not know pain, one cannot know pleasure; the two are one in the same, if opposite on their sides of the scale. Just as we cannot judge light without knowing darkness, and cannot judge warmth without knowing coldness, we cannot judge pleasure without pain, joy without sadness. In the 1960's, a new procedure was being talked about in the medical community; anesthetized birth. Obviously, many women are scared to deliver birth for the first time, since it's said to be so painful and torturous, but many of the women who were anesthetized and awoke after the birthing process was complete suffered terrible depression afterwards. I personally believe that this is because the pain of childbirth is what makes it so wonderful for the woman; that is, that pain can be as powerful emotionally in a positive sense as anything else, as pleasure. And that's what the act I described was for me -- emotional. I had never felt so physically close to some one; I felt so close that I thought we might meld permanently into one being. Of course, that didn't happen and I haven't seen her in years, but I walked away from the experience happier and more complete as a human being for it. ... Okay, confession; this didn't actually happen to me, it happened to a character in a story of mine, but I feel deeply and inseperably connected to all my characters, so it may as well have happened to me. Anyway, an interesting read, no? And I would enjoy such an experience, I think. Long story short; I thought I'd never indulge in pain, that I would avoid it in any form at all costs, but I was wrong. Also, sanguinarianism. Koneko: Another thing that's hot is a girl in a guy's undershirt, and maybe boxers. Now that is something I'll never understand; what's sexy about a girl - who normally wears pretty, frilly underwear - walking around in the crusty, piss-stained boxers of a man? I can understand liking seeing women in their own boxers (i.e. undergarments that they own and that only they wear, which so happen to look like men's boxers), but as for a girl actually taking a guy's underwear and putting it on? Well then I'm sorry sir, but quite frankly, you've lost me. |
|||
|
Kutske Since: 11-19-05 Last post: 6659 days Last view: 6659 days |
| ||
| I thought the reason he came off as a jackass was because he's clearly giving his opinion on things, but claims to be an unbiased reporter of only quantifiable truths. | |||
|
Kutske Since: 11-19-05 Last post: 6659 days Last view: 6659 days |
| ||
| Whenever someone brings up the concept that bisexuality is merely homosexuality in disguise, I say quite simply, "Gren from Cowboy Bebop -- Cher from Wolf's Rain" and walk away. Or, if I want to go the Real Live Person route, "Scully from X-Files -- Johnny Depp." I personally swoon for all four mentioned, each in their own special way.
Wurl: So I was reading about Romans recently. From historical contex, it was concluded that Romans had loose, if any, perceptions of hetero and homosexuality. Etymologically speaking, there wasn't a concept of hetero/homo/bi/a-sexuality until modern times, which is why I profess that the concept of classifiable sexuality is bogus, hence the whole topic about it. emcee: Seems like this thread has been done. Hence the whole topic about it :p hammer: Anyway, I don't think I could be bisexual if I tried. I'm just not exactly clear on what makes a guy attractive. It seems like every time I think I got it figured out, I find out someone is attractive or unattractive, and it throws my whole logic out of wack. What could possibly posess you to try to be another sexuality? I hope you don't think that's what bisexuality is; something you have to try as opposed to something inherent, like homosexuality or heterosexuality. Shadic: I honestly don't see how somebody can be attracted to both genders at once... I dunno, being a straight male myself, but I would find it far to large of a hassle to have the chance to be attracted to EVERYBODY that I see. I think the problem there is that you think you have to have the chance to be attracted to all women you see, and that, my good fellow, is colloquially referred to as "Raging Hormones." Plusguy: Everyone knows that liking both tacos and chow mein is immoral and against God's word! Yea verily. mattp: Sir Abomination, when Jesus came he himself ate from both the chow mein bowl and the taco plate to show his love for all cuisines of our world. Even children know this much. "You mean you guys don't believe in Robot Jesus?" "We believe that he was built, and that he was a very well-programmed robot, but he's not our messiah." Shadic: And it would just be awkward if I knew that I could like.. "Go head over heels," with anybody that I met... Romantic inclinations are not neccessarily linked with sexual interests. I have several friends of both sexes who are sexually attracted to both men and women, but are only romantically interested in one. So they're romantically "straight" (would only date/marry the opposite sex) but are sexually "bi" (have sexual fantasies (read: porn) involving both sexes). mattp: Shadic - of course they're slightly different, but the property I was basing the analogy around was preference and taste. Some people just do not like mexican food no matter what you tell them and some people love it. Just like penis. Must...not...make crude joke... |
|||
|
Kutske Since: 11-19-05 Last post: 6659 days Last view: 6659 days |
| ||
Skydude: Well, I think this question could actually go two directions. The first is asking whether or not you shave...down there. The second is a question of preferences in another... Good point, and I'll respond to the topic as such. A) Simply? No. 2) I prefer unshaved. There's something mature about pubic hair (erm, that didn't sound as obvious before I typed it out), something manly or womanly about it. Especially for women, I think, the presence of pubic hair emphasizes sexual maturity, seperating the girls from the women, as it were. I dislike hairy legs and arms (and rear-end), though, I just think pubic hair should be left alone. You know, it's suggested that a person's sexual scent eminates from their pubic hair, rather than their actual sexual organ. Well, not so much the hairs themselves, but the follicles from which the hairs sprout, and thus growth of the hair would foster a healthy sexual scent, if that makes sense. Tomtom Club: I would not recommend an electric razor on your scrotum, it'll chew it up like escalator-teeth. You've stuck your scrotum in escalator teeth before? |
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 |
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - - Posts by Kutske |
