[ rss / options / help ]
post ]
[ b / iq / g / zoo ] [ e / news / lab ] [ v / nom / pol / eco / emo / 101 / shed ]
[ art / A / beat / boo / com / fat / job / lit / map / mph / poof / £$€¥ / spo / uhu / uni / x / y ] [ * | sfw | o ]
Subject   (new thread)
File  []
>> No. 4153 Anonymous
19th May 2017
Friday 4:11 pm
4153 spacer
Does anyone know where's still good to get nootropics? I have a site that'll export pira+citocholine from India but it's pretty steep, besides ani+cito was always more effective for me.

May be the wrong board, sorry.
Expand all images.
>> No. 4154 Anonymous
19th May 2017
Friday 4:41 pm
4154 spacer
I've had a look around and intellimeds and thoughtfoods seem to be the best options but I can find very little in terms of recent reviews.

model benises.png
>> No. 4122 Anonymous
5th April 2017
Wednesday 2:47 pm
4122 http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0133079
>The most popular dildoes are only 4.5 - 5" in circumference.

>In a study women picked models benises 4.8 - 5" in circumference as the ideal.

>The average erect benis girth is about 4.5 - 5 ".

So you've probably got enough girth for 90% of grills. But...

>The most popular dildoes have 6 - 7" of insertable length.

>Women chose models benises about 6 - 6.5" in length as the ideal.

>The average erect benis length is about 5 - 5.5".

You probably don't have enough length for most women.
Message too long. Click here to view the full text.
11 posts and 2 images omitted. Expand all images.
>> No. 4135 Anonymous
11th April 2017
Tuesday 9:26 pm
4135 spacer

Maybe those are women inches. 8 = 6 and 6 = 4 .
>> No. 4136 Anonymous
12th April 2017
Wednesday 3:11 am
4136 spacer

Apropos of nothing much at all:

I've never talked inches (or centimeters) with any of them but I've shagged a fair few cock-wranglers and none of them ever complained about my utterly average knob (or even slagged me off as being small-knobbed during any one of a zillion heated slanging matches). Honestly, once you've bedded 4-5 30+ cock whores and they all love your average knob life gets a lot easier.

Sorry if none of this makes sense lads, I'm pissed to fuck la.
>> No. 4137 Anonymous
12th April 2017
Wednesday 11:03 am
4137 spacer

Have you ever measured your dick? Maybe you're bigger than you think.
>> No. 4138 Anonymous
13th April 2017
Thursday 11:19 pm
4138 spacer

Honestly I think that it's mainly just that (at least in my experience) women tend to care a lot less about genital aesthetics (size, shape, and so on) than men do. One lass I'd been seeing for at least a couple of months had absolutely no idea I was circumcised despite having had my penis in her mouth dozens and dozens of times. Her excuse? "I just didn't really pay that much attention". Well, thanks for that?

While I could probably build a 100% accurate full colour 3D model of every vagina I've ever been in contact with most lasses seem to lump knobs into three rough categories: Micropenis, Ouch, and Everything Else. What this means is that I think most lasses probably aren't shagging away thinking "yeah this guy is definitely packing half an inch less than that other lad", probably can't tell the difference in an inch or two anyway, and if your old chap doesn't fit into the Micropenis or Ouch categories then it's probably entirely forgettable, just another faceless shaft on the cock carousel.

Either that or I've just been hanging out on the wrong side of the tracks all my life.
>> No. 4139 Anonymous
14th April 2017
Friday 1:42 am
4139 spacer

FFS measure it.

dino toss.jpg
>> No. 4121 Anonymous
27th March 2017
Monday 5:30 am
4121 spacer

>> No. 4106 Anonymous
3rd March 2017
Friday 6:17 pm
4106 spacer
In layman's terms, how would directions/paths or relative locations be described from within a fractal space? Say we have a fractal tree branch type thing and I wanted to tell someone on another point of it how to reach my location, or to describe to them how I would get to theirs?
9 posts and 1 image omitted. Expand all images.
>> No. 4116 Anonymous
5th March 2017
Sunday 3:35 pm
4116 spacer
Does that still work if your starting point is not at any intersection but some way between them?
>> No. 4117 Anonymous
5th March 2017
Sunday 6:13 pm
4117 spacer
Why do I get the feeling that nobody in this thread including the OP understands what a fractal space is?
>> No. 4118 Anonymous
5th March 2017
Sunday 7:05 pm
4118 spacer
Because you're a snob with nothing useful to offer to the conversation.
>> No. 4119 Anonymous
5th March 2017
Sunday 8:36 pm
4119 spacer
I don't take any shame in not having anything to contribute to the conversation at a chimp's tea party.
>> No. 4120 Anonymous
5th March 2017
Sunday 10:38 pm
4120 spacer
From an algorithmic standpoint there's no such thing. The length between intersections would be a fraction of the previous length.

To respond to the previous poster no, I have no expertise whatsoever with fractals but I'm winging it and I'm pretty sure I'm correct. A line of logic that wouldn't be out of place in the current Labour party amirite? Ba-dum-tssh!

bum spray.gif
>> No. 4078 Anonymous
26th November 2016
Saturday 9:12 pm
4078 spacer
Seriously, WTF is this?
8 posts omitted. Expand all images.
>> No. 4087 Anonymous
27th November 2016
Sunday 1:58 am
4087 spacer
A cryonic bum blaster?
>> No. 4088 Anonymous
27th November 2016
Sunday 2:11 am
4088 spacer

No, that's Barry Bennell.
>> No. 4089 Anonymous
27th November 2016
Sunday 9:11 am
4089 spacer
I'm pretty sure they're Belgian and we all know what they're like.
>> No. 4090 Anonymous
27th November 2016
Sunday 10:39 am
4090 spacer
It's Javier Martos of Charleroi vs Club Brugge.
>> No. 4091 Anonymous
27th November 2016
Sunday 11:33 am
4091 spacer

Brugge are winning.

>> No. 4062 Anonymous
28th June 2016
Tuesday 8:00 pm
4062 Richard Lewontin
The 'Threads' thread over in /v/ contained a bit of discussion of human nature, evolutionary psychology and what it means for society (as well as its possible breakdown).

I wanted to make a post there a dew days ago but found myself just referring back to Richard Lewontin, who puts it a hell of a lot better than I do. There's a series of lectures of his up on YouTube which I think presents a very convincing argument as to why we should be cautious about using reasoning that appears to be 'biological' or 'scientific' in explaining/predicting complex human behaviours.

Things really start picking up around lecture 3, and I believe the topic of human nature is directly addressed in lecture 4. I can't recommend this highly enough to anyone who posted in that little debate. First lecture embedded:

3 posts and 1 image omitted. Expand all images.
>> No. 4073 Anonymous
24th November 2016
Thursday 8:48 am
4073 spacer
He looks like Bill Gates.
>> No. 4074 Anonymous
24th November 2016
Thursday 12:04 pm
4074 spacer


He looks like ARE BARRY from t'building society.
>> No. 4075 Anonymous
24th November 2016
Thursday 12:19 pm
4075 spacer

He's the spitting image of John Major
>> No. 4076 Anonymous
24th November 2016
Thursday 7:47 pm
4076 spacer

I think you mean Are Deirdre
>> No. 4077 Anonymous
26th November 2016
Saturday 9:03 pm
4077 spacer

mr bamboozle.jpg

>> No. 4063 Anonymous
25th August 2016
Thursday 12:27 am
4063 spacer


As it turns out there is a very real possibility that we have a habitable planet next door. Be honest with me, if you were asked to leave your entire life on Earth behind to go set up a colony in another solar system would you take it?
1 post omitted. Expand all images.
>> No. 4065 Anonymous
25th August 2016
Thursday 1:32 am
4065 spacer
> if you were asked to leave your entire life

That would be nice. Can't even go loo without being asked where I'm going. So the chances of starting a new life sound very foreign to me.
>> No. 4066 Anonymous
25th August 2016
Thursday 4:02 am
4066 spacer
>> No. 4067 Anonymous
25th August 2016
Thursday 6:13 am
4067 spacer
Find someone to tell me things who I don't want to hit. Maybe just type it out.
>> No. 4068 Anonymous
26th August 2016
Friday 1:18 am
4068 spacer
Probably, though my real dream is to be a space hauler/freelancer once we have near-lightspeed travel sorted out.

Even if we just set up colonies on mars or the belt, I'll be happy to fly around moving water or whatever.
>> No. 4069 Anonymous
26th August 2016
Friday 2:40 am
4069 spacer
I'd say we have at least 300 years to go before interstellar travel becomes a reality. Fingers crossed for immortality drugs.

Even then I can barely afford a car let alone a spaceship.

>> No. 4007 Anonymous
23rd October 2015
Friday 11:31 pm
4007 spacer
Lads, I have figured out how to save humanity. It came to me while I was having a wank to some extremely weird porn.

Since MRSA came about because of some bacteria that became immune to antibiotics, and since this will probably happen to all other kinds of bacteria and/or viruses that we suppress with antibiotics, I thought that maybe we can give these bacteria cancer, diabetes or aids, you know something like that and wait for them to become immune to it. Then we get whatever made them immune to those diseases and give it to humans.

Also, I probably saved agriculture accidentally, because if I apply the same rule to plants, and get veggies that are immune to pests, fungi, and other problems, then we won't have to use neonicotinoid pesticides and kill all the bees.

Another thing that came to me earlier today as I shat was that if babies were like "vaccinated" by giving them shellfish and peanuts, then they wouldn't become allergic to these things.

I always knew I was too fucking smart. I'm feeling very smug right now lads.
11 posts and 2 images omitted. Expand all images.
>> No. 4023 Anonymous
20th November 2015
Friday 6:59 pm
4023 spacer
Wait... Seriously? Hmm. Maybe I should google before I post things, but the problem with that is I will forget my idea by the time I open a new tab.

In any event, I know I am right.

But this seems too good to be true.
>> No. 4024 Anonymous
20th November 2015
Friday 7:25 pm
4024 spacer

>But this seems too good to be true.

>> No. 4025 Anonymous
20th November 2015
Friday 10:43 pm
4025 spacer

You are Baroness Greenfield and I claim my £5.
>> No. 4026 Anonymous
22nd November 2015
Sunday 5:21 am
4026 spacer
That really made me chuckle heartily. Thank you.
>> No. 4061 Anonymous
29th May 2016
Sunday 11:00 am
4061 spacer
Mate retroviruses

>> No. 4057 Anonymous
6th May 2016
Friday 5:23 pm
4057 RIP Sweet Prince
Harry Kroto, the discoverer of Buckminsterfullerene has passed on to the great geodesic ball in the sky.

Expand all images.
>> No. 4058 Anonymous
7th May 2016
Saturday 7:44 am
4058 spacer
This is a fucking niche Sweet Prince thread, mate.
>> No. 4059 Anonymous
7th May 2016
Saturday 8:02 am
4059 spacer
Everyone loves buckyballs.
>> No. 4060 Anonymous
7th May 2016
Saturday 8:03 am
4060 spacer

I like a buckyonion

>> No. 3971 Anonymous
15th October 2015
Thursday 11:05 pm
3971 spacer

This would have made me excited once but for some reason I'm hoping it's just a weird natural formation. I don't want to live in a SF universe, I'm quite comfortable in this sort of reality. Aliens could make things very scary and complicated.
36 posts and 6 images omitted. Expand all images.
>> No. 4019 Anonymous
12th November 2015
Thursday 9:07 pm
4019 spacer

Been done, mate, when the asari found the Citadel.
>> No. 4052 Anonymous
16th April 2016
Saturday 2:15 am
4052 spacer

It's close lad.

>> No. 4053 Anonymous
16th April 2016
Saturday 2:19 am
4053 spacer
>the first stage of the Falcon 9 will attempt an experimental landing on the “Of Course I Still Love You” droneship in the Atlantic Ocean.
Is that a song title or a ship? What a weird name.

In Accelerando by Charles Stross the characters find some megastructures that are inhabited by not the builders but various other races that came by to visit after the builders left. Plus there's a load of other confusing stuff going on to do with interstellar information economies and scams and things. Interesting stuff.
>> No. 4054 Anonymous
16th April 2016
Saturday 9:11 am
4054 spacer
>>4053 Is that a song title or a ship? What a weird name.
Homage to Iain M Banks Culture ships' names.
>> No. 4055 Anonymous
16th April 2016
Saturday 3:56 pm
4055 spacer
That's cool.

>> No. 3342 Anonymous
1st September 2013
Sunday 11:31 pm
3342 One man's bullshit is another man's...
Just as a poem plants emotions in us using words, certain philosophical or scientific ideas can achieve the same thing. This, naturally, changes the way we interact with such ideas. For example, reductionist or materialist ideas that make humans to be puppets or Cartesian automata send a chill down the spine, making you feel powerless or fearful. In a similar way achieving a deep understanding of a topic might make one feel powerful and confident.

Although this shouldn't be a problem to the continued dominance of experimental science based on observation and evidence, it does appear to be a problem for the individual who must then interact with the ideas generated from evidence. This is because, as suggested, the individual does not have a dispassionate response to scientific ideas – no matter how much of a scientist they consider themselves.

This poses a particular problem when thinking at the frontiers of science; those areas of science which are still misty and unclear. For it is within those misty areas that ones gut feelings, flashes of inspiration, beliefs and hunches come in to play. It is in those misty areas that people become most passionate and most dogmatic, because of the emotion stirred by the uncertainty.

Consider that the heliocentric universe that we all accept dispassionately caused a great deal of debate, to put it lightly, when the idea was contemporary. There is now a great deal of good psychological evidence showing our emotions and individual interactions with ideas change how we think about them. If it seems likely that emotion and passion runs highest in the areas of science where reason and a detached view are most needed, then perhaps this deserves some consideration.
2 posts omitted. Expand all images.
>> No. 3345 Anonymous
2nd September 2013
Monday 12:16 am
3345 spacer

Interesting thread starter, and I'll contribute more fully in the morning when I'm a bit more awake, but a few observations:

- I've actually found that certain groups of people are highly inclined to embrace humans as puppets or themselves as Cartesian automata. In a book I recently read the author described himself speaking at a lecture for physics and science students, and he asserted that thinking of the brain as a 'hot, wet Turing machine' wasn't just uncontroversial but commonly accepted to the point where he felt no need to include it in the lecture. It's a description I disagree with outright because it belies the intricacies of the relationship between the brain and the body (and then the body and the universe).

I believe this is a direct consqeuence of the phenomenon you mention. As we can't help but have an emotional reaction to scientific observation and evidence, we also have an equally strong counter-reaction where we feel obligated to embrace dehumanising theories and directions for science in an effort to maintain some kind of empirical integrity. In my mind this effect is just as dangerous as tarnishing our integrity, because as you point out, our views going into a science can change the directions we choose to take the study, in what manner we uncover things, how we interpret and implement results. The fallacious over-compromise I've mentioned above has resulted in things like game theory entering politics and almost every area of our lives, making faulty assumptions of people as purely self-interested consumers, and in psychology where people seem to actively want to believe that the social behaviours of animals reflect our own, ignoring human and animal specificities alike.

To me the solution to this kind of problem is to develop a coherent philosophy of science, something where we can attempt to foresee the nature of our studies, to direct our own attitudes so that we maintain our integrity without devaluing life or betraying our ethics. A lot of work has been dedicated to this subject that I intend to read about.

- I also feel that the picture is a bit misleading. Science can be open-ended for the very reasons that you describe in your post. I would argue that all human activity is open-ended, both sciences and arts, and that the only way anyone could argue that science is deterministic is if they believed that we live in a closed universe that can be fully understood, which is a viewpoint contended with at many different levels of physics and philosophy.
>> No. 3346 Anonymous
5th September 2013
Thursday 4:29 pm
3346 spacer

That's a great post and it makes me think of two camps which exist. One camp is based along the lines of the physicists you mentioned who have this counter reaction to emotion and the other camp is almost deliberately ignorant of scientific ideas and are very purposeful and proud about it.

You can see this quite nicely as having entered the mainstream from The Big Bang Theory. TBBT' allows people to feel clever and superior at the expense of "non geeks" but there are also countless examples of the same set-up the other way around (see "Beauty and the Geek" and others).

All of this could possibly be due to the fact that the emotional responses that people have from honestly engaging with scientific ideas just aren't compatible with how they want to live their lives. They might find them difficult, depressing or frankly all just a bit too real for people to accept when there are easier ways to exist that are less challenging.
>> No. 3347 Anonymous
5th September 2013
Thursday 6:35 pm
3347 spacer
The science/art dichotomy is propagated by people who understand neither science nor art.

Music isn't open-ended, it exists within a fairly strict set of constraints. Western ears only recognise 12 notes of the chromatic scale, from which all melodies and harmonies are constructed. The ability of a skilled jazz musician to improvise or to fake an unfamiliar tune depends upon a very rigorous understanding of how the human ear perceives harmony and melody. A saxophonist wailing his guts out isn't just playing what's in his heart, he's thinking in precise algorithmic terms about where the harmonic structure is leading the melody. If the pianist is comping a G7 chord, the soloist can be confident that the notes of the G Mixolydian mode will sound consonant. If the previous chord was Dm7 and the current chord is G7, the next chord is most likely to be Cmaj7, resolving a ii-V-I cadence. The pianist will be thinking that the Cmaj7 (C-E-G-B) could be substituted with an Am7 (A-C-E-G) or Em7 (E-G-B-C), he'll be picturing a dizzying array of reharmonisations and ornaments.

Musicians use a precise and rigorous structure to produce a creative product, while scientists use a creative process to produce something precise and rigorous. The roots of most research lies in simple curiosity, an observation about something in the world that seems interesting. Andre Geim fiddles about with a pencil and some sellotape and discovers graphene, Francis Crick takes LSD and realises that DNA has a double-helix structure. Turning these curious observations or moments of inspiration into useful research is a long and arduous slog, but the roots of most decent research is simple whimsy.
>> No. 4050 Anonymous
27th March 2016
Sunday 1:51 pm
4050 spacer
I'm going to bump a three year old thread because, fuck it, this is an interesting topic. And my views have been challenged and changed a bit since I made my post and I want to reopen the discussion.

>The roots of most research lies in simple curiosity, an observation about something in the world that seems interesting.

This is a very beautiful and surprisingly accurate idea that I've heard reiterated in a couple of memorable ways by well known figures in science and philosophy. Jacob Bronowski, a mathematician who wrote and presented an ambitious BBC documentary about human discovery called The Ascent of Man, described it as 'asking an impertinent question and finding a pertinent answer'.

Noam Chomsky puts it a little more simply as 'allowing yourself to be puzzled'. Putting that in the context of the history of science, he gives the example of early-modern thinkers accepting that steam rises and objects fall because they are 'returning to their natural place' in a system of 'sympathies and antipathies'. Only later (he says), when people allowed themselves to ask questions about phenomena which seemed intuitively obvious, did we get to any meaningful understanding of the mechanics that cause them.

>This poses a particular problem when thinking at the frontiers of science; those areas of science which are still misty and unclear. For it is within those misty areas that ones gut feelings, flashes of inspiration, beliefs and hunches come in to play. It is in those misty areas that people become most passionate and most dogmatic, because of the emotion stirred by the uncertainty.

If you're still around, or anyone who is interested in the above topic, would probably enjoy the work of Karl Popper. He wrote about the idea of falsifiability as a measure of scientific integrity. My explanation here might be a bit clumsy, but it is essentially that only falsifiable (i.e. 'testable') statements are scientific. Eventually all scientific theories are improved, supplanted or changed. This leads to the idea that all scientific knowledge is permanently under construction, and while it may be the best we have at the time, keeping an awareness of that uncertainty is extremely important in maintaining the open-ended nature of inquiry (and limiting the amount of time we spend believing lesser theories).

For Popper this had some pretty interesting connections with society as a whole, and he stressed a better society would take this attitude of uncertainty and openness and apply it to other areas, like political institutions and human relationships more generally.
Message too long. Click here to view the full text.
>> No. 4051 Anonymous
27th March 2016
Sunday 2:53 pm
4051 spacer
>Consider that the heliocentric universe that we all accept dispassionately

>> No. 4047 Anonymous
2nd January 2016
Saturday 8:47 pm
4047 spacer
Theres no math board so science will have to do.
I found this video pretty interesting, even though its significance went a little over my head. still, patterns everywhere.
Is that graph at the end a parabola?


>> No. 3703 Anonymous
6th September 2014
Saturday 12:00 pm
3703 spacer
My great nan is 101 and I'm looking to get some inheritance when she pops. Is there some way of calculating the probability of her dying each year onward? What's the chances of her living until 105? 110?
19 posts omitted. Expand all images.
>> No. 4039 Anonymous
10th December 2015
Thursday 5:34 pm
4039 spacer
I'd rather a new iPhone, shoutout to me nan.
>> No. 4040 Anonymous
10th December 2015
Thursday 5:48 pm
4040 spacer
How's tricks, Tarquin?
>> No. 4041 Anonymous
10th December 2015
Thursday 6:16 pm
4041 spacer

Surely the wealthier someone is, the more likely a scramble for the cash of a dead relative would be?
>> No. 4042 Anonymous
10th December 2015
Thursday 6:23 pm
4042 spacer

jane-mccarry from still game.jpg
>I have had impure thoughts about Isa. I am only mildly guilty.

You have nowt to be ashamed of in that area.

The mothers side of the family stopped talking to one another after my nan died and I think there was even a pointless punch-up involved because an uncle felt he was entitled to a bigger share.

Seeing my mum in tears after getting off the phone at quite a young age was all I needed to put me off keeping in contact with relatives. This isn't uncommon either, everyone I know has a story like this which is why when I die I'm taking you all out with me.
>> No. 4043 Anonymous
10th December 2015
Thursday 7:45 pm
4043 spacer


>You have nowt to be ashamed of in that area.

I wouldn't exactly brag about it.

>> No. 3959 Anonymous
6th October 2015
Tuesday 12:22 am
3959 spacer
There is this Harvard test/survey which shows you which race you might have preference for. So lads, click on the Race Test, and tell us how racist you are.


Apparently I have a moderate preference for white people. But I blame the order in which they made me do the test.

Also, I'm not sure, but someone told me they did something with this test on a documentary on BBC3.
6 posts omitted. Expand all images.
>> No. 3966 Anonymous
6th October 2015
Tuesday 10:44 pm
3966 spacer
Apparently I also have the 'strong automatic preference for white people' but I dunno like >>3960 I'm pretty buzzed so I messed up a few times even with the identifying faces task. I'm a bit paranoid now because they went on to ask questions that could be designed to identify extremists.

I guess that is another name to the drunken racists membership list.
>> No. 3967 Anonymous
6th October 2015
Tuesday 10:53 pm
3967 spacer
I took it two more times, purposefully doing the reverse of what I did to get "moderate preference to white people", yet it still came out as "slight preference for white people". Even trying on purpose to associate the bad things with white people is hard, as it seems more often than not the bad words are tied to black faces more throughout the test.
>> No. 3968 Anonymous
7th October 2015
Wednesday 9:23 pm
3968 spacer
my result was 'strong preference for white people' i feel racist now..
>> No. 3969 Anonymous
7th October 2015
Wednesday 9:35 pm
3969 spacer

IATs measure very slight differences in the timing of keypresses. It is designed to be difficult to consciously influence.

>> No. 3970 Anonymous
7th October 2015
Wednesday 10:43 pm
3970 spacer


A /101/ thread all to itself.

Delete Post []
Previous[0] [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]