babooshka
New Member
3
Unfuckwithable
Posts: 5,006 
|
Post by babooshka on Oct 1, 2004 9:22:46 GMT 10
Having a seven year old I doubt very much if they were really 7. They don't join forums, they're just learning to construct a sentence, sight read and computer time is for playing games!!!! Though some of the sentence construction and obvious reading skills are dubious on these forums sometimes LOL. I could read the newspaper, front to back, when I was three. |
|
|
|
Post by dhm on Oct 1, 2004 9:53:50 GMT 10
Why have my last three posts for the survivor thread been referred to a "page not available thingy???" I wasn' being horrible I was being insightful and stuff. Sometimes it does that if the server is overloaded. Nothing has been deleted. Really you were insightful?  |
|
|
|
Post by dhm on Oct 1, 2004 9:54:27 GMT 10
I could read the newspaper, front to back, when I was three. The pictures don't count. |
|
4213
New Member
Posts: 89
|
Post by 4213 on Oct 1, 2004 12:11:25 GMT 10
I could read the newspaper, front to back, when I was three. Sailor Earth we found the 7 year old who joined your forum.  |
|
babooshka
New Member
3
Unfuckwithable
Posts: 5,006
|
Post by babooshka on Oct 1, 2004 12:13:10 GMT 10
Yes, I was quite the child genius.
Something happened when I hit puberty.
Obviously.
|
|
|
|
Post by dhm on Oct 1, 2004 12:25:20 GMT 10
Yes, I was quite the child genius. Something happened when I hit puberty. Obviously. You are hilarious! Although I hope you are not quite so self-deprecating irl. Plus IQ is a stable attribute so you should be as intelligent now as you were then in respect to your age group. Sometimes there is a difference bw intelligence and school achievement though. |
|
babooshka
New Member
3
Unfuckwithable
Posts: 5,006
|
Post by babooshka on Oct 1, 2004 13:04:04 GMT 10
Oh no, I was just being humble.
I still am a genius.
|
|
|
|
Post by tqisfoo on Oct 1, 2004 13:04:59 GMT 10
Oh no, I was just being humble. I still am a genius. Certainly a comedic one! |
|
|
|
Post by holly on Oct 1, 2004 16:14:57 GMT 10
Oh no, I was just being humble. I still am a genius. A self proclaimed Young Einstein. Let's discuss Schroedinger's "cat theory" from the Copenhagen school of Quantum mechanics . Why was the cat put in the box for starters and what was it's eventual fate? |
|
babooshka
New Member
3
Unfuckwithable
Posts: 5,006
|
Post by babooshka on Oct 1, 2004 16:21:56 GMT 10
Personally I think that theory is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.
|
|
|
|
Post by Test Card Girl on Oct 1, 2004 16:24:03 GMT 10
Oh I never could understand it - even though my father-in-law has painstakingly tried to explain it once.
|
|
babooshka
New Member
3
Unfuckwithable
Posts: 5,006
|
Post by babooshka on Oct 1, 2004 16:26:39 GMT 10
It's stupid. Perhaps with an inanimate object, then yes you could say the theory has some basis (though again, I would doubt it).
However, to use a cat which does in fact possess a brain and is thus living, the theory is, as far as I am concerned, plain wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by Test Card Girl on Oct 1, 2004 16:43:35 GMT 10
As I understand it, you put a cat in a box with a radioactive source that decays or with equal probability doesn't. and a Geiger counter and a container of hydrochloric acid. If you leave it for an hour, the cat might still be alive or it might not - I've forgotten what the Geiger counter and the acid is for - confused anyone? I am!
|
|
|
|
Post by holly on Oct 1, 2004 17:26:17 GMT 10
As the odds are contrived to be 50/50 you have to open the box to observe
a if the cat is alive
b dead.
It is what in quantum physics a thought experiment and proves nothing happens unless it is observed.
superficially obvious but actually very deep theory.
Like in Phillip. k. Dicks movie
Totall Recall.
|
|
|
|
Post by holly on Oct 1, 2004 17:35:08 GMT 10
Babs the whole idea is to have a live object,
Perhaps you are thinking of some other "thought experiment"
Fyrnn knew more about it than you.
|
|
Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so.