Deep Thoughts

  • Thread starter Danoff
  • 1,099 comments
  • 78,700 views
I think it's more an action of habit, they do it because there's nothing else to do. I don't think anyone actually believes that the more they push it the faster the lift will get to them or the faster the little green man will light up but I do think it ties in with a society of people that want everything right now.
 
live4speed
I think it's more an action of habit, they do it because there's nothing else to do. I don't think anyone actually believes that the more they push it the faster the lift will get to them or the faster the little green man will light up but I do think it ties in with a society of people that want everything right now.

I don't think it's boredom, and the habit has to start from somewhere, even if it's subconcious. Boredom doesn't lead someone to punch a button over and over - then switch hands when one gets tired. There has to be some belief that punching it over and over has the potential to decrease the wait time. This is reinforced when the light is observed to have changed immediately following the last punch.
 
I jab the crosswalk button a couple of times, because sometimes you can't really tell if you really pressed it in all the way. And I have been stuck at crosswalks because of this.
 
danoff
If it's actually more descriptive to call things feminine or masculine, which is probably almost never the case (like in Spanish), I'd say it's a complication that should be removed to help communication be more effective.
I agree, I hated learning French.

But wouldn't the differing pronunciations in English still add more to accuracy, although making it only slightly more difficult for spelling/reading? If our nation(s) knew how to read better (phonics, ahem), this probably wouldn't be a problem.


You mean like direct and redirect or community and communication? I've never had that problem. There are a bazillion of examples where the root word keeps the same emphasis/spelling/pronunciation and it isn't confusing.
There are probably better examples that either of us are too lazy to search for, but I wasn't speaking for myself when I made the response to your last response (to my response before that, in response to...). What I say and what my opinion is are sometimes two different things.

But personally, I don't have any problems or beefs with English because it's constantly evolving, and newer, more simplified phrases are always comming about- perhaps to further convolute things?

If we were to change now to your proposed pronunciations, perhaps that would perplex people more than the purportedly confusing language at present?



danoff
Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc
"After this therefore because of this"

Probalby my favorite logical fallacy. And I've come to the realization that crosswalks are a good example of... [...] he must figure that it was that last umptybillion and 1th hit that made the crosswalk change. Because after he hit it that time, the light changed. If he doesn't think that, why does he pound away at the button?
Impatience, I suppose. I admit, I do that with the "close door" button on elevators because i'm just impatient. . .Although the button does ignore input sometimes, I've ended up sitting around going nowhere after pushing the #5 three times.

Actually, to be perfectly honest, I think some of the original biblical stories are somewhat like that.
"Tree fall down, Ug come home with deer. . . tree=food?"
There's also a common joke that applies to that:

(the short version)

Bunch of kids sitting around crying because some guys in plane throwing various objects hit them in the head. One kid sitting around laughing because his house blew up after one object was a grenade, and by chance the farted at the same time.

Fart -> House blow up -> Post hoc, ergo propter hoc


How is it possible that his brain (and many others that do this same thing with crosswalks) honsetly thinks that the first 30 tries were ignored but the next one is the one that did it.

How can your brain honsetly think that's what their brain is thinking?
Jumping to conclusions is another logical fallacy. ;)

The same thing happens with elevator buttons...
Eh...hehe. Ahem.



I like how sometimes people think noone is noticing them in public. They pick their nose, ears, arse, all behind the shield of a 1/4'' tempered glass thinking they're invisible. But they're not- it seems that to them, if they're cacooned in something of theirs, they must be alone. Or, something along that mentality.

One thing I saw today, that particularly disgusted me, was that Pro-Lifers (I like to call them Anti-choicers, my clever and witty analagous word for facist) had posted pictures of aborted fetuses from various points in pregnancy all along the road. As if it wasn't enough, these pictures were huge and I was stuck in traffic.

Why tf would they do that? They called themselves "Showing the Truth" or something, "because that's what [they] do". There was a sign posted next to the road warning about it (in a no u-turn zone, no less, with 3 lanes of traffic) and next thing I know I'm box in forced to look at 9 or 10 of these dismembered and bloody babies. It was brutal- things like that shown at concerts get riots, and these morally righteous "crusaders" think they can get away with doing it themselves in the name of their own agenda.

So what happens when I have 2 crying and screaming kids in the car who are going to have nightmares for the next 3 years?

You do what every American does, sue like hell.

But I won't.
 
Something recently dawned on me while ticking the "red mark of (not in this case) doom" on one of danoff's posts:

Perhaps it's satisfaction? People are taught all their lives "dream big", "always persue your passion", blah blah blah, etc etc.

Maybe this is their subconcsious chance to do so? It seems that when you [they] push the button, and keep pushing, they get a sudden surge of closure or gratification because their efforts didn't go in vain.

Now imagine if lights were set up so that you couldn't push the button more than once every 3 seconds, because it would get delayed 6.

Wouldn't you (or they) hate that? Many people would be lead to believe A) they weren't doing it right because it seems no matter how much they push the button, the light doesn't come or B) it's broken, because no matter how much they push the button, the light doesn't come.
Which is also sort of a form of people assuming that everything works exactly the same way, instead of paying a small amount of attention to something to see how things work.

So, I'm going to click the "post reply" button 100x now...
 
If you had a braking distance of 2 miles, you'd need to see stuff pretty far away too.
 
The driver of train that's derailed, or whomever respnosible for the obstruction.

And I'm not a big swear-er, but if there is any sort of turn, kink, hill or incline in the railroad (very likely), they're ****ed?
 
That covers most obstructions, but not freak occurrences like landslides, a crashed car, a... errr... "jumper". Headlights on a train which could only light up the track 400 yards away would be so pointless as to not bother with them at all. It's okay for a car, because, unless you're doing a millionty miles an hour, you can stop well within 400 yards.
 
In some highly congested areas, the owners of that part of the track (for example, Norfolk Southern) will employ a "track man". These guys will be stationed periodically and notify dispatch, or engineers, of potential problems.
 
Famines right, if it's a train theat's derailed, they will know about it, but you do get things like drunk people, cars and other object that arn't going to be radioing in, the drivers use the headlights at night to try and spot dangers asap. Track watchers don't spot everything.
 
No, the track guys dont see everything, like the homeless guy lying on the tracks last week on my job site. However, I believe that the headlights are probably so strong so that the train can be seen, not for the engineer to see things. This is why most, if not all, of the headlights on trains wave back and forth, to get attention.
 
That'd make sense, though it would still be beneficial to the driver as well at night. With more powerful headlights at thoes speeds he'd be able to spot signs and signals a lot easier.
 
But let's look at this realistically: what are the chances that the entirety of the 2 mile stretch before the obstruction is without any turn or change in elevation?
 
live4speed
That'd make sense, though it would still be beneficial to the driver as well at night. With more powerful headlights at thoes speeds he'd be able to spot signs and signals a lot easier.
I'd rather not be blinded by oncoming traffic. It's bright enough IMO.
 
Here is my deep thought: Are gravity and time related? Would you grow and age quicker in an environment with higher gravity? OR, would you live the same amount of time, but grow stronger? This drives me crazy some nights.
 
southern347
Here is my deep thought: Are gravity and time related? Would you grow and age quicker in an environment with higher gravity? OR, would you live the same amount of time, but grow stronger? This drives me crazy some nights.


You might find This interesting.
 
gOoSeTeR
What about all us poor blokes who haven't got a garage? I use my Driveway for driving, but I park oin the front yard, so dad can get out at 4AM to go and sit in a box and waffle crud on the wireless.

I know some idiots that park on the street, clearly, in view, room on the driveway.


How come I have peed literally 10 of thousands of times, and I found confidence to not lift the toilet seat, and I still miss and then end up breakin out the TP?
 
Oh yeah, how did an entire universe evolve ffom a huge big black space? A whole bunch of nothingness, a big vacuum? Maybe it didn't have to be big, maybe it was very small, maybe very much nothing at all.
 
southern347
Here is my deep thought: Are gravity and time related?
Yes, in a certain way. The theory of General Relativity (basically) states that gravity is an effect of spacetime curvature.

Imagine that your mattress is the spacetime dimension. If you were to put a bowling ball on top, the mattress would sink in where the ball sits. Then imagine rolling a marble towards the bowling ball – the marble would travel in a straight line, then go in a few circles around the bowling ball until it stops in the dip.

That’s basically how gravity works: masses cause “dips” in spacetime, thus causing objects to fall towards them.

Would you grow and age quicker in an environment with higher gravity?
I wouldn’t think so – I know that you would age slower the faster/farther you travel (the Twin Paradox), but I don’t think gravity has anything to do with it. I could be wrong, though.

OR, would you live the same amount of time, but grow stronger? This drives me crazy some nights.
You would definitely grow stronger (assuming the strength isn’t so much that it crushes you). Your muscles grow by resisting the force of gravity (think about it: when you lift weights, you’re merely resisting gravity). Thus, if there’s more gravity to resist, your muscles will have to work more, and will get stronger.

Colinod
Oh yeah, how did an entire universe evolve ffom a huge big black space? A whole bunch of nothingness, a big vacuum? Maybe it didn't have to be big, maybe it was very small, maybe very much nothing at all.
Well, the current thinking is that it started as a gravitational singularity (which is a very complicated topic in itself), but we just don’t know.
 
Sage
Well, the current thinking is that it started as a gravitational singularity (which is a very complicated topic in itself)
That's a good deep thought also. What is a singularity? It's an infinitely small point, but are we able to comprehend that? I mean, really, can you picture it in your head? It's there, but at the same time, there's no way to see it.
 
Sakiale
I need to word my posts better? Ok, try this--

Today I was thinking about the confinements of our conventional lives, and why we live through them. In the comedy The Gods Must be Crazy, the bushmen have none of the confinements of computers, work, greed, or violence, etc. Everything they do and use is natural, and does not require pollution, and they have nothing to fight each other for. School and work are not required to survive in this community, and they live off nature.

Now contrast that with our society. In our society, we have violence. Rape. Murder. Theft and robbery. We are bound by our attatchments. In my case these are GTP and AIM. Without these, I can't live. And I have to go to school every day, this is a fact that I cannot change or avoid. People rape for their own sexual pleasure, against peoples will, kidnap just for money, kill just to get things ranging from a bottle of beer to mere revenge on their enemies. We fight for our pride, and steal things we want as a last resort. There are so many corruptions in this society, in our government, in our customs, in our ways. Kids think it fun to pull pranks on innocent people. Companies like Big Tobacco sell products that are known to be addicting and cause death or illness. Idiots run for president then plunge their nations into a war against their will for no good reason.

I think all these things are rather worth laughing at.


You assume that greed, violence, corruption, power struggles, pollution, etc. are products of society, as opposed to products of man. These things would be present regardless of whether we lead "conventional" or "natural" lives. Your concept of a utopian society where we all live in peace and harmony and don't affect that land we live on and don't steal from or hurt each other goes against the nature of man.

Society decreases crime. Rule of law allows people like you and I to go to school/work and back home and not have to worry about whether we're going to get attacked for our food or clothing (or by animals). When man lived as bush people these things were a legitimate concern.

We live (on average) to be 80 and 90 years old these days not because violence has increased, but because violence has decreased and medicine is readily available (something you don't get without technology).

Honestly, I think you need to think about these things a little deeper.
 
I AM serious on this.

Perhaps violence, etc has decreased from the middle Ages and colonial times, and medicine etc has improved, but we are now creating things that will lead to our own demise. Our inventions have rendered countless species of animals extinct, and changed the very environment of our globe. Sure, medicine is good, but we have been destroying exotic plants and animals for those chemicals! Anyway, medicine doesnt work for me... I use organic fruits/vegetables and Chinese herbs.

What about pesticides? The pesticides we use have chemicals in them that, while not enough to kill anyone, are bad for us and that many people can get allergic reactions from. I know from experience. To answer any questions before they are asked, no i did not eat some tomato thrown in the garbage and sprayed with a lead coating.
 
To answer any questions before they are asked, no i did not eat some tomato thrown in the garbage and sprayed with a lead coating.
Did you eat some tomato with a lead coating from a garbage can? :P

As for pesticides, they let us have much larger crops, etc. And speaking of tomatoes, without pesticides, we'd lose a third of tomatoes. They make crops more efficient.
 
Excellent post, danoff 👍 There just isn't enough rep to go round, unfortunately.

As far as humanity digging it's own grave or causing some sort of 'irreversible decline', I'd say that we should remember what we are - just one species of living creature in a vast and complex web (and chain) of life - and remember our place in the grander scheme of things. Human beings are not the owners of Planet Earth - we are neither divine or perniciously evil as a species... the planet and all life on it is not at our mercy... we, and every other living thing, is at the mercy of the planet... (and the Sun, among other things).

Our actions may well alter the environment for other species other than our own (but that is another debate) - but our influence (however detrimental it may turn out to be) doesn't amount to a hill of beans in the greater scheme of things... We could all turn Amish tomorrow and live a chastened life of peace and harmony and never burn another fossil fuel ever again in our collective lives, and yet the human race would still be at the mercy of our environment. The next ice age will happen anyway... the next extinction-level collision will happen anyway too (we just don't know when...).

Yes, human influence has undoubtedly cause some species to become extinct (or driven many to the brink of extinction - big difference...!), but there is some evidence to suggest that we are living through a mass-extinction event right now anyway - extinction and speciation are perfectly natural events and it happens with us and/or without us...
 
...but there is some evidence to suggest that we are living through a mass-extinction event right now anyway - extinction and speciation are perfectly natural events and it happens with us and/or without us...

Which is why I went for a long drive on open roads this morning. Life's short, unless you screw it up. In that case, it's quite long.
 
Back