Jump to content

Random Education

Mr. Not

By Mr. Not,
in Grand Designs

Recommended Posts

JohnnyBlaze

JohnnyBlaze

Posted
Posted

QUOTE (Ancient Ways @ Apr 26 2011, 10:18 AM)
QUOTE (usb_connector @ Apr 25 2011, 09:06 PM)
Captain Kirk kissing Uhura on Star Trek was the first time a coccasian kissed an African American on television.

they never kissed. it was simulated.

Found this on wiki...

In her role as Lieutenant Uhura, Nichols famously kissed white actor William Shatner as Captain James T. Kirk in the November 22, 1968 Star Trek episode "Plato's Stepchildren". The episode is popularly cited as the first example of an inter-racial kiss on United States television.[11][12][13]

 

The Shatner-Nichols kiss was seen as groundbreaking, even though the kiss was portrayed as having been forced by alien telekinesis. There was some praise and some protest. In her 1994 autobiography, Beyond Uhura, Star Trek and Other Memories, on page 197 Nichols cites a letter from one white Southerner who wrote: "I am totally opposed to the mixing of the races. However, any time a red-blooded American boy like Captain Kirk gets a beautiful dame in his arms that looks like Uhura, he ain't gonna fight it." During the Comedy Central roast of Shatner on August 20, 2006, Nichols jokingly referred to the groundbreaking moment and said, "Let's make TV history again ... and you can kiss my black ass!"

 

http://www.therushforum.com/html/emoticons/laugh.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 75
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Principled Man

Principled Man

Posted
Posted

QUOTE (JohnnyBlaze @ Apr 26 2011, 07:55 AM)
QUOTE (Ancient Ways @ Apr 26 2011, 10:18 AM)
QUOTE (usb_connector @ Apr 25 2011, 09:06 PM)
Captain Kirk kissing Uhura on Star Trek was the first time a coccasian kissed an African American on television.

they never kissed. it was simulated.

Found this on wiki...

In her role as Lieutenant Uhura, Nichols famously kissed white actor William Shatner as Captain James T. Kirk in the November 22, 1968 Star Trek episode "Plato's Stepchildren". The episode is popularly cited as the first example of an inter-racial kiss on United States television.[11][12][13]

 

The Shatner-Nichols kiss was seen as groundbreaking, even though the kiss was portrayed as having been forced by alien telekinesis. There was some praise and some protest. In her 1994 autobiography, Beyond Uhura, Star Trek and Other Memories, on page 197 Nichols cites a letter from one white Southerner who wrote: "I am totally opposed to the mixing of the races. However, any time a red-blooded American boy like Captain Kirk gets a beautiful dame in his arms that looks like Uhura, he ain't gonna fight it." During the Comedy Central roast of Shatner on August 20, 2006, Nichols jokingly referred to the groundbreaking moment and said, "Let's make TV history again ... and you can kiss my black ass!"

 

http://www.therushforum.com/html/emoticons/laugh.gif

The producers of Star Trek had originally planned to have Spock kissing Uhura (and Kirk kissing Nurse Chapel), but Shatner lobbied to have Kirk be the one to kiss her.

 

Afterall, he was the Star of the show..... http://www.therushforum.com/html/emoticons/eyesre4.gif http://www.therushforum.com/html/emoticons/eyesre4.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JohnnyBlaze

JohnnyBlaze

Posted
Posted

QUOTE (Workaholic Man @ Apr 27 2011, 08:46 AM)
QUOTE (JohnnyBlaze @ Apr 26 2011, 07:55 AM)
QUOTE (Ancient Ways @ Apr 26 2011, 10:18 AM)
QUOTE (usb_connector @ Apr 25 2011, 09:06 PM)
Captain Kirk kissing Uhura on Star Trek was the first time a coccasian kissed an African American on television.

they never kissed. it was simulated.

Found this on wiki...

In her role as Lieutenant Uhura, Nichols famously kissed white actor William Shatner as Captain James T. Kirk in the November 22, 1968 Star Trek episode "Plato's Stepchildren". The episode is popularly cited as the first example of an inter-racial kiss on United States television.[11][12][13]

 

The Shatner-Nichols kiss was seen as groundbreaking, even though the kiss was portrayed as having been forced by alien telekinesis. There was some praise and some protest. In her 1994 autobiography, Beyond Uhura, Star Trek and Other Memories, on page 197 Nichols cites a letter from one white Southerner who wrote: "I am totally opposed to the mixing of the races. However, any time a red-blooded American boy like Captain Kirk gets a beautiful dame in his arms that looks like Uhura, he ain't gonna fight it." During the Comedy Central roast of Shatner on August 20, 2006, Nichols jokingly referred to the groundbreaking moment and said, "Let's make TV history again ... and you can kiss my black ass!"

 

http://www.therushforum.com/html/emoticons/laugh.gif

The producers of Star Trek had originally planned to have Spock kissing Uhura (and Kirk kissing Nurse Chapel), but Shatner lobbied to have Kirk be the one to kiss her.

 

Afterall, he was the Star of the show..... http://www.therushforum.com/html/emoticons/eyesre4.gif http://www.therushforum.com/html/emoticons/eyesre4.gif

http://www.therushforum.com/html/emoticons/laugh.gif I can totally believe that

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr. Not

Mr. Not

Posted
  • Author
Posted

QUOTE (Good,bad,andrush @ Apr 26 2011, 05:16 PM)
To revolve a shape around the x-axis, make sure you multiply the integral by pi and that the function being integrated is squared; otherwise you're in deep shit.

http://www.terrapass.com/images/blogposts/mathishard.jpg

 

 

QUOTE (JohnnyBlaze @ Apr 27 2011, 05:24 AM)
The very first masked/superhero to appear in American comics (in 1936) wasn't Superman. It was this guy:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/11/Funny_Picture_Stories_1.jpg
THE CLOCK
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr. Not

Mr. Not

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Little bit on perspective & judgment:

 

1. Identity is based largely on the illusion of a narrative establishment of an archetype of self within that narrative.

2. This narrative is erroneous in every single human being.

3. it is impossible to object to a delusional perception of self in another human being when one's own perception of one's own self is demonstrably delusional as well. To do so would be an act of hypocrisy inconsistent with the hitherto defined parameters of human discourse. In other words, the pot cannot call the kettle black (the kettle remains black, but the pot's blackness negates this criticism or makes it universal and thus pragmatically irrelevant).

4. Because delusion is invariable and presumably inescapable, no one sense of self can be seen as superior in veracity to another.

5. An evil man who perceives himself as good cannot be contradicted by other men (for reasons explained in supposition #3) or by an established system of ethics derived from man, god, or nature.

 

 

Source, Book: In the Defense of Evil

 

 

 

Kind of, a bit.. Elaborate? http://www.therushforum.com/html/emoticons/unsure.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Good,bad,andrush

Good,bad,andrush

Posted
Posted
When the limit of x is approaching infinity, look at the highest degree of the variables on both the numerator and denominator. If the degree is equal, the answer will be the top coefficient divided by the bottom coeffecient. If the degree of the variables in the numerator is higher, the answer is infinity. If the degree of the variable in the denominator is lower, the answer is 0.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Principled Man

Principled Man

Posted
Posted

OK, grammar control freaks....have at it!! http://www.therushforum.com/html/emoticons/laugh.gif http://www.therushforum.com/html/emoticons/laugh.gif http://www.therushforum.com/html/emoticons/laugh.gif

 

your

you're

 

there

their

they're

 

to

too

two

 

 

He and I went to the Rush concert. GOOD http://www.therushforum.com/html/emoticons/new_thumbsupsmileyanim.gif

 

We went to the Rush concert. GOOD http://www.therushforum.com/html/emoticons/new_thumbsupsmileyanim.gif

 

Me and him went to the concert. VERY BAD http://www.therushforum.com/html/emoticons/new_thumbsdownsmileyanim.gif http://www.therushforum.com/html/emoticons/rage.gif

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JohnnyBlaze

JohnnyBlaze

Posted
Posted

QUOTE (Kenneth @ Apr 28 2011, 03:05 AM)
QUOTE (Good @ bad,andrush,Apr 26 2011, 05:16 PM)
To revolve a shape around the x-axis, make sure you multiply the integral by pi and that the function being integrated is squared; otherwise you're in deep shit.

http://www.terrapass.com/images/blogposts/mathishard.jpg

 

 

QUOTE (JohnnyBlaze @ Apr 27 2011, 05:24 AM)
The very first masked/superhero to appear in American comics (in 1936) wasn't Superman. It was this guy:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/11/Funny_Picture_Stories_1.jpg
THE CLOCK

So, Kirk making out with Uhura is education. Comic history is not. Gotcha http://www.therushforum.com/html/emoticons/cool10.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Good,bad,andrush

Good,bad,andrush

Posted
Posted

QUOTE (JohnnyBlaze @ Apr 27 2011, 10:03 PM)
QUOTE (Kenneth @ Apr 28 2011, 03:05 AM)
QUOTE (Good @ bad,andrush,Apr 26 2011, 05:16 PM)
To revolve a shape around the x-axis, make sure you multiply the integral by pi and that the function being integrated is squared; otherwise you're in deep shit.

http://www.terrapass.com/images/blogposts/mathishard.jpg

 

 

QUOTE (JohnnyBlaze @ Apr 27 2011, 05:24 AM)
The very first masked/superhero to appear in American comics (in 1936) wasn't Superman. It was this guy:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/11/Funny_Picture_Stories_1.jpg
THE CLOCK

So, Kirk making out with Uhura is education. Comic history is not. Gotcha http://www.therushforum.com/html/emoticons/cool10.gif

We tried moving the kissing thing to the other thread but you guys didn't see it, I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
USB Connector

USB Connector

Posted
Posted
The battle of Wolfe vs. Montcalm lasted about 15 minutes and essentially cost the French all of Canada. However, the English didn't want a revolt on their hands so they gave them Quebec to govern with a modified version of French laws.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
An Enemy Without

An Enemy Without

Posted
Posted

The Ship of Theseus Paradox (looked up on the ever-trustworthy Wikipedia)

 

The Ship of Theseus, also known as Theseus' paradox, or various variants, notably grandfather's axe and (in the UK) Trigger's Broom is a paradox that raises the question of whether an object which has had all its component parts replaced remains fundamentally the same object.

 

Plutarch thus questions whether the ship would remain the same if it were entirely replaced, piece by piece. Centuries later, the philosopher Thomas Hobbes introduced a further puzzle, wondering: what would happen if the original planks were gathered up after they were replaced, and used to build a second ship. Which ship, if either, is the original Ship of Theseus?

 

John Locke (a 17th-century English writer) proposed a scenario regarding a favorite sock that develops a hole. He pondered whether the sock would still be the same after a patch was applied to the hole. If yes, then, would it still be the same sock after a second patch was applied? Indeed, would it still be the same sock many years later, even after all of the material of the original sock has been replaced with patches?

 

According to the philosophical system of Aristotle and his followers, there are four causes or reasons that describe a thing; these causes can be analyzed to get to a solution to the paradox. The formal cause or form is the design of a thing, while the material cause is the matter that the thing is made of. The "what-it-is" of a thing, according to Aristotle, is its formal cause; so the Ship of Theseus is the same ship, because the formal cause, or design, does not change, even though the matter used to construct it may vary with time.

 

For the relativist interpreter of Buddhism, replacement paradoxes such as Ship of Theseus are answered by stating that the Ship of Theseus remains so (within the conventions that assert it) until it ceases to function as the Ship of Theseus. Alternately, one can also say that the Ship of Theseus is not the Ship of Theseus, as ultimately nothing can be said to exist as "self" or "entity". Everything is anatta. Buddhism also explores the idea of khandha or compounds, in a way similar to this paradox.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
laughedatbytime

laughedatbytime

Posted
Posted

QUOTE (An Enemy Without @ May 17 2011, 08:09 PM)
The Ship of Theseus Paradox (looked up on the ever-trustworthy Wikipedia)

The Ship of Theseus, also known as Theseus' paradox, or various variants, notably grandfather's axe and (in the UK) Trigger's Broom is a paradox that raises the question of whether an object which has had all its component parts replaced remains fundamentally the same object.

Plutarch thus questions whether the ship would remain the same if it were entirely replaced, piece by piece. Centuries later, the philosopher Thomas Hobbes introduced a further puzzle, wondering: what would happen if the original planks were gathered up after they were replaced, and used to build a second ship. Which ship, if either, is the original Ship of Theseus?

John Locke (a 17th-century English writer) proposed a scenario regarding a favorite sock that develops a hole. He pondered whether the sock would still be the same after a patch was applied to the hole. If yes, then, would it still be the same sock after a second patch was applied? Indeed, would it still be the same sock many years later, even after all of the material of the original sock has been replaced with patches?

According to the philosophical system of Aristotle and his followers, there are four causes or reasons that describe a thing; these causes can be analyzed to get to a solution to the paradox. The formal cause or form is the design of a thing, while the material cause is the matter that the thing is made of. The "what-it-is" of a thing, according to Aristotle, is its formal cause; so the Ship of Theseus is the same ship, because the formal cause, or design, does not change, even though the matter used to construct it may vary with time.

For the relativist interpreter of Buddhism, replacement paradoxes such as Ship of Theseus are answered by stating that the Ship of Theseus remains so (within the conventions that assert it) until it ceases to function as the Ship of Theseus. Alternately, one can also say that the Ship of Theseus is not the Ship of Theseus, as ultimately nothing can be said to exist as "self" or "entity". Everything is anatta. Buddhism also explores the idea of khandha or compounds, in a way similar to this paradox.

There are an awful lot of bands touring this summer that are relying on The Ship of Theseus Paradox. http://www.therushforum.com/html/emoticons/tongue.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
An Enemy Without

An Enemy Without

Posted
Posted

QUOTE (laughedatbytime @ May 17 2011, 08:25 PM)
QUOTE (An Enemy Without @ May 17 2011, 08:09 PM)
The Ship of Theseus Paradox (looked up on the ever-trustworthy Wikipedia)

The Ship of Theseus, also known as Theseus' paradox, or various variants, notably grandfather's axe and (in the UK) Trigger's Broom is a paradox that raises the question of whether an object which has had all its component parts replaced remains fundamentally the same object.

Plutarch thus questions whether the ship would remain the same if it were entirely replaced, piece by piece. Centuries later, the philosopher Thomas Hobbes introduced a further puzzle, wondering: what would happen if the original planks were gathered up after they were replaced, and used to build a second ship. Which ship, if either, is the original Ship of Theseus?

John Locke (a 17th-century English writer) proposed a scenario regarding a favorite sock that develops a hole. He pondered whether the sock would still be the same after a patch was applied to the hole. If yes, then, would it still be the same sock after a second patch was applied? Indeed, would it still be the same sock many years later, even after all of the material of the original sock has been replaced with patches?

According to the philosophical system of Aristotle and his followers, there are four causes or reasons that describe a thing; these causes can be analyzed to get to a solution to the paradox. The formal cause or form is the design of a thing, while the material cause is the matter that the thing is made of. The "what-it-is" of a thing, according to Aristotle, is its formal cause; so the Ship of Theseus is the same ship, because the formal cause, or design, does not change, even though the matter used to construct it may vary with time.

For the relativist interpreter of Buddhism, replacement paradoxes such as Ship of Theseus are answered by stating that the Ship of Theseus remains so (within the conventions that assert it) until it ceases to function as the Ship of Theseus. Alternately, one can also say that the Ship of Theseus is not the Ship of Theseus, as ultimately nothing can be said to exist as "self" or "entity". Everything is anatta. Buddhism also explores the idea of khandha or compounds, in a way similar to this paradox.

There are an awful lot of bands touring this summer that are relying on The Ship of Theseus Paradox. http://www.therushforum.com/html/emoticons/tongue.gif

So true. Thankfully, Rush isn't one of them (at least not really). I will never question their identities.

http://www.therushforum.com/html/emoticons/2.gif http://www.therushforum.com/html/emoticons/GeddyFinal.gif http://www.therushforum.com/html/emoticons/NeilFinal.gif http://www.therushforum.com/html/emoticons/AlexFinal.gif http://www.therushforum.com/html/emoticons/2.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...