tarjei

I'm a bit curious now that you mentioned it. Any examples of "big 'mysteries' dating back a couple of series" that have not been revealed?

If they revealed all there would of course be no reason to watch it. I can see where you're coming from but I don't agree. I would say they're giving away just about the right amount of info to still keep it interesting and not annoy the viewers. If you watch a soap it's just amazing how long they manage to drag the simplest thing out. You end up wanting to kill the writers and get it over with, but that means you'd never know the answer. In Lost there's a slow but gratifying revelation of the story. The use of flashbacks and flashforwards are elegantly used, in my opinion. They all have a purpose and they're a big part in understanding why things are panning out the way they are. A lot has been revealed. If you sit down and watch it all over again and write a list I'm sure that list would be pretty long. You're still left with more mysteries and more questions, but they need to be there. When the third season was over I saw all episodes over again in a short time frame and I noticed that alot of what you see in the show later on was already planned a long time ago. In example there are glimpses of people in the flashbacks that appear to be just random extras, but later on their connection to story becomes clearer, and it's clear that this was intended when they first appeared. I didn't notice this when I saw the episodes over a long period of time.

May I ask why? :shock:

Rocafella, thanks for your effort, but your routine is almost identical to mine. I use specialized products including oil. The only thing I haven't tried is something other than a Gillette razor, but it's the only one available to me. I considered buying an old-school gear, but it was very expensive, given that I wasn't sure if would help at all. Basically the only thing that works for me is to shave as rarely as possible, and instead use a scissor to trim it down.

I have similar problem Ryan. When I shave my skin looks very healthy, but after about a day I get lots of bumps (small red spots with transparent fluid in them caused by the hairs irritating the skin) and after a couple of days I get hairs that are stuck in the follicle and cause the follicle to close and produce icky stuff to get rid of the hair. If I don't shave everything is as it should be. The thing is, they don't have a lifetime to get to know you. They need to decide who to employ based on quite a short period of time, and if both you and another guy have the same qualifications and experience, and he looks better presented, who would you hire? Could I not apply your argument to *any* appearance characteristic? Well, I don't want to be working for someone who cares if I turn up in a suit, or a pair of jeans and a Villa shirt. Well, I don't want to be working for someone who cares if I don't do my hair, can't be bothered to iron my uniform, and turn up eating my breakfast during the interview. You've got just the interview to make an impression, use every possible advantage you can get, don't risk losing a job that you want because you get interviewed by someone who thinks stubble looks unprofessional! That's true of course. If you really want the job, it's best to be on the safe side. Things like this annoys me, but I understand it. I don't want to be a part of it though. Get in line, sit down, stand up, shut up and cash your check.

If I wasn't hired because I hadn't shaved then that's would be a good thing because I don't want to be working for someone that cares if I shave or not.

Ryan's sig is "if you are reading this you really should get out more"

I like these articles. I hope Barry reads them and they inspire him.

Ah, well, I guess it depends who reads it. I find it to be an annoying bit of information, because I can't really enjoy documentaries about the universe anymore as this little assumption has such a big impact on everything. It can make you question everything they say. And if you say stuff like this most people will think you're crazy. If you find it interesting here's the site where I first read about it: link! There's lots of annoying information there that they perhaps don't teach you in school. For example a lot of the stars you see in the night sky are actually mirror images of stars caused by the bending of light around other massive stars/objects. Something that might lead you to question the existence of star clusters and even galaxies. But don't take my word for it, I have no idea if this is correct or not.

Most astronomers agree that the reason for the redshift-distance relationship of galaxies, discovered by Hubble, is down to the doppler effect (caused by motion of the galaxies/lightsource moving away from us). This assumption is the reason that they also believe the universe is expanding and the conclusion of this observation is that the expanding of the universe was caused be a big explosion (the big bang). But other, "eccentric" astronomers believe that it's down to the shapiro effect, or gravitational time delay effect (light losing some of it energy when influenced by gravity and thus being redshifted). If the latter is correct then there is no reason to believe in the big bang.

I don't think it's made clear in the books or in the show, but except for the hunger to kill, Dexter is a textbook schizoid. I think it's a rather rare combo, as any schizoid would do any thing in their power to avoid the hazel of planing, executing a plan and cleaning up. It's just to much work.

Mars have ice on it's polar caps and the indications are there that there were lots of liquid water at some point, but water can't exist there now because of the lack of atmosphere (unless it's stored away somewhere). If Earth's magnetic field weakened significantly over a long period of time the same thing could happen here.

TRL, I was replying to Stevo, but I agree it's not meaningless in that sense. It's an important question, but it's meaningless to give yourself a big headache because there is no guaranteed answer and one can only speculate at this point. The "something from noting" is just as futile also, because we have no clue whatsoever. There might be multiple universes, there might be a creator, or there might be a spaghetti monster or an invisible tea pot in the sky for all we know. If there is no space, is there time? If time didn't exist, how can one ask what was before?

The big bang theory doesn't say that something is created from nothing. It's says that all matter in the universe was at a singular, infinitely small point, and then expanded. What happened before that is a somewhat meaningless question as there is no answer. String theory have a rather neat explanation on the creation of the universe, but it's feels more like speculation than anything concrete. "The Elegant Universe" is a decent documentary in three parts if your interested in that, or the book the movie is based on. Some of it can be found on youtube.

How about "a needle in a male student's flat"? I should add to my previous post that I'm assuming that these hypotetical advanced races have the same tecnique and limititations as us for finding planets/life and that is probably a rather naive assumption.

Thats a good read. However, my argument, based on an assumption of course, is that if there are other civilastions out there, there are some that are at a more advanced stage than us scientifically ( there may be some that are at a less advanced stage). If that is the case, and they have mastered space travel, why have we not had any contact from them? Why would they come here if they don't know we're here? That's a good point as well. Aside from our sun orbital variation due to the gravitational pull from the surrounding planets, there is no indication for someone far away that there are planets close to our sun, much less that life exist on one of them.

Those arguments are not really valid if you think about it. The first argument, that there has been no evidence of life elsewhere can't be seen as an indication, because frankly, the amount of places we've looked is so small in comparison to how many planets potentially excist. So far very few planets and some moons can be confirmed to not support life. In total I think the amount of confirmed planets discovered outside our solar system is something like 300 and aside from looking at their orbit and vaguely determining their composition, we have no clue whatsoever if they can support life. Consider this: "Outer space, as it was aptly put by the late Douglas Adams, is vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big. Astronomy's most up-to-date observations and calculations number the stars in the visible universe at somewhere around seventy sextillion (7 x 1022), an incomprehensible value which is seldom welcome in polite company. This figure is so formidable that any attempt to scale it for human consumption results in such impotent analogies as "ten times as many stars as grains of sand on all the world's beaches and deserts;" or, "ten trillion stars for every man, woman, and child on Earth." The 2nd argument about not picking up radio signals does not prove anything either, because if there were radio signals being sent out there, we would most likely not pick them up anyway: Read the whole article here.

I'm not sure, but I think it's due to the forces being to weak to support the objects moving past a certain point.

Drake equation. Here you can try the equation yourself.

Great article. I think the players have done very well, and except for a difficult start against Liverpool, the tactics have been spot on.

The best strikers in the game have a conversion rate of something like 1 in 4, and Owen is probably there or thereabouts. I agree that he isn't as good as he once was and losing his pace is probably the biggest reason why, and he wouldn't be worth the insane salary he would have wanted, but he is still a clever and effective striker. To state that he isn't good enough because he doesn't score on every chance is silly because by that demand you deem every strikers as poor. Of the five top scorers this season Drogba had third best shots/goals ratio of 20%, Rooney had 13% and Ronaldo 12%, while McCarthy and Viduka was best with 29% and 27% respectively.

I never eat pig. It taste like shit, literally. You can taste how the dirty thing eat, breath and lives in shit.

Well said, Blandy! I'm all emotional now, looking at my new Villa shirt that just arrived (it took 7 weeks for the customs authorities to send it to me)

Steve Bruce reveled his new son on a press confence today and commented: "I didn't belive her at first, cos I'd only done her in the wrong 'un, but when I saw him I knew he was mine"

Red Dwarf Red Dwarf Red Dwarf Red Dwarf Red Dwarf !!!