The Intelligent People's Thread |
Post Reply | Page <1 2526272829 63> |
Author | |
moreitsythanyou
Forum Senior Member VIP Member Joined: April 23 2006 Location: NYC Status: Offline Points: 11682 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Then, shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shalt |
|
<font color=white>butts, lol[/COLOR]
|
|
Shakespeare
Forum Senior Member Joined: July 18 2006 Status: Offline Points: 7744 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Amen.
|
|
cuncuna
Forum Senior Member Joined: March 29 2005 Location: Chile Status: Offline Points: 4318 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I still haven't heard from you about that subject... |
|
ĦBeware of the Bee!
|
|
Vompatti
Forum Senior Member VIP Member Joined: October 22 2005 Location: elsewhere Status: Offline Points: 67407 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
You asked for it!
Taking Over the World by Controlling Male Orgasms in One Easy Lesson by Vompatti The ongoing rise of feminism has brought up a question that is now on everyone's lips: the female orgasm. What is it, how does it feel, and how do I get one? While these are all interesting questions worth pursuing, I'm going to focus on a subject that has been overshadowed by them, that is, the male orgasm. The male orgasm offers infinite possibilities, many of them not even mentioned in contemporary scientific studies. It's a well-known fact that most males are - at least to some extent - dependant on fulfilling their sexual desires, of which achieving an orgasm is a crucial part. As Sir Francis Bacon wrote, "Orgasm is power. He who controls the orgasm, controls the world." So how does one exactly control orgasms? (Note that my presentation will concern only the male orgasm. The means of controlling female orgasms differ so vastly from the means of controlling male orgasms that I've made a decision not to discuss both subjects in one essay.) Basically there are two approaches: either you take over the whole world at once or start by taking over a small region. If you're planning on executing the first alternative, you'll need a way to reach every man in the world simultaneously. Obviously this requires rather large investments. For a beginning world dominator I wholeheartedly recommend starting small. That is, a small group of men, not necessarily small orgasms. You can even start with one man. Go to him and say: "Hello, I'm willing to give you an orgasm, if you agree to certain conditions. How about it?" The "certain conditions" mentioned here refer to supporting you in achieving the position of a world leader. If you're attractive, this should work out fine. It doesn't matter if you're female or male if you're attractive enough. If you're not attractive, you should use a telephone. Pick out a random number from a phone book, make sure it's the number of a male, dial the number and make offer. In fact, you'll never even have to meet the man. You can have several phone contacts that supports your plans financially or otherwise. If their interestest starts to wane you can always remind them of the orgasm you promised. The best thing in this plan is that you don't have to do all the work yourself. You can give all the men under your command orders to offer orgasms to other men and thus increase the number of your supporters. Sometimes women are better at luring men, but in order to get women to work for you you'd have to learn the ways to control the female orgasm, which is a tricky task. You can try it, if you like, but don't be disappointed if it doesn't work. It has never worked for me. It's worth reminding that the plan is based on the idea that you start by controlling orgasms on a small area, and then gradually conquer the areas around it until you've conquered the whole world. This is why you should always start on an area surrounded by men. Don't start anywhere in Antarctica, for example. Polar bears have orgasms too, but to control them you need extensive knowledge in zoology. As you can see, controlling male orgasms is much easier than it sounds. You don't even have to snap your fingers. Learn to control orgasms today, take over the world in a manner of weeks! |
|
Vompatti
Forum Senior Member VIP Member Joined: October 22 2005 Location: elsewhere Status: Offline Points: 67407 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
No comment on my essay? This must mean that everyone in the world agrees with me!
|
|
Vompatti
Forum Senior Member VIP Member Joined: October 22 2005 Location: elsewhere Status: Offline Points: 67407 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I should probably post this on some mathematician forum, but instead I post it here. I just figured out a definition for division by zero:
1. Any number divided by zero equals infinity, except zero divided by zero, which equals zero. 2. The bigger the number divided by zero, the bigger the infinity it equals. The reason why I came up with this definition is as follows: 1 / 1 = 1 1 / (1/2) = 2 1 / (1/4) = 4 1 / (a very small number) = (a very big number) 1 / 0 = infinity 2 / 1 = 1 2 / (1/2) = 4 2 / (1/4) = 8 2 / (a very small number) = (a very big number, even bigger than the bery big number above) 2 / 0 = infinity, but a bigger one than the one above 0 / 0 = 0, because 0 divided by anything is zero, and also because the smaller the number divided by zero the smaller the infinity. So, practically, zero by zero also equals infinity, but an infinity so small that it's actually zero. (Anyone who doubts whether there are different sizes of infinities should compare the amount of whole numbers to the amount of even numbers. Both are infinite, but the amount of whole numbers is twice as big.) There you go, not let's go divide things by zero! |
|
stonebeard
Forum Senior Member Joined: May 27 2005 Location: NE Indiana Status: Offline Points: 28057 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Is it really that they're bigger infinities, or just that there are infinities that will always be bigger because they got more of a "head start"?
|
|
Vompatti
Forum Senior Member VIP Member Joined: October 22 2005 Location: elsewhere Status: Offline Points: 67407 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
If they will always be bigger, doesn't it mean that they're bigger every moment, and doesn't that mean that they're bigger?
|
|
stonebeard
Forum Senior Member Joined: May 27 2005 Location: NE Indiana Status: Offline Points: 28057 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I suppose that makes sense, but why care?
|
|
Vompatti
Forum Senior Member VIP Member Joined: October 22 2005 Location: elsewhere Status: Offline Points: 67407 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Maybe because it's essential to my theory about division by zero?
|
|
stonebeard
Forum Senior Member Joined: May 27 2005 Location: NE Indiana Status: Offline Points: 28057 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
We all know dividing by zero creates wormholes. I think you're playing with fire, here.
|
|
The Pessimist
Prog Reviewer Joined: June 13 2007 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 3834 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
i have a religious tangent:
according to the bible, God is forever omnipresent. This would mean that if I were to hold a bagal (any other food that you find amusing) in the air, then apparently God is ETERNALLY TRAPPED INSIDE A BAGAL. this also means that if i were to eat the bagal, then i would be eating God, however, if God is existent in every part of my body, then technically he is eating himself. Christians also state that self harm is an abomination, as it would be harming a creation of God. God created himself, as there was nothing before him, so therefore (bear with me) if he EATS himself, then he is self harming, hence breaking his own rules. Now to me that sounds like the writers of the bible didn't really think it through |
|
stonebeard
Forum Senior Member Joined: May 27 2005 Location: NE Indiana Status: Offline Points: 28057 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Or maybe those rules only applied to humans...
Also, God wouldn't be trapped in the bagel, because if he is omnipresent, he is also outside of the bagel. Also, I believe it's not the same sort of presence. Probably the Holy Spirit would be in the bagel, if anything. |
|
Vompatti
Forum Senior Member VIP Member Joined: October 22 2005 Location: elsewhere Status: Offline Points: 67407 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
God is not material, so I don't think he's really in the bagel. And
that's why you can't eat him either (not even a part of him). However,
I wonder, would this
imply that God isn't omnipresent, because there's a place (the bagel)
where he isn't? Or is it so that he actually is everywhere in space,
but because he's not material he cannot be "inside" objects and thus
cannot be eaten? But, is it possible to be everywhere in space without
being inside objects? One possible explanation would be that God IS
space, so that he is everywhere and all objects are in him. So when we eat a bagel we are not eating God, and when the bagel is eaten, God is still in the place where the bagel was.
|
|
Vompatti
Forum Senior Member VIP Member Joined: October 22 2005 Location: elsewhere Status: Offline Points: 67407 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Since I've solved the problem of God's omnipresence, let us move on to a similar and equally exciting subject: RPG's, and more precisely, the unrealistic split between HP's and MP's.
I think we all agree that the spirit and the body are so connected that any damage to one of them always weakens the other one too. This is why I find it peculiar that most RPG's make a difference between health points (HP), units of physical health and mana points (MP), units of magical power. When you cast a spell you lose mana points, but not health points, meaning that losing some of your magical powers doesn't cause you to weaken physically. Whenever you take physical damage, you lose some HP, but this doesn't affect your abilities to cast spells. I ask you, if you're physically weak, almost dead even, how is it possible that you still have powers to cast spells or even summon aeons? This makes no sense. I hereby suggest that HP and MP be combined, so that taking physical damage also weakens your magical abilities, and casting powerful spells weakens you physically as well as spiritually. It's also worth noting that losing MP doesn't actually weaken your spells until you run completely out of it. I think it would be reasonable that with your MP full your spells are more powerful than with only some MP left. The same goes for HP. If you've taken a lot of damage, is it really realistic that your attacks are as strong as when your HP is full? Surely not. So, since we've combined HP and MP, I suggest that any damage to your character, whether caused by the enemies' attacks or your own spells that drain your magical powers, causes you to weaken so that your attacks, whether magical or physical, make less damage to the enemies than they do when you're completely healthy. I feel inclined to emphasize the fact that these are not merely theoretical suggestions, but ideas that seem so obvious that it seems almost a sacrilege that they haven't been adopted to RPG's earlier. So, makers of the Final Fantasy series, combine HP and MP in your next game and it will be second best game ever, right after Final Fantasy VII, which, and I think I'm speaking for everyone here, will, despite that fact that it makes a difference between HP and MP, always remain the best game ever. Edited by Vompatti - December 20 2007 at 06:25 |
|
The Pessimist
Prog Reviewer Joined: June 13 2007 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 3834 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
i have another suggestion. why not have a larger amount of HP and have magic spells take a little bit of HP off due to exaustion, this would limit magic spells to a realistic degree, eliminate the general annoyance of MP and simplify the game.
lets think realistically now: if you cast a huge amount of spells, are you not going to be vulnerable due to exaustion? although magic does not exist (so far as i know), i can almost imagine that you would be tired after using some of it, making you easier to "kill" or be knocked out. so i think it wise for the makers of classic RPGs (squaresoft etc) to create one single measurement that decreases after every action taken, as it would take up stamina in real life. |
|
ebag7125
Forum Senior Member Joined: December 21 2006 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 129 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Hey, now that i'm a senior member, can I be in the intelligent club? please!?! please?!? I can do math and read and stuff!
|
|
|
|
Vompatti
Forum Senior Member VIP Member Joined: October 22 2005 Location: elsewhere Status: Offline Points: 67407 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
If you want to join you should follow the instructions on page 1 (one) and post 5 (five) of your best characteristics. |
|
ebag7125
Forum Senior Member Joined: December 21 2006 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 129 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
1. i have a bellybutton
2. i like to paint
3. i have a blue bike
4. i have hair down to my knees
5. i got feet down below my knees
|
|
|
|
jetson
Forum Groupie Joined: December 22 2007 Location: Mexico Status: Offline Points: 76 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I sold an x-box to my brother ...
best business ever, I received the money and I can still play it am I in? |
|
|
|
Post Reply | Page <1 2526272829 63> |
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |