Daedalus

VIP
  • Content count

    439
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    13

Daedalus last won the day on September 15 2016

Daedalus had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

305 IBS Master

1 Follower

About Daedalus

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Exams
    May 2011

Recent Profile Visitors

8,993 profile views
  1. Nah, Oxford is notoriously inferior to Cambridge. It also spits out ex-Etonian politicians <content deleted for being inappropriate> By all means apply to Cambridge, though. With a great IB prediction; a good personal statement (& explanation for the GCSEs); and sparkling reference, you should do fine. Cambridge also interviews a higher proportion of their students (ie trusts grades less). Merry mistchras!
  2. Two disturbing trends. The mental illness thing: it's an analogy that is absolutely inappropriate. It's like me saying religion is a disorder (except one which, unlike homosexuality, does not manifest in our evolutionary predecessors, nor other animals for that matter...). And anyways: guys, how does religion come into this? Since when has religion been a factor when it comes to human rights? Separation of the church and state, kids. No one religion can have precedence over others when it comes to the establishment of law. And if you want to use the Bible to back up your homophobia, you better take the Bible as it is. Ever read the Old Testament? I seriously doubt that there are any more misogynistic texts widely read today. Adultery, in the Bible, is punishable by stoning. Disobeying your parents is punishable by stoning. Losing your virginity before you're married is punishable by stoning. Everyone must get stoned! Which is a message you can find in the Koran too, of course; I'm not discriminating. But I'd rather have you be hypocrites and ignore all the fiddly bits in your Holy Books--the ones that don't quite fit with 21st century views of morality and equality--than use them to justify ignorant prejudices. PS. Anyone for banning marine18? @marine18: stop copy and pasting your material (it doesn't quite qualify as productive use of technology); try not to cite contradictory statistics in a single post (what, according to your ridiculously titled "heterosexual rights" organisation (as if destroying someone else's rights qualifies as your own) is the real % of homosexuals in the population?); and try not to use outdated and discredited studies. PPS (hey, that's a subject!). Please let's just ban that thing? How the hell do you pass down a "hormonal imbalance" which causes homosexuality (which (as you actually point out) is a slight impediment to the survival of one's genes) down generations? PPPS (I know, I know). In the spirit of IB and liberalism and acceptance and predicting future trends and world peace and stuff ... let's lump homophobia with racism and anti-Semitism and the whole Nazi brew and just ban him. Peace.
  3. Time to take the red pill -- Take me out, G. Oh, by the way, some of my posts might be worth keeping..
  4. Who the hell is Lars Breivik? I hope u dont mean Anders Breivik, the guy who committed mass murder in Norway...
  5. I don't think absolute moral judgments in this context are justifiable. On the other hand, if you think of a functioning society and what it enables the individual to do, there's an argument to be made for compromising various liberties for the collective good. And any society without a fundamental law against murder would be deeply dysfunctional. This is a good way to look at religions too; for example, part of the reason that Christianity and Islam are such major worldwide religions is that they both have taboos on both murder and suicide.
  6. It depends, mostly, on the extent. Extremely extroverted people are - in my experience - dependent on constant social interactions for their self-esteem. They're less emotionally stable and possibly poorer at problem-solving and other intellectual skills that require no social sense. Extremely introverted people, on the other hand, are just awkward and often incapable of forming meaningful relationships, especially with people they haven't known for a long time. It's pretty easy to change your personality in this respect, though. Awkward? Go out more, meet people, take risks. Can't be alone? Be alone more. Write, read, do something that requires you to think independently. Most of life is really about finding some sort of a balance.
  7. Sex

    Lol, and the media spreads these lies because ... all reporters have large cocks or (in America's case, and/or) big breasts? This is silly. AAs obviously aren't as attractive as a nice C or D. People's preferences vary, obviously, but most people prefer decent sized breasts, for whatever evolutionary reason. More milk or something, healthier offspring, whatever. And yes, penile length matters. All other things equal a guy with a longer penis will probably give the girl more satisfaction. That doesn't mean people with small penises (or Asian ancestors) should despair - you can still give her an orgasm, without your penis if you have to - but it's just silly to deny it entirely. When a penis is so small the girl barely feels it, that's clearly an issue.
  8. To be happy, whatever that means to you.
  9. Yeah, I did it in less. In March. But take it fuc king seriously. Everybody has a panic mode. Mine kicks in about 15 minutes before exams and 4 months after the internal EE deadline, but when it does I work faster than a rabbit having sex.
  10. It doesn't matter because .. you have good taste in music. Also, I saw them live! More seriously you should always know where you are in maths, in terms of test readiness. Do exercises in the books. Take relevant questions from past papers. Then study accordingly ... you wouldn't drive with your eyes closed, right?
  11. Don't you see how your 'argument' could be used to justify exactly anything? If somebody told you they believed in the Purple Horned Unicorn because they were raised with it, and that nothing anybody says can shake their faith in it, wouldn't you think they were an idiot? That's basically what this sounds like. I appreciate you trying to show us your spiritual journey, but all I can make out in this post is that at some point you substituted emotion for reason as your way of knowing, and things went downhill from there.
  12. Dark matter is theorized to represent 83% of the matter in the universe (and dark energy is more complicated) but that doesn't have anything to do with what (the) space (in between) is largely made out of. In the purest, most logical and cleareset explanation space is simply the absence of particles. Yes, there are meteors roaring around every now and then. And there are planets, although again, if you made a scale model of our solar system, and the sun had an 8-inch (20 cm) diameter, earth would be the size of a peppercorn and would have to be located 26 yards (24 meters) away from the it. Also, think about it logically. The reason earth has an atmosphere - although quite complicated - is fundamentally to do with the gravitational forces of its mass. All matter exerts a gravitational force, but in Space, most of the time, you'd be floating, because you'd be too far from any sort of mass center to have it exert a measurable effect. The virtual particles thing is, from what I remember, something we had to invent (a bit like dark matter and dark energy) in order to account for some anomalies, although that might be completely wrong, but it's sort of like neutrinos -- millions of them pass through your body every second, but they're (clearly) impossible to feel and extremely tricky to detect. Particle physics is very complex, but it doesn't really come into this argument, which is about establishing what space is largely made up of, which is the absence of matter. And the atom thing is much more complex again, because as you get down to the minute scale all the little laws of attraction and repulsion and stuff start to have a huge effect. This is why nano-particles behave so oddly. For example, you never actually touch anything: the electrons in one atom make the largely empty space have negative charge density, which repels electrons from another atom when they get close enough. Technically, when we lie down, we float. But that's basically irrelevant because it occurs on so small a scale, and it has no macro-scale equivalent: two planets getting closer and closer to each other would simply crash, and probably form a new, bigger planet, because on this scale gravitation forces are far more important than the trillions of billionths of charges hidden on the atomic level in each planet. But again, people just have trouble comprehending the vastness, and the vast emptiness, of the universe. If you could somehow leave the earth's atmosphere, say, by being fired from a cannon from a hot air balloon somewhere where the air was already pretty thin, you'd gradually be able to breathe less, then not at all, lose your sense of weight, and start to move, through inertia, in the direction you were cast away and at the exact same speed. Assuming you somehow solved the breathing and eating and excrement/piss problem, you would die of old age before you came within 100 kilometers of anything. I guarantee it.
  13. Jaymi, I'm gonna stop replying to you now. And please, don't bring ignoramuses from Zimbabwe into a debate on IBS, which (theoretically) involves bright IB students. In practice it involves ... IB students. Yeah, there's a little bit about this in Hawking's bestseller. It's very complex and the point is, matter and antimatter are in some way essentially opposites, so if one comes into existence the other one does too (analogous, maybe, to a neutral charge splitting into a positive and a negative charge), but ultimately, except for very special circumstances like at the edges of Black Holes, they annihilate each other. Again, the basic principle is there is nothing there. Yes, the actual physics gets much messier, but these events are pretty rare anyways. And I didn't say 100% nothing. I said something like 99.99999999% ... the actual figure doesn't matter!
  14. hmmm we're all entitled to our own opinions...even if there already is a logical explanation for space (which you just enlightened us all with that space is mostly nothing). Plus debating and seeing other peoples views on what THEY think space is part of TOK anyway is it not? Dear God in Heaven Zeus on Mount Olympus, no! Is it TOK to decide whether objects are made up of atoms or a combination of the elements fire, earth, water and air? Is it TOK to argue about whether the sun is responsible for heating up the earth or whether rain is made up of water? You don't "choose" to "think" something about this ... you learn about it, there being a scientific consensus so vast and encompassing that the only reason you'd have a divergent opinion is madness, religious-madness, and ignorance. We are hovering firmly over option three, here, so like I said, Google is your friend.
  15. Ok, the *real* answer for all you random people who apparently have no idea of the basic principles of physics.. Nothing. Probably far more than 99% of space is made up of nothing. This is hard to imagine for most people because of course the air we breathe, which appears to be nothing, is actually composed of millions and millions of gas molecules, but it's also pretty self-evident ... that's why they call it a vacuum, that's why astronauts wear complicated and incredibly expensive suits designed to ensure they have oxygen to breathe. And seriously, there are so many misconceptions on this thread it makes me cry. Has nobody ever heard of Google?