How long will it take for humanity to surpass SW technology wise?

In the perfect world, arguing here is not about winning and humiliating the other guy, it's about sharing what you know and have learned and in turn learn stuff from others, while trying to broaden your way of thinking and forming coherent, logical arguments. People actually rarely win or lose arguments here. Srsly, what makes someone the 'winner'?

Here are a few useful tips that will allow you to be seen (mostly by yourself) as the top dog.

[list]
[*]First, you can win an argument when you are able to annoy the other guy long enough (by verbally assaulting him, ignoring everything he says or just repeating the same argument over and over again) so he will be the coward and add you to their ignore list, making him the loser.

[*]You could also just type a lot of crap. It doesn't have to be coherent, logical or factual, it just has to be plenty enough to make your lazy opponent sigh at reading it and he will forfeit, thus making you the winner.

[*]You also win an argument when you strategically choose an opponent who doesn't have enough time to spend on the internet, thus he will not respond often and seem lost for words, which makes him lose the argument.

[*]Last and most used are the winning phrases like, 'you're too stupid to argue with, you lose' which shares a close resemblance to 'you're not worth my time, I'll let someone else take care of you' or you could also use the 'I win because I have already won more arguments than you did (you don't need to take in account actual victories for this though)' phrase, or sometimes words are not even required, a well coordinated facepalm in response a good argument will also make the job quick and effective.
[/list]
These are all handy options to win an argument here, because luckily there is no anonymously voted referee who is able to declare someone the winner of an argument.

NEBARIS
(per your definition)

This is why you fail. This is also why DS thinks that subjectivism is fawking retarded. This is not a case of syntactical or connotational or grammatical imperialism. Words have meaning. Using them contrary to their meaning does not mean that we simply disagree on usage or that there is some ambiguity that lends your position credibility.

It means that you are attempting to ignore the connotation (and hell, even the denotation) of the word in question. 'Telekinesis' is used idiomatically to refer to psychic and/or metaphysical manipulation of the outside world. Defining it as any execution of meditated thought is simply an intellectually dishonest manipulation of the term. The SAT would define your error by noting that 'calling intentional movement telekinesis is not idiomatic.'

Neb, you're wrong. Telekinesis does not mean mere movement caused by thought. It includes a mystical aspect, and implies manipulation of the world around oneself.

No. There are many applicable definitions of the word and the only absolute meaning is that it has to involve material change being generated without the use of physical force. Aside from that one absolute, definitions vary in the specifics.

For example:

"The ability to move objects solely with the power of the mind."

Where's the necessary implication that it has to be of an entirely metaphysical nature or that it can only be applied onto the outside world?

This is still ignoring the original point as well: thought can generate material change; whether you want to label it telekinesis or magic or whatever.

Originally posted by Slash_KMC
In the perfect world, arguing here is not about winning and humiliating the other guy, it's about sharing what you know and have learned and in turn learn stuff from others, while trying to broaden your way of thinking and forming coherent, logical arguments. People actually rarely win or lose arguments here. Srsly, what makes someone the 'winner'?

I think some posters are still young or think young, and it shows. Certainly when I still posted at places like SD or netscape posters seemed far more poised/diplomatic and smart and a good deal of them were older, - 20, 30 even 50 years my senior.

Overall KMC isn't so bad, I ve seen worse. I've seen guys transform on KMC like AC Styles, and a few others. But guys like AC were smarter than average, age is bound to wisen you.

Yet again you ignored the usage. From your own site:

Wilma: Nicky, would you get me the second volume of the Kinsey report on the top shelf?

Nicky: Get me a ladder then! I can't reach that high, what do you think, I've got telekinesis or something?

The reason that Nicky was unable to reach the altidudinally gifted book was that she could not reach it with her body. A workaround for that would be the skill of telekinesis, a skill that she does not possess.

Unless you want to imagine that Wilma is taunting her paraplegic friend by pointing out her infirmity then telekinesis cannot be defined as you have suggested.

Originally posted by Allankles
I think some posters are still young or think young, and it shows. Certainly when I still posted at places like SD or netscape posters seemed far more poised/diplomatic and smart and a good deal of them were older, - 20, 30 even 50 years my senior.

Overall KMC isn't so bad, I ve seen worse. I've seen guys transform on KMC like AC Styles, and a few others. But guys like AC were smarter than average, age is bound to wisen you.

Really? Most other forums I go to still argue Revan is the most powerful sith and smartest, without proving it. They argue that he is the heart of the force.

OMG I can NOT believe that you would go so far as to use urbandictionary as a source in this argument. We're done. It's reasons like this that are largely why Darth Sexy and Ushgurak flame you all the time.

If this goes to a new page then I commend you on your use of formatting to tell half truths.You fail.

I accept your concession though.

(Reported for socking and trolling.)

I will never concede.

The distinction Nicky draws between telekinesis and the movement of her own body can be attributed to her misunderstanding or neglectful thinking as to what exactly enables her body to follow the commands of her mind. It doesn't mean that the definition can't be used in such a manner however.

Here's another one.

"the movement of a body caused by thought or willpower without the application of a physical force"

1st definition:
The movement of objects by scientifically inexplicable means, as by the exercise of an occult power.

2nd definition:
1. the movement of a body caused by thought or willpower without the application of a physical force
2. the ability to cause such movement

'Body' is used to refer to an object, as in 'a body at rest tends to remain at rest unless acted upon by an outside force.' You are also failing to read the entire sentence: "without the application of a physical force." There is a definite physical force involved in the motion of the human body- electrical signals transmitted through nerves.

You lose.

Originally posted by Allankles
And.. you pointed out something obvious that had nothing to do with what I posted.

I wasn't looking for an argument. I'm hoping you can avoid being an idiot in this thread. I'm actually concerned for you.

Says the forum idiot.

Originally posted by Mr Omiverseria
OMG I can NOT believe that you would go so far as to use urbandictionary as a source in this argument. We're done. It's reasons like this that are largely why Darth Sexy and Ushgurak flame you all the time.

Originally posted by Mr Omiverseria
No. There are many applicable definitions of the word and the only absolute meaning is that it has to involve material change being generated without the use of physical force. Aside from that one absolute, definitions vary in the specifics.

For example:

"The ability to move objects solely with the power of the mind."

Where's the necessary implication that it has to be of an entirely metaphysical nature or that it can only be applied onto the outside world?

This is still ignoring the original point as well: thought can generate material change; whether you want to label it telekinesis or magic or whatever.

Originally posted by Mr Omiverseria
OMG I can NOT believe that you would go so far as to use urbandictionary as a source in this argument. We're done. It's reasons like this that are largely why Darth Sexy and Ushgurak flame you all the time.

HAHAHAHAHAHA! this made me piss myself...Omiverseria/Nebaris/Whatever...you gave Nemesis the source of Urbandictionary and you flame him after he uses it and takes heed in your outburst earlier - about how it's not your job to read sources posted by him, though you'll find that most people don't want to spend days trying to explain high school education to people again - something tells me you enter arguments for the sake of the argument and perhaps to make yourself look like a fool in front of everyone? not to educate or otherwise help people understand your view point...

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
There is a definite physical force involved in the motion of the human body- electrical signals transmitted through nerves.

Prove it (defaulting on "what science says" equates to an appeal to authority).

If there were to be a causal relationship between thought and matter, then it's far more likely that what we wish to happen simply happens directly rather than through a number of processes to which we don't have any natural understanding of.

I win.

Also, even assuming that the movement of the body were caused by electrical signals transmitted through the nerves, what causes this to happen? And if your answer to that were another physical process, what causes that to happen? I think you'll find that at some point, material change would have had to occur without the original application of physical force. So even assuming the unproven science you're referencing, an original application of non physical force would have still been required to have the eventual result of moving the body.

Originally posted by Mr Omiverseria
Also, even assuming that the movement of the body were caused by electrical signals transmitted through the nerves, what causes this to happen? And if your answer to that were another physical process, what causes that to happen? I think you'll find that at some point, material change would have had to occur without the original application of physical force. So even assuming the unproven science you're referencing, an original application of non physical force would have still been required to have the eventual result of moving the body.

**** me ahaha...are you trying to say the mains power that runs through my house is telekinetic too...watch out

Ignore Nebaris everyone. There's a reason he's been the laughing stock of KMC for 3 years and counting.

Blasters are highly likely. In fact the US goverment has just built some sort of "laser turret" that is able to heat up missles so they explode.

Originally posted by ares834
Blasters are highly likely. In fact the US goverment has just built some sort of "laser turret" that is able to heat up missles so they explode.

Exactly. So are prosthetics (which already exist in primitive forms), droids/ai, space colonization, and a host of other stuff