Yes I'm serious. Do you think someone without feet winning a running medal makes sense? Maybe in 4 years at the next Olympics, prosthetics will have evolved enough that they give him a massive advantage. Where do you draw the line?

Performance-wise, I don't think you can really compare the prosthetics to some futuristic swimwear. Like you said, the prosthetics can be improved individually and eventually surpass the functions of the human body but all the swimwear did is enhance Phelps' performance (like all the swimwear does anyway).

Wow, thanks for being such a stereotypical asshole so people know the difference.

I don't understand how he was allowed to compete. Not in the asshole "But he's handicapped!" kind of way, more like how do they factor in that having prosthetics isn't an unfair advantage? It doesn't hold that much importance because he didn't win a medal but if he had I'm sure a lot of people would be in uproar about…

Thanks for this entirely useless constructive criticism. If it's so wrong and you're so smart, why not enlighten us with your know(bullshit)ledge?

When did I imply they had anything to do with each other? My argument was that saying the number of particles in the Universe is finite doesn't mean the Universe is finite as well. There could be an infinite distance between some of these particles so declaring that a finite number of particles = finite Universe is…

Thanks for debunking your own logic. By definition, irrational numbers have an infinite number of decimals. Like I said, just because you can't write (or save, etc.) an infinite amount of decimals doesn't mean they don't exist.

So how do I get in on that table? Hovering on top of granite sounds awesome, why do satellites get to have all the fun?

But the Solo is one hell of a little machine.

The Universe is mostly comprised of an infinity of emptiness, not particles.

According to your logic, because there will never be enough space to write all the decimals of Pi on (being infinite and whatnot), it doesn't exist?

Just because you can't describe it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It'd be foolish of you to think that the entire knowledge of the human race is enough to describe everything we know exists.

Quite the contrary, I don't think people just "sit around and get high all day". I've been doing it regularly for a while now and I would be inclined to say it's helped me more than anything in my actuarial science studies, mostly because it somewhat counters the effect of my ADHD by slowing the thought process down,…

I've actually never seen anyone function that well under the effects of marijuana. As a customer I would never be able to tell and I think that's the line you never want to cross as a business owner (although some might say working high is one line you shouldn't cross).

I'm happy to say I'm friends with the exception that proves the rule. The guy's business makes a killing and he does it high every day, all day.

I bet one year down the line you won't even remember it's code name.

As soon as I read that in the article I found it quite disturbing.

Just so you know, Tiësto performed at the 2004 Athens Olympics opening ceremony, so I think the popularity contest and whatever argument you would like to use against "what's-his-face" kinda falls flat after that.

What you are talking about my friend is popularity, not success. Popularity comes and goes, success doesn't. Look at Paul McCartney and the likes. Do you really think people will still be buying all her marketing bullshit in 50 years?

If they want a high level of success, they need to be part of a big label? Let's go with high-end examples like yours: