Blink 182 splatter vinyl series Hot Topic exclusive (update posted Jan '15)

[Shelby]

Someone needs to put you in prism.

 

Welcome to the matrix.

[Guest stl_ben.]

We should really log this thread.

[Family Friendly Rap God]

My local store is holding two of each for me. I'll sell them to a fellow VC'er for cost + shipping.

Plus the blood and or naming rights of your firstborn child. How badly do you want it?

[Princess Logan]

So since Shelbs has the in, is Travis REALLY Travis Barker or...?

[firehazardrecords]

We should really log this thread.

I'd say no to that. I have a genuine interest in these releases and would like to be able to see when Travis posts updates for them. All the trolling and gullible people believing it is starting to piss me off though...

[Guest stl_ben.]

I'd say no to that. I have a genuine interest in these releases and would like to be able to see when Travis posts updates for them. All the trolling and gullible people believing it is starting to piss me off though...

 

Log not Lock.

[firehazardrecords]

Log. not Lock.

Oh shit, I guess I can't read. lol

[lonesomexloveus]

I'd say no to that. I have a genuine interest in these releases and would like to be able to see when Travis posts updates for them. All the trolling and gullible people believing it is starting to piss me off though...

 

[Guest stl_ben.]

Oh shit, I guess I can't read. lol

It's ok, if this thread was locked, where would I go to get all my info on who still wants someone to try to get them an extra copy of EOTS? Gotta stay up to date on that stuff.

[Brevity38]

I'd say no to that. I have a genuine interest in these releases and would like to be able to see when Travis posts updates for them. All the trolling and gullible people believing it is starting to piss me off though...

 

I'm just waiting for it to get locked again.

[CVHX]

here i am.. at work.. trying to keep up with this thread.. again..

 

too much sarcastic/false information.

[WalnutSoap]

My local store is holding two of each for me. I'll sell them to a fellow VC'er for cost + shipping.

Plus the blood and or naming rights of your firstborn child. How badly do you want it?

 

How much blood exactly are we talking?

 

 

 

 

 

(also can I have it?)

[Family Friendly Rap God]

How much blood exactly are we talking?

(also can I have it?)

Just enough to fill a chalice. I want to sit it on my mantle

[Guest]

I have a two copies on the way, but how do I really know that 1+1=2?

The proof starts from the Peano Postulates, which define the natural

numbers N. N is the smallest set satisfying these postulates:

P1. 1 is in N.

P2. If x is in N, then its "successor" x' is in N.

P3. There is no x such that x' = 1.

P4. If x isn't 1, then there is a y in N such that y' = x.

P5. If S is a subset of N, 1 is in S, and the implication

(x in S => x' in S) holds, then S = N.

Then you have to define addition recursively:

Def: Let a and b be in N. If b = 1, then define a + b = a'

(using P1 and P2). If b isn't 1, then let c' = b, with c in N

(using P4), and define a + b = (a + c)'.

Then you have to define 2:

Def: 2 = 1'

2 is in N by P1, P2, and the definition of 2.

Theorem: 1 + 1 = 2

Proof: Use the first part of the definition of + with a = b = 1.

Then 1 + 1 = 1' = 2 Q.E.D.

Note: There is an alternate formulation of the Peano Postulates which

replaces 1 with 0 in P1, P3, P4, and P5. Then you have to change the

definition of addition to this:

Def: Let a and b be in N. If b = 0, then define a + b = a.

If b isn't 0, then let c' = b, with c in N, and define

a + b = (a + c)'.

You also have to define 1 = 0', and 2 = 1'. Then the proof of the

Theorem above is a little different:

Proof: Use the second part of the definition of + first:

1 + 1 = (1 + 0)'

Now use the first part of the definition of + on the sum in

parentheses: 1 + 1 = (1)' = 1' = 2 Q.E.D.

[Guest stl_ben.]

Just enough to fill a chalice. I want to sit it on my mantle

But the question is. Do you have anticoagulants to keep it liquid, and how will you keep it from evaporating?

[Guest stl_ben.]

I have a two copies on the way, but how do I really know that 1+1=2?

The proof starts from the Peano Postulates, which define the natural

numbers N. N is the smallest set satisfying these postulates:

P1. 1 is in N.

P2. If x is in N, then its "successor" x' is in N.

P3. There is no x such that x' = 1.

P4. If x isn't 1, then there is a y in N such that y' = x.

P5. If S is a subset of N, 1 is in S, and the implication

(x in S => x' in S) holds, then S = N.

Then you have to define addition recursively:

Def: Let a and b be in N. If b = 1, then define a + b = a'

(using P1 and P2). If b isn't 1, then let c' = b, with c in N

(using P4), and define a + b = (a + c)'.

Then you have to define 2:

Def: 2 = 1'

2 is in N by P1, P2, and the definition of 2.

Theorem: 1 + 1 = 2

Proof: Use the first part of the definition of + with a = b = 1.

Then 1 + 1 = 1' = 2 Q.E.D.

Note: There is an alternate formulation of the Peano Postulates which

replaces 1 with 0 in P1, P3, P4, and P5. Then you have to change the

definition of addition to this:

Def: Let a and b be in N. If b = 0, then define a + b = a.

If b isn't 0, then let c' = b, with c in N, and define

a + b = (a + c)'.

You also have to define 1 = 0', and 2 = 1'. Then the proof of the

Theorem above is a little different:

Proof: Use the second part of the definition of + first:

1 + 1 = (1 + 0)'

Now use the first part of the definition of + on the sum in

parentheses: 1 + 1 = (1)' = 1' = 2 Q.E.D.

 

I guess it's too late for me to ask you to prove you have two copies coming. Multiple proofs would be irrational.

[BWALL]

I'm hoping ultimate warrior and HOK HOGAN show up, same with the cat gifs!

[Guest]

I guess it's too late for me to ask you to prove you have two copies coming. Multiple proofs would be irrational.

Well how about an irrational proof...since we now know 1+1=2, how about verifying that the square root of 2 is in fact irrational?

The proof that square root of 2 is irrational:

Let's suppose √2 were a rational number. Then we can write it √2 = a/b where a,b are whole numbers, b not zero.

We additionally assume that this a/b is simplified to the lowest terms, since that can obviously be done with any fraction. Notice that in order for a/b to be in its simplest terms, both a andb must be not be even. One or both must be odd. Otherwise, you could simplify.

From the equality √2 = a/b it follows that 2 = a2/b2, or a2 = 2 * b2. So the square of a is an even number since it is two times something. From this we can know that a itself is also an even number. Why? Because it can't be odd; if a itself was odd, then a * a would be odd too. Odd number times odd number is always odd. Check if you don't believe that!

Okay, if a itself is an even number, then a is 2 times some other whole number, or a = 2k where k is this other number. We don't need to know exactly what k is; it won't matter. Soon is coming the contradiction:

If we substitute a = 2k into the original equation 2 = a2/b2, this is what we get:

2 = (2k)2/b2

2 = 4k2/b2

2*b2 = 4k2

b2 = 2k2.

This means b2 is even, from which follows again that b itself is an even number!!!

WHY is that a contradiction? Because we started the whole process saying that a/b is simplified to the lowest terms, and now it turns out that a and b would both be even. So √2 cannot be rational.

Oh yeah...Blonk 182!

[danionly]

What are the odds that Rambo & Juan are getting slammed with reports on this thread right now?
 

(math joke, activate!)

[rhcp02]

Mine went from fullfilling order to shipped too on the ht website but I also ordered another record with mine to get the $10 off $40.

[Guest stl_ben.]

haha, I'd say the odds are greater than or equal to 50%

 

Mine went from fullfilling order to shipped too on the ht website but I also ordered another record with mine to get the $10 off $40.

Wasn't this already posted? I would guess they shipped your other record.

[funtitled]

I am beyond confused, if I order buddha now will I receive it? Somebody please just tell me what is going on. thanks

[Guest stl_ben.]

I am beyond confused, if I order buddha now will I receive it? Somebody please just tell me what is going on. thanks

Jesus H.

[WalnutSoap]

Well it's back up on the site, so maybe?

 

I just came across this on the site though. The previous press retailed for only 11.99?

[funtitled]

Jesus H.

thank for you clear, concise answer to a legititment answer to an lp I have been looking forward to since april