Um, I'm sure I won't be the only one to ask this. But how in the hell does this prove that you are not the FBI, Secret Service, Police or whoever? Even if he was on campus at the time, I'm sure any authority that you'd want to fear could get to wherever they needed to be to take that picture in the same day that he asks for it.
In case you are wondering, what they are doing is a variant of the 419 eater technique. They had no intent of following through, but they had every intent of making the guy look like a fool as they strung him along.
I agree with almost everything in your post, except Harry being the final Horcrux. While I have considered it, if you re-read book 6, the act of creating a horcrux is a consious decision, not an unconsious one.
Harry and Voldemort are linked of course, and the reason Harry survived is answered by Dumbledore in book one. Whether Harry survives the series depends on things other than his being a Horcrux. Finally, Voldemort wants the Horcruxes to survive, there would be no point in putting a Horcrux in Harry if he wanted him dead. Because killing Harry if he was a Horcrux, would destroy the Horcrux, and that is contrary to what Voldemort wants.
Going after the other guys sword risks damaging your sword, and won't disarm a trained swordsman.
Worse, the trained swordsman will likely hit you and kill you as he will know your swing is going to miss him.
If you are going for a disarm, in swordfighting the term is literal. Take their hands off. Or their whole arm... It is probably where the term originates, but I dont know for certain.
This is also why as swords became more modern, they had more and more effective hand covers, so your hands would not get cut.
Where you try to hit with a sword depends on the length of the sword, and the style in which it is used. The only time I have been shown to "go after" the weapon being held was when using butterfly swords against dragon poles. The reason is that the butterfly swords are very short, but the dragon pole is about 10 feet long. This is done because the pole is wood, and you can trap it with the swords, before closing the distance and cutting the hands of the holder.
...and ninja assassins find amusing to people not in those fields.
While I am not a Ninja Assasin, I am a Unix admin, and I did laugh at "I know this!". But in the same vien, I have studied martial arts for years, and whenever I see a swordfight, in a movie, it drives me insane.
The next time you watch a swordfight in a movie, watch where the swords are being swung. Most of the time, if the opponent just dropped their sword to the floor, the attacking swing would miss completely. In hollywood, they swing the swords at the other swords - blade to blade - instead of trying to actually hit the other guy.
That drives me nuts. (Still working on the Ninja Assasin bit though...)
On my CITI Bank Mastercard with "Petro-Points" the RFID device *IS* the strip. The magnetic information lies under the strip, and the strip itself is RFID sensitive.
While I do not like RFID in this manner, the "speedpass" function of this card is nice as I only need to "wave" my wallet at the gas pumps to activate them for filling my car up. (I own this card for the exclusive reason of buying gas, it saves me $0.055/L when filling up.)
So, could someone scan me and get my card info? Yes. However, as it is a credit card, I would be covered as the only purchases I make with it are gas oriented, and since I keep the reciepts for work, it is very unlikely that another transaction could be charged to me and stick.
I say this after having a $1500 "purchase" of a computer system from Sonaggi computers in Ontario on my Visa card... I live in BC, and I do not order parts or systems from Ontario. After a bit of work, that was removed from my Visa bill.
So, I don't worry about it for credit cards. Debit cards may be a different matter altogether.
... because its not like they have a cheap, abundant source of power anywhere./blockquote.
Removing oil from the ground, and processing it requires energy. Why would you want to burn some of the oil that produces your profits? Also, they know that the oil will eventually run out, and as the reserves get lower, the oil becomes harder to pump, and costs more to extract. This means decreasing profits.
Even Iran, which is an oil rich nation could become a net energy IMPORTER. Thus, they need other means of producing energy than just oil. So, while western nations don't want these countries to have the bomb, they both need nuclear power to keep their economies/countries going, and the simple fact is that the bomb gives them extra security.
We may not like that here in the west, but having a bomb keeps people from invading your country.
So, they need to generate power, and nuclear works, a side effect is that they can use this for defense.
They allow you to MODIFY the game so that it plays the way you like it. If people don't like the patch, they can run a modded server. Simple as that.
I like the fact that Steam auto-patches my games. I hated looking for patches for all my previous games, and being confronted with stupid sites like fileplanet that charge you for faster downloads, or even ACCESS to the patch you needed to play.
And I know what I am doing when it comes to computers, for the less educated users I am guessing it is a nightmare to update patches. And if the CS players don't like the new feature, I am betting that the feature gets removed. IMO, I think it is a really cool idea.
Personally, I think this kind of innovation should be added to Counter Strike 2, where people are likely to be more accepting of gameplay changes.
I would say it is really more of a case of costs of energy. My car uses energy to move around, but it does not use energy to suspend itself in the air.
A flying car would have to use more energy, hence fuel of course, and cost an insane amount of money to fly. Yes, there would be the inherent risks of flying cars etc, but VTOL eats up a good deal of fuel, unless you use standard fixed wing, which requires landing space. Rotary wing works, but is not as efficent as fixed wing at speed.
I would say it comes down more to the costs of energy than liability. After all, many ppl have ultralites, and a guy near me commutes about 70 km every day across the Georgia Straight via personal helicopter. But then, he can afford it, he is a Neurosurgeon at a Vancouver hospital.
Shhhh.... don't tell the big polluters about this. Soon enough we're going to be hearing about the benefits of global warming and how it is creating more jobs and empowering the consumer, or something else equally as true.
I am not about to suggest that global warming is a good thing, well it is if you live in Canada like I do, but in general for most of the worlds population it is not. It can generally be regarded as a very bad thing.
Having said that, we should take as much action as possible to stop it (if we can) as we can. However, if someone recognizes that it CANNOT be stopped, or, that the will out there to stop it is just not happening, then what is wrong exactly by profiting by it?
If you know for certain that something is going to happen in an X,Y,Z fashion, and you could invest in that, you could become rich indeed. What is wrong with that? If any slashdotter could travel back in time to the 1970's, and had the opportunity to invest in Microsoft, why would you not invest? I am not trying to start an argument here about the relative merits of what could be done with time travel, but rather, if you have the foreknowledge of events, and you can invest in companies that you know are going to profit from those events, what is the problem? (That is different from conspiring to make the events happen).
The worst part of cheating is that it forever creates doubt, mistrust and skepticism about the skills of others online, meaning that if you play well, you are labeled a cheater. Respect goes out the window.
I have been deathmatching since Doom I and yesterday I got the comment from a player whom I have played with often who said: "Flibble, tell me you are not using an aimbot and I will believe you."
It was a joke of course, but you have a point. I can't even play on some servers anymore because I "must" be using an aimbot, therefore I have been banned. And I only play on VAC servers too.:(
I believe what can be proven to me. Loose Change is easially disproven. Much of the "facts" put forward are done in a manner inconsistent with the real data. The author cherry picks the points that support his position, and neglects to tell you the stuff that counters it.
You brought up loose change, not I. Elements of Loose Change may have been discredited, but it is a logical fallacy to dismiss the proposition (9/11 was a conspiracy involving rogue elements of the U.S. government, among others) because of the presentation (a "swiss cheese documentary").
I brought it up because so many people whom believe in the 9/11 conspiracy turn to that movie. It is dissapointing.
Science works by proving falsehoods, not by "proving facts". Correlations and anecdotal evidence alert us to the need to investigate. Because the perpetrators covered their tracks fairly well, the physical evidence which would definitively prove WTC 1, 2 & 7 were brought down by explosives has largely been destroyed (WTC steel -> india for recycling before analysis could be performed, etc). Careful analysis of video and photographic evidence, such as that undertaken in 9/11 Eyewitness and at wtc7.net, show that the official story is bogus, no matter whether you get it from Bullshitters, a magazine, or George Bush himself.
Yes, science works by proving falsehoods, and those things that cannot be falsified must be left as true. This is why the theory of evolution is so well founded, it has a massive body of evidence, but you cannot actually "prove" it in the strictest sense, but you can disprove all other theories.
The problem with "the perpetrators covered their tracks fairly well" is that it falls to Ochams Razor. This is a form of logic in science that states "whenever there are 2 explanations for the data, choose the simpler". The simple explanation is that 19 terrorists carried out a malicious attack on the world trade center towers and pentagon, but failed on a fourth plane. It was well thought out and well executed.
Your explanation seems to be that hundreds, or probably thousands of people in government got together to fake these attacks to scare the populace. The sad thing is that governments are terribly inefficent, and could not keep something like this under wraps. Occhams razor picks the 19 terrorists. Again, I dont KNOW what your full explanation would be, but if it was not the terrorists, then it would require the actions and knowledge of a very large number of people.
[note: I've only just discovered 9/11 eyewitness, because of your link to wtc7.net, and as of this writing, I've only watched the first 55 minutes or so. Thus far it has no conjecture, just analysis of video of the collapses taken from the New Jersey shore. Thanks for pointing it out for me.:]
No problem. I have only read the site, I have not as of yet seen the video.
and I come down on the same side as Popular Mechanics.
Like you said, "it is easy to pick and choose what fits you theory, and discard what does not."
Yes. The difference is that I examined both sides of the argument prior to picking a side. I have seen loose change (although my baloney detection kit was SCREAMING full bore during the viewing) and read much of the other conspiracy literature. I have also read the claims that are skeptical, and of those skeptical claims they are backed up mainly by the scientific method, physics, detailed photos and the like. Whereas all the conspiracy theories have gaping holes in their theories that do not stand up to the baloney detection kit.
If you actually read the site you've linked to, you'll find that while they do examine Loose Change "blow by blow", it can hardly be considered a "debunking". The authors of this page examine each of the points made in the movie, and categorize them with "lead slugs", "nickels" and "gold coins". Lead slugs are distractions from the truth (and the film gets a lot of them), nickels are points that are valid but could've been made better, and points given a gold coins are the ones that get to the heart of the 9/11 conspiracy.
I have read the site that I linked to. I have read the entire thing, that is why I linked to it. I am not saying that Loose Change has NO points of value, but that many of the points that it does make are devoid of value. I can say that "the sky is blue because aliens make it blue", and I can be wrong, but the sky will still be blue.
Now you may prefer to believe the government's story. I don't trust "the government" (mainly because I resent being locked up in their school for 13 years, but that's another comment,here, for example), and therefore take anything a "government official" says with healthy grain of skepticism.
Believe the governments story? I don't know if I would say I just believe the governments story. I also believe Skeptic magazienes perspective, and I believe popular mechanics perspective, I believe Penn and Tellers perspective. Those perspectives have nothing to do with the government.
Let's look at some of the points from the film that are given gold coins:
00:03:12
1999. NORAD begins conducting exercises in which hijacked airliners are flown into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
00:03:20
June, 2000. The Department of Justice releases a terrorism manual, with the World Trade Center in crosshairs.
If the government had been planning for jets being flown into the towers and pentagon for years, how could the response when "the real thing" happened have been so... tardy?
Correlation does not imply causation. See Carl Sagan's Demon Haunted World, specifically the chapter on baloney detection. Just because they had those exercises planned does not make it a causal relationship. "I hear that some of the terrorists ate pizza. I also hear that members of the government eat pizza. Therefore, the government is a bunch of terrorist because they eat pizza." Logically unsound.
The department of justice released the world trade centers in the crosshairs, quite true. But again, that is a causal error. Remember there was a world trade center bombing in 1993 that INTENDED to take the towers down, but it failed to do so. Ergo, what is more likely. That the government KNEW that the attacks were going to happen, and that they KNEW that 3000 or so ppl would die? And since they KNEW this would happen, they decided to publish an easially availible publication with the center in the crossairs.... Or, that the department of justice knew that the towers were a target in the past, and that they were a potential target in the future, and thus published a cover highlighting this?
And as for response time, you should look into how the US handled air defense of the continental US. Loose Change mentions how many jets were on "combat ready" status. Loose Change neglects to mention that "combat ready" means the plane can be in the air fully armed and ready to go in about 12-24 HOURS. It does not mean that the jets are on standby for being scrambled.
When you go for conspiracy stuff like that, it is easy to pick and choose what fits you theory, and discard what does not. This is why in science anecdotal evidence is considered unworthy. Loose Change is a collection of disparate "hits" and ignores the "misses". Again, see the baloney detection kit for this, sections are available for free on the internet, and I highly reccomend the book, it is without exception the best book I have ever read.
There are also thousands of pictures and videos from the WTC site that are classified. If planes really brought down the towers, why would such classification be necessary? Also, just like in Oklahoma City, all the evidence from the WTC site was destroyed as quickly as possible. They could've saved the steel for analysis, and we'd know whether or not thermite (or some other explosive) was used to cut the core columns.
You might want to take another view on the 9/11 theories. The arguments you put forward are specious at best, mind you they are not uncommon arguments, but that does not make them correct.
Keep in mind that Penn and Teller use Ad Hominim attacks for 2 reasons. First, its funny, and the show has to be entertaining to some degree. Second, they can be sued for using words like: "Hoax" "Fraud" etc, but they cannot be sued for: "Bullshit" "Asshole" and "Motherfucker". So, keep that in mind.
Also, if you have had the misfortune to watch the movie "Loose Change" first or second edition, you might want to check out this link:
It is "Loose Change 2nd ed." With added commentary pointing out the errors made in the movie. Keep in mind Popular Mechanics and a host of other publications have already soundly debunked these theories, and for more on loose change, a blow by blow HTML debunking can be found here:
Remember, if you ever wonder about an issue, check out both sides and then decide for yourself. If you would like my suggestion into a few good books on how to do that (if you care) they are:
The Demon Haunted World, Science as a Candle in the Dark - Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan Why People Believe Wierd Things - Michael Schermer Voodoo Science - Robert L. Park
A collection of excellent debunking links follows:
last time I checked, my telephone service came in over my TELEPHONE line. Sure, my internet comes over my cable TV line, and my power comes over (god forbid) my power lines.
The internet is fast becoming something ubiquitous, and the infrastructure will follow. I see no real need for internet over gas lines, as eventually there will be more fibre and OC3 lines running to a variety of neighbourhoods. True, it is probably a neat idea for the short term, but long term there will likely be more fiber and more wireless access points. It will eventually reach a level that is the same (or actually greater) than that of the phone system, and the infrastructure will not be over gas lines.
So, good short-term idea, but it is really just a pipe dream, like broadband over power in the long run.
This isn't to say that I think that Jackson did a bad job with the pictures but I don't see some of it as respectful.
I must agree that I used to feel the same way, however, now that I look back on the movies, I am impressed at how well he brought the story to life, and really, how much he left *IN* unmodified. I agree that according to the book it would have made more sense to have gollum dance and fall in, but for the drama of a non-Tolken audience it does not work as well, those who have not read the books demand more.
Along those lines, when I saw the first movie in the theatre on opening day, the scene where Arwen takes Frodo across the river annoyed me because it was not cannon, Glorfindel was not there, and Arwen utters an incatation and it is not (apparently, I dont speak elvish) the work of the ring of water that raises the river.
But, having said all that, when Liv Tyler cries out: "If you want him, come and claim him!" I sat up in my chair, and like almost every other geek in the theatre I shouted "YEAH!!!!"
I was dissapointed in the first movie when I left the theatre, and I and all my other geek buddies were complaining about how it violated Cannon... Then about 2 days later we all sat around and agreed that Jackson HAD done a good job, and that we were unrealistic to believe that everything could have been like the books, because some of what Tolkien did was great from a world creation perspective, but bad from an authors narration perspective. Once we decided that, we ran back to the theatre to watch the movie again. We loved it the second time around.
I look at the differences, and I agree with you, I would have preffered the rings destruction and gollums death to be like that in the book. However, the audience would not get it. With Jacksons ending you see the hold that the ring has on Frodo, you see him being malicious and twisted like gollum, you see the hatred of the ring bringing an end to itself.
Really? Damn, I don't remember that. I always thought he reffered to it when fighting the Balrog with the comment: "I am a servant of the secret fire, the dark flame will not avail you" was a reference to the fact that he had the ring of fire, and was thus immune to the fire of the balrog. I did know he got the ring from the shipright, but how does he end up using it then? (If at all...)
(note, I have read the books about 10 times, but not in the last 5 years, so my memory is probably off.)
It's an interesting question. I believe a lot of a person's money management skills come from their parents (and in this regard, wealthy parents don't necessarily give good credit to their children...spoiled children might become demanding adults who have little understanding of money management.) Undoubtedly, good money management is something that's passed down through the generations; in fact, a suprising amount of the Old Testament is devoted to money management issues.
If you are a parent, you might want to check this site out:
I can understand using it as a tie breaker, but why do you feel the need to check there credit? Do you know if there is a causal relationship between their credit history and their job?
(Note, if you run a financially based business I understand the decision)
Is it surprising that more and more People hate our society and made stupid thinks? We don't need to import our terrorists, we made them at home. Disillusioned People with kick-ass education, that are able to build MacGyver-like bombs or crack critical Infrastructure.
But are you smart if you can solve Fermats Last Theorem but you can't pay your bills on time? There are different levels to intelligence, and different segments surrounding it.
I don't agree that checking someones credit rating has a correlation to ones ability to work - however as noted elsewhere in the discussion, policemen are apparently more likely to accept bribes if they have a bad credit history, hence the check on potential cops.
Also, would you want a financial advisor working for your company if this financial advisor had a bad credit rating? Might not make a difference if you are a crane operator, but if you work at a bank or financial institution I think it might...
Slashdot Mirror
Um, I'm sure I won't be the only one to ask this. But how in the hell does this prove that you are not the FBI, Secret Service, Police or whoever? Even if he was on campus at the time, I'm sure any authority that you'd want to fear could get to wherever they needed to be to take that picture in the same day that he asks for it.
In case you are wondering, what they are doing is a variant of the 419 eater technique. They had no intent of following through, but they had every intent of making the guy look like a fool as they strung him along.
I agree with almost everything in your post, except Harry being the final Horcrux. While I have considered it, if you re-read book 6, the act of creating a horcrux is a consious decision, not an unconsious one.
Harry and Voldemort are linked of course, and the reason Harry survived is answered by Dumbledore in book one. Whether Harry survives the series depends on things other than his being a Horcrux. Finally, Voldemort wants the Horcruxes to survive, there would be no point in putting a Horcrux in Harry if he wanted him dead. Because killing Harry if he was a Horcrux, would destroy the Horcrux, and that is contrary to what Voldemort wants.
The fact that you have them all on DVD makes $MY_USERNAME very angry.
What should we do with them $MY_USERNAME?
What? We could not do that... Who would clean up the mess?
I was in a good mood, and not feeling sick in that my username was more or less unique. I was amongst the happy non-sick people.
Not anymore.
I guess you could say that you make me sick!
(Yes, I am joking)
Going after the other guys sword risks damaging your sword, and won't disarm a trained swordsman.
Worse, the trained swordsman will likely hit you and kill you as he will know your swing is going to miss him.
If you are going for a disarm, in swordfighting the term is literal. Take their hands off. Or their whole arm... It is probably where the term originates, but I dont know for certain.
This is also why as swords became more modern, they had more and more effective hand covers, so your hands would not get cut.
Where you try to hit with a sword depends on the length of the sword, and the style in which it is used. The only time I have been shown to "go after" the weapon being held was when using butterfly swords against dragon poles. The reason is that the butterfly swords are very short, but the dragon pole is about 10 feet long. This is done because the pole is wood, and you can trap it with the swords, before closing the distance and cutting the hands of the holder.
...and ninja assassins find amusing to people not in those fields.
While I am not a Ninja Assasin, I am a Unix admin, and I did laugh at "I know this!". But in the same vien, I have studied martial arts for years, and whenever I see a swordfight, in a movie, it drives me insane.
The next time you watch a swordfight in a movie, watch where the swords are being swung. Most of the time, if the opponent just dropped their sword to the floor, the attacking swing would miss completely. In hollywood, they swing the swords at the other swords - blade to blade - instead of trying to actually hit the other guy.
That drives me nuts.
(Still working on the Ninja Assasin bit though...)
On my CITI Bank Mastercard with "Petro-Points" the RFID device *IS* the strip. The magnetic information lies under the strip, and the strip itself is RFID sensitive.
While I do not like RFID in this manner, the "speedpass" function of this card is nice as I only need to "wave" my wallet at the gas pumps to activate them for filling my car up. (I own this card for the exclusive reason of buying gas, it saves me $0.055/L when filling up.)
So, could someone scan me and get my card info? Yes. However, as it is a credit card, I would be covered as the only purchases I make with it are gas oriented, and since I keep the reciepts for work, it is very unlikely that another transaction could be charged to me and stick.
I say this after having a $1500 "purchase" of a computer system from Sonaggi computers in Ontario on my Visa card... I live in BC, and I do not order parts or systems from Ontario. After a bit of work, that was removed from my Visa bill.
So, I don't worry about it for credit cards. Debit cards may be a different matter altogether.
I agree with the parent poster, what do you guys think?
The favorites list is a but, the fix is on the steam forum, I had it too. I cant remember what the fix WAS, but it was a pretty simple in game thing.
Ever hear of MODS?
They allow you to MODIFY the game so that it plays the way you like it. If people don't like the patch, they can run a modded server. Simple as that.
I like the fact that Steam auto-patches my games. I hated looking for patches for all my previous games, and being confronted with stupid sites like fileplanet that charge you for faster downloads, or even ACCESS to the patch you needed to play.
And I know what I am doing when it comes to computers, for the less educated users I am guessing it is a nightmare to update patches.
And if the CS players don't like the new feature, I am betting that the feature gets removed. IMO, I think it is a really cool idea.
Personally, I think this kind of innovation should be added to Counter Strike 2, where people are likely to be more accepting of gameplay changes.
I would say it is really more of a case of costs of energy. My car uses energy to move around, but it does not use energy to suspend itself in the air.
A flying car would have to use more energy, hence fuel of course, and cost an insane amount of money to fly. Yes, there would be the inherent risks of flying cars etc, but VTOL eats up a good deal of fuel, unless you use standard fixed wing, which requires landing space. Rotary wing works, but is not as efficent as fixed wing at speed.
I would say it comes down more to the costs of energy than liability. After all, many ppl have ultralites, and a guy near me commutes about 70 km every day across the Georgia Straight via personal helicopter. But then, he can afford it, he is a Neurosurgeon at a Vancouver hospital.
Shhhh.... don't tell the big polluters about this. Soon enough we're going to be hearing about the benefits of global warming and how it is creating more jobs and empowering the consumer, or something else equally as true.
I am not about to suggest that global warming is a good thing, well it is if you live in Canada like I do, but in general for most of the worlds population it is not. It can generally be regarded as a very bad thing.
Having said that, we should take as much action as possible to stop it (if we can) as we can. However, if someone recognizes that it CANNOT be stopped, or, that the will out there to stop it is just not happening, then what is wrong exactly by profiting by it?
If you know for certain that something is going to happen in an X,Y,Z fashion, and you could invest in that, you could become rich indeed. What is wrong with that? If any slashdotter could travel back in time to the 1970's, and had the opportunity to invest in Microsoft, why would you not invest? I am not trying to start an argument here about the relative merits of what could be done with time travel, but rather, if you have the foreknowledge of events, and you can invest in companies that you know are going to profit from those events, what is the problem? (That is different from conspiring to make the events happen).
Spaceballs III, the search for Spaceballs II.
I have been deathmatching since Doom I and yesterday I got the comment from a player whom I have played with often who said: "Flibble, tell me you are not using an aimbot and I will believe you."
It was a joke of course, but you have a point. I can't even play on some servers anymore because I "must" be using an aimbot, therefore I have been banned. And I only play on VAC servers too.
I brought it up because so many people whom believe in the 9/11 conspiracy turn to that movie. It is dissapointing.
Yes, science works by proving falsehoods, and those things that cannot be falsified must be left as true. This is why the theory of evolution is so well founded, it has a massive body of evidence, but you cannot actually "prove" it in the strictest sense, but you can disprove all other theories.
The problem with "the perpetrators covered their tracks fairly well" is that it falls to Ochams Razor. This is a form of logic in science that states "whenever there are 2 explanations for the data, choose the simpler". The simple explanation is that 19 terrorists carried out a malicious attack on the world trade center towers and pentagon, but failed on a fourth plane. It was well thought out and well executed.
Your explanation seems to be that hundreds, or probably thousands of people in government got together to fake these attacks to scare the populace. The sad thing is that governments are terribly inefficent, and could not keep something like this under wraps. Occhams razor picks the 19 terrorists. Again, I dont KNOW what your full explanation would be, but if it was not the terrorists, then it would require the actions and knowledge of a very large number of people.
No problem. I have only read the site, I have not as of yet seen the video.
and I come down on the same side as Popular Mechanics.
Yes. The difference is that I examined both sides of the argument prior to picking a side. I have seen loose change (although my baloney detection kit was SCREAMING full bore during the viewing) and read much of the other conspiracy literature. I have also read the claims that are skeptical, and of those skeptical claims they are backed up mainly by the scientific method, physics, detailed photos and the like. Whereas all the conspiracy theories have gaping holes in their theories that do not stand up to the baloney detection kit.
Here is a link to the short version, it does not do it justice without the whole book: http://users.tpg.com.au/users/tps-seti/baloney.htm l
I have heard good things about it, but I have not seen a copy around. I think I will grab one off of Amazon.
I like skeptical books in any form, and ones related to economics are rare indeed! Thanks for the recommendation!
If you actually read the site you've linked to, you'll find that while they do examine Loose Change "blow by blow", it can hardly be considered a "debunking". The authors of this page examine each of the points made in the movie, and categorize them with "lead slugs", "nickels" and "gold coins". Lead slugs are distractions from the truth (and the film gets a lot of them), nickels are points that are valid but could've been made better, and points given a gold coins are the ones that get to the heart of the 9/11 conspiracy.
I have read the site that I linked to. I have read the entire thing, that is why I linked to it. I am not saying that Loose Change has NO points of value, but that many of the points that it does make are devoid of value. I can say that "the sky is blue because aliens make it blue", and I can be wrong, but the sky will still be blue.
Now you may prefer to believe the government's story. I don't trust "the government" (mainly because I resent being locked up in their school for 13 years, but that's another comment,here, for example), and therefore take anything a "government official" says with healthy grain of skepticism.
Believe the governments story? I don't know if I would say I just believe the governments story. I also believe Skeptic magazienes perspective, and I believe popular mechanics perspective, I believe Penn and Tellers perspective. Those perspectives have nothing to do with the government.
Let's look at some of the points from the film that are given gold coins:
00:03:12
1999. NORAD begins conducting exercises in which hijacked airliners are flown into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
00:03:20
June, 2000. The Department of Justice releases a terrorism manual, with the World Trade Center in crosshairs.
If the government had been planning for jets being flown into the towers and pentagon for years, how could the response when "the real thing" happened have been so... tardy?
Correlation does not imply causation. See Carl Sagan's Demon Haunted World, specifically the chapter on baloney detection. Just because they had those exercises planned does not make it a causal relationship. "I hear that some of the terrorists ate pizza. I also hear that members of the government eat pizza. Therefore, the government is a bunch of terrorist because they eat pizza." Logically unsound.
The department of justice released the world trade centers in the crosshairs, quite true. But again, that is a causal error. Remember there was a world trade center bombing in 1993 that INTENDED to take the towers down, but it failed to do so. Ergo, what is more likely. That the government KNEW that the attacks were going to happen, and that they KNEW that 3000 or so ppl would die? And since they KNEW this would happen, they decided to publish an easially availible publication with the center in the crossairs.... Or, that the department of justice knew that the towers were a target in the past, and that they were a potential target in the future, and thus published a cover highlighting this?
And as for response time, you should look into how the US handled air defense of the continental US. Loose Change mentions how many jets were on "combat ready" status. Loose Change neglects to mention that "combat ready" means the plane can be in the air fully armed and ready to go in about 12-24 HOURS. It does not mean that the jets are on standby for being scrambled.
When you go for conspiracy stuff like that, it is easy to pick and choose what fits you theory, and discard what does not. This is why in science anecdotal evidence is considered unworthy. Loose Change is a collection of disparate "hits" and ignores the "misses". Again, see the baloney detection kit for this, sections are available for free on the internet, and I highly reccomend the book, it is without exception the best book I have ever read.
There are also thousands of pictures and videos from the WTC site that are classified. If planes really brought down the towers, why would such classification be necessary? Also, just like in Oklahoma City, all the evidence from the WTC site was destroyed as quickly as possible. They could've saved the steel for analysis, and we'd know whether or not thermite (or some other explosive) was used to cut the core columns.
0 921158523
i ntroduction.html
2 27842.html
You might want to take another view on the 9/11 theories. The arguments you put forward are specious at best, mind you they are not uncommon arguments, but that does not make them correct.
A good primer can be found here:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=750102022
Keep in mind that Penn and Teller use Ad Hominim attacks for 2 reasons. First, its funny, and the show has to be entertaining to some degree. Second, they can be sued for using words like: "Hoax" "Fraud" etc, but they cannot be sued for: "Bullshit" "Asshole" and "Motherfucker". So, keep that in mind.
Also, if you have had the misfortune to watch the movie "Loose Change" first or second edition, you might want to check out this link:
http://www.lolloosechange.co.nr/
It is "Loose Change 2nd ed." With added commentary pointing out the errors made in the movie. Keep in mind Popular Mechanics and a host of other publications have already soundly debunked these theories, and for more on loose change, a blow by blow HTML debunking can be found here:
http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/loose_change/
Remember, if you ever wonder about an issue, check out both sides and then decide for yourself. If you would like my suggestion into a few good books on how to do that (if you care) they are:
The Demon Haunted World, Science as a Candle in the Dark - Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan
Why People Believe Wierd Things - Michael Schermer
Voodoo Science - Robert L. Park
A collection of excellent debunking links follows:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1
http://www.debunking911.com/
http://www.911myths.com/
last time I checked, my telephone service came in over my TELEPHONE line. Sure, my internet comes over my cable TV line, and my power comes over (god forbid) my power lines.
The internet is fast becoming something ubiquitous, and the infrastructure will follow. I see no real need for internet over gas lines, as eventually there will be more fibre and OC3 lines running to a variety of neighbourhoods. True, it is probably a neat idea for the short term, but long term there will likely be more fiber and more wireless access points. It will eventually reach a level that is the same (or actually greater) than that of the phone system, and the infrastructure will not be over gas lines.
So, good short-term idea, but it is really just a pipe dream, like broadband over power in the long run.
This isn't to say that I think that Jackson did a bad job with the pictures but I don't see some of it as respectful.
I must agree that I used to feel the same way, however, now that I look back on the movies, I am impressed at how well he brought the story to life, and really, how much he left *IN* unmodified. I agree that according to the book it would have made more sense to have gollum dance and fall in, but for the drama of a non-Tolken audience it does not work as well, those who have not read the books demand more.
Along those lines, when I saw the first movie in the theatre on opening day, the scene where Arwen takes Frodo across the river annoyed me because it was not cannon, Glorfindel was not there, and Arwen utters an incatation and it is not (apparently, I dont speak elvish) the work of the ring of water that raises the river.
But, having said all that, when Liv Tyler cries out: "If you want him, come and claim him!" I sat up in my chair, and like almost every other geek in the theatre I shouted "YEAH!!!!"
I was dissapointed in the first movie when I left the theatre, and I and all my other geek buddies were complaining about how it violated Cannon... Then about 2 days later we all sat around and agreed that Jackson HAD done a good job, and that we were unrealistic to believe that everything could have been like the books, because some of what Tolkien did was great from a world creation perspective, but bad from an authors narration perspective. Once we decided that, we ran back to the theatre to watch the movie again. We loved it the second time around.
I look at the differences, and I agree with you, I would have preffered the rings destruction and gollums death to be like that in the book. However, the audience would not get it. With Jacksons ending you see the hold that the ring has on Frodo, you see him being malicious and twisted like gollum, you see the hatred of the ring bringing an end to itself.
Really? Damn, I don't remember that. I always thought he reffered to it when fighting the Balrog with the comment: "I am a servant of the secret fire, the dark flame will not avail you" was a reference to the fact that he had the ring of fire, and was thus immune to the fire of the balrog. I did know he got the ring from the shipright, but how does he end up using it then? (If at all...)
(note, I have read the books about 10 times, but not in the last 5 years, so my memory is probably off.)
It's an interesting question. I believe a lot of a person's money management skills come from their parents (and in this regard, wealthy parents don't necessarily give good credit to their children...spoiled children might become demanding adults who have little understanding of money management.) Undoubtedly, good money management is something that's passed down through the generations; in fact, a suprising amount of the Old Testament is devoted to money management issues.
If you are a parent, you might want to check this site out:
http://www.msgen.com/prod/assembled/home.html
The podcasts from here are great for parents to listen to. Higly recommended.
http://www.msgen.com/prod/assembled/podcasts.html
My friend just built the 4 compartment piggy bank for his daughter with some tupperware and a hot glue gun.
I can understand using it as a tie breaker, but why do you feel the need to check there credit? Do you know if there is a causal relationship between their credit history and their job?
(Note, if you run a financially based business I understand the decision)
Is it surprising that more and more People hate our society and made stupid thinks? We don't need to import our terrorists, we made them at home. Disillusioned People with kick-ass education, that are able to build MacGyver-like bombs or crack critical Infrastructure.
But are you smart if you can solve Fermats Last Theorem but you can't pay your bills on time? There are different levels to intelligence, and different segments surrounding it.
I don't agree that checking someones credit rating has a correlation to ones ability to work - however as noted elsewhere in the discussion, policemen are apparently more likely to accept bribes if they have a bad credit history, hence the check on potential cops.
Also, would you want a financial advisor working for your company if this financial advisor had a bad credit rating? Might not make a difference if you are a crane operator, but if you work at a bank or financial institution I think it might...