I believe the exhibition of ignorance is your own. The Anarchist Cookbook is not about how to live during anarchy. It's about guerilla warfare, the best drugs, spending time in jail, etc. There is some focus on subversion of an oppressive government, as that would be entirely neccessary if you wanted your precious, short-lived anarchy.
Perhaps you should spend some time with Thomas Hobbe's Leviathan. See that anarchy is not all it's cracked up to be. The thought experiment should be played out a little further than when the bong runs out of water. Consider what countries look like that have no government -- (like a post-Earthquake Haiti, or the tribal regions of Africa). You can rule by fear when there is no government, and there is always someone willing to take control with fear.
And, like Martin Luther King said: "Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor. It must be demanded by the oppressed" -- a non-aggression principle is laughable. You are not dealing with normal men when you speak to politicians. You are speaking to the scum that has stepped on enough of their friends' and colleagues' and twisted enough balls to get to where they are today. They are the most insidious vipers you can imagine, and they have entire militaries marching to their drum. They are, by nature, unreasonable, or they would have already been thrown to the sharks by other, more insidious candidates.
It's called "reality" kid, and it's where your anarchy doesn't work.
Ok, so you've answered the questions as well as any toddler could. Now see if you can answer them in an adult capacity -- it does the discourse no good to simply play stupid through it all, but I can and will assume that your playing dumb is going to be the extent of your argument, so I'll go ahead and help you fill in some of the blanks you left.
1. There is nothing to learn by operating on a mannequin. There is no life-saving knowledge or function to be taught in such an operation. Dummies may help with first-aid exercises like CPR and the heimlich, but when it comes to a surgeons knife, knowing HUMAN biology is paramount to any human procedure. Sending a programmable rock into space gives us geological information on a dead planet -- which is an enormous waste of time if "gathering information" is all we can do, because if we refuse to USE it for man-served purposes, it becomes, in effect, USELESS.
2. Toolsheds are meant to house the expendable. There are no safety codes required to build a toolshed, because it's not a dwelling. What good is it to send anything to Mars unless we start developing ways to send something back from Mars? If we're only planning on sending automated mining bots to Mars, how do they send anything back? Is it worth the price and technology to learn how to send a rover to Mars, then have it climb back into a lander and pilot itself home? Is it imperative that a mission ends with the return of samples, rather than simple alien-world-based analyzation? Eventually. Is it a high priority? No -- because we can do robo-analyzation via remote -- and at that point the practical use of any of this exploration is emminently dead. You won't build a toolshed the same way you build a house because -- if you build a $100,000 toolshed, you might as well live in it. If NASA keeps having its goals set on building toolsheds, we'll never have proper, habitable dwellings, because the funding, mission, and focus are all wrong -- so planetary exploration is at a dead end. There needs to be a mission-critical reason for bringing a payload home from a planet. Putting a human inside of a shuttle would immediately provide that reason.
3. We can't look into the brain of a goldfish, but we do know some of their basic motives. Perhaps exploration, perhaps seeking contact with others of their own kind, or just taking a chance on a better life. Naturally, a fish should avoid leaving their comfortable dwelling, where all basic needs are cared for, to venture out into an atmospherically-deadly, unknown, inhospitable world. They still do it, and are famous for doing it. Meanwhile, the fish which I'll assume you think are "smarter" simply live in the glass bowl until they are dead.
You can make your own pirated version of Battletoads at home or work! If you need them, buy a hammer and a permanent marker at a dollar store. Write "Battletoads" on the side of the hammer. Now strip down, lay your penis on a hard surface, and then start smacking it with the hammer as hard as you can, repeatedly and consistently. Do this until you either succumb to the pain and give up or pass out. This is known as "Level 3". This has been scientifically proven to give the exact same experience as playing the retail version of battletoads.
What do we gain from having med students operate on cadavers instead of mannequins? What's the difference in engineering a toolshed and a residential home? Why do goldfish leap from fishbowls?
I'm sorry, we're talking about "software pirates" which are different from the high-seas privateers which were more prevalent in the 1800's or off the shores of Africa. It's the frame of context which makes the "software" implicit, as the swashbuckling variety would unlikely be patching executables in Rockstar videogames.
Maybe someone in the galaxy tried to fill in their supermassive black hole by throwing dirt into it, and left a supermassive black hole where their source was!
Hey Hey Hey... you know? When it's 4:00pm on Friday afternoon, and you've got a big fishing trip planned for the weekend, and you just want to see your wife after a long day of paperwork, and your boss comes in and says:
Hey buddy, I got a project for you. I want you to bust some of these financial fraud guys. We have some names you can start with here. On the first list, there are suspected money mules, and on the second list are a bunch of insanely-powerful superbankers that, upon learning of your very existence, will hire a small country of thugs to make sure you and your family never sleep again. Just try to get at least a few of these guys contacted by the end of the day, and give me a status report before you leave. Great. Awesome. [pat on the back]
Which list will you end up "getting around to" before the clock strikes 5?
Lufthansa (in German): "Ground, what is our start clearance time?"
Ground (in English): "If you want an answer you must speak in English."
Lufthansa (in English): "I am a German, flying a German airplane, in Germany. Why must I speak English?"
Unknown voice from another plane (in a beautiful British accent): "Because you lost the bloody war."
I wonder if you asked an astronomer who doesn't know, yet, how long it would take that stripe to disappear. He'd probably say something like "500 million years, why?" -- because astronomer predictions are always like dog years * 70 million. (That way, you'll never live long enough to prove them wrong!)
Interesting number... that's roughly what I would estimate the amount of energy put out by all the cars in the Los Angeles metro area, revving their engines at the same time.
Perhaps they have it backward, though -- how many degrees warmer does the earth need to get in order to increaes evaporation by 1%? Maybe we should just heat up the earth to get that!
Fortunately for the rest of us, you don't get to define what the foundation of biology is
In the absense of a scientific defintion, I created one. Instead of refuting it (as it is 100% valid, matches the numbers, though the percentages alone can immediately lead one to suspect they are incorrect, but they match the statistics) you simply say "You can't do that" Well, yes I can. Offer a better one! One that can be tested, tracked, measured. Your CONCEPT is not even a Hypothesis until it is as quanticized as I've done. Unfortunately, I see evolution for the unquantifiable, bunk science it is, rather than as an ungraspable religion. Yes, I could have spent more time on the numbers to make it more viable, but that's missing the point of the blathering idiocy of stating so authoritatively "animals might observabley change over incalculable periods of time into different animals, and that is the foundation of all biology".
So yes, who's the ignorant zealot?
I've proven evolution to be bunk on every level asked of me, then I presented the closest thing to a scientific "theory" evolution has ever come to (although, mathmatically, the proposed theory showed obvious insustainability past 10,000 years or so). You shut your eyes and ears to it because you disagree with it. You ask questions I've already given answers to, so I am forced repeat myself. You show nothing but blind faith in adherence to an untested principal just like the greeks did to their pantheon. I point out the observable fallacies in your arguments, so you simply conjure new arguments from thin air, and then, like I said in my very first post, the argument against everything I say is a combination of "You don't know what you're talking about" and "LA LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" -- exhibits A,B,C, and D of my very original argument.
The religious fundamentalist claims the title of religious zealot. You don't even realize that you are one, yet do all the same things, say all the same things, and do it with the err (ha ha) of superiority -- just replacing Zeus with Evolution, Gaia with primordial soup, Venus with DNA's inexplicable desire and precognizance required for sustained redeployment, and Mars with natural selection.
You have the attitude of "the eternal campaign" to thank for that. A politician is no longer in congress in order to pass/eliminate laws. They are only there to get reelected to congress -- which consists of attempts to make the other party look bad while only promoting your own.
Define Evolution: There is a 0.1% chance an animal will change into a different kind of animal within the next 50,000 years. There is a 0.5% chance it will go extinct, if it does not change into a different animal, in any given year.
Oh, yes, that sounds like the FOUNDATION of biology! Sorry, retards, that is a miniscule, unusuable APPENDIX to biology -- it's your zealotry that blows it up to be more than it should be -- and that's driving biology into a dark age. Keep reading up on string theory, or you'll never be able to understand why a brick weighs more than a feather -- because unprovable, UNSUBSTANTIAL fringe science is the foundation of all our knowledge in any given field!
No wonder, in 200 years, no scientist has ever come up with a more accurate, more SCIENTIFIC definition of evolution than I just did in like 20 seconds -- because they're all busy worshipping themselves as priests to their pathetic pseudo-scientific pantheon. Go ahead and worship all you like, your ignorant troglodytes, I just defined your god, and it's hardly more than a squirrel.
It is tested, just not in the sense that you seem to think it is. Every time some new piece of data is uncovered that further validates evolutionary principles, we are testing the veracity of the theory.
It's not tested. It's NEVER tested. IT CANNOT BE TESTED. If you can test it, it's not true evolution! If you see it, it wasn't evolution, because evolution cannot happen rapidly enough for people to even record! Or so they'd tell you if you went out and successfully tested it and proved it wrong.
This is my situation, right? You find a time machine, go back in time to ancient Greece and want to explain to the priests how STUPID their pantheon is. They make up what the gods are doing on the spot, for crying out loud! There's no test, no solvent, no method to it -- they worship the conjurations of their minds as if it were truth. What could you possibly tell them that would show them the error of their ways? What could you say or show them that they wouldn't weasel around?
You: You don't need Prometheus to make fire, I can make some with flint and tinder.
Priest: That's because the Prometheus gave also the knowledge to make it to HUMANS! Learn something about the gods before talking!
You: Zeus doesn't choose where lightning goes, I can direct it with a lightning rod... see?
Priest: You just erected an alter to Zeus, so of course he'll throw lightning at it!
You: If the gods are real, why don't they strike me down for blaspheming them right now? I just wrote "Zeus sucks Mars's dick" on the lightning rod.
Priest: You obviously don't understand the gods! Huhr huhr!
It's no different than what I have to put up with. You see, these arguments? They're the same thing the Flat Earthers say. "If you point out a species that was the same time as dinosaurs, evolution is wrong!" "What about this one?" "That might be how it looks at first... You don't understand cuz you're stupid!" Same exact argument as the flat earthers. The difference is? The flat earthers know they're a joke.
So I point out a few animals that are still around and suddenly it's not good enough? That was the point of my first post, wasn't it? It COULD never be good enough. You would NEVER be satisfied. You'd always have SOME way to keep the argument going. "Well, not until you show me... a... kangaroo... and a penguin... will I ever believe that evolution isn't true!"
By simply typing "living fossil" into google, you'll find a few species that date back. Valdiviathyris quenstedti, for example, was around BEFORE the dinosaurs. It doesn't prove anything to you, though, does it? Because you could never, ever be satisfied. Not even if they found a rabbit from the cretaceous in the arctic, wearing plastic sneakers.
Huh? What part of mass extinction do you not understand? The dinosaurs did not evolve their way through the extinction, they went extinct! Species that were better suited for survival evolved into the lifeforms that dominate the planet now.
Perhaps you should consult with your fellow believers before saying "Dinosaurs did not evolve." I was practically tarred and feathered for saying Tyrannosaurus Rexes more likely died than became turkeys during some "feather fossils discovered!" article only a few months ago.
What the hell are you talking about? How is it bad science to test a model with new data?
If only it were tested! Instead, whenever any new data is introduced, it's immediately tethered to evolution through unfounded assumption! They could crack open a lava bubble that has NEVER had exposure to the outside world, find extremophiles within, and call upon evolution to explain how they got there from the primordial soup -- rather than say "Well, this disproves the wild ASSUMPTIONS we were so callously making these last 200 years, so I guess we have to fall back on actually considering some of the observable data we've had independant of the inference we've cloaked each and every finding with!"
you have single handedly, in one Slashdot post, destroyed the foundational theory in Biology
Any scientist holding evolution as the foundational theory of biology should find a new line of work -- that's analogous to saying string theory is the foundational theory of physics.
Slashdot Mirror
For $200 million, I would detail at least 10 BMW's.
Well, Ira is a woman's name after all.
It's not as big as it sounds. Milky Ways only have like 9 grams of fat. So this thing is like... 180 grams of fat. We'll live.
About equivalent to deeming someone a Norse pagan for signing something "on this Thursday, the day of my powerful god of lightning, 2010."
Fixed that for you.
I believe the exhibition of ignorance is your own. The Anarchist Cookbook is not about how to live during anarchy. It's about guerilla warfare, the best drugs, spending time in jail, etc. There is some focus on subversion of an oppressive government, as that would be entirely neccessary if you wanted your precious, short-lived anarchy. Perhaps you should spend some time with Thomas Hobbe's Leviathan. See that anarchy is not all it's cracked up to be. The thought experiment should be played out a little further than when the bong runs out of water. Consider what countries look like that have no government -- (like a post-Earthquake Haiti, or the tribal regions of Africa). You can rule by fear when there is no government, and there is always someone willing to take control with fear.
And, like Martin Luther King said: "Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor. It must be demanded by the oppressed" -- a non-aggression principle is laughable. You are not dealing with normal men when you speak to politicians. You are speaking to the scum that has stepped on enough of their friends' and colleagues' and twisted enough balls to get to where they are today. They are the most insidious vipers you can imagine, and they have entire militaries marching to their drum. They are, by nature, unreasonable, or they would have already been thrown to the sharks by other, more insidious candidates.
It's called "reality" kid, and it's where your anarchy doesn't work.
Ok, so you've answered the questions as well as any toddler could. Now see if you can answer them in an adult capacity -- it does the discourse no good to simply play stupid through it all, but I can and will assume that your playing dumb is going to be the extent of your argument, so I'll go ahead and help you fill in some of the blanks you left.
1. There is nothing to learn by operating on a mannequin. There is no life-saving knowledge or function to be taught in such an operation. Dummies may help with first-aid exercises like CPR and the heimlich, but when it comes to a surgeons knife, knowing HUMAN biology is paramount to any human procedure. Sending a programmable rock into space gives us geological information on a dead planet -- which is an enormous waste of time if "gathering information" is all we can do, because if we refuse to USE it for man-served purposes, it becomes, in effect, USELESS.
2. Toolsheds are meant to house the expendable. There are no safety codes required to build a toolshed, because it's not a dwelling. What good is it to send anything to Mars unless we start developing ways to send something back from Mars? If we're only planning on sending automated mining bots to Mars, how do they send anything back? Is it worth the price and technology to learn how to send a rover to Mars, then have it climb back into a lander and pilot itself home? Is it imperative that a mission ends with the return of samples, rather than simple alien-world-based analyzation? Eventually. Is it a high priority? No -- because we can do robo-analyzation via remote -- and at that point the practical use of any of this exploration is emminently dead. You won't build a toolshed the same way you build a house because -- if you build a $100,000 toolshed, you might as well live in it. If NASA keeps having its goals set on building toolsheds, we'll never have proper, habitable dwellings, because the funding, mission, and focus are all wrong -- so planetary exploration is at a dead end. There needs to be a mission-critical reason for bringing a payload home from a planet. Putting a human inside of a shuttle would immediately provide that reason.
3. We can't look into the brain of a goldfish, but we do know some of their basic motives. Perhaps exploration, perhaps seeking contact with others of their own kind, or just taking a chance on a better life. Naturally, a fish should avoid leaving their comfortable dwelling, where all basic needs are cared for, to venture out into an atmospherically-deadly, unknown, inhospitable world. They still do it, and are famous for doing it. Meanwhile, the fish which I'll assume you think are "smarter" simply live in the glass bowl until they are dead.
That probably won't stick, but MAFIAA certainly has.
You can make your own pirated version of Battletoads at home or work! If you need them, buy a hammer and a permanent marker at a dollar store. Write "Battletoads" on the side of the hammer. Now strip down, lay your penis on a hard surface, and then start smacking it with the hammer as hard as you can, repeatedly and consistently. Do this until you either succumb to the pain and give up or pass out. This is known as "Level 3". This has been scientifically proven to give the exact same experience as playing the retail version of battletoads.
What do we gain from having med students operate on cadavers instead of mannequins? What's the difference in engineering a toolshed and a residential home? Why do goldfish leap from fishbowls?
I'm sorry, we're talking about "software pirates" which are different from the high-seas privateers which were more prevalent in the 1800's or off the shores of Africa. It's the frame of context which makes the "software" implicit, as the swashbuckling variety would unlikely be patching executables in Rockstar videogames.
Maybe someone in the galaxy tried to fill in their supermassive black hole by throwing dirt into it, and left a supermassive black hole where their source was!
Hey Hey Hey... you know? When it's 4:00pm on Friday afternoon, and you've got a big fishing trip planned for the weekend, and you just want to see your wife after a long day of paperwork, and your boss comes in and says:
Hey buddy, I got a project for you. I want you to bust some of these financial fraud guys. We have some names you can start with here. On the first list, there are suspected money mules, and on the second list are a bunch of insanely-powerful superbankers that, upon learning of your very existence, will hire a small country of thugs to make sure you and your family never sleep again. Just try to get at least a few of these guys contacted by the end of the day, and give me a status report before you leave. Great. Awesome. [pat on the back]
Which list will you end up "getting around to" before the clock strikes 5?
Lufthansa (in German): "Ground, what is our start clearance time?"
Ground (in English): "If you want an answer you must speak in English."
Lufthansa (in English): "I am a German, flying a German airplane, in Germany. Why must I speak English?"
Unknown voice from another plane (in a beautiful British accent): "Because you lost the bloody war."
I wonder if you asked an astronomer who doesn't know, yet, how long it would take that stripe to disappear. He'd probably say something like "500 million years, why?" -- because astronomer predictions are always like dog years * 70 million. (That way, you'll never live long enough to prove them wrong!)
He'll certainly have a lot to answer for if it turns out those spinning disks are really just the uplifting, smiling faces of pure-hearted children!
Or being able to create it in a microwave. -- If ball lightning is just a stable plasmoid, that is.
One Point Six BILLION horsepower.
Interesting number... that's roughly what I would estimate the amount of energy put out by all the cars in the Los Angeles metro area, revving their engines at the same time.
Perhaps they have it backward, though -- how many degrees warmer does the earth need to get in order to increaes evaporation by 1%? Maybe we should just heat up the earth to get that!
Fortunately for the rest of us, you don't get to define what the foundation of biology is
In the absense of a scientific defintion, I created one. Instead of refuting it (as it is 100% valid, matches the numbers, though the percentages alone can immediately lead one to suspect they are incorrect, but they match the statistics) you simply say "You can't do that" Well, yes I can. Offer a better one! One that can be tested, tracked, measured. Your CONCEPT is not even a Hypothesis until it is as quanticized as I've done. Unfortunately, I see evolution for the unquantifiable, bunk science it is, rather than as an ungraspable religion. Yes, I could have spent more time on the numbers to make it more viable, but that's missing the point of the blathering idiocy of stating so authoritatively "animals might observabley change over incalculable periods of time into different animals, and that is the foundation of all biology".
So yes, who's the ignorant zealot?
I've proven evolution to be bunk on every level asked of me, then I presented the closest thing to a scientific "theory" evolution has ever come to (although, mathmatically, the proposed theory showed obvious insustainability past 10,000 years or so). You shut your eyes and ears to it because you disagree with it. You ask questions I've already given answers to, so I am forced repeat myself. You show nothing but blind faith in adherence to an untested principal just like the greeks did to their pantheon. I point out the observable fallacies in your arguments, so you simply conjure new arguments from thin air, and then, like I said in my very first post, the argument against everything I say is a combination of "You don't know what you're talking about" and "LA LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" -- exhibits A,B,C, and D of my very original argument.
The religious fundamentalist claims the title of religious zealot. You don't even realize that you are one, yet do all the same things, say all the same things, and do it with the err (ha ha) of superiority -- just replacing Zeus with Evolution, Gaia with primordial soup, Venus with DNA's inexplicable desire and precognizance required for sustained redeployment, and Mars with natural selection.
You have the attitude of "the eternal campaign" to thank for that. A politician is no longer in congress in order to pass/eliminate laws. They are only there to get reelected to congress -- which consists of attempts to make the other party look bad while only promoting your own.
Define Evolution: There is a 0.1% chance an animal will change into a different kind of animal within the next 50,000 years. There is a 0.5% chance it will go extinct, if it does not change into a different animal, in any given year.
Oh, yes, that sounds like the FOUNDATION of biology! Sorry, retards, that is a miniscule, unusuable APPENDIX to biology -- it's your zealotry that blows it up to be more than it should be -- and that's driving biology into a dark age. Keep reading up on string theory, or you'll never be able to understand why a brick weighs more than a feather -- because unprovable, UNSUBSTANTIAL fringe science is the foundation of all our knowledge in any given field!
No wonder, in 200 years, no scientist has ever come up with a more accurate, more SCIENTIFIC definition of evolution than I just did in like 20 seconds -- because they're all busy worshipping themselves as priests to their pathetic pseudo-scientific pantheon. Go ahead and worship all you like, your ignorant troglodytes, I just defined your god, and it's hardly more than a squirrel.
It is tested, just not in the sense that you seem to think it is. Every time some new piece of data is uncovered that further validates evolutionary principles, we are testing the veracity of the theory.
It's not tested. It's NEVER tested. IT CANNOT BE TESTED. If you can test it, it's not true evolution! If you see it, it wasn't evolution, because evolution cannot happen rapidly enough for people to even record! Or so they'd tell you if you went out and successfully tested it and proved it wrong.
This is my situation, right? You find a time machine, go back in time to ancient Greece and want to explain to the priests how STUPID their pantheon is. They make up what the gods are doing on the spot, for crying out loud! There's no test, no solvent, no method to it -- they worship the conjurations of their minds as if it were truth. What could you possibly tell them that would show them the error of their ways? What could you say or show them that they wouldn't weasel around?
You: You don't need Prometheus to make fire, I can make some with flint and tinder.
Priest: That's because the Prometheus gave also the knowledge to make it to HUMANS! Learn something about the gods before talking!
You: Zeus doesn't choose where lightning goes, I can direct it with a lightning rod... see?
Priest: You just erected an alter to Zeus, so of course he'll throw lightning at it!
You: If the gods are real, why don't they strike me down for blaspheming them right now? I just wrote "Zeus sucks Mars's dick" on the lightning rod.
Priest: You obviously don't understand the gods! Huhr huhr!
It's no different than what I have to put up with. You see, these arguments? They're the same thing the Flat Earthers say. "If you point out a species that was the same time as dinosaurs, evolution is wrong!" "What about this one?" "That might be how it looks at first... You don't understand cuz you're stupid!" Same exact argument as the flat earthers. The difference is? The flat earthers know they're a joke.
So I point out a few animals that are still around and suddenly it's not good enough? That was the point of my first post, wasn't it? It COULD never be good enough. You would NEVER be satisfied. You'd always have SOME way to keep the argument going. "Well, not until you show me... a... kangaroo... and a penguin... will I ever believe that evolution isn't true!"
By simply typing "living fossil" into google, you'll find a few species that date back. Valdiviathyris quenstedti, for example, was around BEFORE the dinosaurs. It doesn't prove anything to you, though, does it? Because you could never, ever be satisfied. Not even if they found a rabbit from the cretaceous in the arctic, wearing plastic sneakers.
Huh? What part of mass extinction do you not understand? The dinosaurs did not evolve their way through the extinction, they went extinct! Species that were better suited for survival evolved into the lifeforms that dominate the planet now.
Perhaps you should consult with your fellow believers before saying "Dinosaurs did not evolve." I was practically tarred and feathered for saying Tyrannosaurus Rexes more likely died than became turkeys during some "feather fossils discovered!" article only a few months ago.
What the hell are you talking about? How is it bad science to test a model with new data?
If only it were tested! Instead, whenever any new data is introduced, it's immediately tethered to evolution through unfounded assumption! They could crack open a lava bubble that has NEVER had exposure to the outside world, find extremophiles within, and call upon evolution to explain how they got there from the primordial soup -- rather than say "Well, this disproves the wild ASSUMPTIONS we were so callously making these last 200 years, so I guess we have to fall back on actually considering some of the observable data we've had independant of the inference we've cloaked each and every finding with!"
you have single handedly, in one Slashdot post, destroyed the foundational theory in Biology
Any scientist holding evolution as the foundational theory of biology should find a new line of work -- that's analogous to saying string theory is the foundational theory of physics.
show me a bunny rabbit fossil, or any other modern animal, buried in the same layer as a t-rex fossil, and you've just disproved evolution.
Like gingkos, sharks, coelacanths, crocodiles, grasshoppers, wasps, ants, aphids, and termites?