Penn & Teller describe themselves as environmental skeptics. They have made several television appearances attempting to discredit environmental concerns. The "Environmental Hysteria" episode attempted to "prove the global warming crisis, among other things, was created by the out of control imagination of hysterical hippies and environmentalists".
When subsequently challenged at the James Randi Educational Foundation's The Amazing Meeting 6 about their views on global warming, Penn Jillette published a piece in the Los Angeles Times saying "I don't know about climate change".[16]
Also:
Penn acknowledged his and Teller's biases, saying, "We're fair and we never take people out of context. We're biased, but we try to be honest."
I.e. Biased and with an agenda. Seek information on recycling and environment elsewhere. All Penn and Teller provide on that topic is one-sided, "mean-spirited, sanctimonious and self-righteous" bullshit.
Also bigoted, as Jillette's idea of being "fair when one is being mean-spirited, sanctimonious and self-righteous" is saying "Hey! What do I know? Sure. I'm being an asshole and I'm spouting nonsense from my position of authority (just look at all the other crazy shit I very loudly rant about on TV - all the shit I rant about MUST BE crazy) - but it's not like I reeeaaaly know anything. Cause, in essence - you simply can't know some things. They are beyond our comprehension..."
They are bigoted assholes, just like the creationists bible-thumpers . It's just that they are YOUR KIND of assholes.
While your privacy MAY be protected to some extent by local laws, it is trumped by the protection of other people's (and yours) bodies from physical harm.
Why can't we just let the market do its thing? When the economic balance tilts toward renewables we will switch to them no matter how much carbon is easily available. Eliminate all the special government rewards/penalties associated with any and all energy producton and the law of supply and demand will elegantly elevate the current best solution at any given time.
And not a very bright one at that.
Cause, should "the invisible hand" be the only thing that regulates the market that would mean that the market would be regulated ONLY BY MONEY. Supply and demand can both be adjusted with money. I.e. They can be faked. And more money you have, more adjustments you can make - ending with the situation where those with the most money CAN and DO regulate the supply and demand. I.e. As long as you can afford food for yourself, you can also afford to let everyone else starve unless they pay what you are asking for the food. Or, you can give away free food until your competition goes bankrupt and you buy them off for a pittance. And THEN starve everyone.
Invisible hand is suddenly visible and it turns out to be a monopoly instead. That's because invisible hand is an imaginary concept based on the idea that markets are somehow naturally fair. Monopolies, on the other hand, are very much real and they are based on GREED.
And they eventually end either with a bloody riot, OR with a position where ONE entity controls all the resources, using them for its personal needs - everyone else be damned. You don't need markets or consumers if YOU already own everything.
But why is that particularly stupid regarding renewable sources vs. fossil fuels? Well, there are many reasons but the main ones are that the renewable sources require VAST investments in research and development as well as in the production cycle, delivery pipeline etc. etc.
Renewables can be made to work on a large scale IF energy and effort is invested NOW while the energy is still cheap. They are on the other hand practically unreachable from a position where we can no longer afford most very basic things we are used to today - like cheap food, affordable motorized transportation of people and goods, constant supply of electricity, refrigeration during summer, heating during winter etc. etc.
And that's all WITHOUT even going into environmental effects of "burning it all first and then looking for a solution".
Social status is not a function of material wealth alone. In fact, material wealth is a factor ONLY when the status in that particular SOCIAL GROUP is based on material wealth. In reality, social status is far more often based on immaterial things like "popularity" than on wealth.
Nor is the social status an absolute standard. Again, as a kid your social status may be sky high cause you can spit really far, but if you end up doing research at CERN for living some other qualities may determine your social status.
About the only way to defeat it would be to inject a point resistance on a very short patch cable (within a few feet of the switch) which would dissipate the heat budget for a 300-foot cable in a small area without exceeding the resitsance budget. That would be hard to do simply by running over a cable with a chair.
How about a dog or a cat biting into it?
Or a small child deciding to lick an open end of an USB extension cable dangling from the desk?
From the same wiki page as the link above, only regarding USA:
City, county, and local jurisdictions (to include sovereign Indian nations located within a state boundary) may enact their own criminal laws or ordinances in addition to the restrictions contained in state laws, which may be more restrictive than state law.[78] Virtually all states and local jurisdictions have laws that restrict or prohibit the possession or carrying of knives in some form or manner in certain defined areas or places such as schools, public buildings, courthouses, police stations, jails, power plant facilities, airports, or public events.
Nothing we are seeing supports that. All of Netflix's shows are totally different from one another, none of them classically formulaic so far.
That's because you only have a few shows at the moment. Let it run for a while and wait for the shows to start getting renewed based on the lowest common denominator.
As for the "NOT IN TV"... "Two And a Half Men" is the example of that, so is "Sex and the City", so is "Medium", so is "Battlestar Galactica", so is "Justified", "Boardwalk Empire", "Game of Thrones", "Blue Bloods"... Star Appeal has been a major TV show ingredient for a while now.
But as I said, the story doesn't matter much - just the pairings. House of Cards was more about what David Fincher and Kevin Spacey could do together, as Netflix had viewing data to show that people who watched stuff from the producer also really liked Kevin Spacey movies.
Fincher had planned on doing that show since 2008, and they went with it to other networks - Netflix just offered the most money. Spacey-Fincher quote is a post-facto explanation of why they offered that much - not a reason for the existence of the show. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Cards_(U.S._TV_series)#Production
Also, you should check out the original show. Ian Richardson is... Well, what Palpatine should have been like. You know that he's an evil bastard, but you just can't help yourself cheering for him.
Netflix in the meanwhile is thinking more in terms of "Fantasy TV" - like "wouldn't it be awesome if we could see any show made by Director X that also has stars Y & Z"? Then they don't even care exactly what show gets made, they just throw the delicious self-aware ingredients together and let it all work.
You may want to rethink that "Fantasy TV" view. Not only is Netflix picking up shows in a traditional way, most of their current and future programming is basically "sold" one way or the other even before the production starts.
House of Cards - a remake of a successful UK show. Hemlock Grove - based on a novel. Lilyhammer - made jointly for a Norwegian broadcasting company. I.e. pre-sold to Norwegians. Arrested Development - a revival of a popular show. Derek - based on an Ricky Gervais old character. Turbo: F.A.S.T. - a spinoff from an upcoming DreamWorks cartoon. Orange Is the New Black - based on a book.
On top of that, every single one of those productions is "sprinkled" with recognizable names - either acting or in production.
They are not trowing shit at the wall to see what will stick or carelessly throwing money at "Director X that also has stars Y & Z". They are aiming at existing audiences. Classic Hollywood game. Get the rights to existing "content" with existing audience, slap some stars on the production, make your own thing out of all that and then sell the shit out of it.
Nothing bad about that, just nothing fantastic either. Though... While you may not end up with wall to wall "Friends" clones (no star appeal at the beginning), but you may end up with the entire comedy line-up of "Joey" and "Two And a Half Men" clones, and the "drama" section full of "Sex and the City" clones.
I could go through your entire shotgun argument, but I'll just concentrate on the following in order to save time, since you have already excluded yourself from any conversation on The God topic.
You are simply creating God in your own image. You are delineating his boundaries according to your finite, human perception.
Who are you to say what God is supposed to do? That is simply creating God in your own image, putting him in a box of your own design. If God created the universe, if he created matter and energy and natural laws, how could he be bound by your ideas?
So, not only is The God beyond your "finite, human perception" (end of any conversation on this topic - with you), you want to "seal the deal" by piling reverse appeal to authority on top of that?
See, there are couple of problems there. Not only is your opinion that you have no idea what you are talking about ("finite, human perception", God unknowable, goodnight) and that anything you say on the topic of The God is essentially bullshit (i.e. talking about something you no nothing about - as it is beyond your "finite, human perception") - you are somehow an expert on what the omni-doubleplusgoodwitheverything-creature is NOT supposed to do.
Who are you to say what God is supposed to do?
Who are you to QUESTION what The God is supposed to do? Are you saying The God is NOT omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and benevolent? If The God is all that - then it is supposed to be doing good things all the time - or the benevolence goes out the window.
And you actually dare to question others, with your "finite, human perception" of the subject, as if there is some objective authority on the subject of The God, and you are in possession of said authority?
What's next? You're gonna say that The God talks to you? Sure it's not The Dog? One CAN easily confuse them.
Feel free to keep on arguing. I'm gonna go sleep instead.
You're clearly not wasting enough time on Slashdot for something like that. You're barely in the "dishes need washing" category.
Wasting time on Slashdot instead of pursuing academic achievements requires a proper argument with several participants, neither side willing to yield or compromise. With lengthy explanations and quotes and links to external sources.
Anyone can merely wait until the time runs out. On Slashdot we weave our precious time and intellectual resources into elaborate sculptures of words which we then proudly present to the entire world. "See this? THIS is what I actually did when I was supposed to be doing that other thing! Behold its terrible glory!"
You are either confused or misunderstanding me. I do not propose that God exists solely outside of our universe, unable to interact with it. I propose that he exists outside the limitations of and nature of the physical universe as we know it. Having created the universe, he can interact with it however he chooses. Yet existing outside of it, he is not subject to its limitations and laws, and is therefore not subject to our finite comprehension.
Again... He is inside all of us and everything else in the universe, omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent and omni- everything else. And he MUST be subject to the conditions inside the universe (i.e. limitations and laws) - or the prayers wouldn't work. Prayers don't work? Not The God. Omni-whatever... But not The God.
Fish(bowl) analogy kinda misses on that whole thing where The God chooses and favors certain people or fish and grants them wishes and requests if they complete certain rituals. Fish would have to be able to make people outside feed it - in essence it would have to be able to CONTROL the people outside the bowl.
Statistics does not prove anything about metaphysics. Statistics cannot reach outside the universe within which it was devised. You're still not grasping the fundamental issue here.
Oh... We're going into that territory. Where imaginary is real because it can't be proven, but real is worthless because it is a part of the reality. Riiiiight...
There's a nice bit about philosophy in History of the World, Part I. It pretty much sums up where your "fundamental issue" lies.
Now, if you'd actually opened your mind for a moment and gave it a thought or two, you'd realize that statistics which is mathematics is nothing more than the code of the universe, and that any "external" actor or creator which interacts with the universe is in fact a part of it - as they are both in the same universe. Bowl and the fish and those outside it are still SOMEWHERE ELSE TOGETHER. And the same rules apply in the bowl and outside it - they have to or it wouldn't be a bowl nor would any interaction be possible. To reach inside the bowl you must have a hand that is as real as the bowl and you must occupy the same place at the same time - somewhere.
And all that again makes the one interacting with the bowl or universe an "Experimenter" but not The God.
In fact, you can never have The God as it is a paradox. Being omni-everything and yet easily swayed and controlled by a primate, who practically doesn't exist compared to the entirety of the universe's span of existence in time and space, uttering a couple of words or holding his/her hands in a certain way. Or him/her doing something "bad", thereby making the omni-creature angry.
A microbe sneezing away a galactic cluster is not even close to how ridiculous that is.
If one were to remove first two and the last three letters from the first word in your nick, and last two and first three from the other, your nick would show that you are actually a "man g".
A G-MAN!
And when we jumble those letters around we get SHARIAH and the international symbol for frowning/sadness - TwT.
Ha! Your days as a government/Taliban double agent provocateur/griever are coming to their well deserved end!
1. You are presupposing you know what others mean when they use the term "God." What you're actually doing is reasoning based on your own conception of God.
"God" is pretty well defined. Really. Some people out there have been doing nothing but that for millennia now. You seem to be confusing "God" for a "deity". Now THAT can mean a lot of different things.
2. God is, by definition, above and beyond and outside of us and our universe. Statistics is a human-created field. It cannot prove anything which is by definition outside its realm.
By definition, "God" is exactly opposite of that.
He is inside all of us and everything else in the universe, omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent and omni- everything else. You seem to be confusing a "God" with a mere "Creator" or "Experimenter". Which is akin to defining Superman as "a man wearing red underwear".
Also, statistics is just mathematics. I.e. A study and use of a set of rules that work across the entire universe the same way. Universal language and all that... Humans or Vulcans or Thinking Mushrooms of Jenny 867-5309 - statistics would work for all of them the same way.
So if 1 bitcoin is worth $50 today and $100 tomorrow you could argue the bitcoin is the same value both days, but the dollar is worth LESS tomorrow.
Except the value of the dollar remains the same (or marginally changed) when measured against the euro, or yen, or gold, or oil, or chocolate, or lumber, or cow dung or any other currency or commodity used and traded by everyone out there - except against the bitcoin which is used and traded by a very small group of people. With bitcoin it's a 50% devaluation of the dollar. Over night.
Hmmm... So it's either the value of the bitcoin changed OR... the value of everything else in the world changed in a very specific and very dramatic way against the bitcoin. I smell a conspiraaaaaacy... And everyone in the world is in on it.
Just yesterday, you could get two full shovels of cow dung for a bitcoin. Now? Who knows?
But on radio, Nixon was thought to have had more substance and intellect in the debate.
That's proven to be a myth. And there's an easy way to test it. Put the debate on and listen to it. Nixon sounds unprepared, uncertain, makes awkward pauses as if awaiting some confirmation from someone - which never comes as there is no studio audience, he fumbles with words, makes comments which are shot down by Kennedy...
Kennedy DOES look better, there is no denying that, and Nixon's attempts at charm are closer to creepy than charming. But Nixon lost that debate both on the radio and on TV.
Which part of "I can't really be bothered to dig through all of your cognitive dissonance and other bullshit." did you not understand?
I wasted some time to point out a rather glaring and easily refutable historical error. Your other "arguments" are of no interest to me, nor am I about to waste time digging through them just to point out where else you are wrong while you keep moving goalposts, loading and begging the questions, with me giving your tirade an illusion of a civilized debate when all you're capable of is confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance, based on some illogical phobias that I don't really care about.
Slashdot Mirror
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penn_%26_Teller:_Bullshit!#Environmental_skepticism
Environmental skepticism
Penn & Teller describe themselves as environmental skeptics. They have made several television appearances attempting to discredit environmental concerns. The "Environmental Hysteria" episode attempted to "prove the global warming crisis, among other things, was created by the out of control imagination of hysterical hippies and environmentalists".
When subsequently challenged at the James Randi Educational Foundation's The Amazing Meeting 6 about their views on global warming, Penn Jillette published a piece in the Los Angeles Times saying "I don't know about climate change".[16]
Also:
Penn acknowledged his and Teller's biases, saying, "We're fair and we never take people out of context. We're biased, but we try to be honest."
I.e. Biased and with an agenda.
Seek information on recycling and environment elsewhere.
All Penn and Teller provide on that topic is one-sided, "mean-spirited, sanctimonious and self-righteous" bullshit.
Also bigoted, as Jillette's idea of being "fair when one is being mean-spirited, sanctimonious and self-righteous" is saying "Hey! What do I know? Sure. I'm being an asshole and I'm spouting nonsense from my position of authority (just look at all the other crazy shit I very loudly rant about on TV - all the shit I rant about MUST BE crazy) - but it's not like I reeeaaaly know anything.
Cause, in essence - you simply can't know some things. They are beyond our comprehension..."
They are bigoted assholes, just like the creationists bible-thumpers . It's just that they are YOUR KIND of assholes.
While your privacy MAY be protected to some extent by local laws, it is trumped by the protection of other people's (and yours) bodies from physical harm.
Why can't we just let the market do its thing? When the economic balance tilts toward renewables we will switch to them no matter how much carbon is easily available. Eliminate all the special government rewards/penalties associated with any and all energy producton and the law of supply and demand will elegantly elevate the current best solution at any given time.
And not a very bright one at that.
Cause, should "the invisible hand" be the only thing that regulates the market that would mean that the market would be regulated ONLY BY MONEY.
Supply and demand can both be adjusted with money. I.e. They can be faked.
And more money you have, more adjustments you can make - ending with the situation where those with the most money CAN and DO regulate the supply and demand.
I.e. As long as you can afford food for yourself, you can also afford to let everyone else starve unless they pay what you are asking for the food.
Or, you can give away free food until your competition goes bankrupt and you buy them off for a pittance. And THEN starve everyone.
Invisible hand is suddenly visible and it turns out to be a monopoly instead.
That's because invisible hand is an imaginary concept based on the idea that markets are somehow naturally fair.
Monopolies, on the other hand, are very much real and they are based on GREED.
And they eventually end either with a bloody riot, OR with a position where ONE entity controls all the resources, using them for its personal needs - everyone else be damned.
You don't need markets or consumers if YOU already own everything.
But why is that particularly stupid regarding renewable sources vs. fossil fuels?
Well, there are many reasons but the main ones are that the renewable sources require VAST investments in research and development as well as in the production cycle, delivery pipeline etc. etc.
Renewables can be made to work on a large scale IF energy and effort is invested NOW while the energy is still cheap.
They are on the other hand practically unreachable from a position where we can no longer afford most very basic things we are used to today - like cheap food, affordable motorized transportation of people and goods, constant supply of electricity, refrigeration during summer, heating during winter etc. etc.
And that's all WITHOUT even going into environmental effects of "burning it all first and then looking for a solution".
I have no idea how low-level exposure would affect a bee, but given how nicotine exposure affects humans, maybe there's something there...
Here you go:
http://science.slashdot.org/story/12/04/07/167230/colony-collapse-disorder-linked-to-pesticide-high-fructose-corn-syrup
Social status is not a function of material wealth alone.
In fact, material wealth is a factor ONLY when the status in that particular SOCIAL GROUP is based on material wealth.
In reality, social status is far more often based on immaterial things like "popularity" than on wealth.
Nor is the social status an absolute standard.
Again, as a kid your social status may be sky high cause you can spit really far, but if you end up doing research at CERN for living some other qualities may determine your social status.
An inquisitive one.
About the only way to defeat it would be to inject a point resistance on a very short patch cable (within a few feet of the switch) which would dissipate the heat budget for a 300-foot cable in a small area without exceeding the resitsance budget. That would be hard to do simply by running over a cable with a chair.
How about a dog or a cat biting into it?
Or a small child deciding to lick an open end of an USB extension cable dangling from the desk?
There are similar knife laws in all countries - they just vary by local flavor.
From the same wiki page as the link above, only regarding USA:
City, county, and local jurisdictions (to include sovereign Indian nations located within a state boundary) may enact their own criminal laws or ordinances in addition to the restrictions contained in state laws, which may be more restrictive than state law.[78] Virtually all states and local jurisdictions have laws that restrict or prohibit the possession or carrying of knives in some form or manner in certain defined areas or places such as schools, public buildings, courthouses, police stations, jails, power plant facilities, airports, or public events.
Nothing we are seeing supports that. All of Netflix's shows are totally different from one another, none of them classically formulaic so far.
That's because you only have a few shows at the moment.
Let it run for a while and wait for the shows to start getting renewed based on the lowest common denominator.
As for the "NOT IN TV"... "Two And a Half Men" is the example of that, so is "Sex and the City", so is "Medium", so is "Battlestar Galactica", so is "Justified", "Boardwalk Empire", "Game of Thrones", "Blue Bloods"...
Star Appeal has been a major TV show ingredient for a while now.
But as I said, the story doesn't matter much - just the pairings. House of Cards was more about what David Fincher and Kevin Spacey could do together, as Netflix had viewing data to show that people who watched stuff from the producer also really liked Kevin Spacey movies.
Fincher had planned on doing that show since 2008, and they went with it to other networks - Netflix just offered the most money.
Spacey-Fincher quote is a post-facto explanation of why they offered that much - not a reason for the existence of the show.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Cards_(U.S._TV_series)#Production
Also, you should check out the original show. Ian Richardson is... Well, what Palpatine should have been like.
You know that he's an evil bastard, but you just can't help yourself cheering for him.
I saw about 50,000 Chinese kids wearing ST t-shirts around town that week.
What were you doing looking at that many Chinese kids?
That's 7142 kids per day, and 297 kids every hour. Almost 5 kids every minute.
Netflix in the meanwhile is thinking more in terms of "Fantasy TV" - like "wouldn't it be awesome if we could see any show made by Director X that also has stars Y & Z"? Then they don't even care exactly what show gets made, they just throw the delicious self-aware ingredients together and let it all work.
You may want to rethink that "Fantasy TV" view.
Not only is Netflix picking up shows in a traditional way, most of their current and future programming is basically "sold" one way or the other even before the production starts.
House of Cards - a remake of a successful UK show.
Hemlock Grove - based on a novel.
Lilyhammer - made jointly for a Norwegian broadcasting company. I.e. pre-sold to Norwegians.
Arrested Development - a revival of a popular show.
Derek - based on an Ricky Gervais old character.
Turbo: F.A.S.T. - a spinoff from an upcoming DreamWorks cartoon.
Orange Is the New Black - based on a book.
On top of that, every single one of those productions is "sprinkled" with recognizable names - either acting or in production.
They are not trowing shit at the wall to see what will stick or carelessly throwing money at "Director X that also has stars Y & Z".
They are aiming at existing audiences.
Classic Hollywood game.
Get the rights to existing "content" with existing audience, slap some stars on the production, make your own thing out of all that and then sell the shit out of it.
Nothing bad about that, just nothing fantastic either.
Though... While you may not end up with wall to wall "Friends" clones (no star appeal at the beginning), but you may end up with the entire comedy line-up of "Joey" and "Two And a Half Men" clones, and the "drama" section full of "Sex and the City" clones.
I could go through your entire shotgun argument, but I'll just concentrate on the following in order to save time, since you have already excluded yourself from any conversation on The God topic.
You are simply creating God in your own image. You are delineating his boundaries according to your finite, human perception.
Who are you to say what God is supposed to do? That is simply creating God in your own image, putting him in a box of your own design. If God created the universe, if he created matter and energy and natural laws, how could he be bound by your ideas?
So, not only is The God beyond your "finite, human perception" (end of any conversation on this topic - with you), you want to "seal the deal" by piling reverse appeal to authority on top of that?
See, there are couple of problems there.
Not only is your opinion that you have no idea what you are talking about ("finite, human perception", God unknowable, goodnight) and that anything you say on the topic of The God is essentially bullshit (i.e. talking about something you no nothing about - as it is beyond your "finite, human perception") - you are somehow an expert on what the omni-doubleplusgoodwitheverything-creature is NOT supposed to do.
Who are you to say what God is supposed to do?
Who are you to QUESTION what The God is supposed to do? Are you saying The God is NOT omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and benevolent?
If The God is all that - then it is supposed to be doing good things all the time - or the benevolence goes out the window.
And you actually dare to question others, with your "finite, human perception" of the subject, as if there is some objective authority on the subject of The God, and you are in possession of said authority?
What's next? You're gonna say that The God talks to you?
Sure it's not The Dog? One CAN easily confuse them.
Feel free to keep on arguing. I'm gonna go sleep instead.
behind on a paper today.
You're clearly not wasting enough time on Slashdot for something like that. You're barely in the "dishes need washing" category.
Wasting time on Slashdot instead of pursuing academic achievements requires a proper argument with several participants, neither side willing to yield or compromise.
With lengthy explanations and quotes and links to external sources.
Anyone can merely wait until the time runs out.
On Slashdot we weave our precious time and intellectual resources into elaborate sculptures of words which we then proudly present to the entire world.
"See this? THIS is what I actually did when I was supposed to be doing that other thing! Behold its terrible glory!"
You are either confused or misunderstanding me. I do not propose that God exists solely outside of our universe, unable to interact with it. I propose that he exists outside the limitations of and nature of the physical universe as we know it. Having created the universe, he can interact with it however he chooses. Yet existing outside of it, he is not subject to its limitations and laws, and is therefore not subject to our finite comprehension.
Again...
He is inside all of us and everything else in the universe, omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent and omni- everything else.
And he MUST be subject to the conditions inside the universe (i.e. limitations and laws) - or the prayers wouldn't work.
Prayers don't work? Not The God. Omni-whatever... But not The God.
Fish(bowl) analogy kinda misses on that whole thing where The God chooses and favors certain people or fish and grants them wishes and requests if they complete certain rituals.
Fish would have to be able to make people outside feed it - in essence it would have to be able to CONTROL the people outside the bowl.
Statistics does not prove anything about metaphysics. Statistics cannot reach outside the universe within which it was devised. You're still not grasping the fundamental issue here.
Oh... We're going into that territory.
Where imaginary is real because it can't be proven, but real is worthless because it is a part of the reality. Riiiiight...
There's a nice bit about philosophy in History of the World, Part I.
It pretty much sums up where your "fundamental issue" lies.
Now, if you'd actually opened your mind for a moment and gave it a thought or two, you'd realize that statistics which is mathematics is nothing more than the code of the universe, and that any "external" actor or creator which interacts with the universe is in fact a part of it - as they are both in the same universe.
Bowl and the fish and those outside it are still SOMEWHERE ELSE TOGETHER.
And the same rules apply in the bowl and outside it - they have to or it wouldn't be a bowl nor would any interaction be possible.
To reach inside the bowl you must have a hand that is as real as the bowl and you must occupy the same place at the same time - somewhere.
And all that again makes the one interacting with the bowl or universe an "Experimenter" but not The God.
In fact, you can never have The God as it is a paradox.
Being omni-everything and yet easily swayed and controlled by a primate, who practically doesn't exist compared to the entirety of the universe's span of existence in time and space, uttering a couple of words or holding his/her hands in a certain way.
Or him/her doing something "bad", thereby making the omni-creature angry.
A microbe sneezing away a galactic cluster is not even close to how ridiculous that is.
I'm speechless.
...it was probably either that or giving in to the insistence of the vocal conservative minority and calling it "Whores!"
...all those people who are actually into incest - and then they find out they are adopted.
Aaaaawkwaaard!
Osama... Obama...
If one were to remove first two and the last three letters from the first word in your nick, and last two and first three from the other, your nick would show that you are actually a "man g".
A G-MAN!
And when we jumble those letters around we get SHARIAH and the international symbol for frowning/sadness - TwT.
Ha! Your days as a government/Taliban double agent provocateur/griever are coming to their well deserved end!
1. You are presupposing you know what others mean when they use the term "God." What you're actually doing is reasoning based on your own conception of God.
"God" is pretty well defined. Really. Some people out there have been doing nothing but that for millennia now.
You seem to be confusing "God" for a "deity". Now THAT can mean a lot of different things.
2. God is, by definition, above and beyond and outside of us and our universe. Statistics is a human-created field. It cannot prove anything which is by definition outside its realm.
By definition, "God" is exactly opposite of that.
He is inside all of us and everything else in the universe, omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent and omni- everything else.
You seem to be confusing a "God" with a mere "Creator" or "Experimenter".
Which is akin to defining Superman as "a man wearing red underwear".
Also, statistics is just mathematics. I.e. A study and use of a set of rules that work across the entire universe the same way.
Universal language and all that...
Humans or Vulcans or Thinking Mushrooms of Jenny 867-5309 - statistics would work for all of them the same way.
"Tapping" anything seems to me like a very poor choice of words when talking about incest.
So if 1 bitcoin is worth $50 today and $100 tomorrow you could argue the bitcoin is the same value both days, but the dollar is worth LESS tomorrow.
Except the value of the dollar remains the same (or marginally changed) when measured against the euro, or yen, or gold, or oil, or chocolate, or lumber, or cow dung or any other currency or commodity used and traded by everyone out there - except against the bitcoin which is used and traded by a very small group of people.
With bitcoin it's a 50% devaluation of the dollar. Over night.
Hmmm... So it's either the value of the bitcoin changed OR... the value of everything else in the world changed in a very specific and very dramatic way against the bitcoin.
I smell a conspiraaaaaacy... And everyone in the world is in on it.
Just yesterday, you could get two full shovels of cow dung for a bitcoin.
Now? Who knows?
Twitter to become even more annoying and spammy.
But on radio, Nixon was thought to have had more substance and intellect in the debate.
That's proven to be a myth.
And there's an easy way to test it. Put the debate on and listen to it.
Nixon sounds unprepared, uncertain, makes awkward pauses as if awaiting some confirmation from someone - which never comes as there is no studio audience, he fumbles with words, makes comments which are shot down by Kennedy...
Kennedy DOES look better, there is no denying that, and Nixon's attempts at charm are closer to creepy than charming.
But Nixon lost that debate both on the radio and on TV.
Which part of "I can't really be bothered to dig through all of your cognitive dissonance and other bullshit." did you not understand?
I wasted some time to point out a rather glaring and easily refutable historical error.
Your other "arguments" are of no interest to me, nor am I about to waste time digging through them just to point out where else you are wrong while you keep moving goalposts, loading and begging the questions, with me giving your tirade an illusion of a civilized debate when all you're capable of is confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance, based on some illogical phobias that I don't really care about.
As such is the case... bye.