Really? That's what you came up with? With supporters like you, it's no wonder JREF stays in business!
In case you haven't figured it out: Their donors are the people who make donations to the organization. It's their primary source of funding, like most non-profits.
Thankfully, you haven't puzzled out how to contribute financially. Consider yourself lucky!
I hate seeing flim-flam scammers take advantage of the helpless.
Well, if you have a specific criticism of Ranki's methods, let's hear it. Otherwise STFU
Yes... don't talk about his organizations shady behavior... he claims to do something that I approve of... so he must be on the level... he's on the right "side", after all...
Pitiful.
Why the lack of transparency? Why isn't the JREF open about their activities? Why do they go out of their way to avoid providing donors and supporters with basic information?
What does the JREF actually do? It doesn't look like they do much at all.
There's fundraisers like TAM and little exotic trips. (They make a big deal about those. Does the organization exist just to raise funds for itself?)
There's a blog and an e-newsletter. (Oh, wow...) They also give an incredibly tiny bit of scholarship money out every year. (They claim around 10k -- a pitiful amount compared to their income. It's pathetic even compared to Randi's inexplicable six-figure salary! It looks to be just enough to justify the "E" in JREF to wannabe skeptics, "the marks" as their known, who think 10k is a lot of money.)
Really, it's difficult to see how anyone, on just Randi's salary alone, couldn't easily do more than Randi's fraudulent organization. JREF has money, facilities, staff, and a large following -- yet look at what they've produced! (Virtually nothing... over how many years?) They're either pitifully incompetent or purposefully doing as little as possible.
All signs point to a scam -- operating a lot like the people and organizations that he bashes in his little e-newsletter.
He actively helped "Jose Alvarez" commit identify theft and defraud the federal government, so it's not like he's a paragon of virtue. He's clearly okay with outright fraud as long as it benefits him personally.
Think critically. Put aside your ridiculous hero worship and see Randi for what he is -- the skeptical equivalent of a faith healer.
You'll find a new personality to worship, I'm sure. We'll still be here when your ready to face reality on your own.
So you're saying that most Christians are ignorant of their own religion?
Of course they are. This shouldn't be such a startling revelation!
I should note that this holds true not just for religions, but for any group built around a system of beliefs.
In what way does that relate to the debate at hand?
That there is likely a problem with the previously mentioned, but unidentified, survey. It's hard for people to accurately answer questions about their own beliefs if they don't understand them. I would further offer that the term "literal" could also cause a good bit of trouble as the general public doesn't seem to understand what that word means. You've very likely heard someone say something ridiculous like "I literally died laughing" at some point.
In fact, you won't find numbers for ANY specific year. Their website only offers a few vague figures from two disconnected date ranges.
I repeat: the very basic information I (and any donor would have) requested does not exist. This extreme lack of transparency is exactly what you'd expect from frauds and scammers.
Check their web site - they have dozens of write-ups on preliminary tests.
Let's put this to the test. Can you find any of the following (for 2012):
The number of applicants (notarized). The number of applications rejected. The number of applications in process. The number of preliminary tests conducted.
Having trouble? That's because that very basic information does not exist. This extreme lack of transparency is exactly what you'd expect from frauds and scammers.
Why should they keep track of every idiot with ridiculous claims who can't even show plausible evidence that there's something possibly worth investigation?
Because that's what Legitimate organizations do! Don't you think that their donors would be interested in seeing how their money is being put to good use?
What about marketing? "We tested n applicants in 2012 and found them to be frauds! Help us keep up the good work."
What about managing applications? "We've tested similar claims n times over the past 5 years and need to focus on other areas"
I called Randi and his JREF organization a fraud because they act like frauds. It's obvious to everyone that Randi has no problem misrepresenting the truth whenever it suits him. (To his credit, he usually admits to his "exagerations" when challenged. Example: Randi's outright lie in Dog World Magazine about testing Sheldrakes claims.)
Apply just a little bit of reason and critical thinking here.
If you want to make a real difference, and KNOW where your money goes, find a classroom in need on donors choice. A $100 for a microscope for a science class will go a lot farther than $10,000 for JREF to... do what, exaclty? Hold an annual meeting? Publish an electronic newsletter?
Anything's better than supporting a fraudulent enterprise like JREF.
I do think that his work shows that perhaps we may someday be able to mitigate it
What are the fruits of JREF's labor? Randi has had virtually no impact on even his most high-profile targets. Silvia Brown is still making millions and Uri Geller is still at it -- his recent T.V. show ran for three seasons, on networks across Europe. (He bought a freakin' island as recently as 2009.)
Even Peter Popoff, Randi's only notable success, is back at it. You'll be disappointed to know that Popoff is making millions upon millions every year.
Further, JREF doesn't seem to do anything related to education or outreach.
I hope it receives the support it needs to continue the work
What work? The whole of the organizations output seems to consist of TAM (which gets less press than high-school basketball game) and a newsletter.
No one has ever taken the formal test. Not one person.
How many have taken the preliminary test? JREF doesn't know -- they're that badly organized.
There have been a few cases reported where JREF has killed applications by requesting changes to the protocol that effectively changing the nature of the claim made by the challenger. That makes for some great posts on the JREF forum, but otherwise hurts the reputation of the challenge itself.
In short: Randi is a fraud. He does a disservice to the skeptical community.
Re:does my java shortcut to start Doom III count?
on
Fantastic js1k Submissions
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Obviously not.
No externals That means no linking, no including and so no using of any external resources. You are free to submit your 5 minute intro video or coffeescript interpreter in your submission though, as long as the server permits you to. And no, you may not use another submission in your submission. Your submissions should be able to be put in a single script tag (see the shim) and should work offline from the start.
I challenge any basher to produce something even half as cool as the minecart demo following the official rules.
So... 4017 is still the standard age in Christendom then, yes?
Oh, I see. You've decided that there is such a thing as the "science vs religion debate" outside your tiny little circle and you need to score points for your side at every opportunity. You don't care that your comment is completely off-topic, or that what you're saying is obviously nonsense. Beating up that straw man makes you feel important.
On that link is mothing to understand. It only has more links into pages that require an apple developer account.
Yeah, you need an account to read those documents. How is that my problem? You asked for a source from Apple, I provided it to you.
Are you such a stupid German pig that you can't figure out how to create an account on a website?
"Narcc, the mod point abuser, will never be able to mod again in the foreseeable future"?
Ah, you are an especially stupid German pig. You cannot moderate and post in the same discussion. It is not possible for me to be the person who modded your comment down. Also, it's obvious to anyone of normal intelligence that two moderators modded your post down, otherwise it would be scored 0 and not -1.
There is no rogue mod. You're just not capable of making meaningful contributions.
Belief doesn't come into it. The Higgs' existence (or not) is determined through very careful experimental observation and measurement.
Basic science fail! The Higgs' existence is at best inferred, and all on the assumption that the model under which it was predicted is an accurate reflection of reality. (It's not difficult to image a different, but otherwise equal, model under which the results of the measurement which "identified" the Higgs has a different explanation, verifying a different prediction.)
See, natural science doesn't deal in truth. It would be useless if it did! This should be obvious to anyone even passingly familiar with science. It really bugs some people, however, for reasons I cannot rightly comprehend. It seems that while science's greatest asset is that it is primarily inductive, it is also it's secret shame.
Unfortunately there are still a lot of primitive people around, unable to face hard facts and precise logic
Indeed. There are still a lot of primitive people around who don't understand logic and basic science. Though I would caution that the biggest threat to science isn't creationists or other religious nuts, it's from the surge of scientifically illiterate cheerleaders ("defending" science from all manner of imaginary threats) spreading complete nonsense about what science is and how it works.
Slashdot Mirror
The donors of the prize?
Really? That's what you came up with? With supporters like you, it's no wonder JREF stays in business!
In case you haven't figured it out: Their donors are the people who make donations to the organization. It's their primary source of funding, like most non-profits.
Thankfully, you haven't puzzled out how to contribute financially. Consider yourself lucky!
I hate seeing flim-flam scammers take advantage of the helpless.
Well, if you have a specific criticism of Ranki's methods, let's hear it. Otherwise STFU
Yes ... don't talk about his organizations shady behavior ... he claims to do something that I approve of ... so he must be on the level ... he's on the right "side", after all...
Pitiful.
Why the lack of transparency? Why isn't the JREF open about their activities? Why do they go out of their way to avoid providing donors and supporters with basic information?
What does the JREF actually do? It doesn't look like they do much at all.
There's fundraisers like TAM and little exotic trips. (They make a big deal about those. Does the organization exist just to raise funds for itself?)
There's a blog and an e-newsletter. (Oh, wow...) They also give an incredibly tiny bit of scholarship money out every year. (They claim around 10k -- a pitiful amount compared to their income. It's pathetic even compared to Randi's inexplicable six-figure salary! It looks to be just enough to justify the "E" in JREF to wannabe skeptics, "the marks" as their known, who think 10k is a lot of money.)
Really, it's difficult to see how anyone, on just Randi's salary alone, couldn't easily do more than Randi's fraudulent organization. JREF has money, facilities, staff, and a large following -- yet look at what they've produced! (Virtually nothing ... over how many years?) They're either pitifully incompetent or purposefully doing as little as possible.
All signs point to a scam -- operating a lot like the people and organizations that he bashes in his little e-newsletter.
He actively helped "Jose Alvarez" commit identify theft and defraud the federal government, so it's not like he's a paragon of virtue. He's clearly okay with outright fraud as long as it benefits him personally.
Think critically. Put aside your ridiculous hero worship and see Randi for what he is -- the skeptical equivalent of a faith healer.
You'll find a new personality to worship, I'm sure. We'll still be here when your ready to face reality on your own.
So you're saying that most Christians are ignorant of their own religion?
Of course they are. This shouldn't be such a startling revelation!
I should note that this holds true not just for religions, but for any group built around a system of beliefs.
In what way does that relate to the debate at hand?
That there is likely a problem with the previously mentioned, but unidentified, survey. It's hard for people to accurately answer questions about their own beliefs if they don't understand them. I would further offer that the term "literal" could also cause a good bit of trouble as the general public doesn't seem to understand what that word means. You've very likely heard someone say something ridiculous like "I literally died laughing" at some point.
Ah, I see that you have trouble reading.
I asked for numbers from 2012
In fact, you won't find numbers for ANY specific year. Their website only offers a few vague figures from two disconnected date ranges.
I repeat: the very basic information I (and any donor would have) requested does not exist. This extreme lack of transparency is exactly what you'd expect from frauds and scammers.
If it acts like a fraud...
Hmmm... 10k a year in scholarships vs Randi's 6-figure salary.
He is trying, and succeeding, in impacting the general population and spreading the values of critical thinking.
Perhaps you should try applying that alleged critical thinking to JREF.
Hero worshipers got to worship, huh?
Who are they defrauding?
Their donors, obviously.
Occasionally, the federal government. Though that's just Randi, not necessarily the JREF. Ask Jose Alverez about that...
Check their web site - they have dozens of write-ups on preliminary tests.
Let's put this to the test. Can you find any of the following (for 2012):
The number of applicants (notarized).
The number of applications rejected.
The number of applications in process.
The number of preliminary tests conducted.
Having trouble? That's because that very basic information does not exist. This extreme lack of transparency is exactly what you'd expect from frauds and scammers.
If it acts like a fraud ...
Why should they keep track of every idiot with ridiculous claims who can't even show plausible evidence that there's something possibly worth investigation?
Because that's what Legitimate organizations do! Don't you think that their donors would be interested in seeing how their money is being put to good use?
What about marketing? "We tested n applicants in 2012 and found them to be frauds! Help us keep up the good work."
What about managing applications? "We've tested similar claims n times over the past 5 years and need to focus on other areas"
I called Randi and his JREF organization a fraud because they act like frauds. It's obvious to everyone that Randi has no problem misrepresenting the truth whenever it suits him. (To his credit, he usually admits to his "exagerations" when challenged. Example: Randi's outright lie in Dog World Magazine about testing Sheldrakes claims.)
Apply just a little bit of reason and critical thinking here.
If you want to make a real difference, and KNOW where your money goes, find a classroom in need on donors choice. A $100 for a microscope for a science class will go a lot farther than $10,000 for JREF to ... do what, exaclty? Hold an annual meeting? Publish an electronic newsletter?
Anything's better than supporting a fraudulent enterprise like JREF.
I do think that his work shows that perhaps we may someday be able to mitigate it
What are the fruits of JREF's labor? Randi has had virtually no impact on even his most high-profile targets. Silvia Brown is still making millions and Uri Geller is still at it -- his recent T.V. show ran for three seasons, on networks across Europe. (He bought a freakin' island as recently as 2009.)
Even Peter Popoff, Randi's only notable success, is back at it. You'll be disappointed to know that Popoff is making millions upon millions every year.
Further, JREF doesn't seem to do anything related to education or outreach.
I hope it receives the support it needs to continue the work
What work? The whole of the organizations output seems to consist of TAM (which gets less press than high-school basketball game) and a newsletter.
No one has ever taken the formal test. Not one person.
How many have taken the preliminary test? JREF doesn't know -- they're that badly organized.
There have been a few cases reported where JREF has killed applications by requesting changes to the protocol that effectively changing the nature of the claim made by the challenger. That makes for some great posts on the JREF forum, but otherwise hurts the reputation of the challenge itself.
In short: Randi is a fraud. He does a disservice to the skeptical community.
Obviously not.
No externals
That means no linking, no including and so no using of any external resources. You are free to submit your 5 minute intro video or coffeescript interpreter in your submission though, as long as the server permits you to. And no, you may not use another submission in your submission. Your submissions should be able to be put in a single script tag (see the shim) and should work offline from the start.
I challenge any basher to produce something even half as cool as the minecart demo following the official rules.
Put up or shut up.
No.
Yes. Because a belief stops being a belief if there is enough evidence to support it.
Ummm... No. You're clearly confused.
So... 4017 is still the standard age in Christendom then, yes?
Oh, I see. You've decided that there is such a thing as the "science vs religion debate" outside your tiny little circle and you need to score points for your side at every opportunity. You don't care that your comment is completely off-topic, or that what you're saying is obviously nonsense. Beating up that straw man makes you feel important.
You may want to stop. You're not helping.
Times have changed. We can do color holograms now.
Very cool stuff:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6026/218
It takes a special kind of sociopath to give a speeding ticket to a kid on a bicycle. The rest? Pure bureaucratic insanity.
Stories like these make me think that perhaps the libertarians are less crazy than they appear...
I know of somebody who can't get a license due to a speeding ticket on a bicycle when they were a kid.
...
Your pocket isn't that big? Sounds like a personal problem.
Not everyone is a big fat slob. Normal-sized people have normal-sized pockets.
Except it's a pentile display -- fewer subpixels per pixel. It's basically a 294ppi display.
I don't need an RSS reader, but many things like the weather app actually showing the weather on its icon instead of having to click it is big.
That's been the case on just about every old BlackBerry phone I've owned. Is this really something that's new in the iOS and Android world?
You missed it, I was playing Grammar Nazi, pretending that he intended to write effect and not affect.
On that link is mothing to understand. It only has more links into pages that require an apple developer account.
Yeah, you need an account to read those documents. How is that my problem? You asked for a source from Apple, I provided it to you.
Are you such a stupid German pig that you can't figure out how to create an account on a website?
"Narcc, the mod point abuser, will never be able to mod again in the foreseeable future"?
Ah, you are an especially stupid German pig. You cannot moderate and post in the same discussion. It is not possible for me to be the person who modded your comment down. Also, it's obvious to anyone of normal intelligence that two moderators modded your post down, otherwise it would be scored 0 and not -1.
There is no rogue mod. You're just not capable of making meaningful contributions.
What? Those aren't common to even just the major world religions.
Belief doesn't come into it. The Higgs' existence (or not) is determined through very careful experimental observation and measurement.
Basic science fail! The Higgs' existence is at best inferred, and all on the assumption that the model under which it was predicted is an accurate reflection of reality. (It's not difficult to image a different, but otherwise equal, model under which the results of the measurement which "identified" the Higgs has a different explanation, verifying a different prediction.)
See, natural science doesn't deal in truth. It would be useless if it did! This should be obvious to anyone even passingly familiar with science. It really bugs some people, however, for reasons I cannot rightly comprehend. It seems that while science's greatest asset is that it is primarily inductive, it is also it's secret shame.
Unfortunately there are still a lot of primitive people around, unable to face hard facts and precise logic
Indeed. There are still a lot of primitive people around who don't understand logic and basic science. Though I would caution that the biggest threat to science isn't creationists or other religious nuts, it's from the surge of scientifically illiterate cheerleaders ("defending" science from all manner of imaginary threats) spreading complete nonsense about what science is and how it works.
Belief and knowledge are different.