Watch the interview again and then look at the actual transcript. Yes, it was spliced to make her appear less intelligent and frankly stupid. I am not going to say she is intelligent, but that is pretty low to splice things just to make it appear so.
No one makes you read these stories, if you don't like them, don't read them, that simple.
Although this batch isn't funny, some of the stories were so random that I actually did laugh (of course after my headache stopped due to the bad coloring scheme.) Post more pointless stories imo, like the guy talking about racism...
Re:you can't stop the doomsayers
on
LHC Success!
·
· Score: 1
The odds of Jupiter becoming a star are lower then the LHC destroying the Universe or Earth...
And even if it did happen...
Jupiter is roughly 4 times farther away from the Earth then the sun is even at its closest location to earth. Nothing to fear, as even assuming the same solar insulation as the sun (which would be impossible) we would only receive ~4% more solar insolation which is large, but not overly destructive...
Actualy values would probably be closer to.25% in this highly likely event if you believe the doomsayers!
chaos theory has everything to do with this even being introduced...
Global warming is being modeled due to chaos theory stating that it is possible to predict the future of complex systems.
However, another part of chaos theory says its impossible to control in any way a complex system and any attempt to do so will result in unforseen consequences and more then likely castatrophic results...
So trying to fix CO2 through global methods is a wasted effort to begin with. The best that mankind can do is reduce CO2.
The issue is that we do NOT know whether all these sources point in the same direction.
The computer models are based upon temperature readings taken since 1800ish.
And I still have a huge problem with models based upon data that started during our last "little Ice age". When you start when temperatures are low, of course your going to get models that show the temperatures going up. Its a fallacy simply because everytime scientists try to model starting from any other point the models do not show the same thing.
Go look at the famous Al Gore "hockey puck" for some laughs. He attempted to use temperature readings from yes another source and this was debunked quite awhile ago....
As for Ice core readings, this science is in its infancy and although we are making headway into this crucial temperature reading method, its still a long way off from showing how much human influence is effecting climate.
I do think its a conspiracy by the worlds climate scientists. They get more money and more grants if they show the sky is falling, so go figure, what do they do? They don't report findings that contradict themselves, just report what does.
Now assuming you are correct, and that all data points to this, Occam's razor would cut the other way as well. That is, the easiest explanation is money in this case and since climatologists get more money when the world is at stake, I would tend to believe that may also be an easy explanation.
Never seen a science get so political before, and its almost becoming like religion in that everyone either believes or not. Intelligent discussion is not allowed!
Actually they are more well known as "supplements" which fit into a nice little loophole in our system.
There are many cases of supplements causing health issues and the cases have been going on for quite some time. Since supplements do not require "evaluation by the FDA" they can claim just about anything as long as there is some thread of truth to it. And remember, that long term health effects have not been studied by ANY supplement, and since this is the case, you should always be careful with supplements and ALWAYS talk to a doctor first.
Doctors will probably not know, but its better then letting the commercial decide for you. At least an educated person who can NOT disclose what you talked to them about will give you some advice verses some well-scripted commercial.
As for smiling Bob, if you notice the commercials they never once state "this will make your dick bigger". Its assumed by innuendo. They claim "male enhancement" which can mean just about anything. Maybe you will lose weight, or maybe you will have more energy...but there are millions of ways you can interpret those commercials which was what really bothered me about the commercials in the first place. However, the innuendo was so strong that you had to think they were claiming their product increases dick size.
Which is only part of the problem to begin with. Supplements need tighter restraints to begin with.
The CIA is already on their way, your tarring and feathering shall commence very soon. It took them only 2 more seconds to find you since you posted as AC.
That entire controversy about women getting paid less was found groundless in the end. I would hate to break it to you, but the statistics were based on a fallacy and today women get paid the same if not more then men in the same position.
Of course, when dealing with Simpson's paradox, anything can come out wrong, but lets not stop that from showing us the truth: companies care more about how productive and resourceful you are then anything else. There are plenty of workers who twiddle their thumbs half the day and then work overtime because their group somehow didn't finish the work for the day.
As for taking responsibility for your children: Yes do so. But have you seriously looked at the economics of having children? You do realize that having ONE working parent seriously makes your resources stretch to the breaking point with even just one child? And most people have 2.5, so doing the math its just obvious that its not always possible to stay at home with the children.
BTW: I do not have children, but I have some understanding of the responsibility and economics that goes into having them.
I am all for the in-house hooker, but my wife insisted that the hooker be less attractive and fatter then her, and since most married women would probably insist the same for their working husbands, your result is:
Helga. 5 foot 2 360 pounds and she makes your dog look like a supermodel. WOOF!
However, the Chinese and American economies are getting more and more tied together every year to the point that a war and/or cold war is going to just be counter-productive. China is becoming more of a western nation with a strong oligarchy then anything and America has no reason to cause unrest in China when theres more threats closer to home...
An alliance between terrorists and America in general went down the tubes after 9/11 too...any politician seen in any way helping terrorists would become the old world "communist" and would immediatly be jailed or at the very least ostricized and lose any hope of ever gaining power again. Things may go round and round, but subtle changes do occur....
OR put more bluntly: terrorists have become what communists used to be.
A larger OS will of course use more resources. This does not surprise me in the least anyway since I am sure close to 1/3 of the people who buy new PC's get 1GB of ram or even less nowadays....and with less then 1gb and even 2gb of ram vista will bog down the system when running anything but word processing/email.
I think MS screwed up by launching vista so soon before the hardware was really ready for it. Many people may say it does nothing to improve computing, but I just think its a little before its time... (probably a first for MS anyway.)
Actually I personally do believe QM works, I am just trying to state flat-out how complex it really is. The only part I am scepticle of in the sense you are discussing is the existence of other universes, however that does not believe I actually dis-believe in multiple universes, just that I am agnostic so to speak on that subject.
QM has indeed done more then what the gf poster said, and you are indeed correct that it explains a vast number of uncertainties, unfortunatly the more you study QM the more mysteries are added...its like the multi-layered onion that will never unravel.
To me, not sure who said it, but the qoute goes like this: "anyone who claims they understand QM does not understand it." This is what I liken it to after doing more extensive research into it then what the GF poster did. You go into all sorts of branches when you try to unravel some mysteries from of course string theory all the way into tachyons and of course multiple universes....and its just mind boggling that anyone could fully comprehend what QM means.
The theories that stem from QM do predict multiple universes but this part of it has not been proven persae of course. So what am I saying? GF and you both have points, but I doubt either one of you like me truly understands the implications of QM.....
Oh the smart cats are the most troublesome. My wife told me about one she had growing up that they named "slash" (Guess where that name came from...)
And that cat ate human food at will. Tupperware was no obstacle, nor was the refrigerator being closed. And for entertainment, toilet paper was fun....and maybe thats where the name came from.
Anyway, the fun part of that is before they found out the cat could open tupperware, my wife's mother yelled at dad for not using an utensil to cut some cake...and of course the dad was like, "women I don't know what your talking about"...nice little argument until they found the cat opening another piece of tupperware later....and putting it back on.
Scary, but that cat ate cooked food so to speak more then cat food most of its life....
Except that as long as you keep yourself covered by reporting fraud early, you don't get charged for those purchases that were not yours. Being responsible with a credit card is the answer, not burying your head in the sand.
I agree there should be limits, but damn, children dying is a good thing?
"Gun related murder has reduced considerably." I bet... Less guns = less deaths by guns... How about we figure out whether society was really helped or not? Did the overall murder rate go down or up? That might be a better figure to use, but maybe thats just me.
"Only 150 years of research shows that science has been in dilemma about where the temperatue has been going for the last 150 years."
4 times scientists have pivoted their position on global warming and global cooling. 4 times in the last 100 years. 50 years of research before that did not address "Global" climate whatsoever, but sure, lets listen to your history as you call it.
I am just waiting until we hear that the sky is falling because of an impending ice age, because lets face it, if history teaches us anything, it teaches us that it just repeats itself over and over again.
Then again, maybe it appears we are warming since 1820 because that was the end of the little ice age.... If you start your data points where you want to, the results the computer produces will always be favorable. GIGO.....and if you don't understand that, then you really don't need to be looking at computer models to begin with, much less posting about your opinions.
He actually cited 600 "experts" if you look closely. However, if you peer closer to who he cited, only 3 were climatologists like you said, and 2 well yea, lets not talk about that.
I like how one of his experts on the environment was a gynecologist. Not that this particular doctor is bad or anything, but all she wrote was a paper on what climate change would result in for reproductive rates in Africa, and her paper was speculation anyway. This doctor did not offer any evidence whatsoever for climate change, and yet was cited as one of the experts who agreed with climate change. Go figure, and for this piece of hogwash Al gore gets a Nobel prize, and a lot less noteworthy Time person of the year award.
Sigh, when you can cry the sky is falling and win a nobel prize is when I do indeed have no hope for our scientific community.
"But all this is academic. If you want to live in the real world, look at the correlation [gun-control-network.org] between gun proliferation and gun deaths. Doesn't take a genius to understand that the more guns are around, the more people are going to get shot. The USA is living proof of that."
More guns means more gun deaths? No, Can't be true? Whats even more absurd is that someone had to do a study on that, I mean seriously, ask yourself if thats not common sense or not? Well never ask a statistician, everything must be studied and annalyzed I guess..
I think the point is that criminals will find a way regardless to be criminals one way or another.
"You'll have to explain this: by your own premise, the fact we were "given" free will means that proof can't exist? Why exactly? I would assume that if there WERE something who "gave" us free will, then the free will would be used to seek out proof. Why else would I be given the ability to ask questions if I couldn't use it to find answers?"
The ability to ask questions IS the fundamental point of free will. If God simply spited everyone who disagreed with him, where is the free will? Proof would mean that your free will no longer existed, because therefore anyone with half a brain would either believe and be saved from hellfires, or spend the afterlife roasting like a hot dog. Thats not free will, thats fear motivating you to worship God. Sure, you can argue that with the proof you can do what you want in this life, but it would take away the fundamental point that you need to believe on your own without fear of the consequences.
But then again many churches still use fear to sway unbelievers, so I don't know, maybe mankind still has a ways to go on that score...
Your comments premise is wrong, and therefore is offbase. Although I did enjoy reading it, and I will admit its something to make one think at least.
The premise of the bible is free will (Paraphrased obviously: God's greatest gift to mankind is free will), not an unhealthy belief in God as your argument is premised behind, so therefore as enjoying as your argument is, it fails to catch the point that given free will, there can be no proof, because with proof, there is no free will.
Is it a stupid system? Well thats a different argument, but lets not judge too harshly, because at least you have a choice in this system.
You don't have to prove intent. In all second degree murder charges or probably what will happen in this case (manslaughter) its about what a reasonable person would believe would happen with their actions.
If a reasonable person believes that abusing a girl to this extent would cause her to die, then the women is guilty. Just because she didn't think it would happen is no excuse. To give you a clear example, lets say I shoot a gun wildly in the woods. I am not trying to kill anyone, but lets say I accidently do shoot a little boy by accident who happens to be out with his grandfather.
Did intend to kill anyone? Of course not, but a reasonable person could infer the danger in shooting wildly anywhere with a lethal weapon and should realize the possible consequences. My example may or may not have really happened.
Slashdot Mirror
Everyone has done this! accidently, purposely or just because. Although the irony here is killing me and you apperantly!
Homer Simpson indeed. Now if people just learned from this mistake the world would be a better place....oh wait never will happen.
Watch the interview again and then look at the actual transcript. Yes, it was spliced to make her appear less intelligent and frankly stupid. I am not going to say she is intelligent, but that is pretty low to splice things just to make it appear so.
No one makes you read these stories, if you don't like them, don't read them, that simple.
Although this batch isn't funny, some of the stories were so random that I actually did laugh (of course after my headache stopped due to the bad coloring scheme.) Post more pointless stories imo, like the guy talking about racism...
The odds of Jupiter becoming a star are lower then the LHC destroying the Universe or Earth...
And even if it did happen...
Jupiter is roughly 4 times farther away from the Earth then the sun is even at its closest location to earth. Nothing to fear, as even assuming the same solar insulation as the sun (which would be impossible) we would only receive ~4% more solar insolation which is large, but not overly destructive...
Actualy values would probably be closer to .25% in this highly likely event if you believe the doomsayers!
chaos theory has everything to do with this even being introduced...
Global warming is being modeled due to chaos theory stating that it is possible to predict the future of complex systems.
However, another part of chaos theory says its impossible to control in any way a complex system and any attempt to do so will result in unforseen consequences and more then likely castatrophic results...
So trying to fix CO2 through global methods is a wasted effort to begin with. The best that mankind can do is reduce CO2.
The issue is that we do NOT know whether all these sources point in the same direction.
The computer models are based upon temperature readings taken since 1800ish.
And I still have a huge problem with models based upon data that started during our last "little Ice age". When you start when temperatures are low, of course your going to get models that show the temperatures going up. Its a fallacy simply because everytime scientists try to model starting from any other point the models do not show the same thing.
Go look at the famous Al Gore "hockey puck" for some laughs. He attempted to use temperature readings from yes another source and this was debunked quite awhile ago....
As for Ice core readings, this science is in its infancy and although we are making headway into this crucial temperature reading method, its still a long way off from showing how much human influence is effecting climate.
I do think its a conspiracy by the worlds climate scientists. They get more money and more grants if they show the sky is falling, so go figure, what do they do? They don't report findings that contradict themselves, just report what does.
Now assuming you are correct, and that all data points to this, Occam's razor would cut the other way as well. That is, the easiest explanation is money in this case and since climatologists get more money when the world is at stake, I would tend to believe that may also be an easy explanation.
Never seen a science get so political before, and its almost becoming like religion in that everyone either believes or not. Intelligent discussion is not allowed!
Actually they are more well known as "supplements" which fit into a nice little loophole in our system.
There are many cases of supplements causing health issues and the cases have been going on for quite some time. Since supplements do not require "evaluation by the FDA" they can claim just about anything as long as there is some thread of truth to it. And remember, that long term health effects have not been studied by ANY supplement, and since this is the case, you should always be careful with supplements and ALWAYS talk to a doctor first.
Doctors will probably not know, but its better then letting the commercial decide for you. At least an educated person who can NOT disclose what you talked to them about will give you some advice verses some well-scripted commercial.
As for smiling Bob, if you notice the commercials they never once state "this will make your dick bigger". Its assumed by innuendo. They claim "male enhancement" which can mean just about anything. Maybe you will lose weight, or maybe you will have more energy...but there are millions of ways you can interpret those commercials which was what really bothered me about the commercials in the first place. However, the innuendo was so strong that you had to think they were claiming their product increases dick size.
Which is only part of the problem to begin with. Supplements need tighter restraints to begin with.
The CIA is already on their way, your tarring and feathering shall commence very soon. It took them only 2 more seconds to find you since you posted as AC.
Put that tin foil hat on ASAP
That entire controversy about women getting paid less was found groundless in the end. I would hate to break it to you, but the statistics were based on a fallacy and today women get paid the same if not more then men in the same position.
Of course, when dealing with Simpson's paradox, anything can come out wrong, but lets not stop that from showing us the truth: companies care more about how productive and resourceful you are then anything else. There are plenty of workers who twiddle their thumbs half the day and then work overtime because their group somehow didn't finish the work for the day.
As for taking responsibility for your children: Yes do so. But have you seriously looked at the economics of having children? You do realize that having ONE working parent seriously makes your resources stretch to the breaking point with even just one child? And most people have 2.5, so doing the math its just obvious that its not always possible to stay at home with the children.
BTW: I do not have children, but I have some understanding of the responsibility and economics that goes into having them.
I am all for the in-house hooker, but my wife insisted that the hooker be less attractive and fatter then her, and since most married women would probably insist the same for their working husbands, your result is:
Helga. 5 foot 2 360 pounds and she makes your dog look like a supermodel. WOOF!
However, the Chinese and American economies are getting more and more tied together every year to the point that a war and/or cold war is going to just be counter-productive. China is becoming more of a western nation with a strong oligarchy then anything and America has no reason to cause unrest in China when theres more threats closer to home...
An alliance between terrorists and America in general went down the tubes after 9/11 too...any politician seen in any way helping terrorists would become the old world "communist" and would immediatly be jailed or at the very least ostricized and lose any hope of ever gaining power again. Things may go round and round, but subtle changes do occur....
OR put more bluntly: terrorists have become what communists used to be.
Apperantly so...
And to top that off my cat recognizes himself too in the mirror too. And on the 10 o'clock news, gerbils can recognize themselves in the mirror!
A larger OS will of course use more resources. This does not surprise me in the least anyway since I am sure close to 1/3 of the people who buy new PC's get 1GB of ram or even less nowadays....and with less then 1gb and even 2gb of ram vista will bog down the system when running anything but word processing/email.
I think MS screwed up by launching vista so soon before the hardware was really ready for it. Many people may say it does nothing to improve computing, but I just think its a little before its time... (probably a first for MS anyway.)
Actually I personally do believe QM works, I am just trying to state flat-out how complex it really is. The only part I am scepticle of in the sense you are discussing is the existence of other universes, however that does not believe I actually dis-believe in multiple universes, just that I am agnostic so to speak on that subject.
QM has indeed done more then what the gf poster said, and you are indeed correct that it explains a vast number of uncertainties, unfortunatly the more you study QM the more mysteries are added...its like the multi-layered onion that will never unravel.
To me, not sure who said it, but the qoute goes like this: "anyone who claims they understand QM does not understand it." This is what I liken it to after doing more extensive research into it then what the GF poster did. You go into all sorts of branches when you try to unravel some mysteries from of course string theory all the way into tachyons and of course multiple universes....and its just mind boggling that anyone could fully comprehend what QM means.
The theories that stem from QM do predict multiple universes but this part of it has not been proven persae of course. So what am I saying? GF and you both have points, but I doubt either one of you like me truly understands the implications of QM.....
Oh the smart cats are the most troublesome. My wife told me about one she had growing up that they named "slash" (Guess where that name came from...)
And that cat ate human food at will. Tupperware was no obstacle, nor was the refrigerator being closed. And for entertainment, toilet paper was fun....and maybe thats where the name came from.
Anyway, the fun part of that is before they found out the cat could open tupperware, my wife's mother yelled at dad for not using an utensil to cut some cake...and of course the dad was like, "women I don't know what your talking about"...nice little argument until they found the cat opening another piece of tupperware later....and putting it back on.
Scary, but that cat ate cooked food so to speak more then cat food most of its life....
Actually I was a big fan when the US first invaded Iraq of simply having
George W Vs. Saddam in a one time event! winner takes Iraq. ONLY ON PAYPERVIEW!
Sadly that never happened...
Except that as long as you keep yourself covered by reporting fraud early, you don't get charged for those purchases that were not yours. Being responsible with a credit card is the answer, not burying your head in the sand.
"Waco was a good thing".... Wow children died and it was a good thing.
Don't believe me: "76 Branch Davidians, 21 of whom were children"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branch_Davidian
I agree there should be limits, but damn, children dying is a good thing?
"Gun related murder has reduced considerably." I bet... Less guns = less deaths by guns... How about we figure out whether society was really helped or not? Did the overall murder rate go down or up? That might be a better figure to use, but maybe thats just me.
"Only 150 years of research shows that science has been in dilemma about where the temperatue has been going for the last 150 years."
4 times scientists have pivoted their position on global warming and global cooling. 4 times in the last 100 years. 50 years of research before that did not address "Global" climate whatsoever, but sure, lets listen to your history as you call it.
I am just waiting until we hear that the sky is falling because of an impending ice age, because lets face it, if history teaches us anything, it teaches us that it just repeats itself over and over again.
Then again, maybe it appears we are warming since 1820 because that was the end of the little ice age.... If you start your data points where you want to, the results the computer produces will always be favorable. GIGO.....and if you don't understand that, then you really don't need to be looking at computer models to begin with, much less posting about your opinions.
He actually cited 600 "experts" if you look closely. However, if you peer closer to who he cited, only 3 were climatologists like you said, and 2 well yea, lets not talk about that.
I like how one of his experts on the environment was a gynecologist. Not that this particular doctor is bad or anything, but all she wrote was a paper on what climate change would result in for reproductive rates in Africa, and her paper was speculation anyway. This doctor did not offer any evidence whatsoever for climate change, and yet was cited as one of the experts who agreed with climate change. Go figure, and for this piece of hogwash Al gore gets a Nobel prize, and a lot less noteworthy Time person of the year award.
Sigh, when you can cry the sky is falling and win a nobel prize is when I do indeed have no hope for our scientific community.
"But all this is academic. If you want to live in the real world, look at the correlation [gun-control-network.org] between gun proliferation and gun deaths. Doesn't take a genius to understand that the more guns are around, the more people are going to get shot. The USA is living proof of that."
More guns means more gun deaths? No, Can't be true? Whats even more absurd is that someone had to do a study on that, I mean seriously, ask yourself if thats not common sense or not? Well never ask a statistician, everything must be studied and annalyzed I guess..
I think the point is that criminals will find a way regardless to be criminals one way or another.
"You'll have to explain this: by your own premise, the fact we were "given" free will means that proof can't exist? Why exactly? I would assume that if there WERE something who "gave" us free will, then the free will would be used to seek out proof. Why else would I be given the ability to ask questions if I couldn't use it to find answers?"
The ability to ask questions IS the fundamental point of free will. If God simply spited everyone who disagreed with him, where is the free will? Proof would mean that your free will no longer existed, because therefore anyone with half a brain would either believe and be saved from hellfires, or spend the afterlife roasting like a hot dog. Thats not free will, thats fear motivating you to worship God. Sure, you can argue that with the proof you can do what you want in this life, but it would take away the fundamental point that you need to believe on your own without fear of the consequences.
But then again many churches still use fear to sway unbelievers, so I don't know, maybe mankind still has a ways to go on that score...
Your comments premise is wrong, and therefore is offbase. Although I did enjoy reading it, and I will admit its something to make one think at least.
The premise of the bible is free will (Paraphrased obviously: God's greatest gift to mankind is free will), not an unhealthy belief in God as your argument is premised behind, so therefore as enjoying as your argument is, it fails to catch the point that given free will, there can be no proof, because with proof, there is no free will.
Is it a stupid system? Well thats a different argument, but lets not judge too harshly, because at least you have a choice in this system.
You don't have to prove intent. In all second degree murder charges or probably what will happen in this case (manslaughter) its about what a reasonable person would believe would happen with their actions.
If a reasonable person believes that abusing a girl to this extent would cause her to die, then the women is guilty. Just because she didn't think it would happen is no excuse. To give you a clear example, lets say I shoot a gun wildly in the woods. I am not trying to kill anyone, but lets say I accidently do shoot a little boy by accident who happens to be out with his grandfather.
Did intend to kill anyone? Of course not, but a reasonable person could infer the danger in shooting wildly anywhere with a lethal weapon and should realize the possible consequences. My example may or may not have really happened.