No, there's quite a bit of evidence that light drinking is good for most people. It's not a big enough effect to recommend that non drinkers take it up, but that doesn't make it any less real.
You don't have to make specific predictions about who will or won't get sick. There are very few situations in science where you can make individual specific predictions, and most of those are trivial.
There is weak evidence that low levels of radiation might be beneficial. There's no evidence that its harmful above the linear extrapolation from higher dosages, which is what alarmists generally assume.
And that's the scary thing. Normal lenders have an incentive to work out terms so they don't lose their investment, and so they can make even more interest. People retiring want their money.
Not quite. They've come up with some sciency sounding explanations, working from the basic assumption that whatever they believe is true. The article you linked specifically says that the bible must be taken as literal fact and any scientific evidence must be interpreted in such a way that it is consistent with that assumption.
Generally the creationist explanations start out with some basic, and basically correct, information, then make one or more critical, incorrect statements, then conclude by stating that the seemingly contradictory scientific evidence COULD be consistent with the bible if the creationists' (incorrect) scientific explanation is true and some fairly weird things happened.
For example, the article you linked to incorrectly states that the 14C/12C ratio is assumed to be constant for the purposes of radiocarbon dating (it's not, the method is calibrated over time with other dating methods). Based on this, they talk about there being lots more plants before the flood (which of course they assume is literally true) which would have "diluted" the 14C in the air somehow. Etc.
Sciency sounding, but not even close to being science.
Maybe you have a biased sample. Most of the graduate and higher kinesiologists I know are studying things like the responses of osteoblasts to exercise induced loading or working with bioreactors and stem cells to try and grow cartilage for joint replacements. The guy in the article seems to have spent most of his career working on the effects of aerospace travel on the human body, as well as being the physiologist on some of the big human powered flight projects.
That doesn't make him not crazy though. Look at Watson. But I bet a good proportion of the crazy comes from his buddy and partner in this stunt, a retired school teacher who used to "prove" to his students mathematically that creationism is true.
Religion has already waned. It's gone from being an irresistible political force in most of the world to being an entertaining side show in most of the world. There are still religious people, and lots of people identify with a major religion, but the majority of them would qualify for burning as heretics only a few hundred years ago.
Look closer. That's applied kinesiology. Applied kinesiology is kind of like chiropractic, and has the same relation to kinesiology as astrology does to astronomy.
Actual kinesiology is the scientific study of human movement. It's a real science.
Of course, having a PhD, it doesn't matter what kind, doesn't mean you're not a crazy nut job.
There's a quote (I don't remember the source unfortunately) that says any case brought before a judge is fundamentally unresolvable, otherwise it would have been settled without a trial. The judge's job is to provide a respectable coin flip. That's also why precedent is such a big thing to lawyers - you can't have one judge's coin flip going against another's.
Scientific evidence, particularly well accepted evidence like plate tectonics and radioactive dating, are a higher standard than courts accept. Courts do accept scientific evidence, but they also accept much weaker evidence, such as expert testimony, eyewitness testimony, and documentation.
It makes perfect sense. Just realize that "God" is the name of a guy who lusts after power over people. He might be a Roman emperor, a pope, whatever. Basically, a dictator.
So the sentence becomes:
"The fact is that the Bible, [which you are required to believe in] is chock full of metaphor and parable, and understanding what is literal and what is not requires education [by the state/church]."
Have you read your fairy tale handbook? The whole thing? It's not a good guide to morality. The Jesus character is a decent guy, but the book even says (okay, strongly implies) that he was put in because the rest is such a cesspit of nastiness.
Fortunately most modern Christians pick and choose which bits they believe. The ones who don't are scary. Morality, good or bad, isn't something you learn from a book. It's something you learn from people.
Yes, the bible and Christianity, has had a profound effect on western civilization. It's been an instrument of control used by a variety of, usually brutal, dictatorships. When we started shrugging off their control civilization started making progress again.
It's a decent demo of what the software does. It's just that the software doesn't do anything like what it's hyped to. It's a very limited patent searcher (you enter a verb and a noun) that also searches for synonyms of your search words. It's not automated innovation unless you're a PHB.
And helium. And a lot of other gasses. The aerogel only stays puffed up because it's got air in it. If you're going to be fair you have to count that as part of the density.
If the Chinese set up a mining operation in the Japanese exclusive economic zone, the Japanese and Americans would park a bunch of warships in the area. Exclusive economic zones are claimed by nations for their exclusive use. Outside countries can't just set up mining/fishing or any other operations there.
hopefully you have ample examples of men receiving death threats
Sure. Here are a few that come up on Google:
This guy pissed off some animal rights activists and they threatened to use pliers on his testicles, disembowel him and use napalm on him. Among other things. Incidentally, it was a woman who ran the organization that sent the threats, and was sentenced to jail for it. That one isn't even anonymous!
This guy tracked down the sender of his death threats.
Here's a story about a guy who sends death threats to people who debunk the paranormal. Some blog authors, mostly male, were targeted.
Here's a guy who pissed off 4chan by making a movie. Here's one who wrote a book. If you want to do an experiment go post something they find offensive there and see how many death/rape/mutilation threats you get.
A Slashdot story about a guy getting death threats from some scammers he exposed.
Browsing Slashdot at -1 can be pretty enlightening too.
If you want to really get some threats, piss off some religious people.
Motherhood in relation to your career is one of the big ones
Care to be more specific?
body image
I don't think this is a sexism-related issue, or at least not one involving men. Studies show that the overwhelming driver behind unrealistic female body image is... women. Men consistently rate themselves as most attracted to women with healthy body weight while women consistently rate underweight women as most attractive. If feminism transitioned into a movement to improve women's self esteem (or better, everyone's self esteem) that would be great, and more moderate feminists seem to be focusing in that direction. But the hard core of feminism I was referring to seems to like the women versus men paradigm.
That's silly. She pissed a bunch of people off and got some anonymous hate mail. She's a woman so some of it was rape threats. If she had been male they would have been death, bodily harm, or prison rape threats.
All anonymous messages prove is that a few blowhards (of undetermined sex) are justifiably afraid to put their names to their stupidity.
The GP is wrong of course - feminism started with admirable goals, and had a lot of really great successes. I'm male, and I'm completely convinced that feminism changed our society for the better. I wouldn't want to go back to the 1860s, or the 1960s.
Modern feminism seems to have a problem though. It's achieved most of its laudable goals, and the rest look like they'll be achieved very soon. Overall wage parity hasn't been achieved but wages are essentially equal for those entering the workforce now. Women look likely to be much more successful than men in the not too distant future. Women earn more degrees and the differential is increasing in their favour.
The problem with modern feminism is that it's a rebellion that has achieved it's goals. But as a large political movement it can't just disband. Dedicated feminists have to find sexism to fight, even if they have to exaggerate problems, pervert the definition of sexism, or even manufacture it themselves.
You've already got one reply saying he's offended. Is that enough? Or because she's a woman does it require more? (hint: that "because (s)he's a ${SEX}" part is actual sexism, no matter what ${SEX} is)
Really it shouldn't matter what busybody is offended, only what the actual actions were. Of the two, her actions were a lot more antisocial than a couple of bored guys snickering together about funny words.
The first thing you see (still, actually) when you look at her Twitter page is that she's an evangelist at SendGrid. So her comments are just as much linked to her company as the two yahoos' behind her were.
Personally, I don't think anyone deserved to get fired, unless there were a lot of other things going on. The two male jokers were being childish, in relative private. Richards was being childish in a very public way. All of them needed to be told to knock it off.
The whole "striking a blow against sexism" is a silly attempt to spin the incident into something it's not. There's nothing in the story that suggests anything sexist, unless Richards did what she did because the jokers were male.
Is it? Richards herself tweeted publicly to a friend about stuffing his pants next time he goes through a TSA check. If the first guy deserved to get fired for making stupid jokes to his friend sitting in the audience at a conference why shouldn't Richards get fired for doing the same thing publicly via Twitter?
Slashdot Mirror
No, there's quite a bit of evidence that light drinking is good for most people. It's not a big enough effect to recommend that non drinkers take it up, but that doesn't make it any less real.
You don't have to make specific predictions about who will or won't get sick. There are very few situations in science where you can make individual specific predictions, and most of those are trivial.
There is weak evidence that low levels of radiation might be beneficial. There's no evidence that its harmful above the linear extrapolation from higher dosages, which is what alarmists generally assume.
And that's the scary thing. Normal lenders have an incentive to work out terms so they don't lose their investment, and so they can make even more interest. People retiring want their money.
Find someone willing to lend you some, sell them, then buy them back when the debt comes due. That's how shorting works.
Not quite. They've come up with some sciency sounding explanations, working from the basic assumption that whatever they believe is true. The article you linked specifically says that the bible must be taken as literal fact and any scientific evidence must be interpreted in such a way that it is consistent with that assumption.
Generally the creationist explanations start out with some basic, and basically correct, information, then make one or more critical, incorrect statements, then conclude by stating that the seemingly contradictory scientific evidence COULD be consistent with the bible if the creationists' (incorrect) scientific explanation is true and some fairly weird things happened.
For example, the article you linked to incorrectly states that the 14C/12C ratio is assumed to be constant for the purposes of radiocarbon dating (it's not, the method is calibrated over time with other dating methods). Based on this, they talk about there being lots more plants before the flood (which of course they assume is literally true) which would have "diluted" the 14C in the air somehow. Etc.
Sciency sounding, but not even close to being science.
Maybe you have a biased sample. Most of the graduate and higher kinesiologists I know are studying things like the responses of osteoblasts to exercise induced loading or working with bioreactors and stem cells to try and grow cartilage for joint replacements. The guy in the article seems to have spent most of his career working on the effects of aerospace travel on the human body, as well as being the physiologist on some of the big human powered flight projects.
That doesn't make him not crazy though. Look at Watson. But I bet a good proportion of the crazy comes from his buddy and partner in this stunt, a retired school teacher who used to "prove" to his students mathematically that creationism is true.
Religion has already waned. It's gone from being an irresistible political force in most of the world to being an entertaining side show in most of the world. There are still religious people, and lots of people identify with a major religion, but the majority of them would qualify for burning as heretics only a few hundred years ago.
Look closer. That's applied kinesiology. Applied kinesiology is kind of like chiropractic, and has the same relation to kinesiology as astrology does to astronomy.
Actual kinesiology is the scientific study of human movement. It's a real science.
Of course, having a PhD, it doesn't matter what kind, doesn't mean you're not a crazy nut job.
There's a quote (I don't remember the source unfortunately) that says any case brought before a judge is fundamentally unresolvable, otherwise it would have been settled without a trial. The judge's job is to provide a respectable coin flip. That's also why precedent is such a big thing to lawyers - you can't have one judge's coin flip going against another's.
You don't need radio telescopes to find that out. Just read the bible.
Scientific evidence, particularly well accepted evidence like plate tectonics and radioactive dating, are a higher standard than courts accept. Courts do accept scientific evidence, but they also accept much weaker evidence, such as expert testimony, eyewitness testimony, and documentation.
It makes perfect sense. Just realize that "God" is the name of a guy who lusts after power over people. He might be a Roman emperor, a pope, whatever. Basically, a dictator.
So the sentence becomes:
"The fact is that the Bible, [which you are required to believe in] is chock full of metaphor and parable, and understanding what is literal and what is not requires education [by the state/church]."
Have you read your fairy tale handbook? The whole thing? It's not a good guide to morality. The Jesus character is a decent guy, but the book even says (okay, strongly implies) that he was put in because the rest is such a cesspit of nastiness.
Fortunately most modern Christians pick and choose which bits they believe. The ones who don't are scary. Morality, good or bad, isn't something you learn from a book. It's something you learn from people.
Yes, the bible and Christianity, has had a profound effect on western civilization. It's been an instrument of control used by a variety of, usually brutal, dictatorships. When we started shrugging off their control civilization started making progress again.
It's a decent demo of what the software does. It's just that the software doesn't do anything like what it's hyped to. It's a very limited patent searcher (you enter a verb and a noun) that also searches for synonyms of your search words. It's not automated innovation unless you're a PHB.
The Australians actually have coffee bags. They're really a fantastic idea. Not really innovative though.
And helium. And a lot of other gasses. The aerogel only stays puffed up because it's got air in it. If you're going to be fair you have to count that as part of the density.
If the Chinese set up a mining operation in the Japanese exclusive economic zone, the Japanese and Americans would park a bunch of warships in the area. Exclusive economic zones are claimed by nations for their exclusive use. Outside countries can't just set up mining/fishing or any other operations there.
Sure. Here are a few that come up on Google:
This guy pissed off some animal rights activists and they threatened to use pliers on his testicles, disembowel him and use napalm on him. Among other things. Incidentally, it was a woman who ran the organization that sent the threats, and was sentenced to jail for it. That one isn't even anonymous!
Gay blogger gets death threats.
This guy tracked down the sender of his death threats.
Here's a story about a guy who sends death threats to people who debunk the paranormal. Some blog authors, mostly male, were targeted.
Here's a guy who pissed off 4chan by making a movie. Here's one who wrote a book. If you want to do an experiment go post something they find offensive there and see how many death/rape/mutilation threats you get.
A Slashdot story about a guy getting death threats from some scammers he exposed.
Browsing Slashdot at -1 can be pretty enlightening too.
If you want to really get some threats, piss off some religious people.
Care to be more specific?
I don't think this is a sexism-related issue, or at least not one involving men. Studies show that the overwhelming driver behind unrealistic female body image is... women. Men consistently rate themselves as most attracted to women with healthy body weight while women consistently rate underweight women as most attractive. If feminism transitioned into a movement to improve women's self esteem (or better, everyone's self esteem) that would be great, and more moderate feminists seem to be focusing in that direction. But the hard core of feminism I was referring to seems to like the women versus men paradigm.
That's silly. She pissed a bunch of people off and got some anonymous hate mail. She's a woman so some of it was rape threats. If she had been male they would have been death, bodily harm, or prison rape threats.
All anonymous messages prove is that a few blowhards (of undetermined sex) are justifiably afraid to put their names to their stupidity.
The GP is wrong of course - feminism started with admirable goals, and had a lot of really great successes. I'm male, and I'm completely convinced that feminism changed our society for the better. I wouldn't want to go back to the 1860s, or the 1960s.
Modern feminism seems to have a problem though. It's achieved most of its laudable goals, and the rest look like they'll be achieved very soon. Overall wage parity hasn't been achieved but wages are essentially equal for those entering the workforce now. Women look likely to be much more successful than men in the not too distant future. Women earn more degrees and the differential is increasing in their favour.
The problem with modern feminism is that it's a rebellion that has achieved it's goals. But as a large political movement it can't just disband. Dedicated feminists have to find sexism to fight, even if they have to exaggerate problems, pervert the definition of sexism, or even manufacture it themselves.
If they actually fired her over this incident she's probably in no hurry to scrub away her association with them.
You've already got one reply saying he's offended. Is that enough? Or because she's a woman does it require more? (hint: that "because (s)he's a ${SEX}" part is actual sexism, no matter what ${SEX} is)
Really it shouldn't matter what busybody is offended, only what the actual actions were. Of the two, her actions were a lot more antisocial than a couple of bored guys snickering together about funny words.
The first thing you see (still, actually) when you look at her Twitter page is that she's an evangelist at SendGrid. So her comments are just as much linked to her company as the two yahoos' behind her were.
Personally, I don't think anyone deserved to get fired, unless there were a lot of other things going on. The two male jokers were being childish, in relative private. Richards was being childish in a very public way. All of them needed to be told to knock it off.
The whole "striking a blow against sexism" is a silly attempt to spin the incident into something it's not. There's nothing in the story that suggests anything sexist, unless Richards did what she did because the jokers were male.
Is it? Richards herself tweeted publicly to a friend about stuffing his pants next time he goes through a TSA check. If the first guy deserved to get fired for making stupid jokes to his friend sitting in the audience at a conference why shouldn't Richards get fired for doing the same thing publicly via Twitter?
Yup, good to see everyone in this story acting like adults.