Damn I wanted a copy of it and to be honest I will still see it in theatres.
I will never again willingly watch anything in a cinema so long as I live. Poor food, poor seats, poor video quality, and most of all poor company. The only advantage cinemas still retain over my living room is their sound systems, and frankly it's not worth the bother. I will wait for the Blu-Ray of any new film. It costs about as much as trip to the cinema anyway.
And if the studio refuses to release in my region simultaneously with others, I'll download the film. Tough luck guys. I had the money in my hand, ready to give it to you, but you gave me the finger instead. So guess what I'm giving you.
Actually given the assumption that there is a non zero probability of fresh content, as any discussion grows long enough the probability of anything being mentioned approaches 1.
Also, how are you computing the total number of Achievements? If you add up my achievements (and if I add the powers of two I get closer) but it doesn't come out to be the number you posted.
Since 2^0 would presumably count as an achiement, I'm guessing numbers like 2^7 count as, say, 8 achievements.
I would guess that "The Maker" is for making a new tag. Also, the achievement "The Contradictor", is probably for adding a ! (not) tag to a story.
That is the sound of the significance of this event breaking the sound barrier as it passes over your head.
Colbert is a satirist. His job is to lampoon the establishment, popular culture, fad, etc, etc. He has just lampooned public voting competitions, which have been in vogue of late. Internet, SMS, email, telephone based, it doesn't matter. The bottom line is that these "votes" are little more than popularity contests decided by people with too much free time and little else to do with it. Colbert has simply shown how inherently vulnerable these votes are to manipulation. PZ Myers has been doing this sort of thing for years.
Public poll competitions are a thinly disguised publicity stunt. Frequently, they simply demean and trivialize the event they are promoting. In the case of NASA, this poll has been a farce from day one. Even before Colbert, justifiably, entered the competition, the top contender for the module's name was "Serenity", an obvious reference to a recent sci-fi/fantasy show.
This was a billion dollar module meant for serious scientific research and NASA, itself a multi-billion dollar publicly funded institution, had chosen as it's first choice of name, that of a fictional spaceship from some bubblegum space opera made for teenagers, which pays only lip service to scientific fact and theory. This was a (supposedly) serious scientific and educational organization about to name a space station component after something that has never and can never exist. The level of unprofessionalism beggars belief.
What is anyone supposed to think of NASA after such a stunt? Is the whole organisation composed of people who base their ideas on TV shows and loopy ideas instead of hard theory? Considering the organization's continued stance on the Space Elevator concept, despite its proven absurdity over the course of over 50 years, I would have to say that, yes NASA is composed of juveniles who have their heads in the clouds and no idea how to get their actual bodies up there.
For get "Xenu". "Serenity" was and is the real problem. Frankly, Colbert has stepped in and dignified the proceedings by finally putting and end to the debacle. NASA will save itself a lot of face in the long run by naming the module "Colbert" as a reminder of their own folly. Naming it "Serenity" would be a permanent stain on whatever dignity the organization is supposed to have.
And organisation that allows idle tweenagers, teenagers and twenagers to name space modules, rockets, or satellites is an organisation that has no right to send such things into orbit.
The same one that wanted a manned space station in the first place, despite the extra burdens on space, air, food and fuel, and despite the fact that much of the work done by the astronauts could be done more effectively and cheaply by unmanned missions.
Manned space flight has its uses. But ultimately the ISS, like the moon landings, was more about national prestige than it was about hard science. And such thinking has lead the project to its current impasse.
The problem with the online model is that no one, no one is going to pay to watch films or TV shows online. Anyone who is doing this knows full well that there are free alternatives and they are simply not going to pay one cent. The buyer has awesome power here, and the seller virtually none.
The fundamental problem here, is that TV shows and films, like music tracks before them are worth almost nothing. The average TV series, is only a few gigabytes to download. The average show, streamed is probably no more than 50 megabytes, if that.
If your product is digital and of modest size, it is effectively worthless. Trying to assert artificial copyright restrictions is not going to cut it. Reality has caught up with this model and all content creators are going to feel the pain in the coming years. Downloading is mainstream and data is being sold by the terabyte. There is no compromise and no going back. Music, TV shows, films and more, have become fundamentally worthless and there is no point trying to make money from a resource more plentiful than water.
I'm not trying to be some kind of idealogue here, but I do believe that there had been a fundamental shift in the worth of these commodities. It's like there was a land in which evaporation did not happen, and the owners of a reservoir used to ship water uphill to those that needed it. Now, evaporation has occurred and rain is falling everywhere. A scare resource has become, in the case of digital media, a virtually limitless one. The price should, if economics is to be believed, suffer a drastic drop. And that is what I think has happended over the last four years.
Re:Islamic groups are pushing censorship worldwide
on
UN Attacks Free Speech
·
· Score: 4, Informative
So, the man that is considered by Islam to be the ideal role model, capable only of 'human errors in judgment in minor things with good intentions', was also a child rapist.
Yes. And Pharohs married their sisters, ancient Spartan's were all pederasts and George Washington kept slaves.
The past is a foreign country. They do things differently there. And don't think the future will be much different.
I live in the countryside. Well, more the suburbs now. Since time immemorial people in rural areas have had to deal with power cuts and blackouts, sometimes lasting days.
Amazingly, the vast majority survived.
Candles, flashlamps, tinned food and a fireplace get you through most of the time. Bedtime usually comes earlier. Yes you can't play video games or listen to your mp3s, but there are book, or at worst other people with which you can occupy your time.
As much as the thought of millions of pampered city dwellers wailing helplessly in the darkness might amuse me, I can not imagine that their lives are so different to country people as to make survival a difficult prospect. Yes, it could take days for the power to come back. But people will make it. Business will make it. Society and civilization as we know it, will probably make it.
Yes. I know that sci-fi-esque stories using words like "electromagnetic", "storm" and "disaster" might worry those with active imaginations. I know that newspapers love to print them next to their ad pages. Someday, someone might even make a Hollywood movie about just such a tale, and then people will really start talking about it. But people must always try to remember that just because someone says something, that doesn't mean they are correct.
Still and all, that's why they do experiments. Sometimes you learn something.
Absolutely. Sometimes you do learn something completely new. And that's great. But the true power of the experiment is in proving that some idea is wrong.
This experiment has proved that iron fertilization is not going to work as a carbon storage strategy. Personally, I think that more experiments like this will show that most if not all carbon storage strategies do not work. But that's just me talking. Again, you need a good, solid, experiment to show something either way. Rhetoric, statistics, or celebrity backing isn't going to prove anything. Only the experiment can be the final arbiter.
In recent years, I have seen field after field all but abandon the experiment as a scientific tool. Computer models, statistics and dubious mathematics became the tools of choice. It's nice to see one in the news again.
Just because children have no choice but to act selfishly does not mean they are not selfish; it instead means that their core _is_ selfishness.
Being selfish means you do not care about other people or their feelings, or the effect of your actions upon them.
But it is not that two year olds do not care about other people. It is that they are unable to care about other people. When Timmy takes Bobby's chocolate, it is not that he did so without regard to Bobby's feelings, only that he did so with regard only to his own feelings. Timmy is not capable of fully grasping the effects of taking the chocolate will have on Bobby (Bobby will cry). He can only grasp the effects that not taking the chocolate will have on Timmy (Timmy will cry). Keep in mind I'm talking about two year olds.
The ability to empathise with others is a skill that two year olds have not yet learned, just as they have not yet learned to speak or coordinate themselves properly. As time goes by, they gain this skill. If Timmy then chooses to take Bobby's chocolate, in spite of the fact that he knows and understands the effect it will have (Bobby will cry), then Timmy is can be said to act selfishly.
Some people never learn to empathise, but these people are very small subset(psychopaths), comparable to those who never learn to talk, or walk. The vast majority of people can empathise, but of course a sizable fraction of them choose to be selfish anyway.
I find it 100% impossible that even the stupidest of school official in the 2000s wouldn't have blazing red warning alarms going off in their head at the thought of forcing a minor to expose her genitals.
Keep in mind that the search was done by two female employees, a secretary and the school nurse, at the behest of the assistant principle, who was male. I believe what we are looking at here is a clear, real life example of a Milgram experiment.
Two minor employees followed the orders an authority figure, probably against their personal conscience. One, the secretary, was certainly untrained at what she was doing. The other, the nurse, was probably untrained as well.
Even if they aren't kiddie-pervs, power is the ultimate aphrodisiac, and these bitches sure lorded their power over the girl.
You are being too harsh. The two women who conducted the search are responsible for their actions, but the fact is they are probably also victims here. If you read the description of the search, they did not ask here to fully remove all her clothing, instead adopting half measures, which goes back to the probable lack of training. This leads me to believe that these women did feel guilty about what they were doing and this emerged through half measures in which their orders were fully followed, but the victim was not subjected to a "complete" strip search.
It's a flimsy excuse, but it does I think show reluctance on the part of the searchers. Whatever about the nurse, what was the secretary doing there? She probably came in that day to type letters and answer phone calls. What was she doing in that room?
This is a clear example of the kind of situation Milgram was trying to understand. How willing are people to obey unconscionable orders? The important lesson here for anyone who finds themselves in such a situation is; When you go to work, do not leave your personal conscience and judgment, and your responsibility at the door.
Heim's theory (not mine) also predicts very accurately masses and lifetimes of many elementary particles. The predicted masses were claimed to have been derived by Heim using only 4 parameters: h (Planck's Constant), G (Gravitational constant), vacuum permittivity and permeability.
Does the number of dimensions count as a paramater? What about the dimensionality of the elementary particles. What masses to you get if you use 5, 7 or 11 dimensions? Does it work for all particles?
Do you think it could be possible to achieve such accuracy by playing with only number of dimensions 6, 8 or 12? Don't think it is possible.
Yes. Yes I do think it is possible. Given enough time, iterations and formulas you can come up with a fairly concise model that predicts just about anything. It's called Numerology, and if you had replaced the known masses and lifetimes of particles with random numbers, I guarantee you there is a set of formulas as concise and simple as Heim's which predicts the whole lot of them. Layers and layers of inscrutability do not change the fundamental baselessness of the calculations.
Heim theory, String theory, Loop quantum gravity, etc, etc. All half assed attempts by physicists to come up with a mathematical Grand Unified Theory. They believe that if they add enough dimensions, or toy around with the integrals, or throw in a few parameters and functions then everything will work out. What they don't yet understand is of course it will work out. Numerologists have been doing this for years on all sorts of topics. The idea that Physics is somehow immune to this treatment is nonsense. It's already happened.
No one is going to come up with a GUT by playing with formulas. It's a waste of time. The only way a GUT is going to emerge is by solving problems our current theories cannot explain. If this gravity phenomena is just such a problem, then perhaps some new mathematical models of physics will come out of it, which may help in tying existing theories together. But it will be because work was done on finding equations that solve a problem, not by making equations up out of thin air.
World of Warcraft is a subscription for one particular game, not to an online gaming service. I would classify a gaming service as something liek Xbox Live, PSN or Steam, which allows the playing of multiple games under one account.
The ongoing authoritarian creep, the increasing censorship, growing economic and social conservatism, the worsening impotence of our media, all can be traced back to the collapse of the Soviet empire and the second world. Without that counterweight, without that foil, the western world had not standard against which to measure the worth of its society. Since then, our freedoms have been proclaimed only in our own propaganda and not in reality.
1. A dispute, especially a public one, between sides holding opposing views. See synonyms at argument.
2. The act or practice of engaging in such disputes: writers skilled at controversy.
Regarding the OP's main point. Is there in fact controversy over Phorm? Is there a dispute between two sides holding opposite views. I would argue with the OP and say there is not.
Not certainly it looks like there is a dispute. But realistically, it's all just mummery or controversy theater if you will. The mainstream media is playing lip service to the hundreds of thousands of people who are against this system, and Phorm is simply ignoring them and banking on the fact that the rest of the population will be too busy to even notice.
There is not one brass null's iota of justification for the Phorm system. They can target ads more effectively? So what! No one even wants ads in the first place, so why should they have to put up with marketers and governments tracking their online habits? There is no opposing view here. Phorm do not have an opinion. They are businessmen for whom anything not illegal is a legitimate way to make money, regardless of its effect on society.
There is no dispute. The purpose of this controversy theater is so that at a later date when Phorm is implemented it can be shown to have passed a "gauntlet" of public opinion and scrutiny and not found wanting. In reality, it will have paid for a few PR releases and banked on the fact that at the time the media was more interested in dead celebrities than the foundation of its free society.
The media is to blame for this. If rules limiting the amount of sport, gossip and leisure stories were enforced, we would have better watchdogs. Blaming individuals is not the proper answer. Just like the financial industry, the newspaper industry cannot be allowed to regulate itself.
Freedom of speech means nothing if people only talk tripe.
Heim Theory predicted such effects in 1950s already.
Yes it probably did. But then again, if you allow your theory to have six or eight or twelve extra dimension, and you allow elementary particles to be "multidimensional structures of space", then I imagine there would be very little effects which you could not in some way predict.
Slashdot Mirror
I will never again willingly watch anything in a cinema so long as I live. Poor food, poor seats, poor video quality, and most of all poor company. The only advantage cinemas still retain over my living room is their sound systems, and frankly it's not worth the bother. I will wait for the Blu-Ray of any new film. It costs about as much as trip to the cinema anyway.
And if the studio refuses to release in my region simultaneously with others, I'll download the film. Tough luck guys. I had the money in my hand, ready to give it to you, but you gave me the finger instead. So guess what I'm giving you.
Actually given the assumption that there is a non zero probability of fresh content, as any discussion grows long enough the probability of anything being mentioned approaches 1.
This includes random noise; such as this post.
Which raises the question: If "Serenity" is an acceptable name, then why not call the module "Millenium Falcon"?
Since 2^0 would presumably count as an achiement, I'm guessing numbers like 2^7 count as, say, 8 achievements.
I would guess that "The Maker" is for making a new tag. Also, the achievement "The Contradictor", is probably for adding a ! (not) tag to a story.
You get a platinium trophy.
That is the sound of the significance of this event breaking the sound barrier as it passes over your head.
Colbert is a satirist. His job is to lampoon the establishment, popular culture, fad, etc, etc. He has just lampooned public voting competitions, which have been in vogue of late. Internet, SMS, email, telephone based, it doesn't matter. The bottom line is that these "votes" are little more than popularity contests decided by people with too much free time and little else to do with it. Colbert has simply shown how inherently vulnerable these votes are to manipulation. PZ Myers has been doing this sort of thing for years.
Public poll competitions are a thinly disguised publicity stunt. Frequently, they simply demean and trivialize the event they are promoting. In the case of NASA, this poll has been a farce from day one. Even before Colbert, justifiably, entered the competition, the top contender for the module's name was "Serenity", an obvious reference to a recent sci-fi/fantasy show.
This was a billion dollar module meant for serious scientific research and NASA, itself a multi-billion dollar publicly funded institution, had chosen as it's first choice of name, that of a fictional spaceship from some bubblegum space opera made for teenagers, which pays only lip service to scientific fact and theory. This was a (supposedly) serious scientific and educational organization about to name a space station component after something that has never and can never exist. The level of unprofessionalism beggars belief.
What is anyone supposed to think of NASA after such a stunt? Is the whole organisation composed of people who base their ideas on TV shows and loopy ideas instead of hard theory? Considering the organization's continued stance on the Space Elevator concept, despite its proven absurdity over the course of over 50 years, I would have to say that, yes NASA is composed of juveniles who have their heads in the clouds and no idea how to get their actual bodies up there.
For get "Xenu". "Serenity" was and is the real problem. Frankly, Colbert has stepped in and dignified the proceedings by finally putting and end to the debacle. NASA will save itself a lot of face in the long run by naming the module "Colbert" as a reminder of their own folly. Naming it "Serenity" would be a permanent stain on whatever dignity the organization is supposed to have.
And organisation that allows idle tweenagers, teenagers and twenagers to name space modules, rockets, or satellites is an organisation that has no right to send such things into orbit.
! C...cuh....coah....COMMUNIST!!!
The same one that wanted a manned space station in the first place, despite the extra burdens on space, air, food and fuel, and despite the fact that much of the work done by the astronauts could be done more effectively and cheaply by unmanned missions.
Manned space flight has its uses. But ultimately the ISS, like the moon landings, was more about national prestige than it was about hard science. And such thinking has lead the project to its current impasse.
The habits of the aristocracy are not generally those of the population at large.
There are some things that can't be copyrighted.
For everything else, there's Lawyers.
(Accepted wherever greed is good)
I'm not fond of the new beta index or the new user page system. Can they be turned off?
The problem with the online model is that no one, no one is going to pay to watch films or TV shows online. Anyone who is doing this knows full well that there are free alternatives and they are simply not going to pay one cent. The buyer has awesome power here, and the seller virtually none.
The fundamental problem here, is that TV shows and films, like music tracks before them are worth almost nothing. The average TV series, is only a few gigabytes to download. The average show, streamed is probably no more than 50 megabytes, if that.
If your product is digital and of modest size, it is effectively worthless. Trying to assert artificial copyright restrictions is not going to cut it. Reality has caught up with this model and all content creators are going to feel the pain in the coming years. Downloading is mainstream and data is being sold by the terabyte. There is no compromise and no going back. Music, TV shows, films and more, have become fundamentally worthless and there is no point trying to make money from a resource more plentiful than water.
I'm not trying to be some kind of idealogue here, but I do believe that there had been a fundamental shift in the worth of these commodities. It's like there was a land in which evaporation did not happen, and the owners of a reservoir used to ship water uphill to those that needed it. Now, evaporation has occurred and rain is falling everywhere. A scare resource has become, in the case of digital media, a virtually limitless one. The price should, if economics is to be believed, suffer a drastic drop. And that is what I think has happended over the last four years.
Yes. And Pharohs married their sisters, ancient Spartan's were all pederasts and George Washington kept slaves.
The past is a foreign country. They do things differently there. And don't think the future will be much different.
Yes, there are too many PATRIOT's for that to happen.
I live in the countryside. Well, more the suburbs now. Since time immemorial people in rural areas have had to deal with power cuts and blackouts, sometimes lasting days.
Amazingly, the vast majority survived.
Candles, flashlamps, tinned food and a fireplace get you through most of the time. Bedtime usually comes earlier. Yes you can't play video games or listen to your mp3s, but there are book, or at worst other people with which you can occupy your time.
As much as the thought of millions of pampered city dwellers wailing helplessly in the darkness might amuse me, I can not imagine that their lives are so different to country people as to make survival a difficult prospect. Yes, it could take days for the power to come back. But people will make it. Business will make it. Society and civilization as we know it, will probably make it.
Yes. I know that sci-fi-esque stories using words like "electromagnetic", "storm" and "disaster" might worry those with active imaginations. I know that newspapers love to print them next to their ad pages. Someday, someone might even make a Hollywood movie about just such a tale, and then people will really start talking about it. But people must always try to remember that just because someone says something, that doesn't mean they are correct.
Absolutely. Sometimes you do learn something completely new. And that's great. But the true power of the experiment is in proving that some idea is wrong.
This experiment has proved that iron fertilization is not going to work as a carbon storage strategy. Personally, I think that more experiments like this will show that most if not all carbon storage strategies do not work. But that's just me talking. Again, you need a good, solid, experiment to show something either way. Rhetoric, statistics, or celebrity backing isn't going to prove anything. Only the experiment can be the final arbiter.
In recent years, I have seen field after field all but abandon the experiment as a scientific tool. Computer models, statistics and dubious mathematics became the tools of choice. It's nice to see one in the news again.
I can run Octave for more than a few hours without swapping!
Being selfish means you do not care about other people or their feelings, or the effect of your actions upon them.
But it is not that two year olds do not care about other people. It is that they are unable to care about other people. When Timmy takes Bobby's chocolate, it is not that he did so without regard to Bobby's feelings, only that he did so with regard only to his own feelings. Timmy is not capable of fully grasping the effects of taking the chocolate will have on Bobby (Bobby will cry). He can only grasp the effects that not taking the chocolate will have on Timmy (Timmy will cry). Keep in mind I'm talking about two year olds.
The ability to empathise with others is a skill that two year olds have not yet learned, just as they have not yet learned to speak or coordinate themselves properly. As time goes by, they gain this skill. If Timmy then chooses to take Bobby's chocolate, in spite of the fact that he knows and understands the effect it will have (Bobby will cry), then Timmy is can be said to act selfishly.
Some people never learn to empathise, but these people are very small subset(psychopaths), comparable to those who never learn to talk, or walk. The vast majority of people can empathise, but of course a sizable fraction of them choose to be selfish anyway.
Keep in mind that the search was done by two female employees, a secretary and the school nurse, at the behest of the assistant principle, who was male. I believe what we are looking at here is a clear, real life example of a Milgram experiment.
Two minor employees followed the orders an authority figure, probably against their personal conscience. One, the secretary, was certainly untrained at what she was doing. The other, the nurse, was probably untrained as well.
You are being too harsh. The two women who conducted the search are responsible for their actions, but the fact is they are probably also victims here. If you read the description of the search, they did not ask here to fully remove all her clothing, instead adopting half measures, which goes back to the probable lack of training. This leads me to believe that these women did feel guilty about what they were doing and this emerged through half measures in which their orders were fully followed, but the victim was not subjected to a "complete" strip search.
It's a flimsy excuse, but it does I think show reluctance on the part of the searchers. Whatever about the nurse, what was the secretary doing there? She probably came in that day to type letters and answer phone calls. What was she doing in that room?
This is a clear example of the kind of situation Milgram was trying to understand. How willing are people to obey unconscionable orders? The important lesson here for anyone who finds themselves in such a situation is; When you go to work, do not leave your personal conscience and judgment, and your responsibility at the door.
Does the number of dimensions count as a paramater? What about the dimensionality of the elementary particles. What masses to you get if you use 5, 7 or 11 dimensions? Does it work for all particles?
Yes. Yes I do think it is possible. Given enough time, iterations and formulas you can come up with a fairly concise model that predicts just about anything. It's called Numerology, and if you had replaced the known masses and lifetimes of particles with random numbers, I guarantee you there is a set of formulas as concise and simple as Heim's which predicts the whole lot of them. Layers and layers of inscrutability do not change the fundamental baselessness of the calculations.
Heim theory, String theory, Loop quantum gravity, etc, etc. All half assed attempts by physicists to come up with a mathematical Grand Unified Theory. They believe that if they add enough dimensions, or toy around with the integrals, or throw in a few parameters and functions then everything will work out. What they don't yet understand is of course it will work out. Numerologists have been doing this for years on all sorts of topics. The idea that Physics is somehow immune to this treatment is nonsense. It's already happened.
No one is going to come up with a GUT by playing with formulas. It's a waste of time. The only way a GUT is going to emerge is by solving problems our current theories cannot explain. If this gravity phenomena is just such a problem, then perhaps some new mathematical models of physics will come out of it, which may help in tying existing theories together. But it will be because work was done on finding equations that solve a problem, not by making equations up out of thin air.
World of Warcraft is a subscription for one particular game, not to an online gaming service. I would classify a gaming service as something liek Xbox Live, PSN or Steam, which allows the playing of multiple games under one account.
Not quite. The Soviet Union fell.
The ongoing authoritarian creep, the increasing censorship, growing economic and social conservatism, the worsening impotence of our media, all can be traced back to the collapse of the Soviet empire and the second world. Without that counterweight, without that foil, the western world had not standard against which to measure the worth of its society. Since then, our freedoms have been proclaimed only in our own propaganda and not in reality.
Regarding the OP's main point. Is there in fact controversy over Phorm? Is there a dispute between two sides holding opposite views. I would argue with the OP and say there is not.
Not certainly it looks like there is a dispute. But realistically, it's all just mummery or controversy theater if you will. The mainstream media is playing lip service to the hundreds of thousands of people who are against this system, and Phorm is simply ignoring them and banking on the fact that the rest of the population will be too busy to even notice.
There is not one brass null's iota of justification for the Phorm system. They can target ads more effectively? So what! No one even wants ads in the first place, so why should they have to put up with marketers and governments tracking their online habits? There is no opposing view here. Phorm do not have an opinion. They are businessmen for whom anything not illegal is a legitimate way to make money, regardless of its effect on society.
There is no dispute. The purpose of this controversy theater is so that at a later date when Phorm is implemented it can be shown to have passed a "gauntlet" of public opinion and scrutiny and not found wanting. In reality, it will have paid for a few PR releases and banked on the fact that at the time the media was more interested in dead celebrities than the foundation of its free society.
The media is to blame for this. If rules limiting the amount of sport, gossip and leisure stories were enforced, we would have better watchdogs. Blaming individuals is not the proper answer. Just like the financial industry, the newspaper industry cannot be allowed to regulate itself.
Freedom of speech means nothing if people only talk tripe.
Yes it probably did. But then again, if you allow your theory to have six or eight or twelve extra dimension, and you allow elementary particles to be "multidimensional structures of space", then I imagine there would be very little effects which you could not in some way predict.
What about people who believe in @DEITIES, you insensitive clod?!