Delta1212

On 8/17/2017 at 6:46 AM, StringJunky said:

Is there a point, or set of odds, in the absence of an apparent cause, that we have to say that something might be paranormal?

Perhaps if it was part of an experiment. I don't think it works with just any random event that we might come across because then it just requires finding an event that has a chance of one out of the total number of all events that happen around the world of happening.

Like having everyone in the world flip a coin thirty times in a row. If you do, chances are pretty good that you will have at least one person who gets the same thing every single time.

If you ran an experiment where you had a single person flip a coin thirty times and they all came up heads, that is unlikely enough that I would have trouble believing it was random chance.

If you had every person on Earth flip a coin thirty times on reaching their tenth birthday, it would be weird if you didn't get someone who got the same thing every time at least once or twice in a given decade.

When, instead of the coin flip, you have every event in the life of every person on the plan to mine for events that coincidentally line up in any way with any event in the life of any other person on the planet, you are going to wind up finding a ton of people who randomly have a lot more weird connections than the ones that have been listed for Lincoln and Kennedy.

16 hours ago, MigL said:

I know plenty of people who like to kill people, John.
Most of them are in jail, but I'm sure there are a lot more who aren't.

I would think Government and nationalism are two institutions that are responsible for the deaths of way more people than religion.
( over 60 million in just WW1 and WW2 )

Yet anti-religion people are atheists and anti-government people are anarchists.
One good, the other bad.

Or do you consider both good ?

There are some people who consider both to be bad.

Also, all anarchists are anti-government by definition. Not all atheists are anti-religion. 

I wasn't in the path of totality, but I got a couple of decent shots by turning the exposure on my phone's camera all the way down and shooting through some clouds.

I hadn't thought of it ahead of time, but a few times while it was going on, there was just the right amount of cloud cover for the sun to be clearly visible while also not being blinding to look at, which was pretty cool.

On 8/11/2017 at 9:26 AM, tar said:

The rational mind belonging to the self in question.

No, I mean, what makes protecting the self a rational choice?

On 8/14/2017 at 9:26 PM, Innovator said:

Would you like to explain how or why bacteria become resistant to antibiotics? My understanding is this would be a determination to survive? Or an evolution?  Maybe desire is not the right word try one of the above. Rather than trying to belittle my wording id seriously appreciate your opinion on what ive said (no offence meant) but i genuinely would like knowledgeable opinion on the matter 

The ones that aren't resistant die because the antibiotics killed them. Any that are left are resistant because they already had some resistance and that's why they are the ones that are left. Repeat this for multiple generations of bacteria and eventually you'll have a nice population of resistant bacteria because you killed off all of the non-resistant bacteria that we're competing with them for food and space. 

What the bacteria "want" has nothing to do with anything. Non-resistant bacteria didn't develop a resistance in order to better survive: They just died. Resistant bacteria didn't develop a resistance in order to survive. They had that resistance whether they had ever been exposed to the antibiotic or not. They just exploited an opening to reproduce more caused by a bunch of other bacteria being killed off.

On 8/20/2017 at 9:22 AM, Janus said:

In the story, it was the view of the stars (which no living person of the time had never seen), which was compounded by the fact the system was located inside a globular cluster that drove people crazy.  Their night sky was so full of stars that it gave one the feeling of teetering on the edge of infinity.

An interesting note, while this is the most famous and widely acclaimed of Asimov's short stories, it was not his personal favorite.

As far as people acting strangely, we don't need the actual eclipse for that. I've already seen two posts on Facebook telling people to keep their pets inside to protect their eyes from the eclipse (As if animals, unlike Humans, are stupid enough to stare at the Sun. And what about all the wild animals, who's going to look out for them?), and even one where they said they were planning to stay inside with the windows covered for protection against the eclipse.

I guess that just goes to prove the old saying that the stupidity of humanity knows no bounds.

The way that word of mouth spreads about looking at the eclipse really does make it seem like looking at the eclipse is particularly bad for your eyes rather than just, you know, looking at the sun being really bad for your eyes whether there is an eclipse or not.

1 hour ago, Itoero said:

It was a good episode but imo the plot was messed up.

They've been doing a lot of things I like this season, but now that we're getting closer to the end, I think compressing it to seven episodes was a mistake.

They could have fit the same content into ten episodes and given things a bit of time to breathe and had a little less teleporting all over the continent within a single episode often within a span of minutes that has made a lot of things feel very choppy and weirdly paced.

I also agree with the criticism from Alan Sepinwall that they've been falling back on teasing a lot of character deaths without paying them off the last few episodes and many of the escapes feel rather contrived as a result.

I don't think even that would be quite as bad as it is, though, if they weren't packing the action set pieces quite so closely together.

It also felt weird that it always seemed like the only people in the ranging party were the names characters until it was time for some redshirt to die and then one would randomly spring up out of nowhere just to get killed. In past seasons they've at least taken the time to establish a neat character or two to act in that role so we're at least aware that they exist before they are killed off.

This season is very cool to watch but just weirdly paced and I think it's largely a result of the episode count.

1 hour ago, waitforufo said:

First, the racist history of California is long and deep. LA in particular.  A significant number, if not a majority, of Hayden Lake Idaho Nazis who used to march annually in Coeur d'alene, where transplants from California.  

Second, remember that every one of those Confederate monuments are not only memorials to racists, are also memorials to traitors of the United States.  Robert E. Lee in particular, who was offered command of the Union Army at the start of the Civil War.   Had he accepted, the war may not have even occurred or would have been short.  The man swore an allegiance to the United States at West Point.  The man has no honor.  620,000 Americans died in the Civil war.  

Third, there are more history books written about the Civil War than any other subject in world history so I don't think there is any worry about forgetting Civil War history if every one of those memorials were destroyed.

Finally, any memorial that is left up should be required to include a predominate plaque that reads that this person (or group) fought to continue the practice of owning human beings as property.  Perhaps additionally, if approved by the African American populous, all memorials including human likenesses left standing should be painted to resemble lawn jockeys. 

 

 

Huh, I broadly agree with something waitforufo posted in the Politics section. What do you know?

1 minute ago, Ten oz said:

Yes but aren't we well into that area where one would need to explain their differences? 

Sure, but those differences having been stated, I don't see any reason to expect the person in question to defend some other set of beliefs nor do I think that the label they are using becomes somehow less valid than if they fully subscribed to the initially assumed set of beliefs.

38 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

The life and teachings of Jesus are in the Bible. Grant it I suppose one could separate the New Testament out. I wasn't aware my reference to the Bible was the crux of the point you were making. If so than sure, I agree. 

The New Testament encompasses a collection of accounts of his life and teachings. It does not include every account and includes a number of things that are by or about his followers rather than him directly. 

You could easily take a single book as gospel rather than the entire document or even subscribe to one of the various documents that didn't make it into the canon as it was decided upon at the Council of Nicea.

There is no single, unimpeachable document that is known to accurately and completely describe the life and teachings of Jesus. 

38 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

I am not attempting to dictate anyones faith to them. My point is simply that a definition for what a Christian is exists. I didn't write it or insist it be written but it exists all the same. As such when one doesn't fit that definition they technically aren't that thing. That said I don't care if someone chooses to practice their self professed christian beliefs by attending a church of scientology I am okay with it. My point is merely that it will create difficult discussions in religious related threads because everyone involved will be operatinng on their own understandings.

A Christian ( /ˈkrɪʃtʃən/ ( listen) or /ˈkrɪstjən/) is a person who follows or adheres to Christianity, an Abrahamic, monotheistic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian

 

Christianity[note 1] is an Abrahamic monotheistic[1] religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ, who serves as the focal point of the Christian faith.

Christian theology is summarized in creeds such as the Apostles' Creed and Nicene Creed. These professions of faith state that Jesus suffered, died, was buried, descended into hell, and rose from the dead, in order to grant eternal life to those who believe in him and trust in him for the remission of their sins.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity

 

I don't care if a person calls themselve Christian but does chooses to to adhere to Christianity. Doesn't bother. My point is simply that there are definitions for things and when one calls themself something or associates themselves with something there are various things which typically are implied and or assumed.

 

 

And I said that where a person differs from what is commonly assumed, they should make clear, where relevant, what those differences are. That does not necessarily mean that the label no longer properly applies.

Christians existed for centuries before the Bible was put together into the canon that we are familiar with today. I don't think that there is really any definitive text that one must subscribe to in order to consider oneself a Christian. I'd say that the bare minimum is probably that one consider oneself a follower of Jesus. But that encompasses a very broad range of possible beliefs that may or may not include any adherence at all to anything written in the Bible and may not even necessarily include a belief in a literal resurrection.

I go through the same enthusiasm boom and bust cycle with various things.

The most basic answer I can give you is that you're going to need to do some not very fun work to develop the habits that will make it easier to do what you need to do.

Make reading a habit. Pick a book, read it for half an hour for bed every night until you finish it. If you find yourself growing bored, force yourself to keep going. 

When you find yourself reading an article where things are going over your head, make a list of those things and go to Wikipedia to look them up. If you can't find the necessary information on Wikipedia, have some online forums or place you can go ask questions. If you're at a University, there are likely to be people there who can answer some questions on a diverse variety of topics.

But ultimately it's just going to take some mental effort to force yourself to do things even when you don't feel like it. Once you get going and develop the habit, it will get much easier. In the meantime, the easiest way to do that is to develop a routine that includes some self-study time and force yourself to stick to that schedule. It's much easier to get yourself to do it if you can say "Ok, it's 1 o'clock, time for me to read for half an hour" than if you're just sitting around thinking "What do I feel like doing right now?" because the answer is almost never going to be doing something that feels like work. 

50 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

It is a good question. In no way am I claiming I have the answer. As perviously state most of the discussons which are not polite in nature that I see arise from someone pushing a contradiction or falsehood. Depending on ones tolerence for criticism (constrictive or otherwise) any level of correction or objection can be viewed as antagonistic.

I don't know if I agree with your premise about a la carte beliefs being in conflict with categories of belief like, for instance, not believing in the resurrection disqualifying one from being a Christian.

All beliefs are to one degree or another a la carte. You will be hard pressed to find to people whose beliefs are exactly identical on a wide range of topics. That disagreement means that there is rarely a set of canonical beliefs that fall under a single label which are not disagreed on at any point by people who take that label for themselves.

As such, applying labels to any set of beliefs is not a practice of objective classification but really one of taxonomy. It is grouping non-identical things into categories of likeness.

And any such taxonomic classification is going to, to some degree, be arbitrary and subjective with some blurriness on the edges.

To describe yourself as a religious person, do you need to share all of your religious beliefs with every other person who describes themselves as religious? Of course not. Similarly, I do not think that one must share all of their Christian beliefs with other Christians in order to qualify as a Christian. Just like you cannot reasonably expect a person to defend the existence of Krishna just because they describe themselves as religious, I do not think that you can hold everyone who describes themselves as Christian to defend every belief that is common among some groups of Christians.

Nor must someone who is a scientist defend every belief that is common in the scientific community.

Nor must a conservative defend the beliefs and actions of every other conservative, nor liberals those of liberals. Such labels are names of convenience, not accurate descriptions of all of a person's beliefs. 

If a person decides to take a label on as part of their identity, then it is incumbent upon them to stake out where they differ from popular perceptions of the beliefs commonly associated with that identity, but they do not necessarily have to subscribe to every single one of those beliefs in order to retain that label for themselves, and expecting them to put up a universal defense of those beliefs or else admit that they don't really qualify for the label is generally unreasonable. A simple statement of "I am an X who does not agree with Y belief" should be enough.

8 hours ago, Prometheus said:

That's pretty much the same as humans then isn't it? And we say humans (adults) are morally responsible regardless of their upbringing.

It's also the same as a dog. Are dogs that are taught to be vicious morally responsible for their viciousness, or is the person who taught them to be that way the responsible party.

10 minutes ago, koti said:

My experience is only that the US employers are asking for ethnicity, religion and gender as opposed to non US employers. I was curious about which groups are more likely to get hired in the US (not anymore since you clarified it) and from what you write it is evident that it's the white male. I see you will keep on insisting on things which I have not stated nor even implied, I'm having deja vu from our discussion in the religious thread where you did the same. I have nothing to address since the evidence you provide contradicts points which I never made.

I know you aren't from the US, but for the sake of background information, you should probably know that the questions you asked are very common "questions" asked by people who live here and very much are intending to imply a specific answer/point.

2 hours ago, MigL said:

Sure Zap.

Don't think of the universe as an inflating balloon expanding into an 'outside' volume.
Why wouldn't that outside volume be part of the universe ? the universe is, by definition, everything there is.
And if there was an edge, what would keep everything from 'spilling out ? If you stuck your hand through that edge, could you retrieve it ( in which case the 'outside' is no different ) ? Or is there some physical separation ( ?? ) ?
An 'edge'  complicates things with no purpose.

Think of it instead as a number line, whether infinite in length or circular ( loops back on itself , and curvature is intrinsic ) doesn't matter. It just cannot have an end ( for the reasons outlined above ). Now take two units on that number line and double the separation between them. You have increased the separation, but, in the case of an infinite universe, you have not changes the class of infinity, because there is still a one to one correspondence between the original units and the doubled units.

This is only semi-accurate. If the universe in total is infinite, then I think saying that the universe is not expanding but the distances between things are merely getting larger, I think this is a valid interpretation, although you could quibble a bit over whether or not that counts as overall expansion.

If the universe is finite but unbounded (or finite and bounded, although that seems like the strangest option) then the total volume of the universe would be increasing and the universe would very much need to be considered expanding.

And, of course, the Observable Universe is finite and bounded by the Hubble Horizon, so it is very much expanding.

28 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

Koti I think you are missing the point.  By using the term "white males" they are implying Republicans because blacks and feminist vote for Democrats.  Yet when it comes to racism in the US, as I have consistently pointed out, history points to Democrats.  When doing so on this blog, defenders of the Democratic party always claim that all that Democratic party racist history was transferred to the Republican party due to the Southern Strategy of the 1968 election.  Does this pan out when looking at data from the 1968 election?  Well let's take a look.

 

1968 Election Results

Candidate   Party   Electoral Votes   Popular Votes ✓    Richard M. Nixon   Republican   301   31,710,470      Hubert H. Humphrey   Democratic   191   30,898,055      George C. Wallace   American Independent   46   9,906,473

1968 Election Facts

Wallace's tally of 46 marks the most recent election that a 3rd party candidate has won Electoral Votes Nixon won North Carolina; however one Elector cast a vote for Wallace

Above George Wallace is listed as "American" Independent" but he was in fact the former Democratic Governor of Alabama.  So the racists didn't vote for Nixon, they voted again for a Democrat.  This was not 100 years ago, it was 50 years ago. Though I was in elementary school at the time, I remember the election well.  

 

And why did George Wallace run as an "American Independent" instead of a Democrat?

I approve of this topic.

13 minutes ago, koti said:

Charon, what I underlined in your post is the crux of the matter. Legislation, covering asses, potential lawsuits - only in America (and South Africa for that matter) Surely one cannot think that European companies are racist or fail to incorporate equality into their hiring processes because they do not subscribe to the above. I get it though, its just weird and numbingly alien to me sometimes. As for my specific situation, I very much realize what you said. it was just a few desperate days that I spent online on it. 

No, but at the same time, I don't know to what degree the same problems exist in European hiring practices that CharonY laid out as being present in American hiring practices as I'm not as familiar with the history or present of race relations in Europe as I am, obviously, with America. I also don't know what alternative solutions, if any, to the same problem have been implemented elsewhere in the world instead of the ones that we have here.

The interplay between native populations, colonialism, slavery and waves of immigration has put a very specific mark on the way that race and ethnic background works in the Western Hemisphere so it shouldn't come as too much of a surprise that the way the topic is approached is often a bit different from what you would typically find in, for instance, much of Europe.

6 minutes ago, koti said:

I just watched the Vice documentary from a couple days back posted by iNow a few posts back and I'm going to drop my two cents on this.
Let me quickly explain where I'm coming from, I'm not American but I spent a few years living in the US and I blended in as a teenager in Ann Arbor Michigan (Detroit area) I traveled the whole country over a period of 5 months, just a handful of states that I haven't been into - I know the American customs, mentality and I have the general feel for how things are in the US - this was in the early 90's. On the other hand I am completely detached from what's going on in the US, at least in a sense that it doesn't concern me directly which should make me objective. I could be considered a liberal or even a radical leftist by Poland's standards - I'm really struggling with the fact that a right wing government is running my country into alienating us from the EU, I despise the homophobic, xenophobic and strong nationalist and racist agendas being pushed by my government which ends up in the division of people - just like whats happening in the US right now.
I was shell shocked when Trump was elected in the US and still am - I think the current POTUS is a disgrace and a global danger. Coming from Poland, my family had it's share of suffering from the Nazi's during WWII, many people from my family and their friends were murdered by Nazis in Auschwitz and other places, the stories are straight up Hell Raiser horrible. My Grandfather spent 5 years in a German working camp and survived (it's beyond me how he survived, the stories he told were unthinkable). Naturally, I have a strong fear of the Nazi ideology coming back and there's probably not many people in this thread as much opposed to Nazi and racist ideologies as I am...history tends to repeat itself and it's definitely a threat especially in the current global geo-political situation.
Having said the above, the majority of the right wing, so called Nazi's (whether it's Poland or the US or other countries) are half brained morons who can't spell "ideology" or "racist" not to mention to truly being capable of reviving or following an ideology. The other half are people like the guy from the Vice documentary - a "prep guy" having "fun" running around strapped with his guns, knives and rifle - he will run away screaming like a 7 year old girl at first sign of any serious confrontation. The thing is that these people are not really a threat, they are scary at first glance because they cary swastika signs, shout nazi and racist rhetoric, etc. It is scary as we automatically jump into a "remember the Nazi Germany" mode but it's not really a big deal I think...all this is, is a bunch of half brained racists running around trying to make themselves look like they have bigger dicks than they really have when in fact they subscribe to schizophrenic agendas because they're bored not knowing what to do with themselves due to too much free time or too high standard of living in exchange for too little work or other trivial reasons. Don't get me wrong, I think the reaction to the Charlotte hit & run and death should be as firm as possible especially that the current POTUS being POTUS is actually capable of running this into a situation where real, next level threats might emerge which might not be so trivial anymore if no resistance will be shown right now.
On a different note...why is the "White Male Privilege" thing being involved with the "Neo-Nazi" or "White Nationalist" issue of Charlotte? or any other racist issue for that matter? This really makes me think that people (I think it was Delta1212 who mentioned this) should review their rhetoric. It almost looks like being a white male these days is some kind of a felony punished by repercussions.
Posting it here, on this forum would be a form of masochism I guess but I'm considering again to start a thread on the "The Red Pill" documentary.
 

It was not.

The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle seems to me to be a rather large obstacle to the idea that we just haven't figured out the underlying deterministic mechanism.

It's a fundamental "baked in" mathematical uncertainty that is not merely a result of technical limitations but of fundamental limits on what is determined prior to an interaction.

On 8/1/2017 at 5:30 PM, Prometheus said:

That's why i said:

 

Change or add anticipated for intentions. I'd never make a lawyer. The AI behaved in a way the coders expected, therefore they are accountable.

If I am incompetent and build a shoddy house, not realizing that it won't stand for long, does that make the house responsible for its own collapse and absolve me of all accountability?

6 minutes ago, DrmDoc said:

Wow! The upheaval in Trump's administration may soon rival Nixon's--if it hasn't already.

Trump has already, in less than seven months, changed White House Communications Director more times than any previous President has in a single term. The only President that has changed that position more times than Trump already has in their entire time in office was Reagan, who changed six times in eight years, to the four times that Trump has so far this year.

3 minutes ago, Lord Antares said:

And why do others assume that ''random'' is the default state of things? Because they can't find a pattern to QM's randomness, which is ironic, because the sole prerequisite of events being random is not knowing the pattern!

It is my belief. I've had many thought experiments about this as well. Too long or drawn out to write here. My point is, the default shouldn't be assumed either way.

It is not being assumed as the default. It is following the evidence. If new evidence comes to light showing that the rules of QM could somehow be explained by a deeper, deterministic level, then opinion would shift to match the new evidence. You are currently stating that you don't believe the current evidence for probabilistic QM and that you think eventually some new evidence will be discovered that contradicts current evidence because you don't like where the current evidence points.