MonDie

FOX News must have edited the article, because I cannot find them using the terms "liberal" or "left-wing" anywhere. The article still refers to Phelps as a Democrat, but the posters are debating that claim too.

It looks like you can still read the original version by following their link to thegatewaypundit.

 

According to Wikipedia, he tried to get through the Democratic primaries multiple times throughout the 90's. Not only did he fail each time, he has stopped trying. Furthermore, he doesn't seem to have been left-wing even then, since his group was protesting homosexuality back then too.

Besides, by some criteria, even Democratic candidates are more right-wing than left-wing, despite being more left-wing than Republican candidates.

I think we have failed to understand the complex inter-relationship between the time cycles of the empirical universe and the time cycles of the things in the microcosm and the macrocosm. According to the ancients, the earth, the sun and the moon etc are mystical entities that used to circumambulate Mt Meru which was considered to be the axial centre of all the worlds.(That might explain why they considered even the Sun and the Moon as Planets) Mt Meru is considered to be the abode of gods and from their point of view the earth of the microcosm and the macrocosm may indeed be flat where as the earth of the empirical universe which is round might only exist in our minds and does not physically exists out there in the external world.

 

There is no known mechanism for about 99.9% of the supposed correlations between astronomical movements and the stuff going on in human societies. There is this rats study, but the hypothesis stood upon facts substantiated by biology. In addition, there are the tides and the seasons, but those are already explained by modern physics. As far as verified correlations go, that's about it. The rest of the supposed correlations haven't been tested rigorously, or have been found to be non-existent.

Oh yeah, laws are stupid. Anarchy is utopia. Who knew?

 

Perhaps the law of marginal utility can be applied to how law enforcement is focused. That is, a little investment in the enforcement of gun laws would go a long way, whereas further spending on "the war on drugs" would do virtually nothing, because the latter is already strongly enforced.

 

 

For anyone who wants to understand the term, the quote below explains marginal utility.

The marginalist explanation is as follows: The total utility or satisfaction of water exceeds that of diamonds. We would all rather do without diamonds than without water. But almost all of us would prefer to win a prize of a diamond rather than an additional bucket of water. To make this last choice, we ask ourselves not whether diamonds or water give more satisfaction in total, but whether one more diamond gives greater additional satisfaction than one more bucket of water. For this marginal utility question, our answer will depend on how much of each we already have. Though the first units of water we consume every month are of enormous value to us, the last units are not. The utility of additional (or marginal) units continues to decrease as we consume more and more.

 

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Marginalism.html

So that the neighbors may also be soothed by her engaging voice, turn up the song's volume (especially at the finale ).

 

I know there are a lot of damning statistics regarding the rate of firearm related death in the U.S. Nonetheless, that chart doesn't give any specific numbers. It could easily be biased.

1) The shading of a box only changes if the number is over 1k, 15k, or 30k. Why not 5k, 15k, and 25k, or why not 10k, 20k, and 30k? Lindeman could have intentionally chosen a categorization scheme that would make the chart impactful.

2) How did they define the categories of death such as "suffocation" and "Fire/Burn?" For example, what if some categories included death in the hospital, whereas other categories only included a death if it was immediately following the event?

 

 

And this particular line is awfully suggestive.

The Washington Post’s Todd Lindeman picked through the data on the cause of violent deaths by age and illustrated the results.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/26/guns-kill-people-in-one-chilling-graph/

Sometimes religious people seem really nice even though they hold all those backward views. It's strange.

Our universe is inherently logical.

 

I know, I sound like Spock. But it seems to me to be true. Stripped of everything else, what is left is a logical universe. That is why humans can come up with mathematical equations to describe the behavior of physical phenomena. No matter what working scientific theory we look at-- including Hawking's -- at its foundations is the fact of logic.

 

So here's my question. Who or what made the universe logical?

 

I was thinking about this recently. Did the laws arise from the material, or did the material arise from the laws?

Remember that mathematical equations and visual aids are abstract human constructs. They are representations of macrophenomena that are actually comprised of microphenomena.

We know that matter follows different rules when it takes different forms. But is the new form a consequence of the new rules, or are the new rules a consequence of the new form? Both rules and forms can be comprised of simpler rules and forms.

 

I haven't studied physics.

 

 

That animals that get banged will be naturally selected?

 

Things that perpetuate perpetuate, things that spread spread, and things that do neither whither away. Aside from random mutation and competition, these are the underlying principles of evolution, and they can be applied to many things. Yay, logic!

Thanks. The HowToGeek article gave a null command line. I just edited the hosts file with gedit.

sudo gedit /etc/hosts

 

 

 

And no, it's not porn...

 

My voice recognition software is trying to make me politically correct. I actually said, "Oh, it's snot porn."

I already have self-control on my Ubuntu operating system, but that has a 24 hour cap on its timer. I need a program that can block out a single website for months or even permanently. I don't want myself to be able to glance at it even once in the next several months.

 

And no, it's not porn...

 

God obviously isn't omnibenevolent if he's willing to punish people for not worshipping him.

 

 

 

Exodus 20:5 You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me,

 

http://www.theopedia.com/Jealousy_of_God

 

dangle balls

dangle balls

not dangling today

they contract to retain the heat

so production sees no delay

yay!

wasn't thinking about the "don't ask don't tell" stuff when I made that last post. Sorry about that.

 

I'm thinking about things that could be useful for defending a crowd without being useful to somebody that wants to attack a crowd. It can be done. Moontanman brought up the bright laser pointer early in the thread. For crowd defense, we could make it a super bright flashlight. It might temporarily blind the innocent people, but that's fine as long as the attacker is temporarily blinded. I also heard something about a bean bag gun from my brother, which might have been able to knock over Holmes.

The root of the problem is that the trait of being useful to an attacker and the trait of being useful as an attacker supressant tend to go together. If we could design things with the latter trait but not the former, we would have true "good guy" weapons. The key to effectiveness would be variety, so an attacker doesn't know what they'll be up against. Even something similar to tear gas, as long as it's not lethal, could be a good guy weapon.

Another problem is that it mustn't be easy to alter them into being bad guy weapons, otherwise an altered weapon could confuse people about who the good guys are.

Oh the irony

 

Looks might matter. Maybe partly legislate to discourage the sale of weapons that look like army weapons. Just a thought. I'm thinking of perception and how it may bestow a certain 'macho' image in the eyes of some people on others and perhaps this might not be a good thing for societal health.

Let's make all guns available in either hot pink or rainbow. It will be easier for security guards to spot them.

I know it's not a science. If such a correlational were to be found, we would have no idea how to interpret it. Nonetheless, claims of correlation are still testable claims. In an ideal world, we would have the time to test each and every claim, no matter how ridiculous.

In light of the 2012 thing going on, I thought this might catch some interest.

When I was a kid, I was interested in astrology. In the time I spent learning it, I learned that there are some commonly accepted ideas that are actually quite silly. If you ever need to disuade someone from accepting astrological claims, you can use these sillynesses to your advantage.

 

---

#1 Zodiac Duality
Astrologers almost universally use the ecliptic as the reference plane for their chosen zodiac (i.e. they use ecliptic longitude). However, many of them disagree about whether sidereal zodiac or the tropical zodiac should be used. The sidereal zodiac is roughly aligned with the constellations along the ecliptic, the tropical zodiac is aligned with the equinoxes. Due to precession of the equinoxes, the zodiacs are not aligned with one another.
Many astrologers think both zodiacs have some merit, but nonetheless do not reconcile the contradictions. The contradiction is blatant when tropical astrologers talk about the age of Aquarius. This age transition is marked by the spring equinox (which marks the beginning of Aries in the tropical zodiac) precession into the constellation Aquarius. In other words, from a tropical zodiac perspective, the age of Aquarius begins when the constellation Aquarius begins moving into the tropical sign Aries. Here is the contradiction. When tropical astrologers talk about the ages, they often apply the supposed traits of the tropical signs to the sidereal signs (the constellations). For example, suppose a tropical astrologer associates tropical Aquarius with nonconformity and inventiveness, and suppose they assign tropical Aquarius with the rulers Saturn and Uranus. It is likely that they will apply these same traits and rulerships when they are talking about the age of Aquarius even though the age of Aquarius has nothing to do with the tropical sign Aquarius.
This makes the picture uneccessarily muddy. Assuming they accept the modern planet rulerships* (most of them do), does that mean each sign actually has 2 to 4 rulers? Does that mean, if a person's sun sign is Pisces tropically and Aquarius sidereally, they can be described with the traits of Pisces or Aquarius. Does it mean their sun sign is ruled by Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune? Many astrologers will deny these conclusions even though they are willing to conflate the two zodiacs when they talk about the age of Aquarius.

* "Modern planets" most often refers to Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto.

* In astrology, it is thought that each zodiacal sign is ruled by a planet or planets. Before the modern planets were discovered, each zodiacal sign had only one ruler. More recently, Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto were each assigned rulership over one of the signs. Now, astrologers who accept these modern rulerships think some signs have two rulers.

---

#2 Celestial Bodies That Lack Empirical Evidence
Some astrologers use celestial bodies that don't actually exist. One example is Waldemath's moon. Supposedly, this a dust cloud orbiting Earth. When astrologers are talking about "Lilith," they might be talking about this moon, but "Lilith" may refer to one of three things.
Another imaginary celestial body they may employ is Nibiru. Supposedly, it is a brown dwarf that Earth is going to collide with.

---

#3 "Science can't test it," but "it works for me."
These are two statements astrology believers often use to defend their beliefs, but they are contradictory.

Scientists needs something to measure, so they attempt to quantify observations. Nearly anything a human can observe is measurable. Astrology is mostly comprised of communicable claims about what should be observed. The fact that the observations can be communicated means they can be quantified to some degree. For example, double-blind self-reports could be used to measure the occurence of events as percieved through the subjective lens of the observer. Even if a claim has subjective elements (e.g. emotions) that the observer must become aware of through personal experience, we should still expect chance-defying data for any communicable, partially objective claim.
This is why the idea "Science can't test it" is incompatible with "It works for me." The latter implies empirical observations made by the believer. If astrology really is an untestable belief, it shouldn't "work" for anyone. The only exception would be if the claim involves some force specifically preventing professional scientists from verifying the claims, but that would be a huge violation of Occam's razor.

---

#4 Retrograde Ignorance
This isn't a silly idea that is clinged to. Rather, it's an important idea that is too often lacked.
Astrlogy believers often hype up planetary retrogrades. For example, "people should expect inconveniences during mercury retrogrades," "...romantic upsets during Venus retrogrades," "...trouble at work during Mars retrogrades," etc.
However, perhaps about half of astrology fanatics don't know why planetary retrogrades happen. They don't realize that a planet's retrograde cycle is actually synchronized with the sun's movements (from a geocentric perspective).

Not only are they practicing divination, they have little understanding of the modern heliocentric model.

---

To any astrology believers reading this:

I am not against the testing of astrological claims, I am against the acceptance of astrological claims without rigorous testing.

It was sarcasm. I'm sorry.

Either way we have entered a new age

 

You don't get to decide this. Take it back!

Random Internet New Agers claim that it's based on the equinox, which is today.

 

I think you mean solstice. The sun reaches equinox in March and September.

Well you must know what the obvious explanation is. At the moment Pluto culiminated over Atlantis, God saw everyone going to work or playing videogames like nothing was wrong, and he decided to wait another 5,000 years to transform us into crystal energy.

I wouldn't laugh at someone who used the threat of a gun to prevent the necessity of pulling one out, it's the mark of a cautious man... I have very little patience for John Wayne wannabes who want to wave their piece around at the slightest provocation...

Now they are blaming it on violent video games...

 

http://news.yahoo.com/shooting-renews-argument-over-video-game-violence-162448882--finance.html

 

I hope you don't mind that I used two separate quotes of you to support a point of my own.

 

I don't buy into the vague idea that violent videgames make children more "violent," and I highly doubt that videogames played any role in this recent attack. However, I think it's quite possible that certain media teaches the youth to not take guns seriously... Some idiots are way too careless with their guns.

 

 

 

But even the police did not carry firearms themselves until, in 1946, the American occupation authority ordered them to. Now, Japanese police receive more hours of training than their American counterparts, are forbidden from carrying off-duty, and invest hours in studying martial arts in part because they "are expected to use [firearms] in only the rarest of circumstances," according to Kopel.

 

A Land Without Guns: How Japan Has Virtually Eliminated Shooting Deaths by Max Fisher

 

 

In other words, it's not about having the biggest gun you can have, it's about using it skillfully and respectably. The Japanese have been aware of this for a long time.

the existence of general vividness is different than the existence of general brocolli.

 

My point was that you are just redefining the idea of god to make it more believable. What do you mean when you say "god" is "general vividness"?

No one who insists on their right to have a gun will accept electronic government tracking of their movements. I'd accept limits on guns before I'd accept someone tracking my movements.

 

Maybe something as simple as a combination lock built into the gun would help. It would at least cut out those who steal the guns.

 

You have a point. Gun Owners More Likely To Distruct The Federal Government

 

If that's the case, we can just keep the tracking devices to the cars, making it a choice for the gun-owner. If they don't want their car to be tracked, they can't transport their guns with it.

 

I keep forgetting that the webpage doesn't update every time I edit the post.

If guns are only allowed within the confines of one's property, then how do you take it to the range to practice or engage with a gun club to improve your skill? Doing so would mean having the gun out on the roads, on public lands, and on the property of other people.

How about this? Put the tracking devices in the guns. Make them integral parts of the guns. Of course, this would have to be limited to the new guns produced after the requirement was designated.

For older guns, simply require that they be transported along with a tracking device. If you have guns in your car, but your car isn't being tracked, you're breaking the law. Removal of the tracking device should be difficult.

I'm just reading through the first several pages that I skipped. The discussion on security measures can have something added to it. Most public buildings only have pretend security measures to ward off criminals. As has been said, it's porbably the case that such deterents only send the criminals to places without obvious security measures. For this reason, the government should give tax breaks to public places with discrete security measures designed to catch criminals, not ward them off.

 

This is why the argument to ban guns outright is stupid, but the discussion on assault weapons merits looking at.

 

I hope you realize that I was not one of the people arguing that, I only suggested that a reason for owning the gun should be prerequisite.

I guess your need for the gun is reasonable.