Nothing can completely eliminate uncertainty, we can only hope to reduce uncertainty.

Are you absolutely certain about that?

It is a false premise to say that there must be absolute certainty, and it is a false solution to say that God gives it.

The premise is that you have no ground for any knowledge claim, and that without God it is impossible to prove anything. If this is a false premise, make a knowledge claim and tell me your grounds for it outside of God.

Is trusting my senses because my senses tell me I was right to trust my senses circular reasoning? In an extremely technical sense, yes.

Saying your senses prove your senses is circular reasoning in any sense of the term.

And it's definitely true to say that some people are better at sensing reality than others. But that's all we have and as it turns out we can achieve some pretty cool things operating under those assumptions.

Some, for instance, seem to think that the divine maker of the Universe told them that the earth is 7000 years old. Those people are pretty bad at interpreting reality and they typically have a really bad track record of finding things like AIDS medications. But hey, they sure can feel intellectually superior to a 6th grader or they might think that they're being smart on an Internet forum and that they have figured out some massive flaw to our blind trust in the audacious assumption that everything that goes up must come down.

Others, on the other hand, use a super rigorous technique to reduce the odds that their conclusions are at odds with the reality we can sense and they do things like invent MRI machines that have this weird ability to predict the presence of tumors.

I mean, I'm inclined to believe that our understanding of physics is validated by repeated, accurate predictions of tumors and broken bones and their nature, but I don't think I should trust that. My senses could be deceiving me.

And why should those predictions be useful even 5 seconds from now? You're placing your faith in something you can't justify. What is the basis for unchanging, universal, immaterial laws in your worldview? Where do you get those outside of God?

Hey shiny blurry, you need to learn how to read. Particularly if you want to be taken seriously.

Nothing can completely eliminate uncertainty, we can only hope to reduce uncertainty. It is a false premise to say that there must be absolute certainty, and it is a false solution to say that God gives it.

Is trusting my senses because my senses tell me I was right to trust my senses circular reasoning? In an extremely technical sense, yes. And it's definitely true to say that some people are better at sensing reality than others. But that's all we have and as it turns out we can achieve some pretty cool things operating under those assumptions.

Some, for instance, seem to think that the divine maker of the Universe told them that the earth is 7000 years old. Those people are pretty bad at interpreting reality and they typically have a really bad track record of finding things like AIDS medications. But hey, they sure can feel intellectually superior to a 6th grader or they might think that they're being smart on an Internet forum and that they have figured out some massive flaw to our blind trust in the audacious assumption that everything that goes up must come down.

Others, on the other hand, use a super rigorous technique to reduce the odds that their conclusions are at odds with the reality we can sense and they do things like invent MRI machines that have this weird ability to predict the presence of tumors.

I mean, I'm inclined to believe that our understanding of physics is validated by repeated, accurate predictions of tumors and broken bones and their nature, but I don't think I should trust that. My senses could be deceiving me.

Yes, I would go peacefully. I would film the encounter. I would be respectful. I would tell the officers how they are violating my rights. I would contact media outlets, maybe become an activist and I would certainly have my day in court - maybe the ACLU or some similar organization will help.

I'm not sure what sort of Rambo delusions you have, but reality has long shown that any of the above options have a better (admittedly imperfect) track-record of protecting the rights of citizens.

Again, other than a few rare outlyers, the vast majority of people that decide to take up arms against the state end up dead or in jail. Nothing gets solved, public opinion typically favors any fallen officers, and your local SWAT team has just a little more incentive to buy bigger guns.

But go ahead, Rambo, come out guns a'blazin and let me know how that goes for ya.




>> ^Buck:


So if they come for you for real or imagined crimes you will go peacefully. Just like a typical sheep.

No, you are wrong.
Simply Put: Exploitation of its workers

Wal-Mart has a proven track record of doing the absolute minimum for it's workers in all cases.
The insurance they offer is a joke. Almost every employee is part time so they don't have to pay benefits. If you miss a shift because you need to work two jobs to get by, they cut your hours down to almost none.

http://www.amazon.ca/How-Walmart-Destroying-America-World/dp/1580086683
http://videosift.com/video/Confessions-of-a-Wal-Mart-Hit-Man
http://videosift.com/video/Mother-of-Dead-Soldier-Sued-by-Wal-Mart-for-Insurance-Money

There is nothing wrong with Capitalism as a model as long as you compensate your workers and reward them fairly for going above and beyond. If the system is designed to squeeze every possible dollar out of the system at the expense of your workers then that system is flawed and exploitative..

>> ^My_design:

Wow, the "free thinkers" lash out.
Not a corporate shill, but work in a corporate environment. Not saying that corporate actions are always right, but you guys only ever want to tear down, and never propose how to fix it. Your own hatred blinds you to reality.
So F_ck Walmart, F_ck Target, F_ck Coke and Pepsi and all the other companies that make "ridiculous" profits at the expense of consumers and employees. Stop buying their crap, form a commune and move to the hills. Consumerism and free market are screwing up the country/planet right? So let's seize corporate profits, block them at every angle and get us back to the good old days, you know before Carnegie, Ford, JP Morgan, and Rockefeller. Hell before Edison while we're at it. Oh wait there has always been corporations doing business in the US. Oh well, enjoy your new life with the Amish.
No options for jobs?
Here's a 160 pages of options just for the 50 miles around Chicago:
http://www.careerbuilder.com/JobSeeker/Jobs/JobResults.aspx?lr=cbcb_ct&siteid=cb_ctnpqsb&use=all&s_rawword
s=Chicago&s_freeloc=Il&s_jobtypes=ALL&uJobsF
oundCount2%3Ajlrd=50&Submit=GO
There are always options. We tend to forget that just 50 years ago people were subsistence farming, living with 3 generations in a household, working 2 jobs, and no health insurance. Hell in some places that is still going on. But now we complain and strike because the manager bullies us and causes unnecessary stress (0:22) If that is really the case, then document it. It is called contributing to a hostile work environment and is covered under the sexual harassment laws in the US.
"Because I'm tired of working at a company where workers get cheated and cheaters get rewarded" What? Umm that would be a class action lawsuit like the ones that hit Walmart in the past.

>> ^renatojj:

@Edgeman2112 if his track record isn't spotless, just focus on the spots and don't bother ever mentioning his many correct predictions. Nevermind his arguments either, if you blow any mistakes he made out of proportion, it invalidates whatever he stands for.
Also, being a multimillionaire investor, you obviously understand more about global markets and money than he does, right?


I don't comment on this willy-nilly. I've always, always watched him when he's on CNBC or Yahoo and catch his articles. Never does he have anything bullish to say hence permabear. I wish he would dig deeper in his claims but he always stays highlevel.

He rants about tuition being high because of subsidies by the government, but never digs deep into why.

@Edgeman2112 if his track record isn't spotless, just focus on the spots and don't bother ever mentioning his many correct predictions. Nevermind his arguments either, if you blow any mistakes he made out of proportion, it invalidates whatever he stands for.

Also, being a multimillionaire investor, you obviously understand more about global markets and money than he does, right?

A calculated political move or not, it is awesome to see Abbot be called out on his track record of demonstrating his horrible views on women and people in general.

I would be very, very sad to see him get into power.

Both of the parties suck at the moment, but Labor sucks less, and is at least aligning themselves with good values. Compared to the Liberal party who outwardly align themselves with horrendous, backwards world views.

I fail to see the appeal of J.J. Abrams. He seems to have a consistent track record of setting a viewer up with a tease, stringing them along for the required length of time and then leaving their heads scratching and thinking "that could have been so much better".

Or maybe that's just me?

Dunno, @Stormsinger is suggesting it isn't a real thing, just some indignation over a perhaps mole hill event. TYT does do that kind of thing like all of us do, so it wouldn't be to shocking.

Personally, though, I would think homosexuality is a large enough "anomaly" to at least be worthy of mention to the person that is getting the sample. I don't know a thing at all about the sperm donation process, I assume some kind of profile is already given to people who accept the sperm, and homosexuality seems like a genuine attribute a person should know about before you accept it. To that end (anecdotal), I heard of a blind, lesbian couple that wanted to find a blind male sperm donor to inseminate one of them to increase to likelihood of a blind child. That is all just to say choice is always a good thing to have, and edifying choices require information and freedom to act. If the FDA was mandating sperm banks to provide a profile that includes homosexuality as a listed trait of the donor (which is what I thought this video was going to be about), that is one thing, but wholesale misunderstanding of the risks of spreading HIV as it was mistakenly understood as Gay-related immune deficiency seems so folly that I almost can't believe it is true. However, being that I produce sperm well enough on my own; my own desire to google if this was a story worthy of actual merit escapes my attention span.

>> ^swedishfriend:

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Hmmm when I read the title, I thought it was going to make at least some sense, like...since homosexuality might be genetic (though it could be epigenetic or in utero) to not allow that "anomaly" into the sperm bank. That makes at least some sense to me; this though is retarded. It makes me laugh when recollecting people wanting to put the FCC in charge of the internet...because this is the type of shit that would start happening. Perhaps not a fair comparison, but I think their respective track records are pretty similar.

It is genetic. Going with the notion that it is an anomaly, it isn't an anomaly that is medically unsafe in any way so why would it matter? If you get sperm from a clinic you must realize that there is a chance of at least some genes from the donor being expressed in the child. Are people staying away from sperm banks or are they lining up in droves?
So why FDA? who is asking for this? Business competition would lead to sperm banks with genetic controls if this is something people were clamoring for.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

Hmmm when I read the title, I thought it was going to make at least some sense, like...since homosexuality might be genetic (though it could be epigenetic or in utero) to not allow that "anomaly" into the sperm bank. That makes at least some sense to me; this though is retarded. It makes me laugh when recollecting people wanting to put the FCC in charge of the internet...because this is the type of shit that would start happening. Perhaps not a fair comparison, but I think their respective track records are pretty similar.


It is genetic. Going with the notion that it is an anomaly, it isn't an anomaly that is medically unsafe in any way so why would it matter? If you get sperm from a clinic you must realize that there is a chance of at least some genes from the donor being expressed in the child. Are people staying away from sperm banks or are they lining up in droves?

So why FDA? who is asking for this? Business competition would lead to sperm banks with genetic controls if this is something people were clamoring for.

Hmmm when I read the title, I thought it was going to make at least some sense, like...since homosexuality might be genetic (though it could be epigenetic or in utero) to not allow that "anomaly" into the sperm bank. That makes at least some sense to me; this though is retarded. It makes me laugh when recollecting people wanting to put the FCC in charge of the internet...because this is the type of shit that would start happening. Perhaps not a fair comparison, but I think their respective track records are pretty similar.

Weirdly, Sweden should be the safest place for him. The problem is not with the laws in Sweden (Assange would be protected from US prosecution) the problem is with certain people in the Swedish government and judicial system being pushed by and / or bought by US interests. This has been a problem lately and has pissed off the population so I don't know if it would still happen.

Put it this way, a few years ago US interests got The Pirate Bay "founders" found guilty of stuff that wasn't even against the laws in Sweden but today thepiratebay.se is hosted on the Swedish parliament's servers by the Swedish Pirate Party who are now in the Swedish parliament. I guess I can see why Assange would be worried because of Sweden's track record of a few years back. I would hope that something as big as Assange being given over to the Americans couldn't happen precisely because of the reaction to those past few years.

@jmzero I'll assume you're referring to free-market capitalism, and that anybody who thinks capitalism is "divine perfection of fairness" is just a convenient characterization of those who don't happen to share your concerns.

What you've presented is an economic problem, a hypothetical one set in the future, but a problem nonetheless, and, of course, your concern that capitalism would deal with it poorly and unfairly.

Maybe you're right. Maybe society will be stumped by that problem when it comes.

Economic problems exist no matter what social system you adopt. Capitalism just happens to have a good track record of dealing with them, specially considering the limited amount of economic freedom (what I would consider the oxygen of capitalism) that it has enjoyed for centuries.

You portray those who are "winning" as people who quasi-religiously believe in capitalism, when I'd characterize them as mostly the opposite: corporatists and socialists bent on subverting capitalism for their own profit, depriving it of its oxygen. They've been very successful so far.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Yep, that's what I'm suggesting. Though I guess by the way you've framed your questions you think I'm insane. The success rate of the balloon method is not bad. And getting two rovers down from a single launch is also something that's been successful. I don't think it's that unreasonable to consider that two rovers like Spirit and Opportunity could carry complementary gear, meet up and connect.

You're right that we don't send landers to Mars very often - that's why it's important to build on successful technologies with a proven track record of success to maximise our chances.

Thanks for the link - I've reviewed a lot of this stuff too though I appreciate more information even if it is delivered with a heavy dose of condescension.

Egos and personalities involved in science? Why would I ever think that - everything we do or say or write comes from a completely rational base right?

>> ^Fletch:

@dag

Why wouldn't you try and improve on that method instead of going with a completely, untested extremely complicated new method? I suspect personalities and nerd egos are involved.

Well said. I couldn't have added anything better.

>> ^NetRunner:

The purpose of the question wasn't an invitation for people to deliver a wish list, but instead a rhetorical questioning of what more he'd have to do in order to get certain people to say he's doing a good job as President.
On that score, bobknight didn't say "more" jobs, he just said jobs three times, as if Obama has delivered none, which is obviously wrong. As for less debt, I find this request amusing. Bush inherited a huge surplus and a booming economy from Clinton, and turned it into trillion dollar deficits and the worst economic expansion since WW2. Obama inherited a trillion dollar deficit and the biggest recession since the Great Depression and has already reversed the trend (deficit is shrinking, and employment is increasing).
So what more do people want before they admit he's doing a good job? The answer given, as always, is "fix all the messes created by Republicans in one term despite lockstep opposition from Republicans."
The real answer, however, is nothing.
>> ^BoneRemake:
Bob did not say anything about his track record, Bob was stating what he wants.
More jobs and less debt. you two would be stupid not to want the same thing.