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

Sure, they were negative, even dystopian. But they weren't about the extinction of the human race. As a sub-genre of SF I realise that end-of-the-world stories have been around forever, they just seem to be much more frequent of late. And yeah, it would be nice to get an uplifting, positive SciFi epic. I'm trying to think of any I've seen in the last few years.

>> ^Farhad2000:

Wait 2001 was based around the Cold War no? I might be confusing it with book here... Alien was a world run by Multinational corporations exploiting people/aliens. The Moon was a corporation essentially cloning people. I think a bunch of these are debatable.
The closest I can think of as a completely positive spin on the future was 2010. Since it was all Cold War bullshit but the scientists worked together and that whole THESE WORLDS ARE YOURS EXPECT EUROPA ATTEMPT NO LANDING THERE.

Wait 2001 was based around the Cold War no? I might be confusing it with book here... Alien was a world run by Multinational corporations exploiting people/aliens. The Moon was a corporation essentially cloning people. I think a bunch of these are debatable.

The closest I can think of as a completely positive spin on the future was 2010. Since it was all Cold War bullshit but the scientists worked together and that whole THESE WORLDS ARE YOURS EXPECT EUROPA ATTEMPT NO LANDING THERE.

https://www.europol.europa.eu/sites/default/files/publications/te-sat2011.pdf --- general overview on page 9

>> ^gwiz665:

Given a limited scope you can absolutely prove a negative. "There are no muslims in congress" is provable. "There is no God in the United States" is also provable.
The problem is that if you have an unlimited scope, then it becomes impossible.
"There are no fairies in my basement."
vs.
"There are no fairies."


As already pointed out, by *definition* you can't prove a negative.
As per your other threads shinyblurry, we can argue semantics all day so it's kind of pointless, but I'm going to anyway, because it's actually at the nub of the statement "you can't prove a negative".
I've also used an online dictionary you've sited in your other posts.

prove/pro͞ov/Verb
1. Demonstrate the truth or existence of (something) by evidence or argument.
2. Demonstrate by evidence or argument (someone or something) to be.

Note the use of the affirmative "the existence" / "to be". There is no scope for a negative here.

Also it's worth pointing out the etymology of the word "proof". It comes from the Latin "probare" meaning "to test". So it you've got proof of god's existence, it's got to be testable. Similarly if I want to "prove" there is no god I need to formulate a test that will give a definitive result.

Now, moving away from semantics....

So yeah, he's using a linguistic trick to try and recontextualize the statement "you can't prove a negative". That statement is generally used as a shorthand in an argument not only as a reference to the above definition, but also as a more general indication of the vast impracticality of proving a blanket negative statement such as "there is no god". In that context it is never meant as an absolute.

By adding a very restricted location, as William Lane Craig has in the video above, a negative statement of course becomes provable. I don't think any atheist would disagree that the statement "there are no coins in my pocket" could be proven simply by looking in my pocket.

For example - If as an atheist I was to say "there is no such object as the holy grail in existence" in order to prove it I would then have to trawl through every every steet, house, closet, drawer, toilet cistern, dessert, mountaintop, quarry pit, top secret inaccessible military bunker in the world, then undertake extensive excavation all the way to the earths molten core.

At his stage a believer could say "Well I have just had a personal revelation from God who spoke directly to me and told me that the grail is being kept safe underneath the icy surface of Jupiter's 6th moon Europa"

So after I've convinced NASA to undertake "The Program for the Recovery of Christs Holy Grail from Under the Surface of Jupiter's 6th Moon Europa" I'm told by the believer that they've had another personal message received directly from god that he was angry at being tested, and so has moved the grail to a divine and indestructible vault at the heart of the distant sun Omicron Beta....

However, if I make the statement - "there is no such object as the holy grail in existence in my desk drawer" - I just have to open the drawer to look and the statement can be proven.

And the above examples are with definite physical objects. Think how impossible it is to prove the statement "there is no god" when the idea of how god is defined is so widely and radically disputed depending on what religion you subscribe to, and when almost every individual within each of these religions will have their own definition of what god is.

after a 5 minute research blast through google:

European Union - 2009, 50.8% (Total General Government Expenditure as % of GDP)
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/table.do?tab=table&init=1&language=en&pcode=tec00023&plugin=1

Sanders' proposal isn't just to raise taxes to fund unsustainable (in their current state) budgets, but rather to raise the tax rate of a certain population. This notion can be entertained while ending wars.

Looks like a mega game of Crusader Kings, Europa Universalis, Victoria and Hearts of Iron strung together and put on fast forward.

So you just don't buy it, based on your personal experience, right? You're generalizing trends based just on what you've seen and what you've experienced in your own home. This is a logical fallacy based on converse accident. You even say in your second statement, "First of all, maybe my house is different..." So right there you're admitting that your situation may be the exception rather than the rule. And it most certainly is.

First of all, the gender wage gap exists:

1. Women’s Earnings Fall; U.S. Census Bureau Finds Rising Gender Wage Gap
2. Statistics Canada: Average earnings by sex and work pattern
3. Statistics Norway: Gender Gap
4. Swedish National Mediation Office: Report examines gender pay gap

And there are more studies where those came from.

Secondly, in most cases (but certainly not all), women do more child rearing and housekeeping in two-income households. (I know this isn't the '50s. I never said it was, nor even came close to implying it. If it were the '50s then most households would be single-income.)

1. Time Crunch for Female Scientists: They Do More Housework Than Men
2. Working women do more chores than men
3. Women Do More Housework, Men Less Upon Marriage
4. Single women 'do less housework'
5. Married women unite! Husbands do less housework

And so on.

Equality has not been reached yet for most women in most careers and in most households. The video above tells a small part of this story, in an incisive manner. Though some may suggest that it is, it is not sexist to point out sexism, just like it's not racist to point out racism. To live in denial of the facts does not help solve the problem.
>> ^Sagemind:

I was hoping not to get into the whole gender argument but I have to chime in.
First of all, maybe my home is different but...
Yes, I find this comparison way off.
When my kids were babies, I took just as much care of them as my wife and sometimes more so.
I was the one who got up in the night with them, even when my wife was on maturity leave.
I changed the diapers most of the time.
I was working low paying jobs while my wife made a good union wage.
At one point, It was I who had to quit my job to be home with them while my wife worked.
I do almost all of the cooking.
Until my current job, my wife's income almost doubled mine
I could go on and on but the point is, many of my friends are the same. The 50s roles of mom and dad don't exist any more. Life has become a two income home for most of us and many cases, we work extra jobs on the side just to make ends meet. (3.5 income home). In most homes I know, the dads are very active in raising the children and keeping the house clean etc.
I understand this "Men with higher incomes world exists, I've just never seen it. I see many wives and woman in general out there in the work force making the same wage as the men. I know of many men out there that can't get a decent job that pays above poverty level and many more women out there with good union paying jobs. Yes, I've seen some women out there that don't work and stay with the children - out of choice - My wife hates working (as do we all), and would rather be at home full-time with the kids.
Life just doesn't work that way - we have to pay bills in a world where 2, 3 and four income households are becoming the norm. If in some fantastic world, I managed to double my wage and bring home enough money so my wife could quit working and be at home full time, wouldn't that skew the statistics? I would be that man who made more money than the woman, and she would be that woman who (choosing not to work) made less money.
But it doesn't matter, I don't live in a world where a single income can pay for a family of four.
We both work, We both volunteer, We both look after the kids and we both look after domestic chores. We both have the capability to make the full paycheck. I'd say we both have the same privileges of status.
Out of the fist ten friends that come to mind, the wife make more money (or equal amounts) in seven of those families.
In one, the wife doesn't work due to depression and stays home with the kids.
One works part time - and stays home with the kids by choice
And one just makes less money because of the choice of job she chooses.
So, for the average family, I just don't buy it. Maybe it used to be true but in today's world, if one spouse makes less money, it's because they made a choice at some point to either take a lower paying job or didn't train for better.
While there are many excuses, we are way past the days where we can blame domestic life as an excuse to hold women back. Just as there are many excuses as to why some men are the same.

>> ^kronosposeidon:
^Maybe you haven't heard, but women still do the majority of child rearing and housekeeping in 2-income homes.
And the score indicates that women make less money not because of their additional responsibilities at home, but because of sexism. Maybe you also haven't heard, but women make significantly less money than their male peers.

*homme - manly men doing manly things
*europe - or alternatively *europa (to include jupiter's moon as well )
*90s
*godless (or *atheism, or even *blasphemy)
*talks No touching!
*eew for things that are eew.
*evil
*good
*douche
*sad (opposed to * happy and to differentiate from * dark)
*tragedy (opposed to comedy and happy)
*cartoon (sorta already done with woohoo)
*supershort (videos under 20 seconds)
*fire since we got water now
*abuse (of power, of anything. Bound to depress you eventually)
*depressing (might be covered by dark)
*sifter (for videos with sifters )

Those are a few off the top of my head

All these worlds are yours, except Europa. Attempt no landing there. Use them together. Use them in peace.

I can see what he's saying but I don't really buy that argument totally.

We share 90% of our DNA with all life because at the end of it all we all emerged from the same spark of life millions of years ago. We share DNA with almost all living things.

After that, let's think about it, Neil's arguement essentially levels all humans to the same level i.e. I can be as smart as Stephen Hawking. I believe that the difference between the average human being and Stephen Hawking is far larger then the difference between the average human and the chimpanzee. Out of our 6 billion people we have a small pool of highly educated and inquisitive people like Neil, Hawking and so on.

Furthermore, the more I read into the subject of INTELLIGENT alien life, the more I think it's fairly rare in our universe. There is alien life out there for sure, if life can arise near volcanic plumes then life is out there perhaps in the probable oceans of Europa.

A reading of our past and development as a species show how depended we were on some factors beyond the probable. We have had extinction events but not catastrophic enough to kill all life. We have a satellite that induces currents and what I believe contributed to life occurring. I recommend reading the Short History of Everything to further explore this topic.

Europa. Practice.

I was talking with my boss and something reminded me of it because I had almost forgotten all about it. Its very unappreciated as far as I can tell.

In reply to this comment by JesseoftheNorth:
I was going to post another clip from this movie just a couple days ago. Weird.

Awesome movie though. I remember watching it when I was a kid and it had a strong impact on me.

...and yet in the next book, we go and land on Europa, and take out the subsequent monolith swarm trying to blot out the sun with virus straight out of Independence Day.

...and don't get me started on the whole moved-to-pedophile-friendly-Sri-Lanka thing.

>> ^BansheeX:
How can you not have instant replay in a sport where 1 bad call can give or take 100% of the offensive output?

If you want to keep up the flow of the game, you can't have instant replay. No need for a commercial break every 30 seconds.

Theoretically, the two additional officials currently being tested in the UEFA Europa League are supposed to keep an eye on the action inside the box, which would have included this unfortunate incident. Does it work? Fuck if I know.

Maybe introduce instant replay, but limit it on goals.

Props for Henry though for admitting his action the second he was asked during an interview. Would have been nice to tell the ref about it when it happened, but they would have lynched his ass in France, so ...

think this is it:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/JOHtml.do?uri=OJ:C:2007:306:SOM:EN:HTML