This is stupid. His observations on body language are somewhat correct, but you don't need NLP to make them. They're pretty basic and sometimes they cross over to simple pop psychology or outright bullshit (and let's not even get into the matter of his melodramatic delivery and language). Basically, he's showing off the cold reading side of NLP: pseudo-objective and unnuanced interpretations given as facts to make you think he can see through anyone. I like Korzybski's idea of a non-Aristotelian system of thought, but NLP is not it. NLP is to non-Aristotelian thought as Scholasticism is to Aristotelianism, i.e. a convoluted and unnecessary dead-end.

But what ticks me off the most is that the guy is trying to debunk Fox News, which is run by a bunch of idiots, by defending someone even more idiotic, namely a conspiracy theorist nut disguised as a professor (or more accurately, former university lecturer and teaching assistant). The first thing a "professor" should do is say that he doesn't believe the conspiracy theories because there isn't sufficient conclusive evidence, but that the real important thing is that Muslims believe in them. Thus he would bypass even Hannity's brain dead "questions" and could talk about his course (because Hannity hates Muslims and would love to make fun of their conspiracy believing ways). The fact that he didn't do this and chose to go on about how this little minuscule piece of possibly relevant information was somehow a big boost of conspiracy theories shows one of two things: either that he simply is a general idiot and thus is unfit to teach in the first place; or that he really believes his "evidence" makes a strong case for the conspiracies, which fact proves him to be an idiot and thus unfit to teach anyway (at least on the topic of anything related to 9/11 and other conspiracy theories). From his Wikipedia article, the latter seems more likely.

I agree that sometimes being too critical can be annoying, but what you have to keep in mind with a film like this, is that it's not just a story but more so a work of art.. like in The Great Gatsby for instance in the beginning where Gatsby looks over at Daisy's house seeing a green light signifying go. I mean the fact that with both the opening scene and later in Danny's chase a wide angle shot is intentionally used to make both objects appear minuscule seems a bit to coincidental. Even the timing in which both the ball and axe strike seems to be in agreement as if it'd already been planned out. It's connections like these that directors use to differentiate and convey their art and i dunno, it seems kind of silly for a studio to waste a bunch of money on shinin' up the floors for no purpose, but i definitely could be wrong.

OK, while I don't like the style of restaurant dining that has minuscule servings of dishes such that you are forever hungry, I guess the number of courses here would make up for it somewhat.

I hate to think how much this would cost though. Oh... I just found out $240 for nine tiny courses.

I won't say I wouldn't like to try this, but I can also say that there are other dining experiences I might like to spend $240 a head on... I mean... wow... half a grand for two people... WOW!

Another thing that I find really amusing is Anthony Bourdain is a heavy smoker... which kills your sense of taste and smell... and yet he's a chef and here, food critic to some degree. I find it hard to take advice from someone who knowingly kills off the main senses required to cook and enjoy food.

Fresh kill and meat is awesome. In my country 90% of our dishes are based around meat (kebabs and shit man!).

I would try be vegetarian, given as someone said above that the taste differences are minuscule now, but I found that following such a diet requires a complete change of shopping and cooking. Most of all its was the limited availability of meat alternatives and their price that was the downer for me.

Unless the price levels and availability reaches levels of meat industry, I don't think I would give it a go. But then again am too fucking lazy.

"Probably the biggest reason people outside of the sciences have such a hard time with evolution is the idea that something can't turn into something different. (somewhat of a remnant of Aristotle's thought on our culture.)

I think you are right here, but this is exactly not what evolution is. Creatures don't turn into other creatures in a morphing movement like creationists insinuates (like http://www.videosift.com/video/The-Simpsons-Evolution-Intro). Every time a "baby" is born it is different from its parent, even if the genetic changes are minuscule. And this is how a creature species turns into another. It's not generation 1 = monkey, and generation 2 = human. There have been many, many thousands of steps from proto-monkey to human (and to the other apes of today).

So yes, things are what they are, but the next generation is always a mutation away from its parents and theoretically you could call that a different species, but it would be a far to specific species, so we allow quite a lot of difference inside a single species. For instance, humans. It is obvious that there is a difference between whites, blacks and Asians for instance, its not much, but it's there. These are merely different branches of the same evolutionary tree, like different races of dogs.

"Now to the religious individual who feels his beliefs are threatened by evolution. The scriptures as you know them cannot and do not answer the questions about evolution. They were never intended to be used for such a purpose. Evolution should not contradict your beliefs, rather it should support them.

I disagree. The creation story was made for exactly this, to explain why we have the vast multitude of creatures, and it is provably false. This is a problem for everything using the bible, because if THIS is false, what of the rest. How can we know what is true and false, and is it a total coincidence when something is right?

Evolution does not directly threaten religion, because it does not cover religion. It does, however, cover a field which religion previously held claim, creation and life. Science in general does, in my opinion, threaten religion, because the two work in diametrically opposed ways. Religion has the answer in the bible and finds evidence to support it; and science discover answers from the evidence.

Religion: Answer --> Evidence
Science: Evidence --> Answer

You see, that Science can change the answer as the evidence differs from the previous answer. Religion cannot do that - what's in the bible is in the bible - you can re-interpret the bible, but this is like re-interpreting evidence and a single source of evidence is not enough to sustain a viable theory. Some things in the bible cannot be re-interpreted as much as would be needed to still hold up to evidence, see Genesis.

>> ^Sarzy:
I know they found at least one WMD... in my pants.


Wiener of minuscule dimensions? ...sorry I couldn't resist.

Silliness aside, great discussion, I only wish I wasn't late to the party, what I'd say has pretty much been said already.

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

It's a small world after all.
It's a small world after all.
Truely, it is a tiny, minuscule world.

>> ^jwray:
>> Correlation is not causation, however it is relevant. Guns can act as a deterrent to any kind of crime because a criminal who knows he is surrounded by armed civilians is deterred just as much as a criminal who is surrounded by cops. This is why you need to look at overall statistics, not just gun-related incidents. If restricting guns just causes people to murder with knives instead, it hasn't accomplished anything.
The school shootings are a red herring because they account for a minuscule portion of the overall murder rate but 99% of the media coverage. Media have deceived you, and you need to go look at actual statistics.


Sorry, but i disagree. You're comparing two completely different things and drawing a conclusion from it. And, i might add, completely ignoring other more pressing factors that i quoted for you. I have already stated other reasons for increased violent crime in the UK but they appear to have been discarded "because a criminal who knows he is surrounded by armed civilians is deterred just as much as a criminal who is surrounded by cops." - which is a completely arbitrary statement and is unprovable by statistics or trials.. it is FAR too situational and personal to make a bold statement like that and call it fact.

As jonny has already said before me, i think some of what you're saying has the merit of looking factual and reasonable when in fact it isn't, so i'm not gonna say much more here.

I hope my posts remind people to think for themselves, and not just "go through the motions" as they say.

Eg.
" * As of 1998, no permit holder has ever shot a police officer. There have been several cases in which a permit holder has protected an officer's life. (7)"
" * 221,443 concealed carry licenses were issued in Florida between October of 1987 and April of 1994. During that time, Florida recorded 18 crimes committed by licensees with firearms. (15)"
" * As of 1998, nationwide, there has been 1 recorded incident in which a permit holder shot someone following a traffic accident. The permit holder was not charged, as the grand jury ruled the shooting was in self defense. (7)"

-- all of these quotes are, in effect, saying that by and large, people who obey laws (to carry weapons) don't break the law (to shoot the weapons illegally).

THIS JUST IN - PEOPLE WHO OBEY THE LAW OBEY THE LAW!

That's what i mean by stuff that looks reasoned and intelligent when actually it's not. It's the same thing as horoscope writers do, imo. So i bow out now. I know people who like lax gun laws will think i'm an idiot who can't understand basic facts and statistics, and i know that people who dislike gun laws will see exactly what i'm talking about. Hopefully people who aren't sure will see through the illusion of 'facts'. (Say that to rhyme with "farce"!")

>> ^dannym3141:
But relating gun laws to OVERALL violent crime? You might as well compare the flavour of my next ice cream to the distance between 2 planets.
In the UK, we have very strict gun laws, and WITHOUT LOOKING UP STATISTICS by my knowledge of recent news, we have a very, very, very lower rate of gun-crime than, for example, the US which has lax gun laws.


Correlation is not causation, however it is relevant. Guns can act as a deterrent to any kind of crime because a criminal who knows he is surrounded by armed civilians is deterred just as much as a criminal who is surrounded by cops. This is why you need to look at overall statistics, not just gun-related incidents. If restricting guns just causes people to murder with knives instead, it hasn't accomplished anything.

The school shootings are a red herring because they account for a minuscule portion of the overall murder rate but 99% of the media coverage. Media have deceived you, and you need to go look at actual statistics.

see http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#Right-To-Carry%20Laws
http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html

>> ^sirex:
"If half the students at Virginia tech were armed, Cho would not have gotten far."

-- i was going to say why this is a bunch of bull, but i think on reflection it's meant to be so.


No, it's completely serious. I suspect the reason you decided not to say why it was a bunch of bull was because you couldn't think of a reason, and then you rationalized it by thinking of it as satire.

With DVDs it was very simple since the format was such a huge leap forward from VHS and VCDs, with Blu-ray and HD DVD the benefits are minuscule, only relevant if you had already invested in the prerequisite HD TV and 5.1 surround sound system.

I don't necessarily agree with getting prescribed medication for every minuscule annoying character trait. But, usually, psychiatrists aren't as prescription happy as some people would want you to believe.

Ok, attempt #2.

Say a guy walks into the ocean, walks out soaking wet, then dries himself off. Then he says, "I just lowered the sea level globally". We know that technically he is correct, BUT, the amount that he did lower the sea level is so incredibly minuscule that our minds, as they stand on the evolutionary ladder today, can't fully comprehend it. BECAUSE we can't truly comprehend it, it is closer to the truth, for us as we are, to say that he had no effect whatsoever.

This guy is saying it is the truth. That it is so far beyond our ability to know, that as far as we're concerned, it's true as true gets and therefore IS true.

I'm saying, wait until we can comprehend more. We might have to wait a few thousand generations, but we should. We should get ourselves into a more humble mindset and learn to love the journey and keep ourselves in a state of determined awe and stop laminating the truth to satisfy the moment.

There is no such thing as true proof, in a mathematical sense, in science. Most science is done with inductive rather than deductive reasoning, which automatically creates a chance of error.

Theories like gravity, relativity, all those can't really be proved. But the amount of evidence amassed for them is so great that the chance they could be the wrong explanations is minuscule. Currently, the same goes for evolution.

I don't think that this constitutes "proof" at all. But it is immensely powerful evidence. That's what matters in real life.

For the uninformed: USA does have socialized medicine in the forms of Medicare and -caid. They do some good but overall are a rip-off. The new balance being struck is government utilizing private health insurers where possible.

Socialized medicine is a crapshoot. You may have a "right" to "free" health care but that doesn't mean you won't end up on a years-long waiting list for a critical operation, that is, if some bureaucrat even decides you deserve one.

Tiny oil-rich nations with minuscule populations and no defense budgets shouldn't be making such comparisons anyway.

Pipp3355: See http://www.minuscule.tv/ for the details. It's not from USA.