I agree with most of these but...drink coffee?? If I drink coffee the only creativity resulting from it is the Jackson Pollock-like splatter of my vomit. Ill assume they mean drink stimulating beverage of your choice.

Hi, thank you for taking the time to reply, and sorry I didn't write back straight away. Obviously you're right in that they clearly don't mean to say that everything beyond the visible is pink, because that's self-evidently not true, and they know it, because they're not stupid. So yeah, it's all bit "well, obviously", if you see what I mean. Again, thanks for the considered reply

In reply to this comment by oritteropo:
I watched it again, and they're not saying that radio waves are pink, they're saying that you can't see them... but that pink fills the spot on the colour wheel that would otherwise be filled by the invisible radiation.

They could've made it clearer, but they didn't say what you thought. What they did say isn't exactly wrong just not clear.

Fair enough that it's hardly worth counting UV vision in certain lens enhanced people, I just thought it was cool.
In reply to this comment by FlowersInHisHair:
>> ^oritteropo:

I think they mean that if you try to wrap the visible spectrum around a colour wheel, then it works for the red,green,blue,violet part and then stops working when you get to the magenta/pink/negative green part.
To quibble a little with your claim that anything out of the visisble spectrum is invisible, people who have had cataract surgery can see potentially light slightly outside the normal visible range (all right, not gamma rays, but still)... http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/605905
>> ^FlowersInHisHair:
The claim made in the video that we see all the non-visible wavelengths of light/EM radiation as pink is patently false. We know this because gamma rays aren't pink, they're invisible.


That's not what they're saying though. They are quite clearly saying that the vast area outside the tiny wavelengths we can see are perceived by human eyes as pink. If that were true, there would be so much light bouncing around that that we percieved as pink that we wouldn't be able to make anything else out.

And I quibble with your quibble: anything outside of the visible spectrum is invisible by definition, isn't it? The slight increase in the visible spectrum in a minority of the people who've ever had cataract surgery is hardly worth counting in this regard as it's not considered normal vision.

LOL. By "hacks" did they mean "logs into localhost?"

I watched it again, and they're not saying that radio waves are pink, they're saying that you can't see them... but that pink fills the spot on the colour wheel that would otherwise be filled by the invisible radiation.

They could've made it clearer, but they didn't say what you thought. What they did say isn't exactly wrong just not clear.

Fair enough that it's hardly worth counting UV vision in certain lens enhanced people, I just thought it was cool.
In reply to this comment by FlowersInHisHair:
>> ^oritteropo:

I think they mean that if you try to wrap the visible spectrum around a colour wheel, then it works for the red,green,blue,violet part and then stops working when you get to the magenta/pink/negative green part.
To quibble a little with your claim that anything out of the visisble spectrum is invisible, people who have had cataract surgery can see potentially light slightly outside the normal visible range (all right, not gamma rays, but still)... http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/605905
>> ^FlowersInHisHair:
The claim made in the video that we see all the non-visible wavelengths of light/EM radiation as pink is patently false. We know this because gamma rays aren't pink, they're invisible.


That's not what they're saying though. They are quite clearly saying that the vast area outside the tiny wavelengths we can see are perceived by human eyes as pink. If that were true, there would be so much light bouncing around that that we percieved as pink that we wouldn't be able to make anything else out.

And I quibble with your quibble: anything outside of the visible spectrum is invisible by definition, isn't it? The slight increase in the visible spectrum in a minority of the people who've ever had cataract surgery is hardly worth counting in this regard as it's not considered normal vision.

>> ^oritteropo:

I think they mean that if you try to wrap the visible spectrum around a colour wheel, then it works for the red,green,blue,violet part and then stops working when you get to the magenta/pink/negative green part.
To quibble a little with your claim that anything out of the visisble spectrum is invisible, people who have had cataract surgery can see potentially light slightly outside the normal visible range (all right, not gamma rays, but still)... http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/605905
>> ^FlowersInHisHair:
The claim made in the video that we see all the non-visible wavelengths of light/EM radiation as pink is patently false. We know this because gamma rays aren't pink, they're invisible.


That's not what they're saying though. They are quite clearly saying that the vast area outside the tiny wavelengths we can see are perceived by human eyes as pink. If that were true, there would be so much light bouncing around that that we percieved as pink that we wouldn't be able to make anything else out.

And I quibble with your quibble: anything outside of the visible spectrum is invisible by definition, isn't it? The slight increase in the visible spectrum in a minority of the people who've ever had cataract surgery is hardly worth counting in this regard as it's not considered normal vision.

I think they mean that if you try to wrap the visible spectrum around a colour wheel, then it works for the red,green,blue,violet part and then stops working when you get to the magenta/pink/negative green part.

To quibble a little with your claim that anything out of the visisble spectrum is invisible, people who have had cataract surgery can see potentially light slightly outside the normal visible range (all right, not gamma rays, but still)... http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/605905
>> ^FlowersInHisHair:

The claim made in the video that we see all the non-visible wavelengths of light/EM radiation as pink is patently false. We know this because gamma rays aren't pink, they're invisible.

That's something that I read from both Jon Stewart and Ron Paul -- they say what they mean and they mean what they say. That is a big part of why I like both of them, but I can also see how some people would argue that it makes Paul less "electable" than a standard greasy candidate.

The conventional candidates are pro-apple pie and mom, but anti-crime. They squirm when prompted to provide an opinion on anything remotely controversial, and have to run it through their internal focus-group filter first (my campaign manager told me that 18% of my potential voters won't like it if I mention anything anti-war!, etc.). On the other hand, Stewart and Paul are both going to just say what they think is right, focus groups be damned.

>> ^Ryjkyj:

I think the main point of this video, which wasn't explained very clearly, is that the water resources would've been stretched to the max. Fighting so many fires in such a large area at the end of Manhattan could potentially have made the building's sprinkler/standpipe system practically worthless. I'm surprised they didn't stress that point. But I think that's what they mean by saying that no building like that ever burned "uncontrollably". That's what makes it a unique situation.
I'm not sure how old building seven was but I used to be a project manager for a major construction firm in NYC. And I can tell you that the fireproofing regs have changed a lot over the years. Not to mention, NYC's department of buildings is huge, and there's not a lot of checks and balances. If you know what you're doing, you can get an examiner to ignore just about anything. And people either make mistakes, or intentionally bypass the building code all the time. Especially the big companies who build the big buildings. The bigger and older your company is, the more you can get away with.
That's the first time I've ever heard of/seen that penthouse footage as well. I'm not an engineer but I think that was pretty compelling.


http://www.dykon-blasting.com/faqs.htm#implode
In a controlled demolition, the interior structures are removed first, in order to make the building fall inward. This video frames this fact as being against the theory of controlled demolition. How misleading.

Also this video compares a tanker truck fire to an office fire. Still need for someone to explain how a burning stack of coffee filters generates the same heat as a truck filled with 9000 gallons of fuel.

I think the main point of this video, which wasn't explained very clearly, is that the water resources would've been stretched to the max. Fighting so many fires in such a large area at the end of Manhattan could potentially have made the building's sprinkler/standpipe system practically worthless. I'm surprised they didn't stress that point. But I think that's what they mean by saying that no building like that ever burned "uncontrollably". That's what makes it a unique situation.

I'm not sure how old building seven was but I used to be a project manager for a major construction firm in NYC. And I can tell you that the fireproofing regs have changed a lot over the years. Not to mention, NYC's department of buildings is huge, and there's not a lot of checks and balances. If you know what you're doing, you can get an examiner to ignore just about anything. And people either make mistakes, or intentionally bypass the building code all the time. Especially the big companies who build the big buildings. The bigger and older your company is, the more you can get away with.

That's the first time I've ever heard of/seen that penthouse footage as well. I'm not an engineer but I think that was pretty compelling.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

As always - the Warmies love to muddle terminilogy in order to misdirect.
There is a vast world of difference between what a typical Warmie is talking about when they say, "climate change" and what a scientist is talking about. However, in the news media and popular culture, the Warmies routinely equate both of them together in order to lend themselves false credibility.
"Climate change" as a generic term simply means the climate is changing. This is scientifically provable - however it is so patently obvious (and has been for millenium) that it does not require the rigor of the scientific method to verify. No one is arguing against the reality that Earth's climate has cycles, changes, alters, or otherwise permutates over long periods of time (or even short periods locally).
However, when Warmies talk about "Climate change" they do not mean this. They pack so many other things into two words that it becomes almost impossible to pin it down. But generally speaking when a Warmie says climate change they mean something along these lines...
"Human C02 emissions are the primary agent of all climate changes in the past 200 years, and all scientists in all fields are in 100% agreement that only human C02 is responsible and these scientists are also in 100% agreement that the only solution is to enact massive government taxation schemes in order to reduce C02 emissions to 1820 levels, or the Earth will experience such catastrophic world-wide destruction that all humanity will be wiped out."
That's quite a difference in meaning. It is perfectly reasonable to say that scientists, economists, and regular folks everywhere can rationally debate the veracity and truth of the latter definition, while accepting the former.
And yet the Warmies cannot allow a rational line of discussion and debate, and so they instead turn to their time-practiced tactic of poisoning the well, insults, ad hominems, and other obfuscations of the truth in order to desperately lend their terminally unsupportable position enough credence to allow the desperate and brain-washed to continue to cling to it in the face of real evidence.
Day after day we hear repeated news of the facts behind the so-called 'proof' that the Warmies have falsified for years. East anglia, the polar bear liar, the hockey stick chart, the IPCC panels - they have all been discredited and proven to have buried evidence, censored opposing research, cooked their data, falsified evidence, and otherwise destroyed the entire credibility of the whole Warmie position. Their 'science' (all oriented around C02 being the primary agent of climate change) is bunk.
I've got an entire folder in my Hotmail with article after article after article proving that the claim that "human C02 = climate change" is politically motivated bologna. Here are some from just this WEEK...
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/
100102296/sun-causes-climate-change-shock/
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/mental-illness-ri
se-linked-to-climate-20110828-1jger.html
http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.4462
It is 100% hogwash. The climate change INDUSTRY (and it is an over 200 billion dollar industry) is panicing because people no longer buy the "Human C02 = poison" bullcrap. They are losing the debate. Governments are abandoning the green movement. And the Warmies are panicking. So they are putting out articles so insane, so ridiculous that even a child can tell they are stupid morons. Aliens are going to blow up earth over C02 emissions? Climate change is causing mental illness? What utter stupidity.
The evidence - the REAL evidence - is that human C02 is such a minor factor that it does not warrent serious attention. Do we all want to clean up messes? Sure - but the real mess-makers are not in the US or Europe. They're in South America, China, and Africa. That's where the focus should be. But the Warmie movement is nakedly political, so their primary goals have nothing to do with actual pollution. Instead they obsess over making C02 something they can 'regulate', and therefore tax and earn revenues from. It's pathetic, and yet so many people accept it because of faulty, flawed, sloppy so-called 'research', and the fact that they really WANT to believe it for some reason. Morons.


annnnnd ignore

As always - the Warmies love to muddle terminilogy in order to misdirect.

There is a vast world of difference between what a typical Warmie is talking about when they say, "climate change" and what a scientist is talking about. However, in the news media and popular culture, the Warmies routinely equate both of them together in order to lend themselves false credibility.

"Climate change" as a generic term simply means the climate is changing. This is scientifically provable - however it is so patently obvious (and has been for millenium) that it does not require the rigor of the scientific method to verify. No one is arguing against the reality that Earth's climate has cycles, changes, alters, or otherwise permutates over long periods of time (or even short periods locally).

However, when Warmies talk about "Climate change" they do not mean this. They pack so many other things into two words that it becomes almost impossible to pin it down. But generally speaking when a Warmie says climate change they mean something along these lines...

"Human C02 emissions are the primary agent of all climate changes in the past 200 years, and all scientists in all fields are in 100% agreement that only human C02 is responsible and these scientists are also in 100% agreement that the only solution is to enact massive government taxation schemes in order to reduce C02 emissions to 1820 levels, or the Earth will experience such catastrophic world-wide destruction that all humanity will be wiped out."

That's quite a difference in meaning. It is perfectly reasonable to say that scientists, economists, and regular folks everywhere can rationally debate the veracity and truth of the latter definition, while accepting the former.

And yet the Warmies cannot allow a rational line of discussion and debate, and so they instead turn to their time-practiced tactic of poisoning the well, insults, ad hominems, and other obfuscations of the truth in order to desperately lend their terminally unsupportable position enough credence to allow the desperate and brain-washed to continue to cling to it in the face of real evidence.

Day after day we hear repeated news of the facts behind the so-called 'proof' that the Warmies have falsified for years. East anglia, the polar bear liar, the hockey stick chart, the IPCC panels - they have all been discredited and proven to have buried evidence, censored opposing research, cooked their data, falsified evidence, and otherwise destroyed the entire credibility of the whole Warmie position. Their 'science' (all oriented around C02 being the primary agent of climate change) is bunk.

I've got an entire folder in my Hotmail with article after article after article proving that the claim that "human C02 = climate change" is politically motivated bologna. Here are some from just this WEEK...

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100102296/sun-causes-climate-change-shock/

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/mental-illness-rise-linked-to-climate-20110828-1jger.html

http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.4462

It is 100% hogwash. The climate change INDUSTRY (and it is an over 200 billion dollar industry) is panicing because people no longer buy the "Human C02 = poison" bullcrap. They are losing the debate. Governments are abandoning the green movement. And the Warmies are panicking. So they are putting out articles so insane, so ridiculous that even a child can tell they are stupid morons. Aliens are going to blow up earth over C02 emissions? Climate change is causing mental illness? What utter stupidity.

The evidence - the REAL evidence - is that human C02 is such a minor factor that it does not warrent serious attention. Do we all want to clean up messes? Sure - but the real mess-makers are not in the US or Europe. They're in South America, China, and Africa. That's where the focus should be. But the Warmie movement is nakedly political, so their primary goals have nothing to do with actual pollution. Instead they obsess over making C02 something they can 'regulate', and therefore tax and earn revenues from. It's pathetic, and yet so many people accept it because of faulty, flawed, sloppy so-called 'research', and the fact that they really WANT to believe it for some reason. Morons.

>> ^NetRunner:

"I do believe that every individual should be free to own, buy, and sell gold. If under those circumstances a private gold standard emerged, fine—although I make a scientific prediction that it’s very unlikely. But I think those people who say they believe in a gold standard are fundamentally being very anti-libertarian because what they mean by a gold standard is a governmentally fixed price for gold."
-Milton Friedman
Also:
http://delong.typepad.c
om/sdj/2009/03/the-earlier-you-abandon-the-gold-standard-and-start-your-new-deal-the-better.html


And he's right about the "governmentally fixed price for gold", and if it was legal in this country to offer competing currencies I don't think many people would care whether the USD was backed by gold or not. But because we're forced to use one central currency, it should at the very least be value backed.

@My_design, "freeze the debt held by the public where it was earlier this year" translates to "reduce the federal deficit to zero this year". So when they say cut $1.2 trillion, they mean $1.2 trillion from 2011 alone. The only way to do that at this point would to default on obligations, starting immediately. Don't pay the military, don't send out any more social security checks, don't reimburse doctors for treating Medicare patients, and forget anything "discretionary" like FEMA funding, or the CDC.

That's insanity.

As for S&P's downgrade, they had to drop the part about $4 trillion because it turned out they'd made a huge math error. The statement they ended up releasing just said that political gridlock, and in particular the steadfast refusal to consider tax increases, raised concern about America's political will to adopt policies that would allow it to repay its debts.

That's technically Grover Norquist we're talking about there, but the Tea Party are totally adherents of the whole "no more taxes, no matter what" philosophy.

But, but, but....Milton Friedman is an... liberty... bitcoins.... statism.... bitcoins... Ron Paul... minarchy..... classical liberal.... statist.... tyranny..... statist...... statist... Milton Friedman es muy.... liberterrier... statiststatiststatistatis..... you are an bitcoin...DOES NOT COMPUTE... you are an tyranny..... 00011101010001.... Daissssyyy... Daissseyyy, givve mee yourrrr answ..... Self Destruct in T minus 5... 4... 4... 4..

-END OF LINE-

And Scene.>> ^NetRunner:

"I do believe that every individual should be free to own, buy, and sell gold. If under those circumstances a private gold standard emerged, fine—although I make a scientific prediction that it’s very unlikely. But I think those people who say they believe in a gold standard are fundamentally being very anti-libertarian because what they mean by a gold standard is a governmentally fixed price for gold."
-Milton Friedman
Also:
http://delong.typepad.c
om/sdj/2009/03/the-earlier-you-abandon-the-gold-standard-and-start-your-new-deal-the-better.html