search results matching tag: adams
» channel: learn
go advanced with your query
Search took 0.002 seconds
Videos (1000) | Sift Talk (23) | Blogs (100) | Comments (1000) |
Videos (1000) | Sift Talk (23) | Blogs (100) | Comments (1000) |
Not yet a member? No problem!
Sign-up just takes a second.
Forgot your password?
Recover it now.
Already signed up?
Log in now.
Forgot your password?
Recover it now.
Not yet a member? No problem!
Sign-up just takes a second.
Remember your password?
Log in now.
When a German Bf-109 spared a stricken American B-17
If you want to learn more about what happened, I recommend the book, A Higher Call, by Adam Makos and Larry Alexander.
ant (Member Profile)
Your video, Adam Savage Incognito as Comic-Book Hellboy!, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.
BSR (Member Profile)
Member Tennessee Tuxedo? (With Don Adams)
Tooter the Turtle with Mr Wizard the Lizard?
Aesop and son?
Commander McBragg?
Underdog?
I know you recall Speed Racer, my hero.
I loved those old classics.
Yes and now it reminds me of going to the Youth Center on Saturday mornings too. Sometimes I still get that child like Saturday morning feeling.
Thanks for the memory.
What's all this about your, member?
Counting Trump's False Claims Using Gumballs
Newt,
CNN mainly pushes 1/2 truths and anti Trump leaning reporting day in day out.
Biggest liar and fraud of our time was Obama not Trump. and MSM is riding along on their side.
Tim Cook Apple Big dial who cares its like call you newtbabe by accident. Who cares but liberals suck it up and think the worst. Your no better that all the rest.
Muller report will clearly take that smug ass smile of Adam Schiff and the rest of the left. Sad thing is that Adam Schiff knows and have always known there is ZERO collusion but still pushes BS lies.
I believe there will be a big turn of events and Trump will win 2020 by a historic landslide.
Bob.
Lie about Trump all you want, don't lie about me....you know full well that is a lie.
I've never once tuned my tv to CNN, as I've told you a dozen times.
I use multiple sources cross referenced to determine what I think is fact, CNN often provides decent short clips on youtube that illustrate the point succinctly and or clearly but are not my "trusted news source" as you well know....
....but you implicitly trust the biggest liar and fraud of our time without a critical thought. I bet you heard Trump say "Tim Cook Apple", or whatever he's claiming he said today, didn't you?
Don't dare try to impeach my information gathering and filtering skills when you are....well...you.
And the numbers aren't from CNN, only the visual depiction of the independently verified fact check numbers. *facepalm
La Dura Complete: The Hardest Rock Climb In The World
FYI The most difficult climb in the world is Adam Ondras, Silence. The first 5.15d/9c
Dave Made a Maze
Movie is very weird but quite good apart from some poor dialogue near the middle. Found it entertaining and I like that each cardboard set only lasted a few hours before they had to build the next one. IIRC they only had room for two sets at a time.
Yes it's Adam Busch from Buffy.
Celebrities Freaking Out Over Meeting Other Celebrities
Where's J. Law been lately? I quite like her as an actress.
Love how Adam Scott's hands were shaking at seeing Luke Skywalker.
Let's Talk About That Gillette Ad...
Watched it once after seeing the outrage, yawned and moved on.
Then I saw guys like this adamant that the commercial wasn't characterizing all men, but the bad actors/behaviour, so I re-watched it as my first lazy watch had left me feeling like I could see how people felt it was at least targeting most men.
Here's what I saw second watch:
"It's been going on far too long... Making the same old excuses"
Entire line of men ALL chanting boys will be boys
"But something finally changed...And there will be no going back"
Yeah, I get where people are saying this commercial is painting at least a majority of men as bad actors, and that the good news is that is finally changing. It's even the most straightforward reading of the message to me, and you have to do a bit of mental benefit of the doubt to dismiss the now things are changing as less than an indictment of previous generations of most/all men.
English is hard
And Douglas Adams pointed out that our inability to create time travel is, in part, due to the tenses it would create.
I remember realising how screwed up English tenses are when I told a Hungarian friend that I "would have had to have had" done something beforehand. She just glared at me.
Adam Savage Incognito at New York Comic Con!
To many space suits Adam. They are catching on to you!
A Scary Time
It isn't as rare as you think. There are numerous accounts of false accusations that don't make it as far as court or they do and the accused choose to take a plea versus chancing half their life.
Brent E. Turvey, a criminologist, wrote a 2017 book that dispels this notion. His research, and that of two co-authors, cited statistical studies and police crime reports. One academic study showed that as many as 40 percent of sexual assault charges are false. Mr. Turvey wrote that the FBI in the 1990s pegged the falsity rate at 8 percent for rape or attempted rape complaints.
“There is no shortage of politicians, victims’ advocates and news articles claiming that the nationwide false report for rape and sexual assault is almost nonexistent, presenting a figure of around 2 percent,” writes Mr. Turvey, who directs the Forensic Criminology Institute. “This figure is not only inaccurate, but also it has no basis in reality. Reporting it publicly as a valid frequency rate with any empirical basis is either scientifically negligent or fraudulent.”
A recent study supports this assessment. The Pentagon issues an annual report on sexual assaults in the military. Nearly one-quarter of all cases last year were thrown out for lack of evidence, according to a report released in May.
As far as the rape every 98 seconds, I am unsure where you found that number. There were 95,730 rapes under the revised FBI definitions (which include more categories that previously were not considered rape, like child molestion, under the legacy definitions) in the last year I could find which was 2016. These are the combined rapes of men, women, and children for that year. That means the actual rape of a 'person' is occurring somewhere around every 5-6 minutes. Now if you are going by a different statistic, like the CDC ones that include such a wide definition of what constitutes 'rape' that it isn't funny, you might get the result you quoted. I wouldn't go by those stats, even TIME magazine had to call out the CDC for overstating the numbers.
As far as Trump goes, he is a complete idiot dickhead. He shouldn't have insulted anyone, least of all Dr. Ford. I will point out one thing though, and this is subjective in that your viewpoint will differ from mine, Dr. Ford is an alleged rape survivor. She has made the claim and took a polygraph test, but other than that she can only claim that in her recollection she was at a party where Brett Kavanaugh was also at supposedly. She also claimed to be heavily intoxicated. If you want to believe her Ex, she has lied in her testimony. (https://heavy.com/news/2018/10/christine-ford-boyfriend-ex-letter-blasey/) Heavy leans left, so this isn't a bobknight cherry picking of information.
Now, why would she come forth and deal with all the negatives of making the claim? I guess that is the kicker, normally you would expect a person to really be telling the truth if they are going to be put through hell. I would put forward though that this was one of the most hotly contested confirmations for SCOTUS ever. Even more so than for Bork, and I remember that one clearly. In my opinion, far more than for Thomas. If you were adamantly opposed to a person sitting on the Supreme Court, had went to school with that person, and were willing to fall on your sword for your beliefs, you might do it.
In any case, that is just supposition on my part.
Regarding Perry and Counts: that was in 1991. Again it's terrible, but you can't really argue that we're suddenly "abandoning of proof and evidence".
Re Banks: That's undoubtedly terrible, but to me, that's far more of an indictment of the appalling state of the US justice system and the nightmare of the utterly broken plea bargain system (I think John Oliver did a report on it, and I'd also highly recommend listening to the current season of the Serial podcast). He chose to take the plea deal... he wasn't convicted.
I think it's also not a coincidence that all three victims are black. Juries are far more likely to convict black men... that's just a fact.
And again, these cases are notable because they're rare.
The point here is simple. Trump's "it's a scary time to be a man" line is complete and utter bullshit. There is no sudden epidemic of false rape allegations. Are people wrongly accused (and in some cases, even convicted) of rape? Undoubtedly.
But it's not a new problem and it's nowhere near as widespread as the right is making it out to be.
Meanwhile, in the USA someone is violated every 98 seconds, and the President mocked a sexual assault survivor.
One of these is a bigger problem than the other.
The Mueller Investigation Is Not A Witch Hunt
There is a log of smolder and smoke on the Clintons. Don't worry the smoking gun will be found.
As for Trump Still ZERO proof of Russia collusion. Adam Shiftless shift words do not count.
Don't worry, the order of special council is so broad I'm sure they will find Trump guilty so some some blue dress event. Keep you fingers crossed.
Right, Trump, only an admitted and convicted criminal fraud, as opposed to Clinton with her multiple convictions for.........oh yeah.
The Check In: Betsy DeVos' Rollback of Civil Rights
@newtboy,
without racial preferencing FOR white kids
I know for a fact though that in Canada any law, policy or practice that in any way, shape or form stated that has been abolished long ago. Any new ones would be destroyed in court immediately and without question. I've always understood the US to be the same, is that not correct? Is there anywhere in existence in US law, or policies that discrimination based upon race, outside of affirimative action, is ever allowed to exist?
I was convinced enough that the US was like Canada in this regard that back when Obama was president I had someone tell me about a Breitbart report claiming anti-white racism being dictated directly from the President's office. I barely bothered to look for evidence to disprove such a blatant lie from a known extremist propaganda rag. It's hard to express my shock/discouragement to hear that very same refrain, not from a right winger, but from the sources on the left adamant about the necessity of it...
I don't know how else to say this without repeating myself, but you can't achieve equality with racism. It is a situation where even if you are right, your still wrong. Putting actual race based discrimination into official party policy, and now apparently even into law is no longer something society is willing to tolerate. Doubly so when their children are the ones being discriminated against. The people will vote you out of office. You can kiss swing states goodbye. They will stack the Supreme Court against you to challenge and throw out the discriminatory law as unconstitutional.
You are fighting a battle you can not win. You are wrong to think that solving the problem of underfunded schools in bad socioeconomic regions is the harder nut to crack. Maintaining a law and systematic racism against whites to 'balance' the lack of opportunity is much harder, it's being dismantled already because people will not tolerate it. Demanding that university's open up XX spots for socioeconomically disadvantaged kids, regardless of race is already normal practice here in Canada and everyone can get on board. Doing it for race though, humans just don't work that way. The only times that's been successfully maintained is through force of numbers or military strength.
Why the US national anthem is terrible — and perfect
Adam Neely: Anthem has been added as a related post - related requested by ChaosEngine on that post.
But Intelligent People Believe in God...
The chart is quite informative thanks. If you put aside your focus on believers in God (as that's a separate topic to my first post) and try and see the difference between atheism and agnosticism in relation to scientists, you'll see what I mean.
There is a great difference between one who "doesn't claim to know no god exists" and one who "claims to know no god exists". Exactly as described on the chart, on the definition of athiest from Merriam-Webster (one who advocates athiesm) and dictionary coms definitions and synonym study. Or Merriam Websters own distinction between the 2 "The difference is quite simple: atheist refers to someone who believes that there is no god (or gods), and agnostic refers to someone who doesn’t know whether there is a god, or even if such a thing is knowable."
Richard Dawkins would fall into the category of gnostic athiest I suppose. He is adamant that no God exists and he is fully at odds and advocates, actively, against such a belief. Whereas Thomas Huxley however, who may have coined the word 'agnostic' according to various dictionaries and other sources, is more someone who doesn't claim to know.
"Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorus application of a single principle. That principle is of great antiquity; it is as old as Socrates; as old as the writer who said, * Try all things, hold fast by that which is good"
Here he is actually describing a Biblical passage from 1 Thessalonians 5:21 "Test all things; hold fast to that which is good" which is the scientific method in a nutshell, regardless of what you think of the rest of the book.
He goes on "Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. That I take to be the agnostic faith, which if a man keep whole and undefiled, he shall not be ashamed to look the universe in the face, whatever the future may have in store for him.
The results of the working out of the agnostic principle will vary
according to individual knowledge and capacity, and according to the general condition of science. That which is unproved to-day may be proved, by the help of new discoveries, to-morrow."
A vast difference to the likes of some others in science today who boldly claim there is no God and ridicule those who might believe in one. Sorry for the long reply.
You're correct about gnosticism, but incorrect about (a)theism.
And dictionary.com is also wrong.
Merriam Webster defines it as:
a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods : one who subscribes to or advocates atheism
If you ask google to define: atheist, you get:
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
Theism/atheism speak only to BELIEF.
This chart explains it well