>> ^shagen454:

Never forget the way America works. Tea Party protests were covered all over the media, the media never spoke of their tinges with racism and homophobia among many other things including being a sell out corporatist movement. They glorified those FOX fried fanatics.
They ignored the OWS movement from day one because they are not interested in investing in this movement because this movement is a direct threat to them. They made them look like idiotic, homeless, hippy bums. Shame on you.

To amplify this point, Nate Silver did some statistical analysis on this very topic, and found that the data backs up what you're saying.

Basically the OWS people only started getting headlines when they got pepper sprayed and arrested.

>> ^drk421:

>> ^Boise_Lib:
The capacitors aren't the problem as stated above. The CRT itself is a very large capacitor (stores charge) and can knock you on your ass for a long time after the tv is unplugged.
Also, she's weird.

Yeah, my old boss got shocked by the CRT discharge and his arm swung against the side of the wall and he got cut really bad. It has about the same effect has getting shocked by an ignition coil from a car. I had a similar situation while working on a tube amplifier (around 600V).
High voltage DC will basically burn you really bad (provided it has enough current), but unless you have heart condition it probably won't kill you. It will defibrillate you and wake you up though.
High voltage low frequency AC (between 30 and 1000hz) is deadly starting at around 45 volts. As you get into the higher frequency AC voltages it has less affect on your heart, and thus less likely to kill you.


I saw a chart once in physics class that showed the lethality vs. frequency of AC. The peak was at 50 Hz--right where Europe put their power supply.

I got bit by 277VAC 50Hz once--burned a 1/2 inch hole 1/4 inch deep in my arm.
(I wish we had the metric system in the old USA)

>> ^Boise_Lib:

The capacitors aren't the problem as stated above. The CRT itself is a very large capacitor (stores charge) and can knock you on your ass for a long time after the tv is unplugged.
Also, she's weird.


Yeah, my old boss got shocked by the CRT discharge and his arm swung against the side of the wall and he got cut really bad. It has about the same effect has getting shocked by an ignition coil from a car. I had a similar situation while working on a tube amplifier (around 600V).

High voltage DC will basically burn you really bad (provided it has enough current), but unless you have heart condition it probably won't kill you. It will defibrillate you and wake you up though.

High voltage low frequency AC (between 30 and 1000hz) is deadly starting at around 45 volts. As you get into the higher frequency AC voltages it has less affect on your heart, and thus less likely to kill you.

Honesty has nothing to do with morals at all. If he attacks the left, and believes the programs are doomed to fail, then that is his preference. If I tell a woman, "Your children are fat, stupid and selfish," she will flip out--even if done nicely. Even if done to save the child's life and give the child a chance.

Honesty is a cruel thing, but is necessary. Ron Paul is honest, even when he doesn't know he is being honest (Which annoys me.)

America will burn as a nation so long as we remain overweight (You can buy soda with food stamps...lovely huh?) We will burn as long as we promote confidence over humility. We will burn as long as we think 9/11 just magically fucking happened. As long as we prop up corporations with corporate-friendly laws. As long as we think we deserve something for nothing. Our culture is useless and will falter, regardless of stimulus, universal healthcare, welfare, WIC, Unemployment insurance, etc. I favor most of these programs for the needy, but then in this culture it does not good, does it? Because we are entitled and greedy.

Paul admits to these--even if every other politician is to busy sucking every Americans cocks and teats to admit it.

Also, Paul supports liberal causes, just in personal choice. This is not dishonest; perhaps stupidity, but not dishonesty.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^Lawdeedaw:
Why is he then best friends with Kucinich? Why does everything have to be personal? Can't he just respect Stewart's fascinating honesty? And with that, the part of Stewart's honesty that incorporates and shows off Paul's honesty?

Working backwards:

1. Paul isn't honest.
   
2. Paul makes it pretty clear that he thinks "honesty" is in direct conflict with being liberal, or supporting Democrats.
   
3. Paul makes it pretty clear that he thinks Stewart is "honest" because he attacks the Democrats, which apparently Paul thinks is rare for the left to do.
   
4. Paul's "respect" for this "honesty" is further amplified by the fact that Stewart gives him a platform to spread his ideology unchallenged to a new audience.
   
5. Paul has the same "respect" for Kucinich -- Kucinich often attacks the Democrats from the left, and therefore Paul has "respect" for Kucinich's "honesty."
   

Paul defines honesty in starkly ideological terms. You're "honest" if you agree with him, or attack people he disagrees with. But if you believe in liberal causes, or support Democratic politicians, you are by definition some nefarious agenda-driven hack who doesn't care about the truth.
He's willing to cultivate "friendships" with these people because it serves his own nefarious agenda-driven hackery. The upshot of what he's saying to his fellow libertarians at Mises is "go out and cultivate friendships like this, to help further our side in the battle against liberalism."
On the surface, it sounds like he's saying nice things about Stewart. But if you really parse what he's saying, then it sounds pretty sick and twisted.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

Why is he then best friends with Kucinich? Why does everything have to be personal? Can't he just respect Stewart's fascinating honesty? And with that, the part of Stewart's honesty that incorporates and shows off Paul's honesty?


Working backwards:

1. Paul isn't honest.
   
2. Paul makes it pretty clear that he thinks "honesty" is in direct conflict with being liberal, or supporting Democrats.
   
3. Paul makes it pretty clear that he thinks Stewart is "honest" because he attacks the Democrats, which apparently Paul thinks is rare for the left to do.
   
4. Paul's "respect" for this "honesty" is further amplified by the fact that Stewart gives him a platform to spread his ideology unchallenged to a new audience.
   
5. Paul has the same "respect" for Kucinich -- Kucinich often attacks the Democrats from the left, and therefore Paul has "respect" for Kucinich's "honesty."
   

Paul defines honesty in starkly ideological terms. You're "honest" if you agree with him, or attack people he disagrees with. But if you believe in liberal causes, or support Democratic politicians, you are by definition some nefarious agenda-driven hack who doesn't care about the truth.

He's willing to cultivate "friendships" with these people because it serves his own nefarious agenda-driven hackery. The upshot of what he's saying to his fellow libertarians at Mises is "go out and cultivate friendships like this, to help further our side in the battle against liberalism."

On the surface, it sounds like he's saying nice things about Stewart. But if you really parse what he's saying, then it sounds pretty sick and twisted.

Saw that on Dirty Jobs with Mike Rowe. If you just spit into the water, they react the same way. (It's unclear, however, if the raw onions you had for lunch would amplify the intensity of their response.)

I want Rick Perry nowhere near the executive branch of the United States. That said, the politicalmathblog post comes across as fairly even handed. The point of the first 4 graphs is to explain how a state can grow a bunch of jobs but still have a high unemployment rate. His supposition that Texas is the victim of it's own success is the only controversial statement in that section, and he clearly labels it as his own opinion.

Meanwhile your think progress article seems completely irrelevant. Since it doesn't normalize for population size, their graph is naturally going to have longer bars for larger states, so calling someone the "worst" is basically just saying, "its bar goes in the wrong direction and it's a big state." But do the directions of these bars even mean anything? Look at the "best" state on the list. It's Michigan. Is Michigan's economy doing well lately? This makes me believe that this measurement has little to do with the actual economic health of a state.

Maybe some smarty pants economist can come explain why I should care about that chart, but for now I don't, and I don't think you should either.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^Morganth:
The actual numbers on Texas' jobs: http://www.politicalmathblog.com/?p=1590

Thank you for a textbook example of how to lie repeatedly with statistics.
For brevity's sake, just look at the first four graphs. Note that the Y-axis in the first is the raw, numeric number of jobs in Texas. Then look at graph number four showing population growth.
Chart 4 invalidates entirely the point Chart 1 is trying to make, but the surrounding text pretends it amplifies it.
More here: http:/
/thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/08/17/297556/report-texas-ranks-dead-last-in-total-job-creation-accounting-for-labor-force-growth/

>> ^Morganth:

The actual numbers on Texas' jobs: http://www.politicalmathblog.com/?p=1590


Thank you for a textbook example of how to lie repeatedly with statistics.

For brevity's sake, just look at the first four graphs. Note that the Y-axis in the first is the raw, numeric number of jobs in Texas. Then look at graph number four showing population growth.

Chart 4 invalidates entirely the point Chart 1 is trying to make, but the surrounding text pretends it amplifies it.

More here: http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/08/17/297556/report-texas-ranks-dead-last-in-total-job-creation-accounting-for-labor-force-growth/

@Lawdeedaw, I'm glad I could be of some help, you're welcome.

People tend to get upset when you generalize about an entire group of people, especially if the defining characteristic of the group is something that wasn't a matter of choice (e.g. race, gender, height, sexual orientation, eye color, etc.).

I say talking about public policy is a whole other category of conversation. Personally I think the theory that the truth always lies somewhere in the middle is pretty much bogus. Even if you make the reasonable assumption that both sides are telling lies to amplify their position, it's a mistake to assume those lies are always equal.

Taking your health care example, the most extreme lefties were saying some rather radical things about single payer health care (Medicare for everyone). They'd say it'd improve overall care, reduce costs, and make health care accessible to all.

The other side says it'll mean the government "comes between you and your doctor", it'll mean death panels, it'll lead to genocide, and the end of freedom itself. Not only that, it won't even cut costs, it'll just mean more taxes, and worse care.

I don't think it's reasonable to look at those things and say "the truth is in the middle." For example, is Canada a genocidal totalitarian socialist state that's executing its elderly? Is France?

How about the slightly less crazy-sounding stuff. Are they spending a higher share of their GDP on health care than we are? How do medical professionals rate the quality of care there? How are health outcomes generally (e.g. life expectancy, infant mortality, etc.)? Do they offer that health care to everyone, regardless of ability to pay?

>> ^chilaxe:

So you're arguing against markets (meritocracy)

Markets aren't meritocracy.
>> ^chilaxe:

and in favor of collectivism & experientialism ('feel good' degrees paid for by somebody else)

Honestly, I don't really know what I'm in favor of. Given all the discussions I have here, I'm pretty sure your conception of "collectivism" differs from mine, and I only have a vague notion of what you're trying to say when you refer to "experientialism." It doesn't matter though, because your parenthetical ascribes a position to me that I have already explicitly disavowed (along with the premise it's based on).
>> ^chilaxe:
It does seem relevant then whether or not meritocracy causes greater contributions to humankind

It's no more relevant than talking about the ecological impact of unicorn migration, seeing how meritocracy doesn't exist.
>> ^chilaxe:
(it appears to, if we compare my outcomes to those of my lazy collectivist friends)

Anecdotes aren't data. Especially considering the cognitive biases of the source.
>> ^chilaxe:
"Would you really stop working on it if you got paid less, or if everyone got paid the same no matter what they did?"
Yes I would, and that's one of the reasons I stopped working in academia early on.
I'm asking you to respond to a hypothetical, specifically what would you do if material wealth wasn't connected to how you spent your time? Would you just become a couch potato? Or would you still feel driven to do something worthwhile, because being idle doesn't appeal to you?

I think if you are who you say you are, you'd still choose to do things that are useful and meaningful to society in such a situation. I know I would.

>> ^chilaxe:
I realized most human problems are self-caused and aren't relevant to rationalists (same as the make-believe problem of student loans).

Too bad you aren't a rationalist, then.
>> ^chilaxe:
But fortunately it's not generally necessary to make the choice between passion and career... individuals have general interests, and they can follow the most socioeconomically valued paths within those interests.

Sure it is. Who becomes a janitor because it was their passion? Lots of people get channeled into jobs that don't align with their passions, largely for reasons beyond their control.

As for "socioeconomically valued paths" my point is that that's a pretty strong external constraint on your ability to choose how to live your life, and that "freedom" doesn't entail making those constraints and pressures stronger.

One can make the argument that a society with that level of paternalism is more beneficial for everyone (I sometimes even believe that myself), but one can't seriously contend that such pressures constitute the very definition of freedom.

But if your goal for society is to promote rationality, markets aren't your mechanism.

Bill Nye doesn't get paid more than Sean Hannity, and Judge Judy gets paid more than the entire Supreme Court. There is no meritocracy, and there is no connection between rational behavior and their reward. Hannity and Judge Judy both would probably lose their jobs if they started publicly promoting rationality instead of inanity. Not to mention, Paris Hilton can probably buy and sell them all.

One can play a certain shell game with this, and say that it's rational for the producers to pay Hannity to be publicly inane because it's going to make them money, but this just further amplifies my point -- markets give rational people incentive to do irrational and destructive things, like give Sean Hannity a TV show, or try to rig the real-estate market, or to base a business on encouraging young women to become prostitutes.

Would like to hear him talk about stimulated brillouin scattering, how we suppress it, and different amplifiers based on different wavelengths. Add to that the different characteristics of light energy absorption by wavelength as a result of water content within the silicon, and you got yourself a much cooler video

and no offense


Lets not pretend you weren't well aware of the offense in your post.

but thats a much more justifiable reason, than Bush/%ofAmericans wanted revenge... if those were the reasons, the war should have never happened, and war crimes charges should have been sought


I'm talking about psychology, and the reasons people do things. That's very different than justification. And where did I say the war should have happened? Do you think it should have happened? Either way, it's irrelevant to the point at hand: American political support for "hitting back" was a prime reason the war happened. D

because you probably get most of your news from CNN or FOX or some other corporate news outlet right


So, in summary, you're dismissing me (and anyone who doesn't fit in with your narrow world view) as some kind of sheep. If I had a dollar for every time I've heard someone hand wave away an argument this way on the Internet, I'd have many dollars.

But yeah - I'm sure you meant "no offense". You won't catch me saying "no offense" in this post - I think your world view is the result of living in an Internet echo chamber, and only reading the sites and absorbing the opinions of people who agree with you. Yes, I read mainstream news (here in Canada I don't see a lot of Fox or CNN, but I like the BBC/CBC). I also read a lot on the web. Lots of left leaning stuff, but also conservative commentators like Instapundit who, while I don't usually agree with, sometimes has insights and news that shake my preconceptions. That's important.

etc don't motivate people in government just boggles the mind


Yeah - you don't understand the very rich and powerful. To the extent that they want money, they want money to "win" - to make the deal or be part of a big transaction or be right, or leverage that money to the next win. But their prime motivator is glory, and validation (especially public, but also from friends and other people in power). People who aren't rich don't get this because there's a bunch of stuff they want and can't buy. They can't imagine what it would be like to have "enough" money and power. Nothing George Bush wants (and doesn't already have) can be had for money, and nobody who's opinion he cares about cares how much money he has. Glory, legacy, victory - that's what motivates a guy with all the power in the world.

The other thing you don't understand is that these guys (and most people in general) don't do things they think are wrong. George Bush, however stupid you think he is, doesn't think "oooh, if we invade we'll get all this money". The advisers who know they'll make a profit, they make a difference, sure. Of course money is a factor. The group think carries a strong confirmation bias for the course that will make money. But, in the end, people in that room are building on an honest base of "we'll kill some terrorists" and "they hit us first".

There's many corners of Internet group think where "the most cynical guy must be right". This is a normal stage in intellectual development, as you move into questioning your parents' and teachers' worldview. It's healthy to an extent, but too many people now get stuck there forever - the availability of like minds on the Internet amplifies this effect. You have to understand, though, that this kind of worldview isn't reality and doesn't help you understand the world. Just as not everything is as it seems, not everything is not as it seems.

It's a pleasant fiction to believe that the "people at the top" are hyper competent string pullers - but looking back at history, it's scarcely right. The sad, scary reality is that they're people a lot like us. And until you understand that, you'll never understand world politics or history.

Same thing happens with children when they get hurt and parents flip out.

>> ^shinyblurry:

very cute..owners dont seem to know though that you're not supposed to make a big deal when a dog gets scared..they did an experiment where a dog had something frightening happen to it with a human around..if the human reacted like "awwww ohhh noo are you okay?" it ingrained that fear..but if the human didn't react then the dog thought it was no big deal..basically the human reaction amplified (or not) the fear that the dog naturally would have just shrugged off.

very cute..owners dont seem to know though that you're not supposed to make a big deal when a dog gets scared..they did an experiment where a dog had something frightening happen to it with a human around..if the human reacted like "awwww ohhh noo are you okay?" it ingrained that fear..but if the human didn't react then the dog thought it was no big deal..basically the human reaction amplified (or not) the fear that the dog naturally would have just shrugged off.

>> ^enoch:

can't...stop...staring..at..that FUCKING HAIR.
dude...grab some scissors for chrissakes.


But he's a scientist. Scientists need that hair to amplify their brain waves. Or something.