Cry me a fucking river. Preferably after you open any book of history ever compiled.

My capacity for sympathy evaporates in the face of people feeling sorry for themselves. Maybe I'm just a cad.

The paper doesn't say what you claim it does. It says that religious tolerance correlates with productive scientific societies, which is no where near the same thing as saying that religious beliefs inhibit productivity. And since it is a correlation, it also does not show a cause-effect relationship and he even points out it could work either way--science could have a secularizing effect or it could be that more secular societies decide to invest more in science (for unknown reasons). Nothing in there about inhibition of scientific productivity except at the end where he states that the data would imply that fundamentalism (i.e. lack of tolerance) is likely to correlate to slower growth (though he didn't actually test that hypothesis with any data and therefore that statement is uncorroborated by any evidence--in fact he mentions that Iran increased scientific research by 5x between 1993 and 2003 which would seem to cast doubt on the hypothesis).

Not sure what your point about the GDP was. Correlation is not causation. We would expect high GDP countries to invest more in research and technology simply because they have more money to spare than poor countries. He even points out that there is a lack of correlation for poor countries.

>> ^Drachen_Jager:

For those who care. A scientific paper proving that ALL religions and strong religious beliefs inhibit scientific productivity. As a bonus it also shows that high GDP per capita is linked to scientific productivity.

For those who care. A scientific paper proving that ALL religions and strong religious beliefs inhibit scientific productivity. As a bonus it also shows that high GDP per capita is linked to scientific productivity.

This is my last response to you, it's quite obvious you're clinging to your attitude that laws are there for no reason, and that the government is just out for your money.

I never said any of that. And there's no need to be immature about it. It's just the internet, dude.

Find me a statistic that shows how jaywalking kills thousands annually

I read a statistic claiming 3% of people are killed by jaywalking. Is it true, who knows? But there you go.

However, I guess I should've seen your selfishness coming.

Are the ad hominem attacks really necessary?

...it will once again be something completely unrelated, and you'll be trying to make a point about something once again completely irrelevant.

I wouldn't say anything I've said is irrelevant. Maybe unpopular, but not irrelevant. If you're referring to the jaywalking death sentence, I was being extreme in light of your 'just because you disagree with the punishment, doesn't mean the law shouldn't be there" comment. Don't argue in spite of one small comment in the face of many larger cogent ones. Don't use misdirection.

If you let 1.2 million drivers on the road, the odds of some of them having an accident, sober or not, is increased. Putting 1.2 million drivers on the road who ARE inebriated, so their reaction times are slower, they're not seeing straight, and probably swerving on the road, puts them at a substantially higher statistic to have an accident, that's common sense.

Argumentum ad populum. Driving puts you in a substantially higher statistical rate to have an accident than not driving. Walking on sidewalks puts you in a substantially higher statistical rate to be hit by a car than staying at home. Where does this circular logic end? The point is, you can argue in favor of any type of behavior leading to higher fatality statistics, but that doesn't make it sound reasoning for creating a preemptive law.

And not everyone who is over .08 is inebriated. And their reaction times, sight and driving abilities may not be affected any more than you driving when you slept only five hours instead of eight. It's arbitrary.

And, no one is "putting" anyone on the roads. The people are "choosing" to be there whether sober or otherwise.

yeah. you just need to match the exact projector position (and lens data) in your modeling software and match "CAD World" and "Real World" and it should work.

Still. There's a couple things they did to make it look so good. They put an ND filter over the projector to cut down on the light spill, and stuck with mostly primary, highly saturated colors to make the dynamic contrast pop. The system contrast is probably really high, like 20:1 or something. The physical objects "screen" gain also has to be pretty low. .15 or .2 at least.

It's really well done, and I've seen dozens of these surface-projected systems.

Winstonfield: "[There are those who] use thier belief system as an excuse to behave like jackasses. ... In every group you have people lacking the character, spine, and decency to stop themselves from becoming prejudiced cads."
Then: "I think you want a video-sharing site that ISN'T dominated by vocal insecure people who happen to favor atheism and liberalism."

Well done. You get the medal for consecutive self-referential posts! I actually laughed out loud at this one.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
There are creationists who use thier belief system as an excuse to behave like jackasses. Dawkins is an atheist who uses his atheism as an excuse to behave like a jackass. In every group you have people lacking the character, spine, and decency to stop themselves from becoming prejudiced cads.


God, you're dumb. Please explain to us how Dawkins is acting like a jackass in this video.

There are creationists who use thier belief system as an excuse to behave like jackasses. Dawkins is an atheist who uses his atheism as an excuse to behave like a jackass. In every group you have people lacking the character, spine, and decency to stop themselves from becoming prejudiced cads.

is all that you do hate?

Hm? Eh, what? Hate as in people? I'm not an emotive fellow. I dislike hypocrisy, deceit, and inefficiency, but that's probably not what you are implying.

Isn't there anything that you actually like?

Sure. I like honesty, efficiency, hard work, thrift, and common sense. I like taking responsibility, and refusing to pass the buck. I like getting things done, helping out folks who need it, and helping people to learn how to not need help in the first place. I like when people stand on their own feet, take care of their own, and have the guts, grit, and determination to refuse to take things they don't need. I like freedom, small government, and the original Constitution & Bill of Rights. I also like apple filled doughnuts.

You bail out of any argument or debate as soon as it becomes clear your losing .

I typically note that I'm the guy that sticks with the discussion much longer than the average sifter. I also note that other sifers - such as yourself with this thread - are the ones that generally respond with insults, attacks, profane language, non sequiters, and so forth. I try to stay on topic, keep things impersonal, and confine the discussion to issues as opposed to generic frothing and ranting.

what change is it you hope to affect ?

Change? I'm not Obama. I don't deal in platitudes. I discuss issues, and correct misinformation about the conservative position. I also - such as this thread - sometimes like to keep the left honest by spurring them to grapple with the reality of just who and what they are cheerleading. Like this vid. Mobama impugning a large group of people and calling them (effectually) racists with no evidence. It was despicable and purile, and showed her to be an intellectual lightweight and a judgemental buffoon. The early comments went on and on. "Yeah - you go girl..." I have effectively shown that at the very BEST she was a thoughtless cad - and (more likely) at worst is more racist herself than the people she was addressing. Not quite something to cheer about anymore, is it?

And just in case you hadn't noticed the pendulum went the other way the last time we had a say in it.

I don't even understand what this is in reference to. Who is 'we'? What subject was under discussion about which 'we' had a 'say'? I'm afraid I require antecedents.

http://www.ctrlaltdel-online.com/comic.php?d=20090629

Even CAD did a salute.

RIP billy.

"But there is no way to perform a double blind test, what the fuck do you tell the shooter? It's impossible. How can you adequately mimic the behaviour of a psychopath? Any person you send in to do that job will do it unflinchingly and with as much speed and clinical precision as their skill would allow."

Simple answer for this one... Take one of the students, even one of them with gun experience and tell them to enter the room and shoot as many people as possible... a realistic goal for a killer. Don't tell them another person in the room has a gun. Once they are hit once or the gunman gets hit, trial over. Do this a few times with a few groups, then compare it to a like study where no one in the room except the gunman has a gun. Look at the numbers and you've got a good study. Science gods appeased. Demonstration valid... and still scary.

"* Guns are used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense."
To be fair, that number is likely an overestimate:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/t1h35xg532770p26/


The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Vol. 86, No. 1 (Autumn, 1995), pp. 150-187 http://www.jstor.org/stable/1144004?seq=2 :
"...research has consistently indicated that victims who resist with a gun or other weapon are less likely than other victims to lose their property in robberies and burglaries. Consistently research has also indicated that victims who resist by using guns or other weapons are less likely to be injured compared to victims who do not resist or who resist without weapons."
"With regard to studies of rape, although samples typically include to few cases of self-defense with a gun for separate analysis, McDermott, Quinsey and Upfold, Lizotte, and Kleck and Sayles (citations in linked article) all found that victims who resisted with some kind of weapon were less likely to have the rape attempt completed against them."

I found that in ten minutes... Apparently ABC had fewer than 10 minutes to look?

Here's a book I found but can't yet vouch for, still:
http://books.google.com/books?id=B1TqrNK3OkAC&printsec=frontcover&dq=gun+personal+protection+evidence&lr=&source=gbs_summary_s&cad=0

I will *beg for attention for this tragedy. Although this plane was filled with Indian passengers. Many people don't realize how many of them were Canadian. 270 of the 330 that died aboard this flight were Canadian.

Investigation and prosecution took almost 20 years and was the most expensive trial in Canadian history, costing nearly CAD $130 million. A special Commission found the accused perpetrators not guilty and they were released. The only person convicted of involvement in the bombing was Inderjit Singh Reyat, who pleaded guilty in 2003 to manslaughter in constructing the bomb used on Flight 182 and received a five-year sentence. He was refused parole in July 2007.

In September 2007, the Commission investigated reports, initially disclosed in the Indian investigative news magazine Tehelka that an hitherto unnamed person, Lakhbir Singh Brar Rode, had masterminded the explosions. This report appears to be inconsistent with other evidence known to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP).[3]

Canada's Sikh community has put a great deal of pressure on successive Canadian governments to prevent a public enquiry from taking place. However, the Conservative Harper government, under less pressure from the Sikh community than the Liberal Party of Canada, launched a Commission of Enquiry in 2006. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_India_Flight_182

A very detailed report on this flight is recorded here: http://www.airdisaster.com/special/special-ai182.shtml

Okay. First, I'll point out that you still don't have any sources that repeat your own claim that the Democratic-Republican party simply disappeared into thin air, and that there was a clear and clean break between that party and the Democratic Party.

Second, you either didn't understand my explanation of why the Republican party would be different, or well, I guess there is no other real explanation, because you laid out a straw man instead of responding to what I actually said.

Third, your fixation with the logo is unhealthy. Seriously, if we change the logo now to a Fox to mock Fox News, does that mean Bill O'Reilly founded the Democratic party? I'm not being entirely facetious -- if the Democratic-Republican party didn't have a logo before, but during the Jackson presidency they adopted it to spite the people calling him Jackass, does that make him the founder of the Democratic-Republican party? I think it makes him a Jackass, but that's not what we're talking about.

But really, this all comes down to #1. You said the answers.com page was accurate. Here's some of what you deemed accurate:

Encyclopedia Britannica:

In the 1790s a group of Thomas Jefferson's supporters called themselves "Democratic Republicans" or "Jeffersonian Republicans" to demonstrate their belief in the principle of popular government and their opposition to monarchism. The party adopted its present name in the 1830s, during the presidency of Andrew Jackson.

So, one party, that changed its name.

US History Encylcopedia:

By the end of Madison's presidency and throughout Monroe's two terms, known as the "Era of Good Feeling," the Democratic Republican Party largely abandoned its minimalism and supported tariff, banking, and improvements policies originally supported by its Federalist opponents.

After the retirement of James Monroe, the newly renamed "Democratic" Party came to rally around the candidacy of Andrew Jackson. Jackson steered the party back toward its minimalist origins.

The Law Encyclopedia entry starts with:

The modern Democratic party is the descendant of the Democratic-Republican party, an early-nineteenth-century political organization led by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. Also known as the Jeffersonians, the Democratic-Republican party began as an antifederalist group, opposed to strong, centralized government. The party was officially established at a national nominating convention in 1832. It dropped the Republican portion of its name in 1840.

They don't all agree about the exact timing of the change, but they say it was a change in name, not a newly founded party.

In the course of searching again today, I found a couple original-source documents:

Thomas Jefferson Randolph (Thomas Jefferson's grandson) said at the 1872 Democratic convention that he'd spent 80 years of his life in the Democratic-Republican party (source), and Inquiry Into the Origin and Course of Political Parties in the United States By Martin Van Buren, where he discusses the topic at excruciating length, but frequently talks about the roots of the Democratic party beginning with Jefferson.

Look, you're just wrong. You can disagree with the history as it's written, but that makes you, not me, the revisionist.

It's okay. I don't blame you for being mad. You don't like the thought that Thomas Jefferson and William Jefferson Clinton were both from the same party. Here's a thought, maybe we should change the logo to a brunette sucking cock, to commemorate the founding of Limbaugh's Clinton's Democrat (as opposed to Democratic) party. The logo change, that's really all it takes to found a new party.

Someone call Hillary and let her know she won the nomination at the Democrat National Convention, where only Michigan and Florida count. Best not show her the new logo though.

$11.42 USD = $14.65 CAD. Neither number has any deeper meaning, but hope it contributes to keeping this most excellent time-sink afloat.

>> ^gwiz665:
This game is so awesome.
<a rel="nofollow" style="left: 625px ! important; top: 52px ! important;" title="Click here to block this object with Adblock Plus" class="abp-objtab-023578855564559542 visible ontop" href="http://www.ctrlaltdel-online.com/comics/Lite20081130.jpg"><embed src="http://www.ctrlaltdel-online.com/comics/Lite20081130.jpg">


Grr... I hate CAD.