And you are the guy who rapes nuns on Teusdays for peanut butter jelly sandwitches. (Hint: Lies aren't don't become true just because you type them out.)

You are welcome to continue placing your faith in the FDA, CDC, and AMA to tell you the truth. Good luck with that.

http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4546409/mr-posey

You expect me to show you massive, expensive, controlled studies published exclusively by those who have a massive, vested, financial interest in supressing the very same studies. Genius. Pure genius.

These peer reviewers are regularly lying to each other, to themselves, to the publishers, and to the public to maintain funding. They have no credibility whatsoever. You are reading studies that are all fancied up to be all technical and socially acceptable and official and scientific and peer reviewed and above reproach... And they are all lies. Calculated lies to maintain the results expected by those who fund the studies.

Just gonna throw that number out there without a reference? So i looked and the group who came up with that is largely funded by the PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY. Try again
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/19/upshot/calculating-the-real-costs-of-developing-a-new-drug.html?_r=0&abt=0002&abg=0

I thought the video made a good point, but rather different from the one I assumed it was going for before watching.

As I was finishing up my senior year of High School after 4 years of taking crap for being a nerd etc., a friend/acquaintance of mine was starting her freshman year. She got picked on also, probably worse than I had had it. She made it through 1 semester before dropping out. Then she got a part time job for a half-year, took night classes at the local community college, and got her GED.

At the time, I thought she was making a terrible decision by not sticking it out and trying to get through High School the usual way -- 4 years of hell. But then, the next year she ended up at the same University where I was, both as Uni-freshmen, and she handled the much more mature University environment just fine.

It ended up completely turning the tables for me, to the point that I thought that her path of dropping out -> GED -> Uni was actually objectively superior to my suffering through the more traditional path.

So, that's what I thought "don't stay in school" was going to refer to.


But the actual message is good as well. The best classes that I had in Middle and High School were more practical things. But oddly enough, the best examples of that for me were my math classes. I had the same teacher for Geometry, Algebra 2, Pre-Calc, and Calculus (AP, so equivalent to Calc 1 at a University). He stressed the real-life applications of advanced mathematics by doing lots of word problems, and only teaching topics that he could point to concrete, real-world applications for. And by letting us use calculators for everything as long as we could explain WHY specific operations were needed to answer the questions.


...So, long-winded response boiled down:
I like the message. More practical stuff in school is better. And feel free to drop out -- especially if doing so is just a shortcut to further education at a University, Vo-Tech, or whatever.

This is Texas Hold 'em, and it's only ever played with one deck. The entire point of texas hold 'em is that a good player can calculate the statistical probability of what he has versus what the other players have, because they can all see the community cards.

If you introduce a second deck, it would completely mess up all those statistics. It's possible there are multiple deck variants of poker, but this certainly isn't one of them.

Tournament poker is always played with one deck at a time.

A computer big enough to accurately calculate the position and properties of every "particle" (and ever decreasing subdivisions of energy and matter) would need to be the size of the universe in the first place. We can't even simulate enough particles in an n-body simulation to match the number of stars in a galaxy, let alone individual molecules, or shall we go further and say atoms, or further and say protons, neutrons and electrons? And that's for ONE galaxy amongst hundreds of billions in the OBSERVABLE universe... using only ONE force - gravity!

The guy has a great point about the Big Bang - a billion billion galaxies worth of matter and energy created in a split second from nothing? Doesn't sound like like the conservation of energy that is so fundamental to physics, right? But that's no reason to throw out hundreds of years of evidence and research which has proven conservation of energy to be true since then. The big bang makes the most sense given what we see today... if you want to propose a better theory, it has to make more sense than the Big Bang theory. Saying that the big bang doesn't make sense is not an appropriate starting point for a new theory, and doesn't lead to "so therefore we're in a simulation."

And it's not good enough to appeal to simplicity like @robdot is doing - basically saying that everything we see could very easily be an illusion for our benefit. That's an argument for God, in my opinion... just like how religious fanatics say "it was God's will for this to happen" we'd instead say "well, that's what the simulation wanted to show us" and call it a day. Furthermore if the manifestations of physical laws out there in the universe are illusions, they are at least consistent illusions that we can calculate and predict. And in that case, what is the difference to our lives whether we call it "reality" or "simulation" or "computer"? It it still what we always knew it was. If something created our universe and allowed it to run like a simulation, it is almost certainly intangible to us and for all intents and purposes meaningless too, because we can't touch, feel, see or understand it on any level.

This is one of the topics i asked of my favourite professor - how can we trust what we see if it could be faked, and what exists beyond our universe? His answer was, if i have to doubt what i see, i might as well not do anything at all, and if you want an answer to the second question talk to a philosopher. This is a philosophical discussion, not a scientific one. The scientific method doesn't care what you call the place you live in nor "who" we think "created" it. You can't hope to understand anything if you don't base it on the evidence you have. You certainly can't form a theory on the basis that all evidence is untrustworthy.

I don't trust either side's statements. All government statements are tainted with whatever is the popular rhetoric of the time, meaning that historical accounts of those statements are also tainted.

Officials make statements with far too many factors to consider.
Drumming up popular support for a cause, one's own popularity with the electorate, misleading rivals about one's intentions, etc.

In the end, what matters is what they actually do (what, how, when, in what order, to whom, etc), because that shines a light on what they most likely intended, but never came out and said.



It's like a fishmonger with too many fish.
His desire is to sell them all before they go bad, and make as much money as possible.

He could say to people :
"I have too many fish, please buy some before they go bad"

Or he could say :
"I am running out of fish, there is a shortage, my apologies"

The first statement may bring in a few people, but they will ask for a deal. None will feel particularly urged to buy.

The second statement will make people worry about a scarce resource. More people will show up than usual, and none will be expecting a good price.

So, it's in the fishmonger's interest to lie in order to get people to make a decision on their own that happens to be the decision that the fishmonger wants them to make : gotta go get some fish asap.



Similarly, the government has its own intentions. It could come out and say what it wants, but it's much easier to tell the people things that will make the people ask for what the government wants.
(Plus, if things go bad, the government can say "Hey, we were only giving you democratic representation... you asked for it, not us".)

So in effect, taking any government statement as truth, without considering the future implications of believing and acting on that statement, is leaving one's self open to manipulation.

One of the issues I see with many historical studies, is that they tend to parrot official statements as if they were the actual opinions/thoughts of the officials making them - when it's far more likely that the officials were making those statements in a false and calculated manner.

-scheherazade

Your "we" is in you own mind.

Just because people as you believe cant take care of themselves that WE should care for them cradle to grave via tax dollars.

That is foolish.

I do live in the real world and WE buckle down/ plan / save / get screwed and get back up and keep going.

Are you saying you make 15K/yr? If so then you are making more money that 85% of the world population. Your are RICH compared to others. Shit you should be taxed 90% and share it with others.

World Wealth Calculator
http://www.leastof.org/worldwealthcalculator

Then again If I were a man only making 15K /yr I would shoot myself instead of insisting of a lifetime leaching on others.


But my play would take of you and enable you to take paid time off so you could retrain yourself for a better paying job.

I'm such a swell guy. You don't even have to say thank you.

Ok, now you're just being willfully stupid.

Yes, life in the Universe is possible, but that doesn't mean your favored theory about how life arrived in the Universe is possible.
What favoured theory? I have no idea how life arrived in the universe. I suspect we never will. Even if we reproduce the exact conditions that gave rise to life and see single celled life created that doesn't mean that's how it started however many billions of years ago. I never claimed to know these things. Claiming to know things you can't possibly know is religions act, not sciences.

The probability has been calculated, more often than not, at many, many times greater than the number of atoms in the Universe.
Citation needed.

There has been no scientific proof provided showing that abiogenesis is possible.
Already admitted. But there is a sound theoretical basis behind.

To rule out at the least a possible designer is simply personal bias

Did you somehow miss the part THAT YOU QUOTED where I said I can't prove god doesn't exist. I simply stated that it's incredibly improbable.

There is plenty of positive evidence for Gods existence
Really? Please point me to the peer reviewed scientific paper that shows this. Otherwise, all you have are anecdotes.

faith in abiogenesis is simply blind faith

If I had "faith" in abiogenesis, that would be correct. But once again, I ask you do you understand the difference between what I think is probable based on observed facts and "taking something on faith"? I don't "believe" in abiogenesis. It seems like a reasonable explanation for the origin of life (certainly better than "magic beard in the sky did it"), but right now, it's just a hypothesis. Not even a theory. If we obtain some evidence one way or the other, I will switch my position. You're locked into yours regardless of the facts.

A God existing does not violate anything we know about the Universe.Thermodynamics would like a word with you.

Just because we understand the mechanics of something does not rule out an agency behind it. It would be like taking apart a car and then saying that because we understand how the car is put together that gasoline does not exist.
Jesus, that is so stupid I don't even know where to start. Do you actually read what you've written? Do you understand what the word "agency" means? Gasoline is the not the agency of a car, the driver is. A car without a driver does nothing (until google get their way anyway). And we can clearly see all the parts of a cars design where input is required from the driver and energy provided by the gasoline.

If you can show me a magical ghost car that drives without a driver or fuel source, I will believe in god. Meanwhile, we live in a universe that functions just fine without the requirement for any supernatural agency.

The bible says that everyone is provided evidence of Gods existence
The bible is a bad story book written by tribal idiots who didn't have a clue about their world. I don't give a shit what it says. Call me when you have actual evidence.

Here's a hint: in order to create life, you don't need a seven. If you did you wouldn't be reading this. We exist, therefore by definition life in the universe is possible.

That's simply the fallacy of false equivalence. Yes, life in the Universe is possible, but that doesn't mean your favored theory about how life arrived in the Universe is possible.

Now, I'm perfectly willing to grant that it might be extraordinarily improbable.

The probability has been calculated, more often than not, at many, many times greater than the number of atoms in the Universe. There has been no scientific proof provided showing that abiogenesis is possible. It is simply a faith that many scientists and atheists have that it *must* have happened that way because of evolution. Abiogenesis because evolution is not a theory of origins, it is blind faith.

And as for god? Well, we know for certain that life exists, so it's not unreasonable to assume it might exist elsewhere. But we have zero empirical evidence for god. None, zip, zilch, nada. Does that mean god definitely doesn't exist? No, I can't prove that.

You know that life exists but what you don't know is how or why. To rule out at the least a possible designer is simply personal bias; there isn't a logical reason to do so. There is plenty of positive evidence for Gods existence, there isn't any for abiogenesis. Faith in God is reasonable, faith in abiogenesis is simply blind faith.

Is it probable that god exists? No, it would violate everything we know about the universe. That doesn't mean we're not wrong, but you'd think that something as powerful as a literally omnipotent entity would leave some evidence of it's existence.

As Dawkins said when asked what he would say if he died and met god, "why did you go to such trouble to hide yourself?"

A God existing does not violate anything we know about the Universe. I think you're confusing mechanism with agency. Just because we understand the mechanics of something does not rule out an agency behind it. It would be like taking apart a car and then saying that because we understand how the car is put together that gasoline does not exist.

The bible says that everyone is provided evidence of Gods existence, and that people suppress the truth because they love their sin. It's not really about evidence; I know atheists who have had out of body experiences who deny they have a soul.

Anyone remember TI graphing calculators, which at the time I was using them (90s) I think ran on 8088 processors?

Quite a bit MORE expensive than this. MUCH less powerful, even factoring in Moore's law. AND, they were in no way intended to be an open, hackable design like this is. And even with all those limitations, they became one of the primary "introduction to hardware and software hacking" devices of my generation.

When I was a 16-year-old HS Freshman, I had a TI-81 that I hooked up to a PC with a serial port and "hacked" zShell onto. I learned a bit of assembly code and put on lots of little programs like games etc. onto my calculator. I even got an image display program where you could load up bitmap images that were converted to a specific size and color depth (4-8 grays if I remember right). I got busted in my Geometry class that year looking at a blurry grayscale picture of a topless Pamela Anderson. On my calculator. If that doesn't put me in the running for biggest nerd ever, I don't know what would.

Anyway, I can only see this "Chip" thing (I agree that I'm not too big on the name) as a very cool idea. Sometimes, something as simple as a hackable platform or a blurry 4-bit picture of some boobs can be enough to push someone towards a lifelong interest in IT and other technology. Raspberry Pi and the others are great too, but the price of this one gives it a real leg up in the universal accessibility department!

That must be the new math.

So by your calculation the average black man is more likely to die by cop? It defies any common sense. Most black people support what the cops do. It's only a small percentage who don't.

I truly don't understand why you make the cops out to be ruthless killers who target black people when the truth is quite the opposite.

Cops risk their lives every day in places like Baltimore to protect the majority of black peace-loving people from the thugs who live among them. That is true selflessness and it takes courage and responsibility.

I have seen calculations that there are 50 pounds of lithium in a Tesla car.

Did a few of miss the part where you can select the parts that are automated and manual?

You're asking for situations where you can choose and the video shows that almost as the first feature. It's there people

Personally for me, it makes sense to have it be 100% automated by default, place your hands on those bits for 3seconds to enter manual. Release both hands, reverts back to automatic.

The 3 seconds is more of a human thing, I'm sure the the car never actually stops any of its automatic calculations, it simply turns on/off if you can control steering and acceleration.

Presto, enjoy driving however you want and not driving whenever you want.

I'm still a firm of advocate of 100% forced automation, sorry, humans are just far too incapable to be driving death machines. I'm sorry if you enjoy it, we'll just create little "driving vacation spots" and we can all move on? After all, you're probably not getting nostalgic about your commutes to work.

But it'll take a while yet for the automation to be able to handle 100% of driving. In the mean time, this sort of dual mode looks pretty great to me.

I like how he points out that the color "illusions" are not actually a brain failure, but an amazing visual processing feature honed by evolution. If the rubix cube were a real object photographed in yellow light and then in blue light, those tiles would have to be yellow and blue (not grey). It's like our brains calculate the true color under white light, and that's what we see.

Just think about how useful that is, without that feature we could never build up knowledge about what color different plants and animals are, because their color would seem to change drastically with the lighting conditions.

It's a bit hard to say whether the fabled Grexit would have been more damaging than The Austerity, has anyone actually done the calculations?

What we can see, fairly clearly, is that the projected outcome of The Austerity by the Austerity freaks has been completely the opposite of what actually happened. Somewhere there was a nice graph showing projected growth vs actual, but the summary is that where they projected growth in year 4, in actual fact the Greek economy actually just kept contracting. (@radx, did you see the graph?)

The reports I saw of the reform proposals were exactly what you suggest, a credible plan to tackle corruption and to use some of the savings to fund social programs and tackle the humanitarian crisis caused by The Austerity. The Grauniad summarised reactions to the proposal as a sensible compromise between the Greek government’s promises and the demands of its creditors.