It was very interesting to me to see that they both talked about area footprint of wind/solar, but that their figures were *vastly* different. There are some fairly readily apparent things that contribute to that discrepancy, but not enough to account for it all in my opinion.

First, the pro-nuclear guy was presenting footprint for those resources supplying enough energy for the world's total need, whereas the anti-stance was talking only about powering transportation in the US.

Second, pro-nuclear included spacing and physical arrangement conditions into account for his footprint figures, while anti only considered the area of the base of the tower. I think both of those reporting methods have some useful data; as mentioned the spacing area around the tower bases can be used for agriculture or other production (although there is inconvenience costs associated with that), but there is also the physical reality that you can't cram all of those towers into a condensed area merely the size of their own footprint without the rotors colliding.

Those discrepancies in their arguments remind me of pro and anti ethanol talking points. I come from Kansas, and my family operates a farm that produces wheat and corn. Ten years ago, basically 100% of the corn production from my family's farm was sold to feedlots as food for cattle. About 5 years ago, an ethanol plant was built fairly close to our farmland, and so since then an average of roughly 50% has gone there instead (that figure changes a lot over time, but over a sum total of the past 5 years I figure 50% is ballpark). The remainder still goes to the beef industry. We determine who to sell corn to without any thought for pro/anti beef-ethanol advocacy, and just consider sale price minus self-delivery and other costs (shipping further costs more, etc.)

Anyway, the pro-ethanol people will butter you up with talk about "freeing ourselves from foreign oil", say that ethanol is better for the environment, etc. etc. The anti people write letters claiming that ethanol production is actually an energy-draining exercise -- that we use more energy to produce 1 unit of ethanol that we can gain from using that unit as fuel.

My uncle (basically the boss of the family farm) was interested in that claim so he decided to try to calculate it out, making best-guess estimates where necessary. What he came up with was that the anti-ethanol people were correct -- for the first 1-5 years of operation of an ethanol plant, and only if they include absolutely every expenditure of fuel even remotely associated with the production of the corn or other input AND the construction and operation of the plant itself. For example, including the diesel fuel consumption of every tractor, combine, irrigation wells/motors, etc. and suggesting that all of that consumption is entirely devoted to ethanol production; ie. that that fuel would not be used if the crop produced wasn't being turned into ethanol.

I didn't do the calculations myself, and I don't even really mean to suggest that I stand by them being correct. What I do think is relevant is that it shows that it is very very easy to present a fairly compelling argument for or against essentially anything by being selective about what data is included and how it is presented. This is particularly true for anything that involves large amounts of data and is fairly complex. So basically, while I *wish* that being honest, open, and thorough provided the best results in terms of winning a debate such as this, there is a lot to be said about the potential utility for massaging the data and preying on complexity and ignorance.

(Sorry for the long babble.)

>> ^thinker247:

They may behead dogs, but at least they're not Juggalos.


There's setting the bar so low that Einstein-Bose Condensate couldn't flow under it.

berticus::


What is the definition of a mind that perceives input a (a = the summation of incoming or already stored data: visual, sound, smell, etc... and memory) and then understands or assumes that the perception is continuous without interruption?

Delusional? I'm saying that we are delusional from the onset and it is by comparison (perhaps by dream state; testing possibilities then storing data) using a very discriminating sensory system (call this reality or at best what we can perceive it as) vs. our already gained memory filtered through dreams (call it fiction) alone that allows for humans to make a leap and understand what it is in the mirror.

I'd have to really simplify what I'm trying to get at it I wanted to make it easier. I know I didn't answer everything with the above statements, but I hope it's enough. Yes, I know that makes my condensed version a bad read unless you have some of the right information already on hand.

/A quick example for above. As children we have more areas of the brain gathering data and storing them. This slows down as we get older. Does this affect our gauge of time in relation to perceived continuity?
Since more of a days progress is stored as children does this correlate to a "slowing of time"?

//This would basically mean we're all delusional to an agreed upon value socially.

Data recovery service is super expensive, and I wouldn't get my hopes up on that as it can easily get into the 1k's of dollars. One thing you can try and do, which has had some success is to try the freezer trick. Put the hard drive in a ziplock back (to prevent condensation), freeze it for 2 hours, plug it in and see if you can access the data long enough to start copying it off. If it works, you will probably have to do this multiple times to get all the data depending on how much you have. If the heads have completely failed (thats whats making the clicking sound). You may be out of luck, unless you use a professional service.

Good luck.

That DKTV video was posted on Aug 28th 2009. I just wanted to make that clear because the description seems to indicate otherwise.

I love this video because I never get a chance to watch Glenn Beck. I'm glad someone can just condense it down for me.

But yeah, Alex Jones is way nuttier than Glenn Beck.

What exactly are we seeing? The shockwaves -- rapid high and low pressure -- cause water vapor to condense into clouds and then evaporate back into gaseous form?

I don't see why you would need to cut an air hole for bags. The bag will collapse due to air pressure all around it.

Condensed milk in cans, however, certainly benefits from an air hole.

And this is why I truly hate mainstream media now... especially the 'mass market' shit.

We have a free 'newspaper' here in Melbourne called the MX, which is basically just a bunch of things also printed in the shlock newspaper The Herald Sun along with even more trite and ridiculous 'stories'.

What stopped me reading it mostly though was that every page has AT LEAST one 'study' that makes some bold new claim about how something we've been doing for years is bad for us/good for us/used to be thought of as bad, but is now good/will make us more attractive to opposite sex

And so on and so on.

Except they are such small and condensed snippets you can't get a hold on whether the science behind the study is good or whether the finding is correctly reported... AND even more often the case, you find that it's a 'study' paid for by some company with a vested interest 'Study says that more people are finding meaningful relationships online' (says study funded by online dating site. 'Study says that using mouthwash with ethanol not a danger as previously thought' (says study funded by Listerine) and so on and so on.

It's infuriating and makes people distrust science more and more.

Sad

In reply to this comment by GeeSussFreeK:
That is the same sound I make when the limited format of text fails to fully convey the ideas in my head! Like when 2 missiles pass each other in flight hehehe (they don't call them missiles for nothing I guess!)

Anyway, I didn't mean to exasperate you. This was not my intent. You are always a very insightful and humble person here on the sift, and for that you have my greatest respect. Here's to the next delightful convo!

i find you an interesting person also.
and one i feel i can discuss things with that others may either take offense or become indignant.
thats why i wrote you.not to be inflammatory but to suggest your over-simplification of buddhism/christianity may not be close to a reality but rather closer to the western worlds abridged and condensed version.
western philosophy/theosophy could not exist without eastern philosophy/theosophy, not the other way around.

i pointed out that many in the western world take a myopic stance,not intentionally i would presume but rather one set by culture.i was not implying that you are myopic but that you were espousing certain well-grooved tracks used by many concerning buddhism.soundbytes usually perpetrated by the church itself and then parroted.

it is interesting to note that even teillhard de chardin remarked on the similarities of christs teachings and buddha.this was rejected by the church but i tend to agree with chardin.

while i agree that text is not a suitable and contextual medium to express such dynamic concepts and philosophies let me make a few observations and you tell me what you think.
1.you stated that buddhism does not recognize the "changing soul".this is an incorrect statement due to the fact that just about every precept of buddhism stems from ones journey and the self realization that one must change,grow to move on to a greater consciousness.
the primary vehicle for this is forgiveness,but while in buddhism this is a starting point and eventually should lead to an awareness where forgiveness is moot due to the fact that your choices will no longer need to be forgiven,christianity tends to view forgiveness in the latter stages of awareness.
which one is correct?that is for you to decide.
2.you stated that KARMA is not a vehicle of divine salvation,but that is a misnomer,it is very much a vehicle of divine salvation due to the fact that buddhist view all life as divine.while christianity views humans as dirt,sinful and unclean and the only path to salvation is through jesus christ.this is a very complex paradigm and i do not do this subject justice but that can wait for another conversation.while the concept in itself is simple,to express it in all its simplicity takes volumes.(just look at all the writings on this subject,many many perspectives).

these are only a few points.points i make to show that coming from a christian perspective may color the beauty and depth of buddhism.i do not feel you are a fundamentalist and that is a good thing because the teachings of jesus are beautiful as they are succinct but if viewed only from the eyes of the church i have always felt the meat of jeus christ's teachings have gone either misinterpreted or outright twisted.then again,i view religion with a suspicious eye and read the teachings from a different vantage point.
does this mean i am right and my views infallible?
no..that would arrogant.
but it does mean i have the ability to glean understanding that is not tainted by the church because i view the teachings from a different angle.
studying cultural religious history has given me context to better understand those teachings.
that has been a work in progress for 25 years and im still going,still learning and still fascinated by it all.
as always my friend..a pleasure discussing my favorite subject with you.
till our next conversation.
namaste.

I wish I could downvote.

Does the guy really need to painfully list every single thing that is clearly displayed in the video? Is the childish narration really necessary? It sounds like the narrator thinks we're all still potty training. By cutting the unnecessary crap, you could condense that video down to 20 seconds max.

If you don't want to waste a couple minutes, here's the link to one of the original reddit threads and very simple image illustrating the point.

http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/alfyk/google_removes_popular_negative_searches_related/

*also, google has stated that this is a bug and will be fixed.

My childhood has just been condensed down to 5 minutes and 19 seconds.. minus the masive dogfight happening above of course.

I try and condense these into one invocation... but how can this not already be in the *love channel? Wow.

Thanks mintyb, for that bit of inside informatoin, the next time we go to SB's we shall do so more confident with the information you have so graciously provided us wee all....with those choices peggedbea man,dude, that was tough..... cause if yer talkin about some rock-hard vanilla bean or french or yer choice 'a ice cream, and you take and put a layer of that smooooth marshmallow scthoif in the jar and torch it with one a those bananas Foster torches and brown that marshmallow and THEN pit the whipped cream with some 90% Cacacacau chocolate all melted with sweetened condensed nilk and maybe some fresh vanilla bean scraped in that desert baste with maybe some sprinkles of espresso pine nuts, some grated coconut and with some lingham berry sauce for the top, but not the very top....

I now this comment is like a month late to the party but great post EndAll..... You know what they say common sense really isn't all that common. What I can't understand is watching this video that you have people who are still against the theory or are on the fence probably because they don't want to be labeled as a nut or whatever other fucking belittle or condensing comment you can make some up about some one for thinking out side of the box. Can't have critical thinking... hey for all those that want to debunk the video, produce a video and ill sit down and watch. then assert my two cents on it. stop letting your mouth run; prove it that you have the answers. I wouldn't be surprised if some of you were government paid Internet trolls but whoa i might being going to far with that one...Ill were my tin hat...thanks.

To help out Sifters with short attention spans, I have condensed Mr. Pennypacker's post.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

waa waa waa democracy is only served with votes that I agree with waa waa waa