You must mean guano, which is the excrement (feces and urine) of bats, but also seabirds, and seals.



>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Why do bats get a personalized shit name? Does any other creature in the animal kingdom have a unique name for their droppings?

In reply to the caption:

What are you talking about? Kitteh would never dignify the head of a human with her excrement.

>> ^Farhad2000:
Great comment HollywoodBob.


I think you are confusing "quality" with "quantity". I agree there was a great quantity of words in that post.

If you guys want to debate, it would a lot more fun if you actually attempted to refute my assertions instead of excreting random statements from your ass. Maybe it is too transparent for you, but I picked out the key assertions (bot directly and indirectly stated) in jwray's comment and directly refuted them. HollywoodBob, you did no such thing.

I could refute HollywoodBob's response point-by-point, but it is unnecessary as it barely a serious response. In addition, myself and others would likely have to wade through more excrement if he responds to my response.

I'd love to see profanity in TV commercials.

Try new Snuggley Soft Shit Paper™: it's the paper that softly snuggles the shit right out of your asshole. (Teddy bear covered in excrement laughs maniacally: Tee hee hee hee heeeee)

Actually, I read a while back that "Spitting" had gotten so bad there that they had to make it illegal. It was so bad that you couldn't walk in the street without stepping in it and disease control had to step in!

"Apparently, spitting in public is very common in China. "They consider phlegm excrement," explained a coworker of mine who recently visited Shanghai. With SARS spreading in airborne saliva and mucous particles (aka respiratory secretions, China has had to tackle the challenge of outlawing a practice as "common as breathing."


http://www.china.org.cn/english/China/64853.htm

Is Limbaugh missing a brain? Perhaps he had it replaced with a second digestive system, which exudes excrement out his mouth.

a more appropriate punishment would be to force these people to eat excrement. It would produce the same kind of squirming and kicking effect that the baby was forced into while being forced to take in a substance she really didn't want to against her will.

Honestly, before I had scrolled down, I wanted to comment, and I quote "I think RIAA should get out of the entertainment industry and get into excrement industry."

>> ^rottenseed:
I think the RIAA should get out of the entertainment industry and get into the toilet industry.

Also, NordlichtReiter, you forgot to mention some of the biggest names among independent developers - id and Valve. And Crytek, too. And even among the big publishers the former evil-nazi-empire that was EA has finally arrived at a sensible (turning) point in managing their subsidiaries, where they won't be pushing 1 year NFS development cycles anymore and have set up the EA Partners program (all the aforementioned have signed up and given positive feedback),
so I'd say the PC industry is reshaping itself, rather than in a decline, as some would have you believe.

>> ^EDD:
^Dear GeeSussFreek,
you call yourself a scientist. That is fine. However, I will warn you right away that many on this website would question your devotion to scientific method based on your username alone - tell me, is it a coincidence that it's pronounced exactly like "Jesus-Freak"? I'm asking this (rather rhetorical) question because religious fanatics claiming to be scientists are often proponents of Intelligent Design, which is (I'll be frank here) a load of steaming bull excrement. I hope you are not one of this fold, because I've had my share of "dialogue" with these folks, and it has never, ever resembled anything like a reasoned, structured discourse.
With my worries laid before you, my response is this:
there are many fields of science and from your short stay on the Sift you would apparently style yourself as a jack-of-all-trades (economics, military, political science, theoretical and quantum physics, chemistry, just to name a few of which you've shared your opinion). Yet, it would also appear that you may be master of nothing.
A scientist (especially one talking about science and scientific method) would not ever, under any circumstances, attempt to draw their own definitions of FACT. Or any concept previously and universally known, for that matter. Me, I was taught what general as well as specific definitions of 'fact' are in secondary school. It would appear your "science diploma studies" have taught you nothing of this. Scientific fact feeds directly back from scientific method, which includes fancy notions such as peer review, one which has unfortunately so far eluded the scope of ID proponents. In science, fact may at times not be the absolute truth, it's what's agreed upon by the informed public. Our knowledge in most advanced fields of study can never be perfect and complete, but the ones most often making this claim are religious folks, saying that scripture "has all the answers".
Now, mass. My oh my.
Mass, assuming we're talking about gravitational mass, not inertial-7th-grade-physics-mass here, is the interaction of gravitational fields. In other words, yes, gravity. The same concept you differentiated, indicating exactly how much you understand of this and that I have no need to go into supergravity, supersymmetry and duality and start actually looking things up. Thanks for that. Oh, and by the way - mass is not created. Neither is matter, for that matter.
Continuing on-
regarding your nonplussed ideas about quantum theories, I have to disappoint you a little bit - it's still discernible, natural science; it hasn't obliterated all previous theories in physics; in fact, I dare you name three it has. Yes, the math involved is a 'bit' harder, the conjectures deeper and at times wilder, but scientific method is still applied.
You also said: "The fact is, that science doesn't deal with facts and has no method of proving things true, only methods of proving them false."
First of all, I LOVE your use of "fact" in this sentence, just love it. Anyway, hypocrisy aside, all we need, is a YES/NO or a TRUE/FALSE experiment. Their initial assumption will either be true, and they will PROVE something to be true, or it will be wrong, and they will prove that it is wrong. Works both ways, just like logic's supposed to, in your brain.
In conclusion, I return to my initial lines:
"You call yourself a scientist. That is most definitely not fine."


So, because I am a Christian, I can not be science minded. Thats a weak assertion. Moreover, its a showing of the new bigot mind set against any of those who have a different mind set. It is the new thing. To expect me to tolerate and be tolerant of your ideas, but the same latitude is not relayed back. I wouldn't count someone out just cause they called themselves agnosticfreak, would you? But that isn't the point of this conversation.

Intelligent design is crap. I never even mentioned it here, but yet, you rolled me into an automatic assumption that I believe that...I don't, its a fundamentally bad idea of applying impartial physical interpretations of the world and using those to apply to a metaphysic's of the creators doing. This is bad, it is not even an theory, but thanks for the assumption.

And thanks for the unmerited attack on my interests, I won't return the favor.

In your third paragraph, you totally just reiterate what I always said that science has no claim to absolute truth, so I will take that as a consesion on your part, but then you automatically assume that I do agree that ID is a valid theory in which I believe, which you are wrong. So I will take your concession and your incorrect assumption and slide right by your personal attacks for the moment.

As for mass, I was trying to show that even the simple idea of where the mass of an atom, the most simple idea in particle physics; in a unknown. So in effect, the basis of our understanding of particle physics is incomplete and yet we call things on the higher level facts, and I object to the terminology, just as one might also object to a Christian saying that God being real is a fact...its just a misuse of the language. I also object to things being called laws, but it is more of language that we are talking about on these things. There is a connotative and denotative meaning obviously, but I still think the terms are misleading. So my battle was over terminology abuse in this case.

You talk about the scientific method again. I would like to bring attention to the scientific method 2 problems that very prominent people in science have had with similar instances of rules in empirical practice. First, was one of my heroes, Alan Turing. His problem was one in computer science (my field btw) where he was trying to prove or disprove the ability to make a program that could test if other programs terminate (ie not suffer from an infinite loop). The problem was, you could make such a program, but you would have to then turn that program back on itself to make sure that it also terminates. This presents a problem. Because we still don't know if the program terminates. So, the problem was that there was no way to verify the thing that was created to verify things. Thus, the proof showed that there is no way to create a program that can test of other programs terminate.

Likewise, there was formerly a school of thought that has now all but vanished called the Verification theory( I believe this was the term, correct me if you know better). The verification method heralded that unless something could be empirically verified, it is meaningless. However, the same thing that happed in Mr. Turrings proof destroyed this idea as well for when we tried to verify the Verification theory, there was no verification to be had. So, I use the same argument on the Scientific method as to show its level of truth is very low indeed. It is a Theory that can not be turned back to proof itself. It rests on arbitrary principles that seem good...and they are good for lots of things, but truth is not one of them. The Scientific theory can not show itself to be truth using the scientific method. In fact, quantum physics shows us more and more that the very act of observation changes the data. In other words, sciences attempts to claim things being the way they are might only be so because they looked, not because they are actually that way. Once again, the problem of phenomena and Noumea.

You then use a classic example of why I choose my battle of language with science. It is impossible to prove something truth with science. Things are truth in science until they are not...which is no truth at all. Can you name one idea from 200 years ago that that isn't radically different from today? In essence, those proven theories weren't proven at all, they can only be disproved. Science only deals with negative evidence, not positive. Things will always be revised in science, and more over, we never really know when they won't need to be revised again; and thus this is why science can never have a claim to have a TOE (theory of everything) because you don't ever know when you know everything...you don't know when every fact is accounted for, every essence of the whole is taken into account...it is an unknowable thing (from the standpoint of absolute knowledge).

*edited out cause Internet people can't be trusted with humility*. However, I don't think my claims are baseless, and I attempted to have a civil talk about them. If I came off as rude or condescending in my first reply, then I do apologies as this was not my intent. I have a real eagerness to talk about such topics openly and freely on the sift because we have some very intelligent people here and normally some pretty good discourse (we are many stars above the youtube crowd). I look forward to perhaps a more civil reply in the future Hopefully I have covered all your points here, I tried my best.

Edit: spelling

^Dear GeeSussFreek,

you call yourself a scientist. That is fine. However, I will warn you right away that many on this website would question your devotion to scientific method based on your username alone - tell me, is it a coincidence that it's pronounced exactly like "Jesus-Freak"? I'm asking this (rather rhetorical) question because religious fanatics claiming to be scientists are often proponents of Intelligent Design, which is (I'll be frank here) a load of steaming bull excrement. I hope you are not one of this fold, because I've had my share of "dialogue" with these folks, and it has never, ever resembled anything close to a reasoned, structured discourse.

With my worries laid before you, my response is this:
there are many fields of science and from your short stay on the Sift you would apparently style yourself as a jack-of-all-trades (economics, military, political science, theoretical and quantum physics, chemistry, just to name a few of which you've shared your opinion). Yet, it would also appear that you may be master of nothing.

A scientist (especially one talking about science and scientific method) would not ever, under any circumstances, attempt to draw their own definitions of FACT. Or any concept previously and universally known, for that matter. Me, I was taught what general as well as specific definitions of 'fact' are in secondary school. It would appear your "science diploma studies" have taught you nothing of this. Scientific fact feeds directly back from scientific method, which includes fancy notions such as peer review, one which has unfortunately so far eluded the scope of ID proponents. In science, fact may at times not be the absolute truth, it's what's agreed upon by the informed public. Our knowledge in most advanced fields of study can never be perfect and complete, but the ones most often making this claim are religious folks, saying that scripture "has all the answers".

Now, mass. My oh my.
Mass, assuming we're talking about gravitational mass, not inertial-7th-grade-physics-mass here, is the interaction of gravitational fields. In other words, yes, gravity. The same concept you differentiated, indicating exactly how much you understand of this and that I have no need to go into supergravity, supersymmetry and duality and start actually looking things up. Thanks for that. Oh, and by the way - mass is not created. Neither is matter, for that matter.

Continuing on-
regarding your nonplussed ideas about quantum theories, I have to disappoint you a little bit - it's still discernible, natural science; it hasn't obliterated all previous theories in physics; in fact, I dare you name three it has. Yes, the math involved is a 'bit' harder, the conjectures deeper and at times wilder, but scientific method is still applied.

You also said: "The fact is, that science doesn't deal with facts and has no method of proving things true, only methods of proving them false."
First of all, I LOVE your use of "fact" in this sentence, just love it. Anyway, hypocrisy aside, all we need is a scientist performing a YES/NO or a TRUE/FALSE experiment. Their initial assumption will either be true, and they will prove something to be true, or it will be wrong, and they will prove that it is wrong. Works both ways, just like logic's supposed to, in your brain.

In conclusion, I have come full circle and return to my initial lines:
"You call yourself a scientist. That is most definitely not fine."

D) Fusion reactors small enough to put in a space ship
E) Better Ion Thrusters
F) Electromagnetic interstellar gas collector to replenish fuel
G) Electric-lighted botanical gardens in space, fertilized by excrement
H) Combine D through G in a spaceship for a comfy 1000-year trip to Alpha Centauri and back.*
I) Now here's the one that requires changing the laws of physics: WARP DRIVE!!


*: Hydrogen fusion converts about 1/1000 of the mass into energy while burning hydrogen plus oxygen converts only 3/10,000,000,000 of the mass into energy. So you get about 3 million times more energy from your fuel per kilogram compared to conventional rockets. That means you can eject your exhaust about (the square root of that) 1800 times faster and go about 1800 times faster.

The fastest conventional rocket yet (Voyager 1) used several stages and gravity assists to get to about C/17,000 (17.46 km/s), which would be fast enough to get to alpha centauri and back in about 150,000 years. (150,000 / 1800) + slack = 1000 years.

In lieu of religion, socialists needed a way to control the masses. After the Fail of "global cooling" in the 1970s, anthropogenic global warming became the latest fad, a one-size-fits-all way for geo-bureaucrats who produce nothing to control the doers.

Take a scientifically unproven consensus opinion, declare all debate "over", needlessly frighten the sheeple and start making fascist laws. They did it with tobacco, they're doing it with fat and now this crock of excrement. It's a dream come true for those trying to enslave humanity in the name of "for your own good".

Sorry to oversimplify, but the free market and its technology have lifted more people out of poverty around the world than any cabal of sanctimonious bureaucrats. I ask no one to believe blindly, but to consider who really stands to gain from endless bureaucracy. Hint: not you.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

WRT the cunt label - seriously, an insult to cunts everywhere. Call me PC but I think the association of female genitalia with such a subhuman does no service to us.

Might be better to call her a pile of rotten shit. Because see, excrement - while it comes from us - is not part of us.

I believe in karma.

This lop of excrement isn't enjoying the various hells he is now deservedly suffering in and will for eons.

Karaidl:

I think the Mexico-excrement on china and subsequent bite out of them is supposed to represent the foreign workforce that American corporations employ, which some people view as exploitative to those people and countries.