I'm basically done with defending WikiLeaks as well, after the shit they pulled with the leaks of Turkish data. Completely irresponsible, that one.

However, WikiLeaks doesn't need credibility -- the data does. And the data they published vis-á-vis Clinton/Podesta/DNC is, as of now, solid. There was one fake document, but that was shown to have been injected by someone other than WL.

"Strong bias" -- oh, I do have a strong bias. Plural, as in biases, actually. For instance, I'm disinclined to take anything the US intelligence agencies say at face value, given how they manufactured more than one casus belli. I don't put much weight into (un-)official statements in general, but especially since all the misinformation they spread about issues like the coup in Honduras or the actions of Nazi militias in Ukraine.

In this particular case, however, my argument is much simpler: Occam's razor seems much more likely than malicious intent. Propaganda outlets on both sides are run by people. Maybe the propaganda outlet Sputnik intentionally twisted the content of email, or maybe they just fucked up, like people are wont to do. Maybe someone intentionally fed Trump this bad info, maybe his people are just as incompetent as he is.

There are too many parts in this that include people who have more than once proven themselves to be utterly incompetent, or in complete ignorance of even the concept of truth. I don't think Trump gives a shit about truth or facts, he strikes me as the typical blowhard who spouts whatever shit comes to mind, and spins stories on the fly like a 4-year-old when caught red-handing.

No need for a conspiracy there, with all this incompetence, naiveté and plain disregard for facts.

So when they keep on pushing the Russian angle in this, it just seems like a desperate attempt to conjure up the old unifying enemy. Why worry about Russian propaganda when there's plenty on FOX and MSNBC/CNN? Why worry about Russian hackers when you accept the unbelievably insecure method of eletronic votes, partly without paper trails, and completely controlled by private companies?

It's just very strange to an outsider like me to see them focus on perceived external influences when the internals are a complete clusterfuck. And this presidential election is the biggest clusterfuck I've seen in 30 years, which doesn't mean much, admittedly.

That said, we can't just be looking at it from the outside with binoculars, not when people are back to full-blown Cold War rhetoric. When the ruling class in the US and/or the ruling class in Russia start their pissing contests and other forms of grandstanding, it's usually brown people who pay the price, like they have been in Syria for the last couple of years. And Libya. And Yemen. And Somalia. And Afghanistan, And Iraq. And Pakistan.

Personally, all the rhetoric about "standing up to Russian aggression" and similar nonsense makes me keenly aware that the bridge just outside my hometown was constructed with a shaft to place explosives in, to slow down advancing Soviet troops... so yes, I would very much like to bitch-slap all these warmongerers on both sides, but particularly the ones in the US since they are currently the ones racking up the highest death toll.

Edit: I should have made it clearer. Yes, WL is absolutely biased against Clinton and they do seem to act in support of Trump. Assange in particular. Which bums me out to no end, since I actually met the guy in person when they presented WL at the 26C3.

The ad-based revenue model fundamentally breaks the concept of relaying information free from external influence.

Everywhere.

You're missing the point. Yes, perhaps fully formed, rational, emotionally mature personalities are not susceptible to suggestive advertising. However, there's a process to becoming mature, it's called growing up, and along the way people are not so capable of differentiating the real from the not-so-real. Along the way, people's ideas of body-image get polluted by all manner of external influences. Some people have enough positive input from others close to them that they are able to defend themselves from this brain-washing. Some don't.

Clearly you have your own issues with women to deal with. My guess is that you should learn a lot if you talked to one.
>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Seriously, didn't we leave this kind of sexism behind in the 80s?
The point is that it ISN'T sexism. It is the refutation of a patently insulting and illogical argument that demeans human beings far more than the so-called 'evil' it decries. This woman's argument goes much further down the road of dehumanizing people than any of the ads she whines about. The only differences is that she is hiding her argument, and advertising isn't. I respect a good ad 100X more than this fool and her fear driven lies.
white males
And you're doubling down on it by being a racist. How do you even know if anyone here is white? Between her insulting mysoginy, her evil misandry, and your stereotypical racism we've got a real intolerance trifecta going on here.
Advertising is sleazy. It preys upon our fears and insecurities.
So is this woman, and her stupid arguments. Regardless, advertising does one thing and one thing only... It creates product awareness. When you march into a retail store to purchase deodorant, you don't buy Axe Body Spray because you actually believe women are going to chase you down. You buy it because you saw the ad, thought it was funny, and decided to give it a shot. And in doing so you decided that you LIKED it. I bought a can of Axe (Sharp Focus) because I saw the black can in the aisle and liked the scent - not because I thought some woman in a schoolgirl skirt was going to maul me. The argument that people are puppets of "sleazy" ads is complete bunk. Ads create awareness. Awareness leads to trial. Trial leads to consumption. It's that simple.
Those who don't get it should keep watching it in a continuous loop until your consciousness evolves to a higher level
That happened a long time ago - and without any assistance from this woman and her abbevillian stupidity. And my higher, evolved consciousness tells me that this woman - and her clearly prejudice hate of men and women - can go cram it sideways with walnuts.
68 yr-old woman it's surprising that she has not a single gray hair.
Because quite clearly this hypocrite buys into the "evil" advertising image that grey hair is bad. Oh - but I'm SURE when this dingus walks into the salon to get her hair done she doesn't feel for one second that she's a stinking, slimy, self-righteous hypocrite for dying her hair with one of those hair care products all those "evil" advertisement pimp in their demeaning, insulting, culturally poisonous advertisement. :eyeroll: What a piece of work that pathetic specimen is.

>> ^blankfist:

I've always been of the mindset that you encourage whatever it is your child wants to do, whether that be sports, video games or girlie pageantry. But that's me.


Oh, you encourage them to be sure, but the problem is that WHAT they want to do can be SO informed by external influences. If they are constantly bombarded with images of women (and girls now... *sigh*) dressing 'sexy' and being flirtatious, then it's going to rub off eventually. And really, it's not appropriate.

Also, if they want to be tottering around in high heels at the age of 5, sorry, but I'm just going to have to say 'no' to that. When they're older, go nuts, but when you're a kid, be a damn kid, there is no need to grow up so fast.

Also, as much as I'm all about encouraging them, there's a level of restraint that should probably be brought to bare when they are really little, and a bit of making them try lots of things so they can get a good feel for life in general.

But hey... that's me.

That town must have had a rather promiscuous, blonde, blue-eyed milkman, it seems.

As much as a mystery NatGeo seems to want to make out of this, there might just be a more plausible scientific explanation:

"Even though we could not find a definitive explanation for this higher incidence, the existence of other 'twin towns' around the world – most of them in remote isolated areas with high levels of inbreeding just as Linha São Pedro – shows that external influence is not needed for this to happen," [a scientist] says.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16492-nazi-angel-of-death-not-responsible-for-town-of-twins.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news

But as they explicitly state, however, it's not a definitive explanation.

Interesting sift.

Yes you're right, the maximum force is exerted when the cart is stationary.

As i say, i have been thinking, explaining, learning and questioning the whole thing for 3 days now and in my rush to make that reply (surprisingly i have more to do than armchair science) i made a small error in my english and i apologise.

However i can address some of the fallacies raised in the 3 previous posts:
1. The tricycle is a completely inappropriate analogy because the tricycle does not have its own means of propulsion in the scenario you suggest.

2. Also, the analogy of the car simulating the force of the wind doesn't work either because the car doesn't accurately (or perhaps at all) imitate the pressure differences at work. Nor the (lack of) air resistance, etc. etc. etc. The car analogy is far far too simple (and wrong) to introduce and try to make arguments with!
(please think about these points some more because i can't begin to imagine how you think it's an appropriate simulation)

3. No one claims that travelling 10mph in a 10mph tail wind is EXACTLY the same as a treadmill in all ways. What people say is that it is an adequate simulation for the purposes of a controlled environment. That is the reason a treadmill is used - in order to eliminate any external influences that may "cheat" the system. (as i said in my posts wherever i remembered or had the remaining motivation, they are exactly the same for the purposes of this experiment)

4. You're wrong joe about the belt supplying the force somehow changing the entire situation. If you still can't grasp how the treadmill simulates the wind, after all i've tried to explain in simple terms (the only ones i have), i can't say anything further to convince you otherwise.

5. "I love rediculously over simplified discussions" -- i assume this is somehow an attempt at mockery, your disdain has been noted and i'm sure all parties shall feel ashamed for taking part in this discussion now that you've told us you don't like it. No need for stuff like this

I'm sure some of the things i've said here are wrong. It's been a long time since i did any mechanics or physics, and all i'm trying to do here is explain how i think it works and help others to understand how i think it works. I think i've been at least illustrative and literate in my arguments, and until i see a literate and illustrative argument that makes me think i'm wrong, i'll stick to it. So i invite corrections and more intelligent people to set me straight (in fact i'd love it), but so far that hasn't been done. I still think my explanations are more convincing (and based in fact and my own attempt at science) than other ones on the thread so far

If all this crap so far doesn't convince, then fair enough, let's agree to disagree. However i do believe this cart is possible and real and i think time will show that i was justified to think that - even if not for the exactly right reasons. About the treadmill, though, i (and others who have said it long before i) am definitely right.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
This is a corporately funded PR campaign that preys on ignorance. There is no 'debate' in science, only peer reviewed research. If this guy wants to prove his point, why is he ranting on FAUX NEWS. Get thee to the laboratory.


There most certainly is debate in science. At least HALF of science is debate. In fact, I would go so far as to say that most of science is debate. It's not the sort you see in "debate club" though of course. The purpose of peer review is to identify DATA that is legitimate, and arguments that are not ludicrous. However, HALF of every paper published (give or take) is the "discussion" section, that is, the section where the scientist(s) discuss their thoughts on the data, how it pertains to the field as a whole, if it supports the current opinion of the field on the question at hand, and what ought to be done next to help resolve the argument. Therefore, MANY papers contain data and discussions that express debate against the current hypothesis the field is operating upon. I spent upper-level graduate course on debate in science. We would choose a controversial topic, find papers that oppose each others' conclusions, compare the arguments and data and propose what ought to be done to resolve the debate. In some cases, we would study historical arguments of the same sort where in fact, someone DID resolve the debate with an elegant experiment or two and everyone was like "ahhhhhh, righto old chap, bravo."

Global warming is under such debate in science at the moment. The advice of the field in general right now is to play it safe and attempt to reduce emittions. This is decent advice in general regardless of global warming's cause, so the field feels like it is giving good advice.

On the 30000 scientists and 9000 Ph.D.s The reason why this is still significant is that scientists in general are scientists... that and the fact that many of these people ARE in fact reputable climatologists). They are trained to think in a certain way and to research questions such as this exhaustively. It may seem elitist, but scientists think of things differently than most people do and we approach debates in a different way. Scientists have a unique perspective on debated topics for which evidence and analysis is available. In other words, having a Ph.D. in biochemistry does not mean you have no understanding of ocean CO2 levels, global temperature trends, solar cycles, ice cores, and atmospheric temperature dynamics. In fact, a biochemist has the chemistry background to understand that when a liquid is warmed, it cannot dissolve as much gas (CO2 in this case) and therefore emits that which it can no longer dissolve... like when your Coke gets warm, it gets flat... your Coke was cold to keep the saturation level of CO2 in it as high as possible. This is one of the major arguments of human-made global warming skeptics. In addition to the image Irishman posted (which is excellent data to understand), when the oceans warm, they emit such a staggering amount of CO2, it makes humanity look like the mite on the back of the mite on the back of the mite.

On top of this, the VAST MAJORITY of science on this topic is Academic, i.e. independent of external influence such as gov't or corporate shenanigans. Academic research is funded to academic scientists, by panels of academic scientists. Corporations and government stooges are not part of the equation. The entire purpose of this system is to eliminate corruption. It was designed by scientists for the sake of honest science. Fraud and data manipulation is detectable by peers and is punishable by complete, permanent career destruction, revocation of all funding, and in many cases, criminal investigation and prosecution. Fudging data means, GTFO and don't expect a kind recommendation letter for McDonalds.

The problem with all your arguments on obesity being a disease is that it doesn't explain why there are so many more obese people now than there used to be, whereas eating too much and doing too little DOES.

And your last point is just ridiculous... I'm saying that there is a huge spike in obese people in the last decade, which relates perfectly to the spike in fatty foods in large servings and lack of physical exercise. I say many times I mean MOST, the MAJORITY, the numbers that are causing those spikes... tell me honestly you don't know a number of people who aren't fat because they eat poorly and do no to little exercise?

Have a little look at lifestyles/eating habits across countries and obesity levels, I think you'll find a pretty darn close relationship with diet/activity and obesity rates... go on... look, you'll find that your rants that I'm being 'fat racist' are not founded because I'm siding with reality, not people's wish to ascribe all their faults to external influences and problems.

>> ^jimnms:
>> ^spoco2: And you're doing even worse, you're taking ONE CASE, your mother, and trying to extrapolate that to everyone else.
No, I'm using ONE CASE of a personal experience to show you that you can't label a group people a certain way because of some bad apples in the group.

>> ^spoco2: Diseases which cause obesity haven't suddenly skyrocketed, but the number of fat people have. It's the lifestyle for the VAST majority of people.
A lot of the diseases that cause obesity have just recently been discovered and new ones are still being discovered and diagnosed. If everyone held to your way of thinking that fat people are fat because they're lazy and eat too much, these diseases never would have been discovered.

>> ^spoco2: I never said that ALL are lazy, you did, I said MOST were. There are SOME who have conditions like your mother, and that's terrible, but what makes it worse is all the fat, lazy people who are fat due to pure laziness and bad eating who then try to garner some sort of sympathy for their 'condition'. This takes away any sympathy most of us have for those like your mother who truly do have a condition.
As such you should dislike the lazy fat even more than most, because they make your mother's life even worse.
Why should have I dislike anyone? We all have our faults, so who am I to judge or dislike someone based on the lifestyle they chose.
You're labeling an entire group of people based on the actions of some. If you take your statements and replaced "fat people" with blacks, Chinese, Japanese, Jews, gays, etc., and "are fat because" with a typical racial stereotype, then maybe you'll understand my point.

Well, the point is that as a man you don't have to choose to desire women. You're built that way. To desire other men there has to be a change at some point to cause that. Whether it's in the womb, a decision (concious or otherwise) brought on by external influences, or a combination of factors hasn't been proven yet. My opinion that it's a choice is just that, a personal opinion. If there's ever concrete scientific evidence where it can positively be stated that it's completely out of someone's control and they just are born wired that way, that's fine. Although that still leaves the people I've known that have claimed it was a concious decision at a point in their life, and that it's like a fetish, meaning that at least some homosexuals are not born with this crossed wiring. If it is true that genetics causes homosexual children to be born, and this has been happening througout all of recorded history, I would think there would be some kindof evolutionary response to begin to weed this weakness out. Doc_m, or someone else with a good genetics backround, please correct me if this is wrong. Also, since I neglected to clarify this in my previous post, my opinion that homosexuality is a decision has no Biblical basis, nor is it a core issue. Only it's immorality, not it's origins, are mentioned.

**EDIT**
For wazant, that scenerio doesn't work. You would walk up to your commanding officer, tell him your gay, wait for laughter, then go back to work. No one is going to discharge you because you claim you're gay. If they discharge someone, it's for other reasons. Usually related to the gay soldiers platoon seriously voicing official complaints, or in extreme cases, catching someone in a homosexual act. You can't just say you're gay and expect them to start your paperwork.