Hmmm. Ok fucj it. I'll go and find a video with Aussies praising the confiscation of their property and rendering the place crime-free...ish.

This is more for the country that's headed towards a colossal fist-fuck because of politicians (criminals), pharmaceutical companies (insulated from mention by all major media and, not surprisingly, self-pimping turds without a clue like TYT, one of THE most flaccid, non-journalistic cretinfests on the web) who help to "create" mental-health problems larger than they need to be by unleashing damaged goods full of legal drugs prescribed by complicit doctors. Step in, the magic wand of unraveling and deconstruction of the U.S. Constitution by appointed and approved, so-called scholars from Harvard(oh hey, the same place not a few of the cunts who run the country hailed-from) to "provide" a solution for a problem that they created and you have the slow-motion train-wreck of the coming police state in one of the best places to be on the planet.

Everything is propaganda sparky, it's your job to wade through what you perceive to be bullshit, kinna like I'm wading thorough yours without really wanting to argue.

Brave New World. Newsflash: Eliminate gun-free zones, arm yourselves against an agenda to let mental health monstrosities roam the place un-checked on hardcore psychotropics with guns STOLEN from their fucked-up mommy, and don't ask a country who will hide their guns from a government determined to take them ALL away to accept anything less than a sane solution to what is primarily a problem created by the people with the MOST money, power, and influence.

Tell me why the pharmaceutical companies shouldn't be having their asses dragged across the coals on television for their part in mass-murder? Answer: Because they have more power and money than a gun lobby.

Again, I give fuck-all about loaded facts and figures form any side of the aisle, they mean dick because the real issue lies in governments fist-fucking their citizens. Shame on the the Brits for letting their government take their shit away and shame on the Aussies for letting the Crown fuck them as well.

Applying external heat to a hypothermic person is a great way to put their body into shock. Dry them off, cover them and insulate them. The worst thing you can do is try to heat them up too quickly.

When the body becomes hypothermic all the blood rushes away from the extremities and to the centre of the body, protecting the major organs, particularly the brain heart and lungs. Warming the person using external heat makes the blood rush to the area which is being heated and away from the brain heart and lungs.

I work as a rescue person at a sailing lake in the UK and we have to deal with a lot of hypothermic people in the middle of winter. All they want to do is go and get in a warm shower, and when they do you end up with heads split open from when they pass out from the shock.

A properly wrapped up person will warm up (as long as they aren't too far gone, which the person in the video clearly wasn't). It won't be what they want to do, and it's not what feels the most comfortable to them, but it is the safest option for them.

we used to be advised to put the hypothermic person in a sleeping bag with another person. This changed when it was found that more often than not this ended up with two hypothermic people, as the cold person chilled the well person faster than they could support.

It was a very brave thing for the guy to do, stripping off in those conditions isn't comfortable or easy, and he did it for a great reason. It just wasn't necessarily the right thing to do.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^bamdrew:
This is MSNBC. MSNBC is the New York Times of networks... informative, accurate, and often very well presented, but with a left-wing opinion page. They don't pretend otherwise, unlike 'fair and balanced' Fox News. If you want the middle ground watch PBS or CNN (or BBC in the UK or ABC in Australia); the only bias on these networks is the unavoidable bias of choosing which stories to showcase (about international policy, about the environment, etc. can appear 'biased' but cover a topic of journalistic interest).
>> ^My_design:
Boy these guys are clearly routing for Obama ...


The New York Times is definitely not Left Wing. For instance they report WITH GUSTO the atrocities of others but not of the United States. The New York Times only appears Left because it reports some things that the US does wrong around the world, where as other papers around the planet report much much more. We are insulated from these things so things appear Left when they are actually very much Right and in support of the State.


Yogi!

I don't see where we disagree... Maybe I wasn't clear; the opinion pages and editorials in the NYTimes are left-leaning, just as the opinion pieces and editorials on MSNBC are left-leaning. The news on MSNBC and NYTimes are NOT left-leaning, just as the news (typically) is not presented as right-leaning on Fox News.

People don't blog about or tweet about Fox News or MSNBC when they are just presenting the news, they share Rachel Maddow digging into someone, or Bill O'Reilly yelling about something. These aren't the news, just as the opinion pages of the NYT or the WSJ are not the news.


---------
In reply to this comment by Yogi:
>> ^bamdrew:

This is MSNBC. MSNBC is the New York Times of networks... informative, accurate, and often very well presented, but with a left-wing opinion page. They don't pretend otherwise, unlike 'fair and balanced' Fox News. If you want the middle ground watch PBS or CNN (or BBC in the UK or ABC in Australia); the only bias on these networks is the unavoidable bias of choosing which stories to showcase (about international policy, about the environment, etc. can appear 'biased' but cover a topic of journalistic interest).
>> ^My_design:
Boy these guys are clearly routing for Obama ...



The New York Times is definitely not Left Wing. For instance they report WITH GUSTO the atrocities of others but not of the United States. The New York Times only appears Left because it reports some things that the US does wrong around the world, where as other papers around the planet report much much more. We are insulated from these things so things appear Left when they are actually very much Right and in support of the State.

>> ^bamdrew:

This is MSNBC. MSNBC is the New York Times of networks... informative, accurate, and often very well presented, but with a left-wing opinion page. They don't pretend otherwise, unlike 'fair and balanced' Fox News. If you want the middle ground watch PBS or CNN (or BBC in the UK or ABC in Australia); the only bias on these networks is the unavoidable bias of choosing which stories to showcase (about international policy, about the environment, etc. can appear 'biased' but cover a topic of journalistic interest).
>> ^My_design:
Boy these guys are clearly routing for Obama ...



The New York Times is definitely not Left Wing. For instance they report WITH GUSTO the atrocities of others but not of the United States. The New York Times only appears Left because it reports some things that the US does wrong around the world, where as other papers around the planet report much much more. We are insulated from these things so things appear Left when they are actually very much Right and in support of the State.

>> ^raverman:

Why didn't i ever think of taking meat out of it's packet and putting it on a metal tray to defrost before now?


The kitchen sink works well for that but most people leave their meat in the styrene tray which is a pretty good insulator. ; )

Incidentally, alumium is the first pronunciation, but was later changed to aluminum, then aluminium by the guy who discovered it.

http://www.worldwidewords.org/articles/aluminium.htm

Internationally, aluminium is the accepted spelling but aluminum is still strongly used in the US. Both are essentially correct as it's fairly common knowledge that they are the same thing, but it serves to be a bone of contention of course. ; )

Goose bumps are created when tiny muscles at the base of each hair, known as arrectores pilorum, contract and pull the hair erect. The reflex is started by the sympathetic nervous system, which is responsible for many fight-or-flight responses.

During the formation of goose bumps, the body is warmed from the muscle tension in piloerection.

As a response to cold: in animals covered with fur or hair, the erect hairs trap air to create a layer of insulation. Goose bumps can also be a response to anger or fear: the erect hairs make the animal appear larger, in order to intimidate enemies.

ulcer pain sounds like an intensely stimulating trigger of sharp pain... i seem to remember goosebumps while getting a tattoo

I was told it was because air is a good thermal insulator, so the hairs stand up to have more air trapped around them and provide additional thermal insulation for the skin. That would explain goosebumps in response to cold.

If we're using terms like "tangible evidence", then I assume we're talking in scientific terms. If we're talking scientifically, then you need phenomena, a theory to explain them, and ways of testing that theory. "I would say..." isn't a scientific statement. What qualifies as "tangible evidence" has to be easily understood and agreed upon by everyone. If people don't agree that something is evidence of something, then it's meaningless. Like, if I suggest that graphite pencils are electric insulators, and you say that's bollocks, we can create an electric curcuit with a light bulb. We both agree that if the light bulb turns on when the electric circuit passes through a graphite pencil, then it's definitely not an insulator, regardless of our initial positions. So if the world at large doesn't agree that NDEs are necessarily evidence of God, then it's a meaningless argument. When you theorize God, it doesn't flow logically that when people are near death that they will necessarily see God. You can look at evidence and say, "This fits in with a theory of God." That's fair, but calling it evidence is not scientific. NDEs also fit with my theory that people seek ultimate authority the the worse and worse their living conditions are. I don't claim that it's evidence that I'm right, just that it supports or "fits" my theory. In other words, it proves nothing at all.

I said NDEs do provide tangible evidence of a spirit, not God. Having a spirit is tangible evidence of God. Not all NDEs provide such evidence, but as I mentioned, some people come back to life with information they shouldn't, or couldn't have.

I confess I didn't watch the whole thing (I guessed where it was going once it trailed away from logical enquiry, and so far I haven't heard any surprises -- if there's anything new and interesting in this particular story, lemme know where and I'll watch).

That's fairly typical, I have to say. I don't know if it an atheist thing, or a generational thing and I am speaking to a lot of young atheists, but very often people will refuse to even look at certain kinds of information and testimony, based on their preconceived notions, and their own self-confidence that they've "predicted" what is coming. This is of course a perfect shield for their own ignorance, the censoring of anything which could possibly change their mind, by discounting it in advance. Many atheists have outright told me that if it's longer than a paragraph or two they won't even read it.

The testimony in this video is unique and very interesting, nothing short of incredible actually, and no you couldn't possibly predict what was going to happen. You didn't even make it to him getting into the ambulance.

About the mother praying at that moment. It's possible that there is some connection between mother and child that hasn't been properly measured, that only occurs when children are under extreme stress, and even then, only in rare cases (most mothers don't report "knowing" their children were suffering or dying when they hear the news later). That doesn't require Yahweh, or even any God. It's just a phenomenon that we don't know about. And again, "We can't explain it," isn't evidence of God any more than fully explaining the phenomenon is proof that God is fake.

God told her to pray at that moment, and Ian heard the words of her prayer. You need to watch the video if we're going to have a meaningful conversation about this.

If you cannot provide a test whose conclusion we both agree on for God's existence, then by scientific definition, you have no theory at all. When I press you, the only test you provide is me givnig myself fully to God, and the proof will be that he will contact me eventually if I do it well enough. There's so many loopholes in that to begin with, that no matter how long I did it without result, you'd be able to say why it didn't work. Also, even if it did have a result, I wouldn't agree that the result is proof of God. My theory is that if someone wants to believe something hard enough, and if they bend their will to believing it, they can come to beleive anything they want. It's widely dismissed as "self-delusion" or "choosing to live in a fantasy world" if you're talking about anything other than religoius faith. Some, including myself, also include religious faith in that category. No matter how real it seems, if you convinced yourself of it, that's a good reason to believe you might be deluded. Bottom line, there's no test that we generally agree on, so there's no theory, just your faith that it's true.

You are still operating under the faulty premise that you could suss God out by pointing an instrument at Him. Does that seem logical to you, that you could test for God? That if you just had the right test, suddenly God will appear and say "I guess you got me." The very notion is absurd, yet here you are demanding empirical proof for Gods existence.

What I told you is that only God can provide you revelation of His existence. He has given you a way to know Him, through His Son Jesus Christ. Yet, you refuse to do the one thing which would yield any results. You could pray this prayer, for instance:

"God, I don't know if you're there or not. If you are there, I want to know you. Please let me know you are real and I will give my life to you. Please come into my life as Lord and Savior."

Could you pray that prayer and mean it? Are you interested in the truth?

I'm not sure why, but to people of faith, there seems to be a fear that everything unexplained, if not explained by their God, is somehow a strike against him. That's not at all how science or logic work. There is no phenomenon that requires God to be responsible for it, except the ones he is specifically described as having done himself in the Bible. There's nothing in the Bible that says people's experiences when suffering extreme mental trauma must be caused by God. If they're explained some other way, your theory of God stands just as strong as before. It's when you go attributing everything that YOU don't understand to God's hand that you get yourself into trouble because when those things are later objectively explained another way then you have to change your story. Better to think critically from the begining, and say with authority what God definitely is and isn't, and what God definitely is and isn't responsible for. Then, if any single one of those things is disproven, then you can simply agree that your description of God is wrong.

Again, I said that NDEs evidence of a spirit and not necessary God.

You missed my comment above about God and patience. You've said elsewhere that God lives outside time, and looks at the history of the universe like a movie that he can browse and interfere in at will. But then you also say that he has "patience" which can "wear out". "Patience", by definition, means being forced to wait, and "wearing out" means eroding in time, both of which require living in time. These two ideas of God both living outside of time and having patience which wears out, if words have meaning, are incompatible. They cannot both be true. If you continue to hold to both of those claims about your God, then that's proof that he doesn't exist as you describe him

That isn't how I described it. That was your interpretation of my comment, that God peruses the Universe like a movie. God necessarily exists outside of time and space because He created them. Since He is eternal He is not bound by time. However, that isn't to say that what is happening "now" isn't real. God is the reason we have time, and that things are happening in this moment. The future has not happened yet, there is only now. God operates in this moment, and He isn't limited by time. That is how He can be everywhere at the same time, doing an infinite number of things at the same time. God can also step into time, as His Son did.

>> ^messenger:

Very well written, but I'm afraid entirely wasted on your intended audience.
In reply to this comment by messenger:
If we're using terms like "tangible evidence", then I assume we're talking in scientific terms. If we're talking scientifically, then you need phenomena, a theory to explain them, and ways of testing that theory. "I would say..." isn't a scientific statement. What qualifies as "tangible evidence" has to be easily understood and agreed upon by everyone. If people don't agree that something is evidence of something, then it's meaningless. Like, if I suggest that graphite pencils are electric insulators, and you say that's bollocks, we can create an electric curcuit with a light bulb. We both agree that if the light bulb turns on when the electric circuit passes through a graphite pencil, then it's definitely not an insulator, regardless of our initial positions. So if the world at large doesn't agree that NDEs are necessarily evidence of God, then it's a meaningless argument. When you theorize God, it doesn't flow logically that when people are near death that they will necessarily see God. You can look at evidence and say, "This fits in with a theory of God." That's fair, but calling it evidence is not scientific. NDEs also fit with my theory that people seek ultimate authority the the worse and worse their living conditions are. I don't claim that it's evidence that I'm right, just that it supports or "fits" my theory. In other words, it proves nothing at all.

I confess I didn't watch the whole thing (I guessed where it was going once it trailed away from logical enquiry, and so far I haven't heard any surprises -- if there's anything new and interesting in this particular story, lemme know where and I'll watch).

About the mother praying at that moment. It's possible that there is some connection between mother and child that hasn't been properly measured, that only occurs when children are under extreme stress, and even then, only in rare cases (most mothers don't report "knowing" their children were suffering or dying when they hear the news later). That doesn't require Yahweh, or even any God. It's just a phenomenon that we don't know about. And again, "We can't explain it," isn't evidence of God any more than fully explaining the phenomenon is proof that God is fake.

If you cannot provide a test whose conclusion we both agree on for God's existence, then by scientific definition, you have no theory at all. When I press you, the only test you provide is me givnig myself fully to God, and the proof will be that he will contact me eventually if I do it well enough. There's so many loopholes in that to begin with, that no matter how long I did it without result, you'd be able to say why it didn't work. Also, even if it did have a result, I wouldn't agree that the result is proof of God. My theory is that if someone wants to believe something hard enough, and if they bend their will to believing it, they can come to beleive anything they want. It's widely dismissed as "self-delusion" or "choosing to live in a fantasy world" if you're talking about anything other than religoius faith. Some, including myself, also include religious faith in that category. No matter how real it seems, if you convinced yourself of it, that's a good reason to believe you might be deluded. Bottom line, there's no test that we generally agree on, so there's no theory, just your faith that it's true.

About the mother again. All of that could have been wishful thinking/guilty conscience. Mothers often feel guilty when horrible things happen to their children, and one way of "making up for it" in their own minds (or socially) is to tell themselves (or others) that they were suffering too at the same time, and even at a distance were praying for God to intercede.

So I can't explain what happened, but I can provide two decent theories that don't require God.

I'm not sure why, but to people of faith, there seems to be a fear that everything unexplained, if not explained by their God, is somehow a strike against him. That's not at all how science or logic work. There is no phenomenon that requires God to be responsible for it, except the ones he is specifically described as having done himself in the Bible. There's nothing in the Bible that says people's experiences when suffering extreme mental trauma must be caused by God. If they're explained some other way, your theory of God stands just as strong as before. It's when you go attributing everything that YOU don't understand to God's hand that you get yourself into trouble because when those things are later objectively explained another way then you have to change your story. Better to think critically from the begining, and say with authority what God definitely is and isn't, and what God definitely is and isn't responsible for. Then, if any single one of those things is disproven, then you can simply agree that your description of God is wrong.

You missed my comment above about God and patience. You've said elsewhere that God lives outside time, and looks at the history of the universe like a movie that he can browse and interfere in at will. But then you also say that he has "patience" which can "wear out". "Patience", by definition, means being forced to wait, and "wearing out" means eroding in time, both of which requrie living in time. These two ideas of God both living outside of time and having patience which wears out, if words have meaning, are incompatible. They cannot both be true. If you continue to hold to both of those claims about your God, then that's proof that he doesn't exist as you describe him.

If we're using terms like "tangible evidence", then I assume we're talking in scientific terms. If we're talking scientifically, then you need phenomena, a theory to explain them, and ways of testing that theory. "I would say..." isn't a scientific statement. What qualifies as "tangible evidence" has to be easily understood and agreed upon by everyone. If people don't agree that something is evidence of something, then it's meaningless. Like, if I suggest that graphite pencils are electric insulators, and you say that's bollocks, we can create an electric curcuit with a light bulb. We both agree that if the light bulb turns on when the electric circuit passes through a graphite pencil, then it's definitely not an insulator, regardless of our initial positions. So if the world at large doesn't agree that NDEs are necessarily evidence of God, then it's a meaningless argument. When you theorize God, it doesn't flow logically that when people are near death that they will necessarily see God. You can look at evidence and say, "This fits in with a theory of God." That's fair, but calling it evidence is not scientific. NDEs also fit with my theory that people seek ultimate authority the the worse and worse their living conditions are. I don't claim that it's evidence that I'm right, just that it supports or "fits" my theory. In other words, it proves nothing at all.

I confess I didn't watch the whole thing (I guessed where it was going once it trailed away from logical enquiry, and so far I haven't heard any surprises -- if there's anything new and interesting in this particular story, lemme know where and I'll watch).

About the mother praying at that moment. It's possible that there is some connection between mother and child that hasn't been properly measured, that only occurs when children are under extreme stress, and even then, only in rare cases (most mothers don't report "knowing" their children were suffering or dying when they hear the news later). That doesn't require Yahweh, or even any God. It's just a phenomenon that we don't know about. And again, "We can't explain it," isn't evidence of God any more than fully explaining the phenomenon is proof that God is fake.

If you cannot provide a test whose conclusion we both agree on for God's existence, then by scientific definition, you have no theory at all. When I press you, the only test you provide is me givnig myself fully to God, and the proof will be that he will contact me eventually if I do it well enough. There's so many loopholes in that to begin with, that no matter how long I did it without result, you'd be able to say why it didn't work. Also, even if it did have a result, I wouldn't agree that the result is proof of God. My theory is that if someone wants to believe something hard enough, and if they bend their will to believing it, they can come to beleive anything they want. It's widely dismissed as "self-delusion" or "choosing to live in a fantasy world" if you're talking about anything other than religoius faith. Some, including myself, also include religious faith in that category. No matter how real it seems, if you convinced yourself of it, that's a good reason to believe you might be deluded. Bottom line, there's no test that we generally agree on, so there's no theory, just your faith that it's true.

About the mother again. All of that could have been wishful thinking/guilty conscience. Mothers often feel guilty when horrible things happen to their children, and one way of "making up for it" in their own minds (or socially) is to tell themselves (or others) that they were suffering too at the same time, and even at a distance were praying for God to intercede.

So I can't explain what happened, but I can provide two decent theories that don't require God.

I'm not sure why, but to people of faith, there seems to be a fear that everything unexplained, if not explained by their God, is somehow a strike against him. That's not at all how science or logic work. There is no phenomenon that requires God to be responsible for it, except the ones he is specifically described as having done himself in the Bible. There's nothing in the Bible that says people's experiences when suffering extreme mental trauma must be caused by God. If they're explained some other way, your theory of God stands just as strong as before. It's when you go attributing everything that YOU don't understand to God's hand that you get yourself into trouble because when those things are later objectively explained another way then you have to change your story. Better to think critically from the begining, and say with authority what God definitely is and isn't, and what God definitely is and isn't responsible for. Then, if any single one of those things is disproven, then you can simply agree that your description of God is wrong.

You missed my comment above about God and patience. You've said elsewhere that God lives outside time, and looks at the history of the universe like a movie that he can browse and interfere in at will. But then you also say that he has "patience" which can "wear out". "Patience", by definition, means being forced to wait, and "wearing out" means eroding in time, both of which requrie living in time. These two ideas of God both living outside of time and having patience which wears out, if words have meaning, are incompatible. They cannot both be true. If you continue to hold to both of those claims about your God, then that's proof that he doesn't exist as you describe him.>> ^shinyblurry:

>> ^messenger:
Yet another example of a numinous experience caused by severe mental trauma. This is exactly what I theorise happened to you, as I mentioned in one of our previous conversations. This lends some support to it. We are genetically predisposed to seek guidance from authority figures, and the worse our condition, the more we seek it out. Being at death's door is the weakest condition possible, and add to that mental trauma, and the brain makes up whatever idea it needs to survive at that moment, and it seems real.
Also, if God wants us to know him so bad, why does he have to attack us with jellyfish first? He can either let us know outright he's there, or leave us a few clues and hope we put the pieces together ourselves. There's no need for torture.

If it's a numinous experience, how do you explain his mother interceding for him in prayer at the exact moment all of this is taking place?
God doesn't have to attack you with jellyfish, but he will use some means like that to get your attention if you continue to fail to respond to the 100 other ways He tried to reach you. Most often, men are so prideful and stubborn that it takes a full realization of their mortality, or a hitting of rock bottom, for them to realize how much they need God. When you're young and healthy, you feel so strong and self-assured, but it's an illusion..you are at the mercy of forces you don't understand each and every moment of each and every day. Life is fragile, but arrogance lends a false sense of security. They think they don't need Him, that they're getting along just fine on their own. It's only because they don't realize they are a heartbeat away from deaths door, and its only His mercy that keeps them there.

But, but, wood is an insulator! We've been lied to all these years... run for the hills people... don't touch the trees! We're DOOMED!

>> ^pho3n1x:

>> ^gwiz665:
So, what can you use this for now?
news

A 100 Tesla non-destructive magnet has a major effect on a wide range of science. It's a one-of-a-kind tool for studying the fundamental properties of materials, from metals and superconductors, to semiconductors and insulators.


Icy achoo dither.

>> ^gwiz665:

So, what can you use this for now?
news


A 100 Tesla non-destructive magnet has a major effect on a wide range of science. It's a one-of-a-kind tool for studying the fundamental properties of materials, from metals and superconductors, to semiconductors and insulators.

Wrap THAT around your grungy neck, you hipster dick! Holiday gift-giving originality/cheapness meets sweet, insulating revenge.