search results matching tag: professor

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds

    Videos (840)     Sift Talk (25)     Blogs (48)     Comments (1000)   

shinyblurry (Member Profile)

newtboy says...

The Lord Of The Rings was written by a real person, who was eye witness to many actual events and also a professor, lexicographer, and scholar.
The bible is a fantasy novel of various myths complied by a pagan emperor as a political tool to consolidate power.

shinyblurry said:

The bible was written by real people, eye witnessess to actual events. The Lord of the Rings is a fantasy novel.

robert reich-2014 a year in review

ledpup says...

It's interesting how it's always people in power who say "we need to vote", "don't give up on democracy, that's what they want" etc. They fail to comprehend that giving up on democracy might be part of the movement that could usher in a new form of politics, a participation in decision making and execution. That politics is simply impossible with the status quo. But then, these professors and other elites of politics are part of that status quo, so it's not surprising they can't comprehend another way.

You should learn a little respect... Officer says

speechless says...

Well, I think you were rude (and more than a little condescending) with this "pointing out where you made your mistake in logic..." bullshit.

I don't see anything you said, or that the cop did, that "proved" his "ulterior motives" in this video. You are coming off like a paranoid nutjob imo. You haven't said anything to make my "theory" not hold up.

In any event, I'm getting this whole "don't feed the troll" vibe with you lately. So maybe I'll follow that instinct now.

Of course, I could be wrong. Maybe you are Professor X and telepathically know the ulterior motives of all police at all times.

newtboy said:

You "claimed" the guy not answering questions is being an asshole. I explained why his actions, while rude in normal society, are not rude but prudent.
You posited a theory about the cop's motives. I explained how his actions proved his ulterior motives, not that your theory was impossible because cops never help others. You got rude and called me a lonely paranoid newt constantly spouting bullshit! Hmmmm......

I'm all for exploring differing theories about how a scenario went down.
I'm not for being insulting to the person that points out that your theory doesn't hold up to scrutiny instead of either realizing the theory was wrong in the first place, or delineating why it's not wrong. THAT'S just ridiculous! ;-)

The Art of Making a Book

Sagemind says...

When he pulls that lever, the whole press shifts, I'm pretty sure the Gutenberg wouldn't move like that. A Gutenberg is between 1 & 2 tonnes.
They don't show any distinguishing marks. In my opinion, if it was, they would have showed the emblem, (just to show off.)

I've used many presses like these, and hand-bound my own books, even made my own paper to use in the press. This is purely a hobby or small run use purposes. The amount of work that goes into setting all that lead type takes so long and the print run is so unpredictable, that it's just not profitable on any level to create full books like these. Nostalgic and cool yes. but you'd have to sell for several hundred dollars for for the book, and sell mass quantities. I hope the art form never dies though.

One of the professors at the college I work at, teaches sections on typesetting and printing on typesetting presses. He has his own publishing house and produces jobs for people.

Some photos here: http://www.greenboathouse.com/gallery/13-09.html
We also have a print studio at the college for students to use and train on.

newtboy said:

Granted, not how most books are made today, but this is about specialized leather bound editions. They are still made, but barely.
Maybe should have been titled "the dying art of making a book"?
As an aside, is that a Gutenberg press?

enoch (Member Profile)

newtboy says...

I'm right there with you on almost every point.
I can't blame Bob for being misled. All I can do it point out to him that he knows that partisan '24-7 news' organizations don't tell the truth, and he should not listen to them...any of them, but particularly Faux, (pronounced 'fox', but still meaning fake) which is by far the worst of them.
I do understand the reason they, and others, have been so successful. I think that's all the more reason to point out at any opportunity what they are (propaganda machines) and what they aren't (news) to remind anyone listening that if they MUST watch, remember it's only entertainment, not information.
It's a sad thing that one must do their own research on nearly any topic they wish to be informed on. Faux is not the only culprit by far, nor the only side that does it, but it is the face of the industry, so they get targeted the most (at least by me).
I will give the benefit of a doubt that that's why he's here, but it could just be because he enjoys 'debate' and knows he can always find someone to argue against his ideas here, not that that's a problem for me. It's a large part of why I enjoy the site (not the only reason by far), and why I certainly don't want those who I disagree with to leave. I have to hope they take my discussions in the spirit they are intended and not as personally insulting, which I understand is how they often could be interpreted.
Absolutely, people are different, and come to different conclusions and solutions to the same problems. If we can't discuss ALL these ideas (at least the reasonable ones based in reality) we don't evolve (or stunt ourselves) socially. I also agree the biggest issue is the actual facts and data being misrepresented by those with agendas, any agenda.
Yes, I do remember the birth of the teabaggers (indicated by the fact that I still call them teabaggers, their original 'clever' name until they learned what it means), but it was so quickly taken over by those with 'keep youre government hands off my medicare' and 'Obama is a Kenyan Nazi' signs and tri-cornered hats it's hard to recall that tiny time period I might have been with them.
I'm always saddened how easily groups of people end up being misled. The teabaggers had it right to start, even with their name. Their intent was to make the major parties 'suck our balls' and clean up, so.... ;-)
I also hope Bob will continue 'debating' with me. I was actually upset when Chingalera went off the rails. On those occasions when he was respectful we got along great and had an amazing amount in common (although rarely agreed, never on politics). Unfortunately he did not act respectfully often.

Damn it, now you got me lecturing right back! Lecture over.
Professor Newt will only be in his office from approximately 3:00-4:00 ;-)

enoch said:

@newtboy
i agree with you but consider a few things:
1.for the first time bob is actually engaging and revealing where his perspective originates.(which came as no shock,to anyone).now we can disagree on his position but understanding how he got to that position gives an opportunity to disseminate the particulars.

this is a good thing.

2.while bob's breakdown of the political spectrum is extremely,overly simplified and his understanding of socialism vs corporatism is staggeringly..wrong..it begs the question ..why does bob have it so wrong?

which he answers by where he gets the majority of his information.i dont necessarily blame bob for this but rather the institutions and media outlets he gives authority.

bob is not the exception but rather the rule.people tend to congregate and gravitate towards those who speak in the language they,themselves,can relate to.this is why FOX is so successful and why every other 24 hr news channel has tried to copy their success.

FOX appeals to the emotional rather than the rational.they pound a message for entire news cycles with little or no actual analysis of very complicated issues.there IS actual news hidden in there but it gets drowned out by the screaming apologists who just seek to perpetuate their own agenda and/or popularity.the hyper-partisanship alone is reason enough to never watch FOX.

most americans do not have the time to do a research paper every night,and the majority never made it past 9th grade civics.so they tune in to 5 minute soundbites that appeal to their own emotionally triggered prejudices.presented by vapid pretty people who are the exact opposite of a journalist.

they ALL do it.every 24hr news channel does it,FOX just does it better.

3.the fact that bob frequents a predominantly secular-left site should be an indicator that he is not as partisan as he appears in many of his comments.he comes here to see what the "lefties" find important and their take on current events.

the problem always arises when people assume that if given all the information,everybody will all come to same conclusion.

which is untrue.

but to come to a rational and reasonable conclusion we must have the information ...all of it...we may still disagree in the end but at least the discussion is founded on even ground and not polluted by propaganda and politics.

the hyper partisanship has got to stop.it only serves those who wish to divide and conquer.

4.the tea party in the beginning was pretty amazing and,ironically,had a very similar message that occupy wall street had.remember what was going on when the tea partiers first exploded on the scene?

the wall street bailout.

now they were eventually co-opted by the very power structure that they originally protested against..ironical..but if you look at the history of mass movements the powered elite were using an old playbook in that regard.

ugh..you got me writing a damn lecture newt!

let me just conclude that i am glad bob is engaging on much more personal level and i hope he continues.
will bob and i still disagree? most likely

Doubt - How Deniers Win

dannym3141 says...

@bobknight33

Please tell me what your experience is with the scientific community. Do not waffle or sidestep the issue but answer exactly what the extent of your experience with scientific research is, and if necessary how that positions you to judge scientific material.

Please also provide three examples from three separate (and recent) peer reviewed (and published, i.e. forming part of the scientific argument) scientific research papers from approximately the last 4 years (since 2010) that provides something illogical as a foundation argument or any particular conclusion. (You realise of course that even 3,5,10, 100 out of 10 thousand is meaningless, but i know that you can't even understand the layout of a scientific paper, nevermind find 3 examples of an illogical statement in a scientific paper.... even my professors would struggle with that.)

I'm not going out of my way to be a dick here @bobknight33 .. but if you tried to give people medical advice (chemotherapy is illogical propaganda!) then you would be expected to have an expertise in medicine. So don't run away from your responsibility.

This shouldn't be a difficult challenge for you, being as you are so certain and so correct that the science is illogical propaganda. I've had to accept things that ran completely counter to my intuition, so if climate change science is bull then as soon as you prove it, i'm on board.

So go ahead, explain to me simply and clearly what makes it bullshit science, or you're going to have to admit that you don't even have the first clue what you're talking about (as i strongly suspect).

Believe climate SCIENCE, do not believe what politicians and industry leaders tell you about climate science - ASK A FUCKING SCIENTIST. And most of all - @bobknight33 - it is NOT ok to pretend to understand science and lie to people about it, you deceptive, brain-dead parrot. Well, having said that, at least parrots have redeeming features.

"Stupidity of American Voter," critical to passing Obamacare

Trancecoach says...

Like I said, you'll just have to settle for trying (in vain) to convince your fellow sifters by shouting.

Attempting to comprehend, let alone respond to, your ramblings is the epitome of exercises in futility. And when someone points this out to you that your rants make no sense, you'll say that it's because that person cannot read.

It's as though an illiterate person tries to argue, in writing, with a Harvard professor about whether the professor knows how to read. It's absurd.

And what's most absurd, of course, is that the professor spends any time debating at all!

newtboy said:

<delusional and circular reasoning>

10 Hours of Walking in NYC as a Woman

bmacs27 says...

Trance said he doesn't understand why she doesn't. You said why should she have to? Nobody is saying she has to. She might want to if she'd like to avoid hearing other people speak their mind. It's her choice. Similarly, catcalling is their choice. They don't need to be classy if they don't want to.

The Jessica Williams video is better in that it isn't about privileged white cisgendered problems exclusively. However, it also doesn't make the case very well. There isn't any evidence of "Wall Street douches" making catcalls unless you want to talk about a picture of a blurred out face in a suit verbalizing nothing.

The assertion that many men are making is that girls selectively complain about catcalls. Specifically, they only want attention from the men they want attention from, and expect us to read their minds... I'm sorry... Body language... and figure out the difference.

For example, a (female) friend of mine was a teaching assistant at UT. She tells this story about going over a study on gender differences regarding random propositions for sex. As you might expect the results were that men were more likely to say yes, and women no. Big surprise there. Well, once the professor finished, Vince Young raised his hand and said "that's not how it works." Every girl in the room (according to my friend) blushed, giggled, twirled their hair, and "made eyes at him." It seems every girl in the room was ready for proposition from an nfl quarterback... Just not homeless people drinking on the stoop.

ChaosEngine said:

Did you miss the part where I quoted trance saying she should wear earbuds?

Also please quote the part where I said "there should be stricter limits on their speech". For what seems like the 7 millionth time, freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences of speech. These guys are free to make comments on her ass or whatever, and I am free to call them misogynist assholes for doing so.

And this whole thing about class and race is a bullshit smokescreen, by men desperate to paint this as anything other than what it clearly is.

Here's Jessica Williams talking about being harassed by "wall street douches". So that's a black woman being harrassed by rich white guys.

Still think it's about how "dark skinned men might rape your white woman"?

Meanwhile, tranceidiot is desperately trying to somehow make this about his retarded libertarian agenda.

Uprooting the Leading Causes of Death

Journeyman: Inside America's Solitary Confinement For Kids

dannym3141 says...

So apparently when Norman Seabrook isn't starring alongside David Duchovny in Evolution, he tells us not to judge the use of punitive segregation as barbarism until you have been a NY state corrections officer. Uh, so the scientific and medical doctors/professors who have proven it to be barbaric (and hence internationally illegal) should have gotten low-qualified jobs at Riker's Island before claiming to know how the brain works and forms?

CNN anchors taken to school over bill mahers commentary

Asmo says...

Ah, ya caught me, I'm undone... X D

Doesn't actually change anything though, does it? Your established "facts" (ie. made up stuff) do not require any significant research to debunk. You've provided no supporting evidence other than your own beliefs anyway (what, a google search too hard for you? =)

I punched in "Islam is homogenous" and surprise surprise, the entire front page were articles saying it's not. And the next page. And the next... Professors, clerics, scholars, philosophers, random comments, books, absolutely nothing to support your contentions. Hell, I couldn't even turn up one of those classy Euro-white power type pages.

How embarrassing. Even the open and unashamed bigots don't seem to support you...

But it doesn't actually matter if the evidence comes from a simple google search looking for articles, or from noted and lauded professors who have spent their lives researching the issue. You are a classic fundamentalist, as bad as any Muslim or Christian extremist. Your world view is uncompromising, based on belief and completely resistant to alteration when factual information is presented that undermines your propaganda.

I loved this line though...

It's tedious to have to continually restate the case against islam in every discussion where the lazy and dishonest leap to the defence of an ideology they've failed to adequately research.

Oh ya poor bloody princess, do you need a lie down?

What I'm opposing is rampant bigotry dressed up as intellectualism. As an atheist, as long as they do no harm, they can believe whatever the hell they want to, it doesn't bother me. You can also believe whatever you want to, but actively promoting the idea of Muslims as one big group who share responsibility for the acts of the minority can do harm. It makes innocents a target for reprisal, and ironically drives moderates towards extremism.

gorillaman said:

@Asmo

You ought to be careful about accusing others of ignorance when you have to resort to googling "islam homogenous" and spamming us with the first links you find. Oh my, talk about making a fool of yourself.

All the PhDs in the world can't alter reality; personally I'd be suspicious of the intellectual credentials of anyone who wasted their career on so vacuous and puerile a subject. Every widespead philosophy will inevitably factionalise to some extent; this is hardly relevant where the objections are to its core tenets and universal beliefs. Remind me, which of the major sects is the good one?

Incidentally, I skipped over this before but the claim that there are 1.5 billion muslims in the world is an outright lie. Most of that number are muslim in the same sense that winston smith is a loyal supporter of ingsoc.

It's tedious to have to continually restate the case against islam in every discussion where the lazy and dishonest leap to the defence of an ideology they've failed to adequately research. Suffice to say that any liberal, modern thinker who had, say, read the qur'an, or looked into the life and character of mohammed, or talked to muslims about what they actually believe, which is never what they reveal to unsympathetic ears; would hesitate before condemning all anti-islamic sentiment as bigotry.

Real Time with Bill Maher - Racism in America

Mordhaus says...

It is not a white problem, it is a human race problem. Every ethnicity has racism towards others. I refuse to allow people, whose only real knowledge of racism is what they've been taught by professors who make a living off 'white guilt', to label my race as inherently the only racist one based off of what happened almost 150 years ago.

Are there white racists? Hell yes! There are also Hispanic racists, Asian racists, and Black racists. Every culture fears and has stereotypes about other cultures that are not logical, but are ingrained into their sub-conscious from the moment they learn how to listen. If you have ever been to Japan, you learn very quick that there is a undercurrent of racism that is extremely strong. Same in the Middle East, same in many parts of Africa.

Is it fair to only label white people as racists when most of the people living today do not come from a family that owned slaves, or in some cases were close to slaves themselves? Half of my family came over to this country from Germany and immediately went to work in the coal mines, paying a huge chunk of their wages to the company store to subsist. The other half came from Italy and were also relegated to the poor jobs that no one wanted. I am 100% certain that they were scared and racist towards other races, because everyone is scared of the unknown. You grow out of it over time and the mixing of cultures.

How Not to Email Your Professor

spawnflagger says...

That probably wasn't the professors real Inbox either. I've never met one that can possibly keep their Inbox that clean!

on another note- humanity is doomed. "kids these days" can only use SMS-speak. Mike Judge is the new Nostradamus because Idiocracy is coming! (sooner than 500 years though)

MrFisk (Member Profile)

Mike Tyson vs. Canadian Reporter

MrFisk says...

Had the broadcaster said, "You're a convicted rapist, and I think your association with the politician may possibly taint his bid to win this election," then you'd be correct. But he didn't. He brought allegations without citing sources, which is unethical. And I'm not arguing that Tyson was charged and convicted in a U.S. court of law for rape -- I'm arguing that the broadcaster probably never heard anybody say that it would look bad for a convicted rapist to endorse a politician, and if he had, then he has a responsibility to audience to say exactly who said it. For example, had he said, "ChaosEngine, from Videosift, said you're a convicted rapist who may sully the politicians chances to win an election. And he called you an asshole," then we'd know the source. But he didn't, and Tyson called him out for it.

That said, Professor of Law Alan M. Dershowitz, Harvard Law School's most high-profile professor <--[Cite your sources!], said the evidence against Tyson for the rape conviction is flimsy and incomplete.
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1993/4/13/dershowitz-wages-media-war-for-tyson/

ChaosEngine said:

Except he didn't make anything up. Tyson is a convicted rapist.

Fuck that asshole.



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon