Oh yes, it's VERY clear, that's what they were trying to do

>> ^thinker247:

If you arrange the letters of both NUJV and HELP into alphabetical order you have JNUV and EHLP. If you convert them to their ordinal rank, you have 10,14,21,22 and 5,8,12,16. If you subtract the numbers of the second set from the numbers of the first set you have 5,6,9,6. Transform that back into letters and you spell EFIF. Spelled backward, that is fife, which is the Old English word for five. It's plain to see that the Beatles were mentioning their manager (and so-called fifth Beatle), Brian Epstein.

If you arrange the letters of both NUJV and HELP into alphabetical order you have JNUV and EHLP. If you convert them to their ordinal rank, you have 10,14,21,22 and 5,8,12,16. If you subtract the numbers of the second set from the numbers of the first set you have 5,6,9,6. Transform that back into letters and you spell EFIF. Spelled backward, that is fife, which is the Old English word for five. It's plain to see that the Beatles were mentioning their manager (and so-called fifth Beatle), Brian Epstein.

>> ^quantumushroom:

I spent half the day at a tent camp for homeless folks, numbering in the 100s.
Monies to support them came all the way from the Vatican. What has the 'atheist charity society' done lately?

If we assume that all atheists are members of the "atheist charity society" in the same way you attribute christian charities to all christians, then you have to count that money as "atheist" money. So, subtract that from the christian charity total, add it to money that non-religious charities make and you've probably, in my country at least, got a figure that's either even or in favour of atheists nowadays.

There isn't a rule stating that ONLY christians can give to christian charity, you know?

However what i like MOST about this comment is that the money they wasted on building a gigantic affluent COUNTRY in the name of christianity could have gone to help people. Instead, they built the vatican with that money. The non-religious charities that i know of work out of a shitty little office and cut just about every expense they can in order to channel more and more money to the needy. So i wonder how much money that makes its way to the vatican from the generous pockets of charitable people is spent on maintaining the vatican lifestyle and other enterprises that could have been better invested in a loaf of bread for a starving person?

Pro tip (no game-stepping involved): Equating criticism with "whining" makes you look petulant and childish. Yeah, telling you to get over yourself is a little rough, but turnabout is fair play, oui?

Look, if your ego won't allow you to stop being a condescending pedant when explaining something, then you're going to lose most, if not all, of your audience. And then what's the point of even trying to explain anything? For most people a negative tone DOES subtract from the point one is trying to make, whether you believe it or not. You're the one being silly if you don't understand basic communication skills. (Did you check out that link I provided? It's actually pretty good.)

And if you think I'm not going to call out arrogant a-holes, think again.>> ^rembar:

A tip for stepping up your game: Stop whining. It makes you seem petulant and childish.
If you think I'm interested in checking my attitude to convince people on the internet I'm right, you're mistaken. If you think my tone takes away from my point, you're being silly. If you think I'm not going to call people out for acting like idiots....well...stop being an idiot.
And that's all I have to say.
>> ^kronosposeidon:
What game is that, dad? That is, how should I step up my game? By humbly beseeching you to teach me the error of my ways, instead of knocking you off the pedestal you put yourself on?
Note: I did not disagree with your argument. (I wrote that once already.) But you really need to check your ego. It kind of hurts your argument. You're a scientician, right? What good is the most brilliant idea in the world if no one will listen to it because of the attitude?
Here ya go. Don't say I never did anything for you.>> ^rembar:
I will when you manage to step your game up.
>> ^kronosposeidon:
I agree with your argument, but get over yourself. >> ^rembar:
P.S. Sifters, what the hell has happened? Y'all know I also think religion is a crock of shit but you are better than this....for shame.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

I can get behind Ronnie on this one. The GDP is a poor gauge of the general well being of regular folk.

On that narrow subject, I agree.

Otherwise, Paul doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground. In Paul's example, anyone who just thinks for a few minutes about why he's wrong.

Guy with $200k/yr job, and has $300k in existing debt, and loses his job. Paul neglects to mention assets. Generally speaking, people don't take out loans, and then light the borrowed money on fire. If the guy has $300k debt on a mortgage for a home worth $1 million, he's actually in pretty good shape fiscally speaking, though he may have to sell his house. If he can get a million dollar loan even in that situation, say to start a business, he'll probably have a negative net worth for a few years, but it seems to me that if he can get a million dollar loan for a business in that situation, people believe he will be able to make it work...

Same applies with his insinuation that we should subtract debt from GDP. This is like saying that the only number you should look at to judge your financial situation in your private life is your yearly salary, minus all of your debts. That's seriously negative for me, while a homeless unemployed guy would be only $0. Is the homeless guy really better off than me?

The adbusters clip implies that there should be a social utility factor involved in our measurements of economic growth, otherwise we have perverse incentives that lead us into broken window fallacies (e.g. cigarettes are awesome because not only are they profitable in their own right, they also boost sales in the lung cancer treatment industry). Paul makes that argument too, but he myopically picks an example that's government-specific (i.e. war), when it's a problem all over the place in private industry too.

There is nothing in these articles about men acting logical and going into problem-solving mode, rather that they have a more activated fight or flight response and women a more empathetic response. Read the article and you will see that you are going way too far in your conclusions (http://www.cfn.upenn.edu/perfusion/stress.pdf).

A quote from the article:
"Similarly, the present finding of greater prefrontal and limbic activation in males and females respectively should not be implicated with the sex stereotype in lay culture for the “emotional women” and “rational men”. As suggested by several studies, the gender difference in emotionality per se may be an ill-posed question (Barrett et al., 1998; Fischer, 1993)." (p. 18, Wang, et al, unknown year).

The stress test was also counting backwards from 1600 by subtracting 13. Not very similar to sitting in a car when a tornado comes. As a bonus there were no differences in performance between women and men, meaning men did not perform better! Don't quote popular science bro. Go straight to the source

That said there are obvious differences in our brains, but we do not know enough yet to claim what you do. >> ^LarsaruS:

>> ^Jinx:
>> ^LarsaruS:
My really long post...

Women of the sift. Does this offend you more or less than Westy's comment. Vote now, cos I think it might be close.

I was not out to put down females and if my comment came across like that then I was not clear enough, my bad.
I was simply talking about the biological differences in how males and females think, see links (first 3 things I found but there is a lot of research on this subject being done), due to being different, biologically, and having evolved with different pressures acting on us. It is not strange that we think differently and it isn't necessarily a bad thing. Why do males go into "problem solving mode" and not "feeling mode" IMO? For example when a sabre toothed tiger pounces you you have to act rationally and solve the problem, if you cower in fear you get eaten. Evolution favoured the clearheaded, fast thinking and problem solving minds of the male hunters over the ones who were slower on the uptake or felt first and acted second.
Different roles (think hunter/gatherer times) --> Different brains --> Different thought patterns.
Otherwise every single person in the world would think exactly the same way.
http://www.newhorizons.org/neuro/diamond_male_female.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/12/051201165615.htm (2005)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2008/0403-men_are_from_mars.htm (2008)
(even has a video but I can't seem to embed stuff, oh well)

I agree. But I still like cake.

>> ^dag:

why should tax dollars be used to prevent obesity?
Because it's smart. $1 spent on prevention now stops $100 in tax money spent for hoist crane to deliver fatty to ER.
>> ^NordlichReiter:
>> ^dag:
We have very similar laws here in Australia- paid paternity leave as well. I support it with my tax dollars and gladly.
You frame your comment like it's outragous for tax dollars to go towards jungle gyms and paternity leave. That makes me sad. <-see?
In my experience with the US, - more jungle gyms would not go astray - for the purposes of preventative health care. (What country has the highest rate of childhood obesity - any takers?)
>> ^NordlichReiter:
Dag, perhaps if it were your taxes paying for the Jungle Gyms you might see it differently. At my workplace there is a room, on every floor that allows for breast feeding. It is also federal law to allow for maternity, and paternity leave. That's right. paternity, too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_and_Medical_Leave_Act_of_1993
But that said, I would rather pay taxes for this bullshit, then for those foreign entanglements.
You know the hardest thing about taxes for me? The goddamn paperwork, and all the exemptions; how the fuck am I gonna keep up with all of that shit. For me it's like getting stuck in traffic. FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU


Obesity is a choice, that will probably take a Tax to solve. I would wager that everyone is obese if they use BMI. Body Mass Index does not take into account your fitness level, nor does it take into account a persons fat to muscle ratio. BMI as I understand it is a measurement ordained by the government, because it's science! It is like going to the doctor and having them weigh you while wearing shows, pants, and a belt. The only way to get a valid measurement is by taking all of your clothes off, or subtracting the weight of the clothes, you still end up naked. That is why fighters weigh in naked. Bah, enough on what I think about that.
Of course the US has problems with Obesity, but why should Federal Income tax money be used for that? When they could tax fatty foods, non diet soda drinks, and sodium enriched foods? Like the Suntan tax.
At the end of the year, my pocket book is destroyed by the bullshit.

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

why should tax dollars be used to prevent obesity?

Because it's smart. $1 spent on prevention now stops $100 in tax money spent for hoist crane to deliver fatty to ER.

>> ^NordlichReiter:

>> ^dag:
We have very similar laws here in Australia- paid paternity leave as well. I support it with my tax dollars and gladly.
You frame your comment like it's outragous for tax dollars to go towards jungle gyms and paternity leave. That makes me sad. <-see?
In my experience with the US, - more jungle gyms would not go astray - for the purposes of preventative health care. (What country has the highest rate of childhood obesity - any takers?)
>> ^NordlichReiter:
Dag, perhaps if it were your taxes paying for the Jungle Gyms you might see it differently. At my workplace there is a room, on every floor that allows for breast feeding. It is also federal law to allow for maternity, and paternity leave. That's right. paternity, too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_and_Medical_Leave_Act_of_1993
But that said, I would rather pay taxes for this bullshit, then for those foreign entanglements.
You know the hardest thing about taxes for me? The goddamn paperwork, and all the exemptions; how the fuck am I gonna keep up with all of that shit. For me it's like getting stuck in traffic. FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU


Obesity is a choice, that will probably take a Tax to solve. I would wager that everyone is obese if they use BMI. Body Mass Index does not take into account your fitness level, nor does it take into account a persons fat to muscle ratio. BMI as I understand it is a measurement ordained by the government, because it's science! It is like going to the doctor and having them weigh you while wearing shows, pants, and a belt. The only way to get a valid measurement is by taking all of your clothes off, or subtracting the weight of the clothes, you still end up naked. That is why fighters weigh in naked. Bah, enough on what I think about that.
Of course the US has problems with Obesity, but why should Federal Income tax money be used for that? When they could tax fatty foods, non diet soda drinks, and sodium enriched foods? Like the Suntan tax.
At the end of the year, my pocket book is destroyed by the bullshit.

>> ^dag:

We have very similar laws here in Australia- paid paternity leave as well. I support it with my tax dollars and gladly.
You frame your comment like it's outragous for tax dollars to go towards jungle gyms and paternity leave. That makes me sad. <-see?
In my experience with the US, - more jungle gyms would not go astray - for the purposes of preventative health care. (What country has the highest rate of childhood obesity - any takers?)
>> ^NordlichReiter:
Dag, perhaps if it were your taxes paying for the Jungle Gyms you might see it differently. At my workplace there is a room, on every floor that allows for breast feeding. It is also federal law to allow for maternity, and paternity leave. That's right. paternity, too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_and_Medical_Leave_Act_of_1993
But that said, I would rather pay taxes for this bullshit, then for those foreign entanglements.
You know the hardest thing about taxes for me? The goddamn paperwork, and all the exemptions; how the fuck am I gonna keep up with all of that shit. For me it's like getting stuck in traffic. FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU



Obesity is a choice, that will probably take a Tax to solve. I would wager that everyone is obese if they use BMI. Body Mass Index does not take into account your fitness level, nor does it take into account a persons fat to muscle ratio. BMI as I understand it is a measurement ordained by the government, because it's science! It is like going to the doctor and having them weigh you while wearing shoes, pants, and a belt. The only way to get a valid measurement is by taking all of your clothes off, or subtracting the weight of the clothes, you still end up naked. That is why fighters weigh in naked. Bah, enough on what I think about that.

Of course the US has problems with Obesity, but why should Federal Income tax money be used for that? When they could tax fatty foods, non diet soda drinks, and sodium enriched foods? Like the Suntan tax.

At the end of the year, my pocket book is destroyed by the bullshit.

I'm counting 30 seconds when you subtract all the filler at the beginning and end of the clip.

Still a record, though.

>> ^Skeeve:
Now for the next question:
Does 0.999... = 1.0?
This was a long time favorite topic of argument among Blizzard employees and on the World of Warcraft forums for whatever reason.
Neatorama had a neat article on it the other day too: http://www.neatorama.com/2010/03/05/9999999-is-equal-to-1-000000/


I'd have to assume that the argument was driven by mathematical illiterates. The proof is simple, taking only a few lines...we spent a whole three minutes on it when I was in the 7th or 8th grade.

Let's see if I can remember it off the top of my head.

Subtract 1 tenth of the value to get rid of the repeating decimal
Add 1 ninth of your new value and you get what you started with, which is 1.

.999... - (1/10) (.999...) = .999... - .0999... = .9
.9 * (10/9) = 1

Overall, that's badly worded, but I think it's fairly obvious when you think about it.

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

Ima gonna bring it through in reconciliation. >> ^Sarzy:
@dag -- I was kind of joking about my voting error before, but this is actually fairly close. Assuming it's possible, please subtract my "yes" vote and add it to "no". Unless you want to George W. Bush this vote.

@dag -- I was kind of joking about my voting error before, but this is actually fairly close. Assuming it's possible, please subtract my "yes" vote and add it to "no". Unless you want to George W. Bush this vote.

>> ^alizarin:
He makes allot of assuming that using all possible resources is the basis of everything. Our population is going to top out - our technologically advanced cultures already have negative population growth when you subtract immigration. And maybe we'll choose not to create a megalomaniacal AI. What else are we going to need the energy from a Dyson sphere for?


>> ^alizarin:
He makes allot of assuming that using all possible resources is the basis of everything. Our population is going to top out - our technologically advanced cultures already have negative population growth when you subtract immigration. And maybe we'll choose not to create a megalomaniacal AI. What else are we going to need the energy from a Dyson sphere for?


There's really not a lot of assuming here. Our current society practically worships the complete use of a resource as wastefully as possible. The conversion from crude oil to refined is only around 90% efficient. And yes, you are correct, most industrialized nations see a negative population growth. However, we are about 5 billion people over populated for our planet so that's not really a bad thing.

What will we need energy for? Who knows. Then again, 200 years ago did people think we'd need energy for tv's, electric cars, laptop computers, mobile phones, etc? Who knows what's next! We could need energy for bio-mechanical suits or propulsion of space ships. Maybe the power we need to create stable wormholes is the equivalent of all the energy we produce on earth today. Hell, the replicators you see on Star Trek TNG would require tremendous amounts of power without a storeroom of atoms to build from. With enough energy, we can just build our own atoms. Teleportation would require tremendous amounts of energy if possible.

Basically, we don't know what we'll need energy for, all we know is we'll need more of it. All we can say is following current trends that in 100 or 200 or more years we'll need a LOT more power than we need today.

He makes allot of assuming that using all possible resources is the basis of everything. Our population is going to top out - our technologically advanced cultures already have negative population growth when you subtract immigration. And maybe we'll choose not to create a megalomaniacal AI. What else are we going to need the energy from a Dyson sphere for?