Criticalthud,the links you posted dont seem very credible and while they do use actual data, its their interpretation of said data were they lose credibility. http://www.detailshere.com/earthquakeactivity.htm

Just at a glance, this site claims there are more earthquakes now than ever, because in the 1970 there were around 4000 earthquakes, and in 2002 there were just over 23 000 earthquakes. Probability does play a role in science, but so does critical thinking. When i see these numbers the first thing that comes to mind is, "Well no kidding! Instruments in 2002 are probably orders of magnitude more sensitive than they were 30 years ago!" Technological progress alone can easily explain these numbers. Now days we can detect even the tiniest earthquakes almost anywere, unlike in the 40 years ago.

I checked wikipedia as i typed this, and yep, here is a quote confirming my thoughts exactly;
"The number of seismic stations has increased from about 350 in 1931 to many thousands today. As a result, many more earthquakes are reported than in the past, but this is because of the vast improvement in instrumentation, rather than an increase in the number of earthquakes."
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthquake#Size_and_frequency_of_occurrence
If the author of the web site you quote has done so little research, you can barely take anything he or she writes as credible.


The site also lists 6 earthquakes over a magnitude of 7.0 that occurred in 2002, but the average number of earthquakes per year in the 1900s over 7.0 is 18. So by the figures he is going by, the author should state that earthquakes are decreasing! How ever this line of thinking just shows a lack of understanding of probability.

If the yearly average is as low as 18, then the law of large numbers indicates that the standard deviation will be large enough to affect the number of earthquakes on a yearly basis enough that some years there will be several more than 18 and some years several less. In other wards if one year there are only 10 and some years later there are 24, its still normal.

More over, one must consider geography and probability of the location of earthquakes. The location of 90% of the worlds earthquakes occurs along the ring of fire. However a lot of the ring of fire is not near large cities susceptible to widespread damage. Most of it is in the middle of nowhere. some years large earthquakes will occur close to high population areas, and other years most of the earthquakes will occur too far to cause any harm. on the years that several earthquakes happen to occur near populated areas, it might seem like earthquakes are increasing, but its just probability. This also would be normal.

>> ^spawnflagger:

Carl Sagan said almost the same thing 30 years ago in 1 of the episodes of Cosmos, but instead of caffeinated-arm-flailing-rant format, he said it slow and concisely, albeit slightly monotone. Because of the cold war, and the man-will-destroy-itself-in-nuclear-fallout attitude of the time, he was not so optimistic about finding other societies, because he imagined other societies would do similar, as in they would kill themselves shortly after coming up with radio and nuclear technology.
There was an update to the series a few years later, and he was much more optimistic that humanity would not destroy itself.
Also, it's not likely that any of the early radio waves we sent out will be "readable" once they reach a considerable distance away, so it's irrelevant whether they watch TV or not.

Even without the immediate threat of Nuclear War we still have plenty of time and options to kill ourselves off with. We haven't even travelled to our nearest planet, I think its going to be a while before we ever really explore the Solar System, never mind the rest of the Galaxy. I think if Humans ever do survive that long, if we somehow manage to obtain the wisdom to match our technology and dodge planet killing asteroids, then we will probably have less in common with them than we do with our fishy ancestors.

As for extraterrestrial life, there is a fair chance it exists, or has existed or will exist. I think its not too much of a stretch to imagine intelligent life. I don't think we'll ever find them, not without faster than light travel. And space isn't just vast in 3 dimensions, its pretty fast in a the 4th as well. We have existed for the tiniest sliver of time, we've had technology for a tiny sliver of that...We have to survive for a very very long time before we are anything but a tiny fragment of history.

I think the problem with charity is that it gives us the illusion that we are properly redistributing wealth when we are not. You steal $100,000 from a man, such that he can no longer pay his debts and is evicted. The next time you see him on the street you hand him $10, and your conscience is somehow cleared. I don't think thats even an exaggeration unfortunately...

I don't think its as black and white as "all aid is bad" and that wasn't the point he was making, more that the nature of charity, of green washing etc really distracts from a broken system badly in need of radical changes.

I certainly subscribe to his notion of "soft apocalyptic vision". I mean, don't know about anybody else, but when I really think about the situation the world is in you must come to the conclusion that its just...so unsustainable, and something has gotta give. Massive disparity between rich and poor, an energy addiction fueled by dwindling resources with no viable alternatives in sight, a planet radically changed by a bloated population of humans over the tiniest sliver of time...if your not misanthropic then your in denial.

Wow, that guy is pretty brave to wander around in a huge pile of completely blind and stupid people.

I am German and Ive never understood why there is so much hate. I really never understood the arguments of them because there simply arent any. Then one day I asked my friend about it and if he knows whats going on. I was extremely shocked when he told me how many lies are spewed out and believed by such people just because they still think that even the slightest and tiniest part of socialism is pure evil.
Seriously, so much ignorance scares the shit out of me. Ive never thought people can be that dumb...

You can't escape politics; even in academia I couldn't escape it.

‘Escape’? I encounter it, but am fortunate enough to be in a position where it does not impact my day to day job function.

It surprises me that you are too lazy to develop yourself so that you are in a position to get your ideas across. You seem to be a person that values hard work in the face of adversity.

I’m in a top-heavy organization, and the last thing it needs is another manager. With only about 1,200 employees we have 7 people at the “EO” level, 50+ VPs, 125+ directors. Believe me, we are no-where near short of ‘chiefs’. We need more ‘indians’ – more highly qualified & skilled professionals. It’s a good company; I see no need to try to ‘manage’. To do so would turn the nature of my work away from in-depth analysis towards a more simple, business-decision oriented truncated approach. I’d move from data, to budgets. From study to meetings. I prefer to tear a topic down to its roots rather than skim above it at 50,000 feet.

In the face of uncertainty, 'gut feel' and the intuition derived from experience often does trump a fancy stochastic model.

I don’t have a beef with QUALIFIED people who make a decision against data. I have great respect for business guys who are skilled, intelligent, thoughtful, and have the ability to make a ‘gut’ business decision after weighing the options. Such people can take my detailed analysis – put it in the hopper – and make a decision that isn’t totally data-driven, but accounts for other things. The reason my company does well is because most of the business guys are of this sort. I respect them, and don't feel the need to add myself to their number when there are more than enough of them to take care of things. I'm best off where I am - doing the detail research they don't have time for.

Obama is he is NOT that kind of person. He is the ‘other’ kind that you meet in a business meeting... They have made a decision before they walk in the door, or have heard a single fact. They do not try to learn, or educate themselves, or respectfully consider other experts when making decisions. They only seek to justify decisions that they already made in everyone’s absence. Such persons are more than happy to use data - but only as long as it agrees with what they want. The second the data disagrees with them then the tiniest, most illogical of excuses will suffice to bat it aside as faulty. Thankfully there aren't too many of them where I work. But they're there sometimes.

When Obama encounters someone who presents facts, research, opinions, or approaches contrary to his own – he manifests himself as the small, petty, vapid man that typifies this sort of ‘bad’ business decision maker. The good ones are precious. The ‘bad’ ones like Obama are a blight on any organization they darken with their odious presence.

How many times did Bush screw up words, sentences, and concepts, trying to make a point

Did you see the thread, “Why do Republicans believe lies about Obama”? In it, people say that news-driven talking points are sucked up by intellectual sponges and parroted back unthinkingly. Your opinion about Bush is based on the very same practice, but sponsored by the left. It was grossly exaggerated. Bush did a lot of dumb things, but he proved himself more competent and intelligent than Obama in many respects. Obama can't handle himself with diplomacy (case in point with Isreal), but Bush did it easily and naturally.

You say I ‘don’t get it’. I can only shrug and say you are the victim of groupthink, and have no logical grounds for your specious position. For example – you say I supply no list of economists. I can easily do so.

http://www.adsavvy.org/consensus-war-300-top-economists-disagree-with-obamas-no-disagreement-remark/

But – as is usual – folk of your stripe will ignore fact and try to weasel away from the reality that I've proven you completely, totally, and irrevocably wrong. I am the one here that provides links, data, and information to justify my arguments. People such as yourself only climb up on rhetorical soap-boxes and fling poo.

Obama is no marxist. His policies are centrist liberal.

How is an administration ‘centrist liberal’ when it moves to take over the financial industry, the automotive industry, the medical industry, the insurance industry, and energy – while at the same time feeding billions in stimulus money to big unions & trial lawyers? All of Obama’s positions are RADICALLY far-left. Isreal, education, taxes, role of government, deficit spending, Supreme court nominee, you name the issue and Obama has proven he is way out left. This is why independent and moderate voters (who voted for him) have abandoned him in droves to the point where his approval rating is cratering to George W. Bush levels.

Not sure why my comment was downvoted, I can only assume looris didnt really read the whole thing. You can't honestly tell me that in a world where parents get offended and overprotective about the tiniest stupid thing that lyrics such as the ones I mentioned, if they were not aware of the context, would almost certainly spark an overreaction. If you don't think that, you have a problem with reality looris.

I think its more a product of the lack of any atmosphere that high up...the tiniest of forces in usual ambient pressures wouldnt really do much, as friction would overcome the impulse to move with the force.

Without the atmosphere though, the effect of the minute forces are soooo much greater.

Think how they turn a spaceship that weights hundreds of tons....tiny puffs of air.

I took a short break from sifting and I came back to the terrible news that you're leaving.

I respect your decision and I trust your time off will be beneficial, but I would also like to ask one thing from you (hopefully you'll read this message sooner or later): that when you get the teensiest tiniest of urges to return (and you will), you won't combat it out of principle or spite. There's no need to show resolve this way - I'm dead certain everyone will welcome you back with open arms, if you ever choose to return. It's just that I'm afraid we've lost many highly-valued long-time members this way, and I'd really hate to never see you again as a part of this wonderful community

>> ^IronDwarf:
That's like my neighbor setting my house on fire because he's angry about my dog pooping on his lawn; not the best way to get one's point across.


I agree - not the best way to get one's point across. 911 was an unforgivable atrocity but what this guy is trying to say is that there's no discussion or awareness of what WE did to provoke it. If someone burns down our house that's awful but if we've been a serial arsonists for profit since Truman and the police don't care then maybe we don't hold the moral high ground anymore when someone finally says fuck it and burns our house down.

In the aftermath of 911 we've killed many many more civilians in Iraq than died in the twin towers and they didn't even have anything to do with it. That's a non-issue in this country and that's very fucked up. The pre-911 stuff is less straight forward but I don't think anybody with intellectual honesty could say we're not responsible for *many* times more deaths and desctruction of culture by our long standing habit of paying and supporting dictators to do our dirty work throughout the middle east and the rest of the world. 911 is just a tiny drop in the bucket in comparison. Terrible and unforgivable but still just a tiny drop in the bucket.

If we refuse to realize our part in this stuff, shit like this is going to keep happening. I don't want my kids to die in a dirty bomb attack because my neighbors refuse to have the tiniest bit of self awareness and responsibility.

If you do it right, you get fractal views of things around the room, your surrounding start to migrate about, blend, roll over themselves, and dominate what you can see. You get very surreal hallucinations, ranging, in my cases, from teeth floating out of a smiling face and becoming larger than the originating head, tranquil river valleys as seen through the bathroom mirror, wondering why I can't get there, and utter confusion as to why I arrive back in reality having ripped apart my bedsheets, facing a wall, with my pillow clenched tightly, especially since I started the trip downstairs in the main room on the couch. I naturally don't remember parts of the trip in the middle, I describe it to people who are about to take it that it's like taking a sledge hammer to your brain then trying to pick up the pieces. It's much more fun to watch someone who has never done it before do it. When smoked in little bits your brain starts the "pulling, swirling" sensation, where you feel like you're in a cement trucks mixer, and your falling into the turn, but you never fall, even though you're always falling. Other descriptive things would include "cactus like pins and needles all over", "funny, cartoonish images dancing in ones field of vision" "trying to continuously push yourself out of a stupor created by an artificial bubble of time distortion." I gave the tiniest hoot to a girl once that had never done it, she exhaled immediately, i turned around to say something, turned back to see what everyone was looking at, and she had ran out onto the street outside, like, bolted, and guys ran after her to see what was wrong. fukkked! thank you.

It's all good, Emu.

In reply to this comment by gourmetemu:
First of all it's rather petty to downvote something that could easily be fixed by shooting over a message so I could correct it if it was really going to bother you that much.

Secondly, I naturally went through your PQ to downvote things for whatever the tiniest reason I could only to fucking upvote 10 of your videos because of the awesome content. So now I hate you even more than before.

Also you should put quotes around "hits" for, you know, grammatical reasons.

Sorry this the best I could do to vent since you have to go and sift stupid enjoyable videos. <shakes fist in anger>

In reply to this comment by shuac:
Downvote for misspelling hits. Oh, wither education?

it's about faith not popularity so i don't see how anyone can claim holding a mirror to someone's attitude is hate speech. religion is voluntary. race is not.

You don't get it. Hate speech is when you deliberately and maliciously cast groups of people in negative contrast based on stereotypes, prejudices, and the language of a propogandistic demagogue. Could be racial. Could be religious. Could be political. Doesn't matter what the subject matter it. Hate speech is the wrongful miscasting of large sections of a population with the intent to get people to 'hate' the group.

When you do that, you are actively seeking to whip up public opinion against the group in question. You create a demonic strawman caracature of your target, and lead people to make fun of it, persecute it, belittle it, and (at the worst) attack and destroy it. Human nature leads people to carry over this extremely negative behavior from the strawman to actual real people who are nothing like the rhetorical pinata.

Case in point. Some of you have been spoon-fed the caracature of the 'born-again fundamentalist' on TV, in movies, and other media and now reflexively treat ALL people of faith as if they were your caracature. The actual reality is though that the caracatured 'hate speech' version of religion you denigrate only applies to the tiniest, most infinitesimal particle of the religious world.

That's what hate speech does. It teached the weak-minded, the gullible, and the easily manipulated to 'hate' things that they really have no understanding of at all.

Ok, so not all duct tape was created equal. Some will stick to skin and won't come off without a nipple or two, and some will fall off with just the tiniest bit of sweat.

it might make sense to test the tape for the insta-bra on your arm first.

The Washington Times is a joke, and that article is based on too many patently false premises, which have repeatedly been refuted elsewhere, to waste my time arguing with such nonsense. Obama has a long legislative record in the state senate of Illinois, and 12 years experience teaching Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago (ranked 5th in the nation), and experience as president of the Harvard Law Review, and more. He also worked on the boards of directors of charities with higher operating budgets than the entire city of Wasilla. The_Dragon, if you would bother to do the tiniest bit of research you would realize what a load of horse-shit that Washington Times article is.

>> ^mauz15:
Someone explain to me how can the 45 people who upvoted can see the bullshit but there are other people who actually think this is a defense for Mccain and a loss for Biden?


Brb...."Mom, dad, meet mauz15. He/she has a quick question for you two wild & crazy kids".

Sadly, I avoid any and all topics having to do with politics and religion considering my past failed attempts to bring about the tiniest fraction of cognitive dissonance in them; lest I hear my own parents channeling Sean Hannity nearly-verbatim, like marionettes that make noise when you pull their string.