Of course. That's what makes something nationally relevant. It doesn't even have to affect me. It just needs to impact more than some kid in New Mexico or something (I already don't remember). I'm just saying this isn't national news. There isn't some national epidemic of cops brutalizing 10 year olds.

There could be an epidemic of police brutality, and certainly of racial profiling. A human interest piece covering systemic coverups, dirty departments, anything that involved actual digging could be considered actual national news. In fact, many have been run by the "corporate media" on things like stop-and-frisk, terrorist profiling, and even things like corporate prison labor. I, like most lefties, am interested in well researched stories of that sort. This isn't that. It's some regurgitated local sob story. Typically their fact checking is bullshit to boot.

In other words they amplify noise and partisan rhetoric rather than inform. The Economist or the Times they are not. It's usually fine that they do what they do, it's just that you shouldn't confuse it for something that it isn't, like news.

>> ^scheherazade:

That really speaks to the general state of selfish humanity.
If it isn't affecting me, then I don't care.
People not affected by the economic downturn, don't care about the recession.
People not affected by psycho police, don't care about police brutality.
Enough people are affected by the economy for there to be a lot that want to hear about it in the news.
Only some people are sacrificed to the police gods, so only some care to hear about that in the news.
(Although with 1% of our population in jail, and 1 in 30 in jail or on parole, 1 in 9 black males ages 20 to 34 in jail, it's not that small of an amount... and it's particularly sinister when these people are shoved into private jails that charge the public to hold the prisoners, and then charge the prisoners for their stay [as if it's a hotel], and use the prisoners for cheap labor that they sell to companies that don't want to hire people for livable wages, with solitary if you don't work for them. - on top of most people in jail being guilty of "crimes" that involved no one but themselves and have no harm.)
Ultimately, when it's you that's out of a job, the economy matters a lot.
And when it's you getting tazed, beat up, and charged with assault (oh the irony), then police brutality matters a lot.
The sentiment of "don't waste my time with your sob stories, we've got real problems (that affect me)", really goes all ways.
You could just as well read : "Who cares about your economy, when the government is taking my health and putting me away for no more than the entertainment/venting of a public employee".
-scheherazade

That really speaks to the general state of selfish humanity.
If it isn't affecting me, then I don't care.

People not affected by the economic downturn, don't care about the recession.
People not affected by psycho police, don't care about police brutality.

Enough people are affected by the economy for there to be a lot that want to hear about it in the news.

Only some people are sacrificed to the police gods, so only some care to hear about that in the news.

(Although with 1% of our population in jail, and 1 in 30 in jail or on parole, 1 in 9 black males ages 20 to 34 in jail, it's not that small of an amount... and it's particularly sinister when these people are shoved into private jails that charge the public to hold the prisoners, and then charge the prisoners for their stay [as if it's a hotel], and use the prisoners for cheap labor that they sell to companies that don't want to hire people for livable wages, with solitary if you don't work for them. - on top of most people in jail being guilty of "crimes" that involved no one but themselves and have no harm.)

Ultimately, when it's you that's out of a job, the economy matters a lot.
And when it's you getting tazed, beat up, and charged with assault (oh the irony), then police brutality matters a lot.

The sentiment of "don't waste my time with your sob stories, we've got real problems (that affect me)", really goes all ways.
You could just as well read : "Who cares about your economy, when the government is taking my health and putting me away for no more than the entertainment/venting of a public employee".

-scheherazade

Bone, I served with Jonny G. Fuxalot. I knew Jonny G. Fuxalot. Jonny G. Fuxalot was a friend of mine.

Bone, you're no Jonny G. Fuxalot!




>> ^BoneRemake:

>> ^dag:
I have to admit these McDonalds videos are doing it right from a communication standpoint. The language they use is very deliberate and parsed though. "We also add an ingredient to prevent the graying of the product". No mention of what it is. Possibly Disodium Dihydrogen Pyrophosphate - which doesn't sound so rosey in a promotional video. http://greenresonance.com/whats-up-with-the-mcdonalds-ads-on-the-tc
c-part-2

You honestly think jonny G. fuxalot from the trailer park is going to care or know what that is ? these are for clarity and sales. If advertisements use b|g words stupid people get scared. OMFG I need some more Di-Hydrogen-monooxide. My throatal vent is drying out from all this breathing.

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

I don't think the Fuxalots are the target for this video. They are trying to entice people who generally don't eat at McDonald's - or reassure those who do but who feel bad about it.>> ^BoneRemake:

>> ^dag:
I have to admit these McDonalds videos are doing it right from a communication standpoint. The language they use is very deliberate and parsed though. "We also add an ingredient to prevent the graying of the product". No mention of what it is. Possibly Disodium Dihydrogen Pyrophosphate - which doesn't sound so rosey in a promotional video. http://greenresonance.com/whats-up-with-the-mcdonalds-ads-on-the-tc
c-part-2

You honestly think jonny G. fuxalot from the trailer park is going to care or know what that is ? these are for clarity and sales. If advertisements use b|g words stupid people get scared. OMFG I need some more Di-Hydrogen-monooxide. My throatal vent is drying out from all this breathing.

>> ^dag:

I have to admit these McDonalds videos are doing it right from a communication standpoint. The language they use is very deliberate and parsed though. "We also add an ingredient to prevent the graying of the product". No mention of what it is. Possibly Disodium Dihydrogen Pyrophosphate - which doesn't sound so rosey in a promotional video. http://greenresonance.com/whats-up-with-the-mcdonalds-ads-on-the-tc
c-part-2


You honestly think jonny G. fuxalot from the trailer park is going to care or know what that is ? these are for clarity and sales. If advertisements use b|g words stupid people get scared. OMFG I need some more Di-Hydrogen-monooxide. My throatal vent is drying out from all this breathing.

>> ^Quboid:

I think it was a joke.
Is it that unreasonable anyway? People seem to be assuming that if it's not a joke, that he means windows that passengers can wind down like a car but obviously they'd be locked except when in an emergency and the plane is less than 10,000 feet up. If the plane is on the runway and it fills with smoke, being able to open the windows might help. Or it might bring in more oxygen and make the fire much worse...


I agree. He was joking, and I actually don't think it's that stupid an idea, either. Sure, as he articulated it, it sounds like a stupid idea. You don't want a hand crank on every window (although I've been in commercial airliner cockpits that DO have such a thing).

But maybe it IS a problem that airliners don't have a way to rapidly vent the cabin and cockpit with fresh (yes, low pressure and cold) air. It won't be comfortable at 15,000 ft, but it could save lives. Smoke in an airplane is a serious issue.

What attracted you into conversation here is that the Sift is a de facto place for atheists to hang out. When you "speak your mind" about religion and atheism, there's two problems. The first is that since we are overwhelmingly non-believers, opinions against atheism and pro-religion are going to irritate a greater number of people, and so get the most attention. Our opinions against religion only offend you and maybe one or two other people ever, that I've seen. It's a numbers thing. Don't take it personally. The second is that, as I've mentioned already in this thread, you do come off supremely arrogant in your beliefs. Just saying, from our perspective. I'll turn it around to your perspective for a second. Consider these two sentences, a) "I consider the Bible to be fairy tales, and I don't understand why Christians people believe it's true." and b) "It's better to question the world rather than blindly accept a book of fairy tales." After which of these two sentences are you more likely to be able to continue reading for several more paragraphs, presumably all written in the same tone, with an open, clear, unangry mind? For most people —even atheists— the tone of the first sentence is preferable and more conducive to communication.

I'm not offended by your conversation, or your videos. In the past, I may have overreacted to insults, but they don't really bother me any longer. I am not sitting here enraged because some atheist suggested that God doesn't exist. I have heard just about every nasty thing anyone could possibly say about God, and then some. People have called me every sort of name that you could call someone. Even you can't resist putting in a dart here and there. That's just the way it is. If I let that bother me then I wouldn't be able to talk to anyone here.

If I've come off as arrogant, then that is unfortunate, because I don't feel superior to anyone here. I apologize to anyone who thinks that is the case. I am usually very direct in what I say, and I don't beat around the bush, and perhaps that has ruffled a few feathers. However, I always try to temper my speech with compassion and understanding. I don't think that is a fair characterization, and I think you are also ignoring the hyper sensitivity people have about their beliefs.

I've been using the sift since 06 or 07; the reason I finally signed up is because of the antitheistic bent the site had taken. Perhaps it was always there and I didn't really notice it. In any case, as a long time visitor here, I felt the site no longer represented me and I felt compelled to speak up for the other side of the argument. So I was not drawn to the sift because of atheism; I had already been using the sift for a long time.

I'll turn it back to the non-theist's perspective now. After listening to a cogent talk from Feynman explaining quite clearly why he would prefer to have no answer rather than possibly have a wrong answer, your first pitch over the plate was, "It's better to know the answer than remain ignorant of it", and then all rest of the stuff that followed that shows you didn't hear what he said at all. Feynman clearly doesn't prefer to "imagine that the answer is something else, because he doesn't like it." Then you used that as a launch pad for an assault on scientists in general through quotemining. I didn't read past the first paragraph. I moved straight down to see the reaction to your tone, and sure enough, it had started in earnest. I'd call that a failure in communication, unless you just wanted to vent, and maybe that day that's all the satisfaction you wanted. OK, but there you are. And you do this often enough, and people will see your avatar at the head of a comment somewhere else, and immediately their minds will shift into attack/defense mode, and your chances of communicating directly to their minds is almost zero – and they haven't even read a word yet.

Yet, someone who usually criticizes me agreed with me and said I had a good point. You say I didn't understand what Richard said, but apparently I understood it well enough to make a coherent point in opposition to what he said. What you're guilty of here is cherry picking. That sentence was part of an overall point and wasn't mean to be taken by itself.

In any case you say I failed, and perhaps I did in some ways, but not in the way you have asserted. You're right and you are wrong about what you've said here, but I get your overall point.

The fact is, since I've been here, this is the way people here have reacted to me. I don't get this reaction everywhere I go. Some of this is my fault, and some of it isn't. Either way I am not complaining. It is what it is. There is always room for improvement.

And to your comment about being invited. This place wasn't primarily designed for people to communicate opinions. It was designed for people to enjoy themselves while they procrastinate, feel a part of something, get some pseudo-community feelings going. There's no rule against giving any opinions here, nor against coming in large part to represent a certain opinion, but doing so runs against the main purpose of the place, organically defined by the intent of the people who come. This isn't an ideas discussion/debates forum with focus on arguing points to a conclusion. You can do that, but that's not the main purpose. What you tend to do here makes it more difficult for others to achieve their main purpose here, which is kicking up and not really thinking for an hour or two. And uh-oh, there's a comment from sb, killing the buzz. We could ignore it, but we just can't help reading what it says even though we already know it's almost certain to infuriate us with a relentless brand of reasoning that we do not understand.

Come on. People are not just here to relax, they are also here to promote their political, philosophical and (anti)religious ideologies. The sift loves red meat. People here love to express their opinions about what they love and what they hate, and they love to argue when anyone disagrees with them.

I get what you're saying. I could be more sensitive to how my comments will be perceived, and try to say things in a different way. I agree with you here. I'll keep it in mind.

In the end, however, the main purpose of this site is whatever the site operator purposes. What the site operator has said is that I am a valuable member of this community.

Fallacious arguments? Every time I point out a mistake, you invent a convenient new rule for understanding the Bible (or more likely you copy-paste what it says on some apologia clearinghouse website). I could literally find a quote that says, "oranges are black" and you'd justify it somehow. I just found a passage that gives two incompatible lineages from Joram to Joatham. And in a book that's supposed to be completely true, you excuse it by telling me the writers are taking artistic licence? WTF????? This isn't a poetry slam! It's the bloody word of God! If you claim everything in it is true, so much so that you've given up sex, condemn gay people, etc., then everything else in it *must* be literally true or you have no foundation for giving up sex or condemning gay people. Those could be metaphorical warnings about the lure of great pleasures in general. Either one of those things about Joram and Joatham written in the Bible is false, or anyone can point to any passage and call it optional, or poetry, or a style of writing, or just a metaphor. You can't have it both ways.

Now this is simply your ignorance talking. When I gave you my answer about the lineage in Matthew, I wasn't just pulling something out of a hat. Apparently you haven't heard of Chiastic structure:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiastic_structure

It's not false, it is simply a writing style employed by Matthew to emphasize the lineage in a particular way. This is not some kind of desperate analysis to cover up a mistake, but is a well known style used in ancient literature. I'm not making excuses, or putting off something to metaphor; Matthew was definitely using Chiastic structure, and that is why that verse is symmetrical.

First, I'm saying the effects of personal prayer *can* be scientifically measured, so either your contention that God will not be tested is bunk, or self-prayer is really just meditation. You also didn't understand the set-up of the prayer-for-other test. In that scenario, there were real ill people in the hospitals, and they compared the outcomes for patients who had had others sincerely praying for them from a distance versus those who didn't. IOW, the sincere prayer happened. There has never been any measured health benefit for the ill people. They died off and recovered in equal numbers.

No, they can't be scientifically measured. You would never know during your test whether God was simply feeding you a certain kind of result. Think about it. God knows the entire time that you're trying to test for His existence outside of what He ordained (faith in Jesus Christ). His choice is either to give you results that will prove His existence outside of Christ or results that will make it ambiguous. What do you think He is going to do?

You keep saying that my position is one of cognitive dissonance. Look at yourself. You twist your mind into any shape you need for your dogma to hold true, never once truly considering the possibility that it's all in your head. You've said the words that you might be wrong, but you've never shown it's more than lip service. I've never seen you take a critical eye to your position on God and the Bible, despite the numerous opportunities I and others have given to you.

And this is exactly what Feynman's talking about when he says the scientific approach starts from the position that all hypotheses are wrong, then goes about trying to prove it through observation. Anything that's still standing afterwards is good scientific theory.

You're acting is if I have no evidence for my beliefs. If it was just a matter of believing the bible was true because I wanted to believe it, you might have a point. The reason I believe the bible is true because of personal revelation. I experience the presence of God in my daily life. It would be illogical for me to deny the existence of God based on the evidence I have received. I do not "twist my mind into any shape" to believe what I read in the bible. My worldview is internally consistent, and it is also rational. You may find it irrational because of your presuppositions, but that is because you reject the evidence I have receive apriori. To you there must always be some other explanation, and that is the way you interpret everything I say. You've already come to the conclusion that I am deluding myself, and everything I say you filter through that conclusion. Rather than letting the evidence interpret the conclusion, you are interpreting the evidence through the conclusion.

Religion, on the other hand, starts from the assuming the conclusion that God and the Bible are real, and any observational facts that don't line up must themselves be wrong facts, no matter how well documented they are. And when those facts can no longer be denied, then the Bible passages in question are suddenly no longer considered to have literal meaning, and now have only a "metaphorical" meaning, or must be understood from a different perspective.

If every word in the Bible is subject to this convenient wishy-washy fanciful method of interpretation, then it's a lousy foundation for a system of faith. You cannot follow anything that you can change the meaning of by arbitrarily saying, "That part is meant to be understood non-literally." The Bible, as it stands now, is either a 100% true book that we humans are incapable of understanding; OR a book that we are meant to learn from that also has lots of loopholes in it. It cannot be both, not as it stands now. The whole Bible should be re-written such that what's left in it is literal unmistakable unfudgeable truth. I think it would be a very, very short book, or, a much longer book filled with qualifications, something along these lines:

I'm well aware that many Christians have compromised with the world and reinterpreted the bible to reflect worldly wisdom, but I'm not one of them. Though not everything in the bible (like the song of solomon for instance) could, or should be taken literally, I believe it contains the literal history of planet Earth. As I've explained in other threads, I didn't always believe that. I assumed where science said it was right, the bible was wrong. It was only when I questioned that and investigated the evidence that I found it was the other way around. I believe the bible is true not only because of revelation, but because of the evidence, not in spite of it. You have unfairly mischaracterized me, because I am the last person you will talk to who will turn the bible into a metaphor to avoid the facts.

Otherwise, as you seem to fear about secular morality, the Bible itself could be interpreted to mean absolutely anything by anyone at any time, if they thought hard enough about it.

I don't fear that, I know that. You're absolutely right, you could make the bible say anything you want to. People do it all the time. It's only a literal reading that makes any sense. Even atheists know that:

destroy adam and eve and original sin and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the Son of God and take away the meaning of His death

-american atheist association

>> ^messenger:

stuff

@shinyblurry

Well, the difference here on the sift is that it is not by default a place for atheists to hang out … If you look at any video on religion here, people feel free to speak their mind about Christianity and Christians but for some reason they take exception when I do the same. I understand what your argument is about and what you're saying, which I appreciate and recognize as being essentially valid, but your comment about being uninvited doesn't apply.

What attracted you into conversation here is that the Sift is a de facto place for atheists to hang out. When you "speak your mind" about religion and atheism, there's two problems. The first is that since we are overwhelmingly non-believers, opinions against atheism and pro-religion are going to irritate a greater number of people, and so get the most attention. Our opinions against religion only offend you and maybe one or two other people ever, that I've seen. It's a numbers thing. Don't take it personally. The second is that, as I've mentioned already in this thread, you do come off supremely arrogant in your beliefs. Just saying, from our perspective. I'll turn it around to your perspective for a second. Consider these two sentences, a) "I consider the Bible to be fairy tales, and I don't understand why Christians people believe it's true." and b) "It's better to question the world rather than blindly accept a book of fairy tales." After which of these two sentences are you more likely to be able to continue reading for several more paragraphs, presumably all written in the same tone, with an open, clear, unangry mind? For most people —even atheists— the tone of the first sentence is preferable and more conducive to communication.

I'll turn it back to the non-theist's perspective now. After listening to a cogent talk from Feynman explaining quite clearly why he would prefer to have no answer rather than possibly have a wrong answer, your first pitch over the plate was, "It's better to know the answer than remain ignorant of it", and then all rest of the stuff that followed that shows you didn't hear what he said at all. Feynman clearly doesn't prefer to "imagine that the answer is something else, because he doesn't like it." Then you used that as a launch pad for an assault on scientists in general through quotemining. I didn't read past the first paragraph. I moved straight down to see the reaction to your tone, and sure enough, it had started in earnest. I'd call that a failure in communication, unless you just wanted to vent, and maybe that day that's all the satisfaction you wanted. OK, but there you are. And you do this often enough, and people will see your avatar at the head of a comment somewhere else, and immediately their minds will shift into attack/defense mode, and your chances of communicating directly to their minds is almost zero – and they haven't even read a word yet.

You're one of the only people here placing a high priority on communicating anything, let alone representing a specific point of view. The rest of us are just here for fun, and there is no success or failure except inasmuch as we enjoy ourselves. So when jinx says, "We're both ignorant. Only one of us knows it", jinx doesn't care how to take it, or how you feel the next time you see the handle. If you're here to represent something, you should really think about the effect you think your message and tone will have every time you hit the "submit" button.

And to your comment about being invited. This place wasn't primarily designed for people to communicate opinions. It was designed for people to enjoy themselves while they procrastinate, feel a part of something, get some pseudo-community feelings going. There's no rule against giving any opinions here, nor against coming in large part to represent a certain opinion, but doing so runs against the main purpose of the place, organically defined by the intent of the people who come. This isn't an ideas discussion/debates forum with focus on arguing points to a conclusion. You can do that, but that's not the main purpose. What you tend to do here makes it more difficult for others to achieve their main purpose here, which is kicking up and not really thinking for an hour or two. And uh-oh, there's a comment from sb, killing the buzz. We could ignore it, but we just can't help reading what it says even though we already know it's almost certain to infuriate us with a relentless brand of reasoning that we do not understand.

For the most part I agree with you. I'd say that maybe, for me at least, I haven't been enjoying the TYT as much recently specifically because of the tone; it gets an almost knee-jerk reaction from me.

>> ^messenger:

Good experiment. I did what you suggested and watched it again pretending it was Rush Limbaugh speaking, and here's what I was felt:
I noticed that their ranting tones and vocal styles are quite similar, and that I wasn't bothered by that. I noticed how I trusted that what Cenk was telling me was factual and balanced because Cenk prizes his image of being honest and fair. His arguments were so obvious that I didn't feel he was manipulating anything to fit an agenda. I also felt this because he almost never does so, and when he does, he admits it first. In this video, I felt he was genuinely worked up, and was delivering the pertinent details and venting like a person who was actually pissed off. In the last year or so that I've been watching a lot of TYT, I have rarely thought like he was telling people what to believe or speaking to his audience like sheeple (his often repeated assertion that women and gays who support the Republican party are either stupid or ignorant is the exception I'm thinking of), and I feel like if I were to talk to him, there'd be room for discussion on any topic, as long as I was bringing fact to the table.
This is mostly in contrast to how I perceive Limbaugh. The feeling I get from him is that he's a blowhard who succeeds by being loud, resolute, prejudiced, black-and-white in his opinions, spoonfeeding his audience an opinion (any opinion will do as long as they can repeat it at work), backing it up with bullshit or manipulation, and by directing his audience to grouphate an "other" that he invented. I think a better comparison for a lib Limbaugh would be Keith Olbermann. Again, I mostly agreed with Keith's views on things, but the way he went about voicing them was hateful, rude and divisive, and designed so the payoff was not of being better informed, but of enjoying a dig at the evil "other".
If you don't like Cenk, I think it's either you're picking up something else that's going over my head, or Cenk's tone is triggering associations with Limbaugh's (and Olbermann's) hateful and insulting rhetorical style.>> ^Shakesify:
I'm always conflicted when I see videos like this. I react positively since it supports my view, yet when a video comes with a view I disagree with and a tone similar to Cenk - WAKE UP SHEEPLE! - I react with disgust and disdain..how could someone believe in something so stupid?? Then I imagine a conservative me who reacts in exactly the same way, just to the opposite video.
There must be a better way to communicate my beliefs to others. When did Cenk become the liberal Rush Limbaugh? Seriously, watch the video again but imagine its Rush and not Cenk. Fits too well. Too much ranting.

Good experiment. I did what you suggested and watched it again pretending it was Rush Limbaugh speaking, and here's what I was felt:

I noticed that their ranting tones and vocal styles are quite similar, and that I wasn't bothered by that. I noticed how I trusted that what Cenk was telling me was factual and balanced because Cenk prizes his image of being honest and fair. His arguments were so obvious that I didn't feel he was manipulating anything to fit an agenda. I also felt this because he almost never does so, and when he does, he admits it first. In this video, I felt he was genuinely worked up, and was delivering the pertinent details and venting like a person who was actually pissed off. In the last year or so that I've been watching a lot of TYT, I have rarely thought like he was telling people what to believe or speaking to his audience like sheeple (his often repeated assertion that women and gays who support the Republican party are either stupid or ignorant is the exception I'm thinking of), and I feel like if I were to talk to him, there'd be room for discussion on any topic, as long as I was bringing fact to the table.

This is mostly in contrast to how I perceive Limbaugh. The feeling I get from him is that he's a blowhard who succeeds by being loud, resolute, prejudiced, black-and-white in his opinions, spoonfeeding his audience an opinion (any opinion will do as long as they can repeat it at work), backing it up with bullshit or manipulation, and by directing his audience to grouphate an "other" that he invented. I think a better comparison for a lib Limbaugh would be Keith Olbermann. Again, I mostly agreed with Keith's views on things, but the way he went about voicing them was hateful, rude and divisive, and designed so the payoff was not of being better informed, but of enjoying a dig at the evil "other".

If you don't like Cenk, I think it's either you're picking up something else that's going over my head, or Cenk's tone is triggering associations with Limbaugh's (and Olbermann's) hateful and insulting rhetorical style.>> ^Shakesify:

I'm always conflicted when I see videos like this. I react positively since it supports my view, yet when a video comes with a view I disagree with and a tone similar to Cenk - WAKE UP SHEEPLE! - I react with disgust and disdain..how could someone believe in something so stupid?? Then I imagine a conservative me who reacts in exactly the same way, just to the opposite video.
There must be a better way to communicate my beliefs to others. When did Cenk become the liberal Rush Limbaugh? Seriously, watch the video again but imagine its Rush and not Cenk. Fits too well. Too much ranting.

My natural instinct is to suggest that you don't let crazy or trivial ideas or people rent space in your brain. On the other hand, everyone needs to have exactly this issue in their mind when making everyday decisions.

In reply to this comment by DerHasisttot:
I know that talking to ideologues like you doesn't do anything, because ideologies are just like secularised religions, but if i don't vent my frustration, I'd only carry it around.>> ^quantumushroom:

He's referring to "manmade" global warming, which is socialist BS theory.

I was in Iraq and found an explosive device which was decently obvious. Two wires were coming out the back of the device which ran along a wall through a vent to a back room. My orders were to follow the wires and trace it to the source. They were connected to a car battery with a remote detonator. While defusing the device an enemy soldier grappled me from behind. I fought him off and delivered to rounds into his chest. He was dead before he hit the ground. It was pretty stressful so I turned of my xbox and decided to stop playing battlefield for the day.

>> ^Enzoblue:

What brain surgeon didn't notice he was putting dirty laundry in the dryer??? I mean seriously wtf?? Got even stupider after that.

Looks like a washing machine to me, just a vertical one. Laundromats tend to use those as they take up less space. If you need proof, look at the one on the bottom left at around 2:58, in HD, fullscreen. You can see the holes in the side of the drum, which are used to drain the water. Dryers don't have those holes, just a vent in the front and back.

Interesting, but I really dislike the Drake equation. First, it doesn't really tell you anything; so many of the "variables" are unknown, arguably un-knowable, or overly broad generalizations that it makes the whole thing rather pointless. There is nothing mathematically intelligent about it. When so many of the factors are things that we can't even really take an honest guess at, you might as well say "N = N". Instead, it tries to work backwards and just overly complicates the whole mess.

Second, a whole bunch of it is based on things that are, in my opinion, false premises. In fact, you could provide reasonably solid arguments against the relevance of every single factor/variable.

Take the first 3: how many stars are there, how many have planets, and what percentage of those planets are habitable. Why must life come from planets? We've discovered life on Earth in thermal vents with temperatures in multiple hundreds of degrees C, frozen layers well below zero C, places with no light, oxygen, etc. etc. Who's to say that other things that are recognizably alive couldn't exist in other environments that seem "extreme" to us, outside of a planetary setting?

fl, fi, and fc are all things that would require us to exhaustively search every single planet in the galaxy, not just across space but across time as well, to really "know". If we could do that, then we could just give a direct answer for N to begin with. Seems pointless.

I'm moving this to your profile or else the troll wins.

I see what you're getting at, and it's arguable that I came on too strong, but I think you're missing that we generally know the difference between a different opinion from ours and trolling. bk33 can criticize and vent his vitriolic bile as much as any of us (I'm including myself in that category), and I don't think there's anybody here who has a problem with that. There aren't many vocal conservatives on the Sift, but there are some (Chilaxe comes to mind), and as long as they know how to carry on a discussion, there's little issue. Tempers flare, of course, but nobody seriously thinks they're trolling, just wrong, and that's great. But bk33 contributes nothing. And I don't mean he contributes nothing to my side of the argument -- I mean he leaves the place measurably worse than when he found it.

About CrushBug's comment. He's just venting. He didn't make any claims at all, let alone unsubstantiated ones, unless you mean about renaming The Government of Canada to "The Harper Government", which Harper has actually really done. Google it. So I think you're not seeing the qualitative difference between CrushBug's comments and bk33's.

Real mobs kill people. We just happen to outnumber him. We can't hurt or even remotely silence him.

In reply to this comment by frosty:
Sometimes there is such intolerance of opposition in opinion here at the Sift. When your typical liberal Sifter decries the greed of the private sector, vilifies "big business" and slams Fox News, it is hailed throughout the ranks as a battle cry, but when bobknight33 suggests the inefficiency of government-controlled industry and criticizes MSNBC, he is bombarded by the mob with accusations of naivety, not substantiating his remarks and being a "troll." For instance, take a post like CrushBug's -- "Fucking Harper. I am glad they have spent the time and money to change the name of the gov't to "The Harper Government" so once this horrible aberration of politics is voted out we can easily identify and kill this kind of evil bullshit." This is the quintessence of unsubstantiated, ad hominem attack. Yet it is met with resounding approval and hardy back slaps aplenty, buoyed up by the inertia of the throng.