>> ^messenger:

Nope. You're a lazy idiot. You've been told by people who know better, and you can't even be bothered to Google it or check Wikipedia. Or maybe you think facts just obscure things.>> ^robbersdog49:
Last time I looked the UK is in Europe and I can tell you right now the period isn't the thousands separator. Where the hell are you getting this info from? I've never seen a comma used as a decimal point, not in France, Spain, Germany or Belgium (the other european countries I have actually been to). You are wrong.
I'd love to know how you're 'checking' your facts before compounding an error.



Huh?

Which bit of this don't you understand? Fact is that numerical notation is the same here in Europe (I'd write one million, two hundred and eighty two thousand three hundred and forty five pounds and sixty eight pence as £1,282,345.68). Show me how you're checking your facts and I'll show you where you're going wrong.

ETA: It seems where you're going wrong is you don't seem to know that the UK is in Europe. Well it is. I'm willing to accept that other european countries may work differently, although I've never noticed it when I've travelled in europe.

OK, so I remember a discussion that was had in one of my art history courses on modern art (a few years back) while I was attending the Emily Carr University of Art & Design

The value of art. Years ago during the depression, rich people, like the Rothschilds and such had so much money, they didn't know what to do with it. They began to invest in art, buying up all the famous pieces they could. It became a famous pass-time of the rich to buy art and flaunt it around. But the investors didn't just flaunt it, they sold it.

Now, these guys were profiteers as we all know, and so were all the players that surrounded the art world. These guys looked at art as an investment, always trading up and selling for more than they paid. Art was (and still is) a commodity.

Of course with any gold-rush industry, an industry is born around that commodity and art galleries sprung up everywhere. Art was all the rage. Gallery owners and promoters, traveling shows, salesmen, pretentious buyers and all those people that wanted to be part of the In-crowd, the inner-court, as it was, were frantic to be the next best thing.

Flash forward into the eighties. Break Dancing, Rap music, Graffiti and Street gangsters and the sub-culture that goes along with it was on the rise. Gallery curators were looking for the next "big thing". Someone noticed Banksy and brought him into the gallery. (I used to have the article on how it happened, I no longer do). They put up the "great works of Banksy. They brought the street/graffiti artist off the street and billed him as the new Commodity. They invested in him and promoted him. Every one in the In-crowd bought into him and his works sold for copious amounts of money.

Then the problem arose that the "King wasn't wearing any cloths." That's right, everyone started to realize that the art was crap, simply tagging brought in off the street and hung on the gallery walls.

Only it was too late because the BIG investors who sink their cash into these commodity/investments never allow themselves to loose money. They were duped and no one wanted to admit it.

So what did they do? Well like any King Pin that controls the markets, They ignore the mistake, threw a spin on it and pretend it didn't happen, No one want's to admit they spent $200,000 on a piece of CRAP. (or more, I don't remember the dollar amounts - and I'm sure it was quite a bit more, into the millions - I just don't have those facts handy, so I'm going with six-figures.)

So to this day, Banksy is still creating art, his works are still worth money (only because they say it is), and next to impossible to sell. The fame remains because Banksy's biggest contribution to the art world was to buy with caution, it's not a good commodity just because the art world jumps on it as the flavour of the day. Many investors lost a lot of money on his works and the art buying world got a slap in the face.

Wanna hear something fuckin crazy? My high school chemistry teacher (we called him six-pack Jack because he often seemed slightly lit while teaching) pulled out an uncapped vial of mercury and allowed us to pour it in our hands and whatnot. He did end the lesson saying that the stuff was highly toxic. Thanks, Jack. Thumbs up, pal.

Despite this unfortunate episode, I'm glad I went through public education in the mid-eighties rather than today.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

promote because I'm going to 1984 this weekend


Olympics in L.A.?

and then it got worse: 'Eighty dead' in Norway shooting

"Shiny, you don't think that the same process that created a Great Dane and a Chihuahua in less than five-hundred years could produce two distinct species in the space of millions of years?"

No, I don't. That's the whole point..they're all dogs, there is no difference in kind. Do it for 500 or 500 million, you'll have the same result..dogs.

"When you say that "mutations being naturally selected over time to change one species to another species" has never been observed, do you think that could possibly be in any way related to the fact that what you're talking about takes place over millions of years, and the human lifespan is only about eighty years? Huh? Do you think that might have something to do with it?"

Yes, this was a dumb question. Every species we observe is completely fully formed, showed up suddenly in the fossil record with no ancestors. If evolution were true, we would see species in transition from one kind to another today, which we don't. We would find ancestors in the fossil record which showed the tranistions. We don't. If evolution ever happened, it is not observable today anywhere, especially the fossil record.

"If a bacterium becomes immune to a drug that effects it negatively by getting rid of the sequence that the drug affects, that's an advantage. It doesn't matter if it makes it fare worse than before in the general population. Because if it reproduces at all, and a drug kills off the rest of the population, then guess what? That mutated bacterium has just become the new king of the hill hasn't he? And guess what else? It's DNA will continue to produce more DNA, some of which will be extraneous and be used as the building block for? You guessed it, completely new, never before seen sequences of DNA!!!"

The "advantage" is only good for the circumstance, and when the circumstance is gone, the population returns to normal. For instance, when bacteria produce this mutation for resistance, it always makes them less effecient..it always at the sacrifice of something else. There was nothing added and nothing new created..things only got shuffled around. These mutations don't ever survive in the wild.

"It's DNA will continue to produce more DNA, some of which will be extraneous and be used as the building block for? You guessed it, completely new, never before seen sequences of DNA!!!"

that's the magic part..it doesn't ever happen.



>> ^Ryjkyj:
>> ^shinyblurry:
Species always produce according to their kind. Dogs don't ever produce non-dogs. What you're talking about is micro-evolution. Macro-evolution is completely different. That's the theory of mutations being naturally selected over time to change one species to another species..problem is it has never been observed. Not only has nothing ever been found in the fossil record to prove this, the theory itself doesn't work. It has never been once demonstrated that a mutation produced anything useful or added information to a genome..mutations actually destroy information..and if you want to use the bacteria example, the reason bacteria become resistant is not because they evolved a defense..but rather lost the information that the drug used to bind to it..basically, its like the drug is hand cuffing everyone but cant handcuff the one with no arms. That isnt an advatange..when you put the bacteria into the general population they fare worse than before. It's pure metaphysics..and it all goes back to the source of the lie, which is abiogenesis..life from non-life. This basically states that we evolved from rocks..I think that takes a fair amount of faith..a lot more than I have.
>> ^Ryjkyj:
The proof isn't in the fossil record, because fossils are extremely rare. The proof is in your genetics.
If species don't evolve, how do you explain the massive, rapid, observable evolution in dogs over just the last 500 years?


Shiny, you don't think that the same process that created a Great Dane and a Chihuahua in less than five-hundred years could produce two distinct species in the space of millions of years?
Now, I'm going to ask what may seem to you like a really dumb question: When you say that "mutations being naturally selected over time to change one species to another species" has never been observed, do you think that could possibly be in any way related to the fact that what you're talking about takes place over millions of years, and the human lifespan is only about eighty years? Huh? Do you think that might have something to do with it?
It's really admirable that you read Reverend Billy's latest cut-and-paste pamphlet on the nature of mutation and why it means you should kill people for eating shellfish. But your knowledge of the science is, I think, a little lacking as far as giving you the ability to disprove the conclusions of hundreds of thousands of researchers who base their opinion on actual observation. Mutations don't just "destroy information" in the genome. There are all sorts of ways that mutations can form new information in a sequence of DNA. But either way it's a moot point, because you still don't understand the nature of natural selection.
If a bacterium becomes immune to a drug that effects it negatively by getting rid of the sequence that the drug affects, that's an advantage. It doesn't matter if it makes it fare worse than before in the general population. Because if it reproduces at all, and a drug kills off the rest of the population, then guess what? That mutated bacterium has just become the new king of the hill hasn't he? And guess what else? It's DNA will continue to produce more DNA, some of which will be extraneous and be used as the building block for? You guessed it, completely new, never before seen sequences of DNA!!!
If you doubt that, why don't you try reading an actual book on the subject? (note: I'm talking about a book that actually includes words like: mutation, DNA and sequence. Not a book that you interpret through allegory as being about the subject)
Now, this is the part where you call me out as being angry/abusive. Please note that I'm using the exact same tone of language here as Pastor nitwit uses in that god awful series of videos that you asked me to watch. (note all the explanation points!!!!)

>> ^shinyblurry:

Species always produce according to their kind. Dogs don't ever produce non-dogs. What you're talking about is micro-evolution. Macro-evolution is completely different. That's the theory of mutations being naturally selected over time to change one species to another species..problem is it has never been observed. Not only has nothing ever been found in the fossil record to prove this, the theory itself doesn't work. It has never been once demonstrated that a mutation produced anything useful or added information to a genome..mutations actually destroy information..and if you want to use the bacteria example, the reason bacteria become resistant is not because they evolved a defense..but rather lost the information that the drug used to bind to it..basically, its like the drug is hand cuffing everyone but cant handcuff the one with no arms. That isnt an advatange..when you put the bacteria into the general population they fare worse than before. It's pure metaphysics..and it all goes back to the source of the lie, which is abiogenesis..life from non-life. This basically states that we evolved from rocks..I think that takes a fair amount of faith..a lot more than I have.
>> ^Ryjkyj:
The proof isn't in the fossil record, because fossils are extremely rare. The proof is in your genetics.
If species don't evolve, how do you explain the massive, rapid, observable evolution in dogs over just the last 500 years?



Shiny, you don't think that the same process that created a Great Dane and a Chihuahua in less than five-hundred years could produce two distinct species in the space of millions of years?

Now, I'm going to ask what may seem to you like a really dumb question: When you say that "mutations being naturally selected over time to change one species to another species" has never been observed, do you think that could possibly be in any way related to the fact that what you're talking about takes place over millions of years, and the human lifespan is only about eighty years? Huh? Do you think that might have something to do with it?

It's really admirable that you read Reverend Billy's latest cut-and-paste pamphlet on the nature of mutation and why it means you should kill people for eating shellfish. But your knowledge of the science is, I think, a little lacking as far as giving you the ability to disprove the conclusions of hundreds of thousands of researchers who base their opinion on actual observation. Mutations don't just "destroy information" in the genome. There are all sorts of ways that mutations can form new information in a sequence of DNA. But either way it's a moot point, because you still don't understand the nature of natural selection.

If a bacterium becomes immune to a drug that effects it negatively by getting rid of the sequence that the drug affects, that's an advantage. It doesn't matter if it makes it fare worse than before in the general population. Because if it reproduces at all, and a drug kills off the rest of the population, then guess what? That mutated bacterium has just become the new king of the hill hasn't he? And guess what else? It's DNA will continue to produce more DNA, some of which will be extraneous and be used as the building block for? You guessed it, completely new, never before seen sequences of DNA!!!

If you doubt that, why don't you try reading an actual book on the subject? (note: I'm talking about a book that actually includes words like: mutation, DNA and sequence. Not a book that you interpret through allegory as being about the subject)

Now, this is the part where you call me out as being angry/abusive. Please note that I'm using the exact same tone of language here as Pastor nitwit uses in that god awful series of videos that you asked me to watch. (note all the explanation points!!!!)

Its not a lack of police to fight drug cartels which is the cause of the violence. That analysis is hollow. You are leaving out the devastating consequences of NAFTA and imperialism on these countries.

Poverty and unemployment have only worsened as a result of subsidies going towards big agrobussiness instead of local farmers. This is what leads to crime. Its a reaction by the working class getting even more fucked. When you can't get any $ by growing corn and instead have the chance to make $ selling drugs, yeah, you do it.

It isn't a coincidence that the majority of immigrants come from countries that have had dictators and death squads with the support of the US. Guatamala, El Salvador, Mexico. Destroyed economies create migrants which are CHEAP LABOR. Add to this the criminalization of immigrants with AZ's SB1070 and GA's copycat HB87. The AZ bill was pretty much written by Corrections Corporation of America, a private prison corporation which gets $200 per bed a night.

Its all part of the imperative of profit, the inherent violence of capitalism, duh
----
Additional reading:

http://blog.sojo.net/2010/10/28/prison-and-profits-the-politics-of-az%E2%80%99s-sb1070-bill-revealed/

http://www.democracynow.org/2011/5/25/harvest_of_empire_new_book_exposes
"And then there's this from independent journalist Zafar Bangash:

"The CIA, as Cockburn and (Jeffrey) St Clair reveal, had been in this business right from the beginning. In fact, even before it came into existence, its predecessors, the OSS and the Office of Naval Intelligence, were involved with criminals. One such criminal was Lucky Luciano, the most notorious gangster and drug trafficker in America in the forties."

The CIA's involvement in drug trafficking closely dovetails America's adventures overseas - from Indo-China in the sixties to Afghanistan in the eighties....As Alfred McCoy states in his book: Politics of Heroin: CIA complicity in the Global Drug Trade, beginning with CIA raids from Burma into China in the early fifties, the agency found that 'ruthless drug lords made effective anti-communists." ("CIA peddles drugs while US Media act as cheerleaders", Zafar Bangash, Muslimedia, January 16-31, 1999)

And, this from author William Blum:

"ClA-supported Mujahedeen rebels ... engaged heavily in drug trafficking while fighting against the Soviet-supported government," writes historian William Blum. "The Agency's principal client was Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, one of the leading druglords and a leading heroin refiner. CIA-supplied trucks and mules, which had carried arms into Afghanistan, were used to transport opium to laboratories along the Afghan/Pakistan border. The output provided up to one half of the heroin used annually in the United States and three-quarters of that used in Western Europe....""


http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=18877

The last decade for id was definitely lacking. I'm looking forward to them releasing something that is somewhat good. RAGE looks pretty awesome and teaming up with Zenimax seems like a pretty good idea. I bought DOOM 3 right when it came out and it creeped me out initially; in the end I thought it was a pretty shallow game. I bet it'd be more fun to play now that not many people are releasing 3D shooters that aren't tactical - or completely brain-dead Call of Duty ripoffs.

Doom had a great thing going back in the day - you'd have to kill waves and waves of monsters but you'd be working your way towards an arch-vile or some other powerful nasty ; there actually was an objective to the mindless slaughter. Serious Sam had it down in a goofy way.

It's strange to think that out of all the great developers of my time (late eighties, early nineties) that the only developer still around that I play games from is Blizzard. How the hell have they pulled it off?! Back then my money would have been on Origin, Black Isle and id for future success. Black Isle released some of my favorite games ever but I really do miss Origin.

Never saw Blizzard being the company that would become a beacon of creativity & polish that would make oodles upon oodles of money.

Sorry, had to downvote... even if this really is from DeadMau5, it sucks. Once you get past 10 seconds, it just repeats Friday eighty million times till the end with no variation.

i always thought phil lynnot sang this! this guy could do a serious thin lizzy cover. (If he wasnt EIGHTY... )

>> ^Ti_Moth:

I would say worse, he is using the excuse of a large budget defecit (caused by the financial crisis and the inability of the previous Labour government to save during the boom[Not that the tories would have done it differently had they been in power]) to make larger than nesecary cuts for public services like our beloved NHS and our vital benefits service instead of raising taxes (and collecting a fair ammount to begin with) from his mates the big businesses and bankers.


Not to mention raising VAT, brazenly asserting that it's a "fair tax" because it affects everyone equally, when it in fact affects the poor more than the rich since it amounts to a price increase on almost everything you buy. A cowardly move that does nothing except make it harder for those on lower incomes to get by, so that they can continue to subsidise the wealthy banks.

And let's not forget the wonder of the Big Society, a drive to get charities and community groups to take over the running of the public services that the ConDem government are cutting. For free. Dressing up the withdrawal of public funds as a drive to get communities running is a piece of doublethink so gobsmackingly insulting that I don't think people can even comprehend it. It's a classic Big Lie, straight from Nineteen Eighty-Four.

>> ^marinara:

I went to elementary school in the mid eighties. I was paddled all the time for calling students names, being late, etc.
at the time, I dreaded being paddled again. As long as it's not done without cause, IMHO corporal punishment is fine.


One of the first things I ever really learned about people was that nobody had the right to inflict themselves on me in a way that I didn't wish them to, and I'd fight them if I had to. If a kid has fucked up somewhere, they need to be punished and have it explained to them, but physical abuse being applied by default is fucking disgusting. The sort of school environment you describe is one without compassion, desperately trying to snap children into the correct, receptive, placid intellectual posture. Expecting people to act well because they fear the lash... Fuck them.

>> ^marinara:

I went to elementary school in the mid eighties. I was paddled all the time for calling students names, being late, etc.
at the time, I dreaded being paddled again. As long as it's not done without cause, IMHO corporal punishment is fine.


I was whipped with a leather belt for acting out. I still acted out because in my mind it was wrong that I was whipped cause it's wrong to whip people to get them to do what you want them to do. It's ok some kids like you need it in order to become fine indoctrinated specimens.

I went to elementary school in the mid eighties. I was paddled all the time for calling students names, being late, etc.

at the time, I dreaded being paddled again. As long as it's not done without cause, IMHO corporal punishment is fine.