I think that the noise being picked up by the recorder makes it sound a lot worse than what it is. In my opinion, he's only really patting next to the baby.

Would it not be fair to say that clapping is a roughly equivalent action? And i see people doing that near babies all the time without someone worrying about affecting the kid's mental state as it grows up, or worrying if the kid perceives the clapping of hands as a threat or worry.

If babies are too young to understand, then they may misunderstand clapping? Or alternatively how are they to understand the waving of someone's hand nearby to be aggressive? Especially given that it appears to be a comfortable family unit.

Most importantly, can we please consider that the baby was slapping its own leg? Perhaps one day the baby slapped its hand about, the father did the same thing, and the baby got enjoyment out of it? It slaps its hand about again at the end too. We don't know, we can't know, and it's very unfair to make so many casual assumptions - not just about his actions, but about what is normal for different people.

I'm concerned about the amount of assumptions being made in chastising this man. Especially when drawing a parallel to an anecdote about someone "growing up skittish" because of "teasing". Correlation, not necessarily causation.. and again, what evidence is this of teasing, and how is it fair to speculatively compare it to something stated so vaguely?

I'm sorry to be combative about it, but i feel this is a huge leap of imagination based on 30 seconds of video. A great many of us (if not all) could be made to look all kinds of contrary ways based on 30 second snippets, and it's an indelible brush that he's being hurriedly tarred with. I stand to be corrected, but i don't see any signs of distress either from the baby or the person recording, and the baby looks otherwise healthy and well provisioned. It was not placed in that seating with those accoutrements without care and attention. I think more harm than good can come of judging things like this, considering the subtlety of most *actual* abusers.

This is fantastic and much more humane. I love honey in all its forms. I buy jars from a local bee farmer that include a chunk of honey comb because I love to chew on it, and he sells me Bee Pollen that I use as a vitamin & mineral supplement that is all natural and local.

I hope a lot of farmers adopt this method but I also hope my local guy keeps at least one 'natural' hive so I can keep chewing on honey comb.

Sorry for my honesty. That's really all I can ever say.

I'm a serious control freak like before you date me sign this contract and shave twice a day. Always comb, etc. Etc. All I can say is that's just the way it is.

Earth, a land where obsession dominates. Blame my lord and master Satan on these problems. Amen.

I cut my hair like once a year and only out of practicality. Long hair gets into my food when I eat, takes longer to wash and requires more shampoo (which means I have to spend more money). I make sure to cut my hair short enough that I don't need to comb it. As it grows out, I only manipulate it enough to keep it out of my eyes.

Seriously though, if you don't see the inherent issue with makeup, I'm not sure what to say. The very existence of makeup tells women that the only way they can achieve their idealized representation is by painting their faces.

The editor took a huge and inexplicable shit on her explanation, but the steps according to this document are:

Step 1 - Oral Swabs and Smear;
Step 2 – Buccal Specimen;
Step 3 – Trace Evidence;
Step 4 – Clothing;
Step 5 – Underwear;
Step 6 – Debris Collection;
Step 7 – Dried Secretions and/or Bite Marks;
Step 8 – Fingernail Scrapings;
Step 9 – Pulled Head Hairs;
Step 10 – Pubic Hair Combings;
Step 11 – Pulled Pubic Hair;
Step 12 – Perianal and Anal Swabs and Smear;
Step 13 – Vulvar or Penile Swabs and Smear;
Step 14 - Vaginal Swabs and Smear;
Step 15 – Cervical Swabs and Smear

I note that you didn't address in any way shape or form the entire wealth of scientific evidence provided by the link, and provide nothing of similar value in return (.gov or otherwise) to back up anything you say.

At the end of the day, the fact of the matter is this: the science is true whether you accept it or not, and it will be taught and passed on to the next generation because schools are full of people who went to university, and university is full of the people who are doing the science, or capable of understanding the science. Your type is dying out and if we can get over the hurdle of the next 100 years or so whilst limiting the damage you and your ilk do then i think we'll actually be alright as a species.

Scientific evidence is hard to understand. To really understand the value of statistical results, you need to understand statistics. Really thorough technical papers can take months of poring over until you eventually piece everything together. I accept that not everyone is going to be able to look at the evidence themselves and make their own minds up, so you have to choose someone to listen to. I just think you've been convinced by the wrong group, and i'm just a random person on the internet who is involved with science and tells you that NASA is a very reliable source of science. What reason would i have to trick you? Instead you want to believe a talking head on the television who has no understanding of science?

I've trying to do you a solid; i've given you the evidence in as pure a form as i could find. Why would you be combative with me? If you were interested in the science then you should approach it scientifically - be thorough, methodical and without bias. The link i provided to you IS information provided by climate scientists. I am qualified to work in climate physics btw, so i'm going to give a hazy answer to that - no i'm not currently employed in climate research.

Edit:
I see you're talking politics. Is that why you're biased to the evidence? Science doesn't bend for politics.

Huh? Willfully misunderstanding what exactly? If you disagree that this is a capitalism/profit issue, not a 'liberals hate education' issue, disagree (and be specific and factual, not just insulting and dismissive), or are you trying to say this IS what 'liberal' educators want? You were quite vague (I think intentionally).
When you simply dismiss anyone that disagrees with you by claiming they willfully misunderstand, that simply shows you don't really have a leg to stand on and are just bitching and name calling, not making a factual argument.
There's no willful misunderstanding here, I honestly think it's an issue that business usually does the absolute minimum possible to get paid, just like in this class. That goes double for business that's working for the 'government'. That has nothing to do with 'liberals' or 'conservatives'...they both support business and both hire businesses to do work for the government. Attempting to say it is a 'liberal' cause (with no information to back you up) seems like the normal BS MO of 'conservatives' that want to blame any fault on 'liberals' and any good on 'conservatives'...I find that MO to be infantile, and I'll just disagree. I don't see this as political, some people see everything as a political stance to take....I try to avoid them.
Explain how that's wrong please, or go comb your merkin in silence....or lend it to a hairless Asian and have them explain.
Exactly what "truth" hurts? Your "truth" that my position (that business only does what it has to in order to get paid) is somehow the cause of the lack of education in America? Didn't hurt me, I simply disagree, think that you're wrong, and note that you've said nothing to even attempt to make me think otherwise, only tried to belittle me. That's the MO of someone who knows they already lost the argument before it began.
Truth is an idea in the mind of a crazy person...but you don't need to know the "truth" in order to not lie.

problem is the video doesn't show anything but two numbskulls arguing. She does appear to admit to the speeding, but what's actually going to happen? Is the dealership just going to ban her from the lot?

As much as I might side with the dude, he did seem like he was trying to bait her into being more combative for the video's sake so he doesn't really come away completely clean either.

Oh and another thing you should probably remember about Canada.

Estimated Population of Canada, 2013 - 35,158,300

Total Eligible Voters in California, 2013 - 23,857,732 (est Pop. 38.4M)

You 'merikuns are TAD bit more numerous than us. We had a "$2Million" long gun registry that annually ate HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of dollars, and every single person that really needed to participate completely ignored.

I can barely imagine the bureaucratic nightmare your combative legislative system will create, but honestly, you'd probably be better off on the whole.

Interesting enough, but martial arts demos between unequal or non-combative practitioners of that art rarely give any indication of how useful it is.

I lost it when he tried to do the comb-over.

Then when it feel out, the whole "OH COOL! ANOTHER NUT!" look.

Actually I'm about as English as they come but crucially I spent my advanced academic career studying Philosophy and rhetoric (lamentably only to Hons. due to laziness) and consequently have an ingrained habit of arguing around a problem rather than relying on established parameters (not always entirely helpful when discussing more day to day matters as I'm sure you've by now gathered but it is essential to working with advanced epistemological problems and so serves me well none the less). I'm also prone to poor punctuation and odd patterns of grammar when I'm not going back over everything I write with a fine tooth comb which has likely not helped. (A consequence of learning to describe tangent after tangent when trying to thoroughly encapsulate some conceptual problems with language alone)

That said, while I may have gone around the houses so to speak I think my conclusion is entirely compatible with what I now understand your own to be.

I didn't want to describe my original counter-point by simply working with the idea that weight is lower on the moon relative to the earth (though I did not try to refute this either) because that would not illustrate why a 2-300kg man in a space suit still takes some shifting (relatively speaking) even if there were no gravity at all. (Would have been faster to just crunch some numbers but that's not what I specialise in)

Sure you could move anything with any force in 0G (which I do understand is technically relative as every object in the universe with mass exerts gravitational forces proportionately (and inversely proportional to the distance between)) but the resulting velocity is directly proportional to mass vs force applied. Weight here then, can be seen as another competing force in the equation rather than the whole thing which it can be convenient to treat it as for a simple calculation (which is what I think you are doing).

To put that another way I was applying a different/deeper linguistic/descriptive paradigm to the same objective facts because that's what we philosophers do. Single paradigm approaches to any subject have a dangerous habit of making one believe one possess such a thing as truly objective facts rather than interpretations only (which are all that truly exist).


In other terms weight alone isn't the whole story (as I assume you well know). Overcoming inertia due to mass scales up all by itself, then gravity comes along and complicates matters. This is why rocket scientists measure potential thrust in DeltaV rather than Watts, Joules etc. right? The mass of the object dictates how much velocity a given input/output of energy would equal.

Gravity and thus the force in newtons it induces (weight) in these terms is an additional force which depending upon the direction in which it is acting multiplies the required DeltaV to achieve the same effect. Moreover when concerning a force of inconstant nature (such as pushing up/jumping or a brief burn of an engine) brings duration into play also. (the foundations of why rocket science gets its fearsome reputation for complexity in its calculations)


Man on the moon lies on the ground and pushes off to try and stand back up.
This push must impart enough DeltaV to his body to produce a sufficient velocity and duration to travel the 2 meters or so needed to get upright so he can then balance the downward gravitational force with his legs&back and successfully convert the chemical/kinetic energy from his arms into potential energy as weight (the energy he uses to stand up is the same energy that would drag him down again right?).

One could practically speaking reduce this to a simple calculation of weight and thrust if all one wanted was a number. Weight would be the only number we need here as it incorporates the mass in it's own calculation (weight = mass x gravity)

But where's the fun in that? My way let's one go round all the houses see how the other bits of the paradigm that support this basic isolated equation function and inter-relate.

Plus (and probably more accurately) I've been playing loads of Kerbal Space Programme lately and have ended up conditioning myself to think in terms of rocketry and thus massively overcomplicated everything here for basically my own amusement/fascination.


Basically few things are more verbose and self indulgent than a bored Philosopher, sorry .


Re: Your challenge. (And I'm just guessing here) something to do with your leg muscles not being able to deliver the energy fast/efficiently enough? (as your feet would leave the ground faster/at a lower level of force?). This is the only thing I can think of as it's easier to push away from things underwater and it certainly looks difficult to push away hard from things when people are floating in 0g.

So lower resistance from gravity = less force to push against the floor with?

Warm? Even in the Ballpark? (Regardless I'm really pleased to discover you weren't the nut I originally thought you to be! (though I imagine you now have some idea what a nut I am))


If I got any of that wrong I'd be happy for you to explain to me why and where (assuming you can keep up with my slightly mad approach to syntax in the 1st place). I'm an armchair physicist (not that I haven't studied it in my time but I'm far from PHD) I'm always happy to learn and improve.

@enoch, just for the record, let's be clear about the timeline in this thread. There were a few posts then ching made a post complaining about the video, and making an irrelevant ad hom on Darwin. Some people down voted him for it, and that seems fair to me in that it wasn't a useful or interesting comment. Personally, I didn't, because I know that's what he wanted.

He then got all defensive, and posted more pseudo-philosophical persecution complex bollocks, which I then called him on. It wasn't even a very harsh comment, but then he decided to respond and just kept digging.

Unsurprisingly, other people took umbrage at this.

my problem with @chingalera is not his use of flowery language, but just that he's so bad at it. I can wax eloquent with the best of them and if the situation warrants, I have a positively egregious vocabulary of verbose verbiage in my arsenal of debating devices, argumentative arms and combative communications, but frankly, it's just not needed most of time, and invariably simple language communicates better.

The main issue I have is it's just so pointless. His language is always vague, and I'm increasingly convinced this is deliberate, merely so he can pick and choose how to be offended.

So mission accomplished, another thread derailed, and chingaleras narcissism quotient for the day is filled.

The piece was written by a pick comb. Maybe parody is the wrong word?

But really, I didn't mean to be insulting. I just noticed the themes matching -- and how difficult this whole subject is -- and how well-meaning folks get all balled up by this topic.

The topic is a landmine -- and me upsetting you unintentionally is proof of that, I think.