... Andrew becomes 'Bamdrew'...
>> ^schlub:

I personally can't stand when people think they're being "creative" by changing a letter or two in a name to make it "unique":
Jackson becomes Jaxon
Aden (or Aiden) becomes Caden, Jaden, Maden, Braden, Zaden, Gaden, and so forth...
Courtney becomes Kortny (wtf?)
Wow, so clever AND unique!

I personally can't stand when people think they're being "creative" by changing a letter or two in a name to make it "unique":

Jackson becomes Jaxon
Aden (or Aiden) becomes Caden, Jaden, Maden, Braden, Zaden, Gaden, and so forth...
Courtney becomes Kortny (wtf?)

Wow, so clever AND unique!

No baby rape jokes? Meh.

And I've used the one about Courtney Love plenty of times. But I wasn't joking.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'courtney love, 90s, auf der maur' to 'hole, celebrity skin, courtney love, 90s, auf der maur' - edited by kronosposeidon

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Courtney Kania, Harp, Cheerleader, Harp, Music' to 'Courtney Kania, Harp, Cheerleader, Harp, Music, Khachaturian' - edited by Deano

Tags for this video have been changed from 'stephanie, courtney, progressive, insurance, flo, ouch, comedy' to 'stephanie courtney, progressive insurance, flo, ouch, comedy' - edited by xxovercastxx

Mmaybe..Courtney Love is more a perfomer I think;)
..ah more names coming up:
Deerhoof/Satomi Matsuzaki and Blonde Redhead/Kazu Makino
http://www.videosift.com/video/Musician-Kazu-Makino-Blonde-Redhead-about-life

Its a trick question. The answer is neither.

I value science because it provides me with reliable, practical information. Such information is useful for improving my everyday life; while unreliable or impractical information is at best a waste of time and a worst detrimental or life threatening—so recognizing and avoiding such information is important not only to my happiness but to my health and long term survival.

Science, then, is a way of filtering information. The internal mechanism, of course, is the scientific method. This method is important because it is the actual process which filters out unreliable, impractical information.

Strictly speaking, the scientific method is a list of best known methods (BKM). Over time it has evolved into this:

1. Define the question
2. Gather information and resources (observe)
3. Form hypothesis
4. Perform experiment and collect data
5. Analyze data
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
7. Publish results
8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)

Each of the above eight steps also have best known methods (BKM). For example, the BKM for #4 (Experiment) include double blind groups and controls, while the BKM for #5 (Analyze) include statistical analysis.

“Science” then, is merely a label for the subset of information which has passed through the BKM for obtaining reliable, practical information--steps 1-8, namely, information which has been obtained via the scientific method.

while “Good Science” is merely a label for the subset of information which has passed through steps 1-8, while also utilizing the BKM for each step – such as double blind groups, controls, and statistical analysis.

and “Poor Science” is merely a label for the subset of information which has passed through steps 1-8, without utilizing the BKM for each step.

What passes for "science" today is not science at all. Science today emphasizes "peer review" which consists of publishing articles in several journals and counting how many citations they receive. The presentation of experimental results confirming or refuting a hypothesis is only the first step in the #8 Retest, not the last. A lot of modern scientists forget that.

Here is a quote from Courtney et al in a response to "On The Nature of Science"

"At this point, is science really a powerful, objective epistemology for exploring natural law, or have we merely replaced one set of authorities (the Catholic Church of the Middle Ages) with another (the scientists of the 21st century)?

We must not replace experimental repeatability with peer-reviewed observations as the ultimate arbiter of scientific validity. Only repeatable experimental results qualify as scientific observations."

The knowledge of the Middle Age Catholic Church was based on divine revelation, and had no predicative power. It was viewed by the populace as authoritative because of the position of church leaders, and made widespread by their consensus. Likewise, scientists of the 21st century, in my mind, have lost their predictive power. They are no longer practicing science as it was or is intended. There is little emphasis on repeatability--all the emphasis has shifted to peer consensus. The only reason the general public believes the scientific consensus over any other is their position – not the predictive power of their models – and not unlike the Catholic Church of the middle ages.

The emphasis is supposed to be on the repeatability of results by independent experimenters, not peer consensus in "scientific" journals.

Courtney Thorne-Smith's movie career didn't really go anywhere...after this she has been in a few TV series like Ally McBeal and According to Jim. Interesting note...two years after Chairman of the Board came out she was in one episode of Norm's sitcom called The Norm Show.

*beg, because Alice might as well be Courtney Love.

I've been on an easy science kick for the last year now.

Recommendations:

"Superdove: How the pigeon took Manhattan and the World" - Courtney Humphries
"Salt" - Mark Kurlansky (this might be the best book I've read this decade)
"A Short History of Nearly Everything" - Bill Bryson (real easy science read)

Like I said, easy science/history reading. Superdove was really interesting. Pidgeons are the only species on earth that relies almost completely on us, but could easily survive without us at the drop of a hat.

Thanks for your votes. I can't believe I never had to beg for this.

That's nothing. I once saw the world's smallest shotgun. Then the world's smallest Courtney Love used it to kill the world's smallest Kurt Cobain. It was a minor tragedy.

I know the roast hasn't started yet, but could the pre-roast jokes be funnier? Please? Reading this drivel makes me want to give Courtney Love a shotgun and tell her I'm quitting Nirvana.

I think I figured it out. It's Mike Tyson and Courtney Love's love child.

Really hoping Southpark tears this PSA a new asshole. Congrats, superfluous Hollywood douche/douchette, you've managed to make me cringe even more at the very thought of voting. I don't know what I'd do if I didn't have Courtney Cox's or that guy from Boy Meets World's express approval.

All the same, I probably will vote, just with another added layer of good ole fashioned shame.