>> ^ssprinkles:

I don't think I will ever get tired of Rick Perry parodies.


Parodies of Rick Perry are somewhat meta.

>> ^dag:

I'm too lazy to read the article, but that quote at least seems to be just deriding previous studies - not disproving its efficacy. I should probably read the article.>> ^Gallowflak:
"A meta analysis found that studies supporting hCG for weight loss were of poor methodological quality and concluded that "there is no scientific evidence that HCG is effective in the treatment of obesity; it does not bring about weight-loss or fat-redistribution, nor does it reduce hunger or induce a feeling of well-being."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1365103/?tool=pmcentrez - citation from the Wikipedia article on the subject.



Probably, Dag. It's a summary of the results and conclusion of the analysis, not its argument.

I know nothing about this subject, FYI. Still. Science!

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

I'm too lazy to read the article, but that quote at least seems to be just deriding previous studies - not disproving its efficacy. I should probably read the article.>> ^Gallowflak:

"A meta analysis found that studies supporting hCG for weight loss were of poor methodological quality and concluded that "there is no scientific evidence that HCG is effective in the treatment of obesity; it does not bring about weight-loss or fat-redistribution, nor does it reduce hunger or induce a feeling of well-being."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1365103/?tool=pmcentrez - citation from the Wikipedia article on the subject.

"A meta analysis found that studies supporting hCG for weight loss were of poor methodological quality and concluded that "there is no scientific evidence that HCG is effective in the treatment of obesity; it does not bring about weight-loss or fat-redistribution, nor does it reduce hunger or induce a feeling of well-being."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1365103/?tool=pmcentrez - citation from the Wikipedia article on the subject.

>> ^Payback:
I'm just blown away by the irony of pointing out what Arnie is doing wrong with the commentary. Stating the obvious that he's stating the obvious.
QUICK! Someone obviously state what I'm stating!


That's way too meta, dude.

>> ^BoneRemake:

>> ^Shepppard:
I wonder if this is live.

Not sure, it may be. google would know.


It's the kind of semi-live that electronica artists tend to do. There are so many instruments that it would require 20+ musicians to play it "real live". Just take a look at J-M Jarres concert where every sound was made live (sorry couldn't find a link).. It is still shame that they don't play the themes. The performance is more "meta", where the actual melodies are not played but their intonation, the emotion part of the sound is manipulated live (timbre, levels, effects etc.)

So to asnwer that, no it isn't "live" but it is live performance.. It all depends on the individuals own definition of live performance... Most electronic artists do their live in this format and as a performer my self, it certainly is as intense as old school live gigs, maybe even more as the technology is fragile.. Anything can go wrong by simply pressing one wrong button, just like in every other kind of performance..

>> ^Ornthoron:

>> ^grinter:
good stuff... but, and it's a big Butt:
"Cock Ring Group"???!! wtf?

Cochrane Group.


Yes, their meta-studies are extremely interesting to read as long as it is a subject one knows at least a little about.

In case anyone is actually interested in this (and I assume most people are meta-trolling rather than actually not knowing): .(9) equals and is the same as 1. They are two ways to represent the same number (not infinitesimally different, not "tending towards" or "left limit" or any of that - they are the very same number).

Wikipedia has a good discussion of it here: .999...

For all the arguments (which I think are pretty clear) I will grant that this isn't an intuitive thing. Nonetheless, I think that Wikipedia discussion should be enough for anyone who still doubts.

We need a *meta channel.

Well, it started off meta..

The key thing Cleverbot lacks is a logic awareness of the context of the current conversation.

Which conceptually is a matter of each session capturing meta data about each statement and response to further guide responses.

e.g. was the last statement a question? add tags for recognised topics. don't use any answer with any reply that doesn't include those topics does the next 1-3 statements include any matching tags? are we still on the same topic?

So meta I think my head is going to explode. Awesome.

>> ^darkrowan:

Notice, at 0:51, just as she says the line the actor in the background gives her the "WTF?" look from behind. That's attention to detail right there


Good catch! Really liked the themes in this show. For those that haven't watched B5, you should. Compared to the dramas today, it is a little slower, episodic, and showing its age...even so, pretty decent. They take on more of a totalitarian kind of role as "peace keepers", a little more so than I like. But the Meta themes are really spectacular.

Being too short is my fear. This, From Dust and Bastion were the Summer of Arcade titles I wanted to check out. Bastion's demo failed to impress me. Nice concept, and at half the price I probably would bite. From Dust I really enjoyed, but again fear it would be too short. I just tried the demo for ITSP and found it very enjoyable as well. Not sure yet which of the two will get my money...

EDIT: It may depend on which the 7 year old wants. He hasn't tried the demo for ITSP yet, but he does want From Dust already, which also has a better Meta Critic score, then again it's been out longer to gather more reviews...

>> ^ponceleon:

Game was awesome. The only criticism I had was it was way too short.

I am assuming that time is somewhat meaningless, actually. I assume that time had a beginning when the Universe was created and will have an end when the Universe is destroyed, and after that existence will be eternal. I think a Creator is far more plausible than an arbitrary process that mimics one. For one, there is no impetus for anything to happen in eternity. It wasn't caused so there is no inertia for anything to happen; it is infinitely stable. Why should a well ordered temporal Universe that creates beings that ask these questions spontaneously arise from an eternal continuim?

Our dating methods are far from infallable. Scientists have dated rocks they knew the age of (within decades) and yielded ages of millions and billions of years. Archaelogists have found human fossils and tools in rocks that were supposedely hundreds of millions of years old. Fossils don't have date tags on them, and there is this circular logic of using the rocks to date the fossils and the fossils to date the rocks. I could give you hundreds of examples of flaws with dating methodology. There is quite a bit of evidence supporting a young earth and a young Universe.

I think you're assuming that the truth cannot be known, or if it could, it isn't accessible. In my experience, it can be known, and absolutely at that. Empirical proof for a spiritual creation does not or could not technically exist. God can never be empirically proven because He is a Spirit, and more than that, exists outside of space and time. That doesn't mean there isn't any evidence, it just means that you can't put God in a testtube and derive a result.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
@shinyblurry
Your assuming time is a real element of existence and not an element of minds. In addition, a "Being" is not the only logical necessary/essential element of the starting point of existence. If anything, a "Being" has more baggage to explain than an arbitrary set of meta rules governing all things that exist. Hawking had an explanation close to this, though, like most scientists, his philosophy missed the mark ever so slightly (100% claims to materialistic causes don't have concrete foundation).
The big bang, however, has certain problematic elements to most religions creation explanations, mainly the element of their self contained explanations of the passage of set amounts of time. A 14 billion (or so, it keeps changing!) year old universe is way off the mark for most of the creation events we have from the larger religions. Even if the big bang isn't entirely accurate, if the time window for the universe is even marginally accurate, the 10k year old earth proposition seems highly dubious. There is some wiggle room, but it mostly seems like an equivocation of the actual text of Genesis.
In closing, it isn't any more certain that the cause of all things is an "eternal being" anymore than it is an "eternal formula". It also isn't certain that; time is a real thing, events are causally linked, or that a human can making any intelligible claims to the way "Noumenon" MUST exist. </lunch break rant>