Trump is, has, and will continue to betray you but you are blinded by guilt, anger and hate. You will welcome the punishment you believe you've earned for not seeing it coming. You are innocent and guilty at the same time. Luckily, that is what is known as growing pains. You can let it destroy you or make you a man. The choice is yours alone.

and I still remember him playing Luke, Mike Seaver's friend on "Growing Pains"

It's very difficult to beat Hitchens, he's a master debater.

It wouldn't even matter if you had a stronger position, if you are not at his skill level and I'd say very few people are, he'd quite likely still "beat" you. This Ritter guy is not on equal level, one of his weaknesses is his passion, which I'm afraid in civil debate really just gets in the way.

If you're going to throw out a bone that a country is better off with a Dictator than the growing pains of a revolution, well, just get the shovel out and start digging.

Oh Saddam might of helped the country out a little when it was crashing and burning...oh lord BETTER keep him forever. What a shallow and stupid perspective, why does he want to rule over a dump site? Of course he'd like to improve it so he can rule something a little nicer. He's still a Dictator with crimes against humanity as long as they come.

Just a weird stance to have taken, I feel like Ritter knew he was getting a bit stupid but couldn't realistically back down without reducing the effect of the rest of his arguments.

There has always been "a lot of frightening shit on the horizon", no matter what decade you lived in. For every person that looks back at the 1950s as idyllic and calm there is somebody who was convinced their life would end that year in a nuclear war. Same goes for any other time period. Myself, I was convinced at the time that there would be nuclear war when the Soviets shot down that Korean passenger jet in September 1983. And now it's been pretty much forgotten.

I've been affected by the economic downturn over the past 10 years, just like everyone I know. And I don't have a warm fuzzy feeling about the future of the economy either. But as someone said, there never was the "good old days", things have always been changing and in turmoil in some respect. I take all the fearful predictions with a grain of salt. >> ^Jinx:

idk, I think there is a certain amount of truth in this. I mean ok, I don't think we'll be seeing blood running in the streets but idk, there is a lot of frightening shit on the horizon and I do wonder how well we'll adapt and how much growing pains will be involved.

idk, I think there is a certain amount of truth in this. I mean ok, I don't think we'll be seeing blood running in the streets but idk, there is a lot of frightening shit on the horizon and I do wonder how well we'll adapt and how much growing pains will be involved.

Why couldn't it be cheap to maintain a vacuum? It doesn't have to be anywhere near a total vacuum (which is mechanically impossible, BTW), just a relative vacuum. Any reduction in air density results in decreased air resistance, and increased top speed. I don't know the physics of it, but I'm guessing that even a 50% air density vacuum would result in a massive top speed increase. In a perfect vacuum, the theoretical top speed would be (acceleration force) x (track length). This 6,500 km/h number may be a limit imposed only by how good a vacuum they think can be reliably produced.

And about safety, obviously the track wouldn't be built in a bare tube that could dent or break. The tube could be whatever material, but then encased in something else and/or buried so nothing could fall on it/crash into it/etc. Before it went into operation, for consumer confidence (and even before production, for investor confidence) it would have to be demonstrated that the structure is strong enough to withstand any reasonably foreseeable event. I'd be mostly worried about earthquakes, personally, especially when crossing the Pacific.

Just like with aviation and normal trains, it will have its growing pains and regular disasters, but I bet it ends up being on par safety-wise with flight, and significantly cheaper, given the fuel savings.>> ^shole:

as said in the video, the cars don't move by sucking it through a straw, but by magnetic levitation
they draw the air out of the tubes and use magnets to speed it up, which is very efficient due to lack of air friction
there's a ton of problems with this though
it would need to be (relatively) airtight and stable throughout
that can't be too cheap, whatever the material
constant maintenance
what if there was an external accident that dents the tube, like a failing support structure, and the train-car later comes to that dent at this huge speed?
it would be worse than a plane coming apart midair
great for scifi, but i don't see it being reality any time soon

1 more comment have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

You're confusing this 'trolling' fad with the growing pains of True Enlightenment wrought by yours truly. You're welc me.

>> ^Payback:

LET'S TRACK DOWN AND BURN QUANTUM MUSHROOM, WINSTONFIELD, SHINYBLURRY AND GORILLAMAN!!!!!!!!1111!!!!one!!

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Walking Dead, Growing Pains, Show me that smile, 90s sitcom' to 'Walking Dead, Growing Pains, Show me that smile, 80s sitcom' - edited by quantumushroom

>> ^quantumushroom:

Of course you need to resort to threats of violence. Logic and reason are locked doors to you, ninnyhammer.
Is this what the lefties are talking about by "death by drone," your droning on and on between schoolyard insults?
Even you probably know threats = banned. I won't consider sending this little exchange to dag, as I don't consider you at all.

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^quantumushroom:
You'd save wear on your keyboard (and the weariness we suffer at your juvenile growing pains) by simply typing the old liberal creed: Free speech for me, but not for thee.

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^quantumushroom:
No one is harder on Prez Soetoro than me and I think his sanctioned removal of another turbaned anus from the planet is just wonderful. There are plenty of American citizens who are enemies of legitimate American government, such as the entire taxocrat party.
Just kidding.
On a more serious note, His Earness never takes the killing of his fellow Muslim brothers lightly.
(Just kidding, he's a closet atheist).

If I blow out the back of your skull because I "think" you're a threat to the country with all your Obama bashing...
nevermind I have nothing further to add except my creepy smile


It's not growing pains I'm 28. I'm merely saying that I think you should be shot in the head. Also me saying that you should be shot in the head and your brains blown out isn't me impeding your free speech. Say what you want...I'll continue to dream about you being shot in the head.
Also you must be a moron because you couldn't get what I was saying with my comment. It was quite simple, you fucking moron.



At no point did I threaten violence...did you fail reading comprehension as well?

Of course you need to resort to threats of violence. Logic and reason are locked doors to you, ninnyhammer.

Is this what the lefties are talking about by "death by drone," your droning on and on between schoolyard insults?

Even you probably know threats = banned. I won't consider sending this little exchange to dag, as I don't consider you at all.


>> ^Yogi:

>> ^quantumushroom:
You'd save wear on your keyboard (and the weariness we suffer at your juvenile growing pains) by simply typing the old liberal creed: Free speech for me, but not for thee.

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^quantumushroom:
No one is harder on Prez Soetoro than me and I think his sanctioned removal of another turbaned anus from the planet is just wonderful. There are plenty of American citizens who are enemies of legitimate American government, such as the entire taxocrat party.
Just kidding.
On a more serious note, His Earness never takes the killing of his fellow Muslim brothers lightly.
(Just kidding, he's a closet atheist).

If I blow out the back of your skull because I "think" you're a threat to the country with all your Obama bashing...
nevermind I have nothing further to add except my creepy smile


It's not growing pains I'm 28. I'm merely saying that I think you should be shot in the head. Also me saying that you should be shot in the head and your brains blown out isn't me impeding your free speech. Say what you want...I'll continue to dream about you being shot in the head.
Also you must be a moron because you couldn't get what I was saying with my comment. It was quite simple, you fucking moron.

>> ^quantumushroom:

You'd save wear on your keyboard (and the weariness we suffer at your juvenile growing pains) by simply typing the old liberal creed: Free speech for me, but not for thee.

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^quantumushroom:
No one is harder on Prez Soetoro than me and I think his sanctioned removal of another turbaned anus from the planet is just wonderful. There are plenty of American citizens who are enemies of legitimate American government, such as the entire taxocrat party.
Just kidding.
On a more serious note, His Earness never takes the killing of his fellow Muslim brothers lightly.
(Just kidding, he's a closet atheist).

If I blow out the back of your skull because I "think" you're a threat to the country with all your Obama bashing...
nevermind I have nothing further to add except my creepy smile



It's not growing pains I'm 28. I'm merely saying that I think you should be shot in the head. Also me saying that you should be shot in the head and your brains blown out isn't me impeding your free speech. Say what you want...I'll continue to dream about you being shot in the head.

Also you must be a moron because you couldn't get what I was saying with my comment. It was quite simple, you fucking moron.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/28/business/growing-pains-for-burning-man-festival.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha25

Ok, as you cited wikipedia, I will as well. "Guilt by association can sometimes also be a type of ad hominem fallacy, if the argument attacks a source because of the similarity between the views of someone making an argument and other proponents of the argument." It's ad hominem. Further, as you stated, pseudoscientific is a pejorative. It's an attack on his credibility as a scientist by associating him with people like what's his name from Growing Pains.

I never criticized his discussion of the beetle. I am not an entomologist, I'm a vision scientist. I criticized the implication that people who believe like Behe also believe that the eye was too complicated to have evolved. On the contrary, Behe openly admits the likelihood of the evolution of the eye once started from an eyespot, or simple photoreceptor of any sort. Where he noted the possibility of irreducible complexity was in the biochemical transduction of light into electrochemical gradients. That argument was never addressed in the video.

Further, when talking about his views as pseudoscientific, I presume you are referring the common complaint that ID is unfalsifiable. Well, then, I would challenge you to express how the theory of evolution itself could be falsified? Here's Darwin's take from the Origin of Species: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." If you take the position that all claims of irreducible complexity are simply matters of the poverty of imagination, and as such it is not demonstrable, you open evolution up to the same criticism.

While I agree, a hole in our understanding of the universe should not invite the cure-all "God did it," the problem of the falsifiability of evolution remains. That is, those that wish to put evolution into the purview of science, should precisely define what they would accept as evidence it is wrong. While Dawkins often claims scientists do this, I've rarely seen him publicly explain what such evidence would be. When he does, it is usually something snide, such as "finding precambrian fossils of hippos." I find that argument about as appealing as the crocoduck.

>> ^MaxWilder:

Violent retaliation is wrong, plain and simple. But it is true that something must be done to stop the abuse of law enforcement authority. Hotheads like this will continue to escalate the issue in the wrong direction until something positive is done. That's gotta be top-down pressure from politicians and the courts. And that's gotta come from peaceful people putting the pressure on the politicians.


There are some cases where you can be pushed into violent retaliation and understand that it is your only option. I don't want to get into an ethics debate but we can look at any segment of human history and see this same sort of thing happening on every corner of the earth including the founding of this nation. I don't agree in top down pressure, there has to be changes brought about by the public. In every national debate there's always some extremes who will try to subvert the argument and the people on the other side who will exploit those extremists for their ends. There are far more responsible arguments and a groundswell of opposition to Police brutality or overreaching. There should be policing of the police, and we can do that, we have to act faster or we might have to go through a "growing pain" era of the public vs. the police where a lot of people will die needlessly and mistrust will be sown and might never be restored. Fix this before it gets worse, get organized in your community please.

Also Quantum I've yet to see any scientific study that the death penalty does anything to prevent crimes in a civilized society. I am not against the death penalty, I just think it should be used for criminals who are amongst the most reprehensible of the society.