Total rock-star, you know where the key is anytime sister

Groovy skills sister, stage left during the show with the full VIP anytime we're in town

And when they haul you into court after your little murder spree you can always just tell them it wasn't really you but an evil doppelganger from an alternate universe. They will of course present "evidence" like clothing fibers, hair samples and fingerprints but they couldn't possibly admit those things when they are based on something as flimsy as empirical observations.

Empirical observation is very powerful, and obviously very useful, and I am not casting any doubt on that. Empirical evidence is good enough for most things, but usefulness does not justify it as a standard for truth. If you want to say we must have empirical evidence for everything except for the idea that we need empirical evidence for everything, then this is what is known as special pleading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading

My biggest problem with inductive reasoning argument is that really it's just a simple fuck you response. The sun has risen on this planet again and again for the last 4 billion years or so but because inductive reasoning states that past performance is not a reliable predictor for the future. Holy shit! I'd better get my affairs in order because there's probably not going to be a tomorrow.

The problem of induction is simply pointing out the lack of rationale for why there should be a uniformity in nature (the constancy of natural law). Science has no answer for it; should the problem be ignored in order that the assumption may be justified? Doesn't sound very scientific to me.

By throwing in Inductive Reasoning, you are basically saying that nobody can ever really know anything, that religion and science are all the same, which I suspect is the true intent of the argument. I think some believe that if they can take science and reduce it to being just another "belief system" or "World View" then religion and science will be considered equally valid.

I think you're mistaking my position because I am not trying to equalize science and religion; I don't see any conflict between the two. In my worldview, everything that science does is completely justified. I can explain why there is uniformity in nature, and why empirical observation works and can be trusted. My worldview explains why we can know something to be true, and where our rationality comes from. The naturalistic/atheistic worldview can explain approximately none of these things. My argument, essentially, exposes the gaping holes of that position and the leaps of logic over those holes that must be made to justify it.

Empirical reasoning exists because we need some kind of shared standard for reality. Without that the court would have to acknowledge that your interpretation of reality (and that of your doppelganger) is as real and as valid as any scientifically produced evidence and you'd probably get away with murder.

So now, anytime you feel like you're losing an argument that involves scientific evidence you can just say "Inductive Reasoning" and you automatically win the argument.

Most of what I am called to do as a Christian is predicated in some way upon empirical observation. I am not challenging its usefulness at all; what I am really pointing out in this reply is that the problem of induction is only a problem for the atheist/agnostic and not the Christian.

What you seem to be saying here is that we must have a standard even if we can't explain it. If that is so, or even if it isn't, then I am here to tell you that we already have a standard given to us by the God who created you and me. He told us directly what this standard was when He sent His Son Jesus Christ into the world to die for our sins. The standard is Jesus Christ Himself, who said He is the way the truth and the life, and that no one comes to the Father but by Him. What He told us is that we must repent of our sins and believe on Him for forgiveness of our sins and that when we do we will be forgiven and receive eternal life.

And when they haul you into court after your little murder spree you can always just tell them it wasn't really you but an evil doppelganger from an alternate universe. They will of course present "evidence" like clothing fibers, hair samples and fingerprints but they couldn't possibly admit those things when they are based on something as flimsy as empirical observations.

My biggest problem with inductive reasoning argument is that really it's just a simple fuck you response. The sun has risen on this planet again and again for the last 4 billion years or so but because inductive reasoning states that past performance is not a reliable predictor for the future. Holy shit! I'd better get my affairs in order because there's probably not going to be a tomorrow.

By throwing in Inductive Reasoning, you are basically saying that nobody can ever really know anything, that religion and science are all the same, which I suspect is the true intent of the argument. I think some believe that if they can take science and reduce it to being just another "belief system" or "World View" then religion and science will be considered equally valid.

Empirical reasoning exists because we need some kind of shared standard for reality. Without that the court would have to acknowledge that your interpretation of reality (and that of your doppelganger) is as real and as valid as any scientifically produced evidence and you'd probably get away with murder.

So now, anytime you feel like you're losing an argument that involves scientific evidence you can just say "Inductive Reasoning" and you automatically win the argument.

I work in a hospital. I've seen a baby born at 22 weeks. That's been my line since I've actually seen the baby survive. Will all babies survive at 22 weeks? Probably not. Most don't, but as I said it's what I've actually seen. Seeing is believing.

Either way I don't have a vagina and won't be needing her services anytime soon. Shit tho 39%, I need to watch my back.

LOL #1 cause of death is abortion..

Would someone please ask him if he's worried about being aborted anytime in the future..

it's an airport's landing strip....I guess you would expect a plane coming anytime soon. lame

Definitely hold out longer for more than just a sandwich. Anytime I came over to fix a friend's computer, I got unlimited soda and a dinner (once it was steak).

Anytime Mr. Richey. Sorry about the blocked tiger cub video [hate it when that happens!]

$250 a year 1000 anytime minutes with at least 3K in rollover mins, unlim. text, long distance-NO DATA plan (internet, data-file-transfer)-Worse than the phone service is the internet here-Outrageous fees for bullshit connection/speed compared to a lot of the rest of the world.-$69 bucks a month for speeds ranging from 15-35 Mbps-includes cable TV which I seldom use for anything but background noise for the dogs..

The U.S. is getting ass-raped on connectivity to the internet.

Blame corrupt politicians + copper mining/cable providing concerns + peeps not demanding their fucking heads.

I guess it's just semantics. I'm sorry for making an issue of it, especially since it seems that anytime I speak here I'm confronted by a psychopathic sock puppet.

The mission generally dictates the engineering and design of a mechanical system. The Buran and the Shuttle are prime examples. The new X-37 resembles both in general shape because a reusable "space plane" needs certain specific physical characteristics.

The Mig-25 looks like the F-15 because both were originally designed as high altitude, high mach interceptors. The demand placed on the system by the overly large engines dictates the shape.

The basic principles of radar "stealth" dictate certain shapes to be effective. The Have-Blue shape was effective against high frequency radar through deflection. As materials technology advanced, e.g. radio absorbing materials, more aerodynamic shapes could be implemented and still retain "stealthy" characteristics, if not improve upon them.

All the F-22 vs Pak50, M1a1 Abrams vs T80 videos are funny. The 1 versus 1 advantages are fun to debate, but its the entire system that wins or loses the fight. In the same vein, its common knowledge that German armor in WW2 was vastly superior to American armor in every technical way. Similarly, German fighter aircraft were more maneuverable than the P-47s and P-51s that they fought. Unfortunately for the Luftwaffe, this superiority was not enough to defeat the allied system as it rolled east across Europe.

The term 5th generation does not define the aircraft themselves, but the system they belong to. If you read wikipedia, this does not mesh, but the wiki values maneuverability (which is inherently limited by the pilot), stealth features (limited by current materials and design), advanced avionics (what does this mean?) and multi-role capabilities (we have had this since the 1980's). The key to 5th generation fighters and its defining characteristic is the ability to integrate the new fighters with every other piece of war equipment in the theatre, not just in tactical use, but the total meshing of sensors and 2-way data links. Its the difference between a war of attrition and a war of "look first, shoot first".

The Russians appear to be building an excellent stealth fighter that looks sexy as hell. The Chinese are doing the same. What they both lack at the current time is the "backend" systems to make these new 5th generation-esque vehicles fully capable. The Pak50 and the J20 won't be sharing targeting data with their Navy or other ground forces anytime soon.

Yeah that's the stupidest argument I've ever heard. I can kill someone with a knife and with my hands but I have to make a concerted effort to do so. It's a bunch of individual decisions. A Gun takes a single decision and many times in this country not even a decision to kill someone. I talk a lot about not giving the government the permission to do certain things. What about making sure that individuals aren't given the right to have such immediate control of my life? I have to walk into a store with someone who is open carry, who at anytime can decide my life is forfeit?

Every argument I've heard from Gun Supporters doesn't hold up, yet they say "LOGIC!" No it's not enough to be logical, if you think it is you're just dumb. Also DUMB logic doesn't work at all. Gun supporters aren't stupid, they just like guns, and they'll make lazy arguments unless they're stood up to and required to fucking think.

No ones thinking, everyones just moving along.

Didn't take Hank anytime to flip to the other side, did it?


(that's Dean Norris under that mustache)

On a website with so many video examples of nut-job police officers abusing their power and showing an extreme lack of good judgement, I find it ironic that so many are willing to give them ABSOLUTE power by surrendering our rights. The constitution and the bill of rights are meant to protect us from abusive governments.

Almost anytime power shifts from the people to the government, it's scary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_government_response_to_Hurricane_Katrina#Confiscation_of_civilian_firearms