@poolcleaner, maybe no-one reacted because they had experience that told them they weren't in danger? The last few earthquakes in California were pretty small (5.1, 4.4) or pretty far away (6.8 50 miles out to sea) and none of them rated above moderate on the MMI. Sorry, but if you run around yelling at people that they should panic, when the danger isn't that great, then yeah, you kinda look like a crazy person.

I certainly won't react to anything under a 5.5 these days.

As for the video, it's kinda bullshit.

It's a completely artificial scenario. If there was a real fire, people would have gotten up, at least a few would be panicking, etc.

People love this kinda thing because they can point and laugh at all the sheep who blindly follow the herd. In reality, this behaviour is an evolved response, because 9 times out of 10, it's the correct behaviour.

There's a phenomenon known as "the wisdom of crowds", where a group of people who make advocate wildly differing solutions to a problem will actually average out to the correct solution. Everyone hates this, because everyone likes to think they're smarter than average, and they want to believe that a single individual is the pinnacle of everything.

This is prevalent in our culture. Look how many stories involve "one man against the odds", etc. Reality tends not to conform to this. Even if you're Arnold Schwarzenegger, when you storm the compound, you get killed by a random guard. Most scientific discoveries are not one lone genius against the establishment, but a whole bunch of people working simultaneously toward the same goal and arriving at the same answer around the same time.

Of course this is not always true, but those are the exceptions rather than the rule.

The sad fact is that a consensus among informed people generally tends toward the correct answer. It makes for a lousy story, but it's generally true.

Still, if you see flames, get the hell out of the building

I think your quote may be wrong, quantum physics deals only with the sub-atomic level.
Atoms and/or molecules do not behave like some particles do. Particles also can't be in 2 places at once, but appear to be able to move from one place to another without traveling between. It's an incredibly difficult science to understand, more so when it's basic principles are misunderstood.
This has nothing whatsoever (or barely anything, nothing directly) to do with evolution. It is an attempt at explaining the sub atomic world, not the atomic one. Evolution happens in the macro/atomic level and larger. It MAY happen in some unknown way in the sub atomic level, but hasn't been noted or studied there that I know of.
Did I state or imply that 'there's no way gawd did it'? I don't think so, you are projecting. While I don't 'believe' in gawd(s), I do leave open the miniscule possibility it exists, or that one did before the big bang....one problem is there's no real set definition for gawd, so if something outside our universe created this one, is that "gawd"? Must it be super-natural, or simply a creator? Must it exist in our universe to count? How about in our perceptible dimensions? Could it just be alien to our universe, but not a supernatural omniscient direct human creator? There's far too many points of view on that to have consensus of what constitutes a 'gawd'.
I will state that there's no proof, or even evidence, of a (or many) gawd(s). That said...Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, (thanks Mr Jackson), so there's also no 'proof' it doesn't exist (it's hard or impossible to prove a negative).
Jumping to the conclusion that, because there's no proof of no gawd, it must exist, is also close minded against the high probability (likelihood) that it doesn't, and never did, exist outside human minds.
Science and gawd don't go together or explain each other any more than addition explains a words spelling. They're totally different arenas of thought. Thinking that science 'proves' the existence of 'gawd' either greatly overstates the 'proof' or completely misunderstands science. At best, science doesn't disprove the existence of 'gawd(s)', but then again that was never the mission of science or real scientists...they don't deal with/in theology at all.
I would point out that, most Christians (or any religious people really) have repeatedly 'proven' the non-existence of 'gawd(s)' to themselves...all gawds except the one they think exists....but for some reason the one they believe in is exempt from all the proofs (math term, not bad English).

EDIT: What science has done is disprove most, if not all 'proofs' put forward alleging to prove the existence of gawd(s), and also removed all requirements for ones existence to explain the universe and existence.

No, it is a statement of fact, or statement of an opinion based on asking many reasonable, educated people what they think. edit: and based on some internet investigating to see what the consensus seems to be. I'm glad you could at least see what it is not, now perhaps try to see things for what they are.
To me, when a debate moves from discussion of the ideas on to only simple derision, it's concession by the one doing the derision that he/she is out of ideas and has no legitimate response to offer. That's a loss of the debate. I'm not sure how your debate teacher taught you, that's how mine taught me.
It's not important for me for you to loose, or me to win, but that is how I see it when discussion stops and derision starts, as a loss. It is important to me that people understand that.
Coming to agreement, or at least true understanding is a win, for both sides.

EDIT: when one group declares itself sovereign and fires on another sovereign group, they have declared war. That is what the confederates did at Ft Sumter.

"They don't all agree with it, which is why it's not science."

If anyone is looking for absolute certainty, they should turn to their priests, their gurus, their investment brokers, their politicians, their snake-oil salesmen.

The only absolute certainty science can provide is in proving a wrong. Everything else is probabilities and exclusions, all the way to the end.

The fact that the public expects a proof of absolute certainty of a positive is maddening to me. Any assumed equivalency between "not knowing for sure" with "not knowing anything" is frustrating to no end.

Scientists have to enter the public arena and proclaim certainty to match the public's vernacular. If they were to stick to probabilities the way they do within their own realms, they'd fail to communicate the essence of their findings. Just look at how warped the common understanding of "theory" has become.

----------------------------

"Consensus, I repeat, is not science."

Everything scientific that is being communicated publicy is a consensus. The fact that statements of less than absolute, unanimous consensus are met with suspicion and a diminishment of trust in the process itself is one of the reasons why science cannot be properly discussed on the public stage. They cannot present the fuzzy edges of their findings as that would require a qualification in the form of probabilities. A consensus, the greatest common denominator if you will, is the best that can be done. The IPCC's reports are a magnificent illustration of that very issue.

And why can't we talk about the fuzzy edges? About scenarios and their corresponding probabilities? Because people are suspicious, even scared of numbers. Math as a subject is made fun of, a lack of mathematical understanding has become something to be proud of. An intuitive understanding of probabilities is the exception, not the norm. As soon as a prediction doesn't come true, people tend to dismiss the underlying theory, without any regard to the previously attached probability.

That's the climate the scientists have to endure when trying to present their work to the public.

They don't all agree with it, which is why it's not science. It isn't proven. You believe it because you are anti-fossil fuel or some such.
Consensus, I repeat, is not science. Science is provable.
But believe whatever you desire. You probably believe that if everyone sends the gov't a nickel, they can fix it, lol.

Everything you've written is wrong.
What happened to the last ice age
The effect of the sun

And you're damn right consensus is not science. So when you and your idiot denier mates all gang together to see who can shout the loudest, it doesn't make a goddamn gram of difference to the science.

Meanwhile, science is peer review. Note that word "peer". That means that the science is reviewed by other experts in the field. Not by you, me, fox news, greenpeace or the koch brothers. And the people who understand the science? They all agree with it.

my god @lantern53,
did you just try to school everyone on consensus vs science?
and you did this after using an ice age analogy?
and not with an ounce of irony?

the ignorance on display is so massive that i am embarrassed for you my man.

the consensus is ON the science!
the only argument is what % is man-made.
thats it.

There used to be glaciers covering most of the US, what happened to them? fossil fuel use?
Temperatures are a function of the sun more than anything else. Remember, consensus is not science.

You can sign me up @bareboards2. If there were some broad agreement on terminology I would switch to gender neutral language instantly. Fucking sick of it.

Coincidentally I was thinking about this just this afternoon, because luckily I have nothing better to do at work than stand around contemplating gender politics; pleased and proud as I am of genderqueer crusaders trying to wrestle pronouns into shape, I've been generally unwilling to join them. For fuck's sake, I spend enough time every day arguing about the excess syllable in the number sev, I can't afford to multiply that by every sentence with a person in it.

Singularising plural pronouns is offensive to me on a practical and aesthetic level, Spivak's no damn good, you've got your zes and your hirs and your hens, it's a pain in the ass but as soon as we get some consensus and momentum it's going to be cool.

Can't see that feminism really has anything to do with all this, well, I have trouble seeing that feminism has anything to do with anything. Not to go all Trancecoach here with male world problems but they're similarly told that to be professional they have to knot a piece of cloth around their neck for no reason or slice the hair off their face every day for no fucking reason. The situation is that we have a bullshit tribal culture with endless absurd customs and arbitrary rituals which is perpetuated by morons.

So we should always be rationalising - language, culture, behaviour, expectations.

Gender neutrality is obviously the way to go. If you get shoved in a box you don't become the champion of the box and work to make your box the best box it can be; you break out and start beating your captors over the head with box fragments.

I don't give a fuck about women's problems; I don't give a fuck about women, but I'm glad to consider anyone who stops wearing makeup a part of my team because I don't wear makeup for the same reason I don't shave my stupid face.

Anyway that was my choggie impression for the day. Too much caffeine, not enough sleep, not enough time spent bathing in the blood of my enemies.

It's such a shame that collective public memory is so short when it comes to such things as huge chunks of the earth's population being wiped out by pandemics before vaccines came into existence.

People are so quick to argue with the opinions of scientists who have dedicated decades of their life to understanding a particular field with utmost rigour, yet if you were to question their opinions on whatever they were expert in (eg. horses), they'd demand to know what authority you had to question them. And that's because people don't understand just how rigourous and punishing scientific investigation is. If there is anything you can trust in this world, it's the consensus of the scientific community.

Shame we can't do some sort of savegame, go without vaccines and watch everyone die, then load the game and say "see? now shut up."

The general consensus is the English were outnumbered between 4 and 6 to 1.
Whatever the number, how could they lose with batman - 5.04 - on their side...

Dude.

READ.

"What it boils down to is this; the chief benefit of legalizing prostitution is that it gives us a chance to protect the workers and possibly take a bite out of crime in the process. However, legalization is not the end, as criminal abuse of the workers can and will happen if the law isn't properly enforced.

It is perfectly possible, and perhaps even plausible, that trafficking continues to flourish even in countries where prostitution has been legalized, but is that an issue of weak legislation and enforcement, or is it simply an issue that is inherent to prostitution?"

But I guess it's easier to claim that I said the OPPOSITE of what I actually said when you just cut out everything but a single sentence from my original comment.

And when I said that newtboy made good points, I was talking about stuff like;

"Ending a prohibition does not eradicate the huge black market that prohibition created, but it can shrink it to a manageable size. If they legalized brothels in the Netherlands but don't do any regulation, they'll never remove the black market/sex slave trade."

Or...

"My question would be, do the prosecutors believe legalization contributed to their ability to prosecute this case, or is it the consensus that legalization has made it easier for the criminals to make slaves of women? Either could be the case based on this article."

If you cherry-pick specific sentences or cut out most of the text in our messages and then substitute our arguments with your own interpretations of our positions, you are going to make it impossible for us to communicate.

My question would be, do the prosecutors believe legalization contributed to their ability to prosecute this case, or is it the consensus that legalization has made it easier for the criminals to make slaves of women? Either could be the case based on this article.
If, indeed, the instances of slavery are on the rise in the Netherlands, I stand corrected. On the other hand, if they are becoming fewer and farther between, but easier to prosecute successfully, then my position is correct. Anyone have the stats? Before legalization arrest, prosecution and convictions for slavery VS after legalization arrests, prosecutions and convictions (I think you need to know arrest, prosecution and conviction numbers for it to mean anything).

I know very little about Syria beyond what is part of the major consensus narrative aka "history". But it's an interesting discussion to have, so my vote goes to "horrible idea", and here's why.

It's a civil war between bad guys on one side and bad guys on the other side, with civilians, as always, caught right in the middle of this meatgrinder. Foreign supporters of both sides keep adding fuel in the form of cash, weapons, training and personnel, all for their own geopolitical gains, of course. Nobody truly gives a fuck about the population, never has.

If any action is supposed to to be carried out for the benefit of the local population, the refugees and regional stability, I'd say two basic questions need to be answered first:

1) What's the situation?
2) What actions by exterior forces can improve this situation?

Judging by most articles these days, the modus operandi instead seems to be based on two entirely different questions: what actions would benefit our geopolitical/economical situation and what should this conflict's narrative look like to support our intentions.

If you look at all the major players involved, it seems clear to me to be a "stay-the-fuck-outta-this" situation.

US, Israel, Qatar, Turkey, Saudi Arabia + Emirates vs Syria, Russia and Iran. Egypt and Lebanon are "involved" on both sides -- Muslim Brotherhood and Lebanese Sunnis against Assad, General Sisi (neutral?) and Lebanese Shia pro Assad. Not to mention Al Qaeda against Assad and Hezbollah pro Assad.

Anytime the US finds itself on the same team as Al Qaeda, the situation needs to be reevaluated. And don't even get me started on those barbarians that cut off people's heads and eat their hearts in front of cameras.

And what's the primary geopolitical angle here? To cut the connection between Iran and the Lebanese Shia (Hezbollah)? I figure if they get isolated, they might lash out - violently. And those guys are much more capable than the rabble that makes up significant parts of the Syrian insurrection.

Once the Alawites and Shia in Syria get chopped up by those "rebels" after Assad was removed, things will get ugly real fast.

My suggestion: stop treating Iran like a pariah and start talking. Their regime might be a disaster, but the Persian people are well educated and much closer to our Western way of life than anyone else in that region. Get them, the Russians and the Chinese involved.

Then again, that's the White Man trying to solve the Brown Man's problems from the outside -- has that ever worked? Besides, it would reduce the threat of terrorism and war -- that's bad for business.

Ahh the "libertarian" shows his true colors.

For someone accusing me of a strawman, you seem to make some pretty good strawmen yourself.

Never claimed to live in a democratic utopia. Actually working pretty good as 200 years of history is showing. Sure we have problems, no one ever claimed we didn't. Far better than your utopia of a corporate totalitarian meritocracy where morality is apparently found in profit motive. Sorry, but the jury is has been out on the whole democracy vs plutocracy for some time. Sorry that you didn't get the memo.

You really have a problem with Obama personally? Then join the birther nutters and work towards convincing your congress people to impeach him. There are multitude of ways to effect change. The problem...and the beauty of that is that it requires somewhat of a consensus. not outliers filled with paranoia and hate.

hows making stupid one-note charlie submissions to VS working out for you as an agent of change eh?

Don't like your options? then you have yet ANOTHER option, there are plenty of other countries to choose from, pick one of them.

Lead, follow, or get the fuck out of the way. I got no time for armchair quarterbacks who would probably wet themselves if they actually had to make any tough decisions.