>> ^00Scud00:

That's it, from now on nobody let them near the helium tanks.


Alright, I'll just leaves these sulfur Hexafluroide tanks here instead. =)

That's it, from now on nobody let them near the helium tanks.

I saw this stuff on Mythbusters. I'd like to get a canister and tell my friends it's helium.

NPH is funny as hell.

You're confusing the philosophy of "empiricism" with "empirical data". The two are semantically related, but the former derives its name from the latter, not the other way around, just as stoic people are not necessarily stoicists, nor all humans humanitarian, nor all who exist existentialist.

The scientific method is founded upon empiricism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism

I'll let some physics majors sort you out on this one:

http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-184699.html

Science is based on no philosophy. The scientific method can be derived entirely from logic, which Craig just told us is a rational thing to believe in (I agree). It happens that the scientific method can only be applied to empirical data (which is separate from the philosophy of empiricism), which is defined simply as information gathered from the senses. This has nothing to do with beliefs about what is knowable. Nothing in science suggests any opinion on what else is knowable or not, just what appears to be or not to be a candidate for experiment. Science is incapable of determining whether abortion is morally wrong, and it takes no stance on whether that information is knowable. That's a question for philosophers and such.

I think you're forgetting that scientists are not objective, and must interpret the data, which can have as much to do with philosophy and belief as anything else. Check this out:

http://www.emotionalcompetency.com/sci/sm6.htm

I can also give you an example. At www.cosmologystatement.org there is an open letter to the scientific community, which is signed by over 500 scientists who doubt the big bang theory. These aren't creationists, btw. An excerpt:

"big bang relies on a growing number of never observed entities. inflation, dark matter, dark energy, etc, it cant survive without these fudge factors..in no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical factors be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory.

without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by the astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory.

Even observations are now interpreted through this biased filter, judged right or wrong depending on whether or not they support the big bang. so discordant data on red shifts, lithium and helium abundances and galaxy distribution, among other topics, are ignored or ridiculed.

this reflects a growing dogmatic mindset that is alien to the spirit of free scientific inquiry."

This was published in New Scientist magazine in 2004.

Are you still dubious of science, or just empiricism now? If you still are, can you point to any faulty information or conclusions science has arrived at that you are dubious about? Or if I've improperly worded the question to best get at your issues with science, please provide some specifics about science's methods, conclusions, or whatever that give you discomfort.

My trouble with empiricism is really more of a philosophical issue. I know empiricism can get results which are trustworthy, although the conclusions that people draw from them are a different story. I really just a have problem with things which aren't science; ie, theories or practices which have no hard evidence, which cannot be been tested or observed. I'll list them:

Big Bang Cosmology
Radiometric Dating
Uniformitarian Geology
Macro Evolution

>> ^messenger

Sorry to bust your bubble, but infinite growth is simply not possible, nor is it desirable. For economic growth you need demographic growth (just look at how EU keeps sucking in immigrants to counterbalance the non-renewing fertility rate... it's definitely not out of kindness of heart). More people = more mouths to feed, but also exchanging cultivated land for inhabited land. Moreover, even if we manage to have 100% renewable power, much of the material we use (metals, gases, etc) are of a finite nature and rapidly depleting. Recycling is great, but can never be 100% effective, and even if it could, there are elements (think helium) that once they're gone they're gone, basta.

In the long run, we can only have a sustainable society if the growth imperative is scratched out of our mentality.

>> ^artician:

>> ^hpqp:
As long as our society is built around the imperative of growth (economic, demographic), we will continue to irretrievably destroy ourselves. The equation is simple: infinite possibility for growth - finite resources = self-destruction.

The thing is, renewable resources = infinite resources. I really believe infinite possibility for growth can be sustained, but what we have here is irresponsible growth. It's not growth as much as a viral consumption.
I think the next step is to start getting some names. Company names, shareholder names, CEO names. Find the people responsible for making these decisions, and education or kill them. Wait... what?
Anyway, this will never stop unless you confront individuals directly. It's very rare that indirect opposition (pacifist movements, ghandi/king jr. civil rights) works. So rare that I've given up on it for such dire circumstances.
Dear America: still feeling all that white guilt from the complete genocide of several hundred thousand indigenous natives on the norther continent? Well it's still happening right now. Now's your chance to make up for it.

if i had to work there and do this I'd walk myself over to the balloon department and use that helium tank with a plastic bag.

Disgusting abuse of helium

College degree joke, Sperm joke, Death Penalty joke .. but it all worked out

"I really didn't know how bad things were until the cameras went off. The smiles immediately disappeared from the hosts' faces, and they wouldn't even look at me. I began to walk back towards the green room when a crazed woman started frantically calling me out into the hallway. I knew it was about to hit the fan because the crew wouldn't even look at me-They knew I was about to get pounded.

The woman shook my hand, introduced herself as the Executive Producer, and said, "You really just f**ked us bad." The next few minutes I was kind of in shock, like after a car accident, and as she was escorting me out of the building she was yelling about how sponsors would back out, "This was the worst f**king sh*t that had ever f**king happened to them," etc. Basically, telling me that I had destroyed NBC 10. Perhaps all of television!

Well, the whole thing is funny now. It wasn't that day, though, and she almost f**ked me over that night at Helium because I was an anxious wreck the rest of the day. I kept picturing all of these children spending the next few years in intense therapy, right next to the children of people killed on 9/11, and those kids would be thinking, "Jesus, we really don't have it bad at all; these kids are really messed up!"

But I got my sh*t together (kind of), and after some booze I did a pretty awesome set in front of friends, family, and a large crowd of strangers."

Cute video. I feel sorry for Helium though.

Usually this requires large brass balls. He obviously has helium-filled ones.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'baloon, photos, helium, space' to 'balloon, photos, helium, space' - edited by BoneRemake

Yep. Lame. I think they were hoping they might actually be fooling someone though. The least they could have done would be to make the vocal effect more believable. That wouldn't even happen if it were 90% helium because he was exhaling almost the entire time.

>> ^charliem:

Disgraceful waste of Helium.


And not a true house.

Disgraceful waste of Helium.