The person who can come up with that solution and employ it is in line for a Nobel prize.

I wouldn't bet on Trump ever receiving that award.

Theoretically, science works great. However, as has already been noted, in the real world in certain fields, the pressure to publish something "substantial" combined with the inability to get grants for certain experiments because they aren't "trendy" right now causes scientists to self-limit the kinds of research they undertake, which is not at all great for increasing human knowledge.

Another problem is the "expert opinion" problem--when someone with little reputation in the field finds something that directly contradicts the "experts" in the field, they often face ridicule. The most famous recent case of this was 2011 Nobel Prize winner Dan Shechtman, who discovered a new type of crystal structure that was theoretically impossible in 1982 and was roundly criticized and ridiculed for it until a separate group of researchers many years later actually replicated his experiment and realized he had been right all along. This web page lists several more examples of scientists whose breakthrough research was ignored because it didn't match the "expert consensus" of the period.

Finally, in the humanities at least, one of the biggest problems in research that uses a quantitative approach (i.e. statistics) is that researchers apply a statistical method to their data, such a as a t-test, without actually demonstrating that whatever being studied follows a normal distribution (i.e bell curve). Many statistical tests are only accurate if what is being studied is normally distributed, yet I've seen a fair share of papers published in respected journals that apply these tests to objects of study that are quite unlikely to be normally distributed, which makes their claims of being "statistically significant" quite suspect.

There are other statistical methods (non-parametric) that you can use on data that is not normally distributed but generally speaking a test of significance on data taken from a normally distributed pool is going to be more reliable. As is noted in this video, the reason these kinds of mistakes slip through into the peer-reviewed journals is that sometimes the reviewers are not nearly as well-trained in statistical analysis as they are in other methodologies.

It seems really strange from an outside perspective. It isn't all that long ago - at least in my memory - when certain types of American were almost celebrating that they were willing to torture and maim people if they 'got their answers'. Even if some of those people were innocent, it was an acceptable price to pay.

When Ed Snowden came out and told us that our governments were spying on us, trawling through our data and tracking our entire history online and in reality through surveillance cameras. The majority of America was against Snowden (in all the polls I've seen) - in any other day he would have been given the Nobel peace prize and celebrated as an all-time hero that stood up to impossible odds just to give the human race full disclosure on their 'freedom'. That's the stuff of legend, the stuff that people should be talking about in 1000 years time like we talk about Genghis Khan or something. Instead he was treated like a traitor and forced to live in exile in Russia because it was the only country that wouldn't hand him over to the torturing, controlling, law-breaking bastards he'd just made to look very stupid..... Gee, I wonder why he didn't want to face "criminal proceedings"? Nothing to hide, nothing to fear - except if you cross the wrong people?

Not too long ago freedom WAS an acceptable sacrifice for security.

When a lunatic got hold of an automatic rifle, killed 50 people and injured another 50, the prevailing argument seems to be "Hey, hey, let's not over react here, we can't sacrifice our freedom because of one terrorist act."

The only difference in this situation is that it isn't about "other people's" freedom and "my security" any more. It is about "my" freedom and "other people's" security.

You probably weren't one of those people, but I think it's fair to preface my comment with that contradiction.

I accept you have a decent point in this case; people shouldn't lose their freedom because the FBI made a mistake. But that's not the question being asked, let's talk about the general case rather than this specific one. The question is does legislation exist that will make mass shootings less common in the US? And I think the answer is yes, but I also think that culture is the biggest factor, not just access to guns.

As an example of what I mean - what if there were legislation that limited his ability to get hold of the weapon, registered that he had expressed an interest with the FBI who could then investigate based on his history? And maybe some other legislation could make it harder in general for him to just go and borrow one of his friends', or steal one from a local lax firing range, or whatever other illegal means exist to get hold of one.... perhaps because there were less in circulation, or those that were in circulation were more stringently secured?

At the end of the day it might not stop him getting hold of one, but it might make it harder and he might have second thoughts or make a mistake and be caught if it were harder. Hell, at least then the families of the dead would be able to say that a CRIME was committed when this fucking lunatic who had been under investigation was allowed to get access to a weapon that could so easily kill or maim a hundred people.

from the source @ youtube:

The animated film, “#Justino,” features a security guard at a mannequin factory. Since Justino works the graveyard shift, he has very few chances to interact with his coworkers. With a little bit of creativity, Justino devises ways to connect with his colleagues by using the factory’s mannequins to create situations both amusing and moving. His coworkers appreciate his playfulness each morning, and find a way to repay his generous spirit in kind.

One new feature this year is social media activation. The factory, “Fábrica de Maniquíes El Pilar,” has its own Facebook profile reporting on its day-to-day activities. And we can follow Justino’s nights in real time via his Instagram account @justino_vigilante.

On Nov. 16, #Justino, from the animated short, became the No. 1 trending topic in Spain and No. 5 in the world on Twitter. The film exceeded 1 million views on YouTube within a day.

A national tradition since 1812, Spaniards look forward to the annual Christmas lottery even if it means standing in line for hours to purchase the tickets. Nicknamed El Gordo, which means “the fat one,” prizes are valued up to more than €2.2 billion, making it the biggest lottery prize in the world.

It’s common to “share” the lottery by buying “participaciones,” or “shared tickets” at offices, with friends and family, and at bars. The belief is that the Christmas lottery is unique because it’s one that Spaniards participate in together, and if they win, they win together.

*talks

She was still *happy. You can always sell/donate the won prizes anyways.

What episode was she in? I kind of want to see it!

Had a math teacher who thought it was funny to mix in two of these millennium prize problems into a test. It brought some students to tears as they thought they were going to fail. A few of us recognized what they were, but most were still pulling out their hair at the end of the period. The teacher's justification was, it would teach us how to identify problems that could not be solved. Unfortunately more than one student was still trying to solve the first MPP and left the remaining 80% of the test blank.

I won a Palm III as 1st place prize for a Quake tournament my freshman year of college. The final match was so close and frantic. (top 3 scores were 33,31,29) Quake II was already out at the time, and going back to Q1 deathmatch was much faster pace.
I brought my headphones and a 3M Precise Mousing Surface with me, both which gave an advantage. Ah Glory Days.

Acceleration is a big factor if you're doing any evasive maneuvering, because turning scrubs speed and you have to gain it back, preferably fast. It's not everything, but it matters.

Don't get me wrong, I do admit there are interesting, possibly unique, even useful features of the F-35, I just don't see any need for it, and certainly not at the price. When was the last time an American was shot down in a jet fighter?

My main issue with this plane is that it's sold as a replacement to nearly ALL other planes, which it had to be because of it's price tag. It doesn't do most of it's 'jobs' as well as the planes it replaces, is incredibly more expensive than they are, and they weren't in need of replacement in the first place, so why did we have this $1.3 trillion poorly performing jobs program for the aerospace industry during an economic crisis? We had much better things to spend that money on, and killing this plane project would not make us a whit less safe or ready.

Nice, I like that idea, a swarm of jammer drones to eliminate all electronic advantages. I'll put your name in the hat for the evil super genius prize this year.

Agreed, the 1 on 1 fighting scenario is not the plan anymore. That doesn't mean it never happens though, or won't ever happen in the future, and as Americans we want/expect to win every single time.

That's certainly your choice. I'll roll the dice any day if it means bacon. I respect your right to take or avoid the risks you wish until you try to remove my right to make my own choice.

It would be nice, but no, wild boar are notoriously dangerous and aggressive, and also incredibly destructive and fertile, I don't think a sterilization program would work for many reasons. What they really need is a huge, repeating, mass hunt with big prizes (to get enough people to join for a clean sweep) so they actually eradicate them. Leaving them alive in the wild, even if neutered (which I don't think could work on pigs, since one missed female can repopulate so quickly) means years of horrendous destruction of the already endangered habitats in Hawaii.
BUSTED!!! I knew it. I've wanted to ask one of you...do pigs know what to say to someone who says to them "When pigs fly"?
.
.
.
A: 2009 buddy....swine flu.

Hes more open about his lies. Thats about it.
There have been many revelations about politicians which showed that they are liars and often pretty much criminals and even mass murderers. I myself remember having huge hopes in Obama, and then he turned out to be no better than Bush in his foreign policy. Giving him the peace prize was much worse than some "Trump products", because it was from other people. He pretty much conned them into giving him that prize. Just look at what we have today all over the world. So I still dont see much difference.

"The pinnacle of motor sport met the pinnacle of winter sports" and jumped the shark on Red Bull's retarded string of perceived amazing stunts.

Next up... A trans turtle space fairing balloonist vs. the world championship BLT sandwich making Badminton player in a duel of wits as they race to the top of Olympus Mans on the red planet. The first competitor to the top must chug a jar of pickled mushroom bell bottoms to claim the prize of most inane competition.

Join us on Sunday with Marv Albert in his lingerie to take in this one of a kind Redbull bullshit competition.

Seriously, this is starting to feel like the strange crap Wide World of Sports put out in the 70's.

ive never been to the middle east, but for various reasons had friends from several different countries in and around the area. i think the answer is simple: muslims, like christians, jews, mormons are not all alike (ok not sure about the mormons!), and even if you have a st augustine or a ghazali saying thats how it should be there will always be those who disagree, vocally or quiet like. Hes right that the culture changed, and he's right that its tragic that arab scientists are basically the butt of a joke, but i think its difficult to ommit that the peak of arab science also coincided with a peak in their power and resources. How many african nobel prizes are there in that period? or from indigenous peoples? Im not saying they are stupid, just that its difficult to get an award for cutting edge top notch science when you are at a serious deficit in resources.

Alone in the category of overrated drummers who prize technical ability and a massive kit over groove and feel.

Give me John Bonham any day. Or even Dave Grohl.

Hell, I'd rather have Animal!

I'll cover IUD's first. While there is some evidence that the older style copper ParaGard might have a slightly increase in preventing a fertilized egg from implanting, the evidence for the Mirena. Here are two medical journals documenting as such:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4018277
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3109/13625180903519885
If those are too much reading, they are summarized in http://videosift.com/video/Myths-About-IUDs

Remember Google gives personalized search results. No two people get the same results, even when signed out of Google... More details at http://videosift.com/video/There-are-no-regular-results-on-Google-anymore

I'd also agree that there are many things America gets right. Overall it's a good country.

And I think I started out by pointing out it isn't about guns, or just about guns.

Now I'm not sure what you mean assigning attributes to the right. I was pointing out policies that are consistent with the conservative right, Republican platform positions that are not pro-life.

The Death Penalty. This is a typically Republican strong stance position. And has been at various times part of the party's official platform. The Democrat party official position supports the death penalty too, after a DNA testing and post-conviction review. The point isn't wither or not the Death Penalty is right or wrong, I'd personally argue it's wrong, it's the claim of being pro-life while supporting the death penalty. There can be no way to reconcile those two positions.

One needs only to look at how Bush and the present day regime of Republicans in Washington think of handling issues in the Middle East to see what that they support a strong military and an interventionist doctrine (http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Republican_Party_War_+_Peace.htm). One of the key factors of the Bush Doctrine is preemptive strikes. While one normally wouldn't cite Wikipedia, I'll let their page on the Bush Doctrine and their references clear things up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine. Heck Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize largely just because he wasn't Bush... sadly he did little to lower US involvement in the Middle East, a situation we should have left alone ages ago. Again the Democrats aren't as peace loving as they should be, and generally the most peace loving people in Congress tend to be Libertarians (who object more to the expense of war than war itself, and love pointing out how the war in Iraq from 2001 to 2011 cost more than NASA's entire history to that point, even after adjusting for inflation (https://www.nationalpriorities.org/cost-of/ and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA)) and Libertarian leaning Republicans like Ron Paul, and the Congressional Progressive Caucus (http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/). Again, war isn't pro-life, it is perhaps one of the most anti-life things one can support short of supporting murder itself.

It's also Republicans, aka the right, that are trying to undo the Affordable Health Care Act, a program that ironically enough is modeled after the ones they tried to pass twice under Bush Sr and once under Clinton as to oppose Democrat plans to push for a Single Payer system. Prior to the passing of Obamacare, the US was spending nearly twice as much on healthcare as a percentage of it's GDP than the next nation, and getting only the 37th best results . Just listen to the crowd at the September 12 2008 Republican debate that chant over and over "let him die" as a solution to a guy who needs medical care but elected not to buy private insurance. These same people are the one's who claim to be pro-life. Affordable health care should be a right, as it is in every civilized nation but the US. Obamacare is far from ideal, but much better than the previous policy of only those with good jobs could afford health care everyone else, die or go bankrupt, driving the costs of healthcare up more. One can't say they are pro-life and oppose affordable healthcare, including for services you don't support such as IUDs (it doesn't matter that I object to our overly huge military budget that is much bigger than the next several nations combined, so it shouldn't matter if some medical services such as IUDs are supported), as quality of life matters as much as being alive.

Related to guns however is the Republican stance on stand your ground. Watch Fox News and how they defend the use of guns, or how mass shootings would be avoided if people were carrying concealed weapons and could stop the shooters... again escalating things to a death penalty. Now in the case of a mass shooter, ideally you want to take them down alive, but if death is the only option, then I personally don't object. However stand your ground typically expands to home invasion, where criminals typically aren't looking kill, just rob the place. Here they defend the homeowner's right to shoot to kill (I've been in firearm safety classes, generally the aim is to aim for the center of mass, which will likely result in death, but the odds of making a shot at the legs to impede the crooks is very low, so if you shoot you have to assume it is to kill). This position is contrary to the pro-life stance. All life is equal... which could get into a whole other argument about how they don't value immigrants, especially illegal immigrants, people who just want to improve their lives by moving to what they hope is a better country that will allow for a better opportunity for them and their families, but the Republicans are fighting hard to stop them from improving their lives here just because an accident of birth made them born in another country than the US... heck just look at the way Republicans lined the buses of refugee children fleeing war and gang torn areas of Latin America and they shouted at the children.... children... to go home that nobody wanted them. That isn't a pro-life statement, to tell a child that nobody wants them. The pro-life position would be to want to nurture and protect the children fleeing a dangerous area... We should be moving to a world without borders, as that is the pro-life position, to realize we are all humans, and that we all must share this world, and that we should do all we can to protect one another and this world and all that inhabits it (except mosquitoes, roaches, most parasites, etc... lol)

As to high poverty rates, the Republican policy of trickle down economics helps drive that. Helps spread the ever growing income and wealth gaps in the US. The Walmart heirs alone have more wealth than the bottom 40% of the US population (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jul/31/bernie-s/sanders-says-walmart-heirs-own-more-wealth-bottom-/). Now true, some could argue it isn't trickle down economic that is causing the growing wealth and income gaps, but the correlation is very strong, and one is hard pressed to find any other causative points beyond the rich paying less and less to their workers while taking more and more for themselves while the government eases the tax burden on the rich more and more.

Overall I think it's clear that the people who vote Republican because they are "pro-life" are hypocrites given the party's positions in key issues that aren't pro-life. I'm sure many, especially those on the right would disagree. They'd argue the death penalty is needed to discourage others from killing and therefore protects life, and that preemptive strikes ala the Bush Doctrine keep another 9/11 from happening (although the counter to that is fairly easily that we make more extremist the more we use those strikes). So one's mileage may very. For me, I think they are hypocritical saying they are pro-life if they don't value that life as much as their own after they are born.