>> ^dag:

To be fair - I didn't hear her say that Australians should be paid $2 per day.
And this might sting my Australian mates - but productivity is low in Australia. I'm in Canberra - which is probably low productivity HQ for the whole country. <img class="smiley" src="http://cdn.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/oops.gif">


@dag yep I'm sorry, I have a real super hate for her, and of course why I skewed the title. I have bias, and sincerely wish no offence to you or anyone pointing that out (sincerely).

I exaggerated the title.

ZDM

P.S. She can go fuck herself

>> ^chilaxe:

Was this junk science really aired on the BBC? Smart folks they've got working there.


I don't think people are going to gok wan's tv show for their reliable science facts updates. It's good enough for what gok wan wants it for, because he's only going to use it as a tool to make the fat women on his show feel better about being fat. If anything, it is preferrable if the tools are skewed to make the men choose a pear shape with a huge flabby arse, because persons of that description appear on his show exclusively.

I'm all in favour of taking it off the air completely, instead of just improving the science. In context of the show though, i think you'd know it wasn't meant to be very sciency, because this is the first 3 minutes i've seen of gok wan where he wasn't either making high pitched noises and gushing over an ugly woman, or reminding me about what we saw in the previous episode/part, whilst looking ahead to what was about to come in the next part/episode. The latter takes up about 70% of the show anyway.

Also, i'd say that personality is the "decider" for me. Without that, i'm just not interested beyond the timespan of a week. I guess that doesn't get us any closer to the perfect female body though. But is it ever really just the body anyone goes for, and is the test worthwhile to begin with - perhaps we have body ranges we find ideal instead?

I don't understand when people who are republicans or democrats say we need a new direction because of Obama? To me Obama is a perfect Republican. Bush was God awful. Why do you guys consider Dempublicans leftist when they are apart of the same foul corrupt/conservative system that you tout as being the best, #1, 'merica fuck ya!!?

Obama is way better than Bush whilst simultaneously enforcing most of Bushes policies. It's hilarious that republicans dislike him. I keep hearing, "this is the most important election". THAT IS BULLSHIT. We haven't had an important election in a long time because the system has been bought and sold a long time ago. Even though I'm not a huge fan of Obama - the two party system or most skewed mainstream beliefs - he is way better than McCain would have been. He is way better than Romney on just about everything and yet Obama still pretty much sucks - he has to suck. He is apart of a ridiculous system that is controlled by a bunch of shitty corporations.

Until everyone in this dumbass country begins reading up on political theory or at least watches Democracy Now! ... we're all doomed.

More info: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9NBRHpbJ0I

After he got popular he realized how many women look for money over love. I'm sure from his perspective it looked like a majority, but obviously that's a hugely skewed sampling due to his success.

@xxovercastxx: Tupac's mom. Controversial, but definitely smart.

I think we're all products of the environment we grew up in. The society you see has just as big an impact as your parents. Perhaps more when you're the child of a single parent.

I think this has a lot to do with zeitgeist as well. The market for degrading porn is there, so it gets produced. There are different ways to quell it, like outlawing, or affecting the market in some way. Essentially, we would want to make people want the "good stuff" and not want the "bad stuff", but this is a problem with all sorts of things.

Some places, like denmark, have a "fat tax", to make people eat more healthy. You can also subsidize healthy food/porn from a government perspective. Alternatively, you need someone high in the industry that says "fuck this, we're only making good things now" like a steve jobs of porn. Heh.

When peoples' tastes change, the market changes with it. It's a shame that we're being driven towards wilder and wilder stuff, but I'm not sure what it takes to push back.
>> ^spoco2:

@gwiz665
I agree that the 'control group' isn't really one, as it is, as you said, severely skewed, it's just the best he had to work with.
I haven't looked at the studies at all, but you would think they could do ones that looked at frequency of porn use vs affects. They said they couldn't find anyone who didn't use it, but there sure as hell will be big differences between the amount people do.
And surely they could have a trial where they prescribe the amount of porn watched, and types for a period of time.
All of these things can be done even without a 'clean' control group.
So yeah, it seems like there isn't 'good' data on this.
But I certainly dislike the way that porn is so mainstream, and so anti female now. If you look hard enough you can find pockets of porn where everyone in it is respected and you see her feelings and arousal being addressed as well as his, but it's rare. There's far more 'Bangbus' and 'drunk coeds' shit.
I'd love to know a way to swing porn back to the respectful side of the spectrum, so that when people did just random porn searches, more often than not they saw real looking people having loving sex.... but I have no idea how that could ever be done.

@gwiz665

I agree that the 'control group' isn't really one, as it is, as you said, severely skewed, it's just the best he had to work with.

I haven't looked at the studies at all, but you would think they could do ones that looked at frequency of porn use vs affects. They said they couldn't find anyone who didn't use it, but there sure as hell will be big differences between the amount people do.

And surely they could have a trial where they prescribe the amount of porn watched, and types for a period of time.

All of these things can be done even without a 'clean' control group.

So yeah, it seems like there isn't 'good' data on this.

But I certainly dislike the way that porn is so mainstream, and so anti female now. If you look hard enough you can find pockets of porn where everyone in it is respected and you see her feelings and arousal being addressed as well as his, but it's rare. There's far more 'Bangbus' and 'drunk coeds' shit.

I'd love to know a way to swing porn back to the respectful side of the spectrum, so that when people did just random porn searches, more often than not they saw real looking people having loving sex.... but I have no idea how that could ever be done.

As someone who skews libertarian overall, I have to say I'm glad Obamacare is a go. It's one of the times I totally break with the Libertarian line.

I'd have been just as happy with a bunch of Romneycare clones popping up at the state level, too, though. I don't see why the blue states should be stuck with a broken system just because the red states don't want it (and conversely, if the red states want to keep their broken system, I don't see why they should have to get something better).

My main concern with Obamacare is that it won't do enough. I wish we had gotten the public option as well. I'd have more confidence in prices coming down with the extra competition.

>> ^speechless:

Is there some way to get these alleged documents from any actual government agency or website? Or in any other official way whatsoever? FOIA? I guess the alternative is to just believe anything posted by anyone from anywhere. Some pdf's at some site. Not that Russia Today would ever skew anything, gee.
I'd really like some facts on this and "several sites seem to have it posted" doesn't cut it.


Yeah, the site that published them claims they are documents written for the public, but not released to the public. The only site I've found that actually tried to verify the documents has only gotten responses amounting to "never heard of it" from government sources. I'm not going to get worked up about pdfs posted anonymously on the internet.Though if someone could demonstrate that they are authentic it would be sort of interesting.

In defense of the comment you quote.
The pamphlets discussed in the video, of which I link to one of them, looks genuine.

The extra link I threw in IS questionable, which is why I threw it in.
I mentioned, "Several sites seem to have posted it" because when you go looking for the pamphlet discussed in the video, it's hard because this one keeps poping-up and I didn't want people to confuse it for the one in question. Removing that white elephant from the discussion, sort of speak.



>> ^speechless:

Is there some way to get these alleged documents from any actual government agency or website? Or in any other official way whatsoever? FOIA? I guess the alternative is to just believe anything posted by anyone from anywhere. Some pdf's at some site. Not that Russia Today would ever skew anything, gee.
I'd really like some facts on this and "several sites seem to have it posted" doesn't cut it.

Is there some way to get these alleged documents from any actual government agency or website? Or in any other official way whatsoever? FOIA? I guess the alternative is to just believe anything posted by anyone from anywhere. Some pdf's at some site. Not that Russia Today would ever skew anything, gee.

I'd really like some facts on this and "several sites seem to have it posted" doesn't cut it.

What about reactors that can't melt down? What about Ford Pintos that exploded when you hit them from the rear, that isn't a story of why all cars are dangerous, only Ford Pintos. What about a plane lands on a city and kills thousands, or the super dome and 10s of thousands? What if what if what if. 50 million people is a little showing of being irrationality scared. Even in the worst designed reactor incident in history, it wasn't as bad as that. If you looked closely, as well, the chart shows that nuclear has historically been safer that solar and wind (and hydro if you include the Banqiao Dam incident).

With that said, I do wish to see old light water reactor technology phased out and new, walk away safe reactors phased in. Engineered safety is less preferred than intrinsic safety that many of the new reactors have. Also, lets not forget, most of the navy is nuclear...meaning they feel safe enough to be in war time situations with current reactors, so engineered safety can indeed be very safe.

I have irrational fears as well, I hate to fly even though I know statistically it is safer than driving. I would suggest that your fear of nuclear is of the same nature. The only way you can kill millions of people with current or future nuclear technology is with bombs, not reactors. The only way reactors can "explode" is from a steam explosion or a hydrogen explosion...so about as bad as a fuel plant exploding, most likely several orders of magnitude less. IE, reactors explode chemically, not via fission, making no more or less dangerous that that other kinds of tech, with the exception of the fission byproducts. The good thing about most of the new nuclear tech is the fuel burn up rates are very very high, meaning there is less fuel involved in most cases.

At any rate, don't take my word for it, there is lots of data out there to look over. For my part, I think nuclear is the cleanest, safest bet for energy needs. I submit that nuclear is only scary because of it was first developed as a fearsome weapon. But the even more fearsome weapon are thermonuclear weapons, which are actually fusion/fission hybrid bombs. I would imagine for whatever reason you aren't super scared of fusion, and would wager that if thermonuclear bombs were called fusion bombs, the world at large would have a different mindset towards it...irrationally.

But I leave you with the facts, nuclear has been the leading sources of clean power which has also caused the least amount of deaths than other technologies. There are many factors in that, including massively engineered safety that continues to improve, as well as highly trained crews that watch over them. Coal miners die all the time, pipelines explode, oil platforms explode, people fall off roofs, or fall off wind farm towers, or get electrocuted...but none of these deaths cause the downfall of those technologies. Nuclear still has more drama in our minds, so plays out much differently when something goes wrong, which isn't very often ( 6 fatal occurrences since 1961) .

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html


I'm sorry are you comparing death rates between Coal and Nuclear Reactors? What if there's a meltdown or a terrorist attack and suddenly there's 50,000,000 people dead? It only takes one reactor outside of LA to do catastrophic damage you cannot compare the two NOW when we don't have a Fuckton of Reactors near population centers.
Comparing the two at this point in time is just ridiculous, the numbers are so skewed it's not even funny.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html



I'm sorry are you comparing death rates between Coal and Nuclear Reactors? What if there's a meltdown or a terrorist attack and suddenly there's 50,000,000 people dead? It only takes one reactor outside of LA to do catastrophic damage you cannot compare the two NOW when we don't have a Fuckton of Reactors near population centers.

Comparing the two at this point in time is just ridiculous, the numbers are so skewed it's not even funny.

>> ^JiggaJonson:

>> ^zombieater:
>> ^JiggaJonson:
My wife drives a hybrid and pays $60 a month filling up her tank twice a month.
My advice to you sirs, is to get a hybrid and LEASE it for 3 years. If you lease it, then, yes, you're not building equity with the car, but it alleviates the biggest complaint about hybrid cars: replacing the battery means you'll negate any savings on gas.
When her lease is up, we simply roll it over into another lease, with another 3 year warranty (which covers the battery during those three years as well).
WIN!

As far as your complaint goes, I think you're reasoning for leasing is inherently flawed.
The rate of failure for Honda's hybrid battery: 0.002% of cars ever sold.
The rate of failure for Toyota's hybrid battery: 0.003% of cars ever sold.
It just doesn't happen.
Moreover, in Toyota, the warranty covers any hybrid battery failure for 100,000 miles (in CA it's 150,000 miles) and the cost of replacement (if that should occur) has dropped to under $3000.
Source: http://www.hybridcars.com/components-batteries/first-n
umbers-hybrid-battery-failure.html

Before we start pointing the "inherently flawed" finger around, maybe you should get your own ducks in a row.
First off, the numbers that they use in the source you cited are skewed. They used the numbers of batteries that failed out of warranty and compared that with the total cars made (as opposed to the total failures out of warranty) makes fapping motion
Second, there seem to be gobs of people on the site you cited (heh homonyms) that have had battery problems:
http://www.hybridcars.com/news/civic-hybrid-own
ers-disappointed-battery-software-fix-28450.html
http://www.hybridcars.com/forums/important-info-honda-ima-warranty.html

http://www.hybridcars.com/forums/ima-battery-and-fix.html
http://www.hybridcars.com/forums/2003-hch-battery-t1155.html
http://www.hybridcars.com/forums/civic-hybrid-battery-ima-problems.html

http://www.hybridcars.com/forums/civic-hybrid-battery-ima-problems-i
i.html
http://www.hybridcars.com/forums/replacing-hybrid-battery-t1289.html http://www.hybridcars.com/news2/first-gen-hybrid-batteries.html
http://www.hybridcars.com/forums/cold-weather-or-corrupted-battery.html

fap fap fap
Shall I go on???
So much for "It just doesn't happen."
At your request, I'll look up some more scholarly research on the subject. Until then:



You do realize that car companies can create fake identities and post them. Hell the oil companies probably pay for a service that does this. I'm sorry but a bunch of links to ONE SITE isn't going to prove a fucking thing. You should be smarter than that.

>> ^zombieater:

>> ^JiggaJonson:
My wife drives a hybrid and pays $60 a month filling up her tank twice a month.
My advice to you sirs, is to get a hybrid and LEASE it for 3 years. If you lease it, then, yes, you're not building equity with the car, but it alleviates the biggest complaint about hybrid cars: replacing the battery means you'll negate any savings on gas.
When her lease is up, we simply roll it over into another lease, with another 3 year warranty (which covers the battery during those three years as well).
WIN!

As far as your complaint goes, I think you're reasoning for leasing is inherently flawed.
The rate of failure for Honda's hybrid battery: 0.002% of cars ever sold.
The rate of failure for Toyota's hybrid battery: 0.003% of cars ever sold.
It just doesn't happen.
Moreover, in Toyota, the warranty covers any hybrid battery failure for 100,000 miles (in CA it's 150,000 miles) and the cost of replacement (if that should occur) has dropped to under $3000.
Source: http://www.hybridcars.com/components-batteries/first-n
umbers-hybrid-battery-failure.html


Before we start pointing the "inherently flawed" finger around, maybe you should get your own ducks in a row.

First off, the numbers that they use in the source you cited are skewed. They used the numbers of batteries that failed out of warranty and compared that with the total cars made (as opposed to the total failures out of warranty) *makes fapping motion*

Second, there seem to be gobs of people on the site you cited (heh homonyms) that have had battery problems:
http://www.hybridcars.com/news/civic-hybrid-owners-disappointed-battery-software-fix-28450.html
http://www.hybridcars.com/forums/important-info-honda-ima-warranty.html
http://www.hybridcars.com/forums/ima-battery-and-fix.html
http://www.hybridcars.com/forums/2003-hch-battery-t1155.html
http://www.hybridcars.com/forums/civic-hybrid-battery-ima-problems.html
http://www.hybridcars.com/forums/civic-hybrid-battery-ima-problems-ii.html
http://www.hybridcars.com/forums/replacing-hybrid-battery-t1289.html
http://www.hybridcars.com/news2/first-gen-hybrid-batteries.html
http://www.hybridcars.com/forums/cold-weather-or-corrupted-battery.html
*fap fap fap*
Shall I go on???

So much for "It just doesn't happen."

At your request, I'll look up some more scholarly research on the subject. Until then:

>> ^direpickle:

The wording of the questions on this test are skewed to drive most people to the libertarian answers. Pretty much everyone that takes this test ends up libertarian. (It's run by Libertarians).


Oh yeah, the questions are written in such a way that it's hard to take the results of this test too seriously. Lots of questions are definitely trying to skew you in a certain direction, with wording like "would you do so and so, or are you a heartless asshole?"