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.

none of what you said makes any point showing why gun control shouldn't be discussed or implemented. and i specifically didn't say "a collection of gun laws/regulations". i said "a collection of laws/regulations/policies". there is a plethora of policies or lack thereof that are talked about often to deflect from the gun debate after [yet another] mass shooting but it's always lip service. the main deflection de jour is "mental health" but very little if anything is done about that. and the problem stems from way beyond guns and mental health. minimum wage laws, health care, education, income disparity/poverty, mental health care, gun laws, etc. all play big roles in an event like this. guns are obviously the first issue that needs to be looked at but because of the second amendment, there is never a real conversation about it. it's just shut down. all without even validating the justification for the second amendment to begin with. it's just presumed to be an axiom.

but even accepting that it is, move on to the next issue and it's the same thing: obstruction of any conversation or modernization. "oh we can't do that 'cause it costs money". well, all the data shows not doing it (investing in education, health care, poverty, etc) is many times more expensive than investing in it. across the board.

so now your whole country just sits there feeling bad for itself, wallowing in how fucked your social structures are, and passing the buck from one issue to the next until the news cycle forgets about one specific event effected by all these things and moves on to the next event effected by all these things but is aesthetically different and the whole process starts over again. meanwhile complaining about ineffective your political system is yet consistently voting in low numbers for the entrenched or the psychotic. certainly never for the thoughtful or nuanced. [i'm being hyperbolic here, but your politicians and voting record as a poplulation are fucking terrifying if not useless]



point being: watching this happen time and time and time again: the tragedy, the grief, the looking for answers, refusing to see the answers that are plain as day from the outside, pointing to the closest issue you aren't directly effected by, and finally forgetting the whole thing and/or accepting it as normal is really, truly sad and tragic.

North of the border, anyone wishing to buy a gun or ammunition must have a valid licence under the Firearms Act, and to obtain a firearms licence, all applicants must undergo a screening process, which includes a safety course, criminal history and background checks, provision of personal references, and a mandatory waiting period. The law further prohibits military-grade assault weapons such as AK-47s and sawn-off rifles or shotguns. Handguns are generally classified as restricted weapons, while rifles and shotguns are usually non-restricted.

There are only a few purposes for which individuals can obtain a restricted firearms licence in Canada, "the most common being target practice or target shooting competitions, or as part of a collection."

Based on your article and what else I've read, that means that pump, bolt action, and single shot rifles/shotguns are ok. Everything else is pretty much a no go. Sounds like some pretty heavy restrictions, although I did note there is a huge demand for ar-15 style rifles to be allowed in Canada.

But yes, the bulk of our shooting issue is the culture of our country. We are very diverse in culture, as well as familial structure. I would say that our culture and population is unlike any other in the world (except Australia, oddly. from what I've seen, I think they are sort of the USA lite version). Realistically, barring massive limitations to gun ownership, we are not going to stop mass shootings in the USA. I honestly don't think we will stop it then either, what with the sieve of a border we have, guns will just become the new coke/meth. Not to mention AR-15 style rifles aren't exactly hard to build. Other than the barrel and the bolt, most of the other pieces can be hand milled out of semi finished pieces that are completely legal for anyone to have.

Maybe we could do like Switzerland, their gun control seems to work.

Okay first off, powdercoating is different. It's a powder that is closer to glass than paint, and it's cured in an oven which melts it onto the surface. Vantablack is grown on a surface and they recommend it is never used in an application where skin contact is involved as it would be unsafe. The sprayable paint version uses another form of carbon nanotubes in a different structure, which is considered "safer," but there's not enough data on it for me to trust it. They also make no mention of it being "sealed" as you claim.

You can if you want. Lead paint was once considered safe, as was asbestos, and aspartame, and cigarettes (at least publicly). Go for it. But we won't agree.

Structural failure isn't the only risk. The point of modern safety features is to reduce the impact of the crash on the occupants. If you crash an army tank into a large tree at high speed, the tank itself is likely to be fine but the occupants probably won't. In your case, whether your car is better or worse than the average modern car in a crash is probably "it depends".

How does your car compare to the Discovery in http://videosift.com/video/Crash-tests-SUV-vs-Minivan-Which-one-does-better ?

The conclusion, that we are somehow living in the best of times, life of the universe wise, is suspect. We can't possibly know that there isn't larger scale structure beyond the limits of our observable universe. We are content with what we can see, just as some hypothetical people in the far future probably would be.

Also, don't most people internally substitute "here be dragons" whenever they hear "dark matter/energy"?

Is copper so pliable that this doesn't introduce micro-fracturing, or disrupt structural integrity from brittleness?

just to add what @Asmo rightly pointed out,is that addictions are a symptom of internal and external forces.

when we consider the state of our society and it its inherent social structures,and we compare addiction rates and suicide rates,i feel there is sufficient evidence for concern.

just look at americas suicide rates.
http://afsp.org/about-suicide/suicide-statistics/

we can see a steady increase.
when we factor in military suicides,which have been averaging one,to up to 22 a day since 2009.the larger picture becomes incredibly disturbing.

my point,which is right with asmo,is that while one group kills themselves due to hopelessness,emotional stress or an inability to cope or adapt in these trying times.

the addict is doing the same thing,for the exact same reasons.just on a slower and more precipitous path of self-destruction.

when asked as a child what they wanted to be when they grow up.no child ever answered that their desire was to become an addict.

the "war" on drugs,
is a war on people.

and treating this as a legal/criminal problem is missing the point entirely.
this is a social issue,that can be treated by providing social solutions.

dr bruce alexander discovered some amazing results in rats you may find interesting @MilkmanDan:

http://www.brucekalexander.com/articles-speeches/rat-park/148-addiction-the-view-from-rat-park

There is not a difference between Democratic Socialist and Socialist. It is just a terminology to use as a stepping stone towards the full implementation of Socialism. It just semantics to fool the sheeple.


From their web site: American democratic socialist party...
Their Constitution states:

We are socialists because we reject an economic order based on private profit,

We are socialists because we share a vision of order based on popular control.

We are socialists because we share a vision of a humane social order based on popular control of resources and production.

We believe that such a strategy must acknowledge the class structure of American society and that this class structure means that there is a basic conflict of interest.


So Its aim is to make all people equal-
The people run the company.
All get paid equally.
The floor sweeper and the one with the PHD all equal.


If you had talent to open a business should you and your worker make the same money?

Private profit is a bad thing. so much for the entrepreneurial spirit.


Democratic Socialism is a fools paradise.

US$1.3 trillion for the development and testing of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II, 115 million (est) per plane when they get around to figuring out how to stop structural cracking and a way to actually get it to pass a real operational trial.

Not saying I agree that a wall is needed or would even work, but let's be realistic in saying we are more than willing to throw a fuckton of money towards projects of equally dubious natures.

Um...no....I don't see that.
First, what would your alternative be, knowing that baby elephants NEED a family structure to thrive, and often just die when they don't have one? Would you just put it in a cage with no contact and just hope it survives? Bad idea.
I see she is doing this because baby elephants need this interaction from a 'family' unit, or they either wither and die or survive, but become rouges that have never known herd life in any way and are problem elephants that get shot.
If it were all about herself at the animals expense, why are the other less social animals not brought onto the porch? I'll answer, because they don't need to be.
Perhaps before calling out the behavior of those who's life has been spent successfully rescuing, rehabilitating, and reintroducing to the wild abandoned and injured animals you should do a little research on what those animals require?

Seconded. Hey, look at me, I'm illegally climbing a 4,500 year old historically and culturally important structure and causing unknown damage to it in the process. I'm so brave to risk the personal injury!

So selfishly minded it just leaves my completely baffled. Showing such gross disrespect for the historical and cultural importance of the object you are on that you actually think the greater risk is that you might harm yourself than the structure that has been there 4,500 years.

@bobknight33
"socialism is not american"

i swear sometimes bob i dont know what the fuck you are talking about.

even when people put out,quite correctly i might add,that america has socialism in its economic structure.you respond like they didnt state anything.

it is like you live in this weird bubble and that any information that attempts to enter,that may possibly contradict your own personal understandings.

so when i say that you can have a socialist democracy,i am not just pulling that out of my ass:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism

or that america already has socialist programs,and a majority of them YOU and your children enjoy:
https://mises.org/blog/bernie-sanders-right-us-already-socialist-country
(this is from the von mises institute.not exactly a bastion of liberal/progressive ideology.just in case you wanted to pull that tired and stupid response:well,they are a liberal website blah blah blah)

so if YOU think that socialism is SO bad and harmful and utterly un-american.let us revert to a pure capitalist society shall we?

here are the things that we will be saying goodbye to in your new capitalist america:
1.child labor laws.
thats right...your 8 yr old grandchild can now quit her fucking whining and get to fucking work.hmmmm...nothing like forced labor for the children working 14 hr shifts with no breaks,and 6 days a week.no work on sunday!
because:god.

2.minimum wage.
gone will be a basic minimum wage imposed by federal law.now we shall see the TRUE market place in action! of course,since there is surplus of available workers and there is no minimum.we can exploit the most desperate and vulnerable of our society and pay them 25 cents an hour!
take THAT china!

3.public schools.
education? only if your are part of the new american aristocracy! and what child will be going to school for an education? they are too busy working at the plant! pfffft..education.it is over-rated anyways.

4.fire and police.
now why would i spend my hard earned money in taxes, so my neighbor can be protected from fire damage and property damage? pay for your own protection fuckface! oh...you're too busy working 3 jobs,making .25 per hr? and your kids are working too? aww too bad loser.shoulda pulled yourself up by your bootstraps.

5.voting.(yep.you read that right)
i am a hard working american.who pays his taxes and owns property AND a business! and i JUST gave my employees a raise to .27 per hour! i have a RIGHT to vote! why should those non-property owning losers get a vote as well? i am obviously far more important than they are.whats next? women voting? the horror.

6.social security and medicaid.
now why would we waste time and resources providing a safety net for those losers again?how is it MY responsibility that they couldnt plan for their sunset years? i did give them a raise didnt i? fucking crybabies.and so what if they actually PAID into those programs.i feel better creating my own reality by calling those programs "entitlements",because it makes me feel morally superior to them.

7.public libraries.
there is that pesky "education" again.why should i be responsible for someone else family and their access to literature and information?what do you think i live in? a society? with neighbors? communities?this is just more government intrusion upon MY life and MY freedoms!

look man,i know i am being a cheeky shit in this comment,and i am not anti-capitalist..at all.
capitalism has brought great things for society as a whole..BUT..there is a difference between capitalism and unfettered capitalism,and what we have now is NOT capitalism.

it is socialism for the rich:
see: the bank bailout
see: corporate subsidies (welfare)
see:corporate tax breaks (welfare)
see:our current political system which has been totally over-run by corporate money.a corporate coup de'tat.
which we are all fed the bullshit line of how wonderful captialism is,but the only beneficiaries are corporations,wall street and the dept of defense.

the only people that get to engage in capitalism are the poor and middle class,because actually having to compete is for suckers and losers.

Likewise.

You ought to know better than to believe the outrageous rebranding of censorship as something that can only be accomplished by government fiat, but in doing so you're ignoring real power structures that exist and giving free rein to regressives who want to sanitise and degrade our culture.

I've never been able to get behind the engineering concept of hinged or modular components in a structurally critical design. The Virgin Space-plane gives me the same kind of jitters, putting all that force on tiny, movable parts.
I'm not a mechanical engineer so I figure there are some laws in play here I'm ignorant of. Or is it really just ballsy design?