> This is all good and fun , but really should we not be

OMG no... we should not be wasting billions/trillions on the BS games we play, and instead we should be pumping hugely more money into this and everything else scientific in all fields.

>> ^gwiz665:

blocked for me too.
Also, Fergie can't sing.


I'd have agreed with you yesterday, but at least for this song, she sounds...interesting. And everything else aside, she does have a lovely posterior.

>> ^bmacs27:

Well, they do and they don't. They are on the same strip, but suddenly Mr. UG, and the puppy and everything else are on their own side of the world. Unless they master drilling through the planet core, or somehow take advantage of the tertiary conformation of the strip to jump to the other side when it comes close, the wind will never see his puppy again :-(.


Fortunately the world is transparent and wind can't tell what side objects are on. My question is will she find her dog safe and untusseled, or will her dog be upside down and backwards?

Well, they do and they don't. They are on the same strip, but suddenly Mr. UG, and the puppy and everything else are on their own side of the world. Unless they master drilling through the planet core, or somehow take advantage of the tertiary conformation of the strip to jump to the other side when it comes close, the wind will never see his puppy again :-(.

Is this a fake background? She is on a greenscreen right? She looks Hi-def and everything else looks soft focused. She must have a little studio built for these fireside youtube videos.

When I was teaching in Sweden we had problems with mostly foreign students cheating. It's possible that everyone was cheating equally much but the Swedish students didn't get caught as often. I got it explained to me that foreign students had a lot of pressure to do well and they always took as many courses as they could simultaneously which inevitably led to them "having" to cheat.

I also had it explained to me that the foreign students were the ones keeping the school afloat since every course they got through and every education they finished brought in money for the school. Some courses were a joke, they made them easy just to keep the throughput high.

The blame can be spread far and wide. Students were lazy etc (I was lazy too sometimes). Planning new courses could be a nightmare. The formula went like this: Out of 100 students applying to a course, only 50 would finish the course (or even show up) and only 25 would get a passing grade. Still you needed lecture rooms and equipment and everything else for the 50+ people. If you made the course too hard and not enough people passed, the school took a hit.

I taught a course in programming that was initially intended for around 30 people, but almost 200 people signed up and over 100 showed up. Panic. I was officially only a teaching assistant but the main teacher didn't really know programming (she was a doctorate and dumped the whole course in my lap) and now suddenly I was lecturing a class of 100+ students, mostly foreign, with little or no computer experience (they dont have the same amount of equipment abroad apparently), most of them studying 150% and studying for re-exams at the same time. I think in the end around 20 students passed (I wrote the exam and the course responsible cleared it without reading it and realizing I'd made it "too hard"). I know it sounds like I'm just making this stuff up. But it really happened. In Sweden (!).

I guess I don't have a moral of the story, I'm just venting Seeing things from the other side I realized what a mess education could be.

>> ^Porksandwich:

I was a computer science major in my 4th year...so I was in a lot of classes with graduate students. They had a few extra things on exams and projects they had to do for their graduate portion of the class. What was hilarious is that most of them were Indian and most of them came in to class with what looked like a xerox copy of each others work with their name signed to it, and this went on all quarter. On the last exam one of them sat next to me and was obviously trying to cheat off my exam, so I spent awhile writing down false answers and making them very easy to read because this whole Indian group of students seemed to ride on each others work and no one called them on it. While I saw undergraduate US citizens being busted for the same thing (I can only assume this was motivated by money and enrollment/scores).
So after I knew I wouldn't have enough time to keep up the false answers, I hurried up and changed all my work hunched over my test so he couldn't read it anymore and finished. Turned it in and told the professor that he was copying off me and the two Indians in front of us were sharing answers with him. I mean you'd have to be blind to not see the guys turn around during the test multiple times.

And on my exit interview for the school I ranked it down and told them that I was pissed that those Indian students were never punished, since them cheating off undergrads makes it appear that undergrads are the ones cheating if you just look at the data and assume graduate students should know the answers. Plus I marked off some things for other stuff. And the dean of my school changed my numbers scores to higher scores because he would question me on something and I'd say "Maybe, but I feel my personal experience warrants that score." He would say something like "But isn't that too harsh, so maybe we should......" and I'd disagree, but he'd still change the score.
It's kind of a shame when you like the subject you study but the people teaching it to you make a mockery of the university by having double standards for the various grads/undergrads and ethnic groups. They still call me up and want alumni donations, and I tell the people calling my story and why I won't ever donate to that university...and why they should transfer out ASAP. Assuming they don't have a heavy Indian accent....

Hey Winston,
Sorry a couple of points I was trying to make got a little muddled and mashed together in my last comment during editing before I rushed out to work. Including my math on 6x10.

What I told youabout my friends building a house and being off the grid is true. I know because they did it, and I've seen it. Their house is in Quebec, not some backhills somewhere. I've been there. They made me pizza.

Yeah, I'm sure that they're paying some interest on the loan they got to pay for it all up front, but they did it for less than $11,000. And fully installed by electricians. They're fully off the grid for electricity. They use a gas stove instead of electric, and they don't have a microwave, in order to cut down on power drain. But they have a fridge, lights, hot water, computers and everything else you would expect a family home to have.

I don't know where you got the rest of your figures. All I can tell you is what I've seen with my own eyes. And that the tomatoes on the pizza were grown in their vegetable garden, the pepperoni sausage came from the meat shop a 10 minute drive away, and it made for a memorable meal.



>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

600 square feet of panels is two 6'x5' panels on a rooftop--that isn't very big.
Elementary geometry says you need TWENTY 6'x5' panels to get 600 sq feet. Regardless, the issue is not the surface area per se but the COST to cover that much surface area. Photovolt panels are expensive, highly inefficient, and use toxic elements. They need maintainance, replacing, repair, and have a lifecycle. Same with the VERY expensive batteries you need to buy.
And it doesn't cost $50,000 per household.
Many estimates put the installation of a fully functional solar powered home at well over $50K. 660 sq ft costs $10,853 just for the panels using the cheapest product I could find. Then there is wiring, connectors, inverters, batteries, mounts, control panels, and monitors... The backhills of Alberta may be different, but in the U.S. it is highly illegal to install your own electrical system... You're looking at thousands in licensing, regulatory, and labor. $10K? Not on this planet.
But let's say you're super lucky and manage to get the whole shebang installed for only $25K somehow. [...]

warning:
full screen made my volume (and everything else) unresponsive, but it returned to normal when the vid ended...

Love it. I still don't understand myself; if something is dumb and doesn't know its dumb (twilight) then it is dumb...if something is dumb and knows it is dumb and does it anyway...it's brilliant (3 stooges and everything else I love)!

When I was saying "God" I was speaking deliberately vaguely, trying not to specify any religion. I figure that way if we reach a conclusion we resolve the whole mess I suppose I mean "something higher" *waves hands slightly, making wooooh sounds*

I'm not sure the probability argument is relevant really. There's no probabilistic evident that there is or isn't a God as far as I know and I think if there were there would be as valid (ie not) arguments in the other direction. Ever read The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy? The thing about the babelfish leaves me in stitches everytime

I think you're confusing religious doctrine and the more general concept of religion. If a religion tries to state a fact about the observable world and is evidently wrong then it is simply wrong on the matter. That the incorrect assertion came from the religious source doesn't make it less likely that any of the religion's thoughts about the unobservable are true. I'd find it harder to trust 'em but intuition is where this started so that means nothing by the same argument. I don't think there's any real conflict between science and religion - I think they shouldn't overlap. Science should answer the answerable, religion should postulate for the unknowable.

Re the joke, I'm way over that and just enjoying the discussion at this stage >> ^chilaxe:



Questions in the sciences that aren't definitively resolvable at a given time are resolved by determining the balance of evidence and thinking probabilistically. People can answer for themselves what they think the probabilities are for any given mythological figure. In your statements, you simply said "god," so I'm not sure if you're referring to Allah, Vishnu, Ra, or whatever.
When there's a large gap between the likelihoods of two hypotheses, or when one hypothesis has enormous accepted evidence and the other side doesn't, the burden of proof can certainly be assigned to one party.
I understand that human intelligence falls along a bell curve, and maybe the masses are better off with religion, reincarnation, angels, fairies, and everything else that helps them cope, so I agree, maybe we shouldn't smash the boulder. However, on the internet, I believe people who advocate intelligence and complex cognition should probably be free to speak openly, even if that involves satirical jokes

@lampishthing: "Where is the truth or intelligence in saying there is no god? "Is there a god?" is a yes/no question that can't be logically answered either way. By claiming there is none you are expressing a belief in an answer without evidence to support it. (That's basic dilemma logic: if you can't conclude either way you simply do not have an answer - there is no biased burden of proof.)"

Re: Iggy Basalt: ha

Questions in the sciences that aren't definitively resolvable at a given time are resolved by determining the balance of evidence and thinking probabilistically. People can answer for themselves what they think the probabilities are for any given mythological figure. In your statements, you simply said "god," so I'm not sure if you're referring to Allah, Vishnu, Ra, or whatever.

When there's a large gap between the likelihoods of two hypotheses, or when one hypothesis has enormous accepted evidence and the other side doesn't, the burden of proof can certainly be assigned to one party.

I understand that human intelligence falls along a bell curve, and maybe the masses are better off with religion, reincarnation, angels, fairies, and everything else that helps them cope, so I agree, maybe we shouldn't smash the boulder. However, on the internet, I believe people who advocate intelligence and complex cognition should probably be free to speak openly, even if that involves satirical jokes

Take away David Attenborough's commentary and this is merely kick-ass. With it, this, and everything else he's a part of is f'ing awesome.

Yea i've seen a documentary on the Indian boat breaking operation, and the working conditions and everything else is just like therealblankman describes, it's absolutely horrific, the average life expectancy for those guys is crazy low.

I will give my interpretation of the movie.

I believe the movie to be about death as a natural and needed event, and coming to terms with that.
In the conquistador times, he searched for the tree of life to please the queen and help defend Spain. But he failed to learn the lesson the native was trying to teach him. Death is needed, and should not be averted. And that's when you get the first clue to the meaning of all this. He drinks the sap, and he dies, but new life grows out of him.

In the modern days his wife is dying, and he does everything he can to avert death. He says so himself. "death is a disease". Eventually he finds the cure, but too late for his wife, and he never comes to term with that. He planted a tree over her grave. Hundreds of years later (I wanna believe the 3 parts of the story are set about 500 years between each other, so the future part would be somewhere in the 25th century) he is still alive, having cured death, but he still grieves over the death of his wife, and can't let go, and his tormented by that. And the tree he planted is now dying as well.

In the end he comes to realize that only by dying can life be renewed, and does life have meaning. When he dies the tree comes back to life. Nothing is lost, everything is transformed. Everything must die, so that new life may appear. And it's also about accepting death. Not wishing it obviously, but accepting that it will come for you, and everyone and everything else. Everything dies, even stars. But because your atoms carry on to something else, you also truly never cease to exist. You know... "We are all made of star stuff" kind of message. I don't find the movie religious in the slightest.

The state of the economy is not so much Mr. Obama's fault, as it is, the GOP. During the years between 2000-2008, the GOP removed a number of watch dog groups, regulators, rules, and concepts, to help make companies 'more profitable'. This as you may know, resulted in preditatory lending and grossy irresponsible business practice of companies. The downward spiral of industries, would have been hampered if not stopped, if we had regulations, rules, regulators, and watch dog groups in place. That was the lesson learned from Black Tuesday (not to be confused with Black Friday).

But, the level of irresponsiblity gets better...

Mr. Bush gave the American people (read: the upper 8%, although 'everyone' techincally got) tax cuts. I recall three, but there could have been additional ones. Paying for two wars, and everything else, did not help matters. In fact, the Iraq War costed Americans $550+ billion a year on average (alittle over $3 trillion after 6 years). Now, if Revenue = 2 and expenses = 9, 2-9= -7. So where did we make this negative funding up? That's right: DEFICIT SPENDING!

A concept used by the Reagan Administration (which ended his administration in the largest deficit at the time). Then Bush, Sr used it again (which ended his administration in the largest deficit at the time....BIGGER...then Reagan's). And then Bush, Jr, did the same again (resulting in the largest deficit to date). Now, that Tax & Spend liberal scum, Mr. Clinton, ended his administration with a surplus (meaning, we weren't going further in to debt, AND, paying off the current debt.

So really, if your going to blame some politican for the problems of the economy, why not put it squarely on the GOP's shoulders. Mr. Reagan, Mr. Bush, Sr, and Mr. Bush, Jr, where all 'Fiscal Conservatives'. So, let it be known, not to hire anyone who claims they are a fiscal conservative.

The unemployment rate is, as the video states, lower then what it actually is. The reason for this, is, there's no way to acturally measure the correct unemployment number beyond those who recieve state/federal unemployment checks. Those who are not working due to health problems, are unemployed. Those who have a job at 1/8th their previous salary, are NOT, considered unemployed.

And you've been on 12 interviews since graduating, and your complaining?!?!?!?!?!

(Plays world's smallest violin for ForgedReality)

Actually, Mr. Obama is thinking on the big picture. I could explain it, but, as you said, your too young to understand the wisdom. Maybe in a decade, you'll learn.