Art and entertainment are not mutually exclusive, nor are they dependent... the same goes for your personal tastes and the quality of a film.


I mean I could draw a venn diagram if you'd like...

>> ^raverman:

Pretentious Hipster Rubbish.
The new generation of beatniks claiming they are brilliant minds because their poetry doesn't rhyme.
He tipped out the water to be ironic. This movie is only cool it if stays 'indie' and underground.



>> ^Mammaltron:

Sounds like a great excuse to just film whatever you feel like and not bother with a good story.
See also: David Lynch

Criticalthud,the links you posted dont seem very credible and while they do use actual data, its their interpretation of said data were they lose credibility. http://www.detailshere.com/earthquakeactivity.htm

Just at a glance, this site claims there are more earthquakes now than ever, because in the 1970 there were around 4000 earthquakes, and in 2002 there were just over 23 000 earthquakes. Probability does play a role in science, but so does critical thinking. When i see these numbers the first thing that comes to mind is, "Well no kidding! Instruments in 2002 are probably orders of magnitude more sensitive than they were 30 years ago!" Technological progress alone can easily explain these numbers. Now days we can detect even the tiniest earthquakes almost anywere, unlike in the 40 years ago.

I checked wikipedia as i typed this, and yep, here is a quote confirming my thoughts exactly;
"The number of seismic stations has increased from about 350 in 1931 to many thousands today. As a result, many more earthquakes are reported than in the past, but this is because of the vast improvement in instrumentation, rather than an increase in the number of earthquakes."
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthquake#Size_and_frequency_of_occurrence
If the author of the web site you quote has done so little research, you can barely take anything he or she writes as credible.


The site also lists 6 earthquakes over a magnitude of 7.0 that occurred in 2002, but the average number of earthquakes per year in the 1900s over 7.0 is 18. So by the figures he is going by, the author should state that earthquakes are decreasing! How ever this line of thinking just shows a lack of understanding of probability.

If the yearly average is as low as 18, then the law of large numbers indicates that the standard deviation will be large enough to affect the number of earthquakes on a yearly basis enough that some years there will be several more than 18 and some years several less. In other wards if one year there are only 10 and some years later there are 24, its still normal.

More over, one must consider geography and probability of the location of earthquakes. The location of 90% of the worlds earthquakes occurs along the ring of fire. However a lot of the ring of fire is not near large cities susceptible to widespread damage. Most of it is in the middle of nowhere. some years large earthquakes will occur close to high population areas, and other years most of the earthquakes will occur too far to cause any harm. on the years that several earthquakes happen to occur near populated areas, it might seem like earthquakes are increasing, but its just probability. This also would be normal.

Part of the scientific method is not overstating the implications of your results, and simply stating what your results find. Through out the video he talks about alot more than just NatGeo doing shitty experiments, which is the ONLY thing his results indicate. Sloppy science.

That may be so, but here are fourteen hundred engineers/architects who believe the official story does an insufficient job scientifically proving it's "facts".

I'm not sure that all of those engineers believed that the WTC were brought down with explosives. They signed a petition demanding a more thorough investigation. How do you know that many of them aren't backing this petition because they believe a more thorough investigation could reveal improper building standards, faults in construction or over looked safety concerns with respect to building skyscrapers that the original investigation overlooked. This is common with any type of disaster involving a man made structure, ie plane crashes, train wrecks, building/bridge collapses, sunken boats....

Even if every single one of the 1400 or so engineers who signed the petition believed it was definitely explosives, thats still means very little. More than 200 000 people graduated with engineer degrees in the US during 2005 ALONE. When you consider how many graduate in India, China, Europe, and the rest of the world, 1400 is an abysmally small faction, easily less than 1 in 1000. If 999 biologist told me life on earth has evolved from a single ancestor for every one biologist that told me it was magic, I know which theory I would lend more credence to.

The second you stop trolling and get rid of your P, we'll consider your thoughts worth while. Until then, no dice.

I live and breathe outside the US media bubble is the liberal getto known as Canada... most of us here are under the impression 911 was some sort of inside job.


I'm Canadian and I'd like to state, for the sake and reputation of my countrymen and women, a very small amount of Canadians think that 911 was an inside job. Probably around the same percent as in the US.

imstellar28, you imply that if you are not an engineer, you cannot understand physics learnt in grade 8 science? Also, if you value the opinion of engineers so strongly, what do you think of the fact that of all the engineers in the world, practically none of them raise issue with the widely accepted explanation?

Funny that the ones that do raise issue only make sloppy video experiments using a profoundly poor understanding of the scientific method and logical arguments, as eloquently stated by rychan in the above comment.

It is a yes or no question. The answer being yes, followed by a more important second question: Are women treated as equals?/Why aren't women treated as such?


The first question is obviously a rhetorical one, so I still don't see the question as a trap or any reason for any man to get offended or defensive.

I don't see how this could be considered an attack on men in the slightest. Men are referred to in the ad, but for the obvious reasons of comparing how unfair women's wages, sexual treatment, social standards, etc.

Is is not uncommon of men to become instinctively defensive and sometimes stand-offish when this sort of issue comes up; maybe because claiming unfairness of one side implies action required of the other. These issues are a result of the unfair treatment of women by men, but thats not what this ad is pointing out. And its men, not every man.

Actually yellowc, if you follow the story more closely, you learn that the chimps, especially pansy's daughter, do not quickly forget.

Some time after, the large male seen greiving in this video has an outburst of aggressive displaying which the scientists attributed to either a last attempt evoke a response from the dead chimp or perhaps just an anger outburst over the loss.

More contrary to your point, is that it takes several weeks for the chimps seen here to return to normal behavior from being less active, social and eating less.

And her shirt is soooo lame; there are probably already tons of symbiotic relationships going on in her pants... Parasitic! oh snap.

Yeah thats a super lame report on an rather inconclusive study.

On an other note, I'm always so confused at why guys gush over Rebecca Watson. People say well she is cute because shes a science nerd and she is funny. But listening to the skeptic guide, one finds shes not really on the ball as far as science goes, she has about the same level of understanding as someone halfway through first year sciences at university.

Ive seen pictures on their web site of her with a periodic table shower curtain, but I would bet money that she doesn't half of the uses of it ( electronegativity, atomic radius). And as far as funny goes, she provides the most palm to forehead lame jokes than anyone else (not funny lame either). I mean, I know alot of girls who are much smarter and funnier, couldn't the skeptics have found one too?

I don't know, she is a good blogger, maybe I'm being too hard on her. Maybe sooner or later I'll see the light, but for now...

I've heard this game is hard, but i doubt its as hard as yahtzees says it is; I seem to remember him saying that The World Ends With You was hard and Demon's Soul is not made for people who like ADD games like Saints Row 2.

I know it's just for fun and as much as I like Bob Dylan, I'm starting to worry that Bob could record a weeks worth of his own farts yet his fans and The Rolling Stone would still have a collective orgasm anyway.

Yeah I some how doubt that the protagonist being a chick that kicks ass has anything to do with the fact that the game is shit: Portal was amazing.

Truckchase, if you only want to spend 12 hours plus behind a man ( in third person ) than you can shop selectively in order to fulfill that need. but dont spout non-sense, please.

... now that as a t-shirt.

..... WFT, JESUS! YOU IDIOT!!!