>> ^ant:

More please! What about some from Escher and Dali?


that would be wiggedy wiggedy whack.

More please! What about some from Escher and Dali?

Links? Evidence?

Sure - but I'm not interested in playing duelling banjos. I'm listing a few of many. I could go on, but doing so ultimately becomes pointless. Science is science, and the current science is not decided. However, if you have made up your mind POLITICALLY where you stand then no amount of fact or evidence will be useful. But here we go. Here is the IPCC working group 1 report itself.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html

Here is the section detailing the models they selected to write their conclusions.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch8s8-2.html

Here are some links detailing just some the problems with their models.
http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2009/03/_internal_modeling_mistakes_by.html
http://www.john-daly.com/forcing/moderr.htm
http://www.applet-magic.com/IPCCmistakes.htm
http://www.democracyforum.co.uk/environment-energy/59296-ipcc-climate-models-8-fatal-errors.html
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL039642-pip.pdf
http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?page_id=11
http://www.warwickhughes.com/hoyt/scorecard.htm
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/surfacestationsreport_spring09.pdf

Being a statistician myself, I am fascinated by the process by which other analysts arrive at a methodology. The IPCC report is sloppy at best, and it doesn’t take any advanced statistical analysis to dismiss the conclusions prima facie. The IPCC freely admits that it ignored critical variables, and arrived at specious conclusions.

Keep in mind the “two divisions” I talked about. On the one hand we have “science of climate” and on the other hand we have “politics of man-made C02”. Warmers like to refer to science as justification for politics. This allows them to have their rhetorical cake and eat it too.

No one disagrees with the posit that the climate is “changing”. Duh! The climate always changes. We figure that out a few millennium ago. But that isn’t what the Warmer movement is trying to say. The Warmers say, “Science has PROVEN that human behavior is the cause of climate change – and human behavior can stop it.”

Horse hockey. In the first place, science has NOT proven human behavior as causal or even related to climate cycles. In the second place, there is no evidence of any kind that the cessation of human C02 emissions would supply a correction. The Warmer approach is therefore not scientific.

‘destroy the world paranoia’

Odd, since I didn’t say that. I said there are groups that desire to reduce human activity. I keep a folder full of links specifically about discussions related to the reduction of human activity in order to ‘save the planet’. Some of them are amusing. Some of them are creepy when you strip away the veneer of good intentions.

Explain NASA hottest decade?

Sure.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10783
http://www.newstatesman.com/scitech/2007/12/global-warming-temperature
http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Worldwide+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=3494

Sadly, NASA is an organization corrupted by politics. Obama specifically has pushed to have NASA be less about 'space' and more about 'political justification of my cap & tax plan'. There are good people there, but they are operating in a nasty political environment. Their use of substation data for their temperature projections invalidates their data entirely.

this is salvador dali's work he did for disney.

Y'know, if it happens on the Late Show, it must've also been happening on the the other late night shows (Carson, Leno, O'Brien, Ferguson, Kimmel, Fallon, Daly...)

Ok... I still see this line as completely arbitrary. How are our actions not "probabilistic events?" The amoeba is operating off the same basic principals. It's exerting energy to maintain certain ion concentrations. It's moving matter in order to seek out food, and even flexing its pseudopods along the shortest path between food sources in proportion to their delivery frequency. There is even a paper showing that it will respond to periodic stimuli (such as cold shocks at particular intervals) with predictive changes of behavior. How is that any different?

Further, comparison and recall? Why is memory necessary for experience? For the successful completion of certain cognitive tasks, sure, but I keep needing to remind you that isn't what we're talking about here. As for comparison, it's happening everywhere all the time. Electrons are "comparing" electric fields when they settle into a state, otherwise they couldn't obey their physical laws. I think the problem here is that your thinking is boxed into the human sensory modalities. As far as I'm concerned an electron is sensing an electrical field in the same way I am sensing visual band EM. It just can't image it as well, and thus can't respond to complex patterns at much distance. Again, not to diminish that extraordinary decrease in entropy, but I don't know why it should be so fundamental.

Also, to be clear, I've never claimed that what I'm looking for is something immaterial. I just believe that consciousness is a fundamental property of matter. Being matter, and conscious, I have no reason to think otherwise. Again, this consciousness is distinct from "thinking". It's the sheer fact that there is a phenomenal experience, not the particular nature of those phenomena. You've presented me no evidence that I should only expect phenomenal experience in a complex organism, as you have no test for phenomenal experience. This is why Chalmers, and others, have argued that consciousness is not necessarily best studied by traditional english empiricism. It's wholly inadequate to investigate the phenomenon. A better solution might draw on Eastern traditions of meditation, for instance. Many monks, including the Dali Llama have been interested in cooperating.

But you have made a claim, that for some particular X, P(X) > P(!X). On the basis of that statement, and the assumption that you are rational, I draw the conclusion that you have some concept of what X is, or at least what its consequences are, otherwise you are making a non-sequitur claim.

I do have some very general concept of what x is, but not such a certain idea that I would ever make a claim like P(X) > P(!X). That is, unless you toe a hard Bayesian line, and accept that my claim is completely a subjective degree of belief. Otherwise, my claim was something like "I believe that P(X) > P(!X)". Something you shouldn't really care to contest, but I'll defend my priors against your priors till you're blue in the face. I won't be bullied by the tyranny of some arbitrary model selection criteria.

>> ^quantumushroom:
I love flying LSD Airways.


I was actually thinking Dali Air...

god i fucking hate jimmy fallon... mostly because now sometimes i watch just because its soooooooooooooooooooooooooo awkward.

at least carson daly figured it out and went back to using "wacky" handheld TRL-camera-style production effects for his masturbation fest. now there's a loser you can count on.

anyway!

>> ^therealblankman:
>> ^Raaagh:
Ok, let me predicate this my mentioning a few weeks ago I poured over a picture book on Picasso with the stories behind each painting.

I dont really like Picassos paintings, but his attitude tickles/scares me (painting pictures of his sister getting auto-sodomised etc)

I was expecting something far more, angsty, anti-social, lewd, and arty but that was just beautiful and so passionate. It really drew me and and had its way with me.
Thanks poster.

Picasso?


bwahahaha

I mean Dali, I was dog tired when I wrote that


The book was something like this but probably slightly diff format as the cropping on the cover image is better:
http://www.amazon.com/Dali-Midsize-Robert-Descharnes/dp/3822831816/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1246844599&sr=1-1

>> ^Raaagh:
Ok, let me predicate this my mentioning a few weeks ago I poured over a picture book on Picasso with the stories behind each painting.

I dont really like Picassos paintings, but his attitude tickles/scares me (painting pictures of his sister getting auto-sodomised etc)

I was expecting something far more, angsty, anti-social, lewd, and arty but that was just beautiful and so passionate. It really drew me and and had its way with me.
Thanks poster.


In all the years of art history classes and going through the cubist era, I don't remember hearing or seeing anything like you mention from Picasso.... What book are you talking about?

Your video, DESTINO: Salvador Dali and Walt Disney collaboration (1946), has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

>> ^Raaagh:
Ok, let me predicate this my mentioning a few weeks ago I poured over a picture book on Picasso with the stories behind each painting.

I dont really like Picassos paintings, but his attitude tickles/scares me (painting pictures of his sister getting auto-sodomised etc)

I was expecting something far more, angsty, anti-social, lewd, and arty but that was just beautiful and so passionate. It really drew me and and had its way with me.
Thanks poster.


Picasso?

dali is my favorite..period.
im blessed to be living very close to the dali museum in st pete.
i have seen clips of this but never the whole thing,and in such decent quality..thanks!

The Dali Llama's (current dude.. regardless of his possible past misdeeds in tibet) response when asked how he can deal with all the horrible things in the world.

In effect he says:

In my world, those things don't happen.

Meaning, when it comes down to YOU, when it IS in your power.. you do the right thing.

Not taking arms to my government, which consists mainly of my fellow citizens TRYING to live their own lives, does not make me a coward.

I am a coward for completely different reasons. They have nothing to do with apathy, or aquiesing, or ignorance, or fear of the world. It's because I know myself.

I have faith, though I am not religious, and my faith is that life goes on, and trends to justice, and that I can be a part of that. My faith overcomes the fear and makes me strong... not so strong I can avoid engaging in petty arguments like whether or not an entire nation's population is cowardly... but it keeps me going, and I have faith one day I wont be afraid of myself.

http://www.videosift.com/video/Iranian-Girl-Dying-in-Street#comment-791416

Should we kill more in response to killing? Stellar, I dont think violence works; logically it only begets more violence. So... You have no logic here, no ethical ground to attack from, and your emotional argument is just that: reactionary and spastic. No one is a coward here except for the sniper. Not even you.

And here is Buff Stewie to lighten the mood (or worsen if yer a hater) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0xq1Y1H1Qo

haha i thought i would be tho only one to notice how fine he still looks... because i can't imagine why anyone would watch Jimmy Fallon.. or Carson Daly...

i wanted to see will ferrell and im too lazy to change the channel, thats my excuse.