Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> http://sivers.org/thor

the guy sure had a good argument.  huh, I'm automatically assuming the atheist
is a male, why?... :P

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> http://sivers.org/thor

  It makes a good ancillary point: If you need to do a significant amount of
research work in order to get some information (eg. go to a library and
browse books for hours or even days), you are usually more likely to defend
that information more assertively and strongly than if you simply looked up
the info in 5 minutes on the internet. The amount of work spent on getting
some information could indeed correlate to how strongly you feel that all
that work would be "wasted" if you don't defend the veracity of the
information.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Hmm, yes, "we live in an age where it's *so easy* to learn".

Unfortunately, right after you learn it, you have to question the 
validity of the source...

(On the first hand again, almost everything I look up is math or 
science-based. If you look up an equation, it's usually pretty easy to 
find out whether it works or not!)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 08 May 2010 15:50:08 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

> Unfortunately, right after you learn it, you have to question the
> validity of the source...

Actually, the people who learn the best do this all the time, regardless 
of the source....

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>> Unfortunately, right after you learn it, you have to question the
>> validity of the source...
> 
> Actually, the people who learn the best do this all the time, regardless 
> of the source....

Sure. But if you read something in a book, there is a high probability 
that it has some basis in fact. If you read something off da intertubes, 
it could be utter nonesense.

Of course, today even books can't always be considered reliable. The 
last book I read was called Darwin's Black Box...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Sure. But if you read something in a book, there is a high probability 
> that it has some basis in fact. 

Depends on the book, I think. Scholastic textbook? Maybe.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
    Ada - the programming language trying to avoid
    you literally shooting yourself in the foot.

Post a reply to this message

>> Sure. But if you read something in a book, there is a high probability 
>> that it has some basis in fact. 
> 
> Depends on the book, I think.

Why yes, yes it does. When I was at uni, we did an entire 3-hour lecture 
session on this very question.

Unfortunately, *I* was doing a computing degree, where almost anything 
in any published book is out of date a very long time before the book 
has even been printed. But I guess if you were doing a history degree, 
that session might have been useful.

Of course, hypothetically you can apply the same analysis to online 
material, but... honestly? Take a wild guess.

Anyway, I said *probability*, not certainty. ;-)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Unfortunately, *I* was doing a computing degree, where almost anything 
> in any published book is out of date a very long time before the book 
> has even been printed.

That doesn't mean it's wrong. That just means it's out of date.

I was referring more like fiction books, religious books, etc.

I ran across on my bookshelf a college textbook (copyright 1974) named 
something like "Mathematics of Computer Graphics."  All the math was still 
spot-on, but it was amusing to look at (for example) a bank of 
potentiometers labeled "typical graphical input device", and a teletype 
shown as "low cost graphics output" next to an ASCII art sine wave.


-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
    Ada - the programming language trying to avoid
    you literally shooting yourself in the foot.

Post a reply to this message

>> Unfortunately, *I* was doing a computing degree, where almost anything 
>> in any published book is out of date a very long time before the book 
>> has even been printed.
> 
> That doesn't mean it's wrong. That just means it's out of date.

True. Well, unless it says "this is the way this problem is typically 
solved". Read any book on 3D computer graphics and it will tell you 
about the Painter's Algorithm and god knows what else, when today 
everybody just uses a depth buffer. (That hypothetical solution that 
gets mentioned in one sentence and then skipped over because it 
obviously requires an absurd amount of RAM to implement.)

> I was referring more like fiction books, religious books, etc.

Yeah. Like I said, I read Darwin's Black Box, there some guy claims that 
since the molecular biology of the cell is really complicated, this 
*proves* that it was designed by an intelligent being, and this is a 
really exciting scientific discovery that we should all be looking into. 
And I'm sitting there reading this book thinking "OMG, WTF???!"

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On 5/9/2010 9:05 AM, Darren New wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> Sure. But if you read something in a book, there is a high probability
>> that it has some basis in fact.
>
> Depends on the book, I think. Scholastic textbook? Maybe.
>
 From which state? Lot of revisionist history, politically motivated 
"adjustments" to try to salve to feelings of people that are offended by 
the very idea that some things may be true (Evolution), and even basic 
cultural biases. We *try* to make sure facts get in them, but, 
unfortunately, no one is asking qualified historians, real scientists, 
... economists that have actually been *right*, etc., to approve the 
final results, make any final changes, or, sometimes, even write the 
original draft. Its people elected by the local "tribe" the do that. And 
if the tribe in question is, lets say, right wing, 
Libertarian-Conservative, Southern, "we will rise again", Evangelical, 
anti-Darwin, etc. ... You can guess the result.

It can get pretty bad, which is why so many people are worried about the 
clowns in Texas, who end up buying more, in a single batch, or 
something, text books that any other state every year, thus tending to 
"push" what ever their current quirks and biases are into the ones 
everyone else uses too.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

On 5/9/2010 12:02 PM, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> I was referring more like fiction books, religious books, etc.
>
> Yeah. Like I said, I read Darwin's Black Box, there some guy claims that
> since the molecular biology of the cell is really complicated, this
> *proves* that it was designed by an intelligent being, and this is a
> really exciting scientific discovery that we should all be looking into.
> And I'm sitting there reading this book thinking "OMG, WTF???!"
>
Most people put it in either the humor, or religion, section. Behe is a 
complete hack, and its been pointed out, multiple times, that a) for a 
mathematician, he seems to have a damn poor grasp of how to apply math 
to a problem, and b) he is flat out confused, to the point of being like 
a rube watching a magician pull a penny out of his ear, when looking at 
actual examples in nature, or even *simple* computer simulations, that 
rip his claims about what is possible, and why, and what that *must* 
mean, to shreds.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 09 May 2010 10:32:45 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

>>> Unfortunately, right after you learn it, you have to question the
>>> validity of the source...
>> 
>> Actually, the people who learn the best do this all the time,
>> regardless of the source....
> 
> Sure. But if you read something in a book, there is a high probability
> that it has some basis in fact. If you read something off da intertubes,
> it could be utter nonesense.

You haven't read some of the textbooks that are in the US educational 
system.  Fair amount of nonsense in there, put in by religious nutjobs 
who want public schools to teach their particular brand of religion.

> Of course, today even books can't always be considered reliable. The
> last book I read was called Darwin's Black Box...

It's always been the case that books couldn't be considered reliable.  
Just read any history book and see if it tells *both* sides (history 
books are typically written by the winners, not the losers).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Depends on the book, I think. Scholastic textbook? Maybe.
>>
>  From which state? 

That's why I said "maybe." :-)

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
    Ada - the programming language trying to avoid
    you literally shooting yourself in the foot.

Post a reply to this message

>> Sure. But if you read something in a book, there is a high probability
>> that it has some basis in fact. If you read something off da intertubes,
>> it could be utter nonesense.
> 
> You haven't read some of the textbooks that are in the US educational 
> system.  Fair amount of nonsense in there, put in by religious nutjobs 
> who want public schools to teach their particular brand of religion.

OK, that's quite worrying.

Then again, I always thought the Americans were crazy. One time I 
stumbled across some sex education material from the USA and I was like 
"OMG, WTF? Are you *kidding* me?! Who wrote this? In which century?"

>> Of course, today even books can't always be considered reliable. The
>> last book I read was called Darwin's Black Box...
> 
> It's always been the case that books couldn't be considered reliable.  
> Just read any history book and see if it tells *both* sides (history 
> books are typically written by the winners, not the losers).

I believe the quotation you're searching for is "history is written by 
the victors".

I'd say that most history I've read is pretty accurate - but it would be 
more truthful to say that most history I've read is so mind-numbingly 
boring that I couldn't actually give a **** whether it's accurate or 
not. ;-)

Post a reply to this message

>> Yeah. Like I said, I read Darwin's Black Box, there some guy claims that
>> since the molecular biology of the cell is really complicated, this
>> *proves* that it was designed by an intelligent being, and this is a
>> really exciting scientific discovery that we should all be looking into.
>> And I'm sitting there reading this book thinking "OMG, WTF???!"
>>
> Most people put it in either the humor, or religion, section. Behe is a 
> complete hack.

I remember just sitting there in utter astonishment that somebody could 
actually write this stuff and expect to be taken seriously. Or that 
anybody would be willing to print it, for that matter. WTF?

The most worrying part is that this guy is apparently a scientist. He 
actually works for somebody studying molecular biology. (Or so he 
claims. In retrospect, I have to wonder if it's actually true...)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On 5/10/2010 10:10 AM, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> Yeah. Like I said, I read Darwin's Black Box, there some guy claims that
>>> since the molecular biology of the cell is really complicated, this
>>> *proves* that it was designed by an intelligent being, and this is a
>>> really exciting scientific discovery that we should all be looking into.
>>> And I'm sitting there reading this book thinking "OMG, WTF???!"
>>>
>> Most people put it in either the humor, or religion, section. Behe is
>> a complete hack.
>
> I remember just sitting there in utter astonishment that somebody could
> actually write this stuff and expect to be taken seriously. Or that
> anybody would be willing to print it, for that matter. WTF?
>
> The most worrying part is that this guy is apparently a scientist. He
> actually works for somebody studying molecular biology. (Or so he
> claims. In retrospect, I have to wonder if it's actually true...)
>
No. He is a mathematician, and a bad one, who works for some hack at the 
Discovery Institute, who probably got *his* science degree from some 
place like Liberty University, or the like. Alternatively, it might have 
been from a legitimate institution, but they where one of the clowns 
that managed to put out a final thesis that is 100% based on what they 
learned in class, thus appearing to understand the material, while, 
never the less, rejecting 100% of the conclusions, including the ones 
they put in their own final paper. This has, unfortunately, happened a 
few times in recent years...

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

On 5/10/2010 1:06 AM, Invisible wrote:
> I believe the quotation you're searching for is "history is written by
> the victors".
>
> I'd say that most history I've read is pretty accurate - but it would be
> more truthful to say that most history I've read is so mind-numbingly
> boring that I couldn't actually give a **** whether it's accurate or
> not. ;-)
There is that too. But, mostly, in the US, if you print *facts* about 
what the other side saw happen to them, or what took place that wasn't 
mentioned in dear old granddad's, or just dad's history books, its 
"revisionism". Removing say.. Thomas Jefferson from history books, to 
replace him with St. Thomas Aquinas, on the other hand, is seen as 
"fixing" a deficit in US history, and upholding its "Christian" 
heritage... >>head -> desk<<

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 10 May 2010 09:06:42 +0100, Invisible wrote:

>>> Sure. But if you read something in a book, there is a high probability
>>> that it has some basis in fact. If you read something off da
>>> intertubes, it could be utter nonesense.
>> 
>> You haven't read some of the textbooks that are in the US educational
>> system.  Fair amount of nonsense in there, put in by religious nutjobs
>> who want public schools to teach their particular brand of religion.
> 
> OK, that's quite worrying.

You're telling me.  I went to public school here. ;-)

> Then again, I always thought the Americans were crazy. One time I
> stumbled across some sex education material from the USA and I was like
> "OMG, WTF? Are you *kidding* me?! Who wrote this? In which century?"

LOL - but yes, that is one area in particular where some areas are in the 
dark ages when it comes to education.

>>> Of course, today even books can't always be considered reliable. The
>>> last book I read was called Darwin's Black Box...
>> 
>> It's always been the case that books couldn't be considered reliable.
>> Just read any history book and see if it tells *both* sides (history
>> books are typically written by the winners, not the losers).
> 
> I believe the quotation you're searching for is "history is written by
> the victors".

I wasn't actually searching for a quotation.

> I'd say that most history I've read is pretty accurate - but it would be
> more truthful to say that most history I've read is so mind-numbingly
> boring that I couldn't actually give a **** whether it's accurate or
> not. ;-)

Well, I think the native Americans might have a slightly different view 
on the accuracy of American History vis-a-vis the battles they fought 
against the colonists.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 05/09/10 19:29, Jim Henderson wrote:
> It's always been the case that books couldn't be considered reliable.  
> Just read any history book and see if it tells *both* sides (history 
> books are typically written by the winners, not the losers).

	Only two sides?

-- 
Brain damage is all in your head -- Karl Lehenbauer

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 10 May 2010 20:08:30 -0700, Neeum Zawan wrote:

> On 05/09/10 19:29, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> It's always been the case that books couldn't be considered reliable.
>> Just read any history book and see if it tells *both* sides (history
>> books are typically written by the winners, not the losers).
> 
> 	Only two sides?

Fair point, but underscores the point I was making. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>> I remember just sitting there in utter astonishment that somebody could
>> actually write this stuff and expect to be taken seriously. Or that
>> anybody would be willing to print it, for that matter. WTF?
>>
>> The most worrying part is that this guy is apparently a scientist. He
>> actually works for somebody studying molecular biology. (Or so he
>> claims. In retrospect, I have to wonder if it's actually true...)
>>
> No. He is a mathematician, and a bad one, who works for some hack at the 
> Discovery Institute, who probably got *his* science degree from some 
> place like Liberty University, or the like. Alternatively, it might have 
> been from a legitimate institution, but they where one of the clowns 
> that managed to put out a final thesis that is 100% based on what they 
> learned in class, thus appearing to understand the material, while, 
> never the less, rejecting 100% of the conclusions, including the ones 
> they put in their own final paper. This has, unfortunately, happened a 
> few times in recent years...

His book claims that he works in a lab somewhere studying the chemistry 
of the cell.

Then again, his book also claims that life was designed by an 
intelligent entity and that every lifeform that ever came into being was 
pre-encoded into the DNA of the first single-celled microbe that was 
artificially placed on Earth, so...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

>>>> Sure. But if you read something in a book, there is a high probability
>>>> that it has some basis in fact. If you read something off da
>>>> intertubes, it could be utter nonesense.
>>> You haven't read some of the textbooks that are in the US educational
>>> system.  Fair amount of nonsense in there, put in by religious nutjobs
>>> who want public schools to teach their particular brand of religion.
>> OK, that's quite worrying.
> 
> You're telling me.  I went to public school here. ;-)

Is that why American people are so stupid?

Or maybe it's *because* American people are stupid? IDK.

[Perhaps I should append "on average" to that...]

>> I believe the quotation you're searching for is "history is written by
>> the victors".
> 
> I wasn't actually searching for a quotation.

I know that. ;-)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

> There is that too. But, mostly, in the US, if you print *facts* about 
> what the other side saw happen to them, or what took place that wasn't 
> mentioned in dear old granddad's, or just dad's history books, its 
> "revisionism". Removing say.. Thomas Jefferson from history books, to 
> replace him with St. Thomas Aquinas, on the other hand, is seen as 
> "fixing" a deficit in US history, and upholding its "Christian" 
> heritage... >>head -> desk<<

...that's actually kinda scary.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 11 May 2010 07:41:40 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

>>>>> Sure. But if you read something in a book, there is a high
>>>>> probability that it has some basis in fact. If you read something
>>>>> off da intertubes, it could be utter nonesense.
>>>> You haven't read some of the textbooks that are in the US educational
>>>> system.  Fair amount of nonsense in there, put in by religious
>>>> nutjobs who want public schools to teach their particular brand of
>>>> religion.
>>> OK, that's quite worrying.
>> 
>> You're telling me.  I went to public school here. ;-)
> 
> Is that why American people are so stupid?
> 
> Or maybe it's *because* American people are stupid? IDK.
> 
> [Perhaps I should append "on average" to that...]

Well, there are quite a few very smart people over here too, many of whom 
went to public schools.  But a fair number are lazy when it comes to 
facts and don't see the "value" in them.

But I don't think that's just Americans, either.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>> Is that why American people are so stupid?
>>
>> Or maybe it's *because* American people are stupid? IDK.
>>
>> [Perhaps I should append "on average" to that...]
> 
> Well, there are quite a few very smart people over here too, many of whom 
> went to public schools.  But a fair number are lazy when it comes to 
> facts and don't see the "value" in them.
> 
> But I don't think that's just Americans, either.

This is equally worrying - and possibly equally true. (Although for 
whatever reason, it's typically Americans who are thought of as being 
stupid. I sometimes wonder if the rest of the world thinks that all 
Englishmen walk around in top hats eating fish and chips?)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On 5/10/2010 11:37 PM, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> I remember just sitting there in utter astonishment that somebody could
>>> actually write this stuff and expect to be taken seriously. Or that
>>> anybody would be willing to print it, for that matter. WTF?
>>>
>>> The most worrying part is that this guy is apparently a scientist. He
>>> actually works for somebody studying molecular biology. (Or so he
>>> claims. In retrospect, I have to wonder if it's actually true...)
>>>
>> No. He is a mathematician, and a bad one, who works for some hack at
>> the Discovery Institute, who probably got *his* science degree from
>> some place like Liberty University, or the like. Alternatively, it
>> might have been from a legitimate institution, but they where one of
>> the clowns that managed to put out a final thesis that is 100% based
>> on what they learned in class, thus appearing to understand the
>> material, while, never the less, rejecting 100% of the conclusions,
>> including the ones they put in their own final paper. This has,
>> unfortunately, happened a few times in recent years...
>
> His book claims that he works in a lab somewhere studying the chemistry
> of the cell.
>
> Then again, his book also claims that life was designed by an
> intelligent entity and that every lifeform that ever came into being was
> pre-encoded into the DNA of the first single-celled microbe that was
> artificially placed on Earth, so...
>
Hmm. Net says: Biology professor at Lehigh University. Still not 
impressed. lol

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

On 5/10/2010 11:42 PM, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> There is that too. But, mostly, in the US, if you print *facts* about
>> what the other side saw happen to them, or what took place that wasn't
>> mentioned in dear old granddad's, or just dad's history books, its
>> "revisionism". Removing say.. Thomas Jefferson from history books, to
>> replace him with St. Thomas Aquinas, on the other hand, is seen as
>> "fixing" a deficit in US history, and upholding its "Christian"
>> heritage... >>head -> desk<<
>
> ...that's actually kinda scary.
>
http://www.mainepolitics.net/sites/default/files/Maine_GOP_platform.pdf

Note such real nice things, like denying children human rights, as 
covered by UN charters, for example... This is the "tea party" bozos 
that are taking over control of both the GOP, and all the clueless rubes 
that can't fracking tell the difference, since they just know its 
"Republican".

Though.. Best one is how much "intrusion" they want from the government, 
in denying people rights, in contradiction of the constitution, while 
claiming to both want the government out of their lives *and* everyone 
to adhere to the constitution... O.o These people make the Mad Hatter, 
in Alice in Wonderland, look sane.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

On 5/10/2010 11:42 PM, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> There is that too. But, mostly, in the US, if you print *facts* about
>> what the other side saw happen to them, or what took place that wasn't
>> mentioned in dear old granddad's, or just dad's history books, its
>> "revisionism". Removing say.. Thomas Jefferson from history books, to
>> replace him with St. Thomas Aquinas, on the other hand, is seen as
>> "fixing" a deficit in US history, and upholding its "Christian"
>> heritage... >>head -> desk<<
>
> ...that's actually kinda scary.
>
Oh, yes.. And again with Acorn.. An organization cleared of *any* wrong 
doing, which got defunded and closed its doors as a result of 
maleficence, misinformation, and false accusations, by some ass that 
faked ***all*** of the evidence he claimed he had against them. Yeah.. 
So, lets see the transparency of the people that backed *him* while he 
did it.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

>> ...that's actually kinda scary.
>>
> http://www.mainepolitics.net/sites/default/files/Maine_GOP_platform.pdf

"Reject any legislation which seeks to confiscate our firearms."

Wow, big surprise there...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

>> ...that's actually kinda scary.
>>
> Oh, yes.. And again with Acorn.. An organization cleared of *any* wrong 
> doing, which got defunded and closed its doors as a result of 
> maleficence, misinformation, and false accusations, by some ass that 
> faked ***all*** of the evidence he claimed he had against them. Yeah.. 
> So, lets see the transparency of the people that backed *him* while he 
> did it.

I have no idea what you're talking about. I get the feeling I might 
actually be better off that way. o_O

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 11 May 2010 19:07:49 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

>>> Is that why American people are so stupid?
>>>
>>> Or maybe it's *because* American people are stupid? IDK.
>>>
>>> [Perhaps I should append "on average" to that...]
>> 
>> Well, there are quite a few very smart people over here too, many of
>> whom went to public schools.  But a fair number are lazy when it comes
>> to facts and don't see the "value" in them.
>> 
>> But I don't think that's just Americans, either.
> 
> This is equally worrying - and possibly equally true. (Although for
> whatever reason, it's typically Americans who are thought of as being
> stupid. I sometimes wonder if the rest of the world thinks that all
> Englishmen walk around in top hats eating fish and chips?)

Yeah, it's called stereotyping. ;-)

And generally it's not accurate for individuals, or about as accurate as 
racial profiling.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:

> Yeah, it's called stereotyping. ;-)
> 
> And generally it's not accurate for individuals, or about as accurate as 
> racial profiling.

Racial profiling *isn't* sterotyping??

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 11 May 2010 20:37:50 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
> 
>> Yeah, it's called stereotyping. ;-)
>> 
>> And generally it's not accurate for individuals, or about as accurate
>> as racial profiling.
> 
> Racial profiling *isn't* sterotyping??

It's a type of stereotyping, yes.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 5/11/2010 12:24 PM, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> ...that's actually kinda scary.
>>>
>> Oh, yes.. And again with Acorn.. An organization cleared of *any*
>> wrong doing, which got defunded and closed its doors as a result of
>> maleficence, misinformation, and false accusations, by some ass that
>> faked ***all*** of the evidence he claimed he had against them. Yeah..
>> So, lets see the transparency of the people that backed *him* while he
>> did it.
>
> I have no idea what you're talking about. I get the feeling I might
> actually be better off that way. o_O
>
lol

Short version is that Acorn *was* a group that helped various poor, or 
small business, but they where also Liberals, and helped out in signing 
people up for elections. They **self reported** some irregularities in a 
few of those sign ups, as per law. I.e., they did the right thing. The 
GOP used them as a whipping boy, blamed them for just about everything 
from Obama being elected, to illegal... whatever it was, since they 
never seemed to have anything precise, other than being damn liberals. 
Some dipshit dressed up as a pimp (and who claims to be on the forefront 
of the "new journalism) later went in, and tried to get them to "help 
him", with his "small business".

Only:

1. After they had already closed doors, lost all funding and went out of 
business, it was determined that other than a few minor, and not 
uncommon, mistakes, they never did **anything** intentionally illegal, 
or even barely more than perhaps, unintentionally irregular.

2. It was determined, when someone *finally* got the original footage 
from the pimp guy, that he had filmed his leaving and entering in the 
pimp get up, along with two women, but then pasted that to the start and 
end of the final tape. He ***actually*** entered the offices *without* 
the women, and dressed in a conservative, perfectly normal, business 
suit. They told him to leave several times during his "interview", and 
finally threatened to call the cops on him if he didn't. This was, 
again, edited out, in order to make it seem like they *knew* he was 
running a prostitution ring and where going to help him with his 
"business" anyway.

I don't know how you missed it. We spent the entire fracking end of the 
Obama campaign, and most of the time, up until about 4 months ago, 
listening to them whine about Acorn, and blame them from just about 
everything from bad weather to the oil spill, or at least try to use 
them as an "example" of the stuff they where "fighting". As usual 
though, they where tilting at windmills, and/or burning people at the 
stake over the political equivalent of demon possession, or 
transgression with the "devil!", while the rest of us tried to figure 
out what the hell the actual problem was, and why they were ignoring 50 
thousands other people, to pick on some two bit company that helped 
people plan business decisions, or what ever the hell it was they 
actually did.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:

> I don't know how you missed it. We spent the entire fracking end of the 
> Obama campaign, and most of the time, up until about 4 months ago,

By not being in America?

Or rather, I gather there was a bit of coverage of the whole USA 
election thing, but I purposely ignored it because I don't actually *care*.

Post a reply to this message

On 12-5-2010 23:13, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> On 5/11/2010 12:24 PM, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

> I don't know how you missed it. 

easy, we don't live there

> We spent the entire fracking end of the 
> Obama campaign, and most of the time, up until about 4 months ago, 
> listening to them whine about Acorn, and blame them from just about 
> everything from bad weather to the oil spill, or at least try to use 
> them as an "example" of the stuff they where "fighting". 


I don't think this was reported apart from some of it during the 
campaign. I can only guess as to why not. One guess is that journalists 
here do not think it is important. A more likely guess is that it so 
much away from normal behaviour that they simply don't believe it. On 
this side of the ocean the journalists and networks are all independent 
from the government (except for italy). The idea that a broadcasting 
company would knowingly try to misinform people in order to destabilize 
the current government because that government is from another party is 
totally inconceivable (I think it is actually treason). There are a 
couple of people from the US that have repeatedly claimed that 
nonetheless that is what is happening. I cannot believe it.

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> On 12-5-2010 23:13, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> On 5/11/2010 12:24 PM, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> 
>> I don't know how you missed it. 
> 
> easy, we don't live there

Honestly, I live here and it was so much standard political posturing that I 
didn't pay attention to it anyway.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
    Ada - the programming language trying to avoid
    you literally shooting yourself in the foot.

Post a reply to this message

On 5/11/2010 1:07 PM, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

> stupid. I sometimes wonder if the rest of the world thinks that all
> Englishmen walk around in top hats eating fish and chips?)

You mean you don't?

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

>> I sometimes wonder if the rest of the world thinks that all
>> Englishmen walk around in top hats eating fish and chips?
> 
> You mean you don't?

No.

Well, I don't own a top hat (apparently genuine ones are rare items 
now). I do own three waitcoats and a trillby though...

I also eat - well, not *fish* and chips, but usually pie and chips or 
something. And no, it doesn't come wrapped in newspaper. That would be 
some kind of hazard, given the toxicity of the inks used. (!)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On 5/13/2010 1:07 AM, Invisible wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> I don't know how you missed it. We spent the entire fracking end of
>> the Obama campaign, and most of the time, up until about 4 months ago,
>
> By not being in America?
>
> Or rather, I gather there was a bit of coverage of the whole USA
> election thing, but I purposely ignored it because I don't actually *care*.
lol Yeah, well. Still, my impression was that most of the rest of the 
world *tends* to have a clearer picture if what idiot things go on here, 
sometimes, than half the people living here. ;)

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

On 5/13/2010 1:30 AM, andrel wrote:
> On 12-5-2010 23:13, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> On 5/11/2010 12:24 PM, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>
>> I don't know how you missed it.
>
> easy, we don't live there
>
>> We spent the entire fracking end of the Obama campaign, and most of
>> the time, up until about 4 months ago, listening to them whine about
>> Acorn, and blame them from just about everything from bad weather to
>> the oil spill, or at least try to use them as an "example" of the
>> stuff they where "fighting".
>
>
> I don't think this was reported apart from some of it during the
> campaign. I can only guess as to why not. One guess is that journalists
> here do not think it is important. A more likely guess is that it so
> much away from normal behaviour that they simply don't believe it. On
> this side of the ocean the journalists and networks are all independent
> from the government (except for italy). The idea that a broadcasting
> company would knowingly try to misinform people in order to destabilize
> the current government because that government is from another party is
> totally inconceivable (I think it is actually treason). There are a
> couple of people from the US that have repeatedly claimed that
> nonetheless that is what is happening. I cannot believe it.
Its been called treason, or close to that, by a few people here too. 
And, hell yes its going on. Its one idiot running the entire network, 
and hand picking right wingers, loud mouths, and clueless, but good 
looking, rubes, who will either lie, distort, or just repeat, out of 
shear ignorance, everything the people lying and distorting are saying. 
The key here is, "Its not run by the government", so technically, since 
their has been no direct connection made between government officials 
and the loonies on the network, other than them siding with them, they 
can't do much.

Basically though, you get similar insane bullshit in rag magazines, from 
my understanding, in some places, including Britain. What differs here 
is that its a major news network, being run by someone who should be 
publishing rag magazines.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Its been called treason, or close to that, by a few people here too.
> And, hell yes its going on. Its one idiot running the entire network,
> and hand picking right wingers, loud mouths, and clueless, but good
> looking, rubes, who will either lie, distort, or just repeat, out of
> shear ignorance, everything the people lying and distorting are saying.
> The key here is, "Its not run by the government", so technically, since
> their has been no direct connection made between government officials
> and the loonies on the network, other than them siding with them, they
> can't do much.
> 
> Basically though, you get similar insane bullshit in rag magazines, from
> my understanding, in some places, including Britain. What differs here
> is that its a major news network, being run by someone who should be
> publishing rag magazines.
> 

Now, now, the news on that network may actually be news. But the news
only runs from 12 noon to 1pm, and then again at 6pm to 7pm. The rest of
the day, it is not a news network, just a network with celebrities
covering "news worthy stories". Talk shows.

What bothers me is that the 'celebrity shows' say "well, we believe that
Politician Soandso is up to something." and then the news shows can then
later run a story that "Sources say Politician Soandso is up to
something." Later, this gets run back through the celebrities who can
say "News outlets report that Politician Soandso was doing something
illegal. See, we told you about this before they did, and we were
right." It ends up being a hilarious echo chamber.

But, in the USA, it can't be treason. They are not waging war, and they
are not giving aid and comfort to the declared enemies. Unless you count
the news media (in general) as making us more afraid, while fear is the
weapon of terrorists . . . well, hard to prove legally. Sedition, maybe,
but not treason. But if you want to invoke the Smith Act, go for it. It
is still on the books, and both sides have overstepped the bounds it
laid out. But by strict definition of even seditious conspiracy (§2384
of Title 18 USC) they haven't done anything wrong yet.

Free speech still means they can make up stories just this side of
slander and libel, if they do not incite a riot.

Post a reply to this message

On 5/13/2010 8:37 PM, Sabrina Kilian wrote:
> But, in the USA, it can't be treason. They are not waging war, and they
> are not giving aid and comfort to the declared enemies. Unless you count
> the news media (in general) as making us more afraid, while fear is the
> weapon of terrorists . . . well, hard to prove legally. Sedition, maybe,
> but not treason. But if you want to invoke the Smith Act, go for it. It
> is still on the books, and both sides have overstepped the bounds it
> laid out. But by strict definition of even seditious conspiracy (§2384
> of Title 18 USC) they haven't done anything wrong yet.
>
> Free speech still means they can make up stories just this side of
> slander and libel, if they do not incite a riot.
Yeah. Some of them are getting damn close though. Like the bozo recently 
commenting that it should be hunting season on Liberals, adding to a 
long list of other nuts, all obsessed with the idea that they need 
something like a populist SS, or other "special" group to route out 
people that think different. Only, if you claim I said it, I will say I 
didn't, and I will claim no one else on my show did either, or that 
anyone else in my party ever did, even if you have it ***on tape***.

Its getting damn tiring, first off. But, second off.. At this point 
there is almost nothing the left can accuse the right of, which could be 
legitimately called rhetoric, or even slander. Most of them just report 
what the right actually said, draw fairly reasonable conclusions from 
the pattern of behavior and statements being made, then sit back and 
wait for the person in question to a) back peddle as fast as possible, 
and b)deny actually specifically meaning any of it, that specific way. 
Most, it may be pointed out, even in the "talk show" sorts, are willing 
to admit they made a mistake, correct their statements, and honestly 
admit they got a fact wrong. About 10% of the time its quite comical, 
because it turns out the "correct" information makes the person 
complaining look even worse than the wrong information. They also have 
said, more than once, "Hell yes I am biased. Now lets hear you admit the 
same."

But, in any case, the other side not only lies about lying, about the 
lie that someone lied on their own show, when its possible to find the 
film clip of the original on Youtube in like 5 seconds flat, never mind 
at places like Media Watch, but all the other wackos then go one to 
repeat the original lie, or the lie about the lie, never acknowledging 
that anyone has figured out that *any* of it was *ever* wrong.

Claiming you are dealing with the same behavior by both sides at this 
point is nothing short of claiming that a magician like Criss Angel is 
the **same** as the Tarot card reader you dragged in from down the 
street, who claims that not only is *everything* they do real, but that 
everyone that claims to have heard them say it was fake a day ago, while 
being shown the video of doing so, where all lying, and its Criss that 
is the real con artist. After all, ***HE*** admits faking it.

Its like living in the damn twilight zone some days, when watching the 
ridiculous BS that has been going on, well.. at least since Bush 
deciding to go after Iraq and some of us got the odd suspicion that 
Bagdad Bob, or possibly his close cousin, was working for both the US to 
make up the things the administration was claiming, but couldn't 
actually manage to prove at all.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

On 5/13/2010 1:14 PM, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

> I also eat - well, not *fish* and chips, but usually pie and chips or
> something. And no, it doesn't come wrapped in newspaper. That would be
> some kind of hazard, given the toxicity of the inks used. (!)


By pies, I assume you mean something like a meat pie, and not something 
like a fruit pie? (i.e. apple pie or cherry pie)


Was it ever the case that fish and chips were served in newspaper? Seems 
like that would at the very least cause an off taste.

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

Mike Raiford <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com> wrote:
> Was it ever the case that fish and chips were served in newspaper? Seems
> like that would at the very least cause an off taste.

would you believe,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fish_and_chips#Vendors

they know everything, those wikipediaers.

Post a reply to this message

>> I also eat - well, not *fish* and chips, but usually pie and chips or
>> something. And no, it doesn't come wrapped in newspaper. That would be
>> some kind of hazard, given the toxicity of the inks used. (!)
> 
> 
> By pies, I assume you mean something like a meat pie, and not something 
> like a fruit pie? (i.e. apple pie or cherry pie)

Chicken pie, yes. ;-)

Either that or a sausage...

> Was it ever the case that fish and chips were served in newspaper? Seems 
> like that would at the very least cause an off taste.

Um... I have no idea. Obviously today it would be a major food hygene 
violation, but I suppose it's plausible it used to happen once upon a time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fish_and_chips#Vendors

Suggests that it really was true. (And, as we all know, Wikipedia is 
never wrong.)

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 14 May 2010 14:50:32 +0100, Invisible wrote:

> Chicken pie, yes. ;-)
> 
> Either that or a sausage...

Or fish.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 14 May 2010 09:42:00 -0400, Bill Pragnell wrote:

> Mike Raiford <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Was it ever the case that fish and chips were served in newspaper?
>> Seems like that would at the very least cause an off taste.
> 
> would you believe,
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fish_and_chips#Vendors
> 
> they know everything, those wikipediaers.

Except for the meaning of "Malamanteau", apparently. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>> Chicken pie, yes. ;-)
>>
>> Either that or a sausage...
> 
> Or fish.

No. I hate fish.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 14 May 2010 18:49:13 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

>>> Chicken pie, yes. ;-)
>>>
>>> Either that or a sausage...
>> 
>> Or fish.
> 
> No. I hate fish.

Maybe so, but there are people in the UK who make fish pie. ;-)

(And I just had a rather good piece of salmon for lunch)

Jim

Post a reply to this message