Comment peh (Score -1, Offtopic) 120
Wouldn't it be more fun to relive the story of the first time he got laid?
Wouldn't it be more fun to relive the story of the first time he got laid?
Authors, including authors of cartoons, tend to spend most of their time thinking, so they're a fairly good profession for spawning visionaries quite regularly.
IMO he should have spent more time thinking about his cartoon strip, which (back in the day) had one that was funny, interesting, or insightful out of every few hundred.
So what's the possessive plural for "glasses"?
Disappointingly computer-centric too. My favorite desktop environment consists of a pencil, a paperweight, and a stapler.
And I can put my head on it for a nap whenever I think that will increase productivity.
(As for the survey, I voted, but I'm not sure it's correct to identify one as my favorite when I haven't actually tried all of them.)
Actually lots of idiots are in total denial.
Beliefs range from "we're actually cooling, not warming" to "of course it's warming, but that's a good thing".
It's seasonal, and one of the reasons for the increase is increased precipitation (caused by, you guessed it, global warming).
The sea there is actually warmer, and the land ice is shrinking.
In short, this is only interesting if you need facts with superficial interpretations that can "refute" global warming to the uninformed masses.
http://www.skepticalscience.co...
p.s. - I notice in another skepticalscience link that gw deniers have joined evolution deniers in invoking the second law of thermodynamics as "proof that it couldn't happen". As if scientists are ignorant of the 2LoT.
Bullshit. Democrats are crap, but when it comes to ruling for the interest of moneyed interests there's no comparison.
You know the saying: the proper role of government is to help the rich get richer faster than they would without it.
Really if you want to see pseudoscience in action take a good look at all the assumptions behind cosmology and astronomy. Redshift = distance is an ASSUMPTION and Edwin Hubble himself was the first to point that out. Or start being honest enough to teach students that LOTS of biologists as well as physicists like Sir Hoyle have valid doubts about the theory of evolution, and no they are not creationists. Their main problem with evolution being that it is so often presented as settled established fact when it really has a lot of serious problems that need to be worked out. Just saying that is some kind of heresy in most English-speaking areas. Truth is many scientists would love to replace evolution with a better theory.
Every hypothesis is "an assumption". But some stand up to scrutiny and offer a lot of explanatory value.
As for evolution, what you said isn't heresy - it's a claim that you didn't try to back up.
Roughly one in three American adults believes in telepathy, ghosts, and extrasensory perception," wrote a trio of scientists in a 2012 issue of the Astronomy Education Review.
Yes we must use government institutions to regulate what people believe! If we start young we can change the next generation.
That's one spin you could put on it.
Another choice is "How is a country full of people that believe nonsense going to survive the 21st Century?"
Roughly one in one Slashdotter believes in FTL travel, wormhole travel, colonizing the universe... That's any better?
I guess that means I'm not a Slashdotter, because I don't believe any of those things exist (or are possible).
(Too bad...)
There is a great deal of pseudoscience belief on both sides of the isle. The left has irrational beliefs on nuclear power, GMO foods, etc.
You're trying to pee in the punch with a "both sides do it" argument. The not-so-subtle difference is that "the left" doesn't deny that nuclear power and GM foods exist. To paraphrase the famous saying, everyone is entitled to their own policy opinions, but not to their own realities.
But then the Republicans aren't generally as bad as they get a rap for. Their only substantial reality-denying party positions are on evolution and global warming, and both of those are for easily understandable political reasons (the former too keep the dwindling numbers of the faithful faithful, the latter to please their corporate masters).
Like Prolog, where anything you can't prove is taken to be false?
Yeah, they would have gotten so much better a deal on gay rights if they had supported McCain & Palin.
Is there any empirical evidence that information can't be destroyed?
If not, what would be the consequences of just ditching the law(?) that creates the paradox?
One man's constant is another man's variable. -- A.J. Perlis
