Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 10
1
The Richard Nixon school of ballet and the arts / Re: Aya
« Last post by Mesozoic Mister Nigel on Today at 04:46:18 am »
.
In a society where sitting around for justice is bad, but sitting around for a cheap television is good... What could possibly go wrong?

Well, the oceans could turn to acid.

That's pretty much where my mind was at. And it's the scariest thing I've thought of in a long, long time.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2014/07/great-american-oyster-collapse-2014720132433957401.html

As best as I can figure - bear in mind that I am not a climatologist - we're in a race between acid oceans or salvation via ice age.

Cold water sinks even more CO2. :)
2
I bought a french press, because my kid broke my housemate's french press.
3
Literate Chaotic / Re: ITT: Original Story Ideas
« Last post by Bu☆ns on Today at 04:21:28 am »
Iain Banks had a character in one of his books pitch a movie idea - aliens as tourists (the 'elite', which brings to mind retired rockstars and dotcom billionaires), coming to see the eclipse (because - according to the character - our planet is one of the only ones with a perfect lunar eclipse).

I think that could be an interesting setup. The story of a shallow alien who comes for the thrills, and the slow, horrible realization that this kind of utterly mundane and familiar motivation is in fact all there is out there.

Kind of an anti-Lovecraft. We have seen the alien, and understood it completely.

This is even scarier than terrors unutterable and unimaginable.  :mittens:
4
dude i got new homewares from tinternets for my new flat, for ver reasonable pricings
5
They're trying to import it to Norway too. Without even bothering to translate the words "Black" and "Friday". Most Norwegians reply like this:


6
thanks for the advice, that should go a long way towards helping me research what  i need. As for cracked, I have seen a few articles that touch on things like this so i feel like I've got decent chance. I feel like I just need to get back into writing comedy.  and heck, who knows, if it doesnt work, maybe I'll stick it up on tumblr itself and see if i cant get myself banned lol.
7
The Richard Nixon school of ballet and the arts / Re: Spagbook
« Last post by Mesozoic Mister Nigel on Yesterday at 09:21:03 pm »
AWYEAH!

Please tell me that's a Pokemon T-shirt. I just really want it to be one.

DC villians.

DAMMIT.
8
The Richard Nixon school of ballet and the arts / Re: Aya
« Last post by Mesozoic Mister Nigel on Yesterday at 09:19:57 pm »
Only tangentially related, but I was just making spaghetti and musing about another thing that happens a lot in woo fart-huffing chambers; the practice of believing that knowledge has not changed beyond the last they read about a subject. You see prime examples of this in Discordians who believe that scientists have no idea what the pineal gland really does, because they read it in a book that was written sixty-five years ago. Kind of a lot has happened, scientifically-speaking, since then.

Knowledge changes. I would bet that a ton of the "the mechanism is unknown" statement in my textbooks are out of date, let alone any statement of ignorance from decades ago. Science and the advancement of knowledge is moving at an astonishingly rapid pace -- if there's anything you assume we don't know, because you read somewhere that we don't know, you have to ask yourself when the last time you touched base with the research was. If it was more than six months ago, time to re-check before you back yourself into a corner by making unequivocal statements. If you can't verify, then it is wise to proceed with caution, so you'll be less likely to have your pride injured when someone fact-checks you.

More to the point, "Mechanism not known" does not imply that you can just fill the void up with your turds and call it "science".

Right? It's like a puzzle... you can't just jam ANY piece in, whether it came out of the same puzzle box or not. It has to be the right piece, that is contiguous with the others, fits the space, and makes up a part of the whole picture.

One problem that has arisen with the Internet is the ability of hucksters to lie to a larger audience; there is exactly nothing stopping anyone from making shit up and calling it science. I don't really know how to address this problem, because I believe firmly in freedom of speech, but it has made me wonder whether there should be some kind of licensing system such as exists with doctors and lawyers.

Of course, with doctors we have that whole naturopathy thing totally undermining the MD system. I imagine something similar would happen if we started licensing scientists.

Well, even psychics and horoscopes have to label themselves as "for entertainment only". Seems reasonable that these other ones should too.

The interesting thing about that is that a lot of those laws stemmed from anti-witchcraft sentiment, which makes me wonder whether anti-witchcraft sentiment arose as an attempt to protect people from getting huckstered.

Nope. The Anti-Witch scares wereare rooted in very literal fear of evil magic. For perspective, around the same time as the witch hunts there was less popular practice of putting animals on trial that were suspected of being possessed by Satan. Also, most anti-witch sentiment came from the Catholic Church, so I dont think protecting people from hucksters

Thats not to say that occultists didnt get conflated with scam artists a lot. Before the surge in nationalism caused by British Occupation led them to be idolized as paragons of Indian culture, the general Indian consensus was that Yogis were scumbag con artists. And Edward Kelly, an alchemist who had both his ears chopped off as punishment for fraud, and was still able to con the nobility into giving him shitloads of money and a knighthood on the promise of magically producing them Gold.

Did you just bring the Inquisition into it?  :lol: OK... you took that in a very different direction than where I was coming from. I was thinking more like this: http://books.google.com/books?id=JwUdAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA268&lpg=PA268&dq=history+of+anti-divination+laws&source=bl&ots=OQe4huKnLB&sig=vvcZprWO1Y4q7fVbG0Cm1CfoX8E&hl=en&sa=X&ei=T_Z4VPvQNMf2iQKh0ICgDA&ved=0CEYQ6AEwBg
9
Aneristic Illusions / Re: Random News Stories
« Last post by Mesozoic Mister Nigel on Yesterday at 09:13:24 pm »
I've seen a couple of stories about this, and my conclusion is "meth".

Possibly meth-induced psychosis?

Compare to EBS.

Sounds about right.
10
The Richard Nixon school of ballet and the arts / Re: Aya
« Last post by Hoopla on Yesterday at 08:39:10 pm »
Only tangentially related, but I was just making spaghetti and musing about another thing that happens a lot in woo fart-huffing chambers; the practice of believing that knowledge has not changed beyond the last they read about a subject. You see prime examples of this in Discordians who believe that scientists have no idea what the pineal gland really does, because they read it in a book that was written sixty-five years ago. Kind of a lot has happened, scientifically-speaking, since then.

Knowledge changes. I would bet that a ton of the "the mechanism is unknown" statement in my textbooks are out of date, let alone any statement of ignorance from decades ago. Science and the advancement of knowledge is moving at an astonishingly rapid pace -- if there's anything you assume we don't know, because you read somewhere that we don't know, you have to ask yourself when the last time you touched base with the research was. If it was more than six months ago, time to re-check before you back yourself into a corner by making unequivocal statements. If you can't verify, then it is wise to proceed with caution, so you'll be less likely to have your pride injured when someone fact-checks you.

More to the point, "Mechanism not known" does not imply that you can just fill the void up with your turds and call it "science".

Right? It's like a puzzle... you can't just jam ANY piece in, whether it came out of the same puzzle box or not. It has to be the right piece, that is contiguous with the others, fits the space, and makes up a part of the whole picture.

One problem that has arisen with the Internet is the ability of hucksters to lie to a larger audience; there is exactly nothing stopping anyone from making shit up and calling it science. I don't really know how to address this problem, because I believe firmly in freedom of speech, but it has made me wonder whether there should be some kind of licensing system such as exists with doctors and lawyers.

Of course, with doctors we have that whole naturopathy thing totally undermining the MD system. I imagine something similar would happen if we started licensing scientists.

Well, even psychics and horoscopes have to label themselves as "for entertainment only". Seems reasonable that these other ones should too.

The interesting thing about that is that a lot of those laws stemmed from anti-witchcraft sentiment, which makes me wonder whether anti-witchcraft sentiment arose as an attempt to protect people from getting huckstered.

Nope. The Anti-Witch scares wereare rooted in very literal fear of evil magic. For perspective, around the same time as the witch hunts there was less popular practice of putting animals on trial that were suspected of being possessed by Satan. Also, most anti-witch sentiment came from the Catholic Church, so I dont think protecting people from hucksters

Thats not to say that occultists didnt get conflated with scam artists a lot. Before the surge in nationalism caused by British Occupation led them to be idolized as paragons of Indian culture, the general Indian consensus was that Yogis were scumbag con artists. And Edward Kelly, an alchemist who had both his ears chopped off as punishment for fraud, and was still able to con the nobility into giving him shitloads of money and a knighthood on the promise of magically producing them Gold.

Yeah but he talked to angels.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 10