quote:

We have a variety of options to get our 1s and 0s piped to us. Offhand there's VZ FIOS and Optimum, so not a monopoly. Oh, Hughes Net too. So three. Okay, I could cut the cord and just use cellular, so add in T-Mobile, Sprint and ATT.....

So far all Government has done is reduce competition. There are some communities that, for example, ban FIOS.

Look at the various Government regulated "monopolies." Are they efficient? Or do they take advantage of the fact that they can price themselves above the price of entry into the market?

Anybody remember what landline service was like before deregulation?

US merchant ships are given a monopoly (CF: "Jones Act") How is the American ship building business doing?

Interlude posted:

I shouldn't be surprised that conservatives are anti-net neutrality but I am. I tried to explain why regulation is necessary for natural monopolies and got this typical anti-government crap in response.

Sir Rolo posted:

Just got linked to

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/messages-from-creationists-to-people-who-believe-in-evolutio

Dyz posted:

The answer to half of these is simply "because there are other religions besides Christianity".

Also I love how practically the only people who quote the 2nd law of thermodynamics are people who have little to no knowledge of thermodynamics. It's like people who quote "for every action there is a reaction" philosophically and call it hard science because Newton.

Sir Rolo posted:

Or like, how Verizon could very well be making Netflix unusable?

http://www.davesblog.com/blog/2014/02/05/verizon-using-recent-net-neutrality-victory-to-wage-war-against-netflix/

NatasDog posted:

I have to wonder if this has been going on for a while. I dropped netflix over a year ago because I was getting some serious buffering problems on my 50Mb FiOS connection and I just assumed it was a Netflix problem and switched to just using Redbox.

shalcar posted:

I just love that the second law of thermodynamics argument they use would mean that creating complex things would be impossible. Like, say, houses or babies. Since both houses and babies are things that happen, then the second law of thermodynamics as they understand it must be bullshit, which means it can't disprove evolution. If they made it laymans terms like "Things always tend towards less complication, therefore evolution can't happen", even a grade school student would be able to point out the huge flaw in that argument.

By couching the argument in pseudo-science, it is able to be digested by the followers in a way that reinforces their beliefs with no chance of cognitive dissonance.

It's humbling to remember that while I can see the problem, they can't. What things can't I see that I'm as confident in as they are in their beliefs? Do I really know what I think I know?

Interlude posted:

We have a variety of options to get our 1s and 0s piped to us. Offhand there's VZ FIOS and Optimum, so not a monopoly. Oh, Hughes Net too. So three. Okay, I could cut the cord and just use cellular, so add in T-Mobile, Sprint and ATT.....

Mornacale posted:

Much like how Obama is both an atheist and a muslim.

Scruff McGruff posted:

In all fairness, the pro-science ones had some pretty stupid/overly smug ones too. Stay on the high road people.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/messages-for-creationists-from-people-who-believe-in-evoluti

weird vanilla posted:

I think she's pushing the philosophy of science angle, where you can't prove science works without using science in the proof, you can't deduce whether something you discover is true or if it's an approximation of truth, etc.

The obvious response is that science is more useful than creationism and intelligent design.

Mornacale posted:

I'm not sure if the scientific language is actually what allows them to avoid cognitive dissonance. In my opinion, this is simply a skill that conservatives have: accept any argument against an ideology that you hate, even when those arguments don't actually fit into your worldview. Much like how Obama is both an atheist and a muslim.

Xarthor posted:

Does anyone have a concise rebuttal of the IRS scandal?

Phone posted:

Don't false equivalency/truth is in the middle this poo poo.

Xarthor posted:

Does anyone have a concise rebuttal of the IRS scandal? I feel like there is a lot of information explaining how the Republicans have been beating the war drum on this for no reason, but the information seems to be spread out and in small chunks.

Discendo Vox posted:

As a philosophy of science nut, I can confirm that science does not, under most theories, provide objective truth or prove knowledge. Science usually is asserted to a) provide broad consensus, b) provide tentative assertions prior to further testing (the falsificationist model, my preferred standard) and/or c) provide a framework for managing(not solving) empirical uncertainty. In order to provide objective truth or prove knowledge, science would have to solve all the parts of Munchhausen's trilemma. I believe that there are no known systems or ideologies that can resolve even one of these, including all religions.


It's neither of those things. Atheism isn't the opposite of young-earth creationism. As Xarthor indicates, coupled with is the human condition- and atheism has its own history of militant public stupidity.

On the subject of carcinogenesis, it's the substance, not the delivery mechanism, that matters in almost all instances. That's why chewing tobacco causes a variety of oral cancers. Marijuana and tobacco both have carcinogenic substances in them beyond charcoal.

Discendo Vox posted:

As a philosophy of science nut, I can confirm that science does not, under most theories, provide objective truth or prove knowledge. Science usually is asserted to a) provide broad consensus, b) provide tentative assertions prior to further testing (the falsificationist model, my preferred standard) and/or c) provide a framework for managing(not solving) empirical uncertainty. In order to provide objective truth or prove knowledge, science would have to solve all the parts of Munchhausen's trilemma. I believe that there are no known systems or ideologies that can resolve even one of these, including all religions.


It's neither of those things. Atheism isn't the opposite of young-earth creationism. As Xarthor indicates, coupled with is the human condition- and atheism has its own history of militant public stupidity.

On the subject of carcinogenesis, it's the substance, not the delivery mechanism, that matters in almost all instances. That's why chewing tobacco causes a variety of oral cancers. Marijuana and tobacco both have carcinogenic substances in them beyond charcoal.

DarkHorse posted:

I love the "second law of thermodynamics " folks. I've had fun shutting a lot of them down with "What's the first law?", "How many laws are there?", Or "What are the required conditions before the laws apply?"

AShamefulDisplay posted:

For reference, I don't know this guy personally. I just keep him on my facebook feed because he's such a weird dude. One day he's talking about how his views on homosexuality have changed because his niece is gay, the next he's bragging about shaming a fellow Mason back into the closet and how he didn't convert to Mormonism because they're a bunch of "fag lovers". He is also pants-shittingly afraid of Muslims (specifically Muslim immigrants taking over the U.S./Europe), which is weird because looking through his friends list he has quite a few Muslim friends. Here he is calling for the eradication of Marxists/Socialists (he doesn't know what these words mean obviously) while taking at face value the words of an organization that is all but defunct. His justification for purging his ideological enemies? Socialists are "unAmerican"

Sir Rolo posted:

What are the carcinogens in marijuana? I've tried looking this up before, but for the most part everything i've read is assuming it's being smoked rather than vaporized or ingested.

andrew smash posted:

Wow, you're an expert on everything. A real renaissance man.

Xarthor posted:

Does anyone have a concise rebuttal of the IRS scandal? I feel like there is a lot of information explaining how the Republicans have been beating the war drum on this for no reason, but the information seems to be spread out and in small chunks.

quote:

Another typical report on The Great Kenyan:

I was stationed at Kaneohe Marine Corps Air Station from 1983 to 1986 without ever asking or inquiring who was of what rank when we golfed. Rank went unmentioned and all played by the same set of rules with fair and equal privileges to all. Although some were better known than others, I do not remember any senior officer ever pulling rank or ever even suggesting special acknowledgement on the golf-course. Marines believe in customs and courtesies but despise anyone who demands that their rank be acknowledged on the field of any sport. Frankly, anyone who demands respect obviously doesn't have it.

The story shown below is absolutely true.

Semper Fi,

J B.


My wife and I are on Oahu for our annual Hawaii trip with good friends and two granddaughters enjoying the hospitality of the Hawaiian people on this lovely Island. Being retired military allows us the privilege of using the military facilities and especially the highly desirable golf courses.

Yesterday, January 4, 2014 we had a tee time of 12:04 to play golf at Kaneohe Marine Corps on Oahu. We arrived early because we were advised the President was possibly going to play but also that he was leaving to fly back to D.C. that same day. We checked in and were second off and waiting for carts when we were advised that he really may be coming but there was no count of when or how many in the party.

We then got body scanned, our golf bags searched and briefed on the proper behavior expected. Obama and his party finally arrived at 1:00 and he then hit balls on the range and then drove right in front of us on his way to the first tee hollering Happy New Year to the small group (50 or so) golfers waiting to play. They keep two holes clear for him both front and rear and the secret service used 30 carts in all. After he teed off they went down the first fairway and I spotted a single golfer going to the first tee.

I hollered at him to get off and he slowly ambled my way and when within talking distance he said he was White House staff and was allowed within the two hole space. I cannot repeat what I said to him but we were finally allowed to tee off at 1:30 and watched as the President bullied his way thru all the young Marines who were able to take a day off as they prepared to go to wherever to protect us all. No words of thank you for your service or how are you doing, just he and three of his civilian high school buddies messing up the day for many. They would make the two groups ahead of his progress move to the side and allow the group to play through.

It really is bothersome to view firsthand the egotistic rear end that is our President. I asked numerous Marines who were standing around what they thought of him and not one of thirty or so had any kind words. A common refrain was why didn't he come and join a threesome of young Marines and golf with them. That would have been so appropriate. Why didn't his staff make a tee time like all of us and cancel if necessary? That could eliminate all the confusion. Why didn't he respect the lives of all those around him instead of being so arrogant.

We were out there for 5 1/2 hours and quit after 14 holes, leaving the course with a total lack of respect for our President (of course there was not much to begin with).

Semper Fi,

J B.

AShamefulDisplay posted:

Spangly A posted:

"Radical marxist progressives" are known for their love of centrism.

What would the American media's reaction be to a genuine unashamed marxist political candidate? Would they have any idea how to react? How long after "Yes, I'm a marxist" would they forget that the candidate is ok with this and go back to screaming the word like a slur?

Xarthor posted:

Does anyone have a concise rebuttal of the IRS scandal? I feel like there is a lot of information explaining how the Republicans have been beating the war drum on this for no reason, but the information seems to be spread out and in small chunks.

AShamefulDisplay posted:

Judging by the response to Kshama Sawant, ignore them.

duz posted:

As concise as possible: Only 40% were conservative.

A Fancy 400 lbs posted:

To be fair, she's a city council member for a fairly unimportant city(nationally speaking). They seem to hate on Bernie Sanders a lot, and he's an open socialist.

staticman posted:

"Press 1 for English" just gives it away from the get-go.

staticman posted:

So close to getting it right, then all the sudden, BAM!



"Press 1 for English" just gives it away from the get-go.

Spangly A posted:

And why did none of those dumbass loving atheists ask "If God did not give us the ability to adapt to circumstance over time, why aren't we dead, and why do we have tails?"? It's not hard to be inclusive to religious evolution and not be a smug shitheel, even the catholic church has managed it. And they open a pedophilia trial with passages about loving little children, they're not that bright.