News that makes us laugh, cry, or both

[Crissa]

Ahh, this is good TGD, where we have a mix of views and 'sides' are not static but individual.

-Crissa

[Maj]

Hey, guys. I'm interested in this whole religion/atheism thing, but I don't want it to clutter the thread. I mean, it totally dominated kidneys and fetii. Could one of you awesome peeps pull it to a new thread, please?

[CatharzGodfoot]

How the fuck are you so stupid that you think it's even possible to "Force" someone to hold a belief other than by rational debate and propaganda, and who the fuck in the entire universe has ever suggested doing so by whatever your magic third method that sucks is, that you feel like it's important to bitch about those mean new atheists with their rational debate and propaganda being bad things?

For knowing the evils of the Catholic Church so well, you sure seem to be ignorant of the "Dark Ages".

There are methods of indoctrination to a set of beliefs other than rational debate and propaganda. One of the foremost tools is ignorance: If people never learn any religious beliefs, they won't have them. This works great to enforce, for example, the North Korean state religion.

There are a whole host of tools that can be used to spread ignorance. Fear is one. It was one of the primary tools of Catholicism in the Dark Ages, and still is (as you've mentioned) one of its most effective.

[Crissa]

I'm not sure 'killing them' suffices as getting someone to hold a belief.

-Crissa

[CatharzGodfoot]

I'm not sure 'killing them' suffices as getting someone to hold a belief.

-Crissa

I don't think it does, but in the right circumstances it can get others to hold a belief.

[Neeeek]

I'm not sure 'killing them' suffices as getting someone to hold a belief.

-Crissa

When I was a philosophy major in undergrad, the biggest asshole/moron of a professor I've ever had claimed that no great advancements in science had ever been made by atheists. The truth of the matter is that they (Galileo in particular) were probably just too scared of being burned alive for heresy to come out as atheists.

[Username17]

I'm not sure 'killing them' suffices as getting someone to hold a belief.

-Crissa

When I was a philosophy major in undergrad, the biggest asshole/moron of a professor I've ever had claimed that no great advancements in science had ever been made by atheists. The truth of the matter is that they (Galileo in particular) were probably just too scared of being burned alive for heresy to come out as atheists.

...but it does move.

-Username17

[angelfromanotherpin]

Panel commissioned by Barney Frank recommends nearly $1T in defense cuts.

I'm for it.

[Wesley Street]

This is the part that gets me:

The task force recommends reducing the U.S. nuclear warhead total to 1,050.

Oh no! If the first nuke fails, we will only have 1,049 left!

Men and women who serve honorably are still waiting for compensation but we maintain the ability to turn the planet into a burned corn fritter.

[mean_liar]

Panel commissioned by Barney Frank recommends nearly $1T in defense cuts.

It's $1T over ten years...

I'm surprised that they'd recommend getting rid of the Air Force's nuclear bomber wing. I suppose they're currently irrelevant in light of antiballistic missiles being at least ten years out, but I didn't really consider that until the article.

[Username17]

Panel commissioned by Barney Frank recommends nearly $1T in defense cuts.

It's $1T over ten years...

I'm surprised that they'd recommend getting rid of the Air Force's nuclear bomber wing. I suppose they're currently irrelevant in light of antiballistic missiles being at least ten years out, but I didn't really consider that until the article.

Worse than that. Anything capable of reliably bringing down a nuclear missile could drop a plane too. Anything you could do with a pilot's jinking, you'd be better off putting into a fire-and-forget missile. It can go faster and make more radical turns without having a pilot onboard. Even if you do pilot the damn thing, the pilot should be far away where it is safe.

-Username17

[Crissa]

Well, we've been using the bombers for non-nuclear ordinance delivery - but they're actually different wings in the air force, with different racks in the bombers and different procedures.

They have the advantage of just being able to be scrambled and sent to orbit some place within hours, unlike the missile frigates or subs which can take days or weeks to get places.

But we're to the point that we literally have enough frigates to have one within range of just about everyone all the time now, not counting the attack subs which also have the cruise missiles.

I still think the cuts are weak tea, but they're on top of the cuts the President is having trouble getting Congress to agree to.

-Crissa

(The antiballistic systems can't take down aircraft, but that's more a thing that they're dual-stage rockets that just can't turn. We and every other first-world nation already have missiles that can take down with some 99 accuracy the bombers...)

[mean_liar]

I believe that it's actually easier for a bomber to evade detection than an ICBM. Once that missile clears cloud cover on it's race for it's target it's painted with little to no interference, whereas a stealth bomber is actually very difficult to detect and can deploy in-flight countermeasures such as chaff, ECM/ECCM, flares, or whatever else.

[Crissa]

Those evasion methods pretty much don't work against modern anti aircraft missiles. Which is why we stopped building B1s and built B2s, to not be detected at all. But they still can be detected. And therefore shot down.

ICBMs may be obvious where they are, but they are hundreds of miles away traveling at thousands of miles per hour. Their tiniest dodge is therefore amplified. Each ICBM carries multiple warheads which change trajectory after re-entry. You have very few minutes to ready your response and then you have to fire a slug at each to hit them while they're still seventy miles away from you traveling towards you at a speed faster than your slugs.

Bombers take hours to get to their launch points. Then their missiles take another. All the while being detectable by something as simple as a guy standing on the street.

The cost of maintaining a ready crew, refueling systems, and the bombers and missiles they carry is many times that of an ICBM system carried within a submarine or hardened in the Dakota plains.

That's why you would cancel having them. They're too expensive, and serve no deterrent purpose. Anyone you could aim them at can shoot them down, and they're more expensive than their competition.

-Crissa

[Crissa]

Rand Paul, board certified opthamalagist? In his own mind, maybe.

-Crissa

[Koumei]

This is the part that gets me:

The task force recommends reducing the U.S. nuclear warhead total to 1,050.

Oh no! If the first nuke fails, we will only have 1,049 left!

Men and women who serve honorably are still waiting for compensation but we maintain the ability to turn the planet into a burned corn fritter.

This is the kind of math question schools should have: assuming maximum surface area efficiency (so not aiming a dozen all at the same point to "make sure") and none of them failing/being shot down/drifting off target, if all 1,050 were fired, what percentage of the Earth's surface could be demolished?

Show working.

(Yes, still relying on the US to make my humanitarian dream come true)

[Cynic]

the update does give us something on why he formed his own organization.

While he has a point, it doesn't justify not stating that he certified himself.

he also seems to have opposed a draconian power play by making HIS OWN draconian power play.

edit: didn't want to doublepost so here is a laughable news.

[Crissa]

Study finds American men claim to share child rearing equally. It also finds they actually manage to actually do about a quarter of the child rearing. Well, it's a step in the right direction, I think.

-Crissa

[Meikle641]

Scientists mapping Ozzy Osbourne's genetic code to find out how he's still alive after decades of drug and alcohol abuse.
Cheap Solar Refridgerator for Vaccines could saves millions of lives
Chemicals in food blamed for early pubery in girls
Forest Hills Gardens: A walkable, transit-oriented, architecturally rich planned community, built 100 years ago. <-- I hope to visit this during my trip to Hartford in July.

[Crissa]

There's no evidence that puberty is any earlier than at any other time, being as it's based upon a weight trigger. So if you have obese children, girls will go into puberty earlier.

Bleah.

-Crissa

[mean_liar]

No. The article specifically says that ages are earlier.

Controlling for weight is a parallel issue, but saying "There's no evidence that puberty is any earlier than at any other time" is flat-out wrong. It's demonstrably wrong.

Why? Weight? Additives? That's a separate question - but just saying, "puberty happens earlier" is still a plainly true statement.

[Crissa]

No, the article says but doesn't give evidence for. And heavier people excrete more of various chemicals, period. It's dumb. It's far more interesting to say 'chemicals did it!' and report that than to actually bother with controlling for various elements of the study.

-Crissa

[mean_liar]

You didn't give evidence for your spouting off either, which made me find this:

http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/conten ... t/95/1/263

"Interestingly, pubertal onset and LH levels were no longer significantly different between study periods after adjustment for BMI"

(This is a different but similar study by the same researcher)

If you're going to contradict a researcher's quoted statement in an article, it's helpful to provide a corroborating link.

[Crissa]

Thank you for proving my point, then?

-Crissa

[Josh_Kablack]

Pittsburgh Pirates make me even prouder to have been boycotting Baseball since 1994.