At 11/10/09 02:23 PM, SteveGuzzi wrote: I'm interested in what the evidence is for the cyclic model because it seems to coincide more with ancient philosophy and our common sense notions about how things work more than it actually coincides with scientific data and theories.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/search /index.cfm?q=Big+Bounce&submit.x=0&submi t.y=0&submit=submit

I believe math was the basis for the theory's superiority over Big Bang. It's been a while since I read the article though, and I don't have interest at the moment to re-read the few provided there.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/articl e.cfm?id=big-bang-or-big-bounce Hmm, seems they don't give the full article. The magazine was great though, that was on the cover of the issue so it had several pages dedicated to it along with relatively easy to understand diagrams and illustrations to explain the concept.

At 11/10/09 01:10 PM, Proteas wrote: Your education argument constituted one sentence out of those 8 paragraphs you posted. So yeah, I probably missed it.

An understandable mistake... IF YOU'RE BRAINWASHED. No, kidding.

the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.

That's what you defined as "faith" in your argument, and then you compared that to a comparison of brainwashing. You cherrypicked definitions based on what would support your argument, not on what the actual use of those words normally mean.

Yet none of the other definitions contradict my point. The idea was not to distort the meaning of the words to support my argument, but instead to choose the two definitions with the simplest and clearest link in order to simplify the point.

If you've got some foolproof method for determining someone to be brainwashed, I'd like to see it. Otherwise, without concrete proof to back up your assertion, all you have is an opinion.

I do have a foolproof method. It's called "the definition of the word." Like how you determine that something is a cat by establishing whether or not the noun in question is consistent with the definition of a cat.

So, the definition of brainwashing is systematic exposure of a repetitive message in order to indoctrinate one into believing that message's validity above later exposure to a differing message. I've been brainwashed by my environment into believing that every time I put my hand on a hot stove I will be burned. So much so that if you could somehow turn on a stove and prevent me from burning my bare hand, I wouldn't be likely to place my hand there anyway. You could even put your hand there and I'd be suspicious that you were wearing some sort of protection, or had a killswitch for the hot flame or some other, unknown trick.

But, that's besides my point entirely. I was saying that whether someone is brainwashed is not a matter of opinion, but a matter of fact. Whereas, accusing someone of being brainwashed IS a matter of opinion and not fact.

Anyway, I think you're just going to continue to misunderstand, misread, and misrepresent everything I say in order to rationalize further how my argument doesn't hold water. As such, thanks for the discussion.

I've given blood several times. There are a host of benefits:
- Free juice and animal crackers!
- You get a card with your blood type that indicates you've donated and keeps track of how many times.
- You can skip school to do it! (at least, I got to, we would have blood donor days during the school year at my HS, where anyone eligible and interested could miss class during the day to donate)
- You're missing a pint of blood! Any inebriates, intoxicants, or other blood-born drug (like the THC of marijuana, which is not an inebriate or intoxicant) will affect you more than it would normally. Less blood = more susceptibility to impairment, similar to if you lost a bunch of weight and then went and had fun.

Not to mention you can bring a friend and race to see who can donate their pint the fastest. You can schedule an appointment to donate blood, or just show up on a donation day on location and they'll happily accommodate you.

Video game forum. Go up to your browser while on the front page of the General forum (the one you posted this post in) and add a '5' after the '1' at the end of the URL.

Then make sure you search to find the topic that already exists regarding Halo, or XBL.

Hellraiser: your theory is known as the "Big Bounce" which is a modification of the Big Bang theory that states that the big bang must have occurred multiple times, that in fact our existence in this universe follow more of a wave-like pattern rippling through something far greater, each meeting with 0 coinciding with a 'big bang'. (if this were a sine wave)

According to Scientific American, the Big Bounce theory is gaining much more steam, it's just that mainstream is far behind ACTUAL scientists and their general agreement.

At 11/10/09 11:36 AM, Proteas wrote: Given that people on here aren't to quick to relinquish their opinions in the light of their opponents logic and reason, could it not be said that the brainwashed argument could apply to everyone?

Yes. Hence my assertion that everyone agrees that education is necessary. Did you entirely skip that section?

Only by your own dogmatic reasoning. You fail to acknowledge the fact that Faith (as defined by the rest of the article) is simple belief in an idea, often without supporting proof.

I rested my entire argument on linking the concept of faith in an idea without supporting proof EXACTLY AS YOU JUST DESCRIBE. So... I don't know how resting an argument on that is failure to acknowledge, but I'd love to hear your attempt at an explanation.

One example being that Pox has faith that Jesus did not exist as historians depict him to have been (and I speak only of his physical being, not divine nature) and that the whole thing is a historical conspiracy theory... yet he has no evidence or smoking gun to support his ideas.
If having faith in an idea makes you brainwashed, would you argue that Pox is in fact, brainwashed?

Yes, by definition.

I doubt it, because then you would have to argue against your own philosophy.

Sucks to be wrong. : b

But that's the point; depending on which side of the fence you stand, your opinion of who is or is not brainwashed is going to vary.

Actually, no. There is no opinion of who is brainwashed vs. who isn't, merely the fact of it. There is connotation to the definition I linked to that suggests that there actually be a person on the other end feeding the propaganda to the brainwashee; but that isn't 100% required. Environment may also be a source of the brainwashing. The conclusions that you draw are your own opinion, but they don't change the fact of the environmental REALITY.

My argument (which turns out to be nothing more than package deal fallacy) can go both ways, not just deist versus atheist.

Which makes it moot, so discussion naturally went elsewhere.

... I swear that entire post was just me repeating my prior post. Go read that again.

We really don't need a thread that encourages spamming characters in the way that binary, hex, and whatever other non-standard system you were considering using require. Having a conversation and discussion about some sort of topic is encouraged, in English.

At 11/10/09 09:37 AM, Saint-Pig wrote: yeah he always walks into my room with out knocking and just picks stuff you he dose not knock before entry. also his door has a lock and mine dose not. maybe he should of locked his door. he is lucky that it was me not mum

You can't change his behavior, only yours. Haven't your parents taught you that 'but such and such does it!' isn't right?

At 11/2/09 12:31 PM, Proteas wrote: It's been my experience on here with certain discussion (religious discussions in particular), the atheist/agnostics on this board view anyone having a religious background as having been indoctrinated into that school of thought. They can't fathom why anyone would actually choose to believe in a God or any form of organized religion, so they seek the undermine their opponent's credibility by painting them as being brainwashed.

This is the motivation for these atheists? Inability to fathom faith. : /

But really... doesn't this just add up to nothing more than a personal attack on that individual, and not actual debate on the ideas they put forth? You don't know anything about that individual's personal life or their motivations for being religious, you're just taking one fact they've given you and making a very broad generalization about them.

Yes and no. While one may take offense to the notion that their personal beliefs aren't perceived valid, the argument itself is not always intended to be a personal attack. Oftentimes, it may simply be identification of one's refusal to hear reason. Anyway, you can't really claim that it's an atheist arguer's prerogative to undermine another's argument by questioning one's credibility via painted brainwashing because... well, it's taking one fact and making a broad sweeping generalization in the same way you apparently detest enough to invent a new description of the alleged logical fallacy it presents.

Which brings me to the name of this topic; Argumentum Ad Inculco, or "Argument by Inculcation/Indoctrination." Something to call out your opponent on when they are using Strawman, Hasty Generalization, and Argumentum Ad Hominem against you sooner than debating what your actually saying.

Which brings me to debate about what you're actually saying. You don't think that those of faith are indoctrinated? Faith. I direct you to the 6th definition. Brainwashing. I direct you to the third result and second definition.

The words are intrinsically linked in meaning. Faith is the systematic brainwashing of a person, such that no logical argument, nor evidence contrary, nor lack of evidence concordant can convince one that they should think other than their conviction.

Now, that's not to say that faith is necessarily a bad thing. After all, so is most society, manners, human speech, etc. Without a proper upbringing, a human being won't necessarily be capable of communicating with others linguistically. I think everyone agrees that education is vital for a successful human race. But if you're truly a man of faith, you need not take offense at a man of reason's suggestion that you are wrong. The same way as a man of reason I need not take offense at a man of faith's conviction that I am wrong.

Anyway, as one who does not believe in God, nor ever observed phenomena that couldn't be attributed to anything else except God, I feel confident saying he doesn't exist. That doesn't mean I'm doomed to hell, either. For as someone who considers himself reasonable and humble, the revelation of such proof to convince me otherwise doesn't disagree with my generally atheist demeanor. Yet, an alleged God is to be lord over my life without ever having communicated with me directly? Unless his insistence is that I trust in those around me, in which case who am I to trust? The 10 commandments decree that I listen to my parents. Well, my mother is of faith and my father of reason and NOT faith. They both trust greatly in people, without being fools. I believe quite firmly in people, but the messages people give conflict with themselves and those of others.

It all leads me to settle on the conclusion that faith is merely an exercise in trusting an ever-expanding population of peers so that that population may continue expanding AGAINST my instinctive drive for survival that tells me not to trust any beyond the tried and true personal circle (and even then: guardedly). That sort of mindset screams 'man-made' to me. It doesn't say anything about the true existence of a deity of any sort.

Now, as our capacity for reason has grown, so has our insistence on faith. Technology has displaced much of the need for faith in today's world, as a result atheism is more tolerated than ever before. Why? Because people don't fear as much in the modern world. Life is relatively stable in large cities. There's always food, always water, always shelter, and always others. We can even communicate anonymously, so the fear of persecution or judgment from peers is mooted.

Even so, I don't think we'll ever quite outgrow our first invention: faith. I think it's a cornerstone of society and that it should remain so. The institutions surrounding it, I don't know are as important. They don't know either. Religion is as fluid as technology as the years have worn on.

Anyway. Enough rambling.

Here's what you do: realize YOUR mistake. You see, YOU interpreted no response as "Hey let's walk in here and traumatically view a family member doing something in the privacy of their own space!" It doesn't matter to me what ANYONE is doing if they're behind a closed door. Closed door is enough for me to know that it's something I either don't want to see or they don't want me to see.

The whole point of knocking is so that they may acknowledge your presence before you enter. If you don't have a response, just assume they're sleeping and leave them alone.

If you talk to him about it, he will be pissed that you came into his room without his knowledge. That's an invasion of personal space, yo.

Ah, you've made me nostalgic for the day I, too, realized how important the sacred duty I'm charged with truly is. You see, I was down in the dumps, getting rid of the old pair of sneakers I'd worn bare walking to the dumps to get rid of. As I was walking home I decided to stop for a coffee at the local Starbucks.

I order my double mocha espresso latte caramel decaf when, much to my chagrin, I'm told such a drink doesn't exist. So I nab a water and politely ask the fellow in the only comfy chair if I might check my email quickly. He didn't even acknowledge my presence. I persisted, this time by first clearing my throat and not whispering. I only stammered twice, so I knew he'd hear my confidence and oblige.

He met my gaze and sized me up. Opening his mouth to speak I hear "WHY HAS THIS SHOELESS NOBODY BEEN SERVED AND ALLOWED TO HARASS A PAYING CUSTOMER SUCH AS MYSELF!?" As the cashier politely requests that I leave, I cry out "WAIT, NO, I was ashamed of my true intention: I'm an internet moderator and I haven't logged on recently! I simply need to read some posts!"

The man's eyes softened and his eyebrows raised. He apologized profusely for his error and handed me the laptop. He was already on the internet, so I made quick work of the goatse he'd been viewing against his will. Unfortunately, an unrelated bystander had already called the police.

They arrived when I was sharing the porn with my allies in our secret base forums. The officer asked for ID, but before I could spin the laptop to flash my credentials the business man interceded. "Officer, it's me you want, this man has been framed, for I stole his shoes and laptop." As the fuzz hauled the man away in their paddywagon, and the sounds of "You're goin' downtown, buddy..." faded into the distance, I slipped on the shoe. IT FIT PERFECTLY.

The prince arrived, absolutely giddy that he had finally found the girl of his dreams. I now live happily ever after in the castle with him.

Does your network connection itself drop out? You say it says still connected, so that means there's no error message popping up to tell you that it's disconnected? That means it's likely your modem that's causing the problem and not your router (though it could be the configuration of your router).

My wireless used to time out constantly, I fixed it by password protecting my network. What I assume was happening is that on an unencrypted network the connection is set to expire every so often and there is a slight delay while it re-ups.

Check your modem's location. Is it kept away from interference and heat-sources? Is there any point through your wiring where power wires may be causing interference? Cat5 cables are typically shielded from minor interference but that doesn't mean that the shielding is 100% effective. Any wire that runs power touching or right next to the cable may cause a problem.

Do you have a wireless setup as well? If you have an ethernet cable plugged in and your wireless is also active, it may be interfering with your ethernet connection. The computer can't connect to both a wireless network and a wired network at the same time, ESPECIALLY not if they're both from the same router. But the wireless (when enabled) will still attempt to search and connect to networks anyway.

As others've said, you can try setting static subnet masks for your PC on your router. Do you have the manual for the router? If not check the manufacturer's website. They should tell you how to access your router (provided whoever set the network up didn't set a new username and password... in which case you'd have to hard-reset the router and then re-create all your network settings so you can log into the router with the default username and password). My router can be accessed at http://192.168.1.1 , yours may be the same (though it may be slightly different, I have a linksys).

Anyway, you need to make sure you've set everything correctly in order for it to work. I don't really feel like hitting character limit to try to explain blindly how to do this for a router I don't know and you might not understand it and I might not be around to follow up. Do some digging on google. Questions like "how to set a static subnet mask (ip address)" and the like should work.

Subnet masks are IP addresses that are used only on your network. 192.168.1.x is usually the standard subnet address, with each x being a number to correspond to each individual NIC (Network Interface Card) connected to your router, AND your router itself.

Anyway, good luck.

I watched that movie for the first time on VHS at a friend's house from pre-school. You see, we were initially playing this AWESOME looney toons game (Rabbit Rampage) on SNES, but the parents were all "hey too much video games do something else."

Absolutely loved that movie. When I was little I actually had a yellow blanket that I was infinitely attached to, just like the electric blankey in the movie. Wore the thing to rags. :' )

You can conduct your popularity contest in your blog.

At 11/9/09 10:39 PM, amaterasu wrote: In other words, we do not know what type of configuration far far away matter is in at our current frame of time. All we see is the light, gamma rays, radio waves, etc that has been emitted by said matter.

But it doesn't matter what frame of time we're in: it's still reality. Like, are the dinosaurs not real because we can't directly observe them? No, we have evidence and thanks to a basic understanding of a number of different premises we are able to extrapolate what we imagine the reality to be with an increasing level of accuracy as more information is present.

It's not that there is an illusion, it's that there's lack of clarity. I mean, the argument you're making is that we don't KNOW anything, we don't SEE anything, etc. That's a philosophical consideration that many may agree with, but when it comes to claiming that reality is an illusion, the argument has overstepped its bounds.

Human observation or understanding is not necessary for something to be real. Anyway, you're referring to a concept of science that becomes incredibly important at the quantum scale. We don't even have to travel those great distances you suggest to be unable to observe, we can simply change the scale of size (which, interestingly enough, is related to speed... as something approaches light speed length is distorted as well as time). At the subatomic level, humans are unable to (directly) observe changes. Why? Because our methods of observation are such that we must induce change in the system in order to observe it. In order to 'see' something, we need light. Light is, at it's smallest, a single subatomic particle called a photon. How do we see a reaction on the subatomic scale if only one photon is emitted, or none?

The Roman Coliseum is pretty badass. The thing took 10 years to build and was used for over 400. And a thousand years later it's still mostly standing.

I am not a vegetarian because meat is delicious.

I disagree with any vegetarian who thinks everyone should be a vegetarian. However, I have no opinion on any vegetarian who simply is a vegetarian because that's what they want.

I also don't agree with most of the justifications for vegetarianism. They seem to have strong arguments against the BEEF industry, which allegedly mass-produces their product in ways that call into question how humane they've been; despite the fact that beef is not the only meat. The argument that life is sacred also doesn't hold water, because the destruction of plant life, which is just as alive as animal is unavoidable. Not to mention the hypocrisy in keeping your hands clean and disease-free. Viruses aren't technically alive, but bacteria and parasites are.

The arguments are great arguments to have, but they are not necessarily relevant for why I shouldn't eat meat. The final answer is that there is no reason why I shouldn't eat meat, other than any I decide for myself.

Anyway, I recently had moose steaks thanks to my aunt's boyfriend's son's recent hunting success, cooked extra rare. They were absolutely delicious.

What about our observations make them not real in the way that 'illusion' implies?

My last name, 'Stark' is just about the manliest name I can think of. I mean, it refers to plainness, strength, and nudity. Hell yes.

Thanks to standardized road signs pretty much universally, text doesn't even need to be printed in order to understand most signs. Red means 'no' or 'be extremely cautious', interstate badges are easy to recognize, services (on American highways anyway) are in blue, yellow means 'hazard', etc.

There is also a standardized text size called for in the printing of most signs (depending on the speed of the roadway). Highways have the largest font in order to be read most easily from the largest distance.

Best thing since sliced bread.

... ok that was bad.

I'd definitely buy one of those if I needed a toaster and they were for sale. Impractical is a poor argument to make against a functional toaster, unnecessary is a case I'd buy, though.

At 11/8/09 07:47 PM, ZeldaFreak701 wrote: Didn't think much of it at the time, but now today I'm actually pretty fucking pissed at him for saying that. NG, do you think I'm justified in my anger?

Well, what's the difference now from then? Why do think much of it now?

I mean, I'd say the resentment is justified, but to now hold a grudge without having initially taken offense is just baffling. So... did you have it coming or not? You say you were complaining about not getting enough hours and admit freely to us this fact, were you equally open with the co-worker about that?

I dunno. Shrug it off.

An idea.

Not so much a horrible person as spineless vermin. You'd have no trouble doing such a horrible prank to me, but lemme assure you that you'd never enjoy the gleeful revelation. If I knew you'd done something like that to me we'd have fisticuffs.

Next time she's friendly be a snarky douchebag. I had some girl that wouldn't leave me alone some semesters back. A response of "I said that?!" and an incredulous look to "I thought you said we were going to hang out this past weekend?" after purposely avoiding sitting remotely near her in the lecture for a full week solidly gave the message.

I'm not the bad guy here either. She'd toss out bitch comments every other minute of conversation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloucester,
_MA#Demographics

My hometown of 30k+. Blue Collar, traditional fishing port (oldest in the nation, in fact): 92% white. It's not that special, really.

At 11/6/09 09:42 AM, SteveGuzzi wrote: just trying to make your boring topic marginally less boring

A valiant effort.

Anyway, keep us updated on whether or not the King of Town hires you in your userpage.

I guess you forgot to notice 'remake' in the ad, thereby making it so 'original' simply refers to the version that inspired the remake.

Stupidity, or convenience? You decide.

At 11/5/09 12:08 AM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote: Sagittarius: You will be surprised to realise how much of a fucking failure you are. Remember, down the road and not across the street.

Wow, I just had an epiphany. Time for a walk around the block.

This is why one of the major arguments for our style of government was that it divides the public necessarily into factions so that no one group would ever be more than its share powerful. If these factions weren't conveniently sidestepped by democrats and republicans, but instead our government was truly representative of the diversity of political thinking in the population, things would work a lot better; IMO.