6,830 Forum Posts by "SolInvictus"
At 3/31/11 06:57 AM, LordZeebmork wrote: also, keep in mind that the guy who wrote the article sat on the data for five years out of fear that he'd get booted out of academia for publishing something so politically incorrect. the bits about long-term identity have no scientific basis and were just put there so he could cover his ass.
that must be why he goes on and on about how terrible the immigrant influenced future will be;
"So our societies will inevitably be more ethnically diverse tomorrow than they are today. And that diversity will be a valuable national asset.3 It is not merely that national cuisine is enhanced by immigration, or even that culture of all sorts is enhanced by diversity, though culture and cuisine in my own country provide powerful evidence of those benefits.
* %u2022%u2002
Creativity in general seems to be enhanced by immigration and diversity (Simonton 1999). Throughout history, for example, immigrants have accounted for three to four times as many of America's Nobel Laureates, National Academy of Science members, Academy Award film directors and winners of Kennedy Center awards in the performing arts as native-born Americans (Lerner & Roy 1984; Simonton 1999, Chapter 6; Smith & Edmonston 1997, 384-5). If we were to include second-generation immigrants (i.e. the children of immigrants), the contribution of immigrants would be even greater. Many (though not all) of the scores of studies of collective creativity in work groups (in business, education and so on) find that diversity fosters creativity (Webber & Donahue 2001; O'Reilly et al. 1997; Williams & O'Reilly 1998). Scott Page (2007) has powerfully summarized evidence that diversity (especially intellectual diversity) produces much better, faster problem-solving.
* %u2022%u2002
Immigration is generally associated with more rapid economic growth. The economics profession has debated the short-run economic consequences of immigration for native workers. While there are important distributional effects to be considered, especially the impact of immigration on low-wage native workers in the US, the weight of the evidence suggests that the net effect of immigration is to increase national income. One recent study, for example, suggests that the income of native-born Americans rises more rapidly, ceteris paribus, if they are living in places with more immigrants than if they are living in places with fewer immigrants.4
* %u2022%u2002
In advanced countries with aging populations, immigration is important to help offset the impending fiscal effects of the retirement of the baby-boom generation (Smith & Edmonston 1997, Chapters 6 and 7). In my country, for example, young immigrant workers (documented and undocumented) contribute financially to our Social Security system, but will not draw benefits for several decades, if at all, thus mitigating the otherwise unsustainable imbalance in the medium term between outflow and inflow into our national coffers.5 This effect is even more important in the more rapidly aging nations of Europe and East Asia.
* %u2022%u2002
New research from the World Bank has highlighted yet another benefit from immigration, one of special relevance to the Nordic countries that have long played a disproportionate role on issues of global development. This new research suggests that immigration from the global South to the richer North greatly enhances development in the South, partly because of remittances from immigrants to their families back home and partly because of the transfer of technology and new ideas through immigrant networks. So powerful is this effect that despite 'brain drain' costs, increasing annual northward immigration by only three percentage points might produce net benefits greater than meeting all our national targets for development assistance plus cancelling all Third World debt plus abolishing all barriers to Third World trade (World Bank 2005; Pritchett 2006)"
read your links before making claims (*&@#!
At 3/30/11 08:54 AM, KemCab wrote:At 3/29/11 07:33 PM, SolInvictus wrote: that seems to create one hell of a false dichotomy.It's not even a dichotomy, you know.
i can't read minds; if you are going to present something as a spectrum and expect people to understand it as such, you have to explain it that way.
At 3/30/11 05:50 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: Big Oil only got so powerful when S T U P I D H I P P I E S skipped the "nuclear" chapter in physics class and decided anything related to bombs was scary.
reductio ad hippiium!!!
At 3/29/11 03:50 PM, KemCab wrote: A healthy culture assimilates and dominates; a failed culture attempts to accommodate and make concessions.
that seems to create one hell of a false dichotomy. many strong/dominant cultures/ethnicities/nations have made considerable accommodations and concessions without themselves being overshadowed or eliminated, while weaker/less influential ones have failed despite attempts to assimilate and dominate (or through introversion, which should increase internal homogeneity and strength).
assimilation and accommodation are both part of well and poorly defined cultures/peoples (though it seems unlikely accommodation and/or assimilation can be undertaken as a product of a weak culture).
At 3/29/11 08:47 AM, morefngdbs wrote: Spent fuel rods have to be stored for thousands & thousands of years & many places they are only 'temporarily' stored !
or they can be recycled. what's that? everyone is too afraid of the word nuclear to allow for an effective method of making them safe.
encouraging nuclear energy would, if the logic of progress applies, encourage advancements in the elimination of waste.
plus, i really want super powers.
At 3/27/11 09:36 AM, Me-Patch wrote: Then why refer to it specificly as "ethnic" homogeneity? Cultural homogeneity and ethnic homogeneity are two distinct concepts completely independent of one another.
not really; theres a lot of overlap in most classifications of ethnicity, culture and society. and where there isn't, as a few people have pointed out, homogeneity is about as impossible as making us into social insects.
At 3/26/11 08:17 AM, Korriken wrote:At 3/26/11 06:44 AM, joe9320 wrote: Eventually, every economic system causes human greed. Our greed destroys the world.lemme grab my shovel a fishbowl and some scuba gear and i'll join you.
I'm going to start colonizing Mars.
don't forget the firewood, dag-namit!
At 3/25/11 06:58 PM, JordanD wrote:not necessarily that particular atom, and only since a little after the big bang... and sometimes tunneling out of existence...We don't know that though. So we can't assume either or.
we don't know that? you're going on about reason and science, yet now its nothing but assumptions.
I believe both athiests and theists believe 2 halfs to the whole.
you denied god and religion earlier on, don't start trying to cozy up with them now.
we have trouble seeing it BECAUSE of all of the religious dogma that has built up for centuries.
tits; religion without dogma is not religion.
They don't put much together.
historically bollocks.
...you had hundreds of boxes representing the beliefs and teachings of one Creator.
religiously bollocks.
At 3/25/11 06:58 PM, JordanD wrote: I think that through my thinking 1000$ could have had some kind of subconscious effect in him thinking of me when he saw it. I mean, he told me he just got this urge to send it to me, he didn't know i needed money, and he could have had the thought "Send it to _______' ANYONE, why did he pick me? Were all subconsciously connected. I think that's how.
earlier on you denied one could affect others with the mind, and never responded as to whether you got that cancer i projected into you checked out, yet now you're claiming thoughts can indeed affect others. i'm glad you're consistent.
At 3/25/11 02:33 AM, SolInvictus wrote: thread might be fun to bring those up .
i didn't mean for it to look annoying in the original post.
At 3/23/11 10:10 PM, Hybridization wrote: By decay I meant deteriorate in organization (basically what you said about what they are a part of). Apologies, as I was paraphrasing. Energy can be exhausted. But electrons, for instance, have they been orbiting the nucleus of the atom for eternity?
not necessarily that particular atom, and only since a little after the big bang... and sometimes tunneling out of existence...
It's the simplest argument to bring up in a short paragraph. Not even close to the strongest arguments. I could go into cell composition and the flagella evolutionary paradox if you'd like. That's two examples of hundreds, even thousands of stronger arguments than luck. But, the chance-based system is so farfetched, that it alone should be sufficient to raise eyebrows. There are only about 10^80 atoms in the universe. Compare that to 10^40,000 and you should be convinced already that matter did not create itself.
most of those may have come up but i might be thinking of another thread. might . be . fun . to . bring . those . up .
how is something of which we have no knowledge (and something which is unknowable in the case of the divine) the logical option?If you are mature enough to truly consider the complexity of this world we live in, design (like it or not) is the logical option. We have no knowledge of either side of the argument.
we don't know the designer, his methods or the extent of his design. but when science ignores this, as it is undefinable, seeking the machinations of our world (the workings of the design), we're going about it wrong?
Both atheists and theists believe in something that cannot ever be proven.
God made us of matter and placed us in a world of matter; nevermind matter.
This is all assuming that you believe that matter has been around for eternity. If not, then I would like an explanation of what theory you side with (Variations of the Big Bang, etc.)
matter probably hasn't been around for all eternity (probably a little after the big bang again), prior to that (but still after the big bang) energy (at least i think thats what happens when stuff is at a temperature of 10 billion kelvin), and before that we can't know because its beyond the universe's existence (there was no time and space).
but again, this is my summation of a much more complicated set of actions that i have no particularly broad knowledge of.
At 3/23/11 11:35 PM, JordanD wrote: You say it's unknowable
i don't actually. i am referring to the underpinning of most religions, the supernatural beyond human understanding. we already know you're well beyond religion.
At 3/24/11 01:17 PM, bcdemon wrote: There is a IDF Navy base in Ashdod and the Palmachim I.D.F air force base just north of Ashdod.
Can you prove they weren't trying to hit those bases?
yay for proving negatives!
Israeli settlers hold a "Day of Rage", interesting read.
Israeli settlers running over kids? Really??
awesome, so as in Palestine, there are things that fall beyond the scope of government, irrelevant of what the government wants.
At 3/24/11 11:11 AM, bcdemon wrote: So technically, Hamas could be firing on military installations and missing, the same way the IDF does. Don't all Israeli settlements/towns have IDF installations?
holy nutbars Batman.
At 3/24/11 04:05 AM, WolvenBear wrote: Spin it how you like, but faith helps. There's simply no getting around this.
bravo, but that wasn't the question.
At 3/23/11 05:35 PM, Hybridization wrote: A professor said to me earlier, "Either matter is eternal, or it was created. And since we are positive that matter decays, it is impossible for it to be eternal."
define matter; because last i checked the matter and energy do not decay (though what they are a part of does).
I don't believe in intelligent design because it is a popular belief, but because it is the only logical reason. Even some atheists (who examine the situation objectively) must admit that design makes more sense than a luck based (and I'm talking one in 10^40,000 chance) haphazard appearance of complete and total order.
if your only argument is based on "luck" there is a serious issue with your argument.
(Before I start receiving the hate responses, please note that by "intelligent design" I do not necessarily mean "God". If you want to substitute "aliens" or something of the like to make yourself more comfortable, by all means do so. But, God, or a Supreme Being, is the strongest candidate in my opinion.)
how is something of which we have no knowledge (and something which is unknowable in the case of the divine) the logical option?
At 3/22/11 11:00 PM, JordanD wrote: I have been, and i am. We create our own realities, I am not responsible and cannot cure anyone elses cancer but my own - however if i had it, i could prove to you that it's curable.
i disagree and posit that thought and brainwaves are transmissible and of substance; after all, the pyramids weren't built by one man with a plan, once he willed it, he willed their construction into his companions and voila! a pyramid was built.
therefore, i believe you have cancer; my positivist thoughts on the matter see it happening within you (i'm not going to tell you where, thats the surprise) and impose upon you its consequences by the physical interactions of my mental projections with your own.
now that you have cancer, you may begin healing yourself with your mind.
At 3/22/11 09:45 AM, Korriken wrote: before someone goes mouthing about as "damn republicans will stoop to any level to hurt Obama!"
Kucinich is a democrat.
damn stealth-republicans?
At 3/21/11 06:40 PM, JordanD wrote: All of it was done because the human mind thought of it, and then proceeded to do it.
*sigh* did you just discover that, as a human, you have human mental faculties? is there a significant portion of the population that doesn't know they are capable of planning, foresight and follow through and would be as stunned (and seemingly confused) as you are to discover this?
At 3/21/11 11:04 AM, JordanD wrote: Didn't the last pope say before he died that there was no hell, and that they made it up to scare people? :P
theres no purgatory; hell is still there, but it ain't that bad.
No, but if he saw it fixed in his mind and worked towards that, he could fix it. Whether he "had faith" that he could, or "believed in himself", it's all the same thing. We are creators, we can do anything.
i saw myself deathstar-ing the whole world... its part of my get-into-hell visualization.
and i will make it true!!!!!!!!!!
At 3/20/11 11:50 PM, JMCJoe wrote:At 3/20/11 05:13 PM, Camarohusky wrote:I mean for us humans. How are you supposed to contain that much heat?At 3/20/11 03:11 PM, JMCJoe wrote: Isn't nuclear fusion mathematically impossible?I just talked to the Sun recently, and it assured that it is possible.
holy poo! thanks for inspiring me to look that up. :D
At 3/19/11 09:47 AM, satanbrain wrote: 50 mortars fired into Israel, 2 injured; IDF strikes Gaza, is this still not an escalation?
escalation? yes. third intifada? this still doesn't demonstrate it.
At 3/18/11 10:18 PM, JordanD wrote: That's what they were trying to achieve, and that's how they were trying to do it.
so they were trying to make a ship "invisible" by physically moving it to another dimension despite the fact that knowledge of other dimensions wasn't as it is today (and still is completely incongruous with what you describe as "dimensions"), and while also completely ignoring the fact that creating the illusion of invisibility involves no physical movement of matter (if you can't see something because it teleported, that's because its no-longer physically there and not because its invisible), and how these two things are fantastically unrelated.
what i like is that since the video and other retellings of the Philadelphia experiment (of which i've heard plenty of differing details [inconsistencies in methods and goals described are a giant concern of truthiness]) are dealing with lots of energy and electromagnets (where the fuck did they get the power necessary to bend light at that time? the pact they made with Cthulu, probably), it seems to explain just about any possible outcome... if it weren't for science saying that energy and electromagnets don't automatically result in either if you put enough power and science into something. i just had a look, and electromagnets have no place in research being done on invisibility (i.e. that's not how it works), not too mention it has even less to do with instantaneous travel through time and space.
another issue is the fact that the ship supposedly reappeared in a different American military port on the Eastern seaboard; one hell of a coincidence considering the ship couldn't keep itself and its crew from fusing together.
in fact, i used my latent ability to partially, physio-cognitively, slip in and out of existence (which science proves is true for atoms) to go have a look at what happened back then. turns out they turned on the generators and electrocuted every crew member in contact with the metal hull (and a whole bunch of fish). science says this makes perfect sense because sea water is a conductor, and along with the fact that my atoms are blinking in and out of existence as well as being replaced entirely over time. despite this i am able to maintain my cognizance, which would be impossible if my neurons were constantly dying as opposed to branching out over space and time.
thus science proves what i have seen and that i am, or am almost, a god.
At 3/18/11 07:22 PM, JordanD wrote: Lets talk about the philidalphia experiment.
...
The experiment tried to make a US navy ship invisible... In essence, the ship would be taken to another dimension and returned back to this one.
... that's not invisibility...
At 3/11/11 09:19 AM, JordanD wrote: Lol, watch the video i posted about egypt yo. You're quick to laugh at the funny site yet the stuff that's truly fascinating is always overlooked.
holy poop; the video is narrated by Jeremy Clarkson!!!
At 3/10/11 01:40 PM, JordanD wrote: Double Slit Experiment
science made me happy by explaining this. science is God.
it's been said before, but; the webpage on Egypt was hilarious, thank you. (God?<3)
At 3/10/11 07:10 PM, bcdemon wrote:At 3/10/11 11:58 AM, SolInvictus wrote:You're right, there are a few places that have "rape by fraud" laws, but very few prosecute for it.At 3/10/11 09:48 AM, bcdemon wrote: That and charging Arabs with rape because they said they were Jewish to get laid is a joke too.rape by fraud laws isn't a uniquely Israeli thing.
and from what can be seen, Israel doesn't seem to be leading the field in this laws use either. yay! they're good guys now!
you're a*
as in you're in your bunker!!!
At 3/10/11 12:11 PM, KemCab wrote: In fact, if I had millions of dollars, that's exactly what I would do. I wouldn't waste it on charity or activism. If a collapse is bound to happen, people should know better by now than to try to prevent it.
so you don't have much interest in possible social collapse, as one should be able to deal with it on an individual level. yet you have no means of acting individually (or is it that you would rather not divulge the fact your a bunkered-in multi-millionnaire? [smart move]) but still feel that going along for the ride is the best solution.
all right, maybe i twisted "best" out of "only"...
At 3/9/11 08:26 PM, JordanD wrote: We are God
i have one better; society is God!
... well not in the omnipotent speaking creation and shitting lightning sort of way. we just like externalizing our descriptions of how the world runs to something bigger than us.
At 3/10/11 09:48 AM, bcdemon wrote: That and charging Arabs with rape because they said they were Jewish to get laid is a joke too.
rape by fraud laws isn't a uniquely Israeli thing.
