3,623 Forum Posts by "Ravariel"
On a lighter note, I cannot stop listening to this cover. My god.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9yMXzARTZE&list=UUORIeT1hk6tYBuntEXsguLg
At 3/26/14 07:25 PM, Camarohusky wrote:At 3/26/14 07:12 PM, Ravariel wrote: Brain-Computer interfaces and prosthetics for the disabled as the bridge to human technological augmentation.I get the feeling that this field is going to explode in a few years. It's on the edge of a major breakthrough and once that happens, it should go off like a rocket.
That is my expectation, too. Darpa's Luke Arm is in human trials and should be on the market soon. Brain Gate and others are doing amazing things with robotic limbs controlled by thought. I'll be looking at these things from a social/anthropological perspective, assessing what augmentation might mean for the human race. Should be fun.
At 3/26/14 01:19 AM, Camarohusky wrote:At 3/25/14 09:52 PM, Ravariel wrote: "It is with great pleasure that I write to inform you that you have been accepted into the Ph.D. program in Science and Technology Studies at Virginia Tech's Blacksburg campus."What are you looking to study? (Program of Science and Technology sounds like it covers tons of different disciplines)
Brain-Computer interfaces and prosthetics for the disabled as the bridge to human technological augmentation.
Effectively I am studying the inevitable cyborg apocalypse.
That's... not actually a joke.
Who's got two thumbs and is now officially a Hokie?
"It is with great pleasure that I write to inform you that you have been accepted into the Ph.D. program in Science and Technology Studies at Virginia Tech's Blacksburg campus."
Drinks are on me. Furious happy-dancing may occur. Fair warning.
It feels to me kinda like this, only swap NK for Iran. Sure they get some PR out of it, but it feels like a kid holding his hand a centimeter away from a sibling saying "I'm not touching you!"
At 9/13/13 10:41 PM, Camarohusky wrote:At 9/13/13 08:57 PM, RydiaLockheart wrote: I love it out West.I have to dispute that Vegas is "Out West."
The only people who don't think Vegas is out west live in California, and they don't count when determining what out west is. Similarly, you might think heading to Boston or DC is heading "out east", but folk in NY would beg to differ.
Waitwaitwaitwait... I think my brain just broke.
Smilez... advocating raising the minimum wage.
Today is opposite day, isn't it? Why did nobody tell me?
I counter your penis with RAGTIME!
At 7/18/13 11:31 PM, Camarohusky wrote:At 7/18/13 09:18 PM, Ravariel wrote: Adding a "Not Proven" version would needlessly complicate what is already a complicated enough process to confuse your average Juror (see both cases under discussion), and kick up an even larger media/social shitstorm in cases like these.Some jurisdictions do have a "no contest" plea. In these cases the person essentially pleads guilty without saying so. Never understood why it mattered as plea agreements contain a waiver of appeal (lest it have to do with lea under fraud or duress and alike).
From my understanding, "No Contest" pleas are the way out of the prisoner's dilemma for (usually innocent) folk for whom the evidence is likely to net them a conviction, and allow them to end up with less severe sentencing. Or for Guilty folk to do the same, and get out of costly settlement agreements with their opponents/victims. Then again this is likely more from too much Law & Order and The Good Wife than any actual legal experience. It may be that a "no contest" plea lands you in a different spot legally than a guilty verdict, I don't know.
At 7/18/13 07:47 PM, Camarohusky wrote: I wouldalso point out the terminolgy used. "Not Guilty" as opposed to "innocent". In our trials we never officially declare a person innocent, as while it may be functionally relevant, it's not legally relevant to the outcome.
Well, since we assume innocence in our justice system, the two are, but for a hair's breadth in semantics, the same.
Adding a "Not Proven" version would needlessly complicate what is already a complicated enough process to confuse your average Juror (see both cases under discussion), and kick up an even larger media/social shitstorm in cases like these.
Considering they are briefed and renew the surveillance go-ahead ever three months, I'm not terribly surprised.
That said, I'm sure some of them didn't want to be anywhere near a public briefing about a massively unpopular program that they, themselves greenlit, and likely will allow to continue indefinitely.
At 6/7/13 11:28 PM, Ravariel wrote: We can even send information in bubbles of time that don't exist out of phase with our universe.
Bah, that "don't" shouldn't be there. Remnant from an earlier, more poorly-worded attempt at explanation.
rackum frackum edit butto*Banhammer'd by pox*
Been a while since I exercised this muscle... Let's see if it still works.
At 5/30/13 07:35 PM, Love wrote: Would you agree that the following are the only possible explanations for the existence of the universe (universe meaning "all things")? If not, what is missing?
1. The universe is an illusion.
2. The universe created itself.
3. The universe is eternal.
4. The universe was created by something eternal.
5: The universe is the result of natural phenomena based in the structure of spacetime, or the substrate that allows spacetime to exist.
1. The universe is an illusion.
It's pretty silly that I even have to mention this.. but an illusion by its very nature requires something experiencing said illusion. So, something must exist somewhere for an illusion to occur. At some point, you will have to conclude that this statement is illogical even if you believe in illusions within illusions.. [Inception quote here].
2. The universe created itself.
This one is also silly because it is an analytically false statement. For the universe to have created itself, it would have to have existed prior to creating itself. Nothing cannot cause something and initially be absolutely nothing. Something caused something, and you are returned to square one! Thus, something must have existed eternally (no beginning). This leaves the remaining two options:
3. The universe is eternal.
For the universe to be eternal, it could not have a beginning. Aside from the fact that scientists have proven the universe had a beginning (Big Bang), you would still have to argue the second law of thermodynamics and the universe expansion. Entropy proves the universe moves away from order and towards chaos (decay). Something eternal cannot begin to decay unless caused by something else (so.. it was never eternal to begin with and you have to start over on this list with the something which "caused").
Actually (no link this time, too many disparate things to draw together) the big bang is not known to be the "beginning of the universe", it is merely a point in spacetime at which all matter in the universe was contained in a single point. We simply cannot look back past that point in spacetime. That in no way means that spacetime does not extend beyond that point. In fact, thinking of time as a line is not correct, as it in fact, is as mutable as space and matter. We can even send information in bubbles of time that don't exist out of phase with our universe. And this is with current technology. Imagine, considering the exponential pace of scientific advance, what a similar set of scientists will be able to do in 20-30 years.
So, through logical steps, we have reached the only valid conclusion:
4. The universe was created by something eternal.
Possible only through being impossible to invalidate.
Now that we have deduced that the universe must have been created by an eternal outside force, let's examine the characteristics of this force:
A. It must be unbound by the universe and the laws within. (see 4.)
Likely, though not necessary. Bootstrapping a universe while being a part of spacetime (or whatever substrate that allows spacetime to exist) is still technically possible.
B. It must be omnipotent and omnipresent. (see A)
Not true.
C. It must be the same eternally. (see A)
Not true.
D. It must be non-physical. (see C)
What do you mean by this?
E. It must be personal. (personality cannot create itself)
Not shown.
F. It must be singular. (multiple infinities is a paradox)
All infinities are paradoxical. Xeno would like a word with you.
G. It must be diverse. (see E)
Define diverse, and show its necessity.
H. It must be supremely intelligent. (see E and B)
Likely, but not necessarily. Multiple Humanlike intelligences over a long enough time frame could replicate the universe (Monkeys, typewriters and MacBeth parable).
- The being must have morals. (law needs a writer)
What laws? Physical or social?
- The being must have love/care. (without which, laws are not written)
No, he need only be curious (if indeed s/he/it (I love how that turns into a Wire quote (NSFW (Yes, I like parentheticals... sue me)) when written like that) created the universe on purpose).
How many faiths meet the requirements I have presented to you? I will leave you to answer that :)
Most, actually.
Regardless, you cannot logically deny the natural phenomena explanation, any more than I can deny the Intelligent actor explanation. As we cannot see past the universal event horizon that is the Big Bang, it is unlikely, barring an eventual ability to escape spacetime, that such a question will ever be answered with any certainty. That said, while science may never actually reach "The Answer," we can logically assume that it will approach it asymptotically.
If the laws and the rules laid down in the Upanishads (that is what you were talking about, right?) make you feel better and help you live a good life, then I'm hardly about to try and stop you. However, when you try to force those words into a scientific position... well let's just say the Gods of the Gaps is starting to feel a bit cramped.
At 5/25/13 08:33 AM, Camarohusky wrote: The real issue is: Why do groups that are 100% political get tax breaks at all?
That's.... sigh.... basically because the IRS doesn't have the balls to decline tax exempt status to all of the new groups allowed by Citizens United. Groups like Americans for Prosperity and the other super-pacs basically dared the IRS to revoke their tax exempt status, and they pussied out.
This event may be, in fact, a result of internal struggles in the IRS to get more of a backbone.
At 5/6/13 12:43 AM, Warforger wrote: You didn't respond to the person you thought you responded to by the way.
I was all like "Did I post in here earlier? Must be my Alzheimer's kicking in..."
At 5/5/13 09:01 PM, UltraHammer wrote: For the eighty-seventh trillionth time, his 'forty seven percent' comment was made in the context of "okay guys, here's the situation. Over here are the people who are never going to vote for me no matter what, and over here are the people who I have a chance of winning over."
That may have been how it started, but he didn't stop there. He then went on to say that that 47% were lazy, entitled moochers who would never take care of their own lives. It was an insensitive, incorrct, and, most importantly, an impolitic thing to say. And when your job is politics, that's what kills you.
The thing is, you just want Todd Akin to be pro rape. His quote was that of a really bad understanding of the human body. There was nothing, absolutely, positively nothing about whether-or-not rape is acceptable. None. At. All.
Actually, no. While his "understanding" of biology is head-slappingly nonexistent, that wasn't the problem with his comment. Noone thinks Akin is "pro-rape" so you can go burn down that strawman somewhere else. The problem with his comment was the fact that he intimates a large number of reported rapes are outright lies, done by women for personal gain, or in order to shirk some supposed responsibility for an unexpected pregnancy. That is the truly galling thing about his comments.
Did anyone ever stop to realize that if calling someone a prostitute after twenty five years of being on the radio is just about the most sexist thing you've ever said, doesn't that shine a very, very positive light on Rush?
So, it's "he's not sexist because he wasn't as sexist as he could be"? Really?
Heck after the Fluke incident blew up, many conservative commentary outlets were pointing out how Bill Maher and the 'Ed' show make far worse, far more sexist jokes on a regular basis. I.E. Maher calling Sarah Palin the C-word.
The comparison might be apt if there was a similar power dynamic between Maher and the democratic party, and if he didn't already get LOOOOOADS of shit from the evil "liberal media" for it.
At 4/13/13 08:54 PM, Cynical-Charlotte wrote: Very well. From now on, any imperfection within a system is justification for compounding the problems.
Or we can actually do the hard stuff, and work on ironing out the imperfections while also treating everyone equally. Strange idea, I know.
It is true that the vast majority of gay relationships originate due to broken homes. How then, can one even begin to consider sponsoring this family structure? Is it because there may be a handful of exceptions? Reasoning in this way would result in the sponsorship of abandoning children due to the exceptional orphans who have become successful.
This is in the logical fallacy called "begging the question". Your premise is not implicitly true, which renders your conclusions completely unsupportable.
It would be logical to assume gay couples (once admitted) will receive all benefits associated with marriage - isn't that the point?
He's Socrates-ing you. And finally you have answered his first question. I believe now is when the second question hits. My guess is that it will be this:
Specifically which of these benefits do you believe should not apply to a homosexual couple based on their inability to conceive a child in the "normal" manner (ignoring for the moment that there is no actual barrier to homosexuals reproducing in non-standard ways) with each other, as well as which benefits are wasted on heterosexual couples who do not procreate)?
My apologies if I have stolen any thunder, or misinterpreted the thrust of this particular line of questioning.
Your study has massive holes and really only addresses broken homes compared to broken homes. It does not prove that homosexuality is the cause,You indicated yourself that homosexuality is the cause:
"... All this study actually shows is that a brroken home headed by a homosexual has a higher percentage of problems than a borken home run by a heterosexual."
No, only you attribute cause. Camaro only states the statistical correlation of a very small sample in one study. You are falling prey to yet another logical fallacy; that of Hasty Generalization.
Moreover, "homosexuality" is not hereditary nor is it a trait of any other sort beyond action-description.
Heredity is a far more complicated beast than you seem willing to comprehend. We already know that a single gene is not the cause of homosexuality, nor a mere pair. It is a cocktail of genes, hormones, and upbringing that likely make homosexuality a thing. However, there is clear statistical evidence that homosexuality has a genetic component.
At 4/7/13 10:50 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:At 4/7/13 02:14 AM, Ravariel wrote:At 4/7/13 12:59 AM, Korriken wrote:If the republican party kindly asked the president to put forward a budget that includes massive tax increases and massive spending increases [on whatever the democratic party wanted] -- with a promise to vote "present" they could get around this problem easily.
All one big Dog and Pony show.
I wonder which would be the more hilarious outcome of such a move:
1) The economy turns around immediately and we see 4+% growth over the next several quarters (natch leading to another bust, but there's only so far we can look ahead for humor's sake)
2) The Economy stalls, falls back into recession and Repubs swoop in for victory, giving us years of 1-2% growth and austerity.
or
3) nothing much at all changes.
At 4/6/13 09:38 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: ... in MN the Deer tags per person for each hunter is 4-5
Here in Michigan, I don't know that there is a limit.... I think you simply can only ever have one tag at a time. I'm half surprised you need a license to hunt deer at all... with all the logging and the edge-forest it creates, we're practically drowning in bambi, especially north of Cadillac/TC.
At 4/7/13 12:59 AM, Korriken wrote: linky
Not sure what they're worried about, it's not like the proposal will pass, hell even Obama knows this. it might have some changes to Medicare and Social Security, but it also has tax increases, which the right shits itself over and begins foaming at the mouth when placed near. It will amount to little more than a "Hey, I tried!" moment.
unless, of course, the right does something insane like passing the budget, which won't happen.
All one big Dog and Pony show. I bet the Dem's even got together to decide who would be the one(s) to freak out over the budget, to make it look like Obama was rebelling against the establishment to extend the olive branch to the Repubs, so that it was win-win regardless of what the right did. If they passed the budget (or something like it) huzzah, Obama both passed a budget we like and was able to move the right to compromise. Or they don't pass it, and the dem's get to say "look at them, we even offered up one of our most sacred of cows, and they still wouldn't budge, they just hate everything Obama and hate America, and want to kill and eat old people, which is ironic considering their base's makeup."
At 3/29/13 09:30 PM, Cynical-Charlotte wrote: Personally, I agree. I don't think marriage should have anything to do with the state.
That would be great, and in spirit, I agree, except for that little niggling problem of resolving legal issues. I also have a strong belief in the fact that families should get tax benefits, as part of a greater encouragement by the state of stability and community, both of which have positive social and economic benefits.
Your problem is threefold:
1st: you assume that the only reason for marriage benefit is for the production of the next generation for the purposes of economic expansion. This is demonstrably false.
2nd: you discount cost benefits of stable families beyond the addition of individuals into the workforce.
3rd: you ignore the fact that there are already more children than there are stable families that can/are able to care for them.
You sound like a relatively intelligent person attempting to rationalize yourself out of the cognitive dissonance created by the collision of your upbringing with the real world. You're beginning to realize that there is a little more nuance than your parents might have indicated. You're not quite there yet, but you've only scratched the surface. The depth of complexity and nuance in a question of such import is astounding, and I expect you're close to having enough experience to appreciate it. My bet is that in a couple years, you'll be posting a pink = on your facebook (or whatever similar meme happens to pop up then).
At 3/29/13 12:07 AM, Cynical-Charlotte wrote: I am simply suggesting that gay couples would be accepting benefits for a function they are physically unable to accomplish. Leeching would be harsh, but synonymous.
I wonder if I'm actually the first one to say this in this topic, but...
Gay people actually can and do have children. All the time. It's not even, like, rare among them.
At 3/28/13 09:39 PM, Cynical-Charlotte wrote: Demonstrate to me how the state benefits from gay marriage, and thus, is justified in offering the same aid associated with traditional marriage.
Demonstrate to me how the State benefits from marriage at all, first.
At 3/28/13 06:05 PM, Cynical-Charlotte wrote: So be it. Many people require these benefits in order to have a productive life. Removing these benefits because a minority of people don't like the way a word is used is idiotic.
And yet, you would deny similar benefits, that could allow more people to have a productive life because a minority of other people don't like the way a word is used.
Funny, that.
At 3/8/13 11:51 AM, TheMason wrote: My concern is that Pyongyang is failing and it is difficult for Jong-Un to hold-on to power. Kim may throw a tantrum by unleashing hell.
Yeah, that is the worry. Tantrums are, almost by definition, irrational. If NK is, as you alluded to, the metaphorical national equivalent of a school shooter, then we have real reason to be nervous.
If, on the other hand, Kim is just doing his best Achmedinadinnerjacket impression while the Military actually runs things, then there may be an ulterior motive, though I can't imagine what that would be. I hesitate to attribute guile hwere there may be none, but I think you're right in warning against underestimation of their abilities or resolve, and overestimating their sanity.
At 3/7/13 07:38 PM, TheMason wrote: We could literally see millions of S. Korean civilian dead before the first week of fighting is over. In the first three days will we probably have more US military dead than the entire 12 years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Not to mention the thousands of American civilians over there.
The cost of blood will be far more than the cost of treasure.
I know you're likely right about this. President Park likely knows this as well, as does Obama and President Xi. Kim has to know he couldn't win an outright conflict against the west, and so is likely assuming support from China. Yet the latest round of sanctions just passed the UN with China's support (token though it may be). One wonders whether China will, on it's own initiative, covertly propagate a regime change if the North get's too brazen in it's anti-west stance. They have as much or more to lose than the US in any military conflict in the peninsula.
Like you said, an American proxy/colony on its border would make a lot of people nervous, so China has a vested interest in keeping N Korea out of trouble. If push comes to shove, I wonder if China won't just take the country over by proxy and put up a puppet government it can control more easily. I wonder tangentially if the people of N. Korea would even notice, aside from the "loss" of Dear Leader (or whatever Kim's nom de schmooze is).
China already knows that it is in dangerous diplomatic territory with the US over the Islands north of Japan. Any further strife in the region could be disastrous for their economy. Can you imagine the worldwide economic tectonics if failing relations began to funnel manufacturing out of China back to the US or into India? China could see it's artificial economic growth (which Xi himself mentioned in his inaugural address was a problem that needed solving) disappear, simultaneously upsetting the populace and weakening it globally with respect to India, Russia and South America. I think their support of the latest round of UN sanctions is their (not-so-) tacit acknowledgement of this, and their first real attempt to mollify the west, while chastising the NK government.
Granted, that provoked the Nuke comments, but I think NK isn't quite sure how to deal with Daddy putting his foot down and is having a bit of a temper tantrum. I forsee a smack to the bottom and getting sent to their room by China within the next few weeks.
But that's just the view of an american armchair general half a world away without all the information. The next couple months should be interesting if nothing else.
At 3/5/13 10:10 PM, Ceratisa wrote: isn't Cojones spelt with a j?
Can't be an American, talking about a hispanic, without mis-using a Spanish word, now, can I?
That said, that was a layer of irony I didn't intend....
At 3/5/13 06:33 PM, Camarohusky wrote: This means nothing until we find out not only who the successor is, but how that successor will act.
We already know his successor, VP Nicolas Maduro. He was named by Chavez before he went to Cuba for treatment, and it's likely that Maduro has been running the country for some time as Chavez has fought with his illness. I don't think we will see much change in relations to Venezuela in the near term.
That said, it is unlikely that Maduro will have the kind of charisma and, let's face it, cohones to control Venezuela like Chavez did. I expect that he will cede a lot of control to the country's larger industries back to their respective companies. He will try to maintain as much control over the oil business as before, but I also expect that he won't have the kind of gravitas to rumble with the Iran's and the Saudi's in that arena like Chavez, and will feel his influence in that area start to falter. The US, ironically one of the biggest exporters of V's oil, has cut back a lot on that due to the booming shale oil and Natural Gas Fracking industries, and due to V buying back more refined product than it sells us raw, there's a lot more pressure that we can put on them economically than has been the case historically.
Basically, it's a shift, but a minor one that I do not think will greatly change the dynamics of central/south America. Similar to the Castro exchange of power in Cuba, the new boss will look a lot like the old boss.
At 3/2/13 10:48 AM, morefngdbs wrote: The price was certainly right ~;)
Parts + Beer and pizza?
