StrangeSox

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 18, 2010 -> 07:52 AM) How about when I start it with "25% of the U.S.'s current nuclear plants are leaking tritium"? I would say "that's better than what coal plants put out, and wind and solar remain non-baseline power sources" Also, that existing plants are beyond designed life span and should be replaced or repaired. Another tidbit: nuclear power uses the least amount of land per MW produced of any power source. Drastically less than wind.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 17, 2010 -> 05:24 PM) If you think I talk out of both sides of my mouth here, that's fine, but there's still an easy answer. Pass a bill putting a substantial and increasing-with-time price on carbon emissions and let the markets sort it out. (oh, and end the coal and oil subsidies too). I would support such an action. I just don't like that a lot of the environmentalist crowd freaks out over nuclear while ignoring what impacts come with other alternatives. You know what you're talking about here, but any time I hear a anti-nuclear argument in the US start with "Chernobyl" I want to punch that person in the face.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 17, 2010 -> 04:47 PM) Well, sorry to be an asshole back, but you are being an asshole, and you're wrong. I dunno how you can claim that a scientific theory that attempts to explain the origin of the building blocks of life doesn't deal with the origin of life. Well, I'll continue to be an asshole by letting your own words demonstrate that you do not have a wikipedia-level understanding of the theories you're discrediting. The "Big Bang" theory does not incorporate nor is incorporated by abiogenesis or evolution. Two points: Elements come from stars. This is well-understood physics. "We don't know yet" isn't a crap answer. It is an honest answer and it's better than making something up without evidence. Abiogenesis is maybe a few paragraphs in a HS textbook. The Big Bang may be given some more coverage in HS physics, but the main focus there is classical mechanics and E&M, not cosmology. It's accurate to claim that scientists use scientific methodology to explain observed natural phenomenon, such as cosmic background radiation, the expansion of the universe and the existence of life forms. It is not attempting to answer a question of creation. What is untestable, unfalsifiable and therefore scientific? The Big Bang? No, it's testable. We can measure blue shift and CBR. Abiogenesis? It's not a fully-developed area but scientific work is certainly being done. It's not just philosophy. The explanation of the origin of species has about 150 years worth of data and testing behind it. It doesn't require a leap of faith to accept cosmology or biology, just an understanding of the science. You've also missed a third option; there is an answer but it may be unknowable. Either way, both are philosophically preferable to me personally than making up a non-explanation. And, of course, you're conflating the methodological naturalism of science with atheism, agnosticism and philosophical naturalism. There are tens of thousands of religious scientists working in this fields. "Science" doesn't think it has a final or definitive answer of creation. Again, you do not understand what you're talking about. And, yeah, in the science classroom and literature, untestable supernatural explanations are poo-poo'd because they're not science. They're theology or philosophy. This ties nicely into the meme of Republicans trumpeting ignorance as a virtue. edit: also please answer Crimson's question:

^^^Yes Science is a methodology, a tool, not a collection of facts.

No, Balta talks out of both sides of his mouth on this one. On one hand, he likes to point out "subsidizing" nuclear plants by paying for long-term fuel storage because the government never got around to doing something about that as a negative point against nuclear. On the other hand, he likes to accurately point out the boondoggle that is the government funding of wind and solar development as a reason why they're not where they could be. Now, I completely agree with his point on wind and solar subsidies being ridiculous. But he uses federal support as a negative against nuclear and as a positive for wind and solar. You cannot have it both ways. Wind and solar aren't lower-risk and more sustainable because they cannot provide baseline power supply for any time in the foreseeable future. For that sort of power, outside of locations where geothermal or hydro are possible, you're stuck with gas, coal or nuclear. The more-sustainable wind and solar still require more conventional backups, and I'd much rather have nuclear backups than coal or oil.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Feb 17, 2010 -> 12:59 PM) question then, how on earth did kids ever grow up BEFORE this era of "drugs can fix all your problems"? Q: How did humanity survive before vaccines and penicillin? A: People that were sick were SOL.

Concerta changed my life, but behavioral counseling/ methods/ whatever has also been a big part. If a good doc. (psychologist or psychiatrist) gave the diagnosis and they aren't just a hired Rx writer, stick with the medication. There's also some interesting research coming out about ADHD/ ADD and the motivation issue. The biggest problem is staying focused on one task and completing it with care. That's why you can see the up-and-down swings with ADD people; new things are exciting and interesting, so you focus and do well. After you do it for a while (no new stimulus), your interest level plummets, bringing your attention to detail, productivity and quality down with it. edit: Medication isn't always the answer. My diagnosis wasn't until I was in my 20's, and I know that children often react differently to the medication than adults. Structure is very important as is organization and keeping track of your tasks and goals. Stick with one task through to completion (ADD people usually have a million things going at once and never finish any of them).

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 17, 2010 -> 03:56 PM) Really? So life is independent of the Big Bang? How does that make any sense? The Big Bang supposedly explains that whole process of how we go from elements to talking over the internet on a message board in the year 2010. No, it doesn't. Sorry to be an asshole, but you do not have even a basic understanding of what you're talking about here. Religion is thrown out as untestable, unfalsifiable and, therefore, unscientific. Current ideas of when/ how life began may get a blurb in a high school textbook, but that's about it. One thing you're showing you don't understand here is that "I don't know, but let's find out" is a perfectly reasonable answer for science. It's why scientists do science. To learn. To understand. To expand our knowledge. Falling back to a just-so story as a nice explanation doesn't actually explain anything or add any knowledge.

They're already building them. Explain to me again why nuclear is so expensive and unreasonable and relies on government subsidies and how wind and solar would be so kick-ass if only....they had government subsidies.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 17, 2010 -> 03:25 PM) No, that's why I'm a lawyer, because I think critically and need more evidence than "believe me when I tell you this." That's why they have data and methodology sections of papers. You're doing some major flailing here.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 17, 2010 -> 03:03 PM) Because there had to have been a beginning. A beginning does not just "exist," it has to be created. There is no answer for how elements or energy exist without a "they were created by..." It is impossible to prove the creation of the universe. At best, we can theorize that, after that first step, steps 2 through X happened in Y way. Science doesn't just fall back to "just so" stories for explanations, though. The Big Bang Theory isn't meant as a final, definitive answer to the formation of the universe. It is simply the most accurate explanation of observed natural phenomenon. When Hubble looked to the sky, he wasn't trying to "prove the creation of the universe" but simply trying to understand what was going on. Scientific papers generally aren't filled with philosophical arguments. Also, for the bolded part, it's turtles all the way down. There isn't a scientific theory of creation. There are theories on why the universe looks the way it does ("big bang" is a broad umbrella explaining observed expansion, cosmic background radiation, the measured age of stars and a whole host of other physics I don't know). There are theories on how the first forms of life emerged that fall under abiogenesis; they're not formed by a bunch of people sitting around a table throwing out idea but by testing and observing data. Then, of course, is the "grand unifying theory" of biology, evolution. Again, it is based on mountains of data and about 150 years of research. How, exactly, does this compare to a religious story of creation? How do religious text's accounts of historical events, of which their is often no evidence or contradicting evidence, compare to modern historical and archaeological accounts of past civilizations and events? Where do you see this almost-inseparable similarity between religious stories and modern scientific research? But, no, at the end of the day, you have scientific papers with large data and methodology sections and explanations of observed events. And then you have religious myths with no supporting evidence and often a whole lot of contradicting evidence/ logic pitfalls. One is attempted to explain physical reality, the other is attempting to provide philosophical reasoning for humanity. They couldn't be more different.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 17, 2010 -> 07:57 AM) That's interesting. The hard science guy found lots of politics in college, and the poli sci guys found surprisingly little of it. I was in engineering, and aside from one guy who ranted about Bush my first semester, my classes were pretty much as politics-free as they could be.

Obama giving out the big bucks to Vogtle to build two new reactors: http://www.ajc.com/news/vogtle-nuclear-pla...ear-308302.html

Keith Olbermann is a retard. Just watch how many things he butchers in tonight's episode (a "desert eagle" is a "Semi-automatic rifle; his whole segment on nuclear power).

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Feb 16, 2010 -> 03:31 PM) Yea. They said, without ACTUALLY saying it, that new ideas are bad. Except when they actually say it by advocating eliminating the 12th grade.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Feb 15, 2010 -> 09:59 PM) Ok, sure. Concentration Camp, USA. Er, CLOSE GUANTANAMO! Tourtourous bastards! ok, sure. We never tortured anyone. Never supported brutal dictatorships. Peace, love, rainbows and unicorns! The government is made of people. Some people are real evil motherf***ers (i.e. Cheney) who's minds are so f***ed and detached from reality that they do and promote some evil s***, like torture.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 15, 2010 -> 12:04 PM) Actually, there's legitimate science behind this...if you model the traffic/people flow patterns, this legitimately winds up being the fastest way to board a plane. I prefer it to regular plane boarding. I don't get why Southwest gets a bad rap. I don't see the need to pay significantly more for marginially better to worse service for the big carriers.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Feb 15, 2010 -> 08:56 PM) We are some evil motherf***ers who torture! TORTURE! OMG TOOOOOOOOOOURTERETTETUUUUUUREEEE!!!!!!!!! *yawn* I know you tried, but this isn't kaperbole. It's true. The US government tortured the s*** out of people while being run by some evil motherf***ers who are retarded enough to believe that's the way to go.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Feb 15, 2010 -> 06:34 PM) they might not be able to pass Tancredo's "literacy test" if that passes. Neither could about 99% of Americans, myself included, if they were modeled off of 1950's and 60's era tests. A lot of the conservative platform (not all conservatives, but enough) is rapidly morphing into complete anti-education, anti-immigrant, anti-government, anti-anything-but-retarded-pro-business-populist-paradoxism.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Feb 15, 2010 -> 05:35 PM) Americans are dumb enough already. I know I word that cynically honestly, but I'm serious. FIFY.

Utah Senator proposes eliminating the 12th grade to cure budget problems: http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-wor...,0,906102.story

Barney Frank single-handedly made Wall Street incredibly reckless and focused on immediate short-term gains.

Play-off hopefuls. World Series long-shots but you never know once you get into the post season with that rotation.

QUOTE (Rooftop Shots @ Jan 17, 2010 -> 10:38 PM) Is there a Fuddruckers still around anywhere? I remember in Downers Grove that there used to be one. There were 2 restaurants right across from one another. Fuddruckers, and Mother Tuckers. Try saying those together real fast in mixed company without slipping up. There's still a Fuddruckers in Darien/ Downers Grove at 75th & Lemont.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 12, 2010 -> 11:25 AM) This image makes me seethe with anger. Why?