StrangeSox

QUOTE (BearSox @ Jun 27, 2009 -> 11:15 AM) If it's not about money, why did congress just pass a bill that does nothing but tax the s*** out of everyone? Congress =/= scientific research. The bill is designed to reduce CO2 emissions. Taxes and tax rebates are economic incentives to do things. The idea that the vast majority of scientists would lie and fake data for decades for money is incredibly offensive to one of our most important bodies of work.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jun 27, 2009 -> 10:23 AM) In the 1970's, the science of global cooling was "90%" prooven fact, too. Funny how that changed the second the money started flowing toward warming. It's bulls***, it's about money, it's always about money. Another false meme. Literature reviews of papers published show a 44-7 margin in favor of warming in the 70's. What Time or Newsweek chooses to hype doesn't determine what the mainstream scientific thought is. They will often pick the more sensational story. Also, the cooling periods cited were often 10 or 20k years out, not exactly short term. It's not about the money. If you think it is, then you probably don't know any actual scientists. With that line of thought, you can just dismiss any and all scientific findings because they're just lying for money. It makes me sad to see people denigrate scientific study in such an ignorant manner.

QUOTE (BearSox @ Jun 27, 2009 -> 10:42 AM) Your the arrogant one if you completely ignore the science against it. Global Climate Change or whatever the hell it is called now is FAR from a fact. In Europe you are seeing more and more scientists stepping up against Global Warming. But yeah, you're right... we're just all deniers if we don't accept the crap Al Gore has been feeding us over the past several years. I should get my head checked because I don't agree with "90% of science." :facepalm: It's not about Gore. Forget about Gore. He does not matter. Personally, I think he's a jackass. Doesn't matter one bit. Pay attention to peer-reviewed science, not political figures or editorials. That's what matters. As for the 90%, here's a link. http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf The tide isn't turning. There's no global conspiracy to suppress evidence or data showing otherwise. It's not an insidious liberal agenda and its not about greedy scientists. Put away the tin foil hats and pick up a copy of Science, or at least Scientific American. It wasn't that I've read a lot of the science or that "hmm, they mostly agree" that convinced me; it was the completely vacuousness of the counter-arguments. There will always be doubters and contrarians. There's still fringe scientists out there who deny evolution or relativity. You'll find that they have the same global conspriracy, suppressing the truth, in-it-for-the-money, but the tide is turning! rhetoric.

Eh, no, its because there's been a "debate" in scientific journals for decades. That's where science gets hashed out, not on the floor of the Senate. And the overwhelming majority of the conclusions of the papers published in the journals is "Climate Change is real, and we play a part in it." The legit and very serious argument has been had between scientists. Most (something like slightly over 90% of actively publishing scientists on all topics) are convinced that there's at least some human aspect to global warming. Watch, someone will try to assert that there's somehow an equal amount of evidence on both "sides" even though this doesn't come close to reflecting reality. Oh, wait...

Does too! Surprise, Republicans are promising to filibuster the bill in the Senate. Inhofe Says 'Cap And Trade' Dead House Filibuster They really want to earn that obstructionist label.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 26, 2009 -> 05:44 PM) If you can get them to take their best reliever out of the game, you do it. If you can get them to keep the guy who just gave up two runs and loaded the bases in, you do it.

From Nate Silver via 538.com

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Jun 26, 2009 -> 01:54 PM) Looks like some bad "journalism": Shoddy journalism from WND? I'm shocked. QUOTE (FlaSoxxJim @ Jun 26, 2009 -> 02:06 PM) I won't venture down the path of what has or hasn't cheapened religion and faith over the centuries, but I get what your saying about the seeming contradiction of faith and the requirement of some physical proof or artifact. The thing is, if a discovery like this were ever shown to be genuine (not saying this current one has much chance of that) it would be an amazingly important archeological find, all spiritual matters aside. Even if I believe the Christian faith hold no more water than any other belief system humans have conjured up over the last 6,000 years, I think it would be really cool to find genuine artifacts dating back to the earliest days in the formation of those belief systems. Unearthing an early Buddhist prayer wheel from the 4th century, or a 6,000 year old Sumerian tablet statue of Ninkasi is a cool thing on a secular level. Finding something specifically referenced in historic scripture like the Ark or Moses' stone tablets would be a couple orders of magnitude beyond that, and easily appreciated by the secular world (if it could be shown to be authentic), even if the spiritual folks don't need it and are content with faith. It would certainly be an interesting archaeological find.

The current article making the blog/ forums rounds: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124597505076157449.html It's funny how much this mirrors pro-ID/ creation articles.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 26, 2009 -> 09:02 AM) I'm looking around at articles on the health care bill right now, and not seeing this. I would highly doubt they would do this. What is your source? And if you are right that it is being proposed, you are also right in that it would never pass. It's an idea that's been brought up in discussion supposedly. It's already written in stone according to conservative blogs. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics...3-48810402.html

That's what it will cost the government. What does it cost private industry?

QUOTE (Texsox @ Jun 26, 2009 -> 06:44 AM) I'll probably agree with you, but at what point are you determining someone is "rich". I always thought it was the "middle class" that paid the most actual dollars, not percentage. Based on sheer numbers of middle class Americans. The top 20% pays something like 75% of the total taxes. They also control about 50% of the income. http://www.allegromedia.com/sugi/taxes/

He also took a government-paid trip to Argentina for a "business conference" or something. He did agree to reimburse the state of Georgia for that one.

For some reason, the new server gets around my work's filter (soxtalk was blocked for being in the "sports" category).

That was pretty crazy. Of course he won't be resigning any time soon, even though he demanded that Clinton did. For some reason, my work's firewall stopped blocking Soxtalk with the new server switch

I wouldn't consider McCain a neoconservative at all.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jun 19, 2009 -> 04:17 PM) How's that? Well, see, they know that if they really start a revolution, the American military will come rolling in to help out! Which makes perfect sense because 1) We'd actually do that 2) They'd actually want foreign military intervention It was really just someone trying to ad hoc justify the Iraq war still.

Alaska doesn't have any prisoner access laws, that's what the issue is here. They can simply say "Sorry, we're not letting you have access to the evidence in order to retest. Enjoy your life sentence." And now the SCOTUS has said the same.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jun 19, 2009 -> 03:48 PM) Some of the op-eds I've read criticizing Obama are unbelievably dumb, they just aren't based anywhere in reality. And why do people assume America's support is automatically wanted, and approved of? Sometimes, in fact most of the time, when thinking about other countries you have to take your "nationality" glasses off and try and see the world differently than a random American from Nebraska would. Otherwise nothing you say or think will make any sense. I've actually read someone make the argument that the protesters are emboldened by the fact that the US military is in Iraq.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jun 17, 2009 -> 10:58 AM) Ack-muh-DEE-neh-jahd Every time I hear his name I think of that scene from Office Space

Aside from the actual constitutional issue, it appears that Roberts' opinion is just pretty illogical anyway. So, even if he made the right decision, it was for the wrong reasons.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jun 19, 2009 -> 03:57 PM) The problem is, if you don't do it the way that the Supreme Court ruled, in effect, every guilty plea is now turned on its ass. It basically throws out all court cases with a guilty plea based on all the evidence at trial. I mean, I understand your points, but how can you say that every case must now have a review with DNA evidence? The ruling doesn't say that they won't get a review, it just says that every case doesn't have the right to a review. Am I right? From what I understand, since the trial, a new DNA test has been developed. The guy convicted of the crime wants to do this test and his defense will pay for it, but the state is refusing to give him access to the DNA evidence he needs. Essentially, he will get no review--he will not be allowed to test the evidence via a new method to possibly exonerate himself even if its at his own expense.

Yesterday's court ruling in Osborne was simply one of the most absurd and appalling rulings I have ever read. Chief Justice Roberts should be ashamed of himself. Because of his ruling, innocent men are going to die in prison or via the death penalty. It really is that simple. What is absolutely shocking about the ruling is how utterly dishonest it is. Roberts is usually a careful judge who at least can state the legal issue accurately. In this ruling, his portrayal of the facts and legal questions in the case is one dishonest statement after another. To wit: In the very first sentence of his holding he admits that DNA testing can conclusively prove guilt or innocence in many cases. That will be important to remember a little later. But how about the blatantly dishonest statement of the legal issues at stake? No one is suggesting that "every criminal conviction is suddenly in doubt" or that providing due process in cases where DNA evidence is available requires "overthrowing the established criminal justice system." He is plainly erecting a straw man to knock down, something routine in chatroom debates but far beneath a Supreme Court justice. And it only gets worse: So they admit that he has a liberty interest in accessing the evidence - obviously, for crying out loud, since his very liberty is at stake. But somehow that stake is diminished in Roberts' mind once the trial takes place, even after admitting earlier that the DNA evidence could prove him innocent. This is an absolutely bizarre bit of thinking. The majority of the court seems to think that due process is somehow entirely separate from questions of guilt or innocence. But that is not only nonsense, it's dangerous nonsense. We guarantee due process not only as a matter of principle but also for the purely pragmatic reason that it helps lead to the truth. If the point of the criminal justice system is not to distinguish guilt or innocence as accurately as humanly possible, then it's time to scrap the entire system. A rather ironic statement in a case where the plaintiff is being denied access to evidence for DNA testing, don't you think? "The system works perfectly, it allows access to DNA evidence. And the fact that it denied access to this man has no bearing on the validity of that previous statement." This is absolutely ludicrous reasoning. But perhaps worst of all: Of course there's no long history of a right to access DNA evidence for testing. You know why? Because we've only had DNA testing for a couple of decades. Most Supreme Court rulings have at least minimally plausible arguments on both sides. The cases that reach the court have vexed the lower courts and are typically close calls. This one is not. This one is nothing short of vile and disgusting. Innocent people will die as a result of it. And none of the five justices who signed on to the majority opinion could possibly care any less. Shame on them.

My girlfriend is just starting the program at Aurora University. Its cost was comparable to UIC, IIRC. UIC's programs focus heavily on urban education. I know Aurora has a masters in education program for someone looking to teach elementary school or a teacher certification for someone looking to teach high school (no masters but less classes).

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 13, 2009 -> 09:21 AM) A combination of solar, wind, hyrdo, geo and other natural sources is definitely a feasible option. Just not one that will come to complete fruition any time in the next decade. It takes time. Not really, at least without some revolutionary breakthroughs in power transmission and storage. These sources cannot be implemented in many places in the country. Look how cloudy and rainy its been in Chicago for the past week or two--we'd be in big trouble if we were solar-only. There's no room for wind farms in the city proper, and we don't have hydro or geo sources there either. There's over a Terawatt of power production in this country. We'd need about 9 million square miles of solar at absolute peak efficiency for 8 hours a day to replace that. That's half of Texas. Wind farms take up more space. Hydro and geo are great where they are available, but they're not available everywhere.