Datasets:

uproai

/

endex-700k

like 0

So say we all.

So say we all.

Yeah, I remember now. You're a professional point-misser.

Again, if you don't want me to try you again, don't respond.

O wow. I love this thread. I really enjoyed snooping through your pix :D

your face is absolutely captivating!!!!!!!!!!!!

Great point - this never even occured to me. But surely the authorities look the other way when tourists indulge?

Unless your name starts with Prince or Shiek, I don't think money will get you very far in that part of the world. Personally, the risks are simply too high. They arrested [some dude](http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article3001314.ece) for having pot residue on his shoe. Edit: added link for pot arrest

Just because it always has that composition doesn't mean you will always see it. Sometimes I get a cheeseburger from McDonald's but I don't see the pickle even though I know it's there.

I don't think that's how they arrived that their conclusion. I'd say for the sake of the logic exercise, we can assume that the examination of the molecule is thorough and accurate. If you wanted to get really picky on the semantics, you should notice that the conclusion reads, "Therefore we can predict that every future examination of water will reveal the same chemical composition." This is always true, because it doesn't qualify the accuracy of our predictions. We can predict whatever we want. Valid. The explanation for the conclusion being "invalid" says there's a chance we could examine some that "looks like water" but is made from a different chemical. But that would violate the first premise that states "Water is a molecule composed of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom."

grilled cheese sandwich, made with american cheese. has anyone ever used mayo instead of butter on the outer bread layers?

Add bacon and a little hot sauce for me!

Here is yet another ignorant, egotistical fuck to give Americans a bad name. This kid will likely be a prick-headed, middle-management "boss," forever mocking and insulting those smarter than him. Quite sad, indeed.

No, in the first place, it's an "honors" English class. In the second place his mechanics are exceptional. High points for imagination and use of hyperbole and sarcasm; low points for not "getting into the spirit of the assignment."

Either that or Bush will pardon Stevens. I could either situation happening very easily.

Being pardoned doesn't changed that fact that he was convicted. The Senate doesn't care (as far as seating a member is concerned) whether Stevens goes to prison, they care that he was convicted.

That was awesome. Could anyone actually show me where to find a script like that? Also, one of the best scrollover texts if you are a fan.

It's definitely possible, though I doubt it's readily available on the Internet. However, somebody will most likely make one soon and post it somewhere on the Internet.

Can you clarify if you had them all pulled? Front ones? back ones? Will you be getting bridge work? My stepmother had them all pulled. Then she had implants that failed 3 times because she still smoked. My grandfather had them all pulled at 35 years of age. He gummed everything. His gums were as hard as teeth by the time he was 50.

Just a few in the far back. I basically have to chew with my front teeth until the sensitivity in the back goes down

I took up to AP Calculus in High School. I'm really just trying to get a wide, fundamental understanding of mathematics. Part of it is that I know so little about the field that I really can't form goals other than that.

There are 3 books that introduce a wide range of math you haven't seen or seen so well explained in high school: 1) What is Mathematics? by Courant and Robbins 2) Mathematics – A Very Short Introduction by Timothy Gowers. Afterwards, (or now,) visit his site for slightly more advanced discussions aimed at 1st year undergraduates: http://www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~wtg10/vsipage.html 3) The Mathematical Experience by Davis and Hersh. This is a more personal and philosophical account. Really a good way to get a wide overview of the major perspectives in mathematics. Also, browse as many books at a university library or good book store as you can (if you're in Berkeley go to Black Oak books), to get a sense of math beyond calculus. Then you'll likely clarify your interest specifically. I like the advice of checking out what books and courses universities have, not necessarily to enroll in, but as suggested, to see what there is. Remember to consider what you want to do: do you want to major in math? teach it? satisfy a personal need for knowledge irrespective of your other activities, schooling, or career? become a scientist, engineer, physicist, etc. (if so, also look at universities offering these courses and what they do)?

Eye see what you did there.

Oh great, another (j)ocular (yeah I got nothin)

The Senate is our Second Sober Look, which means this amendment is *precisely* what the institution was created for. C-15 was needlessly harsh and the Senate corrected that. If you're growing weed for personal consumption, whether medical or recreational, you're likely to have a dozen plants at varying stages of maturity in order to maintain constant supply. Under the original law, the judge would've been forced to throw you in jail for at least 9 months, which would be ridiculous. Mandatory sentences in general are counter-productive and fly in face of our judicial tradition. We have trained judges and prosecutors for a reason, and we should let them adjudicate rather than politicians who are trying to score cheap political points with gullible and ill-informed electorate.

What i meant by that was more a critic of our elected officials who should oppose this bill. I agree that the senate did his job here, but the bill will pass anyways, probably in its old form after being sent down to the house because by that time the senate will be controled by the conservatives. It's a minoroty government and the liberal opposition is acting like the conservatives are the majority just because they are not in a good position to oppose what they should oppose.

Why not a discussion of sustainable commercial whaling? We certainly can't return to the level of whaling in the past, and it would have to be a severely restricted endeavour, but to dismiss whaling, especially of non-threatened species, out of hand seems counter-productive to the IWC's goals.

How about we let the whale population get close to what it used to be before we started killing them all, and then worry about sustainable commercial whaling?

1. Lice. 2. Demonstration of authority. 3. Recruits are prettier that way. Take your pick.

4. Short hair (no hair) takes less maintenance time and won't be grabbed during a fight or caught in machinery. I typed number 4 to add to your list but Reddit displays 1.

I will agree, he can do whatever the fuck he wants with his property. But its still a dick move to just close off paths without trying to figure out alternatives. When my father didn't want people coming so close to his property on trails he let people use on his property, he made an alternative route that pushed people further out, added a few more minutes of travel. Did he have to do that? No. But he also didn't want to look like an ass to the town and the people who used the path.

In the UK the owners of land crossed by a public pathway are obliged to maintain the path, its fences, and crossings like gates and stiles. this is part of the obligation to the rest of society from owning the land, the same as taxes and your other legal and ethical responsibilties.

Cut Copy

This.

It really wasn't meant to be all that funny. The reason it was posted in "humor" (which i see now was a huge mistake) was that the ABC story actually deals with something I care a bit about, so I wanted to tip people off that there were some very tongue-in-cheek elements to the NQ post that shouldn't be taken at face value. In other words, I didn't want readers to think ABC's reporter actually did anything wrong. The details of the story are true, however, and not meant to be funny - apart from the wild speculation that ABC was buying the slaves for dubious reasons.

now I'm properly confused

Deskbar applet is a separate application. It's basically like a frontend to a desktop search application (think Spotlight), with it's own set of plugins. It is unrelated to Do.

Deskbar used to be quite nice, but then they rewrote a lot of it and suddenly it became very, very slow. When my launcher can't keep up with my typing speed, it's gotta go. Maybe they've fixed it, but I've since switched to Do.

Less than that... http://ed-thelen.org/comp-hist/vs-mit-apollo-guidance.html Specifications: Instruction Set: Approximately 20 instructions; 100 noun-verb pairs, data up to triple-precision Word Length: 16 bits (14 bits + sign + parity) Memory: ROM (rope core) 36K words; RAM (core) 2K words Disk: None I/O: DSKY (two per spacecraft) Performance: approx. Add time - 20us Basic machine cycle: 2.048 MHz Technology: RTL bipolar logic (flat pack) Size: AGC - 24" x 12.5" x 6" (HWD); DSKY - 8" x 8" x 7" (HWD) Weight: AGC - 70 lbs; DSKY - 17.5 lbs Number produced: AGC - 75; DSKY: 138 Cost: Unknown. Power consumption: Operating: 70W @ 28VDC; Standby 15.0 watts

Waaaay, way, way less memory than a modern phone! A total of 38K memory you say? The new [Biometric Passports have 32K](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biometric_passport). Think about that. They got guys to the moon with IT that's now the size of a fingernail. (yeah, yeah, I'm simplifying - the memory is just part of it - but I wouldn't be surprised if the whole Apollo flight system, including processing, memory, storage could now run on an "average phone".) Instead, let's build a new space program using Imperial measures and spend the other 90% of the money on bailing out the bankers. Grrrr.

I'm an excellent driver.

I sing really well.

5) Autotune

6) DJ's in lieu of live acts that rock.

Mao Mao Mao Mao Mix

Zedong!

Ok, so you believe in economic power through localised democracy, but you don't believe in the collective ownership of property. How does this "economic democracy" have power?

"Ownership" is an abstraction. You are allowing the capitalist culture's language to act as a linguistic blinder. There are all kinds of ways to organize a balance of private control/autonomy and public control. The Roman word usufruct, for example, refers to a situation in which an individual or group has conditional private rights to a piece of land, but they have to meet certain conditions to keep the land (i.e. they have to grow food on it), and the community/government can take the land back if it is needed for some other purpose.

Funny you should say that... got two wrong numbers today actually.

Really? I haven't gotten a wrong number call in years!

Some words have more than one meaning. Please see meaning 2 and try again. From wikipedia: The expression anecdotal evidence has two distinct meanings. (1) Evidence in the form of an anecdote or hearsay is called anecdotal if there is doubt about its veracity: the evidence itself is considered untrustworthy or untrue. (2) Evidence, which may itself be true and verifiable, used to deduce a conclusion which does not follow from it, usually by generalizing from an insufficient amount of evidence. For example "my grandfather smoked like a chimney and died healthy in a car crash at the age of 99" does not disprove the proposition that "smoking markedly increases the probability of cancer and heart disease at a relatively early age". In this case, the evidence may itself be true, but does not warrant the conclusion.

Im the only one posting any facts with links to references on this thread. Attacking the credibility of the only person posting references is mentally retarded.

why the hell is making your own spirits illegal?

It's not illegal as long as you get a permit from the ATF and you don't make it for consumption. You also have to register the serial number of your still with the ATF. But ironically it is illegal to own a still without having it registered in the first place. But you can't give the ATF your serial number until you own the still.

Do you mean to say you drink tap water? EWWWWW

*** hoping that was sarcasm ***

What do you mean by *first* matrix?

He means the good one, not the shitty sequels...

I'm an atheist and I oppose abortion, so it is not just the religious right who have moral objections to the issue.

upvoted. abortion is a complicated issue and I find no fault with people who take rational positions on it, pro or con. If a legal standard should have to be developed, it should only be based on one thing: a definition of when a fertilized egg becomes a 'person', and thereby is afforded the same rights as any other person. I'm not saying we should be super strict about defining when that happens, and there should be allowances for rape, etc. However, defining abortion in privacy terms was a mistake: privacy is extremely important, but does not give you the authority to take another life...if there is reasoning to do that, it should rest on other grounds.

You just don't realize what I am talking about - it is something called accuracy. The article and the title of this post are WRONG. Now that I have spent so much time explaining why, you choose to ignore all those points and insist on talking about a tangential point or call it nitpicking. And then you throw out of a hypothetical graph. It is NOT my job to find an appropriate graph for your blog! It was your job! If you did not find the extended version of the NHE graph you should have modified the gas price graph to make them comparable (like I just did for you in words above). Again,this was your job not mine! I can see now from reading parts of your blog how innumeracy is really clogging up your thinking. For instance, you are bothered that no one is talking about NHE being 20% of GDP while they talk about $5 gas. Let's try a bit of math, it took 2 years for gas to go from $3 spikes to $4 spikes. At current rates when do you think NHE will reach 20% GDP? See if you can your trendline correctly. This will help you see why numbers are important and why showing comparable graphs are important and what similar trend means!

20% is predicted to happen in 2016. I never said this was completely accurate. I said it was similar. Alike. Comparable, but not a complete fit. I think you're reading certainty where there was none.

My monthly food budget, unless I splurge on nice steaks when out can be under $80. I eat for about $2 - $3 a day. I am a complete carnivore. I eat only meat. One to two pounds of meat a day. Usually ground beef. 70/30. About 80% of calories come from fat. I do not really care about opinions here. It works for me and many others. It works for the Inuit. http://www.zeroinginonhealth.com if you want to find out more.

Interesting theory. Assuming you're not a troll, that can't be any worse for you than the "no white foods" diet, or any of the other completely and utterly *insane* diet theories I've seen suggested around here. Not one of them are based on any actual science.

i love dinosaurcomics. one of the webcomics i don't actually feel dummer after reading.

I feel **dumber** having read this comment.

Rendezvous with Rama by Arthur C. Clarke. I read this book and it just blew me away. Hard Sci-Fi and a great read, every moment and word is just filled with mystery and ambiguity. It really made me appreciate just how little we know and how little we might ever know.

I liked this book, but reading the later trilogy first I thought the trilogy was better (written with Gentry Lee)

I still don't follow. Burden of proof is still relevant in cases where proof is unavailable for whatever reason. It tells us we should not believe those things. Occam's razor, btw, is a logical shortcut. It is not a substitute for logic. It's a fairly accurate strategy for guessing the right answer, but it can always turn out to be wrong.

You *have* to use Occam's razor in a vast majority of cases even where you have evidence. The only evidence we have that there are stars, galaxies, and nebula is electromagnetic radiation smacking into Earth. There are plenty of available explanations for where that radiation came from. Perhaps a giant dome encircles us well outside our solar system. This dome contains advanced projection technology, designed specifically to create light that will seem to us is coming from farther away. The dome theory is absurd, of course. But the only way to dismiss the possibility is to use Occam's razor, and say the likelihood of that is very low. Because all the evidence (the photons) that has been gathered to support the "stars are out there" theory can also be used to support the "dome is tricky" theory. Occam's razor is the only reason the dome advocates have burden of proof. Now, some situations (like the ones I was talking about earlier) result in multiple, *equally likely* theories. This is not even limited to situations where evidence is absent. Sometimes the evidence is just sufficiently ambiguous, and the laws of the physical world mark each theory as equally probable. With several equally likely options, taking no option at all is a safe way to be wrong. In these types of circumstances, the argument of burden of proof in no way "tells us we should not believe," but rather tells us we must... but offers no guidance as to what to believe. Now when you choose a theory, if new evidence comes to light that makes your choice less likely... by all means, change beliefs. The situation has changed, so change is in order. And you may also choose to believe all of the conflicting and equally likely theories at once, of course. Though that can make discussion on the subject somewhat difficult, as holding contradictory beliefs simultaneously is sometimes frowned upon.

To be fair, Jews do fall somewhere between a race and a religion. Strictly speaking, it's just a religion, but Jews for the most part are a pretty homogeneous bunch, having been relatively isolated from the rest of the human gene pool.

What are you basing that on? Blood purity? (whatever that means).

What the hell? When does the ACLU do evil stuff?

Did you read the article? It says promoting government intervention in things like race or gender issues are bad.

No 1 should have been 'To look more like Brian Blessed.'

Why would anyone want to look more like Brian Blessed? Now SOUNDING LIKE BRIAN BLESSED ... THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING MY FRIEND WOULDN'T IT? AAAAAAAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAA!</soundlikebrianblessed>

the application was pulled off the store after being initially posted, pulled off, and subsequently reposted.

I realize that, just pointing out that the title of the article is horrible. Why not just "Apple pulls iPhone modem app twice"?

It is a feature if you are a total square and don't want drunk people being loud and having fun in a room next to you or around the hotel pool and such. I wouldn't stay there though...I gotta drink when I travel.

>I gotta drink when I travel. So does virtually every business traveler. What is the point of not getting drunk when you are alone in a hotel room?

Meh. Too slow. I'd much rather play this... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3eOvx7xM_k

well since we're doin 180's...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4A_tSyJBsRQ&feature=channel

Isn't James mentioned as the brother of Jesus several times in the New Testament? Likewise, Josephus calls James that.

He is indeed. In Semitic languages "brother" covers a lot more ground than in English. Your "brother" is any male relative from whom you are not descended (male relatives from whom you are descended are known as "fathers") and who are not descended from you (regardless of how many generations removed, male descendants are your "sons" -- thus Messiah is called the Son of David), as well as kinsmen such as cousins, those who are members of the family by marriage or by law rather than by blood, and even friends or mere political allies (2 Sam. 1:26; Amos 1:9). Abraham's nephew Lot is called his brother (Gen. 11:26-28; 14:14). Jacob is called the "brother" of his uncle Laban (Gen. 29:15). Kish and Eleazar were the sons of Mahli. Kish had sons of his own, but Eleazar had no sons, only daughters, who married their "brothers," the sons of Kish. These "brothers" were of course their cousins (1 Chr. 23:21–22). "Brother," and "sister" needn't even always be close relatives; sometimes they meant kinsmen (Deut. 23:7; Neh. 5:7; Jer. 34:9), as in the reference to the forty-two "brothers" of King Azariah (2 Kgs. 10:13–14).

"I have something to say! It's better to buuuurrrrn out then faaaaaade away!" - The Kurgan from the Highlander, who is in Earth 2. Clancy Brown apparently got rid of the scar on his neck (joke)

Brother Justin, you mean?

I don't know what, if any, punishment the pharmacist should face for what happened. I do know he *probably* didn't wake up that morning with the intention of killing anybody. Any talk of giving him the death penalty or a life sentence is nonsense. Also, I'd like to see the video, not out of morbid curiosity, but to see the dynamic of how things went down and to see the amount of actual time that passed between the first shooting and the last. When you survive a life-threatening situation, how long does it take for you to calm back down to normal? I don't know, that's why I'm asking. Maybe for a soldier in the field who's used to such incidents, the time is less. Certainly for someone not used it, it seems reasonable to assume it takes longer to get back to your right mind. Edit: [The actual video](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSBBlEhmWNQ). Not graphic.

The video may not be graphic, but it is pretty disturbing. The guy seems perfectly calm when he walks up and kills the kid.

So then Twilight is all about seriousness?

I believe Twilight was specifically designed to make 14 year old girls wet in the pants. It's actually quite disturbing.

[deleted]

Loved this series - some of the best I've seen on /r/gonewild. Thanks!

It's not that hard. [Look](http://www.reddit.com/r/bestof/comments/6zohz/this_was_best_ofed/) you've been best of'ed.

Aww, shucks, guys.

Okay, I'll be "That Guy" I don't mind Family Guy. I can see everyone's complaints about how they structure the whole show about tangential jokes and blah blah blah, but at the end of the day, it makes me laugh. It's stupid and it's not 'high brow' but when something I don't necessarily respect as comedy makes me laugh even if I don't want to, it kind of makes me respect it as comedy.

Agreed. It's like when you're really tired/sleepy/drunk/distracted etc.. you'll laugh at even marginally funny.... It's not a bad thing.. But I also agree with iigloo that there are bits here and there that are pretty good, but not even 70% of an episode is funny.

Wait, which Hippopotamus is this?! Reveal yourself immediately!

**NEVER!**

I'm a confirmed Roman Catholic who essentially believes Orthodoxy is the mostly correct and Rome, where they disagree, is mostly wrong (on grounds of authority and as a result on many grounds of theology). HOWEVER, I probably will not convert and I'll tell you why. The schism which divides the living Church even today is a wound to both the East and the West. Both sides mostly just write the other off as a cute but vain attempt. I pray for a unified Church every single day, and I know that if God wills it and we as a living Body submit to Him, it shall be. However, no one is free from the guilt of splitting the Church; we all have blood on our hands for wounding the Body of Christ. I am a Western Christian and that is where I'll stay, for better or worse. I will speak the truth as my conscience leads with humility and an understanding that I am still subject to the authority of the Church, even if I don't always know what that means and even if this means offending the traditions of men boldly (do not confuse this with Holy Tradition). I desire to be a part of the Church Catholic, not Protestant, not Roman, not Orthodox, Catholic, whatever and whereever that exists on Earth. I have considered what taking up my cross in this case means and have decided that it is to stay in the West and play my part to honestly seek reconcilliation between the East and West. This means I defy the Pope and the Roman Magisterium, even intentionally. If I were to be formally excommunicated from the Roman Church for the sake of the truth, I would consider myself blessed that God would give me this persecution. (Although, the chances of being excommunicated are so low, I'm just following my reasoning to its maximum conclusion). The Church is broken and honest reconcilliarion between the East and West is its only hope, not everyone converting to the East. We have to be honest there, and on those grounds, I remain a Western Catholic (and a member of the Roman Church and sort of a protestant).

See, I was never a member of an ancient church, and have found the modern churches entirely unsatisfying, theologically speaking. They don't maintain the ancient traditions, actively rejecting a number of them. I have major qualms with the concept of the "priesthood of the believer" as it is taught in most Protestant churches, and the founding theology of the Protestant movement seems to be poorly considered. Essentially, Protestantism makes schism too easy. And this comes from someone who has been a Protestant since baptism (there were 10 years before that where I was raised agnostic, and I thank God for being raised outside the Body of Christ).

Hip-hop v. rap.

hip-hop is another name for rap Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hip_hop_music http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hip-hop Alternatively, you could actually go and listen to hip-hop/rap music.

why?

because its natural

Did you really make this or find it somewhere around the internet? If this is your original creation I couldn't be more pumped about it.

99.99% of the time I post my own stuff (illustrations anyways). This one is a scribble (15-20 minutes), no where near the intensity (hour or so) I put into the starry night or the Munch. I may revisit it later on and produce a bigger one, I slopped the shadows a bit and I'm not really satisfied with it.

Yea, what makes more sense: A) You drastically increase the supply of dollars in circulation to pay for various bad policy decisions. As a result, it takes more of those very same dollars to purchase a fixed amount of a commodity, say oil. To fix it, we need to strictly limit government so it can't continue making bad policies at society's expense. OR B) The free market is bad because people make money from it. As a result, high oil prices are caused by speculators. To fix it, we need more government. I'll take A. Yay logic! EDIT: The way I started made it sound like I was disagreeing with you. This is not the case. Your analysis rocks.

c) both of the above? unsound monetary (and fiscal) policy combined with under-regulated markets is a recipe for disaster... See the panic of 1873, 1893 and the Great Depression.

I asked my ex if I could go down on him while he played video games, and he acted like it was the most awkward thing I could ask for in the world. It didn't happen.

I'm in. Just tell me what sort of video game machine you'd like me to buy.

That one is even more win. Playing a piece "With Pesto" is one of the more challenging aspects of musicianship. The frog jokes are classic, but the random Cantinflas takes the win for the Cuil.

On the first page, at the bottom (Bass Clef line) second measure from the last, there is what appears to be a **B** so low that it probably comes close to the [Brown Note.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_note) Unreal.

As a rule, if a Republican supports Gay marriage, there is at least one gay person who calls him "Dad".

Replying to my own comment, many people here applauded Sanders for this, I think that if this can really be called conscience, it represents only its tiniest spark. The power of human intelligence, and the basic principle of good leadership, is the ability to abstract convictions from the experiences of other people, even if those people are not your own children. Unfortunately, this is as good as it gets in this town.

I'd say only about 15% of Christians in the U.S. believe this. Hell, even the Mormons don't believe it.

I hope Mormons aren't representative of Christianity. Do you have any source for your 15% assertion?

They really shouldn't be using salt period. There's far more environmentally friendly technology available that works just as well if not better that is cheaper in the long run.

O RLY? Such as what?

So do you go out to all of the fledgling social networking sites and register the username "wil" just in case they get popular?

I've never thought I was worth impersonating, but I've recently tried to get "wil" or "CleverNickName" on sites I like, or think I will be using in the future.

Not so. I have yet to see a coherent/valid and useful definition of god that has not been disproven. For the (all of two) definitions of god I've seen which are potentially coherent and useful, they are not useful as an explanation for existence. The ultimate explanation for existence is necessarily parsimonious, else your explanation needs explaining. Positing god cannot fulfill that requirement. **Edit:** The two definitions I'm referring to are: 1. The creator of the universe. 2. A being worthy of worship. If there is a greater universe which supervenes ours (and ours is like an experiment or something), then #1 could be valid, but "universe" would mean "the universe we know of" and it doesn't explain all of existence. #2 I oppose on principle. I don't think any being is worthy of worship.

disproving an argument for the existence of god isn't the same as proving his non-existence. you can't disprove something by disproving an argument for it. you've just shown that particular argument to be faulty, not its conclusion. so the situation seems to break down this way: proposition #1: god exists proposition #2: god doesn't exist neither proposition can really be proved. so to claim either requires taking a stance without proof. the atheist position is that there can't possibly be a god that's the explanation for existence. i'm simply asking: how did you arrive at that conclusion? why is it not possible? you have said, "I am an atheist who positively believes that god does not exist." how can you be so sure? and what makes your reasoning better than that of the religious wackos? i'm not asking anything outrageous here, i think. this is just the rigor of skepticism. maybe it's not fashionable to question atheism here on reddit, but if you want to arrive at truth, you have to start by questioning everything. by the way, things like "it sounds silly" are historically not a reliable way to rule out an explanation.

None, i just made that shit up.

I like the cut of your jib

Of course, I can only speak for myself: Like most, I was just lurking and enjoying reading the comments posted here (I'm one of those people who go for the comments before the story). My only participation was to occasionally upvote or, very rarely, downvote somebody. This changed with the pic thread. I was hesitant to post a photo at first, mainly because I'm not a picture person in general, and also because since I hadn't participated in any discussions, nobody would care to see my mug anyway. However, like many others, I soon got caught up in the general enthusiasm and did it. Since then, something changed: I started posting short comments to other people's photos and, before long, I even started replying extensively (for me, at least) to comments in unrelated threads. I find the socializing aspect of it quite addictive. This is my personal story of transformation from a lurker to a poster and active participant. Maybe it is a bit tangential to your question, but I believe it is relevant. I think that AskReddit reaped the benefits of increased participation after the fabled pic thread, mainly because it is simply the best part of Reddit for such socializing. Oh, and I have to agree with jodythebad, too. Feeling lonely at Christmas was a factor, at least for me.

If Reddit allowed avatars I am sure these things would happen more often. People need something to associate a person with online and a username is just not going to do that, it needs to be visual.

Sorry, I tried to add some text to go with this question but it didn't seem to want to save it. I was watching House MD and one of the characters has Huntington's Disease. She spoke about wanting kids, and that got me thinking - is it immoral to risk passing on the disease to your children? Or, a better question, is it immoral to keep defective genes in the gene pool, even if they're recessive?

Yes, I believe so. I've heard of many cases where the parent is fully aware of having a genetic marker present, giving, say, a one in four chance of passing on a debilitating disease to their offspring. Considering the terrible quality of life the child will have, I find having children highly immoral; moreover, selfish. What kind of callous person would willingly bring a physically or mentally deformed child into the world? I'm on the fence if the disease can be tested for while it's still possible to abort - and then only if the fetus is aborted. I grew up with very severe depression. There's a genetic component that I've traced through the family, and this makes me question my right to have children. I don't know how I'd feel about myself to see my children go through what I went through.

Should I really put it in the oven at such a high heat? The smoke point of lard is only about 370. Wouldn't that destroy the seasoning?

You actually want to reach the smoke point. Seasoning is whats left over after you burn the fat. That slick layer of built up carbon is what gives you a nonstick.

I like to sit back and remember a time when reddit wasn't one big circle jerk.

I just paid for a shirt with this on the front.

RDC and SSH will show up in the logs and most likely can be seen. They surely watch for keywords in the URL loading, stay away from anything with PROXY in the addy. Be careful.

It'll show that someone is using SSH, but not what's being passed through it.. that's the whole 'secure' part of SSH, and all. The only really glaring hole when tunneling would be DNS ("What's this 'goatse.cx' that this guy keeps going t... OH GOD"), which you could just as easily set to another set of servers, if you don't have internal lookups to make; they could always be jerks and sniff all traffic on 53 anyway, if they were really out to get people. Usually, though, places that arbitrarily block access to sites are often ignorant enough to assume that a block is enough, and will only actively look for offenders if they have reason to suspect someone is doing something sneaky.

You actually read Twilight?

I had to. It's hard to make fun of something having never experienced it. It was literary rubbernecking, a train wreck I couldn't ignore.

I've seen a very small minority of the posts suggesting that. Is there a particular reason why you think that could not be the case? Edit: okay I found the troll posts, but there are still a TON of helpful/supportive posts.

I'm exaggerating it, of course, but it seems to me like most people assume that women will cheat and that women who have cheated will always cheat. It's not specific to this thread; I've seen this attitude in the comments of a lot of posts before. I just find it baffling because men cheat and lie and all that too, just as much. I guess I could just chalk it up to there being more men than women on reddit but the attitude troubles me anyhow.

iiiiii am a man....

Then why are you worried so much about sperm dripping out of your anus and into a vagina that YOU DON'T HAVE?

well, if scientific evolution is based on Darwins work, "the origin of the species" it would seem that evolution should deal with well... the origin of the species. And with that one might wonder how a given species... originated. Which still brings us back to the question, "how can life evolve from non-life?" Of course, "evolve" is the key word here, if this is not what occurs, then what does? To claim "it is 'unknown' but we think the inevitable conclusion is a process which is scientifically verifiable (evolution.)'" is equally as problematic as the christian notion, "it is known (via God) and the inevitable conclusion is a process which is scientifically verifiable (intelligent design.) But as stated earlier, the christian notion is at least logically consistent and justified (considering cosmological,ontological, teleological, and axiological arguments) and it does not utilize the appeal to ignorance fallacy ("we cant know how it began".)

> well, if scientific evolution is based on Darwins work, "the origin of the species" it would seem that evolution should deal with well... the origin of the species. You have your answer right there, don't you? Evolution deals the origin of *species*, that is, the origin of the variation and complexity of life we see around us. Evolution does *not* deal with the origin of *life* itself. Suppose life poofed into existence 4 billion years ago in the form of a bunch of badgers. *From there*, evolution would have taken over, with the descendants of those badgers evolving into the many different species we see today. That badger theory of the origin of *life* is completely compatible with evolution, even if we say God was the one who poofed the badgers into existence! > Which still brings us back to the question, "how can life evolve from non-life?" Of course, "evolve" is the key word here, if this is not what occurs, then what does? Evolution requires some mechanism to for organisms to inherit traits. Non-life has no such mechanism, so it is simply nonsensical to talk about non-life "evolving". Whatever did happen, it has nothing to do with the validity of evolution. God could have created the first life forms and evolution would still be just as valid. > To claim "it is 'unknown' but we think the inevitable conclusion is a process which is scientifically verifiable (evolution.)'" is equally as problematic as the christian notion Who are you quoting? Scientists have looked at all the possible theories of the origin of life, from abiogenesis, to Christian creationism, to the Hindu idea that there is a great unending cycle of creation and destruction, to panspermia, etc. and found them all lacking for one reason or another. Abiogenesis currently has the most support, but it's hardly conclusive. The truth may be something no one has even thought of yet. Note that evolution isn't even a candidate for the origin of life any more than the theory of gravity or plate tectonics. > But as stated earlier, the christian notion is at least logically consistent and justified (considering cosmological,ontological, teleological, and axiological arguments) Some would disagree with you on that. Regardless, none of that points to the Christian God specifically or to a active role in the origin of life. Certainly, evolution is at least equally logically consistent in those regards because they are well outside its scope. > it does not utilize the appeal to ignorance fallacy ("we cant know how it began".) Again, who are you quoting? I would never claim that we *can't* know the origin of life, merely that we do not know at present. There are many scientists working to find out as we speak. Also, I think you misunderstand the argument from ignorance fallacy. Quoting [Wikipedia's description](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance): > * Something is currently unexplained or insufficiently understood or explained, so it is not (or must not be) true. * Because there appears to be a lack of evidence for one hypothesis, another chosen hypothesis is therefore considered proven. Now, my position, and the position of mainstream science, is that *no* theory on the origin of life has been proven thus far. On the other hand, you've skirted quite close to the fallacy yourself, such as when you claimed "evolution has no logical consistent means of beginning with matter or transitioning from lifeless matter to intelligent matter" then concluded that "in that context the idea of some creator is not ridiculous." In actual fact, the validity of evolution or more properly abiogenesis does not affect the validity or ridiculousness of a creator.

We don't need a commissioner or FCC. Why must we subject ourselves to another individual's whim and decisions instead of making the decisions for ourselves on our OWN whims as free individuals?

"Why must we subject ourselves to another individual's whim and decisions instead of making the decisions for ourselves on our OWN whims as free individuals?" Excuse me? So you're saying that mayors, governors, congresspeople, senators, and the president are useless. We subject ourselves to their whims as well. We do it because it has worked so far, and the Constitution is a pretty decent document. And like it or not, we're not smart enough as a whole to govern ourselves (*ahem* Bush republicans anyone?).

What about the Spies and Scouts? How did they behave?

Valve has not made Spy/Scout bots yet

The secret is not giving a shit what anyone thinks about you.

28 upmods, yet everytime I inform reddit I've taken a principled stance against deodorant, I get downmodded.

Apparently one minute and twenty-five seconds.

I never have really wrestled anybody really (other than your mother) so I clocked in at 1:13.

I'm not at all a theist, but I'll be praying.

phonetically, that's a very confusing sentence.

Of course, I'm an atheist, not an stuck-up, pretentious, holier-than-thou jerkface.

not a

I remember a comic where Flintheart Glomgold challenged Scrooge McDuck to a contest to see who had the most money. They each converted all their money into silver dollar coins and put it into a big pile on a parking lot, and whoever had the bigger pile won. As the two mountains of coins grew larger, it was looking like Glomgold was going to win, but Scrooge discovered that Glomgold was cheating. There were sewers below the parking lot that ran under Glomgold's pile, and Glomgold had installed a large inflatable balloon under his pile that he was pumping air into from underneath to make it look bigger. Scrooge and his nephews brought in a cannon and shot Glomgold's pile, rupturing the balloon and causing his pile to collapse, and Scrooge reigned supreme as the world's richest duck.

Didn't Glomgold also hide iron bars in his pile?

I don't really get why this is so bad (and I've seen all the movies), but is this from a real comic, or has someone cleverly rewritten the dialogue to make it look like the main plot of Star Wars was about C-3PO's life? Because that's kind of fun -- like that essay about R2 being the leader of the rebellion.

I remember someone in high school that was convinced that All the Star Wars movies were actually being told by R2 and C3P0, as if they were the narrators of the story :\

[deleted]

If a creator is always greater that what is created, that what created god? Or should we simply assume god has always, and will always just be? If we can make that assumption, why do we even need god, couldn't just the universe always have existed and always will, in some form or other? Adding a god to the mix seems to just add an unnecessary layer of complexity. And if this god is all knowing, he would know whatever mankind would do, before the event of creation. Therefore it couldn't be beyond his intentions, unless he isn't all knowing. If he isn't all knowing, then he isn't all powerful. And if he knew, and did nothing about it, he certainly isn't good.

I'll third Cloud Cult. Gotta love a band that makes a song out of sound bites from "The Princess Bride"

WHAT? what is that song called? My girlfriend would LOVE it! :)

agreed. the rest are things my Grandfather would say - and are only funny because he's 90.

Well, I'm over 60 so maybe that's why they were funny to me.

http://www.pornpaper.net/m259445-gorgeous-girlfriend-rides-dick-on-camera.html Great tits on this girl.... had another but deleted it =(

You are right about tits. They're natural, bouncy, and have huge nips. It's one of the better vids I've seen, but she lacks a little hair down there to the point where I can't even make out that it's a vagina. As well, I found the only way I could cum was when I was on top. I don't know how some couples do it any other way.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0e/Internet_superheroes.jpg Pretty much the superstars of the internet.

MOOT wears *clothes*?!?!

Oh, I know... Because most of the people who died in the tsunami are poor.

no, the same reason you don't go to your friend and say: "your mom died in a car accident and you think that was tragic?! bullshit, my whole family died in a plane crash, that's way more tragic, idiot"

I have an ED-209, does that count?

Depends if you got all the glitches worked out. Otherwise, I'd be more afraid of the ED-209. *Drop the gun* "ok" *Drop the gun* "I did" *This is your last warning* "Oh SH..." *Bang*

[www.lemonparty.org](http://www.lemonparty.org). What is it about Lemons and Parties that sounds NSFW? It sounds down right pleasant to me! Definitely not NSFW.

or: *I'm not sure what this link is, since I'm at work, I'm not going to click on it.*

I guess they'll have to rename it to "Osbad" now.

ಠ_ಠ

I doubt it. In thirty years of smoking, the only cognitive ability that pot seems to have affected in myself is short-term memory and a sort of temporary "aphasia" (if that's the right word) when it comes to remembering certain words. The "it's on the tip of my tongue" type-thing. This is just my own observation and not a representative sample of course. :P

I have noticed the exact same symptom as you. The one effect I have noticed on my cognitive function is more instances of not being able to call up the word for what I'm thinking of.

'No' is in the list yet 'yes' is not... interesting.

no yes

If GM corn is so crap, surely all this hybrid corn will die out when the mighty organic corn beats it in terms of fertility and ability to use limited resources? Or, GM corn could actually be better than regular corn, which in itself has been horrifically modified by man over the course of time to suit it's own needs, like the humble chicken. Chickens originally could fly you know.

The ability to breed faster and strangle other native species does not necessarily make something "better".

As IMDB says, "only votes from regular voters are considered." I'm not sure what makes a voter a "regular voter" (probably something to do with number of votes or the distribution of the votes), but I'm guessing those people that voted for this movie did not qualify. You can see the same anomaly in the top 250. Many movies that should be there in terms of their pure rank, do not appear. A good example, my favorite movie "Stalker" ( http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079944/) has an 8.1 rating and does not appear on the top 250, even though the bottom of the 250 list has movies with an 8.0 rating.

This long-time voter has just lended a single star to the cause.

yeah, Ashex is pretty much right. Cross David Blaine with that dude from My Chemical Romance and a box of Summer's Eve and you get Criss Angel.

I don't know if you're the same Jon_Titor from SFN, but if so your stock rose about 20 points in my book. ...which gives you a grand total of 20.

I have heard this but I would like a more substantive explanation on how you explain this? For instance, it seems apparent that companies were extending bad loans because of extremely loose regulations regarding the criteria for certain loans (such as the process for approval and how a customer wanting a loan were supposed to evidence their wealth).

First thing to realise is that the Federal Reserve causes the business cycle with artificially low interest rates. All that happens is that the location of the bad investments changes each time. If you don't know that, I can explain why. Second thing is that there were quite a few laws made to encourage mortgages to be given to people with bad credit. This was done because home ownership was considered a necessity in the 50s and 60s. It was also done because credit expansion and debt is what fuels the American economy now, thanks to the Federal Reserve, not savings. Third thing to realise is that there are a number of bad laws that encourage mortgage lenders to loan as much as possible, and then pass on the debt to someone else. This means that the lenders don't have an incentive to make sure their loans are secure. And finally, there were a number of laws which meant that your capital reserves can be less if you are holding lower risk paper. This led to an incentive to essentially fake and downplay the risk involved with what people were trading. I would argue that this crisis was entirely caused by bad government laws, over regulation, fractional reserve banking, and paper currency. And I think until we realise that, it will happen again, and again, and again.

Why do I always know all TILs when I see them but can never recall them to post them?

Because a lot of this shit falls under the category of common sense.

I don't know, Cathy gets me sometimes. So does The Family Circus and those detailed Lance-a-Lot cartoons. Edit: Er..."Lancelot"?

Family Circus? No way. It's always the last one on the page, so even though you have warm fuzzies from all the other good ones, you get to that and it always lets you down. Like leaving a bad taste in your mouth. Maybe that's just me, though.

At 27 these dreams are only now starting to get less frequent. Most often for me I dream that there is a class that I stopped going to and doing assignments for (often Physics, for some reason) but completely forgot to drop - so now it's the end of the semester and I am either grossly unprepared for the final or I have about 30 lab reports due tomorrow.

I'm 49 and I still have this dream two or three times a year. Almost exactly as shown.

What a great smile.

Yes. The best part of #3

I like the Chris Rock's version http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gCCjFbFXn8

Fuck yaaa! Awesome shit, man.

I love fuckin haikus! They are great seriously! What do I do now?

Haikus can be fun, but sometimes they don't make sense. Refrigerator. /three-year old joke