Dak

it was atheist who wanted it, not me. atheist, for future refference, if you want cap'n to do something whip him: he likes it the avitars look ok on the left. blah blah blha, want to get enough text to push down past them to see what it looks like, you may as well stop reading (if you allready are) tra la la, doo be doo. fiddle-de-dee, whoopy doobie tra-la-la. hey they wrap around, that's sexy hrm, they don't wrap around when the avitar's on the right, hint-hint whipicha!

1-10% homosexuality, 8-15% left-handed (from wiki), both are abnormal, and neither needs fixing just because of that. you seem to be thinking that something is bad because it's a medical condition, whereas it's the other way round. if something is abnormal and bad, then it's a medical condition. if somethings common and bad, it's just a fact of being human. if something is just abnormal, then it's just an abnormality. compare paedo and homosexuality, both similar 'conditions', as they're sexual preferences. paedo is a 'medical condition' because it's rare and bad. homosexuality is not a medical condition because it's just rare. unless you're taking 'medical condition' to mean 'condition caused by biology/chemicals', in which case heterosexuality would be just as much a condition. the default, in the abscence of any hormones/chemicals/whatever, would presumably be asexual. no, the patients perceptions would be the way that they are because of that condition. like i said, gay joe isn't strait joe who's being forsed to be gay by a condition; he's gay joe. also, being heterosexual is a condition; you just don't think of it like that because its the common one.

congrats to the winners

I'm objecting to the suggestion that they should. figuring out how to, and telling them that they can, is fine. suggesting that they should do so is, imo, wrong. I always balk at suggestions that people should become 'normal', as if anormalicy is wrong by dint of being uncommon. it's nothing to do with pc, its to do with the fact that gay people aren't incorrect, even if it's due to part of them being 'broken'. heh. being left handed is abnormal. normal people are right handed. if you are left-handed, then, you are abnormal.

yes they do... or we're back to you thinking you can analyse data better than scientists. anyhoo, 1veedo cited his source, so you could just go look up the paper and look at the 'results' section. the data will be there. don't forget to look up the papers that are cited in that paper too. you hadn't posted by then

what is that case? what you could have been, were 'supposed to have been', etc, is kinda irrelevent to who you are. if you found out you were XX, and the sex-determining-region had accidentally been copied from your fathers Y-chromosome to one of the X chromosomes you got, would that mean you 'should' have been female, and we should reccomend a sex-change? anyway, theres no 'intent' that you be normal in every way. don't forget, we're designed to make mistakes when replicating, so having a few abnormalities is intentinal and normal. not that i particularly think that matters. not, for that matter, that you were supposed to be strait. a chain of events resulted in you being so; a chain of events in others resulted in them not being so. wether the difference was genetic or due to lemonate is rather moot. evolution kinda relies on that happening it is abnormal and bad to have no lungs, so no-lungs should be fixed green skin is abnormal but not bad, so theres no specific need to 'fix' the greeness no, arbritrarily altering someones natural condition to make them conform to the average trait is pointless. would you suggest altering lefties to be right handed?

this is based on the assumption that we should all be 'normal'. can you justify that?

no, it absolutely, definately, 100% is the result of an anomoly, chemical or otherwize. the bit i'm not getting is where that's bad no not unless theres actually a reason to change (other than conformity) no, because if you have that chemical imbalance, then your not actually homosexual -- you are heterosexual. unless you particularly wanted it, i wouldn't dream of suggesting you change your chemical balance to alter your natural sexuality, on account of the fact that homosexuality isn't better than heterosexuality, so you've no actual reason to change your natural sexuality.

it wasn't the fact you reffered to it as black that i thought was wrong, but rather the fact that the only actual justification you gave -- I told him he is not black and so forcing himself to talk like that is almost, downright offensive -- assumes that 'white people don't talk like that', which you know is wrong from your 'laughing at for years' comment. if white people talk like that, then he's not talking like black people in the way that could be offensive. anyhoo, i'm pretty sure most black people that talk like that forse themselves to. it's not a natural accent, i don't think. nah, i don't think you're racist. although, you do seem to be quite against baggy trousers for no reason other than they're associated with black culture. I like baggy trousers. anyway, don't you think it's excessively coincidental that the one thing that would irk you the most is the thing your kid is doing? i certainly remember an 'im doing that cos my parents wouldn't like me to' faze. is he, say, 15? I'd guess that when he says 'yo, waddup daddy-dawg' , he's actually saying '**** you, i'm doing what I want now, not what you want, cos i'm a man now and i can so !!!'

you're getting too confused between 'abnormal' and 'wrong' (as the tree already pointed out). people don't start off 'normal' and then deviate from that by 'conditions', they start off generally normal with some abnormalities, and that's who they are. homosexuality is abnormal (simple statistics. its not normal). sexual prefference is psychological. so, yeah, homosexuality is 'an abnormal psychological condition' left-handedness is, by the same criteria, 'an abnormal developmental condition'. neither needs curing. who joe is is gay joe, not 'strait joe who is being made gay by abnormal psychology', for the simple reason that gay joe wasn't strait joe in the first place, any more than, if most people were gay, you'd be 'ass bandit paranoia, who's being made strait by brain chemicals and should get cured to find out who he really is ('really' meaning 'under the influence of mind-altering drugs', apparently). people don't need to be x because x is common if y is a viable alternative, and they happen to be y.

still, these two seem to be in conflict: it's a black thing that lots of white people do... then it's a predominantly black thing, not an exclusively black thing. your kid is talking in a way that lots of other kids, mainly but not exclusively black, do. so he's not really 'being black', he's 'being a rapper', which just happens to be more common amongst blacks. it's not the kid's fault that his behaviour is steryotypically associated with blacks, despite the number of white kids who act like that.

yeah, i do that a lot (and completely unintentionally). depending on which of my old housemates i was speaking with, i used to end up with a really noticable c'n'ree-boi or german accent i think most black people probably adopt it too. anyhoo, it's pretty standard in-group/out-group stuffage: i belon' to dis in-group innit mon, cossa how i speaks, innit; it's no different from 'i belong to this in-group 'cos i have spikey hair'.

the scientific consensus is 'majour cause'. i'd hardly say that from 1880 to 1910 the world is cooling. you seem to be measuring from the top of a peak to the bottom of a trough, which gives false impressions. eg, this period seems to have changed by -0.2C (with a period of heating in the middle); however, reading from 1875 to 1915 gives an increase of what looks to be about +0.05C. odd, that. http://www.ipcc.ch/present/graphics/2001syr/large/05.16.jpg I don't see any odd sunspot activity http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/cycle1.html

I don't see any conflict to be honest. in both cases, google have expanded their reach; in one case, microsoft misused their role as OS-supplier to try to forse people to use their desktop search engine and not anyone elses, and so google resorted to the courts.

i guess it depends on what you mean by 'civil rights'. i'd say b, BUT they weren't (and still aren't) fully implimented for everyone. so, civil rights were part of the constitution from inception, and the other cases mentioned have been part of a slow march towards making those civil rights universal. one thing, tho: if you take 'when did civil rights become part of the constitution' as 'when did universal civil blah blah', then you probably want to bear in mind that, till the 19th ammendment, women didn't have sufferage and thus weren't democratically represented. in a democracy, sufferage is generally considered a human right. either way, i'd say d is wrong.

I still think this is a tautology. if you take 'habitat' as 'place where you can live', then losing it obviously will lead to extinction (barring any other suitable habitatis in the vacinity you can move to). now... what difference is it if your habitat becomes unlivable due to it's dissapearance (deforestation etc), it's toxification, introduction of predators (including humans), change in weather, dissapearance of food, etc etc etc? again taking 'habitat' to mean 'place where animal can live', 'not too many poachers' is kindof a pre-requisite for a location that tigers can use as a habitat, along with 'enough prey to sustain them', 'no toxins', 'correct weather', 'no really bad diseases', etc.

lol. i'm pretty used to the new style (moreso than the newer style, i have to admit ). go on, make a newest style so that it's like new style, but with avitars on the left. geh on ye bugger *whips cap'n*

yup. and the majority of the professional climate scientists (who are, by profession, skeptical) accept the current consensus; and of those few who don't, none publish papers arguing against the consensus (afaik). so theres no real scientific debate against the consensus. is my main point take Lindzen. his publication history is here. his last (afaict) peer-reviewed paper arguing that the current theory on GW might be incorrect is "Reconciling observations of global temperature change", eg: The absence of mid-tropospheric warming would, therefore, tend to rule out Global greenhouse warming. however, more recent papers on the subject tend to go: Observations suggest that the earth's surface has been warming relative to the troposphere for the last 25 years; this is not only difficult to explain but also contrary to the results of climate models. We provide new evidence that the disparity is real. [...] This suggests that the disparity likely is a result of near-surface processes. the assumption now seems to be that there's enough weight behind the argument that co2 causes GW that any discrepancies are more likely caused by unknown mechanisms than indicitive of the co2 theory being wrong (okkram's razor: which is more likely, an unknown mechanism that explains this, or several unknown mechanisms that invalidate the idea that co2 causes GW + another unknown mechanism that is causing GW in a manner consistant with this observation). it's things like this that make me inclined to leave it to the experts, and the reviews yes and no. the 2001 IPCC report is pretty much an accurate reflection of the consensus at 2001 (a paper was even published supporting this statement). the 2007 one, tho, does not so clearly have the support of most climate scientists. so i'd be questioning the current one along with you, but not the 2001 one. from wiki: A joint statement issued by the Australian Academy of Sciences, Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts, Brazilian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of Canada, Caribbean Academy of Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, French Academy of Sciences, German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina, Indian National Science Academy, Indonesian Academy of Sciences, Royal Irish Academy, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy), Academy of Sciences Malaysia, Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, and Royal Society (UK) said: The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) [2001] represents the consensus of the international scientific community on climate change science. We recognise IPCC as the world’s most reliable source of information on climate change and its causes, and we endorse its method of achieving this consensus. Despite increasing consensus on the science underpinning predictions of global climate change, doubts have been expressed recently about the need to mitigate the risks posed by global climate change. We do not consider such doubts justified.

that's true. but, that doesn't in any way weaken the scientific stance, which you seem to be reluctant to accept. and again we return to the idea that you are somehow better at drawing these conclusions that science is. yes, science is inperfect; that's why huge branches of it are dedicated to determining how sure we can be of something, and why you end up with statemens such as 'virtually certain that blah blah blah'. (as a point, being wrong occasionally, but allways stating 'x almost definately true' isn't, technically, being wrong, as long as you're almost allways right when you say 'x is almost certainly true'). now, virtualy certain != certain. aspects of GW could be wrong. that doesn't change the fact that you, on your own, cannot more reliably guage the situation than science. given that science has said x, if you do not accept x, then you are, essentially, saying that you can discern reality better with a fraction of the effort. which was my point. seriously, try applying your attitude to evolution, or electromagnetism, or medicine, or aeronautics, any other part of science, to see how silly it is. i agree that you have to be careful, both of the authority being quoted and the faithfulness of the quote. but actual science is still pretty damn accurate (and, again, more reliable than you or me). again, if you actually have faith that the errors you've pointed out are actual errors, then publish them. but you've got to admit, that when it filters down to our level, we're way past 'beta-testing' and the likelyhood that we'll spot any mistakes that the scientists missed is slim. I doubt, in the history of science, that there are many papers identifying a flaw in current consensus that was mentioned to the scientist by a member of the public after the consensus made the 9-o'clock news.

iirc, temperatures are, on average, 3C higher in cities than in the surroundings, so 'being surrounded by buildings' does, kinda, alter the temperature. I'm pretty sure that anyone capable of getting a research grant to buy a weather-station is aware of this, tho. i'm not going to go on another windge, but it really does amaze me how people can assume that no-one's thought of what they managed to notice in one second without any training or knowledge (or, often, IQ).

for the love of... okey dokey. let's put this in context. for those of you new to this forum, as far as i'm aware swansont is the only actual scientist (i.e., PhD, works as a research phisisisit. astrophisics, iirc) who's posted in this thread. so lets take swansont, times him by a couple of thousand, and chuck this army of swansonts (who, remember, are at the very least 'quite clever', and are very knowledgeable about phisics/maths, and specifically trained in 'working stuff out without making mistakes'), and give them a couple of years to argue about an aspect of phisics. access to labs, data, yadda yadda yadda. and, they all keep an eye on one-another's work, and are quick to point out one-anothers mistakes (as freewheelin found out), and are very pedantic in doing so (as freewheelin found out). now, after these couple of years, the army of swansonts come back with a statement such as "we're virtually certain that, having looked at the evidence, which we actually understand, every 1/4 million years on average (but with a very large standard deviation), the earths magnetic field dwindles for about a century, then comes back inverted (i.e., magnetic north would be at the geographical south-pole, and vice-a-versa)". what you, SkepticLance, are doing, is turning round to this army of swansonts, and -- without knowing that much about phisics yourself, without knowing how to assess and interpret data properly, without having looked at the evidence as much, and, in all likelyhood, without being as clever -- and saying 'bollocks'. sure, you'll probably tag on a reason. maybe it'd be "if the magnetic field pieriodically goes down, then the lack of shielding from cosmic rays should cause mass extinction events, which we have not observed coinsiding with when we think the magnetic fields have collapsed". and, you'd kindof have a point; however, you'd be overlooking the simple fact that one of these swansonts, in all likelyhood, has, in fact, considered that rather obvious theory (it was the sun. jesus, i bet no climatologist thought of that one as an explanation of how the earth could be getting hotter ) yet still decided that, overall, there was still enough evidence to accept that, periodically, the earth's magnetic field collapses and inverts. your inability to fully understand why the lack of extinctions is compatable with the 'magnetic invertion theory' indicates that you don't fully understand every naunce of the subject, not that the swansont-legion has messed up. for completeness, what 1veedo is doing is pointing out that the army of swansonts, being clever, knowledgable, having access to the data, having spent a long time on it, and having checked each others work and all come to an agreement, are probably right, even if their opinion is different from yours. skeptisism is belief inertia; you need it, otherwize a tiny amount of data will get you believing in crazy shit (see the speculations forum); however, you must, at some point, actually allow your beliefs to be shifted, otherwize what you have isn't skeptisism, it's bloody-minded refusal to accept something. now, if you still think that the scientific consensus is wrong, then i suggest you do one of two things: a/ publish. you'll get tons of fame and money. maybe some chicks. or b/ have an argument with swansont that basically revolves around your ability, on your own, to out-think a couple of thousand of him, in a fraction of the time and without access to the same data, and lets see how that goes. for bonus points, argue that you're not the arrogant one whilst doing so. if you don't understand an aspect of GW, then by all means ask -- but try to remember that you're on a science site, so acknowledging that the machine that is science is better than you at discerning reality is considered 'humble', not 'arrogant'. also, 'science agrees with me' wins you the argument.

i've looked into altering some code (mainly for learning), but my god is it a morass of confusion if you're a noob Does anyone know of a simple, prefferably python, program with moderately simple code (no heavy maths, no millions of files, no complicated programming techniques) that's good for a noob to pick up an alter to get a 'feel' for it? nethack and Aspell would be good examples of what i'm not after mainly, i want some practice with compiling, making and using diffs/patches, etc, and basic experience with finding my way around someone elses code. it doesn't need to be a program that i could make useful modifications to (tho i suppose a simple program with lots of open bugs would be kinda cool, so my learning may actually be productive). so, yeah, i've looked and found lots of confusing programms that are currently beyond me, so i'm looking to start off simple. any suggestions?

i think the argument is: you feel naturally sexually attracted to a group of people, and can never train yourself to a/ not find that group attractive, and b/ find another group attractive. so, neither gays nor paedophiles can change, per se. but, paedoes (unlike homoes) should resist the temptation, as them acting on their instincts would be bad, whereas homosexuals can safely act on their instincts. and i think 'trained to not be paedoes' essentially comes down to 'persuaded to not do it anymore, out of fear of persecution', just like any other criminals who have been caught. lol. it does seem that society, as a whole, is treating kids as sexy/sexual beings (school uniforms are hot, and sex is actually used to sell stuff, mainly music, to kids), whilst simultaniously considering them off-limits. kiddy 'beuty' pageants* i find espescially odd. paedoes must be so confused as a minor point, all sexual preferences are naturall, from heterosexuality thru homosexuality to paedo and bestiality. natural as in, no-one goes 'hey, i've got a great idea, i'll be a paedo - the most convienient of sexualities', and it doesn't take special training or anything. look at monkeys, and you'll see them having sex with their kids. i look at it like rape: perfectly natural for some people, but still wrong. do you have a source? i was under the impression that it wasn't that clear cut, and could be genetic and/or developmental and/or due to a number of psychological reasons. ==== *pah-jants. those things with cat-walks and models, like mrs. america. just in case my spelling is as off as i think it is.

indeed. imo, the only reason that the USSR continued to inovate was competition with the US. an interesting question is: would the USSR still have innovated out of competition with the US if the US was also a communism? instead of competition, you could maybe rely on people's genuine desire to improve their situation/country. it works on a small scale. i suppose you could call linux a good example of a small-scale thingy that is continually innovated and improved soley by peoples desire for it to get better (i.e., completely a-capitalistically), but i doubt you could do that on a country-wide scale (would be nice if you could tho) orly? so, tesco's and safeways aren't clamoring over one-another to persuade me to shop at their place, rather than at the other's? you can tell that there is competition because, whenever there isn't, the problems are pretty damn evident (in a capitalism at any rate); monopolies, cartels, and so on all tend to be marked by expensiveness and a lack of innovation (which, btw, is what people fear a communism would be like, due to lack of competition). hmm... wouldn't specialisation be more efficient? this 'do what you feel like' modus operandi seems somewhat erratic -- what if, at one point, no one feels like working in a given factory? does that factory cease production? what do you do with all the fish if too many people feel like fishing? so, iow, the USSR (communist) lost to the USA (capitalists), which is somehow an argument in favour of communism? I'm aware that the collapse of the USSR shouldn't be held against communism for a variety of factors, but i'm not sure how it is supposed to count in it's favour? china is slowly improving as far as human rights goes. also, they're not a capitalism, but a mixed communist-capitalist economy. as for 1 party states, that's not a requirement of communism, any more than multi-party states are a requirement of capitalism.

do you have a citation for the 'no change in CFC levels'? also, the prediction wasn't 'disaster', by anyone other than the media. third world countries aren't as computerised as us, so massive computer oddities would be less well noticed. as for 'no problem': there undoubtably were problems, as integer overflows always cause computer oddities (espescially in timekeeping, as it can screw up scheduled operations). the point is that society didn't crumble, which was what was only predicted by the media/general populance. yes, that's tru. and the media tend to latch on to these. anyway, 'scientists' != science. when i said 'predictions by people who know what they're talking about' i should better have said 'peer-reviewed and consensus predictions by people who know what they're talking about'. also, to add to the illusion of 'failure of predictions', when science says 'x might happen' but then it doesn't come to pass, this is quite often viewed as a 'predictive failure' despite the 'might' yeah, like i said above i should have said the predictions by science, rather than 'scientists' (i.e., people who know what they're talking about).