does anyone know of a good pair of mittens that I could get off of ebay/amazon/somewhere else, my gloves are crap so I need new hand coverings so my hands don't freeze
I'm looking for a pair under 20 dollars probably with fingerless flaps, like this
but better quality
1. raise taxes for everyone no loopholes
2. cut spending in things we don't need (death machines)
and that's it
apparently I am a genius for figuring out in 5 seconds what top officials can't figure out
or maybe they have ulterior motives... hmn...
many "futurists" predict that the world in the not so distant future will become very much automated by artificial intelligence, and that most jobs will be able to be taken over by basically robots. this is probably going to happen a good amount of years from now, but still we should consider the future implications of this happening if it does.
robots probably will be cheaper than human workers shortly after they are mass produced for work, as they only need to be maintenanced once every month or so if they are built well and I don't think the materials will cost that much. so what do we do with all of these humans that will be phased out of employment? in our current economic system, these people would have nowhere to go and would be stuck. this would be a huge amount of people, as it is assumed that robots will be able to take over most common jobs that don't require that much skill and most jobs in industry. I think that this problem will catalyze a change in state economics that is overdue, which is that it will result in some kind of socialistic economic system. it really seems like the only possible economic system that would work with these changes, as the people will not have anywhere concrete to go and most people including myself see why communism would be a bad system.
I got a mini rc helicopter as a prize and it is actually a well built one so it is pretty fun to play with
I need to get some hoops of fire to really test it out
or at least some laser pointers so I can fake those cool high intensity lasers in movies
when I was younger in grade school (primary) I used to be one of the smarter students in math, and I could read pretty well. I never was thought of as smart in science, which might sound odd as I'm majoring in science and I think I am rather good at it but it really isn't very odd if you understand how science is currently taught. science pretty much isn't taught in primary, the only science that is taught is very basic things like temperature, basic geology, basic biology, etc and its not really even science it is just memorization. It isn't until you get into middle school when you actually start learning science and major simple ideas behind what science is, and at this time it really is too late to build foundations. when you get into high school, unless you take a specialized science program you are given one semester or year of biology, chemistry, and physics (which depending on your teacher can be anywhere from basic-intermediate level stuff). if you go to college, assuming you aren't majoring in science you have to take one or two science courses as electives which are useless for your major a good amount of the time.
I thought of a way to improve this system which obviously is not ideal if you care about science education and an educated populace
first start teaching things that you would teach in middle school beginning in grade 4-5 instead of grade 6-8. this will be aimed at having students learn rather basic concepts of science like the scientific method and how to set up a basic experiment then instead of later. the reason for this is that it gets these easy things out of the way and at a younger age it is going to be easier to learn more foundational things in comparison to an older age. next start teaching the first half of high school science with the other part of middle school science currently in middle school. the first half of basic high school chemistry/biology/physics courses are easy, the hardest thing you are going to get into is the mole/photosynthesis/kinematics usually. you might realize that two of these things require algebra, I think that algebra should be taught in 7/8th grade also so you would be learning it at the same time as learning these things. after this, in high school as part of the science curriculum you should be taught the latter half of each science course and the not too hard/specialized contents of an AP course. I'm guessing that respectively by the end of each course you should know introductory nuclear chem/evolution and general animal physiology/magnetism and electricity.
i know that this seems rather science heavy you can say, so an alternate course structure branching off at late middle school should be offered for people who aren't very good at science/don't have a real interest in science which would give them a less in depth science/math education in comparison to this one.
well my chemistry test is still the monday before thanksgiving break even though our previous test was pushed back a week because our teacher got a bad case of food poisoning and had to miss a week of classes, this next test might be pushed back also I'm not sure yet really. going home for thanksgiving break is probably going to be fun because my birthday is on thanksgiving break obviously and going home is fun regardless of the reason I suppose. I'm coming up with plans to write a constructive essay on radical education reform that might be possible in the future, it should be fun to write as the content I've been thinking about for it right now is rather promising to me
I've been watching some videos on feminism and the reactionary movement to feminism that has recently been forming, and I've noticed some feminists coming up with this concept of the "disposable male". this apparently is the belief that the male gender can be discarded from existence in the future or some crazy shizzle like that. This whole notion is rather funny when you realize what would happen as a result of males being eliminated for whatever reason from existence. jobs that primary employ males just because the ratio of interested males to females is rather high are jobs that we really need to survive. Approximately 88% of miners (oil/gas included) are male, 91% of construction workers are male, approximately 85% of repair jobs are held by males (about 90% for mechanical repair alone), about 80% of agriculture/forestry, large percentage of engineers (architecture was grouped with engineering so no accurate statistic), etc. Want to know the only real thing we don't have to worry about (well not me included as I am a male and all males are gone apparently)? education and personal services because females occupy about 75% of each field. I guess you can say that robots could take male dominated careers or something, but who is easier to replace a secretary or an engineer? to replace an engineer we will have to design a rather intelligent AI system, for a secretary we already have a replacement the automated answering machine and other forms of instant messaging.
well my classes got cancelled today, because of "high winds"... I think the administration is just being way too reactionary for this, I doubt that anything serious is going to happen. predicted wind speed in our region caps at 40 mph gusts which isn't much.
now that I've really considered the thought of Western concepts of heaven (Islam included), it seems pretty boring. most people say there is no hate and nothing bad in heaven, only good things (God hates a lot of people according to the Bible but lets disregard that I suppose.), doesn't that sound boring? only good things is really boring in our life, so why wouldn't it get boring in the afterlife? I suppose you can say that a change to our minds/souls/whatever occurs, but are we really ourselves if this change occurs or are we a new person entirely?
The whole concept of heaven/hell is preposterous really, God making these ridiculous "eternal pleasure/eternal torment" absolutes is not something a good/logical God would do (only a Sith deals in absolutes...). I can make up a better version of heaven/hell right now:
Everyone is placed in the same realm, but their position in the realm reflects how they behaved in their past life. So the nice/kind/generous/etc people will be better off than the mean/wicked/terrible/etc people. Positions change based on actions in this realm, so you can either be nice to gain status or mean to lose status.
took me about 3 minutes to come up with that and type it, and I'm positive it is better than "eternal pleasure/torment". so either this version of God is not very logical/intelligent (which is assumed to be false by every religion), this version of God is not a good god and instead neutral (would have to be as God is basically torturing half of the people while being infinitely nice to the other half), or this version of God was made up by people who were not very logical. I think the option that is true should reveal itself to a logical person rather easily.
I just saw cloud atlas, actually really liked it. it is a rather nontraditional movie, as the plot is confusing as hell so give up on trying to understand the connections until the end or until you watch it a second time. really to enjoy it you have to not care about plot sequence at all, and just care about good character development, sequences, stories, etc all of which this film has. I don't want to say anything more as I think it came out today no spoilers
after watching the trailers for the movie, I realized that there are a lot of good movies that are coming out soon also that I had no idea about prior. I had no idea that a Les Miserables remake was being released, seems rather interesting that they would cast Anna Hathaway as Fantine and Russell Crowe as JaviertJavert (I didn't look up their roles online yet so I might be wrong, Anne was singing Fantine's song in the trailer and Russell Crowe was in Javier's blue officer uniform I think). As odd as it sounds, I think both roles suit them really well. that one movie about the family who is separated by the tsunami actually seems like a good movie based on the preview, I didn't like a lot of other movies with a mirror plot but this one seems set up well from first glance. The Lincoln movie looks pretty good, whoever is playing Lincoln does a pretty good job I think. there was another but I forgot what it was, oh well
I think that it is kind of dumb that the drinking age is 21 at the moment, it really should be lowered to 18 or 19. I'm not saying this because I want to legally drink or something because I don't drink now with ample opportunity to drink illegally and wouldn't drink if I was allowed to, it just is a rather silly law that doesn't do much except cause people to be arrested for underage drinking. there's always this argument against lowering the age, it goes something like "if the legal age is lowered to 18 (or whatever), then more people will start drinking". well that is really obvious, but how does that affect you? another big argument is that a lower legal age will cause more dui activity and fatal car crashes, I don't really think so but if they want to deter this make sure no one in the age group is going to drive intoxicated by doubling or tripling sentences for dui related crimes for anyone 18-21 (and make sure to make a big deal about this so everyone knows what will happen to them if caught).
Any good arguments for keeping the legal age, post them I suppose
has anyone been on conservapedia (rhetorical), because a lot of the stuff on there looks like it was written by some kind of conservative zombie 16 year old (or someone with comparable education). here is just a small part of the nonsense (taken from article "atheism is a religion"):
English Pastor Daniel Smartt defines atheism as a religion, using Ninian Smart's seven dimensions of worldview as a list of criteria. It is not necessary in Smartt's model for every one of these to be present in order for something to be a religion.. However, it can be argued that all seven are present in the case of atheism:
Narrative - this dimension is concerned with stories which explain the origin of the universe and the human life. For Christians, there is the Book of Genesis. For atheists, the Big Bang theory, theabiogenesis hypothesis, the evolutionary paradigm, etc., play a similar role
Experiential - this dimension is concerned with personal or spiritual experiences. Many religious believers report experiences of being near to God. Many atheists report an experience of "liberation" in the moment when they first rejected God
Social - the social dimension of religion is concerned with religious leadership and community in congregations. Contemporary atheism has its own leadership (authors such as Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris) and social gatherings (e.g. the Global Atheist Convention held in Melbourne, Australia)
Ethical - this dimension is concerned with the ethical teachings of a religion. Logically speaking, if there is no God, how can there be any objective ethics? Ethics is reduced to each person's individual whims. Despite this, the leaders of atheism are insistent that they do have ethics, and even claim to have better ethics than religious people
Doctrinal - this dimension is concerned with the philosophical teachings of a religion, its claims about the ultimate nature of reality. Some of the central dogmas of atheism include the non-existence of God, the non-existence of afterlife or an immortal soul, that all which exists is ultimately reducible to matter (materialism), and that faith is illegitimate
Ritual - this dimension is concerned with rituals, the celebration of rites, ceremonies or festivals. Although atheism at present has few rituals, there are explicitly atheist versions of rituals to celebrate major life events (birth, marriage, death), and some atheists have proposed annual festivals to substitute for Christmas or Easter, such as Charles Darwin's birthday
Material - this dimension is concerned with the physical artifacts of a religion, such as buildings, monuments, art, etc., and with physical places considered sacred. Many atheists argue that all nature is sacred
All of these seven dimensions are present for atheism, and hence atheism is a religion under Smartt's model. Although atheism possesses some of these elements more strongly than others, Smart's model does not require all of these dimensions to be present, or present equally, for the existence of religion to be established.
I don't think I have to prove why all of these reasons are nonsense. The descriptors of what religion is I think are actually well thought out, but how atheism is supposed to fit the descriptors is simply childish in tone. I wouldn't browse around on this site, trust me it probably gets a lot worse. Maybe look around on wikipedia instead where the authors are actually competent