danielsangeo

That wasn't what I was asking.

Goal: Uranus (Planet) From: Haidong Prefecture (Random Article) Haidong Prefecture > Qinghai > People's Republic of China > Shenzhou 5 > Human spaceflight > Spaceflight > Planets > Uranus Jumps: 7 Did I do it right?

I'm really having too much fun making these subtitles. As always, if you see an error, please let me know and I'll fix it.

Agreed. I listened to it again and, indeed, that's what he said, and that makes much more sense. THANKS!

I somehow highly doubt that someone's personal stockpile of weapons will protect someone against the federal government (Half-Life notwithstanding ). The pen, in this case, really is mightier than the sword. As for this issue, I cannot possibly fathom how a simple registration and required training course is "banning guns" (like some, not necessarily in this thread, seem to be saying).

Global warming is an okay with me. The globe is getting warming. It's those that claim that it "snows in winter, therefore, global warming isn't happening" which has caused the change to "climate change". And now these same...well, let's not be PC about this this....idiots believe that we're changing it because we don't believe that the globe is warming. Which it is. We should be entering a mini-ice age and we're not. Can you imagine what's going to happen when we come OUT of the ice age we're supposed to be entering? I like what you said about Scotland. We have a long way to go in the United States before getting to THAT point... I don't really understand the fear about advancing our technology to so-called "green technology". When cars first came out, they were inefficient and clunky and there was no infrastructure in place for them. Now, if you don't have a car, you're pretty limited on what you can do. Why not do this for the future? Naysayers complain that X technology or Y technology isn't as good as oil or coal...there's a reason for that. Oil and coal technologies have been heavily subsidized and we've been doing it a long time so we've gotten good at it. It's like VCRs first coming out being a $1,000 or more and they couldn't do much but now you can't give them away hardly! Or the fact that a digital camera's computer today is much more advanced than the computers that helped the astronauts get to the moon! "640K is enough for anyone!" Get my drift? Just because we're still at the "hard drives the size of washing machines" stage doesn't mean that it'll never work. We just need courage. Sadly, that's far too lacking.

Anger is a survival instinct, I believe. Like fear, it raises your adrenaline so that you can defend yourself and go after attackers. Depression's an offshoot of sadness and, it appears, a malfunction of some sort in the brain where the sad feeling doesn't go away. Sadness, I gather, is there to help educate about a certain situation; sadness is not a nice feeling and you don't really want to do things that make you sad so it's there as another survival instinct. There hasn't been enough research into emotions to really know for sure.

So, I've typed up the subtitles for Episode 34 but there's just one part of the episode where I couldn't understand what Freeman was 'saying'. When he's fighting the "ninjas", right before he kills the last one, he says something like: "I trace a white dwarf's orbits, you think I can't find you?" But that doesn't make too much sense to me. I'm thinking it's something scientific but, as I don't know everything about science, I'm not sure what he's saying. What's he saying there?

Let's remove corporate personhood first. Unions have very little power and we can get them next. Teamsters, I think, you would consider a large union. In 2010, the Teamsters spent $2.1 million on lobbying. FedEx, by itself, spent $25.6 million on lobbying.

"Pro-abortion"?

Doom: Please read the "is-ought problem".

You could try to learn what empathy looks like and maybe try to emulate it (even if you don't have it yourself). Empathy means for you to put yourself in their shoes; if someone was going to act to you how you're going to act to them, how would you respond?

I agree, but the real problem creationists have is common descent. But "common descent" is plainly visible in any extended family. Your grandparents have three kids. One of those kids does the horizontal tango your other parent and gives birth to you. Meanwhile, another one of those kids does the horizontal tango with someone else and gives birth to someone else. That person is your cousin. The common ancestor for you and your cousin is your grandparents. Follow the human species (Homo) and the chimpanzee species (Pan) back through ancestry and you'll eventually arrive at the common ancestor. It appears to be the Pierolapithecus catalaunicus (when dealing with older creatures, they don't generally have a 'lay' name like "humans" or "chimpanzees"...when talking about creatures, it's better to use their scientific names: Homo sapiens and Pan troglodytes, respectively). We are still part of the same Family, though: Hominidae. That's fine. I'm not going after you. Just explaining things. I thought we were talking about what is, and should continue to be, taught in schools.

The way I see it, things like Facebook and Twitter and such are much more informal than places like web fora (for instance, you'd probably never see the word "fora" on them) so people don't see a need to compose their thoughts a bit more prior to responding. It's more a "stream of consciousness" thing than a "I'm writing a letter to you" type of thing. "I'm sorry that I could not attend the meeting; I was detained by an emergency at work." becomes 'sry dude cant go shit@wrk!!!!ugh!!!1!" They are capable of doing the former but do the latter because they feel it's more informal. However, if the informal nature of the message is not the problem, it could have to do with how you and they communicate. You are not getting your point across for whatever reason so you need to figure out how best to explain it to the person. Other times, people are just assholes.

We were talking about the theory of evolution and how it being a "theory" means that it's not a "fact". Of course, this is an error as there are theories about a whole bunch of things that no one disputes. For some reason, though, evolution stands with just a small handful of other subjects where too many people say that it's "just a theory". A theory is a set of statements to explain certain facts using testing and observation. Simply having something be "just a theory" is like saying that a hot pan cooking food is "just a theory" or that plate tectonics (shifting continental plates) causing earthquakes is "just a theory" or gravity attracting masses to other masses (a human being 'pulled' to the surface of the Earth and the Earth being 'pulled' toward the sun) is "just a theory". We are disputing the "just a theory" claim. Evolution is a fact. And a theory. Evidence is given every time you see any living thing giving 'birth' to something else. You are not exactly like your parents and your parents are not exactly like their parents. That is evolution.

I literally coughed while eating something when I read this. Are you guys even reading what I'm typing? How about answering the question? EDIT: Also, what gender is Walmart? I ask because Walmart was founded in 1962 and as of 1980, if Walmart is male, then he is required, by law, to sign up for Selective Service and, if the draft is reinstated, he would have have to go fight in a war. Is Walmart right-handed or left-handed? What's his waist size? I ask because if he goes into service, he'll have to have a uniform. Did Walmart sign up for Selective Service? If not, why not?

Whoa! Wait, what?!

I think it's kind of silly to go after laws because, well, if criminals aren't going to follow them anyway, why have laws at all? Also, for anyone that says that "gun control" is something liberals want, I would suggest that they not stereotype.

The_Doctor: I've tried this with a creationist I was conversing with once. I showed him multiple evidences that bacteria evolve. His response? "But they're still bacteria." I thought that was extremely telling. At least, for this person.

Earthquakes are evidence of plate tectonics. A theory is an explanation of observable phenomena. If observable phenomena is not "fact", I don't now what "fact" is.

If you do the research, it's very possible for men to lactate and nurse. (Oops, missed the last part of BrainBlow's post)

Evolution's already fact as much as gravity, thermodynamics, and germs are. He has the freedom to deny that gravity exists, but that doesn't mean he's going to survive jumping off the Empire State Building. I'm sorry if you think it's degrading the quality of the conversation, but babies do come about by the reproductive process of sperm and egg coming together, gestating in the uterus of the woman, and then being birthed. There is no stork involved. No cabbage patch. You don't get to "decide" facts.

There was once three tomatoes in Mexican-held territory which was located around the border of new new microwave. They planned a mission for invading Earth, suddenly a pirate starship, piloted by Captain Figunaye, appeared in the twisted transistor. "Photon cannons, ready?"

Let me take issue here. Atheism is not the absence of belief in the supernatural because "theism" is not the belief in the supernatural (not sure what word that would be..anyone know any Latin? ). Atheism is solely the absence of belief in a deity. Atheists can surely believe in other supernatural elements, though....Ghosts, reincarnation, vampires, werewolves...that sort of thing.

And why keep it to science? Why should the square of the hypotenuse of a right triangle be the sum of the squares of the remaining two lines? I say, Christopher Columbus didn't sail to North America in 1492; he flew to Japan in his gyroprop in 1942. I say, teach the controversy! The Egyptians didn't build the pyramids; it was space aliens! Let our children decide the truth! I am not being sarcastic here. This is truly what creationists want.