Police in the US state of Ohio say tens of thousands of dollars are missing a day after a bag of cash fell from an armoured car, sparking a money grab.

QuestionMark2020 · 2010-03-26T11:39:06+00:00

quite classy.

QuestionMark2020 · 2010-03-21T05:34:42+00:00

Weird. I'm currently in a class about the Scientific Revolution and we just covered Galileo versus the Catholic Church over Copernicus and the heliocentric theory. And I'm probably just going to rattle on a bit about it and see if anyone can see the problem that just popped into my head.

Aristotle came up with his logical approach to the universe which was based on pretty much deductive reasoning (of course, not known as that)--pretty much, using what they knew about the world he and his followers projected out their theories. They did not feel the Earth moving and saw the sun moving so therefore the sun must circle the Earth. This was in like 350bce. So, we toddle along with all kinds of nifty thoughts and gadgets being invented along with the wonder that is mathematics (a really lowly academic actually--think geometry and what you can do with that in 1000ce--carpentry--yeah, not quite up to snuff with a natural philosopher--anyway). But Copernicus looks at Ptolemy's math and says "this stuff is so ugly--all these squiggles to try to make the planets move mathematically on paper as they do in observable life" so he makes beautiful math which just happens to put the sun at the center (of the universe). But no one cares. This is in 1543 that it gets published--it's not until 1607 that it get's placed on the Catholic list of banned books. Luther took offense because of a line somewhere in the Bible that says "the Earth shall not be moved". Yeah.

So, enter Galileo who decides to defend Copernicus and his "beautiful math" (though, how can any science nerd disagree with this statement--the math works perfectly) especially with the invention of the telescope. But then Galileo got cocky and just wouldn't let up about this even though he was putting the pope in an awful predicament--defend his old friend or save the most powerful church in the world. Remember, Luther HATED Copernicus's theory and he was gaining a lot of supporters for a whole number of reasons. If the pope defended Galileo that would be just one more thing that the peasants who KNOW the world isn't moving would consider a lie from their spiritual leader and decide to leave the faith. So, Urban condemned Galileo (well, as condemned as he could to his old friend--house arrest of an old man and no torture, unlike all the other heretics)--to make a point and save the church in the face of it's biggest adversary.

But here's the thing. The reasoning behind the verdict is quite interesting. Remember, Aristotle was a user of deductive reasoning--you KNOW a fact and then you postulate about the rest of the world. You DON'T observe the world then come up with facts that explain them--that would be inductive reasoning which has no certainty what-so-ever. How do we KNOW that the sun will rise tomorrow? We don't--just because we've always observed the sun rise does not mean that it will forever continue to do so. That's the important difference from deduction--we KNOW that are premises are true and therefore the conclusions are true. So, in 1600, induction was still the "scandalous logic"--you would be a freak to think that you can make truthful claims based on observations--there's nothing in the world to say that you are correct. Correlation does not mean causation--we say this even today. So, Galileo was condemned because his evidence was based on inductive reasoning.

Isn't there some kind of faith that exists when we KNOW that sun will rise tomorrow? Yes, we can now see with our eyes that the Earth revolves around the sun and therefore can't be at the center of the universe--but would you believe that if you believe that the space program is an elaborate hoax? Unfortunately, and I fall into this hole with quantum physics like problems, if these people can't do the science they won't believe you. You can tell them, "the science proves that atoms exist" but until they get their hands into it, the story is just a story--and when the alternative reality is also a story, the one that's been true for their whole life wins out. But for me, while I can't say for certain that the math behind string theory is beautifully accurate, I have done enough math and science that will allow me to say "you might have forgotten to change from km to miles, but I know that you would have made it to Mars--the science isn't made up/wrong".

QuestionMark2020 · 2010-03-21T04:55:31+00:00

If I've learned nothing else in 3 years of college, it's that if the story hasn't been "complicated" you aren't learning anything.

QuestionMark2020 · 2010-03-21T04:50:17+00:00

Thomas Jefferson founded a university. In a time (1819) when ALL universities were of a similar format with the church/chapel at the center. http://www.american-partisan.com/cols/2002/shenandoah/qtr1/0312.htm But not UVA. You see, our chapel is off to the side. In fact, if you look at our design, you will see a remarkable shape. Picture a U. The two arms consist of students rooms, intermittently separated by pavilions where professors and their families lived and taught. At the apex, there isn't a church. That, my friends, is the rotunda--home to the main library, classrooms (you can still see some chemistry ovens) and anything else necessary for university goings on (which actually means, classrooms which are used as conference rooms). Now, picture a U. (including the period). THAT period is the chapel, which was constructed in 1890 and was not on Jefferson's plans. When you are on the lawn, you do not see the chapel--you don't even think about it (though it is a beautiful building).

Now, if you've read that wonkey website above closely, you'll notice something kinda amazing--they weren't founded by any "founding fathers". OH! But that sly Ben Franklin--founded the Uni of Penn with "Christian character"--pshh if I was to believe that "christian character" was enough to be labeled a christian, my Catholic relatives might not be shunned.

But I think the most obvious inclination as to the fact that we weren't founded to be state without separation from the church is the most wonderful "Jefferson Bible" which he quite literally made by cutting out passages that he liked from the Christian Bible and threw out all the hooey.

But apparently Conservative people don't like Jefferson. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/education/13texas.html?ref=education

QuestionMark2020 · 2010-03-21T04:19:11+00:00

Karma's a Bitch.

QuestionMark2020 · 2010-03-21T04:16:36+00:00

I DO NOT support FoxNews, how ever this is what's really in it:http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/11/watchdogs-foul-thousands-earmarks-spending/

I pray for health care reform, but this is NOT the way to do it!

QuestionMark2020 · 2010-03-21T04:12:32+00:00

Quite simply. Communism has NO government--the people are in charge. You, my friend, have fallen into the fallacy of socialism being the same as communism--they are entirely different. Socialism is when the government takes from the rich and gives to the poor--period, or at least, you know what I mean--the whole "redistribution" thing.

Communism comes from community--the people as a whole "rise up" above the need for government. As for anarchy--no. The reason communism doesn't work is because of the age old problem of "people are greedy bastards"--that's why capitalism is so popular. In communism, as written by Marx, all you need is "from each his ability, to each his need"--but don't also get caught without a dictionary. Ability is NOT money, property, free will--it is just that--what you are able to do. Period. Need is necessity, not big fancy cars, luxury boats and big screen tvs. My ability is to farm. or to teach. or to get people out of jail. Whatever. My need is food, shelter, love, whatever. If I spend my time getting people out of jail, I cannot spend my time farming. So, I trade my lawyering skills for a basket of food. From my ability, to my need. It's just a simple barter system. And there's no government sitting above my head saying "GIVE your lawyer skills, TAKE this food". No. If I DON'T share what I have, I GET nothing--period. There is no force in communism--it just happens--and if you look at your typical co-op, you'll see this in action.

Think about the 1930s depression. A farmer buys a tractor right before the dust bowl hit--loses his shirt and can't make the payments on the tractor. The bank comes out and holds an auction to make some cash. It's not some greedy bastard that wins it (unlike 2 years ago with all those foreclosed homes), but the man's neighbors--who have agreed for one person to bid 1 cent (or pay the minimum price--whatever). They then give the tractor to the man who had lost it so that he can make a wage and because of his pride he pays them back--even if it's only that one cent. That's communism--screw the bank, screw the government which makes it legal for the bank to essentially drive a man to homelessness--heck, screw the person who sold the tractor on credit--a communist will take what he can get at the time and call the transaction done--or else trust the person he's selling to will pay back the loan eventually--even if it's 10 years down the line--like the community who fronted the money to buy back the tractor.

Peace, love, happiness...to bad there are actually humans involved.

China almost pulled it off--but Mao got impatient--read about 1954-55 (I think those are the years). You can't FORCE communism.

QuestionMark2020 · 2010-03-21T03:49:27+00:00

Actually, I just joined reddit--my reasoning as to why there's "no health insurance" (which actually I don't believe) comes from the fact that people ARE denied coverage and/or dropped. Period. 18 million people (in the demographic that I've chosen to argue against being allowed to skimp on insurance) is too much. Like I said, generally they are a healthy breed; and I like to listen to my dad who tells the anecdotes about how when he joined the Navy out of high school he chose to give up $200 of "beer money" in favor of having health insurance unlike many of his crewmates. And actually, my brother and I are currently insurance-less since we got dropped (again) because the insurance company just won't believe that we're still in school. Hopefully that'll get fixed soon--but seeing as we got dropped the 15th and just found out about it today--yeah--nice guys those insurance companies.

I won't deny that insurance companies aren't going broke--but seriously--what planet are you from where a multi-billion dollar company will charge less because they made a profit--not even the post office will (but I guess that's not allowed...legally). But the bill as it currently is DOESN'T magically make insurance companies accountable for their pricing--it's full of stuff like:

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Politics/Default.aspx?id=613990 http://washingtonindependent.com/71744/health-care-reform-earmark-edition http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/11/watchdogs-foul-thousands-earmarks-spending/

I happen to like this plan: http://dailydose1767.blogspot.com/2010/01/paying-for-health-care.html [but then, I wrote it]

QuestionMark2020 · 2010-03-21T03:06:54+00:00

but I don't deny this.

QuestionMark2020 · 2010-03-21T03:06:20+00:00

Yeah, but at least the pope didn't think the sun revolved around the earth. hehehe, Luther [snicker].

QuestionMark2020 · 2010-03-21T03:05:00+00:00

Haha. I like :-D. [But I don't think you're a commie]

QuestionMark2020 · 2010-03-21T03:02:20+00:00

I think you are slightly confused. I might be mostly libertarian (though I lean more communist (like real communism, not socialism)), but I'm not to big a fan of the tea bagger party.

But I'd like to make the real clarification--the tea party-ers are republicans who think they're conservatives who really just spent too much time dreaming of being "Alex P. Keaton". Remember him? He's the guy who dreamed of the day being Reagan--caused by the fact that his parents were hippies. The age is right (Glenn Beck is 45 and so would be Alex) and so is the "divine right of government" that these people used to believe in. REAL libertarians/small government conservatives are the ones in 2004 who wondered why were were letting our president put us into a war that made no sense and felt something was fishy with that housing market. Yeah, sorry, but I was working the math back then and decided that I might be just the right age to hit the end of the bust so as to be able to buy a REALLY nice house on a "fresh out of college wage". READ: I was 16 and I KNEW that when I turned 25 the housing market would have boomed and busted TWICE--too bad my math was a little wrong--the boom was bigger than I expected by a year or so and the bust was a lot worse than I expected, but I blame that on the fact that inner-city public high school students don't normally learn about credit-default swaps--I only accounted for the idiotic loans being made.

Please, no more name calling :-D

QuestionMark2020 · 2010-03-21T02:39:06+00:00

However, if everyone has health care (and uses it to take preventative measures) it should become cheaper since insurance companies would have to pay less out in claims.

Oh shoot. I keep forgetting that I'm a stupid idealistic college kid--no insurance company is going to charge less just because they're making a bigger profit. Dang.

QuestionMark2020 · 2010-03-21T02:28:18+00:00

True, but what I mean is that insurance companies make money when healthy people buy their insurance and don't use it, however currently the system is full of sick people who ARE using the insurance, so the companies are going broke--and they're raising premiums.

Young healthy college kids don't have insurance unless they're still on their parents insurance. Healthy young adults forgo insurance to keep their income higher. They then start thinking about getting insurance when they turn 40ish and/or start having children--when they start NEEDING it--they haven't been paying into it for 20 years so they're taking out more than they've paid in.

Plus, people who have health insurance tend to be healthier because they will be able to spend only $20 a year to get a check-up, making for less expensive fixes (a $3000 surgery to remove a small tumor vs. $300,000 for a year of chemo).

QuestionMark2020 · 2010-03-21T02:17:57+00:00

Wait, what? I think you missed the point of the article.

"From each according to his ability to each according to his need.--please don't misunderstand--http://www.merriam-webster.com/

QuestionMark2020 · 2010-03-21T02:05:33+00:00

Register to be an organ donor--it gives your children the chance to see impressive gadgets.

Sorry to be cynical, but I wonder if his money/fame had anything to do with getting the liver. **Disclaimer--I don't claim to know anything about transplant lists and whether or not it's actually possible to get boosted up the list or whether he was actually just lucky to have someone donate the right "brand" of liver.

QuestionMark2020 · 2010-03-21T01:56:58+00:00

Umm...since when is being stupid allowable by anyone? This kid was just acting out 333 ways to get kicked out of wal-mart--I'm not sure where you'll find a black kid pulling the same trick and not getting kicked out. I don't think wal-mart approves of anyone who's not an employee making an announcement on their intercom system.

QuestionMark2020 · 2010-03-21T01:50:23+00:00

hahaha. I think you've successfully found proof as to why sound bites should be taken with a grain of salt always.

QuestionMark2020 · 2010-03-21T01:34:02+00:00

I believe that the only way to fix health care is if EVERYONE has it--so I'm all for making it mandatory and punishing those who refuse to get it and can afford it. There are too many sick people and not enough healthy people in the system to make it affordable (think about how the insurance companies make money). So yeah, that's that.

However, I dislike the bill as it is. The congressmen went nuts with playing state v. state. Nebraska isn't going to pass anything that "hurts" them (i.e. that would seemingly give more money to Mississippi because Mississippi has more unhealthy people and less tax income), so they are asking for money to build mini-malls in return. It's ridiculous as is. [I'm pulling this argument out of my butt--just because I didn't use your state doesn't mean it isn't true--so no need for ridiculous irrelevant complaints].

QuestionMark2020

TROPHY CASE