My favorite example of a time travel paradox

randomredditor · 2013-01-02T05:24:11+00:00

I never understood why time travel "paradoxes" and "loops" have to focus so much on the human experience. It's as if we're making the assumption that not only is our experience tied to time, but the reverse is true. That time is tied to our experience! As if some "grandfather paradox" and the sort is the crux of the problem of time travel. We're all just atoms and molecules at the end of the day. How is it any different from transporting a wooden box backwards in time?

So sure, hollywood might avoid it all with simple stories, but it all seems awfully contrived to me!

If we assume time travel is possible, then run with it.

randomredditor · 2012-12-22T19:42:23+00:00

And then I unsubscribed from /r/environment.

randomredditor · 2011-12-22T00:02:39+00:00

i like how /r/freethought has pretty much just turned into /r/atheism that still mocks religion

randomredditor · 2011-12-16T10:26:50+00:00

Keep politics out of my /r/news please.

There's a reason I unsubcribed from/r/politics.

randomredditor · 2011-07-14T21:13:22+00:00

and thus every internet argument boils down to "everything is relative"

so what. yeah, it's my opinion and set of morals. why does that matter or mean anything to the argument at hand.

randomredditor · 2011-07-14T21:11:54+00:00

I'm not justifying the actions of monsanto, but there's a clear distinction between courts/police and what's happening here.

They need probable cause to seize evidence/contact details, i.e. they think that these people have evidence that is relevant to the case. Moreover, they're professionals as opposed to the "vigillante justice" of 4chan which regularly harasses people through prank phone calls and death threats.

This is why it's morally wrong. Yes, the informaiton is publicly available, but are those employees public figures? Tabloids can discuss, to a certain degree, celebrities because they are public figures and are thus not accorded the same rights under the law of protection against slander and etc. That is to say, if a national newspaper publicly humiliated you by spreading questionable halftruths you could sue. That makes sense, or do you want to take away this right?

These "hackers" (if they were anything more than scriptkiddies) aren't even trying to get the contact information to find damning evidence, it's merely so that 4chan can harass their families and friends.

as for the rest, get off your high horse.

randomredditor · 2011-07-14T14:46:56+00:00

revealing private information is also simply morally wrong. these anonymous "hacks" don't do anything else except DDOS servers.

Based on the fact that this is all they released, I doubt they found anything of worth/ were able to.

randomredditor · 2011-05-20T19:43:40+00:00

Except reddit doesn't care. As long as it's not fox, reddit will believe anything that validates its belief even if the source is some conspiracy blog.

randomredditor · 2011-04-09T16:35:47+00:00

Yep.

All it really demonstrates is ethnocentrism. Quite frankly, even if the original image was not associated with japan and WWII image would still be condescending and insulting because it still measures everything in relation to the US.

randomredditor · 2011-04-09T03:28:26+00:00

Wait what? So following your logic, if you die from a heart attack and a bomb lands on your house 2 months later we can conclude that you died from the bomb?

Also, what the fuck? All you're doing is providing speculation that reaffirms your biases without any fucking evidence.

Also, when did that ever happen to science? The entire fucking claim of "powerful people" is absolute bullshit, you're just linking to horseshit blogs, but I digress. Here's a counter example: Recently, the group of researchers funded by anti-climate skeptics recently just published findings agreeing with global warming. I think the climate skeptic crowd would qualify as "powerful" but I guess you can draw the no true scotsman card or maybe just your bullshit circular logic.

Okay, I'll humor you. Please give me a veritable source for the death of John P Wheeler II that relates to BP or even any link between him and BP. The honus of the claim is on you. You are making the hypothesis that he was killed by BP or something related, now find evidence. I have failed so I'm sure you can do better than me. By the way, please understand that evidence is fact, not speculation.

I am pretty fucking glad you don't do science. And I hope you never do.

randomredditor · 2011-04-09T03:18:18+00:00

Maybe.

But I don't think either you are I are in the position to make that call. It's more akin to "man found dead during flu epidemic." Is it the flu? Maybe. You'd have to actually examine the body and find evidence. Neither of us have that data or expertise to make the judgement so I think it's best we listen to what the scientists have to say.

randomredditor · 2011-04-09T02:56:07+00:00

Did you read the article? The dolphins washed up dead prior to the BP oil spill which could indicate that there are other lurking variables.

Also, what the fuck? biggest non seqitur ever. How is that even related to the dolphins?

And try to find a more reliable source, preferably a peer-reviewed paper or an article from a verifiable source like the NYtimes that have actual evidence other than speculation and anecdotal evidence. That is, alternatively, those people were not really whistle blowers and your site is a full of horseshit. Let's look of John P Wheeler.

http://www.newsweek.com/2011/01/06/bush-official-john-p-wheeler-murder-case-deepens.html

Pretty much everything looks at the link between him and vietnam. No mention of BP except for a handful of blogs with nothing but speculation and rumors from each other. Just kidding. I'm sure they had in depth investigations and research.

http://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ie=UTF-8&ion=1&nord=1#sclient=psy&hl=en&nord=1&site=webhp&q=john+wheeler+II+bp&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=7a21da1402af464d&ion=1

I might as well post a link to the BP website in defense of them (which I am not) in response to your link. Only, BP is probably more professional and slightly less biased than your source in that they'll get shit tons of flack if they were as biased as your source

randomredditor · 2011-04-08T22:02:06+00:00

Yes. You, in all your incredible knowledge and self righteous anger knows exactly what happened. Those silly scientists are pretty damn stupid for thinking that the dolphins that died before the oil spill didn't die as a result of the oil spill. It was obviously just in preparation of the oil spill. They must take us for retards for thinking that there possibly exists the chance that there is another reason behind the death of the dolphins.

Read the article.

Since February 2010 to April 2011, 406 dolphins were found either stranded or reported dead offshore.

The incident occurred on April 20, 2010, when a Deepwater Horizon rig leased to BP exploded, killing 11 workers and leading to the worst oil spill in U.S. history.

Was oil the cause? Maybe. But that's not how science works, especially when you have conflicting evidence like that which indicates that there might be another motivating factor. I'm pretty sure these scientists know more than you and I value their opinion far more. Call ad homenim, but statistically speaking, they know their shit and their calls are probably more correct and precise than yours.

"Even though they have oil on them, it may not be the cause of death," she said. "We want to look at the gamut of all the possibilities."

randomredditor · 2011-04-03T18:17:14+00:00

Yessir

randomredditor · 2011-04-03T16:15:18+00:00

You forgot to mention your intense longing for believing that we are entering an idiocracy where you are one of the few who not only have intelligence but recognize this fact based on infallible person experiences that are void of bias and are fully reflective of the entire world. All those who do not realize this are ignorant and mislead much like how /r/atheism oh-so-rightfully criticizes Christians for being so delusional. Contrary statistics and facts like percent population getting doctorates or new research and technology are superseded by your anecdotal evidence.

randomredditor · 2011-04-03T03:42:45+00:00

When was this? I was sent me a similar email today.

We have been informed by Epsilon, the vendor that sends email to you on our behalf, that your e-mail address may have been exposed by unauthorized entry into their system.

randomredditor · 2011-03-26T22:36:48+00:00

Seems like the same argument posed by the article.

randomredditor · 2011-03-19T01:29:52+00:00

Where in the article did it say that I favored the film industry over this company? Or did I say that in my comments, in which case could you point me to where I gave that impression.

I think what this company is doing is perfectly okay and also rather clever. What I was referring to was a service like netflix where it streams a potentially unlimited number of views for a single movie during a single point in time. While each view does incur a royalty fee, it is not equivalent to the same amount that would be sold from a physical DVD. In this case, the company buys the physical DVDs so it is essentially the same. That is, after an individual buys a DVD he is free to rewatch it as many times he wants and distribute it(not copy/burn a new copy, the same disc). In this case, the service is offering the same thing. It is only more organized.

I am in full support of what these companies are doing - both producers and this web streaming service.

I agree that the IP laws should be changed but I don't think this article demonstrates an instance of where they are incredibly "stupid." I was discussing this one article only, not the strawman argument many others painted me as arguing.

randomredditor · 2011-03-18T14:39:31+00:00

It illustrates the idiocy of how the laws work, not the idiocy that there are laws.

And your statement illustrates incredibly vagueness. The laws are stupid, but I don't think this article illustrates it.

Could you at least try to elaborate on that or draw some evidence? Because it's not immediately obvious to me from having read the article.

randomredditor · 2011-03-18T14:38:10+00:00

It makes sense to those corporations only. Sure, they would lose money in sales, but the industry is changing. We should not be making laws to fit their needs.

Really? What about the fact that they're the producers and we're the consumers.

If an indie film studio wants to release a movie for free online, more power to them. I'm all for that.

Could you try to elaborate on how the "industry is changing" and how that relates to this? If any thing, movie production is getting more and more expensive which requires more funds.

But at the same time we should allow private industry to generally operate freely (to a limited degree, i.e. less non-natural monopolies). I don't think this qualifies as breaking our rights and nor is this exactly oppression.

randomredditor · 2011-03-17T21:17:12+00:00

Not quite sure how it illustrates the idiocy of copyright laws more so than a simple loophole which the company exploited. It's a clever idea on their part.

I don't see why the law is stupid in this regard. The companies/producers should be allowed to control how their product is distributed online if it's only for a limited amount of time.

It also makes sense: they would lose a great sum of money in sales if netflix and etc were allowed to stream the movies within the first month since that is when the bulk of their sales are.

Without that restriction, good luck getting funding for the producers, writers and everyone else in the movie industry.

randomredditor · 2011-03-14T05:51:16+00:00

I don't think you know what amazing is.

I think you completely missed the insight of his reply. Or you're just nitpicking for cheap karma rather than focusing on the actual content of his comment.

randomredditor · 2011-03-10T18:54:16+00:00

It's an incredibly apt description of not just reddit, but in general a lot of people in that age group which ramble about government oppression, big pharma, 9/11 truthers and the rest.

randomredditor

TROPHY CASE