/sci/ - Science & Math

>implying i'm a us citizen

>>3965681
>implying I am either

Answer the question if you can, otherwise don't.

We have a board for that crap now: >>>/pol/

>>3965674
Ron Paul, because everyone ELSE is fucking crazy!
Seeing presidential candidates bicker and complain the way they do is making this country look like an even bigger joke than before.

>>3965690
I'm surveying /sci/, not /pol/. They're next.

>>3965692
Noted.

Are you aware he rejects evolution? Do you think this says something about his ability to make judgements?

Obama, with reservations, but the right is seriously going off the deep end.

>>3965701
>sage
Noted.

Gary Johnson
I am from New Mexico, and he was governor here for two terms (in a state that is 2-1 democrat). He is a fucking bad ass. Left us with huge budget surplus without raising taxes. Wants to legalize pot (admits to smoking it in the past regularly). Pretty much stopped enforcing the drugs laws, pardoned a ton of non-violent offenders. Pro-choice, anti-war, a true small government believer. Vetoed more bills than all the other governors in every other state combined. Best fucking candidate ever. It is too bad he only got invited to two debates.

>>3965771
Sounds like a pretty cool guy, noted.

not voting, don't want to get called for jury duty and i just don't give a fuck

>>3965784
Seriously, a few months after I registered I got called. Two fucking weeks of my life? Are you kidding me? How am I suppose to work and feed myself? I almost starved.

>>3965784

Why are so many people anti jury duty? Most jurisdictions pay you more than minimum wage, and many jobs pay you while on jury duty.

Its like getting a second paycheck for free.

>>3965810
You don't get paid leave? Welp.

Also, are you two people or one? one noted so far.

oh dorgot point of thread.

Ron paul.

>>3965820
Recorded, thanks.

Are you worried about his judgement, given that he has decided to be a creationist?

>>3965824
ron paul seems more of a intelligent designer. Which philosophically isnt all bad. Also he has ckearly stated he would not let his personal religious views effect his judgment as a strict constitutionalist.

>>3965845
Yeah, but Clinton stated he didn't have sexual relations with that woman. How can you trust him to be libertarian if he's ideologically opposed to stuff regardless of the evidence?

Also, as an outsider: What's up with the constitution and why does everyone treat it like a sacred text that should be followed without question? I mean, it was written 235 years ago, it's not really relevant any more.

>>3965815
In New Mexico they don't require employers to give you paid leave, and I worked on an hourly wage at the time. The way they did it made working almost impossible. For two weeks they called me at 3pm to tell me whether they needed me to come in the next day or not. One day notice when I have to commit to my work scheduled three weeks in advanced. I never even got put on a jury because it was all DWI cases, and I have been involved in a DWI accident, so I am automatically disqualified.

I am the Gary Johnson, guy, btw, just me, no one else.

>>3965854
>it's not really relevant any more
...

>>3965862
Sorry, it's still relevant. What I mean is that the original constitution isn't, as is evidenced by the fact it's been amended more than 25 times. Why not start again with something like the UDHR?

>>3965860
Hell, that sucks. Over here you get paid £32/day or £65/day if you're there longer than 4 hours, and after the 200th day you can get over £200/day.

>>3965869
Mostly because of all the jurisprudence that came with it. Not only was it amended 25 times, it was mulled over and interpreted thousands of times more.

Currently, the document is short and sweet, even if it does have a billion footnotes on it. If we were to rewrite it today, it would probably be a thick, shitty textbook like the Treaties of the European Union

>>3965880
But the UDHR is more complete and arguably better than the US constitution. I'm not proposing some state ratified contract that takes millions of dollars to decide the cover image of, I just think there are better options.

Like the right to bear arms for example. I don't know if it stems from the constitution or is just coincidental, but I've never been to a country that had more of a fetish for guns. It no longer makes sense for there to be a citizen militia.

Obama, because every other candidate is fucking insane. He seems like the only one who won't turn America into a theocracy or a Somalia.

>>3965674
As far as the presidency goes, I would vote Obama even though I hate him and what he has become. His continuation of the Patriot act and the Bush Tax Cuts among other things were dick moves on his part. The fact of the matter is that he is still the more sane than anyone running in the Republican primary. Unlike pretty much all of the GOP candidates, Obama is not a science denialist. He does not deny the evidence supporting evolution, the big bang, the fact that homosexuality is not a choice, the fact that the HPV vaccine does not cause "mental retardation" and the fact that Global warming is both real and anthropogenic.

>>3965897
>>3965894
Why do you hate my freedom?

Noted, thanks.

>>3965901
hate YOUR freedom?

I'm sure he doesn't give a shit for your freedom. it's his freedom he cares for.

Him giving you freedom isn't advantageous for him. In fact if anything it's probably going to be disadvantageous

>>3965904

>>3965901
>>3965904
What are you two shitheads bitching about exactly? So when somebody votes for a candidate that isn't a Republican that somehow makes them a freedom-hating communist?

Idiotic ad hominems and you wonder why people don't take you seriously...

I'm voting for Obama too.

>>3965918
*sigh*

OK, moving on.

Ron Paul. The rest are self-interested corporatists or/and do not understand economics (e.g. socialists/liberals).

>>3965889
>But the UDHR is more complete and arguably better than the US constitution.

well, they have different objectives. I doubt I will see the "right to leisure" in the US constitution because... that's just weird and not a government thing here.

Its also worth mentioning that this is exactly why it will not be rewritten. No one wants to take a vote on whether the second amendment should stay, and at least a third of the country would throw a shit fit with their guns in hand.

You also mean the bill of rights, because the constitution also delineates what the Federal government can/cannot do, but the several states may do if they choose.

>>3965926
>do not understand economics

left wing undergrads maybe

I'm voting for Obama too. Libertarians are pseudo-intellectuals who don't know how complex socio-economic systems work. Conservatives are braindead morons who either outright deny science if it doesn't agree with their religious or political beliefs, or try to impede it if it offends said beliefs.

>>3965926
>claims to understand economics
>supports Ron Paul and supply-side economics (same Reaganomics bullshit that "trickled down" into the mouths of the modern day neocons)
>thinks that liberals and socialists agree with eachother as far as economics are concerned

>>3965937
>Libertarians are pseudo-intellectuals
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peOtufHAejo

>>3965926

Thanks.

In your opinion do markets autonomously monopolise, and would that be a problem? I think Paul wants to roll back regulation, right?

>>3965927
True, I get that. I think it's more of a labour law thing than a "mandatory dry ski slope" thing, and I can understand if you'd want to drop it.

At the same time I think they're on the whole better than the constitution. The UDHR deals with habeas corpus, the assumption of innocence, unfair breach of privacy without mandating gun ownership be less controlled than would be nice.
>>3965937
Noted.

>>3965947
I'm not really sure why you posted that, it doesn't lend itself to your objection.

Also, Maher isn't credible. He's anti-vax and uses science only when it suits him, unfortunately.

>>3965945
Trickle down always has been bullshit but that has nothing to do with Austrian economics.
>>3965954
No, free markets work against monopolization. Regulations help create monopolies.

>>3965961
Agreed^

Mahr isn't some sort of liberal overlord that speaks for all of us. He says what he needs to in order to get good ratings and stay relevent. Sometimes he makes good points. Sometimes he goes way overboard or says something that isn't true. You really don't see many level-headed people like your typical liberal scientist on talkshows because they're "boring" in the public eye.

>>3965966
Can you cite that? I disagree wholeheartedly, from personal experience without regulation markets definitely monopolise.

>excel
>not using R or at least Mathematica

HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA faggot

Ron Paul btw

>>3965954
>True, I get that. I think it's more of a labour law thing than a "mandatory dry ski slope" thing
It's funny, because I think America embraces dialectical materialism more than anywhere else.

>>3965961
>>3965970
That video was about everyone involved except Maher. Pontificate somewhere else.

>>3965971
There's never been a market without regulation

>>3965976
Try Singapore

>>3965972
Noted. Faggot.

>>3965970
It's incredibly annoying. I'm sure there's a market for decent science programming, it's just that for the sake of keeping in business Channels always seem to polarise. Something like current would be pretty cool, imo.

>>3965974
Communal ski slopes*, We also have mandatory lessons in buying nooses from capitalists over here.

>>3965975
Explain.

>>3965976
There've been modelled markets. In college I was involved in something a few econ. students tried where they made a barter system using paper shapes as currency and we ended up with a single company buying out all others and then putting prices to everyone's total budget for a single trade. I certainly can't extrapolate from that that every market will do it, but I also can't say with any certainty that monopolisation isn't tended to by free markets.

>>3965971
http://mises.org/daily/621
If you want a better understanding about the free market and monopolies and shit, go ask on /pol/.

>>3966004
>need more commas
,, ,, ,, ,,

>>3965984
singapore doesn't have a government now?

>>3965771
This

I'd vote for Gary Johnson

>>3966004
>Explain.


>Guest Mayor describes plight of town
>Guest Libertarian makes shitty snide remark about plight
>Guest Mayor 'Dems fighting words'

Honestly, Maher talk for at most 5 seconds in this link. Maybe you should actually watch the clip before you go into full retard mode.

Ron Paul.

>>3966005
GM. Food production is an industry which has no alternative, and were GM to take over it would not be possible for competition to take place.
Same goes for things like microprocessor design. It isn't possible for a small company to produce 22nm chips, and if intel were to go bust AMD wouldn't have competition. Not every industry can be easily broken into.
>>3966014
It has limited regulation, I wouldn't call it none though.

Belgium's been without governance for over a year now, though. They aren't really a distinct market, however, and seem more like part of the ecconomic blob of western europe.

>>3966014
Their government doesn't "interfere" with their market. Doesn't that constitute your definition of a "free market"?

>>3966029
i fail to see how it can exist and not interfere in anyway.

>>3966022
>Democrat mayor says he is mayor
>unidentified man laughs
>mayor takes offence
>maher says something

Erm, I'm not sure how you're getting from that that all libertarians are pseudo-intellectuals.

>>3966023
noted.

>>3966029
Singapore definitely does have regulation. google "MAS".

>>3966044

>>unidentified man laughs

Your are missing a key sentence. It wasn't just a laugh. Are you partly deaf?

Obama, albeit unhappily. Republicans will STILL get everything they want, but at least they won't be able to be smug about it.

>>3966057
I am, but I didn't miss it. I still don't really see what the point you're trying to make is.

>>3966063
>I didn't miss it
Not convinced.

>>3966069
I assure you, I've watched it twice now. Please tell me what I'm missing.

>>3966072
Mostly that Nick Gillespie, former editor of Reason - a Libertarian magazine with tens of thousands of subscribers, and the respect that commands - would rather shit all over you than rationally consider your plight in a debate.

Sounds like a feel-good-economics fan to me.

But no, you'd rather sit there and talk about Maher views on vaccination and science and how they apply to him ... breaking up this verbal row, over the content at hand. Somehow I'm not surprised.

>>3965854

The us constitution was a compromise, after many people agreed that the articles of confederation failed. But the document was mostly written by the elite. Fortunately the elite realised that a divided country would fail, so they put in enough concessions to get the poor to agree.

The reason so many people hold the constitution "sacred" is because these concessions do the same thing now as they did 250 years ago, they limit elitist power.

Unfortunately what many constitutionalist forget is that thesr same limits aimed the country towards a more liberal heading, not only socially but economically as well. Ron paul for example conveniently forgets about the elastic clause, which states that the federal government has the responsibility to create and legislate anything the document writers hadnt thought of. Which allows for things like the department of education, or a federal army.

But I support those wishing to limit government, not for the removal of services, but because I understand the budget needs drastic cuts to remain sustainable for a lengthy period of time. Also because these people generally wish to limit corporate powers as well.

Which is a hard subject, because many economic advances were enabled by allowing oversized companoes to exist, but those same oversized companies are leading the wealth gap.

So if we were to remove some patent and copyright protections, or increase liability on owners, it would be easier for new business to enter the market.

>>3965970
I'm pretty sure Richard Dawking has built his media career because he does use reasoned arguments ,which unsurprisingly piss off a lot of people

Ron Paul, /sci/

>voting for Rabbi Paulberg

ISHYGDDT

>>3966126
Yeah but what matters most is perceived reasonableness of the arguments presented. Although Dawkins is always very factual and reasonable, the fact remains that the american conservatives will always see his arguments are controversial or outrageous (even though they aren't).

>voting for Rabbi Paulberg

ISHYGDDT

Obama. True /sci/entists wouldn't vote for an idiot who denies evolution *cough cough Ron Paul cough*

>>3966145
Ron Paul is also a kike.

>>3966105
I see, thanks. I didn't know who that was (again, britfag)

>But no, you'd rather sit there and talk about Maher views on vaccination and science and how they apply to him ... breaking up this verbal row, over the content at hand. Somehow I'm not surprised.

I have a strong libertarian bias, as indicated by my attempts to start discussion almost exclusively with right wingers. I also dislike the thread and its idea, despite making it.
>>3966112
Thanks. I think I agree with that logic, it makes sense. That said, I'd like to see some method of producing high cost low profit products like new medications/radio networks.
>>3966126
Dawkins has a very specific audience, and he/hitchens appeal more to atheists than rationalists. There's overlap, but they're not the same.

Also, neither of them do much TV. In contrast, we brits have "songs of praise" on a taxpayer funded channel.

>>3966130
Noted.

>>3966145
Noted. Still looking for a reason that his judgement wouldn't be affected, by the way/

>>3966147
Kindly fuck off.

>>3966147
Every white person in america is or is descended from jews. the main reason your country exists so they could avoid religious persecution. this has been the case for a long time now. im surprised you havent come to terms with it.

>>3966168
>Every white person in america is or is descended from jews.

[citation needed]

Anglo-Saxon Puritans and Germans/Irish/etc. =/= Jews.

It would show up in our DNA since Jews are genetically distant from all other Caucasian groups.

Cain. :)

>>3966180
>>3966168
This is the cancer that killed /new/.

>>3966182
Herman or John Mc

>>3966159
> he/hitchens appeal more to atheists than rationalists. There's overlap, but they're not the same.

Nope and nope.

You have to respect hitchens. He's a freethinker and a free man in every sense of the word. And he's not a conservative or a contrarian. He's passionate and post-ideological

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwDYbNIHyN0

Also this is good to see them being self critical. something they wouldn't be allowed to do in a more public setting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MuyUz2XLp1E

>>3966189
>appeal more to atheists than rationalists

That's deliberate phrasing. They're both sceptical and definitely staunchly in both categories, but their target audiences are a/anti-theists. I'd love it if they were seen more as sceptics, but sadly they aren't.

>>3966168
>Every white person in america is descended from Jews


Lol are you serious? I'm not the same guy you're responding to btw (and I'm definitely not an asshole who blames everything on the jews)

I don't have an ounce of Jewish blood in me. I'm Welsh, Norwegian and Mohawk Indian as far as ethnicity is concerned.

>>3966197
Yeah they voice their opinions but hitchens especially isn't out to convince., You can't convince those who've been converted to god unless they are somehow willing to relent. Hitchens is rather fatalistic but never defeated.

>>3966219
That's also not what I said. They're for atheists, not so much theists.

>>3966198
Obviously it was an exaggeration

Paul wants to cut damn near all federal research money and privatize everything. Obama's cuts at NASA are nothing compared to what Paul wants.

There's is an entire thread about it here:

>>3960394

>>3966225
>They're for atheists, not so much theists.
Well that IS what i said in >>3966219 so we agree more than you think

>>3966226
It must have been, but I certainly wouldn't call it obvious.
>every white person in america
doesn't mean anything except that.

>>3966231
Thanks, reading now.
>>3966236
I'm sure we agree, you're just restating what I'm saying and as a result I'm assuming you've thought I meant something else.

<div class="math"> test[\eqn]</div>

<div class="math"> test2</div>

>>3966271
I'd rather you didn't test in my thread, but this might help you.

Ron Paul, because he wants to cut the military.

I really dislike Obama as a president, but I'll probably be voting for him over whichever anti-intellectual jungoistic christfag shithead the GOP ends up putting against him.

(pic related: don't blame me, I voted for Kodos)

>>3966187
Herman.

>>3966280
Noted.
>>3966282
You too. I think I share the same view, Obama seems to be the least bad option

>>3966287
Thanks, noted.

non-sequitorial question: Does anyone know where I can get hold of depleted uranium without being flagged as a terrorist? It'd make a seriously cool ring.

>>3966304
You become a nuclear research scientist or you don't. That is all.

>>3966304

Amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/Images-SI-Inc-Uranium-Ore/dp/B000796XXM/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top

>>3966304
Depleted uranium is also highly poisonous and even small doses will destroy your liver in very short order.

>>3966320
Perfect to give to your fiancee if you want to be rid of her.

I have a question too: how do I join Al Qaeda without looking like a terrorist?

>>3966277
Thanks I figured it out. Also it isn't <span class="math">\;your[/spoiler] thread.

>>3966346
It is [math[my[/math] thread.

>>3966314
Psch, too easy.
>>3966315
Yellow cake isn't the same as a ring.
>>3966320
Is it? I thought that was only when ingested or inhaled (and I don't particularly plan to do either).

Probably going with tungsten carbide anyway. Never mind.

>>3966344
Join the US police force, enter detective work, accept job application. Or so I'm told.

>>3966344
1) Dive to the bottom of the Arabian Sea and unearth Bin Laden.
2) Carry his carcass to a secret temple built into the side of the 5th peak directly north of Mt. Everest.
3) Consult the monks inside and offer up your immortal soul in exchange for them to carry out a resurrection ritual on Osama.
4) Convince Osama to let you into Al Qaeda and threaten to kill him again if he doesn't
5) ???
6) Profit

>>3966378

I dont think you can claim ownership of a thread.

>>3966439
I'm pretty sure it counts as mine if I'm the only person other than mods able to delete it, and I posted it in the first place.

>>3966443
No. This thread belongs to me.

>>3966448
This is one of those things where you eventually get me to just delete it to both prove and prove worthless the point.

why are we not offered the choice to vote for no president?

>>3966456
You are. Two people earlier chose it.

>>3966456
It's called not voting.

then i vote no president

>>3966470
Noted.

>>3966466
no it's different

>>3966473
Then write in "nobody" on the ballot.

Let's vote for Ron Paul.

C'mon /b/ we can do it!

>>3966531
yeeeaaaah

I maintain that it's incredibly foolish to vote for someone who explicitly ignores scientific evidence and demonstrates irrationality as a leader of anything, let alone the western world.

>You'll never have a decent president.

>>3966536

Hardly relevant now.

Our "society" voted Bush in twice for example.

You either have staunch, anal-retentive democrats (not counting Billy) up for the spot or mouthbreathing republicans - neither a truly viable candidate for such a role.


Let it all burn.

>>3966560
Bush wasn't a creationist.