In other news... (humorous news items)

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Max™
Posts: 1792
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 4:21 am UTC
Location: mu

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby Max™ » Wed Sep 19, 2012 1:27 am UTC

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/42 ... 2012-09-18

Image

You can teach it to do a task by showing it how it is done.

So I have to ask, how long before someone teaches it how...



...TO KILL?!?!
mu

User avatar
Adacore
Posts: 2755
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 12:35 pm UTC
Location: 한국 창원

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby Adacore » Wed Sep 19, 2012 4:16 am UTC

It does have an incredibly shifty-looking face.

In all seriousness, though, that's pretty cool.

User avatar
Nylonathatep
NOT Nyarlathotep
Posts: 720
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 3:06 am UTC

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby Nylonathatep » Wed Sep 19, 2012 3:11 pm UTC

U.S. man who contracted plague from cat may lose all his fingers

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/artic ... is-fingers

“We didn’t even know the plague was around anymore,” said his sister, Diana Gaylord. “We thought that was an ancient, ancient disease.”

The bacterium that causes the plague is carried by fleas, which can infect people and animals. The disease that killed millions in the Middle Ages is extremely rare in current times — an average of seven cases occur in the U.S. each year.


Trigger warning: mildly disturbing images

Spoiler:
Image

User avatar
wam
Posts: 201
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2012 9:08 am UTC
Location: South England

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby wam » Thu Sep 20, 2012 11:57 am UTC

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/james ... supported/

Basically a Political party passed an equality law and has now realised that by doing so they made their own constitution illegal.

I do love how well politicians think laws through.
Come join us playing mafia signup here

User avatar
Nylonathatep
NOT Nyarlathotep
Posts: 720
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 3:06 am UTC

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby Nylonathatep » Thu Sep 20, 2012 4:38 pm UTC

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/09/19 ... ery-woman/


B.C. man returns to Ireland to seek out – and marry – ‘striking’ mystery woman


In July 2011, Sandy Crocker, 34, was eating breakfast in the Irish tourist town of Ennistymon with his brother when he noticed a “striking” lady at a neighbouring table.

He waited until she had finished her meal to strike up a conversation, but only long enough to chat about the weather and ask directions to a local landmark.

“She never left my mind, so I decided why not go back and try to find her?” he told the Irish Sun this week. “Maybe it’s a shot in the dark, but if it is meant to be, if it’s fate, then I might bump into her walking down the street or in a shop somewhere.”

The Kelowna dentist started his search this month in the rural County Clare, where Ennistymon is located. Soon, he plans to move on to Cork and Belfast. His elusive love interest is described as an Irish woman in her mid-twenties with freckles and reddish-brown hair.



Creeeeeeeeepyyyy....

User avatar
Ashlah
Posts: 650
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 7:31 pm UTC

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby Ashlah » Thu Sep 20, 2012 7:01 pm UTC

Seriously. He's become obsessed with the idea of a person he's made up entirely in his head. He knows nothing about her (and frankly I doubt he could honestly recognize her), except what he's made up (she's the type of girl who buys brown boots? Are you kidding?) If I was her...well, I probably wouldn't remember the guy...but if I did, I'd lock myself in my house until he left Ireland.


User avatar
Max™
Posts: 1792
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 4:21 am UTC
Location: mu

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby Max™ » Thu Sep 20, 2012 7:28 pm UTC



*talks into my cufflink* Mama-bird to Papa-bird, Baby-bird has shit the nest, I repeat, Baby-bird has shit the nest, requesting further orders.
mu

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Sep 20, 2012 7:33 pm UTC

Nylonathatep wrote:The Kelowna dentist started his search this month in the rural County Clare, where Ennistymon is located. Soon, he plans to move on to Cork and Belfast. His elusive love interest is described as an Irish woman in her mid-twenties with freckles and reddish-brown hair.


Well, if he's got it narrowed down to a woman with freckles and reddish-brown hair, I'm sure the rest will be easy. How many of those can there be in Ireland? :D

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4558
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby LaserGuy » Fri Sep 21, 2012 3:07 pm UTC



Perhaps coincidentally, The Canada Party Manifesto is encouraging Americans to vote for Canada to run their country.

User avatar
Iulus Cofield
WINNING
Posts: 2917
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:31 am UTC

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby Iulus Cofield » Fri Sep 21, 2012 5:37 pm UTC

Patrick Stewart's Battle for Cable Saps His 'Will to Live'

"All I wanted to do was set up a new account with [Time Warner Cable] but 36hrs later I've lost the will to live," Stewart tweeted under the handle @SirPatStew Thursday.

Darryl
Posts: 327
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2008 2:32 pm UTC

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby Darryl » Fri Sep 21, 2012 6:19 pm UTC

LaserGuy wrote:


Perhaps coincidentally, The Canada Party Manifesto is encouraging Americans to vote for Canada to run their country.

Couldn't do a worse job than that joker we had from January 20, 2001 - January 19, 2009. Might get my vote in 2016.
yurell wrote:We need fewer homoeopaths, that way they'll be more potent!

User avatar
Triangle_Man
WINNING
Posts: 1500
Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 8:41 pm UTC
Location: CANADA

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby Triangle_Man » Fri Sep 21, 2012 6:37 pm UTC

Hey, Stephen Harper may be sketchy as Hell and prone to secrecy, stubbornness and ignoring all contradictory evidence once he's decided to do something, but he's nowhere near as bad as some of the politicians you guys have had in the states.

Also -

Developer spends $20,000 of his own money to clear trash out of vacant lot and create a park. City responds by suing him.
I really should be working right now, but somehow I don't have the energy.

The Mighty Thesaurus wrote:My moral system allows me to bitch slap you for typing that.

User avatar
Adacore
Posts: 2755
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 12:35 pm UTC
Location: 한국 창원

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby Adacore » Sat Sep 22, 2012 4:20 am UTC

Given he's a developer, I doubt it was entirely altruistic - he was probably concerned about the effect the lot was having on the value of his property. Plus, legally speaking, it's an incredibly bad idea to do something when you have enquired about doing it and been told not to in writing. Having said that, though, I still think the city council should drop legal action, because it's still just ridiculous.

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3943
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby Dauric » Sat Sep 22, 2012 5:48 am UTC

The article notes that the city had originally fined him for trash on that exact lot... :shock:

Somewhere I think we had an article linked around here where boy scouts had gotten fined by a city for much the same thing.

[anecdote]
Back when I was going to high school there was a massive pothole in the road out in front of the school, probably about a foot wide and three long, eight inches deep at the bottom. People complained about it constantly to the local road department (which ironically the nearest road maintenance depot was across the street from the school).

Then some random driver had the brilliant idea of filling the hole with cat litter, and I don't mean that sarcastically, it was fantastic to not have to worry about that hole in the road for once.

Almost exactly one week later the hole was patched with a proper road patch. Clearly while we cannot afford proper infrastructure maintenance, we must not tolerate vigilante road patching.
[/anecdote]
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

User avatar
Coyne
Posts: 1065
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 12:07 am UTC
Location: Orlando, Florida
Contact:

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby Coyne » Sun Sep 23, 2012 7:36 pm UTC

Adacore wrote:Given he's a developer, I doubt it was entirely altruistic - he was probably concerned about the effect the lot was having on the value of his property. Plus, legally speaking, it's an incredibly bad idea to do something when you have enquired about doing it and been told not to in writing. Having said that, though, I still think the city council should drop legal action, because it's still just ridiculous.


It was noted in the article that he had actually received a citation for the condition of the lot.

Frankly, I think that should be an affirmative defense: You can't hold someone responsible for not doing X without implicitly conceding their authority to do X.

So either the city should concede that he had the right to clean it up, and withdraw the suit, or he has an action against the city for filing a false charge. Even as insane as our legal system often is, I don't see how they could possibly have it both ways.
In all fairness...

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10272
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby CorruptUser » Sun Sep 23, 2012 10:01 pm UTC

Coyne wrote:So either the city should concede that he had the right to clean it up, and withdraw the suit, or he has an action against the city for filing a false charge. Even as insane as our legal system often is, I don't see how they could possibly have it both ways.


You must not be very familiar with our system. There are enough laws on the books, and so much regulation, that virtually everyone is guilty of something. So whenever someone actually wants to press charges, they can even if they don't have good reason, because technically you are in violation of County Statute 207.41, Section B, Subsection IV. That's why we have the jury system, where ordinary citizens who ostensibly are not tied to government have decide whether what you did was actually wrong, rather than whether or not you are technically in violation of County Statute 207.41, Section B, Subsection IV.

User avatar
omgryebread
Posts: 1393
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 3:03 am UTC

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby omgryebread » Sun Sep 23, 2012 11:19 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:You must not be very familiar with our system. There are enough laws on the books, and so much regulation, that virtually everyone is guilty of something. So whenever someone actually wants to press charges, they can even if they don't have good reason, because technically you are in violation of County Statute 207.41, Section B, Subsection IV. That's why we have the jury system, where ordinary citizens who ostensibly are not tied to government have decide whether what you did was actually wrong, rather than whether or not you are technically in violation of County Statute 207.41, Section B, Subsection IV.
Uh, no actually. This is incorrect.

In common law jurisdictions (at least the US, Canada and the UK) juries only exist as "finders of fact". It is not for them to decide the validity of the law, only whether or not it was broken. The right to determine whether a law is unconstitutional rests with judges in appeals courts that exercise the right of judicial review; the right to determine which laws are effective or moral rests solely with the legislature; relief from unfair laws that were passed previously exists only with the pardoning powers of the executive branch of either the states or the federal government.*

Of course, it's standard practice within common law to not question the motivations of the jury. Therefore, juries have a de facto right to nullify laws, something that was used frequently for both Prohibition and the Fugitive Slave Act. Courts, however, have consistently ruled that juries do not have a de jure right to nullification. Therefore, the judge has no obligation to inform the jury of their right to nullify the case, intention to nullify can be used by the prosecution to strike a juror, a judge can remove a juror she suspects will nullify, an entire jury can be struck if the defense mentions nullification, and a defense attorney can be disbarred for informing the jury of their ability to nullify.

So while it's true juries can acquit if they don't believe what you did was actually wrong, it's certainly incorrect to say that's a reason we have a jury system.


*I'm not sure how this applies across the states: it may not be uniform. In addition, it may be different in the State of Louisiana, which is not entirely common law. I'm also not a lawyer (yet.)
avatar from Nononono by Lynn Okamoto.

User avatar
firechicago
Posts: 621
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2010 12:27 pm UTC
Location: One time, I put a snowglobe in the microwave and pushed "Hot Dog"

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby firechicago » Sun Sep 23, 2012 11:45 pm UTC

omgryebread wrote:Of course, it's standard practice within common law to not question the motivations of the jury. Therefore, juries have a de facto right to nullify laws, something that was used frequently for both Prohibition and the Fugitive Slave Act.

Lest people come away with the impression that nullification has always been used against laws that current society would consider unconscionable, it's worth noting that the biggest historical example of nullification in the US is the refusal of all-white juries to convict the perpetrators of violence against blacks and civil rights activists in the South.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10272
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby CorruptUser » Sun Sep 23, 2012 11:50 pm UTC

omgryebread wrote:
Spoiler:
CorruptUser wrote:You must not be very familiar with our system. There are enough laws on the books, and so much regulation, that virtually everyone is guilty of something. So whenever someone actually wants to press charges, they can even if they don't have good reason, because technically you are in violation of County Statute 207.41, Section B, Subsection IV. That's why we have the jury system, where ordinary citizens who ostensibly are not tied to government have decide whether what you did was actually wrong, rather than whether or not you are technically in violation of County Statute 207.41, Section B, Subsection IV.
Uh, no actually. This is incorrect.

In common law jurisdictions (at least the US, Canada and the UK) juries only exist as "finders of fact". It is not for them to decide the validity of the law, only whether or not it was broken. The right to determine whether a law is unconstitutional rests with judges in appeals courts that exercise the right of judicial review; the right to determine which laws are effective or moral rests solely with the legislature; relief from unfair laws that were passed previously exists only with the pardoning powers of the executive branch of either the states or the federal government.*

Of course, it's standard practice within common law to not question the motivations of the jury. Therefore, juries have a de facto right to nullify laws, something that was used frequently for both Prohibition and the Fugitive Slave Act. Courts, however, have consistently ruled that juries do not have a de jure right to nullification. Therefore, the judge has no obligation to inform the jury of their right to nullify the case, intention to nullify can be used by the prosecution to strike a juror, a judge can remove a juror she suspects will nullify, an entire jury can be struck if the defense mentions nullification, and a defense attorney can be disbarred for informing the jury of their ability to nullify.

So while it's true juries can acquit if they don't believe what you did was actually wrong, it's certainly incorrect to say that's a reason we have a jury system.


*I'm not sure how this applies across the states: it may not be uniform. In addition, it may be different in the State of Louisiana, which is not entirely common law. I'm also not a lawyer (yet.)


So... you are saying that juries do have the right to nullify crimes, but any attempt to remind juries they can do this is tantamount to a crime? Dammit, where's Kafka when you need him?

User avatar
Iulus Cofield
WINNING
Posts: 2917
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:31 am UTC

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby Iulus Cofield » Mon Sep 24, 2012 1:37 am UTC

firechicago wrote:
omgryebread wrote:Of course, it's standard practice within common law to not question the motivations of the jury. Therefore, juries have a de facto right to nullify laws, something that was used frequently for both Prohibition and the Fugitive Slave Act.

Lest people come away with the impression that nullification has always been used against laws that current society would consider unconscionable, it's worth noting that the biggest historical example of nullification in the US is the refusal of all-white juries to convict the perpetrators of violence against blacks and civil rights activists in the South.


Implying laws protecting the life and property of blacks were considered conscionable.

User avatar
dudiobugtron
Posts: 1098
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2012 9:14 am UTC
Location: The Outlier

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby dudiobugtron » Mon Sep 24, 2012 1:41 am UTC

Iulus Cofield wrote:
firechicago wrote:Lest people come away with the impression that nullification has always been used against laws that current society would consider unconscionable, it's worth noting that the biggest historical example of nullification in the US is the refusal of all-white juries to convict the perpetrators of violence against blacks and civil rights activists in the South.


Implying laws protecting the life and property of blacks are considered conscionable.


Fixed :P
See the bit I italicised in firechicago's post.
Image

User avatar
Iulus Cofield
WINNING
Posts: 2917
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:31 am UTC

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby Iulus Cofield » Mon Sep 24, 2012 2:06 am UTC

Ah, I misread current as contemporary.

johnny_7713
Posts: 555
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2010 1:31 pm UTC

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby johnny_7713 » Mon Sep 24, 2012 5:32 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:
omgryebread wrote:
Spoiler:
CorruptUser wrote:You must not be very familiar with our system. There are enough laws on the books, and so much regulation, that virtually everyone is guilty of something. So whenever someone actually wants to press charges, they can even if they don't have good reason, because technically you are in violation of County Statute 207.41, Section B, Subsection IV. That's why we have the jury system, where ordinary citizens who ostensibly are not tied to government have decide whether what you did was actually wrong, rather than whether or not you are technically in violation of County Statute 207.41, Section B, Subsection IV.
Uh, no actually. This is incorrect.

In common law jurisdictions (at least the US, Canada and the UK) juries only exist as "finders of fact". It is not for them to decide the validity of the law, only whether or not it was broken. The right to determine whether a law is unconstitutional rests with judges in appeals courts that exercise the right of judicial review; the right to determine which laws are effective or moral rests solely with the legislature; relief from unfair laws that were passed previously exists only with the pardoning powers of the executive branch of either the states or the federal government.*

Of course, it's standard practice within common law to not question the motivations of the jury. Therefore, juries have a de facto right to nullify laws, something that was used frequently for both Prohibition and the Fugitive Slave Act. Courts, however, have consistently ruled that juries do not have a de jure right to nullification. Therefore, the judge has no obligation to inform the jury of their right to nullify the case, intention to nullify can be used by the prosecution to strike a juror, a judge can remove a juror she suspects will nullify, an entire jury can be struck if the defense mentions nullification, and a defense attorney can be disbarred for informing the jury of their ability to nullify.

So while it's true juries can acquit if they don't believe what you did was actually wrong, it's certainly incorrect to say that's a reason we have a jury system.


*I'm not sure how this applies across the states: it may not be uniform. In addition, it may be different in the State of Louisiana, which is not entirely common law. I'm also not a lawyer (yet.)


So... you are saying that juries do have the right to nullify crimes, but any attempt to remind juries they can do this is tantamount to a crime? Dammit, where's Kafka when you need him?


No, omgryebread is saying that juries have the right to not provide a motivation for why they're acquitting someone, and that they can (ab)use this right to effectively nullify a law, even though they are not allowed to do that.

mike-l
Posts: 2758
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 2:16 am UTC

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby mike-l » Mon Sep 24, 2012 2:46 pm UTC

Coyne wrote:It was noted in the article that he had actually received a citation for the condition of the lot.

Frankly, I think that should be an affirmative defense: You can't hold someone responsible for not doing X without implicitly conceding their authority to do X.

So either the city should concede that he had the right to clean it up, and withdraw the suit, or he has an action against the city for filing a false charge. Even as insane as our legal system often is, I don't see how they could possibly have it both ways.


As I read the article, he received a citation for littering on the lot. It's perfectly consistent to say you can't throw your garbage here and you also can't mess with our garbage here.

In a complete vacuum, it makes perfect sense that you can't unilaterally effect major changes to public spaces. In the context here though, I'd say he deserves thanks and that should be the end of it.
addams wrote:This forum has some very well educated people typing away in loops with Sourmilk. He is a lucky Sourmilk.

User avatar
Coyne
Posts: 1065
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 12:07 am UTC
Location: Orlando, Florida
Contact:

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby Coyne » Tue Sep 25, 2012 1:57 am UTC

mike-l wrote:As I read the article, he received a citation for littering on the lot. It's perfectly consistent to say you can't throw your garbage here and you also can't mess with our garbage here.

The article says the citation was for "litter on", not for "littering on". I suppose it could be an error, but as written, he was nailed for the garbage already on it.
In all fairness...

User avatar
Steax
SecondTalon's Goon Squad
Posts: 3038
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2008 12:18 pm UTC

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby Steax » Tue Sep 25, 2012 2:20 am UTC

I don't know much about US politics, but Mitt Romney doesn't get why you can't open airplane windows. To me it's less the politics, and more "wtf happened to science?"

I mean, how else would you feel your hair whipping through the wind at mach 0.9?
In Minecraft, I use the username Rirez.

Technical Ben
Posts: 2986
Joined: Tue May 27, 2008 10:42 pm UTC

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby Technical Ben » Tue Sep 25, 2012 9:58 am UTC

Seems like a quote out of context... oh wait it goes from "they needed an [escape route] (Window)" to "They needed to let oxygen in/smoke out". Hmmm. Failure to think. :(
It's all physics and stamp collecting.
It's not a particle or a wave. It's just an exchange.

User avatar
Nylonathatep
NOT Nyarlathotep
Posts: 720
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 3:06 am UTC

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby Nylonathatep » Tue Sep 25, 2012 1:28 pm UTC

In other news...

Trigger Warning

Spoiler:
Former Vancouver animal hospital worker set to plead guilty to having sex with Rottweiler

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/09/24 ... ottweiler/

“You’re not going to be asking me to see any video,” said the judge.

“No,” replied Simpkin.

The case against Cutteridge is largely based on video seized of him having sexual relations with a Rottweiler he owned.

Though the maximum penalty for bestiality is 10 years in prison, Cutteridge, a former animal hospital worker, is likely to face a lengthy period of probation.

This was a difficult case. Bestiality is illegal in Canada. Brian Cutteridge is quite vocal in his belief that his acts should not be illegal
.


‘Science Guy’ Bill Nye says religious-based dismissal of evolution endangers U.S. science

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/09/24 ... s-science/

“The Earth is not 6,000 or 10,000 years old,” Nye said in an interview with The Associated Press, citing scientists’ estimates that it is about 4.5 billion years old. “It’s not. And if that conflicts with your beliefs, I strongly feel you should question your beliefs.”

Millions of Americans do hold those beliefs, according to a June Gallup poll that found 46 per cent of Americans believe God created humans in their present form about 10,000 years ago.

“What I find troubling, when you listen to these people … once in a while I get the impression that they’re not kidding,” Nye said.

Ken Ham, a co-founder of Answers in Genesis, said dating methods used by scientists to measure the age of the earth are contradictory and many don’t point to millions or billions of years of time.

“We say the only dating method that is absolute is the Word of God,” Ham said. “Time is the crucial factor for Bill Nye. Without the time of millions of years, you can’t postulate evolution change.”


Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Sep 25, 2012 2:25 pm UTC

That's extremely reasonable...not sure why it'd be humor.

I got raised in a fundie home, and when I hit college, had to pick up some remedial biology education since I didn't have the foggiest idea what was going on. Teaching creationism in place of actual scientific knowledge means a lot of selectively ignoring parts of science that don't mesh with your worldview, and thus, a poorly taught student.

User avatar
AvatarIII
Posts: 2098
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 12:28 pm UTC
Location: W.Sussex, UK

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby AvatarIII » Tue Sep 25, 2012 2:53 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:That's extremely reasonable...not sure why it'd be humor.

I got raised in a fundie home, and when I hit college, had to pick up some remedial biology education since I didn't have the foggiest idea what was going on. Teaching creationism in place of actual scientific knowledge means a lot of selectively ignoring parts of science that don't mesh with your worldview, and thus, a poorly taught student.


This thread isn't just for funny news, but also news that doesn't deserve it's own thread.

as far as I'm concerned, schools should concentrate on teaching facts that there is evidence for.
Of all things, the age of the Earth should not be in question. the existence of fossils, sedimentary bedding, proportions of radioisotopes, all say the age of the earth should be of the magnitude of billions of years.

even the most rudimentary of techniques of Comte du Buffon for example in the late C18th put the age of the earth at around 75,000 years by measuring cooling of a small globe and scaling up, and John Phillips got the figure of 96 million years by studying the stratification of rocks. Lord Kelvin, also working on the assumption of cooling calculated figures ranging from 20 to 400 million years, but that was all before the discovery that the earth heats itself from inside. John Perry went on to modify this estimation , using a model with a liquid mantle undergoing convection, and thin crust, to bring it to around 2 - 3 Ga, and the very earliest of rudimentary radiometric dating gave similar estimations.

I'm assuming that these people must be using these centuries old figures when they say that figures for the age of the Earth are contradictory, because by proper modern scientific calculations, we are certain with an error of only 1% that the earth is 4.54 Ga old.

yes I got all that information from wikipedia, but it's actually fascinating how many different methods and sources have given such similar estimations for the age of Earth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth

User avatar
natraj
Posts: 1848
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 10:13 pm UTC
Location: away from Omelas

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby natraj » Tue Sep 25, 2012 5:11 pm UTC

Nylonathatep wrote:bestiality article


yeah i dunno i have to kind of agree with the dude. i mean, i am personally opposed to bestiality but that is because animals cannot consent; however my personal morality aside, our laws are not really structured to account for animals' consent. if we can use animals to entertain us, if we can kill animals for our eating pleasure, if we can forcibly impregnate animals to breed for us, it makes no sense at all that we cannot also screw them. that is just purely people going ICK GROSS and outlawing things because they are squicked by it rather than because of a consistent morality looking out for animals' interests.
You want to know the future, love? Then wait:
I'll answer your impatient questions. Still --
They'll call it chance, or luck, or call it Fate,
The cards and stars that tumble as they will.

pronouns: they or he

mike-l
Posts: 2758
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 2:16 am UTC

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby mike-l » Tue Sep 25, 2012 5:47 pm UTC

natraj wrote:
Nylonathatep wrote:bestiality article


yeah i dunno i have to kind of agree with the dude. i mean, i am personally opposed to bestiality but that is because animals cannot consent; however my personal morality aside, our laws are not really structured to account for animals' consent. if we can use animals to entertain us, if we can kill animals for our eating pleasure, if we can forcibly impregnate animals to breed for us, it makes no sense at all that we cannot also screw them. that is just purely people going ICK GROSS and outlawing things because they are squicked by it rather than because of a consistent morality looking out for animals' interests.

I see it as a grey area. We can kill animals to eat them, but we can't torture animals. I don't see it as an issue of consent, because there's only one sentient party involved. The only grounds I would really care about is whether or not it's animal cruelty, and honestly I lean towards no.
addams wrote:This forum has some very well educated people typing away in loops with Sourmilk. He is a lucky Sourmilk.

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4558
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby LaserGuy » Wed Sep 26, 2012 5:34 am UTC

World may be facing a shortage of bacon and other pork-related products.

User avatar
Max™
Posts: 1792
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 4:21 am UTC
Location: mu

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby Max™ » Wed Sep 26, 2012 5:58 am UTC

LaserGuy wrote:World may be facing a shortage of bacon and other pork-related products.

*looks at the story before this one*

*wishes he could unthink those thoughts*
mu

User avatar
AvatarIII
Posts: 2098
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 12:28 pm UTC
Location: W.Sussex, UK

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby AvatarIII » Wed Sep 26, 2012 8:18 am UTC

mike-l wrote:
natraj wrote:
Nylonathatep wrote:bestiality article


yeah i dunno i have to kind of agree with the dude. i mean, i am personally opposed to bestiality but that is because animals cannot consent; however my personal morality aside, our laws are not really structured to account for animals' consent. if we can use animals to entertain us, if we can kill animals for our eating pleasure, if we can forcibly impregnate animals to breed for us, it makes no sense at all that we cannot also screw them. that is just purely people going ICK GROSS and outlawing things because they are squicked by it rather than because of a consistent morality looking out for animals' interests.

I see it as a grey area. We can kill animals to eat them, but we can't torture animals. I don't see it as an issue of consent, because there's only one sentient party involved. The only grounds I would really care about is whether or not it's animal cruelty, and honestly I lean towards no.


I agree, perhaps they should abolish the law on bestiality, and basically merge it into laws against animal cruelty. for example if the "act" were harming the animal then yes, that should be punishable.
the article states that:
"The charge was laid after the SCPCA was tipped to Cutteridge’s alleged activities in 2010 by a veterinarian concerned about an animal’s condition."
this implies that there was something observable, by a vet, in the animal's condition, which does kind of imply some sort of harm or distress.

User avatar
Max™
Posts: 1792
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 4:21 am UTC
Location: mu

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby Max™ » Wed Sep 26, 2012 8:22 am UTC

AvatarIII wrote:
mike-l wrote:
natraj wrote:
Nylonathatep wrote:bestiality article


yeah i dunno i have to kind of agree with the dude. i mean, i am personally opposed to bestiality but that is because animals cannot consent; however my personal morality aside, our laws are not really structured to account for animals' consent. if we can use animals to entertain us, if we can kill animals for our eating pleasure, if we can forcibly impregnate animals to breed for us, it makes no sense at all that we cannot also screw them. that is just purely people going ICK GROSS and outlawing things because they are squicked by it rather than because of a consistent morality looking out for animals' interests.

I see it as a grey area. We can kill animals to eat them, but we can't torture animals. I don't see it as an issue of consent, because there's only one sentient party involved. The only grounds I would really care about is whether or not it's animal cruelty, and honestly I lean towards no.


I agree, perhaps they should abolish the law on bestiality, and basically merge it into laws against animal cruelty. for example if the "act" were harming the animal then yes, that should be punishable.
the article states that:
"The charge was laid after the SCPCA was tipped to Cutteridge’s alleged activities in 2010 by a veterinarian concerned about an animal’s condition."
this implies that there was something observable, by a vet, in the animal's condition, which does kind of imply some sort of harm or distress.

Yeah, you've got a creature which you own legally, which is a different species, and in the case of dogs basically worships you as something like a god... and there is doubt that it would be traumatic for an animal to be raped by someone?

Would it be traumatic being raped by a dog?

There's your answer.

Note, that was in response to the quote YOU quoted, AvatarIII, not your quote.


Spoiler:
Even more to the point, ever heard of a dolphin rape dungeon?

Yeah, interspecies sex isn't super common, but there's another animal that is smart and does it, and I wouldn't google what their genitals look like if you want to sleep well.
mu

User avatar
AvatarIII
Posts: 2098
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 12:28 pm UTC
Location: W.Sussex, UK

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby AvatarIII » Wed Sep 26, 2012 11:39 am UTC

Max™ wrote:
AvatarIII wrote:
mike-l wrote:
natraj wrote:
Nylonathatep wrote:bestiality article


yeah i dunno i have to kind of agree with the dude. i mean, i am personally opposed to bestiality but that is because animals cannot consent; however my personal morality aside, our laws are not really structured to account for animals' consent. if we can use animals to entertain us, if we can kill animals for our eating pleasure, if we can forcibly impregnate animals to breed for us, it makes no sense at all that we cannot also screw them. that is just purely people going ICK GROSS and outlawing things because they are squicked by it rather than because of a consistent morality looking out for animals' interests.

I see it as a grey area. We can kill animals to eat them, but we can't torture animals. I don't see it as an issue of consent, because there's only one sentient party involved. The only grounds I would really care about is whether or not it's animal cruelty, and honestly I lean towards no.


I agree, perhaps they should abolish the law on bestiality, and basically merge it into laws against animal cruelty. for example if the "act" were harming the animal then yes, that should be punishable.
the article states that:
"The charge was laid after the SCPCA was tipped to Cutteridge’s alleged activities in 2010 by a veterinarian concerned about an animal’s condition."
this implies that there was something observable, by a vet, in the animal's condition, which does kind of imply some sort of harm or distress.

Yeah, you've got a creature which you own legally, which is a different species, and in the case of dogs basically worships you as something like a god... and there is doubt that it would be traumatic for an animal to be raped by someone?

Would it be traumatic being raped by a dog?

There's your answer.

Note, that was in response to the quote YOU quoted, AvatarIII, not your quote.


Spoiler:
Even more to the point, ever heard of a dolphin rape dungeon?

Yeah, interspecies sex isn't super common, but there's another animal that is smart and does it, and I wouldn't google what their genitals look like if you want to sleep well.


The question becomes a grey area when you say that a human raping a dog is illegal, but someone forcing one dog to rape another dog for procreation is absolutely fine?


User avatar
AvatarIII
Posts: 2098
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 12:28 pm UTC
Location: W.Sussex, UK

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby AvatarIII » Wed Sep 26, 2012 12:34 pm UTC

JK Rowling wants to rewrite/do "director's cuts" the last 2 Harry Potter books because she feels like she rushed them.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-19711553


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: iamspen and 14 guests