On the cancer thread which is getting out of control...should I even bother continuing to argue in that thread?
Poll: Should I continue posting in the cancer thread?
(Vote): Yes, d_smart and group have good points about medicine.
(Vote): Yes, the posts make good reading material if i need to bore myself half to death & r educational.
(Vote): No, even if you have NOTHING else to do but watch paint dry that is better then continuing arguing.
Also this has been bothering me but I don't want to bump the ron paul money bomb thread b/c I currently don't feel like arguing economics. Dustyswededude said to correct him if someone found something wrong w/ what he said.
On December 21 2010 23:31 DustySwedeDude wrote:
Also, and please keep in mind that in no way try to accuse anyone of being a Nazi or anything like that, I feel that the an example of keynesianism that actually worked fairly good was the third Reich. I'm fairly certain that that economy would've crashed in a couple of years anyway since it's a classic example of increased Governmental spending to get the economy going by increasing the aggregated demand. And don't worry, I do have a point with this that I feel this is a good example of. Keynes himself was asked by some student (I think? at least someone) something like; "But what of the long run?" and apparently answered; "In the long run we're all dead". The way to make keynesaism make you look good is to die before the bust. Of course, Hitler fucked that up by being a complete psycho killer responsible for millions of deaths, but that's besides the point.
This is not the context at all for the long run quote.
here is the context and what he meant by it.
In the first place, Keynes was complaining about the “classical” economics, that is, the ideas of the economists before him who believed that the market, if unhampered after a recession, could reduce or eliminate the unemployment associated with the business cycle. ...Some basic methodology is in order. When economists talk about “the long run” they do not mean calendar time. Yes, that’s right. They do not mean long in the sense of many years or perhaps even many decades....The long run happens when all of the variable elements in a model are fully adjusted.
The long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead. Economists set themselves too easy, too useless a task if in tempestuous seasons they can only tell us that when the storm is past the ocean is flat again.
A Tract on Monetary Reform (1923) Ch. 3; many have thought this meant Keynes supported short terms gains against long term economic performance, but he was actually criticizing the belief that inflation would acceptably control itself without government intervention.
‘The long run is a misleading guide to current affairs - in the long run we are all dead ‘ JM Keynes
I thought this was very interesting as it puts forward the idea that we shouldn’t bother to think beyond our own lifetime, our own generation. Which I think is a terrible mistake.
This quote came from Keynes' General Theory of Money. During the Great Depression, the prevailing economic orthodoxy was the Classical view. This stated that markets would adjust to disequilibrium without government intervention. Therefore, when the Great Depression occurred in 1930, the classical response was to do nothing - because in the long run the markets would solve the problem (real wages would fall, people would return to work and the economy would return to full employment)
However, Keynes said this was madness - In the depth of a recession, why not try to do something about it, rather than leave to 'market forces'. Yes in the long run, the recession may end, but, here the long run could be 10 years. Keynes wanted to try and solve the depression now rather than wait for 10 15 years or however, long the 'longrun' was.
In particular Keynes criticised the idea that falling real wages would solve unemployment. He argued falling real wages would just leave people with less money and therefore aggregate demand would fall more. Keynes argued for public works schemes, financed by government borrowing to inject money into the economy and get people back to work and spending. This was too radical for the UK Treasury, and generally the UK didn't follow Keynesian policies in the Great Depression. If we had injected government spending, the recession may have been less serious and ended sooner.
For anyone who doesn't know already. Christopher Nolan confirmed the title of Batman 3 is "The Dark Knight Rises" and the Riddler WILL NOT be a featured villain. Cliffs at the end of the blog post.
From a yahoo answer page
"I have some inside information from Warner bros. about the upcoming third batman film which is slated for release across cinemas in 2012.
Now this may or may not be true as of yet bearing in mind this is early days, but this is what they have been talking about. It's early days and so this is just an initial story outline/plot for the third batman movie according too people from warner bros. Now this is inside information and so this is what I have learnt.
They just need Chris Nolan/David Goyer and jonhathan to sit down and work on the script in a few months time when they are finished with their other film projects.
[Warner brothers are very keen for a fourth installment of the batman franchise. They have seen the success of the spiderman films and so want to repeat this with the batman franchise and if all goes according to plan and batman does well again, then there will of course be a fourth batman film with Warner bros. being VERY keen]
This is the rough draft/outline for the third batman film. There is no title yet:
The characters:
Talia al ghul - she will be interlinked with bruce wayne [being a love interest] as well linked with the mob.
Saying this, there will be a gang walfare across Gotham City stretching out into other neighbouring cities. Since the dissappearance of batman, Gotham city has been torn apart and there is a rise in the number of gangs and criminals etc... this keeps with the story of the long halloween/the dark victory comic books of gang wars.
This will make way for batman to comeback and show the people of gotham city that he is a hero to them all and that gotham can be saved and they will change their perceptions on batman. The story has not been thought out so this is just a rough character and story outline which has been talked about by warner bros.
The Penguin will be mentioned several times however the penguin will NOT be seen in the third movie. There is a strong connection with one of the mob and the penguin. However, the penguin will be just referred to as 'oswald' or 'oswald cobblepot' and not 'the penguin'. Like I said, he will be linked to one of the mob but will not feature as a villain in the third film.
Talia is linked to Bruce Wayne as well as having a connection to the mob and this may be linked with getting revenge on batman who allegedly killed her father - Rhas Al Ghul.
I'm not sure if any of you were aware of this but the Black Mask was actually written in the script of the dark knight however the black mask was later written out for some reason but now the written out scripts of his character will now feature in the third film.
The black mask will feature - The Black Mask being related to the mob. He will be a big criminal of the underworld. A big mobster.
Now The Black Mask will be a SIDE VILLAIN. AN ORDINARY CRIMINAL of the underworld who is in a gang war. He is in charge.
Now comes the big part.... The Riddler will feature albeit briefly.
There will be one major villain and a side villain to keep in line with the dark knight.
The Riddler
Black Mask - he will be an ordinary criminal with connections to the criminal underworld/mob
the penguin - 'Oswald' being mentioned but will not feature.
Talia al Ghul - interlinked with Bruce Wayne and the mob.
According to the next film, Twoface IS dead, the joker is in arkham asylum but we do not see the joker however the joker will be mentioned several times.
Previous themes being fear. escalation etc..
The theme for batman 3 is 'REDEMPTION'
Warner bros. are keen for a fourth and possibly FINAL film as I have said and they are keen for the joker to return!!! This will pleasantly round off the franchise and would be an exciting and great end for batman.
They are also keen in including Harley Quinn and the return of The Scarecrow as there could be a break out as arkham and the scarecrow might possibly feature in the fourth.
Other villains maybe catwoman, the penguin and mad hatter.
but this cannot be true until the script of batman three has been written.
Now this is early days and this is what has been going around from Warner bros.
You can choose to believe it or chose not too, it's up to you but like I said I have inside information about the next film and this is what I have 100% learnt from within the studio. !
If it's true it's going to be one hell of a batman film!
The Riddler, Talia Al Ghul, Black Mask and references to the penguin and the joker all but a few.. Bear in mind we will NOT see the penguin or the joker in the third movie."
All that seems pretty likely now even though it was posted 2 years ago. Nolan said he will not revisit previous characters and named Penguin, and Mr. Freeze in particular as 2 villains he would never put. Killer Croc doesn't fit into his realism well. Catwoman doesn't seem to work out that great with his universe. Bane might be a bit to unrealistic for him although a hyper intelligent steroid like substance taking Bane (as was his original character) would be really awesome imo. But Black Mask is the easiest villain to do in the universe set up, mob ties, family history with Bruce. Think a wealthy more tame version of the Joker where there will be a lot of childhood flash backs during the course of the middle of the movie. Rumors are also saying Tom Hardy was cast as Bullock, but I can't imagine them wasting Hardy's acting talent on a character as minor as Bullock, I figure Hardy has to be a villain. I'm also pretty disappointed to hear of a female villain possibly being the main villain, doesn't seem like it will be to good. Overall my expectations are pretty low, I mean it's a Nolan movie so it will be good, but I think it'll be a level below TDK and Inception, probably slightly worse or at the same level as Batman Begins. Oh well, another trilogy where the third movie will probably be the weakest link. One issue I have with this plot is that Nolan said the third movie will be the last movie in the series and will complete his story arc, but guessing warner brothers had other plans and as usual they won out. The title is shitty imo. "Batman" would have been simple, continued with the trilogy titled and sounded better then The Dark Knight Rises, at least that what I think. I'm sure other people can come up with even better titles.
Cliffs:
Batman 3=The Dark Knight Rises
Villain male (in order of likliness=Black Mask, Hush, Bane, Hugo Strange
Female character/villain (likliness again)=Talia Al Ghul, Catwoman
Video that simulates what some people suffering from unmedicated schizophrenia experience. Pretty freaky and estimates say between .55-1% of the world population have schizophrenia in some form
Had some more downswing so I took the day off from poker. In my bordem I ended up writing out my views on atheism and figured I'd post it in the unedited rough horrible form it's in now for whoever to read if they feel.
Why I am an Atheist. By a very bored person.
Some people don't understand why I am an Atheist, so due to boredom I have decided to write out my views on humanity and religion. I was raised without any religious influence in my life as both my parents are agnostic. This led me to be skeptical of religion as I grew up. It's hard to convince someone over the age of 11 that there is an all knowing entity in the sky that oversees everything. Perhaps what made religion such a hard swallow for me while I was growing up was that people who try to convert others or are adamant about their religion enough to talk about it openly are the most devout. They rarely have any real understanding of other religions or science. This leads to a very monotonous talk where any logical question like: "Besides being "the truth" what makes your religion better than say Hinduism, Buddhism, or Taoism?", "If we are created by an all knowing creator then why are we so poorly designed?", or "If humans are the special race of the universe and all that your God cares about then why did it make the universe infinite?" are simply rebuffed by "I don't know". An insightful conversation about the nature of religion or God is seldom achievable. Plus there is the high probability of offending the other person which shuts off all constructive conversation and replaces it with awkward silence for the rest of the remaining flight (or whatever other reason I had for being next to this zealot). Due to many awkward flights I now just do the smart thing and avoid religious talks with strangers. This is somewhat upsetting since religion is such a fascinating conversation.
A few years ago there was a surge of Atheist literature led by Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins. The message they tried to convey is that it was time for Atheists to speak up and speak out against religion. What this movement ended up doing was making little headway into a reasonable fight against religion and instead turned many peaceful Atheists into self-righteous boneheads who violently opposed any religious thought due to what they read in a few books. Close minded "new Atheists" often did tremendous damage to the Atheist image by insulting and demeaning any religious person they spoke to. Hurting the Atheist image was hard also, we are already the most mistrusted ground in the country, even more so then Muslims. I feel this mistrust and seemingly mutual hatred between religious and atheist is due to misunderstanding of each other's views.
Religious people most often distrust Atheists with the thought of "What morals do they have if they don't believe in a God?" or "If there is no afterlife and only human punishments for your deeds then why don't you just do whatever the fuck you want and to hell with everyone else?". The latter I was actually asked my senior year of high school by a man who went on to be a NASA engineer. As an Atheist I feel compelled to answer where we (edit: we should be changed to I) get our (edit: should be changed to my) morals from.
The core to (edit: instert my personal)Atheist (edit: Atheist should be humanist) beliefs are:
1. Humanism-to do whatever possible to maximize the well being and happiness of other humans and organisms around you.
2. Tolerance-to not discriminate against a person for any reason other than if their personal actions are hurting someone. To respect others beliefs even if they are not the same as yours.
3.Empathy necessarily towards other human beings and animals if the person so chooses. Open mindedness is key for this to be successfully applied.
4.Quest for understanding- A mission to understand all questions in the universe, scientific, philosophical, or other.
These four ideals encompass all of what I believe to be the main structure of Atheist social beliefs. The 4 commandments of Atheism if you will. Atheists uphold these ideas based off an easy concept. If there is no other life then we must make the most of the life we have, further it is our responsibility as sentient creatures to ensure that future entities have the same or better life then we have. To do harm to another individuals well being or overall level of happiness is the utmost evil. All religious people will certainly agree with this line of thought as it is the same basic line of thought taught by all religions. The only difference between religious thought and Atheist thought on these principles is the punishment/reward for not obeying them. Religions belief an all knowing entity will punish you while Atheists think your punishment is that you are perceived as a horrible human being. That hopefully explains what an Atheists views on can be summed up as. Further any person can see that these views are the same as those that are taught in all major religions. It is an intuitive argument that if all the major religions came from different societies but share these common humanitarian principals perhaps it is due to these principals being naturally ingrained on humans since following them leads to the most efficient use of resources and fastest growth of civilization.
Meanwhile Atheists who hate religion do so because they have come to the conclusion that ALL people who are religious are flawed because of it. They view most religious people as intellectually inferior solely due to religion. Further they have come to the conclusion that since religion produces more harm than good it needs to be removed from humanity and that the fastest most efficient way to remove it is to argue it with whatever religious person they are having a talk to. Usually Atheists of this variety will make claims like "most wars are caused by religion" or "it's religions fault for the bad things in the world". These are very short sighted claims. Upon examination almost all wars they claim are caused by religion are in fact caused by greed of the wealthy or power wielding class. Instead of arguing wars are caused by religion it is much more constructive to argue that religion is a tool used by the power hungry to manipulate people into harming others for material gains. That religions crime towards humanity is that it limits our species potential for scientific and social growth. This view however is unfortunately very rarely argued. Another adverse trend of militant Atheists is to overlook how religion effects each person they talk to. Many times they will tell anyone they have a conversation with that they should not be religious. This is ill-advised, it is often impossible to convert someone who is religious to being an Atheist solely by a conversation in which you attack one of their most valued beliefs. It is much better to engage in logical well manned conversation which helps both sides come to respect each other's different beliefs rather than despise each other.
So my HUD is having a fun issue. The players hud doesn't appear next to the actual player. When I move all the huds next to the proper player on one table it fucks up the hud locations on all my other tables. Anyone know how to fix this?
1/4th of my roll in 3 days...taking tomorrow off...hopefully I make this back in the next month...moving down to 100nl if i lose 9 more bi...bright side, i didn't tilt
edit: to bored and still focused...may not take tomorrow off
Contact Users: 429 Active, 0 Logged in - Time: 08:45
,
,
,
,
,
,
,