This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
that risk shit was pretty bad! Mustaine has lost his shit a few times now... I bought a bunch of megadeth records from itunes a while back because I have no idea where my original copies are, and they were all mixed entirely differently, with NEW VOCAL TAKES, and other new recordings overdubbed here and there. He went full-on George Lucas on us. Some of those older records, Mustaine would get his hands on the recording budget, spend it on junk and speed and whatever else, pawn the band's gear for more drugs, and then finish the record with whatever broken pieces were left. And you can hear that on recordings like "So Far, So Good, So What."
Yes, I do. Science has many Just-So stories; indeed, levels of scientific inventiveness far surpass the miracles expressed by most religious texts. Many science supporters do not realize this, however, because their understanding of actual science is nil. The mathematical physicist, with whom I work on my acoustics projects, is pretty far out there. G-d would be far easier to rationalize and to quantify than some of his doozies - and he freely admits it. I realize the word "faith" is a supreme irritant to the science-believers, only because they know not of which they speak. Reading Hitchens, Hawking, Harris, Dawkins or Dennet does not give one practical understanding of science at all - only the understanding of the author's polemics.
Nonetheless, facts and data are very important to me, too, but they do not spring, fully formed, from the head of Zeus. Facts have context, from which they cannot be separated. Indeed, when I discuss acoustics, I must rely on mathematical constructs which are accepted, but which function beyond our ken. Concepts like gravity, for example. Yes, I know gravity is there, but there is no all-encompassing explanation for it or for many over-arching concepts. Professional skeptics, with the possible exception of Hawking (who amazingly ties mathematics into a pretzel and holds it hostage to avoid confronting the dreaded s-s-s-singularity), do not understand, or do not admit, this. It's ok by me.
Again, I am of a highly skeptical persuasion, but I am not entirely happy with this stance. There must be a place to discuss what we mean by knowledge and wisdom (which leave facts, as such, way down on the totem pole). Are facts ingredients (or bytes?), while knowledge is a recipe (or a program?)? How do we derive wisdom from these, or can we? We can construe the answers as a silly science vs. religion debate, but I, for one, am not satisfied with that. The ultimate meaning of facts, or data, or what have you, is the Grand Quest - but we have yet to grasp knowledge, understanding and wisdom in their essences (interestingly, the Ari [Rabbi Isaac Luria] calls all of these a part of the top tier of the Tree of Life. I wonder how he envisioned it. From beauty?). I know it sounds as though I want to invite Philosophers to the Physics Party (such a no-no!), but I get off on cross-fertilization. I suppose I'm in the hybrid vigor camp.
Nonetheless, I see many skeptics and rationalists as invested in the ideas of science and rationality, with little actual understanding of either. They have faith in science and rationality to provide needed answers.
^^ It's a political show? Uhg.
i think it would probably suck to be a seller on ebay, but i buy computer hardware/parts off of there probably 5-10 times per week, and i really love it. thank god for it. i don't know where else i'd buy some of this shit if ebay didn't exist.
Last night was a good example of what's wrong with what we have now. An interesting guest discussing (among other civil liberty issues) jury nullification. When Ian Punnett went to calls, almost all of the callers just wanted to talk about their personal problems/experiences with the legal system. Very boring, and those sorts of calls don't give the guest anything to work with to provide an answer that helps educate the rest of us.
I can't believe that C2C doesn't get intelligent callers with cogent questions, so it must be screener incompetence or the screening policy is to put the dimwits on the air, which doesn't make sense to me.
HP laptops FUCKING SUCK. Don't EVER buy one. They SUUUUUUUUCK. God DAMN it!!
the art of talk.
if you don't already have it, enjoy.
We could split hairs all day. All I'm saying is that he was prone to be an apologist for Marxism, overlooking it's consequences, while castigating selfless people like Mother Theresa because of her motives. I like Hitchens, he was funny and bright, but it takes a morally confused person to think that way.
He was a self described Marxist. He regarded both Lenin and Trotsky as great men. He called Che "A role model." He was surprised later in life "to see Mao Zedong relegated like a despot of antiquity."
Hitchens- I never understood how such a smart man could admire mass murdering thugs like Lenin, Mao, and Che- meanwhile writing a book condemning Mother Theresa. Sure, be an atheist, you'll get no argument from me... But don't judge people by their motives, judge them by their behavior. I'll take Mother Theresa over Lenin any day.
Ian had an open line caller this weekend. I'll listen to Coast with headphones on next to my girlfriend in bed. She's usually sleeping. I almost lost it though. When she said to him that Jesus was in Australia and his name is Brian. Rather than having the typical GN response of "Ohh really, that's fantastic! Does it mean the apocalypse is coming soon." Ian was the persistent smart ass with this woman. Who I do believe was completely serious. I looked it up, and there is some guy in Australia claiming to be Jesus.
it's pretty easy with Total Commander file manager's mass-rename function with reg-exp.
This is Ian Punnett, distilled down to his essence.
It's a remake of his very first film, made when he was the AV guy in 8th grade. You like this, you like Ian - if you don't, you don't.
If your reference is needed for quotation or discussion of one published part of the manifesto, use the Washington Post or 1995 citation. If you are referring to the manifesto as a body of writing, without quoted passages or detailed discussion of content, simply cite the manifesto itself with T Kaz as the author. It is published as a book: ISBN 978-1595948151.
Great timing, as I'm just about to start grading 60 APA style research papers this week.
there were 832 unique coastgab visitors on sunday according to google analytics. wow. that's a record.
I know Art talked a lot about Ramona's tragic and sudden death. I don't, however, remember the details with regard to how he raised the topic on the radio. I just remember feeling kicked in the gut for him and remember coming to realize over a series of shows that he was teetering on the edge. While I was surprised by the quick marriage to Airyn, she pretty much saved him from going off the cliff, IMO.
Someone who projects strength instead of weakness and indecision on both domestic and international affairs would be my preference. It doesn't have to be a male. Remember Margaret Thatcher? Golda Meir? Our politicians tend to think that they need to be all things to all people and consequently walk a fine line in an attempt to be moderate.