Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
July 28, 2014, 05:37:05 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
  Home Help Calendar Login Register  
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 104
26  Getbig Main Boards / Gossip & Opinions / Re: My presentation ... of my dinner on: July 20, 2014, 11:31:27 PM

That food LLS

You can only treat yah girl to a decent meal with coupons

Argentina is a crappy team but made it to the final because of favorable draw

That mark on your forearm looks weird

27  Getbig Main Boards / General Topics / Re: This Is What Your Future Holds America! on: July 20, 2014, 03:07:32 PM
Horseshit. My ancestors all came from England and settled in Illinois. Most of the men in the family died fighting the South to free the slaves. But, what does piss me off is that there has never been a thank you from our black brothers to the one million plus white men who died in their behalf.

Why would you presume that the 'your' addressed to someone else was referring to you?
28  Getbig Main Boards / Gossip & Opinions / Re: Tom Platz and Ken Waller in "GAY" leg training video . on: July 20, 2014, 12:24:07 AM
Heterosexuality aside, we can all agree that there's some quality leg training here to emulate for maximal mascular modification:

29  Getbig Main Boards / General Topics / Re: This Is What Your Future Holds America! on: July 19, 2014, 11:47:34 PM

Whoever can watch it the longest wins!! Start at :30

<a href="" target="_blank"></a>

I blame your piece of shit ancestors for bringing the Hebronics over here in the first place. Ship an already primitive people 6K miles from their home, enslave them for 150 years, abuse and disenfranchise them for another 100, then let them loose on society and have the nerve to gasp in bewilderment at the subsequent chronic underachievement and pants sagging of peace.  Roll Eyes
30  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: Obama has "Gone off the deep end and showing signs of mental illness." on: July 18, 2014, 08:05:01 PM
I didn't read the thread, but talk about projecting. lol
31  Getbig Main Boards / Gossip & Opinions / Re: Kai Greene - Biggest potential to make it in the movies? on: July 15, 2014, 03:16:09 AM
Kai's first film

32  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: 288,000 Jobs Created, Unemployment Drops to 6.1%, & The Dow approaches 17,000 on: July 14, 2014, 01:40:02 AM
This actually raises a host of interesting questions. I'll have to read the two papers you link to when I have a free minute.
33  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: 288,000 Jobs Created, Unemployment Drops to 6.1%, & The Dow approaches 17,000 on: July 12, 2014, 03:17:20 PM
simple linear regression to eliminate such extraneous variables. However,the underlying trend as you indicate (you only truly touched on jobs, there are far more markers of progress in my eyes) shows an mild improvement and low term data which is less cyclical (as you know stats of this nature probably utilize a lower alpha level to achieve significance) chance and fluctuation exist in small part. With a nebulous complex dynamic systems I think more attention to long term trends is important. I think this harps back to avxo's point of normal cycling of these variables.

I also think the job market numbers are large part due to automation and education. Jobs are scarce, require more education and then more debt. I am not sure how much impact improving economies will be as automation continues to grow. The job issue is epiphenominal.

I don't see any major points of disagreement here, though I have no clue how much automation and education are contributing to current labor market conditions. This paper discusses the decline in global labor share of income around the world and argues that the largest contributor is technological advancement, while this Oxford study indicates that almost half of jobs in the US are vulnerable to computerization. But it's above my paygrade to evaluate such papers' methodologies -- I'm too dumb.

It is scary stuff if true though, and maybe indicative of the dangers of maximizing economic efficiency: perhaps we should constrain that maximization if it means a huge, permanently unemployed class of citizens in the future.
34  Getbig Main Boards / Gossip & Opinions / Lee Priest Redeemed: Hydrogen Sulfide = Healthy Compound in Right Dosages on: July 12, 2014, 02:48:26 PM
Rotten egg gas holds key to healthcare therapies

'It may smell of flatulence and have a reputation for being highly toxic, but when used in the right tiny dosage, hydrogen sulfide is now being being found to offer potential health benefits in a range of issues, from diabetes to stroke, heart attacks and dementia.

Scientists in Exeter have already found that the compound [AP39] protects mitochondria – the “powerhouse” of cells, which drive energy production in blood vessel cells. Preventing or reversing mitochondrial damage is a key strategy for treatments of a variety of conditions such as stroke, heart failure, diabetes and arthritis, dementia and ageing. Mitochondria determine whether cells live or die and they regulate inflammation. In the clinic, dysfunctional mitochondria are strongly linked to disease severity.

...Dr. Mark Wood of Biosciences, at the University of Exeter, added “Although hydrogen sulfide is well known as a pungent, foul-smelling gas in rotten eggs and flatulence, it is naturally produced in the body and could in fact be a healthcare hero with significant implications for future therapies for a variety of diseases.”

So the next time a diminutive Australian dwarf unleashes a violent mudbutt explosion betwixt your awful implants, consider loudly thanking him/her and letting the stink sink in before running to the John. Or, since scientists have yet to confirm that smelling shit is as valuable as delivering their compounds straight to cells, at least remember to stop and appreciate that hydrogen sulfide isn't all bad.'
35  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: Muslim Prayer Rug Found on Arizona Border on: July 11, 2014, 11:31:18 PM

As this page of your source indicates, has an extremely broad definition of prayer consistent with various forms of meditation and a variety of non-Christian practices. I'm not arguing whether meditation works or not -- it has demonstrable effects on the brain. Further, the second paragraph of this page indicates that the dumb quacks conflate the health benefits of religiosity with the efficacy of prayer. They also can't be bothered to write in proper English ("This is thew situation when the sick persons are prayed for and don't even know it.", fifth paragraph) and cite the "parapsychological literature" in arguing that prayer makes prayed-for fungi grow faster (fifth bullet down). These are the people whose word you want to take?

It's clear that you've desperately googled 'prayer works' or some such and linked me to whatever came up. The problem is, this is a quack-laden site that doesn't even address the concept of prayer you have in mind. The fact remains that all major, scientific studies of Christian intercessory prayer indicate zero efficacy.

So, how did you end up believing something with no evidence that you must've known at some level you had no evidence for? It couldn't be that evidence doesn't matter in the end and that you choose beliefs based on their ability to satisfy preferences and look for evidence after the fact, if at all?
36  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: Muslim Prayer Rug Found on Arizona Border on: July 11, 2014, 11:12:57 PM
BBBBUUUTT.....there's always going to be a but. That was one link. There are a lot more. But atheists will always TRY to debunk. lol

Debunk what? Where is the evidence for the claim?
37  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: Muslim Prayer Rug Found on Arizona Border on: July 11, 2014, 11:06:16 PM
This is your usual reaction when you get backed into a corner because like ALL on the left, you can't come up with any viable arguments for what your loser messiah s doing. After this, take it to the religion board Assclown...

This is one. A non-bias observation by a reputable site.

Your source discusses a Harvard researcher who defines meditation as prayer, thus subsuming the well-known effects of meditation on the brain under the 'prayer' heading -- a very misleading result given the context (i.e., a context in which most people will think of Christian intercessory prayer when they hear the word 'prayer'). It then proceeds to discuss some of the apparent health benefits associated with being religious: fair enough, but a separate issue from whether prayer works. The primary advocate of prayer in the summary -- a rather biased Christian by the sound of his comments -- was just about to launch the next phase of his MANTRA study on prayer; the results were published about a year after this summary was written.

The results indicate that prayer "did not have a significant effect upon the primary clinical outcome observed in patients undergoing certain heart procedures." Then, a year later, Harvard Medical School published the results of the largest-ever study of intercessory prayer, also demonstrating nary a positive effect of prayer.
38  Getbig Main Boards / Gossip & Opinions / Re: BigCyp is going to Medical School on: July 11, 2014, 12:10:10 AM
Not to Booty-Priest all over someone's hopes and aspirations, but suddenly wanting to become a GP seems a bit odd: it's like suddenly wanting to become an infantryman and shoot people in the face -- you'd think there would be an expressed propensity for the profession by now if the person were for real.

You've been an excel wizard for a while now but are suddenly going to be in it for the long hall of 5+ years of specialized instruction in an entirely new field without having any foundational science work? You're already evincing a lot of ignorance thinking you'll have time to work part time and not being aware of how much debt you will take on.

You better be for real on this, more than the comedy writing bullshit you came up with sometime ago.

39  Getbig Main Boards / Gossip & Opinions / Re: Jobs and bodybuilders on: July 09, 2014, 06:46:49 PM
I already said hours before he came abt the ca ny 3hrs...I didn't know where he lived.

You knew he was Americano and thus that there was a 96% chance (48/50) that premarket trading would be open at 0600 in his state. Yet you presented the time issue as potential evidence of a lie.

It's ok, mate: the UK is the size of one of America's toes, hence your confusion with time zones. I don't blame you.
40  Getbig Main Boards / Gossip & Opinions / Re: 2014 NBA - The Heat will not win it all this year. on: July 09, 2014, 12:14:02 PM
Bosh would be CRAZY to stay in Miami now.  He'll leave 28 million "on the table" to play with lebron for 1 more year?

Dat decreasing marginal utility of money.
41  Getbig Main Boards / Gossip & Opinions / Re: Jobs and bodybuilders on: July 09, 2014, 12:12:20 PM
6am in CA is 9am in NY buddy.

there's these things called time zones.

Ouch, Slurp1nHo's assault easily parried as a result of this blunder.
42  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: 288,000 Jobs Created, Unemployment Drops to 6.1%, & The Dow approaches 17,000 on: July 08, 2014, 06:32:52 PM

But you used "huh" and not "uh huh."

Hence the confusion.

Seeing as LPR isn't anywhere near record lows, I am very confused indeed.
43  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: 288,000 Jobs Created, Unemployment Drops to 6.1%, & The Dow approaches 17,000 on: July 08, 2014, 11:59:36 AM
Labor Force Participation Rate.

I'm aware of what it is and am 'huhing' at your claim that it is at a record low.
44  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: 288,000 Jobs Created, Unemployment Drops to 6.1%, & The Dow approaches 17,000 on: July 07, 2014, 08:22:55 PM
unemployment is lower, the stock market is way better, the auto industry is better, you guys just overtook saudi arabia as numero uno for oil production. Your nation is in a better place.

The country is better off in some respects, worse off in others. In still other respects it isn't clear whether it is worse off or better off.

As far as the labor market goes, don't you know that the official unemployment rate goes down when unemployed persons stop looking for work?

That's why people keep referring to the labor force participation rate -- the ratio of employed and unemployed-but-looking-for-work persons to the adult population. The decline in LPR is often cited as evidence of an unhealthy labor market where unemployed persons are simply giving up.

We can corroborate this claim by comparing LPR to the employment-population ratio, the ratio of employed persons to adult population.

At the beginning of the year, the E-P ratio was about where it was in September 2009, whereas LPR was a few percentage points lower than in September 2009. Since LPR is just the E-P ratio + unemployed-but-looking-for-work persons added to the numerator, the variable responsible for their divergence has to be the unemployed-but-looking-for-work value.

If the decline in this value were due to people becoming employed, the E-P ratio would have gone up -- it didn't. Therefore, the only explanation for the divergence is that unemployed people exited the market entirely over the period -- short-term unemployment is perhaps becoming structural.

Further, we can control for the effects of demography -- old workers retiring can skew LPR and E-P -- by looking at the employment rate for 25-55 year olds (workers in their prime earning years). This rate dropped from ~80% to ~75% from September 2007 to September 2009 and still hasn't recovered. Either these workers all colluded to end their careers and have a welfare-fueled party or otherwise this statistic is indicative of something wrong with the labor market.

Still, there's other data to tempter this negativity, and still more to suggest a quicker-than-expected crescendo to the recovery is on the way -- even if LPR, E-P, and the like don't return to their previous highs achieved during unsustainable, debt-fueled asset bubbles. But you can't be surprised when people assess the labor market negatively -- whatever the official unemployment rate -- when data like the above exists. And that's to say nothing of stagnant wages.
45  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: 288,000 Jobs Created, Unemployment Drops to 6.1%, & The Dow approaches 17,000 on: July 07, 2014, 05:16:30 PM
LFP hits record low


Summer vacation surge, declines soon after.

The data is seasonally adjusted, meaning it controls for such regularities. Therefore, the jobs data reveal the underlying trend to the extent that there is one.
46  Getbig Main Boards / Gossip & Opinions / Re: Income tax just too damn high at 30 percent on: July 02, 2014, 09:46:31 PM
no just state and federal income puts every average dude over 30 percent thats working atleast 10 days a month for free but that adds up to 120 days a year!!

You like learning, right? Here you go buddy:
47  Getbig Main Boards / Gossip & Opinions / Re: Income tax just too damn high at 30 percent on: July 02, 2014, 07:31:35 PM
Perhaps he is including all taxes, including state, sales, property and various VATs? "The State" isn't just federal income tax.

He has explicitly labeled the tax an 'income tax' in both the title of the thread and the OP. But we can use the principle of charity to reformulate his statement into something sensible, as you have done.

If we add in North Carolina income tax, he'd still have to make ~$250K to have an effective income tax rate of 30%. I'm too dumb to calculate an effective rate with any more types of tax added, so will leave it at that.
48  Getbig Main Boards / Gossip & Opinions / Re: Income tax just too damn high at 30 percent on: July 02, 2014, 03:18:54 PM
Falcon would have to make ~$494K in regular income to have an effective income tax rate of 30%, assuming he took the standard deduction/exemption.

I'll let others decide whether he is really making this much, or if his absolutely addled brain is causing him to spout nigh incoherent twaddle yet again.  Roll Eyes
49  Getbig Main Boards / General Topics / Re: Feminists Crying, Losing Hoap on: July 02, 2014, 11:19:11 AM
So I took "contribute" in the more substantive sense. If all you mean is that the philosophy of language is of interest to linguistics, which regularly cites it and its practitioners in advancing linguistic theory, then I would have to grant you that.

Perhaps ironically, all we're doing is engaging in semantics regarding the word 'contribute.' We can both agree on the above, though.

You miss his point. That Russell's treatment of proper names is only true some of the time is the problem with it, and Kripke's possible worlds semantics for modal logic ("semantics" in the philosophical sense) shows this to be the case.  Lewis provided an alternative semantics with his counterpart theory.  

Are you referring to Kripke's argument that proper names are rigid designators and that as such, descriptions cannot function as names because they refer contingently? If so, I certainly grasp that -- it is surely Kripke's fundamental point. Nonetheless, Kripke himself asserts that his analysis pertains to "many or most" (N&N, p. 80) uses of names, not all of them: stipulative definitions like 'Jack the Ripper' do use their descriptive content to fix reference. That's the sole point I was making: Kripke's argument, if successful, relegates Russell's theory to a smaller set of successful instances of reference than was commonly supposed, rather than obviating it entirely.

And I still think that it's possible to amend Russell's Theory in light of Kripke's criticisms: utilizing rigidified descriptions, or developing a 'metadescriptivist' view where there is a 'called gonuclear' or 'referred to as gonuclear' predicate in the description associated with the name. This doesn't explain how said referring occurs, but I think that that should be an issue for pragmatics anyway, not semantics. But that is a different discussion.

That said,
The problem with Fodor is his non-physicalism, as stated.  Scientists these days are materialists, at least with respect to their specific fields, whatever their beliefs generally.  

Didn't Fodor famously argue for 'token physicalism'? That position, when applied to our current understanding of mind, entails that all mental states are brain states, just that they have some non-physical properties. What's wrong with that? Don't many cognitive scientists affirm the possibility of artificial or alien intelligence? If so, they seemingly implicitly agree with Fodor since whatever property makes a given mental state the same type of mental state between such entities, it won't be physical: after all, such entities have divergent physical properties (and thus wouldn't share any mental states if mental states' properties were all physical). At least according to one popular construal of the issue.

However, I'm with Wittgenstein, Hawking, and Weinberg in their view that philosophers generally play language games and have abdicated their historical role in understanding reality to science, to which they now make no material contributions of any kind.  

I certainly agree that philosophers tend to vastly overrate their importance in determining the nature of reality, especially those who I described as autists obsessively debating retrerche thought experiments -- as if one can discover any fundamental properties of reality by sitting in one's office and contemplating whether Jones with the coins in his pocket really knew whether he got the job or not.

Still, I think that there is some value in such activity: it is explicating the nature of our folk concepts, which is what we use to understand the world outside of science. I use the term 'ethnoscience' to refer to the study of the way we understand the world (different from the study of the way the world actually is) after Chomsky did as such, and I think that the aforementioned philosophical analysis of folk concepts falls under this heading.

And, as we agreed upon above, at least in one field scientists regularly consider philosophical input when it comes to theory advancement. But there is a lot of merit in the Wittgensteinian view you espouse, yeah.
50  Getbig Main Boards / General Topics / Re: Feminists Crying, Losing Hoap on: July 01, 2014, 07:06:46 PM
The book you cite references Russell's work in the philosophy of language and it is as a contribution to that field that Russell's theory is characterized.

All theories of the "semantics of descriptions" are the work of philosophers, because the named topic is one in the philosophy of language, not in linguistics itself.  It is also false that the only viable alternative to Russell is Frege; there are competing theories by Saul Kripke, Ruth Barcan Marcus, and David Lewis.  The conventional wisdom is in fact that Kripke's new theory of reference, presented in his 1980 "Naming and Necessity", refutes Russell's theory, first published in "On Denoting" in 1905.  Russell's work was published in "Mind", a philosophical journal.  Further, because a linguistics text references it, does not make it a work in linguistics.  Similarly, because Thomas Kuhn, a philosopher of science, references the contributions to physics of Einstein and Newton in his "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" (a work in the philosophy of science), that obviously does not mean that either Newtonian mechanics or Relativity are contributions to the philosophy of science.  

And many philosophy journals reference works in history, physics, linguistics, etc., but that just means that these works are relevant to what is being discussed; it does not make the works so referenced "contributions" to philosophy. The philosophy of language is relevant to linguistics, much as the philosophy of science is relevant to science.  But they are not the same subject, and contributions to one are not contributions to the other. NB, that none of the many published criticisms of "On Denoting" come from linguists, unless, as in the case of Robert Harnish, they hold a chair in both linguistics and philosophy (as did Noam Chomsky).  The fact that Russell's treatment of proper names was refuted by Kripke had no impact on linguistics.

1. Semantics is generally considered a branch of linguistics. Philosophers like Russell have made major contributions to semantics in the form of semantic theories for a variegated class of expressions, such as descriptions.

I've cited a popular linguistics textbook recognizing the contributions of Russell to semantics -- the book also asserts that semantics is a branch of linguistics, an uncontroversial claim -- thereby meeting your challenge to cite a single linguist (I cited a triplet) recognizing Russell as a contributor. I've pointed you toward hundreds of scholarly citations of Russell's work by linguists. I can direct you to recent linguistic work in semantics adjudicating between Fregean and Russellian theories of the semantics of descriptions, thereby affirming these theories' continued relevance to the field. (p.131) That I can do all of these things is highly suggestive of the fact that Russell in fact contributed to linguistics, whatever journal he originally published in. You haven't presented evidence to the contrary.

The same argument applies to all the other philosophers who I would assert have contributed to linguistics, e.g., Grice and Austin in pragmatics (another branch of linguistics).

2. Regarding citations: you're right, the fact that Russell's work is so widely cited by linguists doesn't by itself make it a work in linguistics. The fact that it is a work in semantics, a branch of linguistics, does. Independent of the label we apply to it, it is clearly a contribution to the scientific study of language, as evinced by (1).

3. Kripke attacked Russell's theory of descriptions as applied to names, and even then he recognized it would be true of names at least some of the time (see his discussion of 'Jack the Ripper'). He and the other philosophers you mention discuss names, whereas I am discussing Russell's semantic theory of descriptions more generally. Or did Lewis have some theory of descriptions I'm not aware of?

There is nothing obscure about Jerry Fodor.  He is justly famous.  As a philosopher, not a colleague of cognitive scientists, none of whom are mentalists in any sense.  They may indeed know of his work, but I believe all of them would characterize such work as contributions to the philosophy of mind, where the mentalist/materialist battle - long won by the physicalists in cognitive science - still rages. One of the many reasons why most scientists no longer take philosophy seriously.

Well, you're free to ask them whether, e.g., Modularity of Mind counts as a contribution to cognitive science or not.

Well, forgive me, but I presented my "definition" to clarify that I was not defining "contribution to science" in the narrow way which you suggested was the sense I meant.  You may have a different definition, but it surely cannot be just the production of empirical data.  You must agree with that, irrespective of any quibbles about my attempt at a broader and more accurate definition.  Which is the kind of definition I took you to mean when you touted the contributions to science of the philosophers you name.  None of whom made any such contributions.

We agree on this matter.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 104
Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.16 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!