If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   "Six percent of Americans believe in unicorns. Twenty four percent believe dinosaurs and man hung out together. Eighteen percent believe the sun revolves around the Earth. Nearly 30% believe cloud computing involves actual clouds"   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 488
    More: Fail  
•       •       •

14304 clicks; posted to Main » on 14 Mar 2013 at 10:29 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



488 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-14 01:02:14 PM  

bdub77: 47% voted for Mitt Romney.


And still haven't peeled off the bumper stickers. There's even a pickup truck I see around town from time to time still sporting a full-width rear-window "Romney" decal.

I was behind an SUV yesterday with a "Don't blame me, I voted for Romney" and all I could think was, "Actually, I do blame you - for being the reason we can't have nice things."
 
2013-03-14 01:02:25 PM  
Twenty four percent believe dinosaurs and man hung out together.

www.progarchives.com : of cause they did
 
2013-03-14 01:03:52 PM  
Technically it's impossible to disprove the existence of unicorns. So people who are "unicorn atheistic" are actually "unicorn agnostic". Also, the unicorn issue should not be mixed in with obvious stuff like the earth revolving around the sun.
 
2013-03-14 01:04:15 PM  

CuttySupreme: The only fail in this thread is the Fark mods greenlighting this liberal drivel.


Could care less about the political ideology of the writer, but yes. This. HuffPo readers done got trolled, and the mod who greenlit this needs his/her hand slapped.

/still wondering wtf I just read.
 
2013-03-14 01:05:08 PM  
right now I'm trying to think about how cloud computing could involve actual clouds..... hmm
 
2013-03-14 01:05:31 PM  

crazydave023: I have been saying this for years: the systematic dumbing down of the American populace so that the elite exert more control than they already have.


"Alpha children wear grey They work much harder than we do, because they're so frightfully clever. I'm really awfully glad I'm a Beta, because I don't work so hard. And then we are much better than the Gammas and Deltas. Gammas are stupid. They all wear green, and Delta children wear khaki. Oh no, I don't want to play with Delta children. And Epsilons are still worse. They're too stupid to be able..."
 
2013-03-14 01:06:18 PM  
dittybopper:

We're both right, depending on the frame of reference.

Considered as a two body system, the Earth and Sun orbit around a barycenter.  Because the Sun is much more massive than the Earth, that barycenter is below the surface of the Sun.

As a system, they both orbit the center of the Milky Way galaxy.


And the Milky Way is moving away from the Center of the Universe, which we all know is in Tulsa, OK.
 
2013-03-14 01:08:02 PM  

shoegaze99: barefoot in the head: In the southern hemisphere, the earth is further from the sun in winter.

The distance is not only irrelevant to what causes the seasons, the difference in distance is so miniscule that it's not even worth mentioning. It's a mere handful of miles. The effect on temperature is as close to zero as can be.

It's all down to how much sunlight the hemisphere gets. Hemisphere is tilted towards the sun, it gets loads more sunlight, it's summer. Tilted away, gets much less sunlight, it's winter. It's like standing directly under a heat lamp and pointing the lamp slightly to the side. You're just as far away in both cases. What matters is the direct exposure you're getting.


Thanks, but the reference includes the word "when". That's all I was responding to.
 
2013-03-14 01:09:15 PM  
barefoot in the head:

In the southern hemisphere, the earth is further from the sun in winter. Closest approach is Jan 4, which is summer in the south.

Didn't watch.



Uh...  No.  That's like saying that the western hemisphere is further away at night time.  In terms of how seasons work, It's all about the angle of orientation, and how direct the suns light is.
 
2013-03-14 01:09:36 PM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: "......Twenty four percent believe dinosaurs and man hung out together....."

Absolutely. Raquel Welch would never lie to me.

/obscure?
//perhaps for the younger farkers.....


Nor Victoria Vetri!

\who got naked in her dinosaur film
 
2013-03-14 01:09:58 PM  
What about alicorns?

images3.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2013-03-14 01:10:30 PM  

barefoot in the head: dittybopper: neversubmit: dittybopper: m00: Biological Ali: Oh that was good. I give it 7/10.

The earth/sun thing is true though. I was arguing this with a colleague at work. Technically, the earth and the sun revolve around each other. It's not like the sun is somehow fixed in space.

The Earth and the Sun orbit around a common point.  That point is wholly within the Sun, so for all practical purposes, it's accurate enough to say the Earth orbits the Sun.

Both of them revolve around their respective axes.

revolve != orbit

Yeah, that's why I made sure to distinguish the two.

Earth rotates on its own axis and revolves around the sun.


Knock off the bogus pedantry or I will be forced to shoot you with my .357 Magnum rotator.
 
2013-03-14 01:10:49 PM  

m00: "Do unicorns exist?" is also a poorly phrased question. It should be "Has there been any scientific discoveries of fossil records, bones, or physical remnants of the mythological creature known as a 'unicorn'?" Because the actual answer to the question "do unicorns exist" is who knows? Nobody has directly observed a unicorn, but nobody has directly observed pretty much anything in string theory. A lack of observation doesn't prove something doesn't exist. All we can say is that we haven't observed something, we do/don't have evidence for something. We can prove something does exist, but we can't prove the negative.


Hypothesis: Unicorns exist.
Supporting Evidence: none.
Conclusion: Hypothesis is false.

That's how science and rational thought work.  If evidence were to suddenly appear that a unicorn exists or may have existed in the past, you re-evaluate at that point.  As for string theory, scientists are relatively certain that they have witnessed the Higgs boson in recent experiments.  String theory predicted that this particle existed and until they found evidence, there was a lot of justified resistance to the theory.  The particle's existence and its behavior will go a long way toward theoretical physicists being able to support or disprove string theory.

The burden of proof is on the person making the hypothesis, otherwise anything imaginary must be real because no evidence exists to prove or deny the claim.
 
2013-03-14 01:11:45 PM  

thisisyourbrainonFark: You all are sheeple. Seriously, explain this:

[i.ytimg.com image 320x180]

/linkage:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_c6HsiixFS8
//(volume warning)


LMAO!! A whole new level of stupid right there.
 
2013-03-14 01:12:00 PM  

Tex570: bdub77: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: St_Francis_P: I think most people realize that cloud computing requires man-made clouds; the natural ones can't hold enough data. I'm sure they use something like the artificial snow machines at ski resorts.

Now the concept of "real cloud" computing fascinates me.  Could you actually store data in a mist?  What happens when it rains?  Would stratus clouds hold less data than cumulus clouds?

I know that lightning bolts carry 1.21 Jiggabytes of data.

That's racist.


How many Jiggabytes in a nubianbyte?
 
2013-03-14 01:13:08 PM  

Zavulon: WhoGAS: Only six believe in unicorns?  That's surprising seeing as though even the Bible implies their existence.  All Christians (to a lesser extent, the Jews - I don't know where or if Job places in their canon) should believe in it.

Job 39:9-12

/snicker

The KJV is full of translation fail. My favorite one is the passage where God compares the Israelites to the Scottish.


Oh..don't remember that one.  Where is it?  That sounds fun.
 
2013-03-14 01:14:37 PM  

Aigoo: CuttySupreme: The only fail in this thread is the Fark mods greenlighting this liberal drivel.

Could care less about the political ideology of the writer, but yes. This. HuffPo readers done got trolled, and the mod who greenlit this needs his/her hand slapped.

/still wondering wtf I just read.


Hm.  Prepare to be trolled by me then:
-If you're conservative and you don't get this article then the article has proven itself true and you will just never understand some things.
-If you're liberal and you don't get this article then you are unwilling to accept that, some people no matter how hard you try, will never understand what you say.

How did such a gap in misunderstanding one anouther come about?  What should we do about it if anything?  That's what the article is about.
 
Xai
2013-03-14 01:16:54 PM  
Headline "37 Percent of People Completely Lost"

Reality: 37% of Americans are retarded
 
2013-03-14 01:17:09 PM  

m00: Biological Ali: Which is, of course, entirely separate from the point of the question. It's like saying "If we expand the definition of the term to include those Blue Angel planes that do the fancy tricks, then angels really are real!", or "If we expand the definition of 'murder' to include 'killing someone softly with his song', then that man is guilty!"

I think you're missing the point I'm (maybe poorly) trying to make. It's factually incorrect to say "the Sun does not revolve around the Earth." This is what we teach kids, because it's easier than high school/college level physics and there is the history behind heliocentric/geocentric models. It's like a questionnaire that says "Is the acceleration of gravity  9.81 m/s2?" The answer is, of course, "no." It's the acceleration of gravity on earth, in a vacuum, as described by classical mechanics. Basically, it's a poorly worded question because it's looking for a specific answer but it doesn't phrase the question to make that answer absolutely true. "Does the sun revolve around the earth?" is another example. You might call this nit-picky, but these are supposed to be scientific questions. Don't give me a scientific y/n question where the answer isn't an absolute.


It's not even that either.  9.81m/s2 is just a good approximation for average gravitational attraction on Earth.  It's based on distance to center of mass and how much mass is between you and that center.  The number is different at the top of a mountain than it is at sea level.  The position of the moon also affects the force of gravity experienced at any given position.

Certain questions come with built in, or assumed, boundaries.  "Do unicorns exist?" is an example.  To me, I process this question to mean "Do real living animals called unicorns currently exist on the planet earth?"  I don't include the abstract concept of a unicorn in my selection.  Otherwise, the question "Does blank exist?" will always be "yes" as blank exists within the question itself.  Nor do I include toys or stuffed animals or artwork in my selection process.  And I frame my selection process within the confines of the world which I reside in, not in some fairy tale or imaginary world.  There's no hard written rules on these assumptions and context that everyone can or will agree on.  I assumed the "real world" in the unicorn question.  But sometimes the question can demand it exist elsewhere.  "Do Jawas exist?"  No.  Jawas are a character from Star Wars.  "Do Jawas ever travel to Coruscant?"  This question makes the statement that Jawas exist by framing it as if they do.  Taking that lead, we can then infer this question is in the context of an imaginary world, not our real world, and therefore can be answered thusly.  Sort of rambling now, so I'll wrap it up...
 
m00
2013-03-14 01:17:42 PM  

Carn: Hypothesis: Unicorns exist.
Supporting Evidence: none.
Conclusion: Hypothesis is false.

That's how science and rational thought work.  If evidence were to suddenly appear that a unicorn exists or may have existed in the past, you re-evaluate at that point.  As for string theory, scientists are relatively certain that they have witnessed the Higgs boson in recent experiments.  String theory predicted that this particle existed and until they found evidence, there was a lot of justified resistance to the theory.  The particle's existence and its behavior will go a long way toward theoretical physicists being able to support or disprove string theory.


So you're saying that String Theory magically became true when the Higgs boson was kinda-observed? And DNA didn't exist until the 1960s? This isn't Schroedinger's box. Things exist or don't exist regardless of our ability to observe them.

(By the way, they didn't "witness" it. They took measurements consistent with what they thought a Higgs boson would give off.)
 
2013-03-14 01:17:46 PM  
the general awfulness of Mumford & Sons

You can sometimes find a fleck of gold in the biggest dung heap.

i2.cdnds.net
 
2013-03-14 01:18:17 PM  

Carn: Hypothesis: Unicorns exist.
Supporting Evidence: none.
Conclusion: Hypothesis is false not proven.


FTFY

RedTank: Hm. Prepare to be trolled by me then:
-If you're conservative and you don't get this article then the article has proven itself true and you will just never understand some things.
-If you're liberal and you don't get this article then you are unwilling to accept that, some people no matter how hard you try, will never understand what you say.

How did such a gap in misunderstanding one anouther come about? What should we do about it if anything? That's what the article is about.


You got trolled than, because the article is absolutely loaded with logical fallacies, and otherwise is poorly written dreck.
 
2013-03-14 01:18:31 PM  

dittybopper: Moonfisher: I don't believe in unicorns. I just really, really wish they were real.

Me too.  I'd dig having a unicorn trophy on my wall.


People like you are the reason unicorns are now extinct.
 
2013-03-14 01:18:36 PM  

durbnpoisn: barefoot in the head:

In the southern hemisphere, the earth is further from the sun in winter. Closest approach is Jan 4, which is summer in the south.

Didn't watch.


Uh...  No.  That's like saying that the western hemisphere is further away at night time.  In terms of how seasons work, It's all about the angle of orientation, and how direct the suns light is.


Here is the reference from the comment above:
"Like, there's one guy who claims winter occurs when Earth is farther away from the Sun, and summer occurs when its closer. "
That is true, in the southern hemisphere, where it is winter on January 4th, the day WHEN the closest approach to the sun occurs.

article, meet thread.
 
2013-03-14 01:19:12 PM  

ghettodwarf: What if god is a scientist?


Nagilum would be his name


images2.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2013-03-14 01:20:29 PM  

SquiggsIN: ghettodwarf: I don't think you can discredit anyone who believes in a religion as dumb.

I'll just go ahead and ignore you now.


Some of the most brilliant minds in history were also religious and/or spiritual people, people who both subscribed to a religion and/or spirituality of one kind or another and who also broke new ground and/or changed the world with their intellect.

So yeah, your reaction is kind of strange, considering the guy you are ignoring is completely correct.
 
2013-03-14 01:20:50 PM  

shoegaze99: balisane: 2) it would be so much fun to teach them otherwise and blow their mind.

It wouldn't. Most people don't care about that stuff. You'd get halfway through explaining it to them and they'd either tune you out because they think you're being obnoxious, their eyes would glaze over because you're utterly boring them, or both.

Most people stop caring about what causes the seasons, where the Earth is in relation to the rest of the celestial bodies, the span of time between us and the dinosaurs, and why the sky is blue when they realize that it has no bearing on their job, their relationship, paying their bills, unwinding on the weekend, or whatever.

I don't particularly agree with or relate to that mindset, as my lust for learning never left me (and likely never will), but I certainly understand it.


Heh: I really don't understand it at all, I have to admit. For me, knowing that the earth goes around the sun is only slightly less essential knowledge than boiling water, primary colors, and the sucker's guide to not drowning in the rain.

Probably on the level of knowing about how many calories you need in a day... which, admitted, probably a lot more than 18% of a given population is ignorant of.
 
2013-03-14 01:20:55 PM  

halfof33: You got trolled than,


WTF did I just write? Fixed that for me.

/stupid 37%'er
 
2013-03-14 01:21:32 PM  

halfof33: Carn: Hypothesis: Unicorns exist.
Supporting Evidence: none.
Conclusion: Hypothesis is false not proven.

FTFY

RedTank: Hm. Prepare to be trolled by me then:
-If you're conservative and you don't get this article then the article has proven itself true and you will just never understand some things.
-If you're liberal and you don't get this article then you are unwilling to accept that, some people no matter how hard you try, will never understand what you say.

How did such a gap in misunderstanding one anouther come about? What should we do about it if anything? That's what the article is about.

You got trolled than, because the article is absolutely loaded with logical fallacies, and otherwise is poorly written dreck.


Then give me an example of the logical fallacies and we'll discuss them.
 
2013-03-14 01:24:26 PM  

SquiggsIN: balisane: Usually, you only get to rock someone's world like that when they're under the age of six.

You should meet my wife.  She's not stupid but as ditzy as they come.  She gets that bewildered / glazed look in her eyes far more often than i'd like to see.


Not a lot of vectors for new information in her life? Or, I'm sure she just deeply processes what she does hear and hasn't lost her sense of wonder. Yeah, that's the ticket.
 
2013-03-14 01:25:01 PM  

dittybopper: Knock off the bogus pedantry or I will be forced to shoot you with my .357 Magnum rotator.


The face of responsible gun ownership, ladies and gentlemen.
 
2013-03-14 01:25:29 PM  

m00: This is what we teach kids, because it's easier than high school/college level physics and there is the history behind heliocentric/geocentric models. It's like a questionnaire that says "Is the acceleration of gravity 9.81 m/s2?"


The terms and phrases you're talking about aren't "incorrect"; they're used as convenient shorthand (as you yourself note) for propositions that themselves are not ambiguous. What you're terming as "incorrect" are literal interpretations of these fragments that are irrelevant because everybody knows what's being referred to.

Importantly, even the people who gave the silly answers to these questions are doing so under the same understanding of terms like "revolve around the sun" that everybody else is (unless they're deliberately farking around, which is a separate issue). If you want to engage in pedantry about the wording of the questions, that's fine, but that doesn't make the people who gave these silly answers any more correct.
 
2013-03-14 01:25:57 PM  

Bondith: thisisyourbrainonFark: You all are sheeple. Seriously, explain this:

[i.ytimg.com image 320x180]

/linkage:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_c6HsiixFS8
//(volume warning)

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


I was joking, christ. The lady's obviously a loon.
 
2013-03-14 01:26:23 PM  

Bacontastesgood: Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: When you're dealing with two bodies moving through space without a fixed reference point, you could say either one is revolving around the other

If you simplify any observation to the point that it is utterly meaningless, then it is inane, that's for sure.  Knowledge of the planets goes back at least to the Sumerian civilization.


They orbit around their center of mass.
 
2013-03-14 01:26:35 PM  

shoegaze99: SquiggsIN: ghettodwarf: I don't think you can discredit anyone who believes in a religion as dumb.

I'll just go ahead and ignore you now.

Some of the most brilliant minds in history were also religious and/or spiritual people , people who both subscribed to a religion and/or spirituality of one kind or another and who also broke new ground and/or changed the world with their intellect

pretended to be religious so they wouldn't be killed.

FTFY
 
2013-03-14 01:27:16 PM  
But Unicorns ARE real!   They have just left the land and evolved back into whales!

upload.wikimedia.org
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narwhal
 
2013-03-14 01:28:27 PM  

Barfmaker: It is this bizarre, circular, catch-22 kind of question, asked almost exclusively by intellectual liberals because intellectual conservatives don't actually exist,

This is gonna be good...


One cannot be accepted as a true conservative by those who dominate American conservativism unless one is a "real Christian".  Anyone who does not accept biblical literalism is at best a "liberal Christian", i.e., no Christian at all.  Believing that everything in the Bible is literally true requires that one reject biology, geology, astronomy, genetics, anthropology, and history.  So, yeah, that doesn't leave much room for "intellectual conservatives" to exist.
 
2013-03-14 01:28:33 PM  

titwrench: No more ridiculous than believing in god or that the Earth is only 6000 years old and a whole hell of a lot more people believe that bullshiat.


YOU CANT PROVE THAT GOD DOEASNT EXIST, SO STFU JERK
 
m00
2013-03-14 01:28:51 PM  

stonicus: It's not even that either.  9.81m/s2 is just a good approximation for average gravitational attraction on Earth.  It's based on distance to center of mass and how much mass is between you and that center.  The number is different at the top of a mountain than it is at sea level.  The position of the moon also affects the force of gravity experienced at any given position.

Certain questions come with built in, or assumed, boundaries.  "Do unicorns exist?" is an example.  To me, I process this question to mean "Do real living animals called unicorns currently exist on the planet earth?"  I don't include the abstract concept of a unicorn in my selection.  Otherwise, the question "Does blank exist?" will always be "yes" as blank exists within the question itself.  Nor do I include toys or stuffed animals or artwork in my selection process.  And I frame my selection process within the confines of the world which I reside in, not in some fairy tale or imaginary world.  There's no hard written rules on these assumptions and context that everyone can or will agree on.  I assumed the "real world" in the unicorn question.  But sometimes the question can demand it exist elsewhere.  "Do Jawas exist?"  No.  Jawas are a character from Star Wars.  "Do Jawas ever travel to Coruscant?"  This question makes the statement that Jawas exist by framing it as if they do.  Taking that lead, we can then infer this question is in the context of an imaginary world, not our real world, and therefore can be answered thusly.  Sort of rambling now, so I'll wrap it up...


Well, my point is the answer to "does X exist" is always either "yes" or "unknown." You can't prove something doesn't exist, it's logically impossible unless X is pre-defined as being mutually exclusive or co-existent with some already known thing.

I mean, obviously the answer the question "Do unicorns exist" is looking for is 'no.' That's the right answer. But... then the point of the question isn't to think about it and give an answer, it's to pick the answer that conforms to the publicly held view. You are right, unicorns in the metaphysical sense do exist... just as "wealth" exists or any other intangible or abstract thing. But this isn't the "right answer."

So I wouldn't call someone stupid for failing such a test, just that they aren't aware/don't care about what the test is trying to get you to answer.
 
2013-03-14 01:31:07 PM  
62% believe every farking stat they read
 
2013-03-14 01:31:19 PM  
You anti-gun nuts might want to look up the murder rate in Kennasaw, GA,
Where they are REQUIRED to own a firearm...
25 years murder free.....hmmmm.

While you are at it, take a peek at Switzerland, then compare it to Chicago and Detroit where its near impossible to get a gun LEGALLY.


/Splain dat  !!
Wiki quote:Gun lawIn 1982 the city passed an ordinance [Sec 34-21]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia#cite_note-17">[ 17]

(a) In order to provide for the emergency management of the city, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore.
(b)Exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who suffer a physical or mental disability which would prohibit them from using such a firearm. Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony.
Gun rights activist http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Kopel" title="David Kopel" class="mw-redirect">David Kopel has claimed that there is evidence that this gun law has reduced the incident rate of home burglaries citing that in the first year, home burglaries dropped from 65 before the ordinance, down to 26 in 1983, and to 11 in 1984.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia#cite_note-18">[18 ] Another report observed a noticeable reduction in burglary from 1981, the year before the ordinance was passed, to 1999. A 2001 media report stated that Kennesaw's crime rates continued to decline and were well below the national average, making citizens feel safer and more secure.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia#cite_note-19">[ 19] Later research claims that there is no evidence that [the law] reduced the rate of home burglaries [in Kennesaw],http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia#cite_note-is bn0-472-031 62-7-20">[20]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia#cite_note- isbn0-415-170 87-7-21">[21] even though the overall crime rate had decreased by more than 50% between 1982 and 2005.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia#cite_note-22">[22 ]

The city's websitehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia#cite_note-23">[ 23] claims the city has the lowest crime rate in the county.
 
2013-03-14 01:32:32 PM  

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: When you're dealing with two bodies moving through space without a fixed reference point, you could say either one is revolving around the other


Not all frames of reference are created equal.  Inertial frames of reference have the property that you can actually apply the laws of physics to them.  There is no inertial reference frame in which the sun goes around the Earth.
 
2013-03-14 01:32:37 PM  

heypete: midigod: Nope.  Gun ownership has been falling since the 70's, and so has violent crime.  Interesting.

Interesting. Thanks for the link.

Since more people are living in cities and not doing as much outdoor living, it doesn't really surprise me that fewer households contain guns (though the number of guns-per-capita is certainly increasing, as is the amount of people with concealed carry permits). Five Thirty Eight has an interesting analysis of the same surveys.

That said, I wonder if people are truthfully answering those surveys: I realize that its anecdotal, but all the gun owners I know are rather skeptical of telling a random telephone caller if they do or don't own guns. I wonder how one could take that into consideration?

In my personal experience, every time I'd go to the local ranges in the SF Bay Area (CA), Phoenix, Casa Grande, and Tucson (AZ) area they were quite full, often with lots younger shooters (in their 20s-30s, rather than old guys).

Yeah, I know the plural of "anecdote" isn't "data", but that doesn't really jive with my personal experience. I admit I could definitely be wrong though. :)


Actually, there is some evidence that the GSS data might be wrong.

Look at this graph from GSS data:

www.washingtonpost.com

Look at the "% with pistol or shotgun in home (GSS)".

If you read that, the number of households with a rifle or pistol in the home *DOUBLED* in the space of a handful of years, and it appears to have dropped by nearly *HALF* in what appears to be just the span of a  year or two.

That would be tens of millions of guns flooding the market back then.  Something like that would have been noticed.

I think there is something else going on here, and it's a reason why we will *NEVER* get an accurate count of the number of people who own guns:  It's a politically charged question, and people are far more likely to falsely answer "NO" then they would be to falsely answer "YES".

Consider many nations with very strict gun laws:  Even they don't have an accurate count on the number of guns and gun owners because of defiance to the laws enacted.

This is a very informative law review article that touches on that subject:
IMAGINING GUN CONTROL IN AMERICA:  THE REMAINDER PROBLEM.
 
2013-03-14 01:33:41 PM  
Looks like someone was watching The Newsroom....

http://youtu.be/16K6m3Ua2nw
 
2013-03-14 01:34:17 PM  
You'd be surprised how many adults, many of them at least partially educated, have to think for a minute when you ask them to hold up their left or right hand.

Or can't alphabetize something without singing the song to help them.

Personally, i would have liked the article better if one of the questions asked you to distinguish between shiat and a can of Shinola.
 
2013-03-14 01:34:42 PM  

m00: Carn: Hypothesis: Unicorns exist.
Supporting Evidence: none.
Conclusion: Hypothesis is false.

That's how science and rational thought work.  If evidence were to suddenly appear that a unicorn exists or may have existed in the past, you re-evaluate at that point.  As for string theory, scientists are relatively certain that they have witnessed the Higgs boson in recent experiments.  String theory predicted that this particle existed and until they found evidence, there was a lot of justified resistance to the theory.   The particle's existence and its behavior will go a long way toward theoretical physicists being able to support or disprove string theory.

So you're saying that String Theory magically became true when the Higgs boson was kinda-observed? And DNA didn't exist until the 1960s? This isn't Schroedinger's box. Things exist or don't exist regardless of our ability to observe them.

(By the way, they didn't "witness" it. They took measurements consistent with what they thought a Higgs boson would give off.)


Please.  There are many other theories in physics trying to explain the gap between classical and quantum physics.  In my last sentence, bolded above, I stated that the particle's existence will help to evaluate whether the theory is valid.

Things exist.  Really?  What things?  By your current reasoning, every possible imaginary creature is quite real because there is no evidence.  That's not how science works.  String theory existed outside of the existence of the higgs because it is just a theory that tries to predict the realities of the universe.  The Higgs cannot be proven to exist until it is/was observed.  If you'd like to start "m00's Theory of the Possibility of the Existence of Invisible Unicorns", then by all means please do.  Mark me down as a skeptic, however.
 
2013-03-14 01:34:54 PM  
/linkage:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_c6HsiixFS8
//(volume warning)

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

I was joking, christ. The lady's obviously a loon.



I know you were.  I don't think it's possible to be a Farker and believe that rubbish.  I just wanted to get some self-pimpage in.  Probably could have mentioned that.  My apologies.
 
2013-03-14 01:35:23 PM  

mrbmp: You anti-gun nuts might want to look up the murder rate in Kennasaw, GA,
Where they are REQUIRED to own a firearm...
25 years murder free.....hmmmm.

While you are at it, take a peek at Switzerland, then compare it to Chicago and Detroit where its near impossible to get a gun LEGALLY.

/Splain dat  !!
Wiki quote:Gun lawIn 1982 the city passed an ordinance [Sec 34-21]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia#cite_note-17">[ 17]

(a) In order to provide for the emergency management of the city, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore.
(b)Exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who suffer a physical or mental disability which would prohibit them from using such a firearm. Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony.
Gun rights activist http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Kopel" title="David Kopel" class="mw-redirect">David Kopel has claimed that there is evidence that this gun law has reduced the incident rate of home burglaries citing that in the first year, home burglaries dropped from 65 before the ordinance, down to 26 in 1983, and to 11 in 1984.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia#cite_note-18">[18 ] Another report observed a noticeable reduction in burglary from 1981, the year before the ordinance was passed, to 1999. A 2001 media report stated that Kennesaw's crime rates continued to decline and were well below the national average, making citizens feel safer and more secure.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia#cite_note-19">[ 19] Later research claims that there is no evidence that [the law] reduced the rate of home burgl ...


If the threat of someone owning a gun, hence getting shot if you try to rob them, is keeping down burglaries, why don't we just implement the death penalty for burglary?  Shouldn't that have the same effect without putting a bunch of guns out there?
 
2013-03-14 01:36:07 PM  

mrbmp: You anti-gun nuts might want to look up the murder rate in Kennasaw, GA,
Where they are REQUIRED to own a firearm...
25 years murder free.....hmmmm.


Lol, what?  Well this should be fun...

I'll start with the fact that Kennesaw (notice how I spelled it correctly) only has 30,000 people.
 
2013-03-14 01:36:55 PM  

unchellmatt: m00: "...asked almost exclusively by intellectual liberals because intellectual conservatives don't actually exist."

There we go...

Yeah, that turned me off the article entirely. I know quite a number of people who consider themselves "conservative" who:

- Aren't delusional enough to believe the US was founded as a "Christian" nation
- Understand how the universe works
- Don't watch FOX

Now, are they in line with the rank and file, or the current batch of Tea Party coonts in office? No. But they are intelligent, well read, and not against intellectualism.


Ooh ohh!!!

1797 treaty of tripoli.

Universe workes according to the four fundamental forces of nature, exploded out of a singularity about 13 billion years ago, is expanding, and we're all going to die a horrible cold death in the future.

I only watch fox news in the break room while I make my coffee.

But I don't consider myself a conservative or liberal but on some issues i agree with the conservative platform - like forcing pregnant women who want an abortion to see their ultrasound so that they can make an informed decision. More information leads to better decisions and who is against better decisions?
 
Displayed 50 of 488 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


Report