Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on February 23, 2015, 12:46:46 PM

You're welcome to disagree with the practice of tipping -- I agree that servers should be paid a fair and competitive wage -- but to ignore the fact that it's social convention and you're literally hurting peoples' livelihood with some asinine excuse about slavery is just selfish. Just admit you're too cheap to tip and move on with your life.

The problem is, is that it shouldn't be a mandatory thing. In Britian, at least, tips are only really given if the servie is exemplary, not average or below average.

You're right, it shouldn't be mandatory. Servers should be paid a fair wage and the prices of the food should be increased to reflect that. I don't really consider tipping voluntary, here. It should be proportional to the quality of service received. It's not the same here as it is in Britain.

Oh, and Robin Williams is the 9/11 of our generation.

Wouldn't 9/11 be the 9/11 of our generation?

I'm all for nuclear power, but my main gripe with it is efficient and safe disposal of the waste. Sure, there may be sites to get rid of it all, but they're not secure enough (at least imo) for the long term and it's not a good idea to be radiating our own backyard. Hopefully one day we can master fusion though, or some other power source.

I'd say it's pretty darn secure. Something like 90% of the waste can be reused, and beyond that it's a simple process of sealing it in concrete and burying it. There's an abundance of unused land for such a purpose, and there has never been an security compromise during the transportation and disposal of nuclear waste. We're not radiating anything with it, because the concrete blocks all of the radiation. In fact, a few of inches of water effectively blocks all the radiation, too.

I don't know how it would be structured, but I'd like to see campaign donations be a thing of the past. Maybe make it a pool for all candidates, provided by the government, which anyone can contribute to, but I agree that Congress is in the way of a truly fair and free market.

I'm pretty mixed on bailouts. In some cases it's been shown to be effective, but the idea that something can ever be "too big to fail" rubs me the wrong way.

So you're not a conservative? Even though you've said you're a conservative several times? You took my post out of context, firstly. My point is he's labeling people who criticize the Koch brothers as "the Left". You identify as a conservative.

I'm conservative in some areas, liberal in others. If the conservative platform were that anthropogenic climate change isn't happening, then I would be liberal there. I'm liberal on a lot of social issues, and typically conservative fiscally. None of this has anything to do with the criticism of shitty sensationalist journalism present in this article.

Nah there's no issue with nothing but the fact that you're down playing the whole thing.

I'm not downplaying it, I'm criticizing the article for what is borderline libel. Whether his research is useful or not, it's not acceptable for a professional media source to throw around veiled accusations of bribery when no evidence is present. Criticize the Koch brothers for trying to effectively buy results, sure, but preying on the public's ignorance of how research funding works to demonize a petty fringe scientist is not okay.

Why are you buying into this blatant divide and conquer shit our governments are doing to us?

I know you're speaking to Meta here, but you've called me out as being conservative several times today alone. Pot calling the kettle black?

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on February 22, 2015, 09:46:37 AM

Sand, just a heads up, that funding isn't just dropped into the researcher's bank account. They're not really allowed to live off of it, they're supposed to use it for research expenses. And you realize you don't actually need a million dollars to buy a million dinner house, right?

This isn't a bribe, it's corporations choosing research that will likely give results in their favor.

While from a technical standpoint, yes, you don't need a physical million dollars to buy a house, at the same time you still have to pay off the mortgage on your house which therefore means that you still do need to earn a million dollars to pay for it, and not only that, but more because of interest rates. So from another standpoint, yes, you need a million dollars to buy a million dollar house.

And on the end issue, favoritism. Oho boy isn't that always a fun concept concerning up and coming future issues.

Well it's very common for corporations or people to invest on research that will favor them. That's why it's important to be skeptical. But like I said, the funding isn't a blank check for whatever they want. They have to report how it's spent. Now you can accuse Willie of defrauding the Koch brothers, but that's an entirely separate issue.

Challenger, this is one of the issues with this board. I'm trying to correct issues with this article, and somehow that's seen as republican bias. I don't support Willie or his research, I agree with his colleague that it's pointless research, I think the Koch brothers are as close to Bond villains as humanly possible, and I vehemently voice my belief in anthropogenic climate change on here. But the fact remains that this article has a very poor argument for bribery taking place.

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on February 22, 2015, 09:46:37 AM

Sand, just a heads up, that funding isn't just dropped into the researcher's bank account. They're not really allowed to live off of it, they're supposed to use it for research expenses. And you realize you don't actually need a million dollars to buy a million dinner house, right?

This isn't a bribe, it's corporations choosing research that will likely give results in their favor.

They "fund" that "research" higher than others would.

What Willie said was that he lays out several proposals and goes with what gets funding. The point is that they find the research at all. I don't see how this is really a bribe. Fruitless research and obviously shady motivations of the Koch brothers, but not bribery.

I didn't have any of these going into my relationship, or into my marriage six years later. If I had, they surely would have changed by the time we married, and I don't think there really is anything mundane that is non-negotiable. I told her I wouldn't get married in college (the ceremony turned out to be three days after graduating), but I would've. I've always wanted pets, but she's very allergic, so she's breaking what would have been her non-negotiable terms by getting allergy shots. I want to adopt at least once, and she's warming up to it.

Relationships aren't about evaluating another person based on a list of desires, it's getting through life and sharing experiences with someone you love. I don't really see any conclusion for these non-negotiables except disappointment.

I'm getting all of that free through the Navy. Not sure if you'd want to devote years of your life to that, but it's an option, and you'll fly cooler stuff than a Cessna.

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on February 21, 2015, 09:07:49 PM

My sister has a master's in anthropology and is making six figures right out of college. Double what I get on an officer salary. No, I don't feel bad for her.

I go by the principle, "if you do what you love, you won't work a day in your life".

That saying is irrelevant though, because officers don't work.

You're partly joking, but I'm literally getting paid to sit around and show up to muster every morning at 7:00 then go home for the next month or so.

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on February 20, 2015, 05:00:22 PM

Was the SPNKr pronounced as 'Spanker' or 'Spunker'? I'd like to think that I've been spunk-whoring these past 10 years.

Quote from: HaloFollowerYT

Thrifferthree says it's pronounce "Spelunker"

How the hell is it 'Spelunker'? There's no 'L', and what does cave-diving have to do with a rocket launcher?

Only one answer.

You know, they were pretty much spot on for half the video, and I was confused as to what you were talking about. It seemed like a very decent laymen's overview of quantum theory. And then I got to 3:05. Quanta (a fancy word for the smallest possible amount of a physical unit, like a photon of light, or OP's penis), are not singularities, and they are not all a singularity, and everything around us is not "one", in any meaningful way. 'Quantum relativity' is just a nonsense phrase here. And somehow they top it off by saying that because everything is one and science is confusing, governments don't matter. Basically justifying hedonistic nihilism because "you are the quantum singularity interacting with itself" is just dumbfounding.

Also. Why does the. Narrator speak like. This      ?

Not really, they've got it contained and are working on pumping it out and decontamination it. There have been a few leaks, but they're not just pumping it into the ocean to be someone else's problem.