Quote from: Alpha on November 25, 2016, 03:07:33 PM

The question is who is this being funded by? Stein raised 3.5 million during her entire campaign. Now this already has over 4 million after a few days. And it has been getting consistent donations of $160,000 and hour.

~~~le conspiracy~~~

Quote from: Azendac on November 25, 2016, 02:31:03 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on November 25, 2016, 02:22:20 PM

Quote from: Azendac on November 25, 2016, 02:18:59 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on November 25, 2016, 11:56:31 AM

Reminder that this 9/11 truther, nuclear power skeptic, and "wi-fi gives you cancer" believer was STILL the best candidate in the election.

But this doesn't make sense, nuclear power has almost zero emissions, it's the cleanest and most efficient energy source we currently have (that can actually power a large country, so wind and solar don't yet count) by a long shot. The only reason someone could be against nuclear is if they actually don't know how the tech works and thinks it's just like a nuke. That or more out there theories, but the point still stands, nuclear is green as fuck.

And she was STILL the best candidate in the election.

>not spiderman
>not hitler
>not anyother joke candidate with just as much a chance of winning
k

Winning wasn't the goal.

Quote from: Azendac on November 25, 2016, 02:18:59 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on November 25, 2016, 11:56:31 AM

Reminder that this 9/11 truther, nuclear power skeptic, and "wi-fi gives you cancer" believer was STILL the best candidate in the election.

But this doesn't make sense, nuclear power has almost zero emissions, it's the cleanest and most efficient energy source we currently have (that can actually power a large country, so wind and solar don't yet count) by a long shot. The only reason someone could be against nuclear is if they actually don't know how the tech works and thinks it's just like a nuke. That or more out there theories, but the point still stands, nuclear is green as fuck.

And she was STILL the best candidate in the election.

Reminder that this 9/11 truther, nuclear power skeptic, and "wi-fi gives you cancer" believer was STILL the best candidate in the election.

Quote from: Azendac on November 24, 2016, 02:51:07 PM

There are only 4 games i've ever bought day 1. MGSV, Dark souls 2, Halo Reach, and Halo 4.

FUCK

ME

But Dark Souls 2 and Reach were great...

Dude I'm not a NEET like you, I'm not going to continue a conversation that was going literally nowhere and just write endless walls of text. 

I can't change your opinions over the internet. You need mature and experience things for yourself. Hopefully you'll do that.

Quote from: Azendac on November 24, 2016, 08:25:46 PM

Quote from: challengerX on November 24, 2016, 08:21:58 PM

Quote from: Azendac on November 24, 2016, 08:19:46 PM

Quote from: challengerX on November 24, 2016, 05:33:00 PM

There was already a thread on this

Any excuse to tell me how mad you are. I posted in that thread you dunce, this is a new article with new information.

What exactly am I supposed to be mad about?

I'm letting you know there was already a thread on this. One that didn't use Daily Mail as the source lmaoooooooooooooooooo

I doubt you're trying to be nice, so this was clearly an attempt at a zinger "hah there's already a thread better tell him that", but I already knew about the thread.

>he doesn't like bikinis in his news sidebar
I continue to believe you have homosexual tendencies, and my phallus remains erect and ready for your capitulation.

I didn't realize I'm a big meany head to you and hurt your feelings. I'm letting you know there's a thread on this already. Take that how you want to.

In this case you decided to sperg out yet again.

Quote from: Azendac on November 24, 2016, 08:19:46 PM

Quote from: challengerX on November 24, 2016, 05:33:00 PM

There was already a thread on this

Any excuse to tell me how mad you are. I posted in that thread you dunce, this is a new article with new information.

What exactly am I supposed to be mad about?

I'm letting you know there was already a thread on this. One that didn't use Daily Mail as the source lmaoooooooooooooooooo

Quote from: Verbatim on November 23, 2016, 08:16:33 PM

Quote from: challengerX on November 23, 2016, 08:02:10 PM

Have you read Foundation's Edge?

http://sep7agon.net/the-flood/t67814/msg1356091/#msg1356091

Meant to say "have you not read", because I'm pretty sure it's free in pdf for or otherwise like $1 on Amazon.

Great series, everybody who likes sci fi needs to read the Foundation books. Shame they haven't tried a movie adaptation.

Learning by taking practice tests, a strategy known as retrieval practice, can protect memory against the negative effects of stress. Credit: Tufts University/Kevin Jiang

Learning by taking practice tests, a strategy known as retrieval practice, can protect memory against the negative effects of stress, report scientists from Tufts University in a new study published in Science on Nov. 25.

In experiments involving 120 student participants, individuals who learned a series of words and images by retrieval practice showed no impairment in memory after experiencing acute stress. Participants who used study practice, the conventional method of re-reading material to memorize it, remembered fewer items overall, particularly after stress.

"Typically, people under stress are less effective at retrieving information from memory. We now show for the first time that the right learning strategy, in this case retrieval practice or taking practice tests, results in such strong memory representations that even under high levels of stress, subjects are still able to access their memories," said senior study author Ayanna Thomas, Ph.D., associate professor and director of the graduate program in psychology at Tufts.

"Our results suggest that it is not necessarily a matter of how much or how long someone studies, but how they study," said Amy Smith, graduate student in psychology at Tufts and corresponding author on the study.

The research team asked participants to learn a set of 30 words and 30 images. These were introduced through a computer program, which displayed one item at a time for a few seconds each. To simulate note taking, participants were given 10 seconds to type a sentence using the item immediately after seeing it.

One group of participants then studied using retrieval practice, and took timed practice tests in which they freely recalled as many items as they could remember. The other group used study practice. For these participants, items were re-displayed on the computer screen, one at a time, for a few seconds each. Participants were given multiple timed periods to study.

After a 24-hour break, half of each group was placed into a stress-inducing scenario. These participants were required to give an unexpected, impromptu speech and solve math problems in front of two judges, three peers and a video camera. Participants took two memory tests, in which they recalled the words or images they studied the previous day. These tests were taken during the stress scenario and twenty minutes after, to examine memory under immediate and delayed stress responses. The remaining study participants took their memory tests during and after a time-matched, non-stressful task.

Stressed individuals who learned through retrieval practice remembered an average of around 11 items out of each set of 30 words and images, compared to 10 items for their non-stressed counterparts. Participants who learned through study practice remembered fewer words overall, with an average of 7 items for stressed individuals and an average of a little under 9 items for those who were not stressed.

To induce stress, study participants were required to give an unexpected, impromptu speech and solve math problems in front of two judges, three peers and a video camera. Credit: Tufts University/Kevin Jiang

"Even though previous research has shown that retrieval practice is one of the best learning strategies available, we were still surprised at how effective it was for individuals under stress. It was as if stress had no effect on their memory," Smith said. "Learning by taking tests and being forced to retrieve information over and over has a strong effect on long-term memory retention, and appears to continue to have great benefits in high-stakes, stressful situations."

While a robust body of evidence has previously shown that stress impairs memory, few studies have examined whether this relationship can be affected by different learning strategies. The current results now suggest that learning information in an effective manner, such as through retrieval practice, can protect memory against the adverse effects of stress.

Although the research team used an experimentally verified stress-inducing scenario (Trier Social Stress Test) and measured participant stress responses through heart-rate monitors and standardized self-reported questionnaires, they note that stress effects are variable between individuals and additional work is needed to expand on their results. The team is now engaged in studies to replicate and extend their findings, including whether retrieval practice can benefit complex situations such as learning a foreign language or stressful scenarios outside of a testing environment.

"Our one study is certainly not the final say on how retrieval practice influences memory under stress, but I can see this being applicable to any individual who has to retrieve complex information under high stakes," Thomas said. "Especially for educators, where big exams can put a great deal of pressure on students, I really encourage employing more frequent more low-stakes testing in context of their instruction."

Donald Trump plans to put NASA's focus back on space exploration and cut away programs that study climate change.

Bob Walker, an adviser to Trump, told The Guardian that the incoming president wants to keep NASA away from 'politicized science.'

Other government agencies can take on climate research, he said.

'We see NASA in an exploration role, in deep space research,' Walker told the publication. 'Earth-centric science is better placed at other agencies where it is their prime mission."

Donald Trump plans to put NASA's focus back on space exploration and cut away programs that study climate change. The above photo is from NASA's Antarctic mission, where scientists are observing changes in polar ice

An adviser to Trump said the incoming president wants to keep NASA away from 'politicized science' - 'earth-centric science is better placed at other agencies where it is their prime mission,' he said

Walker admitted that some of that work would continue at NASA.

'My guess is that it would be difficult to stop all ongoing NASA programs but future programs should definitely be placed with other agencies,' he said.

Adding, 'I believe that climate research is necessary but it has been heavily politicized, which has undermined a lot of the work that researchers have been doing. Mr Trump’s decisions will be based upon solid science, not politicized science.'

Trump has said that climate change is a 'hoax' and he'd 'cancel' an international agreement to combat global warming.

Yesterday he told the New York Times that he was reconsidering his position on the 196-nation accord, known as the Paris agreement, that was put into place by the Obama administration.

'I’m looking at it very closely. I have an open mind to it,' he said.

NASA's Earth Science Division collects data on temperature fluctuations, the oceans, sea ice and glaciers and tracks severe weather.

'To study the planet from the unique perspective of space,' it's web page says, the NASA division 'develops and operates remote-sensing satellites and instruments.'

'We analyze observational data from these spacecraft and make it available to the world's scientists.'

A blog post from last week draws attention to the Montreal Protocol and 'the climate warming effects of chemicals that were supposed to be better for the ozone layer.'

Walker called the division's work 'politically correct environmental monitoring.'

Democrats and environmental groups have derided Trump as a 'climate denier' over his refusal to say that human activity is making the world warmer.

Trump told the New York Times on Tuesday, 'I think there is some connectivity. Some, something. It depends on how much.'

Walker told the Guardian Trump's skepticism is 'shared by half the climatologists in the world.

'We need good science to tell us what the reality is and science could do that if politicians didn’t interfere with it.'

NASA's Earth Science Division is set to receive $2 billion in funding in 2017. Another $2.8 billion is appropriated for space exploration

NASA's Earth Science Division is set to receive $2 billion in funding in 2017. Another $2.8 billion is appropriated for space exploration.

President Barack Obama increased NASA's budget by $6 billion dollars in 2010 and controversially directed the government agency to spend its resources on developing an asteroid mission and and sending a manned spaceship to Mars.

NASA poured billions into plans to build a permanent base on the moon in the previous administration but fell so far behind that Obama nixed it. 

Trump's proposed changes to NASA are also generating push back.

Penn State University's Michael Mann, a climate scientist, accused Trump of playing politics with the government division.

'Without the support of NASA, not only the US but the entire world would be taking a hard hit when it comes to understanding the behavior of our climate and the threats posed by human-caused climate change,' he told The Guardian, 'It would be a blatantly political move.'

Mann said it 'would indicate the president-elect’s willingness to pander to the very same lobbyists and corporate interest groups he derided throughout the campaign.'

Quote from: Azendac on November 24, 2016, 02:32:38 PM

Quote from: SecondClass on November 24, 2016, 02:28:31 PM

Quote from: Azendac on November 24, 2016, 02:26:44 PM

There is an argument to be made that influential media has a responsibility to not deceive it's audience with it's influence.

And Hamilton didn't. It would be deception if Lin Manuel Miranda claimed his work was historically accurate, but time and time again he's stated that it's the opposite of that.

Meh, there's not much point in saying you're going to do one thing, and then inadvertently doing the opposite. Again, I'm not interested in defending idiots from themselves, but saying "I didn't mean to be deceptive" isn't a defense for being deceptive.

Course, I'm speaking generally here, I've never even heard of Hamilton before this week and have no interest in learning about it.

Except he didn't fucking do the opposite. His goal was to tell a deeply fictionalized and romanticized version of the story, and that's what he did. He has no obligation to make his intentionally fictionalized play some completely truthful biopic any more than the guy who wrote Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter does.