Showing posts with label rant. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rant. Show all posts

Tuesday, November 23, 2010

The Insanity of Swearing

The Insanity of Swearing

I would like to discuss swearing/cursing/the use of expletives, so listen up, you friggin pieces of crap.

...Did I just swear at you?

Well, did I?

Monday, November 22, 2010

Sister Wives: What's the Big Fucking Deal? I Issue a Challenge to those against polygamy:

Sister Wives: What's the Big Fucking Deal?

So there's this show on TLC called Sister Wives, which I was not aware of until about 10 minutes ago. For those who do not know, it is a 'reality' show documenting/fictionalizing (you know how 'reality' shows go....) the lives of 5 adults and 13 children. The 5 adults are a man named Kody, and his four wives, and the thirteen children are, well, their children.

Yes, the show is about polygamists. How this is possible when polygamy is illegal in the U.S., I don't know, but it's happening (happened?) (not sure if it's still on or not). The guy is married to four women and the four marriages have thus far produced 13 children.

Saturday, August 14, 2010

Incoherent Ramblings.

This is a strange, silly, stupid blog entry that sort of just....happened. That being said, I make no apologies for it. Read at your own risk.


Sunday, August 1, 2010

Ray Comfort Week Continues!! Comfort PWND?

I am not sure if pointing out simple logical deductions to a retard (sorry) is considered pwning as much as it is beating up on a hapless retard (sorry again), but this hapless retard (sorry, really) is manipulating people into believing lies, making them feel guilty for being human, and making big money off of doing so, so fuck it, it's a pwning.

So, on to what I will, perhaps tentatively (you decide!) call Ray Comfort being PWND.


Saturday, May 8, 2010

Magazine writer fired after dustup with Rockstar PR and Capcom Milking Street Fighter IV even MORE!

Magazine writer fired after dustup with Rockstar PR

Leaked email details Rockstar's extreme sensitivity to negative coverage

http://www.gamesradar.com/pc/grand-theft-auto-iv/news/magazine-writer-fired-after-dustup-with-rockstar-pr/a-20100407113454149016/g-2008080416222952067

So, Rockstar is pressuring writers to be very positive, even if they feel otherwise? They are trying to tell the journalists what and how to write?
According to a news.com.au story, a deputy editor for Austrailian publication Zoo Weekly has been fired after publishing an allegedly internal email from Rockstar regarding Zoo's coverage of the upcoming Red Dead Redemption. The alleged email from Rockstar, which former deputy entertainment editor Toby McCasker posted on his Facebook, contained the following:


This is the biggest game we've done since GTA IV, and is already receiving Game of the Year 2010 nominations from specialists all around the world, it read.


Can you please ensure Toby's article reflects this — he needs to respect the huge achievement he's writing about here.

What's the implication here? What are they saying, if you read between the lines? You better play ball, if you know what's good for you.

If Red Dead Redemption is so damn good, why do they need to do this? Are they lying about how good Red Dead Redemption really is?

I think so.

And what's with GOTY nominations already?

What the fuck really goes on behind the scenes in this industry?

Another thing:

Super Street Fighter IV, which already doesn't need to exist, apparently isn't enough milking for Capcom, as there is DLC for the game. Really? Like people buying your game twice isn't enough? You can't at least be somewhat decent and make sure that the gamers whom you have already manipulated and taken advatntage of at least get everything there is to offer from your now $110 game? You still have to sell them more shit?

We've got this shit, DLC releases on day one, DLC being announced well before a game ships, different pre-order bonuses for different stores, further fragmenting a game, Ubisoft holding back 2 levels from Assassin's Creed 2 for sale as DLC, Capcom removing content from Dead Rising 2 to repackage as a prequel (if you believe that they are legitimately developing this content and selling it separately you are a sucker, I'm sorry), and Capcom (again) selling fucking costumes for SFIV at a couple of bucks a pop, which, while already ridiculous, is made 100 times worse when you realize that these costumes were already developed, as they were in the arcade version of the game.

I don't like where this industry is headed.

I could go go on and on and on and on. In fact, I will! In another blog.

Ohhhhhh.

I promise it will be worth the wait. I will do a well thought out list of things that I feel are wrong with gaming. It won't be an off the cuff blog like this, so it will be of a higher quality.

Promise.

Wednesday, March 3, 2010

Fuck Acitivision!!

This blog is going to consist of a rant. The cynical side of me will fly, as will the profanity. If you wish to avoid such things, turn back now.



Still here? Alright, let's rock.

So, there is an article on gamespot today, detailing where exactly the evil empire, the leviathan, the bloodsucking entity known disaffectionaltely as Sequelvisi-......er, rather, NoArtisticVisio-, um....sorry, no....Activision (that's it!) is on their quest to homogenize and then eventually destroy gaming and make as much money as possible before they do so.

Here's the link:

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6252764.html

So what does the article detail, exactly? Well:

MW2 is getting two paid DLC's this year!!!! Yes, exciting, isn't it? Maybe they'll include some dedicated server support and upgrades to their innovative text chat system in the PC version of the DLC's.

*rolls eyes*

Here's an excerpt:

Activision now lists the Encino, California, developer as working only on the two downloadable expansions to Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, due out later this year.

But just wait folks, that's not all!

Acitivion confirmed that Treyarch is currently at work on a new COD title to be released this year (as we all already know). They then, however, went on to say the following:

The company is also for the first time announcing that a new game in the Call of Duty series is expected to be released in 2011

Oh BOY!!!!! A second Call of Duty title in the same fucking year? Yaaaay!

But wait!!! There's more!!!!:

Sledgehammer Games, a newly formed, wholly owned studio, is in development on a Call of Duty game that will extend the franchise into the action-adventure genre.
.....

So there are currently 3 Call of Duty titles in development, plus the 2 DLC's for MW2, and of course the as of yet unannounced but inevitable handheld titles, iphone game, facebook app, blah blah blah.
They didn't say in the article, but it's possible that in 2011, we'll see 3 major COD releases.

How many fucking times can Call of Duty be redone? They keep calling, and calling, and calling......

SOMEONE ANSWER THE FUCKING CALL ALREADY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Jaysus!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Let's take a look at this, just from an xbox 360 gamer's POV. The xbox 360 was released in November of 2005. Which means that it has been out for 4 years and 3 months. In 4 years and three months, the xbox 360 has been graced with SIX FUCKING COD GAMES!!!!!!

COD1 (xbla)
COD2 (retail)
COD3 (retail)
CODMW (retail)
CODWAW (retail)
CODWM2 (retail)

6 motherfucking titles in one motherfucking first fucking person fucking shooter franchise in 4 motherfucking years on one motherfucking system!!!!!!!!!!!

Let that sink in for a moment.

Now, if I were to approach you ten years ago, and tell you that there would be a franchise that would see 6 games released in 4 years on one system, what would you have thought? When did things get to the point where this is deemed okay? People are going to continue eating this shit up, and that does NOT bode well for the industry. We are already starting to see the disease of sequelitis really start to take hold. Same with remakeitis, although, fortunately, it's nowhere near to the point it has reached in Hollywood. Not even close.

Still though, it's bad. We all know that it's hard enough as it is for developers to launch successful new ip's. And when one is a success, they whore the shit out of it. Ubisoft recently announced that they are scaling back on new ip's. I have a link for that, hold on a moment....

Here:


Read this quote:

The scaling back on new franchises is one part of a Ubisoft plan to ultimately have its major franchises seeing more frequent and regular releases.

Hmmm......Major releases seeing more frequent and regular releases......who does that sound like?
OH YA!!!!!!! Activision!!! The financial giant, who all other companies, especially the struggling ones (Ubisoft is one of them....somehow.....) are going to emulate in the coming years.

*sigh*

Look, sequels aren't all bad. And I understand the problem these companies face. New IP's are a risk. You could end up pulling an Okami or even worse, a Psychonauts. Two great games that sold like shit. But then again, look at Assassin's Creed. It was new, and sold in the millions. Bayonetta sold well. Borderlands sold well. Dead Space sold well. Hell, Mirror's Edge sold well, despite stupid ass EA being disappointed with it.
New IP's can sell just fine, as long as they are marketed properly, and/or appeal to people/are good games. Every single game franchise started out as a new intellectual property. The developers and publishers seem to forget this fact. The industry can grow if they establish new, exciting brands. We all win that way. But if they do it like this.....it's going to stagnate. They're going to eventually hit a wall, it's going to stagnate, and then it's going to fucking crash, like it did one before.

And none of us want that.

But there's more.

*puts on naive idealist hat*

What about the fucking art, man?

*passes joint*

Seriously, I know that they need to make money, but can't they do it in a way that at least maintains some integrity? That shows a little passion for the art? There are many companies out there doing it right, and making money at it. Activision is like the WalMart of gaming. EA is I dunno, the KMART or something. I digress.

The point is, and I say this as an atheist who doesn't believe in souls, they way Activision is doing it is just so damn soulless. They don't give one iota of a shit for the medium. Bobby Kotick doesn't give a FUCK about gaming. Companies like Blizzard. Team ICO. Bungie. PlatinumGames. Speaking of PlatinumGames, did you know they refused to do DLC for Bayonetta? Ya, they said the game ships complete, and that's it. We wait until we have everything we could possibly want to add to it, and we do. Then it ships. We're not holding anything back to sell, and we're not shipping an incomplete game. Of course, PS3 owners could argue against that, and they'd have a point, but at least it's been patched.

Companies like Activision don't give a flying fucking shit about artistic integrity or expanding the medium. The companies I mentioned, and many more, actually do. You can be incredibly successful without whoring, and I think the people that do that should be damn proud of what they have accomplished. They have given us great games, they have created something with merit, something of value, and they have made money doing it. Shit, I'm almost inclined to say god bless.

*wipes tear*

I fucking hated EA for years, and still do (seriously, fuck EA), but man, Activision must have looked to EA and said, ''we can do that, but better (or should I say worse).'' And then they set out to do just that.

1) Establish a new brand, Guitar Hero, whore the fucking ever loving (what the fuck does ever loving mean anyways? someone explain that to me) shit out of it

2) Take their successful COD brand and begin whoring the fucking ever loving shit out of it

3) Throw a piece of shit $4 dollar toy version of night vision goggles into a super duper edition of MW2 and sell it for like $100 extra. Market it as though it comes with real night vision goggles so your COD playing basement dwellers can feel like they are soldiers as they lol at their friends cat in the dark....or what they can make of it with their $4 toy they paid $100 for.

4) Whore the fuck out of Tony Hawk, and then when people finally get bored of it....add a board (seriously.....you bored? here's a board!!) and sell a shitty, unfinished product for like $130

5) Realize you can save an extra buck or two and cut back on instruction manuals, because every penny
counts!

6) Have your shitty, asshole piece of shit president go on record saying shit like developing games shouldn't be fun, and we want to charge $90 per game

7) Remove mods from the PC version of MW2, then sell them DLC. Oh, and remove dedicated server support.

and on, and on, and on, and on and on and on and on and on......

Fuck Them.

Seriously, fuck Activision. And you.....stop buying Activision products. No, shut up, I don't want to hear it.

Just stop.

Fuck Activision.

Amen.

Wednesday, February 17, 2010

'Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens our Future'

There is a book, released last year, entitled 'Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens our Future' It's about the disconnect between scientists and the general public. The book's homepage: http://www.unscientificamerica.com/ talks about the issue.

Here is an excerpt:

Some of our gravest challenges—climate change, the energy crisis, national economic competitiveness—and gravest threats--global pandemics, nuclear proliferation—have fundamentally scientific underpinnings. Yet we still live in a culture that rarely takes science seriously or has it on the radar.


For every five hours of cable news, less than a minute is devoted to science; 46 percent of Americans reject evolution and think the Earth is less than 10,000 years old; the number of newspapers with weekly science sections has shrunken by two-thirds over the past several decades.


The public is polarized over climate change—an issue where political party affiliation determines one's view of reality—and in dangerous retreat from childhood vaccinations. Meanwhile, only 18 percent of Americans have even met a scientist to begin with; more than half can't name a living scientist role model.

The situation is pretty bad down there in the US (not sure how we're faring overall here in Canada, but I do know we're experiencing a fundamentalist uprising, and the asociated antiscientifc sentiments are rearing their ugly heads as well). Biased news media outlets pick up a story that conforms to their preconceived notions (say, Anthropogenic Global Warming is false) and gladly report it ad nauseum, hammering home the message for the viewers....all without bothering to either wait for things to come clear, or do some honest appraisal and fact checking.

And once the people hear it on tv...it's gospel. They don't think critically. They don't do the research themselves. Look at the whole 'climategate' thing. And, as the old saying goes, the lie spreads quickly and sticks, so even if the truth eventually gets out, it's too late (or something like that).

Another example was the supposedly suppressed EPA analysis of a climate change bill. Fox news was all over it, saying that the EPA did not include in its report a 98 page document generated within the agency that questioned the science of global warming.

Of course, if anyone had bothered to do any, you know, reporting, they would have found that the report was written by two non-climate scientists working for the NCEE, who relied heavily on the work of a leading figure of an industry front group to write their report, which was actually nothing of the sort. They regurgitated pseudoscientifc nonsense from the front group's website. But the damage had already been done, and the science of global warming was further undermined in the public's eye.

So, what the hell do we do? Do scientific establishments need to hire full time PR firms to counter this bullshit before it does the damage it so often does?

Do we revamp the education system so it puts more focus on critical examination and less on blind acceptance and submissiveness to authority?

WHAT? What can we do? Are people too far gone? Is everyone too busy with their ipods and such that they don't have time for the science anymore? Are we too accustomed to having our knowledge delivered to us in quick 3 minute soundbites? I mean, how many people actually refer to the actual science? I love asking deniers of AGW or Evolution,
How much of the actual research have you read, or even glanced over? Hell, how many abstracts have you read?
The answer is usually none.

People deny decades, and even centuries worth of multidisciplinary scientifc evidence, and all they have to go on is some biased news stories, a couple of articles on the internet, and most importantly, selfish reasons for wanting to deny these things, religious, political, financical, or otherwise.

It's incredibly sad, and it threatens our actual futures. Yes, no hyperbole. It threatens our very future.

Tuesday, February 9, 2010

Sarah Palin: 100K for Q/A, Still Needs Crib Notes





















So Sarah Palin uses crib notes for a Q&A session, during which she was asked general queestions about concepts and things she supports. She is unable to even recall her own stances on policy?


Here's the question for which she needed to consult her hand:

What are the top three priorities once there's a conservative president and congress?


....

---

Can someone please, please, help me out here. Explain to me how someone so incredibly useless can get paid 100K for a speaking engagement, and possibly run for president, after all of the stupid, stupid things she has said?  And even now after this, people will continue to take her seriously.

What must one do to lose credibility anymore? It used to be that people had integrity, and were qualified for the positions they were running for (and even if they didn't, and weren't, they knew how to hide it).

Now......ya, I don't understand it. You can be a war criminal and still get paid huge money for speaking engagements, rather than be placed in jail like you should be (Bush), you can be a complete and utter dolt, still get paid for speaking engagements, get hired to work for a news channel (if you can call it that) and possibly run for US presidencey (Palin).

What the **** is going on down there?

How did we get this far? We have free speech on trial in Amsterdam, we have this woman who:

1) Doesn't know her own policies

2) Still fails prescreened questions

3) Tried to ban books

4) Thinks foreign policy consists of proximity and visibility

etc etc etc

And somehow, rather than be made a laughing stock, she:

1) Has a million plus selling book

2) Gets paid 100 thousand dollars to speak to disenfranchised people about greed

3) Was a presidential running mate

4) May be running for US presidency in 2 years

etc etc etc.

It hurts. It honestly hurts. I'm only 28, and I can honestly say I sometimes feel like I might as well give up, it's over. This is one of those times.

Am I the only one who gets nostalgic for time periods in which he did not even live? I see images and video of the early 20th century, and I wish I was there....but, yes, I am aware of the rose tinted glasses thing. I know the folly of the ''sinking ship'' view of the current generation.

It's just so hard sometimes......

Monday, February 1, 2010

Atheists Kill Children!! UPDATED!!

I had a particularly distasteful exchange with a youtube user by the name of MaIcoImZieI, who left the following message on another theists' channel.

First, he said this on mysticalforest's Channel:

"It's sad to see that so many people believe Charles Darwin, Evolution, 'Scienfitic Facts' and don't try themselves to find out what is truly behind this magical life."

LOL! Misguided and sad as it was, I at least derived a bit of a laugh from it.

But then, he said this:

"Yesterday an Atheist man killed his two children in my city. Shows you what people are capable of once they have turned their back to God. Stay strong!"

Well, I HAD to respond to that nonsense. So I sent him this:

" I really would like to know if you are actually positing the ''turning of one's back to god" as the cause for murder?


I'm not here to bash you or argue with you. I have no issue with you being theist, at all. But I do have an issue with this partciular statement, and honestly, you should as well. I mean, the flaws in this are incredibly self evident, so for you to say it means you either remain willfully ignorant of them, or honestly haven't thought this out.


Honestly, do you see the major flaws in such a statement? I will gladly inform you of them if you ask, but I truly want to know if you can figure it out for yourself.


And if I am coming across as condescending, that is not my intent. It's just that this is a fundamentally and obviously flawed statement.


And it's also not fair. You guys are demonizing an entire group of people, and that's not right."

And he comes back with this:

"You know very well that when people do not understand the value of life, they will do anything they want. Are you saying that if this man would have known God, if he would have known the value of life, if he would have had any understand of morality, he would still have killed his children? NEVER!"

So, I respond back, and demolish his line of thinking:

"You avoided my question. And you also made the same fundamental errors. I guess I have to fill you in on what they are:


1) Generalizations. This should be obvious. You cannot extrapolate from one incident and apply it to a whole group. That's like me saying that all Chrstians who follow the god of th ebible are against abortion, or gay marriage. You and I both know that is not correct, but if I were like you I could point to the Westboro Baptists and say ''Well, this is what happens when you believe in that god."


Hitler was a professed Christian. Do I assume that Chrstianity leads to genocide?


I hope you can see how that's faulty logic.


2) What exaclty is that claim based upon? Do you know for sure that was the reason he killed his children? What about mental illness? Or any number of other extraneous and concomittant factors? From where do you draw this conclusion?


3) You say god as though everyone believes in the same god as you. Presumably, you are a christian. What if this man believed in a god, just not the same one as you? Would you be saying that he did this because he did not believe in the right god, or is it only the total lack of a belief in any god that leads to child murder?


4) Why aren't all atheists murdering their children?


5) What about religious people of all faiths who have murdered their children? What do you have to say for that?


6) "Understanding of morality." Are you saying that one needs god belief to understand morality?


Use the brain you believe your god gave you. Just think about what a horribly nasty, vile thing it was you said, and see how your dogmatic and erroneous belief has stopped you from seeing the incredibly obvious flaws in such a disgusting assertion."

I haven't heard from him since, but he's been on the site.  I half expected him to trun tail and run when faced with coheren thoughts, and it looks like that's what he's going to do.....so typical.

The question is, do I bother with it? I'll update this with any and all new developments. For now, I'll leave it, but maybe in a day or two if I haven't heard back I'll say something....I dunno.

This is a really sad state of affirs here people. Science denial and misconstrual, and beliefs such as ''atheism leads to killing children" existing in 2010 saddens me to no end.

(And yes, I know the whole Hitler being a christian thing is contested. The fact is, he was. Whether or not he believed it or was utilizing it as a means to an end is up for debate, but it's not like I couldn't have pointed to any number of other murdering religious people to elucidate my point to him.)

UPDATE: He got back to me, check out this amazing response:

"People like you will never learn. But he... that makes sense... you believe we came out of a magical Big Bang explosion (before which there was nothing?) and POP! here we are! Of course you wouldn't understand. Do you really think I am going to argue with you if you believe that bullshit? Start thinking for yourself instead of reading books written by others."

What the fuck.

I sent him this:

"You can't be serious. You just can't. If you are serious, wow, you're absolutely stupid. And you're also a coward, because you completely failed to address the point. The last sentence really nails the conundrum. You're either screwing around, or monumentally stupid, and ignorant of the massive amount of irony contained in that one pathetic sentence.

Either way, you're a waste of time."

I was going to try and continue discussing this with him, but come on, it's impossible either way, so fuck it, I decided to be blunt. Enough is enough.

Christianity is Wrong, Disgusting, and Morally Reprehensible

Just think about this for a moment.

God creates us. He creates laws. We break those laws. God sets the penalty for such disobedience. That penalty is death.

He ends up killing nearly everyone.

So, this god character needs to come up with a new plan.

"AHA!," he says, ''I've got it! I'll forgive them!''

...."But first I need a blood sacrifice."

And so he sacrifices himself to himself in order to atone for us breaking the laws he himself created. Now we're all forgiven.....sort of.

Wait just a minute....he sacrificed himself to himself to save us from himself?
Let's let that sink in.

And now we are supposed to view it this as mercy? Why couldn't he just forgive? Or change his rules? Or, you know, see all this coming, since he is supposedly omniscient?

But nope. None of that. There had to be death.

Why?

Just because.

Now go tell your young children that they have blood on their hands. Or should I say on their 'soul'? Someone they did not know was brutally murdered to atone for the sins of their ancestors, for which they somehow carry the burden.

That's fucking disgusting.

EDIT: See HERE to get some more perspective as to why the entire story of christianity is reprehensible- and ridiculous. If, after reading both this and that, you still do not agree, please proceed to click HERE, as clearly that would be the perfect description for you.

Sunday, January 31, 2010

Astrology is Bullshit

Repeat after me:

Astrology is Bullshit!

Astrology is Bullshit!


Already knew this? Good, now read this anyways.

Find yourself a bit miffed right now, thinking I'm full of crap? Keep reading.

So, I am going to make the case today that Astrology is nothing than a pile of outdated and laughable ridiculous pseudoscientific fucking bullshit. And I will do this through 3 pathways:

Scientific Evidence

Psychological Evidence

Logic


After this is all said and done, my goal is for everyone who reads this to understand that

ASTROLOGY IS FUCKING BULLSHIT



Man, this feels good already. You have no idea how much I detest this astrology shit. Everytime I get asked ''What's your sign?'' I want to punch through the persons' stomach, pull their liver out, and beat them with it. I especially love how no one ever knows your sign, until you tell them it (well, I used to, to humour them, but now I just tell them it's nonsense, but I digress) and then they either nod and say ''yup'' or get all perky and say ''I knew it.'' Ya, you fucking knew shit, you liar, because if you did, you WOULDN'T HAVE HAD TO ASK ME!!!!.

Like that one time I saw a ''psychic'' who gave me all sorts of vague information about what was going on with the situation between myself and my sister, which was great, save for the fact that I DON'T HAVE A FUCKING SISTER, YOU FUCKING FRADULENT LIAR!!!! YOU WOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT, IF YOU WERE REALLY PSYCHIC!!!! Ever notice how ''psychics'' always have vague answers, general statements, and they have to ask you your birthday and things.....I THOUGHT YOU WERE FUCKING PSYCHIC YOU SHOULD KNOW MY BIRTHDAY!!!! Funny, with the thousands of psychics in the world, not ONE steps forward before a terrorist attack and warns the people. Were were all the psychics before 9/11, HUH? WERE WHERE THEY? TOO MANY CROSSED ENERGY WIRES THAT DAY?

….Okay, sorry, big digression there. Back to the topic at hand (and yes, ''psychics'' are also bullshit; perhaps I'll get to that in another edition).

So, on with the evidence.

Scientific Evidence

Definition of atrology: Astrology is a group of systems, traditions, and beliefs which hold that the relative positions of celestial bodies and related details can provide information about personality, human affairs, and other terrestrial matters.

Well, guess what? It has been scientifically demonstrated that this is bullshit.

I'll attack this in 2 ways:

1)Studies done on the accuracy of astrological predictions
2)The problem with the ''science'' behind the astrology to begin with


Studies done on the accuracy of astrological predictions

''Good news for rational, level-headed Virgoans everywhere: just as you might have predicted, scientists have found astrology to be rubbish, writes Science Correspondent Robert Matthews.''

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1439101/Astrologers-fail-to-predict-proof-they-are-wrong.html

Its central claim - that our human characteristics are moulded by the influence of the Sun, Moon and planets at the time of our birth - appears to have been debunked once and for all and beyond doubt by the most thorough scientific study ever made into it.

For several decades, researchers tracked more than 2,000 people - most of them born within minutes of each other. According to astrology, the subject should have had very similar traits. Researchers looked at more than 100 different characteristics, including occupation, anxiety levels, marital status, aggressiveness, sociability, IQ levels and ability in art, sport, mathematics and reading - all of which astrologers claim can be gauged from birth charts.

The scientists failed to find any evidence of similarities between the time twins, however. They reported in the current issue of the Journal of Consciousness Studies: The test conditions could hardly have been more conducive to success . . . but the results are uniformly negative.


And that's not all.

The time-twins study is only the start of the bad news for astrologers, however. Dr Dean and Prof Kelly also sought to determine whether stargazers could match a birth chart to the personality profile of a person among a random selection.
They reviewed the evidence from more than 40 studies involving over 700 astrologers, but found the results turned out no better than guesswork.
The success rate did not improve even when astrologers were given all the information they asked for and were confident they had made the right choice.


Dr Dean said the consistency of the findings weighed heavily against astrology.

It has no acceptable mechanism, its principles are invalid and it has failed hundreds of tests, he said. But no hint of these problems will be found in astrology books which, in effect, are exercises in deception.

From wiki:

Studies have repeatedly failed to demonstrate statistically significant relationships between astrological predictions and operationally-defined outcomes. Effect size tests of astrology-based hypotheses conclude that the mean accuracy of astrological predictions is no greater than what is expected by chance.

But there's more

The problem with the ''science'' behind the astrology to begin with

The whole thing is based on the fact that your your zodiac sign supposedly corresponds to the position of the sun relative to constellations, right? Well, check this out:

The positions changed over 2200 years ago.

Let that sink in for a second.

You see, the Earth wobbles around in it's axis in a 25, 800 year long cycle. This phenomena is called precession, and it is the reason why your ''signs'' are completely wrong. Even if this was all true, they'd be off by about a month:

http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/your-astronomical-sign.html

Over the past two-and-a-half millennia, this wobble has caused the intersection point between the celestial equator and the ecliptic to move west along the ecliptic by 36 degrees, or almost exactly one-tenth of the way around. This means that the signs have slipped one-tenth—or almost one whole month—of the way around the sky to the west, relative to the stars beyond. For instance, those born between March 21 and April 19 consider themselves to be Aries. Today, the Sun is no longer within the constellation of Aries during much of that period. From March 11 to April 18, the Sun is actually in the constellation of Pisces!

You will most likely find that once precession is taken into account, your zodiac sign is different. And if you were born between November 29 and December 17, your sign is actually one you never saw in the newspaper: you are an Ophiuchus! The eliptic passes through the constellation of Ophiuchus after Scorpius.


Here is how the ''real'' chart would look:

Capricorn - Jan 20 to Feb 16
Aquarius - Feb 16 to Mar 11
Pisces - Mar 11 to Apr 18
Aries - Apr 18 to May 13
Taurus - May 13 to Jun 21
Gemini - Jun 21 to Jul 20
Cancer - Jul 20 to Aug 10
Leo - Aug 10 to Sep 16
Virgo - Sep 16 to Oct 30
Libra - Oct 30 to Nov 23
Scorpius - Nov 23 to Nov 29
Ophiuchus - Nov 29 to Dec 17
Sagittarius - Dec 17 to Jan 20

Ever heard anyone mention Ophiuchus before?

Ya, me either.

Psychological Evidence

Two psychological concepts can easily explain why people are so convinced of the veracity of astrology: The Forer Effect and Confirmation Bias.

The Forer Effect

The Forer effect refers to the tendency of people to rate sets of statements as highly accurate for them personally even though the statements could apply to many people.

http://skepdic.com/forer.html

Psychologist Bertram R. Forer (1914-2000) found that people tend to accept vague and general personality descriptions as uniquely applicable to themselves without realizing that the same description could be applied to just about anyone. Consider the following as if it were given to you as an evaluation of your personality:

You have a need for other people to like and admire you, and yet you tend to be critical of yourself. While you have some personality weaknesses you are generally able to compensate for them. You have considerable unused capacity that you have not turned to your advantage. Disciplined and self-controlled on the outside, you tend to be worrisome and insecure on the inside. At times you have serious doubts as to whether you have made the right decision or done the right thing. You prefer a certain amount of change and variety and become dissatisfied when hemmed in by restrictions and limitations. You also pride yourself as an independent thinker; and do not accept others' statements without satisfactory proof. But you have found it unwise to be too frank in revealing yourself to others. At times you are extroverted, affable, and sociable, while at other times you are introverted, wary, and reserved. Some of your aspirations tend to be rather unrealistic.

Forer gave a personality test to his students, ignored their answers, and gave each student the above evaluation. He asked them to evaluate the evaluation from 0 to 5, with 5 meaning the recipient felt the evaluation was an excellent assessment and 4 meaning the assessment was good. The class average evaluation was 4.26. That was in 1948. The test has been repeated hundreds of time with psychology students and the average is still around 4.2 out of 5, or 84% accurate. In short, Forer convinced people he could successfully read their character. His accuracy amazed his subjects, though his personality analysis was taken from a newsstand astrology column and was presented to people without regard to their sun sign.


Want to see a short 1:35 second video of this in effect? It's awesome:





Astrological readings are always vague and present common characteristics.

Think about it. What about the fucking assholes in the world? The serial killers, psychopaths, sociopaths, rude, bitchy, annoying, etc people. Where are their readings? You ever see a reading that said ''You will be a fucking prick today?”' NO! They present ideas that people are likely to agree with, because we all like to think of ourselves as being ''At times you are extroverted, affable, and sociable, while at other times you are introverted, wary, and reserved.''

Confirmation Bias

Confirmation bias is the tendency for people to prefer information that confirms their preconceptions or hypotheses, independently of whether they are true. In the context of ''psychic'' and astrological ''readings,'' this describes the tendency for people to remember and place significance on the ''hits'' and to forget the ''misses.'' It has been demonstrated that people will come out of a ''psychic'' reading which had a success rate of that equal to chance (duh) and state that they thought the reading was 80 or 90% accurate. I have seen video footage of this, and in more than one, people even reported things like ''he knew all about my aunt theresa's illness, and I didn't even mention it'' when in reality, they are on video telling the ''psychic'' ''my aunt is sick.''

So you get people hearing a vague reading applicable to anyone, thinking it's really accurate and specific to them, all because they place significance on the things that seemed right, and downplay the ones that are ''off.'' Then, they tend to report a much higher accuracy after the fact than there really was.

Logic

Ah, logic. I love logic. We all should love logic. Astrologers hate logic. Tell me something:

Astrology states that our personalities are determined by celestial positionings at the time of our birth, right? Well then, WHY DO TWINS HAVE DIFFERENT PERSONALITIES? Shouldn't they be exactly the same?

Here's a hint: YES, they should be, and NO THEY ARE FUCKING NOT!

Why, in that video I posted above, did a room full of people with completely varied ''signs'' all agree that the reading they got described them, when they ALL GOT THE SAME MOTHERFUCKING READING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

AAAAAAARRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

How many times does science have to disprove bullshit before people let it fucking go?

Another one, as I posted above: What about the fucking assholes in the world? The serial killers, psychopaths, sociopaths, rude, bitchy, annoying, etc people. Where are their readings? You ever see a reading that said ''You will be a fucking prick today?”' NO! They present ideas that people are likely to agree with, because we all like to think of ourselves as being ''At times you are extroverted, affable, and sociable, while at other times you are introverted, wary, and reserved.''

So, again, Think abouuuuuuutttt iiiiittttttt!!:

There are tons of assholes in the world, yet NO READINGS for them? So, what, celestial positiongs only determine the personality of nice people? Assholes get their personalities from, like, what? Genetics? Environment? Give me a break. Our personalities come from the fucking sky, man, we all know that!!!!!

Astrology is absolute fucking horseshit. It's bullshit, it's fake, it's a huge money making industry (seriously, famous astrologers make MILLIONS) that takes advantage of people. Astrologers should be in jail for fraud, not making millions. Same with ''psychics'' but that's for another day.

They are propagating pseudoscientific nonsense that has been discredited since we moved to a heliocentric view of the cosmos. In other words, a few hundred fucking years. They are exploiting people, and if you have ever paid for a ''reading'' you should go demand your money back.

The End

Thanks for reading.

Saturday, January 30, 2010

BANNED: First Internet Ban.

I got banned from gametrailers for 3 days, and then, after basically apologizing for my actions, the ban was extended to a week.

.....

....It was extended for a week after you....apolog-?

....




Yes indeed. Before I explain how it was extended, here's the offending post (well, there were several, but this was the catalyst):

(Click to expand/zoom in):



So apparently, you can't call people terrorists on gametrailers. Especially Islamic guys who are in the process of defending Islamic extremist views (yes, he defends, escuses and downplays Islamic extremist viewpoints.

Some example of his behaviour, just from today:

(Click to expand/zoom in):



(Click to expand/zoom in):



They get worse. This guy has some real classics, but I can't be arsed to dig for them now. I did have an exchange with him on this same day though, and can give you one example from that particular discussion (if you can call it that).

It was a discussion regarding the so called end of the world in 2012. This fine gentleman posited that:

no human will ever know the end of the world.

To which i replied:

And you know this, how, exactly? What if there were a huge asteroid headed to earth, and we didn't have the means to avoid catastrophe?

He then said this:

if you think humans will know the exact time of the end of the world, then by all means go ahead im not stopping you.

My response:

We'll be able to predict the suns' demise, won't we?

Him:

predict=guess thats no good. i originally said no human will ever know the endof time, as in, when is it exactly gonna happen. like i said before, by all means go ahead and keep 'predicting' it.

Me:

Predict doesn't have to mean guess. A mathematical prediction is basically fact if it's repeatable and based on solid information. The end of the suns' lifecycle may fall into just such a thing.

Him:

you honestly think scientists will know the exact time of the sun's demise? really? seriously, go ahead man im not stopping you lol

To which I responded:

Earth's fate is precarious. As a red giant, the Sun will have a maximum radius beyond the Earth's current orbit, 250 times the present radius of the Sun. However, by the time it is an asymptotic giant branch star, the Sun will have lost roughly 30% of its present mass due to a stellar wind, so the orbits of the planets will move outward. If it were only for this, Earth would probably be spared, but new research suggests that Earth will be swallowed by the Sun owing to tidal interactions.[87] Even if Earth would escape incineration in the Sun, still all its water will be boiled away and most of its atmosphere would escape into space.

You were saying?

The rest is in this pic:

(Click to expand/zoom in): (read the text from top to bottom, it's a quote pyramid and it may look confusing, but just read it as a standard convo, from top to bottom, starting with him saying ''that's only explaining''....



What a fine speciemnt he is. As you can see, you can't converse with this guy, and everytime Islam comes up, he gets extra irrational. Well, I was tired of dealing with him, and he happened to catch me on a rare bad day, and so I screwed with him.

Anyways, so I get a message saying I have been banned for 3 days. No surprise there. I actually expected a permanent ban. I message the moderator, and this is what goes down:

magx01 said: Totally deserved it. I was being a jackass, but truth be told, I need the break.

I'll resume my normal demeanor once reinstated.


ZippingMeteor said: Your ban from 2010-01-29 has been updated for the following reason: So you think they deserved to be called a terrorist. Now the ban's a week.

magx01 said: What? I said I deserved it!

ME, I deserved the ban.


ZippingMeteor said: You said you were telling the truth when you called him a terrorist.

magx01 said: No, I did not. Show me where.

ZippingMeteor said: Ok, I'll admit that the second part was misread but the first isn't clear. You could have meant either user because you didn't put a topic in the sentence.

Not that it matters. You still broke one of the most serious rules on the site multiple times. Breaking that rule has always resulted in a permanent ban on sight. Even if we don't feel a perma is appropriate, a three day ban is far too kind for breaking that rule even once, let alone multiple times. I'm not making the ban any shorter.


magx01 said: I clearly said I was being a jackass.

You increased the length of the ban due to 2 misreadings on your part. I clearly calle dmyself a jackass, said I needed the break anyways, and promised to resume my normal beahviour upon my return.

Nothing in any of that is me saying anything about him. So I message you to admit fault, you misread it, punish me for apologiazing, and now refuse to revert back to the original ban period? That's not fair.


And he replied back reiterating that the ban extension would stay.

How the fuck is that fair? I mean, it's only a week, and complete jackass/asshole that the guy is, me calling him a terrorist would easily have merited a permanent ban, but that's not what they gave me. Extending it after the fact based on his lack of reading comprehension and then not changing it back is not fair in principle. It's most likely a pride thing.

Ah well. All I can say is

LOL INTERNETS

Thursday, January 28, 2010

When Nonsense Kils

Pseudoscientific nonsense such as Dowsing (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowsing) has been around for ages. It's something that I detest, but never more do I abhor such nonsense as when it actually results in death and bodily harm.

Jim McCormick, based at offices in rural Somerset, UK., has sold $85 million (yes, million) worth of completely fake ''bomb detectors'' to various governments for profit under the guise of offering protection. These ''devices'' are nothing more than glorified dowsing rods, and the ''chips'' inside them were discovered to be useless RFID chips, such as those found on price tags. There were warnings about this fraudster over a decade ago when he was selling these from within the US, mainly coming from the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF) but these went ignored.....

Now that people have been killed by bombs not being detected by this stick with fake technology in it, the UK government has finally stepped in.

The large question here is why are governments buying untested technology from a single person making wild, unsubstantiated claims? This has to stop. Police using ''psyhics'' is bad enough, and now this. When our very governing bodies buy into pseudoscientifc bugaboo with nary a discerning glance, we're either dealing with rampant stupididty and gullibility, amazing greed, or both. Either way, we need to WAKE UP.

Read the story and watch the embedded video to get all of the details.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/8471187.stm

Friday, January 22, 2010

Our Ideas Regarding Sexuality/The Body/Nudity Are Screwed Up

Warning: this blog contains FOUL LANGUAGE.


Still here? Alright, let's rock.

I just saw this picture of a fashionable, unknown (to me), pretty celebrity:


And it raises the question: In a society where nudity is frowned upon, how does putting a little star over your nipples make it okay to walk around with your tits out? Somehow we have decided that breasts should be covered up, but then have arbitrarily determined that it's only the nipples that are the ''offensive'' part? It's the nipples that somehow make the breast a breast?

If that's true, then why can guys walk around without a shirt? Obviously we aren't really ''offended'' by nipples. So if nipples are okay, and clearly, breast tissue surrounding the nipples is okay (that's why media outlets with no nudity policices allow pics like that) then I have to ask....what the fuck? How does that make any sense? Are female nipples somehow ''offensive''? If females walked around in topless bikinis at the beach, would that cause irreperable harm to those who witenssed it?

I also love how on a webistes with nio nudity policies, or in ''no nudity'' magazines, a good ol' girl who ''won't do nudity'' not only has no problem showing off 99% of her breasts (as long as those nipples are covered), but she will show her ass....oh, but she's wearing a thong. Um, that desn't cover the ass, at all. I can clearly see your ass, honey. So I guess asses aren't nudity......?


Good thing that ass is covered. Otherwise I'd have been offended

The whole thing, like so much else in life, is so arbitrary, and really, fucking stupid. I don't know how it was determined that our bodies are evil/dirty/sinful whatever, but it's ridiculous. It leads to stories like the one where that guy was arrested for making coffee naked in his own house,

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/6406630/Man-arrested-for-making-coffee-in-own-home-while-naked.html

because some woman was walking by with her little son and they looked in his window and saw him. OH NOES! A PENIS!! Guess what, sister? YOUR SON HAS A PENIS. Penises are not offensive. They are only shocking because we randomly said they are. If no one made a big deal out of it from the start, there would be no issue. Seeing a penis should not be a traumatic experience.

Funny thing is, she probably wouldn't have batted an eye if they walked by a male dog. Somehow, it's not dog penises that are the problem, just human ones. Unless this nutcase would have tried to get the dog arrested as well, who knows. Fucking soccer moms.

My mother in law exemplifies this. It's natural for babies to touch their genatalia. Well, when my daughter does it, my wife and I don't bat an eye. But my mother in law immediately moves her hand and scolds her (a ten month old baby). I haven't said anything yet, because I haven't seen it (my wife told me about it the other day) but when/if I do see it, I will make a point to nicely tell her that there is nothing wrong with it, and see if she tries to defend her position. I can't see her arguing anything other than ''it's just not nice.'' ''It's not proper for a lady.''

SAYS FUCKING WHO? If we ALL do it, maybe you should just shut up and accept it's normal, rather than punish people for not meeting some false, arbitrarily imposed bullshit standard.