text:
Science is based on faith?
Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NEXT
So you don't believe in situations where it is impossible to tell for sure what happened somewhere but do have evidence that suggests one thing?
When it comes to atheism vs theism, theism can be disproven purely by logic. As for science, yup it's never 100% but it is the best model we have.
Before we start, let me try to put this in front:
Believing something you have no reason to believe even in face of conflicting evidence is an act of faith.
I consider "faith" to be active, not passive, and I suspect that's where most of our differences come from.
This will come up a few times in this post.
I don't know. If it ever comes up, I'll deal with it, but right now, I see no reason to, I have a bit of an aversion for "what if" hypotheticals. I don't think much would change in my life, though. I'd likely read up some stuff and try to see where they're coming from...and then, it would depend on those specific arguments what my ultimate reaction would be.
There's something to be said for the usefulness of statements that cannot be proved or disproved, namely that they're useless because they don't serve to further our understanding in any way. Yes, they can be an interesting exercise for thought, but ultimately they are not something a scientist should be dealing with.
Our understanding is built within a certain model. We do not claim this model to be universally right, but so far it does fit our observation. We don't use it because we'd have "faith" in it, we use it because, so far, it has been a helpful tool. It goes like that with every tool. You don't use it out of "faith", you use it because it works.
Yes, you have to assume those things are true. But an assumption is not the same as "faith". And well, within our model of understanding, those things are true, because the model was built by basically defining those things to be true. Again, not because of "faith" but because you have to start somewhere and this happens to be where we started.
Now if something extraordinary happens to shatter the basic premises of our understanding (which has happened before), we'll adjust.
So far, so good.
I accepted that there's no 100% certainty in our model of the universe, not even (especially not) on the quantum level. But keeping on with something that has shown internal consistency up to this point and being reasonably convinced that it will keep being consistent in the future is not acting out of faith, but simply experience. YOu don't even give it a second thought.
When you were writing your response, did you have faith for each and every key you pushed was still going to be there the next time you push it - devoting a part of your thought process to "The A is still going to be there. The H is still going to be there."? Or did you simply not even pay it any mind at all - as I stated at the very start, a willing ommission of consideration?
1) Observation can be passive or active. If you're just watching what's happening without any other motivation, it's passive. But if you set up an experiment and have a vested interest in the result, it's active, because there's a conscious force driving it.
3) When making a prediction, you don't say "this will happen", you say "we can be reasonably sure this will happen...and if it doesn't, we're going to have to do a lot more science". A prediction is not a foregone conclusion, it's not a factual statement of what will happen, but rather a statement of what you're expecting to happen.
Thank you too. I've had a few things to consider myself. See you, I suppose. Was a nice discussion, one of the better ones.
It does look like that's the source of the differences, doesn't it? Because, looking at your phrases above, I'm guessing that you would also write "Believing something that you have reason to believe is not faith so much as a natural conclusion.", whereas I'd call it a justified faith.
True. Good point in fact - I had been getting the two a bit mixed up. I would, however, say that acting upon an assumption requires some faith (here making a distinction between testing an assumption and acting on an assumption).
Heh. Funny story. I spilt apple juice on my (new) laptop only about a month ago, so no, I don't have complete faith in my keyboard :P
Yup. Cheers.
How so? I'll agree that certain god-concepts can be refuted using logic, but all of them?
Not directed at me, but no, such situations don't truly exist. Falsifiability does not refer to whether proof one way or another will be found, it refers to the need for there to be definitive conditions that could disprove the idea. "'Colonel Mustard' is guilty of murdering 'Mr. Body'" is a falsifiable statement because there exist conditions that could disprove the idea, such as Colonel Mustard not being in the same state as Mr. Body at the time of his murder, for example. Unfalsifiability doesn't even refer to overwhelming evidence that removes doubt. It refers to the lack of a 'lose' condition. At the risk of oversimplifying it, you could compare the concepts of falsifiability to the following coin toss conditions.
"Heads I win, Tails you win" <--Roughly analagous to a falsifiable statement by virtue of the presence of win/lose conditions for both parties.
Again though, that's an oversimplification, and I sincerely hope nobody took that to imply a need for a specific set of odds. To be a bit more blunt, let me just go ahead and quote the above link: "That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, it means that if the statement were false, then its falsehood could be demonstrated."
To this end, an 'unfalsifiable court case' would (rightly) get thrown out, as even the hypothetical existence of evidence contradicting the conclusion would be impossible. To be unfalsifiable it would have to be beyond "He shot her in front of a dozen witnesses, an act that was caught on the security camera. We also have a ballistic match on his gun and the gunpowder residue on the both of them is a perfect match" and into the realm of "The jury is to disregard the fact that the accused wasn't even born by the time of the crime. That is irrelevant to the charges against him". For a case to be unfalsifiable there has to be no possible way to even hypothetically demonstrate that the charges are false. It's the fact that that there are definitive win/lose criteria that is important.
I like this. My definition of faith, TRUE faith, in the sense that I take it is to believe in something that is totally unfalsifiable. The axioms of science can be disproven, if you were to find an exception to causality or any other axiom it would be shown to be false. Science at no point asks or needs you to assume anything that cannot be proven false. "I exist" is the minimum. Thats why i dont believe it requires you to have faith in the conventional sense. All other world faiths require belief in the unfalsifiable, its my definition of faith and religion and if anyone can think of an exception im interested.
Since everything has already been said over and over and over again, I'd like only to add:
"This thread makes me sad."
Thread is amazingly mature for the Escapist. Just one thing that keeps sticking out at me from a lot of responses
Is like saying "All white people suck at basketball", it may well be that a majority of religions/religious people deny evidence to preserve belief, but saying that all do is a gross generalisation. It doesn't help either that the core belief of almost all religions is completely un-empirical to begin with, so the question of evidence is moot. If you actually read any texts by classical philosophers and early religious writers, you'll find that they ask a lot of questions of their faith, usually in Aristotle's "pre-scientific" method style, and a lot of them challenge readers to change up their own beliefs, and have had major impacts on the development of their religion to this day (see: Augustine, Luther, Calvin, etc.).
It always does irk me when someone starts deriding religion when they actually mean "Christianity", yes it's the most widespread religion out there, but it's not actually a representative of all religions out there.
I'm a Muslim and Islam in general doesn't really have any issues with science, it actually endorses it most of the time, so when someone takes a "one or the other" approach on Science and religion I just have to sigh at the narrow-minded view that is usually taken with this discussion.
So the idea that science and faith are intertwined is not that alien to me, since I'm used to the fact that it these two concepts are not mutually exclusive.
Science is the best guess.
What is the most likely in what ever given situation we have.
We have to take some things on faith. Do we believe our eyes? Can we really rely on our senses to truly see reality, even though we know they can be fooled? Do we accept the words in books, told to us by people we don't know, who might be wrong, lying, or might not exist at all?
Seeing is believing.
Science has some basis in faith.
We don't have faith in science. We believe in it. Because it gets us results. Religion does not, so it requires faith.
This. Falsifiable means capable of being proved false. As in, there is no possible situation in which i can truly and definitely prove or disprove god or the spaghetti monster. Just because there isn't enough evidence doesn't mean there is no possible situation in which a criminal act can be proven
Honestly, I'm less interested in is science based on faith, but rather the cultural reaction. While I can't speak of the monotheists, I find it interesting that in-group out-group behaviour has emerged among atheists. The main part being the defensiveness among atheists where they proclaim "NO! WE DON'T HAVE FAITH! WE KNOW THE TRUTH!", because to them to have faith is a disgusting force only used by religious people. If you don't have faith in anything, and I mean nothing at all, then people tend to lead rather bleak lives. While the fountain of knowledge is soothing yet so cold, you can't consume enough to know everything.
That's where faith enters the picture. I use faith, as I believe biology may become the dominant force in psychology. That I believe human beings are calculable forces with predictive behaviours based on a series of events before that day. That I believe that maybe if you project enough information into people, the world will improve. I have no way of knowing with absolute certainty that this is the case. With an increase of knowledge, we may resort to a more horrid state with absolute black-and-white answers with no considering ethics and morals. Human beings may actually be incalculable and there may be some things that just happen out of random chance. Biology may not work in psychology as previously hoped due to the infeasibility of trying to biologically analyse each person for corrections, that something more soft such as social psychology may be able to do a better performance, or as good performance but cheaper or faster. I hold faith this may be the case. I have evidence to prove my case, but evidence doesn't mean factual since it's borderline impossible to pick up all the evidence of what may be or what will be, just because of the amount of evidence out there.
Faith isn't an explaining force, it's a motivational tool. It's something to help lead and direct you as you embark on journeys in life with the idea of "yes, I believe this will end well". Faith without science is meaningless babbling that will lead to a nation of blissful ignorance with problems patched up with duct tape rather than the root cause fixed; while science without faith is a monotonous iron cage, one described by Max Weber, as you find out things for no discernible reason. Without faith, science would not exist for there would be no reason to discover. There would be no reason to seek the truth in everything around us: The universe, humanity and everything else around us. There would be no reason to push on, with the belief that maybe through all of this something better, something more beautiful, can be forged.
Let's discover, for I have faith we can create something better. A scientific world without faith is something I can not bare to imagine, one filled with coldness, apathy and unethical behaviour.
I am not attempting to 'burn' you. That's what you are attempting. What i am doing is refusing to expand this already sprawling discussion to a topic you have so far shown to know nothing about.
I tell you how i would respond to a hellenistic neopagan ( i assume you meant that), you don't believe me. I tell you i'm not christian, you don't believe me. Do you see how it is difficult to discuss things with someone who insists every assertion you make about yourself is lying?
None of this is at all relevant to the discussion, and it's clear you're being obtuse about it, so i'm going to limit the discussion to the actual subject. If you want to burn something i suggest you get a match and some lighter fluid.
Don't play with fire kids.
Now we are getting somewhere. The difference is which side you start from. You start by reading the untrue passages, and say 'hey, this book is full of nonsense, and the first part is pretty hateful, clearly the spirituality/morality behind it isn't any good'. Someone else might start from the other end, saying 'hey, all this stuff about loving your fellow man and turning the other cheek is pretty good, i guess that's more important to me than the silly bronze age biology/physics stuff. It depends on your mindset and what you're trying to get out of it.
To your eyes, as a (presumably) atheistic person who believes all religion is evil, it does look pretty obvious. But to a religious person, it might seem equally obvious there is something more than just the physical world. When you start from such different perspectives, it's no wonder you're goint to be baffled by the believer's ability to reinterpret or ignore part of the book.
To be honest, they're right, but we're using two very different definitions to the word "faith". General faith is something everyone has, including science, we're a pattern-recognizing species which will see evidence of certain events or facets of our lives and we will be mostly sure that it'll happen in the same way again, like the hypothetical model that pizza is tasty, or the idea that kittens are fluffy.
These are models based upon evidence we've gathered through experimentation, everyone here has probably eaten a pizza or seen a kitten (but I can't be sure about that), and for those of us that have stroked something fluffy will have the evidence that it would also apply to kittens, the same way that if anyone has eaten something with the basic make-up of a pizza (dough, sauce, cheese, etc.) will have evidence that most pizzas taste nice.
Are all kittens fluffy or are all pizzas tasty? No, obviously there's bad pizzas out there and bald kittens, but the hypothesis of fluffy kittens and tasty pizzas is a fairly sound one built upon evidence that can be gathered from various sources (sauces?) and collated to form a basic hypothesis. Yes, there's some "faith" in there where you expect that it would be mostly true, but then again you might run into a bald kitten pizza (which would be horrible). Some things we just can't be sure of.
General faith is something we just deal with, but science deals with it a lot less because of the rigorous procedures in the scientific method to eliminate as much error as possible, so even though my fluffy kitten and tasty pizza hypothesis can be off by a factor of at least 60%, science will try its damndest to get as close to that 100% as possible with the technology we currently have.
Religious faith, on the other hand, is something entirely different. Religious faith is always 100% sure, always infallible and always perfect, just and (most of all) right -even when it's wrong-. Religious faith requires no evidence and requires no experimentation, there's no need for multiple sources and there's no need for anyone to check their data. You just "know" that this is how things are because an authority figure told you so and questioning the wisdom of that authority figure can (and sadly, will) be met with extreme punishment in either the threat of suffering or actual suffering and execution.
Science allows me to be happily welcoming to anyone willing to prove my hypothesis wrong with pictures of bald kittens and disgusting pizzas. I won't be mad, in fact, I'll be delighted that you've brought me new evidence to correct my model. However if I were in the religion of fluffy kittens and tasty pizzas, I would have you all thrown into the Olive Pits where you shall never know the loving softness of the Paradise kittens nor be able to feast on the Holy Pizza in the sky.
Now, please excuse me while I untangle myself from this very drawn-out mixed-metaphor.
Well, you choose what side to "believe" in then, the side that can explain something to 99.999999% or the side that thinks the sun revolves around the earth. The simple truth is that the religious side does not offer any fact at all, just some references to a old dusty book compiled by someone high on fermented fruit parts 1000's of years ago.
...Both of those things can be proven. One of them WAS. And it's perfectly possible someone will come up with solid undeniable evidence for the other one.
I was specifically referring to things that CAN'T be proven. Like "there's an omnipotent space deity that can't be observed in any way and doesn't influence things in any way that can be observed (but apparently loves you)".
Seriously, can this die?
if you want this described well: read Carl Sagan's Demon Haunted World
Science is based on observations
I'm not convinced there's a difference- or at least, that you know there to be a difference.
Proving Chomsky's universal grammar undeniably requires technology that doesn't exist yet- technology that may never exist. Ultimately to prove that all humans are born with linguistic grammar inherently stored in our brains and that all learned natural languages are variations on that grammar, you would need a device that can look inside a human brain, identify the entire structure, identify every thought stored in that structure, and then organize that information into a comprehensible output. This may be impossible.
Likewise, it may be possible to prove the existence of deities. Perhaps some theoretical astrophysicist will one day identify a way to spot when causality ceases (thereby proving an omnipotent force exists). Perhaps it will have something to do with alternate dimensions or dark energy. It strains credibility to propose that one knows with absolute certainty that humans can one day build a machine that can perfectly map all of the information stored in the human brain but can't achieve these other technological wonders. And that leaves aside the possibility that a god might one day choose to reveal themself to humanity.
You're making the same error that crops up time and time again in these discussions- you're deciding what is true or not by what you subjectively think is likely. And that's not very scientific.
But in any case, my point stands- things that can't presently be proven are not assumed not to exist. Science is built on claims that can't be proven. That's what a theory is in the first place, a thing that can't be proven. Take the theory of evolution for example: While we have observed evolution in laboratories with fast-reproducing species, we do not have any proof that evolution is the reason for diversity of life on Earth. We've got lots of supporting evidence, we've got no reason to believe anything else caused it, but we've got no proof. And we probably never will have proof, at least not until someone develops a time machine and sends a probe back to the earliest days of the planet and takes genetic samples of every species that evolves over time. But evolution isn't assumed to not exist- on the contrary, at this point in time you'd have to be mad not to believe it without strong counter evidence.
What? No. Come on, people.
Ya'll are letting various colloquial uses of "believe" "faith" "guess" etc drive this discussion.
The bottom line is, you can take a scientific truth on faith if you're lazy and you trust scientists. But the important thing to realize is that you don't have to take any scientific claim on faith. The whole point of science is that you can go out and look up the research, read the paper, shoot the scientists an email if you want (they actually respond sometimes, I swear, especially if you sound honestly interested in their work), or, you could in theory do the science yourself to verify the results.
Might be a little hard, in practice, to do the science yourself if you don't have access to, say, the Large Hadron Collider, but that isn't the point.
Regardless, you don't even have an option to verify a claim when it comes to a truly "faith" based one. We can't call up God and ask him about the problem of evil, nor can we recreate his methods to see whether or Jesus was begotten of the Father. We can't test whether or not Mohammed saw an angel in a cave. There's no way to observe what, if anything, exists beyond death and whether or not their is a system of reward based on our behavior while living. Etc, etc, etc.
Science itself is not based on faith. One's acceptance of scientific truths may or may not be based on faith.
So I suppose this didn't deserve a reply...
I think that not just science (which was at one time called natural philosophy) but everything we deal with in life requires a type of faith. That faith is the core of both philosophy and science it could be loosely called "What we take as a given." It is an interface through which we evaluate our world.
Some faith is supported by a strong foundation, has the ability to have its suppositions repeated, and derives its value from what is observable. There is still a faith that the methods are sound, that the results of experimentation can effectively support or disprove a hypothesis, and that the previous data leading to experiment can be seen as true. You can't proceed with calculus if you don't take some of the principles of number theory and mathematical logic as a given. Those who find truth in science take issue with the word faith because to them it implies a religious connotation or believe the word would shake the credibility of the scientific method. What I mean by faith are the thousands of "mental shortcuts" we take everyday so that we are not constantly examining every facet of life to determine its veracity. We just bridge the gap and carry on with our lives, content that these shortcuts tell us broadly and minutely how the world works. These certainties give us confidence and allow us to build amazing supposition upon amazing supposition so that we strive higher and discover more.
Other types of faith deal with the indescribable and the undefined. They don't have a solid foundation. They're much more subjective: they vary greatly between people. Often these take the shape of religions, but the same can be said of the various branches of philosophy and even parts of psychology. They leave large swathes of grey area and they can be wrong or contradictory dependent on the person looking at them. What someone takes on faith here represents a much deeper gap between that which can be proven but it addresses an entirely different part of our psyche. It addresses why the world works, or who made it work, if there was a who. There's an emotional need to be satisfied in this faith and the answer is often described as sustaining.
The problem is that those inclined to a rigid structure of determining truth are uncomfortable with those uncertainties and find that a system for removing them is preferable to one with them all left in. Someone oppositely inclined would believe that their certainty stems from a personal choice; it doesn't have to proven, but that they choose to believe it is true. They may not even realize this, or would claim that there is an in inherent truth in what they believe, but it fundamentally is the same. Both would resist someone mandating which system they had to believe in if it was not the one they chose or in one that denies their truth.
This is just a very long-winded way of saying that people won't agree on this issue; they've been arguing this for thousands of years to one extent or another. I would humbly suggest that it's better to appreciate and respect those differences and not view those with different views as either ignorant fools or dangerous heretics. There's no reason to engage in brinkmanship; it causes greater division and more uncivil conversation.
God as an omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent god can be disproven by philosophy, and any faith based on circular logic can be disproven by logic. Prime example is believing in God because the bible says that God exists, and since it was written by God it must be true.
In the end does it matter whether or not there's really a god when believing in it gives so many people faith, hope, and happiness that they otherwise wouldn't have? And yes, you can say that faith has brought about a lot of death, I would argue with you but that doesn't matter, the fact is so has science. In fact, science has more responsibility for death than faith does, but both have benefits that outweigh the risks. So no, it doesn't matter, but it's an interesting experiment in thinking.
This particular argument has a long history.
It goes back to Plato's Cave and probably further. Basically, you cannot know if you are experiencing "reality" or not. Everything you know might just be someone Joshing you with shadows on a cave wall. This is the core of why you can prove to yourself that you exist with the "I Think Therefore I Am" logic, but that does not extend to anything outside of yourself.
This is the core of the debate in Science of Realism vs Instrumentalism. These are both scientific philosophies. Instrumentalist believe that what we call "reality" is only the byproduct of our instruments measurements, and that "reality" could be radically different then what our instruments lead us to believe. Realists, who made great gains after Newton, believe that the measurements are reflective of reality. That is why they are called Realists.
Science became fixated on realism for a long time. All the way up to Albert Einstein. Then with Quantum Physics we've be able to show that our Instruments do change reality so they aren't capable of giving us "real" results of what reality is without them. From there Instumentalism has been making gains in the scientific community.
The only thing separating the two groups, Realist and Instrumentalist, is Faith. You ether have faith that you are experiencing reality, or you have doubt that you are experiencing reality.
David Hume attempted to expand on this philosophy, and claim that the self doesn't even exist. Most people stop with the argument of Plato's Cave because arguing that you don't exist comes accost as nonsensical.
Solipsism is not an inherently incorrect worldview though. The problem with it is that it is plausible (but unprovable either way), but accepting it renders meaningful discussion about the nature of reality impossible.
Once you start to question whether there is even such a thing as a 'reality' that has a consistent, testable set of rules, then taking that to it's logical conclusion would mean it's pointless trying to figure anything at all out about the world because it could all change without warning.
This does incidentally point to the basic assumption necessary for science to be useful though. If there is any truth to the notion that science is in any way based on 'faith', then it would be that it requires that there exists something which has consistent, predictable properties which can be measured reliably.
What use would science be if it could not make predictions after all, because the 'reality' it was describing kept changing?
It doesn't matter what the system is, as long as it has some consistency to it. You could still use the scientific method on something which would otherwise be termed 'magic', as long as it has consistent rules. But it's difficult to do anything meaningful in a scientific sense with something that does not appear to obey any rules whatsoever.
(Consider for instance a hypothetical case of telekinesis being possible, but only if all the people observing it believe it to be possible. That has predictable rules, but it also induces a situation in which disbelief would alter the results of an experiment. It would be challenging indeed to set up an experiment where the results depended on whether the experimenter believed an outcome was possible or not, but it still has enough of a logical basis that if something like this were the case, it could probably be studied scientifically - admittedly though, not without difficulty since you'd have to control for the beliefs of everyone taking part in the research, which would be the worst imaginable form of headache.)
Ah, never mind. The examples needed to point out the assumptions necessary for science to be invalid are very contrived.
For that matter, you don't need 'faith' in the sense that you NEED to believe in something for it to work.
But there is no belief inherently involved with a mathematical axiom. Merely the acceptance that what is derived from one cannot be correct without it being true.
It may be worth pointing out though that while science doesn't require faith in the religions sense, many of the things I've heard said by various scientists can be interpreted as 'faith' in something to do with science.
There is nothing implicit about either reality or the scientific study of it that would require it to be 'simple'. So holding the belief that this should be the case is a form of 'faith', even if the science itself is not. (ignoring the wider definition of 'faith' being thrown about so far.)
I consider Occam's razor to be largely a statement of faith when you think about it... But that's neither here nor there.
It really isn't though. Occam's Razor doesn't actually make a statement on validity. What it does is codify a rule of thumb, saying that "if two hypothesis are equal in all other respects, the one that makes the least number of assumptions is to be preferred". That's not so much faith based as it is simply logical.
The big problem I have with their videos is frankly that they never defined faith. If you want to have this conversation with a word as badly defined as faith (spirituality is another one) then you have to start by very clearly defining what you are talking about.
The sun revolves around the sun? Methinks you're straw-man puppetteering too much here, my friend.
You can't "disprove" something with pure logic, since it would boil down to simple conjecture, again, if you want to disprove something you have to use evidence, and since you don't have the capacity or resources to observe god, you technically cannot disprove his/her/its existence, but by that same logic you can't prove it either, hence where the "faith" comes in.
And the example of the bible is sorta moot, that's just one out of many religions that have more solid texts at their disposal, like I mentioned before, Islam doesn't really conflict with scientific facts all that much.
What matters is how much evidence there is for them, not whether they can be proven or not. No evidence? Dismiss it until there is. But just because of a lack of certainty that doesn't mean evidence can't suggest something to most likely be true.
I'd say the only thing about science that resembles faith is that the layman generally takes on faith what the scientists tell him is the truth. Yes, the evidence and arguments are there for him to study, and he might have read the simplified version provided to the public, but it is rare that anyone other than a professional in the relevant field will have studied ALL the evidence and considered ALL the classical arguments and modern troubles.
It goes the same for evolution. I know the basic idea: successive generations of an animal adapt to better fit their ecological niche, because genetic mutations cause minor changes in offspring, and those offspring who lucked out and were born with impractical changes die and leave the gene pool, whilst those who turned out to have a useful change would survive to pass on that useful mutation to its offspring. Basically, nature likes to shuffle things around and go with whatever sticks.
That's all I understand. Really. I haven't read Darwin's books, nor studied any fossils or read the mountains of literature arguing the case for evolution. To do that, I'd have to go to college for four years before I could confidently say "yes, evolution IS the truth". I just accept it on faith because the simple summary I wrote above kinda makes sense.
I think a lot of religious types go through a similar process. Contrary to popular conception, they don't accept religious dogmas blindly. They think those things through a lot and sometimes develop very elaborate rationalizations to reconcile belief with reality. Like me, they've probably never studied the Bible in any considerable depth; they just watch Christian cartoons or listened to their preacher interpret choice passage (Penn Jilette once suggested that anyone who read the Bible cover-to-cover would become an atheist, but I'm skeptical of that claim).
Science isn't based on faith it is based on probability which is the opposite of faith. Science takes an observation and a possible cause and then tries to disprove that cause. If the experiment cannot disprove the cause it is considered more probable. This continues until it is disproved in which case the assumed cause or hypothesis is thrown out or revised, or the probability reaches a point where it is likely enough to be true that other assumptions can be based off it.
Faith is the assumption of truth regardless of probability. In fact, faith is said to be stronger the LESS likely something is to be true. Also, unlike science and probability, faith does not deal in likelihoods but in absolutes. Science never claims absolute truth just the likelihood truth. Sure the probability can be as high as 99.999999999999% but never 100%. Faith in something is to accept it as 100% true regardless of evidence.
Sure, some scientists will hold on to certain assumptions even when disproved, but this is bad science fueled by the fear of having ones life work thrown to the wind. Now look at a man of the cloth who sees excessive amounts of proof of the likely hood evolution. If he were to hold onto his beliefs regardless he would be said to be keeping faith it is only when he assumes doubt, which would be what anyone using probability based beliefs would do, that he is said to have lost faith. In other words, acts of faith run directly counter to science when put under duress. Further probability is based on evidence while the faith requires no evidence and actually may fly in the face of it, indeed will be said to be stronger as a result. Probability also claims no absolutes while faith only deals in such. Since science, modern science at any rate, is based in probability science is the exact opposite of faith.
|Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NEXT


text:
Have you visited Dr. Purushottam Garg? Rate you experience below.
Family Practice Physicians in Pace, FLContact Dr. Garg
Dr. Purushottam Garg specializes in family practice, general surgery in Pace, Florida.
Dr. Purushottam Garg has been compared 191 times. Details of Dr. Garg's experience as an MD, his hospital affiliation and education at Meerut University are available on your free doctor report.
Dr. Purushottam Garg identified specializing in Family Practice and General Surgery.
He is certified in Family Practice.
A hospital affiliation covers any doctor who has an affiliation, association or admitting privilege with a hospital. A doctor's particular affiliation to a specific hospital can translate to the overall quality of that provider.
Dr. Garg is affiliated with 1 hospital:
Dr. Garg attended medical school at Meerut University L.L.R.M. Medical College .
While there is no proven correlation between the quality of one's educational institution and the quality of one's professional competence, it is often an indicator. Medical schools have various levels of selectivity (some are harder to get into than others), and both the quality of their clinical training and level of research are measured. Additional medical training in both residency and fellowships and the facilities they are conducted at also provide a history of the doctors' level of training and experience.
Patients may also know Dr. Purushottam Garg MD as:
3754 Highway 90, Suite 200 Pace, FL 32571
3521 Limbaugh Ln, Pace, FL 32571
3754 Highway 90, Suite 200 Pace, FL 32571
3222 Shrine Rd, Unit A Brunswick, GA 31520
3810 Highway 90, Pace, FL 32571
Are you Dr. Purushottam Garg?
Update your information

subset: commoncrawl


text:
LSU lands on pair of 'best value' lists
With tuition around $5,200 per year for in-state students and $20,500 for out-of-state students, LSU is among 100 public colleges and universities included on Kiplinger's Personal Finance magazine's list of the best values in the country for 2013. LSU, which is ranked No. 90 on the list for value to in-state students and No. 100 for out-of-state students, is the only Louisiana school on the list. The full Kiplinger's rankings can be found here, and the stats specific to LSU are here. Kiplinger's is not the only "best value" list on which LSU has landed recently. LSU is also included on The Princeton Review's list of the 150 "best value" colleges and universities, which includes 75 public schools and 75 private. LSU is also the only school from Louisiana included on the list. You can read more about that list and see the specifics for each school on it here.
comments powered by Disqus
Number of failing schools in EBR doubles
Baton Rouge's 2014 Best Places to Work


text:
"Sometimes things will go incredibly well and then you might find that you need to do the whole thing again. The good news is that, as long as you are prepared to define what you want and take steps towards that, then success is yours for the taking. Be who you want to be, walk where you want to walk, love who you want to love, and make life what you want to make it. Life is too short to wake up with regrets."
Related quotes
"Made of little victories is success. The sky is the limit. Touching the sky only doesn't define your success; the real success story will be if you don't take your feet off the ground, while touching the sky. Success is all in the attitude."
"Only as high as I reach can I grow, only as far as I seek can I go, only as deep as I look can I see, only as much as I dream can I be."
"A person's "Success Mechanism" is actually triggered or activated by goals. For example if a business person has set a goal to enroll one new client each week, his or her commitment to achieving that goal will tend to make him or her work harder, or go the "extra mile" in an effort to meet that commitment."


text:
Product Watch
A look at what's new in the market
Analog Expansion-American Dynamics released its Discover 200 and 600 cameras, mini-dome and bullet models ideal for any analog or hybrid system and which can be retrofitted to existing installations. The 200 Series bullet camera offers Day/Night switching with a built-in IR illuminator; the 600 Series bullet camera features 3x vari-focal IR corrected lens, IR illuminators and an IP66 rated housing.
Cut the Distortion!-Theia Technologies' SL183 1.8 to 3mm varifocal lens provides 77 to 115 degrees undistorted HFOV using patented Linear Optical Technology. The 50mm long, five megapixel, IR-corrected, CS-mount lens fits in most mini-domes and with Easy Zoom capability, once focus is set, minimal refocus is needed post zooming.
VMS Platform Updates-Updates to Verint Systems' Nextiva Video Management Software version 6.2 include a user interface optimized for video visualization and operator efficiency; an ultra-thin Web client for remote viewing; and advanced setup tools to streamline deployment and maintenance.
Alarm Management App-Future Fibre Technologies (FFT) CAMS Mobile is designed to provide instant alarm information from FFT CAMS directly to an Android phone or device. This mobile application displays the GPS location of an intrusion layered onto a satellite image of the protected site.
PoE Debut-The KBC FTLS1 10/100 Ethernet media converter is fully-compliant with the IEEE 802.3at specification and acts as a Power Sourcing Equipment (PSE) providing 25.5W at 48vdc. The unit supports transmission of an Ethernet channel over either one or two multimode or single mode optical fibers.
Radio Communication-Trio ER45e, an Ethernet licensed radio by Control Microsystems (a Schneider Electric company), combines Ethernet and serial ports to suit a broad range of remote devices and RTUs. The ER45e is designed to increase IP communication network reliability and coverage and features ChannelShare data compression, low latency and over-the-air firmware upgrades.
HSPD-12 Hardware/Software Solution-Quintron's AccessNsite access management software platform now supports the "Authenticard" Consortium's Codebench and Mercury Panel-based solution, operating with Farpointe's OSDP-Secure enabled smartcard reader.
Digital Signage Delivery Platform-Premier Mounts' IPM-700 secure wall mounting frame for iPads entirely covers all iPad controls but allows access to the touchscreen. It prevents any unauthorized access and does not obstruct reception to Wi-Fi networks.
- « Previous Page
- 1
- 2
- Next Page »


text:
Mitt Romney's Religious Biography
Part of a series of profiles of the 2012 presidential candidates and their religious beliefs.
Romney Split White Evangelical Voters with Santorum in Tuesday Primaries
In winning the Wisconsin and Maryland GOP presidential primaries on Tuesday, Mitt Romney ran neck-and-neck with Rick Santorum among white born-again/evangelical voters, while Romney was the clear favorite of non-evangelical voters.
Religion and the 2012 Louisiana Republican Primary
In winning the Louisiana GOP presidential primary, Rick Santorum won the majority of votes cast by white evangelical/born-again Christians, people who attend worship services weekly and voters who say it is at least somewhat important to have a candidate who shares their religious beliefs. He also won a clear victory among Catholic voters for the first time this primary season.
Video: Religion in Prisons: Event Webcast
Watch a live webcast from 12:30-1:30 p.m. highlighting the key findings of a new Pew Forum survey of professional prison chaplains. The webcast will feature a presentation by the report's lead researchers as well as additional insights from experts who have worked with the correctional system.
Religion and the 2012 Illinois Republican Primary
In winning the Illinois Republican presidential primary, Mitt Romney continued to draw less support from white born-again/evangelical voters than from non-evangelicals, while Rick Santorum has yet to secure an outright victory among Catholic voters in any state for which data are available.
Mormons and Civic Life
With a Mormon candidate in the race for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination, there has been intense media, academic and public interest in Mormons and their religion. The Pew Forum recently held a roundtable discussion with journalists, scholars and policy experts on some of the latest research on Mormons and their place in American society […]
Faith on the Move
There are an estimated 214 million people who have migrated across international borders as of 2010. Almost half of the migrants are Christians while a little over a quarter of them are Muslims. The vast majority end up immigrating to a relatively few areas — North America, Europe, Australia and the Arab states of the Persian Gulf.
Religion in the Super Tuesday Primaries
Exit polls from Super Tuesday primaries show that Mitt Romney continues to struggle among evangelicals, and Rick Santorum is yet to win among Catholics in any state where exit polling was conducted.
Romney's Wins in GOP Contests Depended on Non-Evangelical Voters
In the caucuses and primaries that Mitt Romney has won so far in the race for the Republican nomination, Romney's wins have come on the strength of his support among non-evangelical voters.
Infographic: Catholics in Mexico and Cuba
This infographic is based on data from the Pew Forum's December 2011 demographic study Global Christianity: A Report on the Size and Distribution of the World's Christian Population.


text:
"I was prescribed the Neocutis Bio-Restorative HydroGel for my acne scars and I IMMEDIATELY saw improvement, my redness and irritation seems to diminish every time I use it. Not only does my skin feel more hydrated and clam, I have also seen improvement in the fine lines around my eyes!"
—Brittany, 24
skinfo® Specialty Skincare Boutique opened in May of 2003 and is located within the City Park Complex in Lincolnshire, Illinois. skinfo® was founded initially as a website (www.skinfo.com) by Amy Forman Taub, MD in 2000. In 2013, skinfo® opened its second location in downtown Glencoe, Illinois.
skinfo® Specialty Skincare Boutique is a unique retail concept featuring professional skincare products not available in traditional retail outlets. The boutique features a wide variety of the newest cosmeceutical products personally selected by Amy Forman Taub, MD to treat acne, aging skin, rosacea, skin discolorations, dry skin, and more. Mineral Makeup consultations and professional brow and lip waxing services are also available. Professional licensed estheticians are on staff to educate and provide individualized skin care and makeup consultation to each client. Whether you are 15 or 70, have normal or problem skin, skinfo® will help educate you on how to achieve beautiful skin.
Sign up to stay in the loop! Receive great skincare info AND exclusive offers.
Sign up to stay in the loop! Receive great
skincare info AND exclusive offers.


text:
Login into your account at the Ahilyyah e-school today!
سيادة المطران سهيل دواني جزيل الاحترام
خارطة مدرسة المطران ومواقع اصطفاف السيارات
لقاء عام مع أهالي الأهلية والمطران والروضة
Appointing Mrs. Dara Al-Madanat as Head of ABKG
School Fees & Books
Celebrating the Diamond Jubilee of ASG & BSA's Graduating Class of 2014
University Counseling Student Information Form
Provides information on the various alumni chapters, school history, updated news and an alumni listing..
The Ahliyyah School for Girls, founded in 1926, is a non-profit IB World school offering the national program, the IBDP since 2000 and is currently a PYP candidate school.
In realization of the strenuous efforts such a mission entails, it has not been sufficient to reap the immediate fruit of our own bearings; rather, we work with more passion to sow new.
Due to its strong belief in the importance of communicating with parents, ASG has formed the Parent-Teacher Association in order to achieve full interaction between the home and the school.
Stay up-to-date with the latest news from Ahilyyah School.


text:
Re: 'Johansson supports Hillary Clinton in 2016' (Metro, Sept. 4)
Who cares what an uninformed Scarlett Johansson thinks! What could be more insulting to the intelligence of women in general than to support Hillary primarily BECAUSE she is a woman — especially given her record of opportunistically turning a blind eye to her own husband's use and abuse of others of her own sex.
Robert Glasser, via email


text:
It's not always easy to find pretty clothes as a curvy lady. Enter the fact that I'm nine-months pregnant, and, well it's darn near impossible. When I tried on my first Rachel Pally dress, the size of my smile nearly split my face in two. It fit. It was comfy. I felt chic—and it had been a minute since I felt *any*, let alone *all* of those things. I'm a big fan of the feel of Pally's fabrics as well as the prints. And since I have a tendency to be a bit eccentric with my dressing style—I can layer on the accessories and make the dresses look however I am feeling that day. I add on chunky necklaces and a turban to feel a bit gyp-set, or I slap on some pink lipstick and pink belt to keep it L.A. chic. The best part is, I know that I will still be rockin' these goodies for years to come, with and without my bump.
Clockwise: Rachel Pally Barret Dress in Strawberry Monsoon, Rachel Pally Hetty Dress in Bamboo, Rachel Pally Sybil Dress in Cantaloupe Giraffe


text:
Online Police Auctions
If you are interested in Police Auctions, you might find some of the links below useful. They are selected lines from the Police & Government Auctions List which are currently available. They show a selection of product lines available from police auctions throughout the UK. To receive a full, up-to-date list, visit the Police & Government Auctions website.
Fatal error: Call to undefined method baseParserClass::baseParserClassWithExtensions() in /home/policein/public_html/includes/FeedForAll_XMLParser.inc.php on line 1495


text:
October 24, 2014
Madison: Senator Tom Reynolds drives from his home in West Allis outside Milwaukee to the Capitol everyday. So he knows a 65 mile an hour speed limit is a joke.
Reynolds said, "65 is an artificially low limit. When I'm on the interstate the vast majority of people are traveling at close to 75 mph."
"I usually set my cruise on 72, and everybody always passes," agrees motorist Kelly Oheron.
That's why Reynolds is proposing a bill that would raise the speed limit on Wisconsin's interstate's to 75.
That has the support of many area drivers. "It's probably a good idea because most people are going 75–80 on the interstate either way," says Ryan Polster.
The bill would cover more than just Interstates 90/94 and 39. Divided highways like 29, 151 and the newly completed highway 12 would also qualify.
The State Patrol has already stated its opposition. "Purely from a safety perspective you're going to have more violence, more crashes, more injuries and certainly more people dying because of it," says Major Daniel Lonsdorf.
"Just because you're raising that doesn't mean driving will be less safe. That is not what statistics are showing," argues Sen. Reynolds.
Major Lonsdorf says most drivers won't set their cruise at 75. "People will slowly creep up from there. We'll have speeds in excess of 80, then 85."
Other drivers disagree. "I think they'd stay around there, right around 80," says Polster.
"I'd say that 80 percent of the people wouldn't go over it," says Mike Engel.
Click Here to access the online Public Inspection File
Viewers with disabilities can get assistance accessing this station's FCC Public Inspection File by contacting the station with the information listed below. Questions or concerns relating to the accessibility of the FCC's online public file system should be directed to the FCC at 888-225-5322, 888-835-5322 (TTY), or firstname.lastname@example.com.


text:
Submit Review
Campground Search
224371 User submitted reviews online!!
Location :
Hawthorne, Nevada
Whiskey Flats RV Park
[ 8/10 ]
Been here many times. It is the best overnight park between Vegas and Reno. Friendly staff, easy access off hwy, long pull-throughs - no need to unhook when towing. Convenient hook ups. Cable available for a few extra $$. One negative - trees are quite small, so little shade.
Woodland, Washington
Columbia Riverfront RV Park
[ 4/10 ]
Been here many times but this will be our last. As stated by many the location is great, right on the Columbia river. Negatives: may need to share a common electrical post if 5th wheel and MH are side by side. Only one 30 and one 50 amp on each post. First come first serve, if you are second you may end up with 30 amp service - poor option if hot and multiple A/C units reqd. But worst of all - guest rules. Quoted from their park rules: "visitor fees are %5 per vehicle or $2.50 per person whichever is greater. Max number of persons per site is 6, registered guests and visitors". So imagine if grandma/grandpa want family of 5 to visit. Sorry that exceeds the 6 max - you've got to be kidding!!! Of course 4 guests are OK if you are willing to pay $10. Again, are you serious!! Next time we will go 20 miles up the road to Kelso.
Lodi, California
Flag City RV Resort
[ 4/10 ]
Agree with last reviewer - this park has gone downhill over the past few years and price continues to increase. Price too high for what you get. Wi-Fi was terrible, personnel in office were of no help when we called to report issues with the service.
Canyonville, Oregon
Seven Feathers RV Park
[ 9/10 ]
We have stayed in this park many times and it is still one on the most beautiful parks in the country, however, it appears that overall maintenance is slipping. Grass areas are showing signs of neglect compared to past visits. Dog run is now large bark chips (was grass) - dog hated it. I would guess money has been used to build the newer rest area and truck parking facilities and taken from the RV park budget. Just my thought.
Redding, California
JGW RV Park
[ 4/10 ]
We have stayed in this park many times over the past few years and it has been a great overnight stop on our trips to/from the Northwest. Will not stay again. Have two dogs and recent dog rule changes are a joke. This park has an off leash dog area. Rules state that dogs MUST only deficate in dog area because "other guests like to watch the beautiful scenery around this lovely park and not watch a dog do its job." This is not a small park: tell me how you tell a dog not to do its duty when you may be walking 2-3 blocks to get to the dog area. Too many other parks are available in this area, will never stay here again.
Fairview, Oregon
Portland Fairview RV Park
[ 5/10 ]
Good points - park is clean, easy access from Hwy, close to shopping (Wal-Mart, Camping World), sites are level. Bad - train & aircraft noise, spaces are a little too narrow, no off leash areas for pets. Stayed twice in past two months - neither time did they honor the site I requested and was promised. When I arrived their attitude was "too bad we can't hold sites". If you can't honor then why promise! Won't stay again.
Canyonville, Oregon
Seven Feathers RV Park
[ 10/10 ]
Great park but things seemed to have slipped a little since our stay last summer. Grounds do not seem as well maintained, free paper no longer available. Still one of the best parks in the Western US.
Copyright © 2000-2013 RVParkReviews.com and CampgroundReviews.com All Rights Reserved
Factory Tours USA
Campground reviews - Campground ratings - RV Park reviews - RV Park ratings
Contact Us
Internet Disclaimer and Terms


text:
Run newer PowerBooks with the lid closed | 29 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
Run newer PowerBooks with the lid closed
I've been doing this for quite a while with my G3/600 iBook (16 VRAM) to no ill-effect; You just need to use your common sense!
I typically place a quarter or some other coin below the end key, and turn the screen brightness to zero (i.e., no backlight) before closing the lid.
I routinely drive around with the closed iBook on the passenger seat of my car with a line-out from the headphone jack to my car's deck. The notebook barely even gets warm.
My iBook has a fan which kicks in when the processor is running far too hot. This happens very rarely it seems, and only when the processor is allowed to run full-tilt, as specified in the Energy Saver system pref panel. For lid-closed, non-processor intensive activities like playing music, I simply set the processor performance to low.
The fan has never come on in my lid-closed operation. As noted above, the left-hand palm rest (where the processor is located) barely even gets warm! Certainily, with a little common sense, you can surmise that this isn't anymore detrimental than resting the notebook on your lap, where no air is allowed to circulate underneath the casing.
Actually, here's another bit of advice if you're using your notebook as an overgrown iPod:
If you carefully place the mouse cursor over the "next track" button in the iTunes window before you close the lid, you can gently press down on the edge opposite the hinge to "click" the mouse button underneath the trackpad. This lets you select the next track in iTunes -- especially useful if you're doing a shuffle-play with the lid closed, and want to skip a song.
Run newer PowerBooks with the lid closed
I think it can't be so wrong to run the PowerBook with the lid closed, as
Run newer PowerBooks with the lid closed
Thanks for this amazing tip. It works great for me (Ibook 800 mhz combo).
From our Sponsor...
Latest Mountain Lion Hints
User Functions
What's New:
HintsNo new hints
Comments last 2 days
Links last 2 weeks
What's New in the Forums?
Hints by Topic
News from Macworld
From Our Sponsors
Copyright © 2014 IDG Consumer & SMB (Privacy Policy) Contact Us
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Visit other IDG sites:
Created this page in 0.13 seconds


text:
Wes Craven & Neve Campbell (Scream, 1996).
(Source: SCREAM)
Wes Craven & Neve Campbell (Scream, 1996).
(Source: SCREAM)
You may encounter many defeats, but you must not be defeated. In fact, it may be necessary to encounter the defeats, so you can know who you are, what you can rise from, how you can still come out of it.
― Maya Angelou
The person who is afraid to risk failure seldom has to face success.
deactivated my fb account. best thing ever. people need to stop assuming they are entitled to come and take a shit on my opinion whenever they feel like it! #idiots #idiotseverywhere
(Source: strawberrycentrefold)
Take action for forests!
(Source: greenpeaceaustp)
(Source: lover-of-sadness)
Wojtek Siudmak - Télépathie
ecowatchorg:P&G to Eliminate Deforestation From Palm Oil Products
And the cold steel restraints shall remind you.


text:
Barclays' Diamond faces grilling in parliament
LONDON (Reuters) - Bob Diamond squares up to critical British MPs on Wednesday, a day after quitting as Barclays' chief executive over the Libor interest rate scandal, potentially dragging the Bank of England, government and rival banks deeper into the affair.
Diamond's testimony to a parliamentary inquiry could prove politically explosive; on Tuesday, Barclays published a 2008 internal memo from him which fellow managers understood to mean that the Bank and government might approve if they manipulated the Libor rate at the height of the banking crisis.
The American banker is scheduled to appear before the cross-party Treasury Select Committee at 2 p.m..
Though his compatriots across the Atlantic will be celebrating a holiday marking their independence from Britain, Diamond said he "looked forward to fulfilling" his appointment with the parliament in London, despite having already resigned.
Barclays' defence tactic of claiming official sanction for manipulating a rate at a time of market crisis drew a sceptical response on Tuesday from the man who was British chancellor at the time. Alistair Darling said he could not imagine the central bank asking Barclays to take such action and said his department would never "suggest wrongdoing like this".
Britain's third-biggest bank was fined nearly half a billion dollars for its part in manipulating a key interest rate, the London Interbank Offered Rate, or Libor, which underpins financial transactions worth an estimated $360 trillion (229.52 trillion pounds).
Diamond is the third senior Barclays official to quit over the affair this week, following fines the bank agreed to pay last week of $453 million to British and U.S. authorities.
Barclays said in its submission that it was "ironic" that there had been such an intense focus on it alone, because the company had been the first to settle with authorities over Libor in the midst of a global investigation of the banking industry.
The Libor scandal comes at a time of increasing anger in Britain against the banks, already widely excoriated for their role in the financial crisis of the past few years.
Politicians and newspapers have seized on the Libor scandal - which exposed macho e-mails between bankers congratulating each other with offers of champagne for helping to fiddle figures - as an example of a culture of wrongdoing in an industry that only stayed afloat with huge taxpayer bailouts.
Libor is a market benchmark published by the British Bankers Association (BBA) based on a survey of what London banks tell its compilers they have to pay to borrow from their peers, in various currencies and for different periods. It is used to price financial contracts around the world, ranging from complex interbank transactions to consumer mortgages and student loans.
In the four years to 2009, when the authorities believe banks were lying about their borrowing costs to influence the Libor benchmark, some customers may have benefited, and others lost out. Some bankers may have manipulated the rate to profit in certain transactions. Much of the focus, however, has been on late 2008, when the Lehman Brothers collapse in the United States pushed global financial markets into crisis.
In that period, high borrowing costs for banks reflected a loss of confidence that managers - and governments - were trying to shore up, creating a temptation for bankers to report lower interest rates to the BBA than they were actually having to pay.
The 2008 memo suggests that Barclays was given implicit encouragement by the deputy governor of the Bank, Paul Tucker, to massage its contributions to setting Libor lower during the peak of the financial crisis to present a better picture of Barclays' financial health.
According to the memo, Tucker told Diamond, then head of Barclays' investment bank, he had received calls about the Libor rate and banks' submission for it from senior government officials. "It did not always need to be the case that we appeared as high as we have recently," Diamond said he had been told in a note to then chief executive of Barclays.
The Bank declined to comment.
Former Chancellor of the Exchequer Darling was sceptical of the Barclays defence: "What Bob Diamond or Barclays appear to be saying is that the Bank (of England) told them to do this," he told Channel Four television.
"I would find it absolutely astonishing that the Bank would ever make such a suggestion and equally I can think of no circumstances that anyone, certainly in the department which I was responsible for - the Treasury - would ever suggest wrongdoing like this," said Darling, whose centre-left Labour party is now in opposition.
Barclays agreement to pay fines last week increased pressure on other banks to cooperate in a probe which could cost the industry billions of dollars.
The Libor figures submitted by banks are compiled by Thomson Reuters, parent company of Reuters, on behalf of the BBA.
(Reporting by Matt Scuffham; Editing by Giles Elgood)
- Tweet this
- Link this
- Share this
- Digg this
- Reprints
Next we want criminal proceedings to start immediately on the grounds of intent to defraud, this is covered by criminal law under the SFO and has nothing to do with the FSA who yet again have proven themselves worthless.
Next a Public enquiry, not the one announced yesterday where a tory public schoolboy, appointed by a tory public schoolboy to investigate tory public schoolboys, in the case of Marcus Agius, well he will walk straight into another job via his Rothschild dynasty wife. I am not inferring any king of 'school tie' requirement for banking jobs, but I am saying it all looks like a fix and after the expenses scandal that is why it must be a Public enquiry.
There should be an international moratorium in barring these executives from ever holding a directorship in any company that has other people's money as share capital in any industry, for the rest of their natural life.
They are free to use their own money to wager.
- Europe won't recognise vote in eastern Ukraine, Merkel tells Putin
- Portugal scrambles jets again to intercept Russian bombers
- Kurdish peshmerga forces enter Syria's Kobani after further air strikes |
- Australia Union wanted to rip up Beale contract - chairman
- Kurdish peshmerga forces enter Syria's Kobani after further air strikes |


text:
Can there be free will in a world where pre-destiny exists?
View Single Post
Anon La Ply
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Cyberspace
Posts: 4,711
Re: Can there be free will in a world where pre-destiny exists?
Originally Posted by
There is no predestination, most things that happen that we cannot understand are disconnected and very little of what happens makes sense or reason.
Once you accept this, everything becomes very clear. No need for silly conspiracy theories, UFOs, Satan vs angles or anything else to explain what happens. As a side benefit, you can become self-determining instead of fatalistic.
You are absolutely certain of this? I don't accept what you say but I don't wear a tin foil hat and only wear devil horns on special occasions (along with cape).
Our knowledge of the greater scheme of things is minuscule. It's possible that humans are in very early stages. If millions of people, along with tech, survive the inevitable major population cull and migrations over the next 100 years imagine what our descendents in a million years time will think of us. Interesting? Quaint? Cute? Childish and irresponsible?
What would they make of our confident statements about the nature of existence made without evidence? Maybe something like our response to early societies worshipping animal spirits.
YouTube channel
Soundcloud stream
Anon La Ply
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Anon La Ply
Find all posts by Anon La Ply


text:
Lady Gaga Fans at US Airways Center
By Melissa Fossum
The Evolution of the Metal Stage Show and the End of...
By Lauren Wise
By New Times
The Story of Kalliope, Phoenix's Extraordinary Party Car
By Amanda Savage
By Jason P. Woodbury
How a Single Tweet Launched A Cloud for Climbing
By Troy Farah
By New Times
Texas' state motto is "Don't mess with Texas." Texas psychobilly rocker Jim Heath (a.k.a. the Reverend Horton Heat) has his own take on it: "Don't mess with a man's hat." At a show in Indianapolis in 1999, a frisky female fan grabbed the hat off Heath's head and promptly received a fiery sermon on the evils of such acts. Wanna make him happy? Give him a whole recording room with nothing but spring reverb (his favorite guitar effect), like ex-Butthole Surfer Paul Leary did when he produced the band's 2000 album Spend a Night in the Box. The Rev loves to talk about his licks, and he's described RHH's early music as an "unholy marriage of Dick Dale, Carl Perkins, Screamin' Jay Hawkins, the Cramps, and Gretsch theatrics." Not much has changed. The band's still a blazing live act, thanks in part to Jimbo Wallace, the Rev's solid, showy upright-bass player.


text:
Another Monday, another campout. After coffee at Rapha, I headed out to Walnut Creek on BART to camp in the hills. I had planned to camp alone, but when I stopped by Camera West to say hi to Dan, who sold me my new Fuji X-Pro1 and rides his Rivendell to work every day, he […]
Tag Archives | hilleberg akto
Camping In The Hills, Tour Chasing
By Daniel on May 16, 2012 in Bikes, Interesting People, Photography, Rides and Events
Monday is for Camping
By Daniel on May 9, 2012 in Bikes, Photography
Yesterday I found this on the street: Scary, because it's the same lock I use. It looks like it was cut with some kind of hydraulic bolt cutter, a very clean cut. Aaron and I got lucky with the weather on our overnight campout Monday. We started at the ferry building where we picked up some […]
An Overnight Bike Camping Kit
By Daniel on April 19, 2012 in Bikes, Featured, Outdoor Gear
I often talk with people who want to go bike camping, but feel intimidated by the amount of gear needed to do so even for one night. The nice thing about going on a short camping trip in good weather is that the gear demands are much less than a 'bike tour' or winter camping […]
Claire's first bike camping trip
By admin on June 29, 2011 in Bikes, Interesting People, Photography
Yesterday my roommate Claire and I braved the summer San Francisco rain to hit the Marin Headlands for a campout.
- Purchasing a Bicycle Direct May 3, 2012
- Claire's first bike camping trip June 29, 2011
- Review: Aaron's Surly Troll with Rohloff Speedhub July 14, 2011
- Guest Post: Ciclismo Cubano August 12, 2012
- Camping In The Hills, Tour Chasing May 16, 2012
- Agony, Mishaps and Bliss on the Colorado Trail September 12, 2013
- New Bunyan Velo Issue and Rivendell Popup Store May 28, 2013
- News From Mountain West April 5, 2013
- Destination Utah! January 28, 2013
- Stein Mini-Cassette Tool January 1, 2013
- Daniel: Hi Chris, when I rode the GDR in 2008,I was on a ...
- Chris: I've had some confusion about what bike you rode ...
- Peter: I purchased a 2010 Motobecane Fantom 29 on clearen...
- Daniel: I don't currently work in a shop, only writing fr...
- Isaiah: Sagely post, Daniel. It's too true that all the b...
Adventure Cycling American Cyclery atlantis Awesomeness Backroads beer bike camping bike touring Bilenky Cycle Works carousel design works Cuba CycleMonkey Cycle Monkey Czech Republic Delhi Featured GoLite Shangri La 5 hilleberg hilleberg akto hunter cycles inglis retrotec Manali to Leh marin headlands montbell Ortlieb Porcelain Rocket Retrotec Inglis Cycles rivendell Rivendell Atlantis Rivendell Bicycle Works Rivendell Bleriot Rohloff Rohloff Speedhub Salsa Cycles Salsa El Mariachi Salsa Mariachi Samuel P Taylor State Park schwalbe marathon extreme snow peak Soma Fabrications Surly Long Haul Trucker Surly Troll Tandem trangia whiskey


text:
Sponsored by Old Navy
It's that time of year where I am yearning for warm weather, a tropical vacation and switching up my wardrobe. Nautical stripes always get me in the mood for a change of season, so today I am hoping if I dress the part the above will come! Keep reading for links!
I really dig stripes year-round now and there are a lot to choose from in stores and online as I write this. This is one way to wear stripes – it's a chic daytime look that can be worn to the office or shopping on a Saturday. I bumped around town in this outfit to head to some meetings and felt fashionable and cute. The drop-waist of the dress is flattering for most body types and it's always good to layer with a casual jacket and of course I elevated the look with some colorful baubles. I threw on some tan booties for comfort and headed on my way. Shop the look below!
Old Navy Striped Drop-Waist Dress // Old Navy Lightweight Tie-Waist Jacket // Balenciaga Giant City Bag, Anthracite // Stella & Dot Elodie Necklace // Rebecca Minkoff Ankle Boots (similar here) // Julie Vos Mondrian Ring // Julie Vos Mondrian Link Bracelet 24K


text:
I'm extremely inspired by nicterhorstsketch I'm trying to give it my own sort of swing. So a second girl in bikini!
I've been craving for summer…
Wauw… I laughed so hard at this, it's too good! It would be considered a crime not to share! ;)
(Source: hudsonchristie, via groeneinkt)
I tried to make a stamp. The first try didn't really work out but I made the best of it.
My easter outfit… Happy Easter everyone! :)
It's been a while since I've actually animated something. Strange for someone who's going to be an animator and is an animation student. I'm happy with how it turned out. It's my very first walkcycle with a character that has more than two legs. Lots of flaws but hey, I'm still learning.
My inspiration was a music video by Chef's Special - In your Arms. That features this armadillo and I loved it. I found the picture in the background on Flickr.com, it was shot by: Moyan Brenn.
I was bored, so I drew some of my favourite characters. Do you recognize them?
Both characters in their background designed by Coco Ouwerkerk.
This one is all mine! :D It's the other main character for that school project I was talking about.
Modelsheet for an animation character from a schoolproject. Credits for character design go to Coco Ouwerkerk. I just did the coloring for this one!


text:
Since Adam Silver announced that the NBA would force ownership out of the hands of Donald Sterling, potential owners have been lining up throwing their hat into a bucket, hoping they can profit off of one racist owners misfortunes. Obviously if you're looking to purchase a high-profile professional team, you're going to have to cough up some dough, but now we may have a starting price on the sale thanks to Grantland's Bill Simmons.
Hearing the basement for a Clippers offer now starts at 1.8 billion. There is no way they go for less than 2b if it becomes an auction.
— Bill Simmons (@BillSimmons) May 26, 2014
There's no guarantee Simmons' projection is true, but let's just act like it is.
The Sacramento Kings, ranked 16th on Forbes NBA Team evaluation list. sold for $534 million, a then-record for the highest sale of a team in the league's history. The Milwaukee Bucks, ranked 30th on Forbes NBA Team evaluation list, would topple the Kings' record sell, being moved for $550 million, 35 percent higher than the $405 million Forbes had the franchise ranked at. The Los Angeles Clippers are valued at $575 million by Forbes, the 13th highest on the list.
If we just multiplied the Forbes evaluation number for Los Angeles by how percentage increase made in the Bucks sale, a 35 percent-ish increase, that'd mean the Clippers would sale for around $776 million, almost a billion off of Simmons' projection.
Regardless of what the beginning and final price will be, the Clippers are going to sale for a lot of money, especially compared to the $12 million Donald Sterling paid to originally own the club in 1981. He's going to benefit from a major surplus when the league forces him to sell the team, but it'll come at the price of losing one of his most prized possessions.
And everyone in the world is fine with that.
Tags: Bill Simmons Donald Sterling Grantland Los Angeles Clippers NBA


text:
All Items > Knives > Fixed Blade Knives > Fixed Knife by Brand > Boker (Fixed)
Boker Magnum Ceramic Backpack Ceramic Fixed Blade Knife - Ceramic Plain
- Overall Length: 7.50"
- Blade Length: 3.125"
- Blade Material: Ceramic
- Blade Style: Spear
- Blade Grind: Flat
- Blade Finish: White
- Edge Type: Plain
- Handle Material: Polypropylene
- Handle Color: Black
- Weight: 1.20 oz.
- Sheath: Polypropylene
- Knife Type: Fixed Blade
- Brand: Boker
- Model: 02LL701
- Country of Origin: China
- Best Use: Camp/Hike
This handy fixed blade comes as a result of the high demand for a small, compact outdoor knife with a super sharp ceramic blade. Ideal for those on the go without compromising on smooth cutting, corrosion resistance and long lasting sharpness.
Filter By Category
Copyright ©2014 Blade Play. All rights reserved


text:
lemme just say.. one good time.. the devil is a liar.
the devil is a gd liar.
i don't know if that's appropriate or not, but he is.
a big fat stinky one too.
he is trying to sit there and convince me that i need to be mad at God because he hasn't sent me a husband yet. Father, forgive me.
I was almost upset. You have blessed me so abundantly…
One might even say that you be doing the most.
With this whole, I'm gonna come down to earth and be a puny little human, and then embarrass myself, and die… for you. THAT IS TOO MUCH!
God… like really.
I mean.. y'ain gotta do all dat, does it?
Like for real.. that's supa personal.. and extra. Like that makes me feel all obligated.. to give you the time-a-day and all that. And there ain't really much else I should be asking for.. because you literally gave it all.. for my sake.
Lord, without you, I wouldn't even be here.
That's crazy to think about.
And for me to take even a teensy weeny second to be bratty, and say, "Daddy, I want more! Daddy, I want what I want.. NOW!" is ridiculous. Yet, you still love me. You're an awesome Father in that you don't give me what I can't handle. If I'm not ready for something.. you're like.. "Woah-ho there Sapphire! Chillax… You're good. Have a seat… I got this… It's coming. Just wait."
and then… I read a REALLY convicting deco today asking me.. how am i waiting? humph! not too well! i'm impatient and angsty (yeah, that's a word now) - but really all the angst. THAT's how I realized my heart won't right. That's how I came to find that little miss single is ready to mingle, even though God hasn't given her the go ahead just yet.
And I've known.
The imagination's been roaming free.
I've been letting my mind get carried away.
Not taking every thought captive like I should be.
Letting my flesh think and do what it wants… justifying it as not as bad as I used to be.
Father, please forgive me.
I repent. I want to be a donkey.
(Don said something crazy today at service about Palm Sunday- Jesus riding in on a donkey - directing it's path, no one had ever sat upon it before… that's wild. And not a person in there wanted to be a donkey.)
Help me be humble. Help me be grateful.
Help me enjoy and rededicate the gifts that you've given back up to you and sow seed for a double portion. Father, help me continue to flow with you… let the Spirit be fluid in my life and in my relationships.
Help me show others you. You, Jesus. Not CHAT, Not Percy, not Don and Corey. Help me Father God - help my whole lift point to you and you along. To you belongs the glory.. not me. Help me, Father. Save me.. Hosanna in the highest.
Jesus' Name.


text:
- 21st Century Health
- California Gold Nutrition
- Carlson Labs
- Country Life
- Doctor's Best
- Enzymatic Therapy
- Enzymedica
- Garden of Life
- Healthy Origins
- iHerb Brands
- Jarrow Formulas
- Life Extension
- Madre Labs
- California Extracts
- Doctor's Best
- Eclectic Institute
- Gaia Herbs
- Jarrow Formulas
- Life Extension
- Natural Factors
- Acure Organics
- Alba Botanica
- AnneMarie Borlind
- Aubrey Organics
- Avalon Organics
- Aveeno
- Derma E
- Desert Essence
- Acure Organics
- Alba Botanica
- Andalou Naturals
- AnneMarie Borlind
- Aubrey Organics
- Avalon Organics
- Bee Naturals
Solgar, 天然维生素K2胶囊,100微克,50粒
- Since 1947
- MK-7 from Natto Extract
- Sugar, Salt and Starch Free.
- Dietary Supplement
As a dietary supplement for adults, take one (1) vegetable capsule daily, preferably at mealtime or as directed by a healthcare practitioner.
Dicalcium phosphate, vegetable cellulose, vegetable magnesium stearate, silica. contains milk and soy.
Solgar's Natural Vitamin K2 (MK-7) 100 mcg Vegetable Capsules are free of yeast, wheat and gluten and are formulated without the use of artificial preservatives, flavors or colors.
If you are pregnant, nursing, taking any medication or have a medical condition, please consult your healthcare practitioner before taking any dietary supplement.
All forms of Vitamin K may interact with blood thinning medications. If you are taking such medicines please consult with your healthcare practitioner before taking this product.
Keep out of reach of children.
To assure freshness and potency, store at room temperature 59°-86°F (15°-30°C). Store away from heat, light and moisture.
Do not use if outer bottle seal is missing, torn or damaged in any way.
|Supplement Facts
|Serving Size: 1 Vegetable Capsule
|Amount Per Serving
|Vitamin K2 (as menaquinone-7)
|100 mcg
|DV = Daily Value


text: Top 10 Lessons Taught by the '55 1. Nitrous cars like taller gears, so the 4.88s are gone and it has 4.11 with a 30-inch tire. 2. Once you go into the 9s with nitrous, stock Chevy rods bend, but they don't break. 3. Never use a rev limiter on a nitrous engine. 4. Cast cranks can take as much power as the block can take. Eventually, the main caps start to walk and bounce. 5. If you are careful, you will never break a cast crank or a stock block. 6. With nitrous, jets are not as important as correct engine timing. 7. Standard headers with a 2.5-inch collector are enough to make 10-second nitrous power. 8. If you blow a header gasket, chances are good that you've blown the electrode off of the plug in that cylinder. 9. You can learn what breaks and what does not through thousands of dragstrip runs and real street experience. 10. The 10-bolt worked until the car got into the 10s. « | 1 | 2 | 3 | View Full Article By Douglas R. Glad Enjoyed this Post? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, or use your favorite social media to recommend us to friends and colleagues!


text:
"After a few months in my parents' basement, I took an apartment near the state university, where I discovered both crystal methamphetamine and conceptual art. Either one of these things are dangerous, but in combination they have the potential to destroy entire civilizations."- David Sedaris
Gif via therumpus
such blog. so tumblr
Me right now!
Me blogging
Next >>>
<<< Prev


text:
Earn extra votes!
Now you can earn extra votes on ArtistSignal by inviting your friends! Click the "Learn more…" link on top of artist profiles to open a share box. Share the link above with your friends or share on Facebook & Twitter. Each time a new friend signs up on ArtistSignal using your link, you'll earn one extra vote you can use at anytime on any artist! It's that easy!


text:
Why does White Sox attendance keep falling? Fans weigh in
BY RICHARD ROEPER October 11, 2012 12:37AM
Updated: October 11, 2012 12:39AM
Last week I asked White Sox fans why they believe home attendance was down yet again this year, despite a team that exceeded expectations and was in first place for much of the season. At least 60 percent of the folks I heard from mentioned the financials, but many other factors were cited. Thanks to the hundreds of fans who weighed in. Here is a sampling of responses:
I have been a committed Sox fan for years. When I worked downtown, I went to about ten games a season. I now work in the northern suburbs where I live. Even if I leave for a weeknight game at the Cell by 3:30, it takes almost two hours to get there due to the dreadful traffic and there's no point in getting there early. (I wouldn't spend time at that miserable noise factory Bacardi at the Park to watch Kate Beckinsale nude wrestle with Gwyneth Paltrow. Well, maybe I would.) It's just a miserable trip and I assume the reverse commute down the Eisenhower is as bad. Getting to Wrigley takes less than an hour and you can go earlier and find plenty to do. I've heard the same reasoning from many fans — it's just not worth it to leave work early just to pound on your steering wheel until you get there. I don't know what the city could do about it, but I think it's a big attendance killer. Public transportation from the suburbs is not a good option since you have to go downtown before getting to the el, do that in reverse going home, and be stuck to a train schedule that may not comport with the length of the game.
I can offer a few suggestions that might make it MORE popular.
1. Show replays on the Megatron screen. There is nothing more frustrating for in-park viewers than to know close/controversial plays are re-seen by TV viewers but not by them. I don't understand why the Sox management is afraid to show them.
2. Get rid of that incessant, ear-shattering hard rock music. Do it, if you want to become more friendly to family/mature audiences. The organ at Wrigley is one of its pluses.
3. Retire Hawk Harrelson. Although this does not relate directly to The Cell, I'm pretty sure real fans (who would buy tickets) are so turned off by his D-grade game calling that they lose interest in watching the Sox at any level. Keep Farmer, Stone and, especially, Jackson, but put Hawk and his Santo-esque complaining to rest.
4. If they really want to become competitive, Sox management should do what any competitive, but losing, business must do - reduce prices. Beer: $4, and other concessions discounted accordingly. They have to distinguish themselves from Wrigley and this is the best way.
Some in my office say the crime on South Side .... they've read the stats. Not sure if this is part of it or not; but nobody wants to the last one leaving.
The ticket prices are outrageous! I can't afford more than two games a year. I also hate the ticket nazis. I been to over ten different ball parks and none of them keep upper deck fans from the lower deck. Reinsdorf needs to stop charging like the Yankees and provide a fan friendly environment.
Seems to me the elephant in the room here (other than mediocrity on the field) is the dubious choice that Sox management made 20-odd years ago to put up a generic ballpark in the same remote location as Comiskey. Had the Sox seized the day to build an attractive park framing Chicago's great skyline from either the area just south of Roosevelt or else just west of the Loop, I believe they'd now own the city — through thick and thin. As is, they're married to a noble, rugged provincialism, which comes at a very high price. Maybe in another generation they can afford a divorce.
The reason for the downtick in Sox attendance since they won the Series is simple in my view. All those "fans" that started showing at the end of 2005 casually went back to being fair weather fans. This isn't a put down of the real fans; this is a put down of the jerks who started showing up in September 2005 and then stopped coming when the Sox didn't win it the next year. Kinda like when the Blackhawks won...all of these so called "fans" started showing up. They couldn't tell you who was on the team but they were fans cause the Hawks won the Cup. As a Cubs fan I was impressed by the Sox run of 100+ days of first place; too bad Sox "fans" weren't.
I can't speak for other fans, but this why I only attend minimal games each year:
1. Cost - Although you can get some tix cheap, and generally I find people who are giving them away - you still have to pay for parking, food and drink. Beer is really expensive if you go with your buddies for a night out, but if you go with your family instead you're still going to end up spend quite a bit on food and souvenirs.
2. Time - and truly this is the biggest reason. Playing softball a couple nights a week, coaching my daughter's softball team, going to my other daughter's sporting events, having a baby, working in the recreation field (lots of nights and weekends) and just the day to day stress and activities of life don't allow me to get to many games. And really I like to watch the game, when I'm at home I'm on the edge of my seat with every pitch - at the ball park I'm too distracted for whatever reason to really pay attention.
I probably watch or listen to 90% of all Sox games and I read about them each and every day without fail. I live and die with this team and these last few weeks have been hell, but for me I'd rather spend time with family and friends, watch the Sox on TV and go to a handful of games a year so that when we're there its something special that were doing.
I am a lifelong White Sox fan, and until this past season, a season ticket holder for the last six years. My wife and I were fed up with the Ozzie show, the cost of premium game seats, the Sox policy of making you pay for playoff tickets and then holding your money until renewal, the Ozzie and family show, Hawk Harrelson's increasingly embarrassing behavior, and finally yes, Ozzie. I know he's gone but he wore me out. It was getting very hard to move tickets to help defray the costs. We had the Yankees and Red Sox tix last year and couldn't get face value for them. So we didn't renew prior to this season. Hearing the attendance laments all year I did buy Sox tickets three times off their web site and went and had fun, but with two kids in college the costs are prohibitive. Even when they were doing well this year, when they had a chance to bury Detroit, they couldn't do it. I think Sox fans this year saw that and didn't or couldn't buy in.
Our last game was in 2010. My wife's cousins were in from Toronto. Seven outfield tickets (left field about twenty rows back) for a Sunday afternoon game against the A's were $315.26. After parking the two cars and food the total bill was about $500.
Hawk was talking about tickets were still on sale for the Cubs series earlier this year a few days before the game. The cheap seats were in the high $40s before taxes, service fees, and parking or el. It's hard to justify going when for half the price of my ticket and parking, I can take my wife and daughter to a matinee with concessions.
A normal family of 5 cannot get to the ballpark and catch a game without spending upwards of $300. That's sitting in the nosebleed section where kids can't see anything happening on the field. If you don't pay for the premium seats you can't even get to walk the concourse and take advantage of the attractions designed for the kids.
I have a 10, 8 and 6 year old. They love baseball and LOVE the Sox (like their Mom and Dad) but it's just unrealistic to drop that amount of cash on an evening out.
And trying to go without the kids — now sure, you're buying less tickets and possibly the concessions costs are lower assuming we don't even that out with some beer instead of several hot pretzels, but the cost of a babysitter for 7 hours at $15 per hour is another $100. Might as well bring the kids.
Who can afford that?
I have said for years that the teams should be paying players on current year performance - not on past performance. Get a hit, get paid. No hit - no pay, maybe no job, right? If you stopped performing at work, were sloppy with your columns, you'd get fired and they'd bring in someone that really wanted to get the job done.
I'll tell you where this diehard Sox fan was this year, I was working nights. Ed Farmer and DJ kept me company. I usually make 3-4 games a year and had tickets for 3 games and after being laid off from February til early June I had no choice but to give away my tickets or listen to my wife say how good of a time she and her girlfriends had at the game. I'm hoping to make up for my absence this year when they get playing again in about 178 days.
When Kenny said last year that the Sox were going to be "rebuilding," I figured that this would be a good year to take a break from my Weekend Season Ticket Package which I have had for about 25 years. I figured that if the GM says it, then it must be true! When they started winning I did go to about 3 or 4 games only. I would think that if I did that, maybe other season ticket holders did the same, especially with the economy the way it is.
1. 1 - 1 1/2 hours travel time with gas at almost $5/gallon. (Est. 3+ gallons)
2. Sox parking $20 minimum, free street parking non-existent.
3. Tickets for one person, anywhere from $25-60 on the cheap for a decent seat.
4. $7.75 Beers, $5 Pepsis, $5 Hot Dogs, $5 Churros or Elephant Ears or Dippin' Dots
5. Tons of shootings and violence on South Side of Chicago, especially since I'm South Side street illiterate.
6. All Sox games on TV/Cable allow me to turn to "Diners, Dives, & Drive-Ins" at any time..
7. My sanitary bathroom less than 15 feet away, refrigerator 10 feet away.
8. The Dan Ryan and the CTA
9. No place within 2 blocks of the Cell to eat and drink at not owned by the Sox.
10. I don't have $75-$150 person//game to spend on boring baseball and to pay Millionaire players' salaries.
I am a lifelong (50 years) Sox fan who has lost my enthusiasm for going to Sox games. It's a combination of things.
1) High cost (in order) of tickets, parking, beers and food, especially against top teams and fun promotion nights like Elvis night.
2) I like U.S. Cellular Field, but not being allowed to walk around lower level if my seats are upper deck. I want to be able to walk anywhere if I buy a ticket, not be relegated to upper deck area only.
3) I believe a baseball game should not be priced almost like a concert, play or even an NHL game. It's not as big of an event to me.
4) They won the World Series, so the desire to see that happen in my lifetime has been satisfied. Now a team without that chance is not as desirable to pay such high prices for. I did not think this team was a serious contender as soon as Danks was hurt, not to mention a strikeout king batting third. I know he hit many HR's, but how many RBI would a .285 (or better) batting third have had? HR teams get shut down in the playoffs, but usually don't make them. We need higher batting averages to win it.
The answer to the Sox attendance problem boils down to demographics and marketing. You could fill over half the seats in Wrigley field with the population within walking distance of the park. By walking distance I mean within a few miles. Their median income is between $1 million and $50K with huge numbers of single people with money in their pocket. The population around Sox Park within walking distance is less than half that. Their median income is between $50K to $26K. There are very small pockets with incomes over $50K, but with a very low population. When you expand that area the median income of North Side fans remains relatively high compared to the South Side. Vast swaths of the population farther out from Wrigley have median incomes of $50K to $30K. Then you get into the suburbs with huge incomes. Around Sox Park you have vast swaths of very low median incomes. I'm talking $3K to $20K. And they never go to games. This contributes to the notion that baseball is a sport for white fans which is wrong. Still, the black population of the South Side is 93%. Bridgeport is the only area near the Sox that has a decent MI. You have to go as far away as Beverly, where the metra stops are full of Sox fans, to get to incomes that match those around Wrigley's immediate vicinity. Farther out the median income decreases rather than increases. In the south suburbs where MI increases so does the percentage of Cub fans. It is also a fact that many suburbanites think The Cell is in a dangerous neighborhood. Hell, many people from Oak Lawn are afraid to go even go to Beverly.
The next major factor in low attendance is the monumental marketing mistake Einhorn and Reinsdorf made when they bought the Sox. The Cubs did not always "own the town". In the 70's Sox fans filled the ball park every night. Actually the White Sox beat the Cubs in attendance for many years. Remember the "Hit Men"? An entire generation of baseball fans could not see Tony LaRussa, Fisk, and Baines when they were taken off free TV yet they still drew fans because we grew up watching them. But in 1981, and for several years, thousands of youngsters could only see Cub games. Many of those kids became Cub fans. Now those kids are dads and their kids are Cub fans. This all happened just when Wrigleyville was becoming wealthy and the hip place to be. When I was a kid a Cub fan on the south side was rare. I would venture to say that the marketing problems began when they took the Sox off WGN and went to WFLD. The farther away one lived from the city the tougher it was to get good television reception. The feud with Harry Carey and Jimmy Piersall didn't help either. I think people forget that.
If there was a study on attendance based on median income I would bet that a higher percentage of fans who go to games would be Sox fans. So, you put all these factors into the equation, you only get 15,000 fans on a weekday night in the middle of a pennant race.
A solution would be to bring back Little League Day. Any kid wearing a uniform could get in for free. Why Little League? Because they are baseball fans. This would include all kids, minorities and girls. Four games a year would be just about right. Dollar hot dogs and dollar sodas. They can have most of the upper deck. When I was a kid those not on a Little League team would borrow uniforms from the kids who were.
Finally, Major League Baseball has to get real about pricing. It is out of hand and it hurts the fan base. MBL needs the 99%.


text:
Bruce Wayne:
They told me there was nothing out there, nothing to fear. But the night my parents were murdered I caught a glimpse of something. I've looked for it ever since. I went around the world, searched in all the shadows. And there is something out there in the darkness, something terrifying, something that will not stop until it gets revenge.
Bruce Wayne:
Henri Ducard:
You traveled the world... Now you must journey inwards... to what you really fear... it's inside you... there is no turning back. Your parents' death was not your fault. Your training is nothing. The will is everything. If you make yourself more than just a man, if you devote yourself to an ideal, you become something else entirely. Are you ready to begin?
Share your thoughts on Batman Begins's quotes with the community:
Use the citation below to add this movie page to your bibliography:
"Batman Begins Quotes." Quotes.net. STANDS4 LLC, 2014. Web. 21 Oct. 2014. <http://www.quotes.net/movies/Batman Begins>.


text:
Would like to thank everyone who had visited our page and voted for us. We have achieved our goal of 250 votes. Now it is in the review process by a panelist associated with Chase Bank. We will not know the outcome until January 2015. We are prayerful that it will be in our favor. We will keep everyone posted and again thank you for your prayers and support.
Starting this month as a part of our community outreach we will be posting any community activities on our website. The information provided will be from our clients who are sponsoring or associated with any community outreach program. Just click on the Community Outreach tab to see what is going on in our community. If you would to have your community outreach event posted just bring it to our office for review and if it approved we will post it on our website. Thank you all.
Welcome! Thank you for visiting Hands N Harmony, Wellness Center & Spa website.
Hands N Harmony is not your typical massage company, as you may notice in our new title Wellness Center & Spa. Within the last year we have expanded our services to not only providing some to the traditional massage therapy but we have included some specialty spa services for instance hand and foot scrubs, detoxification body wraps, and other bodywork modalities. We have incorporate several new wellness and eductional programs as a part of our services. We have our Walk Fit Club, Meditational Yoga classes, Wellness Seminars and classes, Biometric Screening services and more. You can call us for more information. I am so excited about these programs something needed in our community. An approachable way towards wellness,healing and health.
I am also, really excited about our health and wellness store. In our store you can find Nature Sunshine nutritional supplements, organic body care products, Young Living Essential Oils, candles and other items unique to the community and fitting to your needs. All products are organic/naturally made and produce here in the USA. So come on by or call for more information.
So as you can see we are providing services that will take care of your needs in a more WHOLESTIC way YOUR Body, Mind and Spirit. So if you have not been to our new site please stop by or call for an appointment.
Nancy Brewington, RN,LMT
Powered by Love a Local Business.