So you want to be a seismologist

[ErickTheRed]

I got to question 7 on that Scientific Literacy quiz before I gave up in anger. The questions are terrible. The multiple choice format is limiting, but that's no excuse for the focus on irrelevant knowledge rather that the fundamental scientific principles. Asking which plant Mendel used for genetics experiments or what variable physicists use to denote the speed of light completely misses the point.

[Maitre]

I got to question 7 on that Scientific Literacy quiz before I gave up in anger. The questions are terrible. The multiple choice format is limiting, but that's no excuse for the focus on irrelevant knowledge rather that the fundamental scientific principles. Asking which plant Mendel used for genetics experiments or what variable physicists use to denote the speed of light completely misses the point.

It's much more of a scientific trivia quiz than a science quiz. Even so, I agree, some of the questions are just a bit odd to try and answer from memory.

[NuurAbSaal]

Italy, among the so-called first world nations, is not exactly on the forefront. Their rural areas are pretty damn backword, and this verdict proves that point. Simple as that. As far as why I felt necessary to point that out in the OP, well... just look at the verdict. It could not happen in most if not all first world countries. At least not yet.

Your narrow-mindedness is mind-boggling. I give up.

take care
Tarabulus

[shoju]

Hey, you know... Since Italy is such a backwards "First World Nation" I'm curious, would they have acquitted O.J.? Terrible verdicts happen all the time, in places around the world.

Is it terrible? Yes.
Does that mean that Italy is somehow "backwards"? No. I'm sure with enough time I could research and find terrible verdicts handed down by courts throughout the US and Europe.

Now, if the Appeals Court upholds the verdict, I'll be a little worried, but still not calling Italy "some backwards wannabe first world country"

[kandrathe]

I got to question 7 on that Scientific Literacy quiz before I gave up in anger. The questions are terrible. The multiple choice format is limiting, but that's no excuse for the focus on irrelevant knowledge rather that the fundamental scientific principles. Asking which plant Mendel used for genetics experiments or what variable physicists use to denote the speed of light completely misses the point.

I was doing pretty well up until the 40's when I quit from boredom. It is mostly a science trivia quiz, which then delved quickly into subject matter once memorized and long forgotten. How many of us non-biologists keep up on our meiosis versus mitosis cycles. I guessed correctly in the multiple choices, but frankly I'd be hard pressed to explain the cycles in depth anymore. Who's memorized the periodic table of elements lately? I'm thinking of an atomic number, 82, which is very dense... what am I?

But, when someone asks you; "Do you want to earn a hefty commission and be on the National Commission for the Forecast and Prevention of Major Risks?" We know now to say; "No, I'll just continue to earn my lucrative professorial salary by continuing to lecture and write endless books on the unpredictable". I've been involved with risk management (volatile chemical spills due to train derailment) in my career. Where you fail in risk management is in your lack of planning for the unexpected, rather than in predicting exactly when it will happen. Possibly, you could go around to every structure and give it a rating for various seismic events. Then inform every resident of their risks ahead of time and let them determine whether to remain in their collapse prone dwellings. Just a thought.

On the other hand, I think people need to have a modicum of common sense. If you live in a flood plain, there might be floods. If you live in a hurricane zone, you might be in a few hurricanes. If you live on a coast, you may need to deal with a tsunami once in awhile. If you live in a northern climate, you may experience, extreme cold, snow, ice, or all of the above. It's sometimes very hot and dry in the desert -- you may get thirsty when the water supply disappears for you and your millions of neighbors. If you live by Deebye, there are the bears and the moose to worry about.

[Ashock]

Italy, among the so-called first world nations, is not exactly on the forefront. Their rural areas are pretty damn backword, and this verdict proves that point. Simple as that. As far as why I felt necessary to point that out in the OP, well... just look at the verdict. It could not happen in most if not all first world countries. At least not yet.

Your narrow-mindedness is mind-boggling. I give up.

take care
Tarabulus

In order to actually give up, you first have to have something to give.

Have yourself a nice day.

[ShadowHM]

If you live by Deebye, there are the bears and the moose to worry about.

Since DeeBye is about 4000 kilometres away from that moose, it might not be much of a worry to him. ;-)

[eppie]

Hey, you know... Since Italy is such a backwards "First World Nation" I'm curious, would they have acquitted O.J.? Terrible verdicts happen all the time, in places around the world.

Is it terrible? Yes.
Does that mean that Italy is somehow "backwards"? No. I'm sure with enough time I could research and find terrible verdicts handed down by courts throughout the US and Europe.

Now, if the Appeals Court upholds the verdict, I'll be a little worried, but still not calling Italy "some backwards wannabe first world country"

In Ashocks defense (who knew this would happen). Italy is backward, yes they all have the newest car and the newest mobile phone, but they are backward. I Know because I am in Italy really a lot.

Of course when I discuss about these things I always compare Italy to the US (which is probably not what Ashock intended when he started this thread).
But the only first world western countries where you here things similar in craziness is the US. (and countries like greece, spain and portugal of course).

Class justice, a political scene entirely dominated by the rich, who use it to get richer etc. sadly the rest of the world seems to be following.

[kandrathe]

In Ashocks defense (who knew this would happen). Italy is backward, yes they all have the newest car and the newest mobile phone, but they are backward. I Know because I am in Italy really a lot.

Or, urban vs rural or educated vs less educated, civilized vs less civilized most anywhere. Even then, Venice is not Florence, is not Rome.

But the only first world western countries where you here things similar in craziness is the US. (and countries like greece, spain and portugal of course).

Maybe because it is under reported? Or do you truly believe that Europeans are just... better, than the uncivilized nations? I can see there are many consistency factors involved, including how it is reported, or measured, beyond the quality variability of law and enforcement across particular jurisdictions. According to Taliban mentality, what we would call domestic violence (or murder) is just good husbandry. But, they are not the only patriarchal societies. They would certainly measure it differently than the average married professional woman in New Jersey. Her expectations, and her access to justice are very different.

The US is not a monolithic culture. So, again, I'd repeat that rural Alabama is very dissimilar to Manhattan. Just because we share citizenship, and maybe voted for or against the same President doesn't make us kindred. It's about 1500 miles from New York, NY to Dallas, TX. About the same as from Moscow to Paris.

Class justice, a political scene entirely dominated by the rich, who use it to get richer etc. sadly the rest of the world seems to be following.

Not so much class, as corruption. Money can only influence justice when there is corruption. And... on further consideration, access to justice. Wealth, at least in the US, can play a big role in getting access to a good legal defense.

[FireIceTalon]

Class justice, a political scene entirely dominated by the rich, who use it to get richer etc. sadly the rest of the world seems to be following.

Right, and that is because the crisis of capitalism is no longer just economic and political...it has become cultural. I think the picture in my signature, as rhetorical and tongue-in-cheek as it may be, has a lot of truth to it: nowadays if you are even a union member or an apologist for unions, want racial or gender equality, question the myth that the wealthy are the job creators, etc, you are instantly labeled a socialist or Marxist (not that it is a bad thing from my perspective, as an unapologetic Marxist)....and these things, are hardly mutually inclusive to being a radical (except racial and gender equality, which are prerequisites to being a revolutionary leftist of any sort). All political debate, especially regarding change, is only done within the framework of the status quo and the two-party system - our media, education system, politicians, have created a deeply embedded political culture that offers no other alternatives to solve our problems, because they view all of them as independent of one another and without having any meaningful relation to the fundamental organization of society. Sometimes I wonder if people like Jeanine Gorafalo or Rachel Maddow are communists, but cannot say so because doing so would jeopardize their reputation and ultimately their careers. Overall, I would say they are probably just liberals since they have never said anything to my knowledge that would indicate otherwise, but I doubt we will ever really know for sure, because they cannot say so. So much for freedom of speech, aye? On the flip side though, you do have laymen liberals and social democrats claiming to be socialists (or even Marxists), and this is problematic too, because these people have no idea what socialism or Marxism are, what our views and agenda are, and there is already enough misconstrued information about these terms as it is. People throw these words (and others) around without understanding them, and they completely lose their meaning to the point that it is almost impossible to have intelligent discourse.

Within the so-called "liberal" outlets of mass media, class politics are discussed only within the context of the predominant organization of society - you can criticize things like corporate welfare, the tax system, racism, sexism, religious oppression, etc. But you CANNOT, under any circumstances, criticize the almighty and sacred capitalist mode of production, the myths of free enterprise and private property, or social relationships (means of production), or say anything even remotely unpatriotic - these things are off limits in any formal political discussion, and that is a very big problem. So at the end of the day, class politics is pretty minimized in favor of identity politics. Not that I think identity politics aren't important, but they are grossly over emphasized in the mainstream. On the flip side, some Marxists (and even anarchists to some extent) are too quick to ignore identities, which is also not beneficial. Nevertheless, class politics is the fundamental aspect of the Marxist framework, and it is there where we must primarily focus, to understand and solve the problems of identity political divisions. Governments, nation states, and political institutions in general do not exist because there are men and women, different nationalities and ethnicities, or different religions. They exist because classes exist - one sector of society rules, the other is ruled, and therefore by default a State of some sort must exist.

Media outlets themselves are owned by multi-billion dollar corporations, and sadly most people just go along with it. Because being a good, submissive hamster is easier than being a free and critical thinker. But it has gone beyond just this - it has become the so-called "cultural truth" within our society, resulting in a really bad case of Stockholm Syndrome: "The capitalists are the job creators, we have to go along with them or they will just leave and we will have nothing" - to that I say, well, what are they waiting for?? Tell them I said not to let the door hit them in the ass on the way out, and that I also say thanks for saving us the trouble of using a revolution to forcefully tell them to gtfo. In short, they need us, but we do not need them - and the sooner they are out of our lives, the better off humanity will be.

[kandrathe]

Sometimes I wonder if people like Jeanine Gorafalo or Rachel Maddow are communists, but cannot say so because doing so would jeopardize their reputation and ultimately their careers.

Mostly, I don't read the bulk of your rambling Marxist logorrhea, but this made me laugh out loud. I say we should test your theory. Go ahead, let's call them communists and see what happens.

[FireIceTalon]

Sometimes I wonder if people like Jeanine Gorafalo or Rachel Maddow are communists, but cannot say so because doing so would jeopardize their reputation and ultimately their careers.

Mostly, I don't read the bulk of your rambling Marxist logorrhea, but this made me laugh out loud. I say we should test your theory. Go ahead, let's call them communists and see what happens.

And perhaps you just skimming them would be a very good indication of why you don't understand them - but such closed mindedness is no surprise coming from a LOLbertarian, and only serves to confirm my above post is true regarding political discourse. It is much easier for you to dismiss them, or misconstrue them for your own purposes, since they don't agree with your mainstream idealistic nonsense.

Even your above reply is indicative of that, since I was referring to them calling themselves communist, and not being called communist by us. Obama gets called a Marxist all the time by tea party idiots, but considering he is in the middle of a tight re-election race and mostly likely going to win it, I would say such assertions have proven to be quite futile. Now, if he came out and called himself a Marxist, that would almost certainly not be in his best interest. Whether he actually is one or not is irrelevant (and he isn't anything close).

Now, back on ignore you go.

[kandrathe]

Sometimes I wonder _____, but cannot say so because _____.

Following the typical sentence structure rules for a Noun clause, you are the subject, therefore the assumption is that you remain the subject in the following clause. You might have clarified that, however awkwardly, by adding the word "they" as in "but THEY cannot say so". Have you considered that perhaps they value their lucrative pay checks (putting them in the 1%) more than their "freedom" to declare themselves communists. What law is preventing them from disenfranchising their audience? Having free speech doesn't preclude you from the consequences of people hearing and responding to your words. I think the Dixie Chicks are a pretty good example...

Now, back on ignore you go.

Thank you. I wear it as a badge of honor.

[Jester]

Following the typical sentence structure rules for a Noun clause, you are the subject, therefore the assumption is that you remain the subject in the following clause. You might have clarified that, however awkwardly, by adding the word "they" as in "but THEY cannot say so".

In this case, the obvious parsing is: "(Sometimes I wonder if) People like Jeanine Gorafalo or Rachel Maddow are communists, but cannot say so because doing so would jeopardize their reputation and ultimately their careers."

The phrase "Sometimes I wonder if" sets off the imaginary or hypothetical situation to follow. Then, simply read the rest of the sentence as if it was declarative. This was not difficult for me to understand. The alternative is nonsensical - if FIT was wondering if they were communists, but worried that his saying as much would damage Jeanine Garofalo's and Rachel Maddow's careers, then his sentence would be self-contradicting, because that's what he's already doing.

As much as I think his speculation is a little bizarre, FIT's grammar was fine in this case. At the very least, I had no doubt as to what he was referring.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

In this case, the obvious parsing is: "(Sometimes I wonder if) People like Jeanine Gorafalo or Rachel Maddow are communists, but cannot say so because doing so would jeopardize their reputation and ultimately their careers."

Not to get semantic, this being the Lounge and all...

I would parse it;

• Sometimes - pretty disposable...
  
• I wonder if people like Jeanine Gorafalo or Rachel Maddow are communists,
  
• but [I] cannot say so...
  
• because doing so would jeopardize their reputation and ultimately their careers."

Since it was "I" who wondered in the first part, it would follow that it would be "I" who cannot say in the second part. It's vague at best if it's [I] or [they].

I'm glad to see though that some people can read BS. You will alert me though if he does form an original thought? I can't make much sense of his gibberish.

[shoju]

Uh... No. You are making English teachers cringe.

Jester is right on this one.

The context clues to deciphering the meaning would be in the final part.

"Because doing so would jeopardize their reputation and ultimately their careers"

I mean. FiT, talks a pretty big game here on the lounge, but (no offense intended here), are you really going to assume that random guy A on the lurker lounge has enough sway somewhere that his accusation about two hollywood types is going to ruin their careers? That's like saying that you believe that I could somehow undermine the careers of members of the Republican Party for calling them closet Pedos....

To be fair though, I didn't have any problem parsing the sentence as is. I didn't even have to reread it to understand it.

Most English Teachers will tell you that if there is an inferred subject in writing, that you should revert back to the most recent subject in the writing. In this case, the Subject would be Jeanine Gorafalo or Rachel Maddow, and if he were stating himself, he would need to re-declare himself.

[FireIceTalon]

Uh... No. You are making English teachers cringe.

Jester is right on this one.

The context clues to deciphering the meaning would be in the final part.

"Because doing so would jeopardize their reputation and ultimately their careers"

I mean. FiT, talks a pretty big game here on the lounge, but (no offense intended here), are you really going to assume that random guy A on the lurker lounge has enough sway somewhere that his accusation about two hollywood types is going to ruin their careers? That's like saying that you believe that I could somehow undermine the careers of members of the Republican Party for calling them closet Pedos....

To be fair though, I didn't have any problem parsing the sentence as is. I didn't even have to reread it to understand it.

Most English Teachers will tell you that if there is an inferred subject in writing, that you should revert back to the most recent subject in the writing. In this case, the Subject would be Jeanine Gorafalo or Rachel Maddow, and if he were stating himself, he would need to re-declare himself.

Are you guys really still discussing this? Lol....wow.

[Jester]

Roger Pielke, Jr., weighs in here, claiming this trial has been mischaracterized in the press. The actual issue at stake was not the failure to predict the earthquake, but rather the poor risk assessment, and the unwarranted and misleading reassurances given to the public beforehand.

-Jester

[shoju]

Roger Pielke, Jr., weighs in here, claiming this trial has been mischaracterized in the press. The actual issue at stake was not the failure to predict the earthquake, but rather the poor risk assessment, and the unwarranted and misleading reassurances given to the public beforehand.

-Jester

I guess my confusion lies in them being convicted of Manslaughter.

[Jester]

I guess my confusion lies in them being convicted of Manslaughter.

If you give really poor and deceptive advice to someone that leads to their death, isn't there at least a reasonable case that this constitutes manslaughter?

-Jester