-
Computer analysis not working.
I suggest the way to go is play chess at lichess.org where the computer analysis is excellent and totally free as is everything else. Everything free and no ads. Everything the highest possible quality. And the wait for the free computer analysis is about 30 seconds. - 34 minutes ago · Quote · #24
What's the rating for the engine at lichess.org?
- 21 minutes ago · Quote · Edit · Delete · #25
hsong1 wrote:
What's the rating for the engine at lichess.org?Not sure but they claim it's the most powerful engine they can get. It certainly impressed me. - 18 minutes ago · Quote · #26
most powerful engine they can get.It should be something like the old version of Stockfish or something. - 17 minutes ago · Quote · Edit · Delete · #27
I looked it up. Here it is at lichess.orgLichess actually runs 74 instances of Stockfish that are spread across 8 servers, all in order to play chess moves and analyse games.
- We upgraded Stockfish to the very latest development version. You could not wish for a finer engine.
- We bought two new powerful servers (16 cores, 24GB RAM each) for Stockfish. It allows us to raise the analysis time to 4 seconds per move and search deeper than 20 plies ahead.
- We taught Stockfish how to play Three-check. It can even analyse your Three-check games!
- 16 minutes ago · Quote · #28
Okay, so It's WAY better than Chess.com's.
- 14 minutes ago · Quote · Edit · Delete · #29
What's really interesting is everything is totally free with no ads. These people work hard for the fun of it. And as you can see they are briilliant.
- 12 minutes ago · Quote · #30
Are the features just as good as Chess.com? Cause if so, I'll switch over.
- 11 minutes ago · Quote · Edit · Delete · #31
hsong1 wrote:
Are the features just as good as Chess.com? Cause if so, I'll switch over.Actually everything, and I mean everything, is many times better than here and everywhere else. - 9 minutes ago · Quote · #32
Really, I'll go check it.
- 8 minutes ago · Quote · Edit · Delete · #33
The place is amazing. Have fun with it.
- 5 minutes ago · Quote · #34
I just checked it AND IT'S AWESOME!!! Got to check it some more. GOSH, It's so freaking awesome.
- a few minutes ago · Quote · Edit · Delete · #35
That was my reaction when I discovered it.
Monday, June 22, 2015
I convinced a member of the disgusting chess.com to switch to Lichess.org This is from http://www.chess.com/forum/view/help-support/computer-analysis-not-working2?page=2
One of the Fucktards who work for the Christian Discovery Institute changed his name to write comments at a website. I wrote these 3 comments for the fucking asshole.
Hey everyone, Jared Jammer is Stephen C. Meyer, one of the dishonest idiots who works for the anti-science Christian Creationist Discovery Institute, also known as Crackpot Central. The goal of the Discovery Institute, which has never discovered anything, is too dumb down science education to accommodate their uneducated Christian customers.
Drop dead Meyer. You're a traitor who is trying to destroy science education in this country. Get off my planet moron.
Jared Jammer is Stephen C. Meyer. Do not waste your time replying to his moronic comments. He's a professional liar for the Magic Jeebus Man.
Jared Jammer is Stephen C. Meyer. He makes a living selling his childish magical intelligent design creationism fantasy. He calls his Magic Man the designer, as if calling magic by a different name makes it less childish. Meyer is a liar and a moron. Drop dead Meyer.
http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/harsh-truth-if-intelligent-design-is-untestable.175753/
http://www.discovery.org/p/11
Drop dead Meyer. You're a traitor who is trying to destroy science education in this country. Get off my planet moron.
Jared Jammer is Stephen C. Meyer. Do not waste your time replying to his moronic comments. He's a professional liar for the Magic Jeebus Man.
Jared Jammer is Stephen C. Meyer. He makes a living selling his childish magical intelligent design creationism fantasy. He calls his Magic Man the designer, as if calling magic by a different name makes it less childish. Meyer is a liar and a moron. Drop dead Meyer.
http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/harsh-truth-if-intelligent-design-is-untestable.175753/
http://www.discovery.org/p/11
Saturday, June 20, 2015
There was a previous version of this blog. It was vaporized by Idiot Google when a deranged Christian asshole complained about it. I was able to save some of it including the entire right column. Here it is.
http://darwinkilledgod.blogspot.com/2014/08/there-was-previous-version-of-this-blog.html
NEW YORK TIMES Darwin, Ahead of His Time, Is Still Influential
Wall Street Journal: Man vs. God (Richard Dawkins)
Why don't Muslims eat pork chops? Also, why do Muslims blow themselves up?
However, on religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God’s name on one’s behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. I’m frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in “A,” “B,” “C,” and “D.” Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of “conservatism”.
– Senator Barry Goldwater
“Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.” ― Barry M. Goldwater
At Yahoo I wrote an answer about magical creationism: https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20150620185515AAJZwra&sort=N
NEW YORK TIMES Darwin, Ahead of His Time, Is Still Influential
Wall Street Journal: Man vs. God (Richard Dawkins)
Why don't Muslims eat pork chops? Also, why do Muslims blow themselves up?
However, on religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God’s name on one’s behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. I’m frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in “A,” “B,” “C,” and “D.” Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of “conservatism”.
– Senator Barry Goldwater
“Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.” ― Barry M. Goldwater
At Yahoo I wrote an answer about magical creationism: https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20150620185515AAJZwra&sort=N
The biggest threats to magical creationism:
It's the most ridiculous, most childish, and most moronic religious fantasy ever invented.
The only scientific explanation for the diversity of life is evolution by natural selection which has 150 years of scientific discoveries supporting it including thousands of evidences from DNA sequencing which are so powerful Darwin could never have imagined it.
The only people who want to throw out science and replace it with magic are god-soaked cowardly uneducated morons, while evolution is accepted by every competent biologist in the world.
Evolution is the foundation of biology. Magical creationism is the foundation of bullsh!t religions.
6/21/2015 I wrote a comment at a Catholic website owned by a dipshit Catholic at http://www.catholic365.com/article/1705/does-the-catholic-church-accept-evolution.html
"Natural science cannot dogmatically rule out the possibility that there are purposeful designs in creation."
The evidence has repeatedly shown that what you call "purposeful designs" also known as "god waved its magic wand" or who knows what you mean, was not necessary because evolution is a completely natural process, and the existence of human apes was not inevitable. Any number of things could have prevented our development, including what if the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs crashed into Jupiter instead. Believe whatever superstitious nonsense you want, but biology does not need your magic man.
And that magical soul thing. You got to be joking. There's no evidence for it and it's a ridiculous fantasy, probably invented to justify the equally ridiculous magical heaven fantasy.
At http://www.canpro-security.com/fas/1215#comment-775 a dipshit asked a question and I answered it.
It's the most ridiculous, most childish, and most moronic religious fantasy ever invented.
The only scientific explanation for the diversity of life is evolution by natural selection which has 150 years of scientific discoveries supporting it including thousands of evidences from DNA sequencing which are so powerful Darwin could never have imagined it.
The only people who want to throw out science and replace it with magic are god-soaked cowardly uneducated morons, while evolution is accepted by every competent biologist in the world.
Evolution is the foundation of biology. Magical creationism is the foundation of bullsh!t religions.
6/21/2015 I wrote a comment at a Catholic website owned by a dipshit Catholic at http://www.catholic365.com/article/1705/does-the-catholic-church-accept-evolution.html
"Natural science cannot dogmatically rule out the possibility that there are purposeful designs in creation."
The evidence has repeatedly shown that what you call "purposeful designs" also known as "god waved its magic wand" or who knows what you mean, was not necessary because evolution is a completely natural process, and the existence of human apes was not inevitable. Any number of things could have prevented our development, including what if the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs crashed into Jupiter instead. Believe whatever superstitious nonsense you want, but biology does not need your magic man.
And that magical soul thing. You got to be joking. There's no evidence for it and it's a ridiculous fantasy, probably invented to justify the equally ridiculous magical heaven fantasy.
At http://www.canpro-security.com/fas/1215#comment-775 a dipshit asked a question and I answered it.
So whats your proof that nothing happens when we die?
Religious fantasies are so insane, childish, and ridiculous, they can be ignored. It’s not necessary to disprove bullshit.
In any case if a person makes a claim about something moronic, for example if I said pink elephants orbit an asteroid in another galaxy, it would be my responsibility to provide evidence for it. Nobody has to disprove something that is just another person’s fantasy.
A magical 2nd life for dead human apes is equally moronic. And the fact that millions of cowards believe in it is not evidence for anything except the stupidity of the cowards.
If the magical creationism fantasy is true why is the giraffe's laryngeal nerve 15 feet longer than necessary?
If the magical creationism fantasy is true why is the giraffe's laryngeal nerve 15 feet longer than necessary?
Friday, June 19, 2015
Thursday, June 18, 2015
Why do one or more Muslims blow themselves up every single day of the year?
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20150618004300AACutTN CENSORED
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20150618005119AAdzZxR CENSORED
Why do some people believe in the magical creationism fantasy? NOT CENSORED
At least one suicide bombing every day. Why is it always a Muslim? NOT CENSORED. SEE THE BEST ANSWER. IT EXPLAINS EVERYTHING, FROM AN EX-MUSLIM.
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20150618005119AAdzZxR CENSORED
Why do some people believe in the magical creationism fantasy? NOT CENSORED
At least one suicide bombing every day. Why is it always a Muslim? NOT CENSORED. SEE THE BEST ANSWER. IT EXPLAINS EVERYTHING, FROM AN EX-MUSLIM.
Modern Human Diversity - Skin Color
Modern Human Diversity - Skin Color
Why do people from different parts of the world have different colored skin? Why do people from the tropics generally have darker skin color that those who live in colder climates? Variations in human skin color are adaptive traits that correlate closely with geography and the sun’s ultraviolet (UV) radiation.
As early humans moved into hot, open environments in search of food and water, one big challenge was keeping cool. The adaptation that was favored involved an increase in the number of sweat glands on the skin while at the same time reducing the amount of body hair. With less hair, perspiration could evaporate more easily and cool the body more efficiently. But this less-hairy skin was a problem because it was exposed to a very strong sun, especially in lands near the equator. Since strong sun exposure damages the body, the solution was to evolve skin that was permanently dark so as to protect against the sun’s more damaging rays.
Melanin, the skin's brown pigment, is a natural sunscreen that protects tropical peoples from the many harmful effects of ultraviolet (UV) rays. UV rays can, for example, strip away folic acid, a nutrient essential to the development of healthy fetuses. Yet when a certain amount of UV rays penetrates the skin, it helps the human body use vitamin D to absorb the calcium necessary for strong bones. This delicate balancing act explains why the peoples that migrated to colder geographic zones with less sunlight developed lighter skin color. As people moved to areas farther from the equator with lower UV levels, natural selection favored lighter skin which allowed UV rays to penetrate and produce essential vitamin D. The darker skin of peoples who lived closer to the equator was important in preventing folate deficiency. Measures of skin reflectance, a way to quantify skin color by measuring the amount of light it reflects, in people around the world support this idea. While UV rays can cause skin cancer, because skin cancer usually affects people after they have had children, it likely had little effect on the evolution of skin color because evolution favors changes that improve reproductive success.
There is also a third factor which affects skin color: coastal peoples who eat diets rich in seafood enjoy this alternate source of vitamin D. That means that some Arctic peoples, such as native peoples of Alaska and Canada, can afford to remain dark-skinned even in low UV areas. In the summer they get high levels of UV rays reflected from the surface of snow and ice, and their dark skin protects them from this reflected light.
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics/skin-color/modern-human-diversity-skin-color
http://humanorigins.si.edu/exhibit
Why do people from different parts of the world have different colored skin? Why do people from the tropics generally have darker skin color that those who live in colder climates? Variations in human skin color are adaptive traits that correlate closely with geography and the sun’s ultraviolet (UV) radiation.
As early humans moved into hot, open environments in search of food and water, one big challenge was keeping cool. The adaptation that was favored involved an increase in the number of sweat glands on the skin while at the same time reducing the amount of body hair. With less hair, perspiration could evaporate more easily and cool the body more efficiently. But this less-hairy skin was a problem because it was exposed to a very strong sun, especially in lands near the equator. Since strong sun exposure damages the body, the solution was to evolve skin that was permanently dark so as to protect against the sun’s more damaging rays.
Melanin, the skin's brown pigment, is a natural sunscreen that protects tropical peoples from the many harmful effects of ultraviolet (UV) rays. UV rays can, for example, strip away folic acid, a nutrient essential to the development of healthy fetuses. Yet when a certain amount of UV rays penetrates the skin, it helps the human body use vitamin D to absorb the calcium necessary for strong bones. This delicate balancing act explains why the peoples that migrated to colder geographic zones with less sunlight developed lighter skin color. As people moved to areas farther from the equator with lower UV levels, natural selection favored lighter skin which allowed UV rays to penetrate and produce essential vitamin D. The darker skin of peoples who lived closer to the equator was important in preventing folate deficiency. Measures of skin reflectance, a way to quantify skin color by measuring the amount of light it reflects, in people around the world support this idea. While UV rays can cause skin cancer, because skin cancer usually affects people after they have had children, it likely had little effect on the evolution of skin color because evolution favors changes that improve reproductive success.
There is also a third factor which affects skin color: coastal peoples who eat diets rich in seafood enjoy this alternate source of vitamin D. That means that some Arctic peoples, such as native peoples of Alaska and Canada, can afford to remain dark-skinned even in low UV areas. In the summer they get high levels of UV rays reflected from the surface of snow and ice, and their dark skin protects them from this reflected light.
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics/skin-color/modern-human-diversity-skin-color
http://humanorigins.si.edu/exhibit
Wednesday, June 17, 2015
Ken Miller, brilliant defender of science education, believes in a magic being, a fantasy equal to the Easter Bunny.
At https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=re4zVcRgTz0 I wrote this comment about Ken Miller.
Mr. Miller is brilliant, extremely knowledgeable about biology, but he is god-soaked. Why? Why would this brilliant person believe in a magical being? Where does he hide it? For what reason does he think the magic fairy is real? He's a Catholic aka Christian. He is required to believe in the magical resurrection of a 3 day old decomposing corpse, a fantasy that requires throwing out biology and all of reality. It just doesn't make sense that this scientist would throw out science to believe in bullshit.
Mr. Miller is brilliant, extremely knowledgeable about biology, but he is god-soaked. Why? Why would this brilliant person believe in a magical being? Where does he hide it? For what reason does he think the magic fairy is real? He's a Catholic aka Christian. He is required to believe in the magical resurrection of a 3 day old decomposing corpse, a fantasy that requires throwing out biology and all of reality. It just doesn't make sense that this scientist would throw out science to believe in bullshit.
The fucking stupid. The burning out of control stupid.
A comment I wrote at theocratic brain-dead god-soaked website, where they want to stick their moronic magical creationism fantasy into science classrooms.
As every educated person knows, evolution is the strongest fact of science, supported by powerful evidence from DNA sequencing and many other branches of science. Magical creationism is a childish religious fantasy and it’s not science. Fantasies don’t belong in science education. It’s a waste of time to teach magical nonsense. It’s not fair to students to get stuck with these incompetent science teachers who know nothing about science. Keep your disgusting magical fantasies out of public schools.
http://www.believersstandunited.com/kids-science-text-book-louisiana-schools-genesis/
As every educated person knows, evolution is the strongest fact of science, supported by powerful evidence from DNA sequencing and many other branches of science. Magical creationism is a childish religious fantasy and it’s not science. Fantasies don’t belong in science education. It’s a waste of time to teach magical nonsense. It’s not fair to students to get stuck with these incompetent science teachers who know nothing about science. Keep your disgusting magical fantasies out of public schools.
http://www.believersstandunited.com/kids-science-text-book-louisiana-schools-genesis/
Tuesday, June 16, 2015
Comments I wrote at a god-soaked blog where an idiot tried to explain why evolution is "weak".
"I’ve come to conclude that Darwinian Evolution is a weak theory."
You write this after admitting you're not a biologist. You talked about that but said something like "so what?" as if you're still qualified to say virtually every biologist in the world is wrong. You will easily convince your audience you're right because they want you to be right. The problem is a real biologist, if you were honest enough to let him or her write here, would be able to explain in great detail why you're wrong about everything.
I suggest if your religion completely depends on the denial of the foundation of biology (evolution) which thanks to DNA sequencing has become the strongest fact of science, then your religion is doomed. It will go extinct eventually. Science education will kill it.
I doubt you will do the right thing and let a real biologist explain everything. By the way evolution is called "evolution", not "Darwinian Evolution". Darwin no longer has anything to do with it because there's been 155 years of scientific progress since 1859. Today the evidence is many thousands of times stronger than Darwin could have imagined possible. And still you want to throw out the whole thing.
By the way sir, sorry to bother you again, but you should know biologists call your Discovery Institute "Crackpot Central".
http://www.weareglory.com/blog/charles-darwin-evolution-and-intellectual-suicide
When the fucking idiot asked me to explain why his moronic bullshit was wrong I wrote this:
As if I should spend the next several hours explaining why your anti-science sources are wrong, even though it's very unlikely I would be able to convince you evolution is how the world works. I learned a long time ago it would be a waste of my time. Creationists will always find any excuse to deny scientific evidence. That's why they're still creationists.
Your Discovery Institute, like I wrote before, is the laughing stock of the scientific community. The Discovery Institute is famous for their dishonesty.
I recently found a website that has largest list of evolution evidences I have ever seen, written by a real scientist, explained to make it easy to understand, and not that it should matter but this scientist is religious (which is unusual). There is so much evidence explained it would take you years to get through the whole thing.
It's at http://christadelphianevolution.blogspot.com.au/p/the-evidence-for-evolution.html
Even though the evidence at that website is overwhelming, it's still only a fraction of the always growing evidence for evolution, including our evolutionary relationship with the other ape species. There is no excuse for denying the established truth of evolution in the 21st century.
The FUCKTARD, not wanting to let his moronic brainwashed customers see evidence for the science that kills his moronic cult, solved the problem by deleting the entire post. At another post I wrote this for the fucking cowardly asshole.
Hello. Off-topic. That's one way to solve a problem. Just delete the entire post. It's called censorship which is something religions need to exist. You solved the problem but you disgraced yourself. These things I remember. It's not good for the reputation of religions. Have a nice day sir.
http://www.weareglory.com
http://www.weareglory.com/blog/charles-darwin-evolution-and-intellectual-suicide WAS DELETED.
You write this after admitting you're not a biologist. You talked about that but said something like "so what?" as if you're still qualified to say virtually every biologist in the world is wrong. You will easily convince your audience you're right because they want you to be right. The problem is a real biologist, if you were honest enough to let him or her write here, would be able to explain in great detail why you're wrong about everything.
I suggest if your religion completely depends on the denial of the foundation of biology (evolution) which thanks to DNA sequencing has become the strongest fact of science, then your religion is doomed. It will go extinct eventually. Science education will kill it.
I doubt you will do the right thing and let a real biologist explain everything. By the way evolution is called "evolution", not "Darwinian Evolution". Darwin no longer has anything to do with it because there's been 155 years of scientific progress since 1859. Today the evidence is many thousands of times stronger than Darwin could have imagined possible. And still you want to throw out the whole thing.
By the way sir, sorry to bother you again, but you should know biologists call your Discovery Institute "Crackpot Central".
http://www.weareglory.com/blog/charles-darwin-evolution-and-intellectual-suicide
When the fucking idiot asked me to explain why his moronic bullshit was wrong I wrote this:
As if I should spend the next several hours explaining why your anti-science sources are wrong, even though it's very unlikely I would be able to convince you evolution is how the world works. I learned a long time ago it would be a waste of my time. Creationists will always find any excuse to deny scientific evidence. That's why they're still creationists.
Your Discovery Institute, like I wrote before, is the laughing stock of the scientific community. The Discovery Institute is famous for their dishonesty.
I recently found a website that has largest list of evolution evidences I have ever seen, written by a real scientist, explained to make it easy to understand, and not that it should matter but this scientist is religious (which is unusual). There is so much evidence explained it would take you years to get through the whole thing.
It's at http://christadelphianevolution.blogspot.com.au/p/the-evidence-for-evolution.html
Even though the evidence at that website is overwhelming, it's still only a fraction of the always growing evidence for evolution, including our evolutionary relationship with the other ape species. There is no excuse for denying the established truth of evolution in the 21st century.
The FUCKTARD, not wanting to let his moronic brainwashed customers see evidence for the science that kills his moronic cult, solved the problem by deleting the entire post. At another post I wrote this for the fucking cowardly asshole.
Hello. Off-topic. That's one way to solve a problem. Just delete the entire post. It's called censorship which is something religions need to exist. You solved the problem but you disgraced yourself. These things I remember. It's not good for the reputation of religions. Have a nice day sir.
http://www.weareglory.com
http://www.weareglory.com/blog/charles-darwin-evolution-and-intellectual-suicide WAS DELETED.
Monday, June 15, 2015
Wall Street Journal "How Your Emotions Get in the Way of Smart Investing" A comment I wrote.
Most investors are doing it wrong. What they do is equal to gambling. It works sometimes but eventually they could get wiped out.
The way to go in my opinion is buy only safe dividend paying stocks. By safe I mean those corporations who have been increasing the dividend every year for the past several decades. They raised their dividend even during the last very bad recession. Investors should keep the shares they buy for the rest of lives, never caring if the price goes up or down. The idea is to have a growing dividend income. People who use this method starting at a young age will probably be able to retire long before they can collect social security, while never having to worry about anything.
Conservative dividend income investing is boring but it works. Not only do these people become wealthy, they can sleep at night. They have nothing to worry about because they're doing it right.
Sunday, June 14, 2015
Hunt down and kill the assholes for Jeebus.
"do you think religion should be outright banned outside people's private residences?"
Excellent idea.
Also, god-soaked scum need to be relentlessly ridiculed because they brainwash children, and like you said they get in the way of human progress. The god-soaked are just plain stupid and they need to be repeatedly told they're retarded. They also need to be told they're cowards. So afraid of reality they are willing to believe any nonsense that would make reality go away, for example the moronic childish cowardly magical heaven fantasy that makes terrorism possible.
To all religious scum: Drop dead.
A brain-dead Christian moron wrote "Darwins theory of Evolution is a fairytale."
Can you imagine the stupidity required to write something that insane? Science makes these cowardly uneducated diph!ts cry.
The stupid. The burning out of control stupid.
"Why does religion still exist?"
It's thanks to the child abuse called religious brainwashing. The brainwashers should be put in prison.
A possible solution is all children, starting at a very young age, no matter what school they go to, should be required to get competent science education, especially evolution. This is the only way to prevent the religious brainwashing from working. If it was up to me the brainwashers would be hunted down and killed.
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20150614203702AAVZRk7&sort=N
Excellent idea.
Also, god-soaked scum need to be relentlessly ridiculed because they brainwash children, and like you said they get in the way of human progress. The god-soaked are just plain stupid and they need to be repeatedly told they're retarded. They also need to be told they're cowards. So afraid of reality they are willing to believe any nonsense that would make reality go away, for example the moronic childish cowardly magical heaven fantasy that makes terrorism possible.
To all religious scum: Drop dead.
A brain-dead Christian moron wrote "Darwins theory of Evolution is a fairytale."
Can you imagine the stupidity required to write something that insane? Science makes these cowardly uneducated diph!ts cry.
The stupid. The burning out of control stupid.
"Why does religion still exist?"
It's thanks to the child abuse called religious brainwashing. The brainwashers should be put in prison.
A possible solution is all children, starting at a very young age, no matter what school they go to, should be required to get competent science education, especially evolution. This is the only way to prevent the religious brainwashing from working. If it was up to me the brainwashers would be hunted down and killed.
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20150614203702AAVZRk7&sort=N
The Wall Street Journal occasionally has articles about science including evolution. This makes some of their god-soaked readers cry. For one of those fucking idiots who disgrace conservatism I wrote this comment.
"And I don't buy evolution."
You have studied science but you're a science denier.
Nobody cares. The 21st century will do just fine without you.
You probably can't be bothered to spend a few minutes looking at the some of the overwhelming evidence for evolution, and you probably would not understand it, but other people might be interested in one of the largest lists of evolution evidences I have seen, all explained to be easy to understand, assuming the reader has a brain. It's at http://christadelphianevolution.blogspot.com.au/p/the-evidence-for-evolution.html
The person who built that website is for some strange reason god-soaked, but nobody is perfect. He does not let his cult get in the way of understanding how the world works.
The pro-science article about evolution at the Wall Street Journal is at http://www.wsj.com/articles/genes-are-selfish-people-are-not-1434144343?hubRefSrc=email&utm_source=lfemail&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=lfnotification#lf_comment=327875454
Saturday, June 13, 2015
“Surely the fundamental distinction between science and religion is that science has a profound respect for the truth. Anyone who asserts that reality must be as they believe it to be in the absence of credible evidence is dishonest.”
“Surely the fundamental distinction between science and religion is that science has a profound respect for the truth. Anyone who asserts that reality must be as they believe it to be in the absence of credible evidence is dishonest.”
-- Written by somebody named John Wiltshire at this website:
Evolution, Creationism, and Christianity; what teachers need to know
Another quote I found:
"The existing paradigm of religious faith is incompatible with science, as is theology as a valid human intellectual project, as it does not lead to insight that can be tested or confirmed."
-- Written by somebody named John Wiltshire at this website:
Evolution, Creationism, and Christianity; what teachers need to know
Another quote I found:
"The existing paradigm of religious faith is incompatible with science, as is theology as a valid human intellectual project, as it does not lead to insight that can be tested or confirmed."
-- internet name "energon1"
The Catholic Church Is Not an Enemy of Science (This is bullshit.)
People who use words like "paradigm" are full of shit but still it's a good quote.
People who use words like "paradigm" are full of shit but still it's a good quote.
Friday, June 12, 2015
A comment I wrote at Seeking Alpha
THE ARTICLE:
Replace The 4% Retirement Rule With These 4% Dividend Stocks
Apr. 22, 2015 5:08 PM ET | 363 comments | Includes: CVX, MO, T
Disclosure: The author is long MO. (More...)
Summary
The 4% Retirement Rule is frequently cited as a financial planning guide for retirees. But I believe the theory is flawed.
To me, investing in high-yield dividend stocks seems to be a better solution. There are many stocks yielding more than 4% that even raise their dividends over time.
And while the 4% Retirement Rule calls for a nest egg to eventually go to zero, retirees will not have to drain their savings by investing in dividend stocks.
As a result, investors could use dividend stocks as an even better retirement income strategy.
One of the more popular retirement financial planning strategies is the "4% Rule". This calls for retirees to withdraw 4% of their nest eggs each year, which would theoretically last through a 30-year retirement period. The 4% Rule gives retirees a look into how much they can expect to receive each year from their savings, and how long it will last before they run out of money.
When I first heard about this method, I soon found myself asking: Why do retirees have to run out of money at all? I wouldn't want to drain my retirement savings down to zero. As an investor, I think a better way to go is to make your money work for you. In exchange for a modest amount of risk, a person could easily construct an investment portfolio that is diversified and provides 4% (or greater) in investment income.
Go For Return On Capital, Not Return Of Capital
To me, the biggest advantage of investing for 4% yields instead of the 4% Rule is that it allows you to earn a return on your investment, not a return of your investment. Under the 4% Rule, you eventually run out of money. This in itself is a risk that should be considered, which the 4% Rule doesn't address. What if the person lives longer than 30 years?
By investing, a person can earn a return on their money. That will allow them to earn income from their investment, and at the end of a 30-year period, the portfolio value will remain. Many will opt for the 4% Rule, or a similar method, because of the fear of investing. After all, stocks and bonds can, and often do, lose value over a given period. But over long periods of time, stocks will rise in value. And I believe reasonably priced stocks with high dividend yields like Altria Group (NYSE:MO), AT&T (NYSE:T), and Chevron (NYSE:CVX) will reward investors over a 30-year period far in excess of what a withdrawal strategy would accomplish.
These companies are all large, established leaders in their respective industries. I chose them because they have strong brands and long histories of paying dividends and raising those dividends over time. There are many other companies from different industries that are equally strong dividend stocks. But I believe these three are a good starting point. Altria Group holds the Marlboro brand, and has increased its dividend 48 times in the last 46 years. AT&T is a telecommunications behemoth, and has increased its dividend for 31 years in a row. Last, but not least, Chevron is an oil & gas giant that has raised its dividend for 27 consecutive years. Assuming equal weights, an investor would earn a 4.5% combined yield from these three stocks.
The reason why Altria, AT&T, and Chevron have maintained such impressive dividend histories is because their profits have risen over time. All three companies have paid dividends without interruption for a very long time because their businesses have stood the test of time. I believe these companies, which have gotten stronger over the past many decades, will get even stronger in the decades to come.
Modify The 4% Rule: Include Dividends
The fear of falling stock prices is misguided. Stocks often go down in price, but those losses are on paper only. Investors who have the patience to ride out the short-term bumps in the road are rewarded over the long term. High-quality companies with strong brands and rising profits are very good investment options, even for a retiree. Retirees shouldn't be scared of the stock market. While it's true that stocks sometimes go down, over 30 years, I'd bet a portfolio of high-yield dividend stocks like Altria, AT&T, Chevron, and others will be worth far more than zero - which is exactly where the 4% Rule takes you.
The three stocks mentioned above are just a starting point. There are many other worthwhile stocks to consider. And there are other asset classes outside stocks to consider for income, like bonds. But the broader point is that retirees shouldn't have to drain their savings. When invested in high-quality stocks, retirees can easily earn 4% or more from dividends, with the added possibility of seeing their portfolios rise in value. Even better, investing in dividend stocks will generate income far above 4% once dividend growth is taken into consideration.
Replace The 4% Retirement Rule With These 4% Dividend Stocks [View article]
WHAT I WROTE:
"This calls for retirees to withdraw 4% of their nest eggs each year, which would theoretically last through a 30-year retirement period."
The people who use this method have to hope they drop dead in time. What a terrible idea. It's better to never touch the principal. I'm recently retired and I plan to always have enough dividend income to live and also to buy more shares, giving myself a raise every 3 months. I do not fear living too long. And I could care less if the price of my shares goes up or down because I will never sell anything the rest of my life. The stock market can crash. I don't care.
Apr 23, 2015. 12:00 PM
4 Likes
Replace The 4% Retirement Rule With These 4% Dividend Stocks
Apr. 22, 2015 5:08 PM ET | 363 comments | Includes: CVX, MO, T
Disclosure: The author is long MO. (More...)
Summary
The 4% Retirement Rule is frequently cited as a financial planning guide for retirees. But I believe the theory is flawed.
To me, investing in high-yield dividend stocks seems to be a better solution. There are many stocks yielding more than 4% that even raise their dividends over time.
And while the 4% Retirement Rule calls for a nest egg to eventually go to zero, retirees will not have to drain their savings by investing in dividend stocks.
As a result, investors could use dividend stocks as an even better retirement income strategy.
One of the more popular retirement financial planning strategies is the "4% Rule". This calls for retirees to withdraw 4% of their nest eggs each year, which would theoretically last through a 30-year retirement period. The 4% Rule gives retirees a look into how much they can expect to receive each year from their savings, and how long it will last before they run out of money.
When I first heard about this method, I soon found myself asking: Why do retirees have to run out of money at all? I wouldn't want to drain my retirement savings down to zero. As an investor, I think a better way to go is to make your money work for you. In exchange for a modest amount of risk, a person could easily construct an investment portfolio that is diversified and provides 4% (or greater) in investment income.
Go For Return On Capital, Not Return Of Capital
To me, the biggest advantage of investing for 4% yields instead of the 4% Rule is that it allows you to earn a return on your investment, not a return of your investment. Under the 4% Rule, you eventually run out of money. This in itself is a risk that should be considered, which the 4% Rule doesn't address. What if the person lives longer than 30 years?
By investing, a person can earn a return on their money. That will allow them to earn income from their investment, and at the end of a 30-year period, the portfolio value will remain. Many will opt for the 4% Rule, or a similar method, because of the fear of investing. After all, stocks and bonds can, and often do, lose value over a given period. But over long periods of time, stocks will rise in value. And I believe reasonably priced stocks with high dividend yields like Altria Group (NYSE:MO), AT&T (NYSE:T), and Chevron (NYSE:CVX) will reward investors over a 30-year period far in excess of what a withdrawal strategy would accomplish.
These companies are all large, established leaders in their respective industries. I chose them because they have strong brands and long histories of paying dividends and raising those dividends over time. There are many other companies from different industries that are equally strong dividend stocks. But I believe these three are a good starting point. Altria Group holds the Marlboro brand, and has increased its dividend 48 times in the last 46 years. AT&T is a telecommunications behemoth, and has increased its dividend for 31 years in a row. Last, but not least, Chevron is an oil & gas giant that has raised its dividend for 27 consecutive years. Assuming equal weights, an investor would earn a 4.5% combined yield from these three stocks.
The reason why Altria, AT&T, and Chevron have maintained such impressive dividend histories is because their profits have risen over time. All three companies have paid dividends without interruption for a very long time because their businesses have stood the test of time. I believe these companies, which have gotten stronger over the past many decades, will get even stronger in the decades to come.
Modify The 4% Rule: Include Dividends
The fear of falling stock prices is misguided. Stocks often go down in price, but those losses are on paper only. Investors who have the patience to ride out the short-term bumps in the road are rewarded over the long term. High-quality companies with strong brands and rising profits are very good investment options, even for a retiree. Retirees shouldn't be scared of the stock market. While it's true that stocks sometimes go down, over 30 years, I'd bet a portfolio of high-yield dividend stocks like Altria, AT&T, Chevron, and others will be worth far more than zero - which is exactly where the 4% Rule takes you.
The three stocks mentioned above are just a starting point. There are many other worthwhile stocks to consider. And there are other asset classes outside stocks to consider for income, like bonds. But the broader point is that retirees shouldn't have to drain their savings. When invested in high-quality stocks, retirees can easily earn 4% or more from dividends, with the added possibility of seeing their portfolios rise in value. Even better, investing in dividend stocks will generate income far above 4% once dividend growth is taken into consideration.
Replace The 4% Retirement Rule With These 4% Dividend Stocks [View article]
WHAT I WROTE:
"This calls for retirees to withdraw 4% of their nest eggs each year, which would theoretically last through a 30-year retirement period."
The people who use this method have to hope they drop dead in time. What a terrible idea. It's better to never touch the principal. I'm recently retired and I plan to always have enough dividend income to live and also to buy more shares, giving myself a raise every 3 months. I do not fear living too long. And I could care less if the price of my shares goes up or down because I will never sell anything the rest of my life. The stock market can crash. I don't care.
Apr 23, 2015. 12:00 PM
4 Likes
At the Wall Street Journal I wrote a reply for a Christian retard.
Sir, the Christian religion completely depends on the idea that a preacher man who lived 2,000 years ago got himself executed and then after decomposing for 3 days, magically became alive again. Today we call these things zombies. I love zombie movies but everyone knows this is fiction. Dead people stay dead, especially if worms and maggots have been feasting on the stinking corpse for 3 days. This is called reality. Christians are required to be reality deniers. This is possible only thanks to the child abuse called religious indoctrination.
The Bible, beside being ridiculous, is full of the magical being's love for genocide and slavery. Civilized people think these things are disgusting.
To help you understand reality you just have to know one thing: Magic is not real.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/scenes-from-a-young-papacy-1434065038
Another reply I wrote at the same thread:
One thing you wrote was very interesting: "While I disagree with your premise about the bible , that my friend will be answered when you die. Good luck with that..."
Another reply I wrote at the same thread:
One thing you wrote was very interesting: "While I disagree with your premise about the bible , that my friend will be answered when you die. Good luck with that..."
I have seen many versions of this before. What it means goes like this: "You don't believe in my fantasies therefore my invisible friend will torture you after you drop dead."
This is a threat that makes the Christians who say this equal to terrorists. Of course the threat is meaningless because dead people can't be tortured because they're nothing more than a piece of garbage. But still it's a threat and it doesn't do much for the reputation of Christians.
Here in the 21st century where normal people (aka atheists) live we have something called "Reality". Reality has the advantage of being real, unlike these crazy religious ideas like a magical heaven and magical hell for decomposing dead people.
A 3rd comment for the fucking idiot:
It's very obvious who is right and who is wrong. Your idea that I will find out after I drop dead, to put it as nicely as possible, is insane.
A 4th comment for the Christian retard:
A 3rd comment for the fucking idiot:
It's very obvious who is right and who is wrong. Your idea that I will find out after I drop dead, to put it as nicely as possible, is insane.
Reality is a wonderful thing. Maybe some day you will realize it but I doubt it. Your "God forgives even the most ignorant of men" shows your problem is incurable. Not only do you believe in a magical master of the entire universe, you also seem to know what it does. According to you it has singled out this insignificant planet in a universe of countless trillions of solar systems for lots of special treatment. This fantasy is called "wishful thinking".
Another thing that's wonderful is called "thinking". The goal of religious brainwashing is to discourage thinking.A 4th comment for the Christian retard:
"To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today."
-- Isaac Asimov
Your idea for everything you don't understand: "It was magic" as if magic is real. Fortunately scientists don't do that. They try to find out what really happened instead of invoking the Magic Man.
Wednesday, June 10, 2015
A god-soaked pro-science blog has tons & tons of well explained evidence for evolution.
Some of countless links to the evidence for evolution on his blog:
http://christadelphianevolution.blogspot.com.au/p/the-evidence-for-evolution.html
The Evidence for Common Descent from Molecular Genetics (including human chromosome 2)
ERV's: The Genomic Evidence for Common Descent: 5. Endogenous Retroviral Elements
Tons more DNA evidence, fossil evidence, and everything else. This is best evidence-for-evolution website with best easy to understand explanations I have seen.
The blog also, for some strange reason, believes in the ridiculous god fantasy. The blog does not allow comments but I can tweet the owner.
From the blog I provided links to I saw a link to a book, and at Amazon I wrote a comment at http://www.amazon.com/review/R1KK7ADITKT1C8?_encoding=UTF8&asin=0309102316&cdForum=Fx13JY8H77Z4CLT&cdMSG=addedToThread&cdPage=&cdThread=Tx1SYL47CFDZFGP&newContentID=Mx3BT82PHAZD0BM&newContentNum=2&store=books#CustomerDiscussionsNRPB
Very good what you wrote.
"science's track record suggests that natural explanations of things currently unexplained will one day be forthcoming."
Exactly right. What I get out of this is a magical being (god, allah, etc.) was never necessary for anything therefore it isn't real. The people who deny this obvious truth (god not necessary) have some kind of mental problem in my opinion. They don't want to grow up and face facts.
http://christadelphianevolution.blogspot.com.au/p/the-evidence-for-evolution.html
The Evidence for Common Descent from Molecular Genetics (including human chromosome 2)
ERV's: The Genomic Evidence for Common Descent: 5. Endogenous Retroviral Elements
Tons more DNA evidence, fossil evidence, and everything else. This is best evidence-for-evolution website with best easy to understand explanations I have seen.
The blog also, for some strange reason, believes in the ridiculous god fantasy. The blog does not allow comments but I can tweet the owner.
From the blog I provided links to I saw a link to a book, and at Amazon I wrote a comment at http://www.amazon.com/review/R1KK7ADITKT1C8?_encoding=UTF8&asin=0309102316&cdForum=Fx13JY8H77Z4CLT&cdMSG=addedToThread&cdPage=&cdThread=Tx1SYL47CFDZFGP&newContentID=Mx3BT82PHAZD0BM&newContentNum=2&store=books#CustomerDiscussionsNRPB
Very good what you wrote.
"science's track record suggests that natural explanations of things currently unexplained will one day be forthcoming."
Exactly right. What I get out of this is a magical being (god, allah, etc.) was never necessary for anything therefore it isn't real. The people who deny this obvious truth (god not necessary) have some kind of mental problem in my opinion. They don't want to grow up and face facts.
Tuesday, June 9, 2015
I wrote these comments at debate.org
"Science class is for science. If you want ID to be taught in religious studies or philosophy, that's fine."
Actually it's not fine because child abuse is wrong. Magical intelligent design creationism should not be taught anywhere because it makes students stupid.
Actually it's not fine because child abuse is wrong. Magical intelligent design creationism should not be taught anywhere because it makes students stupid.
Some people think there is a debate between evolution (aka science) and magical intelligent design creationism (aka moronic religious fantasy). There is no debate. Evolution has been accepted as fact by biologists for more than a century and today it has become the strongest fact of science. There is no debate.
"Some clarity is required, evolution does not in any way shape or form teach anything about gods. It simple explains how life evolved using two primary postulates."
I totally agree. However we should not ignore the religious implications of evolution. My idea is this:
If a magical being (aka god fairy) was not necessary for something as complex as the development of new species (the fairy is most certainly not necessary for new species) then it's fair to say it's not necessary for anything else. Evolutionary biology, more than any other branch of science, shows that a magical being is not required for anything, therefore the god fairy is just a childish fantasy for cowards who fear reality.
http://www.debate.org/forums/science/topic/69236/2/
I totally agree. However we should not ignore the religious implications of evolution. My idea is this:
If a magical being (aka god fairy) was not necessary for something as complex as the development of new species (the fairy is most certainly not necessary for new species) then it's fair to say it's not necessary for anything else. Evolutionary biology, more than any other branch of science, shows that a magical being is not required for anything, therefore the god fairy is just a childish fantasy for cowards who fear reality.
http://www.debate.org/forums/science/topic/69236/2/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)