Perfect Fool

Norman Borlaug, 1914-2009

mark.oleary@comcast.net (The Fool) — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 20:09:00 GMT

I just learned that Norman Borlaug, scientist and Nobel Peace Prize recipient died this past Sunday. He was a giant who single-handedly saved the lives of a billion people. The New York Times said,

Borlaug... develop[ed] genetically unique strains of "semidwarf" wheat, and later rice, that raised food yields as much as sixfold. The result was that a country like India was able to feed its own people as its population grew from 500 million in the mid-1960s, when Borlaug's "Green Revolution" began to take effect, to the current 1.16 billion. Today, famines—whether in Zimbabwe, Darfur or North Korea—are politically induced events, not true natural disasters. (Emphasis added.)

If you never heard of Norman Borlaug, please read the Wikipedia article on him. That feeling your experienceing is a combination of humility and gratitude.

This man is a hero to the world. He was selfless, modest and brilliant. He was also a life-long non-theist. Yay, our team!

Sinead's Hand

mark.oleary@comcast.net (The Fool) — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 19:11:00 GMT

This is brilliant! Glad to see signs of real civilization emerging after that whole stupid blasphemy law business. I can only hope it catches on. Pass this around to every sympathetic pair of eyeballs you know. (Single eyeballs welcome too!)

Pledge of Allegiance

mark.oleary@comcast.net (The Fool) — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 12:08:00 GMT

This is how I am saying the Pledge from now on!

Thanks to Hemant, The Friendly Atheist

What Were They Trying to Do, Again?

mark.oleary@comcast.net (The Fool) — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 21:53:00 GMT

It probably hasn't occurred to the people who were so upset about President Obama's attempt to "indoctrinate" school children, but they drew far more attention to the speech than it deserved or would have received if they had simply kept their mouths shut about it. The Fool is no fan of Obama, but honestly, what's the big deal here?

Link to LA Times Story

Winner of Contest #3: Name That Logical Fallacy

mark.oleary@comcast.net (The Fool) — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 20:46:00 GMT

Harder Than I Thought

I didn't anticipate the level of response I got from this contest. I also was very impressed with the detailed answers I received from some contestants. (I was less than impressed with what I will call the "minimalist" entries, such as the anonymous reader who replied, "The argument is a fallacy because the guy is a dumbass.")

A word of explanation: informal logic is not an exact science. There can be overlap in the categories, and some fallacies are actually just subspecies of others. The winner was chosen based on not only the number of fallacies named, but how well the contestant defended his choices.

So, after reading through the many hundreds of entries we received here at Perfect Fool Central Command (OK, it was a team of unpaid interns who did the actual reading--The Fool just ate bonbons and drank cocoa) , the winning entry comes from "Mooby the Golden Sock."

Mooby's entry names 13 separate fallacies. Here is his reply:

-             False analogy – This is the fallacy of assuming that if two things are similar in one respect, they are similar in all respects. A legitimate analogy uses comparisons that are relevant to the argument. For instance, as a deer and a dog are both four-legged mammals, one could use a deer’s leg to compare to a dog’s. However, asserting that the dog has antlers would be a false analogy. This story notes the similarity between a barber’s job and God’s job, and uses the analogy to assert that the barber and God are alike in every characteristic.

-         Hasty generalization—This is the fallacy of using the properties of a small sample size to generalize about an entire group. In the story, the narrator uses a sample size of one (the barber) generalize about all beings in service of others. Logically, he could not even draw conclusions about the majority of other barbers from this one barber. Who’s to say that the rest of the barbers don’t actively turn away customers with beards?

-         Accident – The fallacy of ignoring acceptable exceptions to a generalization. The narrator does this when he ignores possible exceptions (such as “not existing”) when he draws the conclusion about God from his (hasty) generalization. Note that this fallacy would still be present even if his generalization was not fallacious.

-         Argument from personal incredulity – This is the fallacy of arriving at a conclusion due to one personally finding a premise unbelievable. The barber explicitly says, “I can't imagine a loving God who would allow all of these things.”

-         Package deal fallacy – The fallacy of assuming two things historically grouped together are always grouped that way. The barber does this when he first speaks of “God” with the assumption of omnibenevolence. Only later does he qualify the God as “loving.”

-         Affirming the consequent – This fallacy states that if A => B, then necessarily B => A. This is fallacious because C could also => B, which would mean that B being true could imply C and not A. In the story, it gets even trickier as 3 terms are used: A + B => C, where A is “X exists,” B is “there are people who don’t use X’s services,” and C is “they don’t come to me.” Here, the narrator concludes C from A and B, and then tries to conclude C from B alone (never mind that pesky A), and then affirm the consequent from C to get A.

-         Straw man – The fallacy where an opposing argument is misrepresented to make it easier to attack. The narrator does this by ignoring the part of the barber’s argument that hinge on God being an omnipotent and omnibenevolent being. Were he to consider a perfect barber who has the ability and the infinite desire to cut all hair past X length, he would be phrasing his opponent’s argument properly.

-         Non-sequitur – I used to have a pet cat, but she died. That explains non-sequitur. The poster’s story is like my pet cat, except it didn’t meow. Therefore, it did not really answer any questions in the video, despite the poster’s claim. This fallacy would have been avoided by explaining the relevance of the story to the question, and then making the argument, rather than letting the story be the argument. For example, my comment about my dead cat is in no way related to the explanation of non-sequitur, making it an example of non-sequitur. The previous sentence, on the other hand, is not a non-sequitur because it establishes its relevance to the explanation of non-sequitur.

Ok, enough with the damn story. I could probably find more, but they’d undoubtedly overlap.
-         Ad hominem – “you are still incrediblyignorant.” – An ad hominem argument draws a conclusion about an argument from a characteristic of the arguer (true or not.) In this case, the poster uses the claim that the video author is “ignorant” to dismiss the arguments in the videos. Even if the video author is truly ignorant, his argument may still be valid. This ad hominem is continued in the next sentence, but rephrased to say that the argument is only valid if the person changes the characteristic in question (i.e. gets a church education.)

-         Bare assertion fallacy – The fallacy of stating an assertion without showing why that assertion is true. The poster claims that one must meet certain criteria to argue without saying why, and in the PS he states that God heals through prosthetic limbs, that “it doesn’t have to be the same thing,” and that it functions “just fine” without any justifications for those statements.

-         Argument from verbosity – The fallacy where one attempts to use the length of an argument to give it credibility. I wouldn’t have included this one, but the guy did apologize for length so I figured it was fair game.

The PS:
-         False attribution – The fallacy where someone appeals to a false source of an action. This can be seen simply by tracing the source of a prosthetic limb to the person who manufactured it or the person who attached it (a.k.a. not God).

-         Equivocation – The fallacy of using a term in two different ways. For instance, responding to a question about the healing of a limb with an example of a prosthetic “healing,” even though the word is being used differently in each instance (physical vs. functional healing).

That's a full thirteen fallacies! Mooby wins his choice of Sin-O-Mints, AtoneMints or Messiah Mints. Runner up was Anna with six. Sorry, Anna, better luck next time. Mooby, send The Fool your snail mail address and you'll soon be the guy with the minty fresh--and logical--breath!

A new contest coming soon!

New Contest: Name That Logical Fallacy

mark.oleary@comcast.net (The Fool) — Sun, 16 Aug 2009 22:39:00 GMT

I have decided to give the Good Book a rest this time out and let you exercise your brains instead. This week we're going to play "Name That Logical Fallacy." We're going to have such fun!

Here's an email that was originally sent to the forum, Why Won't God Heal Amputees? It is a thoughtful response to the infamous "10 Questions" video.

A man went to a barbershop to have his hair cut and his beard trimmed.
As the barber began to work, they began to have a good conversation.
They talked about so many things and various subjects..
When they eventually touched on the subject of God, the barber said:
"I don't believe that God exists."
"Why do you say that?" asked the customer. "Well, you just have to go out in the street to realize that God doesn't exist.
Tell me, if God exists, would there be so many sick people?
Would there be abandoned children?
If God existed, there would be neither suffering nor pain.
I can't imagine a loving God who would allow all of these things."
The customer thought for a moment, but didn't respond because he didn't want to start an argument.
The barber finished his job and the customer left the shop.
Just after he left the barbershop, he saw a man in the street with long, stringy, dirty hair and an untrimmed beard.
He looked dirty and unkempt. The customer turned back and entered the barber shop again and he said to the barber:
"You know what? Barbers do not exist."
"How can you say that?" asked the surprised barber.
"I am here, and I am a barber. And I just worked on you!"
"No!" the customer exclaimed. "Barbers don't exist because
if they did, there would be no people with dirty long hair and untrimmed beards, like that man outside."
"Ah, but barbers DO exist! That's what happens when people do not come to me."
"Exactly!" affirmed the customer. "That's the point! God, too, DOES exist!
That'swhat happens when people do not go to Him and don't look to Him forhelp. That's why there's so much pain and suffering in the world."

Iapologize for the length, but it explains your questions in your video"10 questions that every intelligent Christian must answer" Iappreciate your for being respectful and civil about yourargument(unlike most athiest youtubers), but you are still incrediblyignorant. To argue God or no-God, you need to fully understand bothsides; meaning go to a church, talk with a pastor, etc. Imagine atoddler arguing how to drive a car: they have never drove and don't yethave any logical reasoning. This is my point of view of you arguingthat God does not exist.

P.S. ;God can heal amputees, thrusomething called prosthetic limbs. It doesn't have to be the same thingbut it functions just fine

Thank you for your time.

Now here's the challenge: name the logical fallacies in this post. Name as many as you can, and explain each fallacy briefly.

Please note I said, "briefly."

Here's the important bit: DO NOT POST YOUR ANSWER IN THE COMMENTS. THEY WON'T BE PUBLISHED. EMAIL THE ANSWER TO CODSWALLOP@COMCAST.NET.

The whole business of logical fallacies can be a bit tricky. Some fallacies overlap, or go by different names. There are some broad categories of fallacies which contain narrower definitions within them. So be specific and be thorough.

As always, this is just for fun. Decision of the judges (OK, it's just me) is final and subject to logical fallacies of my own. Prizes will be awarded. Also, I reserve the right to make mistakes.(It's just a tin of frikkin' mints, for FSM's sake!)

Contest closes Monday, August 24, 2009 at 9:00 EDT.

Contest Winner: Best Bible Verse

mark.oleary@comcast.net (The Fool) — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 21:40:00 GMT

Announcing the Winner of Contest #2

I guess the smaller number of entrys may be attributed to the fact that evil characters are always more interesting than the good ones. We had just four contestants. The positive side of this is that the Fool can respond to each entry individually, so you can see why I chose the winner I did.

Pastafarian chose:
Whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them.
Matthew 7.12

A nice choice, and while it gets points for universality, it loses them for being way too familiar a verse. I mean, even Jesus was just paraphrasing Hillel.

Richard Martson gave us eight verses from Song of Songs, which is gorgeous stuff. Unfortunately, the contest asked for a single verse, so while it isn't a disqualifier, it is a negative. Also, there are a lot of typos, which can happen to anybody, but he misspelled the word "breasts," and that I cannot allow. The Fool has his standards.

Dragnet also entered more than one verse. OK, not so bad, just two. But I thought this section from Ecclesiastes was just a weird choice. This is the best in the Bible? I don't get it.

Finally, Sky gave us Isaiah 55:12: "You will go out in joy and be led forth in peace; the mountains and hills will burst into song before you, and all the trees of the field will clap their hands."

I like her explanation of choice: I chose this one because I am a nature lover. I think it's beautiful because it describes the serenity, beauty and life that is found in nature. When I read it, it comes alive and makes me smile.

Nice!

I think the obvious winner is Sky!

Thanks for playing, everybody. A reminder to last week's winners (and to Sky): the prizes are real. OK, they're also real small, but still. If you want your tin of AtoneMints, Messiah Mints or Sin-o-Mints, (these things are SO cool!) just send me a mailing address and I'll pop 'em in the post. If you don't want to give your real name and address to some fool, even a Perfect Fool, I understand, but you have 30 days from date of winning to change your minds.

A new contest will be announced soon!

Contest #2: The Best Bible Verse

mark.oleary@comcast.net (The Fool) — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 15:33:00 GMT

OK, our first contest was a big success, ITFO ("in The Fool's opinion"). Now it's time for a little balance.

The Fool is not one of those people who thinks the entire Bible should be chucked. There's some real poetry in between all those begats and smites and fire baptisms. So that's what we want to see this time: What is the best, most beautiful verse of the Bible?

Now, there are some obvious choices. People love the 23rd Psalm, or I Corinthians 13, and those are fine. But for the purpose of judging this contest, consideration will be given to the obscurity of your selection. You may find, "Jesus wept" the most beautiful verse in the Bible (it's also the shortest, BTW), but so do millions of other people. So dig, people. Pick something not so obvious. Given a choice between one of the beatitudes and something from Nehemiah, the Fool will pick the prophet.

Further consideration will be given to the universality of the verse. If your favorite is something specific to Christianity, it's going to carry less weight than something that people find profound regardless of personal belief.

To enter, just quote the passage (with correct chapter & verse) in the comments. The prize is the same as last time--yummy, heretical mints, winner's choice, three types to choose from:
Fine Print:
This whole thing is free and just for fun. The Fool will not use your email address for any other purpose. The decision of the judges is final and probably wrong. In case of more than one winner (hey, in could happen), duplicate prizes will be awarded. Or not. The Fool reserves the right to alter or terminate this contest at any time for any damn reason or none at all. All entries become property of A Perfect Fool. One entry per IP address per contest. Void where prohibited, restricted, or taxed. So there.

Heinous Bible Verses: We Have a Winner!

mark.oleary@comcast.net (The Fool) — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 15:03:00 GMT

Thanks to everyone who entered. (OK, there were eight entries--not overwhelming, but pretty cool anyway.) According to the hosting stats, a lot of people are reading without registering or commenting, which is really cool.

And we have a winner!

Actually, we have two: The two-way tie is between Airyaman and Kevin Ratzlaff.

Airyaman's entry was Deuteronomy 28:63 "And as the LORD took delight in doing you good and multiplying you, so the LORD will take delight in bringing ruin upon you and destroying you. And you shall be plucked off the land that you are entering to take possession of it."

The Fool was persuaded by the idea of God taking delight in destroying people. It makes him sound so--human.

Kevin gave us a longer passage. (What translation was that, Kevin?) The part I found compellingly heinous was:

"Then they thought of the annual festival of the LORD held in Shiloh, between Lebonah and Bethel, along the east side of the road that goes from Bethel to Shechem. They told the men of Benjamin who still needed wives, "Go and hide in the vineyards. When the women of Shiloh come out for their dances, rush out from the vineyards, and each of you can take one of them home to be your wife! And when their fathers and brothers come to us in protest, we will tell them, 'Please be understanding. Let them have your daughters, for we didn't find enough wives for them when we destroyed Jabesh-gilead. And you are not guilty of breaking the vow since you did not give your daughters in marriage to them.'" So the men of Benjamin did as they were told. They kidnapped the women who took part in the celebration and carried them off to the land of their own inheritance. Then they rebuilt their towns and lived in them. So the assembly of Israel departed by tribes and families, and they returned to their own homes."

This passage, like so many others in the "Good Book," illustrates the lengths to which people will go in order to rationalize their own disgusting behavior. In the pick-and-choose method of Bible scholarship, this passage would probably go into the discard pile, but why is it in there at all? Biblical morality indeed.

So you guys are the winners of the first-ever Perfect Fool Blog contest. I have your prizes waiting. Just email your mailing addresses to codswallop@comcast.net. Be sure to tell me which type of mints you want.

I have a whole bunch more mints to give away, so I'm busy thinking up a new contest. I'll let you know ASAP.

CONTEST: Pick Your Favorite Heinous Bible Verse

mark.oleary@comcast.net (The Fool) — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 20:41:00 GMT

Win A Prize! Tell us what you think is the most heinous verse in the Bible!

heinous |ˈhānəs|
adjective
(of a person or wrongful act, esp. a crime) utterly odious or wicked : a battery of heinous crimes.

You know there are some real corkers in there between Genesis and Revelation. Lately I've been enjoying (and quoting) Malachi 2:3--"Behold, I will corrupt your seed and spread dung upon your faces." I just love that one.

What about you? Do you have a favorite "bad" Bible verse? A verse so disgusting, evil or ironic that you want to share it with the world? Here's your chance to do so. Give us your the Bible verse you love to hate. Tell us (briefly) why it's so heinous. Be clever. Be creative. Get it done by next Thursday, August 6, 2009 at 5:00PM EDT.

PRIZES! PRIZES! PRIZES!

The best entry will win a real prize. Seriously. The most creative respondent gets her/his choice of a box of Messiah Mints, Atone-Mints or Sin-O-Mints, free for nothing. So crack those Bibles, and let's see some creativity.

This whole thing is free and just for fun. The Fool will not use your email address for any other purpose. The decision of the judges is final and probably wrong. In case of more than one winner (hey, in could happen), duplicate prizes will be awarded. Or not. The Fool reserves the right to alter or terminate this contest at any time for any damn reason or none at all. So there. All entries become property of A Perfect Fool. One entry per IP address per contest. Void where prohibited, restricted, or taxed.

Edward Current: What if God Disappeared?

mark.oleary@comcast.net (The Fool) — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 13:54:00 GMT

The Fool is a big fan of Edward Current's dripping-with-irony YouTube videos. They're all good, but this one really tickled me.

Store Your Soul

mark.oleary@comcast.net (The Fool) — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 13:11:00 GMT

Guitarist Robert Johnson famously sold his to the devil at the crossroads at midnight. Hemant Mehta sold his (albeit less famously) on eBay.

Others have sought to imitate these two men without success. Bart Simpson's attempt did not work out well.

So what to do with your soul, assuming you aren't using it? How about storing it?

The Soul Storage Company's Facebook page can explain much better than I. The video's very well done.

Michael Savage = Rockstar?

mark.oleary@comcast.net (The Fool) — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 23:37:00 GMT

First a bit of background: My new favorite web comic is a single-panel called "Far Left Side." You can see it here. Subscribe to it in your news reader. It's hilarious.

The comic is also a blog. The entry below is dated June 15, 2009. (Sorry, I'm a little late to the party.) It concerns two of the most unnecessary things in modern pop culture: energy drinks and Michael Savage. I didn't know anything about the connection before reading this, though I was already aware that both the drink and the man share certain characteristics. Both can be nauseating in small doses and potentially harmful in large ones. And both profit from the gullibility and ignorance of a certain segment of consumers.

Anyway, I always wanted to get one of those cease-and-desist deals from some zealous lawyer who worries that someone somewhere might actually read this blog. So go ahead, guys--lemme have it. Here's the post:

--------------------------------

The Secret Ingredient is Love.

From consumerist.com:

"Rockstar Energy Drink Doesn't Want Consumers To Know About Connection To Shock Jock Michael Savage"

Did you know ultra-conservative talk radio guy Michael Savage has intimate family connections to Rockstar Energy Drink? If lawyers for the company have their way, you wouldn't, because over the past week they've started going after people who have publicized the connection. They managed to get one guy's "Boycott Rockstar" facebook account closed without warning, and threatened him with a business libel lawsuit if he didn't publicly apologize. A gay news website, gaywired.com, has had to publish a partial retraction. None of this changes the fact that Michael Savage's son is listed as the founder and CEO of Rockstar, or that Michael Savage's wife is listed as the director, treasurer, and secretary of both Rockstar and Savage Productions. Or that both companies share the same address.

For those who don't know who he is, Michael Savage—whose real last name is Weiner—is a shock jock who likes to make outrageous statements about, among other things, gays and immigrants. Specifically, he doesn't like either of those groups, and occasionally pops up in the media for (real examples) telling a gay caller to get AIDS and die and calling for the banning of all Muslim immigration to the U.S. He's also a bestselling writer who's written several books on herbalism and homeopathy, which is certainly in the same sphere of expertise as formulating an herb-laden energy drink. Who knows, maybe his son read his dad's books in private.

We're not calling for a boycott of Rockstar Energy Drink—personally, I think Savage is a giant colostomy bag of a man, but I don't buy energy drinks in the first place—but we think companies owe their consumers a fair amount of transparency when it comes to who's behind a product, or where the profits are going. Imagine buying your favorite ketchup and assuming it's politically meaningless, and then finding out Michael Moore rakes in cash from it. Yes, Michael Moore. How's that ketchup taste now?

Anyway, so now you know. Michael Savage officially has nothing to do with Rockstar Energy Drink. His son, his wife, and his address are all participants, however.
--------

See ya Wednesday!

=mike=

ACLU and Pizza

mark.oleary@comcast.net (The Fool) — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 19:09:00 GMT

It kills me that the ACLU is our best alternative to this. It is funny though. In a George Orwell kind of way.

Coke is No Longer "It"

mark.oleary@comcast.net (The Fool) — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 13:57:00 GMT

Coke is no longer "It."
Neither can it claim to be "The Real Thing" anymore.

Coke has elected to partner with Ken Ham and the Creation Museum. The same company that sponsors American Idol (one of my guilty pleasures--Simon Cowell for Congress!) has also signed up--literally--for Noah's Ark.

See the awful news here.

As a longtime Diet Coke consumer, I can only say I feel betrayed. Oh well, Diet Pepsi, here I come. And if they should desert reason and go over to the dark side as well, I will cry "A plague on both your houses," and switch to tea.

Better than YHVH!

mark.oleary@comcast.net (The Fool) — Thu, 28 May 2009 15:08:00 GMT

I call your attention to the blog, "Questioning God," where blogger Will Friday has posted his new list of 10 Commandments that put ol' Jehovah in the shade! Too lazy to follow the link? Here's Will's list for the betterment of the world. (Beats hell out of "thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's ass"--I mean, have you seen my neighbor? Yeesh!)

Thou shalt treat other people with fairness and kindness as you would like them to treat you.
Thou shalt not abuse any person physically, sexually, psychologically, economically, emotionally or any other way regardless of their age, sex, color, nationality or creed.
Thou shalt never consider another person to be your property nor force or coerce them to serve you.
Thou shalt not kill any person unless you must to defend yourself or other people from grievous harm.
Thou shalt be truthful in dealing with other people unless the truth serves no purpose but to harm.
Thou shalt not cheat, exploit, extort or impose your will upon other people.
Thou shalt not steal the property of another person unless you must to survive and taking it will not endanger the owner. Try asking first.
Thou shalt not harm another person unless you must to defend yourself or other people from harm.
Thou shalt endeavor to contribute your talents and energies to the betterment of the entire community of humans.
Thou shalt endeavor to provide at least the necessities of life to those people who are unable to fend for themselves.

Poetry. Pure poetry.

Couldn't Say It Any Better

mark.oleary@comcast.net (The Fool) — Fri, 22 May 2009 12:19:00 GMT

I cannot improve on what this writer says regarding the latest dribbling inanity from the Catholic Church regarding the child sex-and-other-abuse scandal in Ireland. Read it and remember...especially if you're ever tempted to think well of this pathetic institution again.

http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/notesarchive.php?id=2763

Pet Peeves

mark.oleary@comcast.net (The Fool) — Mon, 18 May 2009 12:45:00 GMT

Dear Readers: The Nostradamus thing has pretty much run its course. For lo these many months (OK, five months)I have kept careful watch on the intertubes for all things Nostradamus and 2012, and I am staggered at the lack of imagination among these people. There is simply nothing new under the Mayan sun. The trouble with woo is the trouble with evil: its banality.

So I have decided, albeit reluctantly, to abandon the quest for expertise in the coming non-events of the year 2012 and return to blogging about whatever is chapping my ass in the here and now. Thanks for staying tuned in. I'll try to be worthy of your continued attention. Meanwhile, as always, your comments are invited.

Codswallop's Pet Peeves: A Never-Ending Story

I hate it when people say these things. What about you?

"Having said that...."

The expression drive me nuts. I detest it. It's a favorite of people with nothing to say, who insist on saying it anyway. It means, "What I just told you (the 'that' that I have just said) is merely conventional wisdom, a thin veneer of truth that we're all supposed to believe. Now I'm going to tell you the real truth behind the veneer." The next thing out of the speaker's mouth is almost never as profound or revelatory as he or she imagines. People employ this phrase when they want to sound intelligent and thoughtful, and IT ALMOST NEVER WORKS.

"Rate of Speed"

An illiterate construction. I'm sorry to say that police officers (of whom I am, in the main, a big fan) are frequent offenders in this area. Rate and speed are the same thing. Both are ratios of one unit of measurement (let's say distance) to another unit of measurement (let's say time). Your speed on the highway is 60 miles (distance) per hour (time)? That's also your rate. Look it up:

rate 1 |rāt|
noun
• a measure, quantity, or frequency, typically one measured against some other quantity or measure : the crime rate rose by 26 percent.
• the speed with which something moves, happens, or changes : your heart rate.

To be more precise, speed is a type of rate, though not all rates necessarily describe speed. The speed of light is 300,000 kilometers per second, but today's (5/18/09) currency exchange rate is 47.885 Indian Rupees to one US dollar. But whether you understand this or not, just stop saying "rate of speed," and you'll immediately start sounding more intelligent.

Attention YouTube: Are You People Insane?

mark.oleary@comcast.net (The Fool) — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 14:37:00 GMT

YouTube Have Lost Their Minds!

To complain to youtube follow this link;
http://www.google.com/support/youtube...

Scroll to the very bottom and click on "new issue"

Select "suspended account" from the options and express your opinion.

The mediafire link is;
http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=4d...

Thank you

How To Be Taken Seriously As A Prophet

mark.oleary@comcast.net (The Fool) — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 13:34:00 GMT

The best thing a prophet can do in order to get people to listen to predictions of doom and gloom is to make some back-dated prognostications. It's pretty obvious, but a lot of Nostradamus wanna-bees miss this valuable method, preferring instead to rely on the less reliable guess-and-see method.

Here's a fine example of someone who took advantage of this reliable technique.

Endoftheworldpredictions.com is a web site that sells books (what a surprise!). Actually, they sell ebooks (so much easier than convincing a real publisher to believe in your particular brand of snake oil, or self-publishing, which requires that YOU actually believe it yourself).

Here's the opening page of this site:

Nothing new here. A fairly standard doomsday "artist's conception" of cataclysm, and a completely worthless "testimonial." The waffle words are there too: "Would you like to know what is probably going to happen...?" "...major risks that could change the we all live today [sic]." (Typical poor proofreading as well--bonus!)

Now here's my favorite part, and all you aspiring prognosticators should take careful note. Take a good look at the "prediction" I circled below:

Wowee-zowie! He nailed it! I guess I better buy this book right now, so I won't miss any of the other gems. (You just know the Pope is up to no good!)

The market's in the dumper, and he predicted it way back in...uh...hmm. Hold it. How do I know when he predicted the market tanking? Well, that's a little harder, but we can certainly figure out the last time the page was updated. That takes nothing more sophisticated than a "whois" search. And when you "whois" endoftheworldpredictions.com, you get the following information:

Registrant:
Domains by Proxy, Inc.
DomainsByProxy.com
15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353
Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
United States

Registered through: GoDaddy.com, Inc. (http://www.godaddy.com)
Domain Name: ENDOFTHEWORLDPREDICTIONS.COM
Created on: 18-Jun-07
Expires on: 18-Jun-09
Last Updated on: 30-Jul-08

See that last line? July 2008? This demonstrates that the site owner had opportunity to lie his ass off. Sure, the domain (not the page--an important distinction) was created more than a year before. But if the date of the last update had been around that same time (i.e. before the market started going south), this might have been evidence of some sort of predictive powers. As it is, this evidence only casts doubt on the entire affair. Between this domain's creation date and the last update, the Dow dropped 2,000 points, a 14% loss in value. Here in the dark days of February '09 with the market hovering around 8,000, it's easy to forget how bad that was. Predicting a stock market drop at that point was pretty easy. It had already happened.

But then again, so what? What does the stock market have to do with a giant comet, asteroid or planetoid (or whatever that is in that lurid picture) colliding with the Earth? Oh, but the Endoftheworld people are pretty cagey about it. (All so-called prophets are--a big clue.) Read more of their waffle words from their "About Us" page [The Fool's snarky comments are in red with brackets]:

The staff at End of the World Predictions prides itself on the many years of experience in forecasting, international business, varied technologies, finance, economics, and law. Most of these years were derived from working at the headquarters of Fortune 100 and Fortune 500 companies. [None of which we will name for you now. It's easier for us to lie if you can't check our story. Why do you think we registered with Domains By Proxy in the first place? Fortunately, enough people will simply believe us that it won't matter.]
Through a vast array of resources, we come up with predictions that may or may not coincide with prophesies. [Waffle words: "May or may not." Wow--these guys are so good!] Given our past experience we use available data and experience to come up with our predictions. [Meaningless. "We say whatever we think will sell our ebooks.] Coincidently [sic. Why are prophets always illiterate?] many predictions do fall in line with the prophesies of Nostradamus, Mayan Calendar, and Bible Code. [Coincidence is the only way that will happen.] But, we really like to say no one can predict the actual dates events will happen. We can come up with fairly high statistical probabilities that certain events will happen but variables can and will change over a given period of time. [Do please tell us about your heretofore unmentioned expertise with statistical probability. Exactly how do you analyze the "high statistical probability" of anything "predicted" by Nostradamus, the Mayans or the--hard to say with a straight face--Bible Code. Are the statistical probabilities of these "predictions" even marginally as high as the statistical probability that endoftheworldpredictions.com is selling snake oil?]
We are confident in is the probabilities are very high the events we predict will happen and as time goes those probabilities increase further. Given there are several major events that can be triggered at one time, we felt the need to let the world know what was coming. [Huh?]
How would you prepare given you knew something was about to happen? When hurricanes are in reach of a coastline many people will flee but others will stay. Most of the time they survive but like Katrina even the unexpected can happen and those that stayed suffer in many ways. [See that, everybody? They said "Katrina," and that happened. Be afrad--be very afraid!]
We want you to be prepared. [Really? So you're jst doing this out of the goodness of your hearts? Then how about giving this information away for free? The "prophet" who helps billions of people avert global disaster will be hailed as the greatest humanitarian in history. But that's not what you're doing, is it? You're selling this junk, trying to mislead people. "Be prepared?" Prepared to waste your money.]
We want your expectations to be set. [Bingo.] There have been many false alarms [Double bingo] and there will be more [Triple bingo!] but it only takes one event that we are predicting to wreak havoc on the way you live today.