This page has moved to a new address.

Peter Says Stuff | Come for the Banter; Stay for the Bullshit

Tuesday, November 30, 2010

Get Google To Beatbox

For the record I saw this on Geekologie first.

1: Go to Googletranslate
2: Set translator to "German to German"
3: Paste this into box: pv zk pv pv zk pv zk kz zk pv pv pv zk pv zk zk pzk pzk pvzkpkzvpvzk kkkkkk bsch
4: Click listen
5: ??????????
6: Profit

zk = suspended cymbal
bschk = snare
pv = brush
bk = bass
tk = flam1
vk = roll tap
kt = flam2
kttp = flam tap
krp = hi hat tap
pv = short roll
th = better hi hat
thp, ds = instant rimshot.


Monday, November 29, 2010

Muy Importante

Okay, so on my Tumblog I had an ask box (which was rarely used mind you) where people could ask me stuff and or comment on posts. I will still be doing an ask box which will be located here. If you have any sort of questions about me ask them. If you have a comment you would like to make on a post ask it. If it is a good comment I will post it. Are we good? Good.


"Live as if you were to die tomorrow and learn as if you were to live forever."
~~DR. Ricciardi

Sunday, November 28, 2010

Wikileaks DDoSed

So tonight I would like to respond to fellow blogger Mike Halsey of He wrote a blog post about this same topic but takes, in my opinion, a view that can only be described as promoting censorship.

Before we come to his post though, we must run a brief overview on what Wikileaks is and what happened today. Wikileaks is a non-profit website that posts confidential government documents it has obtained through anonymous sources. The article that was going to be released involved information and the writings of US ambassadors about other countries, the threat of nuclear terrorism and back room deals with foreign embassies.

But today a curious thing occurred, the site was allegedly DDoSed. A DDoS, "distributed denial-of-service attack", is when a large amount of computers all flood one site with huge amounts of information. If enough information is "pinged" to the site, the site cannot support all of it and thus crashes which was the case earlier today.

But now we will talk about Mike Halsey's post. In his post he mentioned that "Most people agree that sometimes it's just better not to know a fact, and to live in ignorance of it." If we are being willfully ignorant and not wanting to know something just because it's uncomfortable doesn't that make us cowardly? Draping ourselves in the blanket of ignorance is good for children but if we don't want to learn, then we are opening the door to a society that will not value free speech and knowledge. If we choose to be ignorant then a government that controls the flow of information is close behind and that is certainly not "the american way".

Mike also mentioned that because the staff of Wikileaks hadn't witnessed wars or suffering first hand, they had no way of understanding it. But when you run an operation like they do where you get information that was hidden by the government you DO see the horror that does occur behind closed doors. You may not see people being killed in the streets but you see the shady dealings of the people behind those wars.

 Information, in some cases, may indeed lead to lose of life and don't get me wrong, nobody should die over information, but having things that the government has done available for the public to see is a way of regulating the government. If the government covered up everything we would have no way to see what was occurring and thus we would be victim to a totalitarian state.

Now of course there is some information that should be kept secret like the names of undercover agents. If those were revealed, their lives would be directly at risk, but revealing what ambassadors have to say about nuclear terrorism is not directly putting lives in danger.

At the end of Mike's post he says that he doesn't care whether it was hackers or the US government, he just hopes they succeed. Hoping that somebody who promotes unwarranted censorship succeeds is undermining the western value of free speech and that is unacceptable. But I would like to know what you think. Please leave a comment below :)

Mike's Post


New Legend of Zelda

So apparently Nintendo is going to do a remake of the famous Legend of Zelda Ocarina of Time. Rumor has it that it will be on a new DS coming out shortly. Here is the picture of the box that has been floating around the interwebs recently.
Click picture to make bigger 

IGN also wrote an article about this new game which can be found here. I hope everyone had a nice Thanksgiving. Goodnight!


Saturday, November 27, 2010

Debunking the "Fine Tuning" argument

To debunk this argument we must first understand what it is stating. The basic premise of the argument is that the physical constants are to improbable to have occurred by chance and that if you altered even one of them from their current "settings", the results would be catastrophic. A fundamental error is made here which is that they are saying that you can change one constant whilst leaving the rest intact. Essentially you are randomizing one constant while not doing the same to the others. But lets ignore that fact and assume that you are randomizing all the physical constants. We still don't know that our specific constants are, in fact, to unlikely to occur by chance. As Richard Dawkins put it, "We may soon find that the variability of the constants is as static as the relationship between pi and a circle's circumference". But again we will take the leap of faith made by this argument and assume that our set is equally likely to occur as any other possible permutation. Our set of physical constants is the best possible one for making black holes. Meaning that if you changed the values of any of the constants, black holes would not be formed as easily as they are in this universe. Does that mean that god loves black holes just a wee bit more than he loves us?
Secondly, still making the assumption that all the values could be chosen randomly mind you, Fred Adams shows that when you randomize the starting conditions of the early universe ie randomize the values of the physical constants, 25% of the time you can still get a universe that can support stars and thus life. Although 25% is not a majority, it is in no way "to unlikely to occur by chance".

Moving on, there are four fundamental forces of nature; the force of gravity, the electromagnetic force, the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force. These are all forces that play some important role in the universe. Roni Harnick and his colleagues have shown that a universe that can form stars and thus life can exist even if the weak nuclear force is removed. Kinda takes God outta the mix don't you think?
I will post links to some nice videos on the subject here:

CDK007's take

What Dr. Richard Carrier has to say on the matter

Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson's remarks


New Symphony of Science Video

I am a huge fan of these videos and they recently made a new one. So here it is:

Friday, November 26, 2010

My favorite quotes

"I see no god up here"
~Yuri Gagarin

"What religion did with violence, we must do with reason."

"Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar", every "supreme leader", every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there - on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the Universe:, are challenged by this point of pale light. Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves."
Carl Sagan

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”

"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church."
~~ Thomas Paine

Voilà! In view, a humble vaudevillian veteran, cast vicariously as both victim and villain by the vicissitudes of Fate. This visage, no mere veneer of vanity, is a vestige of the vox populi, now vacant, vanished. However, this valorous visitation of a by-gone vexation, stands vivified and has vowed to vanquish these venal and virulent vermin van-guarding vice and vouchsafing the violently vicious and voracious violation of volition. The only verdict is vengeance; a vendetta, held as a votive, not in vain, for the value and veracity of such shall one day vindicate the vigilant and the virtuous.

Beneath this mask there is more than flesh. Beneath this mask there is an idea, Mr. Creedy, and ideas are bulletproof.

 Don't pray in my school, and I won't think in your church

"I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother, and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine."

New America

With more money being poured into the “war on terror” along with the fact that we are constantly losing liberties, we would think this “war” would have an end in site. How wrong we were. The war on terror is not waged with guns or bombs. It is not waged with planes or boats, oh no. It is waged by the lose of liberties and the rights of the citizens of the very countries it’s trying to protect. Going to war with “terrorist harboring” nations will not stop the terrorists, it hasn’t. We invaded Afghanistan to try to stop them from harboring terrorists. But guess what? We are still under constant threat. There is one way to truly stop terrorists. One war that can be won. The war against you. The only way to make sure nobody blows up a bridge, flies a plane into a building, or hijacks a bus is to monitor everyone simultaneously. These new TSA security measures wont be any more OR less effective then their predecessors. The only way to protect a country from the threat of terrorism is to adopt a 1984-esque style of government. Just building bigger guns and bombs won’t stop terrorists, for in America everyone is a potential terrorist. The only way to stop them is to wage the full blown war on the citizens of the very country that soldiers are dying to protect. 
If you wan’t to be 100% secure, you must give up all your liberties and adopt a new kind of government. A government that knows what you do every waking hour of the day. But before we willingly subject ourselves to that think about this, when that day comes, the America and the rights we have tried so hard to defend, will cease to be…

A small rant about Ben Stein

There is one thing that really sets me off. When people who owe their lives to science publicly criticize it and the scientific method. Take Ben Stein for example: He said, “Science leads you to killing people”. This blatant disregard for everything science has done for us is utterly despicable. If it weren’t for modern medicine brought about through scientific advancement, he would most likely not be alive. If it weren’t for scientific advancement, we would not have cures for smallpox, a disease that killed millions. The fact that he is using his free time, which was granted to him by science, which has made the farming of food easy so humans don’t have to work all day just to feed themselves, to publicly denounce the scientific method makes me cringe. Ben Stein and everyone above the age of 35 owe their lives to scientific advancements in the fields of medicine, food, shelter and hygiene, that denouncing the very science that has given them life is down right ungrateful and disgusting. But it’s not just the ungratefulness, it’s the fact that he has people who soak up his every word like a sponge soaks up water. He, and all the other people who owe their lives to science yet still denounce it, are what is wrong with society today. 
Sorry about my little rant but his remark that “Science leads you to killing people” made me gag and I had to write about it.
Thanks to Thunderf00t for the idea which was talked about in his “Why Do People Laugh At Creationists” series.

The hatred of biological advancement and a womens right to choose

Why do we see so many Christians outside abortion clinics? Why were there 790 cases of assault on abortion clinic workers in 2001? Why do people hate the teen mothers who get abortions? The main reason is simple, there is a belief among the more conservative Christians that the soul enters the fetus at the moment of conception and that if you get an abortion, you are killing one of “god’s children”. But if we wish to pursue this humbly, we must ask the next question. Is there even a soul? Is there any evidence for the existence of a thing? The soul is defined as thus: A soul, in certain spiritual, philosophical, and psychological traditions, is the incorporeal essence of a person or living thing. But there is no evidence that a soul actually exists and thus we must disregard it from this discussion. Now there is nothing wrong with peaceful protests (although the anti-abortion kind can get…odd) such as these:

I am a strong supporter of protests, but the problem is when things get violent and that is a prime example of religious extremism at it’s finest and it must be stopped if women are to be guaranteed the right to choose how to live their life. Now I would like to turn a bit away from abortions and into stem cell research. The same principle of why Christians don’t like abortions applies here. So as we have seen, there is no evidence for the soul yet people still use it to kill one of most influential forms of biological research. Stem cells can be used as a form of regenerative medicine that can grow new organs. They can be used for drug testing so we don’t need to risk human lives thus helping us cure diseases such as AIDS. They can also help us understand the process of growth in the human body. So why is there so much controversy over the use of stem cells? Because people think fetuses obtain a soul at the moment of conception. But that’s not the scary part. The scary part is that these are the types of people that we have elected into office. The same people who would like to stop our advancement in biology and who wan’t to get intelligent design taught in the class rooms. But why you ask? Because their holy book says so…

Why do non-believers talk about God?

One of the questions I hear a lot is this: “As an atheist [one who doesn’t believe in a deity] why do you talk about the god you don’t believe in?” In some respects this is a valid question and I have a valid question back. You don’t believe that Mario exists yet you talk about him, why is that? 
That was kind of a rhetorical question seeing as it is a great comparison but at the same time a terrible one. But the answer to both questions is simple, because the concept exists. We talk about Mario because Mario exists in his own fictional realm of the Mushroom Kingdom. We talk about god for much the same reasons. But there are other reasons why we talk about god more than Mario. We talk about god more than Mario because people don’t kill other people over Mario. We all know Mario has a red hat and a bushy mustache.

But the same is not true about god. There are so many versions of god that people feel the need to kill each other over him. Atheists talk about and try to disprove god because if there is no god, there is no reason to kill people to prove whose god is better. 


There has been much discrepancy as to what I meant when I said “if there was no god, there would be no need to kill people over him”1 I was called out on the fact that there are other contributing factors to why people kill each other and in many other posts I have stated that this is true. And although there are many other reasons for why people kill each other, atheists talk about religion and not political motivation in much the same way that solipsists talk about the human consciousness and not whether bee stings hurt. Saying if there was no god there would be no need to kill over him is a valid reason for ATHEISTS to argue against god seeing as it has evil being done (killing in the name of god) and that it directly relates to an atheists beliefs (or lack there of) so it is a viable reason as to why atheists try to disprove god. As I stated, there are other reasons people kill each other but that wasn’t the point I was trying to make.

I have made this clear a number of times but some people still don’t get it. When I say religion causes atrocities I mean that in the Judaic holy books they all have passages that people use to justify the killing of others. 
In the bible/torah: 
Leviticus 18:22: “You shall not lie with a male as those who lie with a female; it is an abomination.”Leviticus 20:13: “If a man lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination and they shall surely be put to death.”
 In the Koran: 
URA IV: 19-21
20. Against those of your women who commit adultery, call witnesses four in number from among yourselves; and if these bear witness, then keep the women in houses until death release them, or God shall make for them a way.
These are just a select few verses from holy books that call into question the ethics of God. 
Now the most common argument against these verses is this: “They were taken out of context!” No. This is the entire verse in question. The other common argument for the bible/torah one is this: “That was the old testament, times were different then.” That is such a cop out. The bible is the divinely inspired word of God so essentially what you are saying is that the original Bible was just a rough draft. Why would an omnipotent God need 2 drafts to write his holy book? It just doesn’t make sense. So in conclusion, I never said religion is the root cause of atrocities, but in the holy books it does have a plethora of verses that are used to justify all sorts of atrocities. If anything, you are using my quotes out of context so please, shut up. :)


Drugs Legal? Yes!

Should drugs be legal? Yes! And for clarification let me add that when I say “drugs” I mean illicit drugs such as crack and heroine ect
So, when alcohol was illegal we saw the rise of the mafia and organized crime and many lives were lost due to that fact. (Now I know a lot of people will be like “Peter, people drink and drive and die…” yes that is true, I won’t debate that BUT the government can enforce laws against drunk driving much better than they can enforce laws that say if you smoke crack you will be arrested.) Therefore we can see, that based on things that have happened in the past, outlawing a substance entirely doesn’t work.
So moving on, what is the main reason people get into gangs? Drugs. People get their drugs from gangs (the source of your drug supply is a gang) and the better the drug the more expensive it is and thus you will get addicted easier and keep buying it until you can’t pay for the drug so you either a) steal or b) join them and sell drugs to pay off your debt. So the question naturally arises, why are drugs so expensive and why are they so addictive? 
1: They are so expensive because the people in the gangs want to make money so they raise the price of drugs to extreme amounts and because there is minimal competition and high demand, the people will buy it.
2: They are so addictive because there are no regulations on what is in them. They can be laced with anything and you wouldn’t know. (To bring it back alcohol, when alcohol was illegal many people went blind because it wasn’t regulated and the alcohol content was to high.)
If drugs were legal you could regulate what was in them (causing loss of life to drop) and you could set a standard price so people wouldn’t have to pay extreme amounts. And because there would be competition, and I hate to use this but it’s true, the economy would grow.
And for the record I don’t do drugs nor do I think it’s a good habit but think about what would happen if they were legal….


Why do we "Preach"?

The question that I have seen a lot whist on my travels through the interwebs is thus: “Why do you [atheists] preach to us?” 
This, in some respects, is a valid question. First off I wouldn’t say “preach”. Preaching implies that you are stating a religious teaching to a congregation and since atheism is not a religion, merely a lack of belief in a deity we can’t be “preaching”. But regardless of definitions the question still remains. (I will use the word preach in this post although I disagree that is it the correct word to use)  Atheists “preach” for a number of reasons. 
1: Fundamentalist religion is one of the prime causes of evil and suffering in our world and if we can end fundimentalism we can end evil and suffering. (Now just so people don’t flip a shit, I understand there are other reasons why people suffer but lots of suffering is induced by religion) 
2: Religious people try to get religion taught in schools (ie. Teach the controversy) which completely bypasses the peer review that all scientific theories must under go to be accepted and taught and thus they can say what ever the hell they want and the kids will believe it. 
3: Miss information is spread by religion.

This picture is an attempt to explain the big bang theory (and might I add it does a hilarious job). When you attempt to explain something you know nothing about it will ALWAYS fail. And the majority of religious people don’t know much about alternatives to their beliefs and thus don’t understand the theories and when they try to explain it to they’re congregations, they get it horribly wrong. And that leads to a viscious cycle where the parents are fed miss information and they feed it to their kids and their kids feed it to their kids ect…. 
This is why atheists “preach”. We try to stop the insanity and the cruelty and the miss information that runs wild like a cancer in our society, so please, before you ask the same annoying question to us, ask it of yourselves.



Our Deluded Minds

One day humans will be at an intergalactic powow and aliens will ask, “What planet are you from?” and we’ll say Earth. They will say: “Oh that planet with that species that worshiped an invisible white dude?” And we’ll say: “*sigh* yes.”


Popular Music Part 2

So, we meet again. In this section, I will be talking about the twisted mind of teenage boys. Now pop music that teenage boys like is a little harder. Most of the time it involves some type of grungy hip-hop or…well I can’t really think of any female musicians guys regularly like. So, lets hop right in! The mind of a teenage boy is a scary place indeed but I will try to edge you all in. The main thoughts that go on include: “Damn shes hot” “Wheres the weed?” “Get money get paid!” “Bro, so I shot this guy one time” “School sucks” “God damn I’m a badass” “SEX!!!” “Ima us shitttyyy garmar” “Bro, dont tell me how 2 spel” “Speling is dum” Keep in mind there are many other odd and, well quite frankly, disturbing thoughts that shouldn’t be mentioned here. But the reason most guys like hard, grungy hip-hop is for the simple reason that most of the “new skool” hip-hop songs are about drugs, sex, money, and more sex.

And guys try to resonate with this which, well, makes me laugh my happy little ass off. I mainly laugh at this mentality becuase I live in a suburban Jewish town where everyone is rich and no one is a “thug”. But I digress, I have found that this is generally the reason why males between the ages of 14 and 18 like shitty “new skool” hip-hop. It is you (you know who you are) that is killing music. Please for the love of god, stop getting the shitty “musicians” rich. Just for the hell of it, here’s a good song:

Popular Music Part 1

Okay, so why are certain artists, if they can be called that, “popular” and others not?
I feel the answer lies deep in the brain of the average teenage boy/girl. First lets peer into the twisted mind of the average teenage girl. (This is not meant to be sexist by the way). The teenage girls brain is filled with thoughts such as: “His hair is ugly!” “He’s hot!” “Ewww he’s grody” “I should say i’m a lesbian to sound cool” “Fuck that last idea” “Fuck school” “Where’s the beer?” “Do my boobs look big?” “Should I stuff” ect…. SOOOO, lets look at the “teen sensation” Justin Fucking Bieber. 
The hair defiantly plays a part. Girls love the flippy hair. But if it’s too long they think he’s to effeminate but if it’s to short he’s a dweeb. Justin has perfected this aspect and thus, is one of the reasons why teenage girls love him. Reason numero dos is that all, and when I say all I mean ALL, of his songs are about love and there is a spot in the teenage girls brain, the L spot, where if they hear a song about love they go into a mindless trance. So, lets get back on topic, the songs about love trigger the “L spot” and girls (mind you I understand not all teenage girls are like this but most of them are) think “HOLY SHIT HE WROTE THIS SONG ABOUT ME!!!!!! MARRY ME BIEBS!!!” From a sales perspective he has perfected the art of manipulation but he is a solid 10 on the douchebag-o-meter. So in short, if you want to win millions of teenage girls over, sing about love, have hair down to your eyes and be a douchebag. A look into the minds of teenage boys will come later. Have a nice day. :D


New Blog

My old blog was here but I was getting sick of all the annoying people on Tumblr posting their insipid drivel and so I moved to a more "nerd friendly" site. I will copy all of my posts over to here and I shall, most likely, be using this as my primary blog.