U.N. Denver Takeover Discussion Thread

UPDATE: Almost-live photos of the invasion peacekeeping operation after the jump.

As U.N. bicycle forces occupy the city this evening, proving Dan Maes right once and for all, please send your photos to webmaster@coloradopols.com or post them as comments below.

Really, comrades, it seems tough now, but soon you’ll forget you ever needed a car.

Granted, these fine fellows aren’t restricted to U.N. bike rallies:

Photos forwarded by Colorado Pols readers

0 Shares

46 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. JeffcoBlueJeffcoBlue says:

    And to the evil world Gubmint for which it stands,

    One nation, under Allah,

    Republicans in death camps,

    While we suck their money through a straw.

    – Me, just now (you can plagiarize me)

  2. bjwilson83 says:

    Thank God Dan Maes will be able to save us.

      • bjwilson83 says:

        Oops! I’m already in higher ed.

        • bjwilson83 says:

          and no, it’s not completely lacking truth. You should see the textbook that my sister has to teach on climate change (she just got a T.A. job, even though she’s still an undergrad).

          • ajb says:

            It’s science, not math.

            • bjwilson83 says:

              It’s all just left wing propaganda. In fact I probably will go through it an explain all the inaccuracies. And math is science. Who do you think runs all the climate models?

              • using math, deriving theories from it, and creating computer models based on the theories (with math).

                Not pure mathematicians.

                • ajb says:

                  The models attempt to simulate natural processes. Their ability to do so can be measured against observations. Thus, there is an objective basis for judging algorithms.

                  Math is not science. There is no scientific method whereby multiple hypotheses are tested against observations. In math, you start with a set of assumptions, and through logic establish relationships. It’s all internal. There is no test against independent observations. Thus, in math, only the logic is tested; the assumptions are not.

                  In science, the best hypothesis is the one that best explains the data.

                  BTW, Beej, how old do you think the Earth is? Several billion years or something else?

                  • bjwilson83 says:

                    the math department at my school is in the College of Natural Sciences. At my undergraduate school, it was in the College of Arts and Sciences. Math is science, in fact it is the language of all science. Of course, I don’t expect you to know a lot about math, but mathematicians work in many scientific fields, including climate modeling.

                    As far as the creation vs. evolution debate, we could start another thread. (Actually, that was one of the philosophy classes I took as an undergrad, although I’ve spent much more time than that debating the subject.) I do think it is Biblically plausible that the earth is billions of years old. I do not believe, however, that life occurred on earth any earlier than thousands of years ago. And yes, though this puts me at odds with many in the scientific community, there are respected scientists who agree with me – see Intelligent Design.

                    • ajb says:

                      I teach science. I’m married to a climate modeler. Your first paragraph is all semantic and doesn’t address any of the points I raised in the previous comment.

                      As for the second paragraph: If the earth is billions of years old, then life is (at least) millions of years old. The evidence that is used to establish one is the same evidence that is used to establish the other.

                      Intelligent design isn’t science. In a nutshell, proponents of intelligent design throw up their hands and exclaim that they can’t understand how evolution could have occurred. Therefore, God did it: an untestable hypothesis.

                    • Because it’s in some particular college department?  I suppose then that history is now art in many places?

                      Math is math.  It is a pure subject of its own.  Its tenets are not based on the scientific method, but rather on logical proofs.  If you’re an applied mathematician and you don’t realize where you have to switch from math to your chosen field of application (e.g. a science field), you need more school.

                      PS – like your wildly off-base presumption that I and others here were not Christian, you should probably re-think your chip-on-a-shoulder attitude about your math skills.  I went to college for Physics, and work in part as a computer programmer; math is my friend.

                    • bjwilson83 says:

                      You don’t “switch”. Subject matter is a continuum, not a discrete array, at the graduate level. But I guess someone with an undergrad in physics wouldn’t understand that (or much math).

                    • ajb says:

                      You’ll fit right in at CalTech.

                    • bjwilson83 says:

                      I could have told you that you wouldn’t have made it from the beginning.

                    • ajb says:

                      And be careful with that pomposity.

                      Given where you’re at now, I expect that my academic record puts your to shame.

                      But if your career takes you to Pasadena, enjoy the smog…and the traffic…and the other 20 million people in the LA basin.  

                    • bjwilson83 says:

                      California jumped off the deep end a long time ago. That’s one reason I’ve got to do my best from preventing sissy-headed liberals from turning Colorado into the same. What is your doctorate in, ajb? Sounds to me like you never got beyond B.S.

                    • That you started with B.S., are well and truly in to M.S. and on your way to Ph.D.  (Bull Shit, More Shit, and Piled High and Deep).

                    • In the meantime, look back at what I posted.  There is indeed a discrete cross-over from math to science.

                      When you are testing hypotheses, evaluating data, or designing experiments or models, you are doing science.  During that time, you probably use math (at least I’m hoping this, since you are being paid for that task…).  Math is a tool applied to science, not science itself.

                      And I really hope you’re just trying to yank my chain on the “physics undergrad” thing – perhaps standards at CU aren’t quite as high as where I went, but I had a full spread of Calc, plus DiffEQ, Matrix, Vector, Complex, Prob&Stats (Linear was mixed in at the time)…  Physicists do a lot of math.

                    • bjwilson83 says:

                      Oooh you think you’re special because you’ve had the standard undergrad classes for non-math majors. Please. I teach all those subjects. Come back when you’ve had the full analysis/abstract algebra sequences and a whole lot of grad shcool. I hope you don’t seriously think you’re some sort of expert at math.

                    • I’m a computer guy now, not a physicist – and not a computer guy who normally spends a lot of time with anything related to higher math.

                      I hope you’re a better teacher than you are a blogger – I’d hate to be one of your students if that’s what you think about people who haven’t specialized in math for their life’s work.  That was the point of this conversation, from my POV.  All of your education appears to have given you one thing – a chip on the shoulder – and left you devoid of the two things you should be good at given your Math/Letters background: logic and a capacity for understanding different points of view.

                    • Diogenesdemar says:

                      there is, no doubt, at least one bathroom in the College of Natural Sciences?

                      Want to tell us all how going to the bathroom is, therefore, a science?

                    • bjwilson83 says:

                      Time to get your head checked.

                  • VoyageurVoyageur says:

                    the Bishop Usher calculations, since he seems a pretty strident fundamentalist in his preaching against evil-lution.  That alone ruins his claim to be a scientist.

                      Intelligent Christians, and the Roman Catholic Church, accept evolution and the rest while maintaining that God created the earth.  One simply assumes the big bang, or big whatever, was the tool, as evolution was a tool, of the creation.  The important thing is that God created your immortal soul.  The platypus is just something God created, via evolution, to prove she has a sense of humor.

                      There is no conflict between intelligent religion and intelligent science.  There is an irreconcilable conflict between religious fundamentalism  — the Taliban or the Beej — and human reason in any form.

              • VoyageurVoyageur says:

                an important tool, but only a tool.  By definition, math relies on unprovable axioms and postulates.  

                • Math relies on fully logically provable axioms and theorems.  We are only awaiting some genius to come along and provide the logical stepwise progression from sine=opposite/hypotenuse and the sum of angles to the Birch and Swinnerton-Dyer conjecture.

                  • VoyageurVoyageur says:

                    Prove that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line.  It can’t be done (and, indeed, may not be true if the string theory, wormhole, exotic physics crowd is right.)  Math accepts axioms and postulates as unprovable.  It just tries to keep them to a minimum.  After accepting that minimum of unprovables, math constructs an internal system consistent with those assumptions.

                      Who knows.  In the real world, maybe two plus two really is five — which would mean that Reaganomics was right all along;-)

                    • An ‘axiom’ – original definition and that used by mathematics – is something true at its face or worthy on its own.  It needs no proof because it is humanly defined (non-logical) – e.g. the commutative property of addition –  or readily apparent (logical) – e.g. when considering an operation between two items, the existence of both items is necessary.

                      It isn’t really possible for 2+2=5 – 2 is axiomatically defined as 2, 5 as 5, the addition operation as the addition operation and the equal comparator as the equal comparator.  Under those conditions, 2+2 is always equal to 5 (base 10), regardless of how much LSD you’re on.

                      And there is actually a classic calculus proof that the shortest distance between two points is a line.

                    • That should say “Under those conditions, 2+2 is NEVER equal to 5”.

    • Ralphie says:

      Because in November, he’ll be looking for a different way to make his house payments.

  3. BlueCat says:

    are good fun and loopy sweetness. The sneaky bastards!

  4. Meiner49erMeiner49er says:

    Anyone know whether Maes has taken a position on Tancredo’s “Initiative 42” regarding the UN

    http://americanlegacyalliance….

    and whether this is, in fact, going to be on the ballot this fall?

  5. SSG_Dan says:

    got to work in the Blue Helmets, UN Flag and those Commie Red bicycles.

    Hello, Primal Wear? Got a rush order for you…

  6. Polyhazard says:

    http://www.examiner.com/downto

    You almost feel sorry for Maes…

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account


You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.