The Church halting technological advancements is a meme at this point. It was in monasteries where a lot of the research took place, which was essentially the universities in the early middle ages after the collapse of the Western Roman Empire. If it wasn't for the moasteries or the Church itself, then perhaps a lot more progress would have been lost, considering the Church was writing down and archiving a lot of things.

that's what I was fucking saying, dude
the church had a hegemony on scientific research, thus it slowed down.
it wasn't until the 15th century, when rich italian and german city-states made it possible once more for the common folk to pursue the art of science, and that subsequently led to the major scientific breakthroughs that the renaissance is known for

the catholic church "advanced" scientific research way too slowly. they put a huge damper on science, and they made sure that formerly well-known facts about nature were forgotten amongst the common folk. only the very richest people were allowed to study the same things that every roman citizen used to learn
barely anything happened in Europe for about 600 years, especially compared to what came before and after
that is what we call the dark ages, the 6 centuries of almost total stagnation

The Church halting technological advancements is a meme at this point. It was in monasteries where a lot of the research took place, which was essentially the universities in the early middle ages after the collapse of the Western Roman Empire. If it wasn't for the moasteries or the Church itself, then perhaps a lot more progress would have been lost, considering the Church was writing down and archiving a lot of things.

that's what I was fucking saying, dude
the church had a hegemony on scientific research, thus it slowed down.
it wasn't until the 15th century, when rich italian and german city-states made it possible once more for the common folk to pursue the art of science, and that subsequently led to the major scientific breakthroughs that the renaissance is known for

You forgot #3,

Dumb bitch got what was coming to her

The Darwin Awards I remember were always awarded to people that accidentally killed themselves in incredibly stupid ways.

But.... I have a kid... OH WAIT ... That was before I discovered FJ.

you mean you had a kid

No... he is only 15... I still have him... for now.

Nah, the people of FJ probably have fully operational equipment, they are just unlikely to get the opportunity to use it for real.

JoJo's Bizarre Adventure: Stardust Crusaders.

Should I watch the 2012 version before Stardust Crusaders?

Watch the one before Stardust Crusaders. Things will make more sense to you that way.

Yeah, you should. Phantom Blood is the first part of the series that lays ground for the main antagonist of Stardust Crusaders. It also has a returning character from the second part of the show, Battle Tendency. Which in my opinion, Battle Tendency is the best part of the JoJo anime. Problem is you would have to go through the Phantom Blood arc (Episodes 1-9 I think) to get there which for some might be a bit boring. But it's worth it.

Alright so I watched all the episodes before Stardust Crusaders and I'm on the retelling of the previous episodes. Are those worth watching?

You watched all 24 episodes that quick? You're fast. Well, if you finished the 2012 JoJo series, it should just immediately go into stardust crusaders. I don't ever really remember a recap episode if there was one.

Isn't there an "abridged" version that's basically a two-hour version of phantom blood?

I put quotes around abridged because it's an actual abridgment rather than a humorous parody.

If there is, I don't know about it. But there is an older OVA series that's about 13 or so episodes made in the late 90's for Stardust Crusaders.

It's on Crunchyroll if i'm right. They have cut down, edited versions of the first two parts to make them sort of like a film trilogy with each part an average film's length. I'd say it's alright for people who want to get straight into part 3 or need a refresher on the first 2 parts, but I think it's much better to just watch the first two parts in their entirety.

Why not practice some talent that actually makes you special?
or are they lazy/dont have any?

Why would they practice to be special when it's so much easier to stand out by pretending to have a mental illness about being part some other species? They clearly revel in the negative attention they receive from it.

I like you. Life isn't fair or easy, the sooner they realize that the better off they will be

You're the smartest one here bro

Now you're thinking like an Irishman.

Oh come on, the Islamic religion was active during some of the best years of the Arabic countries. They were progressive fucking 50 years ago. Religion is just a tool, it's as bad as the one who wield it.

well, advanced Algebra only exists since the 16th century and was developed mostly in France
either way, the only role that Muslims play in this is that they conserved a lot of the works of pre-medieval European scientists and thinkers during the dark ages, when the catholic church suppressed a lot of scientific research

the catholic church "advanced" scientific research way too slowly. they put a huge damper on science, and they made sure that formerly well-known facts about nature were forgotten amongst the common folk. only the very richest people were allowed to study the same things that every roman citizen used to learn
barely anything happened in Europe for about 600 years, especially compared to what came before and after
that is what we call the dark ages, the 6 centuries of almost total stagnation

The Church halting technological advancements is a meme at this point. It was in monasteries where a lot of the research took place, which was essentially the universities in the early middle ages after the collapse of the Western Roman Empire. If it wasn't for the moasteries or the Church itself, then perhaps a lot more progress would have been lost, considering the Church was writing down and archiving a lot of things.

that's what I was fucking saying, dude
the church had a hegemony on scientific research, thus it slowed down.
it wasn't until the 15th century, when rich italian and german city-states made it possible once more for the common folk to pursue the art of science, and that subsequently led to the major scientific breakthroughs that the renaissance is known for

Fair enough, happens to the best of us.

Though i did hear some dense people claim that.

Nice cock ahmed, how's MIT going?

Sweet I am too

well name colour anyway

some millenials can be as young as 11 though, so they skew the results

... there's less UKIP voters in areas with a high population of immigrants because immigrants, or even people who have recent ancestral roots in another country, aren't going to vote for UKIP.

Crime denisty number:
xAmount of cases ÷ Area

Crime prevalence number:
xAmount of cases * 100.000 ÷ population

Thats rich. hehe.

You just made me giggle a little.

let me quote >>#43 for you:

"Crime denisty number:
xAmount of cases ÷ Area

Crime prevalence number:
xAmount of cases * 100.000 ÷ population"

anything else is pure speculation and not scientifically proven

Dude, thats not how it works.

Mathematically speaking it goes a bit like this:

Crime denisty number:
xAmount of cases ÷ Area

Crime prevalence number:
xAmount of cases * 100.000 ÷ population

We look at the second one. Thats (crude) adjustment for population.
Not (xAmount of cases * population)

So what do you think? Does that make sense?

Adjusting for population density isn't only about the numbers though. You're missing out on socio economic stuff, criminality, education quality, etc. There's several factors that are tied to population density. That doesn't necessarily mean x population of y people causes z situation. Correlation =/= causation.

Crime rate does not account for that. Everyone is fully aware of that. Or they SHOULD.

However, we are looking at raw data. Quit whining about hypotheticals that don't inherently come into play. Yes. We know education quality and poverty are relevant issues. Just not NOW.

Of course you can adjust for all of these things. But I was talking about adjusting for population density. You're right in some respects, but that doesn't matter for this discussion, sorry

Also i said it was crude. And Correlation and causation are closely tied. Not being the same doesnt mean they cant correlate^^

Doesn't matter? Are you being serious? Literally every single thing I listed is tightly correlated to population density though. High population areas nearly always has: higher crime rates, lower education quality, lower living standards, higher depression rates.
So you're basically saying "hey, look at this correlation that is very important, but ignore those other ones" ?

Even still though, I would not be quick to say they're more than factors in the situation. But the moment you start ignoring factors is the moment you're going to end up at the wrong answer.

Those things are related to pop.density. But not to Crime denisty number or Crime prevalence number.

No serious criminologist would ever talk about "crime rates" - thats the statistic you and all the others have a problem with, ut that is not the one the content or I talk about.

I dont Ignore these factors at all, I just recognize they dont matter in those criminologic statistics.

Im not trying to diss you or the others, but you get heated over your own ignorance of facts and wording. I can understand how someone could get angry under those circumstances, but its the anger of the semi-educated, self-overestimating would-be intellectuals.

I almost regret trying to explain those numbers, because i dont think any of you are willing or capable to even TRY to understand them and the context and reason why I posted them.

Crime denisty number:
xAmount of cases ÷ Area

Crime prevalence number:
xAmount of cases * 100.000 ÷ population

but having a huge difference in just the ethnicity makes a huge difference
they're a minority and yet they commit a lot of crime for their size

it clearly states: "adjusted for population density"



"this" - some little shithead on FJ

excellent point. Regard it as a PopDen map; interpret the others though it.

I know you're a shill, but please stop using the poverty argument. It's not factual, not one bit.

Yet, the leading factor is race and culture, all others are trivial.

it's a fact

Sorry, you said Immigration, not Muslim. Well, point still stands.

Note: The Muslim graph is PERCENT, so... also normalized across the population density. The Muslim % is a reasonable argument point whereas the Muslim density is less valid, because cities have increased population density.

Nice and fitting username: you're behindi

and do you know the definition of crime rate?
it means crimes commited per x amount of people, meaning ADJUSTED FOR POPULATION DENSITY

Dude, thats not how it works.

Mathematically speaking it goes a bit like this:

Crime denisty number:
xAmount of cases ÷ Area

Crime prevalence number:
xAmount of cases * 100.000 ÷ population

We look at the second one. Thats (crude) adjustment for population.
Not (xAmount of cases * population)

So what do you think? Does that make sense?

Adjusting for population density isn't only about the numbers though. You're missing out on socio economic stuff, criminality, education quality, etc. There's several factors that are tied to population density. That doesn't necessarily mean x population of y people causes z situation. Correlation =/= causation.

Crime rate does not account for that. Everyone is fully aware of that. Or they SHOULD.

However, we are looking at raw data. Quit whining about hypotheticals that don't inherently come into play. Yes. We know education quality and poverty are relevant issues. Just not NOW.

Of course you can adjust for all of these things. But I was talking about adjusting for population density. You're right in some respects, but that doesn't matter for this discussion, sorry

Also i said it was crude. And Correlation and causation are closely tied. Not being the same doesnt mean they cant correlate^^

Doesn't matter? Are you being serious? Literally every single thing I listed is tightly correlated to population density though. High population areas nearly always has: higher crime rates, lower education quality, lower living standards, higher depression rates.
So you're basically saying "hey, look at this correlation that is very important, but ignore those other ones" ?

Even still though, I would not be quick to say they're more than factors in the situation. But the moment you start ignoring factors is the moment you're going to end up at the wrong answer.

Those things are related to pop.density. But not to Crime denisty number or Crime prevalence number.

No serious criminologist would ever talk about "crime rates" - thats the statistic you and all the others have a problem with, ut that is not the one the content or I talk about.

I dont Ignore these factors at all, I just recognize they dont matter in those criminologic statistics.

Im not trying to diss you or the others, but you get heated over your own ignorance of facts and wording. I can understand how someone could get angry under those circumstances, but its the anger of the semi-educated, self-overestimating would-be intellectuals.

I almost regret trying to explain those numbers, because i dont think any of you are willing or capable to even TRY to understand them and the context and reason why I posted them.