Good punchline.

Maybe the reporter graduated from here.

^If the video is taken from an angle, wouldn't that mean that he was underestimating the width of the building in the video?

No, I was thinking of it this way. If you know that a piece of paper is 10 inches across then if you look at it from any angle other that straight on it will look less than 10 inches. When you look at it edge on the paper almost disappears completely!

If you look at the piece of paper from an angle of 45 degrees it will appear to be (10 divided by the square root of 2) inches wide (about 7 inches). So if you look at a video of this piece of paper, taken at an angle of 45 degrees, and you notice that the paper covers 50 horizontal pixels, you cannot say that 50 pixels equals 10 inches in the real world. That would be an overestimate. 50 pixels actually equals about 7 inches because the video is from 45 degrees.

^There is NOTHING that makes it seem even remotely like a collaspe due to fire damage. I can't believe people believed this even when their eyes show something totally different.

Do you believe your ears? The sound created when the charges of a controlled demolition go off is tremendous.

He implies that his margin of error is only 1% because his final answer of 9.88m/s/s is within 1% of the known acceleration due to gravity. This is faulty logic. The known value of acceleration due to gravity plays no part in the calculation of the error of his results.

His errors will be introduced by the distance measurements that he is taking in both his calibration measurements and the location of the roof in each frame.

He states that the known width of the building is 100m. Is this the width when looking straight on? Is this video looking at the building straight on? If not then he is overestimating the width of the building in the video.

He is using the height of the 29th floor and the height of the roof for another distance calibration. There are a variety of ways including perspective and the grainy, low resolution of the images that could lead to him overestimate the height of the building.

Any overestimates in his distance calibrations will result in an overestimation of the distance moved between each frame of animation, which in turn overestimates the velocity of the measured point on the roof, which in turn results in an overestimation of the acceleration.

His final answer of 9.88m/s/s is actually faster than free-fall! So he must be overestimating his distances somewhere. The question is by how much?

^No, he didn't say peer review proves things are right. He said, it shows them to be less likely to be wrong.

^America dropped one uranium and one plutonium bomb on Japan. They were both fission devices. Yield 13 - 21 kilotons.

This test was of a hydrogen bomb. It is a fusion device and much more powerful. Yield 1800 kilotons. Now that makes you think!

I was disappointed with Hitchens' performance in this debate. It was almost as though he's bored with debating the same arguments over and over and just couldn't be bothered any more.

Whilst its true that Turek's arguments could all be refuted, Hitchens generally did not refute them. His rambling style, while on another occasion may be diverting to listen to, far too often took him away from the points that were being debated. This left me feeling unsatisfied and did a disservice to the audience.

Looked disproportional to me.

Asimov's story is quite good. This video? Not so much.

<sarcasm>But will they teach both sides of the controversy?</sarcasm>

Ow, Ow my face...... laughing .........too.......... hard

I hope that McCain loses but I agree with everything you said hueco.

This member of the public is bat-shit insane and I remember thinking so at the time.

Looking back on this incident, with knowledge that we now have, shows that the British were justified in sinking the Belgrano.

The Argentine government has conceded that the sinking of the Belgrano was "a legal act of war".

Admiral Enrique Molina Pico, head of the Argentine Navy in the 1990s, wrote in a letter to an Argentinian newspaper that the Belgrano was part of an operation that posed a real threat to the British task force, that it was holding off for tactical reasons, and that being outside of the exclusion zone was unimportant as it was a warship on a tactical mission.

This link contains a very comprehensive comparison of the value of eating raw versus cooked food.

The paper goes into a lot of detail but the most general conclusions are:

• Virtually all foods contain more nutrients in the raw state. On the other hand, the differences are not very great: ranging from approximately 10-25% in the case of most vitamins, while the difference is negligible (almost zero) with respect to minerals.


• However, there are also digestibility, antinutrients/toxicity, and bioavailability to take into consideration when assessing how many nutrients can actually be assimiliated from a particular food. Cooking can affect these considerations positively or negatively, depending on the circumstance.

There is also an interesting comment with regard to caloric content:

"An additional issue is the difficulty on all-raw vegan diets of getting enough calories due to bulk. Cooking coarse veggies makes them softer, and easier to eat more. While this might make overeating easier, it also allows one to get more nutrients as well. Most vegetables provide, on a caloric basis, relatively little nutrition and thus require consumption of very large amounts daily if one bases their diet primarily around them. It is hard to eat nutritionally significant amounts of coarse veggies when raw--but it's easier when cooked."