One thing for certain is, that you have a belief that you lack belief in gods. You can't escape having beliefs, everyone has and needs beliefs to survive day to day. Lack of belief in X is the same as not believing in X. Trying to circumvent the argument that atheism is a belief by saying you have no belief is ridiculous. Atheism is not the same as theism precisely because it is a non-belief. The "lack of belief" presented here is a form of noncommittal and could be construed to mean that while you have no belief concerning things generally labelled "gods", you might have beliefs concerning other supernatural entities having certain, but not all characteristics of "gods". Atheism on the other hand clearly rejects anything associated with anything ending in "-theism". It explicitly does not say anything about supernatural entities that are not theistic (for example, ghosts).

Anyway, it is impossible to simply lack belief in something (or, conversely, to simply believe in something). You can lack belief in something's existence, but then it's the same thing as saying you believe it doesn't exist. You can also be of the opinion that it doesn't matter if you believe something exists or not, but then you're only hiding under logic's skirt (i.e. you still believe one way or the other but you won't tell). If that's the argument the video wants to make then it's dumber and more juvenile than a theist.

Of course, you could take the path of saying that "belief" is a useless psychological concept that should be reduced to neurological patterns, but then you're not going to convince anyone except neuroscientists. And we'd still don't know whether you believe theistic entities exist or not. There may be multiple forms of atheism and theism, but you're still going to have to choose where your own belief stands sooner or later because they're fundamentally incompatible sets of worldviews (it's like the axiom of choice: use it or not, or use a stronger or weaker version of it but you can't be in the middle between using it and not using it).

>> ^Ryjkyj:

Hello guys!?!?
It is a scientific certitude that not only does magnetic north constantly fluctuate, but it has completely reversed itself several times in the past and will continue to do so.


Yeah guys, his magnetic north metaphor is in fact a totally good argument for atheism.

Anyway, all of you are taking the debate on a way too high level to be easily analysed. Go read some basic/introductory moral philosophy books and come back.

Would be more impressive if it didn't use a proprietary engine.

>> ^NordlichReiter:

aitch (ch)
n.
The letter h.
[French hache.]
-http://www.thefreedictionary.com/aitch

Your point being? "hache" in French is not aspired or expired or whatever. All "h" are silent in French and exist solely for decoration or etymology. As such, some words beginning with an "h" that used to be aspired in old French or in the native language will not allow liaison but that's it. Since in English both aspired and non aspired "h" exists, the distinction is more important.

They're trying to find who amongst a bunch of reputedly "pure" public personalities will look the longest in total while they wait for the elevator doors to close. So yeah, it's not like they really win anything except being made fun of. But that's the whole point of the show : finding a bunch of useless facts about public personalities in a myriad of crazy categories. Don't get me wrong though, it's pretty damn funny, even more so when you understand Japanese.

By the way, it's not a game show but more of a parody award show. Also, the segment in question is a classic Japanese "candid camera" type thing.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

5 days to make one part seems slightly impractical for main stream application. Very cool none the less. Perhaps with some gene modifications on their mycelium they could get faster yieldings. Gl with that yall, sounds nifty.


How long do you think it takes to grow plants or feed cows to make a steak? Last I heard there was no shortage of either.

The five days thing is a non-issue unless you need constant just-in-time production of custom parts. Even then you could simply account for the five day lag in your operations by designing new parts five days in advance.

Of course, you'd have to beware of planning things too much in advance, lest you come up with quinquennial plans. Oh noes, communism! Still, thinking in advance instead of just "making shit right fucking now whatever the cost" can't be a bad thing.

>> ^rychan:

The advice might be good but the reasoning they're using to justify it is false. Things are much more complicated than they make out.
Why not take their third grade reasoning to the extreme and propose that you should run with zero bounce? If you tried this you'd find it requires very unnatural and inefficient movements.


Things don't need to be complicated if you don't go into the metabolism side of things. Running is different from walking in that both of you feet are off the ground at the same time. You're basically flying through the air most of the time, or should be. Bouncing too much shows that you make contact with the ground for too long. By simply landing on the balls of your feet (not your toes or, worse, your heels) without trying to push yourself forward (i.e. with legs straight down under you at the instant your whole foot is contacting the ground and then pulling the foot up instead of pushing out with your toes), you can create a spring like reaction in your leg muscle that will give you just enough vertical energy to stay level with the ground, reducing the bounce to a theoretical minimum of zero. What makes you advance forward is your previous momentum combined with gravity making your slightly forward-leaning body fall at an angle (the lean will need to be more pronounced the faster you want to run). With good form, you can easily create a very constant stride without bounce since you do not rely on your leg muscles to propel yourself, but only to keep you up in the air for the longest possible proportion of time (resulting in less friction, more energy transfer from gravity, etc.). Look at horses : their hind legs are bent backwards for propulsion, yet they still have no bounce (we feel a bounce because we ride in the middle, but in absolutes they do not bounce). Plus, their front legs always hit the ground at a 90 degree angle right under them. In human terms, the front legs are our legs, the hind legs are our slight forward lean. If we had not adapted this way, we'd either be running like kangaroos, i.e. by actually bouncing, or we'd not be able to run at all, like monkeys.

tl;dr : landing on the balls of your feet keeps you in the air at a stable, constant height; leaning slightly forward allows gravity to pull you forward.

Walking though is very different. Here you want the pendulum effect created by the arms to conserve energy, but the same principle applies for maximum efficiency : land with the legs at 90 degrees to the ground, under your center of gravity and don't push with your toes. Of course there are ways to walk/run faster with less efficiency, it all depends whether you're in a marathon or a race.

>> ^Sagemind:

After ripping my knee out in a dirt-bike accident (think snapping a chicken wing in two), I don't run.
Having said that, I think it's crazy that man has reduced a basic function of the human body down to scientific knowhow! Should we tell our tribal ancestors they've been doing it all wrong all this time??


On the contrary, they're the ones who have been doing it right all along. Mass consumerism + fad marketing destroyed our feet with "running" shoes. Plus, scientists have assumed for a long time that everyone knows instinctively how to run properly. They were wrong. Just as we learn how to walk we must learn how to run. Some can learn on their own, some copy others like Angua1 and some just can't run or end up copying bad running forms from people who "unlearned" how to run thanks to padded "running" shoes. Our ancestors learned how to run properly because for them it was a vital skill, just like using a bow, a knife or a sling. Plus they didn't have padded shoes, medical treatment or motorized locomotion so running badly was not an option if they were to survive long enough to reproduce.

That said, the video is bullshit. Go look for the POSE method of running for accurate information. This method also addresses the crossover problems.

I'd like it more if they stopped calling it football. After all, it's not played primarily with the feet. For example, in baseball you go around a series of bases to score points, in basketball you put a ball in a basket. Why do they keep the old "football" name when it's become a completely different game?

Oh yeah, we're talking about the idiots who still insist on using English units that not even the English use anymore. My bad.

>> ^bobknight33:

Darwin is wrong. When you look at the Cambrian explosion, for the most part everything suddenly appears during this event is such a rapid time frame. Darwin's theory alone can not explain this event. You go from bacteria type to animals. However we all see that each species adapts and evolves as is needed.

Cambrian explosion.


Quote from the Wikipedia article you link to: "Over the following 70 or 80 million years the rate of evolution accelerated by an order of magnitude (as defined in terms of the extinction and origination rate of species) and the diversity of life began to resemble today’s."

Considering homo sapiens only appeared around 200 000 years ago, with the latest common ancestor between chimpanzees and humans existing about 4-7 million years ago, 70-80 million years seems like a fracking long time. So if humans evolved in 4-7 million, why couldn't there be an explosion of many but less intelligent/more primitive species over a 70-80 million years period? Plus, the explosion of rationality in modern humans looks to me way more problematic that an explosion of multicellular life considering the humongous advantages of multicellular organisms. They simply had to hit the right balance/combination once, and they did about 580 million years ago.

This would be so much better without the Tim Burtonesque character design. It breaks the suspension of disbelief big time, all the more with the half-assed voice acting. At least if the cartoony characters had cartoony voices it wouldn't make me cringe as much and want to kill the character designer for ruining a perfectly good tech demo.

>> ^radx:

Anyone else think the UI should be considerably smaller and more subtle?


If they did the same thing with this video as with the live stream last week, the UI seen here is actually fullscreen-sized even though the game is running windowed. This is to make the UI clearly visible on low resolution videos.

lol. To me the most cavemen-like thing to do is to try to protect your wife/girlfriend/random girl from being filmed like she's your property. Me, protect, WOMAN ARRRRRRRRGHHH. Anyway, you don't even have the right to stop anyone from filming your actual property in a public place. And if she really doesn't like being filmed, let her do something about it (as long as it's lawful, i.e. no slapping/punching a guy filming in public).

>> ^westy:

I hate voice actors

Good for you?

>> ^garmachi:

Has anyone ever done a study on how cancer rates around the world may or may not have changed since we started to split the atom?


One word: Radon.

No need to split the atom ourselves to get our radiation-based cancers.

Being conscious of what? Only peer pressure from the non-naked outside world (which equates nudity with sex) makes teenagers insecure around naked people. Children of nudists generally don't grow up to be "conscious" of their and others' nakedness. When you've seen and have been seen by thousands of naked bodies, nakedness becomes a non-issue.

Also, Freud is pants.>> ^dag:

Why is everybody sexualizing this? Nudity around your kids is not a harmful thing. What most of the books say is when kids start being body conscious, that's when mom and dad need to put clothes on around the house. And I think I liked your first title better, BMG.