>> ^joedirt:

This stupid video isn't even to scale. Carl Lewis would have been 7 feet from the finish line. The stupid video needs to exaggerate an lie about how far people are from the finish line... Two strides or one body length away, not like 20 feet back.
Why make a "science" like video then lie in it.


As they said in the video themselves this is a field of runners separated by 3 seconds of time. Which will not be that much distance when you boil down the facts that the fastest runner will possibly get near or at 27 mph (something Usian Bolt stuck up there) and less. The slowest runners I imagine will ATLEAST be above 20 mph which really does make this field closer and closer together. They would all be running somewhere between 10 m/s to 10.4 m/s in 12.6 s (the times they ran a VERY long time ago) or up to and past 9.6 s in the modern era.

If you weren't that great of a runner, very quickly, with these type of numbers however, you would find yourself very far behind--it must be almost shocking to see someone gain a 3-5 meter lead on you if you slip up, particularly in the longer length Olympic sprints. It's a great infographic doing everything right, in fact I think they could literally take this concept and bump it up to a 30-60 minute show about the history of Olympic running; I'd throw it on the Discovery or Science Channels. Just look at the numbers I pulled up in a very short amount of time to give some comparisons, there are FAR more things to look at and open up this conversation much, much further... More things to look at could be anything taking in ANY possible connection to a sprinter's performance which may include a few things some people would never even think of, some examples: average foot-span covered each sprinting step and how that has changed with time (longer-shorter, side strides or are they all in line), the possibility of body weight distribution being re-mapped on the body from training, workouts, and diet, over time and has this been a possible endemic change in society (have we become more top heavy, bottom heavy, or averaged out--how does it compare with analysis we can try to make about our Olympic forefathers--with societal changes any of the things I've listed have the possibility of starting there first, moving outward; a true evolutionary or genetic change that might be observed...), shoes and their timeline with features, surfaces used by the athletes through time, how training was done throughout history, our personal livelihood with things like vitamins, a balanced and INFORMED diet allows you to get more out of your muscles then you normally would EVER get, and there is SO much more they could explore!

I would love to see a very well done show about this and if they cover the subject substantially and extensively enough, I wouldn't mind it being a short one year series. As long as they stay true to the overall presentation found in this infotainment/info-graphic and the information displayed here should be, somewhat, natural to us and keep us at ease in which all this material/information is able to be displayed in this show and always making that information available for us to consume and compare just as easily as here. So to me having a large presence online hand-in-hand With a show would be important, of course providing more info-graphics like this for us. One can hope that they'd read our comments and realize, just from a small clip, they have something bigger here--if they want it...

I wasn't quite sure why they "pulled" out the field so far as well, but all I can think is that they were trying to put a exclamation mark on the overall acceleration of the genesis of runners into the modern day.

>> ^renatojj:

There are no winners in this sham of an election, they are both the same in terms of policy, they both suck.


I don't disagree with that. I don't like where we tend to put the blame though, on the politicians and such rather than on ourselves. It's our own damned fault.

TV News used to do some investigative journalism, and it used to be a loss leader for the networks and done for a public service to earn them the right to the frequencies they were offered free of charge. But with 60 minutes and others of the sort the networks learned they could turn a profit and examine more personal issues then with Crossfire and others of the sort they lost even the public service requirements which they had on broadcast.

From Vince Foster murder allegations to blowjobs, 911 conspiracy theories and Swiftboating, death panels, foreign born, communist, socialist, we took it all in and never changed the channel or turned off the TV, and it DID shift our votes and opinions.

The fault is with us. We bought all of the deregulation arguments which allowed our current media and corporate system, we kept electing people who would do it some more even as the impact of our prior choices should have been getting more clear, and we kept responding to and watching ever more extreme and confrontational "news" shows and ads. Any politician who even tried to play nice, honest, and so on was simply steamrolled over and we never bothered to notice. And now we complain that we got the system we asked for.

No argument at all, both parties and the whole system these days sucks. And it's our own damned fault. We watched the shows, we voted them in, then reelected them, we echoed every conspiracy theory and accusation, and we never demanded better. We had every opportunity to see it coming and people have been warning us about it for years. We just couldn't be bothered to care.

Your video, Sugar and kids: The Toxic truth - 60 Minutes, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

I sifted original 60 Minutes story about a month ago.>> ^LarsaruS:

Relevant:
http://videosift.com/video/Sugar-The-Bitter-Truth
Also: Good sift.

>> ^Deano:

Anyone see Ramsay get nailed by Sheringham during Socceraid yesterday? They had to stretcher him off!


http://videosift.com/video/Teddy-Sheringham-hospitalizes-Gordon-Ramsey

I had a Sligo townie accent, and I tried to adapt a British-y accent. I ended up with something happily neutral though a tad effete. The townie accent would be a working class one, for lack of a better term. Eventually I moved to Dublin and ended up with something verging on an American accent because of American friends and nerds in general. When people started asking me if I was American all the time I started trying to change to a general "culchie" accent and at this stage it's just a bit of a mess Ireland has a surprisingly large array of accents for its size, there's probably one for each county. >> ^messenger:

Very curious to know what place's accent you had, and what place's accent you changed to. Your profile says Ireland. Was it a specific county?>> ^lampishthing:
I did the same thing, actually. There are accents which are identified with stupid all over the world I remember making the conscious decision in primary school one day: "I don't want to sound like that.">> ^messenger:
FWIW, Stephen Colbert grew up in South Carolina, and changed his accent as a child. He talks about how he understood that the local accent was shorthand for stupid, so he chose to speak with a standard American accent from childhood. He talks about it here: http://videosift.com/video/Stephen-Colbert-on-60-minutes around the 9:45 mark.

Very curious to know what place's accent you had, and what place's accent you changed to. Your profile says Ireland. Was it a specific county?>> ^lampishthing:

I did the same thing, actually. There are accents which are identified with stupid all over the world I remember making the conscious decision in primary school one day: "I don't want to sound like that.">> ^messenger:
FWIW, Stephen Colbert grew up in South Carolina, and changed his accent as a child. He talks about how he understood that the local accent was shorthand for stupid, so he chose to speak with a standard American accent from childhood. He talks about it here: http://videosift.com/video/Stephen-Colbert-on-60-minutes around the 9:45 mark.

I did the same thing, actually. There are accents which are identified with stupid all over the world I remember making the conscious decision in primary school one day: "I don't want to sound like that.">> ^messenger:

FWIW, Stephen Colbert grew up in South Carolina, and changed his accent as a child. He talks about how he understood that the local accent was shorthand for stupid, so he chose to speak with a standard American accent from childhood. He talks about it here: http://videosift.com/video/Stephen-Colbert-on-60-minutes around the 9:45 mark.

>> ^StukaFox:

Garmachi, thank you for posting this.
Roger Waters FOREVER.


My pleasure!

Did I mention that I'm going to see this show in July?!?

FWIW, Stephen Colbert grew up in South Carolina, and changed his accent as a child. He talks about how he understood that the local accent was shorthand for stupid, so he chose to speak with a standard American accent from childhood. He talks about it here: http://videosift.com/video/Stephen-Colbert-on-60-minutes around the 9:45 mark.

>> ^lampishthing:

Anybody know why there's 24 hours in a day? Apart from it being two twelves...
Similar to other units of measurement based off the human body (e.g. feet), the resting human heartrate is around 60 beats per minute, so around one beat per second. Using their preference for 60, we start with 60 beats and call it a minute, then up from 60 minutes to set an hour, and find that it comes out to 24 of these "3600 second" hours in a day. Once you've got that there are roughly 24 hours in a day, you can set your mark by that and work backward to define seconds more precisely.


When you've gotten to end, you're confronted with the fact that just because something makes sense, that doesn't mean it's true. (i.e.: I have no idea, and will probably post back once I find out the truth.)

Thank-You!
In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
Aw, I always liked Mike on 60 minutes.

*quality *doublepromote

Aw, I always liked Mike on 60 minutes.

*quality *doublepromote

I bet the coffee is really good there, too!>> ^TheJehosephat:

I was able to take a tour at SpaceX... one of the coolest places. They have a titanium laser printer there!

Thanks!!
In reply to this comment by Boise_Lib:
*quality