And this is why the food corporations can continue to sell us all the crap food that they do.
Our bodies can't tell the difference between healthy or not healthy. We base everything on flavor. They could feed us bleach as long as they added artificial flavoring, and we'd drink it.

I have a R9 280x and to be honest I've never really seen it get past about 60% GPU & 2ish Gig of the Vram.

However I'm only running a single 1080p monitor, nor am I running any kind of upscaling based anti aliasing.

The future seems to be 4k monitors and for the serious psychos 4k eyefinity and maybe even that silly Nvidia 3D thing.

When you start to get into anything like that (and 4000p will inevitably come down to consumer level in price), coupled with the recent push for texture resolution in AAA games, all your're futureproofing starts to go out of the window.

The reason people are pissed off is because this card could have easily seen users through the next few years of monitor and games tech and they artificially gimped it such that anyone that wants to stay reasonably cutting edge will have to buy new cards in 2-3 years.

4 gig is fine for now, but it's a joke that a new top end card would have less Vram than some medium weight cards from two generations ago. Even my 280x has 3.

Long story short resolution eats Vram for breakfast and resolution is where most of the next gen game developments are likely to be biased. It's frustrating but as some others have suggested, it's really nothing new.

Or video title could be
"Tyson makes a valid point and is shot down by some geriatrics"

Tyson is correct. And that is why psychology is mostly hocus pocus and we have yet to develop artificial intelligence.

Cute.

They're dead-on about Twizzlers.

So interesting to hear an objective opinion of some of those things. Growing up here with those things you don't realize they really do taste artificial and rubbery and like flour and fried garbage.

Nice dimples on the girl with the white sweater.

Sure lucky760, I'll do Splenda, since some varieties of Coke Zero have Splenda in them.

First off it is important to note that the majority of the anti-sweetener "science" has been done by one man: Dr. Joseph Mercola. Now, watch out here, because his name is deceptive. You see, Mercola is an osteopathic physician. Osteopathy is a form of pseudoscience that believes that all pathology can be solved by manipulation of the bones and muscles. There is little science to back up these claims because they are clearly insane and worthy of ridicule. So, much like his doctorate, the claims he makes against sweeteners are pseudoscientific. A number of his beliefs are: that AIDS is not cause by HIV but by psychological stress; that immunizations and prescription drugs shouldn't be prescribed but people should instead buy his dietary supplements; that vaccinations are bad for you and your children (a belief which is the cause of recent outbreaks of whooping cough, measles and mumps); and that microwaves are dangerous machines that irradiate their products (they do, but not with the kind of radiation he is thinking of). Since he made a movie called Sweet Mistery: A Poisoned World, he has been at the forefront of anti-sweetener rhetoric. If you watch the movie, note how hilariously bad it is at actual science; the majority of the "evidence" is people claiming side effects after having ingested something with a sweetener in it (anecdotes are worth nothing in science except perhaps as a reason for researching further). So, you have a movement against something seen as "artificial" by a man who is not a doctor, not a scientist and is clearly lacking in the basics of logic.

Now, Splenda. Created by Johnson and Johnson and a British company in the seventies, it's primary sweetener ingredient is sucralose. The rest of it is dextrose, which as I have said above, is really just d-glucose and is safe for consumption in even very large quantities. So really, we are asking about sucralose. Sucralose is vastly sweeter than sucrose (usually around ~650 times) and thus only a very small amount is needed in whatever it is you are trying to sweeten. The current amount that is considered unsafe for intake (the starting point where adverse effects are felt) is around 1.5g/kg of body weight. So for the average male of 180lbs, they would need to ingest 130g of sucralose to feel any adverse effects. This is compared to the mg of sucralose that you will actually be getting every day. The estimated daily intake of someone who actually consumes sucralose is around 1.1mg/kg, which leaves a massive gap. Similarly to aspartame, if you tried to ingest that much sucralose, you would be incapable due to the overwhelming sweetness of the stuff.

There is some evidence that sucralose may affect people in high doses, but once again, this is similar to the issues with aspartame, where the likelihood of you getting those doses is extremely unlikely.

The chemistry of sucralose is actually way too complicated to go into, but suffice it to say that unlike aspartame, sucralose is not broken down in the body at all and is simply excreted through the kidney just like any other non-reactive agent. The reason that it tastes sweet is because it has the same shape as sucrose except that some of the hydroxy groups are replaced with chlorine atoms. This allows it to fit in the neurotransmitters in the tongue and mouth that send you the sensation of sweetness without also giving you all of those calories. Once it passes into the bloodstream it is dumped out by the kidneys without passing through the liver at all.

In sum, if sweeteners were bad for you, they wouldn't be allowed in your food. Science is not against you, it is the only thing working for everyone at the same time. The reason sugar has gotten around this is because we have always had it. If you want to be healthier, don't drink pop, drink water or milk (unless you are lactose intolerant, then just drink water). Don't drink coconut milk, or gatorade, or vitamin water. Assume that when a company comes out with something like "fat free" it really reads "now loaded with sugar so it doesn't taste like fucking cardboard." Assume that when a company says something is "natural" it is no more natural than the oils you put in your car. IF you want to live and eat healthy, stay on the outside of the supermarket, avoiding the aisles. All of the processed food is in the aisles, not on the outsides and the companies know that you don't want to miss anything. Make your food, don't let someone else do it. And never, ever buy popped popcorn, anywhere, the mark-up on that shit is insane.

Sugar is sucrose. Sucrose is glucose and fructose combined and it is immediately separated in the body by the saliva in your mouth. Glucose is fine for your body, it is the energy storage system that metabolizes into glycogen in the liver. Fructose, on the other hand, is a toxin that is metabolized in the body similarly to alcohol, as ChaosEngine said. Essentially it is treated as a toxin and turned into numerous by-products which do things like: delay your leptin response (you feel full later, thus making you eat more), increase your high-density lipo-protein (increasing your cholesterol and storing fat in your liver), and decreasing your sensitivity to insulin (leading to type-2 diabetes).

As to what artician said, high-fructose corn syrup and sugar are treated exactly the same in the human body. In fact, here is a list of all of the things that companies call sugar to hide it when it is the exact same thing: brown sugar, caster sugar, fruit sugar, organic sugar (in fact sometimes they just put organic in front of any of these things to make it seem better for you but trust me, it isn't), evaporated cane juice, evaporated cane syrup, high fructose corn syrup, sucrose, glucose-fructose, brown sugar, honey, molasses, golden syrup, high glucose corn syrup, agave/agave nectar, corn sweetener, fruit juice solids, cane syrup solids, fruit juice concentrate, invert sugar, maltodextrin and even fruit juice.

All of the studies done in the last 15 years have shown that sugar is sugar and calories are not calories. All of the kinds of sugar that have quantities of fructose are bad for you, except when they have fiber. This is why fruit is still good for you while fruit juice is the same thing as soda.

The only things that you do not have to avoid as a sugar are these: brown rice syrup, dextrose and glucose. All of these things are completely glucose, no fructose whatsoever. Therefore, they are largely safe. However, large quantities of glucose can give you a large liver because of the stored glycogen.

Some links if you don't believe me:

Comparison: http://www.foods4betterhealth.com/what-evaporated-cane-juice-sugar-vs-evaporated-cane-juice-8645

Aspartame: http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4127 ; http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/are-artificial-sweeteners-safe/

HFCS vs Sugar: http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4157

Dangers of Fructose: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/high-fructose-corn-syrup/

We will agree to disagree because I'm at work and don't have the time for citations

I'll leave this here though:
http://www.medicaldaily.com/coca-cola-spreads-lies-about-aspartame-and-dangers-artificial-sweetener-311300

Oh, and this:
http://www.rense.com/general33/legal.htm

Damm, I need to get back to work...

For the benefit of those without a rural background, what's going on here is that a hungry calf will suck on anything that looks even slightly like a cow's teat... dog ear, human fingers, artificial teat, they all look good to a hungry calf.

If you lived through the sixties most of these seem normal even if they are horribly dated. The hot Dr. Pepper, however, is fucking weird regardless of what decade you're from.

Also the glass wax I've never seen but we did have spray artificial snow to decorate windows and we'd make our own stencils.

It looks like an O'Neill colony (or A.C.Clarke's Rama), but on Erik Wernquist's web page, it says this is a large asteroid hollowed out (7 km internal diameter) and spun up to provide artificial gravity. It would need to be a strong asteroid to hold together - but that would also make it hard to hollow out. Interesting concept. Who knows what wonders may be possible in the future?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O'Neill_cylinder

http://www.erikwernquist.com/wanderers/gallery_terrarium.html

It is hinted at but not explicitly stated, but isn't possible that early birds are also more optimistic, proactive, etc. because their genetically predisposed sleep pattern lines up with the artificial timeframes set up by society? Are they basically getting a pat on the back by society for conforming to its needs?

For example, are early birds more depressed/less proactive in Spain where the average workday starts sometime between 10 and 11 am and ends close to 8 pm? Wouldn't they then suffer from the same "social jetlag"?

He seems like a perfect person to test artificial limbs with, seeing as he's in such good control of his body.

I find it disgusting that people allow the government to have excuses and second chances but disallow the same for private sector. Neither should have excuses! It's not like there weren't inherent risks involved that could've been avoided. For example, NASA was fully aware of issues with Apollo I and was even warned by the astronauts themselves. They went ahead with it anyway and it resulted in a fire that killed all 3 astronauts. It wasn't a "sacrifice that needed to be made for science." It was negligence, pure and simple.
One thing I admit is that there was an artificial drive to get the moon -- which resulted in wasted dollars and lives because of negligence and the absence of pricing mechanisms -- that probably wouldn't have occurred in the private sector. So, how does that affect our everyday lives? How does that improve our lives? That's what the private sector works on. Not government. I think it could've been done better by the private sector as proven by parallel public versus private sectors in other markets. But really, there would have to be a desire and an efficient business plan. I don't honestly see what the problem is for not wanting to go to the moon right now.
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/the-curious-wavefunction/2014/03/27/are-we-entering-a-golden-era-of-private-science-funding/

To quote the great Wittgenstein "meaning is use". Language and meaning are nuanced and complicated, but most of all, subjective and instrumental (by which I mean something we make up). This is why we frequently use otherwise restrictive and oversimplified analogies to illustrate specific points, and sometimes arbitrary (and always artificial) terms to sum up otherwise much more expansive phenomena.

In this case @Babymech used one to quite neatly surmise the different ways we interpret accidental puns and double meanings. Crude vs Prude was just a succinct way of labelling the two predominant archetypical responses to a potential double entendre.

One is to tend to overlook or ignore it (Prude)
One is to recognise and even call attention to it (Crude)

There were no value judgements implicit in the way @Babymech did this. You brought those yourself, projected them outwards and rather rudely set about insulting Babymech for the perceived slight/prejudicial remark.

The fact you got a rude response back was not validation, it was retaliation. You called him/her a dick basically without provocation!

"In some countries / regions, saying someone is crude is quite the insult."

A term charged with historical prejudicial hatred indeed! Absolutely no room for interpretation or innocent intention there. (And God forbid anyone anywhere ever be offended by something because they might have different associations with a words meanings and associations)

But let's just assume @Babymech was making a value judgement anyway. "Prude" and "Crude" create wildly varying emotional responses. From pride to shame. Who takes prescient? Who's right to not be offended counts most?

Much like considerably more sensitive words (like ones beginning with N and F for instance), context is absolutely everything. Words have no meaning outside of their context, they are entirely relativistic things. Even the cold hard definition in a dictionary is a contextual arrangement (in this case the dictionary & the linguistic paradigm which is documents).

If there was hatred in Babymech's heart when he/she made their comment I certainly did not recognise it. The same point made in a different way might have raised my ire too, but here I can only see a slight you brought to the table yourself so to speak.

I've done it myself before, but then I've also apologised for starting shit that wasn't really there before too

You would be correct if you detected a slightly snotty attitude in my reply, it pops up mostly when people start throwing around unsolicited abuse (or say unspeakably dumb things but I'm certainly not accusing you of that here, just a needless conflict). You'd be amazed how fast it can disappear though!

Much love.

The problem of getting higher quality graphics is what held game design back. In order to scale up the visuals, console games had to scale down other items such as world size, view distance, field of view, number of npcs, artificial loading areas, and so on. Saying that "this" is achievable with a low end PC while console games are holding "this" back is ignoring that these demos are doing the very thing console games have been doing. Cutting back the depth of the image for the glossiness of it.

Here's Hitman Blood Money and its crowd dynamics

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNC2X9r0oGY

Notice how simplistic the crowd behaves. Rather than simulating individuals, the crowd is simulated in lumps. Also notice that the textures are a lot "flatter" and blander than a few other levels.

This is the simplest example of cutting back depth in order to gloss over the something else. In this case, gloss the crowd, shallow their brains.