search results matching tag: Book Covers

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds

  • 1
    Videos (6)     Sift Talk (0)     Blogs (3)     Comments (15)   

Reading Embarrassing Books in Public

Water As Canvas To Paint Stunning Version Of 'Starry Night'

Water As Canvas To Paint Stunning Version Of 'Starry Night'

oritteropo says...

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Ebru-Turkish-Islamic-Art-of-Marbling
*related=http://videosift.com/video/The-Wonderful-Art-of-Marbling
*related=http://videosift.com/video/This-film-explains-how-Marbled-Book-Covers-are-made

Atheist in the Bible Belt outs herself because she is MORAL

JustSaying says...

Yummy, arguing on the internet!
I haven't done this in years, I'm gonna throw my hat in the Ring now.
I spent countless hours here for years, just enjoying the show. Staying out of all this, in the end at least, unimportant chatter. I came for the videos. Then somebody starts singing about sluts and I end up with an account. What can I say? I like sluts.
I spent much time reading and skipping over the posts of @shinyblurry here. And I still wonder why people feel the need to argue with him in such detail and length. He talks a lot about his faith in God and Jesus but what it come down to is this: He believes in The Bible.
The Bible features God and Jesus and all that but most important of all, it features a heckload of arguments for all kinds of things that are often in direct conflict.
Earlier in this thread, somebody threw a Bible quote about how rape victims have to marry their rapist in @shinyblurry's face and he actually started to explain (correct me if I misunderstood) how it's a punishment for the rapist that he has to pay money and marry the woman if the father chooses that.
I have money to burn. Is Jessica Alba married and where does her dad live? She's super hot and I *need* that kind of punishment. God wants her to fulfill her marital duties, right? If she's not available, I could make a list.
Now, I could argue this IMO rather distasteful idea with him, quoting the Bible back and forth, using other philosophical sources for arguments (I'm sure Hitchens mentioned rape somewhere sometime) but all that doesn't matter.
He believes in The Bible.
If I went back in time and edited early versions to my liking to include gems like "Every man shall also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed no abomination: they shall surely be praised", old shiny here would organize gay pride parades now. Because it's in the book. Whatever is in there, it's the truth. Whatever.
It's the same reason why creationist (I have no idea if old shiny is among them) can not accept evolution. It's not in the book.
They believe in this powerful, omnipotent god, not just in I-can-command-all-sea-animals-god. No, not that Aquaman shit the Greeks had, I'm talking about I-invented-the-universe-god. Get this, this guy did *invent* the universe. And still it was all some Siegfried and Roy BS we *know* to be nonsense. 7 days? Really? Was he in a hurry? Couldn't he wait until we get to the Game of Thrones and Tivo part of History? Was there another Earth to take care of? Contract work?
The idea to credit that dude for creating Evolution itself is too much to ask for these people. The idea that God created a giant machine (the universe) and allowed it to feature other tiny, tiny machines that repair, reproduce and improve themselves (life itself; evolution), is too mindblowing.
Who's more awesome in your book? The god that can do magic or the god who could do magic but opted for inventing everything science has discovered so far?
You know, science failed to disprove the existence of god. They can't do that yet. But they can disprove The Bible, at least parts. And yet, they still side with that darn book.
They don't care about God, the don't even care about Jesus. They care about what they read about them. They care about their perception of it.
Telling @shinyblurry that Jesus was a little, brown, jewish Hippie who got mixed up with existing mythology is like telling a fourteen year old that Ed Cullen is, by his own admission, a creepy murderer who stalks underage girls 80 years his junior. They don't want to hear it because that is not what the book said. They book didn't say that god created the natural laws of physics, chemistry and biology and set them upon the universe to wreak havoc until dinosaurs showed up. The book said it took 7 days. And ribs and dirt.
The Bible says so. Nothing else matters.
That's why it's pointless to argue scripture with him. The book is everything and allows so brilliantly for circular logic and cherry picking. It worked with slavery and how many are willing to argue nowadays in front of a TV camera for it? But gays are not slaves and women can always be picked on. Some wrong ideas are easier to conceal behind a book cover than others.
The Bible is everything to him, God and Jesus are just featured players. In the end they could be replaced by Donald Duck and Batman, they just weren't around back when they started to write it.
That doesn't mean I wouldn't love to hear your thoughts about the latest Daft Punk single, @shinyblurry. Or are you more into Rock music?

James Randi shows his ESP

Porksandwich says...

At least 3 tampered cards in the deck, they look very thick so it wouldn't be too hard to make one of those cards split apart and have a circle and plus once you pull a layer to the other side and open it up.

Doubt they can bend so the guy couldn't shuffle them like you would a deck of cards making the tamper show itself while bending them. And he had the guy moving pretty quick, so he probably wouldn't even register different textures or feelings to the cards while he's trying to perform the tasks the guy is throwing at him.

If they were in a sleeve instead of wrapped like a book cover...or if they weren't put in facing each other like his directions stipulate he couldn't do the trick.

That's my guess, the directions are a little too bizarre and specific.

Although the remaining deck on the floor would be harder to manipulate.


But it appeared that all symbols on the cards can be flipped over and not appear upside down. So the left/right orientation prediction would just be cracking it open and seeing it's wrong (he does this) put it back down to your side wave your hands a lot and talk..re-orient it (very hard to tell if he does) and open it up so they appear in the right location.


But more than likely, the guy handling the cards sets it up for him to be correct and he just has to get the orientation right on the open.

Some guy engineers his own 9/11 experiments

mxxcon says...

from the scientific analysis of the event i've seen, the conclusion was not that jet fuel MELTED steel, but rather plane impact blew off fire-proofing and jet fuel'ed fires SOFTENED structural steel until it could no longer maintain its shape and collapsed.
to weaken/soften structural beams you don't need to melt or cut through them.

also i wouldn't trust all the eyewitness accounts to be scientifically accurate. when you live through an even such as this, you are not really in a state of mind to logically analyze and memorize everything you heard, felt and smelt. those white flashes could have been anything (yes, including thermite). that dripping molten aluminum(or thermite) could just as easily be a chunk of floor carpet melting and dripping or something else from a full office floor.

also didn't this book cover every possible scientific answer and question on this topic? http://www.amazon.com/National-Geographic-Inside-11-Commemorative/dp/B000FUF6QI

GeeSussFreeK (Member Profile)

kceaton1 says...

I agree with what your saying, trust me. But, as I was trying to point out we've, as a species, gone to great lengths to hurt ourselves and negate progress. That is what I was alluding to when I said: "I've seen the worst and the best of things we have in this world come from humans. Many of our terrible aspects can be linked to mental illness, abuse, no education, etc... ".

In many cases the "evil" or "good" are a neutral aspect anyway (if you look at it from a evolution point of view). But, evolution also shows why many of the things we consider good are merely evolutionary necessities to survive, i.e. grouping, society, negative impacts on the group by mentally ill group-mates--leading to punishment/exile/or death. This is present in the animal kingdom as well. There have been some recent books covering this very point and they're quite good; if you wish to read one, my advice would be for "The Moral Landscape" by Sam Harris.

Lastly, I know science will not have all the answers. But, if we can deal with the problems I listed above it will bring us closer to a day with understanding; but, many problems will still be left (as technology gets more advanced, it requires less and less people to cause near fatal problems for cities-->countries-->and then the world. If we can't find a way to fold the people back into society willingly we may ultimately fail. By the mid-point of this century, maybe even sooner, it may only take one scientist with a vendetta or a psychotic break (caused by the mind or drugs) to create a virus that targets human specific genetics--if that scientist can throw in some nano-tech... That might be it.

Or we could end up with nano-bots able to self-replicate in our bodies and provide us with protection from viruses, bacteria, other nanites, and able to give you your daily medication as well.

The future is clearly open-ended right now, but I don't think it's quite as dim as justanotherday postulates. Yet, science and religion in the long-term are most likely completely incompatible. Religion can stay in the background without causing conflicts, but if it's at the core or upfront competing with science they'll always rub each other the wrong way--as they are nearly polar opposite in function and approach.

/Yes, I do think the "Atheist" in the video is a Anti-theist. It doesn't mean he's wrong, but he is approaching a solution in the opposite direction that I would suggest (unless the religious leader is like the scientist above in my example: psychotic, mentally ill, etc...).

In reply to this comment by GeeSussFreeK:
I didn't want to derail your conversation there, but as an aside, science has also been a great cause of pain and death. It is has a neutral bias, as I would also see religion. The state of it is largely in the hands of the humans at the helm. We have medicine, but we also have machine guns. We have the United Christian Children's fund, but we also have sexual abusing Fathers.

In reply to this comment by kceaton1:
>> ^justanotherday:

Interesting. I guess everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. Besides, given his past, I can see why he is bitter. Life can be cruel. It is hard to embrace any authority when it fails you so miserably. I still don't see why some believers and non-believers can not get along. Of course, the media only focuses on the few that can't get along. The majority of believers and non-believers can get along. Neither can definitively prove the other side is completely right or completely wrong. So they do a sort of agree to disagree. I do believe that anyone, with any kind of sense, realizes that there is much more to humans that transcends all beliefs. We are more than we appears. More than the sum of our parts. At least science proves that concept. But that does not conclude anything else except just that we are more.
--In the final analysis, I think we will find the true answer is beyond all human perceptions. One can't possibly think we are the highest intelligence in the multi-verse space-time. That would be arrogant at best. If we are, then it is a sad multi-verse space-time. If we are not, then the possibilities are endless.--


The only problem with how you put this is that you are giving a value to something we can't reliably judge for ourselves. It's the same gripe he has with religion. Religion likes to contribute to it's own definition and no other relative position is welcome.

We would also be arrogant if we don't consider the fact that we may be the smartest thing there is. We know already that there were most likely ancestors and perhaps non-ancestors in human past that had a high IQ; due to the size of their neo-cortex. The difference is that our lineage brokered the gap between minds with an extremely descriptive language and body language piece of construction in our brain.

Also, you describe humanity as "sad". I've seen the worst and the best of things we have in this world come from humans. Many of our terrible aspects can be linked to mental illness, abuse, no education, etc... Don't give aliens the benefit that they will not have to deal with the same issues.

Finally, science has made HUGE strides in not only understanding ourselves, but also the environment and creatures around us. In 100 years, out of the 250,000 years we've been around, we've made strides that would seem impossible just a decade earlier. In 1995 when I left graduated from high school the Internet was good for gaming and small-scale communications. In one decade it had become HUGE, allowing you to do things never imagined before (even gaming saw the same leap--just from the advancement of the Internet; WoW is a good example). The Internet is now on the verge of becoming threaded into our everyday life; this is true for a nearly endless list of technological changes and scientific knowledge.

Science also has made great leaps in understanding our psyche (soul for others) and our overall brain and psychology. If you want some quick rundowns on what we know don't look at psychology (as it tends to be secondary to neuroscience), look at neuroscience and artificial intelligence.

I just bought a HTC Legend - any tips? (Geek Talk Post)

Shepppard says...

I've got a Sony Ericsson X10. I'm not too sure how similar the two phones are, but I believe they share the same app marketplace.

There's a couple that I'd recommend, they seem useless but actually have their purposes. First and foremost (as sad as this is) there's a Tricorder app in the style of Next Gen. What I use it for (other then nerding out) is it's got a decent wifi signal detector that gives you the names and strength of access points, aswell as a few other nifty things.

Track ID if you don't already have it is nifty, And (not sure if this is exclusive to my phone or not) Google Goggles. You essentially take a picture, the phone scans it, and google comes up with a result (if it finds something). Particularily useful for scanning things like movie posters, or book covers.

and lastly, just because it's something I enjoy, I have "Tune in radio", it streams radio over the web, so you can get your stations no matter where you are. (Walking for instance, although using it without being connected to a wireless hub'll cost you)

Creativity: The Mind, Machines, and Mathematics

gwiz665 says...

Oh man, you make a good argument here GSF, but some of your points are wonderfully put down by Daniel Dennett (my hero) in, hmm, I think it was Consciousness Explained. (I wrote an assignment on this a few years back, I'll just see if I can get the quotes and stuff..)

The Chinese Room thought experiment is essentially a dud. Dennett calls it an Intuition Pump.

“while philosophers and others have always found flaws in his thought experiment when it is considered as a logical argument, it is undeniable that its “conclusion” continues to seem “obvious” to many people. Why? Because people don’t actually imagine the case in the detail it requires.”

He argues that Searle's position may:

“(…) lull us into the (unwarranted) supposition that the giant program would work by somehow simply “matching up” the input Chinese characters with some output Chinese characters. No such program would work, of course”

For a program to work it would have to be:
“extraordinarily supple, sophisticated, and multilayered system, brimming with “world knowledge” and meta-knowledge and meta-meta-knowledge about its own responses, the likely responses of its interlocutor, its own “motivations” and the motivations of the interlocutor, and much, much more”

The point is, that Searle only looks at the man in the box, and not the whole box, which is what answers. While the little man may not have an understanding of the Chinese letters, the man + the reference book does have that understanding. Searle himself argues that this box would pass a Turing test, but that's the whole box, not just the little man inside.

You say

"Let us use another example. Let us say that we have broadcasting towers all over the USA. They are broadcasting all sorts of different programs to all sorts of different people. It is a complex web of towers and receivers but it all seems to work out ok. So, are we to conclude that radio towers are conscious? Of course not, but that is what are are doing with the human experience of consciousness. Lets look at that quickly.

When you experience something, you experience every one of your scenes simultaneously. You remember the sounds, the tastes, the sights...it is all there. However, your brain never really has a point in which all points connect. Your consciousness is something that seems to violate the laws of physics, that things are happening in different locations in space at different times, but for your consciousness, at the same time. This isn't something that is reducible to brain states, and not something that is physically possible in computer technology as we know it. It doesn't matter if it is parallel or not, if things don't touch but are somehow related this is mystifying; and as a result, unreproducible. Perhaps consciousnesses is reducible to one point in the brain we haven't found, but so far, there is no such thing."


And again, I want to refer to Dennett and his "Multiple Drafts theory", which I think is an excellent answer to this. I don't think that consciousness violates physics as such (obviously it doesn't, or it couldn't exist in our physical universe). I think that our consciousness is an amalgamation of sensory input that is processed in our brain and presented in our consciousness as "scenes". I mean, we have a much, much larger flow of sensory input than is presented to us, and our unconscious mind filters though this and presents what is perceived to be relevant inputs to "us" (our conscious minds). I think in the end it is actually reducible to brain states, in the same way that any give program, say firefox with videosift loaded, can be reduced to an electrical state at a given time in my computer.

On the concept on Blue and blueness, I think you are making a Qualia argument. To be honest, I can't remember all the details of that right now, but again Dennet's "Quining Qualia" in one of his books covers it greatly, if my memory serves.

I also love this subject.

Milton Glaser on design

siftbot says...

Tags for this video have been changed from 'milton glaser, design, graphic design, role of art, aiga, war' to 'milton glaser, design, graphic design, role of art, aiga, war, book cover, poster' - edited by Eklek

Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis (Science Talk Post)

imstellar28 says...

This site is absolutely ridiculous. I post a free online copy of one of the most thorough and definitive rebukes of socialism and all I am met with is personal attacks and administrative edits?

If I'm apparently not allowed to make long posts, why is that even enabled? For what its worth I thought the post would auto-trim itself...as what 99% of other websites do? Instead an admin came in and cut it down to one line?

If there is to be administrative interference, what of all the persecution and irrelevant comments posted here?

Who posting here has read this book, is interested in reading this book, has questions about this book, or has even heard of this book? Some people in this life actually read, and are always looking for new books to read. Given that practically everyone on this site is a socialist, I thought I would take the time to at least expose them to the Richard Dawkins of economics. If this is not okay, why is there even a book channel?

Looking at a book cover, and going off on a nonsensical tirade filled with personal attacks is patently ridiculous. If you think I am married to Austrian economics anymore than I am married to Newtonian mechanics, you have much to much to learn about science, and those who practice it.

The reality is, your socialism is no more safe than Christianity when brought under the light. Everyone here is so confident in their beliefs, so why not spend 30 minutes a day reading this book? If your belifs can survive this book anymore than a Christian's beliefs can survive the onslaught of Dawkins, then you can sleep safe at night knowing you probably are right.

If not, then you are just living in a fantasy world sustained by nothing more than your own ego, and it is only time or strict denial that will prevent it from crashing down like the world around you.

Ann Coulter is a Miserable Harpie

choggie (Member Profile)

Richard Dawkins on Thomas Aquinas' 'proofs'

Ax or Ask: bad grammar of African Americans

MINK says...

by the way, my personal crusade would be typography, and this dude's book cover is first thing on my list for burning.

if you want to be taken seriously in business, you need good graphic design! moron!

  • 1


Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon