*related=http://videosift.com/video/Sketching-Electronics-With-MIT

Sketching Electronics With MIT has been added as a related post - related requested by eric3579.

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Sketching-Electronics-With-MIT

Invocations (related=http://videosift.com/video/Sketching-Electronics-With-MIT) cannot be called by skinnydaddy1 because skinnydaddy1 is not privileged - sorry.

http://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/nsa-spaehaffaere-videomaterial-vom-treffen-mit-edward-snowden-1.1809708

Videos taken at the meeting with Snowden.

Video #1, clockwise: John Goetz (Sueddeutsche), Sarah Harrison (WikiLeaks), Snowden, Christian Stroebele (MP, Green Party), Georg Mascolo (previously Editor-in-Chief of DER SPIEGEL)

Oh poo, my URL doesn't seem to have been posted. Just google: "MIT passing laws"

Here is a summation of lane laws in the US: http://www.mit.edu/~jfc/right.html Laws against passing on the right are quite common.

John Fitch of MIT, you're too frikkin' suave᾿ (⌐■_■)
...Albert Hopkins though (10:00), that's the cat you wanna take to the party‼

Are you fucking high? I can't believe some of the stupidity coming from some of you people. This is even dumber than the ridiculous tack of @eric3579's comments (although I haven't read further than this comment yet, so maybe he pulled his head out later. EDIT: Nope!).

Bombing suspects weren't enough of a threat?!?! You mean the bombing suspects who detonated two bombs during the marathon, executed an MIT policeman while he sat in his car, committed a carjacking and didn't kill the driver only because he wasn't an American, then engaged Boston police in a car chase and gun battle during which they threw several explosives, and one of the "suspects" ran over his own fucking brother so he could get away? Those bombing suspects? "Just isn't any way" they were enough of a threat?

Look, I've been very vocal about my hatred of police, and it pisses me off to see the citizens of Boston engage in the pathetically effusive hero-worship of police who were just doing what taxpayers pay them to do, but this whole argument that the warrantless searching of homes in an area police believed the remaining suspect to be hiding is just daft and has NO MERIT, not unlike the suspicion that this was some sort of compliance test on the populace that @newtboy "heard some say", which is firmly in Alex Jones/Glenn Beck thousand-yarder territory. Maybe the government just really wanted to get into a few homes and look around without warrants, and the best idea they could come up with was to blow some people up, eh? What sorts of secrets do you think were surreptitiously gleaned from those searched homes that would justify such a huge and deadly ruse? Maybe they just wanted to find out if residents in a search area for an extremely and demonstrably violent suspect would be stupid enough to resist efforts to actually locate and apprehend him. Compliance test... give me a fucking break.

You believe the police should have whittled the the search area down to a single home, got a warrant, and then knocked on the door with their guns holstered? Do you also believe that the police can read minds, or have powers of perception that the rest of us don't? Maybe you think the movies are accurate, and anything that happens anywhere can be played back in HD by the police because some super-secret satellite gets it on video. They're dicks, but they don't have superpowers and can't know everything with certainty, and I think they did a good job in a relatively short period of time of homing in and getting those assholes. What I find amazing is the criticism being leveled at them for doing exactly what they were supposed to do. If I'm being held against my will by someone who just blew up a marathon, killed a cop, and ran over his own brother to get away, the cops sure as shit better be actively searching my neighborhood, and not holding back for lack of warrants or knowledge of exactly which house he's in.

Other people here have tried to explain what exigant circumstances are, and why they most definitely applied in this case, but some of you just prefer to see bogeymen everywhere. Maybe you need to, for some reason.

Tut es doch weh Songtext

Langsam hebt und senkt sich
der Brustkorb und sie schnarcht.
Seelig und zufrieden mit dem Tag.
Dein Blick fällt auf die Schuhe
und dann fällt dir noch ein:
"Da vorne sitzt ein Sparschwein"
und du sitzt hier fast allein.

Vielleicht tut es doch weh

"Dein Onkel hat gut lachen"
hat man stets gesagt.
Er macht ein Vermögen mit Chemie.
Vielleicht macht das nicht glücklich,
doch beruhigt ein' ungemein!
Und wenn es ein' zur Ruhe hilft
dann muss es richtig sein!

[Refrain]
Vielleicht tut es doch weh
und dann packt dich die Angst.
Manchmal glaubt man beinahe selber,
dass das alles so gehört.
Vielleicht tut es doch weh
und nimmt dir den Schlaf.
Manchmal glaubt man beinahe selber,
dass das alles so gehört.

Dem Nachbarn blieb die Sorge,
er süffelt sich in Schlaf.
Da ist das Zetern halb so lang.

Bitte mal Korrekturlesen, bevor ihr mit dem Mist das Internet verpestet. *discard

You have been awarded 1 Power Point for fixing the embed code for Dead Pool video MIT Research Amplifies Invisible Detail In Video. Thank you for helping maintain VideoSift's reliability.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by PlayhousePals.

At present this concept of design is just castle-in-the-sky nonsense. Empty piffle. A complete non-starter.

This is why the "mere mention" of "design" will get you "banned" from peer-review, because you could just as well have made a "mere mention" of Bigfoot and the loch ness monster in your zoology report, it's a big tell to your peers that you are a nut who fails to understand the nature of evidence and science, and a big sign that you are in for some fuzzy logic and dumb assumptions instead of solid science.

Design is a better hypothesis for the information we find in DNA, and the fine tuning we see in the physical laws. The reason design is a non-starter is because the idea this Universe was created by anyone is anathema to the scientific community:

Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic."

S. C. Todd,
Correspondence to Nature 410(6752):423, 30 Sept. 1999

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the unitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine foot in the door.

Richard Lewontin, Harvard
New York Review of Books 1/9/97

No evidence would be sufficient to create a change in mind; that it is not a commitment to evidence, but a commitment to naturalism. ...Because there are no alternatives, we would almost have to accept natural selection as the explanation of life on this planet even if there were no evidence for it.

Steven Pinker MIT
How the mind works p.182

After essentially nullifying and disproving everything we have learned about biology the last 200 years, you still have all the work ahead of you, I'm afraid. You now have to build a completely new framework and model for every single observation ever made in biology that makes sense of it all and explains why things are the way they are. Shouting that a thing is "complex" is not cutting it, I'm afraid. You need a new theory of DNA, Immunology, Bacterial resistance, adaptation, vestigal organs, animal distobution, mutation, selection, variation, genetics, speciation, taxonomy... well, as Dobzhansky put it: "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution" That quote is more relevant than ever.

Your error here is conflating micro and macro evolution. Creation scientists believe in micro evolution and speciation. That is part of the creationist model of how the world was repopulated with animals after the flood. Macro evolution, the idea that all life descended from a universal common ancestor, is not proven by immunology, bacterial resistance, adaptation, animal distribution, mutation, seclection, variation, speciation, taxonomy etc. The only way you could prove it is in the fossil record and the evidence isn't there. They've tried to prove it with genetics but it contradicts the fossil record (the way they understand it). So Creationists have no trouble explaining those things..and common genetics points to a common designer.

You dont have to trust scientists, most of the EVIDENCE is RIGHT FUCKING THERE, in front of you, in your pocket, in your hand, around your home, in every school, in every home, in every post office or courtroom, in the streets. ACTUAL REAL EVIDENCE, right there, PROVING, every second, that the universe is billions of years old.

Every scientist since Newton could be a lying sack of shit, all working on the same conspiracy, and it would mean fuck all, because the evidence speaks for itself.

The earth is definately NOT ten thousand years young.

Have you ever heard of the horizon problem? The big bang model suffers from a light travel time problem of its own, but they solve it by postulating cosmic inflation, which is nothing more than a fudge factor to solve the problem. First, it would have to expand at trillions of times the speed of light, violating the law that says nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. There is also no theory compatible with physics that could explain the mechanism for how the Universe would start expanding, and then cease expanding a second later. It's poppycock. See what secular scientists have to say about the current state of the Big Bang Theory:

http://www.cosmologystatement.org/

As far as how light could reach us in a short amount of time, there are many theories. One theory is that the speed of light has not always been constant, and was faster at the beginning of creation. This is backed up by a number of measurements taken since the 1800s showing the speed of light decreasing. You can see the tables here:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v4/n1/velocity-of-light

this subject is a quick way to blow your mind...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remarks_on_Colour

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/color/

http://web.mit.edu/philos/www/color-biblio.html