"Dem-a-dem Mit-step, mon!!"

Tags for this video have been changed from 'kelvin doe, engineering, radio, dj focus, mit' to 'kelvin doe, engineering, radio, dj focus, mit, sierra leone' - edited by xxovercastxx

>> ^chingalera:

If this was done today the perpetrators would be kissing their airline privileges goodbye, among other privies....THANK YOU CIA, FOR CREATING AL QAEDA!


Totally. Read that article link I mentioned.

If MIT is really that interested he won't have any loans. He shouldn't have any loans. These are the kinds of minds we need to give all the resources to. Let him see how far his potential can take him. Maybe he's the guy who makes clean energy and saves the planet. Who knows.>> ^vaire2ube:

show him the joy of work study and student loans, i bet he could have his own company by end of first year here

*Ahem*
It's horrible how those people @ MIT, Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Apple, Google, Ebay, Microsoft, Facebook, etc. just want things! Those worthless democrats keeping the economy alive are nothing but bloodsucking welfare recipients... If only they'd follow the lead of the republican states like Alabama, and Mississippi, we'd be in a better shape!

It's like Bad Lip Reading.>> ^mikeydamonster:

Alright, the captions for this are so funny it's ridiculous. Some choice "quotes":
"who uh... praise them significant not mit romney yesterday it was an ohio, who's got a new campaign event, but he can't anymore does it doesn't look good so, they totally genius idea, to instead call it, icestorm relief event well all day on install e_l_(?!) gag. now solo."
"i'd love that okay. so let's figure out a way to be created an opportunistic without looking like, and that's all they did so they it's racist signs around they put away the campaign signs Edison long tables."
I pity any deaf person who can't read lips.

Alright, the captions for this are so funny it's ridiculous. Some choice "quotes":

"who uh... praise them significant not mit romney yesterday it was an ohio, who's got a new campaign event, but he can't anymore does it doesn't look good so, they totally genius idea, to instead call it, icestorm relief event well all day on install e_l_(?!) gag. now solo."

"i'd love that okay. so let's figure out a way to be created an opportunistic without looking like, and that's all they did so they it's racist signs around they put away the campaign signs Edison long tables."

I pity any deaf person who can't read lips.

The problem is also practical knowledge. Just take 4 years using the MIT programs AND developing your skills by working on projects you invent yourself. Use your imagination or try to improve on existing ideas, it'll be fun!

I don't know how easy it would be to get a job HOWEVER with your experimentation and development or your own ideas you could create a very good portfolio.

*dead http://video.mit.edu/watch/the-wonders-of-electricity-and-magnetism-9964/

Class act. He is 100% accurate. Mit is a tit, who is chomping at the bit.

I hear what you are saying. (but)
I'm not judging the event. This sounds fraking cool, and I'm sure it's a scientific wonder that we can now detect, analyze and examine events such as these. The science isn't lost on me or the work, study and teams that go into this sort of thing.

What I don't see is great video. I'm not asking for a cheesy edited version dumbed down for the 6-9 p.m. TV viewing public. I am expecting some explanation (as part of the footage), some commentary from the people working on the project, or some graphics explaining the likelihood, descriptions of projections, something.

If there was no description next to this, non of us would even know what we were looking at. Sort of misses the mark from the medium we are here to judge. I'm basing my vote on the video in front of me, not the event that's trying to be presented.


>> ^deathcow:

> that's a white dot on a black surface.
I missed that! I saw an asteroid, maybe 30 ft wide, perhaps showing tumbling motion, being tracked at a ridiculous custom rate of azimuth and altitude change, by a team from MIT working for NASA. Watch the stars fly by in the background.
This near earth object at just thousands of miles away from missing the Earth, is probably like missing a home run in baseball because your bat was 1/50th of a millimeter too low and 0.05 mph too slow.

> that's a white dot on a black surface.

I missed that! I saw an asteroid, maybe 30 ft wide, perhaps showing tumbling motion, being tracked at a ridiculous custom rate of azimuth and altitude change, by a team from MIT working for NASA. Watch the stars fly by in the background.

This near earth object at just thousands of miles away from missing the Earth, is probably like missing a home run in baseball because your bat was 1/50th of a millimeter too low and 0.05 mph too slow.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^shinyblurry:


You have to ask yourself, if he's willing to lie about his education, what else is he willing to lie about?
I got about 10-15 minutes in and couldn't listen anymore. I like hearing a well-(in)formed counter-argument but this guy isn't even on a high school level of scientific understanding.


Not only that, but even in the first few MINUTES he already doesn't understand the very NATURE the way the brain interprets data and information. He's spending time talking about this important ability in humans yet leaves out ALL of psychology and neuroscience and what they have to say on the subject. Guess what they have to say? So he goes on and on talking about this WORTHLESS notion of design and doesn't understand that his brain is forcing him to BELIEVE this IS TRUE! All you have to ask him to disarm him is , "Why? Why does it look designed? Why?", then watch him splutter till his brain explodes, you know why, because due to psychology you BELIEVE it does, WITH BIAS--and it goes deeper too (much how you see optical illusions, why do those appear to be optical illusions? I don't know, why does that image appear to be designed?)--he will NEVER be able to answer that question, cause quite frankly he doesn't have the education obviously needed to do so.

His entire speech was over in the first few minutes, let alone ten to fifteen. Doctor my ass, "I" could lecture him into oblivion (as I'm sure a great many other people here could too).

This is why I've watched about three of shiny's video embeds (this being a semi-fourth as I only watched enough to know it was an epic failure). They all come from Christian based scientists that have credentials from said "Universities" or "Colleges" (next to public school, these are actually a step down in your learning experience) and are woefully unexperienced, have literal no knowledge IN THE FIELD they supposedly are talking about; or even worse they do terrible even IN the topics IN their field. This stuff works wonderfully for the religious media, religious politicians, the religious faithful, BUT you never see CERN, ITER, MIT, NASA, The Jet Propulsion Laboratory (NASA's JPL), and the various host of scientific federation teams and organizations working on ALL sorts of projects. They are never together because the other side only presents LARGE quantities BUNK "science" and BUNK or JUNK "scientific" videos. They are rightfully scorned by the media and the true scientific establishment.

You have to understand that the nature of what this man was saying in his video, like what @xxovercastxx said in his post, it's complete garbage. You can't even listen to the first minutes of it because he's already missing the boat. NO ONE except for fellow Christians will come out in support of this man's argument. There will be no "HOLY SHIT, HOW COULD WE NOT HAVE SEEN THIS" moment, because the man is an idiot. While shiny will think it's just bias and bigotry at work on the part of media and "THE WORLD'S SCIENTIFIC MINDS" (that's a lot of people shiny), they'll continue to build us useful things like planes, computers, fusion reactors (2018 for the first one), rockets, satellites, medicines, gene manipulation (already here)--->cures to genetic diseases (around the corner), cars, buildings, bridges, machines, new limbs (2030-40; stem-cell research could go FAR faster depending on how much we help), never dying (this one is tricky; some say 20!, I'd say more around 30-40 years out, BUT who gets it and what happens when we do get it--it could get scary), dams, should I go on i could list ALL night and never stop--scientists have done SO MUCH for us and still do. They are literally are best chance for a better future. People like the man in video are dangerous. They cause distrust and give mis-information about the greatest men and women that live on this Earth (other than those that are TRULY selfless souls, looking out for others always). People like that create a "rot" a disease in society; it's the "depression you feel in the air here in America. I point MY FINGER at them as the cause. They WILL NOT let progress nor happiness win, they are only concerned with what they "think", and what they "think" is not right.

What will these Christian scientists make, invent, or create for humanity, to help? Dams, cars, trains, light-bulbs--no...more videos to show scientists they're wrong... What did you get taught in school?

I'd say the hypothesis "it was all made up" has infinitely more merit than the hypothesis "god is real". The former has actual evidence you can use to prove it. The latter has none.>> ^gwiz665:

The hypothesis "it was all made up" has equal merit, because you can find just as many traces of this than you can of it actually being real.
>> ^shinyblurry:
It's better to know the answer than remain ignorant of it. To say you prefer uncertainty is to say you enjoy the freedom of imagining that the answer is something else, because you don't like it. We aren't uncertain about everything. We have to be certain of some things, like the fact that we exist. Do we say that those who believe they exist embrace this answer because they are afraid of not existing? Clearly, certainty is useful.
If you want say that theists embrace God because they don't want to die, you could also say that atheists reject God because they don't want Him to exist. Take these scientists, for example:
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
To say God couldn't touch this world because the Universe is so big is a false argument. The Universe may be huge to us, but to God it is very small. If God is omnipresent, He is everywhere at the same time. Size and distance mean nothing in that equation.
To say God created the Universe is not the end of inquiry, it is the beginning of true inquiry and true science. How could you understand the creation without understanding the Creator?

You make a good point. In our daily life we are certain about a lot of things, or rather we accept things for granted without any thoroughly investigated evidence. We assume that we exist, because that's needed for us to assume it. We assume we have free will, because it feels like we have free will.

I also live as if there is no God, because of the "path of least resistance" - it is easier to assume there is no god, than to assume there is, and since it has no difference to me, the easiest solution is fine. I think for many theists, it least resistance to assume that there is a god, and live as if he exists, be it because of social pressure, mindset or what have you - in any case, their path of least resistance is to assume he exists. If you think about all the shit an outed atheist go through in some states, I can't really blame them for that too much.

It is a different deal when you get into the science of it, because in science we deal with what is real and what is not. The good thing about science is that it doesn't care. It doesn't care about your feelings, it doesn't care that lots of people like a thing, it only exist to show the truth and to show nature for what it really is.

Materialism is absolute in that it's really there, like Feynman says so excellent in his video about the electro-magnetic spectrum. It may not have much of an effect in your everyday life how light moves in waves and how it's similar to how water makes waves, but that doesn't make it any less true. You can assume that they are unrelated if you want, and if that makes you sleep better at night, but it's just not how nature works.

If you take the issue of God under the microscope, you find that there's not much evidence backing it up when you really look. The social pressure is there, and the cultural ramifications are there, but there's no evidence backing up the actual existence. The hypothesis "it was all made up" has equal merit, because you can find just as many traces of this than you can of it actually being real.

>> ^shinyblurry:

It's better to know the answer than remain ignorant of it. To say you prefer uncertainty is to say you enjoy the freedom of imagining that the answer is something else, because you don't like it. We aren't uncertain about everything. We have to be certain of some things, like the fact that we exist. Do we say that those who believe they exist embrace this answer because they are afraid of not existing? Clearly, certainty is useful.
If you want say that theists embrace God because they don't want to die, you could also say that atheists reject God because they don't want Him to exist. Take these scientists, for example:
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
To say God couldn't touch this world because the Universe is so big is a false argument. The Universe may be huge to us, but to God it is very small. If God is omnipresent, He is everywhere at the same time. Size and distance mean nothing in that equation.
To say God created the Universe is not the end of inquiry, it is the beginning of true inquiry and true science. How could you understand the creation without understanding the Creator?