>> ^kronosposeidon:
If you have limited mobility like the people who would use this item, you might call your thought-controlled chair happy wheels.


Good point!

I'm branching out:

http://www.videosift.com/video/New-Scientist-Thought-controlled-wheelchair#comment-760079

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
http://www.videosift.com/member/EDD#comment-757720

>> It is possible not to believe in all of those things, including יהוה, and yet still feel open and attuned to a universal consciousness. Atheism is a belief too.


The atheism that's represented by modern science is based on the empirical philosophy that only phenomena that can be reliably detected warrant "belief."

Atheism is a "belief" in the same sense that evolution is a "theory;" it's a false symmetry to imply that atheism and evolution are on the same level of unreliability as the random supernatural musings ("beliefs" and "theories") that oppose them.

Supernaturalists who believe in vague claims of the "sense of the sacred" seem to either believe consciousness is a spiritual phenomenon that 'can't be explained rationally' (good argument) or that it's some mystery of advanced physics. Claims of the latter sort don't seem to have a very good track record: "Quantum gods don't deserve your faith," New Scientist, April 2009.

These guys set out to prove a god made the earth without thinking that they need to prove a god exists.

Also, I have that New Scientist edition.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'shoes, water, wet, floor, physics' to 'New Scientist, shoes, water, wet, floor, physics' - edited by cybrbeast

Neat!, but since when are algae plants? (as in "hybrid plant/animal!"). I thought the whole point of New Scientist was to make science palatable for the masses Without resorting to lazy inaccuracies.

^imstellar, I don't think that it even gets to a question of whether humans with chloroplasts would be a 'good design'. The historical constraints on this sort of thing evolving through natural selection are huge. Horizontal gene transfer enabling algal chloroplasts and a vertebrate host to live together as a chimeric organism ain't going to happen... probably more because of the immune response to the chloroplasts than because of barriers to introgression of the genes.

..besides, isn't it cool enough that this happened in a mollusk?

such an in-depth video New Scientist!. i now know so much, i feel like i actually built that goddamn printer. i just wish it could create a 3d picture of my disappointed little face right now.

Yeah, she's pretty annoying, but I love New Scientist, and she's sort of their voice.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
^ except that other apes have breasts that are not large and is not a sign that they are healthy or able to have more children. Evolution isn't an exact science anyway, big boobs could just be the offset of some other natural occurrence. The sexuality about them isn't always there in every culture either. Some fantasize about necklines, lips, butts, ect.


I just said it was more likely than the hypothesis in the video. That was the most likely cause I could think of off-hand that would cause more children from boob-loving men to survive over time.

There was also an article in New Scientist that theorizes that the evolution of large breasts was due to the human face being flat relative to apes. A human infant with a flat face would be much more likely to suffocate while feeding on a flat breast than an ape infant, since apes have a more protruding jaw line and such. As an effect, babies from men that prefer larger breasts would have a higher survival rate.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'top 5, science, New Scientist, videos, 2008' to 'top 5, science, New Scientist, videos, 2008, antikythera mechanism' - edited by xxovercastxx

>> ^Quboid:
Great ending, I was worried the title was flame bait.
A couple of points:
1) I don't think it's established that it's a snake. Pretty sure it's a talking animal so this is a technicality, but that it's a snake is a myth. I think QI covered this and they are actually are beyond question.
2) I don't believe in evolution. OK, I agree in general, but does it explain what it aims to accurately and completely? I very much doubt it. In fact I'd be amazed if the original work wasn't mostly discredited by now, just like much of Newton's work, Einstein's work and so on. Darwin's work was certainly a big step in the evolution of knowledge
If you think about it, it's arrogant to the point of ludicrous to presume this generation has all the big stuff figured it. I'm sure as hell not a Christian or Creationist, I just think science is a work in progress and we're at a pretty early stage. I hope so! I quit Christianity when I grew out of invisible friends, but I didn't become an atheist just to join other zealots. Science is our friend, but keep questioning.

Pun / Ironic choice of phrase intentional.


You might find interesting this fascinating study this summer of unexpected evolution in bacteria cultures in the lab.

It's the first time evolution has been caught in the act of making such a rare and complex new trait.

And because the species in question is a bacterium [with frozen samples every 500 generations], scientists have been able to replay [the history of the 44,000 bacteria generations] to show how this evolutionary novelty grew from the accumulation of unpredictable, chance events.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthquake_light
http://www.louthleader.co.uk/news/More-earthquake-light-sightings-.3864580.jp
http://inamidst.com/lights/earthquake



"It is perfectly practicable to transmit electrical energy without wires and produce destructive effects at a distance. I have already constructed a wireless transmitter which makes this possible, and have described it in my technical publications, among which I may refer to my patent 1,119,732 recently granted."
- Tesla


"t's 7:17 AM on the morning of June 30, 1908, the exact moment when Nikoli Tesla is testing his "Death Ray" by aiming his beam towards the Arctic Cirle where he hopes Admiral Peary will see a visual display in the sky.

In the small Siberian village of Tunguska, herders of Reindeer are awoken by a huge ball of light, followed by an enormous explosion."
- http://www.viewzone.com/tesla.tunguska.html



"However, he did hear about the unexplainable event in Tunguska, and was thankful no one was killed, as it was clear to him that his death ray had overshot. He then dismantled his machine, as he felt it was too dangerous to keep it."
- New Scientist October 2002



"On 31 March, 1980, anomalous EM emissions were recorded thirty minutes before a deep-focus (depth = 480 km) magnitude 7 earthquake 250 km from an observatory near Tokyo. These emissions were widely-separated at 10 Hz and 81 kHz. Other similar emissions were recorded for a magnitude 7.4 earthquake in Iran, 1200 km from the epicentre, at 27 kHz and 1.63 MHz. Other examples of such emissions have also been reported."
- Chris A. Rutkowski "The Tectonic Strain Theory of Geophysical Luminosities"

“It looked like a classic controlled demolition, said Mike Taylor of the National Association of Demolitions Contractors in Doylestown, Pa.

“If there’s any good thing about this it’ that the towers tended not to weaken to one side, “said Taylor. “They could have tipped onto the other buildings…”
The collapse of the WTC Towers mirrored the strategy use by demolitions experts. In controlled demolitions, explosives are placed not just on the lowest three floors but on several consecutive floors..the explosions at the higher floors enable the collapse to gain downward momentum as gravity pulls the full weight of unsupported higher floors down into lower floors ion a snowballing effect.
It cascaded down like an implosion” Says Taylor.

-New Scientist, 12 Sept. 2001


Analysis of dust samples
heavy Metals
Murcury
Asbestos
the cocktail was extremely alkaline +/-15)


The government (EPA) assured no health risks-(falsehoods, lies)
The NIST ruled out controlled demo as a possibility and DID NOT INVESTIGAT based on this premise....

7 yrs later, and nobody gives a fiddlers fuck enough to re-open the case and leave it to public scrutiny??? Even if we could, too late to prove anything based on evidence, which has all nut been conveniently destroyed.

People are still dying from the toxins they breathed in that day.

returned to this post to see hwo chime in-
As always, JAPR showing the ass.....

“It looked like a classic controlled demolition, said Mike Taylor of the National Association of Demolitions Contractors in Doylestown, Pa.

“If there’s any good thing about this it’ that the towers tended not to weaken to one side, “said Taylor. “They could have tipped onto the other buildings…”
The collapse of the WTC Towers mirrored the strategy use by demolitions experts. In controlled demolitions, explosives are placed not just on the lowest three floors but on several consecutive floors..the explosions at the higher floors enable the collapse to gain downward momentum as gravity pulls the full weight of unsupported higher floors down into lower floors ion a snowballing effect.
It cascaded down like an implosion” Says Taylor.

-New Scientist, 12 Sept. 2001

I see,
so see this compilation:
http://www.videosift.com/video/Top-Science-Videos-2007-New-Scientist
*discard