>> ^Kevlar:
Clearly this gentleman is eschewing the 'multiple reps of smaller weights' approach that would be more appropriate to tone muscle; he's aiming for 'fewer reps of larger weights' for the purposes of muscle gain.
And by muscle gain, I of course mean heart explosion.


1 rep max is used to develop strength, not muscle mass. ie. 1-1-1-1-1-1-1 with as much rest in between as necessary is common in powerlifting and strength and conditioning programs. You don't do this if you're a body builder and want to look like Arnold.

Also, this guy is clearly a noob considering his form is terrible.

>> ^ridesallyridenc:
Yeah, probably synthol. Roids actually help you build muscle, while synthol is a muscle inflammatory agent that you inject to give instant "results." While used primarily for filling in weak-looking or asymmetrical spots in body builders, some guys take it too far and try to sculpt their form using it. It ends up looking unnatural, out of proportion, and puffy/swollen, not ripped.
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Fitness/story?id=3179969&page=1
http://www.granieri.us/GOOGLE36EC95D890D0CF41=/QuerySiteGlobal=updated/1061.htm


I was totally thinking it was massive infections, like that other guy who did roids like a heroin addict. Dirty needles, etc.

Utterly incomprehensible that this guy thinks he looks good.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'short indie film bruce branit computer graphics 405 world builder' to 'short indie film, bruce branit, computer graphics, 405, world builder' - edited by eric3579

Yeah, probably synthol. Roids actually help you build muscle, while synthol is a muscle inflammatory agent that you inject to give instant "results." While used primarily for filling in weak-looking or asymmetrical spots in body builders, some guys take it too far and try to sculpt their form using it. It ends up looking unnatural, out of proportion, and puffy/swollen, not ripped.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Fitness/story?id=3179969&page=1
http://www.granieri.us/GOOGLE36EC95D890D0CF41=/QuerySiteGlobal=updated/1061.htm

>> ^NordlichReiter:
The million dollar question is, does he have a strong lower body too?
If not than hes only half as strong as a person who works their lower body all day.


More importantly, IMO, is whether he has strong cardio as well. The problem with body builders sometimes is that they may be able to lift obscene amounts of weight but if they ran a mile their heart would explode.

Still, that was very impressive.

The average 'joe' on the street has no idea what science really is and isnt. A scientific fact, is different from the layman's term of 'fact'. A scientific theory is the highest level of concept in science. A layman's 'theory' is a guess on something. Laymen hear of scientists discussing a theory. And then watchs them get in to an arguement over some fine detail. One scientists argues one set of 'facts', and the other, another set of 'facts'. He concludes that his original defination of 'theory' must still work. And never realizing, the two scientists do agree on alot of the information surrounding the topic, except on minor details between two different studies of some rock, fossil, or abstract concept in physics.

The Theory of Evolution, is a great example of this concept. The average 'Joe' knows, the Theory of Evolution competes with Creationism (or Intelligent Design) in schools. What the average 'Joe' doesnt realize, is that the two concepts are totally different on what they attempt to explain. A proper arguement on the concept of the planet Earth, would be, between Creationism and the Theory of Abiogenesis. Both sides argue different reasons for support of their idea towards the common 'Joe'. Scientists explain the need for a well educated workforce. The builders of tommorow, start with science today. Without proper understanding and teaching, the average 'Joe's country would get behind others in knowledge and skill. The Creationists, enphasis religion, piety, worship, and may play on the average 'Joe's sentaments of Christianity. Up till now, I've kept the concept generalized. But anyone with a real thought will understand this is a concept that's alive and well in America.

During the election of Mr. Obama as President of the USA. They found that 87% of scientists had voted for Mr. Obama, and like 7% voted for Mr. McCain (Mr. Obama's competitor). The remaining percentage, went to other canidates, or 'wrote in' someone (real or fictionist). Like wise, they found those with an education higher then 'high school diploma', voted for Mr. Obama. Those that had less then a 2-year college education, voted for Mr. McCain. Liberals tended to vote for Mr. Obama, and conservatives seem to vote for Mr. McCain. Mr. Obama's supports seem to be those that are often educated, while Mr. McCain's were not so well book-studied. So what does this all mean, with this video in mind you ask?

The Source of the information. I got this information a year ago, from cnn.com. I'm sure its still up on their site in the cnn.com/politics area. This information was also studied by several other organizations (each with their own reason for doing so). I stick with CNN, as they usually have their facts right. I do check with several other sources (like the Boston Globe, Newsweek, The Wall Street Journal, and even the BBC in England). I think Video Sift here as ALOT, of videos of Fox 'News' style of journalism.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'eit, everything is terrible, doughnut, master builder, brainwashing' to 'eit, everything is terrible, doughnut, master builder, brainwashing, tools' - edited by sometimes

>> ^Sagemind:
Zoon..., Zune..., Zoone... A what?
Why bother with anything other than an iPod?

Check out the Zune HD. You might change your mind. OLED, Tegra, better sound. Needs more apps though.

^CaveBear

And I suppose Windows is better than a Mac - Yea, right


It all depends on who you are and what you do. As a gamer, programmer, photographer and overall advanced user, Windows beats the shit out of OSX... for me. As a system builder (that is, I put together my own customer computers) I would never consider buying something pre-built, Mac or otherwise.

Blind allegiance to any brand is plain idiotic. I know my wants and needs and design a system around it. Many years of computing experience have helped me find the hardware and software that suits what I do. Customer built PCs using Windows.

Not a Mac. Not OSX. Not a chance.

Ahh ok, you are at least being reasonable and putting forth arguments, I will continue this thread.

First, we are confusing language here I believe. Let us try it a different way.

Making something a law OBLIGATES you do to it. That obligation has to come from something, some kind of reasonable position. In the US, it was understood from the start that the powers not spelled out in the constitution were reserved for the people. Some people didn't trust the government with that, and the bill or rights came to being. All of that is just to say that there was a real concern from the start about the government sticking their nose in where it didn't belong.

So, to make a law promising health care is out of place. It has no foundational presence in the federal charter of the land, it is merely something a large group of people want. As such, there is no place for it as a federal system. Just because a bunch of people want something doesn't mean that is should be so, if it violates the main tenants of the land, it should not be. So one has to ask, what are those main tenants? What are those core, foundational rights that we signed up for when we accepted this social charter. Simple, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Any law that isn't trying to uphold those tenants is invalid.

However, as a legislative body, what you are trying to do is not promote those things, merely stop others from robing people of them. For instance, murder violates those core ideals, slavery violates those ideals. Any arrangement made that violates those shall be void or not enforced.

In other words, laws are for negative rights. The right from something, as has always been their nature for thousands of years. However, in recent moments, we have moved away from preventative, to causative laws. So, instead of you having a right of something not done to you, now it is a right TO something...a very drastic shift. Now, people are owed things. This type of right systems is not something the US was setup for...it violates the idea of freedom.

How so? Well, if you have the right to something, it has to be provided somehow, and as we don't yet have robot slaves doing our every bidding, those things have to be provided at the cost of others. This basic notion undermines liberty and freedom. This is so because there is no real prove of natural rights; of what you are entitled to. The list grows as your own personal convictions change, and they change from person to person; they are completely subjective.

What you end up is in an argument over 60% vs 40% with both having only subjective reasons to back their side up. One side wants prayer in schools, or one side wants free toothbrushes proved for all, or one side wants TV's as a minimum standard of living for all, the list of personal moral convictions is endless. And moreover, all those come at the cost of someone else's personal moral convictions. If I am forced to pay for federal health care you, me and everyone else, then I am forced not to give to a selection of charitable organizations that I find to be better. Maybe I don't believe that the body is all there is to a person, so healing it without some spiritual message is futile to me...however, I am unable to practice that as the state can't have anything to do with religion. So I am forced to do something in a way I don't do it.

However, with voluntarism, people can choose to do what they want, both the 60% AND the 40% are free to do with their monies as the see fit. It is free, it is fair, and it isn't morally dubious.

THAT is the problem I see with ALL social legislation's, they only cater to a portion of the populations moral convictions at the cost of the others. It violates the ideas of freedom...and hell, of charity. As a person, I believe in Universal truths, however, I don't think they can be shown in a logical way as to what they are...is it life, is it justice, is it freedom, who is to say? One thing is for sure, I don't want the government, and visa vi, you telling me what is the most important thing in life. (and by telling, I mean forcing me to pay taxes to fund things of the sort)

Sorry this is long winded, I just think we were chasing each other around in circles Thanks for the reasonable conversation, they are harder to get now a days, if you would however, like me to address directly what you mentioned in your comment, I can, just ask

(up-voted your comments for peacefulness

edit: I would like to add I don't believe in perfect systems. People suck, it is one of my core ideals in viewing a system that is the most free of government as the better of systems you can choose from. People who expound about "greater goods" are the utopia builders, I am trying to say those ideals are foolish (I means this as a form of ignorance, not stupidity) and come at the price of peoples own personal utopias they want to build for themselves, or/and their families. When considering a system, I want it to enforce fairness (lets call it justice) and consistent. As such, it can't cater to the whims of the majority...no matter how "Good" it may be. The realm of "the good" has to be a personal affair and not a government one; it is what it means to be free to determine what it means to be good.

>> ^MarineGunrock:
Dumb. This would be so much cheaper and energy efficient if you just put four fucking wheels on it.


Building a "teeter-bot" is a common entry-level robotics project - you have to program up a "brain" that reads sensor data (the gyro/accelerometer), and reacts to the data accordingly. Depending on scale, you could spend about a grand doing it all from scratch. This builder had the mindset of "if I'm spending that kind of money on a robotics project, it'd be nice if I could at least ride it." And I'm inclined to agree with that mindset.

Refreshness on theoretical physics should be always welcome , however to be technically careful with new proposals is mandatory !
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Surfer dude stuns physicists with theory of everything

By Roger Highfield, Science Editor
Published: 6:02PM GMT 14 Nov 2007
Comments 596 | Comment on this article

The E8 pattern (click to enlarge), Garrett Lisi surfing (middle) and out of the water (right)
An impoverished surfer has drawn up a new theory of the universe, seen by some as the Holy Grail of physics, which has received rave reviews from scientists.
• Garrett Lisi: This surfer is no Einstein...
• Test tube universe hints at unifying theory
• Surfer Dude's Theory of Everything - The Movie
Garrett Lisi, 39, has a doctorate but no university affiliation and spends most of the year surfing in Hawaii, where he has also been a hiking guide and bridge builder (when he slept in a jungle yurt).

Related Articles
• 19 March 2007: Is this the fabric of the universe?
• College course to learn surfing
• Large Hadron Collider: What will it find?
• The Big Bang: what will we find?
• Tree man 'who grew roots' hopes to marry after 4lb of warts removed
• Monty Python theme tune: music to madness
In winter, he heads to the mountains near Lake Tahoe, Nevada, where he snowboards. "Being poor sucks," Lisi says. "It's hard to figure out the secrets of the universe when you're trying to figure out where you and your girlfriend are going to sleep next month."
Despite this unusual career path, his proposal is remarkable because, by the arcane standards of particle physics, it does not require highly complex mathematics.
Even better, it does not require more than one dimension of time and three of space, when some rival theories need ten or even more spatial dimensions and other bizarre concepts. And it may even be possible to test his theory, which predicts a host of new particles, perhaps even using the new Large Hadron Collider atom smasher that will go into action near Geneva next year.
Although the work of 39 year old Garrett Lisi still has a way to go to convince the establishment, let alone match the achievements of Albert Einstein, the two do have one thing in common: Einstein also began his great adventure in theoretical physics while outside the mainstream scientific establishment, working as a patent officer, though failed to achieve the Holy Grail, an overarching explanation to unite all the particles and forces of the cosmos.
Now Lisi, currently in Nevada, has come up with a proposal to do this. Lee Smolin at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, describes Lisi's work as "fabulous". "It is one of the most compelling unification models I've seen in many, many years," he says.
"Although he cultivates a bit of a surfer-guy image its clear he has put enormous effort and time into working the complexities of this structure out over several years," Prof Smolin tells The Telegraph.
"Some incredibly beautiful stuff falls out of Lisi's theory," adds David Ritz Finkelstein at the Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta. "This must be more than coincidence and he really is touching on something profound."
• Is this the fabric of the universe?
• Are we missing a dimension of time?
• Quantum genesis: How life was born on Earth
The new theory reported today in New Scientist has been laid out in an online paper entitled "An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything" by Lisi, who completed his doctorate in theoretical physics in 1999 at the University of California, San Diego.
He has high hopes that his new theory could provide what he says is a "radical new explanation" for the three decade old Standard Model, which weaves together three of the four fundamental forces of nature: the electromagnetic force; the strong force, which binds quarks together in atomic nuclei; and the weak force, which controls radioactive decay.
The reason for the excitement is that Lisi's model also takes account of gravity, a force that has only successfully been included by a rival and highly fashionable idea called string theory, one that proposes particles are made up of minute strings, which is highly complex and elegant but has lacked predictions by which to do experiments to see if it works.
But some are taking a cooler view. Prof Marcus du Sautoy, of Oxford University and author of Finding Moonshine, told the Telegraph: "The proposal in this paper looks a long shot and there seem to be a lot things still to fill in."
And a colleague Eric Weinstein in America added: "Lisi seems like a hell of a guy. I'd love to meet him. But my friend Lee Smolin is betting on a very very long shot."
Lisi's inspiration lies in the most elegant and intricate shape known to mathematics, called E8 - a complex, eight-dimensional mathematical pattern with 248 points first found in 1887, but only fully understood by mathematicians this year after workings, that, if written out in tiny print, would cover an area the size of Manhattan.
E8 encapsulates the symmetries of a geometric object that is 57-dimensional and is itself is 248-dimensional. Lisi says "I think our universe is this beautiful shape."
• The answer to the universe and everything?
• Trapped rainbow heralds computer revolution
• How About That: Unusual, funny and bizarre stories
What makes E8 so exciting is that Nature also seems to have embedded it at the heart of many bits of physics. One interpretation of why we have such a quirky list of fundamental particles is because they all result from different facets of the strange symmetries of E8.
Lisi's breakthrough came when he noticed that some of the equations describing E8's structure matched his own. "My brain exploded with the implications and the beauty of the thing," he tells New Scientist. "I thought: 'Holy crap, that's it!'"
What Lisi had realised was that he could find a way to place the various elementary particles and forces on E8's 248 points. What remained was 20 gaps which he filled with notional particles, for example those that some physicists predict to be associated with gravity.
Physicists have long puzzled over why elementary particles appear to belong to families, but this arises naturally from the geometry of E8, he says. So far, all the interactions predicted by the complex geometrical relationships inside E8 match with observations in the real world. "How cool is that?" he says.
The crucial test of Lisi's work will come only when he has made testable predictions. Lisi is now calculating the masses that the 20 new particles should have, in the hope that they may be spotted when the Large Hadron Collider starts up.
"The theory is very young, and still in development," he told the Telegraph. "Right now, I'd assign a low (but not tiny) likelyhood to this prediction.
"For comparison, I think the chances are higher that LHC will see some of these particles than it is that the LHC will see superparticles, extra dimensions, or micro black holes as predicted by string theory. I hope to get more (and different) predictions, with more confidence, out of this E8 Theory over the next year, before the LHC comes online."

Dude...you're supposed to hit below the face. That way the bruises don't show!

...but seriously, who does that to a girl? I mean, if she were a body builder, then all's fair. But she's not, she's just a bitch, so don't be a dick and stoop to her level.

Also, beer in the face is tasty while head on cement is hurty. Not justified.

>> ^westy:
It cannot build itself only some components of itself.
its not bad for the price but its not relay good enough or practical for now, maby in 10-15 years time the components will be cheaper to allow for more complex 3D printers to be home built. the ability to print using multiple materials would be amazing so you could build electronically devices or complete mecheens.


10-15 years? Give these guys some credit, the thing only began to exist 5 years ago, and it's already producing a 60% of its own componenents. In a near-future revision, it will be able to produce it's own boards. At that point a builder would only have to purchase a few readily available parts.

Sorry to hijack the thread also, but - because they're supposed to be public servants working for the good of the people and the country, not fleecing us for money for their own status/benefit????

I was under the impression that the point of government and the point of being a government minister was so that you had a platform to make the country and the world a better place. I thought you had to have a selfless and untiring spirit, a drive to want to change things so that we can all live a better life (or continue things so that we continue to lead a high standard of life)

Currently, we have a gigantic festering wad of empire builders and fame-seekers, desperately introducing 'widespread changes', 'revolutionary new systems' and 'ground breaking policies' in order to make a name in history for themselves - they're not putting ALL their attention to making britain a better place, hell no. And that's bad enough alone, but now on top of that, they're claiming as much money as they can possibly get, immorally tapping the system to fluff up their already over-paid salaries for the terrible job they've been doing of leading this country. The system, i might add, which THEY INTRODUCED. They vehemently defend that they abided by every rule WHEN THEY MADE UP THE RULES.

Quite clearly now, this has shown us that the people in charge are really not in it for the greater good, they're in it for themselves. And if anyone says ANYTHING along the lines of "We're all just humans dude, we're all in it for ourselves, you can't expect them to spend their life making your life better." I beg to differ. Of a government minister i expect every OUNCE of willpower, attention and integrity. If you can't put others above yourself and STRIVE the for the greater good, why are you even running for such a position? If i were in that role, those would definitely be my aims. I would never try to get to such a role, though, because i know that someone WITH integrity would never stand a chance of getting there. Perhaps if they were lucky.

And i'll tell you another thing, i have NEVER lied or fiddled anything like that. I couldn't fucking live with myself if i had - the worst thing that ever happened to me is my conscience, so please don't chuck me in with people who do that. And i'm quite sure i'm not alone.

/offtopic

The difference between ISC and other online scrabbles such as facebook seems to be the honor codes involved. It's in my experience that people on ISC who "sign" what could be called it's "honor code" don't cheat... or if they do, they suck at it. Someone who cheats regularly is gonna look like a master up in the 1000 rating area. I'm not that high, so anyone who cheats against me and against most people must really suck at it. You'd be surprised how many people take their [even virtual] signature on an honor agreement seriously. To cheat it is to admit that you really suck... that and in this case, there is no reward for winning. No fame, no nothing. I chose ISC because it was the first I found, and in hind sight, after two years... it was the right choice. I've been suspicious about some people, but then, with the words I use now and again, I might be suspicious of me. Yesterday I used "kex," "stodge," "Qi," "pe," and "lex" without cheating and since I generally am not that good, I give people the benefit of the doubt... and anyway, the computer you may be playing against will give you new words you never would have learned... see kex.

In response to Farhad:
Don't be too quick to judge what is an f-ed up word that must have come from a world list or world builder. I know a ton of words now that I don't even know the meaning to because of this game... I did look up many of them, but wouldn't be caught dead using them in a conversation... if dead men could talk that is.