2/3 rds of all food sold in america is GMO.
that would qualify as "almost all".
http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/ideas/2012/06/food-modified-food/
which is friendly to the GMO debate.
http://www.disabled-world.com/fitness/gm-foods.php
not so friendly to the debate.

while i will agree this is not a one dimensional discussion i cannot agree with your statement that this video would be considered uneducated slactivism.

corporations are amoral,not immoral,by design.
monsanto has purchased legislators and judges to enact laws which solely benefit them at the cost of society.veiled in secrecy and an army of lawyers that would make scientology blush.

you should really check the documentary channel out.there is a wealth of information concerning this behemoth corporation and how it does far more harm to our future food supply than good.

It looks 1 dimensional, cliched, and a Men in Black rip off... and I can't wait!

^ You can make all of that make sense by simply shifting your epistemological position to the only ones which truly make sense i.e. phenomenology &/or perspectivism.

To rephrase that in less impenetrable terms:
"Materialism" (or in your case I assume "Scientific Materialism") that is to say 'matter is primary', from a philosophers POV is a deeply flawed assumption. Flawed because there appears to be not one experience in human history that did not occur entirely within the mind.
When one see's say a Dog, one only ever experiences the images and sensations occurring within ones mind. You don't see the photons hitting your retina, only the way your mind as interpreted the data.

However the opposite position "Idealism" (mind is primary) is also fundamentally flawed in the exact opposite way. If our minds are the only "real" things then where exactly are they? And how do we even derive logic and reason if there is not something outside of ourselves which it describes? etc. etc.

Philosophers like Husserl, Heidegger and Sartre' got around this by defining a new category, "phenomena". We know for certain that "phenomena" exist in some sense because we experience them, the categories of mind and matter then become secondary properties, both only existing as definitions we apply retrospectively to experiences. i.e. stuff happens and then our brains kick in and say "that happened because of X because in the past X has preceded similar experiences" or "that thing looks like other examples of Y so is probably Y".

The problem then is that this appears to come no closer to telling us what is objectively happening in the universe, it's more like linguistic/logical housekeeping. The phenomenologists and existentialists did a superb job of clearing away all of the old invalid baggage about how we try to describe things, but they did little or nothing to solve the problem of Kants "nouminal world" (i.e. the "real" stuff that we are experiencing by simulation in our minds).

Its stumped philosophers for centuries as we don't appear to have any way to ever get at this "nouminal" or "real" world we naturally assume must exist in some way. But....

I reckon ultimately one of the first western philosophers in history nailed the way out 3000 or so years ago. Pythagoras said "all is number" and due to the work of Euler, Riemann and Fourier in particular I think we can now make it stick. (yeh its turning into an essay sorry )

Without wishing to go deep into a subject you could spend half your life on; Fourier transforms are involved in signal processing. It is a mathematical means by which spatio-temporal signals (e.g. the vibration of a string or the movement of a record needle) can be converted with no meaningful loss of information into frequency (analog) or binary (digital) forms and back again.

Mathematically speaking there is no reason to regard the "signal" as any less "real" whether it is in frequency form or spatio-temporal form. It is the same "signal", it can be converted 100% either direction.

So then here's the biggie: Is there any reason why we could not regard instrumental mathematical numbers and operations (i.e. the stuff we write down and practice as "mathematics") and the phenomena in the universe they appear to describe. I.e. when we use man made mathematical equations to describe and model the behavior of "phenomena" we experience like say Physicists do, could we suggest that we are using a form of Fourier transform? And moreover that this indicates an Ontological (existing objectively outside of yourself) aspect to the mathematical "signals".

Or to put it another way, is mathematics itself really real?

The Reimann sphere and Eulers formula provide a mathematical basis to describe the entirety of known existence in purely mathematical terms, but they indicate that pure ontological mathematics itself is more primary than anything we ever experience. It suggests infact that we ourselves are ultimately reducible to Ontological mathematical phenomena (what Leibniz called "Monads").

What we think of as "reality" could then perhaps be regarded as non dimensional (enfolded) mathematics interacting in such a way as to create the experience of a dimensional (unfolded) universe of extension (such as ours).

(R = distance between two points)
Enfolded universe: R=0
Unfolded universe: R>0

Neither is more "real", they are simply different perspectives from which Ontological mathematics can observe itself.

"Reality": R>=0

I've explained parts of that poorly sorry. Its an immense subject and can be tackedled from many different (often completely incompatible) paradigms. I hope at the very lest I have perhaps demonstrated that the Holographic universe theory could have legs if we combine the advances of scientific exploration (i.e. study of matter) with those of Philosophy and neuroscience (i.e. study of mind & reason itself). The latest big theory doing the rounds with neuroscience is that the mind/consciousness is a fractal phenomenon, which plays into what I've been discussing here more than you might think.

Then again maybe you just wrote me off as a crackpot within the first few lines "lawl" etc..

Jesus fucking christ man, I am serious if you are ever in town give me a ring I would love to meet you for real, it would be a fucking blast. This is the first time I am saying this to someone I sort of know from the internet but we have fucking paralleled dimensional shit going on so it is all good in my eyes. Some day man, lets blast off . I am not gay man I swear; I like brazillian and exploited asian whores, fuck their faces and make them swallow, I am so down to meet up with you if you are ever in town.

It's Will Smith and son, Fletch.....Daddys' grooming his no-actin' son to take over the Smith legacy for future generations of popcorn-slammin' entertainment junkies.

He looks to be shaping-up in the fine tradition of the Will Smith, uni-dimensional school of acting.

If Keneau Reeves were black (and had a personality), he might still be making movies, too!

What is religion anyway? Many of them exude the same principles of which I believe have some truth in all of them. Hinduism and Buddhism probably moreso than others but that is just me and what I have seen and learned.

Though there is definitely more verifiable truth to Math and Science. We were built and evolved in this intergalactic system, a system largely devoted to geometry... and an intergalactic system that we do not know much about.

We hardly even know how our brain functions and even less about the subconscious or what happens when we sleep, we know these aspects of our own being impact us, we can study the brain waves, we can hypnotize, we can slip in different molecules into our serotonin receptors, but we still do not understand why. It is a mystery yet to be solved. Much like this phenomenon we might believe as God. Eventually, I believe that we can figure out the science and it will be mindbogglingly simple creating much complexity. Akin to a simple formula as x=abs(x) or y=abs(y) or m=x*x+y*y or x=x/m+cx or y=y/m+cy. But, math will not contain the science of all of the states of being, spirit realms, and matter that do not relate to us on Earth. In my opinion this is only one life. The science of the next could be completely different.

Is God a deity or a they? The programmers of a gigantic reaction that occurs probably in many more places than we can imagine. Who are connected to everything. Maybe, it was a blob of energy that never knew it could create consciousness and the Earth evolved us to be conscious to protect it. Yeah, great job guys.

No one has that great of an idea because if it is real, it would be absolutely mind blowing and beyond all human comprehension, yet probably very simple once we understood it. There is only one way I know to reach out and touch a little bit of it on Earth and it is absolutely amazing and terrifying all at the same time and beyond human linguistics. Science so far is hardly trying to figure it out but it is science, because if all living things ingest this molecule that resides in everything and then is able to see through dimensional portals, into afterlife, through the universe, think it is dead because it is impossible otherwise... well that is Spirit Science something of which is only beginning to come to fruition.

I just think everyone is somewhat right, even Christianity, hehe, as long as they are teaching compassion and love; there is something to it be it group therapeutic, psychological, or really there is something much bigger going on that science has no way of quantifying. Again, I am not saying anyone is right or wrong but that there are truths in everything and to completely disregard them might not be the best approach, even if it is an amalgamation of prior knowledge so very twisted by imperialists throughout these two thousand plus years.

Science is what we need to get behind to begin unraveling these mysteries, even though it is a slow process. I bet that science will eventually grapple to learn that these mystical underpinnings of religions, cults and ancient sacraments... these things Christians call holy light, prayer, God, resurrection, afterlife, angels... fit into the coding of the universe. If string theory and quantum mechanics did not already open that can of worms up. But, I also doubt that whoever created this thing that we are, wants to be seen and would have put up many barriers, knowing full well that its creations would seek them or it out. Or maybe it is the exact opposite....

Again: focus on the dark blue missing corner square and nod your head.
Then maybe you can see a cube in a three dimensional room.

Same science but another example:
1) 3D face optical illusion: Rolling eyes on hollow mask
2) Hey look, what a nice house

First of all, I like your standpoint, nothing wrong with that. We simply don't know, maybe the big bang was an imploding black hole in another plane of existence, creating our own 4 dimensional reality. Maybe it was an omnipotent being looking like a giant spider with Panda bears instead of arms, maybe both.
Although Occam razor would suggest the first alternative (which on a grand scale sounds equally ridiculous to me), we still don't know.

And secondly ask yourself this (I don't mean you in special bobknight), "Is it even possible to consider biological evolution in isolation from everything else?". I don't think thats possible, first we need something like really huge stars to create heavy atoms (i mean everything with more protons than helium, that's not what a chemist would call heavy). We need smaller stars that don't burn up that fast and deliver energy, we need a planet in the right distance to this star. Ohh and the planet itself doesn't have the properties to sustain life from the beginning, earth also had to "evolve" to the kind of planet that was able to sustain life and therefore start the biological evolution. There are many more of these requirements and they also needed to "evolve" from this huge pile of energy called the big bang.

It is probably a near perfect mirror from this liquid mecury.

The big problems with liquids for telescope surfaces are -

1) gravity - the mirrors can only point straight up

2) the thermal coefficient of expansion for liquids is huge, as temps change, liquid components are dimensionally unstable

I suspect what you see is the state of the art for liquid mirrors and you shouldn't expect to see much more in our lifetimes.

Look, our inter-dimensional alien overlords require that our government rob us blind, otherwise they will destroy us. Thank you Obama.

Like moodonia, I just watched this finally after purposefully avoiding any and all related material about it (save for the initial trailer that was released). Interesting story points, great FX, etc. though the characters were completely one dimensional and there were several things in the movie they could have done better. I kept waiting for it to be a bridge to Alien, like The Thing (2011) was to it's predecessor, but I guess that's not the case here. Overall, I liked it.

>> ^grinter:

Couldn't each ground unit just flash with a unique id code? ...and couldn't each instruction from the aerial unit then use a coded prefix to direct individual ground units? ...and couldn't that happen on the millisecond time scale?
The disco lights don't seem very efficient?


The problem is that the "skybot/drone" is using a relatively inexpensive webcam. These things don't have a very good framerate, and there are a lot of factors that ccould drop frames. If any frame is dropped, then it would misinterpret the "ID" of the ground robot. A webcam is good at discerning red vs. green vs. blue. Something that is faster- IR from a TV remote- has the problem of being non-dimensional, so the drone wouldn't know which ground robot was "talking". Something that might be neat would be the 2D IR sensor from a WiiMote, but I'm not sure what kind of framerate those are capable of.

Also, adding extra sensors to the drone, or getting better ones, or using a faster cpu, would not only increase cost, but more importantly decrease battery life of the drone.

Probably the speed of the LED blinking identification was slowed down for this demo, so it could be explained to the viewers. It's likely capable of going much faster.

The main problem I see in "real world" application is daylight - if it's bright outside, it's much harder to discern color. But at least if our robot overlords attack at night, we'll see them coming in rainbow glory!

If you listen to this with headphones then it is Three Dimensional. You can hear the sound going around and around and left and right and fading and forwarding and faxing all in front of your ears.

Plug that expensive head phone system into your jack in port on your audio. Jack it in hard.

>> ^dag:

Is it really Pepper's Ghost though? The example given in Wikipedia, and the one I've seen in Disney's Haunted Mansion, relied on a room with actual 3-dimensional animitronic figures. This looks to be generated from video - so how is the 3-d effect created? Or is it?

Yes, it's still Pepper's Ghost. Instead of reflecting brightly-illuminated 3D models (like in the Haunted Mansion), a projector simply projects a CG image onto the screen. The 3D effect is illusory, as it's only a 2D image - that is, if you stand to the side of the projection you don't see the side angle of the object, just a flat image.

I've posted a video explaining it a bit, and linked in some articles in the comments:

http://videosift.com/video/How-Tupacs-Coachella-concert-was-done

You could use this illusion with animatronic figures, but they wouldn't need to be present in the room after filming, or you could have a mix of animatronic and ghost figures.
>> ^dag:

Is it really Pepper's Ghost though? The example given in Wikipedia, and the one I've seen in Disney's Haunted Mansion, relied on a room with actual 3-dimensional animitronic figures. This looks to be generated from video - so how is the 3-d effect created? Or is it?