This is the best animation showreel I've seen in eons. Fuck yeah.

1.Complete trust or confidence in someone or something
- this restores one's faith in politicians

2.Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof

3.A system of religious belief
- the Christian faith

4.A strongly held belief or theory
- the faith that life will expand until it fills the universe

Yes, you actually do have faith in those things, and a whole lot more. Your idea of what is factual doesn't provide absolute knowledge, and often times what you consider factual is the interpertation of an authority whom you have placed faith in as a trustworthy source of knowledge. Many of the things that people consider factual they have never personally investigated but simply blindly trust in them because it seems reasonable to do so. Either because everyone agrees on them, or experts agree on them, etc. A lot of these decisions we make about the nature of reality are merely value judgements based on probabilities. It is inherent to take many leaps of faith every day in our understanding just to be able to operate in the world on a basic level.

>> ^peggedbea:
the rising and setting of the sun isn't accepted on faith, it's accepted on the fact there are eons of precedence for such an event and we do, indeed, know for a fact how the mechanism works. maybe you mean "we dont know for a fact that the earth won't stop dead in it tracks tonight and never rotate again" and so you assign "faith" to that. i dont have "faith" that the solar system is going to continue as normal tomorrow like someone might have faith that a god is listening to their prayers. i have "faith" that the solar system is going to continue as normal tomorrow like i have "faith" that when i let go of the pen in my hand, it's going to fall to floor.
>> ^shinyblurry:
In what sense is an atheist spiritual? I must also point out that people have faith in a lot of things. Lacking absolute knowledge, and the ability to completely predict the future, you must step outside the bounds of your understanding and make predictions about reality based on limited information. Although there is no proof that the sun will rise tomorrow, you accept it on faith that it will. Just as to say there is no God is a leap of faith. Only an omniscient being could make such a claim.

the rising and setting of the sun isn't accepted on faith, it's accepted on the fact there are eons of precedence for such an event and we do, indeed, know for a fact how the mechanism works. maybe you mean "we dont know for a fact that the earth won't stop dead in it tracks tonight and never rotate again" and so you assign "faith" to that. i dont have "faith" that the solar system is going to continue as normal tomorrow like someone might have faith that a god is listening to their prayers. i have "faith" that the solar system is going to continue as normal tomorrow like i have "faith" that when i let go of the pen in my hand, it's going to fall to floor.

>> ^shinyblurry:

In what sense is an atheist spiritual? I must also point out that people have faith in a lot of things. Lacking absolute knowledge, and the ability to completely predict the future, you must step outside the bounds of your understanding and make predictions about reality based on limited information. Although there is no proof that the sun will rise tomorrow, you accept it on faith that it will. Just as to say there is no God is a leap of faith. Only an omniscient being could make such a claim.

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

>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^petpeeved:
>> ^xxovercastxx:
and why are they being herded across this frigid water, exactly?


"It won't be long before Ella's deer will be grazing on the lichen they need to get them through the winter." -narrator.

Right, but, what happened to the food supply where they originated from? If it's just a seasonal thing, something tells me the deer would migrate on their own (or they'd have died out eons ago).


Not to be all bleeding heart on you, but, the whole don't interfere with nature or your ruining it thing is long dead. Humans have interfered with nature in so many destructive ways, I applaud someone who uses our intellect and resources to give a boost to vulnerable animal populations in their most treacherous hour.

@xxovercastxx

I know with wikis anyone can post a page about anything, but in most cases the stupid-ass articles are deleted for non-compliance. That's why I agree with you that we should have rules. If we have tight rules about what should be posted and what shouldn't be, then an article like Sheppard posted about me could be deleted immediately and without question because it was about a member, because (as I suggested) articles about any member should be forbidden in the first place. (BTW, it will be interesting how long that entry will stay there. The Streisand effect and all.) But if articles about members are going to be allowed, then members should be allowed to opt out of it, meaning that no articles about that member should be allowed at all.

@dag

If you want everyone to know that you bought your first 300 bps modem in 1985 for the Apple IIe, can't you put that on your profile page? Info about your good Neil Diamond impersonation might also find a better home on your profile page, or in someone's blog post, or in a video's comments section, rather than in a wiki which was originally conceived as a VS user manual.

And thanks for welcoming me to the public internet. If anyone wants to create a blog dedicated to me that's his prerogative. However, I had this crazy idea that at least here we could be a little respectful to the wishes of our fellow members. Am I being so demanding, just because I'd like to see us not write lame articles about each other (including members who haven't been here in eons) that would make tabloids look like Pulitzer material? And how many other community sites have wikis with information about their own members? And before you answer that along the lines of "the Sift is special", well, it ain't that special.

My 'reaction' to this issue is "Please, we can do better than this."

>> ^petpeeved:

>> ^xxovercastxx:
and why are they being herded across this frigid water, exactly?


"It won't be long before Ella's deer will be grazing on the lichen they need to get them through the winter." -narrator.


Right, but, what happened to the food supply where they originated from? If it's just a seasonal thing, something tells me the deer would migrate on their own (or they'd have died out eons ago).

lol the kid actually cries! LOL Oh this vid will be remembered as a classic for eons upon eons!

Arabia would be cool, but *middleeast might be a better invocation, only so members would know that it includes Israel. It would include Israel, am I not mistaken?

*Tech might be contentious, because MarineGunrock asked for that channel eons ago and was turned down by the admins, who said that the Geek and Engineering channels already covered tech stuff. But maybe you could change their minds? I don't know.

>> ^JiggaJonson:

It sounds easy enough in principal, but you can't just wish things like theft away. Like it, or want to believe it, or not, there are other people who will occasionally want to do you harm.
Faced with that realization, I wonder how the author of this video would respond. Someone comes in and holds his family hostage. He has an opportunity to stop it but must use violence as a means of self defense. Or perhaps there is no violence that would be required on his part. Perhaps he could end the situation with a call to the police but he won't because "Then the police would kidnap the criminal."
^Sounds like a lot of idealistic crap to me.
Assuming he's right about the situation, he still has offered no alternatives or answers as to how to run his newfound society. All we have to do is "Always do no harm to others," and voila' everything is perfect. Except, that would require that everyone adopt the same principal rather quickly to work.
And even if that idea was implanted in people's minds, if you put people in a situation where "it's him or me," survival instincts will trump morality more often than not.


If we want to break this down into the base structure of things we can do that.

What is the purpose of an organism? That's easy. To reproduce and propagate its genes through offspring. With that in mind, what is the purpose of a complex organism such as a Human? That's simple too. To produce offspring. Now we come to the reason why religions, Ideas, and passions have such powerful hold on complex organisms. Simply knowing the real truth of the situation is a lonely proposition.

All this bullshit we argue about is created by the need to fill a vast expanse that all the eons of evolution couldn't fill except by providing the brainpower that the only apex predator to kill for pleasure, contains.

With all that in mind, what really matters? Nothing. So enjoy it.



The above is an argument from absurdity, I really didn't know what the fuck was going on in the video or what we're discussing here.

God, I haven't heard this song in eons. Nice find.

So eloquent. >> ^dannym3141:

>> ^kronosposeidon:
I never thought a smart and funny guy like John Cleese would ever get involved in the dumbest debate in sports, possibly the dumbest debate in history: Soccer vs football. I know he's a comedian, but his take on the debate is completely unoriginal, and older than he is. And besides, who gives a fuck? Let them both be called football. It only takes approximately 5 milliseconds of viewing to determine which one you're watching, so what confusion is there in the first place?
And as far as which game is superior? Again, who gives a rat's ass? They're both events whose outcomes signify NOTHING. If your team wins, does that make you a winner too, or your city, college, or country a superior place in any way? No need to answer that. (EDIT: A controversial call cost America a victory over Slovenia in the World Cup. Oh noes! Now I must commit suicide!)
So if you enjoy either or both sports, that's fine. I have nothing against people having a good time at a sporting event, provided they don't turn into violent idiots because of the game's outcome. But don't try to make this debate seem significant. And it was totally exhausted of humor eons ago.

Rofl, you just got trolled by John Cleese. Hard.

>> ^kronosposeidon:

I never thought a smart and funny guy like John Cleese would ever get involved in the dumbest debate in sports, possibly the dumbest debate in history: Soccer vs football. I know he's a comedian, but his take on the debate is completely unoriginal, and older than he is. And besides, who gives a fuck? Let them both be called football. It only takes approximately 5 milliseconds of viewing to determine which one you're watching, so what confusion is there in the first place?
And as far as which game is superior? Again, who gives a rat's ass? They're both events whose outcomes signify NOTHING. If your team wins, does that make you a winner too, or your city, college, or country a superior place in any way? No need to answer that. (EDIT: A controversial call cost America a victory over Slovenia in the World Cup. Oh noes! Now I must commit suicide!)
So if you enjoy either or both sports, that's fine. I have nothing against people having a good time at a sporting event, provided they don't turn into violent idiots because of the game's outcome. But don't try to make this debate seem significant. And it was totally exhausted of humor eons ago.


Rofl, you just got trolled by John Cleese. Hard.

I never thought a smart and funny guy like John Cleese would ever get involved in the dumbest debate in sports, possibly the dumbest debate in history: Soccer vs football. I know he's a comedian, but his take on the debate is completely unoriginal, and older than he is. And besides, who gives a fuck? Let them both be called football. It only takes approximately 5 milliseconds of viewing to determine which one you're watching, so what confusion is there in the first place?

And as far as which game is superior? Again, who gives a rat's ass? They're both events whose outcomes signify NOTHING. If your team wins, does that make you a winner too, or your city, college, or country a superior place in any way? No need to answer that. (EDIT: A controversial call cost America a victory over Slovenia in the World Cup. Oh noes! Now I must commit suicide!)

So if you enjoy either or both sports, that's fine. I have nothing against people having a good time at a sporting event, provided they don't turn into violent idiots because of the game's outcome. But don't try to make this debate seem significant. And it was totally exhausted of humor eons ago.

Your solution to any problem is no solution at all, just criticize anyone for offering an alternative.

Funny, I got the impression you were the one opposing nuclear power as a solution. It seems your criticism of every solution is to define it as part of the problem.

Solar panels are not more toxic than nuclear power, and their production would not cause ecologic disasters the likes of which we're seeing in the gulf.

And I never said any of that. I called you out for claiming that solar panels are clean and tidy compared to nuclear, and safe from systematic problems that come with major corporations cutting corners on a massive scale. The most efficient solar cells today contain heavy metals in them like cadmium. If you replace the world's current electric capacity with nothing but solar panels, the disposal of old panels will NOT be a problem one can ignore. The temptation to save costs by disposing of them cheaply and ignoring contamination will be as great as it is with any other industry you decry today. Sure, the disposal is a problem that can be easily handled, but so is the disposal of old nuclear fuel...

"One nuclear plant creates thirty to forty tons of waste per year. That waste is deadly for tens of thousands of years."

When you say 'deadly', I say 'useful'. Here in Canada we run our nuclear reactors on fuel rods made from American nuclear 'waste'. Simply put, any waste that still has high radioactivity is also still useful as a power source. It's not waste to be stored for eons, it's future fuel being stored for later use.

"Each house could have its own solar cells and supply its own energy."

Right, and your the one suggesting we trust Bubba not to dump his cadmium filled solar panels in his backyard somewhere to save a few bucks.

Both solar and nuclear have their own issues, but we have methods of handling those problems for nuclear already, today. For solar the biggest unsolved problem is that they just don't work well enough at a reasonable price. Maybe someday they'll improve enough to supplement the nuclear delivered base load, but until then nuclear is a very desirable replacement for coal and oil.