Self *promote for this geeky fiery awesomeness!

Upvoting your comment soley for the overexamination of such a geeky topic.

Makes me feel better about my own geeky obsessions.

*cinema *music *dance

Here is my geeky/nerdy boss' power loader costume, but no baby/kid in it: http://hallert.net/powerloader/index.html ...

Whenever I see something like this I always think 'how do the people running these scams get away with it?'

Then I read the comments here and realise people are far too uninformed to understand the problems. I'm not going to say stupid, just uninformed. Physics, science generally and maths are seen as geeky subjects studied by nerds which can be safely ignored by the cool kids because they'll never need them in real life. This leads to the completely uninformed comments above. Anyone who thinks this could work is wrong. If you think it will extend the range you are wrong.

There is a hell of a lot of money to be made from fuel efficiency in cars. Which do you think is more likely: Ford, BMW, Mercedes, VW, Honda, Toyota, Volvo, GM, Dodge, et al with all the hundreds of millions of pounds or dollars or Yen or whatever they spend on development missed something a farmer in China was able to build in his garage - or the farmer in China is wrong? Add to the car makers all the companies who make planes and trains and boats and it shows a pretty obvious fact.

Yep, the Chinese farmer is wrong. Simple.

But the worst thing about this video is that it exists. I'm sure farmers all over the world come up with stupid ideas all the time (as do people from other walks of life too!), but that doesn't mean they need to make a video about it.

Either warehouse staff at distributors have been removing these inserts from the magazines or Mashable.com were given a special copy of the magazine. No insert in my issue and same goes for two of my friends who are into geeky tear-downs like this. Also spoke to an acquaintance from Boston who subscribes to EW and she said she didn't get the insert either.

*goes away to sulk*

Edit: Have since learned that apparently there were only 1000 magazines with the insert. Ah well.

I am by no means a cutty stabby person, but after this I looked around a bit. This is basically kendo: ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMxlqayAwG8&feature=related ) and you are right, it doesn't look like this at all.
What these guys are doing is called kenjutsu ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIxt3Zd6K0k ) which seems to be a whole other thing (kinda like comparing judo to karate). When you check out more of that kenjutsu stuff it all of a sudden looks a lot more "realistic".

Also, I am pretty sure that standing with your guard completely down and just moving your shoulders is probably not a valid sword fighting technique, but maybe this guy is just so bad-ass he doesn't care.

The stances employed according to far more geeky interweb friends is something like "Tamiya-ryu" or "Jigen-ryu" (somewhere between the late 15th and 16th century) and it actually involves mostly diagonal/vertical slices to the torso to try and kill your opponent in one blow. The goal was pretty much always to hit the enemy's throat and failing that slice the opponent in an up to down diagonal motion while denying your opponent to do the same.

Hey there milestoner~Welcome to the geeky-ranks of Kingship...! -choggie/chingalera

What do we gain by having more people in science? How about more science?

The point (that you're missing) is that by encouraging more people to be interested in science, we'll hopefully get more scientists, and at the very least, more smart people. How is that a bad thing?

I've worked with plenty of those programmers that you describe, primarily people with dollar signs in their eyes. Sure, if you don't love it enough to read a C++ book while your wife is in labor (guilty) you may not be the kind of person I'd give the nod to in an interview. At the same time, I'm glad that the world has more programmers. Hell I'm glad the world has more bad programmers, because it makes us good ones look that much better when we clean up their messes.

I'm not sure why you're upset about the idea of the world having a high proportion of smart people.>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^KnivesOut:
So you're pre-supposing that women are not good at science, because historically there have been fewer women scientists? Were there fewer women scientists because they are "not suited" for it, or because they have historically been discouraged from doing so?
I think you might want to introspect a little, you are suffering from exactly the type of sexism that this campaign is attempting to thwart.
Wow, you have so completely missed my point, it's not even funny.
I am not pre-supposing anything about women in science. I'm all for anyone in science, as long as they're good at it. Their gender is irrelevant.
Again, what do we gain from having more women in science? What do we gain from having more men? More asians? More short people? These things are completely orthogonal to the outcome; more capable, passionate scientists.
Put it this way. When I started working as a programmer, it was just around the time of the dot com bubble. Whereas before programming was seen as something geeky and uncool, all of a sudden it was the career to have. As a consequence, there were suddenly tonnes of people working in programming who a) didn't care about it and b) were terrible at it.
The people who are good at science and care about it will naturally find their way to it. What women certainly don't need is some patronising bullshit program like this.

>> ^KnivesOut:

So you're pre-supposing that women are not good at science, because historically there have been fewer women scientists? Were there fewer women scientists because they are "not suited" for it, or because they have historically been discouraged from doing so?
I think you might want to introspect a little, you are suffering from exactly the type of sexism that this campaign is attempting to thwart.

Wow, you have so completely missed my point, it's not even funny.

I am not pre-supposing anything about women in science. I'm all for anyone in science, as long as they're good at it. Their gender is irrelevant.

Again, what do we gain from having more women in science? What do we gain from having more men? More asians? More short people? These things are completely orthogonal to the outcome; more capable, passionate scientists.

Put it this way. When I started working as a programmer, it was just around the time of the dot com bubble. Whereas before programming was seen as something geeky and uncool, all of a sudden it was the career to have. As a consequence, there were suddenly tonnes of people working in programming who a) didn't care about it and b) were terrible at it.

The people who are good at science and care about it will naturally find their way to it. What women certainly don't need is some patronising bullshit program like this.

True True.
A geeky, awkward looking male could never pull it off.


>> ^Jinx:

>> ^Sagemind:
Who says you can't make a career and get famous playing video games?!

Yes, but the other criteria are: 1)girl 2)attractive.

>> ^legacy0100:

My god that kid is terrifying LOL LOL LOL


Are you referring to the nerdy/geeky guy at the end? If so, then that is an actor. He is in many television/TV shows/series (e.g., Chuck) and movies.

*quality geeky stuff

I am not geeky enough to see any errors in your explanation, just geeky enough to enjoy it.

*geeky!