This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by jonny. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

Looks familiar.

Upvoting for learning something new. I don't love a lot of hip hop... but I do love Gangstarr, Kool Kieth/Dr. Octagon, MF Doom, PE, NWA, Dälek, EL-P, tribe, old Wu-Tang... and some others. Noticed on Youtube people saying IT is whack while dropping Big L as some holy grail of hip-hop. And holy shit, how have I never heard of him before?! He was great! Adding Big L to hip hop I love - Put It On was a perfect beginning point for me.

Et tu, @darkrowan?

Two Brand New Golden One badges in the same day.

That is rare, my friends.

So what I said to Carneval? Goes for you, too, rowan!


>> ^bareboards2:

@carneval
Jeesh. How many badges in how many days?
A Golden One. The holy grail of badges. Elusive. Tantalizing.
And now you have one. Your first. Not your last.
Welcome to the gleaming ranks!

@carneval

Jeesh. How many badges in how many days?

A Golden One. The holy grail of badges. Elusive. Tantalizing.

And now you have one. Your first. Not your last.

Welcome to the gleaming ranks!

haha, absolutely perfect!

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
*quality for @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/shinyblurry" title="member since January 21st, 2011" class="profilelink">shinyblurry

Wow, Spy vs Spy, and the Grail Guardian. That's some old-school.

>> ^gwiz665:

Given a limited scope you can absolutely prove a negative. "There are no muslims in congress" is provable. "There is no God in the United States" is also provable.
The problem is that if you have an unlimited scope, then it becomes impossible.
"There are no fairies in my basement."
vs.
"There are no fairies."


As already pointed out, by *definition* you can't prove a negative.
As per your other threads shinyblurry, we can argue semantics all day so it's kind of pointless, but I'm going to anyway, because it's actually at the nub of the statement "you can't prove a negative".
I've also used an online dictionary you've sited in your other posts.

prove/pro͞ov/Verb
1. Demonstrate the truth or existence of (something) by evidence or argument.
2. Demonstrate by evidence or argument (someone or something) to be.

Note the use of the affirmative "the existence" / "to be". There is no scope for a negative here.

Also it's worth pointing out the etymology of the word "proof". It comes from the Latin "probare" meaning "to test". So it you've got proof of god's existence, it's got to be testable. Similarly if I want to "prove" there is no god I need to formulate a test that will give a definitive result.

Now, moving away from semantics....

So yeah, he's using a linguistic trick to try and recontextualize the statement "you can't prove a negative". That statement is generally used as a shorthand in an argument not only as a reference to the above definition, but also as a more general indication of the vast impracticality of proving a blanket negative statement such as "there is no god". In that context it is never meant as an absolute.

By adding a very restricted location, as William Lane Craig has in the video above, a negative statement of course becomes provable. I don't think any atheist would disagree that the statement "there are no coins in my pocket" could be proven simply by looking in my pocket.

For example - If as an atheist I was to say "there is no such object as the holy grail in existence" in order to prove it I would then have to trawl through every every steet, house, closet, drawer, toilet cistern, dessert, mountaintop, quarry pit, top secret inaccessible military bunker in the world, then undertake extensive excavation all the way to the earths molten core.

At his stage a believer could say "Well I have just had a personal revelation from God who spoke directly to me and told me that the grail is being kept safe underneath the icy surface of Jupiter's 6th moon Europa"

So after I've convinced NASA to undertake "The Program for the Recovery of Christs Holy Grail from Under the Surface of Jupiter's 6th Moon Europa" I'm told by the believer that they've had another personal message received directly from god that he was angry at being tested, and so has moved the grail to a divine and indestructible vault at the heart of the distant sun Omicron Beta....

However, if I make the statement - "there is no such object as the holy grail in existence in my desk drawer" - I just have to open the drawer to look and the statement can be proven.

And the above examples are with definite physical objects. Think how impossible it is to prove the statement "there is no god" when the idea of how god is defined is so widely and radically disputed depending on what religion you subscribe to, and when almost every individual within each of these religions will have their own definition of what god is.

I wonder if the "sorcerer" knew he was a sorcerer. Or is it like the Salem witch trails? I picture this, tribal style.

Someone should tell that guy his balls are showing. Bumble bee tuna.

Wow. Boston Dynamics never ceases to impress. Bipeds are useful because they are so adaptive. Further, this accomplishment demonstrates something deeper. Rather than resolving the unexpected through a more robust form factor, they've demonstrated that we can accomplish similar environmental flexibility through improvement of the control law.

Bipedal locomotion has been a holy grail in robotics for that reason. While it seems so effortless to us, it's one of the most computationally intensive things we do. It's arguably much more complex than playing chess, doing math, or any of the other metrics traditionally considered AI benchmarks.

Regarding the usefulness compared to other designs (e.g. hexapods, or treaded robots), bipeds tend to be able to maintain a higher center of gravity over a smaller base of support. That's useful in a number of tasks. Further, it isn't as if people aren't working on other robotic form factors including snakes, swimmers, flying robots, and x-apods.

http://videosift.com/video/How-Arthur-Became-King-of-the-Britons-Holy-Grail

great clip! here it is on the Sift with subtitles....


>> ^ToastyBuffoon:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GS_1bzaj2fw

>> ^dag:

This video contains content from National Geographic, who has blocked it in your country on copyright grounds
Screw you National Geographic.


NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC IS RACIST !

**eta- those douches, they blocked me too. DOUBLE RACISTS !@

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Orangered upboat>> ^Tymbrwulf:

Upvote, but this redditor said it best:
>> ^Redditor:
If this works as they claim it does it is simply amazing...
However, as a scientist (genomics/developmental biology) I am skeptical of the lack of evidence provided. They showed an image of "what his burn might have looked like" wasnt even him... and then showed the fully healed results (saying it was like that after 4 days)
I'm assuming this was filmed well after the 4 days unless his hair grew back in 4 days as well.
I'm not sure why they wouldnt show the progress over the 4 day period, or at the very least a before/after shot of his hand, arm, shoulder, face, whatever. It can't be b/c it was too graphic, they showed other scars... and it can't be b/c there weren't photos taken of his progress. If this is a new technique which is in testing phases, or trying to get it to market there must be tons of documentation and with that pics/video of the progress.
The idea is sound, and do not doubt it works as good if not better than current grafting techniques, but I do doubt that he was fully healed in 4 days and looking like he did on the video

>> ^Tymbrwulf:

Upvote, but this redditor said it best:
>> ^Redditor:
If this works as they claim it does it is simply amazing...
However, as a scientist (genomics/developmental biology) I am skeptical of the lack of evidence provided. They showed an image of "what his burn might have looked like" wasnt even him... and then showed the fully healed results (saying it was like that after 4 days)
I'm assuming this was filmed well after the 4 days unless his hair grew back in 4 days as well.
I'm not sure why they wouldnt show the progress over the 4 day period, or at the very least a before/after shot of his hand, arm, shoulder, face, whatever. It can't be b/c it was too graphic, they showed other scars... and it can't be b/c there weren't photos taken of his progress. If this is a new technique which is in testing phases, or trying to get it to market there must be tons of documentation and with that pics/video of the progress.
The idea is sound, and do not doubt it works as good if not better than current grafting techniques, but I do doubt that he was fully healed in 4 days and looking like he did on the video



There's another post on there about how hair can't grow back because the follicles are gone forever and no amount of magic stem cells will fix that.
Also, no surprise here, burns don't do their dirty work to a uniform depth. So you've got a burn area which is uneven which is why the end result is likely to look bumpy.

Also another link on that reddit post links to a BBC article which was banging on about this gun 6 years ago. I suspect the inventor is still hawking it around and tv companies are more than happy to hype it ridiculously.

>> ^Hybrid:

That's exactly the point. We know that nuclear fusion can give off VAST amounts of energy, but it's harnassing that energy and converting it to electricity that is the key. Every scientist knows that nuclear fusion is a holy grail, and solving it would solve the planet's energy requirements forever.>> ^raverman:
I know this is cool... but the "Why" escapes me.
What's the point?
"Stars" are enormous balls of ignited fuel. Spending huge amounts of tax payer money to concentrate sufficient energy to reach ignition gains us what? An achievement badge on Xbox live? then what? you have to keep the lasers on to sustain any reaction?
Nuclear Fusion is only useful if it produces more energy than it takes to create it.



Personally, I think a better way to go is turning every house into a power station. The bit torrent model if you will. If every house had a freeish energy generating ability, like cheap wind or solar cells, contained via some off the shelf hydrogen conversion storage unit, it would make for a much more self sufficient existence, and one with MUCH MUCH more redundancy than a central grid. My hope for the future is less the monolithic, single high power, power station, but the multitude of many small, low yield power stations. I think, like bit torrent, the sum will end up being more than the whole of its parts. (but fusion is still awesome