Unfortunatly not. This introduction of Captain Naft stood out quite clearly. Not saying the rest is bad, just not up to par.

It doesn't seem related to the Hexo+... but it is very suspicious when they use the same song in the introduction videos.

The Turtles - Elenore, with an introduction by Howard Kaylan has been added as a related post - related requested by Lilithia on that post.

Anyone remember TI graphing calculators, which at the time I was using them (90s) I think ran on 8088 processors?

Quite a bit MORE expensive than this. MUCH less powerful, even factoring in Moore's law. AND, they were in no way intended to be an open, hackable design like this is. And even with all those limitations, they became one of the primary "introduction to hardware and software hacking" devices of my generation.

When I was a 16-year-old HS Freshman, I had a TI-81 that I hooked up to a PC with a serial port and "hacked" zShell onto. I learned a bit of assembly code and put on lots of little programs like games etc. onto my calculator. I even got an image display program where you could load up bitmap images that were converted to a specific size and color depth (4-8 grays if I remember right). I got busted in my Geometry class that year looking at a blurry grayscale picture of a topless Pamela Anderson. On my calculator. If that doesn't put me in the running for biggest nerd ever, I don't know what would.

Anyway, I can only see this "Chip" thing (I agree that I'm not too big on the name) as a very cool idea. Sometimes, something as simple as a hackable platform or a blurry 4-bit picture of some boobs can be enough to push someone towards a lifelong interest in IT and other technology. Raspberry Pi and the others are great too, but the price of this one gives it a real leg up in the universal accessibility department!

The only way of really knowing if glyphosate is safe is through good quality studies; ones that aren't funded by Monsanto in this case. Having a guy tell you he 'believes' it's safe carries zero weight - this Monsanto mouthpeice is simply trying to sway those that don't know how science works. In the same breath though, getting him to drink a cup of it takes away from the discussion that could be happening about the latest research results. Not that this Moore guy would want to discuss those issues anyway...

So in terms of the research - there's evidence now that it is harmful, and probably a carcinogen to humans, so common sense to me would be to limit it's use, replacing it wherever possible with farming techniques that minimise damage to both the environment, and humans. So I would basically echo what CSPI Biotechnology Director Gregory Jaffe says:

"farmers should reduce their use of glyphosate and practice integrated weed management, something many were doing before the introduction of glyphosate-tolerant crops but stopped when those crops became available. Such a change would have the added benefit of slowing the spread of glyphosate-resistant weeds due to overuse of glyphosate".

from:
http://ens-newswire.com/2015/03/26/common-herbicide-glyphosate-a-probable-human-carcinogen/

Wow, very cool.

Watching the introductions at the beginning it suddenly hit me that these are just kids, and I'm old

Looking forward to get a closer look - and great to get a better introduction for new users!

Yes, I'm deeply biased in favour of Greece and have been a fan of Varoufakis' work since one of the first drafts of his "Modest Proposal" back in 2010.

That said, look at the report used as an introduction to this interview. The doublespeak behind structural reform alone is enough to discard any claims of objectivity or impartiality.

George Monbiot had a piece on it just last week: Our ‘impartial’ broadcasters have become mouthpieces of the elite.

Your PDF source:
- I cannot find the list of 'climate models' constantly referred to, without a clear identification of what models he's referring to, any argument relating to those models is completely besides the point. How can i fact check that? This should be VERY clearly covered early on, it's the most basic of introduction to your work.
- Top of page 3, unscientific jab at a previous scientist's contribution. Can we stick to scientific arguments please?
- What, no uncertainties? Am i in pre-school? How do i know he hasn't taken the top uncertainty of every model and the bottom uncertainty of every real measurement? These graphs are absolute dog shit.
- Figure 3 - no decent scientist would put an arrow pointing to "subsequent reality" in contrast to the models. That arrow points to the lowest point of a highly variant series of data points, and statistically speaking is fucking worthless (technical term). Plot a trend of the data, this is basic stuff.
- Figure 4 - see previous point, by eye the trend of the data would sit nicely near the conservative estimate made in 1990. If i could see the uncertainties (see previous point) i would know how reasonable this lower estimate was. Without it, i only have the arrow pointing to the lowest point of a highly variant series of data points, which distractingly exaggerates the difference.
- Figure 5 - again referencing "all climate models" which are not specified. Even if i assume this person is telling the truth, how can i check it?

Now i'm going to single this one out, because i'm particularly annoyed by this:

- Figure 6 - DOES NOT EVEN HAVE A KEY TO SHOW WHAT THE COLOURS MEAN - there is no explanation whatsoever, merely a talk of hotspots and how there isn't one...... and furthermore the source of what he calls the 'real data' links to nothing, and unless i'm mistaken, he blames the scarcity of the source on the government.

Trance.......... you are not applying the correct critical review process. This is absolute hogwash, and is totally unprofessional, and i am not surprised it is not published - i checked for you, btw.

The ancestry of living beings isn't just traceable through the fossil record. The study of genetics shows us a huge and utterly overwhelming amount of evidence for the common ancestor idea. Common genes can be traced back to show the lineage of different animals and plants and groups of animals and plants.

Homology is a complex subject..it would take awhile to get into. I found a good link that illustrates the argument against it being a proof that macroevolution occured. If you want to take a look we could discuss further:

http://creation.com/does-homology-provide-evidence-of-evolutionary-naturalism

Ring species show that small changes can indeed lead to separate species. Antibiotic resistant bacteria are evolution in progress. You say that just because small changes can be seen it doesn't follow that big changes can evolve but that's stupid. Big changes are just a series of connected little changes.

I guess it depends on who you ask?

Erwin, D.H. (2000) Macroevolution is more than repeated rounds of microevolution. Evol. & Devel. 2:78-84.

the independence of macroevolution is affirmed not only by species selection but also by other processes such as effect sorting among species.

Lieberman, B.S. and Vrba, E.S. (2005) Gould on species selection. in MACROEVOLUTION: Diversity, Disparity, Contingency. E.S. Vrba and N. Eldredge eds. supplement to Paleobiology vol. 31(2) The Paleontological Society, Lawrence, Kansas, USA

Micro- and macroevolution are thus different levels of analysis of the same phenomenon: evolution. Macroevolution cannot solely be reduced to microevolution because it encompasses so many other phenomena: adaptive radiation, for example, cannot be reduced only to natural selection, though natural selection helps bring it about.

Scott, E.C. (2004) Evolution vs. creationism: an introduction. (Westport, Conn: Greenwood Press).

Macroevolution is decoupled from microevolution, and we must envision the process governing its course as being analogous to natural selection but operating at a higher level of organization.

Stanley, S. M. (1975) A theory of evolution above the species level. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. (USA) 72: 646-650.

In conclusion, then, macroevolutionary processes are underlain by microevolutionary phenomena and are compatible with microevolutionary theories, but macroevolutionary studies require the formulation of autonomous hypotheses and models (which must be tested using macroevolutionary evidence). In this (epistemologically) very important sense, macroevolution is decoupled from microevolution: macroevolution is an autonomous field of evolutionary study.

Ayala, F.J. (1983) Beyond Darwinism? The Challenge of Macroevolution to the Synthetic Theory of Evolution. reprinted in PHILOSOPHY OF BIOLOGY, M. Ruse ed. p. 118-133.

When discussing organic evolution the only point of agreement seems to be: "It happened." Thereafter, there is little consensus, which at first sight must seem rather odd. -(Simon Conway Morris, [palaeontologist, Department of Earth Sciences, Cambridge University, UK], "Evolution: Bringing Molecules into the Fold," Cell, Vol. 100, pp.1-11, January 7, 2000, p.11)

You'd probably like his new book then. What he says in this video is basically the introduction, and it takes off from there. I'm only through the 3rd chapter, but I dig that some scientists view 'spiritual' experiences as real, worth while, and potentially understandable.

Nice watch but very pop centric. SO many huge riffs never even got a mention. Case in point:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBetudbtRto

My first real introduction to metal when they charts were full of Abba and Boney M.

It's seems weird this is a BBC documentary yet you're as likely to hear of Iron Maiden's achievement's as you to hear of The Prodigy.

Story of the discussion of the riff? They jump from Nivarna (1991) to 7 nation army (2003). But somehow they missed the fact The Prodigy went from a underground dance ground to a rock festival headliner on the basis of this riff back in '95: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l62UTsRQ6qY

Yes "walk this way" was a rap/rock crossover - but this is afaik the first proper metal/underground dance mashup. I honestly hate the fact The Prodigy never get the credit they deserve for bringing so much.

Final point - this UK documentary goes from Nivarna to White Stripes and ignores:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNWCclOqUHw

The girl also stopped clapping... clearly it was tapped at a separate point in time where the audience stopped clapping. Perhaps during his introduction.

"You're a talker. Listening to talkers makes me thirsty. And hungry." -- Sandor Clegane

First of all, don't tell me what we're discussing: "What we are discussing is the value of mike tyson's endorsement ... ," especially if we're not discussing the same thing.

I criticized the broadcaster -- others criticized Mike Tyson.

In fact, my primary argument was against the broadcaster, and my secondary argument is on the validity of Tyson's rape conviction (I used a different thread and video for that one). Notice the difference?

I criticized the broadcaster's sloppy attempt to predict the future (which is unethical because it's impossible, to say the least) and his lack of sources thereof. What was ridiculous on my part, was my original assumption that future sources could possibly exist!

And I didn't respond to all of your quips because they're not all worthy of response. In your introduction you stated, "I'm utterly unconvinced by your assertion that the public did not think his rape conviction devalued his endorsement. <--[I'm criticizing the broadcaster, you're criticizing your assumption of what I think of Tyson.] Why do you think that? <--[Begs the question.] Because you did? <--[False accusation.] As soon as i understood the story (there's no description) my immediate reaction was, "well if an ear biting rapist ex-boxer endorses you...."
How am I supposed to respond to this? I was originally offended by the broadcaster's lack of professionalism regarding his sources, but this thread forced me acknowledge his lack of logic and ability to predict the future. How cool is that?

"Think I'll take two chickens."

Not entirely cut and dry.
+ Gun suicide fell
+ Mass shootings fell.
- Gun homicide in general didn't fall

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia#Measuring_the_effects_of_firearms_laws_in_Australia

"Some researchers have found a significant change in the rate of firearm suicides after the legislative changes. For example, Ozanne-Smith et al. (2004)[33] in the journal Injury Prevention found a reduction in firearm suicides in Victoria, however this study did not consider non-firearm suicide rates. Others have argued that alternative methods of suicide have been substituted. De Leo, Dwyer, Firman & Neulinger,[34] studied suicide methods in men from 1979 to 1998 and found a rise in hanging suicides that started slightly before the fall in gun suicides. As hanging suicides rose at about the same rate as gun suicides fell, it is possible that there was some substitution of suicide methods. It has been noted that drawing strong conclusions about possible impacts of gun laws on suicides is challenging, because a number of suicide prevention programs were implemented from the mid-1990s onwards, and non-firearm suicides also began falling.[35]

In 2005 the head of the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Don Weatherburn,[36] noted that the level of legal gun ownership in New South Wales increased in recent years, and that the 1996 legislation had had little to no effect on violence. Professor Simon Chapman, former co-convenor of the Coalition for Gun Control, complained that his words "will henceforth be cited by every gun-lusting lobby group throughout the world in their perverse efforts to stall reforms that could save thousands of lives".[37] Weatherburn responded, "The fact is that the introduction of those laws did not result in any acceleration of the downward trend in gun homicide. They may have reduced the risk of mass shootings but we cannot be sure because no one has done the rigorous statistical work required to verify this possibility. It is always unpleasant to acknowledge facts that are inconsistent with your own point of view. But I thought that was what distinguished science from popular prejudice."[38]"

-scheherazade