Mostly because most people are lazy honestly lol Which is ironic when you think about it. But generally speaking, most well marked trails will warn you of sudden changes like this. Part of the IMBA trail building guide is designing courses so they flow the way the rider would expect.

Honestly, in this case it does seem like a bout of stupidity mixed in with failure to properly mark the course. It would have been product to ask a LBS about the trail before riding it, as to avoid mistakes like this, or a sudden trail condition like a washout or avalanche.

In my own personal opinion: they were riding too fast for that section. It's like when a New Yorker comes down to Florida . . . they just fly on the interstates because they can. A smart rider knows when to speed up, and more importantly, when to slow down.

With drops and banks like these, they're not ultra expert by any means, but it certainly would be good as you said to know the map.

As for riders ride close, well, it varies. On road, it's drafting. Off road, you're not going to get the same wind resistance so it mostly just becomes a skill challenge. Many riders will ride ultra close like that so they can learn each others rhythms and ride better together. So in the event they do race, they're prepared.

When I lead rides, I always know who's going to up on my wheel and who's going to lag back. The ones who lag are the ones taking lessons and notes, and the ones right on my wheel are challenging themselves to keep up. I'm a very aggressive rider and frankly, I do some seriously stupid stuff. The ones on my wheel, either make it or don't. And there's been plenty of don'ts. The ones lagging behind are the safer ones. But that's not always the case in a fast changing course. If you want to know what the trail ahead is doing, you follow a leader who knows the course. They can tell you what's about to come up, or if they do something wrong they can warn you.

But you are correct in thinking that riding close like that can really be risky if the person in front falls. It's a give/take thing. Determine the amount of risk that's acceptable and prepare for that.

I have no reason to doubt your sincerety, I'm willing to believe you've had really wierd and powerful experiences on this drug, experiences that might seem more real than the shared experience we refer to as reality. But however powerful and convincing such experiences might be, they are stil trips and hallucinations. they might be so powerful that you cant believe they are, but there is no reason to think otherwise. Our brains are fallible machines that are rather easily tricked, and this can be done by everything from chemicals to religion to a simple optical illusion. And just because it is a "trick" iow our brains being manipulated to experience things that arent happening in reality, doesnt mean it cant have a major effect on peoples life, ie: give people a new perspective on things. But it is not an "astounding mystery" as such, but of course it would be interesting to research the exact interactions that it causes in our brains, and how exactly it works.

One big tell that these trips are trips, is that they almost always include pop-sciency/cultural stuff of the time. In earlier times it involved exotic or mythical animals, in the 50s or 60s or 70s it was aliens and UFOs and stuff like that, and now its quantum physics and speed of light etc. This is a pretty solid sign that we are dealing with references from our own brain, it is in other words not external or new knowledge that's being obtained or discovered in the trip.

My ability to ignore the infinitesimal possibility of a malfunctioning gravity well is entirely a result of me having bigger fish to fry. It is not rigorously justified, it is merely a practical concession to my finite mind. It is indeed technically fallacious and yet it has been completely accurate so far. That may very well be the limited scope us humans have to deal with.

I'm glad you can admit it. That's real progress.

You have not demonstrated that there must be absolute knowledge provided to us, because you have not provided an example of anything in this world that is inconsistent with an uncertain universe, nor have you shown an instance of us relying on reasonable assumptions failing in some unexpected manner.

The argument is intended to show that we all treat it as absolute knowledge in reality, and that without absolute knowledge, you don't know anything. Therefore, you live in contradiction to what you actually believe, and what you experience, and that God is the only actual way to make sense of your reality. You say you do just fine by assuming what is contrary to reason, because it works for you. Well, that's what you accuse me of doing, isn't it?

Unless, of course, you would like to provide me an example or two. Sorry, but "obviously better in every conceivable way" just doesn't cut it. You have to give examples. Come on, with "every conceivable way" available to chose from, you should be able to come up with at least one, no?

You don't see how knowing that God exists would be better than not knowing? If God exists and you don't know it, it means you are ignorant of everything that matters. It means you don't know why you're here, what you're supposed to do, and how you can achieve your greatest potential. It means that you will never have any lasting peace because you have no peace with God. It means you'll have never known the love of God, or all of the blessings that He has provisioned for you. It also means, that you'll have missed your chance for eternal life with Him. I think the benefits as well as the consequences are self-evident.

My ability to ignore the infinitesimal possibility of a malfunctioning gravity well is entirely a result of me having bigger fish to fry. It is not rigorously justified, it is merely a practical concession to my finite mind. It is indeed technically fallacious and yet it has been completely accurate so far. That may very well be the limited scope us humans have to deal with.

You have not demonstrated that there must be absolute knowledge provided to us, because you have not provided an example of anything in this world that is inconsistent with an uncertain universe, nor have you shown an instance of us relying on reasonable assumptions failing in some unexpected manner.

Unless, of course, you would like to provide me an example or two. Sorry, but "obviously better in every conceivable way" just doesn't cut it. You have to give examples. Come on, with "every conceivable way" available to chose from, you should be able to come up with at least one, no?

I cut out the words you don’t entirely agree with. The rest of my comment is all about our perception of you. That should be important to you if you think God wants you to talk to us and, one assumes, help us learn something. Right? Is that a consideration for you at all?

Sure, and I fully admit I have turned a blind eye to this in the past. I should have been more sensitive to peoples concerns than I have been. I'm sure I've wasted many opportunities with people here as Satan hoped I would. It's been a process of growth and maturity in my walk with Christ, and this will continue until the day I die.

If I decided it was my civic duty to start showing up at a certain church and talk atheism to the parishioners, I would expect resistance, of course. I would pay very strong attention to how people were reacting to me and what topics or phrases or types of argument were setting people against me, and see if I could understand their perspective and adjust the way I spoke to help them understand me more. In that scenario, my goals for being at the church are different from the parishioners' goals, and since their goals for being there could be fulfilled (perhaps better) by ignoring me and by my being quiet, I’m the one who has to make the effort if I want to engage them.

I agree with you here.

That’s what I meant by "uninvited". It doesn’t mean anyone requires an invitation to join the Sift, or that anybody expects you to leave. It means nobody asked you to come and explain the "truth" of things to us. Our goal here is to kill time, follow political stories, discuss topics of interest to us and generally enjoy ourselves. Your goal here, however vague, is different from our goals, and often in conflict with them. I was enjoying thinking about Feynman’s points, then you come in with your arrogant opener, "It's better to know the answer than remain ignorant of it." Read it again to yourself. How would you react? Take @Quboid’s initial comments seriously too. Don’t nitpick phraseology like "pushing people away from your belief." Look past what you disagree with and address the real content. It's respectfully written and a valid question.

Well, the difference here on the sift is that it is not by default a place for atheists to hang out. It's a place for anyone to hang out and share their videos and opinions. It just so happens it has attracted a lot more atheists than theists and so everything done on the sift is bent towards their worldview, including the videos and conversations. You're right that nobody asked me to come, but I didn't need an invitation either. If you look at any video on religion here, people feel free to speak their mind about Christianity and Christians but for some reason they take exception when I do the same. I understand what your argument is about and what you're saying, which I appreciate and recognize as being essentially valid, but your comment about being uninvited doesn't apply. Atheists run the sift but the sift wasn't created for them.

And I'm actually saying this selfishly because I do want to understand what you’re saying.

And FWIW, everyone sees everyone through a funhouse mirror, especially types we don’t have a lot of contact with and don’t understand. For us, yep, that’s you.

Yes, I see people through my presuppositions. My worldview is the biblical worldview. I do understand you because I used to be in your shoes. I'm sure some of you will say the same thing.

I can provide evidence for any claim I make, if you ask for it. Find the body of Jesus? Don't be ridiculous. How could we? And if someone found the body of Jesus, you'd use bogus science to claim we hadn't proven it to be his, just like you still use bogus science to claim the universe is less than 10,000 years old or that macroevolution is a myth. I routinely claim the Bible is falsifiable on its face, but every time someone falsifies it, you change the meaning of the words, claim it's a metaphor, or do some other dodge, like how you handled the discrepancy between an omniscient God and a God who is surprised to discover that Adam and Eve had eaten the forbidden fruit.

Now you're just using fallacious arguments. Why don't you present your very best argument as to what you think falsifies the bible and let's see if it holds any water?

In the example of God being surprised, it is you who are assuming God was surprised. The text doesn't say He was surprised, it only says He asked Adam and Eve what they did. Why do you think that means that God didn't know what they did? How many parents have you heard asking their children whether they did such and such knowing full well that they did do it? That's exactly what God was doing.

OK. Here's the most clear-cut contradiction I’ve come across in the Bible. The topic seems so petty it's almost embarrassing to use it, but compare Matthew 1:8-9 with 1Chronicles 3:10-13. They give incompatible lineages from Joram to Joatham.

The genealogy in Matthew 1:8-9 isn't meant to be a complete record. It is actually a style of writing in Hebrew which is more concerned with symmetry than accuracy. That is why there are 3 groups of exactly 14 generations. Matthew would have assumed that his audience would know the details he left out for the sake of symmetry.

You pulled this out of thin air. Are your answers here divinely inspired?

We can scientifically test for, find and measure the efficacy of self-prayer. It's only prayer for others that consistently has no measurable effect. Science can and does test and prove some prayer effective, so you can't hold that God will not be tested. I've just disproven that.

So I'll ask you again: considering that we can reliably measure the effectiveness of self-prayer, why can't we measure any effects from intercessory prayer on behalf of others?

I didn't pull it out of thin air. Scripture says do not test the Lord thy God. You haven't proven anything. God will not let you test Him with personal prayer any more than He will let you test Him through the prayers of others. Scripture says God doesn't answer prayers that aren't prayed in faith, so when you are praying just to test Him, you aren't going to get proof He is there. Although there is one test I think God will accept. If you prayed this prayer I think He would answer it:

"God....if Jesus is your Son and He really is the way....and if He really is everything the Bible says about Him....then I will follow Him"

>> ^messenger:
stuff

@shinyblurry

Humour me and try and read this comment in your head in the voice of someone who wants to help you.

[me:]About your perceived arrogance. I'm not judging anybody on the Sift…. I'm telling you how you come off and how it's affecting your goal. Your spamming of what I consider nonsense into the middle of what I consider rational discussions and your indifference to the fact you're irritating people, in my mind, gives me licence to be blunt. You could accept it as honest criticism and go from there.

[you:]I think you, and many other people here, see me through a fun-house mirror made up of your preconceived notions about God and Christians in general. The reasons I am here are not so cut and dry, but I certainly feel that God wants me to talk to people here.

I cut out the words you don’t entirely agree with. The rest of my comment is all about our perception of you. That should be important to you if you think God wants you to talk to us and, one assumes, help us learn something. Right? Is that a consideration for you at all?

If I decided it was my civic duty to start showing up at a certain church and talk atheism to the parishioners, I would expect resistance, of course. I would pay very strong attention to how people were reacting to me and what topics or phrases or types of argument were setting people against me, and see if I could understand their perspective and adjust the way I spoke to help them understand me more. In that scenario, my goals for being at the church are different from the parishioners' goals, and since their goals for being there could be fulfilled (perhaps better) by ignoring me and by my being quiet, I’m the one who has to make the effort if I want to engage them.

That’s what I meant by "uninvited". It doesn’t mean anyone requires an invitation to join the Sift, or that anybody expects you to leave. It means nobody asked you to come and explain the "truth" of things to us. Our goal here is to kill time, follow political stories, discuss topics of interest to us and generally enjoy ourselves. Your goal here, however vague, is different from our goals, and often in conflict with them. I was enjoying thinking about Feynman’s points, then you come in with your arrogant opener, "It's better to know the answer than remain ignorant of it." Read it again to yourself. How would you react? Take @Quboid’s initial comments seriously too. Don’t nitpick phraseology like "pushing people away from your belief." Look past what you disagree with and address the real content. It's respectfully written and a valid question.

And I'm actually saying this selfishly because I do want to understand what you’re saying.

And FWIW, everyone sees everyone through a funhouse mirror, especially types we don’t have a lot of contact with and don’t understand. For us, yep, that’s you.

>> ^zombieater:

>> ^krelokk:
>> ^TheGenk:
I've seen a docu about that already and even just being reminded of how they treat those animals makes me sick and fucking angry; to the point where I have to stop myself from wishing those people to be skinned alive, because I abhor violence.

Why do you stop yourself wishing they should be skinned alive? They SHOULD be skinned alive. They should all be executed in a manner fitting of their crimes. They have inflicted more than enough animal cruelty and murder to equal many human lives.
There is a difference between being an evil person that inflicts violence upon others for criminal purposes, whatever they may be, and being a good person that is okay taking out the trash of humanity, while treating all others with kindness and respect.
Violence is horrible, but is a part of this world. Bad people rely upon good people appeasing them and wanting to 'not be violent'. Really... they should be wiped from the planet as quickly as possible.

“As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy.” -Christopher Dawson

Your family is being murdered, would you not use each and every means at your disposal to defend them at any cost? And, after saving them, would you then believe that your actions were justified? Of course you would (and so would the law). Throughout history man, sadly, has had to resort to base instincts and do the unthinkable to defend what is right. But combating evil with necessary evil, does NOT make you evil. It makes you a human and, though unpalatable, sometimes good has to fight fire with fire to ensure that evil does not succeed.

Asking citizens for their papers is against everything I was raised to believe our country stood for. Perhaps the rightwing is fine with the US becoming the Soviet Union, but I'm not.

It's really not that hard to stop illegal immigration...crack down on those companies that employ them. If no one hires them, they'll stop coming. Of course, that would require putting some requirements on businesses...which we all know will never be an option for the wingnuts. Better to just demonize those with darker skin, regardless of the facts.

Well, of course Ripley would be good at these. He comes from ads, he knows his way around one back to front

according to interview they CGI'd Joseph's face with key features of Bruce Willis, so Bruce would pass for a future version of Joseph. Since they play the same character.

Also

from the screenplay to explain the premise a tiny bit more.

After a Looper kills himself, he becomes retired, but he won't know when of course. He would then get to live out his life with the money he's made until the point where he's sent back in time to be killed, therefore closing the loop.

And of course there would be a banner ad for ChristianMingle.com above this video.

Since we have the "dead pool" choice under the "front" tab, why not add "dupes" there aswell? That would make it much easier to sift through potential dupes, provided that videos where the dupeof command has been called can easily be added to the sub-tab, of course. It would also be neat if that sub-tab could become invisible when there are no more videos which have been marked as dupes, which would clean up the bar at the top of the page somewhat.

@robbersdog49
This will forever be a discussion between people who work with colours.
In the print industry, the photographic industry or the artists of the world.

The truth is it's different for what ever your process is.
RGB for Light
CMYK for Print
& RYB for artists
I work in all three industries and need to switch my brain back and forth between them constantly.

What they are showing here at the most primary level is the RYB colour wheel that kids learn first. It's basic paints and crayons. These are the base pigments used in paints; Cadmium Yellow & Red, Phthalocyanine (Phthalo) Blue or Cobalt Blue. The closest paint colour to magenta would be a Quinacridone.
The primary colours are the ones all others are made from. These are the ones you can't make by adding something else. We use the chemicals that are the absolute most pure to create these pigmants. They are the highest level of purity and intensity a colour can be. Once you start mixing them, the intensity can only be reduced.
Of course these would be balanced using a titanium white, Iron Oxide Black (plus Umber & Sienna).

As we get older, science class points out that light works differently and is a process that works in subtractive colour. Light being white and the other colours being made by adding filters to block various parts of the spectrum.A blue surface isn't so much blue as it just holds on to all wavelengths of the spectrum but reflects the part of the spectrum that is blue. (Etc.)

In indusry, (and most people still don't under stand this process), the printing process uses Cyan, Magenta, Yellow and Key (Black) (in a transparent or dot)layered fashion to simulate a full colour image.

And don't forget Hexachrome (CMYKOG) which also ads the Orange and Green coloured inks (because simple CMYK cannot simulate every colour).

The CMYK colour system is a simulation of colour and are NOT primary colours. Cyan, Magenta, Yellow and Black are the primary colours within that system only.

ROY G BIV
R Y B are more accurately the Primary Colours in the light and colour spectrum. The coulours between them OG(I)V are all Secondary colours.

*Sidenote: Magenta is an odd coulour which comes from that one man out theory. Indigo is the invisible colour in the spectrum that breaks the rule. That's why in order to create a Cyan colour in paint, we use a Quinacridone pigment. Quinacridone is a transparent colour only and can't be made opaque without mixing it with another pigment and loosing it's purity. It's a damm expensive pigment so it's rarely used.

>> ^robbersdog49:

Primary colours of light are Red Green and Blue.
Primary colours of pigment are Cyan, Magenta, Yellow and Black.
I'm a geeky printer so this bugs the hell out of me. Blue is a mix of Cyan and Magenta, so it's not primary. It's a mix. Red is a mix of Magenta and Yellow.
Maybe they just weren't clever enough to find rhymes for Magenta or Cyan. It's just a shame they had to be wrong.

I meant exactly what I wrote; I was evoking the image of a priest being ordained in his robes.

My point, continuing a previous conversation with gwiz, is that people put faith in science much as religious people put faith in religion. Not saying people are stupid for doing so; just that people are not educated enough to discern what is truly scientifically proven and what is a hoax.

There are no legitimate demonstrations of quantum levitation that highlighted some of the features present here (e.g, angled banks, objects with limited symmetry, which could make the magnetic flux non-uniform).

If it steps over the line, even a micron, it becomes pseudo-science. Yet you are willing to suspend your disbelief based on other past results you may not understand.

This is normal. People need to truly become as skeptical of trumpeted scientific results as they are of religion.

To mangle a saying: when the high priests take over, they will come dressed in lab coats.

>> ^jmzero:

Ordain something in the raiment of science and people will believe.

Do you perhaps mean "adorn" rather than "ordain"? Or do you mean that after you put the raiment of science on something you should confer upon it some sort of priesthood? If so, that's a fairly well-mixed metaphor.
And it makes sense people would believe this. The makers here are clearly imitating previous legitimate demonstrations showing reasonably similar behavior. People weren't stupid for believing those videos (which were real) and to the extent people believed in this I don't think they're stupid or even gullible. The video doesn't hold up to any kind of scrutiny, but it's reasonably well made.
And of course people would have been much less likely to believe this if the makers here had credited magic or religion with powering the cars (rather than sciencey stuff). Why? Because magic and religion don't, every day, bring us cool stuff like this. Science does, and there's no reason to believe it won't deliver a real version of something similar to this in the very near future.

Ordain something in the raiment of science and people will believe.


Do you perhaps mean "adorn" rather than "ordain"? Or do you mean that after you put the raiment of science on something you should confer upon it some sort of priesthood? If so, that's a fairly well-mixed metaphor.

And it makes sense people would believe this. The makers here are clearly imitating previous legitimate demonstrations showing reasonably similar behavior. People weren't stupid for believing those videos (which were real) and to the extent people believed in this I don't think they're stupid or even gullible. The video doesn't hold up to any kind of scrutiny, but it's reasonably well made.

And of course people would have been much less likely to believe this if the makers here had credited magic or religion with powering the cars (rather than sciencey stuff). Why? Because magic and religion don't, every day, bring us cool stuff like this. Science does, and there's no reason to believe it won't deliver a real version of something similar to this in the very near future.