Oh man, they totally forgot the DNS resolution as a first step....or even an ARP resolution for first hop if the network was just turned on.....

Trying to explain networking in 3 min is sad. It makes me a sad panda.

Pixar is so superior to Dreamworks in every way.


Mostly agree - but I'd take the best Dreamworks Animation movie (How to Train Your Dragon) over the worst Pixar one (Cars 2) - and maybe even Kung-Fu Panda over Bug's Life.

Overall I think the gap is closing (animated movies are so much better than they used to be that it hardly makes sense). That said, Brave looks amazing: well acted, has an interesting setting, and really ups the ante on animation quality (compare the hair in, say, The Incredibles to the hair on this girl).

>> ^messenger:
So, how is you believing that you have a superior intellect to someone who believes in God not pride?

Read it again. Nobody claimed to have a superior intellect to anyone else. The contrast is between using our intellect and not using it. As Galileo famously put it, "I do not feel obliged to believe that that same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forego their use." Now, he was talking from the perspective of a person of faith who simply didn't believe the bible or church teachings anymore but certainly did still believe in God. We are speaking as people with sense, reason and intellect who don't see sufficient evidence to come to the conclusion that God might reasonably exist.

It's the entire contention that someone who believes in God is not using their sense, reason and intellect that is prideful. Did you know that 40 percent of biologists, physicists and mathematicians believe in a personal God? Some extremely intelligent people believe in a Creator, and they can back up their beliefs with logical evidence. You see theists through a grossly distorted lens created by your own prejudice, and it blinds you. Galileo, by the way, did believe the bible; what he didn't buy is the catholic interpretation of it, and rightly so.

>> ^messenger:
Since there is no empirical evidence for or against Gods existence, how do you calculate how likely or unlikely His existence is?

The lack of evidence for existence is a non-concrete kind of evidence for the lack of existence. So the overwhelming lack of evidence for God is a bloody strong case. Everywhere we look in nature, we continue not to find God.

The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. Although I think there is evidence, such as fine tuning and information in DNA. In any case, do you honestly believe you can point an instrument at God and say "there he is!". Is this idea not fundamentally ridiculous? I think what youre confusing is mechanism with agency. You think because you describe a mechanism, how something works in a mechanical sense, somehow it rules out an Agent. God says He upholds the entire Universe; that He is the one that keeps the atoms from flying apart. How does mechanism rule out Gods agency?

Not only that, but if God created the Universe, do you realize that the entire Universe is evidence of Gods existence? The question I would put to you is, how would you tell the difference? How would you know you're looking at a Universe God didn't create? What would you expect that to look like?

What about the laws of logic? Where do they come from? If they're only in our brains, subject to constant flux, then what is rationality? It isn't anything you can trust if what you believe is true. Therefore all of your arguments fall apart. You have nothing in your worldview that can explain it, yet I can explain it. I know there is an omnipotent God who made us in His image, and we are rational beings because He is a rational being.

>> ^messenger:
Please, stop talking about science. You really do not understand it. You sound like a religious sceptic spouting crap about the bible. Really, what you say about science is just non-verified faither talking points. All science is based only on observation and drawing generalized inferences from that. "Theories" are just that. The strength of a scientific theory is roughly [how well it predicts other things] ÷ [how many things you have to just accept]. The belief in a particular atomic structure for oxygen has many predictions, which are testable and have largely been shown reliably true. So the atomic structure of an oxygen atom is a generally accepted theory, even though we will never be able to sense it directly. It's scientific. On those same grounds, the theory of evolution is also a strong theory in science. It has very few conjectures (three simple ones, I believe I heard Dawkins once say), it generates predictions, the predictions are testable, and they affirm the theory. Saying that evolution is untestable is as ridiculous as saying we haven't investigated every oxygen atom, so the model of the atom is untestable, and therefore unscientific.

If you understood it better than I do then you would know what macro evolution is. The scientific method uses empirical evidence, which comes from empirical experimentation or observation. There is no experiment to prove macro evolution, nor can it be empirically observed. It is simply an unjustified extrapolation from micro evolution (which is proven beyond a reasonable doubt), and based on nothing but inferences from *circumstantial* evidence and not evidence based on empirical observation.

Many people have this conception that the theory of common descent is as certain and proven as 2 + 2 = 4, or as Sepacore put it:

"once claimed to be a book of literal truth, becomes more and more metaphorical as science stomps its way all over the human races ignorance of the universe reaching greater level's of understandings that are testable through mathematical predictions"

That is certainly how it is taught in schools, as absolute fact, and that's why I believed it too. It's when you stop looking at their conclusions and see the actual data they base them on that you will get the shock of your life. Yes, you're right, the theory makes a few predictions, all of which have turned out to be wrong..such as this:

The main cause, however, of innumerable intermediate links not now occurring everywhere throughout nature depends on the very process of natural selection, through which new varieties continually take the places of and exterminate their parent-forms. But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.

Darwin

Darwin predicted that for his theory to be true, there must be innumerable transitional forms in the fossil record. What have we found?:


"Paleontologists just were not seeing the expected changes in their fossils as they pursued them up through the rock record. That individual kinds of fossils remain recognizably the same throughout the length of their occurrence in the fossil record had been known to paleontologists long before Darwin published his Origin. Darwin himself, .., prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search... One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin's prediction. Nor is the problem a miserly fossil record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction is wrong.
N. Eldredge and I. Tattersall, The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, pg 45-46.

What we find is that creatures appear in stasis, and enter and leave the fossil record abruptly with no changes.

Another prediction is a start from simple to complex, with an increase of diversity of the phyla over a long period of time.

"Consequently, if my theory be true, it is indisputable that before the lowest Silurian stratum was deposited, long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably longer than the whole interval from the Silurian age to the present day; and during these vast, yet quite unknown periods of time, the world swarmed with living creatures. To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer."
Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species, 1st edition, pg 307.

What we find is that all of the phyla we have today all abruptly appeared in the "cambrian explosion"

"The fossil record had caused Darwin more grief than joy. Nothing distressed him more than the Cambrian explosion, the coincident appearance of almost all complex organic designs ... "
S. Gould, The Panda's Thumb, pg 238, 239.

This is just the tip of the iceberg for how poor a theory macroevolution actually is, but you won't have a shortage of true believers in it, even though they don't even understand what evidence it is based on. I do know something about science, and although I am a layman, I am perfectly capable of understanding of what makes a sound theory, and what doesn't. I would believe in macroevolution if the evidence supported it. Not only does it not support it, but it actually argues against it. It is shocking to someone who has been indoctrinated (like I was), but if you want to talk about fairy stories, macroevolution is a whale of a tale.

>> ^oohlalasassoon:

This never worked for me with Dungeons and Dragons, WTF.


You know why? d&d didn't have Pandas :-)

It seems to be working now.

I'm actually surprised kids know who these characters are. I thought Mr. Rogers went off the air a while ago. And they rarely trotted out the purple panda on that show.

I don't blame them. That panda looks terrifying!

While watching that i kept thinking the guy in the panda suit should have started peeling off his panda skin while screaming.. that would have been hilarious.

I mean hell, the kids were already being traumatized, in for a penny, in for a pound i say.

So heres the current list with my own interpretation of the subjects of each.

COFFEE MAKES ME POO = bowel movements
Eddie Izzard - Do you want a cup of coffee? = mating rituals
The Most Expensive Coffee in the World = civet droppings
South Park on Coffee = caffeine's affect on kids
Charlie Brooker vs. Nescafe - (VideoSift Coffee Mug Compo) = commercial/advertising
The latte zoo- (mixed animal latte pours) = drinkable art
Kramer CaffeLatte -- Seinfeld = caffeine's affect on racist comedians
The Office - Coffee and Cocaine = caffeine's affect on business quotas
The Simpsons - Beer Coffee = stereotypes of Aussies
Wish I had this coffee maker! = middle American consumerism
Coffee Snobs - snobby hipsters
This is Coffee (1961) = **coffee**
How to make Iced Coffee = what ice is used for
Six million dollar man coffee commercial = commercial/advertising
The Clover Coffee Machine - Hand Built By Stanford Engineers = Engineering
Denis Leary - Coffee = douchebag
How Sherlock Likes His Coffee (Sherlock BBC) = a fictitious characters taste/preferences
Dr. Cox and the Coffee (Scrubs) = flirting
How to make cold brew coffee the homemade way! = how to throw off the shackles of consumerism
Chad Vader Coffee = Star Wars copy right infringement
Austin Powers' coffee mix-up = the old Switcheroo comedy bit
History of Coffee = average joes bid for youtube attention
Join the Coffee Achievers! (Weird1984 coffee ad with Bowie) = commercial/advertising
Mad TV Coffee Maniac = caffeine's affect on Keanu Reeves
Coffee Panda = drinkable art
Charlie Chaplin Drinking Coffee = bowel movements
La recette des cupcakes jamais vus... au tiramisu = Tiramisu
Vodka & Coffee = alcoholics
Latte Art - Swan Lake = drinkable art
How To Cold Brew (COFFEE) = commercial/advertising
How to Pronounce Cappuccino = Linguistics
Strange To Meet You = caffeine's affect on European Directors/Actors
Columbian Coffee Crystals = commercial/advertising parody
Juan Valdez ~ Colombian Coffee 1982 = commercial/advertising
Coffee and the Brain = health benefits of caffeine
Milk With Your Coffee? = how boobies lactate
"The Coffee Wars" - (Mockumentary) = dangers of caffeine addiction
60 Cups, 1 Bald Head = how German scientists are full of shit!
It puts the coffee on its skin... = dangers of caffeine addiction
The Journey of the Coffee Bean = **coffee**

Thank you for the quality!
In reply to this comment by oritteropo:
*quality promotion there : This is an excellent find.
>> ^eric3579:

*promote

Tags for this video have been changed from 'panda, pumpkin, snow, fight' to 'panda, pumpkin, snow, fight, firefox' - edited by xxovercastxx

Your video, Red Panda vs. Pumpkin, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

http://videosift.com/video/Coffee-Panda

and also:

http://videosift.com/video/What-Haunts-a-Cat

*quality promotion there This is an excellent find.
>> ^eric3579:

*promote

Dude I so love that Umshini-Wam video!
In reply to this comment by geo321:
Thank you for the promote. : I also need to thank you for bringing this video to the light of day... http://videosift.com/video/Umshini-Wam ... that was my favorite overlooked video in my pq.
In reply to this comment by eric3579:
*promote

Thank you for the promote. I also need to thank you for bringing this video to the light of day... http://videosift.com/video/Umshini-Wam ... that was my favorite overlooked video in my pq.
In reply to this comment by eric3579:
*promote