Sweet jeebus. She's... words fail. Seriously. It's just rambling nonsense with little punctuation, eventually culminating in a tonal up^tick? indicating a ques^tion?. He's no better, as it's like a recitation of powerpoint bullet items, strung together with little structure or sense. I can't fathom anyone seriously considering voting for either of these ignorant yokels. Perhaps nihilists. That would actually make sense.

Woah woah, easy there killer. That escalated insanely quickly. It's videosift, not everyone has to like everything. Who knows, maybe he was being a dick and didn't know that it was a line from the song, maybe he took issue with your punctuation. we'll likely never know.

But if you're going to require someone to express why they downvoted your comment without it being something like going through and downvoting ALL your comments, you need to either abolish the function or have a little text box pop up explaining why you're downvoting.

Either way, I think everyone needs to calm down a bit here.

Disappointing, joystiq were definitely one of the better sites. For me, I read blues news for general info and polygon, pc gamer, and Zero Punctuation (more for comedy than actual recommendations).

Hey robbersdog49, thanks for the level headed reply. I'll address your comments in a few pieces here:

The origin of life and Darwinian evolution are two entirely different things. Regardless of how you believe the first life came about we do know from the fossil record and evidence about the way the environment and climate changed on earth in those early millennia that the first life was simple single cell organisms.

In my study of the evidence from the fossil record, I found more evidence that contradicted the assertions of Darwinian evolution than confirmed it. The Cambrian explosion for example, where basically every type of animal body plan comes into existence at around the same time, contradicts the idea that these things happened gradually over long periods of time. In fact, a new theory was invented called "punctuated equilibrium" which says that the reason we aren't finding the transitional fossils is that the changes happen too quickly to be found in the fossil record. Instead of a theory based on the evidence, we have a theory to explain away the lack of evidence.

Evolution is the process which turned these very simple life forms into the complex forms you see all around you today. It's an ongoing process and the evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

The evidence for micro evolution is overwhelming. The reason we have hundreds of different breeds of dogs is because of micro evolution. Darwin discovered this and all the credit should go to him, but where the leap of faith took place was when he supposed that because we see changes within species, that therefore all life evolved from a common ancestor. This claim is not substantiated scientifically. You cannot see macro evolution taking place anywhere in the world, and you cannot find the transitional fossils to say it ever took place. You cannot test it in a laboratory, it is a historical claim based on weak circumstantial evidence.

Science doesn't know exactly how life first came about. It doesn't claim to. We know that it did because we're here, but how? Not sure. But that's not a problem, science doesn't claim to know everything. Science is a process we use to find out about the world around us. It's not a book with all the answers.

Science is all about what we don't know. It's a process of discovery, and you can't discover something you already know. Religious people like to show any gap in the knowledge of scientists as showing they are frauds, or know nothing and that this means their own views must be true. That's just a stupid logical fallacy. Just because no one else has the answer doesn't mean you can just claim your version must be correct.

Science not being able to tell us how life started has no effect on the validity of the statement 'God did it'.

The God of the gaps fallacy is simply a red herring in these conversations. I don't purport to say that because science can't explain something, that means God did it. Science is all about the principle of parsimony; what theory has the best explanatory power. I purport to say that the idea of a Creator has better explanatory power for what we see than the current scientific theories for origins, not because of what science cannot explain, but for what science has explained. I think the evidence we do understand, in physics, biology, cosmology and information theory overwhelmingly points to design for many good reasons that have nothing to do with the God of the gaps fallacy.

There is also it seems a point of pride for those who think the best position is to say "I don't know", and accusing anyone who thinks they do know as being wrong headed, arrogant, or whatever. It's a very curious position to take because there are plenty of things we can know. No one is going to take the position that if you say the answer to 2 + 2 is 4 and you deny that any other answer is valid, you are arrogant or using fallacious reasoning. Yet, it is arrogrant and fallacious to those who think that science is the sole arbitor of truth when someone who believes in God points to a Creator as the best explanation. They think that because they believe no one else could know the answer except through scientific discovery. You have to realize that is a faith based claim and not an evidence based claim. You think that way when you place your faith in science as what is going to give you the correct answers about how and why you are here. I like these quotes for Robert Jastrow, who was an Astronomer and physicist:

"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."

"Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation, but they are driven by the nature of their profession to seek explanations for the origin of life that lie within the boundaries of natural law."

As for the age of the earth, there's a huge amount of evidence which says it's about 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years old. That's plenty of time for evolution to take us from simple single cell life to the complex animals we've become today.

Have you ever studied the scientific proofs for both sides? There are some "clocks" which point that way, and there are other clocks that point the other way. The clocks that point to the old Earth have many flaws, and there are simply more evidences that point to a young Earth. That video I provided shows the evidences I am talking about.

Notwithstanding that you weren't looking for a reply, I ought at least to acknowledge my debt to you for correcting my spelling. It's always gratifying to see the lower orders of humanity display sudden and unlooked-for hints of intelligence - just like watching a monkey light a cigar.

I won't bore you with my inexplicably punctuated "opinions", knowing that "facts" and "rational thought" are always anathema to such as you. Only take my thanks in the spirit of fellowship and understanding with which they are intended.

Your video, Zero Punctuation: FTL: Faster Than Light - Exploding Spacesh, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Zero Punctuation: FTL: Faster Than Light - Exploding Spacesh has been added as a related post - related requested by Zawash on that post.

That is a valid concern, and it's very difficult to address.

Certainly, bionics for injury victims should be made available through your health system. I'd agree with the speaker here when he says that is a human right.

But voluntary augmentation is a much harder sell. On one hand, the situation you describe (where we have an augmented "caste" and a baseline caste) is certainly undesirable. But equally, it's not really practicable to fund everyone for every augmentation they want.

Tricky question.

Although as Yahtzee says "if there's a conflict between people who have ocean liner pistons for forearms and people who insist that everyone be as shit as they, I know which side I'm on!"

That's a good one. I called out the central conceit of your post which is that if @bareboards2 is glad that Romney isn't president, she must automatically be in favour of the litany of Obamas failures you outlined.

It's hardly "mistyped punctuation". Drop the fucking persecution complex.

Everything virtual does not have to be this kind of choice, VoodooV-I'm no wimp, the process would work were it not continually hijacked by a mechanism that is both glaringly apparent and for a certain privileged few to tweak at their leisure while maintaining a simple yet elaborate ruse. 'Writing' someone in would not work and this cold-cut fact should also be glaringly apparent to anyone with the capacity for critical thought tinctured with a dash of common-sense. Elections are and have been simply an exercise in complacent self-approbation and self-deceit for some time now...going waaay back-The white-knights and villains are agreed, in every personality, every human breathing as all are capable of the worst atrocities and the infinite empathy and kindness. The checks-and-balances only work if everyone plays by the rule book and not the cheat-sheet.


Now, an intelligent breakdown of your reaction cloaked as some meaningful response:

'someones feeling attention deprived again, trolling and picking fights to overcompensate'

No-I'm not picking a fight, I'm picking at a soft-spot in a personality and calling attention to particular predictable rhetorical repetition in a manner which also predictably, causes these certain personalities to cry foul, troll (insert racist here, as those who cry racism are invariably the racists themselves) or any other convenient terms which halt the process of reason.

"If I thought there would be actual rational discourse, I would engage him." (here's your chance) 'But nope' (there's the cop-out and hasty retreat with the regular gang of supporters)

'It would just be noise' (perhaps to yourself, as this is yet another convenient dismissal of an alternative point of view or realization).

And bareboards, sorry if I cause you to la la la with fingers in your ears, I did nothing rather, your reaction as well connotes a predictable denial of the meat in my rant, as is Chaos calling out the mundane aspect of mistyped punctuation.

Haven't had a drop of alcohol when this was written earlier this morning, nor have I smoked the ganja for over 2 months...question mark, exclamation point.....and more than enough ....el;ipsis

As tired of the childish shit as y'all are of mine?? Yep-But I hold-out hope for communion and understanding, as we all play here together.

Actually I'm about as English as they come but crucially I spent my advanced academic career studying Philosophy and rhetoric (lamentably only to Hons. due to laziness) and consequently have an ingrained habit of arguing around a problem rather than relying on established parameters (not always entirely helpful when discussing more day to day matters as I'm sure you've by now gathered but it is essential to working with advanced epistemological problems and so serves me well none the less). I'm also prone to poor punctuation and odd patterns of grammar when I'm not going back over everything I write with a fine tooth comb which has likely not helped. (A consequence of learning to describe tangent after tangent when trying to thoroughly encapsulate some conceptual problems with language alone)

That said, while I may have gone around the houses so to speak I think my conclusion is entirely compatible with what I now understand your own to be.

I didn't want to describe my original counter-point by simply working with the idea that weight is lower on the moon relative to the earth (though I did not try to refute this either) because that would not illustrate why a 2-300kg man in a space suit still takes some shifting (relatively speaking) even if there were no gravity at all. (Would have been faster to just crunch some numbers but that's not what I specialise in)

Sure you could move anything with any force in 0G (which I do understand is technically relative as every object in the universe with mass exerts gravitational forces proportionately (and inversely proportional to the distance between)) but the resulting velocity is directly proportional to mass vs force applied. Weight here then, can be seen as another competing force in the equation rather than the whole thing which it can be convenient to treat it as for a simple calculation (which is what I think you are doing).

To put that another way I was applying a different/deeper linguistic/descriptive paradigm to the same objective facts because that's what we philosophers do. Single paradigm approaches to any subject have a dangerous habit of making one believe one possess such a thing as truly objective facts rather than interpretations only (which are all that truly exist).


In other terms weight alone isn't the whole story (as I assume you well know). Overcoming inertia due to mass scales up all by itself, then gravity comes along and complicates matters. This is why rocket scientists measure potential thrust in DeltaV rather than Watts, Joules etc. right? The mass of the object dictates how much velocity a given input/output of energy would equal.

Gravity and thus the force in newtons it induces (weight) in these terms is an additional force which depending upon the direction in which it is acting multiplies the required DeltaV to achieve the same effect. Moreover when concerning a force of inconstant nature (such as pushing up/jumping or a brief burn of an engine) brings duration into play also. (the foundations of why rocket science gets its fearsome reputation for complexity in its calculations)


Man on the moon lies on the ground and pushes off to try and stand back up.
This push must impart enough DeltaV to his body to produce a sufficient velocity and duration to travel the 2 meters or so needed to get upright so he can then balance the downward gravitational force with his legs&back and successfully convert the chemical/kinetic energy from his arms into potential energy as weight (the energy he uses to stand up is the same energy that would drag him down again right?).

One could practically speaking reduce this to a simple calculation of weight and thrust if all one wanted was a number. Weight would be the only number we need here as it incorporates the mass in it's own calculation (weight = mass x gravity)

But where's the fun in that? My way let's one go round all the houses see how the other bits of the paradigm that support this basic isolated equation function and inter-relate.

Plus (and probably more accurately) I've been playing loads of Kerbal Space Programme lately and have ended up conditioning myself to think in terms of rocketry and thus massively overcomplicated everything here for basically my own amusement/fascination.


Basically few things are more verbose and self indulgent than a bored Philosopher, sorry .


Re: Your challenge. (And I'm just guessing here) something to do with your leg muscles not being able to deliver the energy fast/efficiently enough? (as your feet would leave the ground faster/at a lower level of force?). This is the only thing I can think of as it's easier to push away from things underwater and it certainly looks difficult to push away hard from things when people are floating in 0g.

So lower resistance from gravity = less force to push against the floor with?

Warm? Even in the Ballpark? (Regardless I'm really pleased to discover you weren't the nut I originally thought you to be! (though I imagine you now have some idea what a nut I am))


If I got any of that wrong I'd be happy for you to explain to me why and where (assuming you can keep up with my slightly mad approach to syntax in the 1st place). I'm an armchair physicist (not that I haven't studied it in my time but I'm far from PHD) I'm always happy to learn and improve.

Where was this 'clarity' in that 'defense'? Beyond the understandable defense of your punctuation mistake, I didn't see it.
Question...IMLTHO? Does this mean In My Lithium Taking Hilarious Opinion? I've honestly never seen this abbreviation before.
Interesting, so you do understand that YOU are the problem, so much that the sift had to invent an ignore 'button' largely to allow others to ignore you, you just insist on being the problem and forcing the community to 'gang up on poor little you' so you can whine about the unfairness of life and other people? Why? Has no one ever told you that 'poor little bully' isn't a good look?
Wait a second...I thought you were the 'waiting for a chance to fuck with others' robot program...is that why you're mad, someone else is appearing to infringe on your domain?

Might I remind you of a previous chat we had....

newtboy said : ...Or perhaps (and this seems the most likely) you're a feckless and feculent fecal philiac in love with reading your own sophomoric posts.

chingalera said :Guilty an all charges Von Astute and might I add, how refreshing your critique of my lack of forethought when responding to regular fare here....



Newts don't buzz or attack, but we are deadly when bitten. ;-}

Your video, Zero Punctuation - Call of Duty :Ghosts, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

@alcom You lost me at "People like you..."

Let me state this clearly: You're attacking me on the front that I don't agree with what the video says. I agree with everything the video says. I do not agree with how it's presented because it's done so in the same manner that those who impart ignorance on our society.

This is exactly why I made my post. Every time I try to express the idea that we can do better, the people who hold the exact same ideals as I do reply in defense of the material as though I disagree with its message.

If you have to punctuate your thoughts with Star Wars quotes then I return to you: Stay On Target.

I am not your enemy.