Oh lord do everyone a favour and stop playing the victim card, no one's buying it. If they're armed and have power over people, they should be stringently held to a higher standard than those they have power over, even a kid knows that. That is the most basic of principles that every non-sadist adheres to. Only your ilk think otherwise - isn't it strange how only dodgy cops don't want the cops to be under scrutiny?

But hey! I understand how cops like to stick up for their buddies. You're thicker than thieves with half the personality. Everyone can play that passive-aggressive game and it goes nowhere so try addressing the argument for a change. Funny how you ignore the shit out of anyone that demolishes your point, did you do that when you were a cop as well, or did you just start blasting secure in the knowledge that every other cop would instantly cover your arse just like you do so readily for them?

If you want any evidence that we need to hold those in power to account, just look at the financial mess we're in thanks to unchecked bankers and corrupt governments. You obviously don't like looking at prison statistics as we've seen, so try looking outside your own sphere of influence. But that would require empathy.

Pretty much is. Most fireworks of that size are either spherical or cylindrical. Think about how big a package FOUR FEET WIDE filled with pyrotechnic stars and black powder is.

Maths sez a perfect 48" sphere, after you take three inches off the radius to account for the protective shell around it, leaves twenty two cubic feet, almost two-thirds of a cubic metre, in which to pack splodeys.

That could make one sweet helluva bang.

Thank god i only see nuts like these in videos. I guess if i encountered this type of person irl id move as quickly as possible out of their sphere of influence and audible area. I'm no gawker when it comes to people who lose their shit. Tends to harsh my mood

Oh great now you'll make security guards sphere repeat occurrences during their rounds. Everywhere on the globe, people will stair as the number will rise and the attacks run rampant. This can only escalator even worse cause injury due to copycat attacks. This unfortunate storey will take flight, I'm certain. In any event, the tale will be moving.

P.S. expression on watcher dude's face at 00:54 - the perfect "Schwwaaaa....?"

Oh Shiny....SOOO much and so large a failure of fact here....
A quick science fact for YOU....(cut and pasted from Google)

How many of earth's moon would fit inside the sun if it were hollow?

Well, the radius of the moon is about 1,080 miles, and the radius of the Sun is about 432,687 miles. The moon and the sun are both spheres, and math tells us how to relate the volume inside a sphere to its radius. I don't know how much math you have done, so let me just tell you the answer and you can maybe ask your teacher for more information. The answer is that you could get about 64.3 million moons inside the Sun if it were hollow.
Do I need to say the rest of your grasp of the science involved is not firm?

I must also tell you, being able to say "we don't know exactly" about what happened BEFORE the big bang is no where near 'faith'...'faith' is making up some BS and claiming 'See, my fairy tale tells me that giant bean stalks are real, you're just deluding yourself that they're all tiny. Just because you (along with everyone else) has never SEEN a giant one means nothing, my book said they're real, so they're real'. Science says 'we've never seen a giant bean stalk, ever, and genetics and physics tell us they never can exist'. The 'faithful' then say 'science is wrong and delusional and ignores all our evidence of giant bean stalks...namely the stories in our book, and look, I found this large bean, it's proof that there are GIANT beans out there.'. If you don't 'believe' the book is 'true', it's useless as 'proof'. Just consider all the other 'holy' books you discount...that's how I see ALL holy books. I only took it one step farther than you, though, before you think differently.

Oh...so it's OK with you to simplify and 'falsify details' significantly by modeling the earth as a perfect sphere, but not ignore the mathematically insignificant and immeasurably small possible movement of the earth in some direction or another due to multiple immeasurably small gravities?! WHAT?!? ;-)

....Um...1 degree on earth is 111.2 KM, there's such a tiny difference (1 cm+-) they are in the same place for all possible measureable purposes, nothing like 1 deg apart. My scientific calculator won't give an answer, 1 deg * (1cm/111.2km) =0.00deg on it. (OK, it's not hard math...1/11120000 deg.) Because of this, yes, they WOULD cross the imaginary line, AND hit the earth at the same time by any possible measurement. If the smallest distance measureable is FAR larger than the distance they differ by, and the smallest time measureable is MUCH longer than the difference in time they hit, normal (and most abnormal) people say it's exactly the same.

And again...the experiment properly ignores any infinitely tiny immeasurable movement of the earth in ANY random direction for the obvious reasons already stated. There's far more difference based on the precise position of mercury than the position of the bowling ball and feather, especially when they are nearly touching...You know and understand this.

There's no such thing as acceleration of just the ball. Everything is relative; there are no fixed bodies. We just ignore the movement of the earth in these things, because as far as approximations go, it makes no practical difference.

They would not cross an imaginary line at the same time, since if the earth is modelled as a perfect sphere, it will be pulled slightly toward the bowling ball (the actual vector being somewhere between them because the feather has a small moment). If there's a 1 degree difference in the drop between the feather and ball, which looks about right for this experiment, this will result in a 1.7% advantage for the bowling ball hitting the earth first from the very slight movement of the earth.

I'm not sure he answered the question, or at least that wasn't his focus... rather than explain why privacy matters, he stressed that we 'like' privacy. Don't get me wrong, I like it too, and I don't see that there are any overarching security or economic concerns that consistently outweigh my liking it, but it would be interesting to hear if there are arguments that more directly address why privacy matters.

As far as I could tell, he had three overarching points:

1. Privacy is culturally and psychologically valuable to us, and we suffer if we feel that this private sphere is taken away from us. This is fine, but it doesn't really tell me why privacy 'matters', just that it's an artifact of our current civilization and culture. A similar argument could be made for religion, which I don't think is a necessary but certainly a very common phenomenon.

2. Privacy allows for dissent against tyranny and corruption to grow. This, to me, seems a little fallacious - in a system of asymmetrical privacy, where your government has more privacy than you, this might be true, but in a system of very high transparency on all sides it would be very possible to effectively express and build a dissenting voice. It seems dissent is possible in both very private and very open societies, but not in societies where privacy is only granted to the state.

3. Privacy is needed for creativity and unique expressions of talent. This might be true on an individual level (though it might also be a case of overlapping with #1) but transparency and openness are also facilitators of collective creativity. It might be that we need a private creative space for traditional acts of genius, but who's to say that we can't supersede this with crowd-sourced creativity in the future?

I'm not arguing in favor of any measures to take away privacy, but it would be interesting to see some more rigorous arguments for the need for privacy. Looking at what Snowden did, for example, we see that his actions might contribute to increased privacy in the long term, but in the short term he actually removed privacy (from the government) and made the equation a little more balanced in that sense.

Not surprising that it's in the dictionary now. The reason it sticks out to me is because when I was in college and taking 3D digital art classes, it became a joke among my friends whenever an instructor would use the term "orientate" or "orientated". This was 18 years ago, so it saw plenty of use then, but at the time it was not in the dictionary, so it drove us nuts.
There were a lot of weird modes of speech from instructors then, like the ones that pronounced sphere as 'spear', or fillet as "fill-it", and biped as "bypt".
But really now, irregardless is in the dictionary too? What has the world come to!?

I remember meditating as a teenager. I found my consciousness shrinking into a tiny sphere. My head was a vast empty space, miles in diameter. Did it make me a better person? Who knows.

capitalism only really functions well (with regulation) in a world where resources are limited and a lot of manpower is needed to get things done. Thanks to technology, it's only a matter of time before resources are so easy to come by and manufacture into needed things that the supply and demand model will be obsolete.

I suspect that within 100 years, if not sooner, manual labor will be a thing of the past...unless you're an artist or something. Robots will be able to do virtually everything..and better than humans are capable of.

The only people who will still need to have jobs are engineers and maybe technicians, but even then, eventually robots will be able to repair themselves so maybe not even technicians will be needed. Hell, given enough time, nurses and many health care jobs won't be needed anymore because basic healthcare could be delegated to robots.

It's just a matter of time. We're already starting to see the effects of automation in the workforce, we just don't need as many people to get things done. Hell even technical jobs aren't safe because as computers get better and better, They'll be able to analyze certain things better than humans.

The question just becomes what do you do about it? A whole new economic model will be needed. Because we'll eventually be living in the world where unless you're in the academic top tier, you're just not going to be needed in the workforce. At the same time, again, because of technology, we're going to have the ability to feed and clothe AND shelter you for a minimal amount of effort so the prospect of being able to being born, living, and dying without ever NEEDING to work is a real possibility in the not so distant future.

Isn't that what you would call...a utopia? You want freedom? there it is. You'll be able to spend your time doing what you WANT to do instead of what you HAVE to do just to survive. I suspect at some point, there will have to be SOME procreation laws put into place to keep the population growth in check. But hell, even that won't be so bad once we have the ability to colonize other planets.

People will still work, they'll just do it because they want to do it, but they'll be jobs where they're not a necessity or anything. even in an age where a replicator can make all your food, people will still want to cook, or do other artisan style jobs.

But hey, we'll still need defense, gotta blow up or deflect any stray asteroid that comes near us. or just send a bunch of robots up to mine the rock to smitherines so we can use the resources to build our mighty space fleet and our other grand works That Dyson Sphere won't build itself after all

In other words, the human race....has won. isn't that a good thing?

> plausible space exploration technology

You must be referring to the giant sphere of galaxies where they can pick and choose where to wormhole in

His idea is still a good one, making ultra pure ice cubes (or spheres) for perfect cocktails. You wouldn't be drinking enough pure water to worry about, and it would mix with the alcohol before you drink it anyway, so it would not be pure H2O anymore. The lack of taste and impurities would allow it to cool and dilute your drink without changing it's taste, exactly what you want in a cocktail ice cube. Even better that, if used without alcohol (or something impure), they're technically poison! Call them 'death cubes' or 'virgin ice' and you'll have trouble keeping up with demand!
Oh....wait....isn't that already a product?

One of the coolest scenes from Akira, imho, was when he got out of the room and pushed out in a sphere in the hallway.

Matrix ripped it off for the "death" of Smith.

*promote this into the sphere of internet awareness! Siftbot: GO!