"The idea that your cat is the Creator of the Universe has no explanatory power. To have an argument that your cat is the Creator you need to provide positive reasons for it. The Universe is finely tuned: if design is an explanation than I wouldn't need to disprove anything and everything as being a potential Creator, I would simply need to examine the evidence for design to make a determination as to what kind of being this must be, and using Occams razor I could come to some definite conclusions about it."

And I would posit that any same test applied to the Judeo-Christian god would fail the test equally (given that "god did it" isn't a theory, it's a construct). For that matter, so would any other god you want to throw out there. Assuming an intelligent creator pre-dating the universe created the universe calls into question "How did this dude himself go about getting created?". That question can only basically be answered with "It's turtles all the way down".

How do you know that a Universe governed by laws isn't the signature of a Creator?

How do you know my cat didn't create it? Equal empirical evidence (none) of both constructs.

Why would you expect to see a grand cosmos such as this, with such awesome beauty, whirling away with mechanical precision? The mere fact of its existence let alone its operation and stability is something too grandiose to be automatically regulated to some accident.

Really? We happen to live in a time period called the Stelliferous Era in which stars exist. Too far in the past, they couldn't form; too far in the future, they will no longer form. So oddly enough, given that the conditions are at this particular time are favorable to life, life came into being and evolved. So if it's your belief that god created this universe to be human friendly, why'd he wait so long for the conditions to be right for us to exist? Why not just do it on Day 1? Or why didn't he wait longer? Why did the universe have to be human-friendly in the first place? He's god -- he can do anything, so why are humans bound to all these rules of math, physics and chemistry, like every single other bit of life from bacteria to Blue whales?

How do you know that a Universe governed by laws isn't the signature of a Creator?

How do you know it's not my incredibly clever, and possibly deific, cat? Again, same empirical proof (none).

Why would you expect to see a grand cosmos such as this, with such awesome beauty, whirling away with mechanical precision?

We live in a time where the universe is able to support life. Outside of this neatly-ordered era, we'd be plasma or neutrons.

You can prove a negative: there are no married bachelors. The idea that your cat is the Creator of the Universe has no explanatory power. To have an argument that your cat is the Creator you need to provide positive reasons for it. The Universe is finely tuned: if design is an explanation than I wouldn't need to disprove anything and everything as being a potential Creator, I would simply need to examine the evidence for design to make a determination as to what kind of being this must be, and using Occams razor I could come to some definite conclusions about it.

The second question is actually a really good one. I would expect to see the "signature" of the creator: something empirical that would point directly to a creator-being as opposed to a universe governed by. and explainable by, mathematical laws.

How do you know that a Universe governed by laws isn't the signature of a Creator? Why would you expect to see a grand cosmos such as this, with such awesome beauty, whirling away with mechanical precision? The mere fact of its existence let alone its operation and stability is something too grandiose to be automatically regulated to some accident. The intelligibility of the Universe is also something you seem to be taking from granted. Why should we even be able to comprehend it as far as we do? Could it be that the Creator gave us that ability?

I would also ask you why you think that understanding the mechanism somehow explains away agency?

Stabilized version of the action: here.

I'm not an expert, but I've shot a lot of rifles and have some gun-nut friends. Basically, NO, that isn't a normal posture. However, it seems quite effective for her.

She is basically using the shelf of her pelvis as the "ground" point of her elbow, almost like the function of a tripod if you were going to shoot while prone. That isn't normal, but then her hand position on that arm is even weirder -- she is propping up the rifle with what looks like middle and ring fingers making a "v" shape, then pointer just in front of the trigger guard, and thumb on the trigger guard / lever. Very very weird -- in general most people would put that hand further out along the barrel and just grasp the wood there. That would normally be more effective because the wider the distance between the contact points with your hands, the more steady and fine your aim can be. BUT, she obviously knows what she is doing and is using the stability provided by resting her arm on her pelvis to overcome that. She's a way better shot than me, so I wouldn't classify any of what I've said as "criticism", just noting that she does certainly have an unusual style.

By sound and size, the rifle is probably a .22. A .22 that size can be quite light, which would work well with her style of holding the weapon. I'd imagine that trying that with a bigger rifle, especially with a longer barrel, would be uncomfortably heavy on the fingers she is using to prop up the weapon. Plus, higher calibers would kick enough to necessitate actually grasping the forestock instead of just resting it on fingertips.

Even when I was warned against kick and barrel-rise when shooting an AR-15 (basically an M-16), the first time surprised me how much the weapon will jolt upward on rapidly fired shots unless you are ready to compensate for it...

Jews have the old testament.
Christians have the old testament and new testament.
Muslims have the old testament, new testament, and yet a newer testament.

All 3 share the old testament.
The 'violence promoting' scriptures are found in the old testament - which all 3 have in common.

Reza is right.
If people want peace, the religious of them simply ignore the violent edicts of their religions.
If they want to be violent, the religious of them legitimize it with excuses from their religions.

He's also right about the national hypocrisy. Al-Qaeda at the time of 9/11 was a pet organization of members of the Saudi royal family.
But instead of going after the Saudis (who also today finance ISIS), we go after 2 countries that are unrelated to the attack.

Look at today's irony. Assad in Syria (who we wanted deposed because he was friendlier to Russia than the U.S., and allowed Russian bases on Syrian soil [in the middle east]) is now fighting ISIS, while we ally with the Saudis who are supporting ISIS.

We also didn't mind supporting the Mujahedin (Jihadi fighters) in Afghanistan when they were fighting our enemy. We had no problem throwing Afghanistan into the dark ages when it suited us.

Ultimately, extremist Islam is a foil, meant to rouse western people's emotions. As national policy, we don't _actually_ do anything to stop it, we just use it as an excuse to do whatever else is of national interest.
Who would be the boogey man if extremist Islam was gone? We need a boogey man if we want to keep excusing and paying for a large military. People simply don't have the foresight and patience to maintain a strong military without someone scaring them into support. Particularly now, when we don't have the manufacturing capacity to quickly build a large military.

However, Reza is ignoring Turkey's and the Pacific islander's Muslim problems. Indonesia and the Philippines have extremist Muslim organizations doing attacks home (Philippines also has Christian terrorists). Turkey is a large source of Muslim fighters pouring into Syria.



The various related religions also have historical developmental differences.

Jews were for a long time in such minorities that they did not have the political capability of waging any campaign of violence. They were either too small, or too busy being occupied by European powers (Rome, etc).

Christians did have a long period of majority, starting around 400ad when Rome decided that a good way to control/pacify any dissent within the empire was to make the empire 1 religion and make Rome the head of that religion. They elected Christianity as the state religion, forced everyone in the Roman empire to convert, and you had a continent's worth of Christians.
This included north Africa and Middle East - and is when Jews (by now called Palestinians) were forced to convert from Judaism to Christianity (**and few hundred years later forced to convert from Christianity to Islam).

Although, Christians had the benefit of the Inquisition(s) to temper their enthusiasm for Christianity. A large part of the population was killed for consorting with the devil. Once it got so bad that everyone knew someone who had been convicted and killed - and everyone was sure that those killed were innocent, it cast a large doubt on Christianity as whole. People questioned if the devil even exists, or if it's all a sham. The distrust and resentment paved the way for the eventual birth of Deism and Empiricism. A time when the scientific method and physical observation started to take over.

Islam is still a young religion. They still have to experience their religion becoming all powerful, and the inquisitions that inevitably come from absolute power. The one good thing about Islamic extremism is that it makes the people living under those conditions more likely to suffer. Once the suffering becomes so pervasive that everyone is suffering, the people will start to dislike/distrust their religion, and the extremism will resolve itself from the inside out - like it did with Christianity.

The bigger problem would be if things are 'too tolerable', and the religion grows more extreme (no one is inclined to say 'no'). The biggest problem would be if the religious leaders 'solve' the balance issue, and manage to stabilize the oppression at a level that is as extreme as it can be while still being permanently sustainable. Then the religious leaders can live the life of power without the threat of deposition.

-scheherazade

*backup found with good resolution and stabilized adjusted. I will replace the original unstabilized video with this backup.

SPIEGEL reveals that the German foreign intelligence agency is spying on Turkey, big time.

Meanwhile, our government considers providing aid to the Kurdish forces in northern Iraq, including weapons. And our Foreign Minister, over the course of this discussion, referred to Kurdistan as a source of stability in the area.

Neither one of those two pieces of information is of particular interest, but the combination indicates a shift in the relationship with Turkey. Erdogan's gonna be pissed, especially if the EU provides support to the PKK through Kurdistan.

I foresee fun times ahead.

Newtboy said it well; ice ages come and go due to numerous factors, but one of the most important factors is how much of the atmosphere is composed of carbon dioxide and methane.

Indeed, there have been interglacial periods where the earth was largely void of ice and had the much higher sea levels to match. At one point global temperatures were about as high as is expected to occur in the next century or two.

The difference between then and now is that life and the ecological chemistry of earth had millions of years to adapt before those periods reached their height in most cases. I say in most cases because there have been periods where climate change occurred faster than before and severely disrupted ecological stability or simply caused mass extinctions. Climate change has always happened, but the reason why current climate change is so worrying is because it is happening faster than ever before and because there is a massive amount of data to back it up.

Nah, it was properly secured and all, but then someone turned on the Youtube Stabilization feature and started warping reality all up in that.

Before the U.S. invasion, Iraq had an integrated society, with different religions inter-marrying, and different religions working in government.
After the U.S. took over, people were chosen for state work according to religious quota (something new to iraq), and religion became a 'big deal' in regards to putting food on the table.
General dislikes turned into conflicts.

The "Shia v Sunni" thing is more hyperbole for western audiences, than it is a matter of recent history.
Saddam mostly oppressed areas rife with insurgent groups. Conflict festers and spreads. People die, their families/friends become militant, then they die, and their families/friends become militant, etc, etc, etc. Families/friends live near each other, so it spreads geographically. Eventually you find cities or regions that have managed to upturn.
Like any city/region, similar people tend to live together. So you in effect have groups/cultures vs government.
Hence why the internal conflict was by city/region (just like it is/was in Syria), and why it had a cultural flavor.
Granted, there is always some backlash that spills into a community at large, when a portion of it is identified as a 'problem'. Point is, there was not some eugenic ethnic/religious conflict going on.

The real 'oppression by religion' is happening today.
Neighborhoods have become mono-religious. Minorities have left their neighborhoods and fled to regions that are mostly 'of their own kind' - because nobody wants to stick around to see if they become the next target.

Best thing that can happen now is what happened to Syria after WW2 : Some other power steps in, chops up the country into smaller pieces, and populates each piece with a particular culture (eg. Syria was taken by Britain and France, split up, and became Syria + Lebanon + Jordan - granted the post ww2 split of Syria had more to do with the the last gasps of colonialism, and less to do with stabilization. 'Fun' note : It's the Syrian expulsion the French colonial rulers in the 1970's, and the subsequent French 'black eye', that set the tone for why France is so happy to support whoever wants to overthrow the Syrian government.).

-scheherazade

2 shots. A side has greenscreen where the mirror is (there are edges, lack of hair detail and the lighting is different on each side). the B side was shot with no wall, stabilized then tracked to the A side until leto clears frame and then goes back to it's own movements. i'm pretty sure the push into the mirror was done in post as well.

In general, yes, it is quite wasteful. In theory, 3D printing is a much more efficient way to achieve complex shapes.

However, there are some applications which aren't suitable for 3D printing yet. It certainly won't have the same physical stability, etc as a milled piece of solid metal.

I think this one is even more impressive
*related=http://videosift.com/video/Bike-Fun-Machine-makes-a-helmet

Mark me now, it's not ISIS that we should be worried about in this from a humanitarian perspective. ISIS are probably the nastiest bunch, but Nouri al-Maliki has been noted and marked as nothing more than thug from day one. The entire time US forces were in Iraq they spent most of their time protecting Sunni's(ISIS is a Sunni group) from al-Maliki's forces taking revenge.

I have almost no doubts that al-Maliki can easily suppress and crush ISIS, and more over is just itching for ISIS to make themselves out bad enough that he can 'justify' brutally and totally crushing them and by proxy all Sunni Iraqis.

End game is a relatively quick and brutal move by al-Maliki to 'stabilize' the region with some truly ugly war crimes. Hopefully at least the end will also leave a new border drawn recognizing Kurdistan as separate region and at least there some semblance of law and order and decency might survive,

Yeah, he would've had to back off a bit to get the front wheels down, but breaking the supercharger probably didn't help either. I agree that stabilizers would've helped.. wonder why he didn't have them?.

Seems that smart car would win if it had stabilizers on the back. Looked and sounded like it had to let off the throttle to drop the front back down.