watch Romney stutter, fluster, and stumble.

>> ^braschlosan:

>> ^Jinx:
but colour is an invention of our brains anyway? Is yellow a specific wavelength or is yellow what our brain says is yellow whether its red+green together, or "true" yellow.

Either way the light output by your monitor is not 580nm like your brain is telling you but rather an even mix of 650nm and 510nm.
If our eyes didn't "fudge" colors in this way we most likely wouldn't have color television (or monitors)


I didn't read his post like that, maybe he's asking for a definition of yellow because as our cones are basically wavelength filters for photons whilst our brain interprets a message of "hey i caught something of this intensity" from each of them, what is this "yellow" that we all use and think we know what it means? It will eventually come down to the resolution of the eye; each photon from each source will be coming in from a different angle into our eye, by extremely small amounts - the smallest thing we can resolve is where our brain says "ok, i think that's coming from the same place; it's not red and blue separately but yellow."

It'd be the same if you have a green and red patterned circular board and spun it really fast. Our eyes effectively have a "framerate", a point where we see something as motion. Play a game and limit to 1 fps, then increase in say 5's and before 30 you should start to feel motion rather than stuttering frames, then as you keep going you can't see stuttering anymore, it's just all motion. Our eyes have something similar, we used to do it in science. My dad was head of physics and he stuck a ROYGBIV patterned board on a black and decker drill and when it was up to speed it looked white.

So if something registers as yellow to our brains, is that not yellow? We have no direct access to our cones, we just interpret the signals. If all we had were light sensitive cells everything would be one colour and no colour at the same time.

That's what the post meant to me and it's a great point really even if it's just an excuse for sciencey discussion! If yellow is defined as a range of wavelengths of light, he's right to say it isn't yellow, but i doubt many people think of yellow in that sense. Having said all that, the video was actually interesting and informative and i enjoyed watching it, and this is probably a philosophical question for others to bother with.

PS.
Bert and Ernie, Simpsons, Smurfs, South Park, Turtles? Not sure about B&E though.

stuttering spam?

stuttering and stammering without the yammering.

@Shepppard Your first description was right on. He slows down, stutter-steps and jumps on the ground before he hits the trampoline.

"Babbling and stuttering"? Really? I don't want to defend this as anything spectacular, but it's good for getting a little insight into Ryan's political BS-ing.

I don't know what world you live in, but to me, these guys were having a calm discussion about a news story.

Sorry, got to 1.51 and couldn't take the presenters babbling, and stuttering, any longer.

Lol, browser video was lagged, i thought this was some weird artsy stutter step video.

I don't like the stuttering effect.

Why does youtube suck so much almost every video takes forever to load and stutters

I really liked the alien autopsy scene...

a fast edit with wardrobe/props telling all this backstory, and then the funny response & stuttered dialogue... magnifique!

I'm 32 and I know Mario Savio's name... have done for at least a couple decades.

A few years ago, I learned that, back in the 1950s, my father knew Mario... and helped him to overcome a stutter... perhaps enabling him to give inspirational speeches.

>> ^csnel3:

Its sad to see a grown man tip-toe around speech in fear for his career and social standing.
Would this story really be any worse if he had just laid out all the facts, without stopping, and stuttering and then setteling for the "N word"?
Or would the story be less interesting if the news guy would just use the forbiden words that he is outing Perrys whole family for using?


"Voldemort". There. I said it. And nothing happened.

Its sad to see a grown man tip-toe around speech in fear for his career and social standing.
Would this story really be any worse if he had just laid out all the facts, without stopping, and stuttering and then setteling for the "N word"?
Or would the story be less interesting if the news guy would just use the forbiden words that he is outing Perrys whole family for using?

@DerHasisttot too

The book is repetitious (Annoying filler) and also speculates every now and again--however, that speculation is clearly an educated guess. Take Caligula's death. Everyone knows he was assassinated. However, the author speculates that he had himself killed.

First, Caligula thought himself a god, so death wasn't really bad--in fact it was the next step since he was pretty much at the top. Hard to do more than become a god. So, his list was done, and it was all downhill.

Second, he had a wicked going away party. A boat decked out with gold floorboards, a week long orgy, then the final day. That day he got in front of everyone in the arena, had his favorite gladiator bugger his ass and then had that irreplaceable stud executed during climax.

Third, he had placed an incompetent man to replace him--of course it was speculated that the man just played the retard so he would survive. For Caligula it was hard to look bad when you had a stuttering fool replacing you.

This timeline was very convincing to the author so he noted what he thought. But he noted it may not have been the case because, as we have noted, the past was tainted by people who hated those emperors and by time itself. In fact, the author notes their tainted testimony multiple times. What more can the author do besides that?

Of course people don't care about those notes, do they?

Oh, and watching the History Channel version--there is not much of a difference... In fact, I think he cheated and took material from that rendition.

>> ^alien_concept:

>> ^DerHasisttot:
Hehe. Reminds me of a lecture I once attended, roughly translated: "Never trust a book about Nero: Ancient propaganda."
Edit: Not even Tacitus is a credible source, he used hearsay, had an own agenda, emphasised and left out facts.

@ lawdeedaw: I looked up the book on amazon, and I tend to trust the bad reviews there because they are the least likely to be written by a publicist or the author; according to the bad review, the book is not accurate. Of course this mustn't be true.

I guess most ancient history can never be truly accurate. Historians surely would gather every source they could and puzzle it together. I wonder what is accurate and how that guy on amazon knows for a fact, haha