>> ^ReverendTed:

>> ^Mammaltron:
It's slightly sad seeing tracks in that state, knowing how much hard work went into laying them.
On that same token, nice to see people still find ways to appreciate them.


I used to walk down a railroad near me once every few weeks. Went on for absolutely miles and miles, i joined it from the village nearby and followed it for 8 miles or so then turned back, didn't reach the end. It weaved through all the busy areas around here and ended up being one of the most serene and enjoyable nature walks i've had, on a deserted railroad overgrown with plants and stuff.

They barricaded it a few months ago, no one's allowed on it anymore.

I have a friend who was well trained in Wing Chun (male) and although yes there is some legitimacy in regards to balance, center line etc, the reality was that he was mostly effective due to the distribution of his mass/weight and often only against those who couldn't fight or more specifically didn't know how to defend.

I don't see much mass in these hostesses and given my experience, I don't believe they would be reliably effective against most decent sized untrained male opponents with this style alone, especially when the situation gets to the floor as most aggressive interactions inevitably do.

To provide a comparison, one of my friends has trained in Karate since he was 6 years old, went on to Tae Kwon Do, Boxing, a few others, then heavily into Mixed Martial Arts about 8 years ago and now trains with professional MMA fighters. As far back as a decade ago my Wing Chun (no other martial arts) friend couldn't do shit to him if his life depended on it.

Why?
Wing Chun focuses on blocking and controlling your opponents movements with pressure points and shifting your opponents weight, and this really doesn't cut it in real situations when your opponent isn't trying to hug you into submission, or when a punch just needs to slip though and connect with the base of your chin for a KO, or a lucky hit that simply takes you to the ground.

Now, I'm not saying this idea is completely dangerously delusional, i think it's a good idea in principle to train airline staff including pilots, but feel they are doing it less than effectively as they could.

The point I'm making is that any 1 martial arts is simply not effectively reliable in most confrontational situations due to most/all martial arts having a fair bit of bullshit inter-weaved with legitimate capabilities.

** If airlines are going to train/encourage hostesses to intervene with dangerous individuals they should be teaching the genuinely proven to be effective portions of various martial arts.. to which Wing Chun would play a role imo for upright close combat, but also focusing on some aspects of Judo for take-downs and take-down-defense & Brazilian Jiu Jitsu for when the shit hits the mat, which are all great arts for females and males alike as technique is the key and an individuals power isn't a primary focus for any of these.

Good on them for taking the initiative.

Yeah, the driver was a jerk and deserves whatever he gets - but this biker... For gosh sakes don't weave all over the road like a drunken monkey. Pick a line and stay on it so the drivers can predict what you're doing. Bikers that drift all over the road are scary.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^Stingray:
She was probably pissed that he was trying to squeeze through, but I do believe that is allowed in some areas/countries.

I see motorcycle cops do it all the time, so my dad always does it. One time he squeezed through didn't touch anyone and some guy went F'n Ballistic. Yelling and screaming at him how he can't do that, how dare he.
On another note the camera seems to be rather smooth at the end, like it's not registering footsteps.
Also Road Rage is all the Rage http://videosift.com/video/Persistent-attacker-taken-for-a-ride


I actually got into a debate about this subject with someone I was at a new hire sort of event. This lady was talking about motorcycles and how she was really upset when riders do this and that's why nobody should be allowed to motorcycle.

I asked her if she thinks this guy only rides a motorcycle or if he has a car for when it rains or snows or whatever. She replied that she thinks he probably does. I asked her "Are you seriously going to tell me that when this guy is not driving his car instead of riding his bike he's not weaving in and out of traffic and cutting people off" She agreed

Since we can't stop idiots from driving like idiots I think we should allow them to ride motorcycles like this because there is a much greater risk to them than to others.

>> ^Peroxide:

@A10anis
How I can tell you never commuted by bicycle,
"I used to commute by bike, in London, and NO, he didn't deserve it. It also makes it potentially worse for the next bike the driver encounters. Until cyclists stop weaving, ignoring stop signs/lights, using pavements and, my biggest gripe, travelling 2 or 3 abreast, they will get little sympathy. And yes, I did some of those things but I learned, the hard way, not to."
UNTIL cyclists stop "using pavements" they will get little sympathy. Such a car person statement.

Not sure why you focus on semantics, that change nothing regarding my comment. However, you are obviously confused, so let me explain as simply as i can. I used the Phrase "until cyclists stop" because, and I know you may find it strange my friend, that's exactly what I meant. And I used the word pavement because I live in England. Go back to you tube to troll, here we try and make comments that are relevant.

>> ^Peroxide:

@A10anis
How I can tell you never commuted by bicycle,
"I used to commute by bike, in London, and NO, he didn't deserve it. It also makes it potentially worse for the next bike the driver encounters. Until cyclists stop weaving, ignoring stop signs/lights, using pavements and, my biggest gripe, travelling 2 or 3 abreast, they will get little sympathy. And yes, I did some of those things but I learned, the hard way, not to."
UNTIL cyclists stop "using pavements" they will get little sympathy. Such a car person statement.


Um, dude, "pavement" is English for "sidewalk".

@A10anis

How I can tell you never commuted by bicycle,

"I used to commute by bike, in London, and NO, he didn't deserve it. It also makes it potentially worse for the next bike the driver encounters. Until cyclists stop weaving, ignoring stop signs/lights, using pavements and, my biggest gripe, travelling 2 or 3 abreast, they will get little sympathy. And yes, I did some of those things but I learned, the hard way, not to."

UNTIL cyclists stop "using pavements" they will get little sympathy. Such a car person statement.

>> ^kevingrr:
@Reefie
I had not seen this video until after you had made your comment.
That said - I ride in Chicago. I have been cut off, had doors opened on me, and had mirrors come within inches etc.
Are those drivers bad? Yes. That doesn't give me an excuse to behave badly.
I do not expect the drivers to see me, look for me, stop for me, or signal when they are turning. Is it fair that I should have to use telepathy to anticipate their movement? No. But it is what it is. So make due and ride safe.
Watch the video a few times. This cyclist is an aggressive idiot. Did he signal? No. Did he move to the side of the lane? No. Was he weaving through traffic... well he was trying...


Wholeheartedly agree that it doesn't give us cyclists an excuse to misbehave, I guess I'm just supportive of this cyclist because he did something that secretly (well, not anymore!) I'd love to do to drivers who have no consideration for cyclists.

@Reefie

I had not seen this video until after you had made your comment.


That said - I ride in Chicago. I have been cut off, had doors opened on me, and had mirrors come within inches etc.

Are those drivers bad? Yes. That doesn't give me an excuse to behave badly.

I do not expect the drivers to see me, look for me, stop for me, or signal when they are turning. Is it fair that I should have to use telepathy to anticipate their movement? No. But it is what it is. So make due and ride safe.

Watch the video a few times. This cyclist is an aggressive idiot. Did he signal? No. Did he move to the side of the lane? No. Was he weaving through traffic... well he was trying...

The driver was a douche for continuing to cut off the cyclist after it was clear they could see each other, and words were exchanged. He should have waited for the owner of that lane (the cyclist) to move ahead so that he could take the next spot in the lane. The cyclist was a douche for continuing to ride down the painted lines, and weaving between cars. Cyclists should act as though they have equal rights and responsibilities in lanes as cars. If there are cars in front of you, yea, it sucks, but you wait, you don't bike down the line. I won't even comment on his reaction to the car. And yes, I bike commute in an urban area 10 miles a day.

@Reefie
I commute by bike over 100 days per year in Chicago and ride in the city (to the gym, grocer, etc) another 50 to 75 days.

That cyclist is completely out of line.

I was yelled at for opening my car door one night by a cyclist in all black, no light, riding down the street. F me? No F him.


I am tired as a cyclist and driver of seeing cyclist basically ride WITHOUT rules of any kind. Cell phones while riding? Yes. No lights at night? Yes. Weaving dangerously through traffic? Yes.

>> ^Reefie:

How many of you who are saying the car driver didn't deserve that actually commute to work daily by bike? None of you? Thought so!

I used to commute by bike, in London, and NO, he didn't deserve it. It also makes it potentially worse for the next bike the driver encounters. Until cyclists stop weaving, ignoring stop signs/lights, using pavements and, my biggest gripe, travelling 2 or 3 abreast, they will get little sympathy. And yes, I did some of those things but I learned, the hard way, not to.

You're right, I am making an argument about you. This has always been about you. I don't care about the whole god argument, I care about why you believe what you believe and that is what I'm talking about. I could care less about what you believe, the 'why' is far more significant.

So in other words, you have such a faith in your position that you aren't even interested in talking about it. You've just admitted that you are completely closed minded to the existence of God, and you're talking to me about confirmation bias? You are a poster child for confirmation bias.

It took you an hour to throw all of those quotes together to make a case. Based on that, do you really expect me to believe that you're not just quote mining from some general creationist website somewhere? Do you really expect me to believe that you've actually studied the subjects that you're presenting as evidence for your claims? You are by definition, cherry picking. You are not taking into account the whole of scientific findings, you are ignoring the information which dis-confirms your existing views, and you are unknowingly misrepresenting the facts. If you were well read on any of the subjects of physics or evolutionary biology then you'd completely understand where I'm coming from.

Actually, what I was doing was disputing your claim that the second law of thermodynamics doesn't apply to open systems. The whole of scientific findings say that the 2nd law applies everywhere at all times, and this is very widely agreed upon. Your claim of cherry picking is bogus; the facts in them are plainly stated and from witnesses hostile to my overall position, which gives them even more weight. If those facts do not match reality, feel free to point out how so. Again, you are coming from a complete lack of substance, saying I am doing this or that, without actually having any real evidence to back up your assertions. If you're not interested in talking about things that require you to demonstrate an actual knowledge of the subject matter, please stop making baseless claims about what I am doing or back them up.

That's you, you said that. Why do you believe those things? Are you willing to attempt to prove yourself wrong? Are you willing to work to subdue cognitive biases in order to be as certain as you can be that you aren't mistaken? How can you say that your god is the correct one and all of the rest are incorrect? How can you justify a jump from the idea that we don't understand entirely how a system works to, there must be agency behind it? That is exactly what you are asking everyone to do. That is a huge leap and it does not directly follow. Extraordinary claims such as a personal god, require extraordinary evidence. You can't simply suggest that because we don't understand something that there must be agency there, that is not how logic works nor science. You can say nothing about the true nature of something if it requires faith in order to have evidence.

My argument is not a God of the gaps argument. I am not suggesting because we don't understand something, God did it. I am saying that God is a better explanation for the evidence. I am saying that even if you were to explain every mechanism in the Universe, you still haven't gone any farther to say that the uniformity in nature which upholds the physical laws that causes those mechanisms to operate isn't better explained by Agency. Unless you can demonstrate a purely naturalistic origin of the Universe, you have no case against Agency. This isn't to mention things like the fine tuning of physical laws, the information in DNA, and the appearance of design in biological systems. They are all better explained by a Creator.

Further, when you talk about faith, there are many examples in science. No one has ever seen macro evolution happening, yet scientists have great faith that it occured. There is absolutely no hard evidence for it, only a just-so story based on very questionable inference from the fossil record. The major predictions of evolutionary theory have all actually been falsified by the fossil record, which would be enough to torpedo any theory, but they are committed to it regardless of what the facts say:

we take the side of evolutionary science because we have a prior commitment to materialism. it is not that the methods..of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation..on the contrary..we cannot allow a divine foot in the door.

richard lewontin

harvard professor of zoology and biology

The thing is, I am in doubt about you. I am in doubt about your sincerity for meaningful investigations into reality. I am in doubt that you have actually read any scientific material in their entirety. I am in doubt that you value critical thinking. I am in doubt that you understand what a logical fallacy is or how they work. I am in doubt that you are doing anything more than attempting to justify a belief that you already hold by attempting to give legitimacy in the face of dissonance.

That's wonderful, but until you demonstrate a knowledge of the subject matter which is not inferior to my own (ala, believing the 2nd law doesnt apply to biological systems), everything that you have said here is irrelevent. Even if everything you said here is true and I understood nothing about this, you have shown you understand even less than that. However, I am going to give you more credit than that, and I would hope, but not expect, for you to do the same, however thus far you have only worked to try to discredit me. That is a logical fallacy called an ad hominem attack. It is a sad testament to atheists that there are only a very few out there willing to engage in rational discourse and not lower themselves to mockery and ridicule. I know rational discourse is possible because I have seen it in debates, and have found it on the internet from time to time. Overall though, it is a very bad advertisement for your point of view.

This was always about you. Your belief is based on quotes taken out of context and stitched together to weave a picture that conforms to what you already believe in while ignoring all of the information that doesn't agree with you. This is called a confirmation bias. You wont know how unconvincing your statements and claims are until you get past that kind of bias and seek to prove what you believe wrong to see if it actually holds water.

Again, this is the pot calling the kettle black. Your confirmation bias meter reads at 100 percent. My claims stand on their own and so do the quotations which flatly refute your claim. Feel free to show me scientific literature which supports your case at any time.

>> ^IAmTheBlurr

You're right, I am making an argument about you. This has always been about you. I don't care about the whole god argument, I care about why you believe what you believe and that is what I'm talking about. I could care less about what you believe, the 'why' is far more significant.

It took you an hour to throw all of those quotes together to make a case. Based on that, do you really expect me to believe that you're not just quote mining from some general creationist website somewhere? Do you really expect me to believe that you've actually studied the subjects that you're presenting as evidence for your claims? You are by definition, cherry picking. You are not taking into account the whole of scientific findings, you are ignoring the information which dis-confirms your existing views, and you are unknowingly misrepresenting the facts. If you were well read on any of the subjects of physics or evolutionary biology then you'd completely understand where I'm coming from.

You are trying to make a case for the existence of a god but the only thing that you can say about this god that you believe in is that it basically follows the christian mythos.

"The God I believe in is a personal God who created us for a purpose. His desire is for us to know Him personally and attain to eternal life through His Son Jesus Christ. I believe He is the true God because He transformed my life and being, made me whole by His love, and because I received the direct witness of the Holy Spirit. Everyone who believes in Jesus Christ will receive the witness of the Holy Spirit and then Gods existence will become undeniably true. God Himself provides the evidence if you approach Him in faith."

That's you, you said that. Why do you believe those things? Are you willing to attempt to prove yourself wrong? Are you willing to work to subdue cognitive biases in order to be as certain as you can be that you aren't mistaken? How can you say that your god is the correct one and all of the rest are incorrect? How can you justify a jump from the idea that we don't understand entirely how a system works to, there must be agency behind it? That is exactly what you are asking everyone to do. That is a huge leap and it does not directly follow. Extraordinary claims such as a personal god, require extraordinary evidence. You can't simply suggest that because we don't understand something that there must be agency there, that is not how logic works nor science. You can say nothing about the true nature of something if it requires faith in order to have evidence.

The thing is, I am in doubt about you. I am in doubt about your sincerity for meaningful investigations into reality. I am in doubt that you have actually read any scientific material in their entirety. I am in doubt that you value critical thinking. I am in doubt that you understand what a logical fallacy is or how they work. I am in doubt that you are doing anything more than attempting to justify a belief that you already hold by attempting to give legitimacy in the face of dissonance.

This was always about you. Your belief is based on quotes taken out of context and stitched together to weave a picture that conforms to what you already believe in while ignoring all of the information that doesn't agree with you. This is called a confirmation bias. You wont know how unconvincing your statements and claims are until you get past that kind of bias and seek to prove what you believe wrong to see if it actually holds water.

Seek to prove your beliefs wrong before convince yourself that you are correct.

>> ^shinyblurry:

I said that God doesn’t exist? Oh yeah? Where exactly did I say that? The last time I checked, saying that I reject an idea isn’t the same as saying that the idea isn’t true. Get your facts straight.
You obviously don't think it is true if you reject it. I don't reject ideas I think are correct. What exactly is your position?
Saying “god did it” doesn’t answer anything. It doesn’t answer any question about mechanism and until someone can come up with a testable model of how god interacts with the universe which we can then make accurate predictions with, it’s a useless and meaningless statement. It doesn’t help us expand the frontiers of our understanding of reality.
The fact of the matter is that it is you who is fundamentally uneducated in everything that you mentioned and that is made obvious by your inability to form your own arguments; you’re just cherry picking quotes that support you’re cognitive bias.
You realize that your entire reply could be summed up thusly "nu uh". Just stating that you're right and I am wrong doesn't advance your argument. You don't even have an argument. Everything you've said here is logically fallacious. If you think what I've said is wrong, or cherry picked, address it directly and demonstrate why. I don't think you really understand the subject matter which is why you're trying to make the argument about me instead.
I love it when people like you pull out the second law of thermodynamics card because I know that you can’t name or explain the rest of the laws of thermodynamics without copy and pasting them from Google search. Life isn’t a closed system and the second law of thermodynamics only deals with closed systems. The 2nd law has nothing to do with anything biology or the existence of complex organisms, get your facts straight. If you had any respect for truth, you wouldn’t be making so many entirely misinformed and uneducated statements.
And this is why I don't think you understand the subject matter, because your statement that the 2nd law of thermodynamics does not apply to biological systems shows a total lack of research.
John Ross, Harvard University, Chemical And Engineering News, p.40 July 7, 1980, "Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems."
Arnold Sommerfel, "...the quantity of entropy generated locally cannot be negative irrespective of whether the system is isolated or not." Thermodynamics And Statistical Mechanics, p.155
There is no such thing as negative entropy. Everything is always trending towards disorder.
The 2nd law equally applies to living systems:
Harold Blum, Prinston Univ., "No matter how carefully we examine the energetics of living systems we find no evidence of defeat of thermodynamic principles, but we do encounter a degree of complexity not witnessed in the non-living world." Time's Arrow and Evolution, p.14
Everything is technically an open system in nature.
Richard Morris, "An isolated system is one that does not interact with its surroundings. Naturally there are no completely isolated systems in nature. Everything interacts with its environment to some extent. Nevertheless, the concept, like many other abstractions that are used in physics, is extremely useful. If we are able to understand the behavior in ideal cases, we can gain a great deal of understanding about processes that take place in the real world In fact treating a real system as an isolated one is often an excellent approximation.", Time's Arrows, p.113
The argument is that the energy of the sun is what is overcoming the entropy, but that doesn't explain information. Just putting power into something does not magically create organization:
George Gaylord Simpson & W.S. Beck, "But the simple expenditure of energy is not sufficient to develop and maintain order. A bull in a china shop performs work, but he neither creates nor maintains organization. The work needed is particular work; it must follow specifications; it requires information on how to proceed.", An Introduction To Biology, p. 466
But there is no mechanism for information to spontaneously arise by itself, overcoming entropy in the system, and we know information comes from minds.
Charles J. Smith, "Biological systems are open and exchange both energy and matter. This explanation, however, is not completely satisfying, because it still leaves open the problem of how or why the ordering process has arisen (an apparent lowering of the entropy), and a number of scientists have wrestled with this issue. Bertalanffy (1968) called the relation between irreversible thermodynamics and information theory one of the most fundamental unsolved problems in biology." Biosystems, Vol.1, p259.
This is why a Creator agrees with the evidence more so than evolution. Was this quote cherry picked?:
G.J. Van Wylen, Richard Sonntag, "...we see the second law of thermodynamics as a description of the prior and continuing work of a creator, who also holds the answer to our future destiny and that of the universe." Fundamentals Of Classical Thermodynamics, 1985, p.232.
Because I know that none of this is actually going to matter to you, go ahead and enlighten us with more of your church-pamphlet science.
I'm looking forward to your point by point refutation of my argument, with sources. Thanks.

>> ^IAmTheBlurr