>> ^criticalthud:

>> ^Psychologic:
>> ^criticalthud:
most other species on the planet of similar proportion would destroy that guy. luckily, we're currently eliminating all the competition.
we're the best!

For 26 miles?
No.
(unless you're talking about a fight, then probably)

ahh...for 60 feet a hippopotamus would beat a human.
for longer distances we do alright trudging along and the creme' de la creme of humanity ain't bad. but on average...uhhh. i'll take the average dog, horse, deer, cat, gazelle, or chicken to outdistance a human without too much effort.


Yeah the average American would lose to anything faster than a plant in an endurance race

But well-trained humans are possibly the best endurance runners:
http://www.physorg.com/news95954919.html
http://discovermagazine.com/2006/may/tramps-like-us
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/27/health/27well.html

Apparently you've never walked in five inch heels, the fact that she can walk that fast and maintain her balance proves just the opposite.
>> ^deathcow:

I say based on her funky can-barely-walk gait, she has no chance of having orgasms
http://www.physorg.com/news139761580.html

>> ^deathcow:

I say based on her funky can-barely-walk gait, she has no chance of having orgasms
http://www.physorg.com/news139761580.html


Not important if she can have an orgasm.

I say based on her funky can-barely-walk gait, she has no chance of having orgasms
http://www.physorg.com/news139761580.html

>> ^Almanildo:

^ It's nuclear powered.

Shit, I thought you were kidding. http://www.physorg.com/news203874003.html

No problem. My Mom is very religious and my Dad has Asperger's so I tend to be a great diplomat. But, these type of scientific insights into psychology are awesome when they come out. Especially, in my case where I can see that it hit's the nail dead on.

I think we underestimate our physical imposed mental limitations too much. Everything we've learned about modern psychology tells us that our psychology is in a "ready" state when we're born; to the extent that you could say one person uses "ATI" to see and the other "Nvidia" if you know what I mean.

In reply to this comment by SDGundamX:
Sweet, thanks for the info.

In reply to this comment by kceaton1:
>> ^SDGundamX:

>> ^westy:
I think what this video inadvertantly highlights is that Education is directly tied with atheism the more intellectual/educated sum-one is the harder it is for them to believe in bullshit and the more likely it is they will do things based on facts of reality to improve reality.

You should check out this study, which basically shows that isn't the case. The high proportion of atheist scientists compared to the general population seems to be a function of upbringing (i.e. they were raised in homes that didn't place much importance on religion). The increased education seems to have little effect on those who enter the field with religious convictions. In other words, those raised in non-religious households seem to self-select disproportionately highly into the sciences. The study states that more investigation is required before coming to any conclusions as to why, but they didn't see any indication of people giving up their religious beliefs as they advanced in their education or career.


One interesting aspect coming out in psychological studies versus genetic backgrounds shows one interesting aspect of people that have Asperger's being unable to relate to religion and are constantly looking for a more rational explanation for any event. Likewise, some people may show an inclination to be religious via their genetics.

Most likely this is due to a preference in the way the brain decides to use information. Such as: the right hemisphere versus the left; or even to the extent of specific areas on one side--like math over chemistry.

This is VERY new information. Their was another study out on Friday I believe (look for it at physorg.com) that showed that people that were religious tended to be more healthy both mentally and physically. However, the study (from what I could find) doesn't really say whether they took the disparity of between population numbers into account. Also they never took into account situations like autistic savants, Asperger's, bi-polar, and other conditions that tend to "create" extremely smart people (I'm guessing this might happen as they tend to favor the left hemisphere and also have a very different perspective than a normal healthy average human--giving them "fresh eyes" and a new perception intrinsically), comparatively.

>> ^SDGundamX:

>> ^westy:
I think what this video inadvertantly highlights is that Education is directly tied with atheism the more intellectual/educated sum-one is the harder it is for them to believe in bullshit and the more likely it is they will do things based on facts of reality to improve reality.

You should check out this study, which basically shows that isn't the case. The high proportion of atheist scientists compared to the general population seems to be a function of upbringing (i.e. they were raised in homes that didn't place much importance on religion). The increased education seems to have little effect on those who enter the field with religious convictions. In other words, those raised in non-religious households seem to self-select disproportionately highly into the sciences. The study states that more investigation is required before coming to any conclusions as to why, but they didn't see any indication of people giving up their religious beliefs as they advanced in their education or career.


One interesting aspect coming out in psychological studies versus genetic backgrounds shows one interesting aspect of people that have Asperger's being unable to relate to religion and are constantly looking for a more rational explanation for any event. Likewise, some people may show an inclination to be religious via their genetics.

Most likely this is due to a preference in the way the brain decides to use information. Such as: the right hemisphere versus the left; or even to the extent of specific areas on one side--like math over chemistry.

This is VERY new information. Their was another study out on Friday I believe (look for it at physorg.com) that showed that people that were religious tended to be more healthy both mentally and physically. However, the study (from what I could find) doesn't really say whether they took the disparity between population numbers into account. Also they never took into account situations like autistic savants, Asperger's, bi-polar, and other conditions that tend to "create" extremely smart people, comparatively(I'm guessing this might happen as they tend to favor the left hemisphere and also have a very different perspectives than your normal healthy average human--giving them "fresh eyes" and a new perception intrinsically).

This video is definitely made to provoke. I don't necessarily like how it does it and I'm atheist. While I disagree with religion in any capacity where it wants to use faith/belief to solve a situation instead of the logical tried and true method, that is where I draw a line in the sand (like Creationism; it's useless to us in every aspect: it explains nothing, is useless in practice, and assumes everything). Religion doesn't necessarily bother me when it's used in a social setting. The only time this isn't true is when it crosses the "religion/state" barrier and rights of others; as is the case for many gay people. I know a lot of religious people that sit on a logical side of the fence and many that sit on the other side and try to (in my estimation) usurp the rights of others for poor reasons and in fact religious ones (state vs. religion again).

Lot's of the religious people (I'm in Utah so I know my situation is semi-unique) I know that refute many logical tenets, like evolution, tend to do so in a way that shows they are INCREDIBLY insecure when it comes to "smarts". I've had some people tell me they belong to MENSA and in the same sentence tell me evolution is fraud and it should be obvious as to why this is true (they usually have no "logical" reason to explain why this is true other than faith; I have yet to hear a good reason...). This may also be an indication that even in religion there is a disparity between other religious people and that it may even be a psychological/physical condition that causes it via genetics.

It would be a new world if you could wager whether someone is religious or not, before they are even born. To me that is a game changer, but to others I know they will not see why that is true.

/edit

*lies (yes I know I can't invoke it, but after reading my comment maybe someone will be kind enough to do it for me).

The "majority" of professors are not atheist--not in the U.S. It's actually closer to 20-30%. The source they cite is for the number of university scientists that are atheist.

Also, a lot of the figures their sources cite include agnostics and atheists, which aren't the same thing. They are basically inflating their numbers. Just because a scientist on a survey says they don't know for sure if a god really exists doesn't mean said scientist doesn't practice a religion (check out how the source they cited came up with their results). In reality, scientists who describe themselves as not having a religious association (again, this does not necessarily mean they would describe themselves as atheist) have only a slim majority (52% vs. 48%) over those who do have a religious association. Another example of number inflation--they claim 10% of the US population is atheist or agnostic but the source they cite actually says that only 7.1% of the survey participants responded that way--the 10% is the number who had no response OR atheist OR agnostic. Again, they are fluffing the numbers.

And clearly, the implication that the problems of former colonized countries around world are primarily due to how much of their population is religious is a logic fail of the highest caliber. If only those poor countries had more atheists, then everything would be all right... :rolleyes

I find it a bit ironic that when religious folks misuse or abuse statistics and use poor logic to support their agenda the Sift crucifies them but when atheists do so they get 22 upvotes within seven hours. Sorry, but I gotta buck the trend.

Downvote.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

I wonder if you could paint the whole face, wire the mask up with soft circuits and then connect to an arduino or something similar to run a programmed animation loop. I suppose you could make the animation random but still symmetrical pretty easily, actually. It's just a matter of whether the soft circuits themselves generate enough heat or if something will need to be added.


Well that thermochromic ink is pretty nifty (with the fabric/acrylic ink base). It's been around awhile--like "Mood Rings", but like @blankfist says, "It's Awesome!", due to the application an idea this guy used (now I've got to see if "Rorschach" in the movie uses anything like this or just flat-out uninspired CGI). Imagine using a wider or more controlled version of the thermochromic ink with something like meta-materials; that will come out soon enough (the neater stuff is military only here in the US I would assume). It was found recently that the meta-material molecules set themselves up automatically into Möbius symmetrical setups or "M.C. Escher" topology. If you combine the paint (if possible) afterward, I'll bet you'll be able to get some literally eye-popping effects. Maybe just not the type the military would want. Especially, if you can adhere the "ink finish / lacquer" to the inner portion of the (typically, meta-materials are aiming for "see-through" optics--which is why the topology and structure is very interesting) meta-material.

Really off-topic after this:

Using what @xxovercastxx said, adhering it (maybe with multiple type of thermochromic inks--giving it a far wider chromatic range, at varying temperatures) internally and using the meta-material you might be able to go from invisible to Abrams Tank to Porsche. You'd have to insulate the inner layer somehow to give you very fine control over the temperature or perhaps you could just flat out use electricity to change the colors. I'd imagine changing a thermochromic ink from reacting to temperature to electricity (or hell, anything kinetic: sonic waves, magnetism, etc...) wouldn't be very hard as they are closely related in the first place. You could essentially use light if the inks are responsive enough and it doesn't require a "non-stop" wave of photons; if you could make it behave like a switch that would be perfect. Then throw in some nano-technology with atomic manipulation and you'd have something incredible.

Hell, I wouldn't put something like that one the battlefield; it'd be a damned work of art! Plus, it'd probably cost more than a full-wing of F-22s just to develop; but the stuff that would come out of a development project like that would benefit humanity for a long time.

<sarcasm>Nah, let's just keep building more military.</sarcasm> At least, I know a lot of scientists try to use our addiction to the "military-industrial-complex" as a way to GET some key technological advances made. NASA does the same thing, but they tend to be better at it per dollar spent.

Möbius Symmetry link goes here.

PS: I like to include M.C. Escher (painter--think Inception as well as August Möbius (mathematician; and famous for his Möbius Strip topology of a a finite(?) two dimensional plane twisted at one end (pick a corner ) then connect it to the opposite side (make sure "top" meets "bottom"). Adding electronics I'm sure will be, if not already, worked on heavily. Especially, as I said in military type technologies (cloaking armor, etc...) But, with these you could--with enough precision make an Abrams Tank look like an Edsel. Although shooting it will kill that effect fairly quick (although I'm sure mitigation of visual anomalies will greatly depend on angle-of-view and distance) --

"Hey! That Edsel has four and one-half wheels! Ford is outrageous; why would we by this lemon!?!" His cousin responds right after;

"Bob! I got no idea whatever your sayin!?!" "It clearly has four wheels on my side!!!". "I thought Edsels were black?"

Another off-topic bit about "Edsel(s)":
Not the doo-wop group (although, the group is related to the real "Edsel"; they changed their name after the Edsel came out to capitalize on the name recognition from: "The Essos") that my dictionary keeps telling me it is; "Edsels <--with the "s" is misspelled according to the THREE combined English dictionaries. WTF? Typically I try to only misspell when I'm doing something as above in the first sentence by "Bob", "sayin" is part of my colloquialisms for them. I know, I tried hard for that "50's" feel... Yes, this is also so far off topic that I should just blog it. Can one of the admins throw a gadget in for us to use in our posts--like this, to count the topic changes. Perhaps a grammar-Nazi™ one!. Done!

P.S.- I didn't check for continuity logic or reading comprehension (and at this length, it's always needed--as it can sound like buck-shot mentally). Take as is. That reminds me: I should make a "colloquialism" English dictionary add-on for Firefox with auto conversion and "by decade" setups. It'd be fun (there's probably one around already ).

Merry Christmas everybody.
Also, the mask rocks! I also added one-helluva-edit after thinking about it; it seemed worth the trouble to bring up.
So hopefully you read it and didn't feel like I was wasting your time. Long posts are like that.

So you were asking whether our sense of the passage of time differs from childhood to adulthood? We already know humans are notoriously bad at estimates of time. Forward and backward telescoping, for example, are well known psychological phenomena. But aren't you trying to link that to.. something else? Something about dreams ... it all starts to get hazy there.
>> ^kceaton1:

>> ^berticus:
Bleh. This conversation is too waffly for me.

I know the time stuff is wonky, but here is a link that talks about it a little. I know there is more information out there on this as there were some studies that came out about six-ten months ago. Some of that will be in the archived area for www.physorg.com.
If I find the more pertinent data I'll put a link in this post within a few days.

>> ^berticus:

Bleh. This conversation is too waffly for me.


I know the time stuff is wonky, but here is a link that talks about it a little. I know there is more information out there on this as there were some studies that came out about six-ten months ago. Some of that will be in the archived area for www.physorg.com.

If I find the more pertinent data I'll put a link in this post within a few days.

He brings up thermodynamics ( you could add QED into this to make it even stronger, quantum foam and what not...), but entropy would be what he is talking about. Entropy can be seen as something that is the same homogeneous "thing" (quarks, photons, hydrogen; or in the case of QED potential energies) breaking down by "physics" or the physical mechanics and properties of the universe into a less homogeneous "thing". Hence energy then particles then elements, stars, black holes, planets, galaxies, cluster groups, the universe. It never really changed it is merely entropy that distinguishes most of these things.

Time itself may induce entropy, but we still have things to figure out in that area. What QED teaches is that you don't need anything special at all to create the universe, "chance" is more than enough. Throw in time or entropy and wallah, instant mechanical system created with it's own mechanics and in superposition to anything outside to detect it unless they become entangled to us. If they measure anything our "universes" would combine into a hybrid (most likely--impossible for now to begin thinking if this would be possible).

Recently scientists have been able to "tune" cobalt niobate (the magnetic spins) into a quantum critical state (superposition) and more recently they've done the same with electrons. The magnetic "tuning" frequency they used to accomplish this was extremely close to the Euler's number: e. "Euler's number" may be linked to the appearance of entropy merely being a function of mechanics that me be described by physicists later as an algorithm. If e is linked it would explain many observable systems we already have knowledge of. You can see it already at work in multiple situations. It also has a strong correlation with: fractals, golden ratio, golden spiral, Fibonacci sequence, etc... It's also an irrational number which may cause the algorithm to seemingly never stop; you could zoom in and out on the universe and it would continually look the same in correlation with an universal algorithm.

I hoped I made my thoughts clear enough; I dumbed down a lot of the material hopefully I still get the point across. It may be that the universe is merely just potential energies with an algorithm thrown in for spice. Other universes would have their own algorithm and constants like e.

Some articles pertaining to some of this: Here, here, here, here, here, and here.

I really enjoyed Freakonomics, but I haven't read SuperFreakonomics yet, so I can't say much on the chapter about global warming. The title however suggest something about global cooling. A recent article says: Statistics experts reject global cooling claims. But he doesn't seem to be denying global warming in this interview. So I definitely have to read the book.
Maybe he means global cooling in terms of doing it through geoengineering, then I'm a strong supporter for it as a midterm solution though.
Bjorn Lomborg, the Skeptical Environmentalist, is also a strong supporter of geoengineering:
http://www.videosift.com/video/Skeptical-Environmentalist-s-Solutions-for-Global-Warming

The one part that might need some revision soon is about beta decay vs. heavy elements. We recently confirmed element 114 which looks like a possible candidate for stability. Here is the article concerning this, plus a link to more technical descriptions.

Technology is going to overtake these people very soon. When a textbook becomes a download, and the information in it is open domain, there is no need for some bullshit "book board".

http://www.physorg.com/news163768856.html