Interesting, theres a pretty long story about this on an episode of Penns Sunday School, Penn seems pretty confident that he is the source of this idea. Basically the story goes like this: Penn and some other guy was having people in for an audition, and the other guy told Penn that maybe the scene would would better if the actress could "sit on up high" which penn misheard as "sit on a pie", Penn, not having slept for several weeks, thought this was so funny that in good Penn-style, he decided to hire nude models and order a bunch of pies and essential made pie-sitting-porn which he then sendt out to a bunch of show-business people on his mailing list, creating mass confusion, as he was the only one that was actually in on the joke.

Actually, it probably wont.. All the stats point in the same direction: reducing childhood/maternal mortality, eradicating poverty and educating people seems to have an interesting side effect: People have less kids. Typically a poor, uneducated population with 10-15% child mortality theres 5-6 kids per woman, whilst rich, educated populations CM less thand 0.2% or so, 1-2 kids per woman. So the population growth slow down or stops as countries move from developing to developed.

Very cool. Just want to tag this *viral, as this is a sponsored (by Airbus) minute physics video

The nordic countries are referred to (here in scandinavia at least) as "Norden". So if you want a name for it and looking to impress, say Norden.

Interesting. Removing bark from trees rarely kills the tree directly, by the way, since nutrient to the tree travels up the actual tree, while the tree actually provide fixated carbon to the soil downwards through the bark, and drives soil respiration. So, when you remove the bark, you are not actually damaging the tree directly, you are damaging the below-ground ecosystem, which in turn damages the trees.

EDIT: The above is true for trees in general and may or may not apply to the trees in the video.

http://videosift.com/video/The-Turbo-Encabulator
I'm really tempted to tag this as related.

You are probably aware of it, but: The math in your avatar is wrong, 2(a-b)=a-b does not imply 2=1 but is equal to 2x0=0

2(a-b)=a-b
2(a-b)=1(a-b)
You could use any number in place of 2 here, since you are multiplying with 0 ie:
2435322(a-b)=(a-b)
0=0

I remember years ago seeing this expressed by Monty Python. Basically they wanted to make a comedy show, in a time when all comedy was based on a punchline, and their first thought was "Lets get rid of the punchline.." They made shows that THEY thought were funny, and had no intent of actually appealing to anyone else.

Speaking as a consumer, I think I've become pretty good at noticing, and I always feel underestimated when I'm "targeted".

Thanks! Should be fixed now!

In reply to this comment by xxovercastxx:
I just noticed a small mistake in the description of the debunked channel. "all to often" should be "all too often".

>> ^xxovercastxx:

This leaves me with another question, unfortunately.
Let's stick with his example of green being high energy and red being low.
The photon only gets through the material if it's not strong enough to excite an electron. This makes sense for a translucent red material. The material's energy gap could be large enough to allow red light through but block all other.
This does not make sense for translucent green material. If the material's energy gap were large enough to allow green light through, it would also allow red light through, resulting in a translucent yellow material. This would seem to allow only red, orange, and then increasingly grey/colorless shades of yellow.
So what's missing from this explanation?


As I understand it(and I'm not sure I understood the question): Red is on a very low enegy level, so if the "energy gap" is large enough to let red pass, green will also pass, which means the light will be moving towards the white end of the spectrum. This means that if you want to make a translucent green material you need materials that absorbs or displace red (such as green plants)

With regards to my previous message, I was merely explaining my position and reasoning, please don't take it the wrong way, and I understand why you don' want to waste any more time or effort on this issue.

It is difficult to determine what is appropriate for any given channel, I run the debunked channel, and I'd hate to turn it into a political channel, for instance, but then again , where to draw the line, and why? Take, for instance the new Portal 2 trailer, Portal is a game that plays with science and experiments, but really, it doesnt have anything to do with actual science. In the recent Hitchens video "it does not follow" Hitchens talks about scientific discoveries to be sure, but is it science or an opinion-piece?

>> ^Kreegath:
The way he emphasizes his speech is also annoying, how it appears that he thinks every single thing he says is some kind of fundamental truth no matter how mundane a topic or point he brings up..


Well, just about everything he ever talks about is some kind of fundamental truth about the world we live in, I can sympathize with your objection to how he talks, but if you can stand it, or ignore its peculiarity, I strongly recommend his TEDtalks lecture on the Large Hadron Collider , one of the best presentations I have ever seen. Enjoy, if you can

Nope, sorry i DID beat you to it, I've posted the series by Dawkins that aired august 4 and 11 2008, I uploaded both the day after they where aired (ie: shortly after they hit the net)

just check the contents of our posts
My post:
http://www.videosift.com/video/The-Genius-Of-Charles-Darwin-by-Richard-Dawkins-Part-1-1
Your post:
http://www.videosift.com/video/Part-2-Richard-Dawkins-NEW-DOCUMENTARY-on-Charles-Darwin

Since this is your first post, and its a GREAT post , I'll leave it alone for now,I hope you post more science videos, and anyone interested in science is most welcome on my part

Welcome to VideoSift, I'm sorry I get all picky at our first meeting
In reply to this comment by razz:
You didnt beat me to it my friend, you uploaded the first series, I uploaded the 2nd...they're two completely different episodes

Hi there! I have now posted part 2 of "The Genius of Charles Darwin":
http://www.videosift.com/video/The-Genius-Of-Charles-Darwin-by-Richard-Dawkins-Part-1-1
(dont be fooled by the url, I wrote Part1 by mistake at first.)