Edsel has to be one of the coolest names ever-My dad worked as a car salesman at a Ford dealership in 1960 and couldn't sell the automobile after the namesake to save his job! Total hipster car today and hard to come by one cheap.
https://www.google.com/search?q=edsel&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi
&ei=ZN3tUJjAM6Wf2QXH4YGIDw&biw=1600&bih=821&sei=wN3tULrcN6Lw2gW8_4HYBA

My mom thinks me using facts is racist. Poor people tend to be black. Poor people tend to commit crimes. White people tend to move away from black neighborhoods. I suppose I should have spent less time studying political behavior in my state and more time making jokes.

"What's the difference between a black man and a white man?" "A job." - From the woman who calls me a racist for saying most violent crime in the US is black on black crime.

The biggest issue with the mainstream and statistics is that unless it plays into their stereotypes of behavior, they don't care. And when it does, they don't really care about the real cause.

From Wiki: (Violent Crime, UK)

"Includes all violence against the person, sexual offences, and robbery as violent crime.[8]
Rates of violent crime are in the UK are recorded by the British Crime Survey. The Home Office Statistical Bulletin on "Crime in England and Wales" summarizes the findings of this survey. For the 2010/2011 report,[9] the statistics show that violent crime continues a general downward trend observed over the last few decades as shown in the graph.
"The 2010/11 BCS showed overall violence was down 47 per cent on the level seen at its peak in 1995; representing nearly two million fewer violent offences per year."[citation needed]
Regarding murder, "increasing levels of homicide (at around 2% to 3% per year) [have been observed] from the 1960s through to the end of the twentieth century". Recently the murder rate has declined, "a fall of 19 per cent in homicides since 2001/02", as measured by The Homicide Index.
By contrast, there is a widespread belief that violent crime is on the rise, due largely to a mass media which disproportionately reports violent crime. This phenomenon is described by Steven Pinker in The Better Angels of Our Nature."

(Violent Crime, US)

"The United States Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) counts five categories of crime as violent crimes: murder, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault. It should be noted that these crimes are taken from two separate reports, the Uniform Crime Report (UCR) and the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), and that these do not look at exactly the same crimes. The UCR measures crimes reported to police, and looks at Aggravated assault, forcible rape, murder, and robbery. The NCVS measures crimes reported by households surveyed by the United States Census Bureau, and looks at assault, rape, and robbery. According to BJS figures, the rate of violent crime victimization in the United States declined by more than two thirds between the years 1994 and 2009.[10] 7.9% of sentenced prisoners in federal prisons on September 30, 2009 were in for violent crimes.[11] 52.4% of sentenced prisoners in state prisons at yearend 2008 were in for violent crimes.[11] 21.6% of convicted inmates in jails in 2002 (latest available data by type of offense) were in for violent crimes.[12]"



------------------------

If you didn't want to read that babble, quick and simple: they're one and the same. From my understanding, both countries use the Type 1 list: a crime against a person in which injury or death may occur. In some cases, just because no one was hurt, doesn't mean it wasn't a violent crime.

Which brings up the other point to be made. Is the reporting of the crimes uniform? Do the Brits report EVERYTHING, as opposed to what's somewhat routine here in the states where crimes often go unreported, even when the police show up? Domestic violence only exists if one person files charges. The victim could be bruised, bleeding, broken bones etc, but if they're not willing to file a charge, no crime occurred.

Or, more so, do street brawls get reported more often in the UK? If I punch some dude, does that go onto a record somewhere where as in the states, I've been in many fights where even if the police broke it up, no reports were ever filed.

All of this is useful information, but so far the data is pretty superficial. The comment the video makes about "put on your boots and go find out" (paraphrased) is pretty much the only solution I can think of. Then again, it's the same solution that people have been chanting for for generations and have yet to see the high and mighty Elite do it.

That (1:05) certainly wasn't the first problem I saw in calculus! In fact, I don't actually remember it from either maths or physics.

Interesting talk. Eugene Wigner made a somewhat similar observation in 1959/1960 (obviously not about string theory though, just about the relationship between mathematics and the real world).

What your analysis is missing is any kind of cultural context. These things don't just happen in a vacuum, and nor are all ideas created equal. In many cases you are just trading one type of chain for another. Yes, mass media certainly has the ability to create and shape the prevailing social norms, and this can inspire counter cultural movements within a society. That's what happened in the 1960s with the sexual revolution, which is a root cause for the sexual immorality we see in society today. But it didn't just happen because people 'gained more knowledge', it happened because there was already a fundamental shift in the cultural ethos. An idea does not begin to grow unless its seed lands on fertile ground. The social mores of this nation were always decidedly Christian, but were steadily eroding by the beginning of the 20th century (for various reasons). The deeper truth is that people rejected traditional morality because they wanted to be free to indulge their carnal desires without restriction. Transcendent moral values were being replaced with moral relativism, fueled by the notion that man was a higher primate and had no moral responsibilities to a creator, leaving people free to invent whatever style of living pleased them. It was only the world wars that temporarily reversed this trend and brought the nation back together under the banner of an American moral imperative. But the foundation, weakened as it was by radical liberal ideology, was thoroughly rotten. America snapped back like a rubber band, bursting open the flood gates during the 60's, and changing the cultural landscape forever. Now traditional values are viewed as archaic, a throwback to a bygone era, and it is the "new" thing which is touted as "enlightenment".

Yet, this new thing is simply what is old in different packaging. The behavior of human beings today isn't noticeably different from anything that hasn't been tried in countless failed civilizations in the past. The song remains the same, despite the shiny new backdrops. Bible prophecy predicts that knowledge will increase in the last times, but it mentions nothing about wisdom. The human condition hasn't changed; men are ruled by their passions, and no matter how much knowledge they gain, the same mistakes are repeated endlessly. Look at the world today and tell me that isn't true. If humans are learning anything it is something they've always known and loved; rebellion. This is certainly the age of self-glorification, but history will tell you that is nothing new either. You're right in that "the church", ie, the catholic religion, tried to impose (a caricature of) Christian morality on the masses, with horrific results. That is a nightmare any decent person should be awoken from. However, as it pertains to describing the essential human condition, it was entirely correct. Sin is increasing in the world, not decreasing. Human nature is inherently sinful.

Everyone has a different way of describing the problem. Most look to place the blame and hand wave everything on to a particular condition. They say it's because of overpopulation. They say it's because of religion (an atheist favorite). They say it's because of ignorance. They say it's because (insert your favorite reason here). The reality is, it's because human beings are corrupt sinners, and always will be corrupt sinners until the end of time; that's why Jesus Christ came. He came to restore us to right relationship with our Creator. Don't place your faith and trust in man, because man cannot save himself, and all men are headed for a day of judgment. As scripture predicts, there will be a one world government headed by the antichrist, a seven year tribulation where all the world will become deluded and follow after the beast. Those who refuse to love the truth will believe the lie that the antichrist will be selling. At the end of the tribulation, Jesus Christ will return as the Lord and judge of all the earth. No amount of knowledge will prepare for you that day; only a saving faith in Jesus Christ.

>> ^Sagemind:

In the past era, we hit a communications Boom.

In reply to this comment by Hybrid:
A stupid advertising gimmick? A marketing activity? Except for the fact that everybody who has tried the record since Kittinger in 1960 has died attempting it...

Not really sure I can agree with the sceptics on this one.

*quality.


Thanks man

>> ^joedirt:
It isn't science or new or even interesting. It's been done and proven. USAF did exactly this in 1960. This just added a few hundred feet to their altitude.


A few hundred feet? Try an extra 30000.

>> ^kymbos:

To me, it's like those hotwheels loop-de-loop videos, except less visually arresting. Even with those you can get some 'Science!' out of it, but it's still a marketing activity.

Less visually interesting? Are you on crack? Look at that view. I would kill for the opportunity to do something like this.

I don't really believe there's an awful lot of science going on, but that's fine, it's not really about science.

Personally, if this is how Red Bull want to spend their marketing dollars, I say good on them. They sponsor a lot of cool and interesting stuff around the globe. I'm still not buying their product, but it's a lot better than being told that red bull gives you wings.

A stupid advertising gimmick? A marketing activity? Except for the fact that everybody who has tried beating the record since Kittinger in 1960 has died attempting it...

Not really sure I can agree with the sceptics on this one.

*quality.

>> ^Deano:

>> ^kymbos:
Am I the only person who does not give a shit?

It's a human being doing something incredible and breaking boundaries. Isn't that worth something?
What if this had happened before the Columbia disaster and the data about how you can bail out in the upper atmosphere had been used to save those lives (i.e they bailed out just before the ship tore apart)?
I think it's a wonderful and worthy stunt and funded out of all those Red Bull drinks


No, it's a stupid advertising gimmick. It isn't science or new or even interesting. It's been done and proven. USAF did exactly this in 1960. This just added a few hundred feet to their altitude. Russian probably did it sooner.

So no it's not a human breaking any boundaries or any thing novel. It is just advertising paid for by product sales. No different from a TV commercial expect it tricked you into talking about their product.

Wow, memories! I loved that show when I was a kid. At least, I loved it before 1960 or so. Then I got too old to be science-y. Yeah, I was that stupid.

Hey there, Mr. Wizard!

Misleading video title and description.
Nowhere in the original video says it's unknown.
Coalescence cascade is a known and documented phenomenon.

Here's a scientific paper from 1998 that talks about it: http://www.ann.jussieu.fr/~frey/papers/coalescence/Chen%20L.,%20The%20coalescence%20of%20bubbles%20-%20a%20numerical%20study.pdf
And here's another article from 2000 that mentions previous research from the 1960s: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000PhFl...12.1265T

Sounds like the Aether. That idea has been around for quite a bit longer than the 1960s.

>> ^PHJF:

Lunar!?!?
Who the shit gives a shit about the moon anymore (unless it's Phobos)?!?! What is this, 1960?


If you want to go to mars, having a base on the moon is a good first step. And while a direct trip to the mars is still physically a possibility, a useful staging ground could be the moon. Water is heavy, and the discovery of polar water on the moon means you could drastically reduce takeoff weight by supplying water from the moon. Also, this is a very advanced rocket that could see use elsewhere. Most rockets don't burn in a controllable way; once you start them, they go until they run out of fuel. More over, most don't allow for thrust throttling, wide open throttle until the fuel depletes. And on top of all that, it is able to vector its thrust that is being dynamically altered to keep a relatively clean trajectory.

Another way to look at it is the moon is a good place to practice ferrying people. Might as well use your own back yard (the moon: 384,400 km away) than a distance planet (Mars: 56 million km away at the closet point) for a technology test bed.

Lunar!?!?

Who the shit gives a shit about the moon anymore (unless it's Phobos)?!?! What is this, 1960?

quoting Wiki:

While there are a number of versions to the Bible. There are 8 primary versions found in history:
Septuagint - 250 A.D. Written in Greek
Vulgate- 400 A.D. First version of the Bible which is canonized at the Council of Carthage in 400 A.D. Written in Latin
Luther's German Bible- 1534 A.D.
King James Version- 1611 A.D. This is the most widely used versions however it has large number of errors given that none of the writers had a decent understanding of Hebrew.
Revised Standard Version- 1952 A.D. Literal translation into American English which used the earliest possible text
New International Version- 1960's & 70's A.D. This is a very good contemporary English version. Another good contemporary English version is New King James Version (NKJV)
The Youngs Literal Translation is as close to the originals as you can get, translated by Robert Young in 1898 A.D.

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_different_versions_are_there_of_the_Bible#ixzz1z4GtYcTU

Maybe it is that 1960's web browser you are using.