This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by eric3579. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

Last graph (adjusted for inflation per capita) should be put in a separate diagram because of high risk of misinterpretation (750-->7000 instead of 2000-->7000)

He forgot one thing, people today are more productive then they were 60 year ago (Productivity growth 1947-2012)

To bypass this problem spending should compared with GDP ( market value of all final goods and services produced within a country in a given period of time): Total Government expenditures by major category of expenditure as percantages of GDP: 1938-2009. It is stable since 1968, nearly 30% of the GDP.

that was a really cool story. my father had a had a 1968(first year of the bay window) type 2 or as we called it "the bus". i can still recall climbing around in a camper version when we were in the showroom before purchasing it. it haled all 9 of us for years until it could not handle the weight of all of us getting older and bigger. a few years ago i found it in a flickr contacts collection of Baltimore pics. it put a big smile on my face to see that it was still alive. i miss the bus.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'jimmy webb, classic, plangent' to 'jimmy webb, classic, plangent, 1968' - edited by lurgee

... But they actually forgot to mention Post-its. 3M was trying to create a glue, but it didn't work. It WAS a complete accident that they created post-its because that glue was supposed to stick - and it doesn't - which gave them the idea to market it as Post-Its.

"In 1968, Dr. Spencer Silver, a chemist at 3M in the United States, was attempting to develop a super-strong adhesive, but instead he accidentally created a "low-tack", reusable, pressure-sensitive adhesive." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-it_note

Congratulations! Your video, Bob Beamon's Record-shattering Long Jump - 1968 Olympics, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 4 Badge!

Too bad it was banned. Like the article says, that would have made the event much more interesting to watch.>> ^mxxcon:

Cool video.
But here's a technique that could've beaten that jump. There's a link to the background story too

Your video, Bob Beamon's Record-shattering Long Jump - 1968 Olympics, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 8 Badge!

Thanks for the promote!>> ^ZappaDanMan:

promote

Honestly, I never understood the ending until I learned how others interpreted it.

http://www.kubrick2001.com/

>> ^spoco2:

And in the end. I am one of those people that finds 2001 to be an unsatisfying movie. It has some awesome moments, some iconic shots and scenes, but overall it is a bit rubbish in it's conclusion.
From listening to Arthur C Clark, it would seem that's because they didn't have a good story to begin with, and I think it shows. It seemed to be a case of 'we've got these ideas that'd be good to make a movie out of'... and they just went ahead with making that movie before actually creating a workable narrative from those ideas.

Hang in there...it gets better!

>> ^spoco2:

My god if that isn't the cheesiest version of Sprach Zarathustra I've ever heard.
This does not bode well for the rest of this doco

>> ^Payback:

>> ^doogle:
what's his point here? It's a beautiful ship because what came before it was some sort of saucer from the <garble mumble> movie?

The original "The Day the Earth Stood Still". The silver-undies-wearing guy he refers to would probably be Gort. I think his point would be NCC-1701 is a "revolutionary" step from previous "space ships" as opposed to NCC-1701-A, which is an "evolutionary" step. Sorta the 1964 1/2 Mustang compared to the 1968/69.


KLAATU....BARADA....NIKTO!!!

>> ^doogle:

what's his point here? It's a beautiful ship because what came before it was some sort of saucer from the <garble mumble> movie?


The original "The Day the Earth Stood Still". The silver-undies-wearing guy he refers to would probably be Gort. I think his point would be NCC-1701 is a "revolutionary" step from previous "space ships" as opposed to NCC-1701-A, which is an "evolutionary" step. Sorta the 1964 1/2 Mustang compared to the 1968/69.

I am not sure of the make/model of the camera but I suspect it's 8mm stock (maybe Super 8?) judging from the date and size.

>> ^rich_magnet:

Wow, what wonderful quality footage. It's too bad about all the shake. Also, does anyone recognize the camera? I'm wondering what stock he shot on.
Additional comment: considering the quality of the film, that crew looks rather small to me. It seems about the same size as the average modern B-grade TV show shoot. Was it a super tight budget, I wonder.

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