well, Artician is right I guess... I won't be able to listen to a 60 minutes like show while two old chaps converse about the most important issues in the world... I'll probably be bored to death... I need explosions! lazer beams! shewshs!

on another note... funny that I sort of work in this business and I was very well educated by this article.

3 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

My first thought, purely objectively (really), is that this could very, very easily be just as intentionally mistranslated as this video:
http://videosift.com/video/North-Korean-Traffic-Cop-60-minutes
.. but for obviously different reasons. Universal skepticism is everyone's friend.
My second thought is, yes, obviously anyone who actually believes this should immediately escorted to a retirement center and not allowed any influence on society. (Though that would just be doing to them, albeit allegedly less violently, what they're already doing to their own culture, wouldn't it?)

Universally, religion is the most effective means of communicating a way of order (i.e. morals), while simultaneously blinding everyone to any alternative point of view.

What we, collectively, -humankind- need to do, is marry rational-judgement with the moral code of the golden-rule in a way that has the viral infectiousness of religion without dismissing independent thought.

I can't post the rest of my ideas because the NSA will kill me.

60 Minutes Story Of The Rock Icon Who Didn't Know He Was One has been added as a related post - related requested by PlayhousePals on that post.

60 Minutes Story Of The Rock Icon Who Didn't Know He Was One has been added as a related post - related requested by PlayhousePals on that post.

I'd just watch the 60 Minutes version. The movie was okay, but even at under 90 minutes long it felt really padded out. Especially the first half.

spoilers!!! best not to watch anything before watching the film!! the 60 minutes segment seems to just be a synopsis of what the film tells you as told by bob simon

60 Minutes - Interrogated Coerced Confessions has been added as a related post - related requested by oritteropo on that post.

*news *money

*60 minutes: tsk.tsk.tsk.tsk.tsk.tsk.tsk....

Yes ... I saw it ON 60 minutes. Very cool [and horribly sad]

60 minutes did this story few years ago.

4 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

Thanks, eric.
In reply to this comment by eric3579:
*promote

>> ^joedirt:

This stupid video isn't even to scale. Carl Lewis would have been 7 feet from the finish line. The stupid video needs to exaggerate an lie about how far people are from the finish line... Two strides or one body length away, not like 20 feet back.
Why make a "science" like video then lie in it.


As they said in the video themselves this is a field of runners separated by 3 seconds of time. Which will not be that much distance when you boil down the facts that the fastest runner will possibly get near or at 27 mph (something Usian Bolt stuck up there) and less. The slowest runners I imagine will ATLEAST be above 20 mph which really does make this field closer and closer together. They would all be running somewhere between 10 m/s to 10.4 m/s in 12.6 s (the times they ran a VERY long time ago) or up to and past 9.6 s in the modern era.

If you weren't that great of a runner, very quickly, with these type of numbers however, you would find yourself very far behind--it must be almost shocking to see someone gain a 3-5 meter lead on you if you slip up, particularly in the longer length Olympic sprints. It's a great infographic doing everything right, in fact I think they could literally take this concept and bump it up to a 30-60 minute show about the history of Olympic running; I'd throw it on the Discovery or Science Channels. Just look at the numbers I pulled up in a very short amount of time to give some comparisons, there are FAR more things to look at and open up this conversation much, much further... More things to look at could be anything taking in ANY possible connection to a sprinter's performance which may include a few things some people would never even think of, some examples: average foot-span covered each sprinting step and how that has changed with time (longer-shorter, side strides or are they all in line), the possibility of body weight distribution being re-mapped on the body from training, workouts, and diet, over time and has this been a possible endemic change in society (have we become more top heavy, bottom heavy, or averaged out--how does it compare with analysis we can try to make about our Olympic forefathers--with societal changes any of the things I've listed have the possibility of starting there first, moving outward; a true evolutionary or genetic change that might be observed...), shoes and their timeline with features, surfaces used by the athletes through time, how training was done throughout history, our personal livelihood with things like vitamins, a balanced and INFORMED diet allows you to get more out of your muscles then you normally would EVER get, and there is SO much more they could explore!

I would love to see a very well done show about this and if they cover the subject substantially and extensively enough, I wouldn't mind it being a short one year series. As long as they stay true to the overall presentation found in this infotainment/info-graphic and the information displayed here should be, somewhat, natural to us and keep us at ease in which all this material/information is able to be displayed in this show and always making that information available for us to consume and compare just as easily as here. So to me having a large presence online hand-in-hand With a show would be important, of course providing more info-graphics like this for us. One can hope that they'd read our comments and realize, just from a small clip, they have something bigger here--if they want it...

I wasn't quite sure why they "pulled" out the field so far as well, but all I can think is that they were trying to put a exclamation mark on the overall acceleration of the genesis of runners into the modern day.

>> ^renatojj:

There are no winners in this sham of an election, they are both the same in terms of policy, they both suck.


I don't disagree with that. I don't like where we tend to put the blame though, on the politicians and such rather than on ourselves. It's our own damned fault.

TV News used to do some investigative journalism, and it used to be a loss leader for the networks and done for a public service to earn them the right to the frequencies they were offered free of charge. But with 60 minutes and others of the sort the networks learned they could turn a profit and examine more personal issues then with Crossfire and others of the sort they lost even the public service requirements which they had on broadcast.

From Vince Foster murder allegations to blowjobs, 911 conspiracy theories and Swiftboating, death panels, foreign born, communist, socialist, we took it all in and never changed the channel or turned off the TV, and it DID shift our votes and opinions.

The fault is with us. We bought all of the deregulation arguments which allowed our current media and corporate system, we kept electing people who would do it some more even as the impact of our prior choices should have been getting more clear, and we kept responding to and watching ever more extreme and confrontational "news" shows and ads. Any politician who even tried to play nice, honest, and so on was simply steamrolled over and we never bothered to notice. And now we complain that we got the system we asked for.

No argument at all, both parties and the whole system these days sucks. And it's our own damned fault. We watched the shows, we voted them in, then reelected them, we echoed every conspiracy theory and accusation, and we never demanded better. We had every opportunity to see it coming and people have been warning us about it for years. We just couldn't be bothered to care.