search results matching tag: Thinking of You

» channel: motorsports

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.034 seconds

    Videos (74)     Sift Talk (14)     Blogs (6)     Comments (1000)   

Barack Obama interviews creator David Simon of The Wire

GenjiKilpatrick says...

Cops are racist. Look up Tim Wise - White Privilege

Law Enforcement Officers - when asked:

"what's the first thing you think when you see a young black or latino male driving a nice car in your neighborhood?"

Overwhelming respond with.. well you know Lantern.

What do YOU generally think when you see young black & brown people driving fancy cars.

Probably the same thing you think when see a Trayvon Martin or Mike Brown on the news..

The cops think the same thing.

lantern53 said:

Prez must be wearing his 'Hands Up, Don't Shoot' tshirt under his suit.

I notice he's still pushing that 'cops are racist' meme.

release us-a short film on police brutality by charles shaw

lantern53 says...

No, you are a tool because you refuse to think logically. You can't refute my argument so you just attack me personally. Therefore, you lose the argument.

enoch said:

@lantern53
and you are an apologist,and a tool.

i am not going to even waste my time dissecting your factually challenged and logically twisted comment because it would serve no purpose.

there is no chance of changing your mind,inspiring you to see events with a different perspective,which could lead to new vistas of understanding.

you hold the fundamentalist mindset.
you are convinced of your righteousness.
you are a true believer and any information contrary to your worldview will be deemed "heretical" and shall be automatically deemed "wrong" and dismissed on those grounds.

as evidenced by your commentary.
such a small,and narrow place to reside.
i feel sorry for you lantern.
you have my pity.

school of life-what comes after religion?

A10anis says...

Nothing - absolutely nothing - that this video attributes to religion cannot be provided without it. "the challenge is to learn from religions?" Thank-you, but we have already. Religion is not didactic, it is dictatorship. Watch it again, and if you are not patronised by statements like love, art, community, sharing etc, are borne from religion, then you sadly need religion to think for you. Think for yourself. Be a good person for its own rewards not imaginary ones.

See Spot Run, Run Spot Run

TheFreak says...

It's a fine testament to the engineering that every time they kick a robot dog, part of my brain is fascinated by the robots reaction and the other part of me thinks, jeez you don't have to be a dick about it!

Need More Proof That The Music Industry Is Fake? Here You Go

newtboy says...

While I do get your point, I think perhaps you miss the point that a real live singing/playing concert is different from a 'pop star concert' (although I do think they should be billed as 'pop star performances', not 'concerts').
If I go to the opera, I am expecting to hear people sing live while performing a play.
If I go to a 'concert', I expect to see a singer or band singing or playing live, but not doing much else (old Van Halen and GWAR being the exceptions).
If I go to a pop star performance, I usually expect to see flashing lights, smoke, sparks, special effects, stunts, and crazy dancing while you hear a track of the performer.
It's not possible to do the stage performance AND sing competently at the same time. If I expect to see dancing, I should not expect the dancer to also sing live, that's not realistic to me.

Grimm said:

Also to be fair that's a bunch of bullshit...the technology exists to overcome all of those issues. You really can't count it as she IS singing if no one can hear it and what they can hear is a pre-recorded track...one that was most likely auto-tuned so even THAT isn't a live pre-recording.

I just don't get the logic of the fans and the defenders....you like the music you "hear" on the radio...you like the music you "hear" on your CDs or MP3s. When you are paying top dollar to "hear" and now "see" that music performed live why is it OK to let the "live music" slide and be sacrificed for a dog and pony show that doesn't have anything to do with the music you were drawn to in the first place?

Audra was pulled over and given two tickets...

Neil deGrasse Tyson - "Do You Believe in God?"

newtboy says...

scientism is really like truthieness. It's a made up word, with a made up definition, that has no bearing on, or connection to reality.
Science is not about belief.
If data 'proves' that science can't ever answer any question about reality (not about human insanity, although it already goes a long way towards explaining that too), scientists would concede instantly. If it were a belief, they could never change it based on evidence, but science does change.

No one is asking you to 'bow' to any 'theory'. They are simply the 'rules' that 'science' has produced to explain how the world/universe works. They work just fine without your 'belief' in them or knowledge of them. That's just one thing they have over the supernatural.

Please give an example or two of scientific 'truths' that were half baked ideas. I think if you look throughout history, carefully, you will see the scientific method was developed mostly around the 12th century as explained here:

Amongst the array of great scholars, al-Haytham is regarded as the architect of the scientific method. His scientific method involved the following stages:1.Observation of the natural world
2.Stating a definite problem
3.Formulating a robust hypothesis
4.Test the hypothesis through experimentation
5.Assess and analyze the results
6.Interpret the data and draw conclusions
7.Publish the findings

but it's widely held that it was not solidified to the modern scientific method (eliminating guessing and 'induction' and requiring repeatable experimentation) until Newton. That means any example you might give should come after 1660 or so at the earliest, or you aren't talking about the same "science" that the rest of us are.

I think most scientist would say it is 'possible' that supernatural events happen, but incredibly unlikely, and constantly less so the more we know about the world and it's rules. It's just as likely that if I only eat the right color yellow foods I'll eventually 'magically' crap gold. I can't prove it won't happen (because I'll never know if I ate the 'right' color foods, if I ever tried), but I can use science to show it's absolutely unlikely to a NEAR certainty (no matter how one misunderstands quantum physics).
The supernatural is right there with my golden poops....and I can't tell which smells worse.

shinyblurry said:

Scientism:

"Scientism is belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview or most valuable part of human learning to the exclusion of other viewpoints."

http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-folly-of-scientism

http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/gengloss/sciism-body.html

The idea that science has all the answers is a particular faith of some atheists and agnostics, with no evidence actually supporting the claim. The problem of induction alone throws that idea out of the window. I love science and I amazed by what we are able to do, technologically. I've studied astronomy quite a bit in my lifetime. Just because I love science does not mean that I must bow before any theory because it is accepted by the mainstream scientific community as being the current idea of what is true and real.

If you look through history you will see many of these ideas held to be truth by the scientific community turned out to be half-baked ideas based on pure speculation. Somehow, people think we have it so nailed down now that the major ideas we have about the cosmos have to be true. It's pure hubris; our knowledge about how the Universe actually works or how it got here is infinitesimal compared to what there actually is to know.

Draw a circle on a piece of paper and say that represents all of the knowledge it is possible to know. What percentage of it could you claim that you knew? If you're honest, it isn't much. Do you think that knowledge of God and the supernatural could be in that 99 percent of things you don't know? If you really think about this you will see that to rule these things out based on limited and potentially faulty information is prideful and it blinds you to true understanding.

ChaosEngine (Member Profile)

"Stupidity of American Voter," critical to passing Obamacare

Colbert interviews Anita Sarkeesian

SDGundamX says...

@Asmo

Except my daughter doesn't want to play other games--she wants to play Mario Brothers games. They have excellent game and level design. Why should she have to go elsewhere? Are you trying to say Mario Brothers games not for girls?

All my daughter is asking is to be allowed to play as the Princess--maybe after you free her from Bowser. That doesn't seem like much to ask, as it would have exactly zero effect on gameplay.

Personally, I'd go much farther and say when a game series continuously sends the message that women are helpless victims who need to be defended by men, when they're continuously objectified as trophies to be passed from player to villain and back to player again, then something is very wrong with that game and things need to change. Yeah, other games may be great, but why should that prevent people like Sarkeesian or myself from pointing out the games that aren't? Why should the trend itself not be pointed out when we can find examples of it outside of the Mario series?

No, it's not required that every game have a male/female playable character. It is, however, good business sense not to insult potential female customers of a product by portraying females (playable characters or NPCS) in sexist ways (or homosexual characters in bigoted ways, or ethnic minority characters in racist ways, while we're on the topic). This doesn't seem very difficult to understand and clearly game companies DO understand it because most are making great efforts to be diverse and more realistic in their portrayals of characters. However, just because some are trying doesn't mean we shouldn't point out the bullshit in those that don't. Games like the Mario platformer series, for instance.

You disagree with the way Sarkeesian presents her message... okay. I don't have a problem with that. I think everything you wrote grossly misrepresents what she's saying about games and gamers, but you're entitled to your opinion there.

Moving on... sorry you felt insulted. That was never my intent. But your comments on this issue are written in an extremely emotional manner as if you've somehow been personally wronged. If you don't want people to take it in that manner, you might want to think carefully about the tone your posts on this topic take. I have no idea what that link you provided was supposed to prove, so I'll just leave it alone.

On "Damsel in Distress," it's "your trope" because you've been--throughout this thread--defending it as if it is some bastion of literature that must be preserved. You are quite literally the only person I've ever seen actually try to defend it. And as I said, if it is that dear to you, you can have it. Games will still get made using it.

Other media,though, have long since moved on from it. Take the movie Die Hard as an example. Yeah, the main character's wife gets taken hostage by terrorists and that provides a nice emotional hook to move the plot forward--damsel in distress, right? If it were a game, though, we never would have heard from Holly Gennarro McClane again until Bruce Willis killed all the terrorists. Or maybe a video recording of her would show up after every "boss fight" where she tells John McClane, "Sorry honey, but I'm being kept in another part of the building."

But that's not what happens is it? The character of Holly is central to the plot of the movie and she appears nearly as much as John McClane does. She tries actively to subvert the terrorists by hiding her true identity and by taking responsibility to make sure the hostages are treated well during their captivity.

In other words she's portrayed as a real human being with personal agency throughout the movie.

And that's the point that you seem to be missing. That doesn't happen often in games despite the fact that it does happen in every other form of media (or at least in the examples from media that we generally consider "good"). When we are talking about the "Damsel in Distress" trope in games, THAT is what is being critiqued. Not the fact that someone was kidnapped to provide an emotional hook, but that one particular gender is always targeted and--to add insult to injury--is presented as weak, helpless, and without any agency of their own. They exist for the sole purpose of being rescued.

Thanks for the pro tip, BTW. Had no idea you were a pro at being a patronizing git but I'll take your word for it.

Cenk Uygur debates Sam Harris

enoch says...

@Barbar
what you are speaking of in regards to the 2 religions (judaism/christianity) are the reformations they both experienced.

now there are a myriad of reasons why these reformations occurred:age of enlightenment, renaissance and a new way of thinking=secular philosophy.i could go on but those are the big three.

islam has yet to experience a reformation and reza aslan's book "no god but god" makes the case that islam is in desperate NEED of a reformation,to which harris dishonestly suggests that islam needs while in the same sentence accuses reza of ignoring.the man wrote an entire nook making the case for islamic reformation!

when you are going to criticize belief you have to also ask the "WHY" of that belief.if you strictly confine your arguments to a book then you are ignoring the multitude of factors to the origin of that belief and are actually formulating an argument with the very same absolutist and fundamentalist thinking that you are criticizing.

you are quite literally using fundamentalism to criticize fundamentalism.

example:
harris makes the point that suicide bombers blow themselves up because the quran glorifies martyrdom,with little thought to WHY those young men strapped bombs to their chest in the first place.

when the WHY is the most important question!

and the answer is NOT because the quran demands it of them but rather out of hopelessness brought on by oppression,murder,torture of their friends and family.

the quran offers a rationalization for the suicide bomber.a desperate person will grasp desperately at any thin straw to give their life meaning,but it most certainly not the cause.

this fundamental lack of understanding is why i find harris to be a mediocre atheist thinker.

literalism in regards to scriptural interpretation is a fairly new phenom,(past 100 years),and that includes muslims.

Nixie: Wearable Camera That Can Fly

My_design says...

Do a search on the Proto X or Syncro from Estes. They are great little quads.The Crazyfly doesn't support FPV, they have a small programmable quad (Which is quite an achievement BTW, not to downplay what they have done, and the multiple features make it a pretty cool little platform). But Is not really all that close to the Pixie. They removed all of the plastic from a #19 Keychain FOB Camera(You can find them all over Ebay) to save weight and are placing it on top, it can only record and not broadcast, hence no FPV as shown on the Nixie. The induction charging is very cool, and I don't know much about it but it seems like that would take a long time.
A gauntlet is a much better solution IMO than what Pixie is showing. It can then be used as a home location as well as something for the quad to track. It is also very similar to what AirDog.com is doing with a wrist band.
Thanks for the link on the crazyfly.
FYI, I'm not saying that certain things in the Nixie are impossible (Many of the individual pieces are possible in some form) I'm just saying that as they present it in their video it is not currently possible, nor do I see it being available for purchase by open market consumers within the next say 3 years. But I do think that you will have "Dronie" based quads in several different form factors, including wearable, pretty soon.

newtboy said:

I concede many of your points, and don't understand some others, but it would seem that this

*related=http://videosift.com/video/nano-crazyfly-drone

is pretty damn close to the nixie already, except for the slap bands and the pretty cover. Maybe mount it on a gauntlet? Then it could be magnetically assisted in 'landing' on your wrist.
I know the 'crazyfly' isn't autonomous, but good software could make it remotely computer controlled. Close enough for me.

oritteropo (Member Profile)

mintbbb says...

Thanks!

Oh, and I have to mention, we went to the zoo last week, and they had the cutest oritte.. aardvark there! He was out in the 'watering hole' - a big area where they take animals out, and he was quite unruly.. They wanted to get him back inside, so they could do a cheetah run next, but he kept running around and dodging the door. They had about 5 people with food bowls after him, but he didn't go inside until they brought his aardvark girlfriend as bait

I had never seen one before! Made me think of you!

oritteropo said:

*quality

The Economist explains - Why eating insects makes sense

TheFreak says...

Leafcutter ants are supposed to taste like bacon.

I've eaten crickets, mealworms and ants. The experience was never...satisfying.
This leads me to think, if you're living in an over populated party of the world, you should be encouraged to eat insects if local agriculture cannot sustain the population. I do not plan to eat bugs when there are 3billion people in India. A lack of population planning, control and education in foreign communities does not equal me eating bugs. If my own country fails in these regards then I will accept the consequences when that happens.

blankfist (Member Profile)



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon