Have you ever been to Shalebridge Cradle? I nearly shat my pants.

Thief 3 was very flawed but that one level was a masterpiece of suspense.

@bobknight33 @Trancecoach

Christians were once the majority in Lebanon, and they made Beruit "the Paris of the Middle East." But that era is over. They lost a battle of the cradle.

It's the same story with Oakland, Baltimore, and Detroit. Detroit was once "the Paris of the West," but the people who made it that way were forced out, and the culture, mismanagement, and corruption of the new caretakers couldn't maintain what had been built.

[edit: link removed]

We now live in a different world than our parents' 1960s, when most of our current ideas were invented. (I'm speaking to the minority of people from all ancestries who are on the side of civilization.)

@dag and @gwiz665 Don't let this happen to your countries

I once logged onto chatroulette and after a few spins saw a headless man sitting in a tub, cradling a shotgun. To this day I don't know if this scene was real or not. I wanted to report it but didn't know how.

I certainly am becoming addicted to VideoSift! It has both a fantastic community and a very fun concept. Then again, the utterly agonizing, rusty-nail-in-left-hemisphere, cradling-head-in-hands-and-trying-not-to-vomit headache also helped me stay awake though.

Also, now there are four of 'em in the top 15, and frankly, that wouldn't have happened without the power points you gave me! Thanks again for the warm welcome, and thanks for all the help.

(Let's hope this one isn't blocked.)

cat's cradle? ice-nine?

*anatomy Epic cup cradle! =oD

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

*hugs akwardly*
>> ^hpqp:

Oh boy, where to start...
Religion: Belief in or acknowledgement of some superhuman power or powers (esp. a god or gods) which is typically manifested in obedience, reverence, and worship; such a belief as part of a system defining a code of living, esp. as a means of achieving spiritual or material improvement. (OED)
Yes, there is something (actually several things) inherently wrong with religion, and it is naive (or disingenuous) to trot out the argument that religion has been "used" as "a social lever to inflict harm" without recognising that the reason it works so well for that is because of its particular negative aspects (most notably: blind submission to authority and the notion of "higher auth." trumping basic human values).
For one: supernatural belief, instilled/indoctrinated before critical thought can balance it out. Other than what I (and many others, including Hitchens) would call "state religions" such as communism, what set of beliefs is instilled uncritically into young minds, without any evidence to back it up? And I'm not talking about "don't put your fingers in the socket" either, which a) is for the child's good (contrary to religious beliefs) and b) can be tested/understood empirically as the child learns about electricity. No, supernatural beliefs, the staple (and one of the definitive aspects) of religion cannot be empirically tested, and thus rely on blind obedience to authority, which is a negative in and of itself. Moreover, it often brings into play a dictatorial reward/punishment system that the child (and adult) cannot discount/disprove with evidence; it is kept out of reach of experience, and thus is much harder to leave behind, while playing with humankind's deep-set fears (of death, eternity, pain, etc) in order to keep them under control. Can you tell me of another social organisation of beliefs/morals that does this? And while the "moderates" are less guilty of indoctrination and fear-mongering, they still give credence and the weight of majority (not to mention their influence as parental figures) to a set of supernatural beliefs which are detrimental to humankind. That they use these to justify positive moral codes only makes it worse, because it makes the latter seem dependent (or at least a result of) the former. As @PostalBlowfish rightly suggests, human morality is only impoverished by the supernatural beliefs religion attaches to it.
I could go on, but I have work to do. I will conclude by saying that as long as well-intentioned people like yourself continue to divorce the inherently negative aspects of religion/religious belief and the sociocultural evils it has often enshrined (backing them with an indefeasible authority) such as homophobia, tribalism, antisemitism, etc, society remains a long ways from being "fixed".
>> ^jonny:
[...]You make the point that the philosophical beliefs, particularly moral codes, are not intrinsically dependent upon religion. Even if that is true, it doesn't negate all other aspects of religion. Religion is more than a source of moral and ethical codes and rituals. I gave a tentative definition of it being a collectively held set of beliefs. The collective nature of that belief is very important. As social animals, humans need to feel connected to those around them, and religion provides what has been historically the most successful locus of connection in human societies. The social aspect of religion is probably its greatest function. It connects members of a community throughout every aspect of life, cradle to grave.
Now, you might say that a properly constructed set of philosophical beliefs based purely on rationality and science can accomplish the same thing. And I would say that if you did accomplish such a feat, you'd basically have a religion on your hands, regardless of its lack of theistic doctrine.
The point I was trying to make with my first comment was that any sufficiently powerful set of beliefs can be used as a social lever to inflict great harm on humanity. Various religions have been used such, as have the works of some great non-theistic philosophers. I was trying to point out that the "evils of religion" are not a problem with religion per se, but with things like demagoguery and xenophobic tribalism. I believe this distinction is of paramount importance, because it more accurately points us towards what needs fixing in our societies.

Oh boy, where to start...
Religion: Belief in or acknowledgement of some superhuman power or powers (esp. a god or gods) which is typically manifested in obedience, reverence, and worship; such a belief as part of a system defining a code of living, esp. as a means of achieving spiritual or material improvement. (OED)

Yes, there is something (actually several things) inherently wrong with religion, and it is naive (or disingenuous) to trot out the argument that religion has been "used" as "a social lever to inflict harm" without recognising that the reason it works so well for that is because of its particular negative aspects (most notably: blind submission to authority and the notion of "higher auth." trumping basic human values).

For one: supernatural belief, instilled/indoctrinated before critical thought can balance it out. Other than what I (and many others, including Hitchens) would call "state religions" such as communism, what set of beliefs is instilled uncritically into young minds, without any evidence to back it up? And I'm not talking about "don't put your fingers in the socket" either, which a) is for the child's good (contrary to religious beliefs) and b) can be tested/understood empirically as the child learns about electricity. No, supernatural beliefs, the staple (and one of the definitive aspects) of religion cannot be empirically tested, and thus rely on blind obedience to authority, which is a negative in and of itself. Moreover, it often brings into play a dictatorial reward/punishment system that the child (and adult) cannot discount/disprove with evidence; it is kept out of reach of experience, and thus is much harder to leave behind, while playing with humankind's deep-set fears (of death, eternity, pain, etc) in order to keep them under control. Can you tell me of another social organisation of beliefs/morals that does this? And while the "moderates" are less guilty of indoctrination and fear-mongering, they still give credence and the weight of majority (not to mention their influence as parental figures) to a set of supernatural beliefs which are detrimental to humankind. That they use these to justify positive moral codes only makes it worse, because it makes the latter seem dependent (or at least a result of) the former. As @PostalBlowfish rightly suggests, human morality is only impoverished by the supernatural beliefs religion attaches to it.

I could go on, but I have work to do. I will conclude by saying that as long as well-intentioned people like yourself continue to divorce the inherently negative aspects of religion/religious belief and the sociocultural evils it has often enshrined (backing them with an indefeasible authority) such as homophobia, tribalism, antisemitism, etc, society remains a long ways from being "fixed".

>> ^jonny:

[...]You make the point that the philosophical beliefs, particularly moral codes, are not intrinsically dependent upon religion. Even if that is true, it doesn't negate all other aspects of religion. Religion is more than a source of moral and ethical codes and rituals. I gave a tentative definition of it being a collectively held set of beliefs. The collective nature of that belief is very important. As social animals, humans need to feel connected to those around them, and religion provides what has been historically the most successful locus of connection in human societies. The social aspect of religion is probably its greatest function. It connects members of a community throughout every aspect of life, cradle to grave.
Now, you might say that a properly constructed set of philosophical beliefs based purely on rationality and science can accomplish the same thing. And I would say that if you did accomplish such a feat, you'd basically have a religion on your hands, regardless of its lack of theistic doctrine.

The point I was trying to make with my first comment was that any sufficiently powerful set of beliefs can be used as a social lever to inflict great harm on humanity. Various religions have been used such, as have the works of some great non-theistic philosophers. I was trying to point out that the "evils of religion" are not a problem with religion per se, but with things like demagoguery and xenophobic tribalism. I believe this distinction is of paramount importance, because it more accurately points us towards what needs fixing in our societies.

..Coot looks like he wanted to get some extra mileage outta those modifications....

He's got the oscilloscope modified for hypothetical negative energy conversion..

That display in the center is so positioned to interface with the the invariance of the speed of light created by compensation for inference, and I'm only guessing here, that those buttons on the steering wheel/alignment cradle are some sort of Michelson-Morley interferometer.

Got a great deal onnit but he won't be able to keep a wormhole stable in an open perimeter....good try though, looks like someone helped their kid win a pre-school science fair!!

@PostalBlowfish - easy friend ... I wasn't labeling you absurd, just one interpretation of the opening remark of your comment. Surely there is a distinction. You don't need to do anything with the fact that I don't often vote on comments. That fact and this specific exception to it have no real effect, except apparently to have upset you.

To your specific points, though ...

I don't think I veered off topic at all. I was trying to figure out to what exactly you were referring by "religion". I tried to make a guess based on the rest of your comment. I didn't offer an example of the benefits of religion because 1) I wasn't sure my guess about your meaning was correct, and 2) if you were referring to religion in its broadest terms, the claim seemed patently false. Your response suggests a broad definition of religion and that what I think is obvious is not at all obvious to you.

You make the point that the philosophical beliefs, particularly moral codes, are not intrinsically dependent upon religion. Even if that is true, it doesn't negate all other aspects of religion. Religion is more than a source of moral and ethical codes and rituals. I gave a tentative definition of it being a collectively held set of beliefs. The collective nature of that belief is very important. As social animals, humans need to feel connected to those around them, and religion provides what has been historically the most successful locus of connection in human societies. The social aspect of religion is probably its greatest function. It connects members of a community throughout every aspect of life, cradle to grave.

Now, you might say that a properly constructed set of philosophical beliefs based purely on rationality and science can accomplish the same thing. And I would say that if you did accomplish such a feat, you'd basically have a religion on your hands, regardless of its lack of theistic doctrine.


The point I was trying to make with my first comment was that any sufficiently powerful set of beliefs can be used as a social lever to inflict great harm on humanity. Various religions have been used such, as have the works of some great non-theistic philosophers. I was trying to point out that the "evils of religion" are not a problem with religion per se, but with things like demagoguery and xenophobic tribalism. I believe this distinction is of paramount importance, because it more accurately points us towards what needs fixing in our societies.

He'll be just like you, yeah, your boy is just like youuu. ♫
>> ^lucky760:

I wake up at 5:45am and drive 24 (or sometimes 23) minutes to work. I'm always the first one in the office so I get to enjoy solitude and silence for a couple of hours.
I am a software architect and implement systems from bottom to top and from back-end to front. I sit in front of two computer screens for my entire work day before heading home.
There I spend the rest of the day with my wife and 1.5 children, then at about 10:00pm start working on my contract software projects. I recline with my laptop on my lap as I work until 1:00-3:00am depending on the night (and how hard Mr. Sandman is punching my eyes shut).
Creating software and seeing it in action is my passion and I love everything about it. The only difficult part of my work is not having enough time in the day for it now that I'm a parent (and Harry Chapin's "Cat's in the Cradle" starts looping in my head when I even consider working instead of spending time with my boy).

I wake up at 5:45am and drive 24 (or sometimes 23) minutes to work. I'm always the first one in the office so I get to enjoy solitude and silence for a couple of hours.

I am a software architect and implement systems from bottom to top and from back-end to front. I sit in front of two computer screens for my entire work day before heading home, usually at 2:30pm.

There I spend the rest of the day with my wife and 1.5 children, then put the boy in bed at 7:00pm, and at about 10:00pm start working on my contract software projects. I recline with my laptop on my lap as I work until 1:00-3:00am depending on the night (and how hard Mr. Sandman is punching my eyes shut).

Creating software and seeing it in action is my passion and I love everything about it. The only difficult part of my work is not having enough time in the day for it now that I'm a parent (and Harry Chapin's "Cat's in the Cradle" starts looping in my head when I even consider working instead of spending time with my boy).

Yep, I think you're right. My prediction above could only happen with initial speeds massive enough for the outgoing particle to overcome the magnetic pull, or with the magnet fixed to a spot on the track.

My next question is about why in this video the incoming ball hits twice. In a cradle, it only hits once, and all force is transmitted through the chain of balls in a single pulse, ejecting just one ball. Why should it be different with a magnet? Arguably, it should stick even stronger if there's a force holding it there. Maybe the difference is that in this video the ball is accelerating as it strikes, whereas in the cradle, as the ball's direction approaches level, it's acceleration goes down to zero, so that the moment of impact, there's zero acceleration happening.

An experiment to test this: get a track with a steady slope, and several balls. Hold a group of balls around the middle of the track, and a single ball well above them. Release the single ball towards the group, and before it strikes the group, release the group. The single ball will be accelerating relative to the group and eventually strike it. We can see how many balls are ejected out the front of the group. If more than one, then it's confirmed. If only one, then it's disconfirmed, and probably has something to do with magnetic attraction specifically.>> ^oritteropo:

Momentum can be conserved in a number of ways, and my thought was that if the ball is really stuck to that magnet then rather than ejecting the ball on the other side, the whole lot might just move along the track together. If you've ever played with neodymium magnets you'll know why I think that, the amount of effort required to unstick something from them is surprisingly large. [minor edit]

Yes I found a reasonably clear explanation, and added it as a postscript to my earlier comment after you'd quoted it, but before I got the e-mail notification.
>> ^messenger:

[...]
If momentum = velocity mass, then doubling the velocity will double the momentum. Using the cradle, if you drop a ball from very very close to the first stationary ball, a single ball will move from the other side and move a very very short distance. If you then drop the ball from perpendicular, a single ball will move from the other side, and rise to (nearly) perpendicular. I have seen this much in my own observations. I don't think we need to do any calculations to understand that the impact velocity in the first essay is way less than half the impact velocity in the second essay (we don’t need exact numbers; we just need to know that the impact velocity is more than double). That means we have met your criteria for increasing the momentum to more than that of two balls at the first velocity, yet one ball still comes out.
A mental model to demonstrate my theory of “two particles in = two impacts = two particles out” is to imagine a bit of sponge between the last two balls in a Newton’s cradle. Pull the second ball out (which will push the first ball ahead of it) to a great enough height that the momentum of the outside ball’s impact is enough to completely squeeze the sponge and cause a second impact wave. The second ball would impact measurably later than the first, and before the ejected particle came back. Pretty clearly, two balls will emerge from the other side. This is what I think is happening on a micro scale when two independent balls are dropped together.