Without getting into corporate practices, really, what does anyone have against GMO? Isn't genetic engineering supposed to be The Future and shit? I want a pet with a giraffe's head attached to a gigantic spider body. And I want it to speak French.

I say we genetically engineer ourselves to be phototrophs. A bonus would be the thick cellulose that could serve to protect us. Sure it'd be harder to move, but we could adjust.

Wow. They finally genetically engineered a singer that sounds just like AutoTune.

Really, short of stealing the actual gags to the letter, they've couldn't steal more than the exact concept replicated in a new Olympic city. I read comments from Clarke that they saw it as lifting the essence of The Games, and he saw it as a theft in spirit, even if he couldn't prove it in law. I tend to agree with this. And while I take your point, I really think the 'in defence of art' argument is the last refuge of the one-eyed.
In reply to this comment by gorillaman:
Well, we can start with the understanding that faux-documentaries are now fairly common, and that the olympics as a huge public event is very attractive to satire. So two different shows being produced along these lines isn't completely unlikely, and once you have those two shows then there are always going to be similarities.

I don't know much about the idea that The Games was being pitched to the BBC and who from those meetings went on to produce Twenty Twelve. There is a suggestion that the makers of The Games had gone so far as to lend the writer of Twenty Twelve DVDs of their show before he went off and wrote his, which is pretty hilarious.

Regardless I think it's fair to say Twenty Twelve isn't a direct copy of The Games; it had its own tone and told its own jokes. (Whether you think those jokes are funny or not.) Stealing the general idea 'satirical mockumentary about the olympics organisers' would actually be totally legit - that happens all the time and is pretty much how art advances, by building on earlier ideas; stealing lines and situations wouldn't be, but I don't see that happening. If I were plagiarising The Games the genetically-engineered horse and 94m 100m track would have gone straight into my script, for starters.

In reply to this comment by kymbos:
Ok, I've only watched one episode, but the similarities were overwhelming to me. How is it different?

Well, we can start with the understanding that faux-documentaries are now fairly common, and that the olympics as a huge public event is very attractive to satire. So two different shows being produced along these lines isn't completely unlikely, and once you have those two shows then there are always going to be similarities.

I don't know much about the idea that The Games was being pitched to the BBC and who from those meetings went on to produce Twenty Twelve. There is a suggestion that the makers of The Games had gone so far as to lend the writer of Twenty Twelve DVDs of their show before he went off and wrote his, which is pretty hilarious.

Regardless I think it's fair to say Twenty Twelve isn't a direct copy of The Games; it had its own tone and told its own jokes. (Whether you think those jokes are funny or not.) Stealing the general idea 'satirical mockumentary about the olympics organisers' would actually be totally legit - that happens all the time and is pretty much how art advances, by building on earlier ideas; stealing lines and situations wouldn't be, but I don't see that happening. If I were plagiarising The Games the genetically-engineered horse and 94m 100m track would have gone straight into my script, for starters.

In reply to this comment by kymbos:
Ok, I've only watched one episode, but the similarities were overwhelming to me. How is it different?

I never said it was incorrectly flagged. Stop putting words in my mouth Sifty.>> ^siftbot:

This video has been deemed incorrectly flagged brief (not less than 1 minute in length) - declared notbrief by messenger.

>> ^messenger:

Slightly better vid of the same thing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWclTQbDJ64


Updated, thanks

I want to see more!

Due to not specifying how much time after the Apocalypse this was occurring, the fact that we have the capability to kick one off right now, the speed of progression of scientific developments and the good atmosphere of the short film, the below list of potential conflicts are not necessarily conflicts and were happily disregarded upon noticing them.

Trees/foliage in the building.. could have been taking place 100 years after the Apocalypse, more than enough time for unrestricted plants to grow freely in any direction.

Fall from a 20+ story building doesn't crack open a strongbox, but a kick did.. genetic engineering, his kick could have had the little extra punch the box required.

Stupid guy driving into a tunnel without lights probably wouldn't be smart enough to keep himself alive in a variety of basic situations.. desperation + the cybernetic eyes Quantumushroom mentioned.

Driving just in front and into one of the lines of fire in an attempt to dodge the bullets.. maybe had to dodge a rock, or was high as a kite.

Accelerating without throttle.. may have redesigned the bike, living mostly on your own would require a range of skills, such as being your own mechanic, he didn't seem too worried about jumping off it and it being damaged.

Just make stuff up for the situation to work if you have to.. surely we've all had enough practice doing this with Hollywood.

Not only have 1% got the money. 1% have the brains too. I despair at the utter stupidity of humans. The sooner genetic engineering filters out these mongs the better.

>> ^shinyblurry:

It's more logical if you want them to be blind. The reason it is designed that way is because of UV light..water blocks it out, air doesn't..the blood vessels are in front to block out the UV light..otherwise you would be blind in a few days.
>> ^TheGenk:
Interesting, I always thought the cells were arranged like the cephalopods since it's more logical.
Got to keep that in mind when I create my army of genetically engineered superhumans to take over the world.



Since I'm an intelligent designer, I would just put a UV filter on the cornea, therefor solving this problem and increasing their ability to see in low light situations a little in one go.

It's more logical if you want them to be blind. The reason it is designed that way is because of UV light..water blocks it out, air doesn't..the blood vessels are in front to block out the UV light..otherwise you would be blind in a few days.

>> ^TheGenk:
Interesting, I always thought the cells were arranged like the cephalopods since it's more logical.
Got to keep that in mind when I create my army of genetically engineered superhumans to take over the world.

Interesting, I always thought the cells were arranged like the cephalopods since it's more logical.
Got to keep that in mind when I create my army of genetically engineered superhumans to take over the world.

*breakthrough


For videos displaying a great advancement in technology/genetics/engineering practices etc. etc. Anything that is beyond what we as a civilization know or knew about stuff .

..Im spent, roll over and smoke time.

>> ^heropsycho:

So much for civil discourse.
>> ^marbles:
>> ^heropsycho:
It takes an extremely cynical leap of faith to believe companies aren't curing cancer because it's profitable not to.
I can believe companies chase what is profitable, often times losing focus on what's important, but deliberately not curing cancer, considering how profitable it would be to develop a cancer cure, is preposterous.
>> ^marbles:
Preface: It's great if this really is a breakthrough.
I'm a bit skeptical though.
1. Genetic engineering/manipulation "therapy" has had little success. 5 years ago they claimed gene therapy could cure melanoma in the American Journal of Science. It's addressed in this article here: Don't be deluded that this is the cancer breakthrough.
2. The Powers-that-be don't really want a cure to cancer. Antineoplastons show great promise as a cure. They're non-toxic and replicate natural occurring chemicals in the body that inhibit the abnormal enzymes that cause cancer. Antineoplastons are responsible for curing some of the most incurable forms of terminal cancer. Why have you never heard of it? Good question. This is the answer: http://videosift.com/video/Burzynski-Cancer-Is-Serious-Business


It takes an extremely ignorant leap of faith to believe big business or the government has your interests at heart. If the powers-that-be really wanted a cure then they wouldn't have been criminally suppressing Burzynski's discovery for 20+ years.
You seem to have a (re-occuring) reading comprehension problem. Where did I say it wasn't profitable to cure cancer? Where did I get into motives at all?
But to address your point:
Dr. Julian Whitaker:
"The problem that we face however, is that a huge financial house has been built on the paradigm of purging the body of cancer cells. Burzynski’s discovery means that the foundation, the walls, and the roof of that house, need to be replaced. Think about it, we’ve got thousands of doctors in oncology, and in oncology residency programs, we’ve got the pharmaceutical industry pumping out chemotherapeutic agents every month. There are all kinds of machines that deliver radiation, we’ve got all this stuff in the war on cancer, and it’s trillions of dollars.
I find it very interesting that we have all these walks for the cure of cancer. We’ve got all the wristbands, we’ve got all the donations—”we’re going to find a cure in this decade.” All this money keeps pouring in—and it all goes to the same guys."
Any cure to cancer undermines a trillion dollar industry.
"Everyone should know that most cancer research is largely a fraud, and that the major cancer research organizations are derelict in their duties to the people who support them." - Linus Pauling - 2-Time Nobel Prize Winner



??? care to point out where I was uncivil in my reply towards you? What a pathetic cop-out.

So much for civil discourse.

>> ^marbles:

>> ^heropsycho:
It takes an extremely cynical leap of faith to believe companies aren't curing cancer because it's profitable not to.
I can believe companies chase what is profitable, often times losing focus on what's important, but deliberately not curing cancer, considering how profitable it would be to develop a cancer cure, is preposterous.
>> ^marbles:
Preface: It's great if this really is a breakthrough.
I'm a bit skeptical though.
1. Genetic engineering/manipulation "therapy" has had little success. 5 years ago they claimed gene therapy could cure melanoma in the American Journal of Science. It's addressed in this article here: Don't be deluded that this is the cancer breakthrough.
2. The Powers-that-be don't really want a cure to cancer. Antineoplastons show great promise as a cure. They're non-toxic and replicate natural occurring chemicals in the body that inhibit the abnormal enzymes that cause cancer. Antineoplastons are responsible for curing some of the most incurable forms of terminal cancer. Why have you never heard of it? Good question. This is the answer: http://videosift.com/video/Burzynski-Cancer-Is-Serious-Business


It takes an extremely ignorant leap of faith to believe big business or the government has your interests at heart. If the powers-that-be really wanted a cure then they wouldn't have been criminally suppressing Burzynski's discovery for 20+ years.
You seem to have a (re-occuring) reading comprehension problem. Where did I say it wasn't profitable to cure cancer? Where did I get into motives at all?
But to address your point:
Dr. Julian Whitaker:
"The problem that we face however, is that a huge financial house has been built on the paradigm of purging the body of cancer cells. Burzynski’s discovery means that the foundation, the walls, and the roof of that house, need to be replaced. Think about it, we’ve got thousands of doctors in oncology, and in oncology residency programs, we’ve got the pharmaceutical industry pumping out chemotherapeutic agents every month. There are all kinds of machines that deliver radiation, we’ve got all this stuff in the war on cancer, and it’s trillions of dollars.
I find it very interesting that we have all these walks for the cure of cancer. We’ve got all the wristbands, we’ve got all the donations—”we’re going to find a cure in this decade.” All this money keeps pouring in—and it all goes to the same guys."
Any cure to cancer undermines a trillion dollar industry.
"Everyone should know that most cancer research is largely a fraud, and that the major cancer research organizations are derelict in their duties to the people who support them." - Linus Pauling - 2-Time Nobel Prize Winner