Well, the radius of the moon is about 1,080 miles, and the radius of the Sun is about 432,687 miles.
Do I need to say the rest of your grasp of the science involved is not firm?

Newtboy, please pull out a calculator and punch in 1080 x 400..the answer is 432000.

http://spaceplace.nasa.gov/review/dr-marc-earth/moon-general.html

"The Moon's size and distance contribute to a wonderful coincidence for those of us who live here on Earth. The Moon is about 400 times smaller than the Sun, but it also just happens to be about 400 times closer. The result is that from Earth, they appear to be the same size. And when its orbit around Earth takes the Moon directly between Earth and the Sun, the Moon blocks our view of the Sun in what we call a solar eclipse. This is just the same as when you use your thumb to block your view of something that is both much larger and much farther away."

See, my fairy tale tells me that giant bean stalks are real

I think you have a misunderstanding of what faith is. I have faith that the Sun will rise tomorrow because the evidence shows that it is more likely to happen than not. No one could prove that it would, but my faith is justified based on the evidence. In the same way, I have faith that Christianity is true based on the evidence of the life death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. I believe the evidence is extraordinary and sufficient to place my faith in, and that the contrary case is insufficient. Have you ever studied the evidence for the resurrection? If you haven't then you have rejected it based on your preconceived notions and biases rather than because you believe the evidence is insufficient. There are plenty of things we take on faith and believe and are perfectly rational for doing so. Here is a highlight that talks about 5 different things we all take on faith:

"PoohThrow" ... hahahaha! I LOVE this woman! She spoke at the public library when I lived on Kauai. One of the highlights of my life seeing her in person.

In the past tense, I'd agree but not today. For starters, First Nation people have 100% full Canadian citizenship and the only distinctions made based on a persons treaty status compared to a non-treaty neighbour in any Canadian city is additional rights and benefits that are potentially available to the treaty person. That is to say, First Nations people have all the full rights of everyone else in Canada, and in some situations bonuses as well.

That said, living conditions on Native Reserves in Canada are abysmal. The municipality I live in is just vastly better off than the nearby native reserves. Better access to education, policing, fire protection and health care. If that weren't bad enough, average family incomes in my municipality more than double those of neighbouring native reserve communities.

That abysmal divide in conditions though is NOT an example of we as Canadians treating First Nations terribly. If you take per capita taxes collected from community and take away per capita government dollars put back in, my community still gives more to the government than it gets back. The neighbouring reserves with far worse conditions receive far more money from the government than they pay it back. Systemically, the Canadian government is economically favouring the neighbouring reserves.

That begs the question why are conditions there so abysmal, and I can't claim to fully understand it myself. The components I DO know are at work though are many:
1.Reserves are NOT fit into government the same way as municipalities are. While my municipality is under Provincial jurisdiction, reserves are parallel with the provinces and fall directly under the federal government. The idea is reserves deserve greater autonomy to respect First Nations unique status and treaty obligations. In practice though, IMO they lose out. My community has education and health care handled by the province, which great benefits those kind of items. Reserves are responsible for those things on their own.
2. Reserves create segregation. The idea is again respecting treaty agreements and protecting First Nations culture from being overwhelmed and assimilated. In practice, that isolation is crippling the communities rather than helping them.
3. Historic abuses against previous generations of First Nations people at the hands of government get passed down to the next generation. This is amplified by the segregation on reserves.
4. Absence of accountability. The same transparency rules that apply to my municipality and all other municipalities nation wide do not apply on reserves. If my mayor spends millions of city dollars paying him or his family to do almost nothing it is more traceable than if a chief on a reserve did the same thing. Again, the idea is provide greater autonomy and not 'force' white beuracracy on First Nations, but the effect is to make it harder for them to hold their own leaders to account.

That's hardly a comprehensive list, but I think it highlights a lot of ways in which the current generation of Canadians running the country are very conscience of treating First Nations well and just failing at it through mutual mistakes. Any efforts to convert the failed reserve systems to municipality status will by fought the most by the very people living in the failed reserves. I wish knew how to move things forward to a better place, but the root is nothing as simple as 'treat First Nations better'.

I dunno, I think that he was asking an (unfortunately) common question in a way that gave Greenwald a fair and friendly environment to respond to it -- which he did in spectacular style. I thought that his response was definitely the highlight of the Q/A at the end, and arguably a highlight of the entire speech/video.

If he went on Bill O'Reilly or some other Fox News show, the same question would be asked, and then he be interrupted during his response rather that allowing him to point out the ridiculousness of that line of thinking... So, I think that between A) playing Devil's Advocate and getting that question out of the way, and B) kind of "lobbing" the question to him instead of really going full-tilt, it was a good way to allow Greenwald to respond to that issue without having it seem like they were avoiding pressing him with the "tough questions". Pretty well done, I think.

From everything I've read he didn't get fired - he just left. I think he was always too extreme for a prime time BBC quiz as was highlighted by the reactions of his fellow comedians to his jokes.

I'm damn sure he has far more material cut than left in and that must get frustrating for anybody.

It's a pity though because judging on what his produced post-MTW he seems to be far better at fighting what's expected of a panellist than being a star in his own right.

Refreshing to see a highlights reel that's not about the crashes (though I love those too).

To a certain extent, but unfortunately a charismatic (or dictatorial) leadership, or even parents passing on their belief systems to their children, can create or enforce ideals that can shape society. Many people still adhere to religion because "that's the way it's always been", not because the religion actually fits their personal ethics...

In general, I do actually agree with you in regards to the concept that secularity tends to lead to enlightenment, but there are plenty of secular countries that are authoritarian/despotic (North Korea being a shining example), violent and considerably backwards compared to countries which have a high proportion of religious people and freedom. Unfortunately, enlightenment leads to arrogance as well.

The continual push by the media/politicians etc to classify Muslims as a homogenous whole smacks more of an attempt to play on xenophobia and racism than any factual evidence.

Particularly when the enlightened country making the most noise about it has "In God We Trust" printed on their currency. Compound that with provoking and polarising moderate Muslims by marginalising and insulting them? Enlightenment does not preclude gross stupidity.

A simple look at the US (secular mind you) shows stark differences between the north and the south, red states and blue states etc. You're proposing that 1.5 bn people (that would be ~5 times more people than the entire population of the US) spread across most countries in the world are somehow tightly aligned purely because they share a religion that is as varied as any other in the world?

And the mean truth? The arrogance and presumption of "enlightened neighbours" are part of the reasons why certain countries are as they are...

Iran is a classic example. The US (all enlightened and shit) engineers the coup that deposes a democratically elected Prime Minister hailed as a leading champion of secular democracy. And when the Shah was overthrown, it was by fundamentalists lead by Ayatollah Khomeini, ushering in an era of strict theocracy and an abiding hatred of the US.

Your last paragraph highlights the problem perfectly. We have two media reporters, deliberately or ignorantly, disseminating false information which would probably lead to discrimination against Muslims. How ethical is it to incite an entire country to hate over the actions of a tiny percentage of the whole? How ethical is it to ignore humanitarian disasters in countries which have no strategic or natural resource value (and places where no white people have been beheaded)?

And when presented with empirical truth, how ethical is it to refuse to accept it?

I hate on most superhero films but I enjoyed this one immensely. It's got lots of humour, the writing is pretty tight and this scene was a great highlight.
Only downsides are Jennifer Lawrence and Dinklage, both of whom are vastly overrated.
McAvoy and Fassbender are excellent. Good acting like that really elevates the whole film.

I don't think she/he's trolling - i think she/he's an idiot. It reminds me of that picture i see around - "hurrr durrr i'm a idiot!" "go away idiot" "joke's on them, it was all a ruse!" ... In other words, if it looks and sounds like an idiot then it's an idiot, even if it's intentionally being one.

The only possible explanation is that she/he is some kind of innovative anti-troll that states the best possible argument for the worst possible opinion - worst as rated on a scale of how damaging and unfair it is to society; religion, the environment, equality - all videos that she/he has been spouting the most abominable shite about within the last week alone! She/He sets up the perfect bad argument for someone to come along and blow it up point by point, all of which she/he pointedly ignores. Everyone who reads past comes to understand the argument, see that one side makes sense and is rational, and comes to the correct conclusion.

In which case i hope you'll all join me in a great big thanks for her/his contributions to highlighting the plight of the boot-trodden minorities. You never fail to set up the perfect knock down for anyone who has any kind of reasoned understanding of anything you post about. Back in the 00s here in England we all thought Dom Joly and Sascha Baron Cohen were crazy fools, but they were 10 years ahead of their time. And now Zach Galifianakis is standing on the shoulders of giants. Great work, @lantern53.

Do you hear yourself? " If I disagree with something a BLACK person does, how come I'm a racist"

Maybe because you keep referring to them as black as a negative.

Maybe they're just people and not black people. You say we're playing the race card, but we're not the one making sweeping generalizations about how the looters were young black males, you did that.

Not to mention the desperate need by you to conflate the shooting and the looting as a single event. The shooting and the looting are two separate events, sure one is happening because of the other but they are still separate events. The inference by the racists is that apparently only black people loot and never other people and we know this to not be true.

You're picking and choosing which evidence you believe to be reliable and if what you claim is true and you're a cop so you're anything but unbiased. Hell even Bob of all people admitted that not all the facts are in and that some of the evidence doesn't look favorable for the shooter. If even Bob can admit it, why can't you? Because you're biased that's why. It's standard "I want it to be true, therefore it is true" mentality.

All the "leftists" (another term used with negative connotations) are saying is that racism exists and is still alive and well. Even if this shooting turns out to not be racially motivated. It still highlights the underlying problem. People don't trust cops and as you are so fond of saying, that trust and respect has to be earned, not mandated. I know you wouldn't begrudge the population taking possibly violent measures against an organization that is perceived to be tyrannical, now would you. Because otherwise you'd be a hypocrite and we wouldn't want that now would we.

But hey, don't take my word for it, just keep hurling insults and sweeping generalizations when people don't agree with you and you get mad and go into sour grapes mode and change your argument and use other distractions. It's worked out for you so well so far.

I also found it interesting they highlighted the Ryugyong Hotel (the huge pyramid building). It's been under construction for 25 years, largely halted since the Soviet Union collapsed and the slush fund train ended. While the exterior is done according to wikipedia, the interior is not and it's always be unoccupied.

China's metropolises feed a similar misconception. They are similarly impressive that it's easy to forget that the country as a whole is still very poor. China's GDP per capita is half of Brazil, a quarter of South Korea and a tenth that of the US.

While China is obviously not as repressive as NK, the hukou dual citizenship system has a similar effect of segregation rural and urban dwellers. While rural workers may be able to move to work in the cities, they will enjoy none of the social benefits and protections that local citizens do. This has a lot to do with China's disparity of income and accretion of wealth to the large cities.

Hey look. "He's a comedian" should be the first thing you mentioned, because that's what he is. He's a clever and compassionate guy, but he's ultimately a comedian.

The guys he's referring to are supposed to work in news reporting.

You'll have to give him artistic license to use his skills to lampoon and lambaste their skills. He isn't going to professionally debate Hannity especially when the man can't even allow a debate to happen on a national news station. He is certainly capable of it, but don't expect him (a comedian) to take the high ground over a news anchor. If the anchor wants to act like a child and use silly methods to trick people, Brand is fully entitled to use his superior silly methods to highlight the truth.

@bareboards2 I am utterly stupefied by your ability to dismiss my argument whilst at the same time not addressing any single part of it. Without so much as questioning my reasoning, you've labelled me, stuck me in a box and judged me, calling on others to hear of your sadness at.....what? Detailed, thoughtful and politely delivered criticism?

The worst thing here is that if i were to suggest that your reply, or the content of this video, was "femscaping" or something similarly derogatory then you would have lynched me up on the nearest tree for sexism - the thing you want to stop. Yet when you dismiss a comment i make as something equally sexist and based entirely on my gender (because you sure as shit never once mentioned any part of my argument), that's absolutely fine.

Is it really beneficial to your cause to attempt to censor people who question the content of the message; label them, dismiss them and profess your sadness for the human tragedy of ignorance like a scientologist? A good conclusion with good evidence would not need your protection from my scrutiny.

If you think i'm on some sort of misogynist bandwagon, then you're dead wrong about me. I've criticised a couple of videos recently because i considered them to be supplying dodgy data or trickery. Whenever a video wants to make evidence based claims, i reserve the right to question their methodology and that is fundamental to any kind of evidence. The topic is entirely coincidental.

If you have a problem with my argument then by all means i welcome your criticism, but criticise the argument rather than calling me sexist names. What you did to me is no different to if i had simply commented "militant-feminist bullshit" without addressing any of the video, at which point you would have highlighted your plight and appealed to sympathy. But no, i offered a thorough explanation of my feelings, and i'm still the horrible mansplainer. No - i'm analytical, and i make no apologies for the damage that does to your cause.

Of all the people who offered detailed criticism of this video, one of them sided with you and the other didn't. Guess which one you engaged in discussion? I even offered you examples and reasoning, but no, i get just sexism.

Yeah, so halfway through and he's just finished the bit about Sucker Punch. Gonna have to stop you there, buddy. I *have* seen Sucker Punch along with all of Snyders other movies (except the owl thing).

He's a technically gifted director, but he's at his best when he's adapting material (300, Dawn of the Dead). His Watchmen was a solid adaptation of the source material, but it completely missed the point of the original (which was to highlight the strengths of comics as a medium). Stripped of all it's little nuances, Watchmen is a decent if unremarkable superhero movie, whereas the comic is a work of genuine literary innovation.

As for the rest of the video, if you have to make a video like this is explain why the movie is not bad, then clearly the movie failed to connect with it's intended audience. Even if there is an explanation for each of those story points (and his dads death is still retarded), it doesn't matter. Taken as a whole the movie just feels wrong. And frankly, by the end, I was bored. I had no investment in any of the characters.

And the final comment is utter bollocks. Yeah, Superman's been an asshole in the comics. Hell, I've never even really been a fan of Superman (stories involving an indestructible being with near god like strength aren't that interesting). But you've just spent 15 minutes explaining why it's a good movie despite those previous attributes, so I can't respond with my (equally subjective) opinion?

This is a pretty good summary