glad i was cruising the comments,otherwise i would have never seen your reply.(you replied on your own page).

good to hear things are moving forward my friend.be patient,good ideas take a bit of time to take root.

i simply asked because i was impressed with your exchange with newtboy and your subsequent comments.you appear to be taking the far (though slower) tactic of sticking to the facts and dealing with people in a respectful and open-minded manner.

i think that is the best way to go,though it will not garner you the insta-following that hyperbole and drama that many vegans adopt to convey their message.

that only works in the short run,and in the end you will just find yourself preaching to the choir.a rabid,aggressive and morally questionable choir.all residing in an echo chamber,smelling their own farts.

what you are attempting is hard,will take time but ultimately will be beneficial for everybody.the information you are trying to get across is important and you are challenging not only deep set traditions but also the incredibly bad impression many vegans have left in so many people psyche.

nobody wants to listen to a self-righteous person who behaves as if their choices make them the arbiters of morality,kinda like born again christians.they will simply tune you out at best or ridicule you at worst.

who knows?
maybe you could even change my mind!

(although i aint ever giving up bacon,so let that one go)

guess i am just rooting for you because i know the uphill battle you are facing,and am wishing you luck.
stay awesome man!

ps:maybe you could start to post videos to illuminate the subject you are so passionate about? just an idea.

Your video, Minions "The Competition" Mini-Movie (HD) - Illumination, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

I've always said the word genius is bandied around way too much, and this video is a fine example. CRT screens/tvs follow the same idea - individual lights illuminate in sequence quickly enough to form a static picture, each pixel changes very slightly 100 times per second (refresh rate) to give the illusion of the original picture in motion. The CRT beam scans ("rasters") from top left to bottom right (for example) in exactly the same way that the device in the video spins (it rasters in a circle) and however many times it spins per second is the refresh rate.

It's a cool project and his PCB work is nice, and he's done a good job of translating a picture into a timed set of lights. The videographer uses the term genius because he was not previously aware of the long history of rasters. This would be a useful tool for teaching children about the process - CRTs might not be popular anymore, but CCDs are fundamental to (astro)physics, and the principles behind both cover a huge range of potential teaching topics.

yeah maybe. i dunno, i've seen people just freeze like a deer in the headlights whenever something unusual happens on the road.

Literally last night we pulled up as an accident had occurred ahead of us, and for the next five minutes the number of people who blasted past a line of stopped cars all with their hazards on and full headlight beams illuminating the crash site and so on, was staggering. Last minute they'd realize that yes, there's a car blocking one lane and facing the wrong way all smashed to bits and yes, there's glass and oil on the road. One after anouther they'd slam on the brakes, almost hit it, then almost get rear ended.

People drive with total tunnel vision i think. It's kinda scary how little awareness some people have. On the other hand maybe they're an asshole. hard to say.

this link shows the original Palestinian flag

http://www.factualisrael.com/1939-palestinian-flag-look-like-surprised/

It should be illuminating for the uninformed.

My thought was actually to have multiple projectors per block approximately 10 feet up (building mounted) with sensors to identify people and have them 'place' a smallish ball of light at about 8-10 feet up that floats above and in front of them, but with much less light needed than a 'street light'...and maybe stationary one's in intersections (these could even have 'covers' to stop wasted light from going up). Or, it could project tiny lights (like in the video) near ground level to illuminate the sidewalk, but that's not as useful by far.
By my estimation, there could be less pollution because there would be fewer, smaller lights on at any one time (where normal lights are just ON all night). I agree, there are many issues to solve, but it's doable if thought about thoroughly.
It's a little too late to worry about 'light pollution'...in fact I bet it's not on the average person's radar. Sadly, many people in cities have never seen stars at night and don't have a clue how much is hidden from them. (I live in the boonies of far N cali, and we still have light pollution from nearby towns, but nothing like in a city...I've even watched the international space station get re-supplied while sitting in my hot tub! That was amazing!).

I don't understand why she doesn't do what most women (and men) who don't want to be approached (be it by men, women, panhandlers, whomever!) while walking through a city do, and wear earbuds??? It's a very simple solution and provides an easy and practical way of ignoring most of these attempts (if not dissuading them altogether).

Also.. This.

And:
"Let's all stop and focus our attention on "catcalling" women. Let's forget the drone bombings of entire cities, the fact that the US has 900 military bases in over 153 countries, the fact that you are almost 9 times more likely to be killed by a police employee than a terrorist....let's take a break from that and focus on the fact that sometimes men are creepy to pretty women."


And:

"The path to empowering women is not by disempowering men.
While many feminist campaigns and viral videos are great at expressing the (superficial) problem, they're not helping to solve it. Prolonging the "battle of the sexes" and "blame game" mentality will never stop rape, harassment, or abuse. All that's being done is expressing pain and anger, which is fine, unless it's directed at another. Attacking men for attacking women isn't going to solve anything.
We need to go so much deeper than this. So much deeper.
We don't need to see more proof of "how fucked up society is"; this only propagates stereotypes that induce resentment and fear. We need to see the power of compassion, love, forgiveness, healing, empathy, and acceptance between both sexes. We need to learn why people hurt other people (hint: it's because they're hurting themselves) and how to heal it and empathize with it.
We need women to open up and love in the face of men approaching, not shut down and run away. We need men to open up and love in the face of rejection, rather than becoming bitter or forcing our will upon another.
Unabashedly, I do not support or promote campaigns that are based in pain, resentment, anger, or fear, no matter how noble the cause. I wish to lift up both sexes – nay, all people – without perpetuating the pain and conflict.
This darkness has been illuminated out in the world, now it's time to illuminate the darkness within ourselves and heal it. What we see out in our culture is a reflection of how so many of us are unable to resolve the conflicts, rejection, and hurt caused by the masculine and feminine inside of us. We can not fix this by signing new laws or going out and trying to control everybody; we do this by starting the forgiveness and healing process within ourselves and going out into the world shining love instead of hate."

fair enough and it seems your opinion is the majority.
and thanks for replying,i usually never ask why someone downvotes but i felt that we were on pretty good terms for me the broach that question.

i am not a biochemist nor a scientist but i have been coming across more and more articles from those who ARE biochemists who are coming to same conclusion that dr campbell has.

the video arvana posted had much of the same information.

but..to be fair..i have also come across articles stating the exact opposite,and campbell does have his critics and dissenters.

you know me though,i like it ALL to be on the table and danny has been kind enough to offer his services to help discern the true from the bullshit.so i look forward to his findings.

anyways,much gratitutde for illuminating your position.
you are one righteous dude and the dude abides.

My doctorate is in psychology -- a social science, which includes coursework in epistemology. I am also the executive director of a peer reviewed psychology Journal which incorporates quantitative, qualitative, and mixed method methodologies.

If science was driven purely by consensus, than the upending of long-held scientific understanding (as achieved by the likes of Galileo, or Darwin, or Einstein -- who, incidentally, upended some theories about how something as "self-evident" as gravity works -- in more notable ways and by lesser known scientists in still significant ways) would never come about. Science is not practiced by "votes," whereby the majority determines what theories are most accurate. Rather, evidence (whether it be rationally deduced, rationally induced, empirically demonstrated, or hermeneutically interpreted) serves as the basis for scientific progress, whether the majority of scientists agree with it or not.

(Climate change, itself, is rationally deduced, since empirical models of the earth are so difficult if not impossible to design, let alone run controlled trials.)

You are actually going a long way to make my point that those who are "believers" in climate change are missing the value and indeed necessity for ongoing skepticism in the scientific literature (rather than the name-calling and vilification that constitutes much of the "OMG! Climate Change!" discourse of late). That point, along with illuminating some of the citations I linked to above, is the purpose of my comment -- and not to argue (or name-call or "debate" as many on the sift waste their time doing).

I do concur that the manner in which I posted the links may not have been "fair," and so I apologize for that, but the content of the links themselves raise significant questions as to the unilateral "belief" in "OMG! [andropogenic] Climate Change!" I encourage anyone who is seriously interested in the scientific basis for skepticism around such a belief, to consider reviewing the literature cited in those links before arriving at an incontrovertible conclusion.

But in light of your request for a single link, I recommend you visit the NPCC's website and perhaps attend, specifically, to their literature about temperature changes (PDF), which I believe serve as valid refutations of the literature upon which the climate change "believers" tend to base their adrenal-freakouts.

Did you see the video of the rockets being fired from the Abu Nur school in Gaza? Illuminating.

It's a good segment. Socialists (many videosifters included, such as @ChaosEngine & @enoch) seem to be convinced that either they themselves know all the facts (i.e., narcissism?) or that the "rulers" know all the facts, or that the "majority of the people" know all the facts.

While it may be true that the masses, as a collective of course, are even more intelligent than any individual on his or her own, it is true only when individuals among the masses are acting and thinking independently of one another (i.e., pursuing their own interests as best that they themselves know how to do) and not when they are under the sway of one form of demagoguery or central planning or another.

Political democracy shows the masses in all their foolishness, while market democracy (i.e., anarchy) shows them in all their wisdom. I think it is this distinction that illuminates the discrepancy between the theory of democracy and the practice of democracy.

(Moreover, it seems that, when listening to Hayek -- or Milton Friedman or Rory Sutherland -- one gets the impression that one is listening to a highly intelligent individual. This is quite different from listening to someone like, say, Paul Krugman and other so-called "economists," who are in truth would-be pundits and polemicists and not at all cognizant of the underlying postulates that support their arguments.)

I definitely agree with you on the democracy point - my whole post was mostly an attempt to explain what I perceive to be the main factors that drive Israeli democracy toward the oppression we see over the Palestinians. The nutters on the hilltop have very little influence on this drive, but the combined forces of Jewish nationalism and protective insulation go a long way toward making these policies successful in Israel's free and democratic society.

I guess, then, in an extremely limited respect I agree with you on the 4th reich thing just because of the comparison between complacent German citizens who were only patriotic and insulated from the realities of Jewish suffering and Jews who are only patriotic and insulated from the realities of Palestinian suffering.

That being said, using the term "Fourth Reich" doesn't illuminate this sort of nuance and instead it accuses Israel of many extremes of which it is not guilty. For example Nazi Germany was guilty of a truly unprecedented campaign to methodically exterminate vast populations based on their ethnicity, and they were literally bent on world domination - I have many harsh criticisms for Israel, but if you think that Israel's conduct can be reasonably compared to that then you are delusional.

In a similar vein, while I do think that Gaza in many ways is the world's largest prison, it is not in any way comparable to Nazi concentration camps. I would much rather live in present day Gaza than be in a Nazi concentration camp, for one, and secondly I think that Israel's policy towards Gaza can better be described as one of control and marginalization, whereas the Nazi's goals with concentration camps was straight up efficient extermination.

So long story short, don't fall prey to the "reductio ad hitlerum" fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum) and make a more careful comparison between Israel's and Nazi Germany's respective civilian populations and I'd be more inclined to agree with your point.

A pretty neat historic video, and a nice illumination on a general trend!

However, I find his argument against the continuation of the trend for otherwise ordinary people to aspire to greatness to be a bit shallow. The idea that youngness and instant gratification (which is a recipe for impatience?) leads to the loss of ability of people to go through the 'difficult years' is a bit disconnected. It could be argued the exact opposite way; since all of the information we need to acquire inspiration for all great ideas can be googled in a few seconds instead of gathered from libraries across the state in a matter of days, the willingness of people to traverse the difficult years may be better than ever. I know that when I need to quickly get familiarized with a completely new and dauntingly technical subject, google and wikipedia really help a lot, and I would feel quite intimidated if I needed to go about it the old fashioned way.

I'm sorry mate, but i'm going to have to refute a bunch of this. And i hope i can do it without coming across as religious in my approach.

"Your "facts" are nothing but easily manipulated simulations based on theories," Excerpt from your full quote below.

-- The facts and science are not in contention and they are not "easily manipulated simulations". What we have are conclusions made by studious people based on data collected by electronic instruments world wide. The data is statistically analysed to find trends and patterns and then those trends and patterns are separately analysed to see how likely they are. When hundreds of those studies are done, consensus is formed and that is how humans come to all the theories that you adhere to every day; such as gravity, conservation of energy and momentum, etc. We then construct simulations that adhere to those theories and pass different parameters into the simulation to see what the results would be in a certain amount of time. Those parameters are the things you can change, a typical parameter might be the fractional amount of greenhouse gases per cubic metre or something like that, change in volume of polar ice per day perhaps. Thousands of studies analyse thousands of different parameter values and conclusions are drawn from the whole. That is why so many scientists now believe in climate change - because over thousands of scientific studies, the conclusions have pointed overwhelmingly and convincingly to bad news for humans.

I can't dispute your accusation that they are "based on theories". I have yet to meet a person that preferred to have their facts based on anything other than theories. A theory is a collection of ideas relating to a certain topic that are based on independent principles. The alternative is to pin words to a dartboard and throw blindfolded to construct facts. Or perhaps have a floor covered with words and let sacred chickens run round shitting our facts out for us. I'd prefer to use independent principles and the best logic we have available to us.

Please read this bit in particular
Scientists are not tricking or fooling anyone, there is no money in it for a scientist. If they try to lie, they are ridiculed by the rest of the scientists. If you spend 3 years at any decent university doing any science then you will discover that the scientific method is pretty sacred to scientists because it's the only way the field progresses.

BUT BUT BUT politicians get hold of the studies and lie to you about what they mean or how best to solve the problems they illuminate. They want your money, and they manipulate the science to get your money. They can do that because most people are not scientists, and need someone to explain it to them. So my advice is that you do not choose politicians to do that job, but instead use independent adherents to the scientific method who choose to dedicate their lives to scientific study - like Neil de Grasse Tyson who speaks as a scientist... and if he did not, his reputation within the scientific community would be in tatters, and other budding scientists like myself (and others) in this community would be highlighting just how full of shit he is.

So, are scientists lying to us, or are politicians lying to us? What seems more likely?