Thanks for the promote I have a few more of these to post, coming soon to "unsifted".

I like your new avatar, too.
In reply to this comment by LadyDeath:
*promote,really nice!

>> ^Mcboinkens:

This is so ridiculous I can't even really take the comparison seriously. Not discovering the Americas earlier in the history of Earth was mostly due to our own ignorance. We though the world was flat, and assumed nothing else existed. The vikings are alleged to have made it to the Americas much earlier than Columbus, even.
On the other hand, physics is holding us back in space. Sure, if we learn how to bend spacetime or use wormholes we may have a shot at getting off earth, but it's silly as hell to think it will actually happen within the next 1000 years or so. By that time, we'll probably all be extinct already.
Terra-forming is out of the question, it would be impossible in anything but science fiction, and the only reasonable planet we could even do it to is Mars, which we can hardly get a probe to that worked successfully. Will we make progress? Yeah, definitely. But to think we'll leave this planet is absurd. The only hope for humanity is progress in renewable energy, population control(limiting births, not promoting genocide)and learning to accept other people for their culture and religion. The faster we figure that out, the better off we'll be.
Also, that west wing clip was flat out dumb. Sending men to Mars would do nothing for us but inflate our Space-peen. There is literally nothing to gain from sending humans there rather than robots. It is riskier both cost and liability-wise. The only thing remotely useful would be setting up a base, which would require huge funds, and a ridiculous amount of new research. Plus, they really wouldn't be able to do much once it was set up. We already know the atmosphere, composition, and features of Mars. What would a man do?


First, the issue of whether or not the earth was flat was pretty much settled by Pythagoras in the 6th century BCE. Columbus had so much trouble drumming up funds precisely because anyone who knew anything about cartography (i.e., the Portugese) knew that he was either lying or suicidally deluded. We don't know why Columbus thought what he thought, and we probably never will. Perhaps he believed but could not prove that there HAD to be something between the Western coast of Ireland and the eastern coast of Japan. As for why no one else tried it, you're right. Others had. Don't forget that there is strong evidence of others visiting the Americas prior to the Vikings. Given how many Polynesians must have given their lives to map out the ocean currents that led to the fragments of rock jutting out of the ocean, it was apparently something intrinsic to the species, but no longer as strong a yearning.

And I never precluded the use of robots to get us where we're going, at least initially. I do think that there is tremendous hubris in the fields of science when it comes to what we know and what is left for us to discover. It does seem like there's a lot of space out there, and the distance which once seemed so insignificant to the early sci fi writers now seems insurmountable. I take Pascal's Wager (or at least the fallacious logic that drives it) and say that the actions we must take to get us out there would benefit the human race as a whole far more than it would hurt. To give up would be to surrender to a nihilism quite endemic in the species. Consider for a moment the construction of the cathedrals. Would such populist public work projects even be possible in this day and age? Would the average Joe be willing to start a project, knowing that he would not be able to live to see its completion? If we don't get off this rock, I blame that attitude far more than I blame the laws of physics.

To get back to the present topic, it's possible that the railgun technology being developed could serve as a kind of propulsion, but it seems as if they've worked out the mechanics of the propulsion, and only need to get the scale down pat. They know how to send something really fast, but they want to weaponize it, to better kill at a distance, an attitude that has never won us many friends. As a result, I'd pull money out of this program.

Finally, I cannot really respond to your dismissal of a manned trip to Mars, because it's clear that you don't see what I and so many others see. Maybe it's a simple matter of me being that Polynesian sitting on the shore of Rapa Nui, wondering what other islands were out there. You, on the other hand, would rather we invent some better way to catch fish, or to figure out what to tell people so they don't chop all the freaking trees down and doom us all to a nasty population crash. Your instinct and my instinct don't run contrary to each other, as long as I'm willing to plant a few trees on my way out to sea. What you learn and what you do help me to do what I want, and what I might learn would benefit you and what you do.

"Find a 12 year old and have him regurgitate this" That wasn't my point I realize statistically there are not many people his age that learn this or could repeat it back thats not what im saying at all.


The point is if you are making a video describing how something works Its better to explain why things are why they are or you are doing nothing to help other people , you are accentually just showing of that u know something which was my point about this video in that it is a video of a kid showing of they know something which is utterly useless and exactly the same as a kid showing of they speek another language or can program well ( arguably skills that require the same amount of intellect) , its been known for a long time that some kids can do stuff that is often thought to complex for kids and only thought that adults can do it so there is not realy much of intrest of this video to the casual viewer.


"Furthermore, why are you admitting that you are so ignorant about math? That's not a good thing...it shouldn't be a nonchalant admission that somebody isn't even willing to try and understand the language of the universe"

Thats a moronic thing to say do you play the peano? speak multiple languages ? program in multiple languages? CAN YOU NOT PAINT PHOTO REAL IMAGES ? DON'T YOU KNOW HOW TO DO CINEMATIC EFFECTS ? All those skills can potentaily be benoficail to society and help you understand the world better.

How is sumone saying that they are at a lower level of uinderstanding of something negative and how can you then interpret that as them saying math is of no use or that they dont think math is of use ? or that they are not willing to learn it ?

Granted i did write "I dont really know any math" This is not true what i meant was I don't know any of the math thats in this video and am at a very basic level of math. I am intrestead in math in general I am just stupendously dyslexic and find it ridiculously difficult to learn things such as some of the more basic aspects of math and find that all the books and teachers i have had have thought in a way thats not very compatible with my way of learning.

strangely i find it far easer to understand the more complex concepts of math its the Human computing element i struggle with Litraly am missing the component of the brain that can do that lol.

some of the things that got in the way of me learning math at school are rediculously simple , such as when typing numbers into a calculator i would forget what the last number i put in was , or typing in numbers back to front , or looking at the white board and then looking at what i was writing only to have to look back at the board , then u have the fact that i would write 10x slower than anyone else and would be forced to use a pencil. Another issue with math is that you are using the same symbols to describe different things sumone that is maximum dyslexic retarded ( well in my case annyway ) likes to have individual single meaning to each symbol and to be able to see everything as an image in one go not completely fragmented in component parts that make little sense.

I am quite happy to pootel along with a reasonably basic working knowlage of math and focus my time on things that come more naturally to me , I'm sure eventually i will come across a good teacher of math or sum-one that has developed a more visual way of learning traditionally non visual aspects of math and then I will have another poke at it.




>> ^rottenseed:

Find a 12 year old and have him regurgitate this. He explains the derivation of integration by parts which is a lot better than most the people I know. I mean when I learned integration by parts, it's not like I had to invent it, I really just had to learn it, and, for all intents and purposes, regurgitate it on the test. Now I know what integration by parts is, and I don't have to reinvent it every time I see it, I just know the skill, by memory...does that make me somebody that doesn't know maths? No.
Furthermore, why are you admitting that you are so ignorant about math? That's not a good thing...it shouldn't be a nonchalant admission that somebody isn't even willing to try and understand the language of the universe. Go back to your US weekly and check out the latest photos of Kim Kardashian, we'll call you when dinner's ready.>> ^westy:
Realy stupid video.
Might as well be a video of a kid that can program just talking as they code something , without explaining things. Or its like a multilingual kid speaking Spanish to English people.
I dont really know any math but it comes across in this video like he is simply regurgitating what would be fairly common or easy to understand math for sum-one that was doing that type of math and he dosent realy do a very good job at actualy exsplaning things other than saying THIS IS THIS BECAUSE THIS IS THIS, Which is fine really cnt expect kids to be good teachers i just dont get why his moron mother is filming it and uploading it on to the internet i guess its here way of gaining self worth.
In some ways i would rather have this than moron parents filming kids doing sports or other activities we could do with a more kids culturally encouraged to be into science.
I know this kid is well known for being good at science/math well beyond his age and i think he has aspergers so its good to encourage him and keep him focused on stuff so he dosent go into his shell. but he has not done annything utterly remarkable and it seems allot of people are embuing him as sumone that will change the world of science , maby he will but at this point in time and you should not put that presure on people or have that exspectation when they are developing as kids. futhar more from what i have read he still has a basic understanding of things that will need to be fleshed out before he can come up with ideas that are of use scentificaly and allot of the fame and promotion of this child is from midea making stuff up and hyping things out of propotion.
I hope he does well and benefits science and does what he enjoys but hope his character is not retardified by his parents or what the midea might do to him.

I believe that your sentence fragment requires a tad more explanation. Celtic what? Celtic people?>> ^SpaceOddity:

>> ^Fusionaut:
The same thing applies to military

And the Celtic...

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

I was going to give a long winded reply about how you are completely full of crap, but I decided against it. It is fairly obvious you have formed your opinion based in very little evidence. I don't think you will find many people that support your position that "Ron Paul does it for the votes". He has never been a mainstream candidate, never pandered, and usually the outcast even in his own party. So much so, that he has run as a 3rd party before, and railed against the 2 party system.
In otherwords, not to be rude, I think your full of shit. That your ideas on Dr. Paul are based on very fragmented bits. I understand your skepticism after Obama; but even people who hate Dr. Paul's politics here on the sift, like DT and Net, always say how they admire his integrity, and straight forward honesty. There are many snakes on capital hill, most people would agree that this is not one of them.
>> ^ghark:
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
>> ^ghark:
>> ^blankfist:
Again. Why is this man not president?

Watch a few of his interviews, he's as corrupt as the rest of them. He denied that the impact of the BP oil spill was significant and even played down direct evidence (tarballs) in one I saw. This is normal party politics, a few of them make speeches to get people on their side, but the voting never follows them - e.g the use of Weiner/Grayson by the Dems during the Healthcare "debate" to get people to think the Dems wanted a real healthcare bill - but all the while they get the numbers to vote with the lobbyists because that's where the money comes from for all of them.

So your accusing the man of normal party politics when we have this video showing him in direct opposition to his party politics....what was your point again?

You missed the point good sir, being in direct opposition when making a speech is completely irrelevant in pretty much all cases, because the votes are all that matters. I gave an example, perhaps read all of my post next time. The reason he is making the speech is pretty clear, it gets people to think that the two party system works because they have at least one person in the party they can side with. It's basically just a part of marketing the party to the public.
In case you hadn't noticed, there have been anti-war speeches like this for many many years, and what exactly has been done?
And of course, the best example of all - Obama - lots of great speeches to get people on his side, no action. It works because people have short memories.



I never said he does it for the votes, it's not really even about him, it's more about the party and how they can get people like you to believe in them because they have one or two seemingly upright candidates. As an example, go look up his Wiki, he's responsible for quite a significant amount of 'no' votes on what he deems are improper bills, that sounds great on paper, yet what difference is it going to make when ~95% of the party votes yes and bulldozers them through anyway. Look at your own example, you say he rails against the two party system - yet he's IN the two party system - you see what I mean? It's politics, if you can't see that then I'm sorry.

I think his stance on many issues is technically great, legalization of marijuana, stopping the war etc, but listen to, or read, his interviews - you find quotes like this:
"I mean, it’s a horrible accident, but it’s an accident. Do you think BP likes this kind of stuff? It’s not like they committed a criminal act".

Yea great, let BP destroy the environment through reckless malpractice, if you've spent any time researching the spill you would know it went far deeper than being a simple accident, he says he is for unlimited liability, then in the same breath defends the oil company for that disaster.

He is also against universal healthcare - he is also against the current system - but once again, with the two party system, how is it going to be fixed? Short answer - it isn't.

So my point is that some of his principles are great, some are awful, he takes fewer corporate donations than most of his colleagues - once again, great - but what difference is it going to make in the bigger picture while the current system is in place? The answer goes back to my original point - it gets people like you on board, and that is it; he can't, by himself, create significant improvements, even assuming that he wants to.

I was going to give a long winded reply about how you are completely full of crap, but I decided against it. It is fairly obvious you have formed your opinion based in very little evidence. I don't think you will find many people that support your position that "Ron Paul does it for the votes". He has never been a mainstream candidate, never pandered, and usually the outcast even in his own party. So much so, that he has run as a 3rd party before, and railed against the 2 party system.

In otherwords, not to be rude, I think your full of shit. That your ideas on Dr. Paul are based on very fragmented bits. I understand your skepticism after Obama; but even people who hate Dr. Paul's politics here on the sift, like DT and Net, always say how they admire his integrity, and straight forward honesty. There are many snakes on capital hill, most people would agree that this is not one of them.

>> ^ghark:

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
>> ^ghark:
>> ^blankfist:
Again. Why is this man not president?

Watch a few of his interviews, he's as corrupt as the rest of them. He denied that the impact of the BP oil spill was significant and even played down direct evidence (tarballs) in one I saw. This is normal party politics, a few of them make speeches to get people on their side, but the voting never follows them - e.g the use of Weiner/Grayson by the Dems during the Healthcare "debate" to get people to think the Dems wanted a real healthcare bill - but all the while they get the numbers to vote with the lobbyists because that's where the money comes from for all of them.

So your accusing the man of normal party politics when we have this video showing him in direct opposition to his party politics....what was your point again?

You missed the point good sir, being in direct opposition when making a speech is completely irrelevant in pretty much all cases, because the votes are all that matters. I gave an example, perhaps read all of my post next time. The reason he is making the speech is pretty clear, it gets people to think that the two party system works because they have at least one person in the party they can side with. It's basically just a part of marketing the party to the public.
In case you hadn't noticed, there have been anti-war speeches like this for many many years, and what exactly has been done?
And of course, the best example of all - Obama - lots of great speeches to get people on his side, no action. It works because people have short memories.

Sentence!

(because no on else did )>> ^Ryjkyj:

>> ^dannym3141:
>> ^Fusionaut:
"'cause"... don't forget the apostrofe... it means you left some letters out.>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
Cause knowing is half the battle.
>> ^thegrimsleeper:
Stephen Fry

>> ^SlipperyPete:
Whose



Apostrophe, you moran!

That's a sentance fragment!

>> ^dannym3141:

>> ^Fusionaut:
"'cause"... don't forget the apostrofe... it means you left some letters out.>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
Cause knowing is half the battle.
>> ^thegrimsleeper:
Stephen Fry

>> ^SlipperyPete:
Whose



Apostrophe, you moran!


That's a sentance fragment!

>> ^Trancecoach:

true f ing story.


It's also interesting to note that these are the same times you'll find Puritans going nuts about everything and prohibition.

All this "blue law" crap and other culture/societal based laws literally sent us on a path with the Mob/Mafia that we still deal with today; it almost destroyed the country (or atleast it may have fragmented it). Now we have the "Drug Wars™" and they're doing the same thing. We even got a new Federal Arm as the DHS. Time will tell if we dig ourselves out before it gets to bloody.

/Just look at Texas, New Mexico, Florida, Arizona, and California (and to a lesser degree other coastal/border states). It's the Mob/Mafia Part II, except we call them Druglords™ and Gangs™ and speak of them as though they're a tiny nuisance to the community and that once they're in jail everything is peachy again. Wait ten too twenty years when it gets farther into the country than right at the border. Then in 50-60 years Zynga can make a new, really popular game called Drug Wars™. Hollywood will have it's movies as well: Druglord I, Druglord II, Druglord III...

//So frustratingly predictable.

>> ^Psychologic:

In all fairness, the news story doesn't demonstrate that his visitations were altered because he is agnostic, only that it was mentioned in the ruling. It's possible there were other issues such as a lack of proper communication regarding visitation times and transportation. It could be more about a conflict between the father and mother than an issue the judge had with the father's belief. Perhaps the statements about his beliefs were just context for issues that weren't mentioned.
Of course, it's also possible that the judge simply doesn't like non-christians, but I feel that the news story could have established as stronger correlation if that were the case. It's hard to tell when they don't include the full sentences containing those passages.


I'd up vote your post more if I could.

Obviously if the religion of the parents was a consideration in the judges result this would be outrageous and I would say quite plainly illegal. However, the news report only shows 3 sentence fragments, not even the full sentences, with no context. Even in that it states, at most, that religious differences have impacted the parents communication. I am pretty inclined to believe that if the judge really denied custody based on the father's religion or lack thereof that the sensationalist local news team could've pulled together something a little more specific.

As it stands, I'm pretty sure the real story here is not a judge deciding custody based on religious preferences.

In both this video and the previous swimming pool hail maelstrom video I don't see any accumulation of ice in the swimming pools. I wonder why.
1) Camera quality and compression hides it?
2) Pools are warm from the summer?
3) Hail stones fragment and melt quickly?
4) There's not actually as much hail falling as it seems?

Thanks, in hindsight, I don't like my tone. I would rather live in a world of little conflict and shouting...and there I go shouting and reacting in anger. O well, only human I guess.

In reply to this comment by enoch:
In reply to this comment by GeeSussFreeK:
Our president that embargo japan and tried to get us more involved in WW2 was "liberal"...not "conservative". There are so many over generalizations and factual errors here it is embarrassing. And trying to compare the actions of nations to the actions of religions is a farce. Historically speaking, war mongering is the start of more wars than pacifism. Rome was always attacking barbarian tribes preeminently so they wouldn't become a problem later...only for them to become a major problem later because of all the blood spilled. It later slaughtered hundreds of thousands of "Christian", only to later become a Christian nation...that then slaughtered other religions.

Violence begets violence, not the other way around. Sure, being passive sometimes enables some jerk off to get some footing and make his mark. But that is far better than everyone being a violent jerk off. A war every now and again against the embedded strongman, imo, is much better than constant war. Moreover, this is all just conjecture on the way nations work...religions are a different, far more fragmented. Off the top of my head I can name 30 different Christian denominations. I only know 2 main Muslim ones, but I am sure they have just as much deviation as Christians on the different Fatwas they hold to.

Edit: Also, what the fuck is his point? Violence is the answer? While sometimes it is the only option left on the table, it certainly isn't an answer, when the cause your trying to cure IS VIOLENCE (YOU FREAKING MORON). While there are situations were mutual threats of violence keep violence at bay (cold war), it still FREAKING SUCKS TO LIVE IN THE FREAKING COLD WAR (YOU FREAKING MORON). The REAL brave person does what MLK does and lay down in the street and let them kick you, or do what Jesus did and let the Crucify you. If you want the world to change, then you have to change yourself first. This guy prescribes the sickness to fight the sickness (you freaking moron).

right on brother

In reply to this comment by GeeSussFreeK:
Our president that embargo japan and tried to get us more involved in WW2 was "liberal"...not "conservative". There are so many over generalizations and factual errors here it is embarrassing. And trying to compare the actions of nations to the actions of religions is a farce. Historically speaking, war mongering is the start of more wars than pacifism. Rome was always attacking barbarian tribes preeminently so they wouldn't become a problem later...only for them to become a major problem later because of all the blood spilled. It later slaughtered hundreds of thousands of "Christian", only to later become a Christian nation...that then slaughtered other religions.

Violence begets violence, not the other way around. Sure, being passive sometimes enables some jerk off to get some footing and make his mark. But that is far better than everyone being a violent jerk off. A war every now and again against the embedded strongman, imo, is much better than constant war. Moreover, this is all just conjecture on the way nations work...religions are a different, far more fragmented. Off the top of my head I can name 30 different Christian denominations. I only know 2 main Muslim ones, but I am sure they have just as much deviation as Christians on the different Fatwas they hold to.

Edit: Also, what the fuck is his point? Violence is the answer? While sometimes it is the only option left on the table, it certainly isn't an answer, when the cause your trying to cure IS VIOLENCE (YOU FREAKING MORON). While there are situations were mutual threats of violence keep violence at bay (cold war), it still FREAKING SUCKS TO LIVE IN THE FREAKING COLD WAR (YOU FREAKING MORON). The REAL brave person does what MLK does and lay down in the street and let them kick you, or do what Jesus did and let the Crucify you. If you want the world to change, then you have to change yourself first. This guy prescribes the sickness to fight the sickness (you freaking moron).

right on brother

Our president that embargo japan and tried to get us more involved in WW2 was "liberal"...not "conservative". There are so many over generalizations and factual errors here it is embarrassing. And trying to compare the actions of nations to the actions of religions is a farce. Historically speaking, war mongering is the start of more wars than pacifism. Rome was always attacking barbarian tribes preeminently so they wouldn't become a problem later...only for them to become a major problem later because of all the blood spilled. It later slaughtered hundreds of thousands of "Christian", only to later become a Christian nation...that then slaughtered other religions.

Violence begets violence, not the other way around. Sure, being passive sometimes enables some jerk off to get some footing and make his mark. But that is far better than everyone being a violent jerk off. A war every now and again against the embedded strongman, imo, is much better than constant war. Moreover, this is all just conjecture on the way nations work...religions are a different, far more fragmented. Off the top of my head I can name 30 different Christian denominations. I only know 2 main Muslim ones, but I am sure they have just as much deviation as Christians on the different Fatwas they hold to.

Edit: Also, what the fuck is his point? Violence is the answer? While sometimes it is the only option left on the table, it certainly isn't an answer, when the cause your trying to cure IS VIOLENCE (YOU FREAKING MORON). While there are situations were mutual threats of violence keep violence at bay (cold war), it still FREAKING SUCKS TO LIVE IN THE FREAKING COLD WAR (YOU FREAKING MORON). The REAL brave person does what MLK does and lay down in the street and let them kick you, or do what Jesus did and let the Crucify you. If you want the world to change, then you have to change yourself first. This guy prescribes the sickness to fight the sickness (you freaking moron).

>> ^spawnflagger:

Carl Sagan said almost the same thing 30 years ago in 1 of the episodes of Cosmos, but instead of caffeinated-arm-flailing-rant format, he said it slow and concisely, albeit slightly monotone. Because of the cold war, and the man-will-destroy-itself-in-nuclear-fallout attitude of the time, he was not so optimistic about finding other societies, because he imagined other societies would do similar, as in they would kill themselves shortly after coming up with radio and nuclear technology.
There was an update to the series a few years later, and he was much more optimistic that humanity would not destroy itself.
Also, it's not likely that any of the early radio waves we sent out will be "readable" once they reach a considerable distance away, so it's irrelevant whether they watch TV or not.

Even without the immediate threat of Nuclear War we still have plenty of time and options to kill ourselves off with. We haven't even travelled to our nearest planet, I think its going to be a while before we ever really explore the Solar System, never mind the rest of the Galaxy. I think if Humans ever do survive that long, if we somehow manage to obtain the wisdom to match our technology and dodge planet killing asteroids, then we will probably have less in common with them than we do with our fishy ancestors.

As for extraterrestrial life, there is a fair chance it exists, or has existed or will exist. I think its not too much of a stretch to imagine intelligent life. I don't think we'll ever find them, not without faster than light travel. And space isn't just vast in 3 dimensions, its pretty fast in a the 4th as well. We have existed for the tiniest sliver of time, we've had technology for a tiny sliver of that...We have to survive for a very very long time before we are anything but a tiny fragment of history.