This doesn't make any sense to me at all.

If you have two monkeys standing next to two monkeys, you have four monkeys. In 5 seconds, unless another monkey walks up or one of them has a baby, you still have 4 monkeys.

There's no "laws of mathematics" here, it's just counting. Unless someone changes the what the words mean, you still count the same amount of monkeys. Or, perhaps, some external agent fundamentally alters the situation by adding hidden monkeys, or making invisible monkeys, or creating parallel universe monkeys that you can't count - but even in those situations, you're still just counting monkeys and missing some.

2+2 is still 4. That's a certainty. You can argue whether or not it means anything, has any value, or whether or not those monkeys are even real. But none of that matters. There's still 4 monkeys that I can see. Of that, I can be certain.

You don't need to justify "universal laws" without a lawgiver. They don't care whether you justify them or not. They don't care if you attribute them to Jesus, Odin or Zeus. They just are what they are. That's kind of the point. That wavelength is gonna be that wavelength, because it is. Just as 4 monkeys will continue to be 4 monkeys, until the situation changes.

>> Does it still count as a “machine” if it contains the bodies of dozens of the world's most famous extreme athletes...



... and Rickie Fowler.

He was probably still counting to make sure he had all his teeth, eyes and facial outlets intact.

I'm with UsesProzac; numbers are not my forte. Had I not Googled the answer, I can easily tell you that I'd be at:
24 days and still counting...

At first I didn't like sitting on those exercise balls. Especially because when I first tried it I was studying. I felt the fact that I was sitting on a ball distracted me too much. Fast forward a few months later...we hire a new employee. He brings his big exercise ball in to sit on. I mock him for some time (I've known him for years), but when he needs computer help, I have to sit on it to work at his desk. I love it now. That's right...I love another mans balls.>> ^JiggaJonson:

Love the deftly sarcastic rhetoric here.
I wonder if it still counts if people sit on balls...
Not THOSE kinds of balls you perverts!!!
"But Jigga, you're the one who posted the link?!" -Random sifter
"Shut up bitch!" SLAP
Now as I was saying, ahem, I sit on a ball at least once a day for as long as I can stand it. Stability balls are a great way for me to get a little something out of sitting as often as I do. Basically the way it works is you're constantly being thrown slightly off balance. That imbalance forces you to use muscles in your abs and butt that would normally be doing nothing.
I know it's not largely significant (a 2008 study showed it only increased calories burned by about 6%, comparable to standing) but while sitting on the ball I frequently try to lean back to lounge the way I would in a chair and my body is consistently surprised that I jsut tricked it into doing a sit-up of sorts (although sometimes the body rebels and I fall off) :-).
Still no 6-pack, but every little bit helps.

Love the deftly sarcastic rhetoric here.

I wonder if it still counts if people sit on balls...
Not THOSE kinds of balls you perverts!!!

"But Jigga, you're the one who posted the link?!" -Random sifter
"Shut up bitch!" *SLAP*

Now as I was saying, ahem, I sit on a ball at least once a day for as long as I can stand it. Stability balls are a great way for me to get a little something out of sitting as often as I do. Basically the way it works is you're constantly being thrown slightly off balance. That imbalance forces you to use muscles in your abs and butt that would normally be doing nothing.

I know it's not largely significant (a 2008 study showed it only increased calories burned by about 6%, comparable to standing) but while sitting on the ball I frequently try to lean back to lounge the way I would in a chair and my body is consistently surprised that I jsut tricked it into doing a sit-up of sorts (although sometimes the body rebels and I fall off) :-).

Still no 6-pack, but every little bit helps.

Aww..that still counts even though you don't see nipple? Dang, I tried to slip that by...pun intended.
>> ^ponceleon:

le cartoon bewbs are nsfw

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

>> ^garmachi:
It's been many years since I studied physics. What does the lowercase gamma in the bottom left represent?


Me to, I think the answer is in here, but eff if I can remember.
Edit: ok I think it is the "Lorentz factor" . 7.089 Lorentz factor is 0.990 ratio to the speed of light (or very very close)


Lorentz sounds like it to me too. There are only a few other choices it could be, but I don't see them really relating very well to the what's in the video (gamma brightness for the "video", or gamma radiation factor from nuclear sciences--both I highly doubt).

Lorentz transformations (which is linked above by @GeeSussFreeK ) would be the way you would calculate many of the dilation effects caused by relativistic effects traveling near the speed of light.

Traveling at the speed of light you would have a pinpoint in front and in back. The light up front, the size of a point and basically nothing behind, as it would be shifted to very low levels of radiation. If you're going at the speed of light you wouldn't be doing any calculations as time has stopped, but from your vantage point everything happens at the same speed. As you slow down though far from the speed of light, in less than a second you instantly see things change all around you depending on how long of course you had been going at the speed of light (if you had been going that speed for 10 years you won't see too much; but, what about one billion years--can you imagine...).

But, to you a second was still one second even at that speed, or any speed, even as time slowed down the closer you got to the speed of light. Everyone else will of course still count their seconds the same as well. Hence, relativity.

If you did go that fast, yet had mass you would be facing some HUGE problems. At the front you would find a tremendous amount of energy (I'd guess all of it would be shifted to the highest energy level; one huge one-dimensional jet of gamma radiation) and at infinite amounts. In other words, it's impossible to do it. that is why a lot of Sci-Fi uses space warping/tearing/etc... to connect yourself to another place, like a wormhole; or bend space in front and back of you like Star Trek and use warp.

Gotta love Einstein and his little revelation--and all revelations in science or otherwise that add to the understanding, the expanses created, broadening our horizons, windows to the wondrous mountains of the mind put into view, and all of reality's grandeurs still there to be conquered and our dreams explored. It makes this world just a bit more interesting and worth bothering to get up every morning and go about our daily routines.

/corny

>> ^KnivesOut:

Witty observations are a well accepted form of comedy. I think you guys may be over-analyzing it.
If the realization of an idea makes you laugh, is the idea funny? No, you may be laughing at the absurdity of it. The absurdity is what's funny (or the shock of it, or the sadness). And I think that still counts as comedy. People laugh for a lot of reasons.


I think u can only evaluate it from the perspective of the comedian if there objective is to make people laugh then its intended comedy and they are comedians .

I never got the impression that the peoples above were "trying to make people laugh"

Witty observations are a well accepted form of comedy. I think you guys may be over-analyzing it.

If the realization of an idea makes you laugh, is the idea funny? No, you may be laughing at the absurdity of it. The absurdity is what's funny (or the shock of it, or the sadness). And I think that still counts as comedy. People laugh for a lot of reasons.

>> ^EMPIRE:

Yeah right... Top 5 most anticipated games of 2011 if you only care about RPG's.
There's such a lack of obvious games it's mind boggling. Where's Portal 2 (i know it already came out, but it came out in 2011), where's LA NOIRE, where's Skyrim, where's Rage, where's Mass Effect 3, where's Duke Nukem Forever (i know... but it still counts), etc...


1. Upcoming games, so no Portal 2.
2. Mass Effect 3 is slated for 2012.
3. Rage and Duke Nukem Forever don't look all that fun to me, but I hope they prove me wrong. Also, Duke Nukem Forever could potentially slip into 2021.
4. Skyrim and L.A. Noire... I totally agree with you on.
5. I have very low expectations for Star Wars: The Old Republic. I wanted it to kick ass, but everything I've seen tells me it ain't gonna happen.
6. Dragonball Z Online??? How the fuck did that get on here?
7. Torchlight was fine, but how anyone could consider a sequel among the top 5 on this list is beyond me.
8. Any finally... NO FUCKING DEUS EX: HUMAN REVOLUTION?!? Madness!

[EDIT] Ohhhh this isn't put out by Game Trailers, it's some doofus' personal list. Fuck that. Here's mine.

1. Deus Ex: Human Revolution
2. L.A. Noire
3. Guild Wars 2
4. Skyrim (reluctantly... looks awesome but the Elder Scrolls series has been a gigantic disappointment for me up to this point, aside from being beautiful environment simulators)
5. This one is tough... but I'm going to give it to Heroes of Might & Magic VI

Yeah right... Top 5 most anticipated games of 2011 if you only care about RPG's.

There's such a lack of obvious games it's mind boggling. Where's Portal 2 (i know it already came out, but it came out in 2011), where's LA NOIRE, where's Skyrim, where's Rage, where's Mass Effect 3, where's Duke Nukem Forever (i know... but it still counts), etc...

STILL COUNTS

Thanks for the help. What's the difference between a kill and discard tag? And, are videos that are killed/discarded by you still counted in your total vote count since technically they haven't been flagged as dead?

From my understanding, kill tag gets rid of the video altogether, where a discard tag removes your video from the sift and puts it into your personal queue. I discarded a video and it's not listed in my personal queue though, so I'm not sure what happened to it.

And, if that's not what discarded videos do, how can you move an unsifted video to your personal queue so you can post another video?

What imstellar28 describes is simply a way to leech off : he's proposing a way in which only those who have money (like him, presumably) can leech and game the system. Why is that? Because by having the option of not paying insurance, he can still count on the chronically sick/fearful/socially minded/provident to maintain healthcare facilities and services, drug manufacturing, R&D, etc. for him. So he only pays if he needs to, but in the meantime he doesn't contribute to the establishment of the future services he will inevitably need at some time.

What I'd like to see for those who don't want to pay insurance, is the whole bunch of them building their own hospitals, making their own drugs, forming their own medical staff, etc when they finally need it. That is to say, they couldn't use the facilities already in place. After all, they didn't want to shell out for them! And if you look at it that's the real "american way" : when a community was in need, everyone in the same predicament pitched in to build what was needed (provided remuneration of course). But I bet they'd sooner let each other die than do this though, because they've lost their ways : the rhetoric of the individual communities fending for themselves has now become the excuse of selfish individuals trying to run off with their neighbors' money. "E pluribus unum" my ass!