Greetings, sir. If you happen to have 2m48 to check out a rock'n'roll vid, see if this one takes your fancy - http://videosift.com/video/Black-Pistol-Fire-Hipster-Shakes-Audiotree-Live

THAT, is amazing. I already commented/upvoted on the thread, but I'm just restating it here because it's... just amazing. I hope the film is good. Even in the trailer there's one guy looking directly at the camera, (a major faux pas in film) so... hopefully it was intentional or at least not representative of the overall film. Regardless... seriously? They did it in ONE TAKE? That's just fucking retardedly insane!

I knew someone would object to that. It was just a cheap ploy to get more views and I hope no one takes it seriously. One of the reasons I like videosift is because it gives me an opportunity to experiment with different attention grabbing techniques on the interwebs and see how people react.

In any case, a couple of David Suzuki's books have since been added to my Amazon wish list so I'll consider that my repentance.

But he does look kinda like him...

2 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

Your video, One Take Pharrell Mashup Music Video - Pomplamoose, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Hi voodooV..sorry it took me so long to reply.

you're committing another logical fallacy here. Argument from ignorance. just because you can't think of any other reason for morality doesn't prove god did it.

The fallacy you mentioned doesn't apply. The argument isn't for Gods existence, the argument is that atheism is incoherent because it has no foundation for morality, among other reasons. Ravi asked the question, without God what are the Ontic referrants for reality?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontic

To answer your question though. Survival...pure survival is pretty much the foundation of morality. what behavior ensures a long, prosperous and happy life? That's your morality right there. And it's all based on logic and reason, not an imaginary god.

is it better to be a dick to someone or is it better to work with other people. hrm...which ensures a higher probability of success in your endeavors.

is better in the long run to help or to hurt. Which ensures a greater likelyhood that people will be willing to help YOU out when you need it.

virtually everything that we consider moral today is the evolution (gasp) of instinctual rules we've learned over the millions (not thousands) of years that ensure a longer, happier life.

What you're talking about is pragmatism, which is to say that if it works then it is the best way to do things. Yet plenty of people have led long, prosperous and happy lives by exploiting other people for their gain. That's what works for them, so why shouldn't I emulate that standard of behavior instead of being self-sacrificing? Some of the most successful people who have ever lived got there by being terrible human beings. Basically, your standard of survival isn't about what is right, but what is right for me and that is entirely arbitrary. It also is an incoherent standard for morality.

Which is why only two of your commandments still hold up as secular laws.

I forget where I learned this but even biblical morality can be traced back to rules that made sense, at the time, that ensured survival. I think it has been shown that many of the biblical rules involving not eating certain foods can be traced back to diseases or some other logical reason, but hey, we didn't have an understanding of these pesky little things called bacteria and microorganisms back then so when you ate a certain food and died, that wasn't science, it was your imaginary sky god who was angry with you.

What's really interesting about that is that Moses was educated as an Egyptian prince, which was the most advanced country in the world at the time. He would have certainly been exposed to their medical knowledge, but you won't find a shred of that in the bible. The Egyptians were doing things like applying dung to peoples wounds, whereas the Laws of Moses detailed procedures for disease control, like hand washing and quarantine procedures, as well as public sanitation, and dietary laws which prevented the spread of parasites. They were thousands of years ahead of their time; we only started washing our hands to control disease in the past 200 years.

Even your fear and hatred of homosexuality and abortion can be easily explained by survival. When your village only numbered in the hundreds or maybe thousands and simple diseases and winters wiped out LOTS of people, discouraging homosexuality and abortion is actually a pretty good idea when the survival of your species is at stake. But when you've got advanced medicine and we've got the whole food and shelter thing dealt with and our population is now 7 billion. the whole "be fruitful and multiply" thing just isn't necessary anymore. In fact, it's becoming a problem. and Once again, survival will dictate our morality. If we do nothing to combat overpopulation and resources become an issue, I guarantee you that large families will eventually have a negative stigma attached to them until the situation is resolved.

You're talking to a former agnostic who once approved of homosexuality and abortion. I am not afraid of it, and I don't hate the people doing it. This is a clash of presuppositions; if there isn't a God then I couldn't give you an absolute reason why people cannot have homosexual relationships or murder their unborn children. If we're all just glorified apes contending for limited resources, then in that paradigm it may be necessary to cull the herd. I think the appropriate response though to someone contending we should eliminate vast swaths of the human populace to save the planet is, "you first".

But God is in control and this is His planet, and since He is still creating human beings, He will provide the resources to take care of them. It's the iniquity of mankind which is limiting the resources when the truth is that we have way more than enough to take care of everyone. Take for example the fact that over 30 thousand people starve to death every day. Is that because we don't have enough food? Actually, we have more than enough food yet we waste about 1/3 of the world food supply every year. The gross world product in 2012 was over 84 trillion dollars, more than enough to feed, clothe, house and vaccinate every single person on the planet. Those people die not because there isn't enough, but because the wickedness of man.

Don't ask me though, ask an anthropologist or sociologist. They've been studying this stuff for decades. I'm sure you could even find an anthropologist/sociologist that believes in god and they'd still say the same thing. our understanding of reality changes....as does morality. no one takes seriously the old biblical rules about stoning unruly kids, working the sabbath, and wearing clothing of two types of fabric anymore. So why should we listen other outdated biblical rules that don't apply anymore. As countless others of sifters have already informed you, you have the burden of proof and you haven't met it yet.

Call me when someone discovers a disease or some other problem that arises when you mix two fabrics and we'll revisit those rules k?

God has three kinds of laws, moral civil and cermonial. The rules you're referring to were civil and ceremonial laws for Israel and not for the rest of the world. They have no application today because they were connected to the Old Covenant God had with Israel. God has a New Covenant with the whole world that doesn't include those laws. The moral laws of God do not change with time, or ever. And although we fancy ourselves as more enlightened today, the reality of the world we live in tells us that human nature hasn't changed one bit. Human nature is every bit as ugly and self serving as it always has been. If you peel back the thin veneer of civility you will find a boiling pot of iniquity.

Stop committing basic logical fallacies and you might learn this stuff for yourself You haven't ever said anything that isn't easily invalidated by a simple logical fallacy or hasn't already been debunked long ago.

It's easy to speak in generalities; if I have committed a logical fallacy, then specifically point it out. The one that you detailed earlier did not apply.

Do you watch the Atheist Experience videos Shiny? because every time I watch one of the videos and listened to the same old tired theist "arguments" over and over again. I'm always reminded of you because you just aren't saying anything new. If you're serious about understanding why your ideas just don't pan out and you're not just trolling, you should seriously watch those.

I've watched the show, and again, I was a lifelong agnostic before becoming a Christian. I was pretty far left and would have probably fit in well with the lot of you not too many years ago. So, this is all to say that I understand where you're coming from and why you think and believe the way you do, because I used to think and believe in the same ways. Your mindset isn't a mystery to me. What I've learned about it is that God has to reveal Himself to a person before they will know anything about Him. Everyone gets some revelation and it is up to them to follow it. I received the revelation that there is a God and I pursued that for many years until He revealed Himself to me through His Son Jesus Christ. He has revealed Himself to you and everyone else on this website in some form or fashion. You would be shocked to hear some of the revelation people have received and turned away from, or rationalized away later. Statistics show that 10 percent of self professing atheists pray, and that is because they are unable to within themselves completely deny the revelation that they have received. I guarantee you there are atheists on this board who wrestle with all of this but since it isn't something atheists talk about (or would admit to publicly) you would never know it, that you're all keeping a lid on the truth.

Europe also has a fair share of stupid "sports", and this one takes top spot.

My ego and other posters don't enter into it, it's about correcting BS information or calling out asshattery, which is nearly ALL you do. I've done it on my own uncountable times.
You don't 'care about the community as a whole here'...that's the biggest load of crap I've heard recently. You care about intentionally being an annoying little fucker, attacking others, and complaining that things aren't 100% the way you want them. That has always been your MO, I and others have your number. That, and 'fucking with other people's shit' in the most disrespectful manner you can come up with.You've admitted this numerous times, and you've admitted that much of what you write is simply 'devils advocacy' done to get a rise out of others, or just feed your own ego with your rants and the replies they garner. That's why no one takes you seriously (or at least no one should), you are simply trying to live up to your chosen name...and often succeeding. You ARE the smarmy talking dingle berry hanging off a cockroach buddy. This is public knowledge around here. It's also obvious from your handle, which means something like annoying little piece of shit or little fucking thing in one culture and big failure in others...appropriate...and your choice.
Again, no buddies. I'm calling you out on your constant intentionally inflammatory BS all on my own, with or without others. I'm glad to see it's getting under your skin. I'll keep going on the same angle, thanks for the feed back.
Coming from the local permanent troll, I'll take the last as a compliment. How's my ass looking?

you're committing another logical fallacy here. Argument from ignorance. just because you can't think of any other reason for morality doesn't prove god did it.

To answer your question though. Survival...pure survival is pretty much the foundation of morality. what behavior ensures a long, prosperous and happy life? That's your morality right there. And it's all based on logic and reason, not an imaginary god.

is it better to be a dick to someone or is it better to work with other people. hrm...which ensures a higher probability of success in your endeavors.

is better in the long run to help or to hurt. Which ensures a greater likelyhood that people will be willing to help YOU out when you need it.

virtually everything that we consider moral today is the evolution (gasp) of instinctual rules we've learned over the millions (not thousands) of years that ensure a longer, happier life.

Which is why only two of your commandments still hold up as secular laws.

I forget where I learned this but even biblical morality can be traced back to rules that made sense, at the time, that ensured survival. I think it has been shown that many of the biblical rules involving not eating certain foods can be traced back to diseases or some other logical reason, but hey, we didn't have an understanding of these pesky little things called bacteria and microorganisms back then so when you ate a certain food and died, that wasn't science, it was your imaginary sky god who was angry with you.

Even your fear and hatred of homosexuality and abortion can be easily explained by survival. When your village only numbered in the hundreds or maybe thousands and simple diseases and winters wiped out LOTS of people, discouraging homosexuality and abortion is actually a pretty good idea when the survival of your species is at stake. But when you've got advanced medicine and we've got the whole food and shelter thing dealt with and our population is now 7 billion. the whole "be fruitful and multiply" thing just isn't necessary anymore. In fact, it's becoming a problem. and Once again, survival will dictate our morality. If we do nothing to combat overpopulation and resources become an issue, I guarantee you that large families will eventually have a negative stigma attached to them until the situation is resolved.

Don't ask me though, ask an anthropologist or sociologist. They've been studying this stuff for decades. I'm sure you could even find an anthropologist/sociologist that believes in god and they'd still say the same thing. our understanding of reality changes....as does morality. no one takes seriously the old biblical rules about stoning unruly kids, working the sabbath, and wearing clothing of two types of fabric anymore. So why should we listen other outdated biblical rules that don't apply anymore. As countless others of sifters have already informed you, you have the burden of proof and you haven't met it yet.

Call me when someone discovers a disease or some other problem that arises when you mix two fabrics and we'll revisit those rules k?

Stop committing basic logical fallacies and you might learn this stuff for yourself You haven't ever said anything that isn't easily invalidated by a simple logical fallacy or hasn't already been debunked long ago.

Do you watch the Atheist Experience videos Shiny? because every time I watch one of the videos and listened to the same old tired theist "arguments" over and over again. I'm always reminded of you because you just aren't saying anything new. If you're serious about understanding why your ideas just don't pan out and you're not just trolling, you should seriously watch those.

Why is it that this guy gets hung by his toes. But when Alec Baldwin calls someone a "fucking cocksucking faggot" and a long list of other unrelated homophobic slurs, no one bats an eye.

All reality TV shows have been doctored to make for more interesting TV since its inception with The Real World, the so-called point of this whole video is mute. Anyone with half a brain cell knows this video isn't about Duck Dynasty being fake, or about the discrimination of opressed people.

Alec Baldwin is making millions doing far worse on a monthly basis. Remember when he called his 12 year old daughter and verbal and mentally abused her? Or when he called a reporter a fat queen. Or another incident where he threathens to shove his foot up someone's faggot ass. No one tries to ruin his career over any of the horrible disgusting things Alec has said or done, but this bearded redneck happens to quote bible scriptures. That's what all this fabricated hate is really all about.

Most of the 'outraged' people don't give a shit about gay people, they just want to see the religious wingnuts get taken down a peg so they can wave their fedora emblazoned atheism flag. They won't come right out and say it because it would make them selfish assholes riding the coat-tails of people who are actually being abused and discriminated against. No I'm not religious, but I can smell bullshit a mile away, and this whole thing reeks. Were's this assholes outrage when it comes to Alec? Ohh He dosen't really give a shit about gay rights, not a peep when he can't pin a christian to the wall; he just cares about religious people doing stupid things.

Don't subjegate the real issue with your atheism agenda, it makes you look disgusting and reprehensible. That attitude is exactly why no one takes our ideology seriously; You think your doing some greater good, but your means are selfish to the very core.

Ooh, where can I get one? Take my money!

No - you can clearly see that the plane of sharpness and the depth of field give the illusion away (and confirm that the video is not fake) - especially for the baseball at 0:50-1:00 - it is clear that this is an image and not a 3D object. Just like you clearly can see if the glasses are real or not in the final shot.
Quite obvious that the shots with the changing focus aren't faked, especially if you're used to low DoF photography with fast lenses. The plane of sharpness do not follow the 3D shapes when focusing back and forth - the plane follows the still image on the table.

And of course they adjusted the exposure during the shot! They go back and forth from large apertures to small apertures - they had to change the shutter time and/or ISO.

You can also tell that the deepest shadows on the images never get quite dark enough - look at the shadow underneath the globe in the opening shot, versus the deeper blacks on the typewriter and sunglasses. This is easily seen in all the shots, if you know what to look for.
And, stuff like the edges of the papers under the glasses in the final shot - real objects do not have chromatic aberration with a red tint towards the corner of the image and a blue tint towards the centre of the image.

Nope - real.
Of course it isn't one take, but they did not use editing trickery - they do not swap out 3D objects for 2D ones or vice versa.

This is one of the best one-take viddies ever!
Translation: Fuck a-buncha darts!

Ass fire....Get real bitches!!!
"When one take, is all you need."

Mostly because most people are lazy honestly lol Which is ironic when you think about it. But generally speaking, most well marked trails will warn you of sudden changes like this. Part of the IMBA trail building guide is designing courses so they flow the way the rider would expect.

Honestly, in this case it does seem like a bout of stupidity mixed in with failure to properly mark the course. It would have been product to ask a LBS about the trail before riding it, as to avoid mistakes like this, or a sudden trail condition like a washout or avalanche.

In my own personal opinion: they were riding too fast for that section. It's like when a New Yorker comes down to Florida . . . they just fly on the interstates because they can. A smart rider knows when to speed up, and more importantly, when to slow down.

With drops and banks like these, they're not ultra expert by any means, but it certainly would be good as you said to know the map.

As for riders ride close, well, it varies. On road, it's drafting. Off road, you're not going to get the same wind resistance so it mostly just becomes a skill challenge. Many riders will ride ultra close like that so they can learn each others rhythms and ride better together. So in the event they do race, they're prepared.

When I lead rides, I always know who's going to up on my wheel and who's going to lag back. The ones who lag are the ones taking lessons and notes, and the ones right on my wheel are challenging themselves to keep up. I'm a very aggressive rider and frankly, I do some seriously stupid stuff. The ones on my wheel, either make it or don't. And there's been plenty of don'ts. The ones lagging behind are the safer ones. But that's not always the case in a fast changing course. If you want to know what the trail ahead is doing, you follow a leader who knows the course. They can tell you what's about to come up, or if they do something wrong they can warn you.

But you are correct in thinking that riding close like that can really be risky if the person in front falls. It's a give/take thing. Determine the amount of risk that's acceptable and prepare for that.