aaaaah Downhill boarding.. The speed, the thrill, the excitement and the excruciating road rash....
I feel sorry for the deer.. He was aiming for a buick and got a boarder... If your really quiet. You can hear the laughter of the rest of the herd.

>> ^vex:

>> ^TheSluiceGate:
OK, 2 things really suspicious about this video:
1) I'm pretty sure I can hear autotune artifacts (I work with audio / vocalists a lot) and a vocal that is consistently too in pitch.
2) Notice at 2:49 the microphone is absolutely miles from her mouth and the vocal is still entirely consistent, no evidence of a change in level or tone that you'd expect a microphone to display (re: proximity effect) - this hints to me at the vocal being pre-recorded. They also cut away at this point which makes me even more suspicious.
Also:
3) The US version of the same show, produced by the same production company, has admitted using autotune: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-11056050
This coming from a person who got goosebumps for the amazing TV debut performances of both Alexis Jordan and Bianca Ryan who were both imperfect, but utterly thrilling.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcEo5H97CLM&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xno4Y7r8Ov8

1. I think you're hearing things. Specifically, some of her high to low runs and a couple rising melodies beginning with low notes at the bottom of her range are slightly off key. The way she leads into notes using the back of her throat creates a slight buzz that makes her voice sound autotuned.
2. The beginning of the word "butterflies" comes out at a lower volume as she brings the microphone to her face.


1) It's the texture of the audio of the vocal and not the pitching that leads me to believe it's auto tune. Autotuning has a sound, and it's not necessarily to do with the pitching of the note. A bit like how tape or MP3s of even a specific type of pre-amp has a specific sound carachteristic.

2) I think that any slight dip in volume is because it's a low note outside of her range, but my point was not to do with volume, but to do with proximity effect. With the exception of omni-directional microphones the frequency response of a microphone changes with distance from the source of the sound- simply put: the further the mic is away from the person's mouth the thinner and less bassy it becomes. Even a change in gain / volume will not mask this.

>> ^TheSluiceGate:

OK, 2 things really suspicious about this video:
1) I'm pretty sure I can hear autotune artifacts (I work with audio / vocalists a lot) and a vocal that is consistently too in pitch.
2) Notice at 2:49 the microphone is absolutely miles from her mouth and the vocal is still entirely consistent, no evidence of a change in level or tone that you'd expect a microphone to display (re: proximity effect) - this hints to me at the vocal being pre-recorded. They also cut away at this point which makes me even more suspicious.
Also:
3) The US version of the same show, produced by the same production company, has admitted using autotune: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-11056050
This coming from a person who got goosebumps for the amazing TV debut performances of both Alexis Jordan and Bianca Ryan who were both imperfect, but utterly thrilling.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcEo5H97CLM&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xno4Y7r8Ov8


1. I think you're hearing things. Specifically, some of her high to low runs and a couple rising melodies beginning with low notes at the bottom of her range are slightly off key. The way she leads into notes using the back of her throat creates a slight buzz that makes her voice sound autotuned.

2. The beginning of the word "butterflies" comes out at a lower volume as she brings the microphone to her face.

OK, 2 things really suspicious about this video:

1) I'm *pretty sure* I can hear autotune artifacts (I work with audio / vocalists a lot) and a vocal that is consistently *too* in pitch.

2) Notice at 2:49 the microphone is absolutely miles from her mouth and the vocal is still entirely consistent, no evidence of a change in level or tone that you'd expect a microphone to display (re: proximity effect) - this hints to me at the vocal being pre-recorded. They also cut away at this point which makes me even more suspicious.

Also:

3) The US version of the same show, produced by the same production company, has admitted using autotune: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-11056050

This coming from a person who got goosebumps for the amazing TV debut performances of both Alexis Jordan and Bianca Ryan who were both imperfect, but utterly thrilling.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcEo5H97CLM&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xno4Y7r8Ov8

@shinyblurry

Overall, this is how I summarize your arguments: (A) Life without God is meaningless, and (B) a meaningless life would sometimes be difficult to tolerate, therefore (C) God exists. We pretty much agree on A, and we do agree on B, but C does not follow from A and B. You can correctly conclude that (C) life without God would be difficult to tolerate at times. So? That still doesn’t mean that God exists. I believe that God doesn’t exist, so I conclude from A and B that life is difficult to tolerate at times. Which is true.

I'm sure there are plenty of people who weren't believers who died happily in ignorance of the truth, but the question is, did they understand that their life was meaningless? I doubt it. It is not something that many people are able to face, and even if they could, they certainly don't live that way. In some way or another, they are deluding themselves and living as if their life does have meaning.

Fair point. They may not have ever had the philosophical conversation with themselves about whether their lives have meaning, so it never occurred to them to be upset about it. I agree that it could be a very difficult thing to face, and I think that’s why the human species developed a proclivity for religion. Elsewhere here I’ve suggested we developed metaphysical faith because we’re intelligent and inquisitive, and it freed our minds from the obvious nagging questions of our existence with a one-stop catch-all answer: “Because God”. From an evolutionary perspective, it makes sense. If believing you have a purpose in the grand scheme of things makes you feel better and gives a higher community bond, then it conveys higher survivability to you and your genes. It may be (or once have been) helpful for us to believe that a god exists (any god/gods, mind you, or even a non-deity-based faith system like Buddhism), but this still is not an indication that any god exists.

Hope is what keeps people going … They are not mentally ill, they are simply facing the cold, stark reality of their situation.

I’m going to be blunt here: you don’t have a clue what depression is. You’re starting with your conclusion, and applying it to whatever pop psychology you’ve picked up. You’re like a North Korean telling me what democracy is, and concluding that Kim Jong Un therefore is the greatest person on Earth. I know what depression is for me, for my family members and my friends who have suffered from it, and I have done private research on it beyond that. Reducing depression to the factor of “hope” is incorrect, and presuming to know something because you’ve got Yahweh on your side is arrogant. You don’t know us, you don’t understand our condition, so please don’t assume to speak for us. You can guess, and you can ask me, and I’ll tell you what I feel, what I have experienced, and what I have learned. Then if it fits your argument, you can let me know.

The point being, that if there is no God then no one is in the drivers seat here on planet Earth. I would be surprised if the extreme fragility of our civilization escaped you. If you look at history, and you contrast it to what is going on today, you will find that the new is simply the old in different packaging. We're watching the exact same game show, simply on a grander and more dangerous scale. Humanity has never been closer to utterly destroying itself anytime in its history than it is today. I'm sure, like everything else in creation, you will attribute that to dumb luck. However, if you think everything is a numbers game, then sooner or later the odds say that cooler heads will not prevail and there will be a civilization annihilating calamity. The truth is, it is only the sovereign hand of God that is restraining this from happening.

Your first sentences are close enough I’ll just agree. The last one is your own fantasy straight out of nowhere. That aside, so what? We’re close to killing ourselves. I don’t know if humanity will survive another 100 years. I hope it does, but I can’t know. It’s hard to face, and very frustrating to watch our so-called leaders (who all leverage claimed faith in God, mind you) pissing it all away for money and power. No other age has had to face the possibility of the destruction of civilization. It’s hard. You said your point was that there’s nobody in the driver’s seat. I agree. What’s your point? How do you figure Yahweh’s “in the driver’s seat”?

My original point, however, still stands. You say you can't imagine someone finding bliss in hurting people. Well, have you ever heard of psychopaths? They do indeed find their bliss in acquiring power and control and making other people miserable, and they feel absolutely no remorse for doing so.

This is my fault. As I mentioned in my last comment, I had intended to write further down about people who do find bliss in hurting others, and I had it fleshed out in the drafting process, but I guess I accidentally deleted it before posting. Anyway, here it is. First, there’s psychopaths. You don’t understand what a psychopath is. It’s not a blood-crazed killer from a Hollywood movie. In real life, a psychopath is someone who fails to feel empathy or sympathy, someone who has no sense of altruism. They do whatever serves their own interests best – however they define that. This is in sharp contrast with how the rest of us think about other people, which is mostly with compassion. I’ve been close to a few psychopaths, and they enjoy things like music or sports or writing or whatever like anyone else, and they mostly understand that others think hurting people is bad, so they avoid it. They don’t get any special thrill from hurting others – it just doesn’t hurt their conscience if they do. I’m guessing they don’t really ever feel the bliss I’m talking about.

Separate from those people, let’s imagine there’s a group of people who feel they’re experiencing the same bliss you feel in your numinous experiences, but they feel it only when they hurt or kill people. Now, I’m asserting that these people probably don’t exist, but if they did, people behaving according to the principles of what’s “good” (which I’ll get to later) would have to restrain them from hurting other people, and with a heavy heart, would probably imprison them. And while they were in prison, compassionate people on the outside might be researching ways to help the inmates self-realize – within the limits of their confinement, like they do in the Swedish penal system.

Yes, it feels good to feel good, but this doesn't tell us why we *ought* to do anything.

The reason we’re having this conversation, or at least the reason I am, is because we both already have a sense that some things are right and other things are wrong. That is primary. We both agree that we have this sense, and that for us it feels important to follow it. So for me, the fact that I have this feeling that some actions are good and others aren’t is all the “ought” I need. I don’t need anybody’s permission or orders. I ought to do things that I feel are good things to do. So, whether my conscience comes from human DNA (my position) or from an external entity (your position) doesn’t matter because we have both already decided to follow it, and so has just about every human on Earth.

In a meaningless Universe there is no actual right and wrong, so why shouldn't you just do whatever you want? Why waste your time trying to navigate some moral landscape that you don't even believe really exists? Why not just take what you can, when you can, before you lose the opportunity?

There’s nobody who’s going to judge my soul when I’m dead, so in that sense, once I’m dead, it won’t matter to me in the least what I do now once I’m dead because I’ll be dead. What I want to do at any given time is what feels good to me, and that’s the same with almost everyone, in spite of what religions teach people about their wicked “fallen” souls and how not to trust themselves (except when they paradoxically teach us to trust ourselves). Like, I might like to eat your cookie, but it would feel worse to steal it from you than it would feel good to eat it. Instead, I think about how I can have the cookie without feeling bad about it. I would probably ask you for some of your cookie, and then I’d not only have some cookie, but I’d also share a friendly interaction with another person in my community, someone who will probably enjoy sharing their cookie with me and be glad I asked them. Win-win. So to recap, “taking what I can” to me and most people, involves having the greatest amount of personally rewarding experiences I can, and those involve not doing bad things, and often involve doing good things.

I don’t feel I’m wasting any time navigating any landscape. I hardly think about morality at all, since to me, it’s quite easy. Jesus knew it; he just claimed that his father had made it up. I think it’s human nature. It gives me immense joy to see people in love getting married. That extends identically to same-sex people too. See? It’s not complex. Taking what I can when I can in the malevolent sense feels awful, and I don’t want to do that.

People do evil because they get carried away by their lusts and become enticed. You view this as some sort of ignorance, or automatic function. Not so. When a person is doing wrong, they are almost always entirely aware of this, but simply override their moral restraints with their desire to fulfill their lusts. People are responsible for the evil that they do, not society, environmental factors, their parents, or anything else.

I agree completely (except where you said I think it’s out of ignorance or automatic function, which I didn’t say). You say it’s about people getting carried away or being enticed. What I was explaining is when that happens and why. It’s not relevant anyway. People are the only ones who can be held responsible for their own actions, and they should be, but not because they are bad people who need to be punished, but because their behaviour hurt someone and as a member of society, they need to understand this, make amends, and hopefully change their behaviour moving forward.

I've already agreed with you that we all have a God given conscience that tells us right from wrong. Therefore, we don't need to read the bible to know that it is wrong to murder or steal. However, what God has commanded is that we all repent and believe in the gospel. This is something you aren't going to intuitively understand without being told.

But I would have had to already accept Yahweh to think that’s true. And I don’t, so it’s not. Nothing in me tells me that the bible is a holy book or that following it has anything to do with what is good, so I don’t need to follow any religious dogma.

what is the ground for associating moral evil with misery and moral good with "moving people away from misery". Where do you get moral duties in a meaningless Universe?

It involves accepting one assertion: Harris’ definition of “bad”. If you accept that, and you accept that “good” is its opposite, then moving away from something bad must be good. I think your problem with my argument is that there’s no argument for a metaphysical morality. That’s because I don’t believe in one. As I said above, this whole conversation, for me, is based on our shared feeling that there are right and wrong things. That’s it. If I kick someone’s dog, no matter who they are or what their religion, they’re going to know without consulting any authority that I did a horrible thing. I don’t really know why, and I don’t care. I do know that humans share this sense, and I’m keen to live with respect to it.

The morality that God gives can be summed up in two commandments: Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and all thy soul, and all thy mind and all thy strength, and love thy neighbor as thyself…That's a very simple system. When you love God and other people everything else follows naturally.

Yahweh’s morality is nowhere near as simple as a secular morality. Where in those two commandments of Jesus does it say that using condoms or allowing same-sex couples to marry is wrong? In fact, saving lives, preventing unwanted pregnancies and allowing all loving couples to get married are ways to love your neighbour, and they’re exactly what I would want my neighbour to do or advocate for on my behalf.

On the contrary, it's all arbitrary, because "what makes things better for people" or what "makes the world worse" is something determined by consensus. If everyone in the world agreed that torturing babies for fun made things better for people, it would be good in your view. If your moral system allows for this possibility, I think that's a sign its time to throw it away.

First, you’re talking in circles. If Harris’ model of morality is arbitrary, then so is Jesus’ model of “do unto others…” because they amount to pretty much the same thing, and what one person wants his neighbours to do may not be the same as someone else’s, etc. At some level, we’re going to have to determine for ourselves what’s right and what’s not.

Second, you can’t possibly make the argument that “better for people” and “makes the world worse” are arbitrary concepts. They’re not perfectly defined, but that doesn’t mean arbitrary. As for the torturing babies example, according to Harris’ morality, it’s bad because babies are people, and torture causes misery. Where’s the ambiguity?

Third, do you picture a world where everyone suddenly agrees that torturing babies is OK? Do you really believe that without religion people have absolutely no internal direction whatsoever, and will accept torturing of babies as acceptable? I don’t. So, no, Harris’ moral system does not allow for the possibility of torturing babies.

But yours does. Whatever else you address, please answer this: I believe –and forgive me if I’m putting words into your mouth– somewhere on the Sift you agreed that if God commanded you to do something people think is horrible (like torture an infant/rape your own son/etc.), that you would do it. Is that true to say? If so, then by your own witness and a test you came up with, it’s your system that allows for the possibility of absolutely any vile act, and it’s time for it to go.

If you think I’m being ridiculous, what do you think is more likely: that a society somewhere will suddenly realize that they feel just fine about torturing babies, or that a society somewhere will get the idea that it’s their god’s will that they torture babies? Human instinct is much more consistent than the will of any gods ever recorded.

If this were true, there would be no need for courts, judges, prisons, or police officers. There are also laws which may make some people miserable but are necessary for the greater good.

True. Your point?

It doesn't suffice, though. Yes, we can both agree there is a universal morality among human beings. How is that fact supposed to serve as grounds to invent an arbitrary system of good and evil based on people following their bliss and avoiding misery? I could just easily reverse the two and say the existence of universal morality justifies that too. I could say that the existence of a universal morality justifies that we should all love eggplants and hate rutabagas. There is no logical connection here between the system you've created and universal morality.

It’s not arbitrarily invented. Religion is. I must be misunderstanding you. By my reading, your argument is that the connection between reducing people’s misery and doing good is arbitrary. Is that right? You don’t think that wanting to help people who are suffering is normal and good? If you agree that there is a connection between the two, that’s all you need. If you don’t agree, then your morality system really sucks, and I don’t know who I’m talking to.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/06/29/half-german-teens-dont-know-hitler-dictator_n_1636593.html

I take it you didn’t read the article yourself. There’s no mention of Americans, anyone of college age, nor anyone who can’t identify Hitler. It’s about German high school students who didn’t know that Hitler was a dictator, etc. Please take better care with your arguments. It’s disrespectful and a waste of my time.

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

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Dog-Gets-his-Thrills-by-Running-in-Front-of-Trains

With 2 pp you can *promote your own vid, but you need gold (and only one pp) to *promote someone else's.

You can get it onto the front page (sorted by hotness) with *quality (and one pp).

I for one was thrilled to get silver and *quality
In reply to this comment by lampishthing:
God frickin dammit!!!! I though with 2 power points I could do it... I'll be back...

Sorry I was mistaken - the ice-Coke machine was in Ximending (teens fashion area), but the museum was close to Taipei Train Station.

Here is a google map of where the ice-Coke machine was (not sure if it's still there).

That "old Taipei" museum was here. Unfortunately they are now closed.

In reply to this comment by RhesusMonk:
Even though it's been three years since I was there (my GOD has it been that long?), I would be thrilled to see where this museum is located. My fiance and I spent one the best years of our lives living in JingMei. I took the LSAT at ShiDa Science. I miss TaiBei more than most grandmothers miss their grandkids.
In reply to this comment by spawnflagger:
In Taipei, there is a small underground museum that has old-style Taiwan (old buildings, pictures, cars, from the 1950s and before). There was even a 1950's style diner where they used the old manual machines to make shave-ice. The ice-coke machine was above ground nearby there. I have no idea if it's still there or not.

I can try to create a Google Map pushpin if you are interested.


In reply to this comment by RhesusMonk:
Where in Taiwan?
In reply to this comment by spawnflagger:
I had this in Taiwan a few years ago (was only available at 1 machine, I guess was a test/demo unit). It doesn't taste exactly the same - somewhere between coke and coke zero. The ice doesn't last too long when it's >35C outside; the "fizz" (carbonation) seems to run out faster than regular bottled coke; and it costs more.

So yeah, a neat novelty item, but won't replace regular Pop/Soda vending machines.

Even though it's been three years since I was there (my GOD has it been that long?), I would be thrilled to see where this museum is located. My fiance and I spent one the best years of our lives living in JingMei. I took the LSAT at ShiDa Science. I miss TaiBei more than most grandmothers miss their grandkids.
In reply to this comment by spawnflagger:
In Taipei, there is a small underground museum that has old-style Taiwan (old buildings, pictures, cars, from the 1950s and before). There was even a 1950's style diner where they used the old manual machines to make shave-ice. The ice-coke machine was above ground nearby there. I have no idea if it's still there or not.

I can try to create a Google Map pushpin if you are interested.


In reply to this comment by RhesusMonk:
Where in Taiwan?
In reply to this comment by spawnflagger:
I had this in Taiwan a few years ago (was only available at 1 machine, I guess was a test/demo unit). It doesn't taste exactly the same - somewhere between coke and coke zero. The ice doesn't last too long when it's >35C outside; the "fizz" (carbonation) seems to run out faster than regular bottled coke; and it costs more.

So yeah, a neat novelty item, but won't replace regular Pop/Soda vending machines.

Heyyyy. I tried one of these in Prague, once. As thrilling as ANY amusement park ride, I swear!

from day one, it's been obvious that many many republicans are not really thrilled with Romney, Obama's campaign is milking that fact for all it's worth and good on them for doing so.

To Cenk's point though, he keeps attributing the success of Obama's campaigning to Obama himself though. It's his campaign managers and teams that really run the show. It's not like Obama himself came up with these campaign ideas.

So Cenk's argument that Obama is somehow picking his battles seems a bit flawed to me. There's a huge line between politics and governance. My theory is that when it comes to governance, he's a pushover...he's a nice guy. I think he honestly believed that he could convince Republicans to work with him. I think he honestly believed that everyone was ultimately on the same team. Presidents on both sides of the aisle have countless advisors. They're the ones with the influence. They're the ones shaping things. The president (again, regardless of party) is really just a mouthpiece and a pretty face for the camera.

The other problem is just simply people put way too much emphasis on the office of the President. People seem to believe the nation turns on a dime depending on who wins the presidential election. When Bush won, liberals were CERTAIN Roe v. Wade would be overturned. When Obama won, conservatives were CERTAIN he would take away their guns. It doesn't work that way people. Congress has the real power in America. It's the legislative branch that need to be scrutinized more heavily, not the executive.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Suicidal, Danger, Life, Limb, Moscow, Teenagers, Dare, Thrill' to 'Suicidal, Danger, Life, Limb, Moscow, Teenagers, Dare, Thrill, Death Wish' - edited by calvados

I think that is the greatest thing anyone has said to me on the Sift. Wow. I mean it.

I know I am in good company, others deserve that accolade, too.

I am thrilled to be the recipient!


>> ^MrFisk:

I'm barely bored with your contributions (that's a compliment)!

I wake up about noon, eat breakfast, putz around on the Internet, do some research toward PhD, go practice my martial art, come home to continue doing research toward PhD, go to bed around 4am. Repeat. It's a thrilling ride!