I'm confused. The title says "learn programming", but the video is using javascript. Which is it?

Hmm, I've heard this song a reasonable amount of times in the past, and never once realized it was sung by Alanis.

Yup, it's like what Douglas Adams said about the puddle of water in the pothole. "This is an interesting world I find myself in – an interesting hole I find myself in – fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!"

Ugh, I wanted to like that, but it was so horribly done. The end talks about how over 100 years ago we didn't know about other galaxies - which is true - so if we've discovered so much in 100 years, why would it talk so much about "never" finding things out? For all the narrator knows, in another 100 years we could have come up with new technologies that make it trivial to find out what the boundary is (if it exists).

Well, your example doesn't work. The point here is that an IMAGE is moving. If you shine a flashlight into the sky and move it around, the chances of the flashlight image appearing anywhere is almost nil. So there's nothing really to move. Shining a laser on the moon, however, will make an image appear (assuming all other factors being correct, such as lack of clouds, etc). So that image will, in fact, "move" across the surface of the moon. It's no different, really, than shining a flashlight at a wall, and moving it around. The image moves, despite the fact you're doing nothing more than adjusting the tilt of the flashlight.

You're right that a standard flashlight wouldn't be visible from space, let alone another star system. However, if you had a powerful enough beam (or used wavelengths better "suited" for space travel), there are quite a few other stars that are much closer than 100 lightyears. Promixa Centauri, for example, the closest star to our system is only 4.2 lightyears away. So were you to put a sufficiently strong source accurately in that direction, you could even receive a response in your lifetime, were there something (or someone!) there to respond.

Well, for the pixels thing, he specifically says "pixels", not "light emitting from pixels". The pixels themselves never move. The light the pixels emit (if any) does move, of course, to get from the pixel to your eye. But that's a separate issue.

He's also not saying that flicking your wrist speeds up light. The premise of this video isn't that light can travel faster than what we know as "the speed of light", just that "something" can travel faster - in this case, the image of a laser. The speed at which the image is traveling across the surface of the moon would indeed be faster than the speed of light. Which is fine, because as he points out, images don't have mass.

Well, the one cop was heavy-handed, but can't disagree with the "you're an idiot" comment.

Do people really pay money to go to a concert and listen to themselves singing?

If this was trying to be funny, it failed. And if not, I've never understood how people can say stuff like "I don't understand why X", when they are fucking connected to the internet. Look it up. Wikipedia has a nice article on how exactly the days in each month came to be the way they are.

Starting April 1st? That better not be a joke!

At first I thought it might be a perspective issue, like the famous pic of Obama, but yeah, it's pretty clear he was staring. Even funnier is how after she looks back, she obviously "caught" him staring, as her immediate reaction is to "cover up" with her hand.

Sigh.

While I'm not going to defend her comment in general, it's pretty clear that the "they" she is refering to is not the rape victims, but the Pentagon. She's not saying that women should expect to get raped, she's saying that the Pentagon already knew that some of the women serving were getting raped, so increasing the number of women serving would also increase the number of rapes occurring.

Not killing things is fine and all, but if you're hitting stuff with a mace, you're not really a "pacifist". Just saying.

Don't be stupid. He didn't say "he" would, he said everyone saying this is a problem would still buy the game because it's not a real problem. Which is just patently untrue. There are numerous people for whom this is a significant problem, who almost certainly won't be buying the game.

>> ^sme4r:

First off, who is this directed at? ponceleon?
Secondly, shut up, as it is totally true that he is "online" constantly, and he will buy the game regardless of it's Internet based requirements.
Lastly, don't question magic 8-balls.>> ^Bhruic:
Just because your magic 8-ball told you that doesn't make it true. Believe it or not, for some people, requiring an internet connection is a deal-breaker. Some people are often in situations where they don't have a reliable internet connection. But don't let reality stop you from claiming to know what other people will do.

I like how he tries to bait the woman into threatening the President... She almost bit, but you can see she caught herself.