I don't buy it. He's basically saying that morality is a subjective construct which by definition is not.

If you remove the concept of "right" and "wrong" from the definition of moral or morality, then the premise of those terms becomes undefined. The concepts of what is right or wrong are the foundation of the definition of morality.

There are subjective beliefs but there are no subjective truths. There are subjective beliefs about the virtue of an action but there is no subjective morality. Ideas are either true or not true, and actions are either moral or not moral.

Saying that morality or a moral code is something that can be subjectively defined just opens the flood gates for the justification of horrendous actions based on personal beliefs which probably isn't rooted in reality.

Defining an action or belief as moral or immoral is as simple as looking at all of the people that can be affected by the action and determining if they are either benefiting or suffering from the action being committed or the belief informing actions. By that criteria we can socially determine whether or not an action or belief is objectively moral (or not). It's not freakin' hard!

I say that if you need to scream "1st Amendment! Freedom of Speech" and all that jazz when you think you're being persecuted, you've probably got your face on backwards.

People who yell those things like they're magic words just don't understand the text.

Douchebags with signs yelling about how they feel never get anywhere in life. Those kinds of actions are usually always disruptive and rarely "peaceably" assembling.

The 1st amendment doesn't state that you can say anything that you want whenever you want under any conditions.

If his conduct before his initial encounter with security was similar to his conduct after (during the video), considering the time and place, it could very easily be considered disorderly and inappropriate.

Between parts 2 and 3 when Krauss is talking about the double slit experiment... I can't help thinking that the conclusion that he presents as "ridiculous" is just that. I mean, I'm sure someone somewhere has thought of this already but if when you're watching the particles, they behave as expected and they don't behave as expected when you're not watching them, I would think that the most logical conclusion is that whatever physical matter is involved with the act of observing ultimately causes the electrons to act predictably but no more than that.

I don't see how anyone can go from "Electrons act funny sometimes" to "alternate realities are plausible" in the same breath and take themselves seriously.

Not that I'm criticizing Krauss at all, I love the guy and I understand that he's just talking about some of the thoughts that some people have come up with. I just don't agree that the conclusion is at all reasonable or should even be considered.

I would however like to know how exactly they are observing the electrons, by what method and if there are multiple methods of electron observance, AND if all of the multiple electron observance methods have had the same results for the same test. I'd also like to know what is happening to the electrons when they're not being observed. We know the result when they're not being observed, but what about before the result.

I want a go-pro camera so freaking bad.

Your avatar, do you know where to find that t-shirt?

Haha! "You must be used to buying time and speaking without interruption..." Excellent ending line.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^IAmTheBlurr:
Who did this piece first John Stewart or Rachel Maddow?

If you mean this, then it was Stewart, though it was just a passing mention, and not a segment entirely dedicated to spelling it out. Stewart seemed to be rehashing an old Glenn Beck clip, only with a liberal upshot.
Maddow and Olbermann both have mentioned it in passing from time to time, including back during the 2008 campaign with the whole "drill baby, drill" thing.


I saw the Stewart clip a few days ago and now this. The beginning section of this clip is next to identical to the Stewart segment. Just made me wonder which aired first. Either Stewart copied the beginning of this clip or the beginning portion of this Maddow clip copied the Stewart piece. Interesting either way.

Who did this piece first John Stewart or Rachel Maddow?

Is Bill Maher actually becoming more scientifically minded? I don't think I've actually seen a rant from him like that ever. I don't think I've ever actually heard him talk about the definition of logical fallacies before either. I hope he keeps it up.

Geez! Clip those coke nails!

Hahhahaha! "My name is DarWIN... not DarLOSE!" Classic!

Woah!!! For anyone that hasn't seen it, I highly recommend searching for the Mustang Drift videos. They're somewhere on Ford's website but it's a very impressive series of videos for the new Mustang. They get one of the top US Formula Drift drivers to go to Japan with a 500hp mustang. It's really cool seeing an American muscle car driving around Japanese streets, using their automated car parks and drifting on some of the most notable tracks in all of Japan.

That is one of the most beautiful videos that I've ever seen...

50 Cent and Marky Mark have a lot of the same facial expressions... They kinda look a like too.