It would make sense to me if the alterations people are reporting are merely artefacts caused by scanning the document directly to a PDF.

As the video points out, these "alterations" are so obvious that if someone wanted to hide that it was a fake, it was done purposefully badly. The White house would definately have had people to do this properly.

The other option is that the birth certificate was simply processed very coarsely, either because it was done by someone with no graphical knowledge, or because they wanted the final published document to be as small as possible. After all, they are publishing a document they expect to be downloaded millions of times by skeptics within the first day. Putting up a 10 mb high-fidelity scan would bring the server to its knees and likely cause an even greater outrage.

I'm just saying, of these two possiblilities, the latter is definately the most likely.

>> ^bobknight33:


To indicate that the "locals" scanned it and then email it or such is a possible point but it still does not answer the alterations.
The white surly have access properly knowledgeable individuals of photoshop and other ADOBE products.

>> ^bobknight33:

That would be fine if you just wanted the text from the document. In this case the the document as a whole is what is of interest. Anyone with any graphic sense would scan into photoshop since the image would be a photo. This would present itself as 1 and only 1 layer.
No one would OCR scan to PDF execpt those with out photoshop. Sure the scanner will have software provided for OCR ( optical character recognition).


The problem is that you are assuming that this was done by a person with graphic sense, or with knowledge of photoshop.

If the birth certificate was simply scanned by some office worker in Hawaii, with no graphic sense and no photoshop available, and sent to the White House for publication, would that not explain the entire thing?

Fresh off Kotaku, she apparently came clean just before closing her account.

http://kotaku.com/#!5782029/this-woman-just-trolled-the-entire-internet

We have been trolled

>> ^gwiz665:

"Promoting atheism" is the same as demolishing theism. I don't promote "non-delusions" either, I break delusions.


I just don't see what is accomplished by the antagonistic tone. "Demolish" is actually a very good example of this. As a lot of people have already mentioned in this thread, all that is achieved by insulting religious beliefs in this way, is digging a deeper trench between religious people and atheists. A trench which is more difficult to cross.

If people want to use these arguments, they are ofcourse welcome to. But I believe they are very wrong if they think they are actually preaching to closet atheists with this rhetoric. They are preaching to their own, already out, choir.

You never get a persons ear by insulting them first.

Even as an atheist, i actually have to agree with Bill here. Those billboards are very insulting.

Is it possible to ask Dave Silverman to adopt af different title? "Basher of Religious Befliefs"? If his goal really is to promote atheism, I really hope he would stop doing it by insulting people. That doesn't help anyone, it just digs the trench deeper.

The backside of being able to fly. Being a relatively light animal with a large surface area is not always fun.

I guess it's nice that GM is expanding, making new vehicles and providing jobs. But I found the bar graph to be really puzzleing.

If I understand correctly GM was worth close to nothing, the government invested 49 billion, and suddenly its big news that the market believes GM is worth 50 billion? I like the good news, but please, White House, a bit less drama and spin next time.

My guess would be that the modular structure also makes this very cradle-to-cradle friendly, allowing for easy dissasembly and reclaim of the component parts.

Maybe a shorter lifespan isn't all that bad if all the components can be resused.

>> ^Kofi:

They seem eager to adopt Sharia law? I thought they only allowed it certain minor cases. Still, they dont have a bill of rights or a constitution. But, Sharia Law to take over? I wonder what their official religion, The Church of England thinks of that.


That is my understanding as well. Additionally, any judgements passed by a sharia court in Britain is not officially recognized by the state. Verdicts only stand as an unofficial agreement between the parties involved. Also, any case tried in a sharia court can also be tried in an official court at any time, if any of the parties desire so.

Sharia courts in Britain are a gesture of good faith toward islamic communities, giving them the opportunity to resolve matters within a judicial system they feel more comforable with. But they carry no weight.

I think autoerotic would be a more fitting description than homoerotic.

No person, male or female, could possibly get any sexual satisfaction out of that video. Himself, however..

To anyone who is interested, or curious, the music is Girl's Night Out by The Knife

The poor woman is unforunately not drunk enough to avoid reacting to the "Wait a second, I can still try to catch this" reflex, which, along with her severely reduced motor skills, leaves her eternalized with a face covered in sick.

I definately call fake on this.

I may have believed it if his legs weren't all over the place. But you clearly see that there is no rhythm or technique to this. It's just a guy who is spinning randomly in place while holding a bat.

It may (however unlikely) be true that he by pure dumb luck managed to hit 10 in a row while spinning wildly, but the most obvious explanation is still that the balls were added later

>> ^Gabe_b:

Did that "Impossible Is Nothing" dude say his trainer died of cervical cancer? That's ah... pretty rare. For males at least. (15:15 or so)


I did a double take at that too. Seems mother Nature lives by the "Impossible is Nothing" mantra as well.

It was a viral video published by a group called Visit Denmark, designed to promote danish tourism.