And yet, it still seems to be what the home viewers want to hear =P.
>> ^EMPIRE:

And... is Oprah becoming even more of a moron every passing day?
"I actually do believe that when you loved somebody and they've loved you, that you end up with an angel who's name that you know"
First of all, the last part of that sentence doesn't even make sense.
Secondly... WTF is she on? Who told you that Oprah? Was it god? Was it the angels? Was that on the bible? Are you the prophet now? Or was it Tom Cruise who told you that?
Sheesh... I can't stand this kind of stupid. You know what I mean. This new age-spiritual-the-secret-celestine-prophecy-astrology type of fucking utter feces.
Even Mike Tyson went: "I don't know Oprah..."

I've done biomedical research on animal subjects...it takes a huge emotional toll.

The idea that these animals are tended to by 'heartless scientists' is usually quite fallacious in modern times. There are some famous cases done more than 50 years ago, at a time where science really was cruel and heartless to human and animal subjects alike.

In academic settings and in modern protocols, the animals are required to be treated as ethically as possible, and third parties are usually present to enforce the ethical treatment. First, it's just not possible to do research on an animal that is not used to human interaction. They need to be as comfortable as they can be with humans; they need to respond well to being handled, or else people can't realistically perform tests on them. Long periods of time are initially spent just handling and playing with the animals.

Human ethics have really come a long way from the time when hippies really did have something to complain about with animal cruelty.

Don't feed the trolls =P.

>> ^marbles:

>> ^iaui:
Wow, marbles, you sure came out of that argument looking like a fool, didn't you?
Yeah, I'm the one looking like a fool. I was crying about being clueless and when someone tried to give me the facts, I told the fucking moron to fuck off with their fucking useless facts. I WIN, right?
As for the rest of your post, incoherent much?

When the 1% Fuck little children, the 99% cover it up.

What people haven't been talking about is that there was yet another person who witnessed the guy having sex in the shower with a kid; a janitor saw him having oral sex with victim number 8. He went back and told the entire janitorial staff what he saw. The guy was so hysterical that the entire staff thought he was going to have a heart attack. He reported the incident to his superior, and the guy told him to contact the police he chose to report it. However, there was a lot of pressure to not report the incident, because they were all afraid that they would lose their jobs if they reported the incident. Thus, it never got reported.

It's truly amazing to think of the number of people that knew about it...and how nothing ever happened. This went on for almost 20 years. Jon Stewart and so many other people say how it's inconceivable that 'they wouldn't stop it from happening and/or call the police immediately.' Really, most people aren't like that. You learn in first semester psychology that most people aren't like that. Most people are embarassed that they would be making a huge fuss on something that they don't know a lot about...even if they make a huge fuss about it through unofficial channels.

The biggest pisser is that the *university police* even knew about it, and they likely had a lot of internal pressure to keep it hush because they as well felt that their job security might be at risk if they pursue it. They even knew about a currently unofficial victim number 9 who is currently overseas in the military & can't return to be on trial.

Again, they were all afraid of losing their jobs because this asshole was so high ranking that they were afraid to do anything about it. THE 99% ARE THEMSELVES MAKING A LARGER DISPARITY AGAINST THE 1%. If you treat the 1% as untouchable in their position of power, they will be. If you demand equal treatment, then own up to it...especially right now.

He could've used an actual metal spatula with a berndes eterna pan:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQc3CB2xub0

@yellowc It really does seem like it could go that way, and thinking about it, I really wouldn't discount it as a possibility. I could really imagine panglish to become an official language of singapore, which would very well provide a common language for everyone there. However, for these people to become completely uninterested in english would require a complete disinterest in all english news & television, and for the world powers to stop speaking english =P. Otherwise, they'd have to be like western european countries, where they work very hard to preserve the purity of their native language...but for an ad-hoc language, I don't know how that's possible.

@artician That's quite interesting. I've known several people from singapore, malaysia, bangladesh, china, japan, vietnam, philipinnes, etc...I've never run into this phenomenon, though far be it from saying it doesn't exist. Though, so long as the standardized english language media is being broadcast, I'd be surprised if the vast majority of the people who spoke 'panglish' couldn't also understand western english.

Some people try really hard to come up with something interesting...

He talks about heavy asian accents on words as though that's their definitive way of saying the word. "if you go here and order oren tzu you get orange juice." If you go there and ask for orange juice you'll also get orange juice. They recognize their own deficiency in orating the words properly. Asian people are taught english with typically an american or british accent, and have a LOT of access to hear american english through the media every day.

If it weren't for the internet and mass media communication, he might otherwise be right...which is the irony of him broadcasting this idea on a television show.

@dannym3141, you're right...thanks for pointing that out =).

@jmzero

You're trolling, instead of productively discussing? Not sure what you're trying for...you made a couple of assertions about how you can change the base numbering system, but that still doesn't change that a number almost equal to 1 (base 10) is greater than 1 (base 0.99999999).

If you have something productive to say, then say it.

I'll weight in.

The first argument I've seen made in the last class I've seen required for a math minor is that there is no number that you can write which exactly equals pi. You can write more and more numbers which gets you closer and closer to pi, but you can't write the decimal value for pi itself, unless you had an infinitely long number written down. Infinite precision does indeed matter, so 0.9 with infinite nines is different from 1.0 with infinite zeros.

The only proof that begins to be relevant against this notion is the one presented by @Ornthoron, which is a geometric series. The geometric series he presented converges to 1 if you sum an infinite number of the series elements together. He defined his infinite series to be the equation ar + ar^2 + ar^3. However, the guy in this video didn't define any geometric series, he defined a static number: 0.9 with infinite nines.

The two concepts are explicitly different. If you wanted to take a calculus approach to the same explanation, the geometric series suggested by Onthoron would look like a line asymptotically approaching zero. Amazingly, integrating the area under that line approaches a value of 1 as you integrate more and more of the range along that number line, and equals 1 exactly if you integrate along the entire infinitely long number line. The value 0.9 with infinite nines would look like a discontinuous and flat line going from x = 0 (inclusive) to x = 1 (exclusive). The integrated area of that discontinuous line would not be equal to 1, and there is no infinitely more range to integrate along the number line. It has a definite & discrete value of the closest possible number to 1 that doesn't equal 1.

That's Jackie Chan, doing the ass-kicking.

Also, it's amazing how this illusion persists, despite the knowledge of exactly what's happening. Try covering up the surrounding tiles with a post-it note or your hand. As the information on the relative color disappears, the illusion loses its power...in particular, the white tiles above and below the tile in question. It's also amazing that the illusion resurfaces *immediately* after revealing the surrounding tiles =-P.

>> ^entr0py:

That was a well done video. Though, I've always thought that illusion is not actually an illusion, but just a trick. It always relies on ignoring the fact that one tile is in shadow and the other is in light when you go to compare them. If you physically did move the tile as animated above, it would suddenly appear much lighter when it moves into sunlight, because that is how light works. They must have gone to some work to render it in 3D, and then not have that one tile be effected by the scene lighting.

Yeah, it's definitely not a trick. This is a famous illusion in still-life, and there is no bizarre rendering required. However, it is indeed a 'trick', and that trick is your assumption of what shades each of the tiles are. You look at the board, and immediately believe that this is a standard checkered board with exactly 2 different shades of tile. This assumption, and therefor your perception of the color of the tile, is false.

SamaelSmith had it right; there is a deception in how much shadow is actually being cast by the podium sitting in front of the metal floodlight. Consider the MASSIVE light shining above the stage, and consider the smaller floodlight in the back, and reconsider how much shadow you would actually expect there to be on the checkerboard. There would be only a faint shadow, not the dramatic shadow that they have cast across it. The tiles are colored to make it appear that there is a strong shadow, when there should only be a weak one.

Thus, it is your normally adaptive assumption that there is a strong shadow cast by the podium that causes you to believe that the dark tile looks white in contrast to the very dark tiles surrounding it.

>> ^entr0py:

That was a well done video. Though, I've always thought that illusion is not actually an illusion, but just a trick. It always relies on ignoring the fact that one tile is in shadow and the other is in light when you go to compare them. If you physically did move the tile as animated above, it would suddenly appear much lighter when it moves into sunlight, because that is how light works. They must have gone to some work to render it in 3D, and then not have that one tile be effected by the scene lighting.

I don't think I've ever run into a hipster like they're describing. There is a large culture of people around here who are obviously nonconformist and dress exactly as they are describing...and they're into obscure bands (which they didn't talk about), but the attitude is completely different than what they say. I've never got the impression of condescension from these people in the slightest. A hipster is a very friendly person around my college-town area.