Is the sift's page formatting for this video messed up for anybody else? The little colored NSFW and BRIEF blocks are overlapping the video, and the bottom part of the video with the controls is cut off. This has been happening with more and more videos recently, and is extremely annoying.

It looks like he was trying to build a cross between a bicycle and one of these:
http://videosift.com/video/Can-you-sail-downwind-faster-than-the-wind

Unfortunately, I don't think that green drum he's using is doing anything as a propeller.

The first guy to run into the scene from the right side appears to be making an opportunistic ass groping at 36 seconds.

For bonus laughs, go to the youtube page for the video, click the little "CC" button and turn on Transcribe Audio.

Okay, I wasn't going to comment on this originally. I assumed people had the intelligence to see what was going on here. But, I see people prefer to mindlessly pile on the hate bandwagon instead. I wonder if any of you guys commenting on Justin's intelligence actually understand the question he was being asked. Note that Justin experienced this first hand, he did not have the benefit of our ability to replay the scenario over and over until he figured it out.

Let's look at a partial transcript:

Interviewer: "Uhhhh, okay, Justin, um, Beiber, sorry, is German for basketball, true or false?"
Justin: "Is what?"
Interviewer: "Is German for basketball, true or false?"
Justin: "Germing?"
Interviewer: "German. Sorry, that's the Kiwi accent going on there. German, you know? German"
Justin: "I don't know what that means."

The interviewer's verbal sloppiness butchers the original question. It appears that him saying Justin's name is merely him addressing Justin, which then makes the entire question only "Is German for basketball, true or false?". This impression is then reinforced when he repeats only that part of the question. Unable to parse that question, Justin assumes he's hearing words incorrectly and asks about "German"/"Germing" as that was the least clear word. The interviewer clarifies that the word is "German", mentions that he is Kiwi, and continues to hammer on the word "German" without ever restating the entire question. At this point, the original question is long gone, and Justin's brain is primed to assume that the phraseology of the question he thinks he's being asked is due to some quirk of how Kiwis talk. And so he says "We don't say that in America", as in "I'm not familiar with talking that way". Then he offers up that he likes basketball just to give the interviewer something.

If the interviewer had originally said "Your last name, "Beiber", is the German word for basketball, true or false?" then none of the misunderstanding would have happened.

I don't like airheaded celebrities or tv personalities either, but lets not be sloppy in our hate as that discredits our position.

The audio accompanying this video has very obviously been heavily modified, had the bass turned up, reverb added, etc. Quite possibly autotune or something similar was used. The knee-jerk emotional response to the song has obscured your view of truths that undermine your critique of her singing ability.

Also, Amazing Grace is a horrible song. It's just religious woo woo.

this appears to be a *dupe of http://videosift.com/video/Metropolis-Center-of-the-Sun

Sorry berticus, and dag, but based on the abstracts of those two studies, neither of them refute the points I was making. The second study does not discuss body hair. The first study discusses women's views of male body hair; but this thread was focused on men's views of female body hair, so that is what I addressed.

In my earlier post, I specifically said that evolution would drive people to favor the characteristics generally displayed by the opposite sex. Men generally have more body hair than women, women should therefore generally find attractiveness in levels of body hair higher than what women have. This idea is not in disagreement with the idea that human evolution in general disfavors body hair. "Disfavors" is relative, and feelings about body hair are not binary propositions.

If you have a species with a full coat of hair, like a gorilla, and a full coat has evolutionary advantage, then you would expect evolution to predispose the individuals to preferring the full coat. If circumstances then changed such that, for example a coat only 50% as thick provided the same benefits, and there was some disadvantage to the hair in general, then the net result is that evolution would favor the 50% coat over the full thickness coat. Given enough time, it would be natural for evolution to then predispose the individuals to prefer the 50% coat also. How this preference would manifest itself psychologically is another issue; It could be that individuals would find a 100% coat attractive but a 50% coat more attractive, or they could find the 100% coat unattractive. Repeat this process for a change to 25% coat, 10%, 5%, etc. Evolution would clearly be disfavoring body hair, even though at any point in time the individuals may prefer some amount of it.

Regardless of the specifics of how it happened, it is a fact that humans have significantly less hair than their ancestors. You must agree this is a result of evolution; the alternative is to claim it's magic. This change occurred early in human evolution, long before magazines or fashion or cosmetics industries. For our comparative hairlessness to be so universal, it had to have been a widespread issue in sexual and/or natural selection. For it to have been widespread, there would almost certainly had to have been a strong benefit.

With regards to the second study, just because one feature(body size) is influenced by culture does not mean others must be also. And even if a particular trait is influenced by culture, it does not mean that evolution's influence is smaller. You can't even use that study to say that those who prefer the thinner body type are shallow or vain or whatever. What would such a claim even mean? The only way to meaningfully argue against the preference for the thinner body type would be to show that that body type is unhealthy. You can argue that only in the most extreme cases, i.e. anorexia, but the study was not addressing extreme thinness. Nor can you make much of an argument that those who prefer thinness are being abnormally picky; a preference for larger bodies is every bit as much a preference as one for thin bodies. Due to the wording of the abstract, the best you could say is that those who prefer thin bodies are slightly more picky than those who prefer larger ones. Also, the fact that these two different cultures have different preferences could easily have a reasonable explanation behind it. Such as, it's an unfortunate fact that African Americans in general have had a lower socio-economic status than Anglo Americans throughout American history, with this problem having been much worse even in the relatively recent past. Peoples with poor access to resources tend to more favorably view displays of wealth, and a large body size is a sign of ready access to food. This dynamic can be seen in other cultures throughout history.

You accused me of confirmation bias, berticus. I could easily say the same of you. You were already in disagreement with my position, you found these two studies, at a quick glance they seemed to be ammunition against me, so you referenced them without bothering to spend time thinking about what the claims in the abstracts might mean. Indeed, you point out that it only took "2 seconds" to find them; taking two seconds to find them would be moot if it took 10 minutes figuring out what they meant. I could argue that your statement of a two second search time therefore indicates you did not take the time to carefully read or think about what you found. I don't know if this is the case or not, I'm merely pointing out that your claim of confirmation bias is unfounded and works both ways.

And in general, even if something is predominantly determined by culture, that does not mean there is something wrong with the preference. Nor does something being "natural" or set by evolution mean it must be right. Evolution could favor something that is 99% bad if what it is replacing is bad 99.9% of the time. This is the issue that started this conversation. Dag's comment stated that people who prefer hairlessness are in the wrong since having hair is "natural". But this is meaningless, because not only is it "natural" that our species is losing its hair, but "natural" has no bearing on whether something is good or bad. Our constantly increasing ability to do the unnatural is what, in part, sets us apart from the rest of the animals. Vaccines, antibiotics, computers, fortified foods, and space exploration are all examples of things that are both unnatural and good for society.

If a person wants to modify their body in an "unnatural" way, more power to them. As long as they are not harming others, you have no place to claim any moral objection. And if they are not even harming themselves, you have no means to mount any kind of meaningful objection whatsoever. In the case of piercings, you could, for example, argue that there is a possibility of infection or inadvertently being snagged and ripped out; but with modern clothing and shelter for temperature control and protection from the sun, no such argument can be made against body hair removal.

>> ^dag:

Yes, this. @sineral- it's an interesting idea- but I call BS that no hair is an indicator for biological fitness.>> ^berticus:
sineral, say hello to our friend confirmatory bias.
took 2 seconds to find this and this. don't ignore evidence that isn't what you want to hear.

>> ^dag:

I've never understood the shaved under-arm fetish. It's just more cultural body modification akin to lip plates, ear rings or teeth blackening. It's totally wrong and crazy that people see the natural state of the human body as "gross".


People dislike body hair, in part, for the same reason that people have so little body hair compared to other animals--evolution has equipped us with a predisposition to be against it. Natural selection would disfavor body hair because it can harbor parasites. Sexual selection would disfavor body hair because physical fitness of a mate is inversely correlated with age which in turn is correlated with body hair; the less body hair you have, the more fit you are likely to be. Remember, for most of evolution, an age of 30 was over the hill. Sexual selection would also disfavor body hair because it could conceal wounds or disease. Also, the sex hormone testosterone promotes body hair growth. The more body hair you have, the more likely you are to be male. Evolution directing people's sexual tastes to generally favor the characteristics of the opposite sex would then cause men to prefer mates with less body hair than found on other men.

There are conscious reasons to disfavor body hair. For example, most body odor comes from bacteria that feed on sweat, not directly from the sweat itself. A tuft of armpit hair is essentially a city of multi-story apartment buildings for bacteria. With shaved armpits, you need less deodorant. With showering daily, I find that I rarely need to use deodorant.

For the record, I'm male, and I prefer as little body hair as possible on females and on myself.

Well, I see we've all already piled on the hate train, but..
I've experienced exactly what they're talking about with various anime shows. When I first watched FLCL I felt genuinely depressed for about two weeks when the show was over. Likable characters combined with seeing a young kid with friends having an adventureful life made me acutely aware of the things missing in my geek life.

I just saw Avatar this past week. It was a good movie; there were only three things that struck me as not being sensible while I was watching it(compare this to Terminator Salvation, which I also saw this past week. It had at least 10 things that jumped out at me as either plot holes or just nonsense). Avatar gets away with things that wouldn't work in movies set on Earth because being set in a foreign planetary system gives them access to phenomena like a unique evolutionary history or the presence of the superconducting mineral as explanations for aspects of the plot.

While I did not feel depressed after seeing Avatar, I did experience a sensation similar to missing someone for a minute or two after leaving the theater. A relatively believable story, likable characters, a female lead with sex appeal, exotic environment, the fact that I strongly want to see travel to other stars happen within my lifetime, the fact that I'm single, and the fact that the movie was over two and a half hours long; I guess all that could have added up to create the sensation I felt.

This should not be in the geek, engineering, or howto channels.

The idea that you could put a laser in any arbitrary container, including a lighter housing, is obvious. So too is the idea that you could use a laser to light cigarettes. The wiring "diagram" presented at 1:20 is not a diagram but a photograph, and it does not show how to wire the parts at all. An explanation of a critical part of the engineering--securely mounting the laser diode so it points out of the hole--is omitted. It appears they omitted the actual engineering too as at 2:02 and 2:04 you can see the end of the lighter glows blue from the beam hitting the inside of the housing. But worst of all, at 2:15, while admonishing the viewer to not point the laser at people, they are clearly shining it directly into the face if not the left eye of the guy with the cigarette. If the laser was actually intense enough to light a cigarette, that individual would now be permanently blind in his left eye.

This is either parody, a viral for the website advertised at 1:08, or it should be in the EIA channel.

Danny, the definition of indignant is "feeling or showing anger that was caused by something unjust". Yet, twice you call me indignant as though that undermines my point of view. Worse, the only emotion I expressed, in my last sentence, was disgust and not anger. My use of the word ignorant was not an expression of anger either, it was a measurement of lack of understanding. If the posters I was referring to knew the facts(which I attempted to analyse in my first paragraph) or had thought about it more before posting, they would not have cheered; thus, they cheered out of ignorance. That's a fact that is either right or wrong, but even if it's wrong it doesn't mean I'm acting out of anger.

"You enjoy getting outraged at people, i can tell."
I express no outrage. In fact, I think my post is rather calm, rational, and to the point. Your statement to the contrary is hyperbole and unfounded speculation.

Also, I never said I think the girl did nothing, I said there is no evidence of wrong doing. A lack of evidence may imply a lack of wrong doing, but even if we are completely unsure of whether or not the girl was in the wrong, everything in my post would still stand--it would still be completely wrong to cheer at her potentially getting seriously injured.

"Her hit ... really didn't need to be so hard."
How do you know it was that hard? The video starts with her hand practically already on the horse. The muscle shaking you see in the horse could easily be caused by the horse itself; they twitch their own muscles to shake flies off.

"I'd be pretty annoyed if someone hit me like that to get a fly on my back"
Perhaps you misunderstand when I say "fly"--I'm talking about horse flies. They are large, they live off blood like mosquitoes, and their bites can feel more like a bee sting than a mosquito bite.

"Her push was directly onto the horse's neck which as we all know is a very sensitive area... "
Hardly. First, while it's not exactly clear in the video, it looks more like she's pushing on the front of the right shoulder, not the neck. Second, a horse's neck is very muscular; a small girl pushing on it will not bother the horse. In fact, pushing back on the neck/chest is a common thing do when trying to back a horse up, into a trailer for instance. Everything you see the girl doing is absolutely typical of horse ownership. People will also use a horse's mane as a handle in the absence of a saddle and reins; horses are rather robust creatures.

"...over compensated with your prissy ... outburst..."
I don't think any of those words accurately describe my post.

I think my post was calm and concise, yet you accuse me of acting emotionally and in error. In the course of articulating your accusation, you employ baseless speculation, exaggeration, and name calling. I think maybe you have things backwards.

edit: removed a superfluous "not have" in the first paragraph.

There's no evidence in this video that the girl did anything wrong. At the very start of the video it looks like she's slapping a fly on the horse--people with horses do that. Then it looks like she's trying to get the horse to back up--also something that people with horses occasionally want them to do. Just because an animal attacks a person doesn't mean the person did anything wrong; horses in particular can be moody and some of them just like to bite. Biting her like it did, the horse could have caused serious injury to her neck or head.

Last time I checked, life was not a sporting event, and the concerns of humans outweighed the concerns of animals. Cheering when an animal mauls a human(a child in this case even!) is ignorant and disgusting.

>> ^rottenseed:

pedantic...meaning by the book. Yea try to pass a physics course with your fuzzy logic bullshit. By the book is how we roll...just pray the person who designed the plane or car you're in did the same


My description of the anvil's behavior is physically and mathematically sound. In fact, using vector math to break velocities and forces into multiple components is exactly what they teach you in any introductory physics course. Which I did pass, with an A, easily, incidentally.

rottenseed is being pedantic

If we have two horses, A and B, in a race, where A is faster but currently behind B, A will eventually pass B and when it does we could say A "overcame" B. Or, if we have two piles of sand, one of a fixed size and the other constantly increasing in size but currently smaller than the first, when it eventually becomes the larger of the two we could say it "overcame" the first pile.

Gravity imparts an acceleration on the anvil. Acceleration summed over time gives a velocity. We could break the anvil's velocity into a pair of components such as initial velocity vs velocity changes during the evolution of the system, or put more simply as gunpowder vs gravity. As time moves forward, the velocity under the gunpowder column is constant, but the velocity under the gravity column is steadily adding up. When the gravity and gunpowder components of the velocity are equal, the anvil has stopped moving. When the gravity component is greater, the anvil has switched directions. To say gravity "overcame" it seems adequately accurate for casual conversation and, in fact, more descriptive than you would expect from most people in casual conversation. My impression when I heard him say that was that he was actually familiar when the relevant equations.