The architect wife says, "That's cool." Thus it is so.

I'd love to get in on this conversation because this subject really interests me. This video touched on a lot of interesting theories.

@robdot - I don't understand people who think they "know" the answers to the universe. There are unanswered questions in every model. Do you know the answer to what dark matter and energy is? Nobody has yet detected it. Yet, our "universe" is supposedly filled with the stuff.

Let's also define what a universe is. My definition is; it's a place governed by the same set of physical laws.

So we have "our" universe, that we hypothesize about through our observations and measurements. We have theories that say "other" universes exist in some form or another. If their physical laws are different then ours, there would probably be no way to observe them, and therefore no way to prove their existence. Lack of proof is not proof that it doesn't exist.

I could write a book on what i "think" about what our universe is. For simplicity, let me just say that I moved from telecom engineering to software architect. In software, we create programs to run simulations. We create vast game worlds with whatever "physical" attributes we want to program into them. Lets assume we created artificial intelligence. In what context would "it" live? Most everyone assumes it would just be one conscience interacting with us in the form of a robot (Que cheesy Hollywood films).

Let's give it the power of quantum computing. It then decides to understand us (it's creator), it needs to program a simulation that mimics all it knows about our physical world. It wouldn't make one simulation, run it and be done. It would make many simulations, probably simultaneously, tweaking each new one based on the results of the previous ones.

Just imagine where this could lead. This intelligence could figure out how to create a multitude of different, very elegant universes. Its time scale would be different then our time. It's simulation could take seconds on its viewing scale, but appear to be billions of years when observing from within it. We have the power to pause, rewind, replay, tweak our simple creations. Imagine what this super intelligence could do with theirs?

The world isn't static.
For example, the J-20, between its stealth capabilities and its ability to jam radar, significantly lowers the range of our BVR radar guided missiles, because our radar guided missiles can't track them beyond a given range.
So you have to get closer - ideally without moving into range of the opponent's missiles.

A Super Hornet (which BTW is an ~entirely new plane compared to the original hornet. It's not an 'upgrade' to an existing airframe.) can't move in closer without exposing itself to fire.

Furthermore, the F35's ability to get closer than conventional fighters makes it 'take point' for information gathering and transmitting data over the network.

Yes, the F35 is has a wasteful inflated budget in large part architected to throw money at political friends - but the vehicle does exist to plug a real hole.

-scheherazade

scientism is really like truthieness. It's a made up word, with a made up definition, that has no bearing on, or connection to reality.
Science is not about belief.
If data 'proves' that science can't ever answer any question about reality (not about human insanity, although it already goes a long way towards explaining that too), scientists would concede instantly. If it were a belief, they could never change it based on evidence, but science does change.

No one is asking you to 'bow' to any 'theory'. They are simply the 'rules' that 'science' has produced to explain how the world/universe works. They work just fine without your 'belief' in them or knowledge of them. That's just one thing they have over the supernatural.

Please give an example or two of scientific 'truths' that were half baked ideas. I think if you look throughout history, carefully, you will see the scientific method was developed mostly around the 12th century as explained here:

Amongst the array of great scholars, al-Haytham is regarded as the architect of the scientific method. His scientific method involved the following stages:1.Observation of the natural world
2.Stating a definite problem
3.Formulating a robust hypothesis
4.Test the hypothesis through experimentation
5.Assess and analyze the results
6.Interpret the data and draw conclusions
7.Publish the findings

but it's widely held that it was not solidified to the modern scientific method (eliminating guessing and 'induction' and requiring repeatable experimentation) until Newton. That means any example you might give should come after 1660 or so at the earliest, or you aren't talking about the same "science" that the rest of us are.

I think most scientist would say it is 'possible' that supernatural events happen, but incredibly unlikely, and constantly less so the more we know about the world and it's rules. It's just as likely that if I only eat the right color yellow foods I'll eventually 'magically' crap gold. I can't prove it won't happen (because I'll never know if I ate the 'right' color foods, if I ever tried), but I can use science to show it's absolutely unlikely to a NEAR certainty (no matter how one misunderstands quantum physics).
The supernatural is right there with my golden poops....and I can't tell which smells worse.

Apparently there's yet another Gruber video. (There could be a Gruber Film Festival!)

("OMG!") Fox gets flack for, you know, exposing Democrats like Pelosi, but it's she who now claims that she doesn't know who Gruber is, despite invoking him many times in the campaigning for the bill's passage.

At least Gruber tells the truth about ACA just being another tax on "the people."

“So basically it's the same thing,” he said. “We just tax the insurance companies, they pass on higher prices that offsets the tax break we get, it ends up being the same thing. It's a very clever, you know, basic exploitation of the lack of economic understanding of the American voter.”

That's the truth also about, "tax the rich," or "tax corporations." Corporations will just pass on the cost to "consumers." Tax anyone always means tax "the people." But the masses of "the American voter," like voters anywhere it seems, or at least the "progressive ones," for whatever reason don't understand that. There is no "free" government service. No "free" education. No "free" housing. Someone will pay for it and more likely than not those at the bottom will pay for it.

EDIT:
There's at least 7 Gruber videos now.

"It’s one thing for Americans to suspect that their President lies to them. It’s quite another to hear a key Obama adviser boast of it." (Videosift pundits disagree, of course.)

From the Washington Post :

"Obama also insisted repeatedly that the individual mandate “is absolutely not a tax increase.” In a 2009 interview with ABC News, George Stephanopoulos pressed him on it no less than five times. He even read Obama the definition of “tax” from Webster’s dictionary. Obama was adamant: “My critics say everything is a tax increase. . . . I absolutely reject that notion.”

"Then, after Obamacare passed, his administration cynically turned around and argued before the Supreme Court that it was in fact a tax. At one point, Justice Samuel Alito asked Obama’s solicitor general, Donald Verrilli, “why do you keep saying tax?,” drawing peals of laughter."

"The reason he called it a tax is because — as Jonathan Gruber now admits — members of the Obama team knew all along that it was a tax. They intentionally deceived Americans about it because if they had called it a tax, Obamacare would never have become law."

* * *

All of these videos, of course, make little difference to the partisan Democrats, not unlike partisan Republicans when they get exposed. But they do make a difference with the "independents" who decide elections: the ones who can vote one way or the other. So the Democrats can expect for this to continue until the next election.

Good things to know: The "anti- commandeering doctrine."
Know the laws of the land.

I had heard something about that theory, but I thought it only applied to the designers, architects, and foremen. Is that wrong?

No, he's not wrong.

It's pretty simple. Either your supplement does what it claims to or it doesn't. If it does, submit it for testing and approval.

There's no such thing as "alternative medicine". There is only that which has been proven to work (i.e. medicine) and that which has either not been proven to work or been proven not to work.

Besides, it is completely unreasonable to expect the average person to research the efficacy of supplements. Even among intelligent educated people (clearly a minority), most of them do not have time, let alone the ability to conduct this kind of research. That's why we have regulatory bodies. I wouldn't ask an epidemiologist to build a house and I wouldn't ask an architect about the efficacy of drugs.

As for St Johns Wort, the answer is simple. If it works, get it approved. The solution is not "hey, this one thing works! Let's open the floodgates to every supplement!"

Yo man, birthday cheer (goin' for the gold!)-Also born on April 8, one of my fav-o-rite architects Richard Neutra (flat-slate roofs, lotsa glass, check his shit it's uber-retro-hip)-Also, this wonderful woman, one of the high priestesses of Jazz, Dame Carmen McCrae-Yer in hip company....

Nice house, and I also found the lack of sound throughout most of the video a little creepy but I suspect it's supposed to be a contrast to the awful noise outside at the beginning and the end. The Japanese seem to view homes as much more disposable than we do here in the west so they have more construction and more architects to build evermore unique houses.
I didn't know any of that until I heard a recent Freakonomics podcast about it.
For those who might be interested,
http://freakonomics.com/2014/02/27/why-are-japanese-homes-disposable-a-new-freakonomics-radio-podcast-3/

What he's really saying is something like..."women I know, who are douchebags like me, are smart, intelligent, and capable of doing anything any man like me can do..etc. etc., you other people are simply idiot wage-slaves and cattle.

He's a politician in America ergo, concomitantly, vis-a-vis, a complete piece of shit, his particular party alignment having no bearing whatsoever on this fact.-The Architect

I finally figured it out. He's the architect from the Matrix!

Not sure if it was intentional or if the architect cocked it up. Either way, they got shafted, that's for sure.

As for the interior, I'd have to decline the tour. Being stuck inside a phallus-shaped house of psychosis might just be a similar to having a camera shoved up your urethra.

Animal Architects: Mesh Cocoon has been added as a related post - related requested by oritteropo on that post.

Just feels like the designer/architect for the church didn't know when to stop. He just added tower after tower after spike after spire after spire in absurdum.

...roughly as can be kirmokum, given the language with which to describe the experience filtered through the individual perceptive apparatus. I like to think that the architect left these chemical triggers in the species with a view towards our acclimation to higher brain function and adaptation to chaotic internal and external stimuli, as well as a catalyst for the species continuing evolution.
After having experienced DMT as well as several other psychoactive substances, the very idea that a government, religion, or any such construct of human societies would seek to imprison someone for the personal use of the same should be an indicator to anyone who values free will and basic human rights as to the nefarious ends of that construct.
First, eliminate the constructs....then we find the contractors and hunt THEM down!