I was not presenting any logical connection between the two. I was presenting the fact that there is moral outrage for the cat incident but when a woman has an abortion the is no love lossed for the destruction of life.



>> ^Gutspiller:

>> ^bobknight33:
Riddle me this.
What morally worse a cat deliberately stuck in fresh concrete or a woman having an abortion?
Both are deliberate acts. Most "open minded" folks will see the utter disgust with the cat but wont think twice on the abortion.

Your logic seems flawed comparing having an abortion to putting a cat in cement.

>> ^bobknight33:

Riddle me this.
What morally worse a cat deliberately stuck in fresh concrete or a woman having an abortion?
Both are deliberate acts. Most "open minded" folks will see the utter disgust with the cat but wont think twice on the abortion.


Your logic seems flawed comparing having an abortion to putting a cat in cement.

Ok then why if the woman is killed and both the fetus and her are killed then the person who did this is sometimes charged with 2 murders?

Should the killer be charged with 2 murders?


>> ^Quboid:

>> ^bobknight33:
Riddle me this.
What morally worse a cat deliberately stuck in fresh concrete or a woman having an abortion?
Both are deliberate acts. Most "open minded" folks will see the utter disgust with the cat but wont think twice on the abortion.

The woman isn't, in my view, killing a living being but removing living tissue.

>> ^bobknight33:

Riddle me this.
What morally worse a cat deliberately stuck in fresh concrete or a woman having an abortion?
Both are deliberate acts. Most "open minded" folks will see the utter disgust with the cat but wont think twice on the abortion.


The woman isn't, in my view, killing a living being but removing living tissue.

Riddle me this.

What morally worse a cat deliberately stuck in fresh concrete or a woman having an abortion?

Both are deliberate acts. Most "open minded" folks will see the utter disgust with the cat but wont think twice on the abortion.

>> ^chingalera:

These editorials from TYT...Still reek of the worst form of journalistic tripe. C & A use the same basic formula that keeps Murdoch's crap-riddled "media" empire afloat;
Sensationalism, inane editorial on current events, and smug gibbering about celebrities and volatile subject matter. That they are so popular here on Videosift is not surprising-Neither is Rupert's net worth considering the herd-mentality that keeps it afloat.
Question: If we are supposed to "sift" through the video offerings on the internet and embed the best here, why are ALL of the segments ever cranked-out by these wanna-be hacks embedded on this site??
Answer: "MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!"


But who are you chastising? The people who vote democratically for it or against it (and they seem to vote for it), or the people who post it for it to be voted on?

I can't watch cenk, i think he has a great mind for doing this kind of thing, but until he can siphon out the 30000 miles per hour hyperactivity and fluff and deliver it in a good way, i can't watch. But videosift will continue to sift up whatever is popular and sift down whatever is not!

I get sick when i see the 3 billionth pomplamoose video being posted on the strength of having a very plain/oddly pretty girl with her face 3 inches from a webcam, but that's just what people like. I think this has a lot more content than that at least; there's a lot worse things you could get annoyed about first.

>> ^chingalera:

These editorials from TYT...Still reek of the worst form of journalistic tripe. C & A use the same basic formula that keeps Murdoch's crap-riddled "media" empire afloat;
Sensationalism, inane editorial on current events, and smug gibbering about celebrities and volatile subject matter. That they are so popular here on Videosift is not surprising-Neither is Rupert's net worth considering the herd-mentality that keeps it afloat.
Question: If we are supposed to "sift" through the video offerings on the internet and embed the best here, why are ALL of the segments ever cranked-out by these wanna-be hacks embedded on this site??
Answer: "MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!"


Nah, not all

These editorials from TYT...Still reek of the worst form of journalistic tripe. C & A use the same basic formula that keeps Murdoch's crap-riddled "media" empire afloat;
Sensationalism, inane editorial on current events, and smug gibbering about celebrities and volatile subject matter. That they are so popular here on Videosift is not surprising-Neither is Rupert's net worth considering the herd-mentality that keeps it afloat.

Question: If we are supposed to "sift" through the video offerings on the internet and embed the best here, why are ALL of the segments ever cranked-out by these wanna-be hacks embedded on this site??

Answer: "MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!"

If I understand the intention of the puzzle correctly, I'm assuming the lake is a closed system (a large pool, really), that all energies are transferred instantly and evenly, and that all things mentioned have mass.

After you pick up the anchor and start lifting, the boat will sink some amount (not a rate) proportional to the speed you're raising the anchor, and the lake will rise a proportional amount to the amount the boat sank. When you stop lifting the anchor, the boat will go back to the start height, as will the lake. The moment you release the anchor, the lake boat will rise above its start height, and the lake will drop below its start height. As the anchor enters the water again, the lake will rise back to the start height, so the final result is the water will stay the same level.

Or I could say that with any anchor that I could lift and an average-sized lake, the difference in the height of the lake distributed over the entire surface would probably be less than a molecule of water, so even without figuring out the forces, I could claim the difference would be insignificant, so "stay the same" again. But I guess I can't just assume the "lake" is not a wee tarn, where an anchor could make a measurable difference.>> ^Boise_Lib:

This is one I've seen used in job interviews:
You're in a boat on a lake. You pick up the anchor that's in the boat and throw it into the lake.
Will the water in the lake; rise a bit, fall a bit, or stay the same level?

Here's my drawring if anyone's interested:
[spoiler]https://dl.dropbox.com/u/9172272/videosift/einstein-riddle.png[/spoiler]

Took me just under a half hour. I drew a diagram instead of using a chart. Was much more clerical work than riddle solving.

My result is below (select with your mouse to reveal the spoiler):
[spoiler]The German owns the fish.[/spoiler]

Good stuff, dft. Keep the riddles coming.

The riddle involved two skills, IMO (without googling, so correct me if wrong):

1) addition (which I would guess a 4 year old could do)
2) recognition of sets and set mapping (which I am not entirely sure a 4 year old would think to do)

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

^I looked up the answer and it's sciencey.
Here is an easy one: What gets wetter the more it dries?


pulverized bovine tyrosine compounds

>> ^alien_concept:

>> ^Boise_Lib:
This is one I've seen used in job interviews:
You're in a boat on a lake. You pick up the anchor that's in the boat and throw it into the lake.
Will the water in the lake; rise a bit, fall a bit, or stay the same level?

Oh hmm, is it the same because whether in the boat to make it heavier or in the water, it's exactly the same?


That was my first thought, but I came awake about 3 AM that night with the real answer.

I will reveal the answer when I receive $100,000 in unmarked bills.
(or, in two hours--whichever comes first)

>> ^Boise_Lib:

This is one I've seen used in job interviews:
You're in a boat on a lake. You pick up the anchor that's in the boat and throw it into the lake.
Will the water in the lake; rise a bit, fall a bit, or stay the same level?


Oh hmm, is it the same because whether in the boat to make it heavier or in the water, it's exactly the same?