Note the facebook and google plus proliferation. We've got a swarm of spammers descending upon us, all patting each other on their spammy backs!

>> ^RadHazG:

To many puns in here. It's unbeerabale.


I'm getting quite a buzz off it.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

This achievement has earned you your "Silver Tongue" Level 4 Badge!

>> ^DrNoodles:

The new "Bee Grills". Get it? huh? huh?


David Attenbeerough?

>> ^robbersdog49:

A swarm of bees occurs when they move from an old hive to a new hive. They will settle like this while scouts go looking for a suitable hive location. When they're like this they have nothing to defend. They have no honey and no lavae to look after, so they have no reason to attack anything unnecessarily. So, if you're slow and calm and don't give them a reason to hurt you, they won't. This guy is providing them with what they want - a new hive - and just encouraging them. Once he gets the queen in there the rest will follow. The sugar water just makes them a bit happier and therefore less likely to attack.
When bees sting, they leave the sting behind and this kills them. It's a real last resort. I do a lot of insect photography and it doesn't bother me at all to pick up a bee. Wasps need a little more respect as it doesn't injure them to sting, so they can be a little more trigger happy.


I read that the sting when applied to the enemy acts as marker for other bees, thus it is very likely that he wasn't stung once while moving this hive. This is absolutely amazing. Nice comment robbersdog!

A swarm of bees occurs when they move from an old hive to a new hive. They will settle like this while scouts go looking for a suitable hive location. When they're like this they have nothing to defend. They have no honey and no lavae to look after, so they have no reason to attack anything unnecessarily. So, if you're slow and calm and don't give them a reason to hurt you, they won't. This guy is providing them with what they want - a new hive - and just encouraging them. Once he gets the queen in there the rest will follow. The sugar water just makes them a bit happier and therefore less likely to attack.

When bees sting, they leave the sting behind and this kills them. It's a real last resort. I do a lot of insect photography and it doesn't bother me at all to pick up a bee. Wasps need a little more respect as it doesn't injure them to sting, so they can be a little more trigger happy.

>> ^messenger:
So, how is you believing that you have a superior intellect to someone who believes in God not pride?

Read it again. Nobody claimed to have a superior intellect to anyone else. The contrast is between using our intellect and not using it. As Galileo famously put it, "I do not feel obliged to believe that that same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forego their use." Now, he was talking from the perspective of a person of faith who simply didn't believe the bible or church teachings anymore but certainly did still believe in God. We are speaking as people with sense, reason and intellect who don't see sufficient evidence to come to the conclusion that God might reasonably exist.

It's the entire contention that someone who believes in God is not using their sense, reason and intellect that is prideful. Did you know that 40 percent of biologists, physicists and mathematicians believe in a personal God? Some extremely intelligent people believe in a Creator, and they can back up their beliefs with logical evidence. You see theists through a grossly distorted lens created by your own prejudice, and it blinds you. Galileo, by the way, did believe the bible; what he didn't buy is the catholic interpretation of it, and rightly so.

>> ^messenger:
Since there is no empirical evidence for or against Gods existence, how do you calculate how likely or unlikely His existence is?

The lack of evidence for existence is a non-concrete kind of evidence for the lack of existence. So the overwhelming lack of evidence for God is a bloody strong case. Everywhere we look in nature, we continue not to find God.

The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. Although I think there is evidence, such as fine tuning and information in DNA. In any case, do you honestly believe you can point an instrument at God and say "there he is!". Is this idea not fundamentally ridiculous? I think what youre confusing is mechanism with agency. You think because you describe a mechanism, how something works in a mechanical sense, somehow it rules out an Agent. God says He upholds the entire Universe; that He is the one that keeps the atoms from flying apart. How does mechanism rule out Gods agency?

Not only that, but if God created the Universe, do you realize that the entire Universe is evidence of Gods existence? The question I would put to you is, how would you tell the difference? How would you know you're looking at a Universe God didn't create? What would you expect that to look like?

What about the laws of logic? Where do they come from? If they're only in our brains, subject to constant flux, then what is rationality? It isn't anything you can trust if what you believe is true. Therefore all of your arguments fall apart. You have nothing in your worldview that can explain it, yet I can explain it. I know there is an omnipotent God who made us in His image, and we are rational beings because He is a rational being.

>> ^messenger:
Please, stop talking about science. You really do not understand it. You sound like a religious sceptic spouting crap about the bible. Really, what you say about science is just non-verified faither talking points. All science is based only on observation and drawing generalized inferences from that. "Theories" are just that. The strength of a scientific theory is roughly [how well it predicts other things] ÷ [how many things you have to just accept]. The belief in a particular atomic structure for oxygen has many predictions, which are testable and have largely been shown reliably true. So the atomic structure of an oxygen atom is a generally accepted theory, even though we will never be able to sense it directly. It's scientific. On those same grounds, the theory of evolution is also a strong theory in science. It has very few conjectures (three simple ones, I believe I heard Dawkins once say), it generates predictions, the predictions are testable, and they affirm the theory. Saying that evolution is untestable is as ridiculous as saying we haven't investigated every oxygen atom, so the model of the atom is untestable, and therefore unscientific.

If you understood it better than I do then you would know what macro evolution is. The scientific method uses empirical evidence, which comes from empirical experimentation or observation. There is no experiment to prove macro evolution, nor can it be empirically observed. It is simply an unjustified extrapolation from micro evolution (which is proven beyond a reasonable doubt), and based on nothing but inferences from *circumstantial* evidence and not evidence based on empirical observation.

Many people have this conception that the theory of common descent is as certain and proven as 2 + 2 = 4, or as Sepacore put it:

"once claimed to be a book of literal truth, becomes more and more metaphorical as science stomps its way all over the human races ignorance of the universe reaching greater level's of understandings that are testable through mathematical predictions"

That is certainly how it is taught in schools, as absolute fact, and that's why I believed it too. It's when you stop looking at their conclusions and see the actual data they base them on that you will get the shock of your life. Yes, you're right, the theory makes a few predictions, all of which have turned out to be wrong..such as this:

The main cause, however, of innumerable intermediate links not now occurring everywhere throughout nature depends on the very process of natural selection, through which new varieties continually take the places of and exterminate their parent-forms. But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.

Darwin

Darwin predicted that for his theory to be true, there must be innumerable transitional forms in the fossil record. What have we found?:


"Paleontologists just were not seeing the expected changes in their fossils as they pursued them up through the rock record. That individual kinds of fossils remain recognizably the same throughout the length of their occurrence in the fossil record had been known to paleontologists long before Darwin published his Origin. Darwin himself, .., prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search... One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin's prediction. Nor is the problem a miserly fossil record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction is wrong.
N. Eldredge and I. Tattersall, The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, pg 45-46.

What we find is that creatures appear in stasis, and enter and leave the fossil record abruptly with no changes.

Another prediction is a start from simple to complex, with an increase of diversity of the phyla over a long period of time.

"Consequently, if my theory be true, it is indisputable that before the lowest Silurian stratum was deposited, long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably longer than the whole interval from the Silurian age to the present day; and during these vast, yet quite unknown periods of time, the world swarmed with living creatures. To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer."
Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species, 1st edition, pg 307.

What we find is that all of the phyla we have today all abruptly appeared in the "cambrian explosion"

"The fossil record had caused Darwin more grief than joy. Nothing distressed him more than the Cambrian explosion, the coincident appearance of almost all complex organic designs ... "
S. Gould, The Panda's Thumb, pg 238, 239.

This is just the tip of the iceberg for how poor a theory macroevolution actually is, but you won't have a shortage of true believers in it, even though they don't even understand what evidence it is based on. I do know something about science, and although I am a layman, I am perfectly capable of understanding of what makes a sound theory, and what doesn't. I would believe in macroevolution if the evidence supported it. Not only does it not support it, but it actually argues against it. It is shocking to someone who has been indoctrinated (like I was), but if you want to talk about fairy stories, macroevolution is a whale of a tale.

PRO-TIP: Rotate your plasma cutter to a vertical orientation and aim for the arm joints to take out this nasty necromorph. If you accidentally hit the stomach causing it to rupture, prepare to run as a swarm of smaller necromorphs burst forth from the fallen carcass and attack you like a squirmy blanket of death.

I find the show uneven. Sometimes it's very compelling; sometimes its just boring. I like the characters, but I don't always find the writing believable, which takes away from my connection to the characters. I dislike that so much of the show is devoted to characters arguing about what to do next. It just feels to me like they are wasting time with cheap dialog so they don't have to spend a lot of money on more elaborate zombie scenes. I also hate how they so often introduce an arbitrary problem to solve that has little or nothing to do with the overall plot.

I'm not sure if the narrative is tighter in the graphic novel or not, since I haven't read it.

I wouldn't have saved Randall in the first place. Why risk your brains trying to save someone who was trying to kill you in the face of a huge swarm of zombies? If they went through all the trouble of saving him, they should probably not execute him. Had they not tortured him, they might have been able to let him go without worry or even let him become part of the group, but now that he has been brutalized, he is likely to seek revenge when given the opportunity. It's probably an allegory for Abu Grabe. I say they drive him back to the school bus and give him a fighting chance. All alone, he'd probably not survive anyway, but he'd be left in far better shape than he was when they found him.

As for Dale, it seemed like a terribly unsatisfying way to kill off a major character. He's just randomly walking in the woods at night by himself and gets killed by a zombie. Weak. Dale was the voice of humanity and reason, so why not let him die doing something selfless. Take a lesson from Game of Thrones: when you are going to unexpectedly kill off major characters, milk it! I guess the point is that if the kid had not antagonized the zombie, or alternately shot the zombie, that Dale would still be alive - which is analogous to the Randall situation.

I'd love to see the characters abandon the farm. The story would be a lot more interesting if they were on the move, exploring the ruins of society, encountering different people and different conflicts along the way.

I predict that Daryl's handless brother will be a member of Randall's group.

Atheists generally accept whatever there's compelling evidence for, but that isn't a definition of atheism either. Atheists are people who happen not to believe any religion, in contrast to people who happen to not believe in any religion except one.

Your second point is pretty close. We're violent and rational. We try to rationalize things we don't understand. Some people choose religion to supply their answers. Other people look at religion and say that's not rational either, and prefer not knowing to knowing something that is a patently false human invention.

Atheism isn't a club by any measure. It's just the condition of not having a religious faith. Do you have a religious faith? If not, then you're atheist. If you perceive that atheists are swarming together and standardizing each other's beliefs, it's probably because religious people insist on pestering us, which encourages us to gather together for strength and support. One unfortunate side-effect of open atheists communing so much with one another is that we develop a lot of the same dogma. But none of that dogma is required for membership. One only needs not to have a religion to be atheist by the word's definition.

It's like saying obesity is a club and you have to love food, eat unhealthily, and get no exercise. That's not the definition of obesity, just common features of obese people.>> ^quantumushroom:
Now, if YOU came to me or any atheist and said: "Here I have absolute, definitive proof god exists", we would say: "let me see that... hmm... yeah ok. I guess we were wrong. Fuck. This sucks, but god exists even though he's obviously an idiot and an asshole". we would change our minds, when faced with a contradicting reality.
There are people who would deny the existence of God if God appeared before them. I suspect that's why "He" don't bother...
Here's what really matters. People are violent animals disguised as rational beings. Without religion (or traditions) to decentralize their solipsism, they stay animals, however clever.
Atheism's not a religion but it's still a club, even if the only rule is, "Thou shalt not believe in the existence of any deities." I think that's a fair statement.

>> ^raverman:

But if you've done nothing wrong you wont have to hide from them.


I think Kim Jong Un just mussed his pants at the idea of implementing his concept of 'right' with the help of Nanobot quadrotor deathsquads.

Fucking Nano Quadrotor Swarms, how do they work??

Your video, Swarm of Nano Quadrotors, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

I have to wonder why they didn't call a bee keeper to move them out... at my old house a huge swarm came and settled on the empty house next door. It was a bee keeper who came out and got them (gave us free honey as well... they got a nice new queen and some bees out of it). Of course the bee keeper might not have the tools to pull the house apart to collect the bees and the hive.