No, they are not the same thing, and they are not creationist terms.

Yes, they are in fact the same thing, and yes, I know creationists didnt come up with the terms, predictably, since they have never come up with a single useful term or idea in the history of everything. They can be useful terms to describe the short-term and long-term effect of evolution, but creationist use the term to shield themselves from admitting that they deny reality. Lets just take one example: genetic variation, according to creationists then, genetic variation is real and actually happens, your genes are slightly different from other human genes, ie: there is variations within a species.

But this is the same kind of variation there is BETWEEN species, its the SAME FREAKING THING, but when the difference is large enough, individual organism can no longer breed to produce fertile offspring. That is in fact the definition of "species". Conceptually, there is no difference between the genetic difference between you and me and the genetic difference between you and a tomato, its just MORE difference.

I honestly dont know how to respond to this time=miracle nonsense, the point is that because there is variation and mutations, speciation will happen over long stretches of time, now you might say "biologists sure needs lots of time for evolution to work" but the thing is that other, unrelated fields of study, like chemistry, physics and cosmology have independently reached conclusions about how old the universe is, and its billions of years old. We KNOW that, not from inventing a number large enough to allow evolution to work its "miracles", but because its the only logical conclusion based the available evidence.

The correlating data you are looking at is a hall of mirrors. Radiometric data is based on uniformitarian assumptions. The light travel time is based on similar assumptions. Embedded in all of the estimations of an old age are unprovable assumptions that have no empirical evidence to prove they are true. They are in fact unknowable.

Everything in that paragraph is wrong. These things are NOT based on assumptions, but empirical evidence, calculations and experiments. In fact, the knowledge has not only been confirmed by experiments and evidence, and as I tried to explain earlier, YOU ARE RELYING ON TECHNOLOGY BASED ON THAT KNOWLEGDE TO READ THIS SENTENCE. It is literally being proved right in front of your eyes.

I had a problem with this in just a conceptual way. First of all there's no way in hell the American government would let that stand for even a day, they'd destroy the entire fucking city and have no problem doing it. Which makes me wonder, couldn't we have it be two movies and have Bane own the city without it being a hostile takeover with guns and outward aggression? I mean Bane would be the strong man absolutely, but his handler would've done better to create a criminal utopia instead and try to drive it into the ground through corruption. You could make allusions to Chicago or Baltimore, it could get seriously deep.

Spreading it over two movies would be essential to tell a more complex and weaving tale. It would've been the greatest series of movies ever made if they had done it the hard way, I think they were just trying to get it done or something.

>> ^lantern53:

Doesn't Romney pay by the rules set up by Congress and the IRS? Doesn't Obama? Don't we all?
If it isn't fair, who set it up that way? Congress makes the laws. Romney has never been a member of Congress...Obama, on the other hand, has.
Why hasn't Obama changed the IRS rules in the past 4 years?

Gross conceptual error.

I disagree

Religion has plenty to teach us. It appropriately mirrors the evolution of the consciousness...the development of species-wide psychological tendencies throughout the history of humanity.

In order to understand where we are now, we need to understand where we've been, and why.

What religion teaches us is exactly where we are in the development of the consciousness -- and in short, we're idiots, a mere 10,000 years into cognition. We're evolutionary infants. Much, much dumber than we like to think we are.

Dawkin's would probably agree that he's dickish when it comes to religion. No qualms with that: religion is quite deserving of reactionary spite.

However where Dawkin's plays the fool is in being just as arrogant in his steadfastness that there is no "God". Just as arrogant as any relig-idiot with his iron belief system.

Where he could remedy the situation is to allow for a different concept of "God" - one not based on the idea that God is a being, like you and I. This primitive conceptualization is retarded on the surface, and self-serving at best.

To many, "evolution" is GOD - a beautiful process of life and continuing intellectual complexity that is potentially infinite.

This concept of God is inclusive, not exclusive and divisive.

@xxovercastxx
With regards to "What do I think is right?"
It seems that most of this approach is based on broad calculations and value judgements about quality of life and mother's opinions, with little to no intrinsic value placed on the fetus. That's likely to be the most difficult difference of opinion for us to overcome.

With regards to "What makes for a good law?"
I think arguing for the line to be drawn at birth doesn't stand up to scrutiny. They're just not that different as individuals in the time leading up to delivery for termination at that point to be sufficiently different conceptually from termination after birth. For most children, they could be delivered several weeks prior to their "due date" and thrive.

My perspective on the focus of legislation wouldn't be to lock up women, but limit their access to the procedure. If it were up to me (it isn't), making abortion illegal (eicoriottl...) would be directed at prohibiting doctors from performing the procedure.
Would this increase the incidence of "botched back alley abortions"? Almost certainly. Overall, however, I would expect the overall number of abortions would fall precipitously. Would fewer "unprepared" people have sex knowing that abortion wouldn't be an option? I don't know. Probably not? That'd probably be useful information to have. Would there be an increase in poverty? Possibly? Again, I don't know the answer to this one.

>> ^Sarzy:

FYI Rian Johnson (the director of this film) posted the following on Twitter:
"If you're already set on seeing Looper, I'd avoid any trailers from here on out. They don't ruin the movie, but they tip a few little things that are fun to discover in the context of the movie."
If the director of a film tells you to avoid the trailer, it's probably a good idea to listen.


...And this should also be a calling card to START telling movie companies to reign in their trailer releases, editing what information and scenes are still in and what isn't. You can easily make a perfectly good trailer that still gives you an idea of what the story will be that pulls the crowds and still not give away really anything. Hell, sometimes it's good to even leave the STORY a secret, as in my point below.

I may not have liked Cloverfield too much (although it did do a lot of things right, like atmosphere; leaving you in perpetual suspense with the characters--rather than you being the omniscient overseer as usual), but damn it's small burst trailer and viral craze was enough to make people foam at the mouth. The reason why it worked is right down below...

BTW, Hollywood executives I'm about to tell you what makes a good trailer:

This is ALL you need, produce curiosity and you have your audience (in fact I'd dare say that by putting more information in that gives away ANY plot lines will actually DIMINISH your crowd size). Just give them curiosity and if your film isn't good enough to form curiosity then you happen to be releasing a Tyler Perry movie, again (or Adam Sandler).

This obviously isn't ever true as the majority of people STILL see movies even though these trailers are released. But, is this because they don't care about the trailers or they just want to see the show either way (trailer be damned, like us). For us commenting, we are movie goers that actually LOVE cinema hate having movies ruined by seeing one bad trailer.

It would be nice if they would atleast give it a chance.

BTW, this looks like an interesting film, but yet again--why in the hell do we need to know the whole story and how it will end (you can almost guess a few ways it will; I shouldn't even be able to conceptualize it yet!) basically before going? Does everybody release Michael Bay style trailers now (The Transformers trailers were REALLY bad in this area, as is Michael Bay...)?

I'll still see this as it's a Bruce Willis movie and he seems to have an O.K. streak; he hasn't ever really made/been-in a dud, similar to Harrison Ford on that front. Plus Joseph Levitt to boot, should be alright.

@CaptainPlanet @Jinx

Sorry to interrupt you both, but why don't you just assume that they're both stationary and then work out how fast and how far they each start travelling backwards at different times using their difference in velocity; you're ignoring friction anyway so they're both inertial reference frames and may be treated as such. It'll make it a lot easier, conceptually, to find out how far apart they will be IF he reacts that quickly. I'm not gonna do it because it's already turned into a pile of shit pseudo intellectual argument, but i'm just saying.

Also, try to have discussions about maths/science in a nice and friendly way, because otherwise you just look like a youtube idiot who knows nothing about the subject. The last thing i want to see on the sift over crap like that is "hurr durr" comments.

Anyway, this is a bit of a stupid idea. To be fair they're only going between 55-60 mph which i suppose isn't motorway speeds, it's more like dual carrageway speeds. If he was on the motorway i'd say he had a death wish. As it is i'd say he's pretty desperate to be paralysed and have half of his skin grated away by the road surface.

I know this is long, so please bear with me. Before I get to my suggestions, though, let me begin with a couple of caveats so you don't tune out everything else if your initial reaction is negative. First, with one notable exception, this suggestion doesn't remove any functionality that you want to keep. And two, the ideas are intended to simplify the conceptual framework of some of the existing functionality, and hopefully the interface as a result.

Conceptually, all of the video listing pages (Front, Unsifted, Beggar's Canyon, Hot, Dead Pool, etc.) are nothing more than searches with different parameters of all of the videos available here. From that perspective, the Unsifted Tab is a search for all videos with fewer than 10 votes submitted (or resubmitted via promote, etc.) within the last 2 days. I don't see any reason why I shouldn't be able to search for all similar videos submitted within the last 5 days, for instance. Or 30 days. Ultimately, the Unsifted tab can be analogous to the Sifted Tab, with no restriction on submission date at all.

The first consequence of this (the notable exception mentioned above) is that the allowed rate of video submission has to be redefined in terms of number of videos over time, as opposed to number of videos simultaneously in the queue. With a little forethought and experimentation, it should not be hard to reproduce a very similar rate of submission to what we currently have. It might not be possible to exactly match the current rate, but we should be able to get pretty close.

Another immediate consequence is that PQueues are obsolete. The exact same functionality would be served by the Unsifted queue itself. Beggar's Canyon still makes sense, but I think a more effective approach would be to allow any member to requeue an unsifted video (resetting the submit date, but not for the purposes of dupes), requiring a power point and a submit slot. The latter is also simpler and more direct than Beggar's Canyon, which requires the viewer to go to a different page of videos.

The 'promote' and 'quality' invocations should function exactly as before, putting a video in the promotion box and/or pushing it to the front of the queue. (Side note: the practice of promoting one's own videos (and I do it myself) goes against one of the fundamental principles of VideoSift. I've never understood why this was started. I'd like to see this ability removed, but if it does stay it would work similarly, requiring 2 power points, but not a submission slot). Also, the 'dead' invocation would make sense and work on unsifted videos (though, if you wanted, you could still restrict that, possibly just discarding dead unsifted videos).

Perhaps most importantly, this conception of the video listing pages opens up any number of other possible pre-defined searches (similar to any other listing, like Top or Hot). "Almost There" could show all Unsifted videos with 9 votes. "Bottom of the Barrel" could show all videos with 0 or less votes. Whatever searches are most likely to direct users to the videos they are most interested in. You could even let members save their own predefined searches as a menu option.

An analogous conceptual framework can also apply to the other fundamental VideoSift activity - Community. Commenting on videos or profiles, sift and channel talk posts, the lounge, blogs, badges/awards, etc., can all be thought of as different 'searches' through the community space, at least from a navigational point of view. Taken as a whole, this conceptual framework suggests a natural layout of the interface menus:

Video

Sifted, Unsifted, Hot, Top, Recommended, Random, Dead(, Beggar's Canyon)

Sift Talk, Top Discussions, Recent Comments, My Comments, Members, Blogs, Lounge

FAQ, Rules/Guidelines, How-Tos

Profile, Prefs/Profile Settings, Facebook, Google+, Logout

@lantern53

There isn't a single country in this world that is purely capitalist. Capitalism and socialism operate hand in hand in most (all?) first world countries, including the USA. Only an ignorant fool would declare them incompatible and hit the "submit new comment" button. I would normally take pity, understanding that you are simply regurgitating the shit you've been spoonfed, and try to help you understand your gross conceptual error. But, since you aren't paying me to educate you, that would just reek of Socialism. So, I guess you're on your own, Capitalist. Good luck.

>> ^spoco2:

A great opportunity lost... why did they not have a series of punches where she knocked off more and more of the beard, easy to do, he would have just had to shave out different shaped pieces from it.
Could have been hilarious.
As it stands, it's... ok.


The reason I had my beard fly off in one blow instead of chunks is that I had the idea for that one big VFX shot before I even conceptualized the rest of the piece. This was originally going to be a personal exercise in VFX to see if I could get my beard punched off my face and make it look seamless, but then I decided to make it into something more robust and entertaining by putting it into a short narrative context.

I agree that it would be cool to see the chunks, but that's not the video I set out to make. :-)

If anyone is interested in seeing a breakdown of how I accomplished some of the effects in this video, check out this post on Reddit:

http://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/npwm4/beard_gets_punched_off_a_guys_face_in_slow_motion/c3ba3ow

>> ^gwiz665:

I never could get into Eve. I've tried, multiple times, but no.


I've never tried it but I really like it conceptually. I like the idea that MMOs can simulate a fictional reality and that there's good and bad in that, excitement and tedium. I like when there are few rules and that those that do exist are enforced in-universe whenever possible.

But I also have no interest or willingness to pay a subscription to play a game.

If you view free market as a processes like natural selection, then everything counts including regulation. Regulation is simply an adaptation to market conditions by certain segments of a population. It is an ability to exert control on the market while avoiding the volatile, risky and harmful consequences other methods might accrue.

There will always be someone/something trying to control market forces in their favor. If you were to eliminate any regulation you would be eliminating one side's ability to exert control, they would be at the mercy of those who control the resources. So I guess in rebuttal to your argument, we either already have free-market working as intended or it doesn't exist and can't exist because anytime you put in a stipulation that you can't do X you're regulating someone's ability to exert control over the market forces.

As far as consumers go, I'm torn by the desire to see people acting more personally responsible and the opinion that you shouldn't have to be a professional in everything. You just can't compete when you're trying to know everything so you can make the right decisions, against someone who specialize in a specific area. At some point you're going to have to appeal to an expert. Unfortunately we have become so used to appealing to the experts its become increasingly easy for the experts to take advantage of everyone else.

Also:
I really think there are numerous systems which can successfully regulate a market but we've got these bits and pieces of several of them that don't work together. The people we've put in charge of this stuff all have such deep emotional attachments to their one economic gospel that they're often unwilling to even honestly discuss things with anyone from a different church.
I can't help but feel that is an exceptionally true statement. Our system of regulations has been cobbled together and broken apart by various ideologues over the years as painful a process it might be I wish we could redo everything in a manner that makes sense for the current market.


In reply to this comment by xxovercastxx:
A totally free market runs on the same principals as natural selection. It's totally possible. The question is whether it's desirable. The problem with both is that you have to be willing to deal with some chaos and most people are not willing to.

My own tastes are for a somewhat high degree of market freedom, with with a handful of absolutes protected by regulation. A bill of rights for the market, if you will. I admit, though, that this is closer to a gut feeling than a detailed plan.

A healthy free market requires responsible consumers. I made a comment about this just a couple days ago so I won't rehash it here.

In reply to this comment by Crosswords:
Well many of us don't think there is such a thing as a 'free market'. Not just that there isn't one now, but that the idea of a free market is only possible conceptually. We see it as a chimera, a mythical beast constructed of other animals, that does not exist and cannot be created. So while individual pieces exist, lions, eagles, supply, demand, the combination of these pieces into some self balancing force seems impossible.

So I guess to put it another way when we hear the words free market we think about the human factor, those people actually exerting their control and manipulating market forces and the basic hierarchy for control goes something like this:
1% > next 4% >> government >>>> everyone else.
So when we hear free-market we usually think of the people who can exert the most control.

As for the free market or the 1% giving us child labor laws, that was government regulation in the form of the Fair Labor Standards Act. If you want to call government regulation free-market corrections go ahead.

A totally free market runs on the same principals as natural selection. It's totally possible. The question is whether it's desirable. The problem with both is that you have to be willing to deal with some chaos and most people are not willing to.

My own tastes are for a somewhat high degree of market freedom, with with a handful of absolutes protected by regulation. A bill of rights for the market, if you will. I admit, though, that this is closer to a gut feeling than a detailed plan.

A healthy free market requires responsible consumers. I made a comment about this just a couple days ago so I won't rehash it here.

In reply to this comment by Crosswords:
Well many of us don't think there is such a thing as a 'free market'. Not just that there isn't one now, but that the idea of a free market is only possible conceptually. We see it as a chimera, a mythical beast constructed of other animals, that does not exist and cannot be created. So while individual pieces exist, lions, eagles, supply, demand, the combination of these pieces into some self balancing force seems impossible.

So I guess to put it another way when we hear the words free market we think about the human factor, those people actually exerting their control and manipulating market forces and the basic hierarchy for control goes something like this:
1% > next 4% >> government >>>> everyone else.
So when we hear free-market we usually think of the people who can exert the most control.

As for the free market or the 1% giving us child labor laws, that was government regulation in the form of the Fair Labor Standards Act. If you want to call government regulation free-market corrections go ahead.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

The entire video is based on the strawman laid out at 0:29.
I'm not backing Schiff, but this is a misrepresentation of his argument. He said the free market provided these improvements, not "the 1%". These are not equivalents and you all know it.
You're all so eager to dismiss the opposition that you don't even pay attention to what they are saying.


Well many of us don't think there is such a thing as a 'free market'. Not just that there isn't one now, but that the idea of a free market is only possible conceptually. We see it as a chimera, a mythical beast constructed of other animals, that does not exist and cannot be created. So while individual pieces exist, lions, eagles, supply, demand, the combination of these pieces into some self balancing force seems impossible.

So I guess to put it another way when we hear the words free market we think about the human factor, those people actually exerting their control and manipulating market forces and the basic hierarchy for control goes something like this:
1% > next 4% >> government >>>> everyone else.
So when we hear free-market we usually think of the people who can exert the most control.

As for the free market or the 1% giving us child labor laws, that was government regulation in the form of the Fair Labor Standards Act. If you want to call government regulation free-market corrections go ahead.

>> ^Sagemind:

I'm convinced, without a doubt that the world is round.
But, the wind idea is interesting/facinating, and the question of would I get dizzy standing on the axis of the planet if I were used to standing at the equator, are all good questions.
Does anyone have a link that may discuss these phenomenon? ... Sometimes an explanation is more convincing that saying, "Well that's a stupid statement or opinion." Maybe someone schooled in this area (or who has more spare time than others)can guide us to some interesting reading on this. <img class="smiley" src="http://cdn.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/smile.gif">


It's a frame of reference issue. It's harder to define mathmatically, but the view point that the earth is standing still and the rest of the universe is revolving around it is just conceptually valid.

The wind argument assumes that the atmosphere is not part of the earth and should be sitting still while the earth rotates beneath it. However, the physical planet applies more force to the atmosphere than the surrounding vacuum so eventually, the atmosphere will also rotate in sync with the planet itself based on Newton's laws.