They're called Honorable Mentions and they are a part of the Darwin Awards. Usually applies when they already have kids or when modern medicine maintains they're ability to reproduce post-idiocy.

They're called Honorable Mentions and they are a part of the Darwin Awards. Usually applies when they already have kids or when thanks to modern medicine they can still reproduce post-idiocy.

My doctorate is in psychology -- a social science, which includes coursework in epistemology. I am also the executive director of a peer reviewed psychology Journal which incorporates quantitative, qualitative, and mixed method methodologies.

If science was driven purely by consensus, than the upending of long-held scientific understanding (as achieved by the likes of Galileo, or Darwin, or Einstein -- who, incidentally, upended some theories about how something as "self-evident" as gravity works -- in more notable ways and by lesser known scientists in still significant ways) would never come about. Science is not practiced by "votes," whereby the majority determines what theories are most accurate. Rather, evidence (whether it be rationally deduced, rationally induced, empirically demonstrated, or hermeneutically interpreted) serves as the basis for scientific progress, whether the majority of scientists agree with it or not.

(Climate change, itself, is rationally deduced, since empirical models of the earth are so difficult if not impossible to design, let alone run controlled trials.)

You are actually going a long way to make my point that those who are "believers" in climate change are missing the value and indeed necessity for ongoing skepticism in the scientific literature (rather than the name-calling and vilification that constitutes much of the "OMG! Climate Change!" discourse of late). That point, along with illuminating some of the citations I linked to above, is the purpose of my comment -- and not to argue (or name-call or "debate" as many on the sift waste their time doing).

I do concur that the manner in which I posted the links may not have been "fair," and so I apologize for that, but the content of the links themselves raise significant questions as to the unilateral "belief" in "OMG! [andropogenic] Climate Change!" I encourage anyone who is seriously interested in the scientific basis for skepticism around such a belief, to consider reviewing the literature cited in those links before arriving at an incontrovertible conclusion.

But in light of your request for a single link, I recommend you visit the NPCC's website and perhaps attend, specifically, to their literature about temperature changes (PDF), which I believe serve as valid refutations of the literature upon which the climate change "believers" tend to base their adrenal-freakouts.

Here's a counter theory by another racer:

"I haven't seen how Stewart handled the car preimpact. That said, those vehicles require speed for what little grip they have, as it's largely generated by the roof fin, and they don't really steer so much as surf. If you watch the cornering style it's a full on drift. That makes twitch steering pretty ineffective - you steer from the back which requires heavy throttle.

You don't see Stewart's approach ( at least on the vid I've seen ), and the fishtail post impact I would attribute to the impact itself. His approach does not seem consistent with trying to spray the other driver with dirt ; that would have to be a at a high angle relatively speaking and he seemed to come in straight.

It's possible that Stewart intended to kill, but I really think it's highly unlikely. When you're racing you have a lot to deal with, and whilst under a yellow flag undertaking is typically verboten and in theory you should be slowing down, but in reality you are always looking to get the drop as soon as the yellows disappear. To that end you're scanning the track looking for disabled vehicles.

You're not scanning for drivers standing in the middle of the track - the assumption would be that the driver stays safely secured in the car, or they hop the barrier. If that can't happen for some reason, it's the job of race control to red flag the race.

My personal theory, based on incomplete footage - I'd like to see in car footage from Stewart ideally - is that Stewart just didn't see him in time to make any effective attempt to miss. It's a night race, and Stewart would have been concentrating on the disabled vehicle to his right. There's not much about Ward's outfit that would attract attention - from Stewart's perspective, black helmet, black racesuit, against a dark dirt background. These vehicles don't use headlights, so there's nothing to offset the glare of the spotlights.

In a perfect world Stewart would have seen and avoided, but ultimately Ward put himself in a fucking stupid position and paid the price. I'm not surprised to see lack of remorse on Stewart's part ; Ward shouldn't have been there, plain and simple.

Anyhow, that's my thinking on this - I don't know or follow anyone in that type of series, so I'm claiming to be bias free here. Racers know that motorsport is dangerous, so you do what you can to mitigate risk, not increase it by orders of magnitude.

Edit : Looking at it a few more times, it's also possible that Stewart was trying to rotate the car around Ward - throttling up and steering right would have pushed the back away from Ward, which might have made the outcome different. I still say it's a Darwin."

Time to get the Darwin-Awards ready, there'll be more winners soon.

I call *eia. And if this guy ended up snuffing it, it would be a perfect Darwin Awards submission.

I love the EIA tag, but not for the usual Darwin Awards type reasons. I wonder if this is an example of adaptation. I'll have to look it up, but my guess is that pigeons (or any bird for that matter) can't maintain 90km/h in a horizontal line for any extended amount of time. I'm thinking that they are learning how to draft cars on the highway.

It would be awesome if it confers some adaptive advantage and it starts catching on so that I can go on a road trip with a flock of birds in tow in a flying V formation.

Congratulations! Your comment on HBOs 'Questioning Darwin' - Creationists Talk Creationism has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

Did that idiot really just urge Darwin to "try God"? Darwin who was studying to be a clergyman? He's dead, ya daft cunt! If your God's real, ole Charlie's known about it for quite a long time now.

2:30 "I would love to encourage Mr Darwin to try god."

Does she not know he's dead, or does she normally encourage the dead to follow her lead? (can't she just follow theirs instead...please?)

4:27 It's god's word that you must stone anyone that eats shellfish too, or works on Sunday (or whatever day is the real Sabbath). Not doing so is at best ignoring god's edict, or more realistically defying it.
Why do they get away with consistently ignoring the parts even they can't defend/explain, but are 100% certain that it's their duty to force others to follow the parts they like? That's a main reason I can't ever respect religion, even those that follow it can't really honestly or logically respect their own religion, and usually have 0 respect for others.

Congratulations! Your comment on HBOs 'Questioning Darwin' - Creationists Talk Creationism 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 6 Badge!

*related=http://videosift.com/video/HBOs-Questioning-Darwin-Creationists-Go-Full-Retard

HBOs 'Questioning Darwin' - Creationists Talk Creationism has been added as a related post - related requested by Grimm on that post.