There's no dividing line between the opposite sides of the road. I can't stand driving on streets like that. It feels so dangerous.

The only time I've encountered that is in Vancouver where the middle lane can go in either direction depending on how the signal above the lane is illuminated, but even then it's unclear to a foreigner which direction it's going!

The ammo counter always struck me as being poorly designed. Since most people are firing on the right shoulder, you can't actually see it. It also seems like having an illuminated LED on your gun might be something of a giveaway.

There's a great bit of in universe world building in the comics where you see a whole squad that have duct-taped over the ammo counter 'cos they never use the damn thing anyway and were sick of snipers using it as a target

*promote this is bizarre, what bizarre characteristics of the universe math illuminates

Yes---that's excellent---What I liked about this version was the analysis followed by the performance and how it illuminated everything from the actor's perspective.
So cool.

When I saw the pi symbol illuminating the clouds here, I knew I had to come quickly to avert disaster.

http://www.livescience.com/34132-what-makes-pi-special.html

I'm in total agreement with @MichaelL. Strictly speaking, this is definitely not an optical illusion by virtue of the fact that it is not an illusion.

You're just seeing objective reality the way nature is presenting it to the universe and the same way everyone else sees it. It would only be an optical illusion if it physically existed one way but your eyes/brain perceived it a different way.


It'd be like turning on a light in a dark room and declaring it an optical illusion that everything is illuminated because the photons from the light source are making everything look bright, but in reality it's all dark, so: optical illusion. "The room is being incorrectly perceived because it's actually dark, but you're perceiving it as bright."

Yeah, no.

This is what I'm always telling you fools who think you know about how governments work without having the ability or civility to do so effectively enough.

HAH! "Smart Lliberal's political heroes are college professors and wise-as comedians."

That's the bulk of a liberal's awareness of politics and governments....Ya buncha, fucking annoying idiots!!

By the way, did you people know that all the wars that have been waged since the fall of Rome were actually caused by assholes wanting more money and power for themselves?? Today, these people are known as the so-called illuminated Zionist cabals and international banking cartels.

"Wars don't kill people, wars that assholes construct and orchestrate kill people."

My argument is sound, logically, and if it were unsound it would be very easy to point out what the flaw is. I'll elaborate further:

Occams razors states that the theory with the least number of assumptions balanced against its explanatory power should be preferred to an argument with more assumptions and less explanatory power. The question is how do we explain the apparent fine-tuning in the Universe, a "goldilocks zone" for life. Scientists propose the multiverse theory which explains the favorable conditions as just being lucky, in that there are innumerable Universes and we just happen to be in the one that is very favorable for life. The problem with the theory is manifold; one, that is no observable evidence for the theory, and no way to test the theory. Two, it raises more questions than it answers because the mechanism that generates all of the Universes is even more finely tuned than the Universe itself, how did it get there, etc. It simply pushes back the problem another step. Eventually you must get to the point where a miracle occurs..ie, something came from nothing, or an eternal something which is infinitely fine tuned. According to Occams razor, the theory of an eternal Creator of the Universe should be preferred over *multiple* unobserved universes, that the fine tuning we observe isn't just apparent, but actual.

When you ask, why did God not do it "sooner", you do realize that you are making a temporal reference point? The bible says God "began" to do something because we are temporal beings and we think in terms of beginnings and endings, but we have no idea what that looks like in eternity. If your problem is simply with something being eternal, then maybe you haven't thought about the consequences of there not being anything eternal. You have to ask yourself the question, why is there something rather than nothing? You are facing two absurdities in this case; either an infinite regress of causes, or something coming from nothing. There has to be something eternal otherwise you are left with positing logically impossible outcomes. So, if there is something eternal, and whatever it is must be infinitely fine-tuned, and it ultimately created this Universe, you might as well call it God because it already possesses many of His attributes. Whichever way you turn, you are facing the Almighty.

The bible tells us why God didn't need to create light first:

Revelation 21:22 And I saw no temple in it, for the Lord God Almighty is its temple, even the Lamb.
Revelation 21:23 And the city had no need of the sun, nor of the moon, that they might shine in it, for the glory of God illuminated it, and its lamp is the Lamb.

You should ask yourself, why do you object to the possibility of a Creator? Are your arguments just excuses to cover up the plain facts that have already been revealed to you by God, and the expression of your desire not to be accountable to Him? Something to think about..

look...at..you!
/giggles in delight

the path proceeds as understanding blooms.
loving wings of illuminated gossamer float on the sea of epiphany,
empathy and compassion emerge,
breaking the chains of egocentricity.
the lyric of truth enlightens the seekers path.

as the man pushes further...onward and upward.

and the watched becomes the watcher..once again.

namaste my friend.
namaste.

Never liked Facebook. And this rather illuminating video confirms it for me. They have no alternative to monetize their members. The fact that they actually restrict new messages to a selection of your followers is completely mind-blowing.

@bcglorf
ok.
i guess i could go through all my bookmarks.
correlate all the pertinent information in regards to abuse of sovereign legal systems in order to intimidate local farmers set upon by monsanto.
link watch groups web sites that follow monsanto (and others) in order to illuminate some of their more...egregious abuses.

but that would be based on the presumption i wish to change your mind or convince you of anything.which i am really not interested in at all.

though i was unaware that percy was found guilty of intentionally cross-pollinating.first time i heard that.thats pretty interesting.

@artician
im gonna have to disagree with you.

the comparisons this film makes with rome are a tool to illuminate the structure of empire itself.
at romes true beginning to romes ultimate fading were longer than 250 years.
you are correct.
you are also correct of the existence of a 2000 year long empire.
which of course was the egyptian empire.

what you DID not post was that the waning years of the rome empire was concentrated in constantinople and was called the byzantine empire.you further weaken your argument by not pointing out that the egyptian empire was not one long single stretch of domination but rather a series of rises and falls of that empire.

now,by your own argument you have failed your own propaganda test.

this film makes an argument.
you can agree/disagree with its conclusions.
but to dismantle the delivery of that argument based on circular logic drowns out the argument itself.

this is a criticism of our current system.
a valid criticism in my opinion and i didnt find it delving into boogah boogah land.
it was rational,reasonable and possibly a bit too heavy on the power point presentation.

but considering i had read most of the books by the authors being interviewed (the "sources" you claim were lacking),i found it a fantastic movie for people who may not be aware of whats going on.

not everybody has the time or patience to consume information the way you or i do.
and i rather liked how this film lays out our current situation.

i guess you didnt.
fair enough.

yeah..looks like thats the way it is heading.in regards to a military strike.
and on that note..i am glad.

i have such a huge distrust of power because it tends to always abuse it.
i was witnessing the same tactics that has been used for a generation in getting people (usually poor) to go kill other poor people.

so very happy i was wrong.

as i get older cynicism is a trait that i have to fight herder each passing year.
thats why i engage is discussion as much as i do.
to better understand differing viewpoints and maybe illuminate a flaw in my own.

but then i get too see my oldest grandaughter turn 5 and i forget all the tedious bullshit and remember innocence.

hard to be cynical with a 5 yr old.
ok its impossible.

i posted that video for an alternate way of looking/thinking about a situation.not necessarily to promote my views.

that guy postulates on a pretty dark perspective and i think thats not a bad thing.i do not agree with his fatalistic approach nor many of his conclusions.but he does bring up salient points and has good questions and i like that.

his answer are mostly conjecture though.

you should watch some of his vids..if you want to be depressed.

im glad i was wrong on this one.
truly.

I think he chose his wording a little poorly. The purpose of perception is to estimate physical properties of the environment. It's just not meant to estimate the exact intensities and so forth. For example, in the Adelson checkerboard illusion, you are reporting your perception of the surface reflectances irrespective of illuminant. That's a perfectly sensible environmental property to estimate. It just isn't a direct mapping to the image falling on your retina.

@carnivorous
let me first start by apologizing to @pumkinandstorm for derailing her thread.i always seem to do it to her posts.poor thing must hate me.

as for @carnivorous, i usual dont respond to any other posts after i rant (unless its shinyblurry) but i feel you are worth the time.i have read many of your comments and i sense you are a decent sort.

and though i am loath to do it i shall form my response in bullet form,more for expedience than laziness.(bullet responses are a lazy form of argument in my opinion).

1.my comment was not directed at you specifically,hence my generalizations and the use of the open-ended pronoun of "you".though you were certainly included in that use of "you".if i had issue with YOU i would have formed my comment in that manner addressing YOU..specifically.

my problem with some of the comments was not with a moral conflict but rather:presumption and ignorance.your commentary displayed both.

this is not an attack on you nor is it a reflection of how i feel/think/react to you.
it is just a statement based on your commentary.
i was hoping that my rant would possibly illuminate that fact for you (and others).

please reread your commentary in regards to @shang.
notice anything?
presumption.
you presumed to know and understand @shang 's intentions,even when he stated the opposite.
unenlightened.
or ignorant.you decide.because your whole premise is based on how YOU feel/think about a certain activity and you projected that morality onto @shang and found him lacking.
self-righteous.
because @shang participates in something you find abhorrent,it appears by your commentary this gave you the right to chastise and judge him,based on YOUR morality.

2.i do not think you are a bully.i think you were being presumptuous and self-righteous.read your commentary.

3.your rebuttal was no rebuttal at all but rather a conflation.the family you used as your example as "hunters"were not hunters.we have a name for people like that "sadistic psychopaths".appears they made it a family affair.
but to conflate those sick individuals and hunters is obscene and reveals an utter lack of understanding in regards to actual hunters.

4.i respect a man who stands up for what he believes in and i would never ask you to apologize but thats not what my commentary was addressing.

i was addressing the presumptions you were making about @shang based on pretty much nothing.
and while he was responding in a decent fashion you kept sniping at him from the bleachers.

its all trumpets and parades for standing up for what you believe in but how about a little bit of respect and appreciation for someone taking the time to respond to your questions?
especially in regards to something you obviously know next to nothing about?

you cant demand respect for your morals and beliefs and then turn around and deny anothers right for the very same thing.

i mean,think about it man.
you missed out on an opportunity to understand the mindset,motivations or passion for an activity that is alien to you.

your understanding has not moved an inch because of a pre-conceived notion based on what?
a childhood memory?
a few anecdotal experiences?

what a wasted opportunity.
would you have still disagreed?
yeah..most likely.
but at least you would have understood more.
and this practice is also known as empathy.

ah well...
i hope you read this is the context it was written.
with humanity and not an attack on you.