Obviously not trying to convince anyone--just trying to inflame the wing-nut base.

The Occupy Movement already has the majority opinion behind them--this will only illuminate the differences. People peacefully trying to make the government change vs. people trying to inflame hatred and distrust.

This will backfire and the people who already are in favor of needed reforms will see this attack for what it is and more will support Occupy and Warren.

The class war was started by the rich and their dupes, it will be ended by peaceful, civil disobedience.

*promote

Calling the US an "empire" saves time, it illuminates the speaker may be taken with a granule of sodium.

No, lets not. I provided counter evidence to one absurd baseless assertion of yours , that "information" only comes from "minds", you have not provided any basis on which to defend your original position.

Actually, I did. I pointed out that your simulation doesn't do what you said it does, even in a trivial way. I said information only comes from minds, so you provide a simulation programmed by a mind. I stated this only illustrates my point, but you insisted the output proved information doesn't have to come from minds. I just got finished pointing out that the whole thing is analogous to randomly piecing together letters of an existing language until you get a new word by chance. You still need the language for the word to mean anything, otherwise it is just nonsense. And you don't get the word without the language in the first place. If the boxcar simulation could produce helicopters, that might be something, but you're still dealing with the chicken and the egg problem. A system created by information which outputs information by design is not doing so without the involvement of a mind. A mind was behind the entire process and none of it could have happened without a mind so it doesn't count as an example. You can't use a design to prove there is no design needed. That's like saying you can prove you don't need a factory to build a car but you buy all of your parts to build the car from the factory.

Your "this is going badly, let's start over" tactic is cute, don't get me wrong, but you insist that your ideological position be taken seriously, and I intend to do so, until it lies in tattered shreds on the floor.

What I insist is that you substantiate your claims, which you have failed to do. Your overconfidence is amusing, but misplaced; the facts are not on your side. Abiogenesis is purely metaphysics and unproven.

So you acknowledge that information is trivially synthesized, by
non-minds? That's the opposite of your original claim. Is that a
retraction?

No, see above.

So now you accept that once you have atoms, gravity, time,
electromagnetism, you inevitably have the possibility of self
replicating molecular systems, and therefor "life"?

Nope, see above.

You seem to have decided that life is a magical barrier, but this distinction is false.

There most certainly is a barrier. Again, abiogenesis is pure metaphysics; it doesn't happen in the real world. Life doesn't come from non-life. Pasteurization, and the food supply in general, relies upon this fact.

The distinction between "life" and "non-life" does not exist.

So there is no difference between you and a rock? I can admit I see similarities, heart wise..:)

Let's see some evidence for your claim that there is no difference between life and non-life.

You acknowledge that once a mechanism for inheritance exists the rest
is inevitable, I agree, you simply lack the sense of scale on which
the universe operates, which makes the preceding step entirely
plausible.

No, I admit that if you don't have to do the work to get wheels and bodies, and you have a design that churns them out, boxcars are inevitable. If you already have the materials, and the blueprints, of course you're able to build the house. Without any of those things, it is an impossible proposition.

This is simply false. RNA codes for proteins, but RNA requires no
proteins for it's own replication, it is entirely plausible, arguably
likely, that once you have RNA, DNA would get a chance to compete.

It's not false. This is your pathway to DNA: RNA - (MAGIC) - DNA This is your pathway to RNA: ROCKS - (MAGIC) - RNA Just because you can get RNA to self-replicate doesn't automatically mean it is either likely or plausible this could happen.

You assume that the argument is Random -> RNA -> DNA, but it is not. There are many simpler organic self replicators that, in the absence of an RNA ecosystem, would be able to prime the pump, by converting simple molecules into those more likely to contribute to spontaneous RNA synthesis, very much in the same way that cells work by creating conditions where the high concentration of particular ingredients allows proteins to replicate DNA, which proteins would not be able to do in the wild.

The best science has been able to do is create some amino acids which is worlds away from a complex molecule like RNA. The difficulties are legion and many are just intractable. There is no proof that RNA could even survive in that kind of environment, because it is extremely fragile.

ID is not even a postulation, much less a hypothesis, it provides no information, illuminates nothing, it is theology dressed up in the garb of science. It's only science if it reliably predicts things, ID fails at this basic task, because, like all theology, it is useless
.

It most certainly is a theory and it is not theology; intelligent design only needs an intelligent designer, not an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent deity. It is a theory which states that certain elements and features of the Universe are better explained by intelligent causation than an undirected process like natural selection. It is an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent" design in nature, which biologists acknowledge, is actual design. It is only useless to you because you have ruled out design apriori, which is just simply ignorant.

>> ^dgandhi:
>> ^shinyblurry:
Let's start over because you're just going all over the place

No, lets not. I provided counter evidence to one absurd baseless assertion of yours , that "information" only comes from "minds", you have not provided any basis on which to defend your original position.
Your "this is going badly, let's start over" tactic is cute, don't get me wrong, but you insist that your ideological position be taken seriously, and I intend to do so, until it lies in tattered shreds on the floor.
>> ^shinyblurry:
This is the point: Your entire example is irrelevent. Yeah, you can generate all sorts of stuff when a system is already in place, when you have a preprogrammed design that itself generates designs. If you already have wheels and a chassis, you can build a boxcar pretty easily. Boxcars are inevitable at this point.

So you acknowledge that information is trivially synthesized, by non-minds? That's the opposite of your original claim. Is that a retraction?
So now you accept that once you have atoms, gravity, time, electromagnetism, you inevitably have the possibility of self replicating molecular systems, and therefor "life"? You seem to have decided that life is a magical barrier, but this distinction is false. The distinction between "life" and "non-life" does not exist.
You acknowledge that once a mechanism for inheritance exists the rest is inevitable, I agree, you simply lack the sense of scale on which the universe operates, which makes the preceding step entirely plausible.
>> ^shinyblurry:
You have to have proteins to create DNA and you have to have DNA to create proteins.

This is simply false. RNA codes for proteins, but RNA requires no proteins for it's own replication, it is entirely plausible, arguably likely, that once you have RNA, DNA would get a chance to compete.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Science has attempted to solve this problem by saying that RNA molecules evolved from the soup, yet there is no logical pathway for this to happen, because natural selection and mutation cannot account for it.

You assume that the argument is Random -> RNA -> DNA, but it is not. There are many simpler organic self replicators that, in the absence of an RNA ecosystem, would be able to prime the pump, by converting simple molecules into those more likely to contribute to spontaneous RNA synthesis, very much in the same way that cells work by creating conditions where the high concentration of particular ingredients allows proteins to replicate DNA, which proteins would not be able to do in the wild.
>> ^shinyblurry:
The problems are far too vast to overcome, and experiment has yieled no conclusive results. So, my point stands, that intelligent design is a better explanation for the complex coded information in DNA, which naturalistic processes cannot account for.

ID is not even a postulation, much less a hypothesis, it provides no information, illuminates nothing, it is theology dressed up in the garb of science. It's only science if it reliably predicts things, ID fails at this basic task, because, like all theology, it is useless.

>> ^shinyblurry:
Let's start over because you're just going all over the place


No, lets not. I provided counter evidence to one absurd baseless assertion of yours , that "information" only comes from "minds", you have not provided any basis on which to defend your original position.

Your "this is going badly, let's start over" tactic is cute, don't get me wrong, but you insist that your ideological position be taken seriously, and I intend to do so, until it lies in tattered shreds on the floor.

>> ^shinyblurry:


This is the point: Your entire example is irrelevent. Yeah, you can generate all sorts of stuff when a system is already in place, when you have a preprogrammed design that itself generates designs. If you already have wheels and a chassis, you can build a boxcar pretty easily. Boxcars are inevitable at this point.


So you acknowledge that information is trivially synthesized, by non-minds? That's the opposite of your original claim. Is that a retraction?

So now you accept that once you have atoms, gravity, time, electromagnetism, you inevitably have the possibility of self replicating molecular systems, and therefor "life"? You seem to have decided that life is a magical barrier, but this distinction is false. The distinction between "life" and "non-life" does not exist.

You acknowledge that once a mechanism for inheritance exists the rest is inevitable, I agree, you simply lack the sense of scale on which the universe operates, which makes the preceding step entirely plausible.

>> ^shinyblurry:
You have to have proteins to create DNA and you have to have DNA to create proteins.


This is simply false. RNA codes for proteins, but RNA requires no proteins for it's own replication, it is entirely plausible, arguably likely, that once you have RNA, DNA would get a chance to compete.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Science has attempted to solve this problem by saying that RNA molecules evolved from the soup, yet there is no logical pathway for this to happen, because natural selection and mutation cannot account for it.


You assume that the argument is Random -> RNA -> DNA, but it is not. There are many simpler organic self replicators that, in the absence of an RNA ecosystem, would be able to prime the pump, by converting simple molecules into those more likely to contribute to spontaneous RNA synthesis, very much in the same way that cells work by creating conditions where the high concentration of particular ingredients allows proteins to replicate DNA, which proteins would not be able to do in the wild.

>> ^shinyblurry:

The problems are far too vast to overcome, and experiment has yieled no conclusive results. So, my point stands, that intelligent design is a better explanation for the complex coded information in DNA, which naturalistic processes cannot account for.


ID is not even a postulation, much less a hypothesis, it provides no information, illuminates nothing, it is theology dressed up in the garb of science. It's only science if it reliably predicts things, ID fails at this basic task, because, like all theology, it is useless.

>> ^lucky760:

>> ^conan:
>> ^lucky760:
The cameraman is a good interviewer.

and the presenter is a good seller. actually i'm quite enjoying this clip.

I just wish he'd explained how the passive color filter works. That's the bit I was most interested in hearing about.



I suspect is an RGBW filter as seen here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_filter_array

Different colors are displayed by illuminating select "subpixels" of the pattern.

bullshit. the so-called camera only has a single pixel, which does have picosecond resolution. And it needs a special laser for illumination

Yup, you're wasting your time. You will propose rational arguments and reason... Shiny will respond with religious dogma. Rinse, repeat, bang head on desk.

You cannot reason with blind faith.

But as you are blind, Shiny, others will continue to look and poke in those dark places you claim your god exists. The light of our inquiry and skepticism will illuminate that which is hidden in your god's domain. We will take it from your god and convert it to science. You will be painted ever further into the corner of your own ignorance until such a point that you have no ground upon which to stand. While you remain rigid in your unquestioning belief, we will seek understanding and truth and know them by their ability to stand up to scientific inquiry.

No god can hide from science. And someday we will place those that are left, like toys long outgrown, on a shelf... along with those gods from the past which you yourself do not believe in.

In all seriousness though, if you've heard or are hearing the voice(s) of your god, you might want to look into the possibility that you have schizophrenia, Shiny. This is not a jab or an attempt to imply that you are mentally unstable, but actual concern. The reality is that there are numerous sufferers of schizophrenia who hear auditory hallucinations, some of these take the form of "God". Something to consider.

>> ^EMPIRE:

Guys... seriously? You're still responding to Shiny Blurry?. You're wasting your time trying to stuff some knowledge into a black hole of ignorance.

It's the plight of Air America or Democracy Now. Sane, well-balanced (if not, at times, receptive to the conspiratorial) voices like Chomsky's do not get much mainstream exposure because they don't elicit the conservative appeal or liberal shock (like, say, Ann Coulter does).

Academicians rarely make prime time television unless they are the news, in which case the spotlight burns more than it illuminates.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^geo321:
Sigh... forest Chomski, No mainstream media for you.>> ^Yogi:
>> ^bareboards2:
I love listening to smart people.

Me too...but I wish people would let them back inside where it's warm...why the fuck isn't Chomsky allowed inside?!


I saw an interview onetime where Chomsky was interviewed in Australia and the interviewer was asking him why some amazing journalist doesn't have a monthly or weekly column or a radio show or basically ANYTHING but books coming out from a third party publisher. Chomsky explained and told the interviewer that he didn't have a column in any paper or anything like that, and the interviewer simply didn't believe it was just ridiculous to him that that could be the case.
Chomsky will be gone soon and it'll be like much of America totally missed out on this very sober and competent voice of our times.

Ted is a great scientist. His life work as revolved around materials perception. He's also the guy behind this baddassery: http://www.gelsight.com/videos/

As many of you probably realize, almost every visual illusion was designed to illustrate some mechanism, or function of the visual system. This illusion is one of my favorites. It illustrates that the purpose of the visual system is not to directly "read out" luminance values from your retina, but instead to correctly interpret the reflectance properties of materials in the environment. Most often it's the properties of the materials themselves, not the properties of their illuminant which are important. However, the signals reaching your brain will depend drastically on both, and it is actually a relatively complicated process of 3d-scene reconstruction in order to parse out the reflectance properties you are interested in. Of course, the point of the illusion is to demonstrate just how automatic and subconscious this process is despite the obvious complexity.

>> ^entr0py:

That was a well done video. Though, I've always thought that illusion is not actually an illusion, but just a trick. It always relies on ignoring the fact that one tile is in shadow and the other is in light when you go to compare them. If you physically did move the tile as animated above, it would suddenly appear much lighter when it moves into sunlight, because that is how light works. They must have gone to some work to render it in 3D, and then not have that one tile be effected by the scene lighting.


I don't think they used any rendering. If you pause it at 0:58, you can see that her arm is equally lit where it should be in shadow and where it is in full light. I think it is done with the lighting that is coming in from offscreen in the bottom right corner to subtly illuminate the shadow of the cylinder.
Strangely, at 0:58 it's also more obvious that the two squares are the same shade.

Verily so about the minimizing part. But my content wasn't so much minimizing as it was pointing out a need for more (I should say unique or more useful) information. Besides that, I don't think the variation is significant--it is proven women are discriminated against so what if the data is off by a few percentage points? With that said, it is a good and valid statistic, even if imperfect; and, it does prove that discrimination happens. That isn't minimizing.

Could I have phrased that a bit clearer? I doubt it...anything that remotely smells like "minimizing," regardless of if it is true or not, is enough to bring out the illumination!

As far as waterboarding... Let me make an example of how I communicate sometimes.

"Yeah, waterboarding is horrible but it doesn't happen often." <<<< I don't see that as minimizing. I think it is trying to state a truth... However, everybody would scream that I am minimizing the truth and should be waterboarded
However, this is minimizing >>>>>>"I don't see what the problem is. It's just a dunk and leaves no lasting physical damage." Vastly enormous difference.

Waterboarding is torture. Period. It's a psychological beating. But does it happen often? (I don't know enough about the frequency of use, I just used the statement as an example for debate.) Just suggest that it doesn't and the lynching begins. "Once is too much!" Agreed, but once is still not often.

I think we look at comments and generalize...

berti's stats, no matter where they came from have one relative fault--they don't point anything new that would change a perspective. Two things have changed my perspective.

1-The comparisons of jobs between women versus men, and women versus women. Last one being the most important. And 2-the exclusion of part-time work.

>> ^NetRunner:

@Lawdeedaw data is fun.
I'm glad you found my data so useful, but honestly BLS is where you wanna go for any labor-related stats, and some of the charts berti pointed to were using the BLS datasets I pointed you to.
To try to explain why people are coming out of the woodwork to protest, I'd point to this passage of your post:

I just used my wife and I as an example of how skewered statistics could be. I know there is real wage discrimination and this post in no way disputes or marginalizes it; however, it does make me wonder how inaccurate studies can be. I know women are kept down in jobs so they cannot rise.
I just think the truth lies somewhere in the middle--women are discriminated against, but not as much as we like to make it out to be.

>> ^smooman:

"your belief that there is no god, is a belief about god that you cannot prove or disprove ... what is your proof that if there is a god that he would leave you empirical proof of his existence/what would be sufficient proof?"
"my question to you to answer your first question is would you be sure there is no santa claus, are you sure there's no zeus"
while thats a fair question to ask, you still didnt answer her question. And turning that question around and asking them what would be sufficient proof to believe in zeus. still. doesnt. answer. the. question. its just beating around the bush. its dodging. its misdirection.
kind of reminds me of the whose line is it anyway sketch where they have conversations made entirely of questions


thats not dodging.
the question itself is a false equivalent.
what the man was trying to convey is the fact that these people believe in their religion.the thought of believing in zeus is silly to them,yet they believe in their religion as being true.
he is trying to illuminate the circular logic and these people just do not get it because they are people of faith but ONLY of one faith,to believe in zeus,thor or wodin is ridiculous.

If you read two posts above your original one, I provided a link that describes the mathematical theorem behind this phenomenon.....suitable link, wouldnt you think?

>> ^MaxWilder:

>> ^charliem:
>> ^MaxWilder:
Why is nobody crying fake? C'mon! It looks fake! Are there other videos with this effect happening?

Because the phenomenon is a very well understood and documented real behavior of digital information systems?

Thanks for that illuminating response.</sarcasm>
How about actually saying something useful if you are going to respond to a question?
Like this: The reddit discussion about the video contains a number of interesting links with other examples of the Rolling Shutter phenomenon, including a video which shows how guitar strings actually oscillate.

>> ^charliem:

>> ^MaxWilder:
Why is nobody crying fake? C'mon! It looks fake! Are there other videos with this effect happening?

Because the phenomenon is a very well understood and documented real behavior of digital information systems?


Thanks for that illuminating response.</sarcasm>

How about actually saying something useful if you are going to respond to a question?

Like this: The reddit discussion about the video contains a number of interesting links with other examples of the Rolling Shutter phenomenon, including a video which shows how guitar strings actually oscillate.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'light, fish, build, tin, tunafish, illuminate' to 'light, fish, build, tin, can, tuna, tunafish, illuminate' - edited by calvados