Ah yeah. I remember qtest86 in a small computer lab on a Linux desktop machine with no audio. Haha. It was cool! I think I was a sophomore back then. Also, I remember QuakeWorld and playable on crappy dial-up modems on crappy GTE phone lines (could never get full speeds too).

*ban

Ctoriaseph
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3csqy5_nature-skin-labs-review-does-it-work_news

It would be cooler if it did that when you attached the leads backwards. Then it would reproduce almost exactly about half of my electrical engineering labs in school, only without the smoke.

Um, yes they were. It's just that rather than address the point of the video, you addressed a red herring tangent....from the video.

Harlequinn said:Condoms are 98% effective - lol. That's with perfect use. Real world data points to between 80% and 90% effectiveness (because people screw up).

That's an 'answer' to the part of the video saying they're 98% effective, which they are, when used properly (not with perfection). You continue to fight the fact that YOU were misleading, not just about your assertion, but also about the point of the video...or you simply missed the point completely....one or the other.
This is much is very obvious. Why are YOU bothering to fight something where I'm sure you know you are wrong in numerous ways?
but you continue with 'but you didn't quote me, so you didn't say anything'? If you can't follow along, I'll just stop....as what's the point?

Harlequinn said: Condoms are only >98% effective in lab settings.
And that's all I need to say about that. You were wrong about that, and now you want to distance yourself from your statement. I understand why you wouldn't want to stand behind it. As proof, condoms have been 100% effective in all settings I've used them.

Yes, it's an important statistic, and you have it wrong, or at best are poorly making the point by not clearly explaining that the 'failures' are all from misuse, not product failure.
When used properly, condoms are >98% effective in real life...not only in labs. Because so many people use them wrong doesn't make them less effective, it makes their USE of them less effective. The answer isn't to just tell people that 2/10 times they fail (scaring many people out of using them at all, while knowing full well that 99.9% of failures are due to improper usage, not defect)...it's to teach them how to properly use them so they work almost every time. Simple.
EDIT: People who use them wrong probably have <50% success rate, but that's like looking at first time drivers with no training and saying 'drivers have been shown to crash 75% of the time in real world situations'.
I'm bored with all conversations where one party can't grasp how what they actually said sounds to readers, even when it's explained clearly.

That said, my boredom with you won't stop me from correcting dangerously misleading information....like "Condoms are only >98% effective in lab settings." and " Real world data points to between 80% and 90% effectiveness." while leaving out 'but only among people with absolutely zero training in their use, because they use them wrong CAUSING the failures'.
Have a nice day.

My first two comments weren't "answers to the video". They addressed one small aspect of the video and the side topic of presenting facts accurately. This is much is very obvious.

But you've still not given an actual quote that proves your assertion. Why are you bothering to fight something where I'm sure you know you are wrong?

I didn't make a "blanket assertion" that condoms are only 98% effective in the lab. I wrote "Real world data points to between 80% and 90% effectiveness (because people screw up)." This is a statistic. It doesn't point to an individual (who can achieve 100% success or 0% success). It points to the average of large populations. And I wrote that because the video made a statement without an important qualification. I'm sure you know this but are being stubborn. Why are you trying to fight these important statistics? From a public health perspective this is incredibly important information and trying to misrepresent the real world effectiveness of condoms can be harmful to the community when planning future health interventions.

Good luck with ignoring them and hoping they won't be a problem in the future. They'll be a spanner in the works unless they're appropriately addressed. And they can be appropriately addressed with a win win solution.

Have a good day then. I'm bored with this conversation and leaving it for another week.

OK, the video's point, and your first 2 answers to it in the comments. @ChaosEngine explained how I see it quite well.

This 'anecdote' proved that you were wrong in your blanket assertion that condoms are only >98% effective in the lab, because condoms are >98% effective outside the lab....at least in one case I know of, and certainly others.

I do understand that deniers want to be called 'skeptics', but I also understand that that's not at all what they are.

I/we don't need to convince those that are clearly closed to convincing if I/we don't allow their obstinacy to be a road block to progress. Giving them more hearings, more time, and more chance to kick the can down the road gives them that opportunity.
I don't WANT to leave them behind, but I also won't die on the beach because Bubba wants to sit in the bus parked in the soft sand at the low tide line, and debate whether there is such a thing as a tide...especially when the tide is already 1/2 in, the motor's sputtering, and the wheels are under water. At some point one must decide to not let them and their never ending, constantly changing, factually challenged 'argument' doom all of us, even if it means ignoring their continuing argument and acting without their consent. I'm not sure we should kick them off the bus...but they are starting to mess with the driver and sometimes steal the keys....so it might come to that some day.

http://videosift.com/video/The-Fifth-Estate-The-Silence-of-the-Labs

There's a big issue with how science and scientists are being treated in Canada currently and it's not even a new subject. But it's not sexy enough to hold attention long enough for people to actually get upset like we need....

The point of the video.

I've used well over 100 condoms, and never once had a failure, a pregnancy, or an STD. Then again, I not only read the instructions, I was also shown how to use them, and I don't try to use expired or damaged condoms, or store them in heat and sun, or any of the other things people often do wrong with them....so you're wrong, they are not only >98% effective in labs...they have been 100% effective in my experience, for instance, which is >98%, and not in a lab. ;-)

It is not a lazy abandonment of people who disagree with me, it's a long over due abandonment of people who disagree with reality and science (honestly or not) usually in order to be a roadblock for action.
The skeptics have had their hearings, time and time again. At some point, you must admit that those still 'skeptical' either pick and choose/misinterpret information that allows that mindset, are knowingly lying for some gain, or are completely ignorant and only listening to those that pick and choose information or are liars, and they're doing so willfully. Because further 'debate' is consistently at the expense of any overdue mitigating action, and action is imperative for long term survival, the time for more 'listening' to deniers should have ended decades ago.
Examining theories with a critical eye and being a denier are not the same thing by far. Deniers examine theories with a pre-conception, and if it's not agreed with, they discard the theory, then figure out a reason why.
Deniers aren't 'skeptics', they're conspiracy theorists. The only way their argument stands up is if they can convince you that the overwhelming majority of scientists are actually not scientists, but are really just liars that somehow stand to make a fortune if they convince people of the big lie....to most people that's just nuts....and to reasonable people it's long past time to stop giving the nuts equal time and consideration.

And which point and answer would that be? It's pretty clear you're wrong. You're moving into delusional territory.

Health happens to be my area. Condoms are only >98% effective in lab settings. My numbers are from longitudinal studies. In other words, it reflects the average user's results. They are not from anti-sex education organisations. Go look them up - there are lots of studies. Interestingly condom's have similar rates (80% to 90%) of stopping HIV transmission for exactly the same reasons. Even lower in some studies.

Don't be a snob. Education is the path forward. Your lazy abandonment of people because they disagreed with you is stone age thinking.

Anthony Giddens addresses sceptics in his book "The Politics of Climate Change": "Yet the sceptics do deserve and must receive a hearing. Scepticism is the life-blood of science and just as important in policy-making. It is right that whatever claims are made about climate change and its consequences are examined with a critical, even hostile, eye and in a continuing fashion."

Note: Anthony Giddens is very much not a sceptic and his book is an analysis of how to better achieve real action on climate change.

The O'l lab lean. Can never get enough of these.

Reverse engineering the Linotron 202 fonts at Bell Labs has been added as a related post - related requested by oritteropo.

AT&T Archives: The UNIX Operating System has been added as a related post - related requested by oritteropo.

I was actually wondering if anyone else had heard of Brian Kernighan, Dennis Ritchie and Ken Thompson... this video is going to be more interesting to people with a comp sci background (or at least a Unix or linux background).

These are the guys from Bell Labs who used a spare minicomputer to write an operating system and a sort of word processor or computerised publishing system in the 70s, before you could just buy a word processor.

The system had some interesting features, like being more portable than was normal of operating systems before it (the subject of this video) and its habit of treating every file as a text file (previous operating systems tended to treat a text file as different to a database file as different to a video file for instance).

I'm sure there are videos around here somewhere that explain it.... I know computerphile had another interview about the typesetting part:

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Reverse-engineering-the-Linotron-202-fonts-at-Bell-Labs

I haven't watched this video on Unix, but it's very likely *related=http://videosift.com/video/AT-T-Archives-The-UNIX-Operating-System too.

Your video, MIT lab amazing 3D printer.... using molten glass, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Vaping is a great way to quit smoking. If you want to quit smoking, do that. Don't buy the drugstore stuff (Blu, etc.), though. Look for a shop or website that specializes in it and buy proper equipment and quality e-liquid.

I prefer to make my own e-liquid because quality control is easier buying ingredients separately (reputable suppliers will provide test documentation from third-party chemistry labs per batch). Also, it's much cheaper to make your own.

A high quality setup (battery, tank, coils) costs about the same as a carton of cigarettes. Mixing my own liquid (not hard, three ingredients, just mix 'em up), I spend about a dollar a week on that when you average it out.

Fun fact, apparently Ohio is in the top 5 states (currently #3) for highest number of seized meth labs per year.