If the video were presented that they were athletes and the white people were just average people off the street, the comment from the announcer would be warranted. That's not how it's presented however, it's shown as a random group of young people who we SHOULD all treat as equal.

If he had said "I've seen a couple of these guys run and I KNOW they are faster than all of you." then that would be relevant personal knowledge, not just a guess based on their race. The fact that they did run faster has no bearing on why he made the statement before anyone ran and should have no idea how fast they are.

I'm surprised the people in the initial shot weren't running faster, I'd have been running faster.

You're supposed to stop, drop, and roll, not run faster.

HAHAHAHA I laugh at the idiots lying down...

"I don't have to run faster than the alligator, I just have to get ahead of you!"

Lol, that would definitely make me run faster. Last half marathon I did, there was a bag pipe band at the halfway point.... had to keep going just to get away from them!

So, you can't argue against my points, so you change your argument?
You said we are sliding into socialism...I showed you that's wrong and now you say 'sliding to more government' is the same thing. They are not.

You are listening to talking heads. The republicans may promise to 'undo what was done' but in reality they don't do that (they don't really even try, they just try to look like they are, how many 'votes' to 'repeal' the ACA?) but instead increase their control at every turn.

1) Wow! A point we agree on!
2) Um...so you want to say the minimal wall street regulations were 'screwing corporations' and removing them is 'unscrewing them'? Well, lets just leave it at 'I totally disagree' that going back to reasonable rules (rules the republicans removed before, causing the insanity in the market for 25 years) is 'screwing business', it's forcing business to not screw everyone else by fraud.
3) If the government IS in charge of the program (and it is, because states failed miserably to do it themselves) there should be reasonable 'rules' on how to do it. Those 'rules' in this case should be determined by nutritionists, not politicians. Catchup is not a vegetable. It's really just one more swipe at the Obamas for no logical reason in my eyes.
4) It's hilarious that when it's for something you like, you are all pro-federal power to override the states/local laws, but when it's not (like a federal lunch program) they shouldn't be involved.
Socialism and corporatism are the reverse of each other. I should not have to be the one to teach you that.
We disagree as to which party is running faster towards 'oligarchy'. We disagree because you think Faux actually shows NEWS, but they ONLY have propaganda on Faux, not news, not reporting, only editorializing. Those who watch Faux are consistently less informed than those who watch NOTHING. Repeatedly proven fact.

Both parties have failed, so you think we should go for the crazed, farther right splinter party...you know the Naz....oh...sorry...I got confused....teabagger party. They might not all be lynching nuts, but most certainly are. I've seen and talked to them, and walked through rallies. It's not a myth.
Because they were not registered republicans does not make them either democrat or independent, most of them just think the republicans don't go far enough to the right...kind of like a certain German party from the 30's I can mention.

EDIT: I guess since it's OK for the republicans to off hand legislate against the known wishes and vote of the people because they 'control the laws in DC', you would have no problem with Obama using executive powers to bypass congress and to line veto the budget to remove all the superfluous BS the republicans added to it? The president has that power and can executive order and line item veto all day long...but you would be having a fit if he did, no?

Although I do think that women's rights still have a bit of a long way to go, this particular video is kinda bullshitty...

They refer to physical activities ("run like a girl", "throw like a girl", "fight like a girl", etc), and also about the moment when those expressions change meaning.

It usually changes meaning when boys develop during puberty, and become faster and stronger than girls. It is an insult, but it's not exactly a lie... women, are for the most part, slower and weaker physically speaking.

"Why can't run like a girl also mean win the race?". It can, if you're running against other girls, but the fastest girl would not be able to run faster than the fastest boy. Period. It's not a matter of equality or justice. It's a matter of biology. There is a reason why there are gender based competitions. Because it wouldn't be fair to put female athletes against male athletes (in most sports. there are a couple of exceptions obviously). That's also the reason why women's sports are usually not as relevant.

Women's rights activists need to focus more on social issues and less on biology. Unless they're thinking about tampering with genetics, men and women will always have differences, and there's little that can be done about that.

>> ^hpqp:

Oh please, this is just bad science. It's barely even worth cheap sci-fi. Where do you get the energy to run the replicator, eh? Does entropy ring a bell? Even without replicators humans are draining the earth of it's energetic resources (including the "sustainable" ones)...
Nice philosophical mindgame, like all utopias for that matter, but nowhere near hard science.
philosophy


Our world is full of achievements that were once beyond the ability of hard science.
How can humans possibly communicate over hundrends of miles? We're already yelling as loud as we can.
How can we possibly run faster than cheetahs? Our legs can't move any faster!
How can I kill Og standing all the way over there? Rock not throw farther!!!

Ultimately, all life shares one common goal; the quest for energy. From single cell creatures harvesting light, heat or chemical reactions to survive...all the way to modern humans with their agriculture, technology and complex social structures; the journey of evolution has been the race for more efficient means of acquiring and managing energy.
Our economies are elaborate means of trading energy.
Our societies organized to maximize the collection of energy.
Our governments created to ensure equitable distribution or energy.

The result of millenia of advancement is that we now expend much less energy to acquire a larger return of energy. And all that excess energy creates the complex world we live in.

But there is the potential, in the future, for technological advancements in science that will create a massive paradigm shift. There is the potential for accessible energy to become inexhaustable. And when the cost, in terms of human effort, of energy approaches Zero....everything changes.

Will the end of human need result in a utopia?
LOL...never. Because we'll always have griefers.

I actually gotta say i'm really not impressed. I'm not going down the "She's wasting her life" route, she dedicated herself to something and saw it through, good for her.

What i'm not impressed by is the fact that this qualifies as a world record. It's always been a silly notion to me, everything can be qualified as a world record. There's at least 40+ world records having to do with sitting, one of them being "Longest phone call with ones dad while sitting on someone elses shoulders."

I mean.. really? To me, a world record only matters to things that truly push the limits of human beings. People being able to run faster, jump farther. Hell, even people that can eat more than others. Something that actually includes an inkling of skill and a small step towards the bettermant of mankind through its action, this only just falls under that category because It's somewhat demanding physically to do so.

But I still maintain that world records are by and large a joke.

Nobody has brought up doping yet. I have absolutely no idea how vast it's influence is or how little it may be sought after due to the literal pride of the athletes themselves may be influencing these decisions among their own community (and I do think that the athletes and how they handle those that have done it, might do it, and haven't yet but are just hearing about the possibilities of doping; how they talk and act to stop it when they can amongst themselves and their community is what fights it the best).

I know some of the athletes have been suspended up to four years, but are still allowed to play again. I don't know if it matters what they were doing (as anabolic steroids and its effects will be lifelong if you keep up your routine) as some doping schemes are quick fixes like someone trying to use adrenaline. I mean do they check for that type of thing, a neurotransmitter carrier drug stuck in something like a false tooth; you bite down and in 5-10 seconds your adrenaline shoots forward for 30 seconds... I guess I should look and see how far they've taken this process; I know they are very vigilant, as much as possible. But, I really don't know were the holes are and how big they possibly are.

Training has most defiantly given athletes a superb edge. Not only do they run and work out, but they WATCH themselves run and can see what they are doing run. They just compare it to the best and modify themselves in that fashion gaining seconds, upon seconds. Eventually they learn to add a new twist and soon people are watching HIM or HER for inspiration to win a medal.

I know many athletes get their medals the old-fashioned hard way, proudly and resolute, for their country. It just makes me wonder how far doping has truly influenced the athletes and what areas of their training and structure actually test them correctly with the possibility that there may always be an area, with many athletes all doping (they are tested at the Pre-Olympic qualifiers, The Olympics, but then a shady organization "passes" them all at their home training camp). I hope that it never reaches that scale, but I always have problems when there are some Olympic coaches that have had about six athletes under them, three of them have been caught doping and three are OK--kind of disconcerting...

-edit

I forgot one point I was going to make. You can obviously see from the info-graphic that even training and in absolutely NO WAY can doping account for the 8 year old to the rest of the teenage field of sprinters. It shows to me that perhaps a very long change in diet stopping any malnutrition, FAR better medical care (also limiting disease to a LARGE extent) has lead to a BETTER populace, even genetically which just due to this little clip you could make the case, to some degree. Then you have some of the intangibles like better shoes, better surfaces to run on, and other like changes in our lives that were mentioned and the ones you can think about that weren't. Then you find the cream of the crop athletes, give them superb training, and I truly do think you can see why we have increased those three seconds.

I just merely hope doping isn't behind many victories. I actually wouldn't care if it was someone genetically modified--not grotesquely (to go out of your way to destroy the human form is up to you, but as scientists I don't think we should aim for that--we should aim within that, I also have a feeling that someone grotesque may not be exactly happily received at The Olympics...), just suited to run faster with muscles that are far more dense than usual. As long as genetic changes like this eventually come to almost all of us, changes that enrich and make our lives better (not The Hulk™).

Similar to the "I don't have to run faster than him, only faster than you" argument.
Only here it's "I don't have to be smarter than him, just smarter than you!"

>> ^critical_d:

A few things to try...
- Use Firefox or Chrome as your browser and install an ad-block extension.
- Regardless of the browser you use always make sure flash is updated.
- Try clearing the browser temp files.
I am sure this has all been said before but you never know


Yep, I already do that. FYI, new Flash version came out a couple days ago.

>> ^gwiz665:

He was standing perfectly still to hide from the alleged T-Rex. Then when the mother stepped into view, he evaluated that he could run faster than her and bolted.


True. You don't have to be the fastest to survive an animal attack. Just not the slowest.

He was standing perfectly still to hide from the alleged T-Rex. Then when the mother stepped into view, he evaluated that he could run faster than her and bolted.