The console market ruined vector games by their foolish attempt to convert them to pixels.

...very sorry, but...

...*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Sukhoi-Su-35-thrust-vectoring-at-the-2013-Paris-Air-Show

...video non functional...will not upload for me...watched on Liveleak, http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8b4_1371530994, exact footage.

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by chicchorea. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

I won't argue that Chiro makes your joints feel better, Cracking my knuckles makes my knuckles feel better too... but it doesn't make them better. It doesn't "heal" anything, and that is alternative medicine's "Big Issue" with "Allopathic" medicine. You will ALWAYS, 100% guaranteed, get better care from a Physical Therapist, as they're there to ensure your body gets strong enough to heal itself. They can handle "acute adjustments" as well, but they prefer the holistic solution. The best part is, they have a proper understanding of the body, instead of all of the quackery mumbo-jumbo that Chiropractic Practitioners are taught (note: not all believe it, but they aren't taught anything else).

If you want to boil down how vaccines work into three words, sure, you might pick those three... but if you pick four, you'd get a very different phrase: "learn from dead things". But the main difference between vaccines and homeopathy is that we have an excellent understanding of what and why vaccines work, while homeopathy has never been validated by an impartial study. Sure, the premise started the same, but then doctors and scientists actually put work into verifying and validating how vaccines work. They made up new and interesting phrases to describe what was going on, just like homeopathy and it's "water memory", but unlike homeopaths, they reproduced their findings in labs across the country before they started selling it.

Homeopathy and Proper Medicine are as similar as me and the guy that wins a marathon. We both started the race... Sure, I was distracted after a block because I realized I could take a cab to the nearest restaurant and have a nice dinner and a beer, then I watched some TV, and took a cab back to the finish line and crossed it a couple hours later... But hey, we're both the same thing because we started at the same place, right?

The garbage man? I think you mean sanitation, specifically as it relates to bodily wasted, which has been around for over 5000 years. Of course, there have been many advances over the years, and it was not taken seriously in most of Europe until the industrial revolution. But it's certainly true... this technology that has been developing for 5000 years has had more of an effect on human health in cities than anything Medical Science has done.

Of course, it wasn't until we had a good understanding of biological vectors of diseases (research done by "Natural Philosophers", from which sprung all of modern science) that we understood just how important sanitation is, and started real improvements.


TLDR:

Chiropractic Care: May make you feel better, but at it's very best is the very least of what a PT can do.

Homeopathy: Complete and utter quackery, bearing only the most vague and abstract connection to real science.

Turtles do have ears, just not external ones, and they can hear.
The 200 year lifespan is absurd any species that the TMNT's might conceivably be derived from.
Only a few turtle species have worm-like portions of their tongues (used to lure prey).
Rats and turtles are vectors of disease. So are humans.
Transmission of bubonic plague from rat to turtle is not going to happen.
It's "salmonella" no "samonella".
Turtle penises don't really look like that, nor will they reach the same animal's mouth (they are impressive though).

There is more incorrect than correct about this video. It's like they googled "turtle fun facts" and decided to call that "scientifically accurate".
These animals are amazing!.. Stop being lazy; you don't need to make stuff up.

@Jerykk

Let's just say this show has probably not done anything to make a believer more of a believer, but has probably helped many people reason themselves away from the bullshit that is religion. Maybe not by itself, as escaping religious fuguery usually requires a multiple-vector onslaught of logic and reason, but this show has surely helped many people attain the some courage to doubt. It's a godsend.

Personally, I watch it to see Christians get humiliated.

Almost a vector field, brilliant!

Doesn't seem like a falling satellite to me, but it's hard to tell with video so blurry and shaky. It looks more like the contrail from a commercial airliner at cruising altitude lit by the post-sunset (or pre-sunrise) sun. At first it's flying away with a vector to the left. Later when it's going "straight down), it's just flying directly away.

It is like asking do you need Coke and Pepsi. If there is enough money and interest and both provide meaningful difference for those investors...then yes. There are many instances where a design parity is possible, where both science and commercial interest are being served. This isn't always the case, but the fact that they are working together means they can steal from each other when applicable. Here's hoping to a 2 planet species in our lifetime.

That abort system has to be the most interesting bit of rocketry engineering and execution I have seen, ever. Reminds me of how odd thrust vectoring looks in planes.

no love for snowball 2

>> ^PHJF:

Lunar!?!?
Who the shit gives a shit about the moon anymore (unless it's Phobos)?!?! What is this, 1960?


If you want to go to mars, having a base on the moon is a good first step. And while a direct trip to the mars is still physically a possibility, a useful staging ground could be the moon. Water is heavy, and the discovery of polar water on the moon means you could drastically reduce takeoff weight by supplying water from the moon. Also, this is a very advanced rocket that could see use elsewhere. Most rockets don't burn in a controllable way; once you start them, they go until they run out of fuel. More over, most don't allow for thrust throttling, wide open throttle until the fuel depletes. And on top of all that, it is able to vector its thrust that is being dynamically altered to keep a relatively clean trajectory.

Another way to look at it is the moon is a good place to practice ferrying people. Might as well use your own back yard (the moon: 384,400 km away) than a distance planet (Mars: 56 million km away at the closet point) for a technology test bed.

>> ^artician:

>> ^oohlalasassoon:
Mine still works
Games I have are Blitz, Star Trek, Spike, Clean Sweep, and Scramble (my favorite).
And despite the title of the vid, I don't think the raster-graphics that Vectrex uses are considered pixels.

Actually, rasterization is the term for putting an image to a pixelized format, usually a file or other read-only format to be displayed as it is.
I think what you meant to say was "vector" graphics, as vectors were what the Vectrex was designed around.
Either way, all graphics use pixels in the end, as that is the raw building block of the digital image, so the title of this is something of a misnomer if taken literally. It's a bit like saying "paperless sketch", or something.
Vector processing is basically the precursor for polygonal rendering and the real-time 3D we are used to seeing today. The primary difference to raster images being that it is drawn and manipulated in real-time, as opposed to raster-imagery being a simple, unalterable record of an image in pixels (like a recording).
I fail at the metaphors, but you get what I'm saying.


Whoops. I did indeed mean to say vector, not raster. Raster's actually what I think of when I think of pixels, so I said the opposite of what I meant. Long day. Thanks for your informative reply

>> ^oohlalasassoon:

Mine still works
Games I have are Blitz, Star Trek, Spike, Clean Sweep, and Scramble (my favorite).
And despite the title of the vid, I don't think the raster-graphics that Vectrex uses are considered pixels.


Actually, rasterization is the term for putting an image to a pixelized format, usually a file or other read-only format to be displayed as it is.
I think what you meant to say was "vector" graphics, as vectors were what the Vectrex was designed around.

Either way, all graphics use pixels in the end, as that is the raw building block of the digital image, so the title of this is something of a misnomer if taken literally. It's a bit like saying "paperless sketch", or something.

Vector processing is basically the precursor for polygonal rendering and the real-time 3D we are used to seeing today. The primary difference to raster images being that it is drawn and manipulated in real-time, as opposed to raster-imagery being a simple, unalterable record of an image in pixels (like a recording).

I fail at the metaphors, but you get what I'm saying.

Mine still works

Games I have are Blitz, Star Trek, Spike, Clean Sweep, and Scramble (my favorite).

And despite the title of the vid, I don't think the rastervector -graphics that Vectrex uses are considered pixels.

"Ok, you need to understand two different concepts........the odds of getting so much similarity by accident is exceedingly small.

So in light of this reality.....supposedly bring down evolution."

Minor disagreements? I'm having a hard time believing that you've seriously investigated this subject if you are now claiming (scaled back from your prior claim of perfect agreement between "scores" of them) that molecular and morphological phylogonies typically have a high level of agreement. They don't. Agreement is the exception, not the rule. Even worse, molecular phylogonies don't agree with eachother either:

As morphologists with high hopes of molecular systematics, we end this survey with our hopes dampened. Congruence between molecular phylogenies is as elusive as it is in morphology and as it is between molecules and morphology. . . .

Partly because of morphology’s long history, congruence between morphological phylogenies is the exception rather than the rule. With molecular phylogenies, all generated within the last couple of decades, the situation is little better. Many cases of incongruence between molecular phylogenies are documented above; and when a consensus of all trees within 1% of the shortest in a parsimony analysis is published (e.g. 132, 152, 170), structure or resolution tends to evaporate

Congruence Between Molecular and Morphological Phylogenies

http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.es.24.110193.001101

"If only you were a bit better at it. Even the quotes you chose to mine serve to undermine your point. I think my point can be summarized by the following quote from your reference"

“On one side stand traditionalists who have built evolutionary trees from decades of work on species' morphological characteristics. On the other lie molecular systematists, who are convinced that comparisons of DNA and other biological molecules are the BEST way to unravel the secrets of evolutionary history.”

The relevant part here is the word “best.” These people are clearly just trying to decide what the most accurate method of phylogenetic determination is and this article represents nothing more than a discussion of one of the many battles that go on in the constant refinement of science. And this disagreement does nothing at all to disprove evolution""

Your charge of quote mining is false. Quote mining is the logical fallacy of quoting something out of context, distorting its intended meaning. The quote I provided was very much in context, and showed support for the assertion that molecular and morphological phylogenies do not have "perfect" agreement, and now I have further supported that assertion (and disproven your scaled back claim of very statistically significant agreement) that their agreement is actually very superficial. It is far more significant how little agreement there actually is.

The very reason there is a contention about which is the "best" method is precisely because there is so little agreement. In any case, molecular homology appears to be winning the battle, perhaps because the evolutionists are getting tired of never finding any evolution in the fossil record.

Which brings us to the many issues with molecular homologies, specifically, their lack of falsifiability:

"We believe that it is possible to draw up a list of basic rules that underlie existing molecular evolutionary models:

All theories are monophyletic, meaning that they all start with the Urgene and the Urzelle which have given rise to all proteins and all species, respectively.

Complexity evolves mainly through duplications and mutations in structural and control genes.

Genes can mutate or remain stable, migrate laterally from species to species, spread through a population by mechanisms whose operation is not fully understood, evolve coordinately, splice, stay silent, and exist as pseudogenes.

Ad hoc arguments can be invented (such as insect vectors or viruses) that can transport a gene into places where no monophyletic logic could otherwise explain its presence.

This liberal spread of rules, each of which can be observed in use by scientists, does not just sound facetious but also, in our opinion, robs monophyletic evolution of its vulnerability to disproof, and thereby its entitlement to the status of a scientific theory.

The absolute, explicit and implicit, adherence to all the monophyletic principle and consequently the decision to interpret all observations in the light of this principle is the major cause of incongruities as well as for the invention of all the genetic sidestepping rules cited above."

A Polyphyletic View of Evolution

Schwabe and Warr

This is why Schwabe, a biochemist, wrote:

Molecular evolution is about to be accepted as a method superior to paleontology for the discovery of evolutionary relationships. As a molecular evolutionist I should be elated. Instead it seems disconcerting that many exceptions exist to the orderly progression of species as determined by molecular homologies; so many, in fact, that I think the exception, the quirks, may carry the more important message

It's a shell game where virtually any kind of data can be accomodated, and at no point is the theory questioned. Ad hoc explanations can be invented for any kind of discrepency.

""There are analogous debates going on in nearly all branches of academic study. Taking an example with fewer existential implications for religion, look towards the Holocaust. There is an ongoing effort by Yad Va Shem, a jewish organization, to catalogue all those who died under the Nazi regime as well as those who aided jews in various ways (http://www1.yadvashem.org/yv/en/remembrance/hall_of_names.asp). Now at the moment they have verified only three million names and something like 24000 people who helped, and details on each vary. But wait, oh no! We all know that there were roughly six million victims! And we don’t even have complete information about the paltry three million we’ve catalogued. Does this mean that the Holocaust did not happen? Of course it doesn’t. You need to take the internal debate in context and realize that the total sum of evidence is overwhelming. Creationists, however, can not be so objective with such a threatening theory as evolution.""

A mountain of weak, circumstantial evidence (much of which contradicts itself) does not prove macro evolution. "We're working on it" does not somehow validate that evidence. We know the holocaust happened; there is no proof for macro evolution.

""As for your junk DNA article, you similarly blow the relevance way out of proportion. Here’s the last sentence from the text that summarizes the relevance of the article:

“The present study suggests that some selfish DNA transposons can instead confer an important role to their hosts, thereby establishing themselves as long-term residents of the genome.”

Here it states simply that some of the junk DNA, not all of it, can become useful to the cell. This sentence proves you wrong in two ways. First, it admits that they have only found a few instances of utility for this junk DNA, which is a far cry from the evidence that would be necessary for the slow death you speak of. Second, the acknowledges that this as an instance of Junk DNA incorporating itself into the genome and taking on novel and useful roles. In other words, evolution!

The genome is huge and nowhere in biology does it say that all of the DNA we have designated as junk is most certainly junk. Again, this is just another example of incrementally refining our understanding about how things work, but it is not revolutionary and it still demonstrates a clear framework.

And regardless or whether or not your article shows that a lot of Junk DNA has function (which is common knowledge, by the way), it does not at all disprove the fact that junk DNA shows typically exhibits much higher rates of mutation because its specific sequence is less rigidly constrained than coding DNA (http://www.nature.com/nrg/journal/v12/n11/full/nrg3098.html?WT.ec_id=NRG-201111). It is not a complete lack of function that demonstrates evolution, but simply a higher rate of mutation that results in sequences that will be more varied the more distantly related two species are.""

There are numerous sources showing that junk dna is not junk:

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/04/28/1103894108.full.pdf+html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071025112059.htm

http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/transposons-or-jumping-genes-not-junk-dna-1211

Based on your earlier argument, "we're working on it", you should realize that what some scientists consider to be junk dna stems entirely from ignorance. The idea that it got in there by "viral dna insertions" and the like is simply another ad hoc explanation among many.

""And finally, read these articles if you want a more complete understanding about how the comparisons between phylogenetic trees are indeed imperfect, but well supported and constantly refined:

http://cmgm.stanford.edu/phylip/consense.html
http://taxonomy.zoology.gla.ac.uk/rod/cplite/ch4.pdf
http://www.mathnet.or.kr/mathnet/paper_file/McGill/Bryant/03ConsensusAMS.pdf
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2105/10/423
http://bioinformatics.oxfordjournals.org/content/23/12/1556.full

There are literally hundreds of thousands of these articles detailing what is essentially a whole, distinct area of study. Just search the term “consensus trees” and you’ll see what I mean.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=consensus+trees&hl=en&btnG=Search&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=onhttp://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=consensus+trees&hl=en
&btnG=Search&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=on""

I have already demonstrated that the consensus is very weak. What you need to provide is data backing up your claims regarding cytochrome c. I am awaiting the "scores" of phylogonies that will match that data.