Featured Member Comment
WHY ARE WE STILL IN IRAQ?!!! Dennis Kucinich - “>> ^garmachi:We're like a cop that shoots a kid who refused to take his hands out of his pockets "just in case" only to find out he wasn't packin'. It's more like a dirty cop who catches a drug...” read more by NetRunner
WHY ARE WE STILL IN IRAQ?!!! Dennis Kucinich - “>> ^garmachi:We're like a cop that shoots a kid who refused to take his hands out of his pockets "just in case" only to find out he wasn't packin'. It's more like a dirty cop who catches a drug...” read more by NetRunner
xxovercastxx
Member Profile
Real Name: Carl
Member Since: 2007-02-23
Homepage: http://eleventwentytwo.com
Last Power Points used: 2008-03-05 • Available: now
Max Power Points: 1
Homepage: http://eleventwentytwo.com
Last Power Points used: 2008-03-05 • Available: now
Max Power Points: 1
Comments
Subscribe
Videos Submitted by xxovercastxxNavigation
- profile
- unsifted videos (0)
- personal queue videos (6)
- sifted videos (26)
- promoted published vids
- promoted queued vids
- promoted Sift Talk posts
- promoted blog posts
- blog entries (0)
- Sift Talk posts
- discarded posts
- dead/deadpool videos (0)
- my playlist bookmarks
- my post bookmarks
- playlists bookmarked by others
- posts bookmarked by others
- voted up
- voted down
- playlists
Member Stats
Member's Highest Rated Videos
In reply to this comment by xxovercastxx:
How about adding "simons cat" to the tags to maybe help prevent dupes?
http://www.videosift.com/video/The-Few-The-Proud-the-Marines#comment-347538
In reply to this comment by xxovercastxx:
http://www.amywalker.info/
Religious and philosophy a thin line there.
I guess one thing that makes the hold thing confusing or misleading is that in the English language there is allot of room for interpretation. If a sound is express as a wave traveling throw a medium then I think is accurate. The perception of that sound is very tricky thing. Some animals perceive those sounds in two different ways. One like a sonar and one like actual "sound".
In reply to this comment by xxovercastxx:
Wikipedia outlines 3 interpretations here. The third echoes what I proposed earlier whereas the first sounds a lot like what you describe. While it does potentially have religious ramifications, depending on what 'answer' you subscribe to, it's still fundamentally a philosophical question, not a religious one.
In reply to this comment by nickreal03:
A sound is a wave traveling throw the air period. Perception is a hold different subject which I don't see how it could possible fit. I belief this question was originally targeted to asked whether the universe exits because of humans rather than regarless of humans. I think is just an old stupid probably religious question that still been echo throw generations for some really stupid reason.
>> ^nickreal03:
the sentence "if a tree falls and there is not one around, does it make a sound?". It is a sentence that most clearly explain what is wrong with human kind. For some f cked up reason humans thinks that the universe go around them. I hate that! I hate that sentence! I am piss to be a human sometimes. Bunch of arrogant self center bastards.
>>>>You might be missing the intent of the question. It's a thought experiment, not unlike Schrödinger's Cat. You have to break it down to get at the crux of the question.
When the tree falls, it introduces vibrations into the air. When these vibrations make their way into the ear of an animal, they are perceived as sound. The animal need not be human, just capable of hearing.
The provocative part of the experiment is asking yourself if vibrations traveling through a medium are sound, or do they only become sound when perceived?<<<<
A sound is a wave traveling throw the air period. Perception is a hold different subject which I don't see how it could possible fit. I belief this question was originally targeted to asked whether the universe exits because of humans rather than regarless of humans. I think is just an old stupid probably religious question that still been echo throw generations for some really stupid reason.
In reply to this comment by xxovercastxx:
Eye before Eee except after See.
In reply to this comment by xxovercastxx:
>> ^therealblankman:
USA, USA? Probably filmed in Canada- aren't Bald Eagles extinct in most of the lower 48?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Distribution_H._leucocephalus.png
In reply to this comment by xxovercastxx:
As several other people, I was trying to assess the risk as I watched. I would imagine that dipping your landing gear into the water a little too far would likely cause the plane to smack right into said water, possibly followed by a less-than-graceful somersault flourish.
It seems possible, however, that the landing gear might just snap off. Remember that actual landing isn't done at anything near top speed, so the gear doesn't need to handle the horizontal force during landing that it would be subject to as it dips too far into the water.
It's interesting to keep in mind when you watch this that as a plane nears the ground (or water surface), the air being forced down off the wings creates a buffer that pushes the plane back up into the air. Even at normal landing speeds, this can make the last vertical 10' or so a bit tricky as the plane resists ground contact. At full speed that force would be far greater, so holding steady like this, despite the smooth appearance, would be something of a wrestling match.
In reply to this comment by xxovercastxx:
Hang on... It's a coded message...
So... long... and thanks... for... all... the fish.
WTF is that supposed to mean?
In reply to this comment by xxovercastxx:
"Warning: Extremely annoying."
Then why post it?
Q
In reply to this comment by xxovercastxx:
nib, lucky for me they've got a fair amount of that PIG book available for free on Google books so I just took a quick look at it before I head to bed.
One of the things that stood out was a group of pie charts which shows carbon dioxide among a few other greenhouse gases. It's not a greenhouse gas if it has zero effect on global temperature.
The book was apparently written by a lawyer, Christopher Horner, who is a recognized expert on "global warming legislation and regulation". That's something, but he's no climatologist. Chapter 1 is dedicated to calling environmentalists "anti-American communists". The first paragraph was really all I needed to read to understand that this book has no value to me.
It's endorsed by Richard Lindzen, who is a climatologist and has worked in related fields as well. His position seems to be similar to what I said in my initial post; that the temperature is rising but we're not entirely sure why yet. He's been criticized for taking payment of $2500/day from oil/coal companies for consulting services. He's been funded and/or supported by Western Fuels and OPEC.
The book is also endorsed by a few senators, and nobody believes anything they say so I think we can just ignore that.
The following organizations have taken the stance that global warming is at least partially due to human activity:
The aforementioned IPCC
The National Science Academies of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the UK and the US
The US National Research Council
The American Meteorological Society
The American Geophysical Union
The American Institute of Physics
The American Astronomical Society
The Federal Climate Change Science Program
The American Association for the Advancement of Science
The Geological Society of London
The Geological Society of America
The American Chemical Society
The Institution of Engineers Australia
The American Association of State Climatologists
The American Association of Petroleum Geologists
The American Association of State Climatologists, by the way, is made up of state climatologists, assistant climatologists under the state climatologist and retired climatologists. They state a membership count of "approximately 150". That's 70 more than you claim exist in the country.
As for me, I majored in History in college. Studied for 4 years but at the last second dropped out. Break ups, emotional burden etc etc. So technically I don't have a college degree
In reply to this comment by xxovercastxx:
I majored in mathematics and programming in high school. I didn't go to college... didn't have the grades or the desire.
I guess I just learned somewhere along the way that you can't look at everything as an emotional issue. Just because people like Hitler or the Unabomber are "evil" doesn't mean they can't be right about some things.
Because you are probably the only person on videosif that agrees with me when I start an argument saying 'Nazi Germany was a proficient government'.
So I wanted to know how you came to think that way and got curious about your background.
Also I noticed how you handle 'atheists vs theologians' controversy was a bit different from others. Personally, I think when you start believing in a very popular belief, you just become another 'group', one of many. And that is just as important as what you actually believe, beyond who is right or wrong. Because in a way I find atheists and jesus freaks just as bad as each claim their opponents to be. Both are overly motivated to enforce their idea to the other party, both are completely committed zealously without a hint of doubt etc etc. Beyond who is technically right or wrong (atheism is what I consider scientifically 'sound'), the result you get is yet another crusade, one zealous religious group against another, constantly pointing fingers at each other, constantly saying how much worse the opposing party handles thing etc etc.
And personally I don't mind having some religious groups around. Get rid of the crazy over-enthusiastic maniacs, and what you're left with is your basic regular Sunday church go-ers who are very docile and plain. I know for a fact that many intelligent people CHOOSE to be a part of religious groups because they want to belong to that specific community. Religious groups often makes it easier for you to socialize with different people very quickly who hold very similar moral ideals as you do (discourage assholism, violence etc etc), which may be good enough for someone intelligent that just wants to belong to a group that they feel safe in.
should someone who is gay be descriminated against because they are gay ?
to most people in the christian religion that would be a yes. cause being gay is a sin (according to the bible)
while most chritistians will say somethign to the extent of, "the bible says _____ about homosexuality and that it's a sin"
they fail to acknowledge that their bible says A LOT of things are a sin. such as eating shellfish and wearing mixed garments. www.godhatesshrimp.com
now, should i "respect" a thiest's view to deny rights and use descrimination against gays (or african americans (slavery, being less than human just for being black ?...or how about women ? women are totally disenfranchised in the bible) because their 2,000 yr old book tells them to ?
christians try to force their versioon of morality on others because of their faith. I wonder how many laws christian lawmakers are trying to pass that force their bible based views of morality on others ?
some good reading for you
http://www.archetype-productions.com/nfo/religion/Why_Women_Need_Freedom_From_Religion.doc
http://www.archetype-productions.com/nfo/religion/The-Real-Ten-Commandments-carrier.doc
http://www.archetype-productions.com/nfo/religion/Mass-Killings-Ordered-by-God.doc
In reply to this comment by xxovercastxx:
I will say that I don't feel it's any more appropriate for me to impose my views on someone than for them to impose them upon me. I do not seek out religious people and tell them how foolish I feel their beliefs are. I will discuss my beliefs and I will debate them with others who are interested in debating.
The following should be obvious, but I think it's often overlooked: We all think our beliefs are the best choice, otherwise we would believe something else. Because of this conclusion, it's natural to want others to believe what you believe. However, I think it's best to not push your beliefs on anyone else who hasn't asked for them, with the possible exception of a case where that person's beliefs are hurting other people. Take the following (admittedly extreme) example:
If you believe homosexuality is a sin, that's fine with me. If you believe homosexuality is a sin and take it upon yourself to murder gays in the name of God, well now we have a problem. I think you're crazy either way, but you can be crazy as long as you're crazy and harmless.
So, no, I don't think an atheism assault is any more appropriate than a theistic attack no matter what volumes of evidence or logic are conveyed. I agree completely with detlev's post. Don't confuse public speaking or public statements from either side with an attack, though. Everyone should be allowed to vocalize their ideas in an appropriate venue and situation.
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/index.php
Qruel
In reply to this comment by xxovercastxx:
I'd like to skew from the topic slightly and say that I participate in discussions like these not for the sake of argument, but for the sake of debate. I don't expect to convert anyone, but I am interested in hearing how other people think and why they choose to act/live the way they do. The frustrating part is that these normally degrade into childish fights and it's pretty rare that I come away feeling I understand the faithful any better.
Since this particular conversation is already well on its way to becoming useless bickering, I feel no shame in saying that QM is a moron for bringing up Stalin and Mao Zedong again. First, mentioning 2 atheists that did a lot of evil shit says nothing about the validity of the bible or religion. Second, even if it did, citing 2 people out of the billions that have lived in the millenniums past (all six of them!) really doesn't carry much weight. If Stalin and Mao were Catholics/Jews/Presbyterians/Jehovah's Witnesses/etc, they would have been evil fucking Catholics/Jews/Presbyterians/Jehovah's Witnesses/etc. Faith does not prevent evil and atheism does not guarantee it.
There are evil, twisted religious people and there are moral, upstanding atheists. I happen to be one of the latter and I'm tired of being villainized by narrow-minded twits like you.