Here is a TED talk by Steven Pinker on "the myth of violence". Basically, it says that despite what you hear on the media, humankind is more peaceful than it ever has been, and all the signs indicate that this trend will continue.
"Stay inside the lines."
There was a great TED talk by Sir Ken Robinson on this. I truly believe adults squelch childhood creativity way too early in life. We are programmed not to take risks. Imagine all the wonderful things that would be possible if we were never afraid to fail.
Edit: Found the video.
Bill Gates did a TED talk on this, here's some key snips:
> Next, would be nuclear. It also has three big problems. Cost, particularly in highly regulated countries, is high. The issue of the safety, really feeling good about nothing could go wrong, that, even though you have these human operators, that the fuel doesn't get used for weapons. And then what do you do with the waste? And, although it's not very large, there are a lot of concerns about that. People need to feel good about it. So three very tough problems that might be solvable, and so, should be worked on.
> The idea of Terrapower is that, instead of burning a part of uranium, the one percent, which is the U235, we decided, let's burn the 99 percent, the U238. It is kind of a crazy idea. In fact, people had talked about it for a long time, but they could never simulate properly whether it would work or not, and so it's through the advent of modern supercomputers that now you can simulate and see that, yes, with the right material's approach, this looks like it would work.
>In terms of fuel, this really solves the problem. I've got a picture here of a place in Kentucky. This is the left over, the 99 percent, where they've taken out the part they burn now, so it's called depleted uranium. That would power the U.S. for hundreds of years. And, simply by filtering sea water in an inexpensive process, you'd have enough fuel for the entire lifetime of the rest of the planet.
... And he ends with something the German government should pay attention to: ...
>So, what do we have to do? What am I appealing to you to step forward and drive? We need to go for more research funding. When countries get together in places like Copenhagen,they shouldn't just discuss the CO2. They should discuss this innovation agenda, and you'd be stunned at the ridiculously low levels of spending on these innovative approaches.
As an arborist I immediately had a qualm with the title of this thread. This is an image of a Japanese Maple, a plant that is anything but native to the Pacific Northwest. To say 'It's shit like this, Oregon!' while pointing to an imported cultivar just undermines the natural beauty that is native to the Pacific Northwest.
Oregon was once home to some of the richest old-growth forests in the country and now the largest of specimens exist merely as monuments to the trees that dominated the landscape before people came along and started cutting them all down and planting 'pretty' trees like this that are a fucking pain-in-the-ass to grow.
edit: Richard Preston on Giant Trees (http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_preston_on_the_giant_trees.html)
Of course the deepest irony is that the entire web (as we know it) sits on corporate servers, and runs through corporate networks. Sadly, the internet is slowly being replaced by one gigantic filter bubble and in a very short period of time governments and corporations will simply delete our choices and direct us down a glass hallway to and from the locations they want us to visit. Anon and LULSEC will be standing on the outside banging on the glass and screaming. . . And we won't hear a thing.
Inside your brain there are things called mirror neurons. Like geronimo jones said sort of correctly, it can be a measure of how much empathy you have for people. Basically these neurons become activated when someone like you is in pain or doing something. When you see someone doing something like yawning, these neurons get activated and it tells you to yawn as well. It is the reason we have the phrase "monkey see, monkey do".
here is a ted talk on it if you are interested http://www.ted.com/talks/vs_ramachandran_the_neurons_that_shaped_civilization.html
Alan Kay criticises that video in his TED talk: http://www.ted.com/talks/alan_kay_shares_a_powerful_idea_about_ideas.html
> "As a former molecular biologist, I didn't like that at all. Not because it wasn't beautiful or anything, but because it misses the thing most students fail to understand about molecular biology, and that -- is why is there any probability at all of two complex shapes finding each other just the right way so they [can] combine together and be catalyzed. And what we saw yesterday was every reaction was fortuitous -- they just swooped in there and bound, and something happened.
> But in fact, those molecules are spinning at the rate of about a million revolutions per second. They're agitating back and forth their size every two nanoseconds. They're completely crowded together, they're jammed, they're bashing up against each other. And if you don't understand that in your mental model of this stuff, what happens inside of a cell seems completely mysterious and fortuitous, and I think that's exactly the wrong image for when you're trying to teach science." (source)
I spotted some other problems too with this animation, but over all it's the best I've seen trying to describe DNA and RNA handling in a cell.
Every day convenience items. For instance a toaster. Seriously, link is for a TED video about a guy who tried to make one from scratch.
There are several people on this thread who keep pointing at population growth (rather birthrate) as the primary cause of this famine.
Below are two references from the renowned economist Hans Rosling explaining how high birthrate is a symptom or effect of low economic development rather than a cause.
This is hard, miscarriages are one of the big taboos of our society (covered really well in this TED talk).
It's not your fault. As a geneticist I know non-viable mutations (abnormalities) are very common in gametes (eggs or sperm). I haven't tried to be pregnant myself, but all of my very close friends and both my grandmothers had miscarriages along the way to making their families. I assume my other friends did as well, but we are not close enough to talk about such a taboo subject.
I hope there are women here who can break the silence and commiserate with you. It's so great that you are talking about it here, I think it will help both you and others.
Sending lots of good vibes.
Do you stare at your computer screen from 10:30pm ~ 5am? There's a good change you might be experiencing increased alertness due to blue light from your monitor. Download and install f.lux and see if that doesn't change your sleep.
Also, here's a good starting point for further research.
It doesn't have to be corroborated. The fact that it's entirely possible is reason enough to drop current machines and go back to the drawing board. We can't prove he did do it, but we also can't prove he didn't and that similar code isn't out in the wild.
Secure voting is a immensely difficult problem but it's not impossible. I highly suggest everyone and their dog take some time to watch this Google Techtalk with a real expert who runs through not only the problems associated with voting, but the framework of an actual implementation that can secure voting using contemporary cryptographic processes.
e: Also watch this TED Talk on secure voting, it's 7 minutes and well worth your time. It really drives home the point that solutions exist; the only thing stopping them from being implemented is politics.
"Check-ups of 1,003 Michigan sixth-graders in a school-based health program showed children who are obese were more likely to consume school lunch instead of a packed lunch from home." Hm. Perhaps we should improve the school lunches then. More on that here.
Digging around here, it looks like they get speakers probably by invitation, but if we spam this enough I'm sure they would look into it
SPAM AWAY FRIENDS! DAY9 FOR PRESIDENT
Reminds me of a TED Talk I saw the other day by Deb Roy: The birth of a word.
"MIT researcher Deb Roy wanted to understand how his infant son learned language -- so he wired up his house with videocameras to catch every moment (with exceptions) of his son's life, then parsed 90,000 hours of home video to watch "gaaaa" slowly turn into "water." Astonishing, data-rich research with deep implications for how we learn."
check out this TED talk if you haven't already.
there was a real eye opening part where Khan says that they had a test school where the homework was to watch the lecture (at your own pace) and then what used to be homework was being done in school. the result is that since the kids watch the lecture at home, they can go their own pace and really learn the material. then when they go to school, everyone is working and socializing about what they learned, and the school situation is more about the students working through problems together. instead of being trapped in a lecture where a student might be left behind.
i find this amazing because what better way to prepare students for the real world then to get them on the same level, and then have them work together. which is more like a professional environment where people solve problems in a group.
"American political opportunities are heavily loaded against those who are simultaneously intelligent and honest." - Richard Dawkins
According to this TED talk, you'll need at least 4 areca palms, 6-8 mother-in-law tongues, and 1 (maybe more? he didn't specify) money plant per person.
Not necessarily true.
Research shows that in America, happiness does increase until you hit a plateau at about $60,000 a year. At that point, more money stops helping.
In this TED talk Ben Goldacre, a respected researcher, contends in part that it is very difficult to know what medicines work and what medicines do not work because drug companies do not release all of their data and that they probably widely manipulate data. If you know even the most basic principals of statistics, you know that he is absolutely right and having all of the data publicly available would be a huge step forward not only for transparency, but also public health.
What I am getting at is this: Why does Anon choose to essentially be part of the media government complex by making cheesy hot button threats such as hacking in to celebrity accounts, or hacking scientologists, or even hacking the NYSE. All these actions seem to be geared towards giving people Eboners and not actually contributing to society. Why not hack drug companies and make their data publicly available? It would probably even be easier than "Erasing the NYSE".
If you are serious about it may I introduce you to this TED talk. You shouldn't share your goals, it makes it less likely you will go through with it.
http://www.ted.com/talks/salman_khan_let_s_use_video_to_reinvent_education.html The link is a Ted Talk about the Khan Academy. Khan Academy sounds like a company that is changing the world for the better. I can see why Resig would want to work there instead of a high profile tech company.
In that vein:
TL;DR awesome Sherwin Nuland talk "When psychological illness becomes overwhelming...say "aw, fuck it.""
While this may not answer your question, here's an interesting video about one man's attempt to build a toaster from scratch.
Yeah, it's pretty poor form linking to this press release when the video isn't available yet.
This same guy gave a talk at TEDMED in 2009 on the same subject. The organ-printing is shown as a video clip, not a live demonstration.
Dan Ariely did some research on this, here's a TED talk where he mentions it
As it turns out countries that have a checkbox that opts you out have a FAR higher participation rate than vice versa. People are just too lazy to check the box either way and just accept the default.
Also anyone who is against organ donations... what the heck do you need them for once you die?
I am not the performing arts type so I think I would have had the same reaction if I hadn't already seen this TED talk on visual music. As a visual musician he's playing a new kind of instrument and writing his own score. Suspend your belief and recapture your original reaction because you would give him that same courtesy if he were a musician playing a guitar; you wouldn't feel sad if you found out that the guitarist was playing an ordinary series of chords.
A good comment from ted.com:
Dec 11 2010: Reactions here are interesting in that few show skepticism. Skepticism is healthy, & the filter concept has flaws. - Ceramic filters aren't new. There's nothing special about Lifesaver vs other products except aggressive marketing & access to TED followers. - The humanitarian community hasn't embraced them because, among other things, they aren't cost effective. - The system isn't sustainable to users. Lifesaver's website says 1 bottle costs $90 to donate. Replacement filters are $100 ea. Using his data, a family of 5 could use 1 filter for 80 days (15 ltr/day/person per SHPERE standards). That's $400/yr just for filters--more than the avg annual income in much of the world. - Pre-existing technologies are far, far, far more cost effective & sustainable. 1 gallon of chlorine bleach costs less than $1 & rids >15,000 ltr of water of bacteria & viruses. Chlorine is already very accessible everywhere in the world. Out of space, but just scratched the surface
Edit: TL;DR The technology has only one advantage: marketing.
Because our brains are split into complementary left and right hemispheres, people experiencing strokes (which most often affect only one side of the brain) do indeed know there is something going wrong, but cannot figure out how to communicate it. If she's recovered without medical intervention it could have been a TIA (transient ischemic attack) or something. It definitely wasn't a dyslexic moment; you can see she's having issues moving the left side of her face (right side of the video).
There was a TED talk featuring a neurologist who had a stroke that might give you more insight into what it's like: http://www.ted.com/talks/jill_bolte_taylor_s_powerful_stroke_of_insight.html
Society and our brains' natural mode of thought has implanted this false belief that those not 100% whole in body don't have 100% of their potential at their disposal. Reality and a deeper exercise in reasoning shows otherwise time and time again. Just because you currently feel like everything that defined your life so far has been shattered, doesn't mean that you can't piece those shards back together into something more beautiful than the original.
This is a presentation given by Aimee Mullins, a (edit) double-amputee who has totally redefined what it means to be disabled. http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/aimee_mullins_the_opportunity_of_adversity.html
Keep your spirits up, and best wishes to you.
Actually, with the correct motivation (or without the incorrect motivation) many psychopaths with the potential to be violent can lead very non-criminal lives. relevant TED talk
For the 2 or 3 of you interested in the subject, William Li gave an insightful lecture at TED regarding angiogenesis and treating tumors.
He mostly talked about altering one's diet for desired results.
>Anyone else think this trend is frightening and needs more public awareness? (self.environment)
Yes, the international scientific community.
It's a huge issue, and we've already seen huge global damage to our reefs occur because of it.
I recommended this TED talk about it.
> but wow we are so far removed from nature it's amazing.
That's because actually living with nature is short, brutish and nothing like the mythical harmonious native crap which we are spoonfed.  The modern world, fairly separated from nature, is actually a much better place to live. Sure, we need to be good caretakers of our planet, it's the only one we've got after all. But, give me modern medicine, central air conditioning, civilized societies, and food production on an industrial scale.
Bill Gates is financing a massive project to develop a new kind of Nuclear Reactor which uses the spent fuel primarily. Basically you load in all the waste into a massive container and let it burn like a candle. It's called a Travelling Wave Reactor, really game changing stuff if they can get it to work.
Aren't they one and the same...
Every other board is simply an used as an excuse to have /b/, it makes it seem slightly less sleazy :)
Edit: Oh snap... been downvoted... you guys do realize that /b/ gets the more traffic than all the other boards combined right... just sayin'.
Edit: Sorry, I was corrected is it 1/3 of traffic but to quote moot: "/b/ is the first board we started with and in many ways the beating heart of the website" source
True, the L/R confusion is actually more a Japanese phenomenon.
In Japanese, they have a sound something between the English L and R. Sometimes it sounds closer to one or the other depending on the speaker and the word.
Japanese people listening to English must train their ears to listen for the distinction, which can be hard because our brains are hardwired for our native language very soon in our lives.
You missed Bonnie Bassler for biggest mind blown at the implications.
But I guess you can't cover everything.
No, it's not. Watch this woman, it's a TED talk. http://www.ted.com/talks/lesley_hazelton_on_reading_the_koran.html
TL;DW The Qu'ran is difficult to translate and most of the time "translations" are considered to be interpretations. Says muslims can slay infidels (in Mecca), iff. after a grace period, if there is no pact in place, AND only if they keep you from getting to the Kabbah to pray. The 72 Virgins come from a misinterpretation of the arabic word houris which has several translations (interpretations), dark eyed maidens, pure beings, angels, or other stuff. There is a word for virgin, that's not it, and there is no "72" mentioned anywhere.
TL;DR No it doesn't mention anything about fucking raisins.
Your high standard of living and nearly all economic progress are due to that. By using technology to increase productivity, people now have time to do other things.
For example, the washing machine.
> We lived in a place called Snitterfield, just outside Stratford, which is where Shakespeare's father was born. Were you struck by a new thought? I was. You don't think of Shakespeare having a father, do you? Do you? Because you don't think of Shakespeare being a child, do you? Shakespeare being 7? I never thought of it. I mean, he was 7 at some point; he was in somebody's English class, wasn't he? How annoying would that be? "Must try harder." Being sent to bed by his dad, you know, to Shakespeare, "Go to bed, now," to William Shakespeare, "and put the pencil down. And stop speaking like that. It's confusing everybody."
http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_on_global_population_growth.html The above link describes the demographic economic paradox and why high birthrates are a symptom, not the problem. Besides the article itself said the famine isn't cause because it's not possible to support their population but because of the civil war that has been raging for decades where civilian populations are treated as pawns. Starved and cut off from resources if they are suspected of helping the other side. Farmland destroyed
Wow, that was absolutely fantastic. If you haven't seen it already, you should check out "Born to Run," a very fascinating talk. http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/christopher_mcdougall_are_we_born_to_run.html
I could argue that using 'can' for permission instead of 'may' has the potential to be far less confrontational and therefore higher english.
May I go outside (asking somebody if they grant you the permission) Can I go outside (asking if you are allowed to go, by whoever has authority)
You have to build in plausible deniability: http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_on_language_and_thought.html
Jonathan Haidt gave a TED talk on his theory about the difference between socially conservative and socially liberal people.
It's well worth watching. He suggests that it comes down to morality, that in-group loyalty is morally important to social conservatives, but equality is more important to social liberals.
There is a fantastic ted talk that suggests if a group has to think of something everyone likes, the average satisfaction is 6 out of 10. However, if the group is split into smaller groups, and each group chooses, satisfaction goes to 7.5 out of ten.
Related: Ted Talk
Hi, mainly just posting to say I'm a fan of your reviews and agree with you 90% of the time.
Here's a question if you feel like tackling it:
What do you think about the people out there who are looking to assign big important roles to video games? From the tired "building hand-eye coordination" arguments, to Steven Johnson's assertion that they make children smarter, to Jane McGonigal-types who want to employ MMO-inspired reward systems in real life, people have a lot of high hopes for games.
Do you have any thoughts on these sorts of social/cultural roles that people argue for? (Or arguments of your own, of course.)
This TED talk talks about the who, why, and how about how viruses are created (among other things). Definitely worth a watch - Mikko Hypponen: Fighting viruses, defending the net.
The Toaster Project is a better example of this because he goes to some length to extract the iron ore and makes a toaster that sells for £3.99 from scratch.
This process was actually mentioned by someone at a TED talk. I can't remember his name, might be able to find the link. He was designing this test to be cheap and accessible to people in Africa as far as I remember.
Edit: Found the TED talk video: http://www.ted.com/talks/george_whitesides_a_lab_the_size_of_a_postage_stamp.html
That's due to mirror neurons. You're feeling the embarrassment of the subject. There's an amazing TED talk on them.
There is evidence. Favourite cites entertainers, but I cite the entire fashion industry. A great quick video on this exact topic can be found via the TED archive. Here is the link for handiness.
In an interview Julian actually talks a bit about what they do to try and verify information. Yes they do try to verify and organize information before distributing it.
I can't tell you how he did it, but I do know that James Randi is a great speaker and skilled magician. Part of his "Magic" is done through the audience making immediate assumptions with out them even thinking about it.
He has a TED video destroying the psychics.
From Mike Rowe's TED talk (shortly after 7 minutes and 20 seconds):
Yes we have! First of all we wondered if there might be water on Mars - after all it's quite similar to Earth so why shouldn't it? Also, we think water is essential for life, so it's worth looking for evidence of water on other planets.
Then we sent probes (small un-manned spaceships) to fly past Mars and send us pictures back and we saw some very detailed photos of the surface of Mars, which showed things that looked like dried-up river beds. That was hugely exciting because it hinted that there had once been flowing water on Mars. So we sent more probes out to take better pictures, and got more and more geological evidence of water - valleys and rivers and lakes and all kinds of dried-up marks on the land which looked like they could have been caused by water.
Then when we got the pictures back from a probe called Viking 2, we actually saw Martian ice - you can see it here!
This was incredible because previously all we could conclude from the photos was that Mars once upon a time had something which caused effects like those caused by water, but now having seen actual frost (and taken various samples and tests and so on) we can tell not only that those things are hugely likely to in fact have been caused by water, but also that there's still water there!
That opens up a huge range of possibilities. If there's enough water on Mars, we could have spacestations which used Martian water instead of having to carry or create our own supplies, we can perhaps introduce some seeds to Mars to see if they grow. Maybe one day we could create a luscious environment on Mars with plants and animals. Now I'm veering off into science fiction, but why not watch this scientist talk about Life in Biosphere Two for an amazing perspective on what mankinds future in space might be like.
LOL. While "lazy tool" might be an apt description for some grad students I have known, I try to treat my students and postdocs as adult human beings. Ultimately, that's the only way to run a successful lab, I believe.
Even though we pay students and postdocs in the natural sciences, pay is generally low. We also usually cannot offer particularly good job security. (I might have money for you this year, but can't promise you anything for next year.) So my job is to convince my lab members to work hard and perform well without being able to offer them big financial rewards. The only way to achieve that is to offer them job satisfaction, and that means treating them well. I also try to find out what makes each student tick and let them work on projects that they are excited about.
There is a good talk on motivation that covers many of these ideas: http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pink_on_motivation.html
This is perfectly legal and some herald it as a positive quality of the fashion industry. There's a TED talk about it:
In the first thirty seconds alone, she starts questioning the audience on their cheers. Asking people to cheer for a music style she likes, in a TED talk?
Compare it to this one by Willie Smits. He does a groundbreaking thing to help the orangutans, and scolds the audience for cheering because the symptoms of the problem were still there. He explains how it was the only thing he could do at the time.
Jump to the four minute mark of the Courtney Martin video, and watch 4:00-4:30. She emphasizes phrases to make her sound as awesome as possible in order to get applause. Then at 7-8, she talks about how she was all 'woe is me', and her mother responded basically with 'screw that' as a normal response. She tries to make her mother some sort of Gandhi, without giving real proof.
In short, she's going 'Feminism is huge today and I'm a part of it!' She has a lot of pauses with 'You know.' In the end, she doesn't say one unique thing.
I haven't listened to this for a long time but he makes the claim that chess players will burn up to 6,000 calories in the middle of a tournament...during which obviously they are simply sitting down thinking.
Yes our generation. The optimistic version is that we'll be able to stop and even reverse aging. Or at least extend life indefinitely. Aging is a biological process which is fully controlled by your body at the cellular level. Perhaps we can "tell" cells to keep regenerating in a stable manner.
There's this TED talk
Ray Kurzweil talks about this a lot too.
Little known fact about fashion...you cannot copyright or patent a fashion design. You can trademark a logo (which is why all the clothes now have HUGE logos on them and unique prints), however, someone else is free to dye the exact same piece black and put their name on it with zero alteration and it is legal. Hmmm...going to look for the TED talk on this...bbiab.
...and here ya go. I found this to be VERY interesting talk on copyrights/patents/trademarks/IP. It's worth the 15 minutes to watch (as is any TED talk).
TED talk by Johanna Blakley: Lessons from fashion's free culture
Minus the blogspam: http://www.ted.com/talks/marcin_jakubowski.html
With that out of the way, yes, this talk is particularly awesome. The whole "distributed industrial production" concept - whether the DIY open source aspect or through 3D printing - seems key when considering true 21st century solutions to socioeconomic problems; the essence of TED, I feel.
David Byrne of the Talking Heads has a TED talk about how architecture influences music production and actually uses U2 as an example: http://www.ted.com/talks/david_byrne_how_architecture_helped_music_evolve.html
From the description on TED's site: As his career grew, David Byrne went from playing CBGB to Carnegie Hall. He asks: Does the venue make the music? From outdoor drumming to Wagnerian operas to arena rock, he explores how context has pushed musical innovation.
"...to which millions of americans responded, 'why didn't we think of that?'" - mr_pedantic
"I am okay with this". - Adventure_time
I am absolutely shocked and abhorred by how willing some of these so called liberal thinking people are to strip away another man's right when their view contradicts their own.
What you are demonstrating are very dangerous behaviors. The only difference you have with those religious extremists is that you stand on the other side of the issue. But you are equally intolerant and ignorant as them.
I recommend you this video from Ted: http://www.ted.com/talks/sam_richards_a_radical_experiment_in_empathy.html
I return again and again to Jonathan Haidt's talk on the moral roots of liberals and conservatives. He's got charts with how liberals and conservatives rate similarly with other liberals and conservatives, regardless of culture. It has helped me get a better grip on the differences and gives me better understanding, more patience.
I loved that first one with Ken Robinson too.
Let me ad one more of my favorites which is not at all related:
Sam Harris: Science can answer moral questions
Oh, and of course Barry Schwartz on the paradox of choice
He did another the year after, have a look at his speaker page.
Yes. When we send free stuff, we put the locals who work providing stuff out of business.
Jacqueline Novogratz has been taking the right approach for years: http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/jacqueline_novogratz_a_third_way_to_think_about_aid.html
Bill Gates has already spoken out on his preference for Nuclear alternatives, and it seems he is continuing to do so even after the Fukushima events (and Germany rejecting nuclear power).
I'm of the opinion that Solar and Wind should be pursued, and that Nuclear alternatives could be used as stopgap measures until we reach the technological point that Solar and Wind can be effectively implemented and transmitted.
Microsoft has, but they really need Bill Gates. Despite what people think about the man and certain decisions, he was a visionary in a sense. That is to say, he had a grasp of the future as Ballmer does not. I attribute his decade long reign of stupidity as why good devs are leaving the xbox team en masse.
If you've seen Bill's Ted Talks, it's clear he is a thoughtful person. From what I understand from a few people that used to work at Microsoft, he's also the type of guy in private to say things are just fucking stupid.
Not sure if this is completely relevant but this talk seems to show that we tend to favor the decisions that we make. So i'd imagine it's similar for people who have gotten tattoos.
Khan Academy is an AWESOME tool for any educator, student, or casual learner! Everyone should watch the TED talk video about this by its founder Salman Khan!
If you define "legitimate" complaints as complaints of things that were better before: There are few, if any.
One would be threat of nuclear terrorism, but that might have been higher before.
Pollution was way higher fifty years ago, although we have a CO2 problem now that might eclipse anything earlier as far as long term consequences goes.
Obesity/lack of physical activity is one, if it can really be said to be something to complain about (I doubt you would be able to convince people a hundred years ago of that, at least). But even this is on it's way down (AFAIK) because of knowledge about dieting and fitness spreading.
People tend to forget that only 150 years ago famine was still quite common in Europe and the US if you had a bad season. We've moved steadily and quickly upwards on all thinkable statistics the past 200 years. Why? Well, there are of course several theories, but I like this TED talk on it: http://www.ted.com/talks/matt_ridley_when_ideas_have_sex.html
That said, the only way we got so far was by seeing what was wrong with our current implementation and fixing it. So yay for complaining!
You can't selectively numb feelings and emotion. If you numb sadness and pain, you numb joy and happiness. Trust me. I used to think the same as you.
As a man who practices lots of meditation, I am very much aware of my emotions and very much in control of them. I used to numb my "negative" emotions because I could control them with reason. It wasn't until I let myself feel these emotions, and let myself accept them that I realized we don't always need to rationally and objectively analyze our feelings. It really numbs our whole existence.
Also when someone is feeling something, isn't that all that matters? What I mean to say is that when someone is feeling something, it's OK, even if it's irrational. Save the reflection for afterwards IMO.
To be clear I'm not advocating yelling, exploitation with emotions, anger and outbursts, etc. I'm just saying it's OK for women to get upset because of something that you see as irrational. It's part of being human. Emotion is one thing, behavior is another.
Also I urge everyone to watch this TED talk: http://www.ted.com/talks/brene_brown_on_vulnerability.html
Came here hoping to find him namedropped.
I haven't found an album I haven't loved by him. Absolute genius.
Check out his TED "talk" (more of a performance really).
>11- How did blind chemistry create altruism and morality?
This is VERY much science. Scientist could for example show that altruism and morality have evolutionary advantages. Benevolence towards one's siblings helps your genetic code survive. Benevolence towards your species has the same effect just on a more general scale.
Relevant ted lecture: http://www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s_right.html
Also you seem to be using strawman very liberally.
> 9- Seems like a decent question. Do evolutionists actually expect we should be finding more fossils than we are? Couldn't that make you hesitate if you couldn't answer this?
> 10- Seems like an easy question to answer, but I don't see how it commits a logical fallacy.
Also a great TED talk by Eli Pariser also argues that online 'filter bubbles' trap us and we "don't get exposed to information that could challenge or broaden our worldview."
Really fascinating talk if you have ten minutes.
I was hoping to see this comment.
Also, although The Filter Bubble has been on the frontpage before, it's also worth noting that Google will produce different search results for different people, as will Bing and Yahoo!.
Another great talk by the father of behavioral economics
Daniel Kahneman is a boss.
Tl;DW above a certain income level day-to-day happiness does not increase, but reflective happiness (our satisfaction when we look back on our lives) does.
I did not know about those discoveries, that's fascinating.
I've watched Cosmos, but I haven't been able to read Pale Blue Dot.
There are a lot of interesting things I could share. I just finished "The Genius in All of Us" by David Shenk and I highly, highly recommend it. In a nutshell, your talent at something is a function more dependent on how hard you work than your genes--which should be obvious to anyone with a modern understanding of genetics. The wording and level to which he exhausts the argument makes it a fascinating read. Relevant quote:
>Everything shapes us and everything can be shaped by us. The genius in all of us is our built-in ability to improve ourselves and our world. (p.163, paperback)
Also, thanks to r/philosophyofmath I found this vid. It's a roundtable of some truly brilliant people discussing beauty and beauty in mathematics; just listening and trying to really understand what they're trying to convey was fascinating for me.
Finally, I just watched this TED talk again yesterday. It's really fascinating.
You should PM me your Google+, I think we could have great discussions!
This isn't exactly an explanation for a five year old, but I saw an interesting TED talk in which the speaker touches on the subject.
As I understand it, both of these things actually stem from the same problem: objectification of women. Tony Porter explains it really well at the end of his TED talk.
I don't know if I can explain it as well as he, but if you can't watch the video (I highly recommend that you do if you can), here's the basic logic:
Men are socialized to view women as sexual objects. This happens in a number of ways, through the media and personal interaction. One of the effects of this socialization is that whenever a man or a boy sees a woman or a girl, he will almost immediately assess her attractiveness. That's why pictures of pretty girls, especially pretty girl redditors, get huge upvotes.
This view of women tends towards treating them as objects, or even property. This causes whoever is doing the objectification to forget that as a human being, every woman has inherent value. Devaluing women, treating them as property, and objectification all lead towards violence (or at least hatred) against women.
The way it works is actually pretty simple: If women are considered to be less valuable then men, then it's easier to justify taking out anger on them. If women are treated as property, then it's easier to justify raping them.
(Note: I'm not saying that violence against women or rape are in any way defensible actions, I'm just trying to explain the unconscious thought processes that lead to them being thought of as justifiable by the person committing them.)
6 terrorists were killed by freedom fighters.
Just offering some perspective. Try to look at this from the "insurgents" point of view. Remember that George Washington was a terrorist to the British and a freedom fighter to the US.
Alright, as with any fear, lets evaluate it against the data and see if it is a rational fear.
Lets try some very rough numbers:
During 2009 there were 3,447 cases of police misconduct in the US. You allege you don't care about property crime, so lets take violent crime as a reasonably bad alternative which is about 1/10 as prevalent. There were 1.4 million violent crimes committed in 2008.
If you take a look at those police misconduct statistics they are all really serious, so lets say they under-represent the true value a hundred fold. (remember that both statistics will under-represent the true rate, so that 100 fold factor will be for how much MORE underreported police crime is than others).
So by these very rough numbers you are 4 times more likely to be a victim of a violent crime than of police misconduct at its arbitrarily inflated value. That rises to 40 times more likely to be a victim of any crime, and 40,000 times more likely if you don't artificially inflate the numbers against police misconduct.
There are many reasons why people's feelings about security don't line up with the reality, but shouldn't be the basis of decision (see: iraq war). Your post - while cathartic and likely good karma bait - does not add much to the discussion of the real and serious problems with how to enforce a system of law without abuse by those vested with the power of enforcing them.
TNG series came out when I was around 12 years old. I had little to no religious guidance from my parents while growing up. TNG and other sci-fi shows allowed me to ponder the "big questions" of life that eventually became the core of my ethical belief system.
Now, that all Star Trek series are available on Netflix, I feel there is a renewed interest in going back to the ideals of Star Trek instead of violent, revenge fantasy, torture-is-okay mentality of a program like "24" of which I'm now ashamed of watching in the first place.
In a recent TED presentation by Lauren Zalaznick, she discusses how television is a reflection of our society. So, when I think about the absence of new Star Trek and other quality sci-fi TV series, I realize it’s us as a society that is the problem; not the fault of science fiction/fantasy creators or even network corporate executives.
I has a sad.
You totally reminded me of Ursus Wherli's TED Talk, "Tidying Up Art". EDIT Because it is him! Thanks dajxd
There are a lot of good videos in this thread, but if you want the cream of the crop of videos that will make you think, you'll have to go through the archives of TED.com and the RSA. There are so many insightful presentations that we're pretty much talking mind-porn here. Really gives you hope for the future of humanity.
Bruce explains security is a trade-off better than I ever could.
Here is a short article about social hacks. My google-fu fails me but I read an interesting article about how a company hired a consulting firm to evaluate their security. They responded they'd give the company a report on their level of security in a few days. The next day the consulting firm had someone impersonate the fire marshal and gain access to their servers internally.
Debit or credit comes from my own experience developing software for credit card readers. All readers have an offline mode. If the reader cannot connect to the financial institution, the data and pin are stored inside the reader until it can connect at a later time. Often the data is stored either in plaintext or uses two way encryption with the key stored on the device. It is not difficult to extract thousands of credit card and pin numbers from most readers.
Credit fraud is insured by the FDIC, but if they get your PIN for your bank account, it's up to your bank account and their policies. Usually they blame you for a compromised pin number.
People aren't outraged because they see this as exactly what we've come to expect from politicians. "Just another crook" they say. It's not that everyone is apathetic, it's that the whole system is organized to make us feel like we cannot affect the outcome no matter what we try. See this ted talk on apathy
Once again, dinosaurs fail to understand progress:
John Philip Sousa in 1906:
These talking machines are going to ruin the artistic development of music in this country. When I was a boy...in front of every house in the summer evenings, you would find young people together singing the songs of the day or old songs. Today you hear these infernal machines going night and day. We will not have a vocal cord left. The vocal cord will be eliminated by a process of evolution, as was the tail of man when he came from the ape.
See Larry Lessig on laws that choke creativity
*edit: fixed the link
This isn't the first time he's done this, okay, it is the first time he has done it on stage but! But! But! Last year when he was at TED he demonstrated on video and through time lapse pictures of this exact same process. I think he did it on stage this year to prove that he wasn't a warlock.
It was the "Oops" episode from ~~2008~~ 2010. Link to the episode here.
Next, we're off to Wheeler Peak, Nevada--the home of the Bristlecone Pine. Nature writer Michael Cohen and reporter Pat Walters tell the story of Don Currey, a scientist whose tool malfunction unwittingly led to the death of the world’s oldest tree. Ron Lanner, a retired forest service scientist helps describe the scene, and Robert and Pat debate the value of such an old tree.
Edit: Oh, and here is a comment from the Radiolab page about a TED talk about this (Gordon from Curacao):
>Hey all - the claim in the show was that the now dead tree was the oldest living thing, rather than just the oldest living tree. But have a look at this talk on TED: http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/rachel_sussman_the_world_s_oldest_living_things.html - lichen that's 3,000 years old, brain coral that's 2,000 years old, a clonal colony of Aspen trees in Utah that is 80,000 years old... ahem... clonal spruce in Sweden that's over 9,000 years old, a tree (yew) in the UK is between 2000 and 5000 years old, underground forest in South Africa that's up to 13,000 years old... and the list goes on. Ho hum.
Relevant. How to live before you die
Rest in peace Mr. Jobs. You made this world a better place.
edit: "stay hungry, stay foolish."
> it's that bullying is a part of human nature, and will happen no matter how many methods we put in place to discourage it.
This is a tenuous assertion. Countless forms of violence and abuse were once considered "part of human nature", including war and spousal abuse, but those have declined considerably and Stephen Pinker has an excellent talk documenting the decline of violence in society. Further, even if it were "part of human nature", note that many atrocious acts in society which are actively condemned and stamped out are also part of human nature, yet we don't consider those justifiable or even tolerable simply because they exist naturally. To do so is to make the naturalistic fallacy; "[x] is naturally the case" does not imply "[x] should be the case." Rape and murder and war, for example, have been part of human nature for millennia; the callous commonality with which women were horrendously abused on a widespread basis is unthinkable in today's society, yet two thousand years ago it was certainly the case that these horrifying acts were "part of human nature." Humanity is extraordinarily malleable -- don't forget that.
A really good TED talk on indoor plants called "Grow your own air"
There are three very beneficial types of houseplants . . . but watch the vid. It's worth your time,