When the bullet was not firmly on top of the powder
The rifle explodes.
The shooter is lucky he didn’t lose his fingers.
Rest in peace, you old rifle!
Ouch.
[Source]
When the bullet was not firmly on top of the powder
The rifle explodes.
The shooter is lucky he didn’t lose his fingers.
Rest in peace, you old rifle!
Ouch.
[Source]
Russian horsemen are known for their seeming SUPER ability to train horses, and in the most fantastic of ways!
The few, precious few, are chosen to preform amazing horse tricks for…
The Queen’s Jubilee.
[Source]
Russian horsemen practice tricks in preparation for the Queen’s Jubilee.
The Diamond Jubilee of Queen Elizabeth II is the international celebration throughout 2012 marking the 60th anniversary of the accession of Queen Elizabeth II to the thrones of seven countries upon the death of her father, King George VI, on 6 February 1952. She is today queen regnant of 16 sovereign states, 12 of which were British colonies or Dominions at the start of her reign.
Bare face
Secure in herself
Dame Helen Mirren
Walks proudly
Being her fabulous self
Every wrinkle and every blemish
Make her more appealing
Being smart is sexy
Being natural
Is Beautiful!!!
[Source]
Apparently some science geek was having a bad day at work when they came up with two very specific studies which insidiously undermine any sort of personal accomplishment.
Not sure exactly what else to take from these two articles below…
Other than?
Being super creative…
[via Scientific American] [...]In a recent paper published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
researchers at Harvard and Duke Universities demonstrate that creativity can lead people to behave unethically. In five studies, the authors show that creative individuals are more likely to be dishonest, and that individuals induced to think creatively were more likely to be dishonest. Importantly, they showed that this effect is not explained by any tendency for creative people to be more intelligent, but rather that creativity leads people to more easily come up with justifications for their unscrupulous actions.
In one study, the authors administered a survey to employees at an advertising agency. The survey asked the employees how likely they were to engage in various kinds of unethical behaviors, such as taking office supplies home or inflating business expense reports. The employees were also asked to report how much creativity was required for their job. Further, the authors asked the executives of the company to provide creativity ratings for each department within the company.
Those who said that their jobs required more creativity also tended to self-report a greater likelihood of unethical behavior. And if the executives said that a particular department required more creativity, the individuals in that department tended to report greater likelihoods of unethical behavior.
The authors hypothesized that it is creativity which causes unethical behavior by allowing people the means to justify their misdeeds, but it is hard to say for certain whether this is correct given the correlational nature of the study. It could just as easily be true, after all, that unethical behavior leads people to be more creative, or that there is something else which causes both creativity and dishonesty, such as intelligence. [Read More]
And successful to the point your lifestyle reflects all your hard work?
Are apparently bad…
Bad ways to be.
Because chances are if who you are reflects ANY SORT of personal accomplishments?
You you just suck as a human being.
[via World-Science.net] Upper-class folk have a higher propensity for unethical behavior, new research has found, and it’s largely because they believe—as did the movie character Gordon Gekko—that “greed is good.”
One part of the research suggested that if stimulated with thoughts about the advantages of greed, lower-class people can become just as unprincipled as the wealthy.In seven studies, researchers from the University of California at Berkeley found that upper-class participants were more likely to lie and cheat when gambling or negotiating; cut people off when driving; and endorse unethical workplace behavior. The studies were conducted on the university campus, in the San Francisco Bay Area and nationwide.“The increased unethical tendencies of upper-class individuals are driven, in part, by their more favorable attitudes toward greed,” said Paul Piff, a doctoral student in psychology at the university and lead author of a report on the findings published Monday in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. “Our research – and that by others – helps shed light on the role of inequality in shaping patterns of ethical conduct and selfish behavior, and points to certain ways in which these patterns might also be changed.” [Read More]
At least according to science.
Lesson Learned: So its better to be an unimganitive, less intelligent failure?
Wait…
That can’t be right.
Jeez, talk about a logic fallacy!
Errors in reasoning happen to all of us…
Though unintentional, at one time or another?
We can all fall victim to the use of a logic fallacy, in an attempt to win an unwinable argument.
[via Wikipedia] In logic and rhetoric, a fallacy is usually an improper argumentation in reasoning often
resulting in a misconception or presumption. Literally, a fallacy is “an error in reasoning that renders an argument logically invalid”. By accident or design, fallacies may exploit emotional triggers in the listener or participant (appeal to emotion), or take advantage of social relationships between people (e.g.argument from authority). Fallacious arguments are often structured using rhetorical patterns that obscure any logical argument.
Though an argument is not “logically valid”, it is not necessarily the case that the conclusion is incorrect. It simply means that the conclusion cannot be arrived at using that argument.
Though often used unintentionally, fallacies can be used purposefully to win arguments regardless of the merits. [Read More]
Thanks to this amazing infographic (below)?
Check through these common logic fallacy devices and see…
Which YOU have dared to use.
Though it should be fair to note…
That there does exist?
Exceptions to every fallacy.
Like say, the confusion of cause and effect & which happened first.
[via PopSci] In New Quantum Experiment, Effect Happens Before Cause
A real-world demonstration of a thought experiment conducted at the University of Vienna, has
produced a result that is somewhat befuddling to people with what the lead researcher calls a “naïve classical world view.”
Two pairs of particles are either quantum-entangled or not.
One person makes the decision as to whether to entangle them or not, and another pair of people measure the particles to see whether they’re entangled or not.
The head-scratcher is: the measurement is made before the decision is made, and it is accurate.
“Classical correlations can be decided after they are measured,” says Xiao-song Ma, the writer of the study.
Entanglement can be created “after the entangled particles have been measured and may no longer exist.”
The finding can be integrated into potential quantum computers, one hopes.
Causality, clearly, is a quaint, irrelevant concept. [Read More]
Cause thanks to quantum physics…
It has been proven?
Effect sometimes DOES happen first, before the cause.
What–Why is this even an actual morality question?!
Of course robots are to blame in causing harm…
They are ALWAYS to blame.
In fact, generally speaking, if you are EVER given a multiple choice question (and the question need NOT be specific) in regards to WHOM/what will be more to blame, when it comes to ultimately harming humanity to the point of extinction, the answer will ALWAYS be…
Well, unless spiders is an option, then yeah, I would probably go with that option, but otherwise?
The answer will always be robots.
[via ScienceBlog] WHO’S TO BLAME WHEN ROBOT WARRIORS RUN AMOK?
As militaries develop autonomous robotic warriors to replace humans on the battlefield, new ethical questions emerge. If a robot in combat has a hardware malfunction or programming glitch that causes it to kill civilians, do we blame the robot, or the humans who created and deployed it?
Some argue that robots do not have free will and therefore cannot be held morally accountable for their actions. But UW psychologists are finding that people don’t have such a clear-cut view of humanoid robots.
The researchers’ latest results show that humans apply a moderate amount of morality and other human characteristics to robots that are equipped with social capabilities and are capable of harming humans. In this case, the harm was financial, not life-threatening. But it still demonstrated how humans react to robot errors.
The findings imply that as robots become more sophisticated and humanlike, the public may hold them morally accountable for causing harm. [Read More]
And just in case you might be fool enough to actually believe the above assertion is nothing more than a logic fallacy on my part?
Please…
Allow me to give you some oh-my-gawd-it-did-not-just-do-that perspective.
[via The Blaze] We’ve seen a lot of quadrotors — those drone-style helicopters — flying in pretty elaborate
formations, which could almost be considered creepy, as of late. But put those quadrotor dances in context with this next one and they don’t hold a candle in terms of fear factor.
The creator of the FPS Russia YouTube channel has a new video that, within a day, has gone viral with more than 1 million hits showcasing a quadrotor drone equipped with a sub-machine gun. Without a formal name prescribed for it, he goes with “Charlene.”
The host of the show is clear to state this weaponized quadrotor is just a prototype that he considers a “weapon of the future.” Even as a prototype, he shows us that Charlene is still fully functional. See for yourself (content warning: strong language): [Read More]
*aaaaaaaarrrrrrggghhhhhhhhhhhhhh*
Remember that name.
Fear it.
Cause, probably, one day soon?
You will be screaming it, begging it for mercy…
Which it will NOT give.
Will Charlene be to blame, if she suddenly runs amok?
Watch the video again…
The give me your honest answer.
Coolness?
Is inherent.
Some people have it…
Some people don’t.
And generally those who DON’T have it?
Dislike those who do.
Haters.
[via Mediaite] “Welcome back to high school where the cool kids rule!” exclaimed Greg Gutfeld on
today’s The Five. It was his way of introducing the segment on President Obama’s appearance with Jimmy Fallon late night. Following in the outraged footsteps of Fox & Friends and the RNC, Gutfeld and his co-hosts railed against Obama for appearing on the show and for trying to be cool, which Gutfeld pointed out was just an “evolutionary trick to hide incompetence.” This led into a lengthy discussion about why being cool isn’t cool.
In other news, The Five totally didn’t want to go to President Obama’s post-prom party anyway. Everyone there is a jerk!
Under a large graphic labeling Obama the “Pop Culture Pres,” the hosts (minus Juan Williams, borrowing the “liberal seat” from Bob Beckel) agreed with Gutfeld’s monologue decrying the Fallon appearance, Obama’s coolness, and the media’s attempt to make anything conservative, rich, or Middle America synonymous with “uncool.” The only part that they didn’t all agree on was his assertion that Ronald Reagan wasn’t cool (a controversial remark that threatened to derail the conversation).
Eric Bolling and Kimberly Guilfoyle pointed out that the high school generation are supposed to define what’s cool so really Obama should be the opposite of cool since he’s making it harder for them to find jobs. [Read More]
The Five?
Obviously have a difficult time with the definition of “cool”. (*Insert your own logical reason for that HERE!*)
Maybe they should check with THIS (below) little guy.
[via io9] And now, a frog sitting like a human being
Said the cameraman of this curiously placid bullfrog, “The video was shot entirely fortuitously. The frog is OK. There is no nails, no glue, animal abuse, etc. Later, she jumped off the bench and galloped away to the water.” Cue “The Michigan Rag,” and so forth. Hat tip to Hatman for suggesting this moment of amphibian zen. [Read More]
He, after all?
Knows about, sitting-on-a-bench-not-wearing-pants kinda cool.
And honestly, how many people do you know that can pull of THAT sorta cool?
The bench-sitting-frog doesn’t need to define cool.
And much like Obama, the slow-news-jamming-pop-culture President?
He just IS cool.
[Source]