Youtube: Carl Sagan 4th Dimension Explanation
Carl Sagan Biography
To embed high quality Youtube videos, append “&ap=%2526fmt%3D18″ or “&ap=%2526fmt%3D22″ to the embed url where (fmt 18 = stereo, 480x270 resolution, fmt 22 = stereo, 1280x720 resolution)
To link a Youtube video to the exciting part when action starts at XX mins and YY secs, you need to add #t=XXmYYs to the end of the URL.
To hide the search box which appears when your mouse hovers over the embedded video, add "&showsearch=0" to the embed url.
If you want to skip the first YY secs of a Youtube video, you can just append &start=YY. For example, to skip first 10 secs of a clip, add &start=10 to the url.
To add autoplay function to the embedded Youtube video so that it starts automatically, just append "&autoplay=1" to the embed url.
Due to copyright issues, Youtube detects your location from your IP Address and then determines if you have the rights to access to the video. If you are denied access to certain Youtube videos due the restriction, you can just change the url from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=
If you want to download a video from Youtube but don't want to install softwares to do it, you can just replace the URL of the video from Youtube to KickYoutube to get to kickyoutube.com. It has all the options that you can choose from to download the video.
Head over to MakeUseOf comment section to learn more about the tips!
Unfortunately, it was proving difficult that day as the runners all seemed to prefer... nothing.
'Didn't we send you enough shoes?' they asked head coach Vin Lananna. They had, he was just refusing to use them.
'I can't prove this,' the well-respected coach told them.
'But I believe that when my runners train barefoot they run faster and suffer fewer injuries.'
Nike sponsored the Stanford team as they were the best of the very best. Needless to say, the reps were a little disturbed to hear that Lananna felt the best shoes they had to offer them were not as good as no shoes at all.
When I was told this anecdote it came as no surprise. I'd spent years struggling with a variety of running-related injuries, each time trading up to more expensive shoes, which seemed to make no difference. I'd lost count of the amount of money I'd handed over at shops and sports-injury clinics - eventually ending with advice from my doctor to give it up and 'buy a bike'.
And I wasn't on my own. Every year, anywhere from 65 to 80 per cent of all runners suffer an injury. No matter who you are, no matter how much you run, your odds of getting hurt are the same. It doesn't matter if you're male or female, fast or slow, pudgy or taut as a racehorse, your feet are still in the danger zone.
But why? How come Roger Bannister could charge out of his Oxford lab every day, pound around a hard cinder track in thin leather slippers, not only getting faster but never getting hurt, and set a record before lunch?
Tarahumara runner Arnulfo Quimare runs alongside ultra-runner Scott Jurek in Mexico's Copper Canyons
Then there's the secretive Tarahumara tribe, the best long-distance runners in the world. These are a people who live in basic conditions in Mexico, often in caves without running water, and run with only strips of old tyre or leather thongs strapped to the bottom of their feet. They are virtually barefoot.
Come race day, the Tarahumara don't train. They don't stretch or warm up. They just stroll to the starting line, laughing and bantering, and then go for it, ultra-running for two full days, sometimes covering over 300 miles, non-stop. For the fun of it. One of them recently came first in a prestigious 100-mile race wearing nothing but a toga and sandals. He was 57 years old.
When it comes to preparation, the Tarahumara prefer more of a Mardi Gras approach. In terms of diet, lifestyle and training technique, they're a track coach's nightmare. They drink like New Year's Eve is a weekly event, tossing back enough corn-based beer and homemade tequila brewed from rattlesnake corpses to floor an army.
Unlike their Western counterparts, the Tarahumara don't replenish their bodies with electrolyte-rich sports drinks. They don't rebuild between workouts with protein bars; in fact, they barely eat any protein at all, living on little more than ground corn spiced up by their favourite delicacy, barbecued mouse.
How come they're not crippled?
Modern running shoes on sale
I've watched them climb sheer cliffs with no visible support on nothing more than an hour's sleep and a stomach full of pinto beans. It's as if a clerical error entered the stats in the wrong columns. Shouldn't we, the ones with state-of-the-art running shoes and custom-made orthotics, have the zero casualty rate, and the Tarahumara, who run far more, on far rockier terrain, in shoes that barely qualify as shoes, be constantly hospitalised?
The answer, I discovered, will make for unpalatable reading for the $20 billion trainer-manufacturing industry. It could also change runners' lives forever.
Dr Daniel Lieberman, professor of biological anthropology at Harvard University, has been studying the growing injury crisis in the developed world for some time and has come to a startling conclusion: 'A lot of foot and knee injuries currently plaguing us are caused by people running with shoes that actually make our feet weak, cause us to over-pronate (ankle rotation) and give us knee problems.
'Until 1972, when the modern athletic shoe was invented, people ran in very thin-soled shoes, had strong feet and had a much lower incidence of knee injuries.'
Lieberman also believes that if modern trainers never existed more people would be running. And if more people ran, fewer would be suffering from heart disease, hypertension, blocked arteries, diabetes, and most other deadly ailments of the Western world.
'Humans need aerobic exercise in order to stay healthy,' says Lieberman. 'If there's any magic bullet to make human beings healthy, it's to run.'
The modern running shoe was essentially invented by Nike. The company was founded in the Seventies by Phil Knight, a University of Oregon runner, and Bill Bowerman, the University of Oregon coach.
Before these two men got together, the modern running shoe as we know it didn't exist. Runners from Jesse Owens through to Roger Bannister all ran with backs straight, knees bent, feet scratching back under their hips. They had no choice: their only shock absorption came from the compression of their legs and their thick pad of midfoot fat. Thumping down on their heels was not an option.
Bowerman didn't actually do much running. He only started to jog a little at the age of 50, after spending time in New Zealand with Arthur Lydiard, the father of fitness running and the most influential distance-running coach of all time. Bowerman came home a convert, and in 1966 wrote a best-selling book whose title introduced a new word and obsession to the fitness-aware public: Jogging.
In between writing and coaching, Bowerman came up with the idea of sticking a hunk of rubber under the heel of his pumps. It was, he said, to stop the feet tiring and give them an edge. With the heel raised, he reasoned, gravity would push them forward ahead of the next man. Bowerman called Nike's first shoe the Cortez - after the conquistador who plundered the New World for gold and unleashed a horrific smallpox epidemic.
It is an irony not wasted on his detractors. In essence, he had created a market for a product and then created the product itself.
'It's genius, the kind of stuff they study in business schools,' one commentator said.
Bowerman's partner, Knight, set up a manufacturing deal in Japan and was soon selling shoes faster than they could come off the assembly line.
'With the Cortez's cushioning, we were in a monopoly position probably into the Olympic year, 1972,' Knight said.
The rest is history.
The company's annual turnover is now in excess of $17 billion and it has a major market share in over 160 countries.
Since then, running-shoe companies have had more than 30 years to perfect their designs so, logically, the injury rate must be in freefall by now.
After all, Adidas has come up with a $250 shoe with a microprocessor in the sole that instantly adjusts cushioning for every stride. Asics spent $3 million and eight years (three more years than it took to create the first atomic bomb) to invent the Kinsei, a shoe that boasts 'multi-angled forefoot gel pods', and a 'midfoot thrust enhancer'. Each season brings an expensive new purchase for the average runner.
But at least you know you'll never limp again. Or so the leading companies would have you believe. Despite all their marketing suggestions to the contrary, no manufacturer has ever invented a shoe that is any help at all in injury prevention.
If anything, the injury rates have actually ebbed up since the Seventies - Achilles tendon blowouts have seen a ten per cent increase. (It's not only shoes that can create the problem: research in Hawaii found runners who stretched before exercise were 33 per cent more likely to get hurt.)
OXFORD, 1954: Roger Bannister crosses the finish line, running a mile in 3:59.4, in thin leather slippers
In a paper for the British Journal Of Sports Medicine last year, Dr Craig Richards, a researcher at the University of Newcastle in Australia, revealed there are no evidence-based studies that demonstrate running shoes make you less prone to injury. Not one.
It was an astonishing revelation that had been hidden for over 35 years. Dr Richards was so stunned that a $20 billion industry seemed to be based on nothing but empty promises and wishful thinking that he issued the following challenge: 'Is any running-shoe company prepared to claim that wearing their distance running shoes will decrease your risk of suffering musculoskeletal running injuries? Is any shoe manufacturer prepared to claim that wearing their running shoes will improve your distance running performance? If you are prepared to make these claims, where is your peer-reviewed data to back it up?'
Dr Richards waited and even tried contacting the major shoe companies for their data. In response, he got silence.
So, if running shoes don't make you go faster and don't stop you from getting hurt, then what, exactly, are you paying for? What are the benefits of all those microchips, thrust enhancers, air cushions, torsion devices and roll bars?
The answer is still a mystery. And for Bowerman's old mentor, Arthur Lydiard, it all makes sense.
'We used to run in canvas shoes,' he said.
'We didn't get plantar fasciitis (pain under the heel); we didn't pronate or supinate (land on the edge of the foot); we might have lost a bit of skin from the rough canvas when we were running marathons, but generally we didn't have foot problems.
'Paying several hundred dollars for the latest in hi-tech running shoes is no guarantee you'll avoid any of these injuries and can even guarantee that you will suffer from them in one form or another. Shoes that let your foot function like you're barefoot - they're the shoes for me.'
Soon after those two Nike sales reps reported back from Stanford, the marketing team set to work to see if it could make money from the lessons it had learned. Jeff Pisciotta, the senior researcher at Nike Sports Research Lab, assembled 20 runners on a grassy field and filmed them running barefoot.
When he zoomed in, he was startled by what he found. Instead of each foot clomping down as it would in a shoe, it behaved like an animal with a mind of its own - stretching, grasping, seeking the ground with splayed toes, gliding in for a landing like a lake-bound swan.
'It's beautiful to watch,' Pisciotta later told me. 'That made us start thinking that when you put a shoe on, it starts to take over some of the control.'
Pisciotta immediately deployed his team to gather film of every existing barefoot culture they could find.
'We found pockets of people all over the globe who are still running barefoot, and what you find is that, during propulsion and landing, they have far more range of motion in the foot and engage more of the toe. Their feet flex, spread, splay and grip the surface, meaning you have less pronation and more distribution of pressure.'
Nike's response was to find a way to make money off a naked foot. It took two years of work before Pisciotta was ready to unveil his masterpiece. It was presented in TV ads that showed Kenyan runners padding
along a dirt trail, swimmers curling their toes around a starting block, gymnasts, Brazilian capoeira dancers, rock climbers, wrestlers, karate masters and beach soccer players.
And then comes the grand finale: we cut back to the Kenyans, whose bare feet are now sporting some kind of thin shoe. It's the new Nike Free, a shoe thinner than the old Cortez dreamt up by Bowerman in the Seventies. And its slogan?
The price of this return to nature?
A conservative £65. But, unlike the real thing, experts may still advise you to change them every three months.
Edited extract from 'Born To Run' by Christopher McDougall, £16.99, on sale from April 23
Nike has developed a line of shoes that are aimed at long distance runners who are looking for a high performance, light-weight running apparatus.
The version number (i.e. 5.0, 3.0) designates how close you are to running barefoot. The Nike Free 5.0 is closer to a full shoe than the Nike 3.0. The version scale runs from 10.0 (full shoe) to 0 (no shoe). The lower the version number, the closer you are to running without a shoe at all. This particular shoe is the second incarnation of the ever popular Nike Free 3.0.
I have read several articles recently that support evidence that runners that run without a shoe are less prone to injury long term. The study purports that running with typical running shoes can cause more injury due to the fact that the heel is touching the ground before the ball of the foot, and this can cause a disruption to various leg muscles.
After watching this video I was sold on the actual design of the shoe. I can appreciate the fact that the designers at Nike really got the sole of the shoe right. The sole is divided so that the actual shoe can flex with the foot during running, and the entire upper is made of a super lightweight mesh.
When I first took the shoes out of the box, I was literally amazed at how light they are. I held them up beside my New Balance 992(s) and they feel like half the weight. I then compared them to a pair of flip flops and felt this was a more accurate weight comparison.
The shoes feel advanced; I feel high tech wearing them because I can tell that these shoes are much more evolved. The sole itself fits the bottom of my foot better, and is much more natural. The shoe feels weightless on my foot, and is more like an advanced foot coating than a typical shoe.
If you are looking for a shoe that compliments the barefoot running experience and enhances your natural ability to run further without injury, then I would advise that you pick up the Nike Free 3.0 II. It is incredibly lightweight, very stylish and allows the foot to breathe properly. I can really appreciate the attention to detail in this design and highly recommend it for running, or even just walking in general."
She's not bothered by choices at all. If she needs something, she goes to a store, and chooses from what they have. So, for example, if we need a toaster, she'll go to Target and just buy whichever one has the prettiest box, or whatever and she's happy.
Me? Ha. First thing I would do is read all the reviews on every toaster ever made. Then, I would join a forum for toaster fans, and read about all the cool toasters, and what mods they have made to their toasters, what's the best bread to toast, etc. Then, I would endlessly search the internet for the best deal on whatever toaster it was that I wanted (assuming I've been able to pick one to begin with.) Then, after I buy it and get home, I endlessly ruminate over whether I made the right choice or not.
So, she needs a toaster, it takes her an hour, max. Me, it takes 6 months.
EDIT: Like take buying a car, for example. I've wanted a new car for the last 3 years, but I'm fucking paralyzed by all the data that must be taken into account on purchasing a car. Thank god my old one hasn't died yet. My gf's been through two cars already in the amount of time I've tried to decide on one!"
There was a special on Lysol toilet bowl cleaner. I have no brand preference and go by the cheapest per unit volume, so Lysol's buy-one-get-one-free special was a tantalizing prospect.
W T F
are there fucking five different varieties of Lysol toilet bowl cleaner?
I shit you not ... not yet at least, for I dare not ruin my work ... I must have spent 10 minutes trying to figure out which one to buy.
One clings more. One is super penetrating. One has bleach. One seems for hypochondriacs judging by the fact that it declared its murderous intents on two more pathogens than the other ones. How much time do they spend figuring this out? Will the other varities ultimately rule out my eating off it when I'm done because I killed rotavirus and not E Coli?
Would it be that hard for them to just make one that does all of the above so I don't have to stand there like a dumbass and figure out which one is best and why, incidentally, one of them costs 30 cents more than the others? The equal or lesser value proposition becomes ever more difficult in this case.
I was so angry and dejected.
Ultimately, I picked two of the bleach variety.
I picked outright chemical friendliness over something that might offer more cling action or make me less susceptible to reverse anal transmission of a fantastic variety of bacteria.
I'll never know.
Fuck you Lysol. You thought you were being consumer friendly with your specials and your variety, but my decision haunts me to this day. You almost made me spend 50c more a bottle on the one that was good for the environment.