This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← Did You Know?

Did You Know? - Comments

myDefinition's Avatar Comment 1 by myDefinition

Given the theme of exponential change I wonder how much these figures and fact shave changed since 2008. A popular video for school children I believe.

Tue, 26 Jul 2011 16:05:10 UTC | #854290

myDefinition's Avatar Comment 2 by myDefinition

Interesting comparison of knowledge between an inhabitant of the 18th century and a reader of the NY Times. Imagine the disparity between between those two and a bronze age desert dweller...

Tue, 26 Jul 2011 16:08:56 UTC | #854294

dgr812's Avatar Comment 3 by dgr812

did you know? Myspace was once a thing?

Tue, 26 Jul 2011 16:17:34 UTC | #854300

Osamu Sakura's Avatar Comment 4 by Osamu Sakura

Wonderful and fantastic! It makes us enable to get the total image of the development of inforomation world intuitively.

Tue, 26 Jul 2011 16:19:06 UTC | #854301

-TheCodeCrack-'s Avatar Comment 5 by -TheCodeCrack-

Since that video was uploaded in 2008 (about 3 years ago), I giggled at it speaking about myspace.

Anyway, good video. I actually have seen it before, when it was released.

Tue, 26 Jul 2011 16:24:45 UTC | #854305

drgoode's Avatar Comment 6 by drgoode

Ray Kurzweil predicts that around 2050 we will reach The Singularity where we adopt cellular sized computers on such a wide scale that we essentially become immortal.

Tue, 26 Jul 2011 16:27:58 UTC | #854308

God fearing Atheist's Avatar Comment 7 by God fearing Atheist

I thought it was bollocks. They conflate information with terabytes of crap.

For one, there is no way we will have a computer with the processing power of the human brain by 2014. I could go on, but I can't be arsed.

Tue, 26 Jul 2011 16:39:28 UTC | #854311

drumdaddy's Avatar Comment 8 by drumdaddy

My vote is in, the music sucked.

Tue, 26 Jul 2011 16:53:54 UTC | #854320

Atheist Mike's Avatar Comment 9 by Atheist Mike

Over-enthusiastic video.

Tue, 26 Jul 2011 17:05:06 UTC | #854326

studdert's Avatar Comment 10 by studdert

The singularity.

Tue, 26 Jul 2011 17:19:05 UTC | #854331

weavehole's Avatar Comment 11 by weavehole

How come even though this vid is soooooooo old and out of date (Fatboy Slim stood the test of time about as well as myspace) that my NTT broadband service still cant handle watching a 3 year old youtube video without juddering every 2.6 seconds?

Technology is always on the verge of working.

Apart from that, I like the way that it shows how stupid nationalism and uber-respect for your own culture is.


Tue, 26 Jul 2011 18:16:38 UTC | #854358

Tord M's Avatar Comment 12 by Tord M

A digital copy of the film "Expelled" carries about the same amount of digital information as the entire Encyclopedia Britannica. Or does it?

The important thing is not the amount of information, but the quality of the information. If we measured and weighed every single grain of sand in the whole Sahara desert, there wouldn't be enough hard disks on earth to hold the information, but it wouldn't really tell us anything new worth knowing about the Sahara desert.

I think we should apply the same amount of skepticism to this video as we should to everything else.

Tue, 26 Jul 2011 18:53:42 UTC | #854372

Ramases's Avatar Comment 13 by Ramases

Clich├ęd, simplistic rubbish.

Unqualified statements that are so misleading they are next to useless.

As GodFearingAtheist points out, they conflate data with information, which are not the same thing. They also have no understanding of the concept of knowledge.

Absolutely crappy music.

Truly awful anti-intellectual bullshit.

Tue, 26 Jul 2011 19:32:40 UTC | #854383

YouMan's Avatar Comment 14 by YouMan

"So what does it all mean?"

Answer: 42

Tue, 26 Jul 2011 21:11:28 UTC | #854410

Tony d's Avatar Comment 15 by Tony d

So .

Tue, 26 Jul 2011 23:27:45 UTC | #854465

Adam Olszewski's Avatar Comment 16 by Adam Olszewski

I have actually been quite tired for a while now of all the numerical "mind-blowing" facts which attempt to impress one by comparing two loosely related values - "there are more songs downloaded on the internet per minute than white cells in your blood", "if you put every piece of trash you generate in a year on top of another, you would reach the moon" (well, I'm making those up), bla bla bla. What does it mean that a computer will be built that "exceeds computational capability of human brain"?! How long does it take a human brain to calculate sqrt of 191 as of today? On the other hand, what computer can analyze and comprehend my speech when I mumble? Brains are not computational devices in the primitive sense of the expression. If there are more words in English now than at Shakespeare's time, does that say anything meaningful about Shakespeare? Or about an average human which is unable to make a full sentence or spell "they're"? I am left unimpressed

Wed, 27 Jul 2011 01:28:55 UTC | #854498

SaganTheCat's Avatar Comment 17 by SaganTheCat


Wed, 27 Jul 2011 11:33:55 UTC | #854607

ChoneChacon's Avatar Comment 18 by ChoneChacon

That was quite the mindfuck at 3 in the morning after a great many strong beverages. Think I'll go to sleep and dream about the future.

Thu, 28 Jul 2011 07:53:19 UTC | #854993

Slugsie's Avatar Comment 19 by Slugsie

Firstlt I'm a FBS fan, so I liked the music (and yes, my music tastes haven't progressed much since the turn of the century - virtually all modern stuff is utter dross).

But I must also call out some of the so called 'facts' presented. It took a lot longer than 4 years for the internet to get 50 millions users. It may have taken 4 years for the WWW to get 50 million users, but the WWW =/= Internet. Also the bit about broadband penetration, it may be that Bermuda has better broadband penetration, but you can't compare Bermuda (a small country) with somewhere like the USA (vast country with huge empty spaces and big gaps).

Fri, 29 Jul 2011 12:58:20 UTC | #855546

Thunderballs's Avatar Comment 20 by Thunderballs

This has reminded me of something I asked myself as a teenager.

Why are so many old people apparently relatively unwilling to learn/use new technology and seemingly can't be bothered to show an interest in new developments in the world ?

We all struggle to adapt but each generation is in some sense hard wired to cope/thrive in a reality that exists for an increasingly smaller amount of time (because the pace of change is increasing).

Do humans become "old" younger in the sense that their moment to thrive and feel most connected with the world, most adapted for a particular moment in time is going to become even more fleeting because the pace of change ?

Fri, 05 Aug 2011 00:38:23 UTC | #858037

furry MOO fish's Avatar Comment 21 by furry MOO fish

some of that was intriguing. the vocabulary fact was interesting, if only to show that while we have 5x as many words as shakespeare we seem to be employing less and less of them... and the birth rate thing was a bit disturbing to me.

Fri, 16 Sep 2011 21:09:27 UTC | #871720