Noen wrote:
I repeat, this is not how we get there. This is not Buddha nature, this is not Christlike, this does not honor any religious, spiritual, humanistic, or philosophical tradition on the face of the earth now or in all of human history.

Do you think any Buddhist would accept a simplistic dualistic statement along the lines of "this is not Buddha nature"? And plenty of great humanistic art has explored the dark, seedy, cynical aspects of human nature without trying to condemn them in a didactic way or teach people to piously rise above them--look at Goya, Jonathan Swift, Mark Twain, even R. Crumb. I think true spirituality is not about using your superego to repress the parts of yourself you consider "bad" or "unspiritual"--one can accept that these darker impulses are a basic part of human nature, even laugh at them, while still trying to avoid acting them out in the real world in a way that harms actual feeling humans (as opposed to crude CG video game characters).

Moon wrote:
Is there anybody here willing to defend the Unabomber?

I doubt anyone will defend him, because the Unabomber was trying to kill people with his bombs, while the Weather Underground were taking precautions to make sure only property would be damaged...that's the moral distinction that most people have been making throughout this whole thread.

Brian Carnell wrote:
Wow, I never thought I'd find so much support for hypothetical abortion bombers among BB commenters.

Ugh. After I clearly explained that any notion that I'd "support" a property-destroying bomber was a strawman, this is your response? What part of "less bad than someone who is intentionally out to kill people" don't you understand? And why did you completely ignore my point that unlike the hypothetical abortion-clinic bomber, it doesn't really seem like the Weather Underground was trying to deprive any individuals of their "rights", which was your big criticism of abortion-clinic bombing in comment #24?

Brian Carnell wrote in #24:
I take the opposite view, that in a free society people who engage in acts of violence in an effort to deprive others of their rights should be permanently ostracized by polite company, *especially* when they are completely unrepentant. Not only does Ayers, for example, not thing he was wrong but as he told the New York Times "I don't regret setting bombs. I feel we didn't do enough."

So your objection to the hypothetical abortion clinic bomber is not primarily that he put lives at risk, but that it was done "in an effort to deprive others of their rights"? If someone was just blowing up buildings because of a pyromaniac urge, taking the same sort of precautions against the possibility that anyone would be inside them, would you be less inclined to make them a permanent outcast than the abortion clinic bomber? If "depriving others of rights" does loom large in your thinking, then as Gadfly said in #35, I don't really see how the bombings of the Weather Underground were an attempt to deprive anyone of their rights.

Brian Carnell:
Really? I think it would be the sort of crime to make one outcast permanently. Even if no one is in the clinic (which you can never be certain of) you are still putting lots of lives at risk. Emergency responders do get killed responding to incidents like this, and the point of the bombing is still to deprive individuals of their rights through terror and violence.

Sure, but there is a continuum of reckless lawbreaking acts that put people at risk--everyone who tries to outrun the police in a police chase is putting people at risk, as is everyone who drives when drunk, yet I wouldn't put these people in the same permanent outcast category as murderers who fully intended for people to die.

Presumably, if some wacko blew up your house you wouldn't think, "gee, I'm glad they were responsible terrorists who waited until no one was home."

This is a strawman, I never said we should consider him to be a "responsible" person, or that we should be "glad" about what he did, I just said it was a lot less bad than terrorism which aims to cause death. And yes, if a wacko blew up my house, but he waited until he knew I was supposed to be out of the house and phoned a warning in beforehand just in case, I'd consider this much less bad than a wacko who tried to blow up my house with me in it.

Scottfree, as I said, other reviews make me pretty sure he openly admits to involvement in bombings. For example, this article on the book from the Washington Post quotes him as saying of the Pentagon bombing that "It turns out that we blew up a bathroom and, quite by accident, water plunged below and knocked out their computers for a time, disrupting the air war and sending me into deepening shades of delight."

Scottfree, are you saying there is any doubt that Ayers was involved in the bombings? The article says bombing charges were dropped due to prosecutorial misconduct, but based on reading some reviews I'm pretty sure he openly admits to having been involved with bombings in his book.

Can you imagine if McCain had kicked off his campaign at the home of a former abortion clinic bomber? Even a repentant abortion clinic bomber? Do you think that would be a valid topic in a presidential debate?

Obama didn't "kick off" his state senate campaign at Ayer's place, it was just one event. But to go along with this analogy, what if the abortion clinic bomber had only set off the bombs at night when the clinics were expected to be empty, sending warnings in advance to try to ensure that no one happened to be in the building? What if this had happened decades ago, and the person had already served their time in prison? Unlike murder, I don't think destruction of property is the sort of crime that should forever make one an outcast from polite society.

Chicago Mayor Richard Daley has also weighed in with his own statement on the Ayers controversy:

There are a lot of reasons that Americans are angry about Washington politics. And one more example is the way Senator Obama’s opponents are playing guilt-by-association, tarring him because he happens to know Bill Ayers.

I also know Bill Ayers. He worked with me in shaping our now nationally-renowned school reform program. He is a nationally-recognized distinguished professor of education at the University of Illinois/Chicago and a valued member of the Chicago community.

I don’t condone what he did 40 years ago but I remember that period well. It was a difficult time, but those days are long over. I believe we have too many challenges in Chicago and our country to keep re-fighting 40 year old battles.

Entertaining, but for music in this style I'd rather just listen to the master: Esquivel!

Ayers omits any discussion of his famous 1970 statement, "Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, kill your parents, that's where it's really at." He also omits any discussion of his wife Bernardine Dohrn's famous reaction to the Manson killings, as conveyed by journalist Peter Collier: "Dig it. First they killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them, then they even shoved a fork into a victim's stomach! Wild!" (In a 1993 Chicago Magazine profile, Dohrn claimed, implausibly, that she'd been trying to convey that "Americans love to read about violence.")

Ayers and Dohrn have said that both these comments were meant as jokes, see here:

Mr. Ayers, who in 1970 was said to have summed up the Weatherman philosophy as: ''Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, kill your parents, that's where it's really at,'' is today distinguished professor of education at the University of Illinois at Chicago. And he says he doesn't actually remember suggesting that rich people be killed or that people kill their parents, but ''it's been quoted so many times I'm beginning to think I did,'' he said. ''It was a joke about the distribution of wealth.''

...

In Chicago recently, Ms. Dohrn said of her remarks: ''It was a joke. We were mocking violence in America. Even in my most inflamed moment I never supported a racist mass murderer.''

What is that painting on Mickey's wall? The Death Star?

There was an artist at RISD (Rhode Island School of Design) who did something similar but using some kind of photoshop tricks to put her adult self seamlessly into the same backgrounds as the childhood shots, with the poses and clothes also recreated very exactly...see her work here (some photos NSFW):

http://intranet.risd.edu/ngallery/albums/81.aspx

Noen:
Jesse M - Really, ya know, you shouldn't depend on others quite so much. Also, Google is your friend.

What do you mean? The page you googled says nothing about whether cats recognize stylized line drawings, which was all that I was asking Antinous about, I wasn't denying that cats have some form of consciousness or that they "have an internal representation of the physical world". I wouldn't be surprised if even humans who are from hunter-gatherer cultures that don't have line drawings might be unable to recognize what stylized drawings were supposed to represent without some training.

Antinous wrote:
Fie on you for not exposing your pets to art. What kind of parent are you?

Are you being serious or kidding? If serious, are you saying your cats will react differently to stylized line drawings (non-animated, of course) depending on what they depict?

Antinous wrote:
I'm guessing that you don't have a cat. Some animals are pretty good at recognizing stylized versions of other animals.

I've had a number of cats, I've never seen any sign that they recognize line drawings--have you? If not, what are you talking about here?

Antinous wrote:
Interesting argument that the elephant is just robotically copying what it sees.

I don't think that's what people were suggesting--rather, they were suggesting that the elephant might have learned to make a certain pattern of strokes without any understanding that they were supposed to represent something it could see in the real world (i.e. an elephant), sort of a like a human learning to write Chinese symbols in calligraphy with no understanding of Chinese. Like I said above, I think it would be possible to test whether the elephant understands the connection between these line drawings and other elephants it sees in the real world.

I would guess it realizes it's painting an elephant, but it's hard to be sure. It would be interesting to try to test this--for example, seeing if the elephant could match photos of elephants in different poses with line drawing in the same poses, or whether it could point to the right part of a line drawing when some part of a real elephant's body in front of it was pointed to by a trainer.

Speaking of smart animals, I definitely recommend checking out the segment from a Scientific American Frontiers program called "Entertaining Parrots" which you can find here (just scroll dow to the segment and click 'play video' to watch)

"KNUC" "KLES"

I wonder if the creator had seen this similar video for a kid's presentation on Vietnam which appeared a while ago on boingboing.

In the same vein, here's an old propaganda cartoon from Vichy France in 1944 showing American cartoon characters like Mickey, Felix the Cat, Popeye, and Donald Duck in Allied airplanes bombing innocent French citizens under the direction of the Jewish-controlled media:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hq2JDa50Y_o

but #32 is an ironic reference to anti-Southern bias

I dunno, when internet types say things like "insert joke about X here" it's not usually meant to suggest that they think the joke is inappropriate or unfair, it's generally just a sort of self-conscious thing to indicate that they realize the joke is a little obvious or corny or something, but they can't resist the temptation to make it anyway.

Out of 46 comments, only two mention Arkansas in a derogatory manner.

Four. #1, #7, #15, #32.

Yeah, so for anyone who hasn't seen Robocop and thus doesn't get these jokes, enjoy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0kWgcIlWn0

Did they announce who the winners are, or do we not know?

@Grumblebee:
But I think you're projecting your personal quirks onto everyone else. You're claiming that contrary to the non-character blunders can only affect one intellectually, so if someone complains about, say, a title cared, he's being pedantic.

Well, I didn't just talk about character blunders vs. technical blunders, I talked about the broader category of errors related to "social things relating to human behavior" as opposed to technical blunders, and I included the title card in the former category. And I also said I had no problem with discussing technical blunders as a fun exercise, I just thought it'd be sort of pedantic to say that, for example, the fact that the ships in Star Wars made noise in a vacuum totally took away from your enjoyment of the movie.

I guess it sort of depends on the context of the movie and how realistic of a tone it's trying to set though, and also on whether the technical gaffes relate to a "fantastic" aspect of the movie or whether they're related to something we have more everyday experience with. For example, I'd be a lot more sympathetic to someone who was complaining about the characters' easy survival of a helicopter crash or being impaled than I would to someone who was making a big deal about the fact that the monster's legs weren't thick enough to support it, especially since the former type of unrealism feels a bit like "cheating" by the writers to help the characters out of a tough spot, while the latter is just an accepted convention of monster movies and the whole premise would pretty much fall apart if you tried to give the monster a realistic physiology. Similarly, SF stories often involve one central premise that may be fairly unrealistic, but then try to realistically work out what the consequences of that premise would be for the rest of the world.

I think there's a big difference between criticizing technical stuff that you know is wrong intellectually, like the fact that the monster's legs aren't nearly thick enough to support his weight, and criticizing social things relating to human behavior that "feel wrong" emotionally, along the lines of "that character would never say that." Criticisms of the first type can be pedantic if they're taken too seriously (although they can also be fun intellectual exercise), but criticisms of the second type I think are more valid because these sorts of human errors can be jarring, and can do more to ruin the viewer's sense of immersion in the world of the movie. And Gibson's criticism seems to be more of the social type than the technical type--I read him as saying that it "feels wrong" to have the document say 'the area formerly known as "Central Park"'. People today may refer to "Ground Zero" instead of "The World Trade Center", but given that everyone knows it used to be The World Trade Center, no one would write something like the area formerly known as "The World Trade Center", although they might write the same thing without quotes (on the other hand, when referring to some archaeological site that you wouldn't necessarily expect your audience to know the history of, you might say something like the area formerly referred to as 'Yautepec'). This felt off to me as well when I saw it, and in isolation of course it is pretty minor, but it sort of set the tone for the movie as a whole since a lot of the dialogue of the characters had a similar sort of artificial sound to me (unlike The Blair Witch, where the dialogue sounded pretty plausible). I enjoyed the movie, but it could have been even better if they had gotten more of these human details right.

Whiterwitch, you're aware that Ahmadinejad is not an all-powerful dictator who can make whatever military decisions he likes, right? Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of Iran, also has some say in these matters as Commander-In-Chief, for example. This article talks a bit about the government structure of Iran, and mentions that "Iran is the only country whose executive does not control the armed forces. In fact, though the president has nominal rule over the Supreme National Security Council and the Ministry of Intelligence and Security, in practice the Supreme Leader dictates all matters of foreign and domestic security."

Those who like this kind of concept may also want to check out the comic JLA: Age of Wonder (here is the cover of the first issue featuring The Flash, Starman, Superman, Green Lantern, and Lex Luthor & Lois Lane; here is the cover of the second issue featuring Plastic Man, Wonder Woman, Batman and The Atom. Info on the storyline here.)

These pictures still don't mess with my brain nearly as much as this photoshopped face from an earlier boingboing post.

sorry Crumb didn't write comics about everyday life, only drew them. Harvey Pekar wrote the monologues, observations. Crumb's comics were/are much more fantasy.

He wrote lots of comics about his life, although I think he got the idea from Pekar. Look up his work in Weirdo from the 80s, or the Dirty Laundry Comics he did with his wife Aline.

Kaleberg wrote (post #20):
The original measure-the-aether experiment was back in the late 19th century, and by 1905 Einstein's special theory of relativity put the last stake in the heart of the ether theory.

A theory can't put a stake in the heart of another theory, only experimental evidence can do that. As I pointed out above, scientists today think it's worth doing the gravity probe B experiment to test general relativity's predictions more precisely, even though everyone is pretty confident that the results will just confirm GR's predictions rather than lead to any new physics; the same was probably true of this experiment.

If the Germans were trying to measure the aether in 1932 it was clearly part of the anti-Jewish science movement.

The article mentions the experiment was performed in Jena, and a little googling shows that an ether drift experiment was performed by the physicist Georg Joos from the University of Jena in the early 1930s--see this page as well as this page which has a picture of Joos' apparatus where you can see it's the same one pictured in the article (the page also shows that many other Michelson-Morley-type experiments were performed throughout the early 20th century). So you're wrong that this was some sort of Nazi experiment to discredit "Jewish science", the wikipedia page mentions that Joos lectured on relativity in the 1920s, that he was a signer of a petition protesting attacks on Jewish physicists (and on certain theories like quantum mechanics) by proponents of so-called "German physics", and that he left academia in 1941 because of Nazi policies.

Noen, Hitler didn't actually become chancellor until Jan. 1933 and I'm sure it took a while before Nazi ideology started affecting scientific research. This experiment wasn't really very "loony" in the context of 1932 physics, especially if the scientists were expecting the most likely result to be a confirmation of relativity, in much the same way that the recent gravity probe B experiment will most likely confirm general relativity's predictions rather than show a flaw in them. Even if you're fairly confident an existing theory is right, it's still worth the effort to subject it to the most exact experimental tests possible.

Zuzu wrote:
Anyone care to explain how "the fabric of spacetime" is not simply the "aether" (or whatever you want to call it)?

The distinguishing feature of the aether is that it is a physical substance with a definite rest frame of its own--any given object will have some definite velocity relative to the aether in its own local neighborhood. But in relativity there is a complete symmetry between observers moving at different velocities--the laws of physics in their own local region will look exactly the same regardless of their velocities relative to one another (so if you have two experimenters in small windowless boxes in motion relative to one another, and each performs identical experiments, they'll get identical results, or at least identical statistics if the laws of physics have a random element). So, if relativity is correct no possible experiment could determine one's velocity relative to the aether...this doesn't exactly prove it doesn't exist, but it at least relegates it to the realm of metaphysical speculations as opposed to testable physics.

I recently found out about the site charitynavigator.org that rates charities by how efficiently they spend their money--some charities spend too much on administrative expenses and fundraising and not enough on their expressed purpose (see this page for a discussion of their rating system).

Anyone know of other good sites for comparing different charities (not necessarily just according to financial criteria)?

Once these things are on the market, I'm hoping to see some youtube videos of cats and dogs interacting with Pleo...is it sufficiently lifelike that they'll treat it like a real animal, or will they just cautiously sniff it and then lose interest?

Here is another recent New Yorker cartoon that seemed very close to a Far Side strip--I can't find the Far Side I'm thinking of online, but it shows two woolly mammoths, one of whom has just discovered he stepped on a caveman. It's in the book "Prehistory of the Far Side", and I think the original comment had the mammoth saying something like "I thought I smelled something", but the syndicate made him change it to something like "I thought I heard something squeaking".

There's a long story on this community from "What Is Enlightenment" magazine here:

Atlantis in the Mountains of Italy

OK, just checking, the line "He raped me. ...With sexual assault" wasn't actually on the original cover right? And the shiny crotch on p. 2 wasn't there, because it's just a closeup of p. 17 which doesn't have the photoshop flare effect. I figure everything after p. 3 is the real deal though.

I always figured "web zen" was inspired by the "moment of zen", er, I mean "mmnt f zn", n th Dly Shw.

Marcos, just a note, you have the wrong myspace address for Daniel Peixoto's "Montage" group...it should be www.myspace.com/montagebr

I confess I don't really understand the taboo about seeing death, at least not if the family is OK with it. I don't watch things like beheadings, but that's mostly because of the pain and mutilation involved--I would be equally squeamish about watching terrorists cut off someone's hand, for example. For people who feel there is something especially wrong with seeing death, can you explain why or is it just a gut feeling of ickiness? If you saw a video of someone being shot, would you be OK with watching it if the accompanying news story said that they survived the shooting, but not OK if it said they died? What if they died from their injuries, but a few minutes later and not onscreen? What about seeing a nonviolent death, like a brain-dead person being taken off life support? What about watching a video of a situation where you know people were dying but you can't see the actual individuals, like the planes hitting the WTC? What about a famous death of historical significance, like the Zapruder film? What about a photo of already-dead bodies, like in a documentary about a war? I accept that people may personally feel more squeamish about some of these then others, but I can't really see how you could make a moral argument that some of these are clearly wrong to look at while others are not.

Ceronomus wrote:
So yes Mark, a snuff film, and you are its purveyor. Congrats!

Ceronomus, a "snuff film" is a film where the person was killed specifically for the purpose of making a film that would entertain people who get off on seeing death. There have been no documented examples of a genuine snuff film in history. See The Straight Dope: Is there such a thing as a snuff film?

Right, false coloring means that you take photos with three different filters and assign them to be red, blue, and green in the image, even though the filters were not actually taking pictures at red, blue and green wavelengths (for example, one might be an infrared filter). So, like I said, I'm guessing they'll probably do the same thing with the James Webb space telescope, so we'll continue to get a lot of beautiful pictures which don't represent what a human would actually see with their eyes, just like the Hubble pictures.

I think the new adaptive optics systems can allow ground-based telescopes to compete with Hubble in image quality, although the wikipedia article on the 'Lucky' imaging system notes that Hubble still has advantages in certain situations: "This technique is applicable to getting very high resolution images of only relatively small astronomical objects, up to 10 arcseconds in diameter, as it is limited by the precision of the atmospheric turbulence correction. It also requires a relatively bright 14th-magnitude star in the field of view on which to guide. Being above the atmosphere, the much more expensive Hubble Space Telescope is not limited by these concerns and so is capable of much wider-field high-resolution imaging."

Also, to Om, it's worth pointing out that Hubble doesn't take pictures solely in the visible spectrum either--those colorful pictures you see are almost always false-color images, usually created by assigning visible colors to images Hubble actually took with either infrared or ultraviolet filters along with actual visible-light filters (see this article). If you could see the objects in the Hubble photos in true-color, they'd be much more drab color-wise. No doubt astronomers will continue to create beautiful false-color images from the photos taken by the James Webb space telescope.

phenylphenol wrote:

For example, in the pdf you supplied, the much-maligned "hockey-stick" shaped graph of global temperatures on the millennium scale is used. Note that it does not, in fact, include a definitive Medieval Warm Period, which is more or less an undisputed phenomenon.

It's not undisputed that the medieval warm period was especially warm on a global scale, no, although Europe may have warmed up a lot. Wikipedia's article on the Medieval Warm Period has a useful graph showing a variety of temperature reconstructions of the past thousand years (the 'hockey stick' graph is only one), and none show the Medieval Warm Period being as warm as today globally.

Also, I really do recommend reading through the list of responses to climate skeptic claims I mentioned earlier--in particular, check out these two sections:

claim: 'The Medieval Warm Period was just as warm as today'
claim: 'The hockey stick is broken'

There are also a lot of sections relevant to the article that waugsqueke posted above, like these two:

claim: 'CO2 doesn't lead, it lags'
claim: 'It's the sun, stupid'

You can see a more extensive series of responses to common "climate skeptic" claims and arguments here:

http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics

There are some problems that only a country can solve. We've had a whole 60 years without a major war and that gap has only existed because of the threat that a country (specifically America but also alliances like NATO) can present. You don't have to have a country if you don't want, but the bad guys, the guys who want to take your land, take your stuff, shoot you in the head and dump you in a mass grave are the kinds of guys who will work on having a country for themselves. You'd best have your own country together when they come knocking. America's internal resolve to fight terrorism and break up large groups of very bad people is waning and I don't think anyone is going to take over this job.

But supporting the existence of governments for cold pragmatic reasons has little to do with "patriotism", which is supposed to involve some sort of emotional feeling of loyalty. Similarly, for pragmatic reasons I may think it's a good thing to have large corporations which achieve economies of scale, but that doesn't mean I have warm fuzzy feelings about them, nor do I have such feelings about other organizations and things which serve useful purposes, like the federal reserve or the internal combustion engine.

Wait, where do you find the ones shown in the post? When I go to the link I only see the USB toaster, salt of the month, and make-your-own-umbrella boxes.

It's worth pointing out that Rowling didn't make a big deal of this "announcement", it just came up during the course of a Q&A. And since the final book was published she's been dropping all sorts of tidbits about the backstories of different characters and their fates after the end of the series, this was just another one of those tidbits...see these earlier Q&As with Rowling, for instance:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19959323/

http://www.mugglenet.com/app/news/full_story/1156

Here's a more positive review of Klein's book in the NYTimes book review, by Nobel-prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/30/books/review/Stiglitz-t.html

Klein is not an academic and cannot be judged as one. There are many places in her book where she oversimplifies. But Friedman and the other shock therapists were also guilty of oversimplification, basing their belief in the perfection of market economies on models that assumed perfect information, perfect competition, perfect risk markets. Indeed, the case against these policies is even stronger than the one Klein makes. They were never based on solid empirical and theoretical foundations, and even as many of these policies were being pushed, academic economists were explaining the limitations of markets — for instance, whenever information is imperfect, which is to say always.

Klein isn’t an economist but a journalist, and she travels the world to find out firsthand what really happened on the ground during the privatization of Iraq, the aftermath of the Asian tsunami, the continuing Polish transition to capitalism and the years after the African National Congress took power in South Africa, when it failed to pursue the redistributionist policies enshrined in the Freedom Charter, its statement of core principles. These chapters are the least exciting parts of the book, but they are also the most convincing.

...

Some readers may see Klein’s findings as evidence of a giant conspiracy, a conclusion she explicitly disavows. It’s not the conspiracies that wreck the world but the series of wrong turns, failed policies, and little and big unfairnesses that add up. Still, those decisions are guided by larger mind-sets. Market fundamentalists never really appreciated the institutions required to make an economy function well, let alone the broader social fabric that civilizations require to prosper and flourish. Klein ends on a hopeful note, describing nongovernmental organizations and activists around the world who are trying to make a difference. After 500 pages of “The Shock Doctrine,” it’s clear they have their work cut out for them.

Speaking of 3D Blade Runner, if anyone has 3D glasses they can check out my attempts to convert pairs of frames from Blade Runner (and a few other movies) into 3D anaglyph images, here.

Is that Charlie Rich or Dr. Zaius?

The fact that it "takes away free will", if true, is pretty fascinating from a scientific point of view--I wonder if there have been any studies of what it's doing in the brain? Could there be similarities to what happens during hypnosis, for example?

Watching the video on YouTube, I'm pretty sure the second-to-last sentence should be "You know, didn’t Columbus already work this question out?"

For those who worried this might be a hoax, there are more details on the film (and an additional clip) at http://paleo-future.blogspot.com/2007/04/1999-ad-1967.html, apparently it was a short film released by the Philco-Ford corporation in 1967. The paleo-future blog also has a link to a site which sells a DVD called "Yesterday's Tomorrows Today" including this short along with Man-Made Man, Miracle of the Mind and Future Shock (with Orson Wells!):

http://avgeeks-store.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=133&language=en