Your confusing the meaning of big. Big here is referring to scope. Like the thought experiment, the scope of the police force went from local to national...that is the size difference he was talking about.

How do you address the claim that large central government misrepresent larger portions of the populations do to their non-regional considerations?

US airports are not government facilities.

It is foolish to assume that local governments are more corrupt than distant ones. If the people right under your nose are muxing things up, how about the people 1400 miles away...how much more corrupt can they be without your constant eye? And when they are corrupt, they do it with a larger portion of pie. Granted, that pie might add up to the same pie that would be lost to local corruption of the whole system...but like the video suggests, you are more likely to catch and correct it on the local level.

Also, can you name one super large corporation that isn't also highly regulated, I can't. Microsoft is protected by intellectual property laws, the news giants all started as legal monopoly telco and cable providers, Energy has been quazi-government/private for decades, Rail roads where publicly sponsored then privately owned. Can you name one truly organic natural monopoly that arose from someones good business practices and not its status with government and regulations?


>> ^vaporlock:

I haven't finished watching this yet but hasn't everything been "getting bigger"? Our population, corporations, number of consumer products, number of food items in a supermarket, number of schools, number of airline flights, number of roads, etc, etc. Has government really grown at a rate greater than everything else? Can I really believe that my local town can regulate or even protect itself from big corporations? For example if a BP gas station leaks fuel into the water-table. Mind you my hometown has a problem even cutting the grass on the side of the highway.
I'm all for controlling how the government exploits the rest of the earth, but the airports, national parks, national laboratories, and roadways in the US are some of the best in the world. These were done partially by our "big government". You just have to look at the small governments in the South and local communities across the US to see real corruption.
OK... rant over... start video
After watching. I can say that I agree with the analysis but not the conclusion. Government is not the problem, it's corporate control over government. When you consider the growth of the military alone, his point about the growth of the government is mute. How big was the military in 1907, how big in 2007. The military is a huge percentage of the government, even bigger when you consider government contractors and corporations with contracts, etc. I'm guessing that the growth of the "military industrial complex" alone accounts for much of the 30% difference between 1907 and 2007.
Cut the military, stop f'cking with the rest of the world, guarantee civil rights for everybody, protect the environment, make sure the food and other consumer products are safe, maintain the roadways, support science and education, and I'm all for a big atheist government of the people.

I haven't finished watching this yet but hasn't everything been "getting bigger"? Our population, corporations, number of consumer products, number of food items in a supermarket, number of schools, number of airline flights, number of roads, etc, etc. Has government really grown at a rate greater than everything else? Can I really believe that my local town can regulate or even protect itself from big corporations? For example if a BP gas station leaks fuel into the water-table. Mind you my hometown has a problem even cutting the grass on the side of the highway.

I'm all for controlling how the government exploits the rest of the earth, but the airports, national parks, national laboratories, and roadways in the US are some of the best in the world. These were done partially by our "big government". You just have to look at the small governments in the South and local communities across the US to see real corruption.

OK... rant over... start video

After watching. I can say that I agree with the analysis but not the conclusion. Government is not the problem, it's corporate control over government. When you consider the growth of the military alone, his point about the growth of the government is mute. How big was the military in 1907, how big in 2007. The military is a huge percentage of the government, even bigger when you consider government contractors and corporations with contracts, etc. I'm guessing that the growth of the "military industrial complex" alone accounts for much of the 30% difference between 1907 and 2007.

Cut the military, stop f'cking with the rest of the world, guarantee civil rights for everybody, protect the environment, make sure the food and other consumer products are safe, maintain the roadways, support science and education, and I'm all for a big atheist government of the people.

LOL last 60 secs is rad indeed. "GO WATCH!" "KURONEKO!" "BEST FILM!" "KURONEKO!" "WORLD OF FANTASY!" "KURONEKO!" "INTRIGUE & DRAMA!" "KURONEKO!"

I've seen little in WoW that has surprised me. There are a few things here and there, but it really is a game copied from another game that, that game copied from yet another and then they polished it. And..as The Mythbusters proved you can polish a turd; so taking this old-outdated-prehistoric-you-get-the-point concept of go fetch times 5 per level and go gather times 5 per level plus the times 5 per level go kill stuff -- this is WoW's main feature o'fun and is the core to leveling.

The items are okay, some quests are awesome: there's a Plants vs. Zombies type quest that is well done and VERY refreshing, some of the NEW new newbie areas (goblins and furry humans) have great opening quests and have "phases" which are essentially instances "on the run" -- you don't notice it load and others don't know your in it unless they're grouped -- essentially a personal instance, there are a few "red pill" vs. "blue pill" such as making you realize you need to jump off a cliff to complete it, some of the class specific are great due to their obvious care and attention to detail in teaching you how to play your class effectively (the rogue has some of these that are a joy to play), etcetera -- oh wait, there isn't really much beyond that except instances, raids, and "PvP".

Instances can be great with your buddies and when the group size is a nice manageable size, but the fact they don't have randomized group size and level based dungeons is ridiculous, with this much time having passed. The fact that some of the boss fights start of at super hard and never bother to ramp up is stupid (as wiping should minimized to affect only idiots; trust me it doesn't matter if everyone has l33t gear, everyone should have the chance to have a character they feel is special and a force to be reckoned with). Where the hell are unique, non-soulbinding items; i.e., there are these "named" (I know they've made a few, laughable, *requires a raid* to get the guild leader the super item, which means you've got a better chance to win the lottery if you're an average player ) items that could be made into the thousands available (non-soulbinding so that they can be sold on the auction house -- which would fight gold-farmers and allow ANY player to get: THE GOODS) that drop once per server and have a 100% chance of being found for everyone...?

I could go on, but I think my point is made. There is little thought going into game creation and mechanics. Everyone stole from the MUDS, Ultima Online, and what little originality Everquest had; and no-one ever looked back. I know it will take some hard work to make a NEW TYPE of MMO that isn't guaranteed to be a slight upgrade in graphics, item crafting, or *pick your one "special" thing* the next MMO does...

So many of the current crop of MMO's have their own original and great ideas. If it would be sifted through and made into a "best of all worlds" (which is what WoW did, but they left in aggro which is a HUGE disservice to ALL players) we might get something unique and great; it would only need expansions as the core would not need much change ever (unless the engine becomes the "hindrance" to development).

Right now the aggro system n e e d s t o g o . It's archaic and mystifyingly still used though it was made for games that couldn't handle AI running (Ultima Online, Everquest,etc...) full-blast. But, with the power servers have available plus the bandwidth and the users' computer this should be a very easily solved or solvable issue. Second, comes two things that walk hand in hand: dungeons and loot. I addressed both above and what I propose should solve a lot; but imagine semi-random dungeons created that lead to great cities (very doable just from what I've seen in Warhammer and WoW's "phasing"), think: D&D's Forgotten Realms - Undermountain™, anything approaching something that massive would be equal to creating a dungeon the size of the world map, but every-time you enter you procedurally move forward to a new creation (so if you join a party your "dungeons" join to make a "seed" that is unique to those to characters. I'll stop there as it would into full-on programming techniques that aren't used either because of the complexity, non-skill, or doubt that they can make a "performance" acceptable version. Items have just as much ability to be enhanced (their own level-ups with skills, AI weapons, vehicular type, etc...).

Quests are the last concern. Fetch should only be around if you're character is going there anyway. Collection type quests should ONLY be used if you are keeping some of said items and are useful in some way. Hero quests do need to teach you to be a better "x = your class + type of class + modifiers", using instances or "phasing" (which I like more as I hate load screens). Quests need to have an main-arch that branches, but it needs to available to even the solo player; not the 60 man raid (which is a joke in the first place). Quests need to be rich in diversity: send, fetch, lead, fight, find, steal, games, test, challenge, dungeon, redemption, vengeance/wrath, ability, skill, un-lockable/lockable, class, species/race, race/time, item, creation, destruction, defend, follow, help, should I keep listing....?

I hope the programmers, I don't really care who hits the trump card first (although a low monthly cost team would be nice), figure this out. As it is getting boring even though there is "more" to do, how it's presented in WoW makes me less inclined to get involved, because it requires dedication and at that point, as he pointed out is almost as fun as shooting yourself.

As @MilkmanDan points out there is a lot of content that I don't use and at the lower levels I believe this to be fine as you'll make a mage, a shaman, a warrior, etc... Doing the same quest over and over is terrible. However, much of the high level content you CAN see, but you'll never get the riches (lottery again) and doing THE SAME EXACT DUNDEON 30 times to find that one head piece is ridiculous -- that is their idea of fun "high-end" content. F*%K YOU! This is all due to the notion (and I believe you see this in action at the auction houses, if you can compare the past to present) of inflation; the numbers go higher for the sake of going higher -- if it's higher it's better, right?!?. I'm better due to a number increase and I'll add to that number continually, mainly, because as is said above I'm now level 10 and no longer 5. I want the numbers to be in a "set" range so that you know, whenever you find or get something new, immediately how this new addition (or subtraction) will affect you. (Ultima Online got that partially correct and it made fighting on their a unique experience, STILL, although Warhammer Online uses a set number of action points instead of mana so it has a fun PvP experience, but ultimately fails due to the level problem. Oh and PvP is a joke as level and gear are the deciding issues in battle (which is funny as the winners get the better gear, thus making them win more and you can see where that goes...) and as long as you aren't stupid your talent specs (you really can't screw this up anymore as Blizzard decided that you can only go down one tree at a time rather than all three, until you've got talent point 32).

I'll stop there as I'm getting nauseated talking about this much (which is a lot). But, this is my view point on almost any RPG. Why is it so hard to make a fun system -- it seems obvious how to go after these issues. I think they're (the programmers and publishers) are lost in the woods with 100 foot tall pines and I'm on a outcrop that can see over the forest -- I see them occasionally, but even if I yelled (and I've made some of these points before) they'd still never gather a clue of what I mean. Or as it's usually said at this point:

"I'm afraid you can't see the forest for the trees."...

Damn, that was long, phew (hopefully a programmer reads it -- or I'll just cut & paste ) !

Sounds like a good idea in theory, but when you think about it, it really isn't. God sucks.
>> ^Payback:

If it turns out there is a Supreme Being(tm), I hope he loves people who think for themselves and question their existence and surroundings.
That would be the best of both worlds.

(Death)
God "Oy! Howyadoin' Sam?"
Sam "Oh crap."
God "BAH! Don't sweat it kid, it's how I made you. Loved that speech you gave at CCA2007. Good shit."

If it turns out there is a Supreme Being(tm), I hope he loves people who think for themselves and question their existence and surroundings.

That would be the best of both worlds.


(Death)
God "Oy! Howyadoin' Sam?"
Sam "Oh crap."
God "BAH! Don't sweat it kid, it's how I made you. Loved that speech you gave at CCA2007. Good shit."

@Gallowflak

I would argue that it does require at least a greater intellectual maturity to stay an atheist and live with the conviction that there is no big brother in the sky to help you or alleviate your suffering. For example, Jesus said the suffering will be alleviated only when you die, but most Christians ignore that part and think that prayer acts in this world, hence the strong placebo effect seen in some. Now I am much more impressed by the Buddhists monk who, after years of training, can use this placebo effect almost on demand, but you have to wonder if at that point religion is necessary at all. It seems more like mental discipline. Religious belief may help to persevere in your attaining this mental discipline, but I very well doubt that it is beyond science's grasp.

Also, you seem to have missed a crucial part: the atheist says that his understanding of that experience must change, not that it will (automatically) change. Herein lies the shortcomings of the human mind. But the potential for change, the openness, is there. Of course, if you think that I mean that "openness" also means openness to religious ideas, then you are sadly mistaken. Religious ideas have been rejected by the atheist because they do not adhere to the basic premise of trusting only experience (I could broaden this to accommodate the odd rationalist atheist but they are so rare in my experience that the effort would not be consistent with the Pareto principle to do so).

Now, you may think that compartmentalization can give you the best of both worlds: I use religious ideas in some domains (like morals and ethics) and science in others (basically everything else). But that is wanting to eat your cake and have it too. Religious ideas presuppose some weird metaphysics that will creep in your science sometime or another. Plus, counting on religion to guide your morals blinds you to the actual psychological underpinnings of those judgements. And really, if you change some of your religion's moral teachings because they do not agree with you, can you still say you are of this religion, nay that you are even religious at all? If you do compromise your religion's teachings in a kind of modern pragmatism, then you are misguided about religion: you do not need it. What I think is that many prominent religious figures come to this conclusion, that they do not need religion since they are "beyond" those kinds of petty worldly matters. But since they think they are special and that everyone else is below them, they think the masses still need religion. But really how they come to this conclusion, by falsely believing themselves superior, is ultimately irrelevant, and in fact many lay religious persons reason the same way with regards to their fellow citizens: others need religion, not me, so I need religion to protect me from them, etc. They do not see that a rational discourse about morals/ethics is possible, so they stick to religion as a default answer because they were educated that way.

Now, if we were perfect reasoning machines it would not matter whether we were "religious" or not, "theist" or not: we would never base our reasoning on false or unproven assumptions except as a way to partake in thought experiments, i.e. we would not base our actions on those thought experiments, except to verify the validity of their conclusions. That is the kind of perfect reasoning the atheists want. Of course, a perfect reasoning machine that has religious beliefs would suffer quite rapidly from extreme, possibly debilitating, cognitive dissonance. That is why I think religion must be erased if we want our reasoning to evolve towards something like perfection. You may not like the prospect of becoming a Vulcan now, but will you even be able to mind when you will have become one? No. Of course, those who will become Vulcan-like will be our descendants, not us, so they will care even less.

And this, my friends, is why rally drivers are the best in the world.

I love the fact that the news-comedy blend has seemingly been perfected. The generation prior to mine got their non-print news via one of three channels followed by Johnny Carson for comic relief.

My generation saw an early blend of news and comedy with the fake news on Saturday Night Live - too bad it was only once a week (assuming that it wasn't in reruns...)

The current generation of TV viewers are truly lucky to have The Daily Show, which has managed to be (in the opinion of many, many people) not only top notch quality, but a legitimate news source - the best of both worlds.

Synopsis

For a nation that proudly declared it would leave no child behind, America continues to do so at alarming rates. Despite increased spending and politicians’ promises, our buckling public–education system, once the best in the world, routinely forsakes the education of millions of children. Oscar®—winning filmmaker Davis Guggenheim (AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH) reminds us that education “statistics” have names: Anthony, Francisco, Bianca, Daisy, and Emily, whose stories make up the engrossing foundation of WAITING FOR “SUPERMAN.” As he follows a handful of promising kids through a system that inhibits, rather than encourages, academic growth, Guggenheim undertakes an exhaustive review of public education, surveying “drop—out factories” and “academic sinkholes,” methodically dissecting the system and its seemingly intractable problems. However, embracing the belief that good teachers make good schools, Guggenheim offers hope by exploring innovative approaches taken by education reformers and charter schools that have—in reshaping the culture—refused to leave their students behind.

BBC's wildlife documentary teams are the best in the world, and this is just another incredible BBC moment.

Rottenseed,

People are born with bad health and it is not their fault. It cannot be their fault. They were given no choice. I was referring to making people pay more to keep a person alive who was doomed before they were born, to an early death.

But another argument can be made; what about the environment caused them to have congenital birth defects, or was it a hereditary illness? Was it smoking, ingested chemicals, or something of a hereditary natural cause?

I can't be sure, because it was a long time ago, but I think Richard Dawkins discussed this in one of his books. A hereditary illness is natural selection, predation is natural selection, but a congenital birth defect because mom smoked is not natural selection. The baby that mom had could have lived to reproduce, but we shan't no because of the congenital defect.

Natural selection is the process by which those heritable traits that make it more likely for an organism to survive and successfully reproduce become more common in a population over successive generations. It is a key mechanism of evolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection

What I find interesting is that these Insurance companies were created largely out of good intention, yet they are so horribly wrong. Making decisions based on profit.

Could one argue that the evolution of corporation mirrors the evolution of the Homo Genus? I suppose, could that mean that the only predator man has is another man? I know I'm begging the question, but it is something to ponder.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_defects

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_system_in_Japan

The Health care system in Japan is one of the best in the world. Japan provides healthcare services, including screening examinations for particular diseases at no direct cost to the patient, prenatal care, and infectious disease control, are provided by national and local governments. Payment for personal medical services is offered through a universal health care insurance system that provides relative equality of access, with fees set by a government committee. People without insurance through employers can participate in a national health insurance program administered by local governments. Patients are free to select physicians or facilities of their choice and cannot be denied coverage. Hospitals, by law must be run as non-profit and managed by physicians. For profit corporations are not allowed to own or operate hospitals.

AGREED.

In reply to this comment by therealblankman:
Well, we sure were well fed yesterday... and today too for that matter. God I love left-overs.

As brilliant as the lamb stew was, it was pretty simple to make. I think it's a universal truism that the best recipes the world over all came from peasant food.

In reply to this comment by laura:
duuuuuuuuuude...now I'm gonna have to try that ~ the peeps in your house are well fed, eh?

In reply to this comment by therealblankman:
For the record, I made that recipe for "Bea" (lamb) stew yesterday. Bought a butt-end leg of lamb, butchered it into chunks which gave me about 2 lbs of meat. Served it with garlic whipped potatoes, Irish soda bread, steamed cabbage and lots of pints to wash it down. Fokkin' delish.

Well, we sure were well fed yesterday... and today too for that matter. God I love left-overs.

As brilliant as the lamb stew was, it was pretty simple to make. I think it's a universal truism that the best recipes the world over all came from peasant food.

In reply to this comment by laura:
duuuuuuuuuude...now I'm gonna have to try that ~ the peeps in your house are well fed, eh?

In reply to this comment by therealblankman:
For the record, I made that recipe for "Bea" (lamb) stew yesterday. Bought a butt-end leg of lamb, butchered it into chunks which gave me about 2 lbs of meat. Served it with garlic whipped potatoes, Irish soda bread, steamed cabbage and lots of pints to wash it down. Fokkin' delish.

Regardless of what's happening in the short term, I think in the long term it's something to be worried about. China has given indication that it wishes to diversify from US treasury bond holdings numerous times. That in and of itself will have a compounding effect over time. A crisis isn't necessary either, a genuine crisis would be an appreciation followed by an abrupt depreciation brought about by an investor and foreign sovereign fund run as investors lose faith in the federal government being able to pay off the debt. Merely an incremental interest rate rise and appreciation would hurt competitiveness.

Do agree that '2011' is horribly vague, but then it does offer some much needed flexibility as well, while still sending a signal.
>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^RedSky:
While expansionary fiscal policy is necessary during a crisis such as this one, it is equally important to signal to the market that you're not going to either create inflation through over stimulating the economy and you're not going to be forced into a position of printing money to honor your deficit. By promising to reduce expansionary spending in the future, you're getting the best of both worlds.

This is spot on in terms of economic analysis, except for one bit -- there's no indication we're anywhere near the crises you mention, and market indicators actually show that the markets are wanting us to borrow more (interest rates are actually going down).
Based on the actual language Obama used, he basically said the spending freeze would take place after the crisis had ended and when recovery is well on its way. I think that's perfectly reasonable. However, he did put a timeframe on it, but it was just "in 2011," which could easily mean the freeze "starts" on Dec 31st, 2011. Also, as much as I hate to say it, one thing the last year has shown is that Obama sure as hell doesn't have a problem letting a deadline slip if it's necessary (like with health care), or even merely expedient (like with repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell). If unemployment is still not coming down by the end of 2011, he'll need to go into full FDR mode unless he wants to be succeeded by a Republican in 2012, and watch the Democratic party die off completely.
Long story short, I'm not worried. It's a stupid gimmicky way to try and put out an olive branch to conservatives, and while I'd like to think that people are too smart to fall for it, I suspect it will actually resonate with some conservative-leaning independents as a gesture showing that he knows the debt and deficit is a concern, and that cutting spending most certainly is on the table.