Hi Croccydile, mrsid has a suggestion for a better embed for your video below.
>> ^mrsid:

In reply to this comment by oritteropo:
If your username is from the c64's sound chip, you might like this one (my favourite demo and on 9 votes...):
http://videosift.com/video/Commodore-64-Demo-Deus-Ex-Machina
Yeah, I know it of course...
May I suggest this embed? It has much better quality:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pD234-SY_xg

One of us should suggest it to the owner, Mr. Croccydile. I just wanted it sifted because it's my favourite, not because it's mine. (edit: done)

There's some great stuff in your PQ btw
In reply to this comment by mrsid:
In reply to this comment by oritteropo:
If your username is from the c64's sound chip, you might like this one (my favourite demo and on 9 votes...):
http://videosift.com/video/Commodore-64-Demo-Deus-Ex-Machina

Yeah, I know it of course...
May I suggest this embed? It has much better quality:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pD234-SY_xg

In reply to this comment by oritteropo:
If your username is from the c64's sound chip, you might like this one (my favourite demo and on 9 votes...):
http://videosift.com/video/Commodore-64-Demo-Deus-Ex-Machina

Yeah, I know it of course...
May I suggest this embed? It has much better quality:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pD234-SY_xg

If your username is from the c64's sound chip, you might like this one (my favourite demo and on 9 votes...):
http://videosift.com/video/Commodore-64-Demo-Deus-Ex-Machina

>> ^IAmTheBlurr:

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Hope is an a positive position of bias. There is no certainty that unknown things will end up satisfying hopes. Bias is irrational. Being agnostic to uncertainty is the logical/reasonable stance to the unknown or unknowable. So hope, the feeling that what is wanted can be had or that events will turn out for the best, is irrational.

We’re talking about two different things then. You’re talking about the expected outcome of the hopeful events occurrence not matching initial expectation, and I’m talking about the desire for the event to occur regardless of whether or not expectation meets reality.


Almost certainly, then, desire can't be seen as rational. Wanting gravitation to exist some other way, and hoping that it could isn't rational.

Using reason can't always get you to an answer. For example, the famous Buridan's ass example. There is a ass between 2 exact piles of hay. He is hungry, and wishes to eat the hay. Which pile of hay should he choose, more over, which one will he choose? Using only reason, and leaving it to no deus ex machina ( like making a random choice), choose for him. While I do wish to be a man of reason, I have to admit to myself that most times, I am not, and for many questions I will never have an answer.

I think most human choices are emotional rather than rational. We then use post-rationalization to justify our behavior. Why is eating meat any better than eating plants? Well, since we like meat more than veggi, we are quick to find answers to support ourselves. But our justifications leave wanting most times, and would really restrict us to eating nothing composed of biological matter if we fleshed out all of our conclusions to the logical ends. I am just ranting now, sorry. I love morality, rationality, and philosophy so much I hijack things

Yeah, I'm not really surprised it wasn't to your taste, it's quite similar to another one you didn't like (but, at least took the time to comment on, and thank you )

I have posted one or two things which, although I'm not sure you will like, I'm not sure you would hate.

This one is a C64 demo (predecessor of the Amiga):
http://videosift.com/video/BOOZE-DESIGN-2008-EDGE-OF-DISGRACE-C64 (although actually I liked this other one more, posted by Croccydile - http://videosift.com/video/Commodore-64-Demo-Deus-Ex-Machina )

Finally, this one at least sounds different, since it has Reggae style steel drum - http://videosift.com/video/Mattafix-Angel
In reply to this comment by westy:
coming to a generic indi film near you.

I actually think this was a pointless interview. We gained no great insights, we heard no new information, etc... All of what was said has been said for weeks AND has been said better, i.e. reasons to be there and reasons not to be there.

Plus, I don't consider the CIA to be anything more than a tool anymore and hopefully it stays that way; as in the past you could make a case that the CIA was GETTING us involved in wars and shaping internal politics. I'm sure they still do this, but enough whistle-blowers came forward to create an environment were the CIA must tread carefully. Especially, after their complete and utter fuck-up of the century for the last Iraq war.

I appreciate this man's council, but in the end he has as much experience in leading a country as I do (armchair generals). He's very well informed in some international dealings, but his answer of "do nothing" is an old answer and it needs to be done away with to some degree. As it's an answer that does nothing; in fact it shows you the shear amount of apathy that our country feels is O.K. to use (like Cambodia, Ivory Coast, Rwanda, etc.). The problem as I see it is that the U.N. passed a unanimous security council resolution on Libya, a U.N. member. Libya said it would comply and then went on to do exactly what @bcglorf has said.

The solution I see is that NATO shouldn't be the watch dog here. The problem is that the U.N. is a useless body without fangs. It NEEDS fangs. The fact that EVERY security council member is not involved in this situation/resolution to me means that their "security club membership" should be nullified. I'm tired of people abusing the U.N. . It's perhaps our best way to solve many of these problems. But, when the military action is ALWAYS carried by NATO at the end of the day, I begin to believe that members that don't participate in resolutions THEY PASSED need to be kicked out of their position (I'm looking at you China).

Until the U.N. gains some fangs and the ability to enact resolutions that are passed UNANIMOUSLY (5 abstains for the countries too scared to take a stance), we will continue to carry the weight via the U.S. Armed Forces or NATO; otherwise, we let innocent people die. We could do nothing, but if we did do nothing the media needs to put the blame squarely at the feet of U.N. Security members that abstain; make them swim in the blood they've spilled by their political maneuvering called "abstain"... We don't do this, but I think it's time we did. If China wants to be a big boy, they need to learn about responsibilities related to their direct inaction. Likewise, Russia needs to learn that the Cold War is dead; holding their feet to the fire internationally might do that.

Eventually, this comes down to the media getting the story right and being willful enough to put countries to the question: Why?

Don't bring up the "reverse angle" of death and destruction. I know it will happen, but this is the cost of choosing and FIGHTING for any side. Death is everywhere; it doesn't make it right, but it makes it true...

Here is the vote for, Resolution 1973:

U.S.-Y*
Lebanon-Y
France-Y*
U.K.-Y*
Bosnia and Herzegovina-Y
Columbia-Y
Gabon-Y
Nigeria-Y
Portugal-Y
South Africa-Y

Abstained (the eternal worthless permanent security council members: China-they never do ANYTHING, and The Russian Federation-who seem to vote just to be contrary); I'll put a mark next to permanent members that abstained^:

^The Russian Federation-NA*
^China (as usual)-NA*
Brazil-NA
Germany-NA
India-NA

I find it hard to keep Russia and China on the security council (they'd whine like babies if removed) as they almost always abstain AND they don't help; in fact they do nothing. The other members are not permanent and may be cycled out in the upcoming year; making me not very concerned with their attitude.

*Permanent Security Council Members

So take it or leave it; but, I think our worldwide diplomacy from every country still revolves around the Cold War and WWII. It's terribly sad to me that we are still stuck on such ridiculous fears and ghostly machinations...

Has the world become a deus ex machina to politicians? Do they believe complex problems can be solved with the smallest of effort? This is what it seems to be coming to and it's scary to see people like Donal Trump in the runnings for president. Sarah Palin is a walking and breathing Captain Catherine Janeway in the sense that she believes she has answers and solutions that are easy to implement and as ridiculous as every piece of deus ex machina "Voyager" ever used. AND she is not alone...

I see this in our country and in others. Simplistic leanings that help no one except to further their own agenda. It's as though politicians and leaders use Rube Goldberg machines, yet these do have a purpose: they grab your attention, they pacify, they cause you to become their disease--ready to even spill the blood of what they hate. It's true in every country on the planet. So when Russia and China take the easy way out, that is what I think of them. It is also why they should NEVER be given leadership, as they seemingly don't know what it truly is or they abuse it.

/My long two cents with a little drama to get a dialogue started...

Hi Nykwil, There are a couple of other demos on the sift... this one by LarsaruS is from an unexpanded vic-20, which really blew my mind when I saw it first!

http://videosift.com/video/Robotic-Liberation-by-PWP-VIC-20

I posted another c64 one, http://videosift.com/video/BOOZE-DESIGN-2008-EDGE-OF-DISGRACE-C64

It does seem that every year they manage to get a little bit more out of them!

I know it's a bit late to reply to your comment a year and a half on, but better late than never? Anyway I hope you like them

Cheers,
Oritteropo.

In reply to this comment by Nykwil:
Nice find Croccydile, upvote for doing cool things with an awesome old machine.

I assume the title of the movie is "Deus Ex Machina"? Loving the skunk stripe for added hipness feel.

Too true. Star Trek is the most guilty for always evoking Deus Ex Machina.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deus_ex_machina

Gotta love that scene with all the reapers in the shot.

My worry about ME3 is that since ME2 distracted us with the collectors instead of the ACTUAL reaper threat, that they're going to have to pull a Deus ex Machina out of their butt to save us from the reapers in the end.

Yes, I know the collectors were pretty much created by the Reapers and they were making that new hybrid Reaper, but the whole thing, to me, seemed like such a distraction from the real threat.

ME2 was fun, but I agree with XXovercastXX and MarineGunrock, They took some of the best parts of ME1 and ripped them right out. the thermal clip system was dumb as hell. As MG said, the inventory needed fixing, not elimination.

I cant believe someone actually LIKED probe scanning. Yes driving the Mako around a lifeless planet was sometimes tedious, but it was also fun as hell sometimes too.

@Sarzy I think my main problem is that they never quite managed to introduce a coherent plot for us to get caught up in. They made it seem like maybe there was some master theory that would explain all the weird things that had happened in the show, but there was never anything of the sort.

I understand that they always said it was about the characters first and foremost, and I do think that was the main thing that kept me coming back to the show, I just wish they'd done something with the plot other than constantly use it as a license to use deus ex machina to put the characters into unexpected pickles.

Oh well, I have enjoyed the show over the years, I was just expecting more of a payoff in this finale than what they delivered.

Awesome!

Seriously though! What is up with the deus ex machina on LOST? I feel like the entire main story of the series could have been told in like 5 episodes, max! You are really going to introduce PIVOTAL characters at the beginning of your last season? Don't get me wrong, I'm still cautiously hopeful, but I have a feeling most of us are still in it just because we've already invested this much time into it.

>> ^Farhad2000:
Scott Brown has the ability to centralize every issue around himself now, as the representative that 'mericans are sick of Obamanazim.
I think the democrats fold. Unless Obama brings out something that has popular domestic support as a dues ex machina, something the GOP can't sling poo at without risking losing it's own people. I mean they still would because they are GOP, who strike me the kind of people who'd tell any democracy president that they wipe their ass the unamerican way.
Still fold. Demos have no balls to filibuster nor do they have any cohesive strategy that unifies them as much as the GOP.


If the Dems had love like the Cons have greed, we might stand a chance.

Scott Brown has the ability to centralize every issue around himself now, as the representative that 'mericans are sick of Obamanazim.

I think the democrats fold. Unless Obama brings out something that has popular domestic support as a dues ex machina, something the GOP can't sling poo at without risking losing it's own people. I mean they still would because they are GOP, who strike me the kind of people who'd tell any democracy president that they wipe their ass the unamerican way.

Still fold. Demos have no balls to filibuster nor do they have any cohesive strategy that unifies them as much as the GOP.