Not a bad 'best of'. Fuller compilation with all these:
*related=https://videosift.com/video/Sound-Effecting-My-Mom

I didn't "get" the THX intro until I heard it in my own home cinema setup, with a really nice Dynaudio speakers, calibrated for good sound. Then I experienced a chord that grew deeper, fuller, and more powerful, swelling and swelling to an awesome climax.

When I heard it in theatres, it was always way too loud, with an ear-piercing treble that was just annoying and made you cover your ears. It was always annoying - never awesome.
In by own setup I could finally hear the majesty of it, without that piercing treble making me wince, and could instead feel being swept away by the deep notes.

@ChaosEngine.

Yeah. I know. Your last sentence says it all -- he didn't achieve near as much as was hoped for. Hence your disappointment.

From my perspective, I never believed he could do all that was hoped. Because this isn't a dictatorship (thank god, maybe we can survive Trump.) It was clear to me from the beginning that is wasn't possible.

So I wasn't disappointed. I was glad for all that he did manage to get through.

And that is what makes him consequential.

I have my list of things I am pissed at him about for doing -- including the murdering of brown people, including bin Laden. (And I'm pissed at most of the people in this country for cheering state sponsored targeted assassination and ignoring the huge collateral damage of that day and the days that followed.)

History isn't going to judge him on what he promised and couldn't get done. History will judge him on what he actually did. Half-assed heathcare is half an ass more than was managed in over a hundred years. LGBT people aren't disappointed.

And being the first black president -- he'll be in the history books for being that particular breed of person -- the minority who is 10 times better than the ruling majority, who swallows the indignities of prejudice with grace and determination, who rises above the humiliations to become The First. Think Jackie Robinson -- that is what we remember about him, that is the story that has survived. (The recent PBS doc taught me a fuller picture of who he actually was after he survived those brutal first two years in the majors.) That is the story we crave.

He's consequential, all right. Not perfect. Consequential.

Obviously I've been hungering for fuller access to the new navigation bar, with all its sexy live content, and that's great.

Haven't we lost a lot of information again? Who wants to have to click on every video's thumbnail to see its length, channels, views, tags and so on. Presumably the loss of the ability to display a video's comments without the need to visit its page isn't a permanent excision.

And have you started piling up a lot of buttockry on the bottom of the page again? 'Top Sifters of the Week', not interested, 'Top New Comments', sure, in the sidebar.

My ardency for the beta video page is undiminished, but there's little so far that I see to recommend the new front page, save its access to the excellent top bar.

@newtboy

I don't think I'm much in danger of contradiction in suggesting that you yourself have yet to crack a book of feminist theory or engage with a feminist activist making no more extravagant sex/gender claims that the one you quote from that unimpeachable source, dictionary.com (and when did dictionaries move from being an aid to understanding obscure words to the ultimate arbiters of political thought?).

There is no separating the movement from the ideology; this is an ancient truism. Without the movement, the idea dies. Without the idea, the movement doesn't exist. My unfollowable second paragraph comprises only examples of actual, nasty feminist doctrine which I have encountered in the real world, and could probably even document with a few google searches. I can hardly be blamed that this group is so dissolute, so indiscriminately inclusive of maniacs and criminal fanatics that no single representative feminist can be found, no central text can answer for the whole.

But for the sake of increasingly and inexplicably divisive argument, let's attempt to isolate just that 'small-f' feminism in the definition you give: "feminism: noun: the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men", which I will unconditionally repudiate and abjure, for the following reasons.

i) Let's be boring and start with the name. A name that has rightly attracted much criticism, and which Virginia Woolf - not a feminist, merely a devastatingly intelligent and talented woman - called "a vicious and corrupt word that has done much harm in its day and is now obsolete".* Anyone can see the defect here, an implicitly sexist term that apparently calls for the advancement of one sex at the expense of - whom? Well, whom do you think? A special politics for women only and exclusionary of those other incidental members of the human species, once allies and comrades and now relegated to the other side of what has become a literally unending antagonism.

You may say, "it's only a name", but how little else your dictionary leaves me to examine. No, were there no other social or intellectual harm in feminism, I would reject it on the ground of its name alone.

ii, sailor) Would that there were a known equivalent for the term 'racialism' that could relate to the cultural fiction of gender. The demand for women's rights necessarily requires that such a category 'women' exists, and is in need of special protection. Well what virtue is there in any woman that exists in no man? What mannish fault that finds no womanly echo? Then how is this distinction maintained except through supernatural thinking?

There are no women; and if there are no women, then there is nothing for feminism to accomplish. You may sign me up at any time for the doctrine of 'anti-sexism' or of 'individualism', but I will spit on anyone who advocates for 'women's rights'.

iii) This has been touched on before, and praise satan for that time saving mercy, but I reject the implicit assumption that there is a natural societal opposition to the principle of sex equality and that those who fail to declare for this, again, historically very recent dogma fall by default into that opposing force.



*The quote is worth taking in its fuller context, written in a time when the word 'feminist' was a slur on those heroes whose suffering and idealism has been so ghoulishly plundered for the tawdry use of @bareboards2 and her cohort:

"What more fitting than to destroy an old word, a vicious and corrupt word that has done much harm in its day and is now obsolete? The word ‘feminist’ is the word indicated. That word, according to the dictionary, means ‘one who champions the rights of women’. Since the only right, the right to earn a living, has been won, the word no longer has a meaning. And a word without a meaning is a dead word, a corrupt word. Let us therefore celebrate this occasion by cremating the corpse. Let us write that word in large black letters on a sheet of foolscap; then solemnly apply a match to the paper. Look, how it burns! What a light dances over the world! Now let us bray the ashes in a mortar with a goose-feather pen, and declare in unison singing together that anyone who uses that word in future is a ring-the-bell-and-run-away-man, a mischief maker, a groper among old bones, the proof of whose defilement is written in a smudge of dirty water upon his face. The smoke has died down; the word is destroyed. Observe, Sir, what has happened as the result of our celebration. The word ‘feminist’ is destroyed; the air is cleared; and in that clearer air what do we see? Men and women working together for the same cause. The cloud has lifted from the past too. What were they working for in the nineteenth century — those queer dead women in their poke bonnets and shawls? The very same cause for which we are working now. ‘Our claim was no claim of women’s rights only;’— it is Josephine Butler who speaks —‘it was larger and deeper; it was a claim for the rights of all — all men and women — to the respect in their persons of the great principles of Justice and Equality and Liberty.’"

if you come from the perspective that arguments are a zero sum dynamic,"winning" being the desired outcome,then i can see where this video makes some salient points.

then yes...internet arguing then becomes an exercise in futility.

if you make assumptions about peoples intentions based on arbitrary and cosmetic indicators such as avatars and a few comments,then of course the argument will be biased on those parameters.

but if you view an argument as a vehicle to understand the person you are engaging with,then the dynamic changes to a much more beneficial interaction between both parties.

it takes patience and a desire to understand,along with a healthy dose of respect.

i argue with newt all the time.
sometimes we find out we actually agree but were using different analogies or language to express our position.other times we disagreed but respected each other enough to hear the other person out to better understand WHY they felt/thought the way they did,and yet still disagreed in the end,but now had a much fuller picture to better compliment that disagreement.

"winning" should not be the first thing on the agenda.understanding should always be the first order of business,and having someone lay out the logical connections based on their understanding and interpretations is truly the best way to accomplish that goal.

and if y'all could be nice to each other?
yeah..that would be great.

@blackfox42 - Fixed that link to opt back in, so it should work for you now.

@Baristan - That sounds good in theory (and I thought so in the distant past), but in practice it makes the site effectively unusable.

@eric3579 - I know there are lots of things you (and others) were bound to have issues with. As I explained in my dissertation, that's part of the point of doing this, to hear from you all what's wrong or what's missing or what should change. For example, being unable to click a menu tab to actually go somewhere can be fixed by adding a link in the sub-menu (or something).

To you and @newtboy, a big point about all the new header content is that you can now see all that information and even more all in that one area without searching all over the page for it.

Good feedback about the font. I've changed it and I think it's much better.

The video voters and who's viewing are currently excluded, but (yet again), that's part of the point of this beta test. If everyone feels they need to be added back in, then we (meaning dag and myself or us all as a community) can consider how we should include those things. (If/when they're added back in, it'll only be for logged-in members.)

@newtboy - Not everything everyone is noticing is intended to be that way. The indication that you voted on a comment wasn't supposed to be missing. And it's fixed now.

The opt out link is in the footer of the new video page, however to you and everyone else, I'd request and encourage that you stick with the beta test for a couple of days if you can bear it to at the very least try to help us with more, fuller feedback once you've become a little more accustomed to the changes.

Thanks for the feedback so far everyone. Keep it coming.

While reading a rather depressing series of articles about the state of affairs in pretty much the entirety of Europe regarding un(der)employment, I felt an urge to look up an old quote by Bucky Fuller I had read some 15 years ago:

We must do away with the absolutely specious notion that everybody has to earn a living. It is a fact today that one in ten thousand of us can make a technological breakthrough capable of supporting all the rest. The youth of today are absolutely right in recognizing this nonsense of earning a living.

We keep inventing jobs because of this false idea that everybody has to be employed at some kind of drudgery because, according to Malthusian-Darwinian theory, he must justify his right to exist. So we have inspectors of inspectors and people making instruments for inspectors to inspect inspectors.

The true business of people should be to go back to school and think about whatever it was they were thinking about before somebody came along and told them they had to earn a living.

As the video shows, the basic gender defining trait for this marketing is pink for girls and blue for boys, even though 60 years ago it was the opposite. I agree that most of us grew up in this era and so those defining marketable traits are believed simply because we grew up with that definition.

Another example is the idea of not being clean unless you us soap, shampoo, shaving cream, deodorant, etc. Many people (myself included) have stopped using such items and found that, after an adjustment period, there's really no difference. My hair is healthier and fuller since stopping using shampoo and my skin isn't as dry without soap. I shower with just water and the only time I stink is after a work out. Most people believe you'd become Pig Pen if you didn't use these items but that is simply because they grew up in an era where they've used them as long as they can remember and cannot imagine ever not using them.

There's certainly a cultural element, but I feel that if there simply wasn't this marketing divide just a few short generations ago, that culture alone plays a small role.

The question isn't whether He could use evolution; He could definitely use evolution or any other means He wanted to create the world and everything in it. The question is did He evolution? I don't think He did, you are free to disagree with that.

I would object though to the idea that God in the Old and New Testament are any different. The New Testament is the fuller revelation of who God is, because Jesus revealed the Father to us through His life and testimony. The overriding purpose of God is still the same, though, and that is seamlessly presented through the whole scripture. How do you think they differ?

Wind turbines to provide the comparable megawatts for millions of homes ARE a frivolous waste. The huge amounts needed for wasteful, programmed, energy-addicted peeps IS a huge logistical clusterfuck of resources there, notarobot.

Your example of one family with a turbine and a solar array is fine and all (the upfront cost for such a setup is a shitload of funds and the upkeep of his dual set-up is probably a complete bitch of a money-pit to maintain) but were talking efficiency for the masses here.. Your 'research' should be based upon something besides what seems more of an emotionally passionate ideal moreso than anything practical for the many.

Personally, I think this virgin-trail-run Bloom box bullshit is simply another snake-oil scam. Much more work need be done to ever make them practical. What really should done in the realm of a practical kind of "reality" (otherwise known as a construct...reality that is) is to revive anti-trust/monopoly laws to hobble the robber-baron's once again...

Go listen some Bucky Fuller perhaps and try to awaken from the pipe-dream of monkey-business-as-usual instead of towing some lazy cop-out nouveau-hippy green-party line??

People that give a fuck about the true direction of the planet who like to blabber-on ad-naseum about which news corp is their favorite and which one is full of morons, and if you like them well then you must be a moron, or (insert meaningless label here) are the most gullible, the most extremely out-of-touch with what's truly going on. They have let their minds become a sponge for distraction and illusion by the very machine that rapes the planet of human and natural resources for personal gain and consolidation of power.

The mind is a terrible thing to waste on feeding the very machine that enslaves us all.

As a simple example of just how secondary oil would be as a universal commodity you need only to look at who controls the access. If we'd gone the direction of the Bucky Fullers and Teslas that pop-into the grid in every epoch, and shared collectively in a similar mind and vision, people who pick winners and losers would be non-existent or self-aware, and the real criminals on the planet posing as so-called leaders would be raving in asylums or extinct by now.

Why won't the planet use nuclear energy correctly and righteously for example...SAFE power from the atomic components that make up the experiential world?? Because assholes and criminals run the show. Period.

Same with oil. Same with slavery through economic monopoly, same with the mind-control apparatus that force-feeds the gullible their world views based on their insidious, contrived models.

There are way better drugs out there than politics kids......Use your fucking brains?!

"Over time, we're going to see what works and what doesn't and things will generally settle down"
Illusion and fantasy...total confabulation.

A government is a simple creation really, it uses force to achieve the end goal which is control, not unlike a rapist or a thief-The antithesis of liberty in the example of say, the American government works because force is used by an immoral core of liars and thieves to achieve goals that benefit the few rather than the whole of society. Examples of just how fucked things are at face value VooDooV, why bother to cite the examples that are glaringly obvious to anyone who at their core, is a moral and free individual...pointless and insulting to anyone who can think.

Mind you, infrastructure and social safety nets enhance freedom, but what should the end-goal be? To enhance the moral framework of a society, which has surely not been done so far with the American form of government, on the contrary, we see the fabric of what makes a society prosper and maintain a fairness for all being eroded to serve the interests of a few, through force and control...through civil liberties being chipped-away at through surveillance and more prisons, more laws, more fines and punishments for more people, etc. Deficit spending pays debt forward to further enslave the recipients of services like roads and social welfare programs, higher education, etc. The freedom to make poor choices at a micro and macro level is what the current government is all about, getting worse every year.

Urban sprawl will continue as folks with pipe-dreams tout more green, less energy usage, cleaner burning cars and factories, etc. One 'problem' is addressed by creating one for another somewhere else.

Ever listen to Buckminster Fuller's idea of a 'green' or 'energy efficient society'? It doesn't use ANY of the current models of societal structure, it pretty much SCRAPS them all for a trans-formative way of moving forward. The old models are shit if they accomplish them through force and control of human activity. YOU don't live in a democratic system, in case you have been asleep for your entire life, democracy is only a fucking word, a concept not unlike any 'ism' created by humans in the past 3000-7000 years.

The financial structure of the United States is inherently evil. It can not be made fair and moral for everyone, it wasn't designed to. It is designed to serve the few at the top, with enforcers and regulators at the bottom-tier of their system. The government is NOT inherently evil but it has been hijacked by cunts.

Just because you think you know how politicians should perform, does not make it happen that way. Sane health care system? Nope. Maybe for the privileged classes-What they hand the masses is complete shit. National debt? Foreign policy? How would YOU do it? Then that's probably saner than the way it's being run, innit? Government is not needed for ANY of these aspects of a civil and moral society to function. All it takes is moral and sane judgement and agreement at solutions and for folks to voluntarily subscribe to these actions, without force, without police, without armies, etc.

Many more examples too many to pontificate upon, many variables of systems, all of which could function to afford everyone freedom and liberty, WITHOUT a government. The government is a construct just like everything else man creates-It takes willing humans to make them either function efficiently, or to scrap them for something new and improved.

I'm no libertarian, no anarchist, just a practical human being.
There are more reasons for scrapping the world system of government than there are for maintaining them, you simply refuse to see any other way THAN systems of government.

Mankind can self-govern if it does so with a formidable and sound moral compass...Is mankind doing that? It can also make the entire planet it's playground if it chooses to do so...Is mankind doing this??
FUCK NO!