I'm far from saying don't get involved; only that appealing to government through existing democratic channels is not going to change much. "Please change your ways, pretty please" isn't going to cut it any more.

This isn't a war between the rich and the poor; it's a war between man and the virtual machine we insist on running. It isn't a conspiracy controlled by the few, it's en emergent behaviour perpetuated by the many.

There are those who are more guilty than the rest - where most of us are pedalling the wheels, they are actively strapping on rocket engines for their own gain; but targeting the rich will only get us so far.

If you look at different subjects - genetics, game theory and economics you can see from all of them that a population or economy will always carry the selfish. No more than the population will tolerate, and no less than they will suffer.

I believe we should accept that, and not focus on futile attempts at eliminating the selfish, but at the more realistic task of reducing the opportunity for corruption by them.

We are all responsible.

Each and every one of us that works for, or works with a corporation is contributing to the problem. It's a nonsensical system and it's ripe for corruption, yet we do it to ourselves.

Imagine a mechanical godzilla tearing through a city, causing death and mayhem; crushing schools, burning homes and squashing people in it's path; the city dwellers fleeing and screaming in terror. Imagine that monster of destruction suddenly grinding to a halt; foot steps are heard, a door cranks open.

Who steps out? Is it Mitt Romney? No it's your neighbour Larry; he's clocking off and now it's your shift.>> ^packo:

if you stand back and say "I don't get involved, politics are too dirty"... you are failing yourself, your future, your children, your children's future, your country, and your country's future... you are the OPPOSITE of patriotic, and can only consider yourself a citizen in the form of the burden you place upon others

>> ^FishBulb:

Even if it can spin under it's own power (without fans or string, etc) try hooking it up to something else to extract work out of it. I think you'll find it slowing to a halt fairly quickly.


If it can work under it's own power then it's perpetual motion. You don't need to be able to extract power from it (although in a system like this power is being extracted all the time, heat from the axle, sound energy from the whole thing).

As for where the cheat is, if there's a ceiling fan in the room that would keep it going. To everyone trying to work out if it's fake, it is. There's no debate there. There's a hundred different ways this could be faked.

ETA: Just watch the lower hanging card strips when it's getting started.

Even if it can spin under it's own power (without fans or string, etc) try hooking it up to something else to extract work out of it. I think you'll find it slowing to a halt fairly quickly.

Any woman I'd be interested in?

Scene: LAME SCARY PROPOSAL:
Guy: Will you marry me?
Girl: Yes!
Scene: Plane lands, taxis to hanger. Comes to complete halt.
Girl: LEFT CROSS!! UPPER CUT!! UPPER CUT!! GRAB HEAD, SMASH INTO KNEE!! Leaves plane.
Guy radios tower for ambulance.

Now, now Greogory, troll is convenient label for all manner of folk who use the internet like crack cocaine....

I must concur with the spider not playing a pivotal role in the bio-train. If this project were halted by otters, snakes, owls, mice or beavers I could understand the fuss....Hell, even fleas or mosquito threatened would be cause for major alarm but a rare species of fucking arachnid?? Stomp that squishy, worry about the karma later, and build the fucking bypass!

....unless some arachnologist can find a biochemical compound it produces that cures cancer maybe....or maybe repairs livers "I dunno, JUST DON'T SQUASH IT!!"

Halt!

Hammerzeit!

Why hello there @shinnyblurry, we meet again (sort of). You know, it's kind of funny that while I was watching this video I was suddenly struck by the memory of our last encounter and expected that I'd see your responses to this video (and other people). Either way, no hard feelings about our previous encounters or anything.

If you can believe it, you've inspired me in a way. Not in the way that I imagine you might hope though. I don't really get into debates/arguments with died-in-the-wool believers anymore. Especially those who claim person divine revelation. There isn't a whole lot to be said at that point because most people aren't interested in attempting to falsify their own experiences. They especially aren't interested in attempting to falsify experiences that they deems profoundly meaningful to them personally, giving them new meaning to their life which I can understand. That kind of debate/argument cannot bear fruit unless something like education standards or public policies are at stake.

I'm sure you remember my whole standpoint on the god(s) thing, so I wont repeat myself, I mostly wanted to say Hi

I will say this though; personal revelations aside, "I don't know" followed up by skeptical inquiry is a far better answer and process to interacting with questions that we simply cannot, or haven't yet, verify objectively. I just can't accept that personal revelation is good enough to determine whether or not something is true. The probability of being incorrect about an experience is astounding. Humans are pattern seeking and creating machines. The answer "I don't know" is extremely hard to rest on for most humans because there is a biological need to fill in the blanks of our knowledge, and we do that by looking for patterns which may or may not be there. It was far better to believe that a predator is in the bushes when they rustle than to employ investigative powers thus taking the risk of being eaten. The studies on these phenomenon are amazing and it's amazing to see how easily humans will accept an an answer that doesn't make logical or empirical sense in order to avoid being in the position of "I don't know". It requires a lot of mental rigor to maintain "I don't know" as a placeholder. It goes against human biology. There is also less cognitive dissonance felt if investigation can be halted. When a belief is strongly held, it's fascinating how many self justification techniques are used to maintain that belief. There is a lot of literature and research that strongly suggest that superstitions follow from the urge to provide an answer rather than resting at "I don't know".

Anyone can say that they "know" because of some personal revelation, but does that mean that what they believe is actually true? Is personal revelation actually good enough?

Either way, it's all very fascinating stuff and there are a lot of books out there which cover all of the techniques that humans use in fooling themselves, to self justify beliefs, and in preventing cognitive dissonance.
>> ^shinyblurry:

>> ^A10anis:
It is NOT a choice between "god and nothingness," It is a choice between childish myth, wishful thinking, and divine slavery based upon brain washing and fear, or the choice of reality, based upon logic, free thought, education and common sense. Faith is simply faith. After all, if god existed, faith would not be necessary, he would be fact.

That's a very unsophisticated analysis, A10anis, and very biased as well. It's really a big surprise that you've attributed rationality solely to your viewpoint. Based on what? You've made all sorts of claims here, but nothing to substantiate them.
It is a clear choice between a Universe that was created intentionally, with meaning and purpose, and a Universe that is a product of chance, without meaning and purpose. What other choices are there?
Another question is, how would you know which one you were in?
Faith is simply faith. After all, if god existed, faith would not be necessary, he would be fact.
That's a false dilemma, A10anis. A couple of them, actually. Clearly God can exist and require our faith at the same time.

She didn't draft the bill. Period. She cannot speak for everyone who drafted it. And guess what? You didn't prove the law doesn't pass the balancing test anyway. Show me how it doesn't pass that test. I don't care what she said.

HOLY CRAP! You admitted you were wrong! MIRACLE!!!

Now, free exercise clause. Show me how the law stops religious people from exercising their religion. Can orthodox Catholics continue to not use birth control? Yes. Are YOU familiar with the free exercise clause?

If you go down the road that money from the church can't go to things that violate their religious beliefs, then it's unconstitutional to federally subsidize farms. Since farms slaughter cows, this would violate the religious rights of a Hindu. Slaughtering pigs for consumption would violate the rights of orthodox Jews and Muslims. Defense spending would be unconstitutional because of pacifist religions like Jehovah's Witnesses. Affirmative action programs would be unconstitutional because of racist religious groups. Federal aid to any religious organizations, including tax favored statuses to churches, would be unconstitutional because of atheists' beliefs. I could go on and on and on. That kind of insane rule would basically halt government from doing what it must do.

We all pay for things we disagree with. To quote Jon Stewart on this, "Welcome to the fu***** club!"

I don't care what someone said. The US Supreme Court isn't going to look at what she said in that one clip and decide the case. YOU prove it doesn't pass the balancing test. You're not even attempting to prove it doesn't.

The article about Obama supporting "a repeal of DOMA" by favoring the Respect for Marriage Act. Do you even know what that act does? Let me help you:

"For the purposes of any Federal law in which marital status is a factor, an individual shall be considered married if that individual's marriage is valid in the State where the marriage was entered into or, in the case of a marriage entered into outside any State, if the marriage is valid in the place where entered into and the marriage could have been entered into in a State."

BTW, notice I actually quoted the law. I didn't link you to an article from a left wing or right wing organization. THAT is the law, word for word.

Is that not EXACTLY what I just said Obama favored in respect to DOMA? He believes states should decide if gay marriage is legal. If it's considered legal by the state, then it's considered legal by the federal gov't. Respect for Marriage Act does NOT legalize gay marriage nationwide in any stretch of the imagination. All it does is change that if a gay couple are married legally in New York, then they're legally married according to federal law as well. That doesn't mean a gay couple in the state of Mississippi can get married. Do you not even read the articles you're posting? You just proved EXACTLY what I just said. This is a moderate/left position.

As for the your link for FOCA, you linked to a webpage that is an organization created to fight abortion rights. I pasted a direct quote from the law. They took small quotes and then completely injected their own BS into it.

The bill has language that is clearly put into the bill to NOT legalize partial birth abortions unless there's a threat to the health of the mother. Show me where it says, "A woman can get a partial birth abortion." Doesn't say it. Don't quote me some right wing nut job site. Find the passage that says partial birth abortions are completely legal in all cases. It's not there, is it?

Show me where any of the things you said against FOCA are in the bill's language. It's not there.

>> ^shinyblurry:


The video is her testimony about how the bill was drafted. It's also her department, and her baby, as she gave the final approval. It's a concept completely foreign to this administration "the buck stops here".
What I meant to say is the free exercise clause. Are you familiar with that? Forcing someone to violate their religious beliefs violates that clause.
If you had watched the video, you would have seen that she admitted that no balancing test was done for the mandate.
By forcing religious institutions to violate their religious principles, they are violating the free exercise clause.
Here's another poll, not that the other one wasn't valid:
http://www.lifenews.com/2012/02/22/poll-american
s-oppose-obama-birth-control-coverage-mandate/

You're misinformed:
"The Obama administration announced Tuesday that it will support a congressional effort to repeal a federal law that defines marriage as a legal union between a man and woman.
White House spokesman Jay Carney denounced the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), saying the administration will back a bill introduced this year by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) to remove the law from the books."
http://www.washingto
npost.com/politics/obama-backs-bill-to-repeal-defense-of-marriage-act/2011/07/19/gIQA03eQOI_story.html
He was for it in 1996, undecided in 1998, in 2004 he said:
"I am a fierce supporter of domestic-partnership and civil-union laws. I am not a supporter of gay marriage as it has been thrown about..."
In 2008 he said
"“I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God’s in the mix.”
Then he was "evolving". Then he came out in support of it. Actually he changed his position more than 3 times.
http://www.nrlc.org/FOCA/LawmakersProposeFOCA.html
>> ^heropsycho:

>> ^Payback:

>> ^spoco2:
We just bought a 2 year old Kia Grand Carnival (the Sedona in America), replacing our old 2002 Carnival that had it's engine die after a tiny bloody plastic T joint snapped causing the radiator water to spew onto the road instead of around the engine to cool it. This resulted in an engine that overheated very quickly and a system that was de-pressurised, and apparently not really able to be re-pressurised (don't tell me it could, I don't want to know that it was actually a cheap fix when we're told the engine was cactus... don't want to know we needlessly just paid out a chunk of money on a new car that we didn't need to).
Aaaanyway.
When I was looking into whether the engines in the new Carnivals are any good (apparently they are, Hyundai Lambda engines made in the US of A), I noticed they made a big deal on the wikipedia page about it having a timing CHAIN rather than belt, and wondered why this was a big thing.
Now I know <img class="smiley" src="http://cdn.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/tongue.gif">

Here is me, NOT telling you it was a cheap fix, even if the engine seized from overheating after you ignored the "check engine" warning light. I also won't tell you that if it didn't come to a screeching, banging, violent halt, you probably could have "nursed" it home/to mechanic by waiting until it cooled down.
No sir, I REFUSE to tell you any of that.
I will tell you that if the reason it couldn't be pressurized was "a warped cylinder head" then ya, the engine is boned, but I'll avoid saying it would be about $2500 for a motor out of a auto wrecker (junk yard, used parts lot, etc) or even around $300 for a new cylinder head.


Well that's good to know (sort of). My wife was driving it at the time, and the check engine didn't come on, but it did come to a screeching, banging halt, with steam pouring out of the engine bay. To get an engine from one of these old ones rebuilt is around $4K (Australian), and that's about all the 2002 carnival is worth now, no-one wants to touch them. There's no point getting a 2nd hand engine from anywhere as there's not many to begin with, and they're just not reliable enough to spend the money on anyway.

So it was either a scrap yard for $500, or a trade in for $600. We had to be able to drive it in. Limped it in (still no check engine light on), handed it over, bid them good luck with it. We had told them the engine had blown up, but they were 'well, if you can drive it in, we'll give you $600 for it'. So it's not like we lied to them about the condition of the car. They'll scrap it for parts anyway.

>> ^spoco2:

We just bought a 2 year old Kia Grand Carnival (the Sedona in America), replacing our old 2002 Carnival that had it's engine die after a tiny bloody plastic T joint snapped causing the radiator water to spew onto the road instead of around the engine to cool it. This resulted in an engine that overheated very quickly and a system that was de-pressurised, and apparently not really able to be re-pressurised (don't tell me it could, I don't want to know that it was actually a cheap fix when we're told the engine was cactus... don't want to know we needlessly just paid out a chunk of money on a new car that we didn't need to).
Aaaanyway.
When I was looking into whether the engines in the new Carnivals are any good (apparently they are, Hyundai Lambda engines made in the US of A), I noticed they made a big deal on the wikipedia page about it having a timing CHAIN rather than belt, and wondered why this was a big thing.
Now I know


Here is me, NOT telling you it was a cheap fix, even if the engine started to seize from overheating after you ignored the "check engine" warning light. I also won't tell you that if it didn't come to a screeching, banging, violent halt, you probably could have "nursed" it home/to mechanic by waiting until it cooled down.

No sir, I REFUSE to tell you any of that.

I will tell you that if the reason it couldn't be pressurized was "a warped cylinder head" then ya, the engine is boned, but I'll avoid saying it would be about $2500 for a motor out of a auto wrecker (junk yard, used parts lot, etc) or even around $300 for a new cylinder head.

>> ^rebuilder:

I think I have a new nightmare scenario - finding myself on some fast-paced comedy talk show in a language I only speak haltingly, and the subject of the night is kinky, possibly illegal sex.


so a bit like Jessie J then?

I think I have a new nightmare scenario - finding myself on some fast-paced comedy talk show in a language I only speak haltingly, and the subject of the night is kinky, possibly illegal sex.

Big business is naturally conspiratorial, so that's certainly no strike against your theory. Seems reasonable. or it just may be that not enough people know about it yet and they simply lack the venture capital.>> ^RadHazG:

AT this point I have to think that any truly good idea's (like this one) are really being held back for the most part due to oil or other companies that stand to take massive profit losses interfering with them legally. It stands to reason that if a technology threatens their bottom line significantly enough it would warrant the expenditure of resources to halt or delay the deployment of said tech for as long as possible. It's a bit conspiratorial but it also makes perfect sense from a financial pov on the part of the Co.>> ^PalmliX:
WHY ARENT THEY BUILDING THIS NOW!?!?!

On the other hand, science is more international now. China will probably be the first to build it.

Update: "Researchers at Southwest Jiaotong University in China are developing (in 2010) a vactrain to reach speeds of 1,000 km/h (620 mph). They say the technology can be put into operation in 10 years." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vactrain


>> ^RadHazG:

AT this point I have to think that any truly good idea's (like this one) are really being held back for the most part due to oil or other companies that stand to take massive profit losses interfering with them legally. It stands to reason that if a technology threatens their bottom line significantly enough it would warrant the expenditure of resources to halt or delay the deployment of said tech for as long as possible. It's a bit conspiratorial but it also makes perfect sense from a financial pov on the part of the Co.>> ^PalmliX:
WHY ARENT THEY BUILDING THIS NOW!?!?!

>> ^RadHazG:

AT this point I have to think that any truly good idea's (like this one) are really being held back for the most part due to oil or other companies that stand to take massive profit losses interfering with them legally. It stands to reason that if a technology threatens their bottom line significantly enough it would warrant the expenditure of resources to halt or delay the deployment of said tech for as long as possible. It's a bit conspiratorial but it also makes perfect sense from a financial pov on the part of the Co.>> ^PalmliX:
WHY ARENT THEY BUILDING THIS NOW!?!?!



I sadly have to agree with your statement...