>> ^shuac:

Why? Because touch is so unintuitive? How utterly retarded.


In its current form its retarded , but its the kind of thing that when refined and made main stream or affordable u find unexpected uses for it.

off the top of my head the bend button and flexiable screen could be good if its a phone that wraps around u arm when its in that position the phone would know its on your arm due to the bend button being pressed ,

maby if you had like small long screens that attached to u hand but over the top of u fingers so as u moved each finger it did certain things and also displayed as a screen on each finger.




the issue with these demos is they use current tech and known methods to demo them when in reality they will be used with something thats largely alain to what we use now.

Also Evan if it is retarded that wont necessarily stop it from catching on , look at justin bibers popularity , and the fact that people still happily pay 10p a message to send a txt massage ( not saying txt message or limited txt message is bad but paying 10p for under2kb of data is mental)

All those who are saying that there absolutely needed to be a trial have forgotten what justice is. A trial is not justice and neither are rules, laws, & due process. All of those are simply the supports for justice. Justice is the innocent going free and the guilty being punished. Trials are only ways of ensuring that justice happens. When a man who the world knows is guilty of heinous crimes and has himself admitted that he did those things is killed, it's still justice.

He milked that one joke like a pro. It was brilliant. A good comedian will go out with a whole bunch of angles on the same joke, and as long he gauges that the audience will be brought higher if he continues, he will do so. This audience was wrapped around his finger, and he did his thing just perfectly. He really knew how to use silence, pauses, and facial expression.

>> ^StukaFox:

9/11 Conspiracy Theories for Dummies:
George W. Bush -- THAT George W. Bush -- for reasons known only to himself decided he wanted to knock down the World Trade Center, blame the whole thing on terrorists from Saudi Arabia and use that as a pretense to invade Iraq.
Yes, THAT George W. Bush.
He decided the WTC should collapse, so he had some people rig the building with explosives/thermite. They did this without being spotted by the people who worked in the buildings, the people who maintained the buildings, the people who secured the buildings or the people who inspect the buildings.
Then, because he's George W. Bush, he decided to sex the whole thing up by flying a couple of Boeings into the Towers. So he hired a crew of hijackers and said "Hey, you lot, would you please fly these airplanes into the World Trade Center, but don't tell anyone what you're up to while you're in training here in American flight schools? Yeah, you'll die and stuff and your names will be infamous and you'll shame your families -- but hey, look: MONEY!" Oddly, no one said no to this offer, because no one has come forth to talk about the wackiest government job interview ever.
Oh yeah, and he got some guys to fly some other planes into stuff, too, because just flying two commercial airliners into buildings wasn't believable enough as is.
So the explosive guys and the plane-flyer guys all got together on September 11, 2001, and WHAMMO!, the whole crazy plan went off without a hitch!
Then, the guys who planted the explosives, the guys who supplied the explosives, the guys who ordered the guys to plant the explosives, the guys who trained the pilots, the guys who gave the orders to the guys who trained the pilots, the guys who paid off all the guys, the guys who were in charge of making sure all the guys did their things and all the other guys who were involved in keeping all the loose ends tied up, all of them kept their mouths shut. All of them were so well-paid and so fundamentally evil that they never breathed a word of their part in the murders of almost three thousand people.
The most amazing part is that these same guys have been able to keep scientists, journalists, government investigators and peer-reviewed journals from printing a word of proof of any of this -- a conspiracy so vast that even the Democrats -- who would stand to make incredible gains by exposing mass-murder on the part of the far right -- have kept quiet about it.
But luckily, a plucky group of internet users with, no background in building engineering, physics, thermodynamics or materials engineering, have seen through this whole charade and are ringing the bell to alert a drowsy national of sheeple that shit ain't right, yo! And just as soon as they're able, they'll bring George W. Bush -- yes, THAT George W. Bush -- to account for his role in the worst conspiracy in American history, next to those faked Moon landings and Pearl Harbor.
There you have it, 9/11 Conspiracy Theories for Dummies.


What in the fuck are you talking about? Where in this thread has ANYONE said anything about GW doing this? Where? LOL you write this drivel yourself, or plagiarize it off some web site?

9/11 Conspiracy Theories for Dummies:

George W. Bush -- THAT George W. Bush -- for reasons known only to himself decided he wanted to knock down the World Trade Center, blame the whole thing on terrorists from Saudi Arabia and use that as a pretense to invade Iraq.

Yes, THAT George W. Bush.

He decided the WTC should collapse, so he had some people rig the building with explosives/thermite. They did this without being spotted by the people who worked in the buildings, the people who maintained the buildings, the people who secured the buildings or the people who inspect the buildings.

Then, because he's George W. Bush, he decided to sex the whole thing up by flying a couple of Boeings into the Towers. So he hired a crew of hijackers and said "Hey, you lot, would you please fly these airplanes into the World Trade Center, but don't tell anyone what you're up to while you're in training here in American flight schools? Yeah, you'll die and stuff and your names will be infamous and you'll shame your families -- but hey, look: MONEY!" Oddly, no one said no to this offer, because no one has come forth to talk about the wackiest government job interview ever.

Oh yeah, and he got some guys to fly some other planes into stuff, too, because just flying two commercial airliners into buildings wasn't believable enough as is.

So the explosive guys and the plane-flyer guys all got together on September 11, 2001, and WHAMMO!, the whole crazy plan went off without a hitch!

Then, the guys who planted the explosives, the guys who supplied the explosives, the guys who ordered the guys to plant the explosives, the guys who trained the pilots, the guys who gave the orders to the guys who trained the pilots, the guys who paid off all the guys, the guys who were in charge of making sure all the guys did their things and all the other guys who were involved in keeping all the loose ends tied up, all of them kept their mouths shut. All of them were so well-paid and so fundamentally evil that they never breathed a word of their part in the murders of almost three thousand people.

The most amazing part is that these same guys have been able to keep scientists, journalists, government investigators and peer-reviewed journals from printing a word of proof of any of this -- a conspiracy so vast that even the Democrats -- who would stand to make incredible gains by exposing mass-murder on the part of the far right -- have kept quiet about it.

But luckily, a plucky group of internet users with, no background in building engineering, physics, thermodynamics or materials engineering, have seen through this whole charade and are ringing the bell to alert a drowsy national of sheeple that shit ain't right, yo! And just as soon as they're able, they'll bring George W. Bush -- yes, THAT George W. Bush -- to account for his role in the worst conspiracy in American history, next to those faked Moon landings and Pearl Harbor.

There you have it, 9/11 Conspiracy Theories for Dummies.

>> ^Ryjkyj:

HEY!
Do any of you guys remember when that one guy with the crazy avatar did that thing and it was totally hilarious? But then the other guy responded by saying that he didn't think it was hilarious and none of us knew what to do until you-know-who came in like he always does and explained to us that it was in fact a moral dilemma that humans had been experiencing since the beginning of time?
I never would've read that book by the European philosopher who spent his life explaining that dilemma unless that guy recommended it. Now I am one of some-unnamed-planet's foremost historians regarding you-know who. And to think, it never would've happened if so-and-so hadn't explained the thing that I won't mention because it would give away that person's identity.
Come to think of it, none of it EVER even would've been possible if somebody (wink) hadn't come up with ------SECTION REMOVED------ in the first place! Ha! Imagine if that thing had never happened! Can you?!? I know!
PS: If you choose to respond to this, please do not quote me or refer to me by my original or on-line identity or any other distinguishing character feature that might give away who initially wrote this in the first place. In fact, if you do NEED to refer to me, please direct your response to "you".
Note: All person's above referred to as "he/him/his,etc..." where applicable so that gender will remain undefined. If I've offended anyone, you know who you are.

HEY!

Do any of you guys remember when that one guy with the crazy avatar did that thing and it was totally hilarious? But then the other guy responded by saying that he didn't think it was hilarious and none of us knew what to do until you-know-who came in like he always does and explained to us that it was in fact a moral dilemma that humans had been experiencing since the beginning of time?

I never would've read that book by the European philosopher who spent his life explaining that dilemma unless that guy recommended it. Now I am one of some-unnamed-planet's foremost historians regarding you-know who. And to think, it never would've happened if so-and-so hadn't explained the thing that I won't mention because it would give away that person's identity.

Come to think of it, none of it EVER even would've been possible if somebody (wink) hadn't come up with ------SECTION REMOVED------ in the first place! Ha! Imagine if that thing had never happened! Can you?!? I know!

PS: If you choose to respond to this, please do not quote me or refer to me by my original or on-line identity or any other distinguishing character feature that might give away who initially wrote this in the first place. In fact, if you do NEED to refer to me, please direct your response to "you".

Note: All person's above referred to as "he/him/his,etc..." where applicable so that gender will remain undefined. If I've offended anyone, you know who you are.

Absolutely you have a right to your opinion! I was quite clear that you can disagree with her.

It seems to me that you do concede my main point in your sentence that begins "She may not be a shill for the Government." That is what I was objecting to -- the ascribing of motivations.

Seems to me you are conceding that indeed you don't know her motivations.

So we agree! I like it when we can agree!

This is just a pet peeve of mine. Bugs me. I have observed how, in both public and private life, the presumption that someone knows someone else's motivations can lead to an escalation of tensions rather than to true debate about issues.

I struggle with it myself. It has taken years of practice to back away from statements like that.

I'm a great person in a crisis, after all this practice. Just recently, my dad got sick and his wife and family got seriously weird towards him. I managed to hold the center and didn't let it descend into emotional chaos, as both sides flailed away, ascribing motivations right and left.

I recognize that it is my pet peeve. It comes up a lot in the sift comments. Most times, I ignore it.

Couldn't tell you why this time I felt the need to engage. Maybe because I adore Rachel so much? Felt the need to defend her from an unfair attack? (Please note, I'm not saying you have to agree with her. Just that the ascribing motivations felt unfair. Which you agree is correct.)

Blah blah blah. Pet peeves. Annoying, aren't they?



In reply to this comment by Duckman33:
"Towards the end of the interview (~8:05) they begin discussing Assange and WikiLeaks, where she characterizes him as a self-describing "hero" who simply thinks information should be free for the sake of being free and an anarchist. She claims that the only information released was either minor or "unsafe" (so which is it?), yet nevertheless displayed inherent weaknesses in US information security protections.

I assume that she considers 'minor' many of the events revealed by the leaks, such as:
* Pfizer's pressuring/blackmail of Nigerian prosecutors to settle over the investigation of illegal tests of drugs on sick children
* US's role in sabotaging Cancun climate talks
* Cover up of US drone strikes that killed innocent civilians in Yemen by Yemeni and US officials
* The revelation that US armed forces turned a blind eye to Iraqi police torture and murder of prisoners
* Shell Oil's boastful admissions of infiltration in to Nigerian govt.
* etc., etc.
* etc."


LOL. What sir am I guessing at or presuming exactly? And what reasons am I "making up"? As stated above. If she's repeating the bullshit we hear on the "news" every day from our own elected officials, ("characterizes him as a self-describing "hero" who simply thinks information should be free for the sake of being free and an anarchist".) then she's certainly not in favor of his actions. Since she claims to be a journalist, why the hell isn't she doing her job? As the lawyer in the CNN video that's in the #2 spot pointed out several times to the CNN "Reporter" about her doing HER job. She may not be a shill for the Government, but she definitely isn't asking the right questions, nor is she blaming the correct people. She should be calling out the people who did the things in the documents instead of killing the messenger.

That's MY opinion. See, I have a right to mine as well. Don't recall ever saying no-one else has a right to theirs. But you certainly implied that I have no right to mine since it's clealrly: "just plain wrong headedness"

In reply to this comment by bareboards2:
So here's my pet peeve.... folks who think they know the motivations and intentions of other people without asking them.

You can disagree with Rachel about her point of view. To presume that you know what motivates her is just plain wrong headedness.

I see the same thing outside of the public realm, in every day life, all the time. I see it in posts here on the sift all the time.

How can you possibly know she is a shill for the government? You are guessing. You cannot possibly know that.

Disagree her opinion about Assange and Wikileaks for your own good reasons. I don't see that it is necessary to make up reasons.

In reply to this comment by Duckman33:
Sorry, I have to disagree. I'm not a big fan of anyone who thinks what Assange is doing is wrong/criminal. We should not be lied to by our own Government, period. They should not be allowed to continue to do things in our name that make America and the American citizens look bad. Their actions put our lives in danger. And quite frankly, I'm not very happy knowing there's people in the world that want to kill me because of things the American Government has done in my name without my knowledge.

She's proving herself to be just another talking head/shill for the Government agenda. In my eyes, at this point she and MSNBC (I'll also throw CNN in there for good measure.) for the most part are no better than the lying morons at FAUX NEWZ. They just have a different slant on their lies. One network lies in favor of the right, the other for the left. It's really quite disgusting the way these people sell their souls, and sell out the American people to have money, and fame. I really thought she was one of the good ones. Now, I have changed my mind.

Yeah, I'd definitely have to disagree with his criticism's of Schindler's List. The movie wasn't at all a "success story," but of one man who risked everything to at save some people from destruction in a world gone mad. The movie (and I liked it by the way) still made me want to vomit and definitely made you think "how in the world did these things take place?" and "would I have had Schindler's balls - what does it take to stand up to those men?" I certainly didn't feel like everything was nice and neatly wrapped up at the end because in the second to last scene you still have Oskar Schindler weeping over the few more he could have saved despite having saved over 1,100 lives. He wasn't at all triumphant over his success, but broken over having wasted what could have been used to save more.

>> ^bmacs27:

If you've got me pegged as a creationist/ID proponent, you've got me pegged wrong. I specifically said, filling gaps in knowledge with divine intervention is obviously not valid. My point is simply that many who claim ID is unfalsifiable also claim irreducible complexity as impossible to demonstrate you might open evolution up to the same criticism. I don't really care what side I argue for, I'm just interested in hearing a hire level of debate. Frankly, I didn't want to talk about logical fallacies, I wanted to talk about biochemical processes, like opsin barrels, and energy barriers. That shit is dope.
Now, the real problem here is that what we mean by "evolution" is a moving target. It's so broad it's meaningless. In many ways "Darwinian evolution" has been falsified hundreds of times, much like Newtonian mechanics. It was wrong in the details. In fact, almost every rule I was ever taught at an elementary level about any sort of obviously falsifiable detail of evolution has turned out to be false in some weird or possibly limited case (e.g. epigenetics smells awfully Lamarckian). Still, we don't say "Darwin was wrong." You can't falsify evolution in the broad sense the same way you can't falsify gravity. At this point it's common sense more than science. It's more like a world view we use to form specific falsifiable theories than a theory itself. It's a world view that has been shown to be extraordinarily enlightening for sure. So much so, that at this point even with that Hippo fossil, I don't think people would change their minds.
That's fine. I just get worried about how far people push the assumption of natural selection (e.g. evolutionary psychology). I feel that there would more constructive arguments resulting from a healthy skepticism about it. I understand that there is a sociopolitical undertone to the whole debate, and I respect that. I just happen to think that those with the better arguments will win (natural selection). So often I see bullshit jive being put forth as reasoned debate, which I think is what happens when ideas gain too much popular acceptance. Thus, I'd like to see an elevated level of debate about the topic. Since you aren't going to get QM to form a coherent paragraph, I might as well be the uke.


Well, you may not remember, but not long ago "gravity" was thought not to exist. It took Galileo to prove without a doubt that it did. Same thing with "evolution": the concept was understood before Darwin (by, among others, Lamarck), but it took Darwin and his idea of natural selection to prove it (with Mendelian genetics being the Newtonian mechanics's analog). Newton said that two mass attract each other, and it still is true today only now we know that it is so because they each form a gravity well. In the same way Darwin said evolution happens by natural selection. I do not know how our understanding of the concept will change (or not, which is possible) in the future, but it will still be recognizable as being that the most fit (adapted) organism in a situation surviving and producing more offspring than the rest. What will change, I think, will be how we define fitness, organism, survival and reproduction. Already, the concept of "meme" shows how broadening some of the terms can lead to new understanding in the psychological realm. If you want to show that Darwin is wrong, then by all means attack natural selection and show us a better mechanism for evolution, the same way Einstein replaced Newtonian mechanics with general relativity. But really, I don't see how talking about biochemical processes will ever falsify natural selection. In fact, I don't even see how a flaw in natural selection could be revealed by some biochemical process: they seem to be on two different levels of abstraction. But if you know of one, then by all means enlighten us.

Actually, the first three specific regulations they raised sound like ones that should be repealed.

The Miami street vendor thing sounded totally fine, as did the thing about making full disclosure of assets when you dissolve a corporation.

At the local level, there are plenty of situations where liberals should be standing shoulder-to-shoulder with libertarians.

For example, why should someone need a license to be a hairstylist? That's just corporatism on a small scale.

evryone watched the 60minutes video right? The one where it was revealed they used a faulty Blowout preventer, faked the pressure (integrity) tests, and skipped safety procedures when they filled the hole w/ seawater.

I understand that it's not absolutely PROVEN they did those things, but we have eyewitness testimony that explains the situation with clarity.

Yet the corporate media seems to ignore ^that shit. I consider it fact. Am I wrong?

http://news.videosift.com/video/60-Minutes-Deepwater-Horizon-s-Blowout-Part-1
http://news.videosift.com/video/60-Minutes-Deepwater-Horizon-s-Blowout-Part-2

evryone watched the 60minutes video right? The one where it was revealed they used a faulty Blowout preventer, faked the pressure (integrity) tests, and skipped safety procedures when they filled the hole w/ seawater.

I understand that it's not absolutely PROVEN they did those things, but we have eyewitness testimony that explains the situation with clarity.

Yet the corporate media seems to ignore ^that shit. I consider it fact. Am I wrong?

http://news.videosift.com/video/60-Minutes-Deepwater-Horizon-s-Blowout-Part-1
http://news.videosift.com/video/60-Minutes-Deepwater-Horizon-s-Blowout-Part-2

Halliburton did it. They also did same thing in Australia with EXACT SAME foundation problems. Oh yeah, guess who makes the blowout valve thingy??? Cheney's buddies and Bush donors.

>> ^Yogi:

Question...Where are the so called "Good" Hackers I always hear about? Yeah know those news stories that come out saying hacker did bad things this and that there's always an editorial elsewhere about the Good Hackers or not all Hackers are baddies...Well where the FUCK are you guys. Fuck with this School! GO FORTH AND DESTROY PERMANENT RECORDS!!!


I imagine you shouting this while throwing a Pokeball. I choose you, HACKERCHU!!!