Oh hi Internet Generation.

You know, it doesn't seem especially surprising that when you can communicate so freely with strangers across the globe then freedom of speech and expression become pretty fucking important to you. Technology has changed us, its even changed how we protest. Occupy Wallstreet? More like Occupy Server with millions of connection requests.

I don't especially like the image Anon as made for themselves, but whether you identify as an Anon or not you probably still are in a sense. My name is Legion: for we are many.

>> ^Asmo:

>> ^artician:
Still, I wish people who wish to protest something wouldn't pick a pop-culture reference to represent themselves. They should represent who they are, not some icon the media made popular. It really degrades the whole message they want to spread.

http://www.arts-wallpapers.com/vintage/V-for-Vendetta/imagepages/i
mage21.htm
They are legion... ; )


Heheh, maybe if everyone dressed up like Natalie Portman.

When the people who are the intended recipients of the protesters message see this though, they probably can't take it seriously. "Oh look, the masses are decorating themselves like a film character". The superficiality of its origins comes forward more readily than the intended symbolic attachment behind it. It would be more effective to find some emotional, poignant symbolism that represents, and is unique to, the movement and message at large.

>> ^artician:

Still, I wish people who wish to protest something wouldn't pick a pop-culture reference to represent themselves. They should represent who they are, not some icon the media made popular. It really degrades the whole message they want to spread.


http://www.arts-wallpapers.com/vintage/V-for-Vendetta/imagepages/image21.htm

They are legion... ; )

No, lets not. I provided counter evidence to one absurd baseless assertion of yours , that "information" only comes from "minds", you have not provided any basis on which to defend your original position.

Actually, I did. I pointed out that your simulation doesn't do what you said it does, even in a trivial way. I said information only comes from minds, so you provide a simulation programmed by a mind. I stated this only illustrates my point, but you insisted the output proved information doesn't have to come from minds. I just got finished pointing out that the whole thing is analogous to randomly piecing together letters of an existing language until you get a new word by chance. You still need the language for the word to mean anything, otherwise it is just nonsense. And you don't get the word without the language in the first place. If the boxcar simulation could produce helicopters, that might be something, but you're still dealing with the chicken and the egg problem. A system created by information which outputs information by design is not doing so without the involvement of a mind. A mind was behind the entire process and none of it could have happened without a mind so it doesn't count as an example. You can't use a design to prove there is no design needed. That's like saying you can prove you don't need a factory to build a car but you buy all of your parts to build the car from the factory.

Your "this is going badly, let's start over" tactic is cute, don't get me wrong, but you insist that your ideological position be taken seriously, and I intend to do so, until it lies in tattered shreds on the floor.

What I insist is that you substantiate your claims, which you have failed to do. Your overconfidence is amusing, but misplaced; the facts are not on your side. Abiogenesis is purely metaphysics and unproven.

So you acknowledge that information is trivially synthesized, by
non-minds? That's the opposite of your original claim. Is that a
retraction?

No, see above.

So now you accept that once you have atoms, gravity, time,
electromagnetism, you inevitably have the possibility of self
replicating molecular systems, and therefor "life"?

Nope, see above.

You seem to have decided that life is a magical barrier, but this distinction is false.

There most certainly is a barrier. Again, abiogenesis is pure metaphysics; it doesn't happen in the real world. Life doesn't come from non-life. Pasteurization, and the food supply in general, relies upon this fact.

The distinction between "life" and "non-life" does not exist.

So there is no difference between you and a rock? I can admit I see similarities, heart wise..:)

Let's see some evidence for your claim that there is no difference between life and non-life.

You acknowledge that once a mechanism for inheritance exists the rest
is inevitable, I agree, you simply lack the sense of scale on which
the universe operates, which makes the preceding step entirely
plausible.

No, I admit that if you don't have to do the work to get wheels and bodies, and you have a design that churns them out, boxcars are inevitable. If you already have the materials, and the blueprints, of course you're able to build the house. Without any of those things, it is an impossible proposition.

This is simply false. RNA codes for proteins, but RNA requires no
proteins for it's own replication, it is entirely plausible, arguably
likely, that once you have RNA, DNA would get a chance to compete.

It's not false. This is your pathway to DNA: RNA - (MAGIC) - DNA This is your pathway to RNA: ROCKS - (MAGIC) - RNA Just because you can get RNA to self-replicate doesn't automatically mean it is either likely or plausible this could happen.

You assume that the argument is Random -> RNA -> DNA, but it is not. There are many simpler organic self replicators that, in the absence of an RNA ecosystem, would be able to prime the pump, by converting simple molecules into those more likely to contribute to spontaneous RNA synthesis, very much in the same way that cells work by creating conditions where the high concentration of particular ingredients allows proteins to replicate DNA, which proteins would not be able to do in the wild.

The best science has been able to do is create some amino acids which is worlds away from a complex molecule like RNA. The difficulties are legion and many are just intractable. There is no proof that RNA could even survive in that kind of environment, because it is extremely fragile.

ID is not even a postulation, much less a hypothesis, it provides no information, illuminates nothing, it is theology dressed up in the garb of science. It's only science if it reliably predicts things, ID fails at this basic task, because, like all theology, it is useless
.

It most certainly is a theory and it is not theology; intelligent design only needs an intelligent designer, not an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent deity. It is a theory which states that certain elements and features of the Universe are better explained by intelligent causation than an undirected process like natural selection. It is an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent" design in nature, which biologists acknowledge, is actual design. It is only useless to you because you have ruled out design apriori, which is just simply ignorant.

>> ^dgandhi:
>> ^shinyblurry:
Let's start over because you're just going all over the place

No, lets not. I provided counter evidence to one absurd baseless assertion of yours , that "information" only comes from "minds", you have not provided any basis on which to defend your original position.
Your "this is going badly, let's start over" tactic is cute, don't get me wrong, but you insist that your ideological position be taken seriously, and I intend to do so, until it lies in tattered shreds on the floor.
>> ^shinyblurry:
This is the point: Your entire example is irrelevent. Yeah, you can generate all sorts of stuff when a system is already in place, when you have a preprogrammed design that itself generates designs. If you already have wheels and a chassis, you can build a boxcar pretty easily. Boxcars are inevitable at this point.

So you acknowledge that information is trivially synthesized, by non-minds? That's the opposite of your original claim. Is that a retraction?
So now you accept that once you have atoms, gravity, time, electromagnetism, you inevitably have the possibility of self replicating molecular systems, and therefor "life"? You seem to have decided that life is a magical barrier, but this distinction is false. The distinction between "life" and "non-life" does not exist.
You acknowledge that once a mechanism for inheritance exists the rest is inevitable, I agree, you simply lack the sense of scale on which the universe operates, which makes the preceding step entirely plausible.
>> ^shinyblurry:
You have to have proteins to create DNA and you have to have DNA to create proteins.

This is simply false. RNA codes for proteins, but RNA requires no proteins for it's own replication, it is entirely plausible, arguably likely, that once you have RNA, DNA would get a chance to compete.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Science has attempted to solve this problem by saying that RNA molecules evolved from the soup, yet there is no logical pathway for this to happen, because natural selection and mutation cannot account for it.

You assume that the argument is Random -> RNA -> DNA, but it is not. There are many simpler organic self replicators that, in the absence of an RNA ecosystem, would be able to prime the pump, by converting simple molecules into those more likely to contribute to spontaneous RNA synthesis, very much in the same way that cells work by creating conditions where the high concentration of particular ingredients allows proteins to replicate DNA, which proteins would not be able to do in the wild.
>> ^shinyblurry:
The problems are far too vast to overcome, and experiment has yieled no conclusive results. So, my point stands, that intelligent design is a better explanation for the complex coded information in DNA, which naturalistic processes cannot account for.

ID is not even a postulation, much less a hypothesis, it provides no information, illuminates nothing, it is theology dressed up in the garb of science. It's only science if it reliably predicts things, ID fails at this basic task, because, like all theology, it is useless.

I have to say that "We are Anonymous. We are Legion. We do not forgive. We do not forget. Expect us." is a much better slogan than Hollywood's "Hack the Planet!"

Well oot o' the East there came a hard man
Oh-ho, a' the way frae Brigton?
Ah-ha, glory hallelujah
Cod liver oil and the orange juice

Well he went intae a pub and he come oot paralytic
Oh, VP and cider |VP is rum or sherry, I think
Ah-ha, what a hell of a mixture
Cod liver oil and the orange juice

(spoken: Sex rears its ugly head...)
Does this bus go tae the Dennistoun Palais?
Oh-ho, I'm lookin' fur a lumber |looking for a woman [1]
Ah-ha, glory hallelujah
Cod liver oil and the orange juice

(spoken: Eyes up the talent, and lo and behold...)
In the dancin' he met Hairy Mary,
Oh, the flooer o' the Gorbals |flower
Ah-ha, glory hallelujah
Cod liver oil and the orange juice

(spoken: Chats he up...)
Aw noo Mary, are ye dancin'?
"Oh no, it's just the way I'm staunin'" |standing
Ah-ha, glory hallelujah
Cod liver oil and the orange juice

(spoken: Rebuffed!)
Well then, Mary, yer one in a million,
"Oh-ho, so's yer chances!"
Ah-ha, glory hallelujah
Cod liver oil and the orange juice

(spoken: Rebuffed again!)
Well then Mary, can I run ye hame?
Oh-ho, I've got a pair of sandshoes,
"A ha-ha, ye're hell of a funny!"
Cod liver oil and the orange juice

(spoken: Never say die. Sways aboot nonchalantly,
picking his nails with a bayonet. An' he knocks her off...)
Well, doon through the back-close, an' intae the dunny, |[2]
Oh-ho, it wasnae fur the first time, |wasn't
Ah-ha, glory hallelujah
Cod liver oil and the orange juice

Then oot came her mammy - she was goin' tae the cludgie, |[3]
Oh-ho, I buggered off sharpish,
Ah-ha, glory hallelujah
Cod liver oil and the orange juice

Noo Hairy Mary's lookin' for her hard man,
Oh-ho, he's jined the Foreign Legion |joined
Ah-ha, Sahara unner ra camels, |under the camels
Cod liver oil and the orange juice

Then Hairy Mary's had a little baby
Oh-ho, its faither's in the army
Ah-ha, glory hallelujah
Cod liver oil and the orange juice

Meh. She ugly.

>> ^bareboards2:

Not misogynistic -- just reflective of our culture that demands women look a certain way.
That woman isn't ugly. She just isn't. She's in the normal range of humanity, and she is making faces. Faces that you label as "ugly." But she isn't a barbie doll, controlling her face to meet cultural expectations. Like Japanese women, who cover their mouths when they laugh.
I don't really want to get into a big kerfuffle here. I have learned in my tenure here on the Sift that the vast majority of men on the Sift are not attuned to the cultural environment they live in, how women's images are controlled to meet certain expectations.
I mean honestly -- think about all the David Spades and Kevin Jameses and even George Costanzas there are out there in the media -- just normal guys, looking normal. The ranks are legion. Now name for me women who match their general attractiveness.
I mean, really. Next time you watch any movie or TV show. Pay attention to the relative diversity allowed in shapes and sizes for the men, and how limited the palette is of women.
Exhibit #1. http://videosift.com/video/He-Said-She-Said-un-romantic-comedy
Neither of those guys are particularly attractive, and certainly the heavy set guy is even less so, on any objective scale. The women? Much much much better looking than the men. This happens all the time, everywhere in the media.
I love the way that woman looks in this vid. She is lively, alive, with a point of view that has nothing to do with "looking good" for male consumption.
Anyway. Blah blah. Sorry to go on.
We'll have to agree to disagree, I suspect.

>> ^budzos:
I hope you're not trying to say my comment was misogynistic. I'm talking about the one woman... she is ugly and makes it worse with her faces. The other women look fine. The woman is particularly ugly. The men, not so.
The whole video is about daggering in cartoon world so I guess that's why every single movement is sexual.
Here's the other Major Lazer video from the same director, where he makes explicit his fetish for really ugly women:

Not misogynistic -- just reflective of our culture that demands women look a certain way.

That woman isn't ugly. She just isn't. She's in the normal range of humanity, and she is making faces. Faces that you label as "ugly." But she isn't a barbie doll, controlling her face to meet cultural expectations. Like Japanese women, who cover their mouths when they laugh.

I don't really want to get into a big kerfuffle here. I have learned in my tenure here on the Sift that the vast majority of men on the Sift are not attuned to the cultural environment they live in, how women's images are controlled to meet certain expectations.

I mean honestly -- think about all the David Spades and Kevin Jameses and even George Costanzas there are out there in the media -- just normal guys, looking normal. The ranks are legion. Now name for me women who match their general attractiveness.

I mean, really. Next time you watch any movie or TV show. Pay attention to the relative diversity allowed in shapes and sizes for the men, and how limited the palette is of women.

Exhibit #1. http://videosift.com/video/He-Said-She-Said-un-romantic-comedy

Neither of those guys are particularly attractive, and certainly the heavy set guy is even less so, on any objective scale. The women? Much much much better looking than the men. This happens all the time, everywhere in the media.

I love the way that woman looks in this vid. She is lively, alive, with a point of view that has nothing to do with "looking good" for male consumption.

Anyway. Blah blah. Sorry to go on.

We'll have to agree to disagree, I suspect.



>> ^budzos:

I hope you're not trying to say my comment was misogynistic. I'm talking about the one woman... she is ugly and makes it worse with her faces. The other women look fine. The woman is particularly ugly. The men, not so.
The whole video is about daggering in cartoon world so I guess that's why every single movement is sexual.
Here's the other Major Lazer video from the same director, where he makes explicit his fetish for really ugly women:

There's something very "Anonymous"-like about this..

"We are legion. Expect us."

Talking about the morality of various tax codes with someone who disagrees is nonsense. If you've been posting on the internet for years and haven't figured out that other people are quite attached to moral values that are incompatible with your own, then taxes are the least of your problems.

I'd be curious to find out where WP gets his talking points, especially since so many of them are refutable with official government data and a pocket calculator. Actually I skipped the calculator, so forgive my rounding errors:

People in the top bracket pay 38% of the income tax. Income taxes are 33% of revenues. Revenues are around $4.4 tr. So they pay about 500 billion a year.

The top tax bracket is 35%. If as WP claims we raised that to 100% We would be roughly tripling the income from them. Even only doubling it is still an extra 500 billion a year or 5 trillion over a decade, assuming the income of the rich stays steady (which it never does, rich people are much better at increasing their income than the middle class).

Both sides have hired legions of economists to support their viewpoints. I'm sure there's a right wing economist who could explain what's wrong with my arithmetic and make me look dumb (which I am, relatively), though I wonder how the author of that $2trillion figure would do if a liberal economist like Paul Krugman or Robert Reich were in the room while he made his arguments.

For our purposes, we should accept that parroting the talking points bought and paid for by your favorite political movement will not convince anyone.

"there is not one death and resurrection deity before christ"
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ...
i am sorry sir,your inability to know your own religious history negates you from participating in any further discussion pertaining to religious history.
the pantheon of death and resurrection deities BEFORE christ is legion.

and this man is representing a seminary?../facepalm

You can just refer to them collectively as 'Legion'.

>> ^nanrod:

Is it just me or is the style and tenor of marbles comments suspiciously similar to that of shinyblurry.

>> ^Hybrid:

I am Anonymous. I am Legion. I do not forgive. I do not forget. Expect sifts.


Come at us, bro.

"...for the people that once bestowed commands, civil office, legions and all else,
now meddles no more and longs eagerly for just two things -- Bread and Circuses!"

- Satura X

I am Anonymous. I am Legion. I do not forgive. I do not forget. Expect sifts.