Bob,

You and I agree on very little, but I think we stand united on this one: when are those motherfucking crackers in Appalachia gonna get their shit together, get off the meth, and make something out of themselves? Damn, it felt good to say that!

Why would I want to sit down with someone who takes every opportunity to call me a racist, or shitty, etc?

Perhaps if you could work on the charm part of your personality...?

Do I call you names?

All I want for you is for you to make the best of your circumstances, but you only seem to want to look at your circumstances, make everyone tell you how sad your life is, that you have no hope etc.

You seem quite content in your life, so perhaps that is your atunement.
When you are ready to move on, you will put all of this behind you, including me, and you'll make something of your life. (I only assume you've done nothing with your life because you never say anything about it other than 'woe is me', white people are racist etc)

At least you have internet! You could google 'famous black people' or something like that, and see how they became successful.

Adrenaline rushes aren't dangerous if they're done properly. Personally I'm going to make sure my little boy is exposed to plenty of 'scary' things as he grows up so he can learn about risk and how to assess/handle it properly.

I saw a great documentary about this with Danny MacAskill called Daredevils: Life On The Edge. It looked at adrenaline junkies and investigated why they do what they do. At the end of the program there's a really nice choreographed sequence with MacAskill and various others performing tricks as they descend down the step into an underground station in London, and through the station itself.

The sequence was directed by a hollywood stunt specialist who has worked with all the top guys in big blockbuster movies and he said that the stuntmen and women, far from what most people think, are the least likely people in the world to do something risky. There are two parts to this. Firstly they've learned how to be very good at assessing risk. They understand extremely well what makes something safe or risky. They've had a lot of experience and have learned from it.

Secondly they are very highly skilled. What would be very risky for us to do isn't for them because they have the training to perform safely. We only think what they're doing is dangerous because we ourselves would be very likely to be hurt doing it.

If you insulate a kid from risky experiences you deny them the chance to learn in a controlled environment. It's like teaching a kid to cook. If you look after them really well and provide everything they need and cook them fantastic nutritious meals every day until they leave home they'll love you immensely for it. Then they'll move out, try to look after themselves and end up burning the house down with a pan fire or cut the end of their finger off with a knife or shave the skin off their hand with a grater.

Teach a kid how to use a sharp knife safely and how to sharpen it and keep it keen and they'll be safe for the rest of their life. Kids should be able to use sharp knives, under strict supervision of course, to learn the safe way of doing it. They should be doing 'dangerous' things to learn to do them safely. Part of the learning process is probably going to hurt. They may well get a few cuts before they get their knife skills up to scratch, but if they're in a controlled environment these should be small compared to the injuries that happen when someone with no idea about knives forces a blunt one through something tough.

As for adrenaline sports, the more they fall over the better they learn to balance. If this kid goes on a bit of a bigger slide and gets thrown off in the corners it's going to hurt, but it's not going to kill him. He'll find his limits and respect them more.

I'd rather my kid makes his mistakes while I'm still around to clear up the mess

Education for someone in a third world country isn't necessarily re-writing the assembly code. It is just enjoying using the computer. Learning to type. Learning how a mouse works. Making something beautiful. Writing a paper for school. From there, curiosity and fun will do the rest.

I have been saying this for years.
I remember at my grad exhibition in Art School, I did this one painting, which took my about 150 hours to create, (http://www3.telus.net/Nickel/links/400/paintings/lynettandjoanne_400.jpg).
or: http://www3.telus.net/Nickel/links/400/paintings/lynetteandjoanne_detail_400.jpg

And this other classmate, made wax molds of toast, laid a few in the center of the floor in a room, and called it an "Installation.

Now, I was supposed to "OOOO" and "AHHH" over her work, but her and her friends, were rallying against my painting, calling it trash and no point. If had wanted to make something realistic, then I should have been a photographer..., I was wasting my time.

Moral of the story: My piece sold, hers didn't.

Everyone knows what has to happen but everyone has his own fancy angle on how and why and when and whose fault it is.

A country has spent all the money it could possibly borrow and then some, and has just voted not to stop spending.

Hey Greece, you will have to stop spending one day, the only thing that is not certain is how long this mess can be drawn out. While stopping spending may not look like it can help restart your economy, not getting any further external economic props might just make something happen.

It will be interesting to see how the political bits and pieces will work themselves out.

Its like your cousin borrowed some money from you and leased a fancy car like you have. He cant start paying you back just now, in fact he cant afford the downpayments anymore and now you either have to lend him more money or he has to go back to riding on the bus and the whole car is lost. You hate him because he lied to you about his income and he hates you because you cant really afford to "lend" more money right now.

PS: my bet is Greece gets to keep the car somehow.

Your video, What makes something right or wrong? Narrated by Stephen Fry, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 15 Badge!

I don't know about this... It looks like a wait and see. Some of those scenes look like they are trying too hard...like WAY too hard; essentially they are trying to scare us using all of the extremely stupid ideas that have been used in all horror films since 2000...

Poltergeist was inventive, and awesome. Not only was it NOT a rated R film, but it STILL imposed a sense of dread that you don't get from many horror movies--because they all rely on two things: the "gotcha" scenes where something unexpected happens too fast for your senses to comprehend...thus it creates fear; and second, make something normal look absolutely not normal (the little girl in the closet for an example).

I hope they can pull it off, but it looks to me like they failed to grasp the reason WHY the first film did do so well. The beginning of the show was hard to even tell it WAS a horror film, and when things start to happen, the family was more in awe and ready to experiment with it...at first (and other signs were passed off as natural phenomena).

This looks like it is straight up: horror. I really hope that is not the case. Poltergeist spent a long time to setup it's scary moments, many of it's most scary moments are actually psychological--because you can see them coming, they never jump out at you (except when things go crazy at the very end). I hope they realize this at least...but as I said, it sure looks like they didn't.

BTW, anyone with the info on it, who is writing it, producing it, and directing it? Otherwise I'll go look it up (and see how bad it is; it already said it was from the producers of Evil Dead...like that is something to be proud of...it wasn't a good remake...).

What makes something right or wrong? Narrated by Stephen Fry has been added as a related post - related requested by messenger.

*related=http://videosift.com/video/What-makes-something-right-or-wrong-Narrated-by-Stephen-Fry

Odd. You spend 3 years making something that is supposed to be a model of something else, you'd think you would get closer to looking like it.

http://halo.wikia.com/wiki/UNSC_Pillar_of_Autumn?file=PoA.jpg

Is that when they make something impressive yet strange and mysterious?

Lighten up mate, no one's taking notes, he's right in the spotlight and he's got to do something.. Right there, under pressure with all eyes on him and expectant, he didn't lose his wits and that's pretty much enough for the crowd to go for - they're already wired up because he's put the effort in to make them primed to laugh. I bet you're under 28 and you've never put yourself voluntarily into that kind of focus, where it matters.. you'd be surprised how hard it is just to be yourself, never mind be funny for someone else.

Or you could be one of the few it comes naturally to, and you should go make something of yourself and i should shut up.

That's really cool, and you have to admire his dedication and craft.


but....

I don't see creativity here.

Creativity comes from making something your own, not replicating the works of others. When you take the three things that are left in your fridge and somehow make a decent meal.... that's creativity to me.

The Sugar industry makes something I like, Sugar! So why wouldn't I trust them? I mean I like TV too, it's always telling me about more TV that I should watch.