Ineffective != Terrible

If it costs 1200 Euros (on average) to clear one mine, releasing 24 of these things to detonate ONE mine is still cheaper than other option. If one of these things detonates one landmine, perhaps one seven-year-old gets to keep her leg. Money well spent. Until the local population can afford Million-dollar landmine-clearing tanks these can make a small difference for relatively modest costs.

You are correct that the whirlygigs are more expensive than many landmines. Mines are cheap. Getting to the root of the problem and banning use and production of landmines is a greater issue.

This video may help to *promote attention to an ongoing global problem. Presently, Russia, the United States, Israel, India and Pakistan have still not signed up to the the Ottawa Treaty. A further issue is that many manufacturers of munitions, including mines, are heavily invested in by stock-brokers and pension funds. The BC Investment Management Corporation, for example, which manages investments for teachers' and public servants' pensions plans has in the past had as much as "$4.6 billion worth of stock in 251 corporations producing war materiel." There is money in war. People get paid to build landmines.

>> ^Drachen_Jager:

Terrible idea. It's not systematic enough to clear any given area with certainty, and people may think of zones where these have been operating as 'clear' instead of as potential landmine areas. I think this invention has a great potential to increase the number of accidental landmine detonations, lost limbs and deaths.
Maybe it will explode a few, but when some of it's 'legs' get blown off it stops moving. Does someone go out there, risking his life and limbs in what is now a known minefield to fix it, or do you just leave it there? Because they may seem cheap, but 1 whirlydoohickey blown up per 1 landmine disarmed is hardly 'cheap', when some landmines cost under a dollar, and they may be spread out in the thousands in a given area.

I'm confused. How is that supposed to address my point? I'm saying I've seen many more girls ridiculed and shamed for "dressing slutty" on halloween than I have seen girls shamed for wearing something more modest. It's frustrating that there is this assumption about the motivations of girls that choose to dress in a particular way. I don't understand how assuming they are dressing to please men is any different from the logic that leads rapists to assume women have implicitly consented based on their dress. The video implicitly makes that assumption. That is, it assumes girls are doing this for externally motivated reasons rather than intrinsically motivated reasons. I've never found that to be the case. Most often the girls enjoy "looking cute" and all of the attention that brings with it. The snarky tone of this video suggests that those somehow aren't valid motivations, and instead self-respecting girls should aspire to some higher set of values. In other words, the video seems to have the agenda of slut shaming. I think that's bogus. Your link is dumb because the girl I was talking about didn't buy her costume. She put it together from her wardrobe, painting the mask and everything. I think the prevalence of "sexy _____" costumes has more to do with market driven realities (i.e. how women like to look) than by some externally imposed patriarchal agenda.

>> ^bareboards2:

http://fucknosexisthalloweencostumes.tumblr.com/
@bmac27

In 1981, Frank Tipler[3] put forth an argument that extraterrestrial intelligences do not exist, based on the absence of von Neumann probes. Given even a moderate rate of replication and the history of the galaxy, such probes should already be common throughout space and thus, we should have already encountered them. Because we have not, this shows that extraterrestrial intelligences do not exist. This is thus a resolution to the Fermi paradox—that is, the question of why we have not already encountered extraterrestrial intelligence if it is common throughout the universe.

A response[4] came from Carl Sagan and William Newman. Now known as Sagan's Response, it pointed out that in fact Tipler had underestimated the rate of replication, and that von Neumann probes should have already started to consume most of the mass in the galaxy. Any intelligent race would therefore, Sagan and Newman reasoned, not design von Neumann probes in the first place, and would try to destroy any von Neumann probes found as soon as they were detected. As Robert Freitas[5] has pointed out the assumed capacity of von Neumann probes described by both sides of the debate are unlikely in reality, and more modestly reproducing systems are unlikely to be observable in their effects on our Solar System or the Galaxy as a whole.

Another objection to the prevalence of von Neumann probes is that civilizations of the type that could potentially create such devices may have inherently short lifetimes, and self-destruct before so advanced a stage is reached, through such events as biological or nuclear warfare, nanoterrorism, resource exhaustion, ecological catastrophe, pandemics due to antibiotic resistance.

A simple workaround exists to avoid the over-replication scenario. Radio transmitters, or other means of wireless communication, could be used by probes programmed not to replicate beyond a certain density (such as five probes per cubic parsec) or arbitrary limit (such as ten million within one century), analogous to the Hayflick limit in cell reproduction. One problem with this defence against uncontrolled replication is that it would only require a single probe to malfunction and begin unrestricted reproduction for the entire approach to fail — essentially a technological cancer — unless each probe also has the ability to detect such malfunction in its neighbours and implements a seek and destroy protocol.

wikipedia my friend

4. cut the deficit... ACH!!!!

Enough with the Austerity Club talking points. There is nothing wrong with running a deficit, that is how government sparks an economic recovery. Wanna see what it looks like when you run zero deficit during an economic crisis? Just take a look at Spain and Greece with the German noose around their necks and pocketbooks. Or for a less extreme example, see Britain's very, very modest recovery since the Tories put in their deficit reduction plans in the middle of a crisis.

@Boise_Lib

What exactly do you think credit cards provide? Free IOUs?

Credit cards offer unsecured short term loans. When a customer pays them back on time the customer pays how much? Nothing.


However when someone goes bankrupt who often does not get paid? The credit card companies. This means some people run up tens of thousands of dollars in debt and then pay either a small percentage or none of it back.

I don't feel bad for the credit card companies but I also don't blame them for our consumer society.

A lot of what Warren says here should resonate with everyone. We are all people and we do live, die, dance, and cry. That said maybe we need to put more focus on the people and relationships we have with them instead of having the newest car, the nicest house, the most expensive clothes etc. Then we can pay our more modest credit card bills on time.

Still my favorite part is the whole deal about loans. Anyone who researches the issue knows that it was systemic - politicians from both the democratic and republican party, wall street & main street. Irrational exuberance for the American Dream of everyone owning a home.

I have a good friend of mine that got hit hard by an IED in Iraq. He lost both his legs and suffered some serious brain injuries. It took him a year just to be able to talk again, but he persevered and recovered as one can from something like that. He eventually got an entry-level job working as a teller at a bank. Within 5 years, he had worked his way up to branch manager. He is now on the short list for the regional manager's slot. He has to work 10x harder than his peers to even be considered, but he does it because he wants to be better than "just a cripple" (his words).

Honestly, a lot of people make excuses for why they can't instead of making strides to make it happen for them. He could have done nothing for the rest of his life and lived off his disability and pension modestly, but he chose to be better than that and worked his ass of for his successes.

Sure, there are people out there that flat out can't work or can't function normally in society, but that is a tiny fraction of the world as a whole.

>> ^alien_conceptWhat about people with moderate learning difficulties, or disabilities? They're able to work, but not a chance in hell they could go into the army and take advantage of what they have to offer, or work in an IT department. I think the only people who believe in this dream are the ones who are lucky enough to have had it happen for them. Not everyone is in the same position as you were or are now. Some people will never be able to have a good job, because they just aren't able.

@gorillaman
Crass, but valid.
Certainly relevant, but not particularly practical.

The discussion was already about "human life", which we tend to hold with pretty high regard on an individual basis, if (as has been mentioned) not institutionally. I think it's semantics to debate "Mind" vs "human life" in this context.
But what's the utility? You proudly and triumphantly plant your flag and proclaim "HERE, HERE IS THE SPOT", and I applaud you for having the courage and conviction to do so, but you've planted your flag in a cloud.
Now you're stuck defining consciousness, an illusive and scarcely understood construct that we can acknowledge exists, but which currently has no explanation in our understanding of the universe.
Where does that leave you? (Here's hoping this doesn't turn into A Modest Proposal.)

>> ^Sagemind:

Never - Ever Purchase in-store warranty.
In-store warranty is just a gimmick add-on sale (and cash-grab)for the store. 99% of the time, the product's own warranty or the general store policy covers any defect or incidental damage to may occur.
Don't waste your money!


Warranty, replacement, and service plans can all be different and do different things. I used to work at a national computer retailer that made most of it's profit off various replacement and warranty programs so I've dealt with them quite a bit.

In my experience, in store warranty programs are no different than the manufacturer ones, and people tended to buy them for 2 or 3 years on items that only had a 1 year or less manufacturer warranty. The good ones would extend off the end of the manufacturer warranty, the bad ones would just overlap with it (theyd have redundant coverage the first year).

Replacement plans however can be quite useful and even beneficial. The company I worked for actually had to change it's policy for employees because it felt the system was too easy to game for us at discounted prices. The beauty of these is that they DO tend to cover accidental damage or wear and tear, which most warranties wont. They are usually short, 1 or 2 years and can be pricey if they cover stuff like screens or battery replacement.

Depending on your honesty or luck, replacement plans can be a way to replace or even upgrade your items for a modest price (for example I get an old headset replaced through a plan but I end up with a newer headset, and i just pay another $10 or so to cover the new set...rinse and repeat every couple of years).

For the few years I worked at that retailer, I was able to keep almost all of my hardware up to date for 10-50 bucks a piece every couple of years (at that time it included stuff like my video card and optical drives)!

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Lucky is just being modest. I also blame myself for the lack of focus. I've got two kids and for once ... A day job that I feel pretty good about. Part of this post is a confession that I fee guilty about cheating on VideoSift. Did I mention that I bought a 1080p projector?

Some people up here are buying ~3 acre lots and putting 6 of these little houses on them and renting them each for about $750/mo... so you end up with a modest investment making $4000+ gross rentals

This only serves to aggravate me. Another taxpayer panel in which we enjoy the benefit of plausible deniability (or whatever there greased 300,00$K lawyers claim works for the current system of worked in loopholes). More so, because I know not a single one of these sons of bitches will do time or ever care--really care. They should be in jail for life. They should be in a federal prison, full security, no white collar bullshit.

They should live on a meager sum the rest of the entirety of their days with all their buildings, lands, businesses, capital, funds, CDs, IRAs, everything except their social security and even that should be looked at (as they should be allowed a low middle income and that is IT); they can gain no earmarks, no passes from their buddies or gifts (although he can live with him as long as his money is not being paid out), they cannot benefit from a will or other form of transfer ship at an appointed time or setting, and then ANYTHING I haven't covered. No politics, no books, no television, no movies, you're in the "white collar" death knell that is their true jail cell. He CAN enlist in the army, they may have a modest job, but the dream of riches are OVER. They chose the ultimate path of pressure that can be exerted on a white collar criminal.

If only we thought that crime like that could be as dangerous as a murderer (and trust me--I'm sure many of you do know already--but, if you don't white collar crimes can end up killing thousands of people, but their hands are virtually clean). Perhaps it is part of the taboo we have with mental disease, we'd rather it remain in the back-room or rather in the back of your mouth. Strangely many of these white collar criminals most likely all suffer from having almost NO empathy for others; they literally could care less what it is like to be me or you. This is a mental issue, but we never talk of such things--it's rude! But, violence has its own mental disease "shards" as well that cause it to start either young or later in life...

But, we refuse to deal with the main topic, so how about punishment(s) atleast? White collar crime is seen as something you do at your beach house in Florida on the weekend. Your lawyer tells you about it on your flight into Boston on Monday, you have three death threats sent to your e-mail, you mildly humming, "Hip To Be Square", send them to your spam folder and block the senders after you send them a death threat/repossession letter back through a company proxy, which then you use another proxy to feed the final bytes through. Your lawyer tells you you'll have to show up to an injunction and say this exact prepared statement, which of course, nicely enough they allow you to read from when they take your testimony. This is our guy. Right now he's eating a stake with a glass of Chardonnay from Italy in the early 90's--meanwhile, "Easy Lover", is booming in the background while his mistress takes a swim in his Penthouse's swimming pool. He doesn't have to get up early, so it'll be a long night--after all nobody is coming for him.

Attack them hard and they might take notice.



What a new punishment that would be for white collar criminals--a death sentence, for them.



Just institute what I said above and it may change things. Attack the problem psychologically, as jail-time is either meaningless or to them it's "Club Fed". But, this of course requires good lawmakers, which requires competent voters, which requires a great education system...

No calls, no businesses, no helping: they are burnt.

Not that it matters to me but just for the hell of it I looked up both songs and The Cranberries came out with the album "Everybody Else Is Doing It So Why Can't We" in 1993. Modest Mouse came out with there album with "Bankrupt on Selling" in 1997. >> ^JiggaJonson:

That sounds suspiciously similar to "Bankrupt on Selling"

Probably just a commonly used strum; tho, if not, it'd be Modest Mouse lifting it off of the Cranberries since Lonesome Crowded West came out 4 years after Everybody Else Is Doing It, So Why Can't We?



On a side note The Smashing Pumpkins song "Disarm" is very similar in chord structure to the Cranberries "Zombie".

That sounds suspiciously similar to "Bankrupt on Selling"



Probably just a commonly used strum; tho, if not, it'd be Modest Mouse lifting it off of the Cranberries since Lonesome Crowded West came out 4 years after Everybody Else Is Doing It, So Why Can't We?

Not that the founders were without religion, but that they realized the danger of letting religious "opinions" guide legislative policy. It speaks volumes of their intellect that these men, even when living in a society where being religiously aligned was the norm, even having attended seminary and church on a regular basis, still sought fit to vote against aligning their new country to any one religious sect

You certainly are a master of quoting. Too bad you don't go the extra mile and use your brain to analyze what is actually being said, put it in context and honestly apply it to the discussion we're having. The weird thing I've noticed is you quote me, James Madison and the Constitution of North Carolina all in the same manner. Not really engaging much with the ideas and myopically drawing conclusions filtered through your allegiance to Christian dogma.

I guess I asked for it. Serves me right. When dealing with a Christian I should have expected every tiny detail to be taken literally. Let me be blunt: I was joking about getting into a quote war.

What I was doing was attacking the foundations of your argument, and providing evidence for my positions. What you have provided is a lot of speculation based on loose interpretations of our history through a secular lens. I would say I have had some success being that the claims you are making have become progressively more modest:

first post: "Maybe you should do some research on "Deism" a popular philosophy many of our founders were exposed to and followed. It doesn't mean that some of the founders weren't traditional, god-fearing men"

second post: "I grant, and did grant in my previous posts, that many of the founders could be considered "Christians."

third post: "Because all of the founders were Christians (again, a point I never denied)"

first post: "Yes, our government was intended to be secular."

second post: "More importantly, they let deism inform how they set up American government."

I'm going to be sparse in my reply. Since you have seen fit to do a hit and run, I don't intend to spend much time on this.

3. Your point, which seems to be that Christianity has always existed and been an important part of American history. Let me be clear: On this, I agree with you. But not when you continue a step further, saying religion was meant to perform a controlling role in government and that government works better because of it.

No, my main point was that the establishment clause does not mean seperation of church and state, which is the basis for all of this hullabaloo. You've basically conceded this point to me:

"I think the purpose of the establishment clause was to protect the country from any one religious sect from dominating the others. Because all of the founders were Christians (again, a point I never denied), even the ones who were influenced by Deism, the purpose of explicitly stating that there would be no nationally sanctioned religion was, initially, to keep one sect of Christianity from gaining control over the others."

You're admitting here that the purpose of the establishment clause was to keep one denomination from gaining control over the others. It wasn't to protect the country from Christian theism, it was protect the country from a particular flavor of Christian theism from gaining power. What "religion" meant was denomination religion, not doctrinal religion. So if this was the purpose of the establishment clause, it can't mean what you argue it does elsewhere.

"And yes, I knew what I was doing when I included the letter from Jefferson as my sole quote. I'd hoped it'd cause you to pause and reflect, but you were too busy getting up on that high horse with Jesus to care."

I think the letter is a valid example of an instance where we have one of the architects of the Constitution explaining, in his own words, why it is written as it is. I think Jefferson's aim was to keep religion and state separate, and his opponents called him an atheist for it. As you pointed out and I agree, he was indeed a Christian


This is a bizzare comment and it shows you still haven't grasped my point. If you knew what you were doing, you would known that the whole idea of "seperation of church and state" is based on that letter. Obviously I was well aware of that, and fundementally disagreed with that interpretation, which is why I was busy providing you evidence that proved that this was a misinterpretation of Jeffersons intent. If he meant what you and others say he did, then he wouldn't have acted so contrarily to it during his time in government. Barbar got it; he knew exactly what I was saying. It has apparently gone completely over your head.

Where you see a "shocking moral decline" I see human rights being extended to all genders and races. All too often nowadays, organized religion supports authoritarian ideas. It often supports unhealthy psychology and grassroots movements that would be laughably anti-scientific if the situation weren't so serious.

When I say "shocking moral decline", I am not talking about womens rights or homosexual rights. I am talking about degeneration of civil society, the increase in crime, drug use, teen pregnancy, and many other factors which paint of picture of a country that is morally debased and getting worse by the year. I'm not saying it was ever perfect, but it had a foundation; biblical morality. Now that the foundation has been removed we are in a moral free fall.

Here are some statistics:

http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/RevealingStatistics.html

Humanity might have needed ages of development aided by organized religion to figure out how to behave morally. But, we're smarter now. We can objectively consider our history and defer to our own individual morally whenever an ancient book that sometimes advocates slavery, infanticide and magic would tell us we are sinning for even thinking about how we can make things better. Don’t worry, though the "whole thing will crumble," we've got a solid secular foundation, preserving the ideas most important in building a better future.

Perhaps you're just very young and have no context, but in my observation things in this country have gotten palpably worse in the short time I've been alive, and most of that time I have been observing this I was agnostic. Worse yet, this effect appears to be expodential. Not only is America losing its place on the worlds stage, but internally it has become something like babylon.

The bible doesn't say you need to be a Christian to be moral. It says we all have a god given conscience that tells us right and wrong. This relativism that you're talking about is exactly the problem. If its your truth and my truth, then there is no truth, and no one has a rock to stand on. The thing about Truth is that it the same regardless of when it was written or where it came from. It is the same regardless of what people believe. And the bible is true. There is a God, and He has imposed a moral law, and those who violate it will face judgement. That is why Christ came, to save us from our sins, because all have sinned and fallen short. Are humans smarter? In terms of knowledge, sure. In terms of wisdom? Not a bit. Human beings are no more wise than they were when the bible was written. The words of Christ are wise and they are for all time. In them, there is life, and that abundantly.
>> ^LukinStone:

>> ^DuoJet:

This is total, f cking, bullsh t. I tried a number of different medications before I found the right one for me. Some of the medications I tried did nothing, some caused unwanted side effects, only one got me where I wanted to be.
For me the difference has not been modest, but life-changing.
Friends have described the similar experiences.
Do not stop taking your anti-depressants based on this report.


My experience is similar to yours but let us not dismiss these findings just because they are not what we want to hear.

Assuming these findings are correct for a moment, it could be that you and I are the sort of people who genuinely benefit from the drugs whereas the vast majority of people who are given the drugs are not and are merely benefiting from placebo.