@AnimalsForCrackers, @SDGundamX.

AForC, I think you just made SD's point for him. Your post was thick with condescension. I'm a scientist, and I happen to not hold any particular religious affiliations. However, I often attempt to hold dialogue with religious folks, and try to understand their world view. I agree, it is important that those with secular belief systems organize so that we are taken seriously by our elected representatives. However, I don't feel it is necessary to downright insult the beliefs of another, nor do I feel that is a productive means to the ends we both desire. It is the tendency of the authors on your list to do so, and it is for that reason that I, and many like me, tend to avoid their rhetoric. Likewise, I try to avoid the "War on Christmas" type rhetoric. Rhetoric from both sides is widening the divisions between us, and tending to entrench people more in their beliefs. That tends to work against the aim of a more secular, enlightened, or free-thinking society. I think Dawkins could do far more good for the world by keeping his subject matter to biology. Further, it is important to point out that people like Sam Harris are doing what they're doing for the same reasons that tele-evangalists do... monetizing their particular belief system.

>> ^KnivesOut:

And then imagine what will happen when every advertiser is competing for your attention by monetizing and infiltrating those interstitial spaces.>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Imagine with me a strange new future. A future were augmented reality replaces the normal. Were buildings are plane, with no wall paper and decorative niceties. Where all (much) fashion and art isn't physical, but displayed directly in your brain/retina. Why paint my wall when I can just change a setting in my AR homepage. Today, I want every display space of my path down to my work to be in the theme of Gothic, Classical, Newaged, or Blue! Reality is so yesterday, prepare for augmented reality.



Indeed, perhaps we wouldn't mind though...like google? But if I could litter my view with a list of great artwork and architecture that some website compiled, perhaps an ad here or there would be worth it I am just imagineering here. "This wall brought to you be Sears"

And then imagine what will happen when every advertiser is competing for your attention by monetizing and infiltrating those interstitial spaces.>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

Imagine with me a strange new future. A future were augmented reality replaces the normal. Were buildings are plane, with no wall paper and decorative niceties. Where all (much) fashion and art isn't physical, but displayed directly in your brain/retina. Why paint my wall when I can just change a setting in my AR homepage. Today, I want every display space of my path down to my work to be in the theme of Gothic, Classical, Newaged, or Blue! Reality is so yesterday, prepare for augmented reality.

NP. Ants' compound eyes rule.

In reply to this comment by bleedmegood:
Thank you sir.....could've sworn I'd checked the NSFW box.....good eye

In reply to this comment by ant:
*nsfw

In reply to this comment by bleedmegood:
Thank you sir.....could've sworn I'd checked the NSFW box.....good eye

In reply to this comment by ant:
*nsfw

NP!

Thank you sir.....could've sworn I'd checked the NSFW box.....good eye

In reply to this comment by ant:
*nsfw

"What's more "procedural" about this carving than a wood carving of a flower? Or a painting of a flower? Do you think Monet didn't have a procedure established when he painted his lilies?"

This is procedural in the same sence as those space spray painted images.
you could probably teach manny people how to do this in a very short peroid of time and get them to replicate it without themselfs having to aply anny real thought to the process.

not that i have a problem with unless sumone was falsly claiming that they invented the process not that that is that important as well.

I never said that this is more or less valid than another thing on a universal level .

I made it very clear that ultimetly if the artist gets enjoyment from it and sumone else dose then it dosent realy matter.

I think you can easily say that the technical ablity / knowlage required for this is less than say carving a convincing face out of wood or stone.
just because something is technically easy to do dosent make it invalid , but it dose make it technicalyt easy to do and there for often times far less impressive to manny people that might have an intrest in technical intrecasy in things , or the merging of technical exicutoin and origonal presentation.

my saying it is naff is my personal subjective view of it from my exsperance of seeing things having looked at ,cakes ,glasss work ,bits of art and abstract work i would think that people that have seen allot of art or maby work in art related fiealds would allso percive it as naff , but maby not.

>> ^westy:
I dont understand what you are saying.
and intemrs of the artistic merits of this its a very procedural method to produce this , i dont have an issue with it but i dobt evan the artist rates it realy highely probably just enjoys making roses with water mellons nothing wrong with that .
Interms of complexty and origonalty this dose not rate very highely , but then again thats not to say that sumone might realy enjoy this and the guy making it might realy enjoy it.
I was simply voicing my personal prefrences in that if i was going to do this id probably want to do something more origonal and something that to me would make it more apealing to eat , but if this was intended for a buffet then i can emgin it would go down realy well so its fine for that and again if it makes the guy happy thats making it happy then thats fine as well.


What's more "procedural" about this carving than a wood carving of a flower? Or a painting of a flower? Do you think Monet didn't have a procedure established when he painted his lilies?

Would you consider a wood carving or sculpture of a flower art? What's the difference, one is edible and the other is not?

This displays a masterful use of the watermelon's natural structure and colors to create a work of art. How many things like this do you see everyday for you to call this unoriginal?

And you say you're making a "piont that is logically sound", except your original post contains no logic, only personal bias that this is "naff" and "tacky".

>> ^TheFreak:

>> ^honkeytonk73:
>> ^thinker247:
The Brits are correct; gingers are frightening.

There is nothing like banging a fire crotch! You should give it a try!
I found that the real advantage of the fire crotch was in the oral aspect.
It's like you've been staring at a white painted wall your whole life and then someone hangs a Monet right there. Suddenly something that was bland and boring gets all interesting and fun. You want to get up close and spend lots of time just appreciating the beauty of it.


Well said, very well said indeed.

>> ^honkeytonk73:
>> ^thinker247:
The Brits are correct; gingers are frightening.

There is nothing like banging a fire crotch! You should give it a try!
I found that the real advantage of the fire crotch was in the oral aspect.

It's like you've been staring at a white painted wall your whole life and then someone hangs a Monet right there. Suddenly something that was bland and boring gets all interesting and fun. You want to get up close and spend lots of time just appreciating the beauty of it.

There is some difference between the way liveleak is embedding it at their site and the way it gets embedded here, and it has something to do with longtailvideo.com providing a way to monetize the views. All I know is that I can view something at liveleak but the embed from that exact same video I can not view here.
link

I have flash 10,0,45,2.

Something is being blocked. But I don't know where. I'm only using the basic XP firewall and have taken this machine off the router.

"LongTail Video, home of the JW Player, is the premier destination for online video solutions. We offer the #1 open source FLV and Silverlight players along with plugins, skins and a self-serve ad solution that empowers publishers to monetize their videos. Our players have streamed billions of videos and our AdSolution serves millions of pre-roll, overlay mid-roll and post-roll ads daily."

Everyone of the videos I can't play connects to plugins.longtailvideo.com. I can play every other video here. ugh.
Are you using Firefox?

>> ^inflatablevagina:
My point is even if the fine is $1000 I am going to speed sometime. If you say you don't speed.... I am calling bullshit. (p.s. im not picking on you.. i like you)
The speed limit around here is mostly 60 MPH. Do you know how many people actually drive 60 all the time? I bet if there are any... it's a relatively small percentage. If I want to drive 70 or 75 so be it. I leave plenty of space between me and the car in front of me. If someone tailgates me I move. I am all about being safe, but mandatory arbitrary speed limits on highways are ridiculous to me. I am totally fine speed limits in residential neighborhoods and school zones. I obey those speeds as I suspect most do.
I don't like stupid rules to be placed on me because other people can't handle their shit. I have an issue with a cop chasing me down the highway at 70 MPH and giving me a $250-300 ticket for speeding. Fuuuuuuck that. Cops have many uses in society and I bet you, I BET, that if they didn't have to babysit the roads then they would be able to perform an ACTUAL service to the community. Those cops didn't sign up to sit on the fucking highway and pull over people to ticket, did they? No most likely they signed up to patrol and protect the citizens... they have no place monitoring my speed.



Inflatable, you're exactly right. If laws worked to stop people from breaking the law, then states with death penalties would have no murders.

Whatever happened to punishment fitting the crime? Most of all punishment these days is monetary. Speeding tickets are a cash cow for the state. They make loads of money, and they also give their officers a quota so they can ensure they make that same revenue amount each year.

You feel you're a safe driver, and you also feel you should be able to drive 70 or 75 in the 60 MPH zone, but the Statists around you think you're too dangerous and irresponsible to do so and there must be a law against you doing so - and men with guns should pull you over to cite you.

The State sends these men with guns out to force you to obey their belief system which also generates income for them. How is this not racketeering? How is this not akin to paying protection money to the mob? And if you disagree with their monetized dogma, the men with guns throw you in a cage.

I would do it as a completely separate product and re brand from the sift , due to the fact that games are a completely different media to videos and also because i believe u can monetize a games specific site far better than a mixed media site. (for example Digg dose mixed media very well but im not sure how financially successful it is outside of its fictional market value )

Due to the way flash game licensing works it could prove tricky to have users add there own games but it could be done.

of course with flash games you would have to do alot of the hosting as it is very much frowned upon to direct link flash content (sites like you tube although advertise themselves well (through direct linking) struggle to turn a profit due to the hosting costs).

To minimize hosting costs u could easily have it so that games that don't get to front within 4 weeks are deleated from the site, with only "front" games and Admin feture games staying around for anny length of time.


If Sum one who already works with varocms is interested that would be cool.

I'm not saying Keynesians are "right", I just think they're the least wrong of the current schools.

The nutshell Keynesian theory of inflation is that it's primarily about mismatches between aggregate supply and demand. Assuming they're normally in equilibrium, if you increase aggregate demand (e.g. an increase in government spending), or cut aggregate supply (e.g. the price of oil/shipping spikes, or an embargo is put in place), the general price level will increase.

As far as money supply, its main role in inflation has to do with its effect on aggregate demand (lowering interest rates makes it increase, raising it makes it decrease).

According to the econometrics, aggregate demand has fallen off a cliff, while aggregate supply has remained relatively unchanged, hence deflation. In normal times, the Fed buying up debt from private banks would cause those banks to lend out those reserves, resulting in more money in circulation. But since the banks are still refusing to lend, it isn't getting out into the general economy.

There's a concern for inflation if the Fed doesn't contract that down as we recover (and they intend to), or if we end up monetizing our debt (which the market doesn't seem to think is terribly likely right now).

That story sounds plausible to me, especially since it explains all the weirdness we're seeing in the economy right now (and through various crises in the 20th century). Unemployment is going up, prices are going down, and this is happening despite an exceptionally radical attempt to expand the money supply.