Prince of Persia - Did You Know Gaming? Feat. Matt McMuscles has been added as a related post - related requested by ant.

Note Ali (Muhammad Ali), Leia (Carrie Fisher), Major Tom (David Bowie), Willy Wonka (Gene Wilder), Prince, and Brady's Mom (? - Florence Henderson?), all recent celebrity deaths.

Lyrics from https://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/perfectcircle/solongandthanksforallthefish.html :

Time is money and money is time
We wasted every second dime
On diets, lawyers, shrinks and apps
And flags, and plastic surgery
Now Willy Wonka, Major Tom
Ali and Leia have moved on
Signal the final curtain call
In all this atomic pageantry

Bravissimo, hip-hip hooray
For this fireworks display
Mind and body blown away
What a radiant crescendo

Ticker tape parade
Our hair and skin like
Like Marilyn Monroe
In an empty wind

Time is money and money is time
We wasted every second dime
On politicians, fancy water
And guns, and plastic surgery
Like old Prince and Brady's mom
All the dolphins have moved on
Signaling the final curtain call
In all this atomic pageantry

Bravissimo, hip-hip hooray
What a glorious display
Melt our joyous hearts away
Under the mushroom cloud confetti

Hip-hip hooray
For this fireworks display
Mind and body blown away
What a radiant crescendo

Hip-hip hooray
Hip-hip hooray

Ticker tape parade
Our hair and skin like
Like Marilyn Monroe
In an empty wind

Time is money and money is time
We wasted every second dime
On diets, lawyers, shrinks and apps
And flags, and plastic surgery
Now Willy Wonka, Major Tom
Ali and Leia have moved on
Signal the final curtain call
In all this atomic pageantry

Robert Prince FTW.

Satan is not a horned beast with a pitchfork, he is a fallen angel. The scripture tells us that he appears as an angel of light, and his ministers, ministers of righteousness.

Satan means enemy, and he is the enemy of both God and man. He has many names: the devil, red dragon, beelzebub, father of lies, prince of the power of the air, the god of this world, the accuser, the adversary, the tempter, the serpent, belial

In Heaven, he was called the "annointed Cherub who covers", as in the Cherubs that covered the mercy seat on the Ark of the Covenant. He was perfect in all of his ways until iniquity was found in him, and he was cast out. He was lifted up because of his own beauty and desired to replace God and be worshiped. Jesus said that He saw Satan fall from Heaven like lightning.

He deceived 1/3 of the angelic host to follow him into perdition. With them he wars against God and man, and has deceived the whole world. The scripture tells us that the whole world lies in the lap of the wicked one.

Jesus Christ defeated Him on the cross, 2000 years ago. He took from Satan the keys of death and hell. The demons believe in Him, and tremble.

Every person who comes to faith in Jesus Christ, as having died on the cross for their sins and being resurrected on the third day, will be forgiven for their sins and receive eternal life. The devil will lose his power over them and they will be set free.

Back the fuck up. Did they just say that the princes were IN the movie as stormtroopers?

Freedom of religion is independent of civilian armament.
History shows that religious persecution is normal for humanity, and in most cases it's perpetrated by the government. Sometimes to consolidate power (with government tie-ins to the main religion), and sometimes to pander to the grimace of a majority.

Ironically, in this country, freedom of religion only exists due to armed conflict, albeit merely as a side effect of independence from a religiously homogeneous ruling power.



It's true that Catalonians would likely have been shot at if they were armed.
However, likewise, the Spanish government will never grant the Catalans democracy so long as the Catalans are not armed - simply because it doesn't have to.
(*Barring self suicidal/sacrificial behavior on part of the Catalans that eventually [after much suffering] embarrasses the government into compliance - often under risk that 3rd parties will intervene if things continue)

When the government manufactures consent, it will be first in line to claim that people have democratic freedom. When the government fails to manufacture consent, it will crack down with force.

At the end of the day, in government, might makes right. Laws are only words on paper, the government's arms are what make the laws matter.

Likewise, democracy is no more than an idea. The people's force of arms (or threat thereof) is what assert's the people's dominance over the government.



You can say the police/military are stronger and it would never matter, however, the size of an [armed] population is orders of magnitude larger than the size of an army. Factor in the fact that the people need to cooperate with the government in order to support and supply the government's military. No government can withstand armed resistance of the population at large. This is one of the main lessons from The Prince.

Civilian armament is a bulwark against potentially colossal ills (albeit ills that come once every few generations).

Look at NK. The people get TV, radio, cell, from SK. They can look across the river and see massive cities on the Chinese side. They know they have to play along with the charade that their government demands. At the end of the day, without guns, things won't change.

Look at what happened during the Arab Spring. All these unarmed nations turned to external armed groups to fight for them to change their governments. All it accomplished was them becoming serfs to the invited 3rd parties. This is another lesson from The Prince : always take power by your own means, never rely on auxiliaries, because your auxiliaries will become your new rulers.






Below is general pontification. No longer a reply.
------------------------------------------------------------------



Civilian armament does come with periodic tragedies. Those tragedies suck. But they're also much less significant than the risks of disarmament.
(Eg. School shootings, 7-11 robberies, etc -versus- Tamils vs Sri Lankan government, Rohingya vs Burmese government. etc.)

Regarding rifles specifically (all varieties combined), there is no point in arguing magnitudes (Around 400 lives per year - albeit taken in newsworthy large chunks). 'Falling out of bed' kills more people, same is true for 'Slip and fall'. No one fears their bed or a wet floor.

Pistols could go away and not matter much.
They have minimal militia utility, and they represent almost the entirety of firearms used in violent crime. (Albeit used to take lives in a non newsworthy 1 at a time manner)

(In the U.S.) If tragedy was the only way to die (otherwise infinite lifespan), you would live on average 9000 years. Guns, car crashes, drownings, etc. ~All tragedies included. (http://service.prerender.io/http://polstats.com/?_escaped_fragment_=/life#!/life)






A computer learning example I was taught:

Boy walking with his mom&dad down a path.
Lion #1 jumps out, eats his dad.
(Data : Specifically lion #1 eats his father.)
The boy and mom keep walking
Lion #2 jumps out, eats his mother.
(Data : Specifically lion #2 eats his mother)
The boy keeps walking
He comes across Lion #3.

Question : Should he be worried?

If you are going to generalize [the first two] lions and people, then yes, he should be worried.

In reality, lions may be very unlikely to eat people (versus say, a gazelle). But if you generalized from the prior two events, you will think they are dangerous.

(The relevance to computer learning is that : Computers learn racism, too. If you include racial data along with other data in a learning algorithm, that algorithm can and will be able to make decisions based on race. Not because the software cares - but because it can analyze and correlate.)

(Note : This is also why arguing religion is likely futile. If a child is raised being told that everything is as it is because God did it, then that becomes their basis for reality. Telling them that their belief in god is wrong, is like telling the boy in the example that lions are statistically quite safe to people. It challenges what they've learned.)



I mentioned this example, because it illustrates learning and perception. And it segways into my following analogy.



Here's a weird analogy, but it goes like this :

(I'm sure SJW minded people will shit themselves over it, but whatever)

"Gun ownership in today's urban society" is like "Black people in 80's white bred society".

2/3 of the population today has no contact with firearms (mostly urban folk)
They only see them on movies used to shoot people, and on the news used to shoot people.
If you are part of that 2/3, you see guns as murder tools.
If you are part of the remaining 1/3, you see guns like shoes or telephones - absolutely mundane daily items that harm nobody.

In the 80's, if you were in a white bred community, your only understanding of black people would be from movies where they are gangsters and shoot people, and from the nightly news where you heard about some black person who shot people.
If you were part of an 80's white bred community, you saw black people as dangerous likely killers.
If you were part of an 80's black/mixed community, you saw black people as regular people living the same mundane lives as anyone else.

In either case, you can analytically know better. But your gut feelings come from your experience.



Basically, I know guns look bad to 2/3 of the population. That won't change. People's beliefs are what they are.
I also know that the likelihood of being in a shooting is essentially zero.
I also know that history repeats itself, and -just in case- I'd rather live in an armed society than an unarmed society. Even if I don't carry a gun.

-scheherazade

When I started reading the title, I thought it would be music video of .38 Special vs Prince... It was better than that.

Your video, .38 Special vs Prince Ruperts Drop at 170,000 FPS SmrtEvrDa, 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 video Destin does on the structure of the Prince Rupert Drop is really interesting.
https://videosift.com/video/Glass-Exploding-at-130-000-fps-aka-Prince-Ruperts-Drop

Charlie Murphy Prince Pancakes clip is much better. The one above is more Chapell than it is Murphy.

https://vimeo.com/69939048

The examples in this video (picture wise) are bad.

A big point in 'the prince' was that one needs to appear as a good person, regardless of whether or not you are or are not good.

Hence the best examples would be people who were perceived as virtuous, when they behind the scenes were sometimes not [when they needed to be not virtuous in order to achieve their goals].

Showing plenty of examples of people historically perceived as villains, is actually not the point. In fact, Machiavelli makes a point of how being perceived as bad runs a high risk of ending your reign.

One example in the book is of a ruler who assigns a man to ruthlessly crush disorder in a city. The man ruthlessly crushes disorder, and earns the hatred of the citizens. The ruler comes to the city, kills the man (cuts off his head and takes it out to show people), and claims to have liberated the people from this abusive man. In doing so, he both swiftly eliminates the disorder, demonstrates his authority, and ends up appearing as the good guy (one who cares for the suffering of the people and earns the people's appreciation).




The prince is a historical case study of different rulers throughout history, their circumstances, their intentions, their actions, and their success/failure, and what functional elements interconnected these factors. It's a game theory analysis for monarchs. Primarily technical (morality outside of its scope, morality being neither promoted nor admonished).

(The prince was not Machiavelli's personal opinion of how one should act - he personally preferred virtue and the republic. Personal preference was not the point of 'the prince'.)

-scheherazade

The Fresh Prince of Beleriand?

ok,first off?
this is heritage foundation,a right wing think tank.
this by itself is not terribly damning.

however.

bridgette gabriel is a spokeswoman for the FRC:family research center.

the FRC,along with james dobson's "focus on the family" ,were both funded with seed money from the families of betsy devos and erik prince,the amway pyramid scheme dynasty.

so what enoch?
what's the big deal?

well,when you understand the underlying religious philosophies of the the devos/prince family.you know that they are christian supremacists who wish to install an amercian government that adheres to "christian" laws and "christian" values.

yeah..you know that whole "sharia" law that has rightwingers pissing themselves? same thing,but this is with JESUS,so it has to be good,right?

and what this gabriel woman does is utter revisionist history to fit her own narrative and agenda.i am talking fucking blatant,but since most americans don't even know their OWN history,never mind the history of a religion they profess to love and worship,they just lap this womans bullshit up as if it were spoken from god's own lips.

because let us be frank,and clear.

christian right wingers literally piss themselves at the thought of muslims.and this woman hand feeds that fear.

this woman is a fucking disgrace.
9/11!
benghazi!

this woman feeds on your ignorance.
stop being a fucking tool to demagogues like this fucking twat waffle.

@ChaosEngine
agreed.
context matters and i think being a decent human being plays a large role in that dynamic.

people tend to attempt to break down complex ideas and/or ideologies into more easily digestible morsels.this "twitter speak",in my opinion,is largely responsible for the decay of human interactions.

we all are biased.
we all hold prejudices,and preconceptions based on our learned experiences.
which are subjective.

we see the world through the lens of our own subjectivity and even the most open minded and non-judgemental person,when trying to sympathize/empathize with another person, will use their own subjective understandings in order to understand that person.

this tactic,which we all employ,will almost always fall short of true understanding.

so we rely on words,metaphors,allegory etc etc in order to communicate fairly complex emotions and experiences.

what brendon o'neill is pointing out,is that when we start to restrict words as acceptable and unacceptable,we infantilize our interactions.

words are inert.
they are simply symbols representing a thing,action or emotion.
it is WE who apply the deeper meanings by way of our subjective lens.

i am not trying to make something simple complicated,but bear with me.
a rock will always be a rock,but a cunt has a totally different meaning here in the states than in britain.(love you brits,and cunt is a brilliant word).

the problems of culture,region,nationality or race all play a role in not only how we communicate but how that communication is received ...and interpreted.

so misunderstandings can happen quite easily,and then when we consider that the persons intent is by far the greatest metric to judge the veracity of the words being spoken,and just how difficult it is to discern that intent....this is where nuance and context play such a major role,but we need to have as many tools in our language box to express oftentimes very difficult concepts,multi-layered emotions and complicated ideologies.

and,unfortunately,there are attempts to legislate speech.

of course well intentioned,and reasonable sounding,but like any legislation dealing with the subjective nature of humans,has the possibility of abuse.

case in point:http://sds.utoronto.ca/blog/bill-c-16-no-its-not-about-criminalizing-pronoun-misuse/

a new canadian addendum to their human rights statute.on the surface this is a fairly benign addition to canadas already existing human rights laws,but there is the possibility of abuse.

a psychology professor from university of toronto was critical of this new addendum,and has created a flurry of controversy in regards to his criticism.

which you can check out here:
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/civil-rights/301661-this-canadian-prof-defied-sjw-on-gender-pronouns-and-has-a

now he was protested,received death threats,there was even violence and a new internet star was born affectionately labeled "smugglypuff".

see:http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/smugglypuff

i agree that free speech cannot be viewed with an absolutist mindset.absolutist thinking leads to stagnation and a self-righteous fundamentalism,so we NEED the free flow of ideas...even BAD ideas..even offensive and racist..because this brings all those feelings/thoughts/ideologies into the market of ideas to be either absorbed or ridiculed and ultimately ostracized for the shit philosophy they represent.

i WANT to know who the racists are.
i want to know who is bigoted or prejudiced.
i want to know who is holding on to stupid ideas,or promoting fascism dressed up as nationalistic pride.

and the only way to shine a light on these horrendous and detrimental ideas is to allow those who hold them openly state who and what they are...so we can criticize/challenge and in some cases..ridicule.

we should be free to say whatever we wish,but we are not free from challenge or criticism.
we can say whatever pops into our pretty little head,but we are not free from consequences.
we are also not free from offense.

i know this is long,and i hope you stayed with me,and if you did,thanks man.i know i tend to ramble.

but we can use the banning of gorillaman as a small microcosm of what we are talking about here.

i felt that we,as a community,could take gorilla to task for his poor choice in verbiage "nigger prince" and i attempted to make the case by using his history,dark humor and bad taste to add context to his poor choice of wording.

bareboards felt it was a matter for the administrators to deal with.i am not saying her choice was wrong.just that we approached the problem from different perspectives.

now gorilla decided to become the human torch and flame out.which threw my approach right out the window.

but the point i am making in that case,is that bad ideas,bad philosophies,bigotry and racism will ALWAYS reveal themselves if we allow that process to ultimately expose bad ideas/shit person.

the free flow of ideas is the proverbial rope that ultimately hangs all shit ideas.

thanks for hanging kids.
love you all!

@ChaosEngine
what the holy FUCK are you babbling about?

when did i EVER state,or make the argument that free speech meant free from consequences?

the only difference in BB's and my stance is that her reference to "see something,say something" was a tad disturbing to me and since she felt this was a community (which i agree with) then as a community we can all hold gorilla,or anyone to account for what they post.BB felt that calling down the "benevolent dictator" was the best path.

i disagreed with her is all.
but it certainly within her right to choose to do so.
i felt that an un-necessary way to address gorillas comment.

but hey,i am not easily offended.other people are.i am in no way agreeing with gorilla's "nigger prince",even for low brow comedy it is offensive.i was defending gorillas right to say it...and our right to go "what the fuck man,that is just wrong and offensive",and people did show their opinion by downvoting,and yes,even BB's tactic of calling the "benevolent dictator" can be considered appropriate (though i felt un-necessary).

dude,yer kinda talking out yer ass here.
but nice lecture,useless and pointless n regards to what i was saying,but still nice.

i am of the philosophy that if we are a community,then we can respond as a community,no need to call daddy to settle disputes.we can wear our big boy pants.

*edit: and oh for the love of JESUS @gorillaman!
way to flush my argument right down the fucking toilet.
i give up..sighs..i tried..i really really tried...
/bangs head against the wall