He just played a free show at Princeton University's Quadrangle Club yesterday. I had no idea who he was before that, but apparently this song is well-known.

He used loop effects rather well.

>> ^quantumushroom:

How about this: an honest man has a better chance of landing a job than a convicted felon, even one who's been forthright.

Your assertion is demonstrably false, as appealing as it might be to believe it.

http://paa2005.princeton.edu/download.aspx?submissionId=50874&ei=AzrhR-mKBIjKhQTMgv25Dw&usg=AFQjCNGRrZyTqgfg6fFWpomP5Vm_mUQ3ig&sig2=DlvBJ-AZ6_aYrbq5wE
3oSQ

The chance a qualified black man with no criminal record has of getting a job is less than
the chance a qualified white man with a felony conviction has of getting that same job in the progressive city of New York, I doubt it's any better in the deep south. While we may both wish this was not the case, desire =/=> reality.

Excuses. And most American Blacks are middle class and do well. You just never hear about them because only crises buy votes.

That ignores the issue, impoverished communities are different things from individuals. While many individuals overcome hardships within a generation, communities do not.
When People move here from Ukraine, for instance, they take initiative to improve their lives, when people move out of the ghetto they do the same thing. If you want to compare middle class blacks to immigrants you will find no significant achievement disparity.

We don't count the people who stay behind in Ukraine, but we do count the people who stay behind in the ghetto, your claim is biased because you are not comparing like groups. If we add the population and average income of people in Ukraine to our statistics of the economic prosperity of Ukrainian immigrants they would do worse then the average black American, but you are not chastising all of Ukraine for not taking advantage of all the great breaks they have been given.

The question is not whether some individuals can overcome these hardships quickly, which is trivially provable, but whether entire communities do, in both of my examples the answer is no.

Oh boy, another atheist, who can't see into the infrared spectrum with naked eye or hear the same high notes as dogs, is going to lecture about how, "There's nothing out there."

I'm not the one who said that Dr. Wright, in his role as a preacher, should be "serving up rationality". If you don't want the irrationality of religion pointed out, don't bring rationality up in that context.

I didn't say I was a Marxist, only that you are using a label in an attempt to demonize someone when you don't appear to understand it's meaning. Marxist => Atheist =/=> Marxist.

The most prosperous societies are secular, even the US, despite it's cultural fetishization of Christianity, is a highly secular society composed mostly of unchurched Christians-in-name-only, who do very well without any real deference to their espoused god or religion.

Marxism fails because it is totalitarian, not because it is irreligious, just as Capitalist-Democracy succeeds to the extent that it avoids totalitarianism, religion(except as a political ploy) has nothing to do with it.

Absolutely. From Princeton: "creative activity (writing or pictures or films etc.) of no literary or artistic value other than to stimulate sexual desire"

I fail to see how this falls under that definition. It's not porn. It's a a comedy with a breast in it. How is that different than a Chevy Chase flick from the 80s?
Unless I missed it, I saw no genitalia. Just massive bush.

Allowing this wouldn't even create a slippery slope.

[edit] And Persephone - it's kinda cheesy they way you said it was returned before a woman gave her opinion - that makes it seem like a woman's opinion should have more weight than a man's.

I'm trying to pretend it doesn't exist and Princeton didn't waste money on it.

"The Princeton University island in Second Life is a place for the Princeton University community to experiment with the potential uses of Second Life for education."

It's just like Princeton, only with no real educational value and an onslaught of furries!

...Y'know, on second thought, I'm actually in favor of the island. You see, we could make a log on the Princeton network. Anybody who actually signs in to Second Life from their dorm room and then goes onto the island will be flagged, tracked down and subsequently kicked out of the university.

I've got no hate against this video, but I'm not going to upvote anything Second Life as a principle, because I'm trying to pretend it doesn't exist and Princeton didn't waste money on it.

You're misinformed/wrong on a number of points. First of all, you assume that scientists at Princeton don't make mistakes. There is a reason why Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research got shut down. Hint: it's not because they were making huge breakthroughs. The place has been a joke for those of us on campus for years. Oh, and also only one of the researchers under PEAR was a full professor. Science does not stand under the name of an Ivy League university, or at least it shouldn't. Appeals to authority aren't exactly scientific. And we don't even need to ask the researchers in person. They publish papers in journals. Simple enough.

Second of all, you assume that the CIA, the military, and the government aren't capable of making million-, billion-, or even trillion-dollar mistakes. For fuck's sake, they experimented with creating beams that made the target homosexual. GAY BEAMS. WE SPENT HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS, IF NOT MILLIONS, OF DOLLARS TRYING TO MAKE GODDAMN GAY BEAMS. We waste millions of dollars on dumbass projects that have no scientific grounding whatsoever that get written off in the name of national security all the damn time. Also, cold fusion.

Third of all, skeptical science writer != scientist. A real investigation would look into the procedural and statistical methodology of the experiments that were carried out, not the amount of funding being given to the research or how super-secret the CIA was or any of the other useless information one can present.

tl;dr: No, Virginia, there's no such thing as psychic powers.

Of course, the only way to be sure is to ask the scientists at Princeton directly, but I'd expect them to have been smart enough to take that into account.

I'm *really* not a believer in psychics, fortune tellers, ghosts, vampires or anything which appears on the X-files... but when you look at the research, as I have -- and this is research done by the CIA, the military and the government, typically a jaded lot when it comes to any "new age nonsense" -- even I am unwilling to categorically say it's "stupid crap".

I understand and can even relate to your skepticism. Yet I would ask that your suspend disbelief until you read the book Remote Viewers, written by a highly skeptical journalist. After his extensive research, he concluded that there wasn't enough data to ignore the results:

"Remote Viewers is a bit of an odd book for Jim Schnabel, a science writer who has previously published work that could be described as highly skeptical of some things "out of the ordinary." In fact, when Mr. Schnabel was doing his research for this book he asked me for an interview, which I refused to give him because I considered him a "knee-jerk debunker." Considering the outcome of his research, this turns out to be a fortuitous endorsement of Mr. Schnabel's claim of objectivity. In the best traditions of investigative journalism, Schnabel takes an open mind and tunnels into much of the military remote-viewing community, revealing that the remote-viewing phenomenon was considered very real by the U.S. intelligence services, and a phenomenon worthy of high-level funding and research..."
http://www.courtneybrown.com/reviews/BookReviews/SchnabelRV.html

I'm ashamed of Princeton having been involved in this stupid crap. Glad to note that they finally closed that shit down early this year, albeit under the excuse of "fulfilling their research agenda." LOL

Re: the "feeling anxious before seeing shocking images." They would have had to be informed of what they were going to be shown for the test beforehand, so this "prescient knowledge of their own emotional reaction" is bullshit. It's a simple case of anxiety from knowing that something disturbing is up ahead but not knowing when it's going to happen. It's just like when you play any shooter/thriller video game like Doom or Resident Evil. You get the nervous thrill even before the monster pops out simply because you know it's going to.

Random late comment: You might want to strike out the "proportedly" from the description, from that little thingy on the right side of the stage, it's obvious that this was given at Richardson Auditorium at Princeton.

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

whoops - just an oversight.

In reply to this comment by Thylan:
That might be the first save ive seen without a vote either way

Interesting indeed though

In reply to this comment by dag:
Interesting. *save

That might be the first save ive seen without a vote either way

Interesting indeed though

In reply to this comment by dag:
Interesting. *save

here are some items that you may have overlooked in the article about thimerisol.(that have nothing to do with wakefields paper)

1.) In 1977, a Russian study found that adults exposed to much lower concentrations of ethylmercury than those given to American children still suffered brain damage years later. Russia banned thimerosal from children's vaccines twenty years ago, and Denmark, Austria, Japan, Great Britain and all the Scandinavian countries have since followed suit.

2.) Internal documents reveal that Eli Lilly, which first developed thimerosal, knew from the start that its product could cause damage -- and even death -- in both animals and humans. In 1930, the company tested thimerosal by administering it to twenty-two patients with terminal meningitis, all of whom died within weeks of being injected -- a fact Lilly didn't bother to report in its study declaring thimerosal safe. In 1935, researchers at another vaccine manufacturer, Pittman-Moore, warned Lilly that its claims about thimerosal's safety "did not check with ours."

3.) During the Second World War, when the Department of Defense used the preservative in vaccines on soldiers, it required Lilly to label it "poison."

4.) In 1967, a study in Applied Microbiology found that thimerosal killed mice when added to injected vaccines. Four years later, Lilly's own studies discerned that thimerosal was "toxic to tissue cells" in concentrations as low as one part per million -- 100 times weaker than the concentration in a typical vaccine. Even so, the company continued to promote thimerosal as "nontoxic" and also incorporated it into topical disinfectants.

5.) The same year that the CDC approved the new vaccines, Dr. Maurice Hilleman, one of the fathers of Merck's vaccine programs, warned the company that six-month-olds who were administered the shots would suffer dangerous exposure to mercury. He recommended that thimerosal be discontinued, "especially when used on infants and children," noting that the industry knew of nontoxic alternatives. "The best way to go," he added, "is to switch to dispensing the actual vaccines without adding preservatives."

6.) Before 1989, American preschoolers received eleven vaccinations -- for polio, diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis and measles-mumps-rubella. A decade later, thanks to federal recommendations, children were receiving a total of twenty-two immunizations by the time they reached first grade.

At two months, when the infant brain is still at a critical stage of development, infants routinely received three inoculations that contained a total of 62.5 micrograms of ethylmercury -- a level 99 times greater than the EPA's limit for daily exposure to methylmercury, a related neurotoxin. Although the vaccine industry insists that ethylmercury poses little danger because it breaks down rapidly and is removed by the body, several studies -- including one published in April by the National Institutes of Health -- suggest that ethylmercury is actually more toxic to developing brains and stays in the brain longer than methylmercury.

The House Government Reform Committee discovered that four of the eight CDC advisers who approved guidelines for a rotavirus vaccine "had financial ties to the pharmaceutical companies that were developing different versions of the vaccine."

7.) Paul Patriarca of the FDA blasted federal regulators for failing to adequately scrutinize the danger posed by the added baby vaccines. "I'm not sure there will be an easy way out of the potential perception that the FDA, CDC and immunization-policy bodies may have been asleep at the switch re: thimerosal until now," Patriarca wrote. The close ties between regulatory officials and the pharmaceutical industry, he added, "will also raise questions about various advisory bodies regarding aggressive recommendations for use" of thimerosal in child vaccines.

But rather than conduct more studies to test the link to autism and other forms of brain damage, the CDC placed politics over science. The agency turned its database on childhood vaccines -- which had been developed largely at taxpayer expense -- over to a private agency, America's Health Insurance Plans, ensuring that it could not be used for additional research. It also instructed the Institute of Medicine, an advisory organization that is part of the National Academy of Sciences, to produce a study debunking the link between thimerosal and brain disorders. The CDC "wants us to declare, well, that these things are pretty safe," Dr. Marie McCormick, who chaired the IOM's Immunization Safety Review Committee, told her fellow researchers when they first met in January 2001. "We are not ever going to come down that [autism] is a true side effect" of thimerosal exposure. According to transcripts of the meeting, the committee's chief staffer, Kathleen Stratton, predicted that the IOM would conclude that the evidence was "inadequate to accept or reject a causal relation" between thimerosal and autism. That, she added, was the result "Walt wants" -- a reference to Dr. Walter Orenstein, director of the National Immunization Program for the CDC.

Even in public, federal officials made it clear that their primary goal in studying thimerosal was to dispel doubts about vaccines. "Four current studies are taking place to rule out the proposed link between autism and thimerosal," Dr. Gordon Douglas, then-director of strategic planning for vaccine research at the National Institutes of Health, assured a Princeton University gathering in May 2001. "In order to undo the harmful effects of research claiming to link the [measles] vaccine to an elevated risk of autism, we need to conduct and publicize additional studies to assure parents of safety." Douglas formerly served as president of vaccinations for Merck, where he ignored warnings about thimerosal's risks.

9.) In May of last year, the Institute of Medicine issued its final report. Its conclusion: There is no proven link between autism and thimerosal in vaccines. Rather than reviewing the large body of literature describing the toxicity of thimerosal, the report relied on four disastrously flawed epidemiological studies examining European countries, where children received much smaller doses of thimerosal than American kids. It also cited a new version of the Verstraeten study, published in the journal Pediatrics, that had been reworked to reduce the link between thimerosal and autism. The new study included children too young to have been diagnosed with autism and overlooked others who showed signs of the disease. The IOM declared the case closed and -- in a startling position for a scientific body -- recommended that no further research be conducted.

The report may have satisfied the CDC, but it convinced no one. Rep. David Weldon, a Republican physician from Florida who serves on the House Government Reform Committee, attacked the Institute of Medicine, saying it relied on a handful of studies that were "fatally flawed" by "poor design" and failed to represent "all the available scientific and medical research." CDC officials are not interested in an honest search for the truth, Weldon told me, because "an association between vaccines and autism would force them to admit that their policies irreparably damaged thousands of children. Who would want to make that conclusion about themselves?"

10.) the government continues to ship vaccines preserved with thimerosal to developing countries -- some of which are now experiencing a sudden explosion in autism rates. In China, where the disease was virtually unknown prior to the introduction of thimerosal by U.S. drug manufacturers in 1999, news reports indicate that there are now more than 1.8 million autistics. Although reliable numbers are hard to come by, autistic disorders also appear to be soaring in India, Argentina, Nicaragua and other developing countries that are now using thimerosal-laced vaccines.

Please allow me to apologize guys. I'm sorry for offending anyone. I was just trying to use humor as a way of expressing my outrage to the way people react to certain videos. You show something that has anything to do with a problem in govornment and you get the latest diatribe from some nutcase that they got from the back of an Ann Coulter book. I just love that phrase: "the church of liberalism." It offends me on so many levels that it's hard not to burst a blood vessel.
A lot of us saw Florida voters get laughed out of congress for even suggesting that they might have been prevented from voting. All the credible evidence is there. For anyone who beleives that this hearing never happened, just look it up. For anyone who believes that diebold voting machines aren't flawed, go ahead and look that up too. Researchers from both Princeton and MIT did it in minutes: http://www.boingboing.net/2006/05/11/diebold-voting-machi.html
Again, I'm sorry if I offended anyone, I just need a grain of salt with these videos sometimes and for me, that means a little humor to gloss over such an aggravating subject.
And if you still don't get the joke...

So the moral of the story is that people still never learn they should not "judge a book by it's cover" or in this case by the candidates ability to "look" confident. After all, the world is a stage and most of them are very "good" actors.

I'd prefer it if this Princeton study group would have investigated the safeguards in place to prevent voter fraud (if any). It seems to me to be a much more serious issue than a vanitive perspective of how people view candidates.

They played at Princeton in the Spring. I watched Reel Big Fish instead, lol.