I was born in the late 70s and had the fortune to experience the early days of personal computing and the internet via BBSes. The biggest issue I've personally experienced with the modern internet is the ease at which you can get side-tracked by deep links. I've lost count of the number of times I've started researching something work-related in the evening only to end up linking through two or three related articles and ending up on a YouTube video about the latest game trailer or whatever.

I've also noticed that my reading habits have changed. Instead of reading articles in their entirety, I will, at times, read a few sentences to get the gist then scan ahead to continue reading. I never used to do this but it is something I've caught myself doing with greater frequency over the past couple of decades. This has tripped me up a few times where I've had to go back and read the information again. I wonder if children that have grown up with the modern internet and its web of distractions (pun intended) are even worse off.

Maybe our brains are trying to adapt to a new way of gathering and processing so much disconnected information (e.g. one minute you're reading about a physics algorithm the next minute about screaming space goats). Perhaps it is a way to contain information overload and only retain what is useful?

The internet is an AMAZING invention and something everyone should have access to and be taught how to use effectively. As was mentioned above, you can pretty much teach yourself anything using the internet. The challenge is staying focused and sifting through all the ads, fluff articles, and random garbage that you get bombarded with every time you browse a website.

@Mordhaus

The whole benefit thing is a side-track.

To the issue.

They were encouraged to come. They're in the country now. It's cruel and unnecessary to remove them AND probably harmful to business as they're now a part of the operating environment.

So, instead of picking on the poor, helpless people, why not do the sane thing. Offer amnesty, increase penalties and enforcement against companies which employ illegal (non-amnesty) immigrants to discourage future illegal entry. This is a far more elegant solution which doesn't rip families apart or risk seriously damaging the business environment. Also, some of the incentive to hire will fade as the new status quo will be all LEGAL and employers will have to offer benefits and legal wages to all.

The very first thing he said was "...we went and picked up some mail..." so they're probably getting things sent to the local post office and are certainly not getting mail service at the BLM building, and not likely UPS or FEDEX either.

EDIT: I love that their going to fight the urge to let the numerous dildos "side track" them. What a struggle that must be.

Wall of text incoming. Again.

Sorry. Again.

tl;dr:

Debt relief right away was proposed, was neccessary, and was skipped to protect the European financial system.



You are 100% correct, we both are as convinced as one can be that a disorderly collapse would have been much worse for Greece. Might have turned it into a failed state, if things went really bad.

But the situation in Greece at the time the Troika got involved suggested a textbook approach would work just fine. Greece was insolvent, no two ways about it. A debt restructuring, including a haircut, was required to stabilise the system. Yet it was decided against it, thereby creating an enormous debt bubble that keeps growing to this day, destabilising everything.

Why?

People in Brussels, Frankfurt and Berlin knew in May of 2010 that Greece cannot service its current debt, nevermind pay it back. I remember rather vividly how it was presented to us, as it stirred up a lot of dust in Germany. They pretended as if the problem was a shortage of liquidity, even though they knew it was in fact an insolvency. And to provide an insolvent nation with the largest credit in history (€110-130b) is... well, we can all pick our favorite in accordance to our own bias: madness, idiocy, incompetence, a mistake, intent. They threw Greece into permanent indebtedness(?), and also played one people against another. People in Germany were pissed, still are. Not at the decision makers, but the Greek people.

Again, why?

Every European government, pre-crisis, drank the Cool Aid of deregulation, particularly with regards to the financial sector. When the crisis hit, they had to bail out the banks, a very unpopular decision in Germany, given the scandalous way it was done (different story). Like I pointed out before, when Greece was done for, German banks were on the hook for €17b+, and the French for €20b+. So no haircut for Greek debt.

It gets even better. The entity most experienced in these matters is, of course, the IMF. But IMF couldn't get involved. Its own regulations demand debt to be sustainable for it to become involved in any debt restructuring. Strauss-Kahn had the rules changed in a very hush-hush manner (hidden in a 146 page document) to allow the IMF to lend vast sums to Greece, even though they knew it would not be payed back. Former EC members are on record saying the Strauss-Kahn decided to protect French banks this way as a part of his race for President in France. So they changed IMF rules and ignored European law to bail out German and French banks, using the insolvent Greek government as a proxy.

Several members of the IMF's board were in open opposition. The representatives of India, Russia, Brazil and Switzerland are on record, saying this would merely replace private with public financing, that it would be a rescue package for the private creditors rather than the Greek state. They spoke out in favor of negotiations of a debt relief.

And if that wasn't bad enough, there's an IMF email, dated March 25th, 2010, that was published by Roumeliotis, formerly IMF. They put it very bluntly:

"Greece is a relatively closed economy, and the fiscal contraction implied by this adjustment path, will cause a sharp contraction in domestic demand and an attendant deep recession, severely stretching the social fabric."

Even the IMF, who chose parameters according to their own ideology, thought the European program to be too severe. That's saying something.

All that is just about the initial decision. The implementation is another story entirely, with unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats telling a democratically elected government what to do. There are former Greek ministers on record, telling how Troika officials basically wrote legislation for them. Blackmail was common, bailout money held as leverage. The Memorandum of Understanding was to be followed to the letter, and the Troika program was as detailed as a government program, so they really had their hand in just about everything.

The specifics of the program are a discussion of their own, with all the corruption going on. The Lagarde list (2000+ Greek tax dodgers) was held in secret by order of an IMF official – that alone should trigger major investigations. The nationalisation and sell-off of the four largest Greek banks, or the no-bid sale of the Hellenikon area to a Greek oligarch – all enforced by Troika officials.

The haircut of 2012, ~€110b wiped out, came two years late. As a result, it didn't hit any German or French institutions in a serious way. Most of the debt was in the hands of these four largest Greek banks -- NBG, Piraeus, Euro, Alpha – who subsequently had to be recapitalised by Greece to the tune of €50b. Cut by 110, up by 50 right away. Banks were nationalised and shares later sold again, at 2/3 the price. Lost another €15b, because the Troika demanded the sale to appease the markets.

The legal aspects of all this are nightmare-inducing as well. They violated numerous European laws, side-tracked parliaments, used governmental decrees, etc.

Let me just say this: when they forced Cyprus to give away two banks' branches in Greece for a fraction of their worth, Cyprus lost €3.5b, at a GDP of €17b, and those two banks went belly-up. It was pure blackmail, do it or you're out. Piraeus Bank received those €3.5b, and its head honcho had €150m of personal bad credit wiped clean right then and there, all at the command of the Troika. Those €3.5b had to be taken from ordinary folks by "suspending" the deposit insurance, perhaps the most stupid decision they had made so far.

Why did they do it? Because Greece was more important than Cyprus, and Cypriot banks were involved in shady deals with Russian oligarchs. Still illegal, and massively so.

Edit: I cut my post in half and it's still too long.

@chingalara

Your logic is flawed and your words stink of poisonous vomit !

lets keep this fight going ! <--- as in that is all this turned into is one big pissy man boy match Edit - not even that, just one person in particular who was side tracking and making personal attacks in comments again, see how you can enjoy the double standard like everyone else choggie ? You' re here still after your little freak out in the sift talk, or the stuff you wrote above or the other day, you can enjoy it like everyone else, but you sure like to flip the coin and berate it at the same time, although we all have learned you lack logic and reasoning skills. But that is just my opinion,
I guess this is what comments this post are for hey ? pretty well the reason I am writing this now. write what you want time.

So to answer your only sensible question fuckinglittlethingoverthere - as you described it the first time I asked you what it meant. Baxter the bunny weights in at 2.76 pounds.. and just jumped on my lap. I have learned this is not for pets though, this is for treats. so I do not try and pet him because he just swats lightly very very quickly at my finger tips and actually kinda growls a little, which makes me laugh.

He is fully grown and if I were to cook him like a psycho would cook their pet, as you suggested he would be like eating a quarter of a small frying chicken ( NOte to self *do not put palm plant fronds near top of chair - rabbit climbs chair and eats palm leaf* )

Also I do not think video sift is what that orignal poster said it is.

With so many agreeable comments, i taught myself how to quote properly * pats himself on the back *

>> ^ChaosEngine:
If Yahweh showed up tomorrow, I'd start looking to form a resistance.
^ I'm in and have a bunch of analytical minded friends who would be gearing up before they even heard the word 'resistance'.

>> ^ChaosEngine:
pineapple on pizza is an unholy abomination
^ /agree re pineapple. It belongs on my pizza's as much as i belong in churches, it ruins the experience.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

There is another position on this: anti-theist. Most strongly evinced by Christopher Hitchens.

>> ^volumptuous:

Richard Dawkins' approach to this is the term "non-theist".

^ The terms 'Anti-Theist' and 'Non-Theist' are more sensible/respectable than 'Atheist' imo (more so after hearing Dawkins mention Afairyist), but i accept the latter as it requires less side-track debating over terminology.

>> ^Boise_Lib:

I really, really hope that Videosift5 gives the ability to spend a PP on a "super upvote" for comments. (or something similar).
@Sepacore would get mine!! (above)

^ Cheers

>> ^Boise_Lib:
I'm absolutely against anyone, or thing, that shows the pettiness, jealousy, and just plan babyishness of Yahweh having any control over human beings.


^ /agree

>> ^Boise_Lib:
But, what about something (this is why I don't use the word "god"), which is benevolently seeking knowledge through it's extrusions--(that's us)--into this space-time we inhabit.
If we are all part of this thing can it really be abhorrent?


^ .. make duck bills with your fingers, put them to your temples and open them up as you pull your hands away: you're blowing my mind.

>> ^Boise_Lib:
My point is if there is something else out there, we--as a species--have no idea what that might be (all religions are wrong).

^ /agree

>> ^Boise_Lib:
[Sidepoint: The mixture of taste sensations evinced by the salty, savory ham and the sweet, sour pineapple enmeshed in melty cheese is a glorious thing.]

^ * slumps down in a corner and cries softly while singing Amy Grant's 'Innocence Lost' (Christian music, lol Google FTW) *

I can't relive my life
I can't retrace my tracks
I can't undo what's done
There is no going back

I chased a selfish dream
Did not survey the cost
Illusions disappeared
I've found my innocence lost

Some say it's lessons learned
Some say it's a living life
I say it's choices made
Knowing wrong from right

>> ^ChaosEngine:
What I do have to contend with is mainstream religion (and while we're at it, faulty thinking around astrology, homoeopathy, etc).
^ worked in offices for past 5 years.. don't get me started on astrology and homeopathy. The girls and 1 guy don't care what i say about religions and Gods.. but the moment i open my mouth about those other 2.. (think it's because i kept showing them proofs against the practices)


@Lawdeedaw
I see the points you're making, but there's a lot more to an Agnostic position than there is to either of the extremes. For 1, there's room to fluctuate to either end of the extremes without having to make an incredible claim that simply can't be backup in any scientific way as there are always 'trump cards' for this subject.

Better than Physics, Cosmology, Chemistry and Biology, imo Psychology has the greatest chance of proving God doesn't exist, but unfortunately it's not going to be an actual 'proof', at best (and it irritates/pains me to say) it will only be a really good reason to 'believe' or suggest that Gods are most likely figments of our imaginations off of our preferences. Easily ignored when in the face of 'faith'.

Call it 'safe' or even 'fence sitting' if need be, but i call it the result of thinking about the subject and being honest enough to accept 'i, nor anyone, actually knows.. but i think X due to Y'.

I used to think an Atheistic position for scientists was logical off of the point of 'no proof, don't believe'. But the reality is that scientists do believe things without evidence, they work their butts off to prove the idea, and either succeed or prove the opposite, sometimes even discovering things they had no intention of or even an idea that they were close to.. point being there are stages where they have reason to believe but don't have proof and these stages can make getting funding quite difficult.

For a Scientist, publicly and privately resting on an agnostic position somewhere between the 2 ends of the scale is more reasonable/justifiable and less arrogant/distracting.

If you can't honestly state "I know there is no God" in any/every debate/discussion, then technically you're Agnostic (unless stating the complete opposite).. but like me would take up a stance a pin prick away from 1 of the 2 disingenuous and arrogant extremes (specifically the good one, that doesn't 'justify' us not caring about others).

>> ^VoodooV:

Ditto. Agnostic is the only sane choice. Fuck Atheists who want to put agnostics under their "umbrella"

^ If it ever started raining/reigning in the way and with the unforgiving dedications a number of religions have in the past, i hazard the guess you would likely jump under my umbrella quick smart when it was the only place that gave us both the option to state 'i don't know/care' and live to tell about it.

/Agree re the disapproval of Atheists disregarding the line.. but to this day, I've never met an 'Atheist' that definitively stated when pushed 'i know God doesn't exist'.

>> ^shinyblurry:


>> ^LukinStone:



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.

Let me try a different tactic to get us back on track. I think, at least within the discussion between you and I, three different points have been made:

1. Santorum's point, that Kennedy now supported by liberals or atheists or evil citizens was using the establishment clause to say people who believe in God can't participate in government.

2. My point, that Santorum is mistaken and the establishment clause is meant to keep organized religious groups from affecting changes based on solely religious beliefs.

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.

Your point is related to the initial discussion, but the length you are willing to go with your conclusions is not. In addition, you take political ideas with many interpretations and cherry pick your support. This, I'll admit, is great for making a partisan argument. But, that's not my goal here.
Can you see how a more focused discussion is useful? I know I am a long-winded writer, and so, if you can't stay on track, I feel we'll be forced to trade dozens of pages back and forth as we're continually side-tracked.

I don't have time for that. So, this will be my last comment on this video (may all Videosifters rejoice!). I will give you the honor of last word between us, if you want it. I only offer one challenge: Make your argument without quoting any additional sources. At first, I was impressed that you went to the trouble to research, but now, it seems you are addicted to them. And I'm not convinced they are helping move the discussion along.

I can't let everything you've said fly, not coupled with the conclusion you so righteously came to. So, I hope that you'll forgive me when I pick and choose what I think has the most relevance to the discussion at hand.

Let's get back to the establishment clause and the free exercise clause.

Why is language like this in the constitution if, as you've so thoroughly proven, the founders were all Catholics…wait no, Quakers…wait Presbyterians…wait Baptists…oh, right deists…

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.

Do you really have to ask, given how great you think Christianity is, how it is these (to varying degrees) religious men all compromised on this point? They understood that religious differences between Christians had taken their toll on European governments. This was a way to temper such strife. That handy link you provided, breaking down the religion affiliations of the founders, shows that a majority of them were Episcopalian/Anglicans. Do you think it was a valid concern that a Christian sect believing the King of England was the head of the church might be seen as a potential threat to our fledgling country?

I think the interpretation that sees the establishment clause as a protection against and for Christians addresses some other minor points you made. In a state like North Carolina, where Protestants dominated, their individual state's government could more easily make such religious restrictions without having to compromise with different sects. That, in the future, they were forced to change "Protestant" to "Christian" I think shows the national example, which was less tolerant of specific religious language, was more just. The North Carolinians, as well as other state governments, stubbornly held onto the word "Christian" because that's what they knew. Maybe the national founders didn't know how effective the language they used would turn out to be, but by employing the more secular god of deism instead of the specific one of Christianity, they protected the future of all Americans instead of just the most popular sect of the time.

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.

Supreme Court Justices are entitled to their opinions and certainly deserve respect, but Rehnquist's support of your position is not the final word in this discussion. Justices are human like anyone else, and they often make mistakes. They are often politically biased. Upon further research, I found a much more harshly worded version of this letter and learned the political implications of its creation. It was indeed written by Jefferson to make a political point and to caution against aligning politics with religion, as the opposition party did at the time. He cautioned against things like proclamations of thanksgiving, such as the one by Washington you quoted in your initial post directed at me, as they were reminiscent of the proclamations made by the English monarchy.

Justice Rehnquist read the same words, no doubt had a better understanding of history than I and came to a different conclusion. I don't feel like I'm blaspheming when I say, on this, I think he was wrong.

There have always been opposing political parties, vying for power in America. Religion has always been used as a political weapon. That the ire against Great Britain was unpalatable enough for even the most religious of Americans to compromise and allow the establishment clause to be written as it was is no accident. I think it stands to as an example of how important the constitution is that, in the face of tyranny, the founders identified something they all held dear that had been corrupted by governments throughout history, and found a way to work around that problem.

I think to argue that the constitution needs to remain static, without an intelligent and modern understanding of the principles it puts in place, is childish. The founders essentially kicked the ball down the road concerning the issue of slavery. Some believed it morally wrong but saw it as too big of a challenge to tackle at the time. And, I imagine not many men believed in suffrage for female citizens, but that too was something future generations were able shape our laws to include. My point in bringing up examples like these is simply to show each generation's duty to interpret laws, and when necessary, to make changes. If the founders thought the benefits of allowing organized religion to guide the country, in an official capacity, outweighed the dangers, I think they would have explicitly stated so.

The fact that people, humans, immediately went back to using the tool of organized religion to divide each other and seize power is not surprising to me. Testing limits and making amendments is our prerogative as Americans. And, if anything, the wall of separation has proven to be a good idea, as we've only created more religions which have duped more people to believe more untrue things as time marches on.

FINALLY: Two points I have purposely overlooked. They, in my opinion, are outside the realm of this discussion. So, think of this as a Post-script.

1. All of your citations of a Christian god being mentioned by founders and their church-going activities.

As I've now said over and over, I accept that the founders were all Christians, to some degree. The language of government had, up until that point, been tied to that of religion. It makes sense to me that it took a while for the full intent of the separation between church and state to trickled down into the collective consciousness. I hope you can understand how this idea incorporates the foundations of early religious settlements in North America as well as church services being held in tandem with government work after the constitution was written. Obviously, a book could be written about it; I don't think it influences the primary discussion nearly as much as you do. I think the key with this one is that you take a breath and understand where I'm disagreeing with you.

2. Your last paragraph.

The idea that religion has influenced our culture and morals is not the issue here. The evolution of government has shown that organized religion has, in the past, been yet another institution no more intrinsically moral than any other institution established by man. Organized religion has been responsible for education and liberal reform. It has also been responsible for wars, corruption within communities of all sizes and has been used to justify inequality.

The idea of no government endorsement of Christianity is ridiculous? I'll do you one better. I think American history reflects an implicit endorsement of Christianity. And, going back further, before Christianity took hold in Europe, other non-Christian religions were tangled up with government and culture to the point these ideas couldn’t be considered without each other.

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.

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.

Interesting You know, your visit could well have coincided with the time frame I was talking about listening to "And the band played..." in music class. I'm not entirely sure why the band played Waltzing Matilda (but that link might have some clues). In 1918 the real Australian anthem was "God save the King", our current one wasn't chosen until 1974, but I think Matilda has always been popular. The link to Gallipoli is interesting too. After the war, Mustafa Kemal, who had been commander of the Turkish forces on the day of the invasion wrote a tribute to the Australian troops quoted at the Australian war memorial's web site, http://www.awm.gov.au/encyclopedia/ataturk.asp

"Those heroes that shed their blood and lost their lives... You are now lying in the soil of a friendly country. Therefore rest in peace. There is no difference between the Johnnies and the Mehmets to us where they lie side by side now here in this country of ours... you, the mothers, who sent their sons from faraway countries wipe away your tears; your sons are now lying in our bosom and are in peace. After having lost their lives on this land. They have become our sons as well."

P.S. I got side tracked and forgot that I meant to send you a link to "I was only 19", another sad Australian ballad about returned soldiers.
In reply to this comment by AdrianBlack:
I've known it was sort of the un-official national anthem for Australia since I was little (I was there when I was 9yrs old), so I guess I've always heard it in an Australian voice.
I also had a music box as a child that had Waltzing Matilda as it's song.

How well known it is to others, I don't know. I always seem to be the one that collects odd little facts.

Lol, nice accent, btw.

Cheerio!

>> ^volumptuous:

btw Blankie. Nice way to try to side-track the discussion. But Ayn Rand was a fucking hypocrite, the end.


Good conversation.

btw Blankie. Nice way to try to side-track the discussion. But Ayn Rand was a fucking hypocrite, the end.

And i suggest to them to stop after the first season, because it never really recovers.

I think the argument that "you can fill the blanks in with your own imagination" doesn't really work, because the things they leave to your imagination are very small things that are tangential from the plot.

Usually "open to interpretation" stories or games or films are very different to the way you suggest lost could be open. I mean, the questions are like "..did he live? was it a dream? was he dead all along? did he avenge his friend/wife/parent? did he live happily ever after?.."

I can't really think of any "open to interpretation" moment in any book, film or game where they give you a 'resolved' story and just throw some side-tracked things in along the way which are "open to your interpretation" but have no relevance on the plot whatsoever. Here's a really powerful kid who can see things that others can't - he has insight into matters that he shouldn't have. Ok he's leaving now. And the plot finishes without him. So i'm meant to do what with that information? I guess i can imagine that he goes off and has an orgy with 7 supermodels, but it doesn't really affect the plot, does it? Nothing does. Cos the plot finished without him, so why would i be invested into imagining what his life was like OUTSIDE of the plot? I may as well imagine jack's medical training years - it's irrelevant.

>> ^NordlichReiter:

This guy is pretty stupid.


After looking into it and getting some context for the video (http://videosift.com/video/Reporter-s-Stuck-on-Stupid-Long-version-with-context) I would have to disagree with you there.

He is ignoring inflammatory questions that ask why what they're doing now wasn't done during the last storm. He was ignoring these questions because they were not pertinent to the current situation, and he did not want to the reporters to side-track the press conference from one which is divulging important safety information into a press conference talking about how angry people are about what happened 5 years ago.

>> ^demon_ix:
^ The thread on reddit took offense to calling this 8 bit. Apparently it's 16 bit at least. The thread sort of got side-tracked when someone suggested it might be 9.3453-bit.


Sigh... most of them probably have never heard of palettes.

Alot of the 8-bit systems used palettes, meaning while only 2^8=256 simultaneous colours could be displayed in a the framebuffer, those 256 could be chosen out of a far larger range of colours. In the case of VGA, for example, 262144 were available, giving 64 values each for red, green and blue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_Graphics_Array#The_VGA_color_palette

So reasonably fine graduations were possible even with an 8-bit limit in the framebuffer. Many games of the time would use a custom palette for each scene/map/level, to squeeze the best quality out of each situation.

The only way to successfully argue that this is or is not 8-bit is to analyze every single frame for a maxiumum of 256 colours displayed at a time. To be technically accurate, it could use a separate palette for each frame. Compounding the problem, though, video compression can make it appear that more than 256 colours were used so the original uncompressed form would need to be analyzed. Prolly be someone with too much time on their hands =P

<cough>

Yeah, and the vid is seriously fucked up.

^ The thread on reddit took offense to calling this 8 bit. Apparently it's 16 bit at least. The thread sort of got side-tracked when someone suggested it might be 9.3453-bit.

I thought this was a pretty good interview. For once not completely side-tracked for comedy by Colbert. Good.