I've had someone try to do that to me. Had a similar reaction too, only I also shoved her away.

There's a second or two of "WTF? WHAT ARE YOU DOING?" that kicks in. Then afterwards you feel like such a shmuck, but in those first couple seconds, you really don't know if they are gonna, like, knife you or they have kooties or Ebola or something.

It also doesn't help if you're like me and that sort of nice, cute stuff never happens to you.

The door is indeed unlocked. I mostly wanted to come back to clean the audio channel and do that responsible stuff.

Thanks for the help.


In reply to this comment by dag:
Welcome back. Some stuff has happened.

>> ^Boise_Lib:

>> ^Yogi:
I bought it and yes it probably shouldn't be posted but it should be taken down by the poster...not banned or kicked or anything. The sift has posted tons of links to other peoples work, we identify with Louis CK so we can make a plea to the OP, but in no way should be bring the hammer down as it were.

Thanks for clarifying. I didn't mean any of that kind of stuff should happen.


I am of course the humble and reasonable voice of the sift. Please do not worship me here.

>> ^Yogi:

I bought it and yes it probably shouldn't be posted but it should be taken down by the poster...not banned or kicked or anything. The sift has posted tons of links to other peoples work, we identify with Louis CK so we can make a plea to the OP, but in no way should be bring the hammer down as it were.


Thanks for clarifying. I didn't mean any of that kind of stuff should happen.

Yeah, the concept is great including the fact that theft/robbery/griefing (ie. stuff that happens in the real world) are all kosher.

eg. http://eve.klaki.net/heist/

Any game with the sheer scope for such an event to be pulled off should be applauded, but it certainly doesn't mean it's for everyone. ; )

Enjoyed the vid, but I have to say I really stopped watching most of Maddow's stuff lately, she seems to try to perpetuate the myth that there is actually a divide between Republicans and Democrats. It reminds me of when Cenk Uygur was on MSNBC last year, after a while you could literally see him transform into someone trying to barrack for the Dem's (for reasons he later detailed when he left the network).

Yes I know she points out some bad points about the Democrats too, but overall her discussion seems to be pretty twisted away from the reality of the present political climate and more towards, 'let's get people to believe that the bad stuff is happening because of the GOP and the de facto good guys must therefore be ..... '. It's not always explicit that it's the Democrats she wants you to support, but it's pretty damn obvious.

I do like her as a reporter, if there was one reporter I wished had greater freedom of expression it would be her, I just wish she had the balls (figuratively) to do what Cenk did.

>> ^BicycleRepairMan:

@SDGundamX said:Second, Randi can demonstrably show people how the charlatans are pulling off their tricks. In other words, he has factual evidence to prove they are charlatans. For most religions (I'm excluding Scientology since L. Ron Hubbard basically admitted to making it up to make money) it is impossible to provide such factual evidence (showing that they are false). The Crucifixion and (supposed) Resurrection, as just one example, simply doesn't lend itself to testing through the scientific method. Of course, we can look at other evidence (archaeological for instance) but like I said, for most religions there's no smoking gun either way (in support of or against).
Well thats a bit like saying the lottery has a 50/50 chance isn't it? Its like your forgetting that atheists also have "beliefs" about the resurrection: We believe that it didn't happened and that it was made up.
Take this video of James Randi explaining a little matchbox trick. Sure, some of us might say the trick has been exposed and thoroughly debunked. However, you could still believe there were magic crystals from the lost city of Atlantis involved somehow, and explain that there is "no factual evidence for or against". Of course, you might say: thats easy: i can do the matchbox trick right now, iaw replicate the trick, and thereby find a plausible, natural place of origin for the "magic".
Well I can do the same for the jesus myth: "2000 years ago Susej was nailed to a cross and three days later he rose from the dead." There, I just told a fictional story similar to the jesus one and thus proved it was possible to simply make it up.
Conversely, there is no evidence that a)any of that stuff actually happened OR b) that it even could happen. But again, there's plenty of evidence that shows that it could have been made up.


I don't necessarily disagree with you. It all goes back to credulity--each person decides for themselves how much evidence they require to believe something. I think for the vast majority of people the evidence against the matchbox trick is overwhelming. The same can't be said for the case against most religions--the people who feel the evidence is overwhelming (or put another way, that there isn't enough evidence to justify their belief) are atheists. The problems are deciding what constitutes "evidence" and the fact, as I mentioned above, that people believe in religions for a host of other reasons besides the evidence (personal experience being probably the foremost).

Back to the original point, calling people idiots neither adds anything constructive to the discussion nor is it really even true for most people (either religious or atheist).

@SDGundamX said:Second, Randi can demonstrably show people how the charlatans are pulling off their tricks. In other words, he has factual evidence to prove they are charlatans. For most religions (I'm excluding Scientology since L. Ron Hubbard basically admitted to making it up to make money) it is impossible to provide such factual evidence (showing that they are false). The Crucifixion and (supposed) Resurrection, as just one example, simply doesn't lend itself to testing through the scientific method. Of course, we can look at other evidence (archaeological for instance) but like I said, for most religions there's no smoking gun either way (in support of or against).

Well thats a bit like saying the lottery has a 50/50 chance isn't it? Its like your forgetting that atheists also have "beliefs" about the resurrection: We believe that it didn't happened and that it was made up.

Take this video of James Randi explaining a little matchbox trick. Sure, some of us might say the trick has been exposed and thoroughly debunked. However, you could still believe there were magic crystals from the lost city of Atlantis involved somehow, and explain that there is "no factual evidence for or against". Of course, you might say: thats easy: i can do the matchbox trick right now, iaw replicate the trick, and thereby find a plausible, natural place of origin for the "magic".

Well I can do the same for the jesus myth: "2000 years ago Susej was nailed to a cross and three days later he rose from the dead." There, I just told a fictional story similar to the jesus one and thus proved it was possible to simply make it up.

Conversely, there is no evidence that a)any of that stuff actually happened OR b) that it even could happen. But again, there's plenty of evidence that shows that it could have been made up.

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

But to care about SF, it has to be about how it relates to human beings. In some sense we have to put ourselves in the shoes of the people who are experiencing the wonder. Otherwise it's dry and boring.

When I think about SF movies without good character, I think of Transformers. Style over substance.

Contact on the other hand had a great central character that let you feel the wonder of what she was experiencing through her eyes. That's vital.

>> ^gorillaman:

>> ^dag:
Hmmm. Examples? I guess Dave Bowman was pretty flat, but HAL as a character definitely wasn't. Deckard in Bladerunner was not flat, very tortured nuanced performance by Harrison Ford. I think I'd have to disagree with you gorillaman. The best SF, like all stories, is character driven.
Well there's Rama, where Clarke correctly focuses on the ship. I feel like people who complain about the humans' characterisation just aren't reading the book right. I read Schild's Ladder recently - the characters have intellectual disagreements but not much else, to the point of lacking differentiated sexes, and it still paints a compelling portrait of future civilisation. I hesitate to mention Ayn Rand's Anthem, but she understood if you detail your protagonist too explicitly then you lose your universality of meaning.
It's not often an author can write SF in its purest form and still get published, so it's easier to find examples where too much emphasis on the human elements detracts from the work. Like Asimov's Foundation, one of my favorites. The characters in that book are downright intrusive on what's otherwise an exploration of events on a galactic scale. After the reader gets his introduction to the wonderful concept of psychohistory, the characters start to drive the plot and everything falls apart. The rest of the book and the subsequent books in the series become just Some Stuff That Happens. Well stuff happens every day, I don't need to read about stuff. Just like Rama's sequels, no good can come from watering down high literature with narratological cliches.
Good SF communicates to the reader a single idea as clearly and elegantly as possible then ends. Characterisation, even plot, are distractions.
It's an educational experience. How would you feel if your maths textbook gave the number two a quirky personality, and the equals sign a terrible secret to hide? That's fine if you just want to be entertained, but not if you want to learn something. I use SF as a kind of zen meditation, projecting my consciousness into a construction of a future I won't visit in person, in order to become enlightened.

>> ^dag:
Hmmm. Examples? I guess Dave Bowman was pretty flat, but HAL as a character definitely wasn't. Deckard in Bladerunner was not flat, very tortured nuanced performance by Harrison Ford. I think I'd have to disagree with you gorillaman. The best SF, like all stories, is character driven.

Well there's Rama, where Clarke correctly focuses on the ship. I feel like people who complain about the humans' characterisation just aren't reading the book right. I read Schild's Ladder recently - the characters have intellectual disagreements but not much else, to the point of lacking differentiated sexes, and it still paints a compelling portrait of future civilisation. I hesitate to mention Ayn Rand's Anthem, but she understood if you detail your protagonist too explicitly then you lose your universality of meaning.

It's not often an author can write SF in its purest form and still get published, so it's easier to find examples where too much emphasis on the human elements detracts from the work. Like Asimov's Foundation, one of my favorites. The characters in that book are downright intrusive on what's otherwise an exploration of events on a galactic scale. After the reader gets his introduction to the wonderful concept of psychohistory, the characters start to drive the plot and everything falls apart. The rest of the book and the subsequent books in the series become just Some Stuff That Happens. Well stuff happens every day, I don't need to read about stuff. Just like Rama's sequels, no good can come from watering down high literature with narratological cliches.

Good SF communicates to the reader a single idea as clearly and elegantly as possible then ends. Characterisation, even plot, are distractions.

It's an educational experience. How would you feel if your maths textbook gave the number two a quirky personality, and the equals sign a terrible secret to hide? That's fine if you just want to be entertained, but not if you want to learn something. I use SF as a kind of zen meditation, projecting my consciousness into a construction of a future I won't visit in person, in order to become enlightened.

God is the one who holds all the authority. The expert insight I have is called spiritual discernment, and you don't have any. You cannot accept the fact that if the bible is true it means that you are utterly deceived and unable to reason about God. That you reject God out of total ignorance. These truths are spiritually discerned and you don't even know you have one. There is absolute truth, and objective good and evil. Satan rules this world and he has spiritual dominion over anyone who doesn't know God. Satan has legal rights to you because you have rejected your creator. He's in your music, he's in these videos, he is in every lie that has been drilled into your mind about God. That's the bad stuff I am talking about, and I am a witness to this activity. I will continue that witness and pray that you reaize the truth before its too late.

>> ^offsetSammy:
What gives you any authority, moral or spiritual, over me? What expert insight do you have that I don't have? How does quoting verses from the bible make any kind of convincing argument whatsoever?
I just love your threatening tone, as if you've seen the light and have witnessed all the baaaad stuff that happens to those who do not see it. You either have a massive superiority complex, are delusional, or both. I'd suggest you're the one that needs to wake up to his 'wicked' ways. Also, your beliefs are crrrrap! Other than that you're probably a pretty nice guy though (actually not being sarcastic).
>> ^shinyblurry:
I'm not trying to win a popularity contest, I am here to save lives. Believe what you will, mock me if you want, but don't pile on more condemnation for yourself.
Galatians 6:7
Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap.
People blasphemy against God and get some sort of wicked thrill out of it but I assure you its not worth it. I highly encourage you to have a sense of self-preservation.
>> ^offsetSammy:
I've recently started coming to the conclusion that the old mantra of being respectful of others' beliefs is, as Billy Connolly so eloquently put it, crrrap. It is those very beliefs that start wars, fuel bigotry, encourage tribalism, and foster a mistrust and rejection of science and facts. You believe in a magic man in the sky despite no evidence for it? You want me to believe the earth is only a few thousand years old because you read it in a book, despite every scientific investigation saying otherwise? Your beliefs are laughable and deserve the derision they receive.
That is not to say that you, as a person, don't deserve my respect. Of course we should all be respectful of each others' humanity / existence. We're not all so different, after all. But your beliefs are not you. I'll mock them all I want.

What gives you any authority, moral or spiritual, over me? What expert insight do you have that I don't have? How does quoting verses from the bible make any kind of convincing argument whatsoever?

I just love your threatening tone, as if you've seen the light and have witnessed all the baaaad stuff that happens to those who do not see it. You either have a massive superiority complex, are delusional, or both. I'd suggest you're the one that needs to wake up to his 'wicked' ways. Also, your beliefs are crrrrap! Other than that you're probably a pretty nice guy though (actually not being sarcastic).

>> ^shinyblurry:

I'm not trying to win a popularity contest, I am here to save lives. Believe what you will, mock me if you want, but don't pile on more condemnation for yourself.
Galatians 6:7
Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap.
People blasphemy against God and get some sort of wicked thrill out of it but I assure you its not worth it. I highly encourage you to have a sense of self-preservation.
>> ^offsetSammy:
I've recently started coming to the conclusion that the old mantra of being respectful of others' beliefs is, as Billy Connolly so eloquently put it, crrrap. It is those very beliefs that start wars, fuel bigotry, encourage tribalism, and foster a mistrust and rejection of science and facts. You believe in a magic man in the sky despite no evidence for it? You want me to believe the earth is only a few thousand years old because you read it in a book, despite every scientific investigation saying otherwise? Your beliefs are laughable and deserve the derision they receive.
That is not to say that you, as a person, don't deserve my respect. Of course we should all be respectful of each others' humanity / existence. We're not all so different, after all. But your beliefs are not you. I'll mock them all I want.

This pretty much showed how JS is a hypocrite so blinkered by bias that he personifies the very evil he decries.

Let’s call a tiger a tiger. Cable news channels have two completely different facets. One facet is the “news” update – which is when channels are announcing stuff that happens – the cut and dry stuff. The other facet is “commentary”: biased, agenda driven, subjective, interpretive, talking-head bologna that preaches to a specific ideological crowd. Whether you want to admit it or not – ALL news channels have both of these facets of News and Commentary.

Now, the cable news channels have a lot higher “Commentary to News” ratio because they are filling up a 24/7 schedule. Fox is not unique in that regard – but shares the same market space as MSNBC & CNN - about 20% ‘News’ and 80% ‘Commentary’. Whether you like the commentary of a particular channel depends on your own bias. To people who are leftists (the majority of the Sift and JS) commentary on Fox News is like garlic to a vampire. To someone on the right (such as myself) commentary on MSNBC is like salt on road rash.

If Stewart was really a true “satirist” (as he likes to say he is) then he would be mocking all sides because they both have plenty of targets. However, 99 times out of 100, Stewart focuses on the side he ideologically opposes while ignoring juicy targets on the other side. A real satirist doesn’t handcuff himself like that, so what Stewart is doing is less ‘satire’ and more ‘biased commentary’ because what he selects as subject material is driven by his biases.

Stewart can’t admit that or his audience of smug, self-congratulatory neolibs would lose their self esteem. So when presented with ironclad proof that he is biased by Wallace, Stewart CANNOT bring himself to admit it. Instead he desperately cringes behind his typical dodge of being “comedy informed by an ideological background”. What a load of honk. You were nailed Stewart. Your claimed beef with Fox News (that they are somehow ‘unique’ in commentary bias) is proven demonstrably false. Instead, it was made crystal clear that you simply don’t like Fox’s brand of commentary because it ideologically opposes your own. Kind of hurts when you can’t just mack at the camera when you get pegged don’t it? You got visibly irritable and defensive because the truth hurts.

So in this interview Stewart couldn’t dive into the tall grass of his standard “Hey – I’m just a comedian! No fair! My clown-nose is on!” coward defense. The commentary of many news channels is liberally biased just as bad (or worse) than any of Fox News’ conservative commentary. Wallace proves it in black and white. In fact there are many studies that have proven this point routinely. But Stewart can’t bring himself to SAY that news outlets he shares an “informed ideological background” with are biased because that would mean that he would have to admit that he HIMSELF is biased. So in the face of all evidence he says that hack organizations like MSNBC are not biased but “trend toward sensationalism and laziness”. I haven’t heard a weaker, more pathetic rhetorical dodge in a long time.

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/993/who-knows-news-what-you-read-or-view-matters-but-not-your-politics

Of course Stewart doesn’t want to mention polls like this that prove that FOX patrons are about 2X as ‘informed’ as people on MSNBC, NBC, CNN, ABC, or CBC. He doesn’t want to talk about the fact that Couric’s audience is about as ‘informed’ as the average reader of the Inquirer. Of course Stewart isn’t going to admit that people who listen to LIMBAUGH are more informed than his audience. No – like Obama – Stewart only sticks to isolated, biased polls that favor his own personal world view - and ignores the evidence to the contrary. BIASED.

If you’re a fan of Stewart then bully for you. He can be entertaining sometimes, and he even has the occasional decency to admit (albeit sarcastically) his own problems – such as with the whole Weiner scandal. But those of you who are patting yourselves on the back pretending that he somehow ‘skunked’ Wallace are living in a self-insulated fanboi fantasy world.

Wallace made his point. Wallace never tried to say Fox News doesn’t have biased commentary on it. Wallace proved conclusively that other news channels – including Stewart’s own show – are primarily driven by biased commentary rather than news. To the world, Stewart proved that he cannot bring himself to simply admit that left-wing, neolib commentary is biased. Thus, proving to all that Stewart himself is an untrustworthy, intellectually hypocritical, biased tool. Game, set, and match to Wallace. Now Stewart can slink back to his show and lick his wounds by selectively re-editing reality so he doesn’t look quite as big of a tool – as is his wont.

^ Heh, yeah, put that way you take a truly dramatic portion of the game and make it sound monstrous. It's not like that stuff was happening for shits and giggles on a Sunday afternoon.

Why does this kinda stuff only happen in foreign countries? I want my american cat to be this cute.