It’s a start, but too little too late IMO. We need a Thanos that thinks big, erasing 9/10 instead of just 1/2.

A math joke on a TV show in America... I don't think Big Bang Theory even has those. What audience could appreciate it today?

-edit- What he said ^

I think it should be the opposite. How about a link that you can opt in to view image. I can't recall the last time someone linked by url or hyperlink an image they felt like sharing especially an informative one that compliments a video. I just don't think there is a need and if necessary i don't see why a link wouldn't suffice. Like I said i see little upside and potential big downside. Interesting comment threads is one of the best things about the sift. I think big images would visually hurt the flow of a comment thread. I think if it was a text link that could open an image then the flow would be fine but just an image seems like a bad idea.

There was a time when I was excited about the future of gaming. I mean, I'm still excited, but it's taking way longer than it should... When the most exciting game to come out in 10 years is Minecraft (IMHO), that's when I call shit on the entire industry and realize that's just the shitty way that the shitty world works. Things become less awesome the more that everyone gravitates towards said same things. Companies see the money being generated and the only return on interest is to keep doing that thing that people say (more like "think") they like about the game(s).

As a consumer I think: Big business is fucked and always will be. I don't want to be marketed to. I don't want people to anticipate what I desire. When that shit starts happening, I'm done and I no longer desire. Because what I desire most is freedom from the constraints of this awful, mind-numbing, driven-into-the-ground system control. Stop, just stop trying to figure us out and by design minimize our being.

Trends are like two sides of an ascending roof coming to meet in the middle. On one side are publishers and on the other side are developers & consumers. When the two sides meet in the middle, business happens. BUT development and consumers (developers are consumers, thus are driven by the same motivations, albeit with the ability to make change) want to keep ascending to a new spot... AND PUBLISHING WON'T LET THEM GO HIGHER BECAUSE THAT IS WHERE UNCERTAINTY LIES. NOT. PROFIT.

Profit. Profit. Profit. YAY FOR THE FUTURE.

That guy who dressed in a bunny suit appears to enjoy living on the edge. I think Big Cat Rescue does a spectacular job with their "charges". Too bad they have to be in business in the first place though.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

You know - quite frankly - I don't see why people think Tom Hanks is that great. I remember him when he first came on the scene in "Bosom Buddies". He was moderately amusing, but no more so than Peter Scolari was. He did some bit parts in Family Ties, and did that lousy D&D TV movie "Mazes & Monsters". He did nothing exceptional.
Then he went on to do crappy comedies like Money Pit, Dragnet, Bachelor Party, and Joe Vs. The Volcano. He wasn't very good in any of them. His acting in these shows was one-note. Swap Hanks in Splash with Hanks in Money Pit and there is no difference. He was servicable, but he wasn't that great.
But I think "Big" for some reason started making people think he was a good actor. In the 90s, studios were always trying to turn comedians into "serious" actors. Robin Williams tried it with Patch Adams and Good Morning Vietnam. Jim Carrey tried with "Truman Show", et al. With Hanks, it was A League of Thier Own, Sleepless in Seattle, Forest Gump, and Philadelphia. I see very little difference between "80's Hanks" and "90's Hanks". He isn't a better actor than he was way back in "Mazes & Monsters". He's still the same old one-note Tom Hanks. He just has a better movie. You could take a potted plant and stick it in Forest Gump and get the same result. Some of his performances like in Polar Express and Angels & Demons are cringe-worthy.
So I don't see why Tim Allen has to take the shot here. He's shown at least as much acting "ability" as Tom Hanks. Hanks just got lucky and happened to end up getting better roles and more credit than he deserves.

Forrest Gump may be a cliche now, but his performance in it was great. He was great in Philadelphia and The Green Mile as well. For pure strength of acting, I think you've got to go with Cast Away. Not many actors can carry a movie all by themselves with only a volleyball to interact with. If you want a role that really steps out of the norm, try The Ladykillers.

Hanks may not be one of those guys who completely transforms himself for a role, but I still think he's solid. Tim Allen has never acted, to my knowledge. He plays himself in all his roles.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

You know - quite frankly - I don't see why people think Tom Hanks is that great. I remember him when he first came on the scene in "Bosom Buddies". He was moderately amusing, but no more so than Peter Scolari was. He did some bit parts in Family Ties, and did that lousy D&D TV movie "Mazes & Monsters". He did nothing exceptional.
Then he went on to do crappy comedies like Money Pit, Dragnet, Bachelor Party, and Joe Vs. The Volcano. He wasn't very good in any of them. His acting in these shows was one-note. Swap Hanks in Splash with Hanks in Money Pit and there is no difference. He was servicable, but he wasn't that great.
But I think "Big" for some reason started making people think he was a good actor. In the 90s, studios were always trying to turn comedians into "serious" actors. Robin Williams tried it with Patch Adams and Good Morning Vietnam. Jim Carrey tried with "Truman Show", et al. With Hanks, it was A League of Thier Own, Sleepless in Seattle, Forest Gump, and Philadelphia. I see very little difference between "80's Hanks" and "90's Hanks". He isn't a better actor than he was way back in "Mazes & Monsters". He's still the same old one-note Tom Hanks. He just has a better movie. You could take a potted plant and stick it in Forest Gump and get the same result. Some of his performances like in Polar Express and Angels & Demons are cringe-worthy.
So I don't see why Tim Allen has to take the shot here. He's shown at least as much acting "ability" as Tom Hanks. Hanks just got lucky and happened to end up getting better roles and more credit than he deserves.


Also, Tim Allen's a crackhead.

You know - quite frankly - I don't see why people think Tom Hanks is that great. I remember him when he first came on the scene in "Bosom Buddies". He was moderately amusing, but no more so than Peter Scolari was. He did some bit parts in Family Ties, and did that lousy D&D TV movie "Mazes & Monsters". He did nothing exceptional.

Then he went on to do crappy comedies like Money Pit, Dragnet, Bachelor Party, and Joe Vs. The Volcano. He wasn't very good in any of them. His acting in these shows was one-note. Swap Hanks in Splash with Hanks in Money Pit and there is no difference. He was servicable, but he wasn't that great.

But I think "Big" for some reason started making people think he was a good actor. In the 90s, studios were always trying to turn comedians into "serious" actors. Robin Williams tried it with Patch Adams and Good Morning Vietnam. Jim Carrey tried with "Truman Show", et al. With Hanks, it was A League of Thier Own, Sleepless in Seattle, Forest Gump, and Philadelphia. I see very little difference between "80's Hanks" and "90's Hanks". He isn't a better actor than he was way back in "Mazes & Monsters". He's still the same old one-note Tom Hanks. He just has a better movie. You could take a potted plant and stick it in Forest Gump and get the same result. Some of his performances like in Polar Express and Angels & Demons are cringe-worthy.

So I don't see why Tim Allen has to take the shot here. He's shown at least as much acting "ability" as Tom Hanks. Hanks just got lucky and happened to end up getting better roles and more credit than he deserves.

>> ^chtierna:

Great sift. Imagine this with multiplayer mohohaha!


Imagine playing this on your computer over the internet! You could register for a date and time to play, then log in and play with your friends for an hour. These guys aren't thinking big enough! Arcade game -- fah! Use the internets!

oh and eating mc'ds doesn't make you fat, its when you are un edjumacated about basic personal health and how the body works that you get fat off of eating at fast food. Moderation or burning off what you eat is the key. Flat fact most assholes don't know this simple knowledge and are lazy. Don't blame the corporation, blame the idiot lazy fat fucks who thinks big macs and fries are a healthy daily alternative to home cooked non processed meals.

>> ^KnivesOut:
>> ^mxxcon:
hmm, he's been doing "kids" jokes even back them...i would think comedians evolve their material more significantly.

There you go think'n again.

i didn't say i was thinking, i said "i would think".
big difference.

>> ^gtjwkq:
Banks are given money voluntarily , that means they'll tend to receive less money if they're careless with it (reputation?). You might ask, "So why would banks be careless with money given by govt? Don't they know that govt might not give them more money if they're careless too?".

It's not really about the usual libertarian focus on voluntary vs. authority, it's about accountability. No one in government gets their job without either being elected, or being employed by someone who was elected. If tax money is misspent, you can elect someone else.

But I also think there are plenty of people who excel at their profession because they like to be good at what they do, not because they think their ass is on the line if they screw up.

I also question whether people who're primarily motivated by bonuses given for high short-term investment returns have the right kind of incentives.

But I have no control over that at a bank.

Well, just look at the bailouts. Govt gave these banks billions even after they lost copious amounts of it. Either these banks are evil geniuses or, at the risk of sounding like a conspiracy theorist, I'd say there is some collusion between govt and big investment banks, wouldn't you agree?

I'd say a little of both. I doubt the big asset bubble was a plan that the banks and government colluded on. I think the banks screwed up, and I think the strength of their lobbying arm made sure government gave them money with no strings attached, rather than following a more progressive path (temporarily nationalizing them FDIC-style, or folding the same volume of money into the social safety net and letting them fail, or just giving the money to single-home homeowners to bail them out, and by proxy bail out their banks).

I'm in a wait-and-see mode with the bank bailout. Government spent it all to get stock in these banks, which it will later sell. It may wind up being that the way they did it will actually bring more money in than it spent initially, like what happened with the S&L crisis.

Profit is not something strictly selfish (well, actually it is, but profit is usually obtained by providing services to others, which is where the "selfless" magic behind profit lies), a growing economy eventually allows itself to have longer and longer-term goals while still being bound by a profit-seeking mentality, even if we're talking highways or space exploration.

I understand the free market theory, and I actually see that kind of virtuous business cycle as being a goal I share. I just don't think it's possible to have a market that is both unregulated and beneficent to ordinary people.

I also don't think we can count on charities to take on the problems of the poor adequately, especially not in economic downturns that's tightening everyone's budget. People are too selfish to really worry about it.

You said, regarding the Fed's expansion of the money supply:

Austrians say it will cause hyperinflation, keynesians will either say "yay, it worked!" or "hyperinflation only happened because the Fed didn't expand the money supply enough and didn't save enough failing banks".

Actually, unless something drastic changes, Keynesians will say "holy shit, how did we get inflation?"

I'll be writing off Keynesians as being quacks if we wind up in a situation with high unemployment and high inflation, unless we have some sort of supply shock (e.g. OPEC decides to stop selling oil to us), or we wind up scaring the world into dumping the dollar before we recover.

Supply shocks aren't really predictable, but there are ways to measure the international community's confidence in the dollar, and there aren't any warning signs at this point.

If employment comes roaring back, and GDP reverts to trend, then we'll be calling for the Fed to contract the money supply to stave off inflation.

Inflation produces easy money for the govt at the expense of everyone's wealth denominated in that currency. It's the ultimate stealth taxing tool: The govt/Fed just prints money and we all get poorer, and they get to give that money to those who are politically connected.
It's like an upside-down redistribution of wealth, everyone gets slowly robbed (the poor getting hit the hardest for having less resources) and usually the ones at the top get the most benefit first, specially if they're in bed with govt.

I agree with this assessment of the issues that can and do crop up. I disagree that the Fed intentionally causes periods of high inflation in order to explicitly to benefit their well-connected friends.

Govt, as always, gets a free pass and points its finger at capitalism, business owners, the market, banks, foreign lenders, ANYTHING and people will buy it if they're keynesian, statist or stupid enough.

Slurs against people like myself aside, I think you misunderstand our position. It's not that government gets a free pass, it's that a corrupt government happens because of businesses influence.

Peter Schiff has used the analogy that the crisis was like a teacher leaving kids alone with a bunch of candy, and then later comes back and finds the kids have made themselves sick. I agree with the analogy -- business is like a bunch of misbehaved kids, and the government, like the teacher, is supposed to be the responsible adult who keeps them in check. The cure isn't to fire the teacher and let the kids have the keys to the candy supply, the cure is to fire the teacher and hire a responsible one.

I guess what I don't understand is why you would trust government with nuclear missiles, police, courts, etc. but not control of currency.

I want to end fraud, corruption, and abuse, but I don't think big business is somehow immune to it, and I don't see how telling government to generally take a hike would cure it.

I think it's a symptom of human nature itself that people are always going to be seeking advantage, fair or not, by any means necessary. I want to empower altruistic people who represent the people's interests, and aren't afraid to push back against corporate interests to make sure people are treated fairly.

I cringe at the entire conservative "we must make policy about maximizing business growth, period" philosophy of governance. Mine is "we must make business growth beneficial to society".

The private sector thinks in terms of money and does not function well when profit is not the top priority. Take the California energy privatization disaster, for instance. Corruption, fraud and negligence were almost instantaneous. Thankfully, the public legal system stepped in, but what would have happened if Enron owned the court system as well? Honestly, it just seems to me that libertarians don't think this kind of stuff through.

Public systems should be under public control, period. I'm not sure how this is even controversial. It's just so plain, simple and obvious. Private businesses should be under the control of private individuals; Public works and systems should be under the control of the public. DUH!

If you are concerned about our school system, the last thing you would want to do is to relinquish transparency, oversight and the power of your own voice over to some CEO. Talk about tyranny - when the private national school system fails, who are you going to complain to? Ron Paul?

As far as healthcare goes, I don't understand why you can't get on board with the single payer program. It leaves all of the hospital staff and facilities in private hands, but manages the cost like one large insurance plan, with the sheer volume of participants keeping the costs low. As a perk, it would also destroy the HMO industry - good fucking riddance.

The nurse thing sounds great, and there is no reason you couldn't implement it into any system (included our mutually dispised current system).

I'm with you on the big-Pharma run FDA too. If the FDA was privatized, do you think Big-Pharma might be interested it? Nah, never.....

PS: Do you think your shameful public education is to blame for the frequent gaps of logic in your arguments? (i kid, you are the smartest libertarian I have ever known)

>> ^rougy:
I'm sensing a pattern with your latest posts, Zombo.


I just seek to share my interests and inform the public.

Man, this smells of self link. Not that I can prove it. ANd I'm totally prejudiced since I think Big Cat Animal Rescue is disgusting. Feel free to troll youtube to find tons of stuff about them and their dishonesty.

The cat is cute. But I can't vote for anything that helps out those charlatans.