Yeah, like @newtboy says. After all the tragedy, to the pinnacle of comedy, trailer parks are Natures Tornado Magnets.

Then I point you to somewhere which requires reading:

http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/now-just-001-percent-of-climate-scientists-reject-global-warming

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/the-curious-wavefunction/2014/01/10/about-that-consensus-on-global-warming-9136-agree-one-disagrees/

http://www.independentaustralia.net/environment/environment-display/only-1-of-9136-recent-peer-reviewed-authors-rejects-global-warming,6094

I could go all day. But, of course, this study isn't without it's detractors, who honestly do have a claim, if substantiated. (I've read the math on it, and the 97% is indeed an accurate sum, however, it is misleading in the sense that it only accounts for papers that state a stance and don't outright deny climate change is solely anthropogenic.)

Perhaps you found your info on Forbes.com, a decidedly unbiased site whose solely interested in getting to the bottom of the facts, regardless of political ideology. (sarcasm)

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/22/after-oklahoma-city-tragedy-shameless-politicians-unsheath-global-warming-card/

Or we could try a different route and try a group dedicated to statistics:

http://stats.org/stories/2008/global_warming_survey_apr23_08.html

"Eighty-four percent say they personally believe human-induced warming is occurring, and 74% agree that “currently available scientific evidence” substantiates its occurrence. Only 5% believe that that human activity does not contribute to greenhouse warming; the rest are unsure."

Now, we should work on your use of the word "some".

"some
səm/Submit
determiner
1.
an unspecified amount or number of.
"I made some money running errands"
2.
used to refer to someone or something that is unknown or unspecified.
"she married some newspaper magnate twice her age"
pronoun
1.
an unspecified number or amount of people or things.
"here are some of our suggestions"
2.
at least a small amount or number of people or things.
"surely some have noticed"
adverbNORTH AMERICANinformal
1.
to some extent; somewhat.
"when you get to the majors, the rules change some""

Don't worry, none of those came from a .gov link.

"In the 1990s, the U.S. Army decided it could not afford to continue developing complicated, maintenance-heavy vehicles for this purpose. The Grizzly program was canceled in 2001. The prototype developed never made it to the production lines."

THIS is why we "liberals" don't like so-called success. This. Success for what? So we can call human life a trifle? We can't afford to develop appropriate life-saving vehicles, and yet we have so much wealth in this godforsaken country.

It's godforsaken, because your Christ did NOT advocate material success. He cared for the tired and the hungry. Guardians of Democracy? More like a bunch of A-holes...

At least the military had an answer. I like the military, but I hate our "successful" American Judas'. Selling out their fake Jesus eeeeeevery freaking day. And for what? I hope His love doesn't buy them past the pearly gates because THAT would be a tragedy. I'll see you all in hell.

I agree, film needs visual cues, but making her vision work like a touch screen is a HORRIBLE device for that....at least to me.
Wait...OTHERWISE it's just ridiculous?!? HA! Either way it's ridiculous!
I just hate movies that give the impression that they thought up some inventive method to make their insanity make sense, then crap out at the end and say "it was a dream, no explanation needed". That's simply poor writing and lack of imagination to me. (I must say it does one positive thing for me, it leaves the end a tragedy after building to a 'win' for the hero....but in an incredibly cheap and unsatisfying way).
Far better for me is how they did it in "Wages of Fear" (my favorite movie, from the 50's) where the hard fought survival and triumph can be ruined by a moment of inattentive joy.

@MichaelL, dude, it's only a personal pet-peave of mine, please take anything I spew with a grain of salt. The comment you made caused my brain to rumble and flex a bit , and that's always good thing. I was speaking to a certain personally-perceived pretension which I address here (and that not infrequently and wholly unsolicited), and for that, I apologize if it ruffled feathers which incidentally, are worthy of ruffling if they be but feathers.

@ Payback, guess I'd owe you $5 had I taken the bet, correct by half, as I am often at least 1/4.

@bcglorf.....now THERE's the pretentious statement I was looking for. Dost thou assume incorrectly sir or madam that I have some retarded grasp and disrespect of both science and the English language????

We think so and as often, this is the ACTUAL case, ACT-UALLY!!

@lucky760 We're both on the same page with the magnetic phenomena.....
wizardry or some other unseen forces-only possible explanation.

Great post mintbbb. It contained absolutely no human tragedy or catastrophe and no fluffy creatures doing cute things. Nice change 'o pace

Don't be too hard on yourself.

As callous as it seems, what you are talking about is actually an evolved response and an important one too.

If humans took every tragedy as personally as we do when it happens to some one close to us, we would be paralysed by grief continuously.

Note: I'm not saying that you shouldn't care, simply explaining the reason behind the way most people think.

It was a great show, but I didnt like the ending. It was too conform with society. But at least it showed the tragedy of indoctrination.

The first time I heard Linger was seeing the music video on MTV while getting ready for school in the 10th grade. I didn't know the song yet, but it was stuck in my head through every class that day.


Wow, the 20 years since then have really flown by...

Life's tragedy is that we get old too soon and wise too late. — B.F.

Sir...lower than low and you can't tell the real from unreal-I am a musician and a friend to humanity and all you want from me is to see me burn-You are sadly mistaken in your assumptions and have dealt me a personal disservice,

I mean you no personal ill-will and have seen this before from other abusers of this site.

Cut and paste and declare the righteous of humanity unworthy based on nothing but your own delusional fantasies of right and wrong.

I have no history here of anything but calling shit when I see it and you sir, are THE epitome of the dregs of the worst of humankind.

You place yourself in a false position of a 'holier than thou' saint and read into my jovial and playful banter nothing but hatred and an unforgiving soul, some vile pervert....I assure you, I am so very far from some pedophile, no user of women, on the contrary-You have no idea the depths to which your own delusion has brought you and the entire site in declaring me in your self-righteousness some petty piece of human garbage as to accuse me of such a thing.

There are more than a few people here who can attest to my kindness and sincerity towards the women of this place, on YT when so many complete douchebags offer-up their vile words to young people trying to interpret music and are derided by those who hate themselves so much that they can only criticize, berate, and belittle the efforts of sincere people trying to share their love for music and humanity with the world only to have idiots and assholes insult their efforts.

My "request" to you was a joke directed at your persona here of enforcer, of resident cop hell-bent on finding any way possible to undermine anyone who comes here as a new user under the guise of following protocol-I have treated you as a friend and equal always and now....with evil intent and a sincere and violent hatred for me as a person you would have me thrown to wolves.

I had absolutely no indication that someone would or could, stoop as low on this site but as it is with people who don't even know who or what they themselves are, I am once again surprised and bewildered at the depths to which humanity can sink, when all is exhausted but ego and self-loathing.

If you would care to post this to the sift-talk arena and have tenured and long-time users here who know me, who trust me to be who and what I say I am I would be honored to show you and the entire site, even if it mean a permanent ban from this site of myself, just how completely wrong you are in your knee-jerk assumptions and delusional accusations.

I can have at least 3 adult, female users of this site who I and the community trust to be straight-up moral and ethical and righteous attest to my honesty and to a friendship that endures on and off this site.

I have no reservations about anything I have said or done here to foster love and community and it is YOUR delusional self-righteous anger and self-hate that has brought you to your retarded and vile accusation and assumption.

I agree with you one one thing, that this particular issue need not be a private matter but one that the entire site's users need see.

SO here we are once again, letting the community of users here let a few delusionals decide the fate of a sincere human being.

SO be it, I should have known better than to walk bearing my heart and soul into a small den of feral creatures and expect them to be able to see beauty and a sincere love for all of humanity.

Your accusations again, are unfounded and completely left of field, and you are dead-wrong in assuming that I am some perverted, hind-brained animal that would take advantage of a complete stranger.

That poor girl who sang that Beatle's tune and was banned had a lovely voice and whoever posted her video here I am sure, had no intention of doing anything but promoting her confidence and and sincere love for the music she was trying to share with the world.


I was going to go to her you tube page and apologize on behalf of myself and the site for her offering having been dashed-to-bits on the rocks of petty rules and a declaration of her unworthiness through some crap system of votes and regulations.

I feel very, very sorry and pity the type of person who can't discern the truth from a lie or see someone for what they are in their essence.

All the power-points I garner from maintaining the site's embeds, have you noticed??
I give them away to the underdogs, to the talented sifters who find beauty and joy in what they offer to the community. My usual criteria is to promote ignored offerings or to promote when I read a description in an embed of how much they personally enjoyed a video or that it touched them in an emotional way lending to joy or happiness. I resurrect dead videos in order to immediately give points and another chance to people with a view to raiding their spirits and status on this site.

I tend to promote music quite a bot and to DOWN-VOTE embeds people place here in order to insult another's ideologies or philosophies OR, when i see an inordinate amount of embed form a user that showcase human-tragedy for the sake of entertainment .

I care about life and truth my friend, not fantasy, death, pain, or lies with a view to self-promotion.

You are dead wrong in your assessment of my character, and I seek to prove you so before this entire community or be run off this site for the very last time.

I am keeping a copy of this response to my joking message directed again, at your joy in watching users get banned of self-linking which I posted to you with a view to pointing-out a character flaw, so that you won't twist my words and use them to satisfy your personal mission to see me gone form here.

Let's go dig up that Harley and toss that carcass on the highway somewhere?!

The tragedy to be found in the remainder of one's life-savings or what's left of their pension or even the insurance they've paid into going to medical expenses in the last days or weeks of their lives should sicken their survivors and be enough to indict the entire medical establishment on gross negligence and fraud.

Still one of my favourite Philip Seymour Hoffman moments. RIP. Such a horrible tragedy, and a great loss for cinema. *promote

@Trancecoach: We're not going to agree, and that's fine. This'll be my last reply.

Retailer strong-arming: Imagine Apple makes up 95% of Best Buy's tablet sales. Off-brand-X wants to sell tablets at Best Buy. Apple says: If you sell Off-brand-X tablets, we will not let you sell our tablets. Off-brand-X is likely to only provide a tiny profit to Best Buy, compared to Apple, so they comply. (This actually happened, in a different form, with Intel paying computer manufacturers to not use AMD processors. See here). Also see price-fixing.

Widget-distribution-prevention: This is just an extension of the previous point.

Buying up all of the competitors: Ma Bell. Old AT&T. That should be enough said. But, if that's not enough, now Ma Bell is nearly entirely re-formed. The US was one government approval away from having cell carriers limited to Sprint, Verizon, and AT&T. That's been spoiled, now, but I don't think it's hard to imagine that future continuing on to two carriers colluding and price-fixing (as Verizon and AT&T pretty much have freedom to do anyway). This is another quasi-natural-monopoly situation (or at least a tragedy of the commons situation), in that the radio spectrum is not infinite. To keep the spectrum usable at all, blocks of frequencies are doled out to radio/TV/cellular/military/etc. etc. with stiff penalties for interference.

Patents: Patents present a litany of problems, but the world without them is even worse. You have two things happen, both of which are bad:
1) New technology remains veiled in secrecy indefinitely; no one else can riff on it even after patents would normally have expired
2) My previous point. The marginal utility of R&D decreases drastically based on the likelihood of a competitor being able to get hold of your secrets before you can profit on them sufficiently.
This is exactly why patents were created. It's a temporary monopoly granted by the government in exchange for the promise that the knowledge will be released to the universe after X years.

Predatory pricing: If excessive, it's illegal. That's why it doesn't happen very often. In a country with anti-trust laws, you just want to hurt your competitor, you don't want to drive them out of the market.

Natural monopolies: Since you brought this one up, you can choose your energy service because the government forces the utility to lease its lines and to decouple distribution from production. That is to say, you have a free market in production because the distribution is not free. See here. My state is the same way.

Misinformation: Who vets marketing claims in a free market? My competitor says that their food is organic. Well--hell, so is mine! They're environmentally conscientious? So am I! Their drug cures cancer? Mine cures it even better!

Oh, shit. Someone caught me in a lie! Well, I'll just force the media to ignore it and ramp up my disinformation campaign.

All markets are free at inception, and no markets are free in practice. Why do you think this is?

A few ways to suppress competition, off the top of my head?
Dominant corporation(s) or collusion thereof strongarms retailers into not carrying competitors products.

Dominant corporation(s) or collusion thereof pays off widget manufacturers to not provide widgets to competitors.

Dominant corporation(s) or collusion thereof simply buys and buries competitors, disruptive technologies, whatever.

Free market with patents (antithetical concepts?): Dominant corporation(s) or collusion thereof refuses to license patents to competitors.

Free market without patents (this has too many problems to enumerate, but just picking one): Espionage. R&D is squandered when a competitor steals your trade secrets/reverse engineers your products, sells it for a pittance.

Price dumping. Dominant corporation(s) or collusion thereof with large cash reserves simply prices upstarts out of the market.

This list is just off the cuff, is by no means exhaustive, ignores other things like:

1) "Natural" monopolies (utilities, roads, railways, etc.)
2) Restriction of information/prevention of rational, informed consumers
a) Side note: In a free market, this is the only place you can go to for environmental protection, avoidance of the tragedy of the commons.

Edit: Okay, I may have overstated my case. Very small-scale interpersonal markets can be free. That farmer's market that's too small to attract the big guys, that's pretty free. There's a scale at which it collapses, though.

I've followed long rabbit warrens before on this, so let's start with definitions:
I am arguing from the definition of the following:
Atheist as the belief that there is NOT a God or Gods.
Agnostic as the belief that one does not, or can not know if there are or are not God(s).

From those definitions, non-theist religions would be completely compatible for an Atheist to be party to. If we already are in disagreement then hurray, we likely agree and it's just semantics.

From the above definitions though, my problem arises with claims that any particular belief or non-belief is far more 'special' than the others and it alone provides great benefit X to society. Those kind of bold proclamations have historically always led to fanatical behaviors and tragedy.

I don't recognize Atheism as being linked one way or another to forcing ones beliefs onto others. Plenty of theist religions claim strong prohibitions against forcing their beliefs on others. Atheism though, as you say, is merely a non-belief in God(s) and so said people can equally support or oppose forcing said belief on others. What might that look like? Well, North Korea perhaps if one must request the most extreme of examples. From strict definitions, I'm pretty sure it is accurate to describe the <ahem>Great<ahem> Leader(s) as atheists who have whole heartedly embraced forcing their own beliefs on their people at threat of death or worse. One can rest assured no North Korean is able to publicly be found out with the belief that some being exists that is greater than the Great Leader without grave repercussions.

Anecdotes are the only thing selfish theists have. "Hey nevermind the horrible tragedy that has happened to countless people, *my* dog was saved, therefore god is good. The god-fearing woman even admits it. She prayed for herself...and her dog. Fuck the rest of them right?

it's a common theme for theists. horrible tragedy for others, but anecdotal heartwarming moment for *me* = god exists and is awesome.

@brycewi19 you tell me who's the bigger asshole, The atheist who is a prick for helping out another atheist and specifically not helping a theist or the selfish theist who cares more about her dog surviving than her fellow neighbors surviving.

Where exactly is he wishing terrible things for others? He does admit that he hopes they feel bad when they're eating from the FEMA truck and they come to help the atheist woman out, but that's not the same thing as what you're arguing.

The guy may be a dick about it (and he admits as much), but he proves a point, God is not required to do nice things. Theists would have you believe otherwise. Not only that, theists do things only out of fear of going to hell. atheists don't have that hangup.