Just watching this video made me nervous, but I think I could do it in real life, assuming a pilot was giving instructions over the radio.
---
I had a conversation with a commercial pilot before (at dinner, not in a flight) and he had flown both Boeing and Airbus and said they feel much different. Boeing spends a lot of time with the force-feedback so the planes behave much the same as their older analog counterparts, and lays things out based on pilot feedback ; whereas Airbus feels more like a video game, and they only care about fuel efficiency of the plane.

Either way, all pilots require hundreds of hours of training on a particular model (of large commercial airplane) before they get to be captain.

My opinion is any natural "drug" should be legal. Any substance that is found in nature, with minimal processing should be absolutely 100% legal, no doubt about it.

The irony of this is that there are still great legal natural "drugs" out there. They still allow San Pedro (mescaline), you can still easily buy Morning Glory (LSA similar to LSD), you can still buy plants to create ayahuasca and extract DMT, you can still buy Yopo seeds and snort that shit (5 MEO DMT) and obviously everyone knows about Salvia.

The only reason I can think of that these haven't been scheduled is due to the fact that they never became very popular/rampant in popular culture.

And now they have more to deal with - due to the banning of weed and stuff people want like MDMA - everyday dangerous new analogs (far more dangerous than the real stuff) come out which are "legal" until banned. They ought to just let people do what they want to do and let the "free market" sort it out like the capitalist bullshit they propagate everywhere else. There are successful working models out there to guide the little boy blue.

Um, it's more like taking a little from <5% to improve the lives of all 100%, so off the bat 'Regan' is lying. Having a 'bottom' 15% living well below poverty levels creates a climate that's good for no one, including those at the top. Creating a 'safety net' for those people creates a society with less crime and more opportunity for all, and wastes less money on policing, prosecuting, and incarceration, as well as less production lost. Yes, there will be a few who 'take advantage' of the programs to loaf, but there will be more who take advantage of the programs to succeed where they had no opportunity to do so without them.
The classroom play was also ridiculous. Socialism would mean that they all got the education they needed to preform on the test, including the classroom materials and tutoring if needed, capitalism would mean those who inherit books and can afford classroom materials and teachers get to 'learn', those who can't afford them only get to 'learn' by osmosis if they're allowed to participate at all, never learn directly, so only the truly exceptionally gifted might 'learn' while the rest sit in the corner getting dumber. (in their analogy, 'learning' is analogous to 'succeeding financially')
In this ridiculous classroom fantasy, they offer an extreme version of the downfalls of pure socialism, but absolutely none of the benefits, then show how that system doesn't work.
Because of this disingenuous one sided portrayal of the system it's claiming to explain, I dub this *lies.

Punk sounds so much better on analog. Not even a nostalgia thing, it's true.

Not at all from my read.
To me, it's like trademarking the word "news!", forcibly removing any videos labeled "news!", and insisting anyone that posts one pay them 1/2 the revenue they might make...and probably taking it too far and going after those making 'news' claiming they're also infringing and forcing them to pay or defend themselves in court.
It's not at all as specific as you claim.
I see the difference in your analogy, but I totally disagree with your characterization. It's far more like trademarking 'news!' than trademarking 'news filmed and broadcast from a window of a bathysphere sitting in your swimming pool'. If it were that specific, there would be no outrage.
If they didn't come up with it, it's not their idea...and 'humans react to' videos is NOT distinctive enough by far, IMO, and in the opinion of MOST people. If they actually limited it to videos with the exact format of people watching unseen videos at an angle, and the exact same title of "Kids React!" they're still over reaching to control something they did not invent and should not own. Kids reacting was a genre of video/photograph LONG before they started making them, and if the reaction is exciting, using an exclamation point is normal English, as is capitalization of all words in a title.

They have no right to 'protect' something they didn't invent by taking other people's money, first that's not protection, it's simple extortion, second, it's theft, since it's not even their idea in the first place.
They don't have to be the first, possibly, but they certainly shouldn't be able to trademark a common phrase that existed before their company, or a format that existed long before their company, which is what they did.
If they want to 'protect their brand', they need to re-name it something that's not already a common phrase, otherwise they're trying to co-opt a commonly used phrase (that they didn't come up with in the first place) and extort money from those who commonly use it under threat of lawsuit. They also need to steer FAR away from attempting to enforce it against ANY video not in their EXACT format, including font, capitalization, punctuation, stated video format, content, etc. It a video doesn't meet EVERY standard there, they should leave it alone. I'm fairly certain that's NOT their intent, as it would make it impossible for them to extort money and make this move useless.


EDIT: Can we at least agree that, if a company is going to do something like this that COULD be a huge over reach and could easily be abused to both extort money and remove any competition, and their spokes people do such a piss poor job of explaining what they're doing that it sounds like they're using the law to steal property and money from actual content creators and erase those they can't control, while creating absolutely nothing themselves, and offering nothing for the money they forcibly take, that that company deserves ALL the ridicule and losses that follow, and their best move left would be to drop the entire thing rather than continuing and making numerous failed attempts to explain themselves?

@SDGundamX

it is all good mate.
you vote however you wish,for whatever reasons you deem pertinent.

i do not identify so strongly with a video that it somehow represents me,or everything i stand for,and i have no issue if someone disagrees.though i always do respect when someone states WHY they downvoted.

which you did,and mad respect my man.

as i stated earlier i was fairly ignorant to a lot of this new flavor of social justice warrior.gamergate included.in fact,i still do find gamergate really that important in the larger context,though i am sure there are gamers who would disagree with me.

i found this video interesting in that it was addressing how the more radical and extreme elements were attempting to hijack public spaces by controlling language,and therefore dominate the conversation.

since i was not familiar with this particular youtubers stance on gamergate,nor followed his videos,i harbored zero bias on his conclusions.

in my opinion,this mans stance or political leanings in regards to gamergate is not enough of a valid reason to dismiss what he is laying down in this video.

what you are suggesting (and if i am reading your position wrong,please let me know),is that because this youtuber held a certain position on a related subject,devalues and dismisses his position on radical social justice warriors.

a good analogy is me pointing to the sky and stating "the sky is blue" and having my statement dismissed because you may disagree with my politics,religion or philosophy.

but that would not make my statement any less true.

i agree with you that it does not matter of someone is a narcissist or a special snowflake.it is the argument that matters.the IDEAS that should be examined for their veracity and clarity.

and yes,this youtuber makes certain assumptions that are not only irrelevant but extremely biased.

which brings me back to my main point.
freedom of speech and how these radicals attempt to impose their own selective bias by controlling the language we use to express ourselves and those very ideas that you and i find to important.

so while the radical right attempts to legislate morality and impose THEIR own narrow and subjective understandings on all of us.

the radical left is attempting to silence dissent and dialogue by controlling language by using this weird orwellian doublethink.

"zero tolerance for the intolerant" almost every college campus has something similar to this all over campus.

now THAT phrase is a brilliant example of orwellian doublethink.
definition of doublethink:The power to hold two completely contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accept both of them.

so my main point is in regards to freedom of speech and how the radical end of these social justice warriors are threatening that most basic and vital right.

did i get my point across?
well,the jury is still out,but i hope that at least i got a few people thinking and giving this situation a bit more scrutiny.

i am also attempting to address this phenom of binary thinking.
that because i post a video that criticizes the more radical elements of social justice warriors.this automatically translates to me being "anti-social justice warriors".

my recent posts on this matter have confused and troubled some sifters.because they had a certain mental image of who i was and because they may identify as a social justice warrior,my posts were offensive to them,and confusing.

now thankfully @Jinx spoke up and inquired about my reasons,because it appeared to him that i was behaving out of character.

but i am not.
i am,and always have been,about freedom,equality,fairness and justice.i apply that metric as evenly as i humanly can ( i make mistakes,of course).

bad ideas MUST be challenged and how this new batch of social justice warriors are behaving in order to further their agenda is a bad fucking idea.

does this mean trash ALL people who are socially conscious and wish to create a better world by fighting injustice,racism and bigotry?

of COURSE not!
but i do blame those well-intentioned people for not standing up this new form of bully groupthink.just because someone identifies as a social justice warrior does not mean that they get a free pass just for being part of a group.

so just like i blame the "good" cops who stand by and allow the "bad" cops to break the law,abuse their authority and behave like fascists with impunity.they are just as responsible as those cops who cross the line.

so while the intentions may be good,the execution is a horrible lovecraftian nightmare,with far reaching implications that affect us all and can be easily abused.

freedom of speech is good.
disagreement is healthy.
we cannot be so allergic to conflict that we shut down the conversation,and all reside in our own little echo chambers where everybody is agreeing and nobody is questioning.

as a society there is grave danger in that practice.

and that is really what i am talking about.
thanks for commenting my man.
as you may have figured out.this is a fairly important subject to me.
stay awesome!

@Jinx

hey thanks for keeping this conversation going and not just making assumptions and allowing us both to come to a better understanding.

though i am not really surprised,i am gladdened.

in my opinion,i think this situation may be a problem with indentifying with labels and maybe putting too much weight on them to convey complicated and complex human interactions.

i would call myself a social justice warrior,but i would never identify as those who behave is the extremists do.but to imply that the responsibility is on ME,or any other critic,to redefine these radical social justice warriors as somehow not being representative of the majority,is a false dynamic,because that is how they define themselves.

basically the "No true scotsman" fallacy.which is employed ad-nauseum by these extremists.that somehow if you do not adhere to their radical agenda you are somehow not qualified to label yourself:feminist,anarchist (this has been directed at me),socialist, etc etc.

this is just a silly and binary way of breaking down peoples complex human perceptions and understandings to fit a narrow,and restrictive narrative,in order to achieve an agenda.

so while we all viewed GW bush's "if you're not with us,you're against us",as an inane and utterly stupid statement.how come there is little push back when the EXACT same tactic is used to silence someone who may not be 100% on board with a certain agenda?

does me posting this video automatically translate to me being "anti-social justice warrior"?

of course not! that is just silly,but in todays climate that is exactly how some people view complex situations,and it HAS to stop!

you brought up police.
good.
lets use that as an example.
the fact the americas militarized and dysfunctional police force has accounted for more police shootings than soldiers have died in iraq.do we REALLY need to be told that it is not ALL cops.

of course not.again,that is silly but it DOES mean that maybe there is a problem within the institution that needs to be addressed.

here is a perfect case for social justice warriors to bring this corruption and rot to the surface,and here we have black lives matter.which is receiving mixed coverage in the media,but they have gotten people talking and even some incremental reforms in the woks AND,just recently..6 cops fired from a cleveland precinct for shooting civilians.this is where social justice warriors are not only necessary but vital!

but what if.....

those cops who were feeling threatened,or intimidated by the criticism and examination of their institution coming from black lives matters decided to use a tactic right out of these extremists playbook?

maybe some doxxing?
exposing personal information about the protesters?
how about a few false accusations of rape?
maybe personal harassing calls to friends and family members of the black lives matter movement?
how about some false charges of harassment and sexual discrimination?

that would effectively shut down the black lives matter movement within weeks,and how would we respond to that kind of underhanded tactics?

we would be outraged.
we would be furious at the absolute abuse of power.a power bestowed by the state.

and our outrage would be justified.

do you see where i am coming from here?

in the example i have given,which may or not be the best analogy.we can easily see the abuse of power as a form of bullying to get a group that is a dissenting ideology..to shut..the fuck..up.

freedom of speech is NOT just speech you or i agree with,or happen to support,but it also speech that we may dislike,disagree and even find offensive.

but by allowing those we dislike or disagree to say their piece,allows us and everybody else to examine,discern and ultimately discard as ridiculous.or,converesly,find some merit that was previously hidden from us,due to our lack of knowledge or understanding.

i realize i am reiterating my previous point,but i think it is so very important.

free speech allows the free flow of ideas and dialogue and allows good ideas to be absorbed into the body politic and the bad ones discarded into the trash bin.

but there MUST be the allowance of the free flow of thought!

so when i post a video such as this i am not ridiculing actual socially conscious people.i am exposing bad ideas,supported by narrow minded people who wish to impose THEIR sense of how a society should be and attempt to circumvent the very slow process of discussion,argument and debate by hijacking the conversation and shutting down all dissent and disagreement with the most fascist tactics possible.

up until a month ago i was fairly ignorant to things like gamergate and whatnot.i thought i had a pretty fair understanding of what a social justice warrior was,and even included myself as one.

but then,quite by accident,i fell upon a few stories that highly disturbed me.one ,in particular was the case of greg allen elliot who was being criminally prosecuted for harassment on twitter.

now the case was finally resolved,and elliot was found not guilty.
so hooray for justice right?
free speech won in the end right?
or did it...did elliot actually win?
i am not so sure.

you see.
he was a web designer.
and once he was charged 3 years ago,he was banned from any internet use.so effectively he was jobless.
on top of that his defense cost 100k.
sounds like a loss to me.

now let us examine stephanie guthrie.a prominent toronto feminist and tedtalk speaker:
1.she made the accusation of harassment and brought the charges.
2.even though this all started with a man who created a game where anita sarkesians faced was punched,and was the supposed imetus for all this fuss,guthrie never laid charges against the creator of the game.though she did,along with her followers harassed and bullied this man until he closed down his account.so chock one up for feminism? i guess?
4.what guthrie found so reprehensible about elliot was that he had the audacity to question guthries rage and called for a calm interaction.(mainly because there are literally 100's of face-punching games).
5.guthrie and her followers found this call for calm offensive and doxxed elliot and proceeded to harass his employer,his family and ffirends.
6.elliot lost his job.his employer could not handle the harassment.so feminist win again? i guess?
7.when guthrie blocked elliot on twitter she continued to publicly accuse him of misogyny,bigot and even a pedophile.
8.she then brought accusations against elliot for criminal harassment,and that she "felt" harassed.
9.guthrie has paid ZERO for her accusations.she has suffered no accountability nor responsibility.

now the court case is over,and elliot has been vindicated and free speech is still in place for today.

but lets look at the bigger picture.
and let us imagine how easily this situation could be abused.
can we really look at guthrie vs elliot as ANY form of justice? or is it MORE liekly that guthrie was abusing a court system to punish a man she happened to disagree with?with ZERO consequences.

now maybe you agree with guthrie.
maybe you are one of those people that believe in your heart that words are weapons and people should be held accountable for those words.they should be stripped of wealth,work and home..they should be punished.

ok.
thats fine.
maybe you agree because it is a matter you support?
a racist pig loses a job for saying racists things.
or a bigot gets kicked out of his apartment for being a bigoted asshole.

but how about this..
hypothetically:
a devout chritian woman is protesting an abortion clinic with her children in tow.

and lets say a pro-choice atheist comes over to her and starts to berate her i front of her children.ridiculing her for her beliefs and saying jesus was a zombie.that she is a horrible person for believing in such a tyrannical deity,that this so-called all-loving entity punishes all no-believers in a lake of fire for all eternity.that as a mother,teaching her children to worship such a god is tantamount to child abuse.berating her so badly that her children begin to cry?

now what if that interaction was filmed?
then posted to youtube?
what if a "social justice warrior" of the religious flavor decided that berating person needed to pay for his words?
what if that person got doxxed?
and the end result was he loses his job (because corporations are notoriously controversy allergic),and maybe his landlord is notified and he is kicked out of his apartment?

would you be ok with all that?
because that is the EXACT same metric that radical social justice warriors use!

and what about false accusations?
you dont even have to be actually offended and /or harassed,you just have to accuse and the rest takes care of itself.

are you ok with that kind of creative abuse?

so when i bring things like this to the forefront and attempt to expose the underlying idiocy.what i just wrote is where i am coming from.

and yes.these radicals and their underhanded tactics need to be exposed and all the attention brought to them the better.

why? because what and how they are behaving is anti-democracy anti-freedom and anti-liberty.

and i am all for debating specific issues,and will gladly do so..with glee,but i will not and cannot respect what the radical elements are doing to an otherwise worthy cause.

and YOU should be calling them out as well.

i know this is long and i probably lost the plot somewhere,but this is very important,becuase it threatens all of us and if we simply ignore these nimrods they will just become even more entrenched,self-righteous and arrogant in their own little bubble worlds.

that bubble needs to be popped,and soon.

anyways.thanks for hanging (if you made it this far)
there will be danishes and punch in the lobby!

I never said we should kill them.

It's not an analogy, that's a straight 1 to 1 comparison I made.

To your points.

1) I don't think you have any idea what sovereign means. ISIS could claim sovereignty (debatable, I'd say no, but it's debatable) the militiamen absolutely cannot.

2) What's your point?

3) Ha! Then what are the guns for?

4) That's not really a point.

I'd deal with it by arresting them. Blockade the preserve, when they leave, arrest them. Don't allow any food in. Shut off their electricity and water. Tell them they're welcome to come out, unarmed, whenever they're ready.

@Drachen_Jager

thats a pretty piss poor analogy.
while i can agree (and did in my original comment) that the militia is,by definition,engaging in terrorism.

i cannot agree to killing these men.

and to compare them to ISIS is a bit of a stretch.

1.they are american citizens.they are sovereign.ISIS are not.
2.while there has been an occupation of land,there has been no evidence of violence nor brutality.ISIS is notoriously brutal and violent.
3.while violence may be implied.they have consistently called this a protest against government over-reach and do not seek a violent resolution.ISIS not only threatens violence but engages on a daily basis.
4.when we consider incidents such as waco or ruby ridge,where there WAS government over-reach with tragic results.the federal governments tactics of standing down makes sense,and is fairly non-controversial and prudent.these nimrods are about to be run out of town by the very community they are proposing to be standing up for.

so how would YOU propose to deal with the situation in oregon?

Well that analogy doesn't hold up. No, I don't think detectives should have the moral latitude to dangle people off buildings.

But I'll tell you what the movement to police comedians' senses of humour really is: anti-intellectualism.

Like the parents groups who want to ban books with swearing, or sex scenes, or drug use from school libraries; like the SJeW vermin who want to dictate the design of videogames they don't have the skill to make for themselves; like the athenian jury who murdered Socrates: it's about idiots who are too stupid to understand or value art, and want anything they don't understand suppressed.

You really do. Iain M. Banks was an amazing writer.

Excession is probably my favourite, along with Look To Windward and Use Of Weapons.

His non-sci-fi work is fantastic too, especially The Crow Road (any book that opens with the sentence "It was the day my grandmother exploded" is instantly brilliant IMO).

He was also a wonderful speaker. Listen to this (skip to 29:32 if you haven't read Use Of Weapons, it spoils the whole plot) http://www.theguardian.com/books/audio/2012/oct/12/iain-banks-book-club-podcast?fb_ref=Default. I love his analogy of writing fiction is like playing a piano and writing SF is like a massive pipe organ.

I love this. Each scenario being perfectly analogous to the 'traditional', hetero-normative Holiday.

That's a pretty terrible analogy. Knowing where you live is relevant information to most people since it affects many aspects of our lives and is information we routinely have to provide. The names of all the oceans is useless information to 99.9% of people.

This is an excellent explanation for someone of his age and his skill with video editing obviously helps a lot. It held my interest, the world needs more entertaining and educating videos like these.

My only criticism - and some youtubers have already pointed this out - is that the explanation of time dilation "..the same bodily change that happens on earth takes much longer to occur when you are moving so fast.." is wrong.

Signals sent within the body can be analogous to a clock - any fixed duration measured between two ~lightspeed reference frames will be different, including seconds measured by an atomic clock - but time dilation specifically has nothing to do with the mechanics behind how you measure the time or the time it takes a signal to travel. It's a property of the nature of spacetime. Time itself actually slows down. There's no 'trick' to understanding how or why, it's just a property that it has. We can forgive him because he'd already demonstrated that physics is the same in any inertial reference frame and there is no "preferential" reference frame; therefore the motion of the reference frame can't be responsible for the observed difference, so he obviously already really knew all this.

There's no shame in getting that wrong, because he'll be taught more and better about it as he progresses through school. Generally the arbitrary subjects are the hardest to live with because you just have to accept them as they are rather than 'understand'. Quantum mechanics is the same - you just have to accept the rules and apply the maths. Everyone struggles with it, even Feynman said "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics."

A-Where did you speak about abuse?! I told a story of abuse (My mother in law being forced to have sex with animals, beaten burned, raped, etc.) And your direct answer (to her reliance on the church DUE TO THAT ABUSE) was "c) get through it with the help of family and friends like literally millions of others have done. " Ie., her abuse CAN be gotten over in your expert opinon. I say fuck that. It cannot be gotten over more so than a physical injury like brain damage, since it started so young and destroyed her thought process in life. In a way she is a socialized feral child (In a way, but I know there are huge differences.) People like me and Newt, thankfully, didn't fully get brain-fucked and so can work on social issues.

(Irrelevant topic; did you know abuse can cause schizophrenia without genetic factors? Amazing... (Carlson 2011).)

B-It is not unreasonable when you get into a public conversation on a topic that you comment directly on.

C-Yes, tell rape victims you know their plight, I am sure they will acknowledge your lack of knowing...I mean I can understand Doctors with years and years of study. Or here is a better analogy. Pat a black man on the shoulder who's child has been shot by a racist cop and say, "I know the feeling bud."

D-If you have to explain why what you said was different than those examples, it wasn't different enough.