One of the guys that I work with is big. When he enters a room the air rushes out the door. I have to remind him to duck when going through a door.

He was a bodyguard in Vegas for a few years and told me that back in the 90's he onced escorted Trump into the hotel he was staying at. Also traveled with some big name bands too.

He gave it up because his girlfriend said he was gone too long!!!

I could probably work in a different field if the employer was willing to make certain exemptions for my issues. Realistically, I would have a very hard time dealing with stress and some of my meds would make working difficult (or even getting to work in some cases). Working in a high stress field like I was would be nigh impossible.

Thankfully, I have been in the right place at the right time (for the most part, in my career. I've worked for quite a few big-name tech companies at their height and I was always one of those people who took judicious advantage of employee stock options, so while not rich in any way, I am comfortably well off enough to basically 'retire' early. My wife works a job she loves, we own our home, and we decided against having kids a long time ago, so we are doing fine.

What are you talking about? The people who argued that tobacco was safe are the exact same people that now argue climate change isn't real, isn't caused by humans. They are in the small minority of scientists that say it isn't happening, and they can all be ignored as they aren't climate scientists. When it comes to discussions on climate, you only pay attention to what research comes from those who's job it is to study it. If you had 90 brain surgeons saying to remove a tumor from your brain, but a podiatrist said, don't worry, you wouldn't listen to the podiatrist. Science is the same. Now among those climate scientists you have a 97% consensus that the primary cause in the uptick (uptick being a keyword, as it is not from baseline, but up from the expected natural rise, and that uptick is HUGE) in the undeniable warming of the planet, is caused by humans burning fossil fuels. There is no denying that climate change is real, there's no denying it is primarily caused by humans, there's no denying it will have a huge impact on billions of people. It is the idiot who doesn't believe that it is real.

Now I'd agree that some of the comments may seem extreme, and said suggestions may not be the best. That is an argument best left for a show like Utopia, a rather great show that sadly didn't make it to a second season. However, there a billions of lives at risk if we don't act soon on halting climate change. Perhaps not billions of lives conservatives care about, as they are poor, third and second world lives, but lives none the less. Droughts will get worse, deserts will expand, hurricanes will increase, tornadoes will increase, hotter hots, and colder colds, there are a ton of changes coming that will make it harder on the poorest of people, people who can't adapt as quickly as the top few percent in the US.

Should people have concern about wars, and the conservative powers that be that love them? Yes, and those issues have been raised by many scientists, especially the big name ones who appear on TV. However, you can't ignore the wars that will start if we don't fight climate change either. Resources will become scarce, and this will cause conflicts that may eventually embroil the US, a concern that the US military has over climate change... this may be why conservatives ignore it, because nothing makes conservatives more happy than murdering people via war. You want to stop war, then stooping climate change has to be a huge priority.

Despite the wars, we are still at the most peaceful time in all history. Yes, we need to do more. Moving off fossil fuels alone would stop a lot of the wars, as that's why the US has an interest in the region. If we could stop giving a fuck about oil, and the US oil market, then we'd have less reason to pick a side on which form of Islam is best for US interests... which of course is why the US was targeted in the first place (that, and our unwavering support of Israel's illegal actions).

Also, it's not like anyone has said climate change should be our only concern. As I already said, all the wars has been brought up many times, as has the conservatives love of giving weapons to those most responsible for the 9/11 attacks, while blaming others for stuff they never did. And, as I've said, those concerns have been repeated by Neil deGrasse Tyson, Bill Nye, and others who appear on TV, and are well known with the public. Other issues that many scientists in the public eye have been brought up beyond wars: the potential for global pandemics; the idiots not getting vaccinations for their children, for unfounded fears that were proven false; the need for clean drinking water in poor regions; the lack of concern for real science education, and many many other subjects are brought to the public's attention via their social channels, books, talks, or other means. When they are on TV, that is the subject the media pretends there's a debate about though, so if the media at large is all that one pays attention to, then yes, that would seem to be the only subject of concern. The TLDR of this is that they have brought up many concerns beyond just climate change, blame the media for not spreading their other concerns.

I don't have a problem with many of these like Alec Guiness and Anthony Quinn in Lawrence of Arabia and after all they did have Omar Sharif. How many big name arab or more specifically bedouin actors were available at that time. And you can't expect a big blockbuster movie to go after no names

On the other hand some of these were cringe worthy and downright offensive ... Mickey Rooney in Breakfast at Tiffany's being a prime example.

So Jeff Beck's worked with Roger Waters and David Gilmore (http://videosift.com/video/Jeff-Beck-with-David-Gilmour-Jerusalem)... although realistically, it's probably more of who hasn't he worked with since I'd think most big name acts like that would want him around if they could.

Everyone made this out to be a big deal but at least with my uni you could almost always find it available in the library reverse and grab it a few weeks out before the semester started.

Also, most of the big name textbooks can be found in convenient PDF format for a ... very low price, if you are willing to look.

I really wanted to watch the video... but... I just can't. I love the game FEZ for how well designed it was. And I thought I could care less who it was designed by or who thought of the concept.

The biggest problem with Phil Fish is the fact that he shows little restraint or has very poor choice of words when speaking his mind. I am all for being outspoken as long as you do it w/o pissing your playerbase off.

When FEZ was being promoted in various big name conventions (I forgot which), I posted a comment that perhaps it's better to try to finish up the game rather than promoting it and showing it off. Usually when it comes to games and unknown ones, it only takes some good word of mouth to help promote it. People will find out, one way or another. What I get is a rude reply from him.

It's unknown to me as to whether or not Phil is a nice guy or genuinely an asshole all around. But given his response to that one comment I made, I think it's the latter. I don't need the internet news media to promote the notion that Phil Fish is an asshole. All you have to do to know if he's an asshole is to disagree with him on something, no matter how small or how trivial it is.

I guess I should clarify; I think that the pace of our advances is being bottlenecked by our current system because we (as nations) continue to exploit via a relentless focus on profit rather than try to actually spread knowledge and tech as best we can.

A free education system for the world would be incredibly easy to achieve with our current technology, but as nations we don't even try to aim for such a thing. As universities and other education institutions (publishing companies, etc), we have no incentive to truly aim for this in the current paradigm because it reverses profit growth (which, honestly, in the case of education, is pretty much all over-inflated anyway). There's no malicious intent, no conspiracy, and noble goals abound, but we're doing it at a snail's pace out of selfishness.

Individual people act much more nobly than large, well-established institutions. You see a rather strong trend of such large groups behaving closer to the "rational" approach from economic game theory, i.e. the one where self-preservation and gain are maximized first and foremost. If we just rely on our institutions to fix the problems at their root or think that the incidental improvements tied to increased tech and knowledge are being nurtured even half as well as they could be, I think we'd be gravely mistaken.

I think we both ultimately hope for the same outcome, but we clearly disagree on the extent to which our current society(/societies) effectively move towards those outcomes. I would personally like to see us double down on those things that help move us forward.

EDIT: Some examples of ways we're bullshitting ourselves and not doing half as much as we could, for your pleasure.

Princeton University's motto is "In the service of the nation and of all nations" (probably slightly off on the phrasing, sorry), and they have BILLIONS of dollars of endowment. If they and their alumni network took this motto seriously, with their knowledge of business, tech, and science, they could easily bring entire nations out of poverty by simply helping local people adapt tech in sustainable ways to provide food for their population more easily, institute strong education access, and more. Harvard, Oxford, all the other big names are in similar situations. They can do SO MUCH, but just do little projects while answering to their boards about making sure to keep the cash flow positive, keep the endowment growing, keep using alumni donations to pay for things where possible. It's bullshit.

Most large organized religions are also lazy about service. There are many who do seriously just aim at food and medical aid, but most are more interested in conversions and extra tithes than eliminating poverty. How many Christian missionaries of various sects are there around the world? Of them, how many devote their missions to actual service of everyone they can to show their religion through their works as opposed to just focusing on bringing people into the fold via preaching? Additionally, the old "teach a man to fish" concept comes into play here; giving food is good, but we need to be helping people help themselves as well so that they can thrive.

I know shit is very complicated and the answers aren't easy, but we can EASILY do better than this.

Seeing big names like this in online videos make me wonder about the business economics. Do all those clicks really enable them to hire actors like this? I bet Samuel L does not do this stuff cheaply.

WTF are you talking about? Brad Pitt?!? Moneyball, Inglourious Basterds, Burn After Reading, fucking Fight Club... He's fucking awesome.

Doesn't come out till 2013 - they'll sort out the zombies before then... >> ^Payback:

I think you know your movie idea has jumped the shark when the only big name you can get for it is Pitt.

I think you know your movie idea has jumped the shark when the only big name you can get for it is Pitt.

I posted it, not knowing you had posted and killed it.

I'm leaving it up because I love it.

Thanks.

In reply to this comment by eric3579:
Something you may enjoy
http://videosift.com/video/A-Big-Name-Rapper-Comes-Out-In-Sup
port-Of-Gay-Marriage

The thing is, people DO feel comforted by people they THINK they know or Think they can relate to.
Seeing these bigger than life figures mourn, for some reason, helps them think, "OK, I can mourn too". Or when a big name personality gets mad about something, the average person says, "OK, it's good to know I'm not the only one and my anger has been justified".

Our brains think we actually know these people and we apply emotions to the personalities we think they have. Doing so also allows us to see them as friends and members of our "clan or family." I think it's natural to care or want a family member's opinion on things. It helps us cope.

>> ^tymebendit:

How would it be cheaper?
They're paying the teachers more (upper middle class), providing free meals, free school supplies, and more personal attention to those in need.
Maybe it would cost less to the society in the long run, but I think the initial cost of the system would have to be higher. It would have to be a serious commitment by whoever wants to try it.
>> ^CreamK:
>> ^tymebendit:
i wish we can try the finnish system.
pick a state, or a city, and try it for 10-15 years.
everyone says out current system is terrible and not working.
how much worse could it be than our current one?
it will cost a bit more than our current system, but probably not that much more...

Actually, Finnish system is cheaper than US and by a large margin... Schools that don't have to make profit are much more cost efficient..


The meals you are served at school are typically cheaper than the equivalent meal you would get at a cafeteria anywhere else, they are subsidized or cost mitigated at some point. Plus they provide meals to many kids already free of charge.

School supplies, a school would be able to buy supplies on the whole cheaper than an individual parent x however many students.

And the US schools already provide smaller classes and special buses and/or vans to get handicapped children to and from school. Plus they provide bussing to private schools in my area, I am not sure if they do that at a nominal fee or do it as part of their mandate to provide transportation to these kids.

On top of these things, schools also have sports programs which are astronomically expensive since they require maintaining tracks, fields, and stadiums within the budget of the school. They also pay teachers to be coaches or have an separate coach, all transportation to and from "away" games, uniforms, equipment and the additional parking and safety requirements needed to have games on their premises.

The local school district to me, when they have to make cuts, they never threaten to cut sports. It's always threatening to cut building maintenance, teachers salaries, and buses. Yet sports have no impact on education or the future of about 75% of the kids going through those schools, it's usually a very small group of kids who get to even benefit from the sports programs the school offers but they maintain a stadium, a baseball field, soccer field, football field. Provide uniforms for volleyball, baseball, football, soccer, tennis, and all the other equipment for male and female teams when applicable. I remember it being a big deal with the debate club of 5-10 people who used a small room after school to do their practices got shirts and they otherwise have no additional cost but a few lights and an hour of a teachers time once or twice a week plus debates against other schools...I dont even think they got transportation provided they were expected to be driven to these places by their parents.

US schools spend money on things not related directly to increasing knowledge and education instead preferring to spend major sums of their budgets on sports related costs. Then you have the extra costs associated with special needs kids, because it keeps them from standardized testing to have these kids separated from the regular kids. And yet the kids who are the bright but don't learn well in the traditional classroom get labeled as special needs or "difficult" and are essentially screwed unless their parents go above and beyond to provide them what they need. This is not a system that is designed with cost in mind, whether it be money or the cost of unknowable "future" issues either on personal levels for each student neglected or as a society as a whole as we become about only teaching subjects one way and only one way.

And this is ignoring college education costs and just looking at High School and below. College is astronomically expensive and yet again, they spend loads of money on sports programs but they MIGHT make some fraction of that cost back via ticket sales and such at a generic University and might actually be a profit center in big name University's like OSU.

one of the worst games of the year right here, and i've never played the original. i uninstalled it after the mission where you mow down 700 flying motorcycles with a minigun with unlimited ammo WHILE ON TOP OF A SPEEDING TRAIN. fuck. this. game.

what really makes me lose hope in the state of modern gaming is that syndicate was WELL FUCKING REVIEWED by most big-name critics.