*related=http://videosift.com/video/Pig-in-a-Blanket-Gets-a-Cookie

Pig in a Blanket Gets a Cookie has been added as a related post - related requested by Mordhaus.

Alt pig in blanket!

They aren't concerned about privacy so much as weakening their code, which will leave them vulnerable to customer anger and possibly lawsuits later on.

Trust me, after having worked for them for years, I can unequivocally declare that if they could figure out a way to give the government a permanent backdoor while still protecting themselves, they would in a heartbeat. Therefore, they aren't so much a patriot as they are a mercenary.

The main issue is that they can unlock individual units, which they have done before for the FBI, but that means that the FBI and other agencies have to get a new warrant each time. The Feebs don't want to do that, they would prefer a blanket unlock that would nicely bypass the 4th Amendment and allow them to access your digital information at any time. Unfortunately, a blanket unlock method would leak out into the wild at some point and leave everyone open completely. Apple has had that happen before, notably during the early phases of .Mac/MobileMe, and the legal department got slammed with claims/suits because the unlock workaround leaked.

It's not inhumane ('humane' being another oxymoron, because it's meaning, and acting like a normal human, are opposites) because 1)they have a life at all, which they would not if not given the opportunity by my family 2) they have a place to live that life, which they would not if not given the use of the land and 3) nature also creates barriers to movement, so it's not unnatural for an animal to live it's entire lifespan in one place...perhaps for cattle, but not the rest. Farm animals are not humans, and those that have an aversion to being stationary have no place on a farm. You could say that not being nomadic is 'inhumane', as our natural state is not sedentary, but few would argue it's 'cruel'.
'Animals' are not humans, so are not slaves. That idea makes you sound ridiculous. See the South Park episode for a good example.
Stopping suffering is not within our scope.
There are many reasons why stopping meat eating is not reasonable, but the one you should be the most interested in is, if humans didn't eat cattle, they might be extinct. The same goes for many animals we eat, and if we didn't eat things like pork, the ecological disaster feral pigs create would be almost as bad as what humans do.
It would be easier and cheaper to change the conditions in the slums of India and elsewhere than it would be to eradicate the meat production (edit:and consumption) of the entire planet. What do the people do now that no longer have jobs? What do you do with all the animals that no longer have a 'use' and don't own property to move onto? How do you control their numbers so they don't destroy what's left of the planet?
Technically, yes, all humans are animals. Mentally handicapped humans are not TREATED 'like animals', by which you MEAN treated poorly and without thought for their comfort and well being, which in fact is NOT how most animals are treated in our first world society, no matter how much you think so. Factory farms are a different matter.
When dolphins take control, they can treat mentally handicapped dolphins better than average humans. It's not arbitrary to treat your own species as the most important, it's an evolutionary trait almost all species likely possess.
No, I can't eat an entire vegan diet. I've tried many vegan foods, and found them ALL inedible, some made me sick.

You made blanket statements about how ALL animals are treated, and how ALL meat is produced and then defended that blanket statement. I'm glad you now admit your mistake, I hope you can see it through and stop blanket blaming ALL meat eaters.

What other people eat is farther outside your influence than how they treat their children.

Without the calorie dense food that is 'meat', we would still be nomadic gatherers, if we could exist at all. Eating meat is one of the things that gave us the energy to evolve those 'higher brains' that can choose our actions and determine what's 'rational'.
You will never see a vegan Olympic athlete. (Edit: well, maybe in Olympic curling...)

Daesh has brought about change...a change that THEY see as positive. That's not a good argument.

Yes, you are a monster for supporting such unabashed, unproductive carnivores ;-)...and I would hazard a guess that you don't feed them only free range, gmo free turkey carcasses, so you sound worse than me, the unashamed meat eater that pays the extra money for proper animal treatment....not just for them but because it's healthier meat too.

I did my part for the animals and the planet by not having children. ;-) Too bad I'm such a minority that it won't make a whit of difference.

Americans never ran? Who the fuck are these americans you refer to? You guys are mainly british, dutch, french and german immigrants who committed genocide and mass-slavery to make sure you can force your worldview and way of living on everybody else. You people are to the world of the 18th and 19th century what ISIS is to today's world. Just because you changed a bit for the better doesn't mean you get to sit on any horse, high or not, and judge others. You can't even own the terrible, terrible shit your ancestors did and your patriotism ramblings show that. The reason you're so terrified of muslims is because they just might start returning your smallpox blankets.

I give a shit about political correctnes and that's why I wrote this.

Don't know about @ChaosEngine, but I did suffer that kind of daily abuse for 15 + years from an older brother who beat me daily, locked me outside in the winter rains at night, burned me repeatedly, cut me repeatedly, took advantage of my claustrophobia by wrapping me in blankets and sitting on me until I would pass out, killing numerous pets of mine, etc, and I NEVER considered turning to an imaginary friend for help...not once....and my friends and family were completely useless helping me with him, so I'm awaiting your rant with bells on.

I expected some growling before she caught dad's scent...but there was no way she wouldn't recognize his smell, even under the blanket, so I don't think there was really all that much danger of his getting bitten in the bum. I think recognition happened at exactly 1:25 from watching her rear mounted happiness indicator.

My first two comments weren't "answers to the video". They addressed one small aspect of the video and the side topic of presenting facts accurately. This is much is very obvious.

But you've still not given an actual quote that proves your assertion. Why are you bothering to fight something where I'm sure you know you are wrong?

I didn't make a "blanket assertion" that condoms are only 98% effective in the lab. I wrote "Real world data points to between 80% and 90% effectiveness (because people screw up)." This is a statistic. It doesn't point to an individual (who can achieve 100% success or 0% success). It points to the average of large populations. And I wrote that because the video made a statement without an important qualification. I'm sure you know this but are being stubborn. Why are you trying to fight these important statistics? From a public health perspective this is incredibly important information and trying to misrepresent the real world effectiveness of condoms can be harmful to the community when planning future health interventions.

Good luck with ignoring them and hoping they won't be a problem in the future. They'll be a spanner in the works unless they're appropriately addressed. And they can be appropriately addressed with a win win solution.

Have a good day then. I'm bored with this conversation and leaving it for another week.

OK, the video's point, and your first 2 answers to it in the comments. @ChaosEngine explained how I see it quite well.

This 'anecdote' proved that you were wrong in your blanket assertion that condoms are only >98% effective in the lab, because condoms are >98% effective outside the lab....at least in one case I know of, and certainly others.

I do understand that deniers want to be called 'skeptics', but I also understand that that's not at all what they are.

I/we don't need to convince those that are clearly closed to convincing if I/we don't allow their obstinacy to be a road block to progress. Giving them more hearings, more time, and more chance to kick the can down the road gives them that opportunity.
I don't WANT to leave them behind, but I also won't die on the beach because Bubba wants to sit in the bus parked in the soft sand at the low tide line, and debate whether there is such a thing as a tide...especially when the tide is already 1/2 in, the motor's sputtering, and the wheels are under water. At some point one must decide to not let them and their never ending, constantly changing, factually challenged 'argument' doom all of us, even if it means ignoring their continuing argument and acting without their consent. I'm not sure we should kick them off the bus...but they are starting to mess with the driver and sometimes steal the keys....so it might come to that some day.

Unless you have data supporting your claims, blanket assigning attributes to "the right" isn't good.

From an outside view (I'm not American) the issue isn't guns. It's that Americans see using guns as a solution to problems that they probably shouldn't be a solution for.

This partly stems from historical and cultural factors but also high poverty rates, a mediocre health care system, a mediocre mental health care system, etc.

FYI, there is evidence that IUDs stop the implantation of the blastocyst - just a google search away.

Side note: there are some things America gets so right. Like various freedoms enshrined in your constitution. And how the country tends to self-correct towards liberty (over the long run).

I make reasonable allowances for what I will call a hero, I never made allowances for what's a legal right. I think one need not exercise one's rights in the most disruptive way possible to exorcize them. That said, if the restaurant owner in your scenario doesn't want to kick out open carry people for scaring 'families', that should be their right too, and then they're (the owner and the carrier) both slightly heroic.

In this case, if he's doing nothing illegal, the cops should go do something productive, not get violent because someone is guilty of contempt of cop, which is not a crime. They always say they're understaffed and there's too much crime to deal with, then why are 2 cops wasting so much time on someone legally not answering their questions or producing ID AND NOTHING ELSE WRONG? That seems impractical in the extreme.

There is a HUGE difference between behavior that, while allowed, is bound to scare some people and/or cause panic and behavior that simply annoys a public servant who's abusing their authority in the first place, not actually doing their job. No one can reasonably be afraid for their life of someone that won't answer their questions, nor is it a crime. No crowd has ever run in panic because a mime (or group of mimes) walked into it's midst....maybe in disgust, but not panic.

It is always appropriate, practical, socially accepted, and constructive to your life to tell any officer that you won't answer any question at all (including 'what's your name' if that's legal in your state) without written blanket immunity from the DA, notarized and codified by a judge, for any and all crimes you may have committed or may be committing...and not a word more without a good lawyer present. That's the advice both my father's and brother's high priced lawyers gave me, I'll take it.

That was good.

I might disagree with Obama's near-blanket statement at the end - "government (at large) works better than when I came into office".

That's a hard statement to evaluate because government is a BIG thing. I think that the portion that he is responsible for (Executive branch) definitely works better than it did under Bush (which, to be fair, isn't saying much). The Judicial branch just made a hugely positive wave with the ruling on gay marriage, so I'd tick their "better than before" box also.

But the Legislative branch is a complete f*cking disaster. To be fair (again, on the other side), Obama technically has no control over that. But still, with Congress being such a complete and total epic fail, I take issue with the "government works better than when I came into office" quote.

I don't see how things can improve much, shy of taking a mulligan and replacing every last Senator and Representative.

...Hey, maybe Obama should have let Iran have *1* nuke, so long as they.... /sarcasm

See, this is why it needs to be shown the rise in joules, and a total energy rise in the entire planetary system, not just some arbitrary surface temperature rise....because people like you (no insult intended here) genuinely see the small relative figure and think...eh its no big deal.

Its a huge deal.

We are losing gigantic chunks of the otherwise permanent ice shelf in south and north arctic areas.

With those gone, we have otherwise what would have been massive mirrors, which reflect light...now acting as big old heating blankets (the water is effectively a black body to sunlight, absorbs it like no other..).

That right there is called a positive feedback loop. You start with something small, and within no time (geologically speaking), its in runaway growth.

The frozen tundra in greenland is home to enormous pockets of trapped methane....not for much longer. (source: http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v8/n1/abs/ngeo2305.html)

Methane's impact on global warming (i.e. energy RETENTION within our planetary weather system) is 25 times greater than an equivalent amount of C02. (source: http://epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/ch4.html).

Further to this video, when you heat up the ocean systems beyond a certain threshold, the natrual pumping systems which circulate warm surface water to the deeper parts of the ocean for cooling, just flat out stop working. (source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19895974), leading to the slow heat-death of a vast swath of temperatue sensitive biomes....which, when they are active and growing healthily, actually contribute to c02 depletion (carbon based lifeforms 'use up' carbon to be 'made').

...I could go on, but you see....even just a cursory glance at some of the 'smaller' impacts is pretty compelling enough to consider the phrase 'no big deal' a bit of a misnomer.

Do your research....it is catastrophic, and it is likely to happen in your lifetime (if you are under 30 atm).

Your grandchildren and great grandchildren will be living in a drastically different global environment.

No biggie though, cause we got electric cars coming online in the next 30 years or so

First, even you said it's normally properly used at up to 10% concentration. Most people use it at the maximum concentration so it works effectively. 1% concentration almost never does the job....often 10% requires repeated applications, I know from experience.

Second, where does the interviewer EVER say it's PURE roundup in the glass? Where does the interviewee ever question the concentration level, or say "it is dangerous at full concentration"?...he doesn't, he said it's not harmful and I'll be glad to drink it. Period. he actually said, talking about PURE glyphosate "You can drink a whole quart of it and it won't hurt you"...and 'I'd be glad to drink it...not really'....Not 'it's not harmful when diluted to 1%', not 'it's not harmful when used correctly with proper safety gear', but blanket 'it's not harmful, you can drink it', which is obviously a lie. At anywhere near full concentration, it's deadly, and even at full maximum dilution, it's harmful to ingest and studies seem to indicate it causes cancer and other problems...which is why he won't drink it like he claimed he would.

You said vinegar, not pure acid. Pure concentrated acetic acid is not the same thing, but diluted to normally found full concentrations it's completely harmless, unlike roundup. Pure water is deadly, but not something you can find, just like pure acetic acid is something you can't find...but pure roundup is how they sell it, and how many (idiots) use it. That makes it a totally FAIR comparison, especially when the spokesman is telling you clearly that the pure chemical is completely harmless and drinkable (only commenters have brought up concentration levels, not the spokesman, he just said "not harmful, drinkable").