Don't change the title. It's apt.

"Mentally challenged just means that something can be hard for us to learn." -cited

Hence learning disability.

>> ^srd:
Other people call it Basic Income. It's a great idea that I deem could be viable in 10 to 15 years if we try to automate just about anything that can be automated. Only catch is, in our global economy, the entire world has to switch. Or at least all first world countries do.


Much appreciated srd!

I don't think I follow why it would have to be implemented on a global scale though. The largest challange I see is striking the balance between starving people to death and removing all incentives to work. The amount of Basic Income given would need constant monitoring and adjustment.

same principles apply to home theaters you are dealing with the same problems and challanges.

>> ^Wolfie:
i lost the challange so badly


Me too... :"(

i lost the challange so badly

It works for me, but it does shoot out a pop-up window

Great sift still, I once intended to sift it myself...

In reply to this comment by Farhad2000:
Thanks alot man, it embedded for me even though it doesnt seem to play. But am in Kuwait and its common for me.

http://www.videosift.com/video/Samurai-Quick-Draw-Challange-Who-WiIl-Win

Thanks alot man, it embedded for me even though it doesnt seem to play. But am in Kuwait and its common for me.

In reply to this comment by Norsuelefantti:
I found an embed to replace your dead Sanjuro "quick draw" clip, but it is not a valid source for me to use. Maybe you want to use it to fix your sift though.

http://www.videosift.com/video/Samurai-Quick-Draw-Challange-Who-WiIl-Win

http://www.megavideo.com/?v=682TNJZP

I found an embed to replace your dead Sanjuro "quick draw" clip, but it is not a valid source for me to use. Maybe you want to use it to fix your sift though.

http://www.videosift.com/video/Samurai-Quick-Draw-Challange-Who-WiIl-Win

http://www.megavideo.com/?v=682TNJZP

Elitism is not a bad thing. It's not ideas it's TRUTH!

Why can't I let 1+1 = 3? Because it diminishes the human understanding of reality.

I like that you associate knowledge with homosexuality, real classy. You must love Larry the Cable-Guy.

>> ^Equilibrionist:
That guy sounds like a typical nerd/digger/elitist asshole.
gwiz665, you sound like one, too.
Even if you are right (yes, yes, we know it's truth), BUT...even if you are right, you don't need to try to force your ideas upon all others. If you do, you just look like a socially challanged queer. Yeah, you will have your truth, but what is the use, if you have no friends?



Proof is not really existent in real science, only in logic and math. It is shown to be ("proven") by the evidence. Evidence shows that the earth in fact is not flat. All evidence so far shows that Evolution happens, and the prominent theory is that it happens by means of natural selection.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that there has never ever been a scientific "proof", or scientific evidence, to suggest that the earth is flat. It's all hearsay and religion.
Science is all about disproving theories; if a theory is false, it cannot hold up to evidence. But as long as a theory can support the evidence, it's the closest thing to truth that we have.

>> ^Aemaeth:
Wow, this is some very interesting arguments here. If I follow gwiz's argument, it goes something like this: earth proven not flat by science, atom proven divisible by science, evolution proven true by science. I think you're missing the point that prior to those first two being proven, scientists of the day would have said science had proven the contrary argument.

That guy sounds like a typical nerd/digger/elitist asshole.

gwiz665, you sound like one, too.

Even if you are right (yes, yes, we know it's truth), BUT...even if you are right, you don't need to try to force your ideas upon all others. If you do, you just look like a socially challanged queer. Yeah, you will have your truth, but what is the use, if you have no friends?

I've seen better - much better. There was a show on some russian channel where they domino count counted in millions and huge rooms were filled with them forming beautiful pictures. There were teams and they had to do different challanges regarding this activity. It looked cool, but I can't see how you can devote your life to it.

"Intelligence is in part a biological condition, some people are able to learn faster, and understand complex ideas others can't grasp, while others struggle with material most people understand. That seems like a factor that could limit a person's success to me, its not something they can appreciably change."
Why not? If you aren't mentally challanged I don't see why you can't learn and study and exercise your brain in order to become more intelligent.

"I don't think there are any guarantees, hell the only guarantee you'll ever get is that at some point you're going to die."

If we look from this perspective - of course. I mean, maybe the world will end in 2030 something form that asteroid that COULD hit the earth. Maybe someone terrorist will bomb your home, maybe you get into car accident. Maybe you become really successful and then somebody kills you because you are in someones way or kidnaps your children. A lot of stuff can happen. That doesn't mean we should live in a bubble and be afraid to challange life.

Yes, if you want to become the only and the best one in some criteria and there are many other people that want to do the same, you might not succeed, that is why this strategy doesn't apply to becoming world champion in some sport, for example. It the end it turns out that the competetor was just a little bit better and that is why he won. If you want to become THE RICHEST MAN in the world, you will probably fail because prince of Brunay (whatever it's called) will have inherited a country. BUT - you can become A RICH MAN. Think about those millions of people who sit in front of TV all day, use drugs, spend their time on useless shit - are they your competetors? NO! Maybe you are one from thousands with this specific mindset and that automatically makes a very high success ratio between you:them.

About harm and good - these are relative terms. You have to define your own good and your own harm. There will always be haters. Even if you were the nicest person on planet, there still would be someone who hates you. But will that hold you back from reaching your dreams?

I don't mean to flame over it at all. I originally submitted just the camera footage, and this submission helps to give it a little more context. I submitted it because I also wanted to challange people's disasociation to the sickening realities of war. I was sorta new and just felt that I had done something wrong or disrespectful within the community when it was discarded.

upvotage!

"Dawkins never "refuses his Ideas to be challanged", he does reject and rebuke, but thats because he has actually thought about it."

The implication here is that religious people - or anyone else that opposes Dawkins' intolerant creed - never think, or change their opinions and beliefs. Even the most cursory examination of the history of any world religion will show you that this is false.

"In fact the statistical data we do have, show the opposite, poor, uneducated crime-ridden countries are typically deeply religious(Africas horn), wealthy countries with low crime rates etc are typically secular.(northern Europe)"

Oh - it's all clear now - secularism is the cure to all ills. It must be religion that is keeping the people in Africa down - not the legacy of colonialism and imperialism, the inherent inequality in the current global economy, misguided development polices, poverty, famine, civil war, drought, etc. Russia was a secular state when Stalin carried out the purges - it still is, and its still a very repressive and dangerous place to live; China was a secular state when Mao killed millions - it still is and in the name of secularism religious people have been discriminated against and killed for years; Germany was a secular state when Hitler killed the Jews; Turkey was a secular state when the Armenians were massacred. The two world wars were a result of aggressive secular nationalist ideologies. Communisim was a secular ideology. In the last two centuries vastly more people have died as a result of intolerant secular ideologies than religion.

The real problem is not religion or secularism but inflexible and intolerant creeds.

Dawkins never "refuses his Ideas to be challanged", he does reject and rebuke, but thats because he has actually thought about it. For instance, he argues that we dont get our moral standards from religion. So someone says "But Muhammad Yunus is religious" well, Dawkins typical reply to things like that, is that Yunus was brought up religious, and that he would probably be a good person, with or without his religion. The fact that he himself feels motivated by religion, has do do with him as a person.

There are no statistics or documentation, or logic that dictates that religion does anything to make people more moral, in fact the statistical data we do have, show the opposite, poor, uneducated crime-ridden countries are typically deeply religious(Africas horn), wealthy countries with low crime rates etc are typically secular.(northern Europe) These stats doesnt have to be connected, or show atheists etc as more moral. But, it goes to show that religion does not have much of a positive moral effect.

It is overwhelmingly more likely that the logical,reasonable part of Yunus brain, the part that says "Why on earth cant poor people get some loans" the part that sees all humans as people with the right to equal opportunities was what really drove him to do as he did. I do not doubt he might have found passages in the Qur'an that could support that, but I dont think it was the real, sole reason for the goodness(And I have the statistics to refer to..)

When it comes to lunatics like the 9/11 hijackers on the other hand, they could not possibly have been driven by anything even close to humanism or logic, or respect for their fellow ape-descendants as no more or less likely to have all the answers than themselves, their drive was a deeply religiously deluded one, deprived of all logic and reasoning, the kind of irrational faith, and unwaivering lack of doubt(see Quran first verse) that only religious indoctrination can breed.