Now all you need is a kiddy pool, a ton of salt, and an indigo child to float in the pool; in an effort to perform random astral projection, locate and match people up to play D&D. Then dump a thousand d20s in the pool and have the child telekinetically randomize the rolls.

I'm certain there's a method to create randomization via shock therapy. We just need children to experiment on. Perhaps if we administer LSD to pregnant women in hospitals during ongoing double blind tests on a global scale, we can increase our chances of creating super human children for the strict purpose of more authentically randomized D&D.

I mean, it's not just the rolls that need to be given more randomization, the world creation and random events that are generated by human creativity aren't truly randomized --

But if we inundate developing fetuses with hallucinogens and then hook them up to machines and float them in saline solutions, we stand a chance at creating some truly frightening... err, creative D&D worlds.

Congratulations! Your comment on Bill Maher Explains the Debate: Evolution vs Creationism has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

This achievement has earned you your "Silver Tongue" Level 3 Badge!

One could argue, for example, that we already all drive electric cars because they all need a battery to start, if one was in a hot tub with Elon.

Fortunately, as far as creation myths go, we know from South Park that the Mormons got it right. And South Park is definitely more important than electric cars and space travel.

People admire you, Elon, dont use the opportunity to f*ck up their minds too much with sci-fi hot tub thought experiments! Be responsible!

When they say in the news on TV that the sun will be shining today, they dont go on to tell people what its going to do in the future or what the alternatives are.

You would think, wouldn't you, that they would be diametrically opposed.

Well it turns out that esjews and islamists both, for example, despise sex and sexuality, differing only in whose sexuality they denigrate the most. They do both believe that women's bodies in particular are disgusting and ought to be covered at all times - certainly this is the impression you receive from esjew film and videogame critiques. They both believe that women are inferior to men and need to be protected from normal social experience - for the islamist this takes the form of, you know, chaining them in a cupboard and shouting verses from the Qur'an at them; for the esjew the creation of safe spaces and online bubbles where they can be protected from white patriarchal oppression, consequences, and new ideas.

They're equally fond of the lie that any opposition to their fanaticism is evidence of bigotry.

And of course they both believe that any dissent from their worthless ideologies should be forcibly silenced.

Turns out regressive belief systems have a lot in common.


I say this all, by the way, as the leftest of lefties. Liberals don't censor. Liberals don't attack men for being men, or white people for being white, or cis het whatever for whatever, and they don't team up with fascists just because they're brown-skinned fascists.

Esjews aren't lefties; they're a shit the left took on the carpet and haven't cleaned up yet.

That was awesome.

The origin of a riff being "accidental" doesn't seem unusual -- people come up with riffs that get turned into earworm songs while just jamming / screwing around all the time.

But having the combination of sudden inspiration and accidental creation of the riff immediately followed by impromptu creation of the lyrics is really really cool.

Awesome sift, thanks!

I disagree that it cannot be adapted to film. It could be done with a director that can function in a storytelling environment, which Snyder simply cannot do. The problem with Snyder was covered very well here recently, *related=http://videosift.com/video/Nerdwriter-Fundamenal-Flaw-Zack-Snyder-Batman-v-Superman
He was exactly the wrong director to have film this. I would have went with Del Toro or Whedon, but even they have their flaws.

Now, if the question is, can an adaptation be done that Alan Moore will feel 'suits' his vision? Probably not. He is an artist, in very good ways, but also in some very bad ones. He has a specific idea of how his creation must flow, which means he will never be satisfied with a medium outside of the graphic novel or comic.

Personally, I think one of the few un-adaptable works would be Gaiman's Sandman, but that's just my opinion.

New series of Robot Wars here after god knows how many years. I loved that show when I was a kid.

Hammers never seemed that effective. For destruction the flywheel type weapons always performed best, but my favorite was this nasty looking creation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMKtrUn3DmY

The patent is clearly invalid.
It fails both the "prior art" and "non-obvious" aspects of a patent, in that cell phones existed prior to the creation of this patent and using voice communication over a device is not "non-obvious" (at least, not since the 1900s).

So pretty much yeah, "WHAT THE FUCK PATENT OFFICE?" indeed.

I don't get his "this is what happens when the government controls patents" rant. It's a bad patent, they happen, and patent reform is badly needed in the US, but if you're going to make a statement like that, you need to propose an alternative.

If you don't want the "government" controlling patents, you want ... what? Get rid of patents altogether? Allow a private company to control them?

Your video, Lawrence Krauss: Teaching Creationism is Child Abuse, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

I've repeatedly discounted your comments, but I simply can't seem to make headway.

The F4E ICE was a modified German version of the F4E. It had much better engines than any other version of the craft, a dedicated WSO, and it still only barely outperformed the F16. The other F4 variants absolutely did not turn better or have a higher rate of climb than the F16.

Dogfighting hasn't been around since WW1? Are you crazy? What would you call the numerous dogfighting techniques developed during WWII? Admittedly there was a drop off in dogfighting during the Korean War, but that was because we were shifting to jets as our primary fighters and people didn't have the speeds worked out. When we went to Vietnam, we found that many times the planes were so fast they were closing into gun range before they could get a missile solution. Hence the creation of the Fighter Weapons School (aka TopGun).

The Air Force couldn't believe it was a skill issue and decided to go a different way, loading more sensors and different cannon onto the airplanes. They still relied on missiles primarily, assuming that dogfighting was DEAD. Well, after some time passed, Navy kill to loss ratios went from 3.7-1 to 13-1 and (SURPRISE) Air Force kill to loss ratios got even worse.

After this, the Air Force quietly created their own DACT program, unwilling to be vocal about how wrong they were. Now, if you primarily play video games about air sorties, you might get the idea that you get a lock a couple of miles before you even see the enemy, confirm the engagement, click a button, and then fly back home. Actual pilots will be glad to set you straight on that, since you might have to get close to the intruding craft and follow them, waiting. What happens when you get close? Dogfights happen.

As far as the capability of the plane, of course it is going to fail tests. But the problem is that, like in the case of the Marine's test, so much money has been invested in this plane that people are ignoring the failures because they are scared the program is going to get shut down. Realistically, that just is going to increase the time this plane takes to get ready for service, increase the costs, and it isn't going to fix the underlying problems in the design of the craft.

I don't know what else I can say. The plane is going to turn out to be a much more expensive version of the F22 and it will most likely quietly be cancelled later down the line like the F22 was. The bad thing is, the government will immediately jump to the next jack of all trades plane and once again we will find it is a master of none.

What the hell is going on there? The "stylist" can't seriously be thinking that is the best hair creation ever? That's so ugly that it'd lose in a longest hair competition to bald people.

My mother makes fairy houses.

End confession.

She travels a lot to national parks and when she stops on a trail, she makes a hidden fairy house. Silly, of course. But what I've always found interesting about what she does is the idea of hidden, impermanent art that will probably never be seen. But if one person ever discovers one of her creations...the transcendent moment. That's beautiful to me. If she took a picture it would diminish what she does.

I'd appreciate this snow art more if there were no video. If it were unclaimed. Well, I'd appreciate the IDEA of this art, because I'd likely never actually know about it. And that's a kind of beauty.

If you really want to add some fuel to your, shall we say, "dislike" of HRC, have a look at this. It's an excerpt of Thomas Frank's new book "Listen, Liberal!". Afterwards, you might have to reassure yourself that HRC is, in fact, not a creation of John Cleese's or Terry Jones'.

Edit: I should probably have provided an appetizer.

"For poor and working-class American women, the floor was pulled up and hauled off to the landfill some twenty years ago. There is no State Department somewhere to pay for their cell phones or to pick up their day-care expenses. And one of the people who helped to work this deed was the very woman I watched present herself as the champion of the world’s downtrodden femininity."

Ahhh, the ol' "face-roll the Korg keyboard" school of theme music creation.

@Imagoamin

whoa whoa whoa...
did you think i was calling YOU a bed-wetter?
like as in actually using the pronoun "you" to direct my fictional interaction as representing an actual person,in this case YOU?

well,that certainly explains the tone of your reply.

if this is the case then i humbly and sincerely apologize.i was not referring to you at all,but rather a hypothetical and totally fictional interaction between a cry-baby and myself.

which you actually just made my point about humor,and in this case sarcastic humor.an over the top referencing of a certain hyper-sensitive group,in order to make my point about bad ideas,bad philosophy and poor judgment.

the sarcasm should have been obvious.
but alas...it appears it was not,and has been misconstrued as a personal attack.

moving on to your suey park rebuttal.
while the response to her initial call for justice can easily be seen as vile and grotesque (because it is) how does that take away from her inanity? her blatant disregard for nuance and context? or that she simply lacks the basic intelligence to discern satire from actual racist remarks?

it does not.

i think that most people would agree that the vile,disgusting and dehumanizing responses that suey park was subjected to,are to be condemned and yes...ridiculed..for the stupid and trollish behavior they represent.

you do not reply to stupid with even more stupid.

i dont really understand your defense of language,or better put,the imposing of certain words being stricken from the language altogether because some people find them offensive.

language is a fluid animal,and it is ever-changing.words and terms are dropped from the vocabulary or they morph into something altogether new.i have no skin in on the game in that regard.that is how language progresses,and yes,certain words can be offensive in certain contexts.so we should avoid using them,if only to be a decent human being.

my issue is with the FORCED attempts to re-integrate new words.to control what people say and attempt to bring real world consequences upon them,and then turn around and call it "justice".that is not justice! that is censorship!

maybe this will help a bit.
i view words and language as such:words are the means to express thoughts,feelings and imaginings.when we consider the complexity of our thoughts,feelings and imaginings then it becomes quite apparent that words will NEVER suffice to truly,and accurately,express those very human creations.

words will always be inadequate.

so when some people get it in their head that certain words are just too offensive to even utter.this narrows the field of expression that is already inadequate.(i am not talking about BLATANT,and archaic terms that are not only offensive,but are no longer relevant,and in existence still to simply disparage,insult or dehumanize).

now maybe some words no longer serve a valid purpose or are truly offensive and need to be re-examined,but the only way to reach that conclusion as a people..we must actually TALK to one another,and it is in this free market of ideas where bad ideas go to die.

but we have to able to conversate for that to happen.don't you agree?

now i am not going to bother addressing the rest of your comment,because your tone was just a reaction to where you presumed i was coming from.

and you did presume.

you seem like a decent sort,so i will just chalk your final response up to finding my comment offensive and replied in kind.

just know i wasnt heated,nor enraged.
and i certainly wasnt calling you a bed-wetter.
though the extreme end of social justice warriors are STILL humorless cunts.