Huh, I only charge things that I have the cash to pay for by the next billing cycle. Easy, and the cash back actually works for me. I don't understand using a credit card at 25% interest as a long-term financing prospect, especially when you can get a loan at 4%.

There are a lot of parallels between advertising and copyright. Buy wholeheartedly in to either, and you end up sort of failing to accept the reality of their flaws.

Advertisers think they have a big problem whenever someone circumvents their ads. They panicked when VCRs came around and allowed people to record shows and fast-forward through ads. They panicked when DVRs came out and let people digitally skip through ads. And they are panicking now, with more and more people getting fed up and putting ad-blocking software on their computers or devices.

Copyright holders think they have a big problem when someone tries to circumvent their system, too. They worried about libraries giving people free access to books; but at least a physical book is pretty much limited to one person at a time. They freaked out about cassette tapes being easily copied with a dual cassette deck. They freaked out about people sharing MP3 music over the internet. They freaked out when DVDs came out with CSS protection which was circumvented almost immediately. They continue to freak out by pushing for ever more and more drastic DRM schemes, that are generally circumvented quite rapidly.

The general theme in both advertising and copyright is escalation; a sort of arms race. The problem is that that solution doesn't actually improve things for anyone, in either case. Ads get more and more offensive and annoying, more and more people block/skip them. Copyright gets more and more locked-down, more and more people circumvent it. In both cases, as the "legitimate" side squeezes harder, it ends up making the user experience better for those who circumvent it "illegitimately". See, for example, this good old comic from The Oatmeal:
http://theoatmeal.com/comics/game_of_thrones

The web with adblock software is a massively better experience than the web without it. A pirated 1080p movie or TV show lets you skip the previews/commercials that are often unskippable on a DVD. And on and on.

This arms race doesn't have a good future. Creators and distributors must start wracking their brains to come up with whole new ideas, or at least variants of the old ones, that break that cycle and ensure that "illegitimate" users/viewers don't have a better experience than legitimate ones. I'm sure not holding my breath though.

Not sure what competition this is, but that technique is certainly against the rules in Tour De France, as well as many other cycling competitions.

You're probably looking for "Contemporary Art" but this piece might well be "Modern" by definition.

Anyway read this book: https://www.amazon.com/Million-Stuffed-Shark-Economics-Contemporary/dp/0230620590

Spoiler Alert: Rich people scamming other rich people who then scam other rich people later. It's a cycle of perpetuating false value because unless you're the very last person ever to hold the item, it benefits everyone to keep the false value alive.

The nuisances allude me as I read this book quite some time ago but it's fairly interesting.

EDIT: Based on past experience with his claims, that's not presenting the science, it's completely misrepresenting it. It's what this guy does, he cherry picks someone else's data, totally misrepresents the study and it's conclusions, and makes huge leaps and extrapolations to say things like 'eating meat is now proven to be the same carcinogenic cancer risk as being a chain smoker'....but anyone who can understand the study he cites, limited to highly processed cured meats and mentioning the levels of possible carcinogens was not measured but are likely infinitesimal, can see it said no such thing, and didn't even come close to implying it. That type of misuse of data gets my goat....I think lying about science and data are crimes against humanity, and I wish they were actionable.

Bullshit, that's not true at all. My wife eats cheese about 3-4 times a year, and enjoys it those times. Same with beef. No addiction cycle exists with that long of a period that I'm aware of.
Food preference/taste is in no way the same as addiction, and any "doctor" telling you differently is a liar.
Habits and addictions are different concepts, that's why they are spelled and pronounced differently.

He's just presenting the science, he's wasn't involved in the research he's talking about.

But it's true, once you break the addiction cycle, cheese is no longer appetizing. It's very similar to quitting smoking in that sense.

@iaui
i do not understand you defense of corporate media pundits,who most certainly failed to recognize the actual political climate of this country.

i am not saying EVERY pundit got it wrong.there were internet political shows that did address the rise of populism,and the reasons behind it,and that trump was a valid threat and not to be dismissed.

but for the most part,corporate media pundits all echoed each others sentiments in regards to this last election cycle.

there is a REASON why bernie sanders populist language resonated with the public,and many of those people were republicans.

there is a REASON why trumps populist language,which was vastly different than sanders,resonated with another sector of the population,and not all of those people were racist,sexist,misogynist homophobes.

and none of those REASONS were addressed by corporate media pundits.they preferred to talk about trumps bombastic speeches,his racism and sexism...total cult of celebrity,because it SOLD,it made them MONEY.

it is those very same corporate media pundits that actually facilitated the rise of donald trump,and his actual presidency,because they simply did not get the current political climate here in america.which is exactly what this video is addressing,that these highly paid,and richly rewarded,pundit class reside in their own tiny,little echo chambers,that happens to reside in close proximity to the very people they have been assigned to watch,criticize and report on.

they failed on an epic scale,and it is no surprise that the majority of americans have abandoned corporate media as if it had herpes,covered in aids.

and to make the argument that this video is suspect SIMPLY because bob posted it,is intellectually dishonest,because it does NOT address the video.i disagree with bob on pretty much everything,but to ignore or disregard this video based solely on the fact that you,or i,disagree with bob politically is just incredibly weak.

now if you wish to defend corporate media political pundits,and opinion makers,and have strong case where this video is wrong in regards to how the pundit class have failed,live in a bubble,and did not understand the underlying frustration and anger boiling underneath americas working class.i am all ears,because in my opinion they have utterly failed the american people.

and i am not dismissing your polling numbers,i am just saying they are not as relevant as you are making them out to be.polls can be manipulated to mean anything you want them to mean,and in my opinion are not a strong basis to formulate an argument to defend corporate media.

but i suspect your argument is more against bob than the video,and your skepticism is based solely on your disagreement with bob politically.not un-warranted i admit,bob has posted some extremely slanted videos,but so haven't we all in our own way.

but in this case?
this video is spot on,even though bob is the one who posted.

do not let your bob bias and prejudice cloud your judgment.

@robdot
trying to unpack your comment.

"spent the entire election cycle ranting about hillary"

what the holy fuck are you blathering about?

the entire election cycle liberals fell asleep at the wheel,and tacitly bought the bullshit pie that:paid political pundits,pollsters and supposed "informed political journalists" were selling.

hillary is going to win,the polls reveal that hillary will beat trump handily.don't worry liberal democrats,hillary is going to win.do not pay attention to hillary's abysmal numbers,because trumps are just as horrid.

and just WHAT was hillary's platform?
what was her political messaging and vision for america's future?

"well,my fellow americans,at least i am not THAT guy".
that was it,that pathetic,weak and facile position,WAS her campaign!

if this is what you are referencing,then yes..i agree..the democrats fucking dropped the ball.they had no message,no platform,no vision.

the democrats lost a massively energized younger population when they openly,and brazenly,fucked over sanders,because sanders threatened the DNC and the democrats corporate money train,and we can't have a politician who has shown integrity,morals and vision now can we?

hillary on the other hand,had already proven to be a willing participant in the corporate train.you know..speak one way to the people,but another way behind closed doors..wink-wink-nudge nudge-know-what-i-mean.

if this is what you are talking about,then yes,i agree,liberal democrats need to take a big,giant bite out of that shit sandwich and stop behaving like they are fucking victims.

Many liberals ,and liberal media etc, spent the entire election cycle ranting about Hillary, now these same people want to complain about trump and republicans,,,,fuck you. Eat this shit sandwich you help create, eat it.

Seriously? Beach sand has been moving since day one. It leaves the beaches by the water, it gets deposited by the water. The Core of Engineers is just trying to control that cycle. No construction companies are pulling sand from Miami Beach. #Fakenews

@worm
thanks for your input ron swanson!

your comment exemplifies that our own,personal politics tend to reside somewhere in the middle.
that is where the majority of us reside,and your comment is a literal macrocosm of the federalist papers.

federal vs state power.

which is a great discussion.

but that's not what we get ..is it?

we get a circus of buffoonery,cult of celebrity,and all conversation occur in this weird "twitter speak".

the art of discussion and debate has been traded for faux outrage and sanctimonious moralizing.to even admit that an opposing political philosophy has a good idea is tantamount to treason.

compromise is now viewed as weakness,and not common sense.

the extreme left and right have hi-jacked this countries national discussion,NOT because they both have put forth such amazing ideas,but rather it makes for good television.

and i say this as a person who holds many "left" ideals.i am a fucking anarchist for fuck sakes!

donald trump winning this years surreal election cycle is only a symptom of the disease eating away at our republic.

in my opinion?
both the democrats and republicans have become monolithic institutions that no longer represent their core ideals,having sold their soul to their corporate masters.

and while i can respect the republicans for being open on who they prostituted themselves to,the democrats STILL play the "feel your pain" tripe while simultaneously giving exxon a tugjob under the table.

the extreme left and right do not represent the majority.
and they should be ridiculed and shamed for their utter lack of anything resembling a good idea.

let's kill them.

Then your own personal bias is blinding you.

Do you truly believe that more racists voted for Trump than came out previously to vote against the first black president?

Your also not reading what I said, seemingly because you don't like the implications. Not once did I claim racists didn't vote for Trump. Not once did I say anything about Trump making any kind of an even half-decent president. For the record, I'd have voted Hillary if I had a vote. All of that is ENTIRELY outside the point.

The reality that democrats just can't seem to accept is that they LOST the support of the public. The racists didn't suddenly emerge this election cycle. The moderates, the silent majority, just said screw it and stayed home or said screw you and ticked of Trump. A major scare factor in that is folks just like yourself who refuse to even recognise that this huge segment of the population exists and that the democrats need to reach out to them as opposed to labelling them racists and entrenching them as future republican voters that dislike being called racists because they work on an oil rig...

@Fairbs

i think it would go much farther than impeachment don't you think?
if there is actual,tangible evidence,and not mere speculation,that putin directed russian intelligence to hack the election,this would be:
1.an act of war
2.the election of trump would be illegitimate,and therefore the entire process would have to be a giant "do-over".this has never happened in american history,so to handle it the same way as if a standing president dies,or resigns (nixon),or use the standards of impeachment,in my opinion,should not apply.

if our election was truly manipulated to favor trump,this would be unprecedented,and there simply is no system in place to deal with such a breach.

and let's be honest.
a "do-over" might be time consuming,and bring some delays legislatively speaking.

but considering that this election cycle has been a stroll down surreal lane and we were subjected to not one,but TWO shit candidates.

i wouldn't mind a do-over.
how about you?

@newtboy
you misunderstood.

respectable investigative journalists gain that respect by being consistent with their reporting.

chris hedges is such a journalist.

but,by your metric,him being on RT negates that respect.now this is an assumption on my part,but i am using your words to come to that assumed conclusion.you have yet to agree or disagree with what chris hedges is saying,choosing instead to attack the medium in which he is saying it.this is your right,i just happen to disagree with you on this matter.

i refer back to one of my original comments,and a point i tried (and i guess failed?) to reiterate:discernment is the key.

so in a sense..yes..it is our responsibility to do our due diligence to vette the veracity of an investigative reporter.

those "reporters" who shill for either the democrats or republicans reveal themselves as the whores they are fairly quickly.

demagogues can almost be instantly identified due to their constant appeals to emotion.(keith olbermans new youtube channel from GQ "the resistance" comes to mind).

and reporters who are simply bad or lazy are quickly revealed as well.by other reporters.

let's take @bcglorf review of chomsky,and how chomsky is singular in his constant criticism of american foreign policy and asks the question "why can't he,just for once,speak on the positives that america has done in the world,or speculate on what could have happened had american not intervened in third world country A or B".(paraphrased)

now this is not an entirely unfair question,and in chomsky's books..he does address the very specifics that bcglorf would like to see chomsky address,but in lectures you are lucky to get a sentence in regards to such subjects.

but notice that while bcglorf would like to see chomsky speak in more broad terms,he never once questions the veracity of the details chomsky is laying down.

do you know why?
because chomsky does his homework,and backs up everything he says.

bcglorf respects chomsky for this,while simultaneously wishing he changed the channel once in awhile.

bcglorf utilized discernment to come to the conclusion that chomsky is a worthy,if infuriating,read/listen.

i do not mean to be speaking for Bc,and maybe i am missing the mark by a long shot using him as an example (if i did,please forgive Bc).

but my basic point is that we ALL discriminate and discern using our own subjective tools,our experiences and ultimately our understandings.

the problem here,and it is the underlying message on this thread,is confirmation bias.

we all know about this,and this election cycle REALLY brought this up to the forefront.

what i find interesting,and always makes me giggle,is how people will point to the "mainstream media" as an outlet for:propaganda,fake news,biased and slanted news ..but..it is NEVER the news THEY consume.the news THEY consume is hard hitting journalism.

so when i see people dismiss a piece that may happen to be on a questionable outlet..i laugh..because MOST outlets are ALL questionable.

so yes my friend,it is up to us to discern what is valid and what is bullshit.secondary sources help.concrete,trackable sources help and discussing and talking with one another is probably the greatest help of all.

but if you reside in an echo chamber,and everybody is just smelling each other farts.then some information may come as a shock.

my faith dictates my politics.
i am a dissident,and a radical.
the dynamic is always "power vs powerlessness",and i am always on the side of the powerless.

so it should be no surprise that on my list are people such as chomsky or hedges.

because they criticize power.

The doldrums of winter, the long election cycle, the perception by most that 2016 was terrible. Perhaps people are just all talked out at this point?