>> ^xxovercastxx:

Here's an experiment: Is this funny/ok? If so, what makes it different?


I was going to say satire, but around the time they pull up their little map--I think they crossed that line. At the beginning it was semi-OK mostly due to them making the joke about the actual phrase, with no actual target except the word president. But, when it changed over into an area where it could be equivocated with a sitting president (just a bit before the map; it may have been the one with the mortar), that is where I think it's needs to stop. They say it's legal though.

I think crazy people often don't understand satire. However, the crazy people that might do this are probably never going to watch, "The Whitest Kids You Know". They defiantly walk a fine line; I think it's better to probably not do that skit. To each to his own.

I think the setting really defines where it shouldn't be used. A comedy club, maybe. A political event, no.

He is damn well defiant, takes the question of if he thinks he is lucky at around 1:11 mark just so nonchalant.

Well, I'll point to one example. When they went after Scientology I was quite surprised of the organization and setup. In multiple cities in the U.S. and in International places (mostly NATO countries) like London. They got hundreds in some locations and thousands of people/protesters to show up and protest Scientology's right to be a religion (as they're considered one in the U.S--not sure where they are, out of country of course). Usually, their Constitutional right to be a religion, would be something I would fight for, but they have crossed the line more than enough times that they seem like fair game to me. Hell, we had atleast a couple of hundred, maybe even one thousand, protesting the church in Utah of all places! Utah is far off from any of their headquarters or any major "church", installation, and "health" centers.

(Off-topic Sidenote: The Mormon or LDS church also crossed the line with Proposition 8 in California--I've seen the LDS church get involved in other political affairs, but only to the same extent all churches in this country do--block voting is ridiculous and should almost cause your vote to be counted as less-as you're actively using religion as a political pulpit and then voting from that; if a connection could be made I'd think those votes should be countermanded as well as the religion's tax exemption status--especially when you have meetings, literally, before a vote. Mormons do this, I'VE BEEN to them!)

The fact that Anonymous can pull that off over night means a great deal. They're most defiantly not weekend warriors in their mother's basement (although I'm sure there are plenty like that). They must have quite a few people that are highly trained in a wide range of topics as they've gone after many targets; easily separating, for the majority of Anonymous, what's an incorrect target and what deserves their attention. To me this means you can't write them off in any fashion; as they may have "Ivory Tower" support, due to their targets and being able to seem "right" and "innocuous" at every turn--people cheer them on.

If I had to pick, I would wager that Anonymous can and does affect more changes socially than al-Qaeda; al-Qaeda has a poor societal impact except the desperate or those that have nothing to lose--only if it used like-wise tactics, which they won't (likewise tactics meaning: terrorism, like 9-11). Their methodology is *flashy*, so every media outlet focuses their news-time and airtime on them. If Anonymous did these infamous type of events except against an U.S. enemy, would they have the same "deeply rooted" infamy/notoriety in American society? I'd say yes.

Outside the U.S. they may have that attribution (good doers/fighting evil or infamous) already in certain places. Right now, Americans are more concerned if their McMansion will be a viable end solution or if it's another "living beyond your means", moment.

I do agree with you that Anonymous must be worried about their banner being lifted by the wrong person. But, as their is no leader in Anonymous it will lead to inter-anon wars; we've seen a few, but most have ended blindingly fast. You almost never hear about it unless you dig around (and even then you find out it's a year old).

I'm just trying to remind people that if Anonymous whimsically can get Colbert to wear the mask in solidarity and can gets thousands of protesters to show up at your doorbell overnight (with same mask ), they may have power that I doubt they've even tapped into yet.

Plus, I do think China or any country willing to stand toe to toe with the U.S. would be grateful to have a voracious enemy of the U.S. on their side (yes, I agree that China would be bad; I also doubt that they would choose it--maybe more like Russia). Especially, if it ends up being one that knows the U.S. fairly well. Secondly, as before, taking random people off the street in Anonymous's name would only feed the machine. We have yet to see what happens if Anonymous, itself, is attacked. It's always been a side attack due to another on going event. The rules might change for both sides if it became a "war" (how they target and what is targeted, then how does the information become presentable). Yes, the U.S. could cut-off the Internet, but I think we've learned enough that THAT may be a grander problem for the U.S. than what it originally had (it's happened everywhere else; citizens revolting).

Yes, Anonymous "may" be getting too much credit, but since their anonymous... They might loose badly even in a straight up information war. But, none of this has happened yet or been tested... I agree with the majority of what you're saying @Yogi . I'm just reminding people that underestimation of your enemy (do we, as Americans, really want Anonymous as an enemy? The Colbert show seems to show the opposite...)

Get rid of one person and another falls in to place, and the hacks they do can be taught ridiculously fast. The other side requires *tax payers'* money or private contractors (using *tax payers'* money, or someone like Dick Cheney who has Halliburton), all of which seem shady as what they do is kill other Americans, arrest other Americans, kill NATO citizens or extradite NATO citizens, and heaven forbid: use black-ops for non-Western countries (Anonymous has enough foresight to get clear confirmation of any event and spread it virally; like a video).

If these guys lose one person it takes quite a bit of time to replace--even if they become misaligned with the publics' view, like the guy in Colbert's piece. Everyone will question his motives now except for the complete utter sheep with no in-the-know friends (to explain what Anonymous is doing).

All I'm trying to say is that in an age of information the U.S. may find themselves on equal footing in a war they'd have to start. The U.S. tries a physical response it will be posted in full glorious detail on the net with redundancy ad nauseum (one well placed real-time camera or auto-upload camera and it becomes a nightmare). The U.S. employs thousands of people that can barely log into their e-mail account(s)--these people are also responsible for enacting physical responses. Imagine an Anonymous that hacks, but keeps the game running. Key loggers, viruses, worms, trojans, hardware hacks, software hacks, people IN the government in on it...? Anonymous has always pulled their stunt quickly and shown everyone the ramifications; don't you think a prolonged version would be highly dangerous for both sides?

Again this assumes a lot about Anonymous just from what I've seen them accomplish in the past. They are most defiantly not some sort of elite commando force. What they lack is simply made up in their ability to manipulate data; which is HUGE in this day and age... Anyway that's long enough; respond to the areas you think need to be toned downed or clarified upon.

-grammar edit

>> ^bareboards2:

nochannel, then to nature cute
catsanddogs are cats and dogs. wilde beests are nature.
But I can't do this. So siftbot will yell at me. I don't care. I am defiant! I forgot! I am SILVER. I have POWER!!!!
Scout reminds me of the flying nun....


Well, foxes are in the canine family so I figured it was close enough. Your tags are more accurate though.

*nochannel, then to *nature *cute

catsanddogs are cats and dogs. wilde beests are nature.

But I can't do this. So siftbot will yell at me. I don't care. I am defiant! I forgot! I am SILVER. I have POWER!!!!

Scout reminds me of the flying nun....

>> ^maximillian:

Also, This doesn't really look like a computer motherboard, more like a generic, custom circuit board.
Still cool though.

It's defiantly not a standard board, double-sided mating surfaces for interconnects, integrated cpu, gpu, and onboard prom and ram chips probably means it's for a notebook, eeepc, or some type of tablet.


One thing I miss working in the industry was the smell, there's something unique about the smell of a freshly coated board just having been hot-soldiered. Of course now with all the whining they've switched to lead free. Wonder what the failure rate based on hot-flexing and tinning is. If it's under 15% I'll be surprised. I'll say it's at least 10%, which is a miserable failure.

I mean come on, it's not like people chew on motherboards. Replacing a tried and tested technology with something inferior and without proper testing is setting you up for failure. Well I guess we can blame environmentalists and insane politicians for that one.

>> ^ulysses1904:

Yeah his voice is obnoxious. And the editing and sound effects are the usual manipulative crap. The only thing missing is the mushroom cloud at the finale. Or was it there, I stopped watching before the end.


However, the message for the cars is completely true. I am not a wealthy person, so fluctuations in used car parts is a real pain for me...and it has been noticeable. Even moreso since many of the components I have needed of late have been engine related.
>> ^handmethekeysyou:

I almost upvoted this video after the beginning sequence.
But after the narrator's obnoxious tone, and then specifically the line, "but this government misallocation of money and resources always[emphasis mine] leads to unintended consequences," I stopped watching.
Always? Now there are a few ways of interpreting this sentences. First would be that when the government misallocates money and resources, there are unintended consequences. I won't disagree with that semantically, but if that's what he's saying, does it really need to be said? When the government screws up, it screws up. The first rule of Tautology Club is the first rule of Tautology Club.
A second interpretation is that government policy always misallocates money and resources & there are always, without fail, unintended consequences. Well, now I'll disagree semantically. Saying that all policy misallocates $$ & resources is ludicrous. If the video is going to talk about the fact that in all policy, there is always some money misused, that sounds interesting and is a worthwhile, constructive criticism. But something in those ominous clouds composited behind the Capitol Building tells me this isn't going to be an objective, in-depth look at government spending.
I suppose this video is 10 minutes of cherry-picked policies that the government screwed up. I'd love to watch and get worked up about it, but now I know it would just be anti-government propaganda.
...
I decided to watch some of it since maybe it was unfair to rail on it so hard after only a minute. Things that struck me:
- Use of Uncle Sam to suggest overbearing government propaganda. Video then proceeds to lay the propaganda on heavier than a North Korean campaign to get you to trim your hair. People in the streets, in photo negative! Capitol building with dollar signs coming out it, heading right for the lens, in photo negative! How about you composite some more shots over other shots to make this all seem so overwhelming? I think there was a full 5 seconds in there without a single hit or sting. I was bored and not emotionally outraged during those 5 seconds. Please reedit to fix.
- You're going to argue against "regulations" at large? All regulation is hurting me, the consumer, the citizen? [Regulating the amount of lead in my paint ultimately costs me more money, which means I can't provide as well for my children, who are currently eating paint chips.] Strange that he doesn't name a single specific regulation. Though it's actually nice. It saves me from having to think. Now I know, regulation=bad, and I don't need to worry my pretty little head about the whys and hows of it all.
- Nor does he explain the line "We have recently seen that sometimes it's the regulator that keeps bad businesses in business." Ok, sometimes that happens...like, when? Oh, I don't actually know any examples, just sometimes it happens. I can't wait to put on a smug expression of intellectual superiority after I wow the crowd at my next cocktail party when I pull this nugget out.
- During the regulation bit, he does relate that we're paying a "regulation tax" that's priced into my health insurance, shoes, clothing [shoes aren't clothing?], food, cars, homes, and pretty much anything I buy. I hate taxes! I buy at least 3 of those things! [So what?] So...I hate regulations! Which regulations do I hate again? [Not sure.] All of them! [Did I mention this is propaganda?]
I stopped after the regulations part [can you tell I didn't like that bit?]. I have no conclusive paragraph to sum everything up. This video is terrible and offensive.


There are many examples of bad companies staying in power because of using the power of law to enforce their agenda. For instance, the enjoyed legal monopoly of most telco and cable companies. Or, the higher prices Americans pay for sugar because of import tariffs on sugar. And thusly making corn sugar, its unhealthier cousin, the mainstay of American diets. Or, the corn subsidy that makes corn feeding beef more economical, even though it causes ecoli to then be produced by said cattle; this all benefits fast food industries to the defiant of us all. Or minimum wage, it necessarily raises unemployment by denying low skilled workers access to market priced labor; this protects high skilled labor from ever being found wanting for lower priced labor mainly benefiting large union positions, while relegating to perpetual unemployment/illegal employment a low skilled migrant worker.

But I admit, there needed to be more examples and less dogma in the video.

I will upvote this, but it is most defiantly and audiosift...

I always loved the space battles in Star Trek, especially DS9 with the defiant. Shit was so cash.

On a side note, the music sounds awesome in my new headphones.

This is defiantly *meme material.

"You may not recognize this face, but there's a good chance you've seen her in a viral video called Jessica's "Daily Affirmation." In the video, a four-year old Jessica defiantly stands on top of a bathroom sink and affirms her ability to grab life by the horns.

"I can do anything good," she declares, pumping her fists and telling the mirror who's boss.

Jessica's almost a teenager now and we were thrilled to find out she wasn't too cool to do a video talk with us from her home in Los Angeles.

We chatted about her recent rise to internet celebrity, her friends' and family's reaction to the clip and what she's up to now that she's all-growns-up."
Via Neatorama.

Thanks. I thought I was asking the right guy.

In reply to this comment by NordlichReiter:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland_State_Police

The Maryland State Police are currently issued a Beretta PX4 Storm, but the officer in the video seems to be carrying something of the Beretta type, but I cannot tell. It definetly does not look like a glock which usually have a square slide.

When he holsters the weapon his thumb appears to come up to hit a decocker, which on a Beretta is on the back of the slide and ambidextrous.

I don't know if its standard protocol to have the hammer in ready position, most pistols are double action. However it does appear that he is placing the gun on safe when he holsters the weapon, he is defiantly doing something.

In this case I don't think he needed to draw his weapon. Some will say that's protocol; I say if the perpetrator was not armed then there was no need to present a weapon. In my mind the situation did not scale on the force continuum to have need for a weapon. Maybe soft physical force; the officer jumped straight to lethal force.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_force_continuum

In reply to this comment by schmawy:
Heh, thanks Nordy. You seem to know a lot about handgun training, so if I may ask a question? Does he appear to take the safety off with his left hand immediately after drawing the weapon? Is that procedure, or is the decision to saftey off a separate event?

In reply to this comment by NordlichReiter:
>> ^schmawy:

Nope. It's not changing.


TELL EM SERIOUS CAT!
GET 'EM!

>> ^marinara:

I have a video that proves that the consipiracy to promote racism by disguising it as ordinary politics extends to the left as well. I present the racist miners in their racist union:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jq6zYh_wDUk&playnext_
from=TL&videos=1BrOTfLk89E


It seems you've had to go pretty far in your search for false equivalence. First, you had to leave America, and go to Canada. Second, you had to say that "the left" means unions and not political parties. Then you had to say that nationalism is racism. You also need to equate things like defiantly saying "This is a Canadian community" with stuff teabaggers say.

Even if I grant you all of the above, your real problem is that you're getting the causation backwards. In the Sudbury situation, the schism starts as a substantive ideological debate (management vs. labor), but since the ideological divide perfectly coincides with a cultural difference, some xenophobia creeps into the debate.

My argument is that with the American right, you start with the xenophobia, and have the party expressly craft their message to encourage xenophobes to adopt a political ideology because it will serve their xenophobic goals.

For that to apply to the Canadian situation, you'd need to tell me that Sudbury was already rife with anti-Brazilian sentiment, and never thought of having a union until some left-wing party came in and told them the only way to keep the Brazilians out is to scare them away by unionizing and putting in place a strong safety and environmental regulation regime. Or by trying to pool their money, buy the mine themselves, and run it as an egalitarian collective.

Not sure if I'd include this in the spacy or mystery channels, but defiantly in the *art channel.

Defiantly god dam homosexuals!!


lol So stupid , the guys counter argument at the end , totaly oblivouse.

also the the fact that juses was likely a batty boy , hangs around with loads of guys , preaches love.

lol and whats lol is there is little evidence that 1 specific juses existed.