>> ^ant:

Uh huh. I already got an answer on YouTube: "simple. redbox uses the same method as a vending machine. instead of getting candy however you get a dvd. each row has a number, you press a button on the outside which tells a computer inside the machine which row was selected and dispenses a dvd.

Except that doesn't explain how it knows where a returned movie goes.

To answer that, you've got to look in the center of the case, at the little knob the disc snaps onto.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7e/Redbox_Case.jpg

There you will see a small QR-style barcode. This is how the machine tracks its internal inventory. In fact, since it has to track this stuff anyway, I doubt it has designated slots for each movie; It probably just reads the codes and knows what is where.

>> ^mxxcon:

>> ^ant:
>> ^mxxcon:
>> ^ant:
I wonder how the machines know which movie it is?

An elf inside quickly looks in the envelope and programs the computer.

Prove it. I saw no elf in that video.

Who do you think was holding the camera?


Uh huh. I already got an answer on YouTube: "simple. redbox uses the same method as a vending machine. instead of getting candy however you get a dvd. each row has a number, you press a button on the outside which tells a computer inside the machine which row was selected and dispenses a dvd.
leprickon 9 hours ago"

Also, too late on your old "By now you should know that just like vampires, elfs never show up on film." comment since it was in my e-mail.

Dude, Denmark isn't the US. Your government provides many goods and services to your people that we must pay for out of our own pocket, most notably health care. Wealth in Denmark is also far more evenly distributed in the US because your economy is far more mixed/socialist than the US's is.

In the US, you have thousands of people who were upper-middle class, bought an upper class priced home, then lost their jobs, or had to take massive pay cuts just to stay employed. Many of these people already lost their houses.

Our economy would collapse if we put a min 37-40% flat tax on everyone. No prayer that it would work.

>> ^gwiz665:

I'm in the lowest bracket of tax in Denmark and I pay 37 %. It would be fine. The loop holes for the super rich should of course be removed completely too, then all in all more tax would be collected. 40 % was, I'll admit, a little high when you look at the current tax rates, but say 25-30 % for all then.
>> ^heropsycho:
You'd cause a new economic collapse as the middle class and poor, the majority of the market for goods and services, would have all dispensable income and more for the poorer vaporized overnight, causing a massive drop in demand, which would destroy the US economy.
>> ^gwiz665:
Flat tax. 40 % income tax for everyone. End just one of the wars you're all fighting, and you'll be out of the economic crisis in 5 years.

I'm in the lowest bracket of tax in Denmark and I pay 37 %. It would be fine. The loop holes for the super rich should of course be removed completely too, then all in all more tax would be collected. 40 % was, I'll admit, a little high when you look at the current tax rates, but say 25-30 % for all then.
>> ^heropsycho:

You'd cause a new economic collapse as the middle class and poor, the majority of the market for goods and services, would have all dispensable income and more for the poorer vaporized overnight, causing a massive drop in demand, which would destroy the US economy.
>> ^gwiz665:
Flat tax. 40 % income tax for everyone. End just one of the wars you're all fighting, and you'll be out of the economic crisis in 5 years.

You'd cause a new economic collapse as the middle class and poor, the majority of the market for goods and services, would have all dispensable income and more for the poorer vaporized overnight, causing a massive drop in demand, which would destroy the US economy.

>> ^gwiz665:

Flat tax. 40 % income tax for everyone. End just one of the wars you're all fighting, and you'll be out of the economic crisis in 5 years.

Any design changes to a pez container will benefit him, as they would most likely be easier to get out.>> ^zeoverlord:

1. that guy is still gonna buy and play the game, and so will you
2. i don't think he will be able to play it on his net book
3. he will probably also buy and sell items for real money
4. always on drm, he is not gonna notice it, like everybody else
5. in about a week he is gonna forget about it and rage about something else equally unimportant, like design changes to pez dispensers.

1. that guy is still gonna buy and play the game, and so will you
2. i don't think he will be able to play it on his net book
3. he will probably also buy and sell items for real money
4. always on drm, he is not gonna notice it, like everybody else
5. in about a week he is gonna forget about it and rage about something else equally unimportant, like design changes to pez dispensers.

A bacon icon.

It may not dispense actual bacon, but curls into a bacon smile.

>> ^marbles:

Social contract theories have no relevance to the philosophy of liberty. As I pointed out from the beginning, your references have no context. Liberty exists outside of any relationship to an external authority.

This is your premise, it is also your conclusion. You have failed to demonstrate it at all. You have not made an argument. You have simply made a flurry of self contradicting statements, and insisted that they are true, and that any counter argument is false by definition. Do you really expect anybody to take you seriously?

>> ^marbles:

I guess you’re right. Marxism is actually based on a small group’s right to the individual. Not even Marx was naïve enough to believe that a utopian classless society was achievable, let alone sustainable.


Marx advocated only the abolition of capital, not of workers rights to what they produce, he believed that capitalism had already destroyed that right:

>> ^Karl_Marx:

We Communists have been reproached with the desire of abolishing
the right of personally acquiring property as the fruit of a
man's own labour, which property is alleged to be the groundwork
of all personal freedom, activity and independence.

Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned property! Do you mean the
property of the petty artisan and of the small peasant, a form of
property that preceded the bourgeois form? There is no need to
abolish that; the development of industry has to a great extent
already destroyed it, and is still destroying it daily.


>> ^marbles:

the creation of value; the producing of articles having exchange value.
So where does production come from again?



To restate: where does the producing of articles having exchange value. come from

Lets see, how many ways can I interpret this?

1) Where do produced items come from : They are made of other things + energy, conservation of M/E
2) Where does the idea of production come from : The social contract of market societies
3) Where does the exchange value of objects come from : Somewhat arbitrary cultural valuation
4) ??? : what you secretly mean probably goes here, how about cluing us in?

>> ^marbles:

I did just clearly demonstrate it.

Where?

>> ^marbles:

Care to prove it false?

State your case and I'll give it a whirl.

>> ^marbles:
Sorry but self-ownership is a hyphenated word not found in the dictionary. The implications in of itself are clearly not literal: My self owns myself? So why exactly are you trying to make a literal argument?

Because the logical consistency of your ideology depends on the ability to bootstrap a property system with the ownership (as in what they word usually means) of self. Dispensing with that when it gets inconvenient makes the whole thing fall apart.

Without actual self ownership, you have no logically necessary ownership claim to the value produced by self, and so you can not build you system on property only. You must start adding more first principles in order to get there. If libertarians have been purposely obfuscating their ideology as you claim, then they have been hiding the weakness in their argument, and making a false case.

I take most libertarians at there word that they actually meant what they said. Your position now significantly diverges from that put forth in the video, and requires you to make a different argument to bootstrap your personal libertarian-derived view.

What new first principle are you introducing to bootstrap ownership from only figurative ownership of self?

>> ^marbles:

I’m sorry, was I supposed to give a damn about your hypothetical social contract?

You used its existence as an argument. You want to back peddle and say you didn't mean it? Then do so.

>> ^marbles:

I didn’t use your property arrangement for anything; I rejected your claims outright.

And then, as an example, argued that I was wrong because what I suggested would not work in my property arrangement, read the transcript.

>> ^marbles:

And yet you recognized property for Nomadic humans. Wonder what all those hunter-gatherers were doing? So does physical life also need a social contract to exist?

possession ≠ fee-simple

Possession is fact, who has current physical control of a thing is not an issue for philosophy, but only of physicality. If I hold a pen in my hand I possess it, irrespective of any ownership claims on the pen. To take the pen from me without my consent requires the initiation of actual physical force against me, based on the physics.

If you own the pen, I don't have to interact with you in any way to use it, or take it home with me. There is no way to know if you own the pen, or if anybody does.

There is no demonstrable physical consequence of fee-simple property, possession, on the other hand in a matter of facts. My acceptance of both the fact and historical relevance of possession, does not get you within miles of fee-simple.

@dgandhi

You seem to have a problem understanding how quotations work.

I’m still trying to figure out how something can be “ideology indistinguishable” from objectivism and also a Marxist axiom. Fascinating that it can capture the essence of two polar opposite philosophies. But nevertheless, it doesn’t matter--since it’s neither.

Re: "state of nature" is a well developed concept, that exactly matched the vids claim at 1:58, this is also quote for absurdity, not because it is a direct quote from the vid.

From the video: “Property is that part of Nature which you turn to valuable use.” That’s reality. It’s self-evident.

Re: The basis for property rights made is indistinguishable from Marx, until the twist of it never being possible, and therefor not a coherent basis, is thrown in at the end.

Citation please.

Re: You say this, but what do you mean?
I am alive, and I have the power to make choices and take actions, these are not rights they are facts.
Others have the power to act and make choices as well, this is simply a fact.

And others live in places that don’t share the same freedom you have. What’s your point? Did your choices and actions produce anything of value?

Re: The entire self ownership argument is based on the premise that self directing entities can be owned, and therefor you must own yourself to stop anybody else from owning you. If we dispense with the whole idea of owning (because it's silly) or even just with the idea of owning people, there is no need to own yourself. You, and everybody else can just be un-owned, and un-ownable (but not un-pwnable). There you go, one great (and contrived) moral quandary averted, you're welcome.

Thanks, you just ended slavery all over the world! It's amazing!

Re: Okay fine, I disregard your silly property claims, and I will make use of all the things you claim to own whenever I wish, since I am perfectly within my rights to not be constrained by your threat to initiate force when I use these things.

Think again.

Re: Of course, we both know that's not what you, or the author, meant. You both mean that I have an obligation to accept your property arguments, that I can think whatever I want as long as I obey. Sorry, again, that does not seem to fit the general accepted definition of the word liberty in English.

You don’t have to accept my property argument. And I don’t have to accept your nonsense that property isn’t property. But guess who wins—the one with the property. Don’t believe me: Go ahead and “make use of all the things” of your nearest neighbor. Take his car, his money, his clothes. Let me know how that works out.

>> ^marbles:

@dgandhi
Maybe I was unclear. Your incoherent use of quotations has little to no context regarding the video.


Okay, one at a time then(again):

"objectivism" is a ref to the content, It is in quote because Rand's name for her ideology is a troll, and should not be taken seriously, it is relevant to the vid in that the vid describes an ideology indistinguishable from Rand's.

marxist axiom "labor has the right to all it produces" is a ref to the bit that starts at 1:45, that claims legitimacy on the same grounds as Marx, except that the basis of the claim is false, because nothing in the modern world is not already owned.

Objects existing in a "state of nature" is a necessarily prerequisite for the ability to own your work, that exactly matched the vids claim at 1:58, this is also quote for absurdity, not because it is a direct quote from the vid.

>> ^marbles:
False, and false. Liberty was a philosophy long before Rand, Marx, or Engels.

This video was not made pre-Marx. The basis for property rights made is indistinguishable from Marx, until the twist of it never being possible, and therefor not a coherent basis, is thrown in at the end.

>> ^marbles:

Your 3 quotes have no reference in the video.

I am not quoting the video at this point, I am referencing the video, there is a difference. I am also using reasonably clear names for positions the video creator takes, not typing out a transcript.

>> ^marbles:
Life is not arbitrary. Property is the inherent, human-right of control over one's own labor and its fruits. Tangible items that we refer to as property are only representations of property.

You say this, but what do you mean?

I am alive, and I have the power to make choices and take actions, these are not rights they are facts.

Others have the power to act and make choices as well, this is simply a fact.

Sometimes people decide not to mess with each other, they form a society and grant each other contractual rights that serve their best interests as they understand them.

Fee simple property is one of these arrangements where a group of people agree to protect privileged access to some resource to particular people, this too is only a right by contract.

The Randian trick of trying to conflate the contract with the fact, and somehow make it universal and immutable, is cute in its naivete, but really has no basis in reality.

The entire self ownership argument is based on the premise that self directing entities can be owned, and therefor you must own yourself to stop anybody else from owning you. If we dispense with the whole idea of owning (because it's silly) or even just with the idea of owning people, there is no need to own yourself. You, and everybody else can just be un-owned, and un-ownable (but not un-pwnable). There you go, one great (and contrived) moral quandary averted, you're welcome.

>> ^marbles:
False. The quote from the video is “Having confidence in a free society is to focus on the process of discovery in the marketplace of values, rather than to focus on some imposed vision or goal”. The opposite suggests you give up your right to ANY opinion.


Okay fine, I disregard your silly property claims, and I will make use of all the things you claim to own whenever I wish, since I am perfectly within my rights to not be constrained by your threat to initiate force when I use these things.

Of course, we both know that's not what you, or the author, meant. You both mean that I have an obligation to accept your property arguments, that I can think whatever I want as long as I obey. Sorry, again, that does not seem to fit the general accepted definition of the word liberty in English.

in my eyes, one of the big differences between heterosexual couples who have kids and homosexual couples who adopt (or conceive through artificial insemination or other means) is that heterosexual couples are assholes who fuck without protection and spit out kids like a pez dispenser before they go score some more meth and start the process all over again.

and if you don't believe me, you should, because i got that from a study.

>> ^artician:

"Great Invention"? Yeah, because those motion-activated faucets that have taken over every bathroom in the world work SO well... </sarcasm>




First, shoot me for answering somebody who does sarcastic commments - but also who obviously does not do any cooking! These would not be for bathrooms, but for kitchens. I handle a lot of raw meat while making dinner, and you really don't want to touch anything until you have washed your hands. I can use my forearm to start the water flow, but it would be nice and easy to just wave my hand. And it is just not raw meats. My hands can be covered with oil, or something else sticky. You don't want to be touching anything before you get your hands clean (please also make touchless soap dispensers!)

Also, I am sure these cost and arm and a leg. So it is not very likely that I am going to get one in my KITCHEN any time soon. If you are so filthy that you'd want them in your bathroom also, you better get rich!

I can't imagine this being hygienic or mess-free. It's going to harbor so much filth, nobody will want to shop there. Ew. Imagine people's grubby hands all over the food.. Stupid kids sneezing on it and wiping their boogers on the dispensers. With no packaging to keep the germs out, they will just spread through the food and it will be risky to buy anything from there.

Save your worry for yourself, and anyone else who doesn't know the Lord. Satan has you. Socates was no different. By his own words he was demon possessed:

"There is something spiritual which, by a divine dispensation, has accompanied me from my childhood up. It is a voice that, when it occurs, always indicates to me a prohibition of something I may be about to do, but never urges me on to anything ; and if one of my friends consults me and the voice occurs, the same thing happens : it prohibits, and does not allow him to act. And I will produce witnesses to convince you of these facts."

Xenophon wrote of him:

"He offered sacrifices constantly, and made no secret of it, now in his home, now at the altars of the state temples, and he made use of divination with as little secrecy. Indeed it had become notorious that Socrates claimed to be guided by ‘the deity:’

Only, whereas most men say that the birds or the folk they meet dissuade or encourage them, Socrates said what he meant: for he said that the deity gave him a sign. Many of his companions were counselled by him to do this or not to do that in accordance with the warnings of the deity: and those who followed his advice prospered, and those who rejected it had cause for regret."

Satan is the ruler of this world and the elite people in this world got their power from him. They know where power comes from. That's why they all gather together every year at the bohemian grove to worship Molech (a demon God from antiquity) and offer sacrifices. Bill Clinton attends as well.

The wioked people who run this world know that Satan is the ruler, and so do we Christians. It's you secular humanists that are in the dark about reality. They've got you running around thinking you're so brilliant and superior, when in truth you are just like cattle being led to slaughter.

Research Bohemian Grove sometime and try to come up with a convincing lie as to why the worlds elite gather every year to worship Satan.

http://youtu.be/P_PAqT2JZOw


>> ^Gallowflak:
@<A rel="nofollow" class=profilelink title="member since January 21st, 2011" href="http://videosift.com/member/shinyblurry">shinyblurry, you're actually starting to worry me. Before, I just thought you were an over-earnest but obnoxious evangelical type who kept pounding away at the same nail to absolutely no effect, but if you're actually being serious about this, whatever intellectual credibility you may have had? Gone.
We are now deep within bat country. By Socrates' beard.