So here's my opinion.
I hate this.

Why you ask?
Because, while each producer has become the artist, none of them respect the music. I understand this is the assignment. But it's wholly representative of what's wrong with the music industry today.

Don't miss-understand me, I respect the artistry of the process they go through. They have all created a new personal piece. Respect for that part.

BUT, Music is more than re-sampling. The ORIGINAL artist matters. When I listen to music, I want to hear the artist who created the piece. I want to experience the sound of someone playing actual instruments. There is no replacement for the talent of a musician.

I would accept this IF the producer, actually crated their own samples first. This in affect is like a do-it-yourself paint-by-numbers kit.

I love the sounds, but I never want to hear music where it's so overly-produced that it erases or lays claim to a sound above the original musician's piece.

Where have all the musician's gone? - They all went digital! and the music died.

And honestly, you can search YouTube and Amazon and find the instructional videos and molds to do this yourself. Probably top out at about $20.

Yep...that seems like a bit of 'please don't throw me in that briar patch, Br'er Fox.' imo. If he could get banned for outrageously disgusting, intentionally provocative, unpatriotic, but technically allowed comments, it seems it would verify to him that liberals (which he believes we all are here) are all poised to censor and silence any voice that disagrees.
I prefer to allow the ugliness of the right to show itself publicly, hiding it does nothing to oppose it and only let's it fester, hidden safely in the dark.

It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle.
I prefer the former to the latter two options.

The problem is, much of that awful stuff contradicts the other awful stuff and none of it is consistent. If he genuinely believes it all, there's something seriously wrong. The only belief I can pin down is that belief is fluid and constantly changing, and anything goes if it supports the cause/talking points of the day.

When you grow up watching dad create the sport driving Grave Digger, then doing it yourself, you're kind of expected to advance the sport when you get your own truck....he doesn't disappoint.

You see the problem there, right?
You don't believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, so ask it to help you believe in it, even though you know it's not real (and is an insult to your intelligence and beliefs), just abandon reason and rationality until you believe (in something you know is false and harmful)....and forever after. Who's going to do that?
Edit: conversely, if God hasn't verified his word, why would you contradict him by trying to do it yourself? Don't you think he knows his own plan better than you?

No, it's kicking the key out of that lock some guy looking for money and control told you is a prison you are in that's inescapable unless you buy his key (and pay him for keeping that key for you). Rejecting religion means you reject the entire "lock/key/prison" concept.

Third choice, admit sin is a construct of humans to control others more easily and ignore it as the fraud it is.
Remember, bearing false witness is a sin (as is the pride you feel for sharing it), and just because you believe it doesn't make it less false. Better to keep quiet about stuff you can't prove, according to Christianity.

Edit: don't think I didn't notice that you didn't even attempt to answer either question.
How to reconcile the blatant self serving fact that religion requires you to believe that belief in it erases all sin besides disbelief, which must be a sin worse than murder, rape, torture, etc, and is the one sin that was not erased by Christ?

The difference between smoking and say, drinking alcohol or eating unhealthy food, is that I can drink alcohol or eat cheeseburgers all day and I'm really harming no-one but myself.

"Ah, but people drive drunk and get in fights and do stupid things and cause all sorts of trouble"
Agreed, and we have laws against all those things. If you get drunk and kill someone, off to jail with you.

"Yes, but fat people are an enormous cost on the health system"
This is hard to discuss without going into the whole healthcare mess in the US, but as a broad point, it's nigh impossible to legislate against unhealthy behaviours to ones self. Where do you stop? Eating meat? Salt? Not exercising enough? What about people with disabilities?

But smoking? That directly and provably harms OTHER people in the same environment as you and they really have no recourse. If I walked into a public square swinging a sword around, it's not reasonable to say other people should just get out of my way.

So ultimately, as much as I dislike government legislating what you do to yourself (read my post history, I'm very pro-drug), I am ok with legislating that you cannot do something that harms other people in a public place.

Hell, I'd go further. I'm ok with government legislating that you can't smoke in your own home if, for example, you have kids. They didn't ask to live there, and it was your decision to have them, so sorry, no smoking for you.

And yeah, I'd say the same about alcohol. If your drinking is harming your children, then maybe you shouldn't have kids anymore.

Many debtees will settle on a portion of your debt if they believe the rest is unlikely to be recoverable, which is functionally the same thing as buying your debt on a discount.

Individually negotiating with each of the debtors is generally more expensive for the debtees than simply selling off the debt in bulk to collection agencies, even if avoids the cut that these agencies take for their services.

There are debt remediation companies dedicated to this although these are generally unnecessary as you can just do it yourself and in countries like Australia (probably NZ too) there are free government advice services for this kind of thing.

Ok I'll try to divide up my wall text a bit better this time

I totally acknowledge that people in the past, and even in present day, some people have to live a certain way in order to survive, but for the vast majority of people that doesn't apply.


Taste:
Like most of the senses in the human body, the sense of taste is in a constant state re-calibration. It's highly subjective and easily influenced over mere seconds but also long periods of time. They say it takes 3 weeks to acclimatize from things you crave, from salt to heroin. That's why most healthy eating books tell you go to cold tofurkey (see what I did there ) for 3 weeks. It's all about the brain chemistry. After 3 straight weeks you aren't craving it. (The habit might still be there but, the chemically driven cravings are gone).
Try it yourself by eating an apple before and after some soft drink. First the apple will taste sweet, and after it will taste sour. Or try decreasing salt over a 3 week period, it'll taste bland at first, but if you go back after 3 weeks it'll be way too salty.



Food science:
One of the major things stopping me from not being vegan, was the health concerns, so I read a number of books about plant-based eating.
There is a new book "How Not To Die" by Dr. Michael Greger. If you want scientific proof of a plant based diet this the one stop shop. 500 pages explaining tens of thousands of studies, some going for decades and involving hundreds of thousands of people. I was blown away at the simple fact that so many studies get done. Most of them are interventional studies also, meaning they are able to show cause and effect (unlike observational or corrolational studies, as he explains in the book). 150 pages of this book alone are lists of references to studies. It's pure unbiased science. (It's not a vegan book either in case you are worried about him being biased).

At the risk of spoiling the book - whole foods like apples and broccoli doesn't give you cancer, in fact they go a long way to preventing it, some bean based foods are as effective as chemotherapy, and without the side effects. I thought it sounded it ridiculous, but the science is valid.
Of course you can visit his website he explains all new research almost daily at nutritionfacts.org in 1 or 2 minute videos.
He also has a checklist phone app called Dr.Greger's Daily Dozen.

There are other authors too, most of these ones have recipes too, such as Dr. John McDougall, Dr. Neal Barnard, Dr. Cadwell Esselstyn, Dr. Dean Ornish, Dr Joel Furhman.
Health-wise it's the best thing you can do for yourself. And if like me you thought eating healthy meant salads, you'd be as wrong as I was I haven't had a salad for years. My blood results and vitamin levels are exactly what the books said they would be.

Try it for 3 weeks, but make sure you do it the right way as explained in the books, and you'll be shouting from roof tops about what a change it's made to your life. The other thing is, you get to eat more, and the more you eat it's healthier. What a weird concept in a world where we are constantly being told to calorie count (it doesn't work btw).

Environmental:
I've read a lot about ethics, reason and evidence based thinking, as well as nutrition and health (as a result of my own skepticism). So I could and I enjoy talking about these all day long. On the environmental side of things, I'm not as aware, but there some documentaries such as Earthlings and Cowspiracy which paint a pretty clear picture.
Anyone can do the maths even at a rough level - there are 56 billion animals bred and slaughtered each year. Feeding 56 billion animals (many of which are bigger than people) takes a lot more food than a mere 7 billion. Therefore it must take more crops and land to feed them, not to mention the land the animals occupy themselves, as well as the land they destroy by dump their waste products (feces are toxic in those concentrations, where as plant waste, is just compost)
The other thing is that many of these crops are grown in countries where people are starving, using up the fertile land to feed our livestock instead of the people. How f'd up is that?
It's reasons like that why countries like the Netherlands are asking their people to not eat meat more than 3 meals a week.

Productivity and economics:
Countries like Finland have government assistance to switch farmers from dairy to berry. Because they got sick of being sick:
http://nutritionfacts.org/video/dietary-guidelines-from-dairies-to-berries/

The world won't go vegan overnight, and realistically it will never be 100% vegan (people still smoke after all). There will be more than enough time to transition. And surely you aren't suggesting that we should eat meat and dairy to keep someone employed? I don't want anyone to lose their job, but to do something pointlessly cruel just to keep a person working seems wrong.

Animal industries are also heavily subsidized in many countries, so if they were to stop being subsidized that's money freed up for other projects, such as the ones in Finland.

The last bit:
If you eat a plant based diet, just like the cow you'll never have constipation, thanks to all of the fibre
When it comes to enzymes, humans are lactose intolerant because after the age of 2 the enzyme lactase stops being made by the body (unless you keep drinking it). Humans also don't have another enzyme called uricase (true omnivores, and carnivores do), which is the enzyme used to break down the protein called uric acid. As you might know gout is caused by too much uric acid, forming crystals in your joints.
However humans have a multitude of enzymes for digesting carbohydrate rich foods (plants). And no carbs don't make fat despite what the fitness industry would have you believe (as the books above explain).
Appealing to history as well, when they found fossilized human feces, it contained so much fibre it was obvious that humans ate primarily a plant based diet. (Animal foods don't contain fibre).

The reasons why you wouldn't want a whale to eat krill for you is:
1. Food is a packaged deal - there is nothing harmful in something like a potato. But feed a lot of potatoes to a pig, and eat the pig, you're getting some of the nutrients of a potato, but also heaps of stuff you're body doesn't need from the pig, like cholesterol, saturated fat, sulfur and methionine containing amino acids etc And no fibre. (low fibre means constipation and higher rates of colon cancer).
2. Your body's health is also dependent on the bacteria living inside you. (fun fact, most the weight of your poop is bacteria!) The bacteria inside you needs certain types of food to live. If you eat meat, you're starving your micro-organisms, and the less good bacteria you have, the less they produce certain chemicals and nutrients , and you get a knock on effect. The fewer the good bacteria also makes room for bad bacteria which make chemicals you don't want.
Coincidentally, if you eat 3 potatoes for breakfast, lunch, and dinner, you have all the protein you need - it worked for Matt Damon on Mars right?

Today I found a "bespoke water" video, which came to mind after the recent "bespoke toilet paper" video. I decided to sift it, but I see that you beat me to it about 8 months ago (I'm usually late to the party):
http://videosift.com/video/Artisan-Water-The-Timmy-Brothers

However, I see that it never got enough votes to actually get sifted. I think given the success of the TP video, now might be the time to try again. I don't have privileges so I can't invoke * related to link the two (other one is at http://videosift.com/video/Rustic-Weave-Artisanal-Bespoke-Toilet-Paper), but I think I could * promote your video.

However, I think it would be better to just give you the power points to do that yourself (I have essentially no use for power points myself), IF you feel like it is a good idea. If you think that video had its shot and would rather not use them to promote it again, that is fine too -- in that case consider them a gift for you to use at your discretion since I thoroughly enjoyed the video.

So, have a couple power points and do whatever you like with them.

You're still missing my point.

No one NEEDS (your word) a church to "complete them". I'm not saying there are no positives to belonging to a church (sense of community, charitable works, etc), but those can all be found elsewhere.

This is demonstrably true and has nothing to do with being an atheist.

I really don't care if someone else is religious or not, as long as (as you say) they're a good person. Frequently, that's in spite of or even in direct contradiction to their churches teachings. And quite frankly, as you don't suck at your religion, I really don't care what you believe. Problem is, lots of people really do suck at it, as we were sadly reminded once again this weekend.

One more thing:
>> You don't like religion being all judgey? I recommend you stop doing it yourself, and let people be.

What gave you the idea I don't like judging other people? I judge people ALL THE TIME.

It's how I decide who I want to be friends with, who I want to employ, hell, even which pub I want to go to. If you don't judge, you don't think. I just don't judge people for things I don't have a problem with (gender, sexual orientation, race, etc). On the other hand, I ABSOLUTELY judge people if they are spiteful, petty or have terrible taste in music

No, I have zero problems with the church judging people for immoral acts. I just vastly disagree with them on what constitutes an immoral act (they generally seem to be pretty down on two people loving each other if they don't have the right set of genitals, I'm more opposed to child sexual abuse, for example).

So yeah, I judge.

I'm sitting here judging the hell out of those assholes in Paris for example. And there's "nothing wrong with that. Judging is human."

I think if someone is in a particular church -- or not -- or whatever they are personally drawn to -- IT IS NONE OF MY BUSINESS TO JUDGE THEM.

If they need it, they need it. Whatever happened to them in their childhood, or whenever -- the church -- whatever church -- or non-church -- fits them.

You are an atheist, right? I don't know if you grew up in a church or not. I don't know why it is so terribly important to you to be an atheist.

But it FITS you.

It is the height of judgmental righteous behavior to look at anyone else's choice and say it is wrong.

Am I a Mormon? No. I agree with you. How this church started is the height -- or the depth -- of religious absurdity. How anyone can choose this church as an adult? How can that be.

And yet. My brother -- who has a Master's Degree in Aerospace Engineering from USC, military pilot, history buff, wide stripe of artistic urges and talents -- this guy chose the church in his early 20's. For his own reasons. Because he needed it, coming from our family of origin.

To quote Jerry Maguire -- it completed him. And like love, it is illogical and not for anyone else to judge.

You don't like religion being all judgey? I recommend you stop doing it yourself, and let people be.

Now, the Mormon church getting involved in the laws of the land? I got a big beef with that.

But as for individuals, making individual choices, for individual reasons.... I gotta say I don't see much difference between your judginess and any Catholic priest laying down "God's law" about how people are "supposed to" believe and behave.

You see that, don't you? There is no difference between your judgement and any religious person's judgment?

That statement is really a reflection of your own cognitive dissonance.

Chomsky doesn't pontificate about right/wrong or problems.

He's describing the applied game theory present in society.

If you think that's 'bad', then that's your own personal judgment of the matter.

Like 'the prince', his message is a conveyance of the relationship between intelligent actors manipulating perceptions, and intelligent actors acting on perceptions.


Imagine a fish seller, with too many fish. The fish will go bad soon if he does not sell them quickly.
Should he :

A) Ask people to buy more fish, before they go bad, please.

B) Go speak with the distributor that's buying fish from the fisherman and get him to spread the rumor that there is an incoming fish shortage.

(A) may be honest, but (B) will sell faster and for higher prices.

The idea is not to get what you want the most direct way - the idea is to get what you want the most efficient way.
You can be direct about getting what you want, or you can give people information that makes them come to a conclusion for themselves that makes them do what you want.
More abstractly : If it takes less energy to 'persuade' than to 'do for yourself', then use information to 'get people to do for you'. Let others spend their time and resources for you, and save your own.


Politically, this means ruling not by telling citizens what you want, but ruling by nurturing an environment where the media provides information that makes citizens ask for what you want of their own volition.
Then you aren't telling citizens what to do, you're merely obliging their wishes. You not only avoid appearing overbearing (which is not sustainable on account of eventual public disdain) - you actually appear obliging (which is perpetually sustainable).


If you want examples in an a-political environment (if in fact the political backdrop is foiling your ability to take the message in an impartial manner), you should look at Boyd's OODA loop and the Conceptual Spiral.

Analysis, synthesis, etc, etc, etc.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_fjaqAiOmc&index=8&list=PLDB0DF43AA0B67552
http://www.iohai.com/iohai-resources/destruction-and-creation.html

Related matters :

Game theory (life/politics/economics is a game)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9Lo2fgxWHw
and
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Lro-unCodo

Persuasion (use tools [real or perceived] to apply influence)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFdCzN7RYbw

*keep in mind that "from the responder's perspective" there is no difference between you doing X, or the responder thinking you did X - because in both cases the responder is acting on his personal perception of what happened (be it real or not).

-scheherazade

Total misunderstanding....he planned on using it for a do it yourself circumcision, and was just checking it to be sure it fit in his pants.

The industrial age is part of 'economic liberty'.

People were free to make inventions that use coal, or use oil, and were free to market them either as products or services.

That differs from the earlier times/case where folks were obligated to participate only in activities sanctioned by their local lords. Often where they couldn't even travel freely.

Much of the math and chemistry we have comes from centuries worth of largely superfluous [essentially hobbyist at the time] higher education of the privileged classes. (eg. Boyle's/Charles' laws being a foundation of modern internal combustion engines, not used in said form for centuries after written down).

(Note : Which still continues to be the case, what we come up with in a purely theoretical form today, ends up being used in practical application much later. Although maybe it's speeding up. eg. Relativity is used in making GPS work, and that time delta isn't quote as large.)

Once the idea of economic liberty took hold, and people were free to come up with ideas that use the universes natural/physical properties to replace 'manpower', you had the industrial revolution.



The 'honor' part plays a good role too. You can witness this still being an issue today.
You can go to parts of eastern Europe, and talk with people about jobs and respectability.

There are plenty of places where a laborer is scum, and a businessman (eg. owner, who does not himself work, but has people working for him) is highly respected.
In these places, you don't see much work getting done, as a large portion of the typical western service sectors just doesn't exist.
For example, there are ~no house painters. Showing up with paint buckets and overalls would just get you strange stares and mumbles from people around you, and parents would be saying to their kids "See, this is what happens if you don't get good grades".
If you want your house painted, you gotta do it yourself. Few self respecting people are willing to do that job.
In contrast, ask people around the U.S. about who painted their house. Odds are, they hired for it.

The effects on small business are visible too. Lots of shops, the moment the owner can afford to not come in himself, that's exactly what they do.
And on top of that, they take every chance they can get to point out to folks that 'they don't work anymore - people work for them'.

It's a culture where the people responsible for productivity are looked down on, and it has a chilling effect on productivity.

-scheherazade

Lived in Ontario (28 years), Brisbane, Australia (5 years), Alberta (7 years), and now Texas (14 years).

Agree with pretty much with Boneremake on Alberta, gets more points than Ontario. My Australian experience was good, in both the city and rural (blew an eardrum due to infection in Longreach QLD at Xmas... the doctor was drunk when they wheeled him into emerg, but he was a gentle, caring drunk).

Small things in Ontario are manageable - anything requiring stuff beyond typical emergency room patching up in more rural locations (my definition - anywhere far enough from Toronto that you can't see the nighttime glow, so north of Newfenmarket sort of) is quite lacking (v. long wait times for things like weekly dialysis, MRI, even open MRI, GI tract scoping, ultrasounds, contrast X-rays etc). Parental unit #1 with diabetes requiring 3 times a week dialysis almost snuffed it as there were only 4 chairs in the unit 14 miles from home, got on the list and had to wait for someone to die before getting on the team. Finally snuffed it when they shut down these 4 chairs and the new unit was now a 90 mile round trip 3 times a week for man who could barely walk or see. Died from exhaustion, not diabetes. 2nd parental unit needs an MRI for some serious GI issues, can't keep food down, losing weight rapidly. Wait 4.5 months and we'll see if we can get you in. I'm having her measured for the box.

Having said that, the situation is easier to describe in Texas, the land of excess (excessive wealth and excessive poverty).

Good health insurance plan, preferably through employer with lots of employees = wait times for advanced procedures measured usually in minutes or hours, sometimes days, but not weeks or months. You get taken care of, and your birthing room at the local maternity ward looks like the Marriott (just Couryard though, so no mini-bar or microwave).

Mediocre or no health insurance plan = pray you never get sick enough to require more than what you can buy at the CVS or splint up by watching do-it-yourself first aid videos on youtube, because an unplanned night in the hospital or a trip to emerg in the short bus with swirly lights followed by admission can, for many, wipe them out or sure eat up Bobby's college fund. No exaggeration. I have insurance, but for a reference point, one night in hospital (elective) for a turbinectomy (google it people) including jello and ice cream came in at $14,635. Yes, one night. 24 hours. Do the math. An emergency room visit for a forearm cut requiring 13 stitches (and I didn't even bleed on their white sheets - just cut through the skin to the fat tissue) was billed at $2,300 bucks. Our new baby tried to exit the meatbag as a footling breach, so emergency C-sectioned him out, and one extra night in hospital (2 in total) - all up, billed at just shy of $24K. We now have 3 full service hospitals within 5 miles of our house, and a full service children's hospital in the same radius. And they just started building another. Somebody's making money. If you don't have insurance, or your insurance is shitty (huge deductibles, huge copays) you will eat much of these types of costs. Rule: cheaper to die than get sick.

Ontario and AB might have longer wait times, but even an 83 year old woman in a rural Ontario village with no pension, insurance, income or large stacks of cash can (eventually) get the health care she needs without spending unjustifiable amounts of money. Happy birthday mom.

My 2¢