@newtboy,
"Actually, I'm selling their audience short. When real scientists present the real data dispassionately, I think the average person gets quickly confused and tunes out."

I'd argue bored maybe more often than confused. Although if we want to say that most of the problems society faces have their root causes in human nature, I think we can agree.

"I had read the published summaries of the recent U.N. report saying we had 12 years to be carbon neutral to stay below 1.5degree rise, they were far from clear that this was only a 50% chance of achieving that minimal temperature rise"

Here is where I see healthy skepticism distinguishing itself from covering eyes, ears and yelling not listening.

Our understanding of the global climate system is NOT sufficient to make that kind of high confidence claim about specific future outcomes. As you read past the head line and into the supporting papers you find that is the truth underneath. The final summary line you are citing sits atop multiple layers of assumptions and unspecified uncertainties that culminate in a very ephemeral 50% likelyhood disclaimer. It is stating that if all of the cumulative errors and unknowns all more or less don't matter. then we have models that suggest this liklyhood of an outcome...

This however sits atop the following challenges that scientists from different fields and specialities are focusing on improving.
1.Direct measurements of the global energy imbalance and corroboration with Ocean heat content. Currently, the uncertainties in our direct measurements are greater than the actual energy imbalance caused by the CO2 we've emitted. The CERES team measuring this has this plain as day in all their results.
2.Climate models can't get global energy to balance because the unknown or poorly modeled processes in them have a greater impact on the energy imbalance than human CO2. We literally hand tune the poorly known factors to just balance out the energy correctly, regardless of whether that models the given process better or not because the greater run of the model is worthless without a decent energy imbalance. This sits atop the unknowns regarding the actual measured imbalance to hope to simulate. 100% of the modelling teams that discuss their tuning processes again all agree on this.
3. Meta-analysis like you cited usually sit atop both the above, and attempt to rely on the models to get a given 2100 temperature profile, and then make their predictions off of that.

The theme here, is cumulative error and an underlying assumption of 'all other things being equal' for all the cumulative unknowns and errors. You can NOT just come in from all of that, present the absolute worst possible case scenario you can squeeze into and then declare that as the gold standard scientific results which must dictate policy...

Edit:that's very nearly the definition of cherry picking the results you want.

Hmm. I think Trump's healthcare and economic policies have consequences in human lives. War is not the only injustice.

Idk. Context is important, but then... life is meaningless and ephemeral - soon there will be nothing. It seems there is always a bigger picture to reach for to diminish somebody's argument.

I don't disagree with what Bush said about the state of politics now. If it was an anonymous comment I'd still agree with it, but it would less interesting. Perhaps it is fair to "whataboutbush" because so much emphasis was on the "who" of the comment rather than the "what". I think to the left we hope our acceptance of his comment is evidence to our impartiality. "look", we say, "we even agree with BUSH on this! Objectivity!". It seems to me to entirely be a concession to the opposition...but I can understand those who cannot abide any concession.

City's breaking down on a camel's back
They just have to go 'cause they don't know whack
So all you fill the streets it's appealing to see
You won't get out the county, 'cause you're bad and free
You've got a new horizon It's ephemeral style
A melancholy town where we never smile
And all I want to hear is the message beep
My dreams, they've got to kiss, because I don't get sleep, no

Windmill, Windmill for the land
Learn forever hand in hand
Take it all in on your stride
It is stinking, falling down
Love forever love is free
Let's turn forever you and me
Windmill, windmill for the land
Is everybody in?

Laughing gas these hazmats, fast cats
Lining them up-a like ass cracks
Ladies, homies, at the track
It's my chocolate attack
Shit, I'm stepping in the heart of this here
Care bear bumping in the heart of this here
Watch me as I gravitate, ha ha ha
Yo, we gonna go ghost town
This Motown, with yo sound
You're in the place
You gonna bite the dust
Can't fight with us
With yo sound, you kill the INC
So don't stop, get it, get it
Until you're cheddar header
Yo, watch the way I navigate, ha ha ha

Windmill, windmill for the land
Turn forever hand in hand
Take it all in on your stride
It is stinking, falling down
Love forever love is free
Let's turn forever you and me
Windmill, windmill for the land
Is everybody in?

I pity the person standing there too busy watching it through their phone in a desperate attempt to capture the ephemeral that they missed the experience entirely. Still, I suppose in the end I'm glad that they did, vertically or no, because holy shit I just thought hard about whales and the fact they are a thing, a massive, monstrous, totally awesome thing, that exists.

I have experienced enormous difficulties trying to keep people engaged.

It was particularly obvious to me when I returned from the 30C3 and talked to my friends about the most important shit I learned over the weekend. They are techies, the lot of 'em, and everyone is keenly aware of the Snowden revelations and their implications.

Yet after 6 months of this, the only ones still paying attention for more than 2 minutes at a time are the folks who don't blank out when I mention ephemeral elliptic curve Diffie–Hellman, aka wierd people.

In order to keep all my non-wierd friends, colleagues and acquaintances engaged, I started to discard any non-encrypted email sent to my private address as well as any calls to my cell without RedPhone after three months of warnings. People can still leave a message on my landline if they can't get their shit together.

But the point is: if even my friends (nearly all in IT) have a hard time dealing with the ongoing and ever more depressing revelations, how can I blame the family down the street for not being indignant about it...

Are you having hot flashes, as well? Cravings for pickles and ice cream? Feel like crying sometimes for no reason at all, or hearing voices in your Wheaties?

Just trying to figure you out. Lots of good and bad info flying around, accordingly spun by the provider's worldview. There exists a fundamental truth here, however, and although it's possible to miss it amongst the din of spin, your position seems to be as ephemeral as your cut&paste cache. The enemy of your enemy doesn't have to be your friend. This isn't just another bogus scandal. I wouldn't even classify it as a scandal. It's much bigger than that. Dystopian future, today. Pick a fucking side already.

Beware: fugly code incoming.

<object id="1139880740" width="500" height="395" classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000"><param value="true" name="allowfullscreen"/><param value="always" name="allowscriptaccess"/><param value="high" name="quality"/><param value="true" name="cachebusting"/><param value="#000000" name="bgcolor"/><param name="movie" value="http://www.archive.org/flow/flowplayer.commercial-3.2.1.swf" /><param value="config={'key':'#$aa4baff94a9bdcafce8','playlist':['format=Thumbnail?.jpg',{'autoPlay':false,'url':'troubleshooting_512kb.mp4'}],'clip':{'autoPl
ay':true,'baseUrl':'http://archive.org/download/HampshireLinuxUserGroupTroubleshootingTools/','scaling':'fit','provider':'h264streaming'},'canvas':{'b
ackgroundColor':'#000000','backgroundGradient':'none'},'plugins':{'controls':{'playlist':false,'fullscreen':true,'height':26,'backgroundColor':'#00000
0','autoHide':{'fullscreenOnly':true}},'h264streaming':{'url':'http://www.archive.org/flow/flowplayer.pseudostreaming-3.2.1.swf'}},'contextMenu':[{},'
-','Flowplayer v3.2.1']}" name="flashvars"/><embed wmode="transparent" allowscriptaccess="always" src="http://www.archive.org/flow/flowplayer.commercial-3.2.1.swf" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="500" height="395" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" cachebusting="true" bgcolor="#000000" quality="high" flashvars="config={'key':'#$aa4baff94a9bdcafce8','playlist':['format=Thumbnail?.jpg',{'autoPlay':false,'url':'troubleshooting_512kb.mp4'}],'clip':{'au
toPlay':true,'baseUrl':'http://archive.org/download/HampshireLinuxUserGroupTroubleshootingTools/','scaling':'fit','provider':'h264streaming'},'canvas'
:{'backgroundColor':'#000000','backgroundGradient':'none'},'plugins':{'controls':{'playlist':false,'fullscreen':true,'height':26,'backgroundColor':'#0
00000','autoHide':{'fullscreenOnly':true}},'h264streaming':{'url':'http://www.archive.org/flow/flowplayer.pseudostreaming-3.2.1.swf'}},'contextMenu':[
{},'-','Flowplayer v3.2.1']}"></embed><param name="wmode" value="transparent"/><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"/></object>


That's the result of 30 minutes of experiments, but it seems to work. Makeshift code at its best.

I picked this video at random. For any other clip, you'd have to replace the parts I marked in bold. The actual video file is linked twice (troubleshooting_512kb.mp4) and so is the respective folder (http://archive.org/download/HampshireLinuxUserGroupTroubleshootingTools/). Those are the only four entries that need to be changed, as far as I can see.

So, who volunteers to give it a shot?

Edit: bugger, forgot to replace those pesky code characters.

Edit #2: Argh, I hate that bloody code. Now I removed the html tags.

Edit #3: Apparently, those bold tags are not welcome this time around. They make copy-paste much more difficult, so I left them out.
>> ^chingalera:

Oh hey Rommel...I would really love to be able to embed videos from webarchive.org (the wayback machine)
There are hundreds of great public domain and art, ephemeral videos there. They have never worked in the past and i suspect there's simple tweaking to code involved.....have tried and failed-

>> ^chingalera:

Oh hey Rommel...I would really love to be able to embed videos from webarchive.org (the wayback machine)
There are hundreds of great public domain and art, ephemeral videos there. They have never worked in the past and i suspect there's simple tweaking to code involved.....have tried and failed-


@dag and @lucky760 should add this host for future versions.

Oh hey Rommel...I would really love to be able to embed videos from webarchive.org (the wayback machine)
There are hundreds of great public domain and art, ephemeral videos there. They have never worked in the past and i suspect there's simple tweaking to code involved.....have tried and failed-

Take any one statement of Bill O'Reilly here (for example, "You can't be on top as long as the Fox News Channel has been on top, 'annnsell'-(slurred, cocktails @ 2pm) and sell a product that's inferior or dishonest, it's impossible in this country.")

What the fuck does that actually mean? Nothing. Anyone that has an I.Q. of 90 should see his blathering for absolute shit.
NOw...

Compare that statement to any statement taken out of context during a speech by either party's candidate to the presidency and you will hear he same rhetorical bullshit regarding fuck-all and who cares. FOR EXAMPLE:

"Are we going to make it easier for you to afford your degree and pay off your student loan debt? (Applause.) Are we going to build more good schools and hire more good teachers, so that our kids are prepared to attend colleges like Iowa State, and prepared for the 21st century workforce? (Applause.)"....to robots at Iowa State University,Barack Obama - August 28, 2012.

Meaningless phrases strewn together cliche', with positive verbal gestures and cued pauses inducing applause as to be rendered ephemeral as soon as they are uttered.
Now kids-Go back to your dorm rooms, remember to vote on Nov. 2nd for the Not-Mormon, and play some more Mario Cart for quarters.

All news channels in the UK and the U.S. are total, and complete, sheit....great for infotainment and a sort of barometer of our progress towards idiocracy.

@shinyblurry

What spirit do you believe in if you don't believe in anything supernatural?

These don't form my "faith", per se, but my best educated guesses or hunches at the moment. I rarely verbalize my beliefs on these matters, so it probably won't come out too coherently, but heregoes:

All the experiences that humans have are part of the natural condition of being human, and are ultimately caused by something in nature and in our natures, not by anything supernatural. I don't believe there are any higher powers necessarily, though our knowledge of what happened more than 14 billion years ago is nil, and there is so much yet undiscovered, so really, anything could be there. I don't think we had a conscious creator. I don't believe there are any superior entities that interfere with the universe at all, and none have a personal interest in us.

Any spirituality I have, therefore, stems from experiences as a human only. I believe conditions like nirvana probably exist and are achievable with great concentration and effort. I believe that faith in something helps it become real, and lack of faith hinders it. This includes health and psychological matters, as well as attracting success or failure in your endeavours.

I think that humans probably don't actually have free will, but considering how complex a question that is (the sum of all laws that govern everything in the universe), it's better for me to interact with the world as if we do. I believe that the the closest thing a person has to a "calling" or a "true path" is to be true to themselves, find their own person, and let it express itself perfectly in the world. This can be done by achieving mental calmness and following your heart and what feels right [edited]. In a state of mental calmness, your heart will never misguide you. There is no single correct expression of a person, just as there is no single correct "good" thing to do at every given moment. It can be suppressed by the self or others, and this suppression always causes unhappiness, which causes people to do bad things to others and themselves. True happiness and fulfilment can only come from feeling free to express who you really are. That to me is the human spirit.

Words do have meaning, and I would suggest, considering the content of our previous conversations, that your conclusion is based on the many misconceptions and misunderstandings you have about scripture.

You're quoting the Bible at me as if I already accept that it's true. I don't. If I were to interpret that passage's spirit into my spiritual framework, it would say that humans usually cannot have numinous experiences unless they are very much in tune with their true selves, and let that spirit flow through them and guide their actions, and leave the ego out.

I will also note that these objections are always concerning the Old Testament, a lot of which applied only to Israel and not to Christianity.

I'm not talking about the laws. I now understand that they no longer apply. I'm talking about the historical account of events. I don't understand how the OT could have been accurate and the word of God before Jesus, but then suddenly ceased to be after. Either a book is God's word and it's true, or it's not. And a god's word should not be something ephemeral. Its truth value cannot change ever. So, either God did all those horrible things in the OT that are ascribed to him, or he didn't. If he didn't, then the OT is wrong.

Instead of considering the words of Jesus on their own merit, skeptics try to do an end run around Him and undermine the OT so they can dismiss Him entirely. [edit: didn't insert this quote in the first draft]

I don't know everything that Jesus preached, but I consider him to be probably the best moral philosopher I've ever heard of, at least in broad strokes.

Actually, statistically, it would be the people who are unaware that there is a supernatural reality who would be considered defective.

Statistics don't determine fact. I thought you told me you were a scientist before your conversion.

There is no evidence that your scenerio is true, it is actually only your confirmation bias at work; you had an issue where you believed something was going on which wasn't true, and then you unjustifiably extrapolated that to everyone elses spiritual experience. That just doesn't follow.

Are you going "lalala" with your hands over your ears? That's not what I said at all. Fact: there are lots of people besides me and you around the world who have transcendental experiences. Fact: they often identify the entity in their experience as a divinity from a particular religion. Fact: they are just as fervent about what they believe as you are about what you believe. If you agree that those are facts, then I don't see how you can tell me that your interpretation of your experience must be the correct one and all those other people's are false ones. Logically, this is strong evidence that your interpretation is not necessarily accurate, and may in fact represent something in the human condition caused naturally.

What I know and you don't know is that most everyone who claims to be speaking to a real entity actually is speaking to one.

How could you know this? Are you in their minds? Did God give you some statistical data?

There are superior beings, fallen angels, whose only purpose is to convince people, usually with supernatural signs and evidence, that anything but Jesus Christ is the truth. They have invented uncounted false religions, cults, spiritual systems, philosophies, etc, to blind human beings to the light of Christ. The people who believe in them are not just deluded, they are deceived.

How can you say that your revelation is the truth, and that all these other people's revelations are false? They would tell me with equal fervency that theirs is real and all the others are false. Saying yours is necessarily right is illogical. I mean, what separates you from these other people that got fooled by what you think are false visions? How do you know you haven't been fooled too? I mean, if they can get fooled, why can't you? Are you smarter? Stronger? What?

Is it possible we're all plugged into the matrix? Sure. Is it possible the Universe started five seconds ago and all of our memories are false? Sure.

We agreed back at Qualiasoup vs. Craig not to introduce solipsistic arguments.

I presuppose that God created reality, and that it is not inherently deceptive; that we can know what the truth is. I believe my presupposition is well justified by a preponderance of evidence, not the least of which is my personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

Do you have other evidence besides your relationship with Jesus? What is it?

Now I'm paraphrasing the Imam: "I presuppose that Allah created reality, and that it is not inherently deceptive; that we can know what the truth is. I believe my presupposition is well justified by a preponderance of evidence, not the least of which is my personal relationship with Allah through the teachings of his prophet Mohammed (PBUH)."

What's the difference between the two of you? How can you say you're right and he's wrong?

Now me: "I presuppose that reality is not inherently deceptive; that we can know what the truth is. My presupposition is not justified in any way. It just makes my experience of life more meaningful."

Just because one clip focuses on it doesn't mean that the entire movement is fixated on one stat.

All I ever see from the liberal left's ProgLibDytes are clips that focus on the 'wealth disparity' between the rich and poor. I've never seen the ProgLibDyte clip that focuses on something like median income. That's because focusing on median income tells a completely opposing story. The point is that ProgLibDytes and and left as a whole focus only on a narrow band of stats that drives thier agenda-based narrative. They ignore huge vistas of other facts, studies, research, thought, and evidence because it cuts the legs out from under thier world view and makes them look like idiots.

Barak Obama himself is a CLASSIC example of this narrow-minded kind of agenda-driven cherry-picking of reality. Every time that specimen opens his mouth it is to say, "The experts I have spoken to agree with me..." And what about the bazillions of experts he DIDN'T speak to which all disagree with him, or contradict him? Of course is his empty noggin such people don't exist - or don't matter. The same issue plagues neolib leftists across whole spectrums. Global Warming, Abortion, Economics - you name it - the left picks a tiny slice of carefully selected grain of sand to tell a story, and ignores whole beaches of sand that says the opposite.

Not that the right doesn't suffer from the same problem. It is not an issue limited to only the left. However, the left is more aggressively self-important, pious, and arrogant about their narrative - and far more inclined to try to base bad legislation on it.

How is raising the marginal tax rate on the super rich a few percentage points "communist" or even "socialist" on an objective scale?

The US tax rate (both corporate and private) is already one of the highest in the world. I counter your question with another. "What good is raising the marginal tax rate on the super rich a few percentage points going to do?" You could confiscate every penny the top 10% of America has and it would not get America's government out of the red even for one year - let alone for the 15 trillion we have in debts - and the SIXTY-FOUR TRILLION we have in 'unfunded liabilities' such as Social Security. There isn't enough money in the entire economy to pay for all the spending the government is doing and/or proposing with its leftist big-government agendas. The economic problem is one of spending - not taxation.

But you're pretending that the income gap between super rich and poor is static, which misses the entire point. It's not static. It fluctuates.

Irrelevant. The gap between the top 1% and the bottom 5% means nothing. It is immaterial statisitically speaking. If I earn a million a year compared to a guy that earns 30K then he makes 3% of what I do. A year later I am earning 1,050,000 a year and he is earning 28K for a new adjusted difference of 2.66% of what I earn. Head for the hills, Ma Barker! Since when is this -0.34% shift of any value. Or let's go the other way and now I'm only earning 950,000 and he's earning 32,000 for a 3.25% How is that helping either the rich guy OR the poor guy? Or let's take the real world situation that Barak Obama brought us and BOTH of them go down while the government's income skyrockets. Wow - that's really benefiting society isn't it?

The wealth gap is utterly irrelevant - static or dynamic. And for the record - I never assume ANY economic stat is static except for one. Government growth. Government baseline budgeting has created an untenable economic drag on the nation because it continues to grow at 8% to 10% Year over Year no matter what the economy is doing. That's the only static economic stat out there - and it is not a good one.

(BTW, what a good person you are to say whose jobs are of value and whose aren't!)

Right back at you Clyde. Who are you to decide what an inside-trader's job should or shouldn't be worth? The IT generates real profit for his company, and they compensate him to keep him doing it. Who are you - or Cunk - or any other ProgLibDyte to come along with the cheek to say they don't deserve it?

I'm advocating the gov't make it moderately more equal by raising the rich's taxes, and ease up on the poor and middle class.

The mistake you and the left make is that for some reason you think that 'taxes' make things 'more equal'. They don't except in one way... Taxes make everyone equally miserable. Money goes into government and dissappears. Taxing the rich doesn't make things better for the poor or the middle class. It only gives government more power - which is the last thing our bloated federal system needs right now. The poor pay virtually no income taxes - so it is quite impossible to 'ease up' on them except at the state & sales tax level. The middle class? Hey - anything helps but in the average budget we're talking a few hundred bucks a year. I don't have a problem with the rich paying thier 'fair share' (as leftists so vaguely love to put it). But the rich already ARE paying thier fair share and then some. If they jacked 'the rich' tax rate up to 90% it wouldn't do jack-squat for 'the poor' or the middle class.

Tax capital gains like it's income, subject to the same brackets, etc.

America's captial gains taxes are already the #2 highest in the world. Gapital gains are treated differently for a reason. This is another thing that most leftists prove themselves woefully ignorant about whenever they talk about it. And again - even if we did that how exactly is that going to 'help' anyone? All that does is provide you lefties with an ephemeral, meaningless sense of shadenfruede which you can suckle on as you trudge back to your government-mandated hovels - properly pacified with the meaningless knowledge that a rich guy is getting taxed some more. That is until you realize he's still rich, you're still poor, and only the government got something out of the deal. How leftists can be so stupid on the subject of economics I will never know, but I can only tip my hat to the depths of human gullibility.

@Ryjkyj Wow, you and I must have wildly different definitions of masturbation, because this is nowhere near as much fun.

Ok, you call it stealing, but you've still decided that you'll be fine with it because he's rich. It's a weird way to work, I would have thought it was better to pay based on weather you think the work merits the money, regardless of how rich you think he is, or how much money some movie studio has. Your supporting of whatever material, no matter how rich the person/entity that creates it is only going to encourage more of what you like. Without that, where's the incentive for them to do more? I get it, you're working on the "well, there's enough people who are paying for X now, so it won't matter if I don't". I get that argument. But again, it doesn't really hold up. It's why I'm bummed about my conundrum about supporting Fringe (and other tv shows) in a way that doesn't involve having to fill my dvd cabinet with box sets of shows I'll never watch again. (And I just checked, and it's ridiculous hard to actually watch it on free to air OR pay tv in Australia, it's jumped around, been postponed, delayed, moved... possibly not run at all any more... urgh... it's impossible to actually watch tv down here)

And I love that you think that you'd still be all chummy with Louis if you told him that you downloaded it without paying. I'm pretty sure he wouldn't be ok with it. He'd be "It's $5 fucking bucks man, how could you not pay $5? I made it cheap and stupidly easy for you to buy it... and yet you STILL took it without paying. Man that's low." Then you'd retort with something about having no free money, but if it came out as an expensive Criterion edition DVD then you would buy it... which makes no sense, because that then suggests you do have money but you just didn't want to spend it on his movie download.

Hey, I don't much like paying for download things myself. I hate the ephemeral nature of them. I still buy CDs damnit. Sure I then instantly rip them and listen to them that way, but I like having the physical thing there to show I bought it, and as a backup of my digital copy. Which is why I was pretty happy to get an email from Louis today saying that he put up a DVD cover to print out so that my DVD burn version of his show can look all respectable like... I like that and probably will now burn a copy to DVD and put it in my shelved collection

You justify your downloading your way, I do it mine. Let's leave it at that

The only thing you proved is there are idiots in every crowd.

This is certainly true. I in no way mean to imply that the offenses were representative of "all OWS participants". Obviously not all OWS people are doing these kinds of things. But there is enough of it going on though that it is becoming a serious issue with how the public views OWS as a whole.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204479504576637082965745362.html

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/angry_manhattan_residents_lambast_RjpTU0jG2z9yrgf5o4bRcO#ixzz1bPHgxmGZ

Manhattan residents are sick of them. The data shows that the OWS is vastly different in ideological and demographic makeup than average voters. This is very different from the Tea Party, which solidly reflects actual American voters...

http://www.gallup.com/poll/127181/Tea-Partiers-Fairly-Mainstream-Demographics.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=syndication&utm_cont
ent=morelink&utm_term=Politics

Really - when an 'average person' encounters the OWS movement, it is like walking into the Star Wars Cantina. We hike up an eyebrow and think, "Who the heck are THESE guys?" The average American has a family, a job, and social obligations. He doesn't want to ditch all that to go camp out in a filthy tent-city with a bunch of noisy, disaffected college kids. The average American has a 401K, investments, and other property. They don't want to blow up Wall Street. They just want Wall Street to no longer be the beneficiary of government favoritism - which is a GOVERNMENT problem, not a Wall Street problem. The average person has far more in common with the Tea Party than with OWS.

OWS doesn't want a specific message because that means they'd have to defend a position. When anyone comes at them and tries to have an actual discussion, they dive back into the tall grass of being a 'vague movement' with nothing but vagueries and sloganeering. The average american demands better than that. OWS is never going to be anything but a fringe group unless they can come up with a specific message.

Now, this vid bozo seems quite proud of the fact that they have no real message beyond "we are the 99%" and "we don't like Wall Street!" Well, that's fine. Most Americans are 'mad' at Wall Street if you only keep the topic vague, undefined, and ephemeral. The problem is that OWS is using that vague, ephemeral, nebulous "we're mad at Wall Street" message and saying that it means "most of America" agrees with the OWS movement. That is blatantly false, because while both OWS and 'average americans' can both agree on that generalization, they are as different as night and day when you actually get down to any specifics.

And that really is the problem for OWS. When the rubber meets the road and these yahoos try to actually build a REAL movement (as opposed to just a tent city of malcontents) then the effort falls apart because you can't build a large movement without a specific message. And the INSTANT that any of the OWS movement ever coughs up any specifics on what they want, then they drive away average folks like me like they were plutonium.

I'm kind of sick of these /b/-reddit-youtube bullshit ephemeral internet colloquialisms, to tell you the truth. It makes us look like a bunch of idiots. However, I think the idea of a "win" channel is a good one. And *success sounds too "Borat-y"