@shinyblurry

I've started answering you, and it's turning into another meaty essay, which may come in the next few days. I can summarize it that I 98% accept the first two paragraphs of your description of the implications of accepting meaninglessness as fact, almost as words from my own mouth.

I didn't explain what I meant by "bliss" well enough earlier, and that's what I'm hacking away at now.

I also realize I owe you a few replies from comment threads gone by a couple months ago when my life was busy. Haven't forgotten.

No, that was my own assessment of the movement, and it seems to have borne out. What is the OWS movement doing today beyond vandalism and petty thuggery?





Yes, there were some good points made, and a whole lot of bad ones as well. They spoke as one cacophony and it is that lack of coherency or cohesive strategy (as well as a terrible image problem) that ultimately led to their downfall. Even the founders of the movement agree:

"But even Adbusters, the 'culture-jamming' magazine that help spawn the original Wall Street occupation, says that things have changed dramatically for the movement. "Our movement is living through a painful rebirth..." began its frontpage essay this week, and then quoted a Zuccoti park regular who declared, "We are facing a nauseating poverty of ideas.”"

https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/06/07

From crowds of 15k to 75 people, it seems to be all over but the shouting

Occupy Wall Street: Dead in 213 Days

http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/10552

>> ^messenger:

>> ^shinyblurry:
...this is a movement without any cohesive message or objective..."
http://www.prosebeforehos.com/wordpress/wp
-content/uploads/2011/10/no-message-occupy-wall-street.png
http://c1planetsavecom.wpengine.netdna-cdn.
com/files/2011/11/ows-message-murdoch-e1322660861906.jpg
I know you're not a lib, but have you really swallowed that Fox media message?

>> ^kymbos:

An empire in decline, on an accelerating trajectory.


All the empire in decline talk seems a bit short sighted to me. How long have women had the right to vote? How long have blacks had equal rights? The last 100 years has seen an enormous upward trajectory to go with the downward stuff that's happening in recent memory. Things are still 'up' from the days of McCarthy and a commie behind every Bush.

All I was implying is that if the table was turned Bill Moyers would not have said a peep.

He was indicating that it was so unfair that Rommey was in much better financial shape than OBAMA due to super PACS. Everyone can see why this is occurring because OBAMA and the democrats have done such a terrible job.

I do agree that all PAC $ should be stopped. All companies, should not be allow to contribute no more that an individual should. I thinks that around $2500. to any person running for office.


I do understand you point. Both parties are as crooked as the day is long.

America needs a new national holiday called Shoot a crooked politician day.
After a few of these holidays this mess would straighten right up.


>> ^Truckchase:

>> ^bobknight33:
Your team will be back on top some day.

I fail to understand why folks like you continue to take an active part in dis-empowering yourself in the name of what you've been told is "freedom". Freedom to subject yourself to debt slavery while decisions are made by those you are indebted to is not freedom.
This isn't a game. These aren't teams. This is money taking away OUR democracy. Until you can understand that and contribute to the solution perhaps you should concentrate on watching sports and drinking beer.

>> ^bobknight33:

Your team will be back on top some day.


I fail to understand why folks like you continue to take an active part in dis-empowering yourself in the name of what you've been told is "freedom". Freedom to subject yourself to debt slavery while decisions are made by those you are indebted to is not freedom.

This isn't a game. These aren't teams. This is money taking away OUR democracy. Until you can understand that and contribute to the solution perhaps you should concentrate on watching sports and drinking beer.

Thank you!
In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
*quality

Thanks man!
In reply to this comment by enoch:
*promote

Bla Bla Bla

What did you say something?


>> ^enoch:

>> ^bobknight33:
They should have closed the libraries. Why should anyone be force to fund it or the arts or local ball park or football stadium. If people want it then form a group and fund it your self.

seriously bob?
well you go right ahead and keep that attitude.my boys and i will be by once a week for our 10% protection money.fire services are extra and dont even THINK about skimming off the top.
that will cost you a pinky finger.
an exercise performed in front of your family so they get the message as well.
whats that?
ooooooooh.you were just referring to the arts and sports!
you mean the facilities and activities that YOU are not interested or participate in!
taxing for police and fire are a social necessity but anything else is just frivolous nonsense.
i have to admit bob.
un-enlightened myopic self centeredness does not impress me.

>> ^bobknight33:

They should have closed the libraries. Why should anyone be force to fund it or the arts or local ball park or football stadium. If people want it then form a group and fund it your self.


seriously bob?
well you go right ahead and keep that attitude.my boys and i will be by once a week for our 10% protection money.fire services are extra and dont even THINK about skimming off the top.
that will cost you a pinky finger.
an exercise performed in front of your family so they get the message as well.

whats that?
ooooooooh.you were just referring to the arts and sports!
you mean the facilities and activities that YOU are not interested or participate in!
taxing for police and fire are a social necessity but anything else is just frivolous nonsense.

i have to admit bob.
un-enlightened myopic self centeredness does not impress me.

Generally, I try to be a photographer. I've been trying to do it for years, but it's hard to be an artist and the industry has been changing blah blah blah. I went to college for photography. I kinda hate chasing clients, and staff photographer positions are rare these days. I'd love to do photo-essay work like this, but it isn't the 1940's anymore and getting paid work from thriving magazines can be difficult.

Lately, for work, I've been teaching English as a second language. I just got back from spending a year in Quebec City. I am planning to move to China to teach at the end of the summer. I hope I still get to log in to the sift from there.

You can see my current portfolio here: http://mrrichey.500px.com/2012_portfolio/#/0

My old (needs updating) website is here: http://scottrichey.ca/

When I take a picture with my phone it usually ends up here: http://scottricheyphoto.tumblr.com/

I really love making beautiful images. Teaching can be fun too.

Great post idea @BoneRemake.

Peace.

Yes I found a reasonably clear explanation, and added it as a postscript to my earlier comment after you'd quoted it, but before I got the e-mail notification.
>> ^messenger:

[...]
If momentum = velocity mass, then doubling the velocity will double the momentum. Using the cradle, if you drop a ball from very very close to the first stationary ball, a single ball will move from the other side and move a very very short distance. If you then drop the ball from perpendicular, a single ball will move from the other side, and rise to (nearly) perpendicular. I have seen this much in my own observations. I don't think we need to do any calculations to understand that the impact velocity in the first essay is way less than half the impact velocity in the second essay (we don’t need exact numbers; we just need to know that the impact velocity is more than double). That means we have met your criteria for increasing the momentum to more than that of two balls at the first velocity, yet one ball still comes out.
A mental model to demonstrate my theory of “two particles in = two impacts = two particles out” is to imagine a bit of sponge between the last two balls in a Newton’s cradle. Pull the second ball out (which will push the first ball ahead of it) to a great enough height that the momentum of the outside ball’s impact is enough to completely squeeze the sponge and cause a second impact wave. The second ball would impact measurably later than the first, and before the ejected particle came back. Pretty clearly, two balls will emerge from the other side. This is what I think is happening on a micro scale when two independent balls are dropped together.

The cradle is better than the track because it allows for larger weights, where the track would require a denser material or hollow particles; but the track is easier for measuring incoming and outgoing force because on a steady grade, it’s simply a measure of distance, which is easy to capture roughly, even without a camera.

If momentum = velocity*mass, then doubling the velocity will double the momentum. Using the cradle, if you drop a ball from very very close to the first stationary ball, a single ball will move from the other side and move a very very short distance. If you then drop the ball from perpendicular, a single ball will move from the other side, and rise to (nearly) perpendicular. I have seen this much in my own observations. I don't think we need to do any calculations to understand that the impact velocity in the first essay is way less than half the impact velocity in the second essay (we don’t need exact numbers; we just need to know that the impact velocity is more than double). That means we have met your criteria for increasing the momentum to more than that of two balls at the first velocity, yet one ball still comes out.

A mental model to demonstrate my theory of “two particles in = two impacts = two particles out” is to imagine a bit of sponge between the last two balls in a Newton’s cradle. Pull the second ball out (which will push the first ball ahead of it) to a great enough height that the momentum of the outside ball’s impact is enough to completely squeeze the sponge and cause a second impact wave. The second ball would impact measurably later than the first, and before the ejected particle came back. Pretty clearly, two balls will emerge from the other side. This is what I think is happening on a micro scale when two independent balls are dropped together.>> ^oritteropo:

Thanks <img class="smiley" src="http://cdn.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/smile.gif">
I was actually going to suggest that the first part of the experiment should be fairly easy to replicate, with a track and marbles or ball bearings or similar. Unless you have a constant grade the velocity (and therefore momentum) calculations will be a bit tedious, and it occurs to me that angular momentum may have some effect too, so perhaps a video camera and some marks on the track (or sensors and a microcontroller) to directly measure the velocity just prior to impact would be easier. To confirm or disprove my assertion you want to keep increasing the momentum of impact until it's more than the momentum of a two balls, and see what happens.
There are videos of a Newton's cradle type setup only with different sized balls, I might go looking tonight.
>> ^messenger:
That shoulda been @oritteropo too.

George Orwell said this better back in 1946 in his essay "Politics and the English Language"

It's a little slow, but stay with it for an interesting first hand account of a visit to an oil refinery in India, and observations of the managers and workers there. Lee also visited a nearby the pier where massive container ships dock with a manager named Jitesh.




"A few moments pass as we all stood, just watching.

Out of the silence, Jitesh says to me “Do you see what we are doing here Mr. Lee?”

I asked “What’s that, Jitesh?”

He replied, with an unexpected, sobering tone: “We are destroying future generations for now, and forever.”






Full transcript of the uninterrupted essay is here:
http://www.vancouverobserver.com/blogs/earthmatters/2012/02/20/oil-executive-sons-testimony-prince-rupert-northern-gateway-pipeline

Hmm..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concision

No, I think in this case it may be just poorly said and without proper set-up.
I don't mind a long topic, just organize it better before you go on air.
The topics of conversation jump around quite a bit here.

It's like a well laid out essay vs. a poorly constructed layout.
I've been around professional voice presenters all my life from both Radio and News. The woman here sounds like she keeps trying to keep things on topic but the MAx keeps derailing the conversation, mostly due to his style - listen to this without watching it, he just sounds uncouth and possibly drunk (maybe not - but he sounds like he is).

That's just my opinion. I know many people like Max Keiser mainly because he makes some good points and cut through some of the Bullsh!t and knows what he is saying, but he is also hard to follow because he jumps around so much. This is fine for you and me but as a man in the profession of speaking, I think he can arrange his tops a bit better. If he can't, at least give him an assistant that can arrange his notes for him before going on air. ...Or is that what his co-host is trying to do??

Also, The topic here is "Woman Offers Favors for Chicken McNuggets" - I had to listen through 11 minutes and 45 seconds before getting to that story. I stand by my point
Edit: and that was just an into sentence to something else altogether - Me thinks the title was a ploy!

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^Sagemind:
Too long - make your point and move on...
Upvote made based on first 5 mins only

That's what's called "concision" and it's the reason why Noam Chomsky was never on Nightline.