Five years and this is the first video you submitted? I'm not gonna vote for it because I think you need to feel the pain of having your vids rejected by the sift, its part of the experiance.

Good for Wikipedia and everyone else that is making a stand. Now if it would only do something. Hopefully, there are enough businesses involved that can feel direct impacts that it might make a difference. But, it has to happen quick.

Otherwise, people will get their little shock and surprise on the Internet when it passes and goes into affect. Then I can only hope that people really will begin to crack down and boycott the big boys in this pissing contest--hopefully that doesn't have to happen, because it'll take around five years just to get it overturned, if possible and if people even care.

@quantumushroom:

Obama does suck, and I don't have time to go through your bullshit point by point, but you could at least call him out on things that he has actually fucked up.

I need to address the gas price thing, though. You've mentioned this before. Gas was cheap when Obama entered office because the economy had just recently tanked. Oil/gas producers had not had time yet to cut their production to stabilize prices around where they wanted them. The price increased because the economy improved and production was cut.

Between $3 and $4/gallon is where the producers want the price to be, and that's where it's going to stay absent huge surges or dips in demand.

Go here, and look at the five year chart. http://gasbuddy.com/gb_retail_price_chart.aspx

Do you see that huge collapse of gas prices? That is the economy collapsing. And that's what you're comparing the present prices to.

I think they got close on 4/5 there.

\>> ^FishBulb:

IBM's predictions for innovation from five years ago:
We will be able to access healthcare remotely, from just about anywhere in the world.
Real-time speech translation—once a vision only in science fiction—will become the norm.
There will be a 3-D Internet.
Technologies the size of a few atoms will address areas of environmental importance.
Our mobile phones will start to read our minds.

IBM's predictions for innovation from five years ago:

*We will be able to access healthcare remotely, from just about anywhere in the world.
*Real-time speech translation—once a vision only in science fiction—will become the norm.
*There will be a 3-D Internet.
*Technologies the size of a few atoms will address areas of environmental importance.
*Our mobile phones will start to read our minds.

@kevingrr

Finally! Five years and you finally post... and immediately sift.

You know the sift well, don't you?

Welcome!

>> ^Spacedog79:

I seem to have been downvoted quite hard for that one, I guess people didn't get the point I was trying to make is where do you get that money for government spending? This is the fundamental problem with our current system, it can only come from the government borrowing, thereby ultimately increacing our debt and inevitably leading to bankruptcy. The idea that we can continue to grow ourselves out of this economic hole is ludicrous and has caused enough environmental and social destruction as it is.
The ONLY solution it for government to STOP borrowing and start issuing money in the public interest without debt. Usury as a means of financing a nation must be sent back to the history books where it belongs.
>> ^sigmel:
>> ^Spacedog79:
Was going so well till he hit #4, spend more before paying down the debt? Nice one genius, how do you spend more under the current system without the goverment borrowing it and creating even more debt than they borrowed. Epic Keynesian fail.
Who's paying this guy, and what interest do they have in the debt based money system?

The idea is that you spend money to create growth (like an investment). Say the government spends $50k to fund a project that will create jobs that result in $10k in taxes a year. In five years you break even, and after that you start making money (ie, a good investment).



To be fair, I wasn't one of the ones who downvoted; I was just trying to explain as I understood it. You get the money for government spending by creating more money. Our interest rates on our bonds are very low right now, so there is no immediate inflation concern. This would have the effect of devaluing our money, but that could help us in terms of making our exports more competitive. If you borrow to create growth, then you should be creating enough in order to cover the initial cost and interest in due time.

Considering that we have such high unemployment, then I feel that using growth to get us out of this is very valid. If unemployment were a lot lower, then obviously we wouldn't have much in the way of ability to grow. But considering we need employment and increased tax revenue, I think creating jobs would be a good move to solve both problems. I also think it is possible to do this in a way that isn't detrimental in an environmental or social way.

I seem to have been downvoted quite hard for that one, I guess people didn't get the point I was trying to make is where do you get that money for government spending? This is the fundamental problem with our current system, it can only come from the government borrowing, thereby ultimately increacing our debt and inevitably leading to bankruptcy. The idea that we can continue to grow ourselves out of this economic hole is ludicrous and has caused enough environmental and social destruction as it is.

The ONLY solution it for government to STOP borrowing and start issuing money in the public interest without debt. Usury as a means of financing a nation must be sent back to the history books where it belongs.

>> ^sigmel:

>> ^Spacedog79:
Was going so well till he hit #4, spend more before paying down the debt? Nice one genius, how do you spend more under the current system without the goverment borrowing it and creating even more debt than they borrowed. Epic Keynesian fail.
Who's paying this guy, and what interest do they have in the debt based money system?

The idea is that you spend money to create growth (like an investment). Say the government spends $50k to fund a project that will create jobs that result in $10k in taxes a year. In five years you break even, and after that you start making money (ie, a good investment).

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

What's the difference between feeding a baby a lemon vs. wasabi?

It's food. It's harmless. So calm down all you bleeding hearts. (¬_¬)


That is just ignorant. A babies digestive system is different than a five year olds, you do not feed babies spicy things like that, although its not like she piped in a tube full. I have a problem big time with putting that sort of burning sensation into an unwilling parties mouth, I do not know if it would do any out right damage to the baby but I equate it with pouring salt in a dogs eye so see the reaction.

>> ^Spacedog79:

Was going so well till he hit #4, spend more before paying down the debt? Nice one genius, how do you spend more under the current system without the goverment borrowing it and creating even more debt than they borrowed. Epic Keynesian fail.
Who's paying this guy, and what interest do they have in the debt based money system?


The idea is that you spend money to create growth (like an investment). Say the government spends $50k to fund a project that will create jobs that result in $10k in taxes a year. In five years you break even, and after that you start making money (ie, a good investment).

The cinema is so shit its not funny and if you are seeing more than 40 films a year you might as well get a HD projector and decent surround sound system it will be infinetly better than what a cinema can offer.

even though technically a cinema should be able to do things better they muck it up getting sound levels wrong , focus wrong , marks on scree, idiots in room with you WHY THE HELL WOULD YOU WANT TO WATCH A FILM IN A ROOM FILLED WITH PEOPLE you don't know !? , noisy food , uncomfortable seats , adverts before film , trailers that show whole fucking plot of future films , anti piracy bullshit messages , waiting in-line for a ticket , 60% of the seats in places that are a detremnt to the viewing angle and the sound.

for $3500 you can get a home system that avoids all the shit of the cinema and delivers things to a higher quality than what would happen on average when you see a film at the cinema.

Granted you might just "enjoy the cinima" for no real objective resoins purely its an engraind thing you have done from a young age and then regardless of all the shit you will probably enjoy it more than a home cinima , and there are definelty some cinimas around that actualy have a degree of charm and add something to the exsperance , but if you are talking about your average multiplex cinima when a new film is out or when its normaly operating the cinima is utter wank.

sorry if you read all that !



Cinimas drive me mental every now and again I fall for the trap and go along thinking oh hay this time it might be ok and every time there is always some shit.

If sum one said you can see a film for free at a cinama or pay £2 not to see it and you had to chose I would pay £2 not to see it.



>> ^budzos:

I came close to that pace in 2001 and 2002 and 2003, seeing 75+ movies theatrically in each of those years...
Drive is showing in the local VIP auditorium, which charges a premium for nicer seats (basically leather recliners) and reserved seating. You can also have a beer in the licensed lounge beforehand, and have drinks delivered to your seat, as it's age restricted to 19 years and up (the legal drinking age here). You can usually count on less miscreants being at those screenings than say the Friday midnight screening of Transformers 3 that I attended in a town that is, shall we say, closer to the airport. However, you still can't count on actual conscientious comportment. In fact I would say most of the most eggregious cases of talking or what I call cinema calisthenics have occured in VIP screenings. Not to mention the actual screen is garbage and I always forget to check but I'm pretty sure they leave the 3D lens on at all times.
I'll probably go see Drive tonight or tomorrow night, and keep my fingers crossed. Because I do really want to see it, and I haven't seen a movie for at least a month.
>> ^Sarzy:
>> ^budzos:
I know what you're saying but I honestly can't remember the last movie that was both really good and unspoiled by the audience and or exhibitors. My best movie-going experiences of the past five years can only be described as tolerable. The best ones were probably when I was going through an alcoholic phase in early 2008 and seeing lesser-grade movies while drunk and sneaking beer and cider in there with me (helps when it's winter).
I'm currently having the dilemma that I really want to see DRIVE, especailly after loving the shit out of VALHALLA RISING by the same director on blu-ray. But I know if I see the movie in theatres some jackass will be there on a first date, or with his little brother, or having some other reason for non-stop jabber.

As someone who sees something like a hundred movies theatrically per year, I definitely feel your pain. There's nothing worse than having your theatre-going experience ruined by some no-good douchebag who thinks it's okay to talk, or to text, or to generally be an asshole in the theatre. But it is possible to have a good movie-going experience. Sometimes it's even in your control -- one big tip is to be willing to move, which seems obvious but a lot of people aren't willing to do it, for whatever reason. Obviously this doesn't work when the movie is packed, but otherwise, even just moving a couple of rows away from a talking douchebag is generally far enough to be able to enjoy the movie again.
There's also some theatres that, for whatever reason, seem to attract a certain group of people. Figure out what these theatres are, and avoid them. Then of course, there are going to be times when you're going to have a bad experience no matter what. But, to me at least, the good experiences make up for the bad ones.
And see Drive. That is a seriously good movie -- probably one of my favourites of the year so far.

I came close to that pace in 2001 and 2002 and 2003, seeing 75+ movies theatrically in each of those years...

Drive is showing in the local VIP auditorium, which charges a premium for nicer seats (basically leather recliners) and reserved seating. You can also have a beer in the licensed lounge beforehand, and have drinks delivered to your seat, as it's age restricted to 19 years and up (the legal drinking age here). You can usually count on less miscreants being at those screenings than say the Friday midnight screening of Transformers 3 that I attended in a town that is, shall we say, closer to the airport. However, you still can't count on actual conscientious comportment. In fact I would say most of the most eggregious cases of talking or what I call cinema calisthenics have occured in VIP screenings. Not to mention the actual screen is garbage and I always forget to check but I'm pretty sure they leave the 3D lens on at all times.

I'll probably go see Drive tonight or tomorrow night, and keep my fingers crossed. Because I do really want to see it, and I haven't seen a movie for at least a month.

>> ^Sarzy:

>> ^budzos:
I know what you're saying but I honestly can't remember the last movie that was both really good and unspoiled by the audience and or exhibitors. My best movie-going experiences of the past five years can only be described as tolerable. The best ones were probably when I was going through an alcoholic phase in early 2008 and seeing lesser-grade movies while drunk and sneaking beer and cider in there with me (helps when it's winter).
I'm currently having the dilemma that I really want to see DRIVE, especailly after loving the shit out of VALHALLA RISING by the same director on blu-ray. But I know if I see the movie in theatres some jackass will be there on a first date, or with his little brother, or having some other reason for non-stop jabber.

As someone who sees something like a hundred movies theatrically per year, I definitely feel your pain. There's nothing worse than having your theatre-going experience ruined by some no-good douchebag who thinks it's okay to talk, or to text, or to generally be an asshole in the theatre. But it is possible to have a good movie-going experience. Sometimes it's even in your control -- one big tip is to be willing to move, which seems obvious but a lot of people aren't willing to do it, for whatever reason. Obviously this doesn't work when the movie is packed, but otherwise, even just moving a couple of rows away from a talking douchebag is generally far enough to be able to enjoy the movie again.
There's also some theatres that, for whatever reason, seem to attract a certain group of people. Figure out what these theatres are, and avoid them. Then of course, there are going to be times when you're going to have a bad experience no matter what. But, to me at least, the good experiences make up for the bad ones.
And see Drive. That is a seriously good movie -- probably one of my favourites of the year so far.

>> ^budzos:

I know what you're saying but I honestly can't remember the last movie that was both really good and unspoiled by the audience and or exhibitors. My best movie-going experiences of the past five years can only be described as tolerable. The best ones were probably when I was going through an alcoholic phase in early 2008 and seeing lesser-grade movies while drunk and sneaking beer and cider in there with me (helps when it's winter).
I'm currently having the dilemma that I really want to see DRIVE, especailly after loving the shit out of VALHALLA RISING by the same director on blu-ray. But I know if I see the movie in theatres some jackass will be there on a first date, or with his little brother, or having some other reason for non-stop jabber.


As someone who sees something like a hundred movies theatrically per year, I definitely feel your pain. There's nothing worse than having your theatre-going experience ruined by some no-good douchebag who thinks it's okay to talk, or to text, or to generally be an asshole in the theatre. But it is possible to have a good movie-going experience. Sometimes it's even in your control -- one big tip is to be willing to move, which seems obvious but a lot of people aren't willing to do it, for whatever reason. Obviously this doesn't work when the movie is packed, but otherwise, even just moving a couple of rows away from a talking douchebag is generally far enough to be able to enjoy the movie again.

There's also some theatres that, for whatever reason, seem to attract a certain group of people. Figure out what these theatres are, and avoid them. Then of course, there are going to be times when you're going to have a bad experience no matter what. But, to me at least, the good experiences make up for the bad ones.

And see Drive. That is a seriously good movie -- probably one of my favourites of the year so far.

I know what you're saying but I honestly can't remember the last movie that was both really good and unspoiled by the audience and or exhibitors. My best movie-going experiences of the past five years can only be described as tolerable. The best ones were probably when I was going through an alcoholic phase in early 2008 and seeing lesser-grade movies while drunk and sneaking beer and cider in there with me (helps when it's winter).

I'm currently having the dilemma that I really want to see DRIVE, especailly after loving the shit out of VALHALLA RISING by the same director on blu-ray. But I know if I see the movie in theatres some jackass will be there on a first date, or with his little brother, or having some other reason for non-stop jabber.

>> ^Sarzy:

True, the theatrical experience can suck sometimes (and your friend is a weirdo), but no home theatre can match the experience of seeing a great movie on the big screen. That's why, even as home theatre technology gets better and better, I'll never stop going to the movies.

Is it just me or is that inappropriate for a five year old to be listening to and imitating "smakin dat ass".

annoys the hell out of me my sister lets her 4 year old listen to Katy perry and other mainstream music like that Nicki manaj.

Couch parenting is sooo easy.