A friend of mind put a windmill up on his property with a solar array and is completely off grid now. No more power bills.

To date I've seen no such data to make me feel that windmills are a waste or frivolous. Feel free to provide some figures and links.

I suggest you look at the figures with regard to return for investment, regarding turbines. You will, no doubt, see the frivolous waste.

You say; "I don't think it's really religious people stifling stem cell research. I think it's more corporations like the pharmaceuticals."
Wrong. It is the religious lobbyists who blocked it - the same ones who, in some states, block the freedom of a woman to choose an abortion.If you seriously think that religion plays no part, try running for president as an atheist. No, science finds a way. It has now bypassed the need for stem cells, by using ordinary cells to the same end. Science for the win.
And btw, pharmaceutical companies exist to have the best product on the market and, therefore, make money to invest in future/better products. It's called capitalism, which you appear to be against.
Your argument is simply ill-informed, reactionary, and frivolous.

@oritteropo

Zina and Pippa Bacca, like many Gen-Yers, thought the world is a fanciful place. More serious people probably wouldn't have died if they were on the same trail as Zina.

Zina and Pippa were both pursuing paths that gave them "warm fuzzies," but would likely result in them being unable to survive except for redistributions from more serious people.

The world is full of frivolous people who have no idea how serious it is. The reason they have no idea is because society encouraged them to be frivolous.


There are secure career paths for people who want to be around creativity. But those careers depend on the same traits all careers depend on: industriousness and defining yourself as being science-minded.

This is pretty funny for a lot of reasons, the biggest being all the people involved are so obviously not cat owners nor have they even bothered to understand cat behaviour.

First of all, the snarky comments at the end of the video, actually, it's not about wanting to believe my cat needs me, I'm very well aware it doesn't need me, that has no correlation to loving me. I appreciate that's just the person writing this script but it puts an underlining tone that cat owners are delusional and sets people up to believe the experiment was a "success", even with the little bite about it not being conclusive.

Not all cats are the same, the beauty of them is precisely their individuality! Breed also plays a very large factor and so does upbringing, not to mention social behaviour of the animal in question. Let's ignore that cats are evolutionarily independent and dogs/babies are not.

Why would a cat care if its owner left momentarily? It is not built to care about such a frivolous event, it takes notes of it (which btw, no other animal was capable of and the narrator incorrectly says the cat is distracted while it distinctly watching the owner leave) and carries on, the situation pans out.

Likewise when the owner comes back, the cat again takes note of this and because it was rather brief, it resumes carrying on its business. This wasn't some "OH MY GOD WHAT DO I DO WITH MY LIFE!??!?!" drastic event. Quite frankly, the cat has the most intelligent behaviour.

The reason it check outs the stranger is because it's an *unknown*, cats don't immediately trust *anything* until they've inspected it. If they had replaced that stranger with a paper bag, the reaction would have been the same. It's not that it is ignoring its owner, it's that it knows its owner is safe. It is inspecting a potential threat.

Cats are simply not basic enough to compare in this experiment and their evolutionary traits are directly opposed to these rather bias tests of affection.

Whether you care about these individuals or not, everyone should be concerned about their tax dollars being wasted so frivolously for actions like this. The initial sequence of actions by the law enforcement system as well as the inevitable multi-million dollar lawsuit that will be won by this teacher.

What a waste, I doubt legalizing marijuana will solve this it will take something else to crack down on the law enforcement management.

I remember reading a long time ago about just how hot the coffee was and why they kept it that hot So I knew for a long time that it wasn't a case of some unscrupulous woman looking for a quick buck along with some ambulance chaser lawyers.

So even though it was *not* a frivolous lawsuit, even the reduced amount of money she actually got seems excessive. I wish we lived in a world where simply paying the medical bills and maybe a little bit extra for the trouble for recompense was adequate

But then when think about it in the context of a big corporation. How do you induce a large company to change? unless you hit them where it hurts, the pocket book. You have to admit that McDonalds initial offer of a few hundred bucks was essentially them flipping the bird to her. Had they just paid the medical bills and a little bit extra and lowered the temp of the coffee, This would never have entered the public sphere.

Maybe if we lived in a world where people weren't so obsessed about profits and the bottom line, we wouldn't have a situation like this.

Tragic to think that when these prodigal sons emerge from their sheltered upbringing to face the grim, meathook reality of modern politics and the ignorant frivolity of the masses, they will likely be depressed for the rest of their lives.

I'm a stimulus junky, as I'm sure we all are, but I've gotten to the point where there are too many musicians, film makers, video game makers, for me to possibly pay all of them the asking price.

Last year I decided to stop stealing music. I spent well over $1,000 on iTunes. I torrented a lot of movies, but I also purchased a good number of blue ray discs. I also purchased a shit ton of games off of Steam, as well as illegally downloading a couple. (I also paid ~500 dollars on live concerts, including an Iron Maiden show that cost me $150.)

There are very few things I can stand to listen/watch/play more than 2 or 3 times, then I need to listen/watch something else, but I can't afford ALL the required stimulus to keep me sane.

I also need my drug money and gas because THERE IS NO PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION WHERE I LIVE. So inevitably I have been car obsessed, so there's more money that I'm freeing myself of.

Am I a bad person? If I didn't torrent a video, does that mean I'm going to buy it? At some point you run out of frivolous spending cash... And then how do you consume the junk that artists create? Do I just stop? How does that help an artist? I dunno, just rambling. I'm depressed and addicted to entertainment.

Personally, I think artists are talented scam artists with an unnecessary product that I LOVE and will steal if I can't afford it.

I thought the lawyers letter was quite tongue in cheek myself. Then again, you can hardly sue somebody tongue in cheek, and if they did then they ought to be fined for frivolous litigation.

Breitbart died of natural causes, probably due a mix of poor diet, lack of exercise and high levels of stress. I'm surprised you would buy into his nonsense, considering the amount of time you spend railing on dishonest and frivolous media. Breitbart was as dishonest and frivolous as they come.

Ham is correct, that Brietbart lackey got his ass handed to him on a silver platter.

@bareboards2

Off hand, one of the things I can think of is the fact that since promoted videos are now reserved to 3 slots, not being able to frivolously promote every one of your videos would be a start.

I like the idea of "start everyone off at two", but I would like to point out that climbing the sift can be done in record time these days. Back in the day, the process of even being able to get a promote function could literally take a year. (Or, like, 3, in my case). Recently we've had a couple people get to that point within a few months. Now, good on them, they figured out that posting cat videos will get them published faster.

On the same token, you've said

"I've seen this before -- sifters who can't get a video into the Top 15 resenting the success of others. Instead of working on their skills to figure out what OTHER SIFTERS WANT,"

Now, I really dislike that statement. The reason i'm still at a gold star even though I've been around for 5 years is because I DON'T pander to what everybody else wants. I post the videos that I like, and that I think should be shown to the community. So, effectively what you've said is because I don't post a cat video every week, I'm less of an influence on the site because I'm still only at a star badge rather than a diamond.

I actually really like the fact that dag and lucky have tried this system out. I actually feel appreciated for the fact that I've stuck around the site for 5 years and I've tweaked the settings, setting up proper tags, etc. And not punished for only adding contributions I myself deem worthy.

That's not to say that there's no merit to the cat videos everyone posts now and again, but the fact that I choose not to play the system like that shouldn't be a detriment to me

This has more to do with the fact public education has (somehow) become the enemy than with any hidden agenda against science specifically. Public schools are underfunded (nothing new there), public teachers are (purportedly) overpaid and unaccountable (oh, and lazy!), and grossly frivolous funding is allocated to sports programs instead of actual learning materials.

I agree with both of you guys on this.

While it might seem frivolous and somewhat patronizing to have him score from the 1 yard line, it did give the young lad a chance to dedicate his very first Touch Down to his father. In the end, whether or not it seems dumb to us looking in from the outside, this might have been very meaningful to the player involved.


>> ^VoodooV:

it may be kind, but still, intentionally switching a quarterback out just so that he can get a touchdown because of a recent death in the family seems just a tad bit unnecessary and frivolous
your dad's dead..but hey, you got a touchdown...Life is even now right?

right?


>> ^Buck:

>> ^VoodooV:
it may be kind, but still, intentionally switching a quarterback out just so that he can get a touchdown because of a recent death in the family seems just a tad bit unnecessary and frivolous
your dad's dead..but hey, you got a touchdown...Life is even now right?
right?

I think it was running back, and I know nothing about football but don't they swap them out for different plays?
regardless, giving the guy a moment to feel soomething other than his loss is pretty classy IMO.

>> ^VoodooV:

it may be kind, but still, intentionally switching a quarterback out just so that he can get a touchdown because of a recent death in the family seems just a tad bit unnecessary and frivolous
your dad's dead..but hey, you got a touchdown...Life is even now right?

right?


I think it was running back, and I know nothing about football but don't they swap them out for different plays?

regardless, giving the guy a moment to feel soomething other than his loss is pretty classy IMO.