>> ^kymbos:

I've noticed that Facebook is now misrepresenting the products that people 'like'. A friend of mine who hates sports suddenly 'liked' this sports gambling website. I took a screen print and sent it to him on email, and he responded telling me he'd never heard of it.
I find this dishonest and morally repugnant. It seems like they're desperate to monetise their potential and are starting to over-reach as a result.


Yeah, and the whole 'promote' a status thing, with the option of paying to promote being trialled also spells the end it would seem.

People are entrenched, to be sure, but if a cleaner, competitor comes along and provides a simple migration process ('enter your login details and we'll transfer all your photos/videos over to our FlubBrook service now'), people will jump ship if Facebook keeps becoming more and more and more of an advertising platform rather than a social network.

I've noticed that Facebook is now misrepresenting the products that people 'like'. A friend of mine who hates sports suddenly 'liked' this sports gambling website. I took a screen print and sent it to him on email, and he responded telling me he'd never heard of it.

I find this dishonest and morally repugnant. It seems like they're desperate to monetise their potential and are starting to over-reach as a result.

@shinyblurry

I never said Ryan was an intellectual lightweight. Are you projecting your own fears again? Ryan is Palin lite in the sense that the Romney campaign knows it is losing so once again, they're making a risky gamble. Just like Palin was a gamble.

I also never said big gov't was the solution. Again, you seem to be projecting. Besides, it's funny how selective the right is about big gov't. they don't seem to mind a obscenely large military budget and they don't seem to mind gov't intruding on reproductive rights and issues of sexual orientation.

Gov't efficiency has nothing to do with size alone. big gov't can be inefficient and so can small. just because you cut the size of gov't doesn't magically make it efficient. on the other end of the spectrum, you've got a gov't that doesn't have the resources to do what they need to do..hence inefficiency and people get pissed when needed services are cut. Instead of this knee jerk, one-trick pony of small gov't. Efficient gov't actually has to do with compromise, and intelligence. Two things the right doesn't seem to be interested in.

your problems with big gov't has nothing to do with actual efficiency, it's about ideology.

That's the problem with Romney's campaign:

Romney: I'm running on my business experience, but we can't discuss my business experience. I'm also picking a VP that is notable only because of his budget...a budget I disagree with.

Ryan is a desparate attempt to rally the tea party. Problem is, the tea party isn't as big as they think they are. add to that Romney and his VP pick have this pesky effect of rallying the independents and women and moderates against them.

Doubling down and going further right isn't going to win the election. It didn't last time.

• because i've done pretty decent research on what they have to say and it's almost entirely and demonstrably horseshit (that's a scientific term)

• my agreeing with them isn't particularly important because what they say is commonly if not always outside their area of expertise (icke's area of expertise is football, chopra is technically a medical doctor, and haramein's is, well, nothing). because of this their understand of their "proof" is painfully poor and their conclusions from their proof is laughable. and as i like to say, even if they are right, the method that got them there was wrong (so to speak).

• they do seem to be crazy people who's insanity infects others. SO many people buy into this kind of wishful thinking and i think it's dangerous and damaging to the intellectual process and infrastructure we've spent so long building. it's baseless new age bullshit perpetrated by charlatans.

• babies and puppies are delicious, i don't know what's wrong with you.

• the blanket statement is due to most/all of these ideas having been completely discredited.

• i don't care what you call yourself or them but they are saying things that are untrue. if they were just making up a new mythology that didn't try to have any basis in science or facts then i wouldn't care but they pretend that certain theories mean things when they don't understand the theories in the first place.

• it can be discussed but in that discussion, like this one, it can be dismissed pretty quickly.

• i don't know anything about your "faith" so i can't really comment on it but if you're telling people your faith is an objective truth then we have a problem.


to be clear, i have seen the movie. i know who this kid is and i've seen his other movies (one i liked). just because he spent a lot of money on his informal research does give credence to said research. by volume, i could probably find more information on this type of nonsense than the science they're supposedly basing these ideas on. AKA there is SO much of this garbage out there.



>> ^enoch:

>> ^kir_mokum:
anything that takes deepak chopra, nassim haramein, and david icke seriously is not worth paying attention to.

i wasnt going to comment but curiosity has gotten the better of me.
why would you state that with such authority?
because you disagree with those people?
find their theories to be suspect?
are they crazy people whose insanity may infect others?
do they eat babies and kick puppies?
why the blanket dismissal?
because one is a spiritualist who has a different way of approaching the human condition?
or that another has wild conspiratorial theories?
does that invalidate them from participating in discussions on what we should do?
and if that is the case..
what about me?
i am a man of faith.everything i do and say is born from my faith.
yet the form my faith takes would make me an apostate and i would have been executed only a few hundred years ago.
does me being a man a faith invalidate my opinions?
the man who made this movie is from the gamble family.the proctor and gamble family.
he spent his wealth on researching and discovery and made a movie revealing his conclusions and possible solutions.
the movie has a very humanist philosophy.
and he uses many many people to help express what he sees as an end game with global elite to control us.chopra and icke are only one of many.
i guess i just dont understand absolutist thinking.
chopra and icke?
well it must be about a. b. or c. and therefore should be ignored.
that just seems so.......limiting......to me.
i found some of the claims in the movie to be questionable and other things i agreed with wholeheartedly,but i have to give gamble credit for putting his ideas out there.
that takes balls.

>> ^kir_mokum:

anything that takes deepak chopra, nassim haramein, and david icke seriously is not worth paying attention to.


i wasnt going to comment but curiosity has gotten the better of me.
why would you state that with such authority?
because you disagree with those people?
find their theories to be suspect?
are they crazy people whose insanity may infect others?
do they eat babies and kick puppies?

why the blanket dismissal?
because one is a spiritualist who has a different way of approaching the human condition?
or that another has wild conspiratorial theories?
does that invalidate them from participating in discussions on what we should do?

and if that is the case..
what about me?
i am a man of faith.everything i do and say is born from my faith.
yet the form my faith takes would make me an apostate and i would have been executed only a few hundred years ago.
does me being a man a faith invalidate my opinions?

the man who made this movie is from the gamble family.the proctor and gamble family.
he spent his wealth on researching and discovery and made a movie revealing his conclusions and possible solutions.
the movie has a very humanist philosophy.
and he uses many many people to help express what he sees as an end game with global elite to control us.chopra and icke are only one of many.

i guess i just dont understand absolutist thinking.
chopra and icke?
well it must be about a. b. or c. and therefore should be ignored.
that just seems so.......limiting......to me.

i found some of the claims in the movie to be questionable and other things i agreed with wholeheartedly,but i have to give gamble credit for putting his ideas out there.
that takes balls.

>> ^Engels:

Gun violence in Seattle was higher in the past. Most notably 1994 with a total of 69 homicides. Overall, homicide is down since 1999. It just seems higher because, you know, crazy white person killing white people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_and_politics_of_Seattle
Crime and criminal justice
...After reaching its highest murder rate in 1994 with 69 homicides, Seattle's murder rate declined to a 40-year low with 24 homicides in 2004.[2] By 2006, Seattle's murder rate had increased, with thirty murders that year.[3] ...Seattle has suffered two mass-murders in recent history: the 1983 Wah Mee massacre (13 people killed in the Wah Mee gambling club)[5] and the March 25, 2006 Capitol Hill massacre when 28-year-old Kyle Aaron Huff killed six at a rave afterparty.[6] Later in 2006, an attempted spree killing by Naveed Afzal Haq left one dead at the Jewish Federation building.[7]


You're right of course ... it's just that this past week or so has been so bizarre. That guy who was killed by a random shot driving with his family in the CD, the bystander shot outside of Folk Life and that innocent student randomly shot and killed in Pioneer Square coupled with the too close for comfort events of yesterday have me shaking my head and checking my locks.

Thanks for your voice of reason =o)

Gun violence in Seattle was higher in the past. Most notably 1994 with a total of 69 homicides. Overall, homicide is down since 1999. It just seems higher because, you know, crazy white person killing white people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_and_politics_of_Seattle

Crime and criminal justice

...After reaching its highest murder rate in 1994 with 69 homicides, Seattle's murder rate declined to a 40-year low with 24 homicides in 2004.[2] By 2006, Seattle's murder rate had increased, with thirty murders that year.[3] ...Seattle has suffered two mass-murders in recent history: the 1983 Wah Mee massacre (13 people killed in the Wah Mee gambling club)[5] and the March 25, 2006 Capitol Hill massacre when 28-year-old Kyle Aaron Huff killed six at a rave afterparty.[6] Later in 2006, an attempted spree killing by Naveed Afzal Haq left one dead at the Jewish Federation building.[7]

I've studied the American education system and I am a product of it — not to mention my mother is an elementary school teacher. For all these things, you'll have reason to disregard my postulation. The problem isn't republican/democrat politics. The problem is politics altogether.

Parents want what's best for their children...hell even I want the best education for the children, and I'm not even a parent. However, because education is so important to us, we're not willing to gamble on a new system. This is where the politics come in...it's easy to sell the idea of more testing to "keep track" of our education goals. This, in-and-of-itself, is not illogical thinking. Collecting data points as often and accurately as possible is the best way to perform many kinds of experiments and getting the results. There's one problem with our current model, though: we're not getting results.

In my opinion, what the Khan Academy is trying to get going seems like our best bet if we want to keep our testing model and still modify our system for success.>> ^quantumushroom:

Why are these two smirking and proud?
Liberals run the show in US government schools, and conservative politicians are complicit, though without them the socialists would have already gone further.
Read all about it in this free-to-download e-book
The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America

2 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

>> ^spoco2:

So I take it the first product is real also? If so, I'm sure they're owned by the same parent company.
And entertaining commercials are A-OK by me


They're both Procter & Gamble products.

Could the other footage possibly have been from the Atlantic City gambling episode of Taxi? Unfortunately that show never made it down under... can anyone who has seen the series comment???

>> ^ChaosEngine:
Wow, I really don't even know where to start with how ridiculous that is. Intellectual property is not "logically and morally absurd". It is the result of peoples time and effort, and thus, has value. This is not about rewarding a studio who invests hundreds of millions in a game or movie, it's about paying a programmer, artist or hell, even the guy who gets coffee for the director.
As for the "gambling" argument, I have no problem with people with make bad products failing. That's fine. But you seem to believe that someone could put years of work into a great product and then still receive no compensation for it. Fine, but then why should you expect them to continue to put that effort into their work? Yeah, love of the craft, whatever, but people still need to eat, pay bills, etc.
You know what? pay the fucking writer.


I spend time and effort taking a dump. I don't expect you to pay me for it.

If you can monetize your creativity, great. Do it without calling in government thugs to extract the tribute you imagine you're owed from anyone who presumes to interact with your imaginary property.

The guy who gets coffee for the director is paid for his work. You're suggesting I owe him, what, his future job security? Come on. Tell him to go home, get a webcam and produce his own content for literally a millionth of the cost of the primitive, bloated, dying industry he leaves behind.

How much are we getting paid to make these posts? Love of the craft, man.

>> ^marinara:

Quick! we mush pass PIPA, SOPA or there will never be another CALL OF DUTY game!

<sarcasm>Yeah, that's exactly what I said. </sarcasm>

Basic comprehension has never been your strong point, has it?

>> ^gorillaman:


Piracy is totally acceptable. Intellectual property is logically and morally absurd. Patents - claiming you personally own a slice of the universal laws of physics - are particularly obnoxious; copyright - claiming you personally own access to a string of information, which nobody else is allowed to know without your permission - is usually only something silly that gets in the way of discourse. Merely silly, that is, until people (yes people, I hold each of them individually responsible) send their stormtroopers to attack the innocent just to keep themselves in business.
Mass media always costs more money to produce than it's actually worth. No movie or game, however many millions are spent in its creation, is worth more than the price of a single unit. When producers invest all this cash they're relying on the miracle of media duplication to get paid. That single unit can be copied and sold again and again and again, to thousands or millions of people, multiplying itself and its value. Often they're able to sell their one little media fragment enough times to make a profit - good for them, the bet paid off. To then turn around and complain when others take advantage of that same miracle to enrich their lives is not only a textbook example of biting the hand that feeds you, it's also deliberately obstructing a process that makes the world better, which is a monstrous crime.
These people don't 'deserve' compensation. They're gambling. Whether gamblers make their living gambling or not, they don't 'deserve' to win and it's nobody else's responsibility to ensure that they do.
This is an extremely simple issue.


Wow, I really don't even know where to start with how ridiculous that is. Intellectual property is not "logically and morally absurd". It is the result of peoples time and effort, and thus, has value. This is not about rewarding a studio who invests hundreds of millions in a game or movie, it's about paying a programmer, artist or hell, even the guy who gets coffee for the director.

As for the "gambling" argument, I have no problem with people with make bad products failing. That's fine. But you seem to believe that someone could put years of work into a great product and then still receive no compensation for it. Fine, but then why should you expect them to continue to put that effort into their work? Yeah, love of the craft, whatever, but people still need to eat, pay bills, etc.

You know what? pay the fucking writer.

>> ^ChaosEngine:
You don't think you're oversimplifying the issue just a bit? Or more likely, by an order of magnitude?
Games, moveis, music; all these cost money to produce. You don't think that the people (yes, people, not big faceless corporations) involved deserve to be compensated for their efforts?
People harp on about "a broken business model", but I've yet to see someone come up with a working alternative. Yes, treating your paying customers worse than pirates is not the right answer, but that doesn't make piracy any more morally acceptable.


Piracy is totally acceptable. Intellectual property is logically and morally absurd. Patents - claiming you personally own a slice of the universal laws of physics - are particularly obnoxious; copyright - claiming you personally own access to a string of information, which nobody else is allowed to know without your permission - is usually only something silly that gets in the way of discourse. Merely silly, that is, until people (yes people, I hold each of them individually responsible) send their stormtroopers to attack the innocent just to keep themselves in business.

Mass media always costs more money to produce than it's actually worth. No movie or game, however many millions are spent in its creation, is worth more than the price of a single unit. When producers invest all this cash they're relying on the miracle of media duplication to get paid. That single unit can be copied and sold again and again and again, to thousands or millions of people, multiplying itself and its value. Often they're able to sell their one little media fragment enough times to make a profit - good for them, the bet paid off. To then turn around and complain when others take advantage of that same miracle to enrich their lives is not only a textbook example of biting the hand that feeds you, it's also deliberately obstructing a process that makes the world better, which is a monstrous crime.

These people don't 'deserve' compensation. They're gambling. Whether gamblers make their living gambling or not, they don't 'deserve' to win and it's nobody else's responsibility to ensure that they do.

This is an extremely simple issue.

Going to Vegas soon. If the slot machines there looked like this, I'd probably gamble more.