There are a lot of parallels between advertising and copyright. Buy wholeheartedly in to either, and you end up sort of failing to accept the reality of their flaws.

Advertisers think they have a big problem whenever someone circumvents their ads. They panicked when VCRs came around and allowed people to record shows and fast-forward through ads. They panicked when DVRs came out and let people digitally skip through ads. And they are panicking now, with more and more people getting fed up and putting ad-blocking software on their computers or devices.

Copyright holders think they have a big problem when someone tries to circumvent their system, too. They worried about libraries giving people free access to books; but at least a physical book is pretty much limited to one person at a time. They freaked out about cassette tapes being easily copied with a dual cassette deck. They freaked out about people sharing MP3 music over the internet. They freaked out when DVDs came out with CSS protection which was circumvented almost immediately. They continue to freak out by pushing for ever more and more drastic DRM schemes, that are generally circumvented quite rapidly.

The general theme in both advertising and copyright is escalation; a sort of arms race. The problem is that that solution doesn't actually improve things for anyone, in either case. Ads get more and more offensive and annoying, more and more people block/skip them. Copyright gets more and more locked-down, more and more people circumvent it. In both cases, as the "legitimate" side squeezes harder, it ends up making the user experience better for those who circumvent it "illegitimately". See, for example, this good old comic from The Oatmeal:
http://theoatmeal.com/comics/game_of_thrones

The web with adblock software is a massively better experience than the web without it. A pirated 1080p movie or TV show lets you skip the previews/commercials that are often unskippable on a DVD. And on and on.

This arms race doesn't have a good future. Creators and distributors must start wracking their brains to come up with whole new ideas, or at least variants of the old ones, that break that cycle and ensure that "illegitimate" users/viewers don't have a better experience than legitimate ones. I'm sure not holding my breath though.

What gets me about that, is I can only hold my breath for about 30 seconds, so that looks like witchcraft.

Don't hold your breath waiting for fascists to do good things. If the nigger prince were capable of moral human behaviour, he'd already have pardoned the hundreds of thousands of innocent people he kidnapped and falsely imprisoned for drug offences.

I've actually been on one of these in Thailand at Hanuman World, near Phuket.

I was the only person riding it that day, and the staff were looking at me and asking if I was ready to use it with a touch of incredulity - as though not many people did, or people had backed out when they saw it.

It was as you'd expect, fast, extreme and terrifying/terrific, and about 1/3rd of the way down it i realised i was completely out of breath. The corners and drops and stuff were so extreme and at such high speed I was having to tense every muscle and hold my breath - it was exhausting just to sit on it. I had to take very deep very determined breaths to recover. I don't think i'd have second thoughts about skydiving or bungee jumping after riding that thing. It was insane, and i'd love to do it again. However rough it looks on the video, it feels about 10x more violent when you're on one.

I agree with Oliver here, but I think he sorta missed an opportunity to talk about confirming exactly who our US Constitutional protections should apply to.

It has been all-to-common in the past decade-plus for people / bodies in our government to "justify" questionable actions by saying that they were performed on people who aren't US citizens. Detain and torture suspected (or *known*) terrorists indefinitely without trial? That's fine, they aren't citizens. Send drone strikes against people outside of US borders that we suspect may be aiding terrorists, even though collateral damage is likely? Meh, they aren't Americans. Spy on people, record and intercept their communications to the greatest extent possible without a warrant or probable cause? Never mind -- we're not doing it to our own citizens (even though we now know that even that justification is an outright lie).

It would be nice for the government to take a stand and state that ALL of the protections that are granted by our constitution and have made our country what it is should actually be considered universal and binding in terms of how our government interacts with ALL people, not just US citizens.

Freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly, fair trial, no unreasonable searches and seizures, etc. etc. Consistently and universally applied whenever the government has any interaction with any human being on the planet -- inside or outside of US soil, and whether that person is a US Citizen or not.

I suppose it would take a constitutional amendment to codify that. That would require 2/3 support in congress -- so I won't hold my breath. But here is where a president with true leadership could step up and say that whether there is an official amendment codifying that or not, every government office under his (or her) command should behave as though that was law. All the 3-letter agencies, the military, etc. I think that would get the ball rolling and make an amendment possible on down the line.

Our constitutional protections are arguably what made our country great. We have nothing to lose and everything to gain by proving that to the rest of the world by actually standing by the courage of our own convictions.

Wow... that sounds horrible... I would have loved to know... well really anything about it.

Seems strange to me when your clearly pushing an agenda the way RT pretty much always is that they wouldn't produce the evidence they surely had to have to even run a story like this... right?.... right?

Civil forfeiture is a VERY real thing, but this kind of click-bait 'journalism' does nothing to help.

@ulysses1904 I wouldn't hold your breath. I find RT news makes Fox look truly fair and balanced.

Yes, you did say all that, but you also said none of that is a problem, at least not one to be really worried about. To me, that sounds a lot like climate change denial 3.0, where 1.0 was 'it's not happening at all, don't panic', 2.0 was 'it's happening, but it's natural and normal, don't panic' and 3.0 is 'it's human caused, but no problem, don't panic'. All of those are arguments designed to stall, not to be correct. If I'm reading you wrong, I apologize, but I've heard that argument before from those definitely in that camp.

If the IPCC says it won't be disastrous, yes, we would disagree, because I say it already is, and so have they in their summaries of their last few reports. Just abnormal drought alone is disastrous in many places worldwide already, as is increased flooding in some areas. I did not read the entire PDF's, only what you quoted because they were only linked as downloads/files, and I don't download files from sites I don't recognize.

I linked the first google search pages that came up with water/glacial data, not the other dozen that said the same, or near the same thing, not the NOVA on glacial retreat that said the same thing, not the movie on the same topic with photographic proof of the retreats-Chasing Ice. You ignored that they did list their source for the 2/3 of Chinese cities low on water and the 50% loss of glacial mass per decade as the Chinese military and claimed they were source less so easily dismissed.
As for the diatoms and shellfish, I've seen numerous studies on them, and again just grabbed the first one that came up in a search with data. You seemed to dismiss it as well, but it's not alone. In one snail study I saw, the woman said the last few years it had become nearly impossible to get measurements because the snail shells literally turn to paste in her fingers and weighed nearly nothing! I'm glad to read now that you don't disagree that it's an issue, you only think it's not severe?

I'm not holding my breath on fusion or fission, we've heard the 'we're only 5 years away from fission/fusion' line before about as often as 'Iran is only 2 years away from having a nuclear bomb', but we can agree on wind and solar, except I say it is great for base load, you just need to pair it with micro hydro storage (pump water uphill with surplus solar/wind, then run micro hydro at night). Small solar/wind also decentralizes production, safeguarding from terrorism, and is quite cost effective. Mine paid for itself in well under 10 years.

My issue with your position is that what we do today just with CO2 production reduction won't really effect the atmosphere for 20-200 years (the accepted lifespan of 65-85% of atmospheric CO2, the remaining 15-35% takes thousands of years to be trapped) and that's only IF the ocean CO2 sink continues functioning, so we're already well past the point of avoiding moderate climate change. Without quick action, feedback loops like methane and/or ice sheets melting make the problem exponentially larger and difficult/impossible to manage at all. It may already be too late even if we cut to zero CO2 tomorrow, but it's certainly too late to avoid more, massive, unsolvable global issues if we don't even mitigate them before 2050.

Let's not get into the quagmire of global dimming from sulfur in coal actually mitigating a large part of expected global warming by reflecting sunlight. I've yet to hear a plan or study involving that variable.

As I said, assuming reality is real is an assumption we all must make to be sane....it is an ASSUMPTION, but a necessary one without which we live in a fluid fantasy. That is rational enough for me, as the alternative means everything is fantasy and meaningless anyway, so being mistaken about it would mean nothing...to no one, leaving 'belief' in reality the only rational choice.
I see your world view as rigid because it's based in a rigid, unchanging document, while mine is based on examination and re-examination of 'reality'.
No, I don't believe in absolute "truth". I believe in :

RULE#5-"TRUTH" is an idea in the mind of a crazy person. You don't need to know the 'TRUTH" in order to not lie.

I get that it's confusing for me to say -'there are absolutely no absolutes', but there you go, I said it. Kind of like how I'm intolerant of intolerance. ;-)
I take the position...'I don't know, but it seems most likely by far that.....'...about everything. Being a scientist means you never 'know' anything for certain...as that denies you the ability to change your position when you're 'knowledge' is shown to be incorrect. Certitude is for theology, not science.
Only 'he' knows what 'proof' would be, and he has not shown it. I don't know how many times I must repeat that. Beauty is not proof, awe is not proof, mystery is not proof, words are not proof, other people's belief is not proof. Only proof is proof, and I'm waiting, but not holding my breath. Ball's in 'his' invisible court.
Yes, I am open to knowing the 'truth' (if you must put it that way), and I am also open to accepting I have been wrong, but only if I'm convinced, not just because someone said so.
If we are created for good works, something went terribly wrong somewhere. ;-)

"WE" is the nation as a whole. Because you wish to separate yourself from the rest of us does not mean 'there is no we', it only means you aren't one of us (or don't want to be).
I live in the real world, where most people are poor planners, and most people don't have the means to plan anyway (more every day, thanks to un-livable wages being the norm). It's not defeatist, it's realist. It would be wonderful if we all had the gift of forethought, perfect knowledge of financial planning, prognostication to be able to know what your needs WILL be, and the income to be able to follow through with financial plans. I live well on 1/2 of a <$30K income and take NO help from anywhere, but most people don't have my advantages or the willingness to live with less, or the time and space to do things like grow their own food, or the property and money/credit to get a solar/wind generation system, even though it saves them tons in the long term, they simply don't have the financial ability to plan long term.
I don't see what your next paragraph has to do with the topic. (It reminds me of the saying 'god only gives you the burden you can carry' which ignores the thousands that commit suicide because their burden was more than they could stand.) One can only rise to the opportunities one is presented with, those that have limited opportunities often have no way to 'rise to the occasion' or 'over come adversity', they can't even overcome their food bills, no matter how hard they work at Wendy's.

I'm for getting rid of 'government cheese' for anyone that does not need it, but removing all programs leaves us back in the 30's with roving gangs of the destitute clogging the streets, expensive abusive state run institutions for the elderly poor, and the economy tanking. I could support a 'means test' or the like for 'welfare' and social security, but it would benefit us all if everyone had access to healthcare, and in the long run would even save those who do pay for it, because as I've said repeatedly, we already pay their bills after the fact (by paying higher bills to cover for those that don't/won't/can't pay their bill). Giving us all access to healthcare outside the emergency room saves us ALL money...and removing the insurance industry middleman saves another 10%-25% that we get NO benefit from.

It's about addressing the real world, not insisting all people should act intelligently and fore-thoughtfully at all times, and designing a system that only works if they do and leads to disaster if they don't. I do not believe people, as a group, are good at planning for their future, and we all do better when at least the minimum of financial planning is taken care of by intelligent educated people rather than left to those who plan poorly. Sometimes that means paying to not have people camped on your lawn waiting to rob you...and it's cheaper to put them in an apartment than in jail. The systems could certainly be better (I'm not holding my breath that they will be improved though), but having no 'safety net' at all has already proven to be far worse for everyone, and the country as a whole in many ways.

So interesting that I cannot help but hold the breath in my nose so as not to smell what I imagine the stink to be of that gelatinous mess.

Now is that the same result you could expect from a dead mouse just being in liquid and not specifically Mtn. Dew? I imagine that'd be the case.

Pretty bad video composition with a horribly long intro, but the payoff was interesting.

Btw, @haki, you know you can vote for your own videos, right?

They know to float and hold their breath due to a natural response, which you can emulate by blowing in their faces, to which they have the same reaction. They also flap their arms and legs in a swim-like motion so that a layman might think they know how to swim.

Actually they are not strong enough nor understanding of the concept to hold their head above water to breathe. Your advice is misleading and it could be dangerous if taken in the wrong way. Babies cannot swim and are at significantly higher risk of drowning than older/stronger (even non-swimmer) children, and they're naturally shaped and weighted to float face down.

Suggesting that we have an unnatural, unnecessary fear of babies drowning in the west sounds like jenny mccarthy new-age nonsense.. we have a rational fear of babies drowning because they are at risk of drowning for aforesaid reasons, which is aside from whether this video is safe for a baby or not... some people take their babies on bicycles and in cars in at least equally dangerous environments.

No offence intended, but drowning is a serious risk for small children, and what you say is a hazardous myth... babies will survive being submerged for a short period of time, and will not try to breathe when submerged. They cannot swim and will drown if not retrieved quickly.

They know to hold float and hold their breath due to a natural response, which you can emulate by blowing in their faces, to which they have the same reaction. They also flap their arms and legs in a swim-like motion so that a layman might think they know how to swim.

Actually they are not strong enough nor understanding of the concept to hold their head above water to breathe. Your advice is misleading and it could be dangerous if taken in the wrong way. Babies cannot swim and are at significantly higher risk of drowning than older/stronger (even non-swimmer) children.

Well, Syriza is an acronym for Coalition of the Radical Left (roughly), and everything left of the Berlin Consensus is considered to be radical left. So they are going to call Syriza a radical leftist party until the political landscape itelf has been pulled back towards more leftist positions. But you're right, if they were judged by their positions, they'd be centre-left in theory, if centre-left hadn't turned into corporatism by taking up the Third Way of Schröder/Blair/Clinton.

They are, without a doubt, radically democratic though. As your Grauniad article points out, they haven't turned on their election promises yet, which is quite unheard of for a major European party. Francois Hollande in particular was a major letdown in this regard. Few people expected him to bow down to German demands so quickly. Aside from his 75% special tax for the rich, he dropped just about every single part of his program that could be considered socialism.

Grexit... that's a tough one.

Syriza cannot enforce any troika demands that relate to the programmes of the Chicago School of Economics. Friedman ain't welcome anymore. No cuts to wages or pensions, to privatisation of infrastructure, no cuts to the healthcare system, nor any other form of financial oppression of the lower class. That is non-negotiable. In fact, even increases in welfare programs and the healthcare system are pretty much non-negotiable. Even if Syriza wanted to put any of this on the table, and they sure as hell don't, they couldn't make it part of any deal without further damages to an already devasted democratic system in Greece.

So with that in mind, what's the point of all the negotiations?

Varoufakis' suggestions are very reasonable. The growth-linked bonds, for instance, are used very successfully all over the world in debt negotiations, as just about any bankrupty expert would testify. Like Krugman wrote today, Syriza is merely asking to "recognize the reality everyone supposedly already understands". His caveat about the German electorate is on point as well, we haven't had it explained to us yet – and we chose to ignore what little was explained to us.

Yet the troika insists on something Syriza cannot and will not provide, as just outlined above. Some of the officials still expect Syriza to acknowledge reality, to come to their senses and to accept a deal provided to them. Good luck with that, but don't hold your breath. Similarly, Varoufakis is aware that Berlin is almost guaranteed to play hardball all the way.

Of course, nothing is certain and they might strike a deal during their meeting in Wednesday that offers Greece a way out of misery. Or maybe the ECB decides that to stabilize to Euro, as is their sole purpose, they need to keep Greece within the EZ and away from default. That would allow them to back Greece, to provide them with financial support, at least until they present their program in June/July. Everything is possible. However, I see very little evidence in support of it.

Therefore Grexit might actually be just a question of who to blame it on. Syriza is not going to exit the EZ willy nilly, they need clear pressure from outside, so the record will unequivocally show that it wasn't them who made the call. No country can be thrown out, they have to leave of their own. Additionally, Merkel will not be the person to initiate the unravelling of the EU, as might be the consequence of a Grexit. That's leverage for Greece, the only leverage they have. But it has to be played right or else the blame will be put squarely on Greece, even more so than it already is.

-------
Edit #1: What cannot be overstated is the ability of the EZ to muddle through one crises after another, always on the brink of collapse, yet never actually collapsing. They are determined to hold this thing together, whatever the cost.
-------

Speaking of blame, Yves Smith linked a fantastic article the other day: Syriza and the French Indemnity of 1871-73.

The author makes a convincing case why the suppression of wages in Germany led to disaster in Spain, why it was not a choice on the part of Spain to engage in irresponsible borrowing and how it is a conflict between workers and the financial elite rather than nations. He also offers historical precedent, with Germany being the recipient of a massive cash influx, ending in a catastrophe similar to Spain's nowadays.

It strikes me as a very objective dissection of what happend, what's going on, and what needs to happen to get things back in shape. Then again, it agrees with many points I made on that BBC videos last week, so it's right within my bubble.

I completely agree with her about Lars on many points. He often (very often actually) makes his technique seem "the best in the world" when compared to ANY other technique (as there are A LOT of shooting techniques; some that need different bows, materials, and setups).

Kind of like being able to shoot through plate-mail... Lars would NEVER be able to pull that off (of course no one, with a shortbow and the wrong arrow--or tip--will be doing it either; the crossbow is as close as you can get to being small and puncturing plate) as it requires a huge amount of pull force to puncture plate (even heavy English oaken wood shields). The type of bow is a big issue, because that is where you get your draw strength. But, what type of tip you have on your arrow will determine whether or not it even goes into or just bounces off the armor...

However, for the most part, archers didn't try to puncture plate armor--because to be honest about it: it was HARD, it required a VERY heavy bow and expensive tips (of course the bows were also expensive, because they would not be made out of normal material--it might be a specially imported type of wood that could hold up to extreme forces; the string may also be made of something a bit different than normal). So, you didn't have very many people walking around with the innate ability to puncture plate. BUT, what most archers trained a VERY long time to accomplish was extreme accuracy, for one reason alone: armor.

Instead of trying to puncture plate or even chain, archers instead aimed for gaps or areas were there was no coverage (basically anywhere you bend or connect the armor to another piece or tie/connect itself together; so places like under the armpit or along the side of the body were the armor is pulled together and tied shut). Then they may not have to go through anything at all, or they will only have light leather or heavy cloth armor in the way--either way they will penetrate, and they will slowly kill their target by slowing them down and immobilizing them, then moving in for the finishing blow OR if they hit the right place they can just let blood loss finish them off...

But, this requires extreme accuracy, especially in battle AND especially so if you are firing from a horse (if you were lucky you were able to ride behind someone and concentrate solely on firing your shots, then you could add a bit of speed as well). This is the one place that Lars has horribly mislead people--OR he has made a really great breakthrough. But, if Lars never bothers to really demonstrate this stuff, we have no idea how great an archer he really is.

His entire video is one gigantic edit. Every shot and "trick" has been setup with the camera in the right place. The biggest problem is we don't know if it took Lars 1000 attempts to accomplish some of these feats (he makes it sound in some areas that it happens VERY fast, however...but due to the editing, or how he edited it, we actually have no idea if his claims are true) or if he did it in ten...or right off the bat...

That is why I said we needed to wait for Lars to actually talk to us about this whole thing, and to clear various areas up (records and competition). Because he has set a very high bar for himself, and from his own video he seems to be amazing--but, I like many know that if you edit enough and try something over and over again, you can make yourself look like an expert *whatever* whenever you wish to do it...

I agree heavily with her about his historic claims (and also mocking him on his "super clumsy" shots and setups to make fun of "modern" archers); she also points out, correctly, how wrong he is on some of those claims. Like everyone shooting from the left side; which somehow Lars, in ALL his studying completely and utterly missed. Which tells me one thing: she knows more about archery history than Lars actually does.

But, is Lars actually a great archer? Would Lars be a good archer in a battle, or more specifically his "technique"? Lastly, is he really an unique archer more than worth praising? We won't know until Lars does what I mentioned above; he must meet these criticisms head on.

If we allow Lars time to learn how to ride a horse; or it might be a bit more fair to just allow him to ride behind someone controlling the horse, which was a common practice even in battle (then make sure Lars knows how to also fire properly from a horse, since it requires controlling a horse--if you're alone--and staying on the horse using your thigh muscles...which is actually a pretty hard thing to do...and requires expert horsemanship; asking Lars to accomplish this is laughable, as this type of thing would have been a lifetime achievement in the past AND any archer that could fire fast, accurate, and ride a horse by himself...would have been a horrific force on the battlefield; then give him a sword/melee skill--make sure they have a lot of upper body strength--and a very well made, thick steel buckler and he'd be godlike; and then enough armor to protect from arrows...BUT this means you have to be very strong...otherwise you will never be able to accomplish ANY of the feats with the bow mentioned above; BTW, I'm mentioning a superhero right here, there "may" have been a few people like this in history, but they would've been very few and far apart...and more than likely used sparingly).

Mounted archers are extremely powerful against all units that are mounted yet slower than them and of course those on foot and without a long range means of attacking them (at least shorter than the mounted archer's range), this I will always agree with. We already know that mounted archery units could create absolute havoc in the past, see: Alexander The Great. However, eventually people figured out how to deal with this type of threat as well... But, horse mounted archers do have their "nemeses", namely foot archers--since they can take some time (if an arrow comes their way, they block it--it is much harder for a horse archer to carry around a big shield or at least just have on sitting nearby--or you can aim for their horse, which is why above I said that "superhero" like warrior would need a melee skill, because eventually they WILL be on the ground).

So, again, we have to wait and see if Lars bothers to respond to this video and to ALL of the others that have also been made (he did make a lot of people angry; as he did make some stuff up and possibly "overshoot" the mark on other claims and possibly even his own abilities...). I won't hold my breath though.

I think we can all come to a fairly logical conclusion on this. If Lars NEVER responds to anything, then we will have to assume that a lot of his "super-speed" with "accuracy" was due to one thing alone: editing.

Phew, I think that covers everything...it certainly was long enough!!!!