@NinjaInHeat what would you say are the biased bits? I don't recall if he embellished in the commentary that much but the footage was pretty damning in itself. With the governmental ministers raving about infiltrators?

I'm sure not all of israel is like that, but i have to say that with a people so historically persecuted you'd almost expect the good israelis to show up to lambast the ignorant ones and/or raise them better, shame them in their own communities for being xenophobic. It's the same thing that i think of when it comes to terrorism. Surely terrorists are best tackled by the community and family and people that they come from, and if so then surely it will become less and less of a problem over time. If not, then maybe the overwhelming amount of good people from wherever you're talking about should be more proactive in stopping minority lunatics doing what lunatics do.

When nice people stand aside and allow some fringe element to politically and socially ostracise an ethnic minority based on colour or creed, things like world war 2 happen before it's resolved. And that's only if you're fortunate enough to have people in other countries to come and stand up for you. I'm not being funny, but i really would expect a jewish person to appreciate that.
(2nd and 3rd paragraph not directed at you specifically towards you ninja, speaking my general thoughts there)

We've been infiltrated

"Can anyone honestly say that the US has objectively done nothing to be ashamed of? At best more to be proud of than ashamed of but that does on abrogate responsibility for the latter."
Well said, just remember to cut both ways on that. The fact America has plenty to be ashamed of and apologize for doesn't mean it's fair game to ignore both the good that America has done, and more importantly, it doesn't abrogate the responsibility of all other nations and dicatators for their own crimes.

"You have to point out that Al Qaeda has very little support and would have WAY less if they weren't recruited by the Wars and actions of the United States. When 9/11 happened there was a ridiculous outpouring of support from the Muslim world even after we've terrorized them for decades."

Name a muslim nation that did NOT have spontaneous displays of celebration after 9/11. Yes, very few governments praised or failed to condemn the attacks, but even in states deemed American 'friendly' like Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan there were people dancing in the streets and handing out candies for the kids. don't underestimate the support there is for groups with Al Qaida's ideals. Saudi Arabian 'charities' have been funnelling billions of dollars every year into northern Pakistan ever since the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. That money is used almost exclusively for the construction of male only madrassahs. Not the good kind that teach reading and arthimetic on the side either. They are the bad ones that are there for brainwashing and training up jihadists for a war they are currently waging against the moderate muslims in Pakistan.

"Drones, Wars, Sanctions, and General Terrorism is what fuels Al Qaeda."
You are wrong. You need to understand that America is NOT their real target or goal. The jihad is within middle eastern nations and is currently an entirely domestic war. The only care for America is that it either not get involved, or only be involved in ways that benefit them. The war in Afghanistan and drone attacks may have helped gain them some recruits, it may continue to help for years even. It also lost them their years of support and connections with senior Pakistani leadership. They have come from a place where they had close friends and strong relationships with Pakistan's ISI and military, to a place today where they are nominally speaking public enemy number one. We aren't out of the woods yet there, but I think you miss the reason all of this has been centering near and within Pakistan's borders. Everyone always talks about the uneasy nuclear stand off between Pakistan and India. From the jihadists stance though, they had a devotedly Islamic nation with nuclear weapons, paranoid about it's nemesis, and were the leadership was heavily connected, infiltrated and indebted to jihadists or jihad friendly people. The jihadists desperately wanted to push the Pakistan-India conflict over the edge and those designs have been set back decades now.

Nah, the Doom 3 palette was pitch black interspersed with the glowing eyes of demons, whose closets you have just foolishly stumbled over.
That demo (if you could really call it that) was very purdy but several things occurred to me while I was watching it. When our futuristic ninja gets busted I couldn't help but think, "Yep, I hate it when that happens" there's always one nosy douchebag who has to ruin an otherwise perfectly good infiltration.
In the future, shutting down an assembly line won't just stop the line but also blow up at least half of it, if only Henry Ford had thought of this, who knows where we would be today.
As good as this looks by the time a significant portion of the population has the hardware necessary to run this in real time we will all have moved on to Unreal Engine version 6. So none of this is especially practical for gaming purposes, it makes me wonder if they aren't trying to market this to film makers as well.

It's no wonder you're having infiltrators MI6. You're spies are using crap passwords.

Personally I believe a cow was driving and this is some kind of planned infiltration/attack on a strategic target.

Some very old (and stripped down) notes I have, from a beginners course I used to teach on web graphics and image formats. (it does loose a little something in translation with the limited formatting we can use here).

GIF: (Graphics Interchange Format)
Limited to 256 colors and less.
Recommended - 72 dpi.
8-bit color planes


Originally designed by Compuserve. June 1987

It used a compression scheme called LZW.
Gif utilizes a compression method which uses a particular algorithm. This algorithm is copyrighted by Unisys. Any software which supports the format must obtain the rights to use the format but all users are free to use it.
Because of this issue..., a new format called PNG (Portable Network Graphics) is slowly infiltrating, and is expected to eventually replace the GIF.


How it compresses...

1. It compresses repeated patterns of pixels in an image.
   
2. The more repeated patterns there are in an image, the more it can be compressed. When the image is decompressed it is
   exactly the same as the original image.
   
3. Example:
   
   If the code looks like this - (@ 42-bytes)
   1 5 6 4 6 7 9 1 2 5 6 9 8 4 5 8 9 2 5 6 9 8 5 6 7 2 5 6 9 6 1 5 6 4 6 7 9 7 8 2 5 6
   
   The conversion looks for repeating strings of more than 3 numbers -
   1 5 6 4 6 7 9 1 2 5 6 9 8 4 5 8 9 2 5 6 9 8 5 6 7 2 5 6 9 6 1 5 6 4 6 7 9 7 8 2 5 6
   
   It then replaces the strings with a "token". It refers to which number it repeats and for how many characters -
   1 5 6 4 6 7 9 1 2 5 6 9 8 4 5 8 9 [9,5] 5 6 7 [9,4] 6 [1,7] 7 8 [9,3]
   
   
4. Each "token" takes 2 bytes. having eliminated several repeating characters, our code is now only 31-bytes
   

• GIF uses Lossless, Pattern Matching Compression
  
• It compresses repeated patterns of pixels in an image.
  
• The more repeated patterns there are in an image, the more it can be compressed.
  
• When the image is decompressed it is exactly the same as the original image
  

>> ^pyloricvalve:

Sorry I don't get it. What's wrong with this idea? If states could secede you could have a more diverse set of regimes and people could choose more the style of government they prefer by moving state... It seems like quite a good idea. I'm not an American so maybe I'm missing something but why is there animosity about people suggesting the idea? I don't mean to provoke. I'm just curious...

The majority of the people creating and signing these petitions are the ones who are butt-hurt over the re-election of Obama. As it was already pointed out in the video, a lot of the states involved in the petition to secede are in the south and below the Mason-Dixon line, which were part of the confederacy during the US Civil War. Also of note is that, though correct me if I am wrong, majority of the states involved are also states where the electoral votes went to Romney.


The biggest issue I have with people creating the secession petitions is the absurdity of it, especially in today's world where countries are eyeballing us more than ever. It is a given now that the US isn't much of a country to look up to as a "leader." Also added is how some of the folks in the middle-east hate our guts. Timing is a major factor when a group of people want their state to secede from the country. This would raise an eyebrow if this was proposed when the country was actually stable, financially and militarily. But we're not living in such times.

The people wanting this fail to realize just how much of a bad idea this is if they do not think of the consequences if such secession were to happen. Hypothetically, the whole country would be in ruins, and invites those with extreme agendas to infiltrate the new and old country. It doesn't take a genius to see that no country can ever transition smoothly from one form to another, as evident with people revolt and overthrowing leaderships.

When GWBush got reelected, I was personally disappointed. But that doesn't mean I should just throw my arms up in anger and demand that so-and-so state secede from the country. No, I lived with it and dealt with it. Those idiots should do the same, instead of bickering over a mere election that didn't go their way. Rather than trying to make the whole situation worse, adapt and deal with it. In 4 years, the whole country will either be better off than now, worse, or be the same. And by then, we can judge the POTUS if he was good enough to turn the country around after the shitty mess GWBush left us.

Even if Obama has to look at the petitions (the ones that passed the minimum signature requirement), I highly doubt he'll give it a second to think it over. He'll glance over it and then throw it into the trash right there. I can only hope that the people in the Senate and in the House are smart enough to see the absurdity in them.

How could you forget Skate or Die Hard? John McClane must go undercover to infiltrate a group of young skater punks before their out-of-control loitering and handrail grinding brings [insert popular American city] to its knees.

The song was popularized by Old Crow Medicine Show who has long been affiliated with Alt Country/hippy jam fests. To be fair to OP though, there has been a bit of a fusion of the "scenes." Live electronic bands like the Disco Biscuits, Sound Tribe Sector 9, and the New Deal spawned this sort of new breed of "hippy-raver hybrids." As @visionep pointed out, there is somewhat of a natural symbiosis there. Anyway, this unholy alliance has come so far along as to push classic hippy bands like String Cheese Incident, Galactic, and Medeski Martin and Wood towards more electronic influenced sounds. These days you see kids on phish tour rockin' skrillex tattoos (oh the humanity). Whatever. I for one welcome our next generation of inebriated overlords. We all like to get down. Let's get down together.

>> ^Lann:

@visionep I known a lot of [insert creative subculture] that love bluegrass/Americana/old timey/folk music. So this isn't really all that strange to see. Also, this isn't exactly your normal country music you hear at some truck stop in Kansas.
<div id="widget_2014515807">

>> ^visionep:

So raver culture has infiltrated country music festivals? Awesome.. I always knew the two were related in some way.
<alternate comment>
There are some people that shouldn't wear spandex... and then again there are some people should, especially when they are showing off for a video that I am going to be able to view.


i think "festy" culture would be a more appropriate and inclusive term.

sounds more bluegrassy/west coast than country.

So raver culture has infiltrated country music festivals? Awesome.. I always knew the two were related in some way.

<alternate comment>

There are some people that shouldn't wear spandex... and then again there are some people should, especially when they are showing off for a video that I am going to be able to view.

>> ^shinyblurry:

The parameters of marriage was determined by God at the beginning of His creation. We have turned away from God in these United States, and so we have turned away from the biblical standard, however, not as much as gay marriage proponents have stated. Even with the media saturation and the constant infiltration of gay special interest groups into the national discourse, we have these realities:
1. A gay marriage amendment has never passed at the ballot box. It has failed everywhere it has been tried, with the voters rejecting it 32 times since 1998.
2. Constitutional bans on gay marriage have been successful 100 percent of time at the ballot box, passing in 31 states, typically with wide margins. This includes liberal strongholds like California and Hawaii. 38 states ban it to some degree.
The people don't appear to want gay marriage, and they are strongly in favor of the biblical definition of marriage. If you don't want to accept the reality that God has defined marriage, then accept the reality that most people are not that hot for this, and they don't want to take the country in this direction.
>> ^petpeeved:
>> ^shinyblurry:
If polygamy were legal, would it be a civil rights issue if he refused to bake one for a polygamous wedding? How about a cake for someone wanted to marry their dog, or their car? He believes marriage is between a man and a woman and refuses to make a cake for any other kind of wedding. This has nothing to do with their sexual orientation, it has to do with his moral opposition to the corruption of the institution of marriage.
>> ^petpeeved:
>> ^shinyblurry:
Don't try that shit, it's discrimination, you know exactly why he was refusing to make a gay wedding cake that type of lying isn't going to help your argument. 2nd it's not a double-standard to hand someone their ass when they say something stupid. You do something counter to the way a society has been going you get shouted down in the public square. We're moving towards legalizing gay marriage and giving equal rights to all americans, you go counter to that you're gonna get yelled at.
Sorry but you're wrong, it isn't discrimination. They were still able to do business there if they wanted another kind of cake, and I'm sure they're still welcome to do so. The man doesn't want to make a gay wedding cake because he believes marriage is between a man and a woman, and that gay marriage is immoral.
Also filth posted on message boards? Is this your first day on the internet? I'm pretty sure Justin Beiber hasn't done anything to anyone on the internet and still he's talked about worse than Hitler. You're in hyperbole country mother fucker, deal with it.
Now you want to continue discriminating against people and not doing your job to make cakes or hand out birth control pills than yeah your life is gonna be made harder. Too bad because you're lives are already way too easy as it is. Complaining about christian discrimination, bitch there's children dying in Africa, shut the fuck up.
So discrimination against Christians is okay, because people talk trash all the time and children are dying in Africa? In other words, you just wave your hand and make excuses..proving that you don't really think discrimination is wrong, so long as its against people you disagree with. It's clear you want equal rights for everyone except Christians.
>> ^Yogi

So blacks weren't being discriminated against on the buses and water fountains, because, hey, they could still ride...just not in the front of the bus and hey, they could get a drink...just not at this particular water fountain.
Sounds like the sequel to separate but equal.


You know what is the main flaw in the argument of Christians who claim that they have the sole right to define what the institution of marriage represents and who is permitted to access it?
Simply this:
Christians don't own, didn't invent, and have no right to control marriage. They don't hold the patent on it. Not the idea of marriage, not the word of marriage, nothing. The concept of marriage belongs to the human race and predates Christianity by millenia and continents. Therefore, they have no special rights or privilege to impose their definition of it upon the rest of the nation.
But don't take my word for it. You have google at your finger tips.



As much as I want to applaud you for shifting to a "fact" based argument with elements of reasoning as opposed to your pure belief based system of thought, I'm greatly confused as to where your statistics are coming from. I'm also a little irked that you forced me to do all the googling by the way. There are mountains of evidence that on every front, from the popular vote to constitutional challenges, that gay marriage is gaining support, not losing it.

Here, let me google it for you.

Just a few rulings on the constitutional level:

November 2003: the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that barring gays and lesbians from marrying violates the state constitution. The Massachusetts Chief Justice concluded that to “deny the protections, benefits, and obligations conferred by civil marriage” to gay couples was unconstitutional because it denied “the dignity and equality of all individuals” and made them “second-class citizens.” Strong opposition followed the ruling.

August 4, 2010: Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that Proposition 8, the 2008 referendum that banned same-sex marriage in California, violates the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause. "Proposition 8 singles out gays and lesbians and legitimates their unequal treatment," Vaughn wrote in his opinion. "Proposition 8 perpetuates the stereotype that gays and lesbians are incapable of forming long-term loving relationships and that gays and lesbians are not good parents."

February 7, 2012: the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in California ruled 2–1 that Proposition 8, the 2008 referendum that banned same-sex marriage in state, is unconstitutional because it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. In the ruling, the court said, the law "operates with no apparent purpose but to impose on gays and lesbians, through the public law, a majority's private disapproval of them and their relationships."

On the popular opinion front:

A June 6 CNN/ORC International poll showed that a majority of Americans support same-sex marriage being legalized at 54%, while 42% are opposed.

A May 22 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll showed that 54% of Americans would support a law in their state making same-sex marriage legal, with 40% opposed.

A May 17-20 ABC News/Washington Post poll showed that 53% believe same-sex marriage should be legal, with only 39% opposed, a low-water mark for opposition in any national poll so far.

A May 10 USA Today/Gallup Poll, taken one day after Barack Obama became the first sitting President to express support for same-sex marriage,[14] showed 51% of Americans agreed with the President's endorsement. A May 8 Gallup Poll showed plurality support for same-sex marriage nationwide, with 50% in favor and 48% opposed.

An April Pew Research Center poll showed support for same-sex marriage at 47%, while opposition fell to an all-time low of 43%.

A March 7-10 ABC News/Washington Post poll found 52% of adults thought it should be legal for same-sex couples to get married, while 42% disagreed and 5% were unsure.[18] A March survey by the Public Religion Research Institute found 52% of Americans supported allowing same-sex couples to marry, while 44% opposed.

A February 29 - March 3 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found 49% of adults supported allowing same-sex couples to marry, while 40% opposed.

One last note on a slightly different topic: religious groups funding anti-gay legislation, most notoriously, the Prop. 8 campaign in California. If Christians are going to use their funds as a group, not individuals, why are they being given tax-free exemptions? Why should people, such as myself, who don't share their beliefs, subsidize their political ambitions?

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

I don't want the government to curtail the ability of the religious to practice their faith but I don't think the first amendment was intended to give religions the overwhelming competitive advantage of tax-free money at the ballot box.

This could be solved two ways: no more organizational level contributions to political campaigns, i.e. the close to 200k the Mormon Church donated to support Prop. 8, OR remove tax-exempt status from religions.

By the way, it might seem impossible to conceive of a time when tax-exempt status for religion wasn't taken for granted but it's been a controversial issue from the inception of America. For example, even President Grant and Madison were against tax-exemption for religions.

The parameters of marriage was determined by God at the beginning of His creation. We have turned away from God in these United States, and so we have turned away from the biblical standard, however, not as much as gay marriage proponents have stated. Even with the media saturation and the constant infiltration of gay special interest groups into the national discourse, we have these realities:

1. A gay marriage amendment has never passed at the ballot box. It has failed everywhere it has been tried, with the voters rejecting it 32 times since 1998.

2. Constitutional bans on gay marriage have been successful 100 percent of time at the ballot box, passing in 31 states, typically with wide margins. This includes liberal strongholds like California and Hawaii. 38 states ban it to some degree.

The people don't appear to want gay marriage, and they are strongly in favor of the biblical definition of marriage. If you don't want to accept the reality that God has defined marriage, then accept the reality that most people are not that hot for this, and they don't want to take the country in this direction.
>> ^petpeeved:

>> ^shinyblurry:
If polygamy were legal, would it be a civil rights issue if he refused to bake one for a polygamous wedding? How about a cake for someone wanted to marry their dog, or their car? He believes marriage is between a man and a woman and refuses to make a cake for any other kind of wedding. This has nothing to do with their sexual orientation, it has to do with his moral opposition to the corruption of the institution of marriage.
>> ^petpeeved:
>> ^shinyblurry:
Don't try that shit, it's discrimination, you know exactly why he was refusing to make a gay wedding cake that type of lying isn't going to help your argument. 2nd it's not a double-standard to hand someone their ass when they say something stupid. You do something counter to the way a society has been going you get shouted down in the public square. We're moving towards legalizing gay marriage and giving equal rights to all americans, you go counter to that you're gonna get yelled at.
Sorry but you're wrong, it isn't discrimination. They were still able to do business there if they wanted another kind of cake, and I'm sure they're still welcome to do so. The man doesn't want to make a gay wedding cake because he believes marriage is between a man and a woman, and that gay marriage is immoral.
Also filth posted on message boards? Is this your first day on the internet? I'm pretty sure Justin Beiber hasn't done anything to anyone on the internet and still he's talked about worse than Hitler. You're in hyperbole country mother fucker, deal with it.
Now you want to continue discriminating against people and not doing your job to make cakes or hand out birth control pills than yeah your life is gonna be made harder. Too bad because you're lives are already way too easy as it is. Complaining about christian discrimination, bitch there's children dying in Africa, shut the fuck up.
So discrimination against Christians is okay, because people talk trash all the time and children are dying in Africa? In other words, you just wave your hand and make excuses..proving that you don't really think discrimination is wrong, so long as its against people you disagree with. It's clear you want equal rights for everyone except Christians.
>> ^Yogi

So blacks weren't being discriminated against on the buses and water fountains, because, hey, they could still ride...just not in the front of the bus and hey, they could get a drink...just not at this particular water fountain.
Sounds like the sequel to separate but equal.


You know what is the main flaw in the argument of Christians who claim that they have the sole right to define what the institution of marriage represents and who is permitted to access it?
Simply this:
Christians don't own, didn't invent, and have no right to control marriage. They don't hold the patent on it. Not the idea of marriage, not the word of marriage, nothing. The concept of marriage belongs to the human race and predates Christianity by millenia and continents. Therefore, they have no special rights or privilege to impose their definition of it upon the rest of the nation.
But don't take my word for it. You have google at your finger tips.

This isn't sifting either:
http://www.vice.com/savages/savage-living-el-infiltrator