@bcglorf
this assumes there will be no consequences for breaking the rules or no structure in place to enforce those rules.this implies that if their WAS no enforcement,everybody would spend the entire day robbing,raping and causing mayhem.

so you are right,the base argument is indeed intellectually dishonest,but is also not an argument FOR a militarized police force.the real arguments is the laws themselves.

start with more humane and common sense laws and the need for a massive police force becomes irrelevant.

in an anarchal system it is the people who are the representatives who create legislation.
lets take the iraq war of 2003,where the american people were overwhelmingly against going into iraq..yet we still invaded.representative democracy? not a shot.
or in 2008 when the american people,in a massive majority,rejected the bailout and wished to see the perpetrators held accountable.well? what happened? i think you know.

anarchism is a varied and dynamic political view.its not just one simple flavor.do you see trance and i agreeing on much?my politics over-laps with trance but it does with @newtboy and @ChaosEngine as well.

the basic gist is individual liberty trumps everything and that the structures put in place should be temporary and be directed from the bottom up,not the top down.we realize that we live in a society populated by people and it should be the people who direct where that society should be going.we have no need or use for "leaders" or "rulers" and when the "representatives" have obviously jumped the shark to whore to their donors,it is time to question/criticize the system and not just replace the crack whore with a meth whore.

anarchy is simply a political philosophy,thats it.

so we would see:
zero wars of aggression
no more criminalized drug addicts or poor people
no more corporate welfare
and most likely the people would vote out the federal reserve and print its own currency.

anarchists prefer direct democracy but will accept representative if they are actually being represented.(though begrudgingly).

you should read up on some anarchy.you may find some very food ideas and while not a perfect political philosophy,the one thing it does offer that i find most appealing:if it aint working...vote it out.

That's almost exactly what I just said 17-18kg in earth terms. Do you think laid on your back you could easily throw a 17kg object 1.5-2m upwards?

He's not doing a push up he's trying to jump upright. Launching nearly 20kg of weight far enough to get to your feet would take some doing that way I'd say. Just lifting 20kg with the arms alone is an effort never mind throwing it which is effectively what's happening here.

This is part of the reason I defaulted to thinking in terms of rocketry as it's not as simple as just someone trying to lift something, they are trying to propel themselves 1-2m upwards with only a thrust from the arms. Much better to wiggle around/push up to get to your knees so one could bring one's legs muscles to bear (made very difficult by hard to bend suit).

Frankly I think it would be a total pain in the arse getting back upright. If it weren't for the suit you could easily push up to your knees and then straighten your legs but the inflation is going to make that very hard work (but doable after a struggle to one knee as other video footage proves).

The alternative however which sparked this whole argument i.e. lay on your front and push off with your arms. That I think would be considerably harder than you are making out. Throwing a 17kg weight with only your arms over 1m in height is not what I'd call effortless.

My old CRT monitor probably weighs about 20kg, it'd take everything I had to throw that over 1m up into the air. Without the power of your thigh muscles and the rigidity of your spine 20kg is quite a lot really.

How high can you "jump" with only your arms? (like those super push-ups where you clap your hands in between to show off) maybe a foot or two if your really really strong? So with the extra weight of a suit and reduced gravity multiplying the result by 6 under lunar gravity, 6feet is probably just about attainable for someone in peak physical shape. But it's defiantly not what I'd call easy!


Re: conspiracies The only one I really take at all seriously any more is the idea that 2001 (esp the book) was perhaps (very) loosely based on actual events. I have time for it simply because of Arthur C. Clarke himself who was going to give an interview (which he rarely does) on Project Camelot of all things but died about 2 weeks before it happened. If you know anything about project camelot you'll know whatever he had to say was going to be mental but then again he was very old and eccentric and plenty other people involved in the space program have "jumped the shark" so to speak. (Edgar Mitchell talks about aliens on a regualr basis, Buzz Aldrin has spoken about monoliths on Phobos, pilots being followed by "Foofighters" in WW2 etc. etc.)

But it's basically wishful thinking on my part, the story and implications are remarkably plausible for what they are but that is all they are. Combined with the whole Jack Parsons/Alastair Crowley connection to the JPL my creative juices start flowing. However the obvious counter argument i.e. that the world is largely run by genuine lunatics is never far from my mind either (look at the whole "men who stare at goats" thing).

I'll listen to anyone and some I'm even prepared to believe on their own terms but I have to defer to actual evidence where it exists (or does not exist). Consequently while I'll listen to someone like John Leer talking about stuff that would seem outlandish even in a science fiction story, people why claim the moon landing was a hoax tend to get the cold shoulder as it's pretty demonstrably not true/hard to believe.

I realise that's kind of backwards but willing suspension of disbelief is a lot easier when there's really no tangible evidence either way. (why I suspect huge incomprehensible delusions like those espoused by many religions get so much traction. It's easier to believe the big lie than the small one)

Jolly entertaining though regardless

Jumping of Shark; Detected

To me this clip just points out the absurdities of any "-ism"

The standard nonsense of "I was in X before X jumped the shark and sold out"

"Being an X means I stood for R, S, and T, thereby implying the other team doesn't stand for R, S, and T

If this doesn't demonstrate the fallacies of having a "first past the post" voting system, I don't know what does.

This demonization of "the other" has got to stop, especially when it comes to people in our own nation,

that said, not all opinions are equal, and shitty opinions do deserve, nay demand, criticism, especially when you can't back them up with any sort of basic argument without falling all over logical fallacies.

I have no interest in demonizing the other team, they're doing that all by themselves, I do however want to vote them out. I don't need to make shit up to make the argument either.

Say what you want about him, but the moment he joined Mork and Mindy was the day that show jumped the shark.

Not that I'm blaming him. It was probably a combination of the writers and Williams' drug problems, but still.

You can just tell how this was manufactured from start to finish with the whole intent being "lets make a new meme!" It feels like an attempt by a marketing firm to reach people by mimicking what research shows will turn them on. ("People respond positively to puppies and the word 'free'"!)
The internet has well and truly jumped the shark.

I still have heard of any "SANE preventative means" that don't involve restricting gun ownership.

This is much like the war on terror insofar as victory is just minimisation not eradication. Massacres like this are going to continue so long as access to easily usable weaponry is maintained. The best you can realistically hope for in the USA is to have fewer of them. As such it is going to be near impossible to provide compelling evidence that a decrease in access to weapons amounts to a decrease in shootings as there are always going to be sporadic shootings in a country with so widely spread gun ownership. One massacre equals grist for the mill to those who say gun laws didnt stop anything just as all the counter-terrorist efforts haven't stopped terrorism. It is going to take a degree of calmness and maturity that the USA, given its heritage, simply doesn't possess. The rest of the developed world has only come to these findings after the fact and is screaming at the USA to heed their experienced advice. Likewise, the rest of the developed world can't get it through their heads that the USA has 'jumped the shark' in relation to gun ownership and proliferation and nothing short of a revolutionary change in the cultural psychology, such that near universal voluntary relinquishment of gun ownership is required, will address the problem.

In short, gun ownership in the USA is The Prisoners Dilemma writ large.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma

Did the Simpson's un-jump the shark? Can you even do that?

WTF are you talking about? Brad Pitt?!? Moneyball, Inglourious Basterds, Burn After Reading, fucking Fight Club... He's fucking awesome.

Doesn't come out till 2013 - they'll sort out the zombies before then... >> ^Payback:

I think you know your movie idea has jumped the shark when the only big name you can get for it is Pitt.

I think you know your movie idea has jumped the shark when the only big name you can get for it is Pitt.

>> ^CrushBug:

What is way beyond Jumping The Shark? Oh. This.


C'mon, where's that inner 8-year old in you just hopping at the chance to have a little Star Wars-on-Angry Birds action?!

What is way beyond Jumping The Shark? Oh. This.

I see trolling has fully jumped the shark now.

C'mon, it's the extent of the parental revenge...

"I gotta suck that dick, that's my baby girl." Hilarious.>> ^Sagemind:

I was with him until he went full parental revenge then he jumped the shark a bit.
I too have witnessed children a my kids school that dive me crazy.