>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^Yogi:
I think George Carlin cleared this up already. If YOU vote than it's your fault, the people who don't vote get to complain because YOU Voters screwed up the country.

Sorry, but that's bullshit and my respect for Carlin has just gone way down.
Fine, you don't like the system. You feel that both candidates are crooks, liars, war criminals and nickelback fans. You don't want to vote for either of them.
Ok, what are you doing about that? If you're not going to vote within the system, what are you doing to change it?
"What can I do to change the system all by myself?"
I dunno, but that's not my problem. You're the one who believes it's so fucked up that you can't participate. Yeah, it's difficult and you have fuck all chance of making a meaningful change, but if you believe it's that badly broken, don't you have a moral obligation to at least try?
So either use your voice to make an informed decision or work to change the system. Otherwise STFU.


You think voting is working to change the system? I'm working by doing my own things to change the system, being involved in social movements to change minds...not pulling a lever once every four years and thinking I'm fucking doing something. You're doing nothing, you just don't get that.

Switching off the ignition would, at least in older cars, cut the spark to the engine and stop it. The last car I had with an automatic transmission could be put into neutral whenever (my girlfriend used to always accidentally bump the lever somehow, you don't even need to push the button for that).

I really would like someone who knows about modern cars to explain to me how this is actually a problem short of just panicky people not doing much thinking. I can see getting in an accident because of a stuck throttle if you crashed before you had time to react, but actually travelling along like you're helpless doesn't make any sense.

*hugs akwardly*
>> ^hpqp:

Oh boy, where to start...
Religion: Belief in or acknowledgement of some superhuman power or powers (esp. a god or gods) which is typically manifested in obedience, reverence, and worship; such a belief as part of a system defining a code of living, esp. as a means of achieving spiritual or material improvement. (OED)
Yes, there is something (actually several things) inherently wrong with religion, and it is naive (or disingenuous) to trot out the argument that religion has been "used" as "a social lever to inflict harm" without recognising that the reason it works so well for that is because of its particular negative aspects (most notably: blind submission to authority and the notion of "higher auth." trumping basic human values).
For one: supernatural belief, instilled/indoctrinated before critical thought can balance it out. Other than what I (and many others, including Hitchens) would call "state religions" such as communism, what set of beliefs is instilled uncritically into young minds, without any evidence to back it up? And I'm not talking about "don't put your fingers in the socket" either, which a) is for the child's good (contrary to religious beliefs) and b) can be tested/understood empirically as the child learns about electricity. No, supernatural beliefs, the staple (and one of the definitive aspects) of religion cannot be empirically tested, and thus rely on blind obedience to authority, which is a negative in and of itself. Moreover, it often brings into play a dictatorial reward/punishment system that the child (and adult) cannot discount/disprove with evidence; it is kept out of reach of experience, and thus is much harder to leave behind, while playing with humankind's deep-set fears (of death, eternity, pain, etc) in order to keep them under control. Can you tell me of another social organisation of beliefs/morals that does this? And while the "moderates" are less guilty of indoctrination and fear-mongering, they still give credence and the weight of majority (not to mention their influence as parental figures) to a set of supernatural beliefs which are detrimental to humankind. That they use these to justify positive moral codes only makes it worse, because it makes the latter seem dependent (or at least a result of) the former. As @PostalBlowfish rightly suggests, human morality is only impoverished by the supernatural beliefs religion attaches to it.
I could go on, but I have work to do. I will conclude by saying that as long as well-intentioned people like yourself continue to divorce the inherently negative aspects of religion/religious belief and the sociocultural evils it has often enshrined (backing them with an indefeasible authority) such as homophobia, tribalism, antisemitism, etc, society remains a long ways from being "fixed".
>> ^jonny:
[...]You make the point that the philosophical beliefs, particularly moral codes, are not intrinsically dependent upon religion. Even if that is true, it doesn't negate all other aspects of religion. Religion is more than a source of moral and ethical codes and rituals. I gave a tentative definition of it being a collectively held set of beliefs. The collective nature of that belief is very important. As social animals, humans need to feel connected to those around them, and religion provides what has been historically the most successful locus of connection in human societies. The social aspect of religion is probably its greatest function. It connects members of a community throughout every aspect of life, cradle to grave.
Now, you might say that a properly constructed set of philosophical beliefs based purely on rationality and science can accomplish the same thing. And I would say that if you did accomplish such a feat, you'd basically have a religion on your hands, regardless of its lack of theistic doctrine.
The point I was trying to make with my first comment was that any sufficiently powerful set of beliefs can be used as a social lever to inflict great harm on humanity. Various religions have been used such, as have the works of some great non-theistic philosophers. I was trying to point out that the "evils of religion" are not a problem with religion per se, but with things like demagoguery and xenophobic tribalism. I believe this distinction is of paramount importance, because it more accurately points us towards what needs fixing in our societies.

Oh boy, where to start...
Religion: Belief in or acknowledgement of some superhuman power or powers (esp. a god or gods) which is typically manifested in obedience, reverence, and worship; such a belief as part of a system defining a code of living, esp. as a means of achieving spiritual or material improvement. (OED)

Yes, there is something (actually several things) inherently wrong with religion, and it is naive (or disingenuous) to trot out the argument that religion has been "used" as "a social lever to inflict harm" without recognising that the reason it works so well for that is because of its particular negative aspects (most notably: blind submission to authority and the notion of "higher auth." trumping basic human values).

For one: supernatural belief, instilled/indoctrinated before critical thought can balance it out. Other than what I (and many others, including Hitchens) would call "state religions" such as communism, what set of beliefs is instilled uncritically into young minds, without any evidence to back it up? And I'm not talking about "don't put your fingers in the socket" either, which a) is for the child's good (contrary to religious beliefs) and b) can be tested/understood empirically as the child learns about electricity. No, supernatural beliefs, the staple (and one of the definitive aspects) of religion cannot be empirically tested, and thus rely on blind obedience to authority, which is a negative in and of itself. Moreover, it often brings into play a dictatorial reward/punishment system that the child (and adult) cannot discount/disprove with evidence; it is kept out of reach of experience, and thus is much harder to leave behind, while playing with humankind's deep-set fears (of death, eternity, pain, etc) in order to keep them under control. Can you tell me of another social organisation of beliefs/morals that does this? And while the "moderates" are less guilty of indoctrination and fear-mongering, they still give credence and the weight of majority (not to mention their influence as parental figures) to a set of supernatural beliefs which are detrimental to humankind. That they use these to justify positive moral codes only makes it worse, because it makes the latter seem dependent (or at least a result of) the former. As @PostalBlowfish rightly suggests, human morality is only impoverished by the supernatural beliefs religion attaches to it.

I could go on, but I have work to do. I will conclude by saying that as long as well-intentioned people like yourself continue to divorce the inherently negative aspects of religion/religious belief and the sociocultural evils it has often enshrined (backing them with an indefeasible authority) such as homophobia, tribalism, antisemitism, etc, society remains a long ways from being "fixed".

>> ^jonny:

[...]You make the point that the philosophical beliefs, particularly moral codes, are not intrinsically dependent upon religion. Even if that is true, it doesn't negate all other aspects of religion. Religion is more than a source of moral and ethical codes and rituals. I gave a tentative definition of it being a collectively held set of beliefs. The collective nature of that belief is very important. As social animals, humans need to feel connected to those around them, and religion provides what has been historically the most successful locus of connection in human societies. The social aspect of religion is probably its greatest function. It connects members of a community throughout every aspect of life, cradle to grave.
Now, you might say that a properly constructed set of philosophical beliefs based purely on rationality and science can accomplish the same thing. And I would say that if you did accomplish such a feat, you'd basically have a religion on your hands, regardless of its lack of theistic doctrine.

The point I was trying to make with my first comment was that any sufficiently powerful set of beliefs can be used as a social lever to inflict great harm on humanity. Various religions have been used such, as have the works of some great non-theistic philosophers. I was trying to point out that the "evils of religion" are not a problem with religion per se, but with things like demagoguery and xenophobic tribalism. I believe this distinction is of paramount importance, because it more accurately points us towards what needs fixing in our societies.

@PostalBlowfish - easy friend ... I wasn't labeling you absurd, just one interpretation of the opening remark of your comment. Surely there is a distinction. You don't need to do anything with the fact that I don't often vote on comments. That fact and this specific exception to it have no real effect, except apparently to have upset you.

To your specific points, though ...

I don't think I veered off topic at all. I was trying to figure out to what exactly you were referring by "religion". I tried to make a guess based on the rest of your comment. I didn't offer an example of the benefits of religion because 1) I wasn't sure my guess about your meaning was correct, and 2) if you were referring to religion in its broadest terms, the claim seemed patently false. Your response suggests a broad definition of religion and that what I think is obvious is not at all obvious to you.

You make the point that the philosophical beliefs, particularly moral codes, are not intrinsically dependent upon religion. Even if that is true, it doesn't negate all other aspects of religion. Religion is more than a source of moral and ethical codes and rituals. I gave a tentative definition of it being a collectively held set of beliefs. The collective nature of that belief is very important. As social animals, humans need to feel connected to those around them, and religion provides what has been historically the most successful locus of connection in human societies. The social aspect of religion is probably its greatest function. It connects members of a community throughout every aspect of life, cradle to grave.

Now, you might say that a properly constructed set of philosophical beliefs based purely on rationality and science can accomplish the same thing. And I would say that if you did accomplish such a feat, you'd basically have a religion on your hands, regardless of its lack of theistic doctrine.


The point I was trying to make with my first comment was that any sufficiently powerful set of beliefs can be used as a social lever to inflict great harm on humanity. Various religions have been used such, as have the works of some great non-theistic philosophers. I was trying to point out that the "evils of religion" are not a problem with religion per se, but with things like demagoguery and xenophobic tribalism. I believe this distinction is of paramount importance, because it more accurately points us towards what needs fixing in our societies.

Yeah, he used a CO2 canister-based pump. Very handy for quick changes, but you need to be careful to do as he do and aim upwards when inflating (downward facing = greater chance of freezing inner tube - from experience). Note: Depending on temperatures and canister size (12g, 16g etc), CO2 canisters often only get you back up to 80-90PSI, which may or may not be enough for your setup


This was a great (and impressive) display. As someone who has changed HUNDREDS of flatties, my ramblings, FWIW:
- The tyre/rim combo can often mean removal (and reseating) of the tyre is a PITA, due to slightly small ID tyre bead and slightly oversize RIM OD. Inevitably this requires n+1 tyre levers, with n being the number you have in your pocket (tip: wheel quick releases make good emergency tyre levers at a pinch)
- 30 seconds spent identifying/removing source of puncture (glass/wire/thorn) saves many minutes of rework when you get another puncture a minute later from the bastard wire strand you didnt look hard enough for
- always carry a patch kit (or 1-2 of the self-adhesive sticky instant patches). Two punctures on one ride is rare but it happens and being stranded out of cell coverage then trying to peel off bar tape to seal a puncture is a way to ruin a good ride
- Replace old tyres. There is an exponential growth curve that describes the relationship between tyre age to incidence of punctures. Old tyres are the single most effective way to spend lots of time on the side of the road yelling

Congratulations! Your video, Physics Fail = Comedy Win. A lesson in levers, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 4 Badge!

>> ^mxxcon:

A perfect video that needs some of that youtube video stabilization. I felt like my eyes would leak out.


No, no and more no.

Youtube stabilisation does nothing but make the video all wavey and weird. Say no to stabilisation, NO!

>> ^deathcow:

Interesting. pressing 8 only moves it to the right point on 720P I did not know it was resolution dependant.


Works in 720p for me, doesn't work in fullscreen is all.

Your video, Physics Fail = Comedy Win. A lesson in levers, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

There is no way that bike could out-brake that truck. There's no way if the truck slammed on the anchors like he meant it that the guy could stop without hitting it. He has one finger on the brake levers. The first 0.2 seconds would be until he started moving. The next 0.2 seconds (the 0.2 seconds that would put him into the back of the truck) would be for him to get his fingers properly onto the levers.

All this is if he's extremely alert and fully focused as the truck started to brake. You can play around with the maths all day long, if that truck has to stop in a hurry he's gonna lose a huge amount of skin.

I think the way I'd put it is that I disagree that "Hegelian dialectic" is being appropriately used in the video. Here is a nice concise introduction to the concept. It's an alternative method for reasoning, and therefore is about trying to reach a better understanding of truth -- it has nothing to do with psychology, politics, or trying to control people.

The triadic structure of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis can, if you squint a bit, be re-purposed as a general theory about how political and scientific progress happens. First you have a thesis (e.g. "property is the only right"), then you have an antithesis ("property is theft"), and once people realize that while both positions contain insights, neither absolute position is fully correct, and so we generate a new thesis that combines the valid insights of each -- a synthesis ("a right to property is one of many rights, and without limits can and will infringe on those other rights"). But that's not a Hegelian Dialectic, that's just a slightly stilted way at looking at how "classical" reasoning sometimes plays out in the real world.

All that said, none of this serves to support the thesis that modern conceptions of the political left and right have been invented in order to achieve some sort of nefarious synthesis. Worse, if you think it's a Hegelian Dialectical synthesis we're heading for, then not only is it not a Reichstag fire, it's a giant leap forward in humanity's understanding of itself, because we will have figured out how to simultaneously resolve the left's criticisms of society (not enough equality in wealth and power), and the right's (too many people disputing the rightful distribution of wealth and power that arises from market action), though personally I don't think the resolution of that thesis/antithesis conflict will result in synthesis, just in the right's thesis being discarded. Again.

Long story short, if this is the foundation for a conspiracy theory, it's already gone way out into left field before it's even gotten started.

In reply to this comment by enoch:
In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
The Shock Doctrine and disaster capitalism are a lot more precise concepts than this. The idea behind the Shock Doctrine isn't that all conceptions of left and right are a distraction from the so-called "real" issues, it's where you foment a series of national crises in order to subvert the mechanisms of democracy in order to implement radical policies that would only be acquiesced to when people were in a state of shock.

In the case of disaster capitalism, you actually get a nice feedback loop. Deregulate markets, newly deregulated markets crash and create an economic crisis, and new "reforms" which further deregulate markets are proposed as the solution to the crisis created by the last round of deregulation. See all economic policy proposed by Republicans since the 1980's for examples.

There's also a burden of proof fallacy at work here. 3 cherry-picked quotes from Bush and Kerry on Iraq does not a conspiracy make. The political divide in the country in 2004 over Iraq clearly had the "stay forever" and "get out now" poles to it. That the Democratic candidate was moderate and said merely "don't stay forever", is more a sign of there being a right-wing conspiracy rigging elections and corrupting the Democratic party, not that the very idea of left and right having policy disagreements is some sort of elaborate distraction.

The thing I'm sensing in a lot of liberals these days is the sense that even when we win elections, we're still pretty much getting Republican policies rammed down our throats. We're even doing this thing where we Occupy places in protest of the 1% corrupting our political process and subverting the will of the people...


hey man,
i cant tell if you are agreeing with the video or not.
i am going to guess on the negative.
which kind of confuses me because the video is really just laying out what the hegelian dialectic is and how it can be used to be a lever of control.(sans the ron paul filler at the end).
i found it a pretty short but succinct in its intended goal to educate.

your descriptions of "shock doctrine" and "disaster capitalism" are correct but your premise seems to ignore that both utilize the hegelian dialectic to execute properly in to a society.

example:
problem (thesis)<------------------> reaction (antithesis)

but what if the institution meant to execute the reaction is the very same institution which created the problem,and hence is in the position to offer a solution? a solution which may have been the very thing they were after in the first place?

see where i am going with this?
so while in one scenario the problem is a creation,a facade, (shock doctrine) and the other (disaster capitalism) is an opportunistic leap for control,BOTH utilize the hegelian dialectic to accomplish their goals.

i am not a huge admirer of hegel (ok,i think he is a cunt) but he did understand human beings and the societies they live in because his predictions have played out quite accurately,when placed in the right context.

my thinking behind posting that video was to help people become aware of those levers of control.the philosophy behind those who wish to dominate and control the masses.
the more you know and all that jazz.

once you understand the hegelian dialectic and HOW it is used,you will see it in places and used in ways that prior you would have thought impossible.
it is used by those in power often and extremely well.

anyways.i just wanted to drop a note to you because either i misunderstood your comment or i am just a tad retarded.
in either case my friend,know that i love your commentary and i especially love your optimism.
really..keep up the optimism.my cynicism needs a dose every now and then.
peace brother.

>> ^Asmo:

>> ^EMPIRE:
I don't know what you're thinking, but I'm thinking someone placed that metal mesh over the hole so that cars could go over the hole, but the mesh actually got caught in the hole, and levered the car up.

Umm, the video makes it pretty clear.
The front left tyre goes in to the hole, smashes in to the far side and the ass end of the car rises as the front dramatically decelerates...

Nope. Watch the second video (in eric3579's post above) on 720p and you can better see what happens.

The manhole has an off-center metal mesh cover welded to a cylinder that fits down into the manhole (presumably to keep the mesh in place).
The front-left tire clips the side of the mesh cover, presumably just enough to pop it up. That's what catches the undercarriage and vaults the back end up.
The structure of the mesh-cylinder apparatus is more apparent at the end of the video when it settles near the hood of the vehicle.

>> ^EMPIRE:

I don't know what you're thinking, but I'm thinking someone placed that metal mesh over the hole so that cars could go over the hole, but the mesh actually got caught in the hole, and levered the car up.


Umm, the video makes it pretty clear.

The front left tyre goes in to the hole, smashes in to the far side and the ass end of the car rises as the front dramatically decelerates... Same sort of force applied as jamming on the front brakes of a bike and the back of the bike rises.

It would be difficult to see the lack of a dark metal manhole over a dark hole at speed when you aren't distinctly looking for it.

I don't know what you're thinking, but I'm thinking someone placed that metal mesh over the hole so that cars could go over the hole, but the mesh actually got caught in the hole, and levered the car up.