I would share the knee-jerk outrage right on cue if it was the same cop in both situations. How do you know the first cop wouldn't treat the black man the same way, by walking up and talking to him? How do you know the second cop wouldn't pull his gun on the white guy in the first scene? How do you know whether there wasn't a report of a robbery in the vicinity of the 2nd scene? The first video apparently was taken in Oregon, I can’t tell what county is displayed on the police cars in the 2nd video, much less what state they are in. So I must assume there are logistical reasons why the creators of this video would not have been in the position to insert the black man into the original scenario, for it to actually qualify as a “social experiment”. I know these comments wouldn't easily fit on a picket sign, so that must mean I'm for racism (he said sarcastically).

Dogs stink and are filthy animals. I don't understand how people live with them. I mean that literally. Lately I've been trying to understand. Do people really just let their dogs all smelly and dirty climb into bed, couches, car seats, etc. without ever cleaning them first? It just seems like such a filthy way to live, tracking dirt and dog smell all over everything everywhere they go.

I asked my wife about it and she just tells me people love their dogs, so they aren't bothered by it. Is that really all it comes down to, ignoring it? The answer I wish to be true is that they somehow aren't as dirty or smelly as I believe they are, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

So it's clear, I don't dislike dogs, just can't comprehend the logistics of how one can actually live with those creatures with cleanliness and lack of odor.

Also great for shitty logistics:
"Boss, the ice cream hasn't been cooled for 2 days, we should throw it out."
"Nah, just put it in the freezer again when there is room, no one will notice. We should even be charging extra for the added salmonellae!"

Ironic to describe a place that has no natural light as brilliant. Wish they would've shown how people get in and out of there. Seems tricky logistically.

I'd love to know how they came up with this idea.

"Okay, we have a huge mine we're no longer using. What can we do with it?... Anyone? Anyone?"

"I have an idea! Trampolines!"

"Yes, of course!"

@Sniper007

Colonisation of other planets, if it happens, will not ease overpopulation on Earth. Assuming it's actually done with humans rather than, say bacteria which are so much easier to transport; it must involve small seed populations of colonists, not firing billions of people off into space. Where do you imagine the energy required would come from? As it stands in 2014 we can barely move a handful of people into low earth orbit, a few hundred kilometres away.

Think about the logistics of transporting and housing all these billions of colonists in a hostile environment. Making the environment itself habitable is an even greater challenge; we can't even seem to fix the one we have on Earth, the one we spent billions of years evolving to suit.

The expansion of the universe, meanwhile, is always giving us less material to work with and perpetually moving it further away.

@SDGundamX

Relying on technology to solve overpopulation is like refusing to stop smoking because by the time you get cancer science will have found a cure.

Scientific advancement is not a given. It doesn't progress at a guaranteed rate and it isn't a genie that will automatically offer a salve to every need. Or, to coin a cliche, "Where's my jetpack?"

Luckily however, in the instant case scientists have offered an easy solution to overpopulation: Stop having so many children.

@RedSky

Poverty reduction without population reduction - reduction, not stabilisation - is catastrophic. The current global population of ~7.2 billion is only survivable, never mind sustainable, because most of those billions are impoverished peasants who barely consume any resources at all. Elevating the poor to a rich, westernesque lifestyle multiplies the effects of overpopulation tremendously, even if it slightly slows population growth in absolute terms.

Rosling doesn't seem to understand the actual problem, and his predictions are at any rate, horrifyingly optimistic.

We need to be shooting for a global population in the range of 100 million - 1 billion. Any substantially higher number than that is an apocalypse waiting to happen.

Wind turbines to provide the comparable megawatts for millions of homes ARE a frivolous waste. The huge amounts needed for wasteful, programmed, energy-addicted peeps IS a huge logistical clusterfuck of resources there, notarobot.

Your example of one family with a turbine and a solar array is fine and all (the upfront cost for such a setup is a shitload of funds and the upkeep of his dual set-up is probably a complete bitch of a money-pit to maintain) but were talking efficiency for the masses here.. Your 'research' should be based upon something besides what seems more of an emotionally passionate ideal moreso than anything practical for the many.

Personally, I think this virgin-trail-run Bloom box bullshit is simply another snake-oil scam. Much more work need be done to ever make them practical. What really should done in the realm of a practical kind of "reality" (otherwise known as a construct...reality that is) is to revive anti-trust/monopoly laws to hobble the robber-baron's once again...

Go listen some Bucky Fuller perhaps and try to awaken from the pipe-dream of monkey-business-as-usual instead of towing some lazy cop-out nouveau-hippy green-party line??

The thing I always have a problem with about alternate histories where "the Nazis won" is logistics. There just wasn't enough Germans to hold the entire world. They had a hard enough time with Europe and Russia.

Yayayah, I know, they have evil demon robots and mecha-dobermans and shit in this game, but that took 11 years to develop in this universe. How'd they hold the US before that?

I really have to wonder if this isn't just marketing. The number of issues, logistic, financial and legal... makes it hard to see how this can be viable just yet. Course i know nothing about the tech so maybe it's better than i realized.

Ok so, been a month and 3 weeks, and shagen454 axeded.so..

ChogBlog 1


Ok so, been trying to figure out the best way to inspire myself musically without the use of my un-damaged vocal range, with a go-to musical instrument battery I know my way well-enough around to use as a framework for a studio-I can get sounds outta anything, have access to any rudimentary keyboard but am flexible with strings, woodwinds, bass. Now you have to understand if yer mind interprets a musical instrument as some outer-space device requiring a manual or instruction via direct-transmission in order to fire: I can coax pleasing tones from vegetables. What I need is a new kick. I can go for miles rendering compositions only I want to hear with a guitar, harmonica, saxophone-IO crave arrangements, and bass and drums..

Can Keep great time and love percussion, vibes, marimba, steel-drum but never had a set to wail on worth a fuck till now: Same as it ever was….

Worlds’ the oyster, and fuck the dumbshitz, I have access by nature of incarnation and geographical locale and resources to make anything happen-Goin’ for percussion and bass, and solo-Only I can work with a band of miscreants, those dwelling inside my own head, be-damn! The logistics of other fleshapoids in the way for the task of rendering!!....Why bother? Make it and take it to musicians I don’t have to fuck with-Maybe I should have been Quincy Jones fucking adopted white baby…..


Shootin' for a fat stack 'o pearly-white Slingerlandz, maybe Ludwig-Need 2 stellar floor toms and oh fuck....adding shit already-!

The Fed and the World Bank can only fuck the world because of the illusory stranglehold they have on the cattle-We believe their paper to be of value and that the system works. Hard to rally behind a rout of criminals in their palaces when food and fuel isn't available just like it's hard for a majority of citizens to mount a physical campaign on Washington for a protest.....logistics.

These measures to add incrementally, additional features, capacities, etc. to existing laws??? To avoid accusations of a totalitarian crackdown, you know the routine and those who would that the United States be gun-free zone have plenty of time and money and the fucking media in their pocket.

Get me started on the privilege of driving? I daily see morons who, if the required tests for a driving license sane, would be riding a fucking unicycle to work. This includes you dumb-asses who stay on your fucking cell the bulk of the time you spend in your vehicle. I live in a city with over 6 million people, 150 square miles in the county, and everyone owns a car. Fucking nightmare of imbeciles on the road DAILY, plenty of whom should not be allowed to carry a loaded, 2-3 ton killing machine.

What was it Al Pacino said in "Heat??"....You get killed walking your doggy!"

Real simple for me: Hire police and create soldiers out of unhinged fucks who have control and power issues and give THEM guns?? Until my saliva can be used to melt steel or some unifying event turns the world into an idyllic wonderland of brotherly love, Guns. Explosives. Pointy fucking sticks. To protect ourselves from defective assholes and should the need ever arise, we'll make our decision then.

The world becomes increasingly more chaotic and non-linear by the hour...embrace it. We live in one of the most incredible times in human history and the planet my children inherit will be unrecognizable very soon and all change is quite a good thing.

Two points come to mind, strictly from the perspective of an armchair general.

First, you need first class logistics as well as industrial capacity to run a doctrine of fire superiority continously over lengthy periods of time. If you can't supply your troops adequatly, suppressive fire becomes a luxury. Basically, industrial prowess allows you to sacrifice resources instead of soldiers. The Sowjets, on the other hand, had ample manpower reserves, yet limited logistical capacities, leaving human waves as a doctrine.

Second, I suppose it's much easier on your nerves to be "pro-active" about incoming fire than to just wait for an opportune moment. The vast majority of soldiers in major wars were civilians with comparatively little training. During the later years of World War 2, for instance, the difference between seasoned Wehrmacht divisions and reserve/Volkssturm units was enormous, despite acute ammunition shortage in the entire European theatre. Interestingly enough, even the replacement of bolt action rifles with semi-auto rifles such as the G43 didn't increase ammo consumption as much as one might expect.

That's awesome. Thanks for sharing.

I find Amazon warehouse logistics fascinating because of the scale at which they're operating, especially because even fulfillment at a small warehouse can be a nightmare.

I'm a big fan of Jeff Bezos' business/technology savvy both in warehouse and on website. The latter is designed with so much forethought and completeness that I've been surprised on several occasions the unusual use cases they support.

I bet this is a viral ad for Schenker Logistics

>> ^frosty:

>> ^VoodooV:
If incomes were proportional, I might agree, but they're not. The ratio of the highest pay to the lowest pay in the 20s was about 30 to 1 If I recall, but now it's 300 to 1. I could be wrong, but I think I've heard some report that might say it was 400 to 1 20 percent of a poor person's income is felt FAR more profoundly than 20 percent of a wealthy person's income. Even though it's the same percentage, it hurts the poor person WAY more.
And yes, that is part of the argument. A wealthy person tends to just sit on their money and not put it into the economy. and so a higher percentage just simply doesn't hurt them the way it would hurt the lower/middle class.
If incomes were more proportional, a flat tax might work, but they're simply not so a flat tax doesn't work. That's part of the problem, the huge income disparity.

You make a fair argument, but I don't think you addressed my original question because we are assuming two different income tax structure paradigms. Your paradigm is one which attempts to equalize the pain inflicted on those taxed, whereas mine attempts to tax based on the value of the services rendered by the government to the taxed person. With your model, you're right, a progressive system is going to be the way to go. But I will argue that under such a system the rich are paying more than the government is giving them in return, and the poor are paying less. In essence, wealth is redistributed. Whether that is okay or just is another argument entirely.


Are you arguing that the government should issue you an itemized bill for all the services you used? because that would be a logistical nightmare and would cost even more taxpayer dollars.

Taxes aren't perfect, they never will be, unless you want to strictly regulate who gets paid what and introduce some sort of tracking system for who uses what gov't service. Besides, a lot of these services benefit everyone, either directly or indirectly. As a non-business owning citizen, I may not require an interstate system and a well maintained set of roads to ship my products on. But it benefits me all the same. I get to use it for recreation and traveling, and I use it to travel to my job.

Quite frankly, I did answer your question, but now it seems you're changing your question.

Strictly speaking, I would agree that every citizen should be taxed, even the poor who would normally be exempt, Every little bit helps, but I think what happens is that the government looks at the cost of what it takes to enforce that 47 percent to pay their tax vs what they actually give in return because they're so poor and it probably just isn't cost effective. That's my guess anyway. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the poor aren't jumping up and down and saying "nyah nyah, I don't have to pay taxes and you do" They have other problems...like the fact that they're poor.

It's another situation where the solution is worse than the problem. One argument I hear from my conservative friends is that they want drug testing for welfare recipients. Sounds great right? all things being equal It's an argument that I might even support. But the reality is, drug tests aren't cheap. They cost a fuckton of money. Compare that to the money actually lost and in the end, it just costs us even more money just so we can pat ourselves on the back and say see! our money isn't going to make people high. Oh wait, why are my taxes higher?

Closing corporate loopholes is one of the few things I've heard both the left and right agree upon. Problem is, it won't happen because behind each and every one of those loopholes is a business who benefits from it and some of those businesses lean left, and some of those businesses lean right and NEITHER want their particular loopholes closed. That's why you'll always see people say they're for it, but are never specific on which ones.

Gov't isn't perfect, but if you've got a problem with it. vote. or else leave, or just STFU

We treat the office of the president as if one person can solve our problems..they can't. The two party system is a failure and only divides our country.

@KnivesOut

A very few of these folks are high-functioning, which leaves them after much assistance just barely able to support themselves doing worthless keep-the-meat-breathing jobs in a society where 'productivity' typically implies stealing prosperity from the future. Even rare high-functioning downs are subhuman.

We all know very well that to "simply rely on the extra chromosome to decide which ones to abort" is unambiguously successful at improving the genetic and intellectual stock of our species. Even basic interventions like these are completely effective, perfect goods for the world. To kill a downs baby is a mitzvah.

When we can agree on that, everything else is logistics.

@gwiz665

It's easy to confuse mental retardation with disability, but the two are utterly distinct. Human beings in disadvantaged circumstances like the "sick, disabled, ... jobless, poor etc" require assistance not as a matter of 'common decency' but simply the rational understanding that where we could all find ourselves in need, it's necessary to provide a safety net; game theory rather than compassion provides the answer to that question. Retards on the other hand are literally and must be treated as any other wounded animal - either ignored or put out of its misery.