i wonder how many movie directors use this technology to know for sure if the audience is actually looking at the stuff they want people to look at.

I dont think annyone was looking at the game.


I mean why bother why not jus thave naked chicks doing porn on the stage , i dont get this shit of trying to sell things with "good looking" women. I dont get a fit girl when i get the device , unless she is talking about it in an intresting way or can justify to me why i should get it then she can piss off , that is unless she wantes to get naked. Im sorry but u can just get free naked chicks on the internet , why would i want to look at dressed women when im looking at game stuff?

>> ^Croccydile:

>> ^ant:
/me wonders if 3:27+ had yellow Norton boxes.

Those are Office 2007 actually
>> ^blackjackshellac:
I found myself with a monitor lacking a vga cable so I figured while driving by BestBuy that I'd pop in and see if I could get a replacement cable. Long story short: 45 !@#! dollars for a !@#! vga cable. I didn't even look at the HDMI cables lest my head explode.
Fuck Best Buy, stupid twats.
ps. Ordered one from newegg for 5$

I had a similar experience looking for HDMI stuffs only to come across 6' cables ranging from $50 to nearly $100 (?!) The sad part is I later found a Belkin 6' HDMI for $20 at Lowes. A hardware store. What the fuck Best Buy? (Guess which one I wound up buying)


Look at the end of the rack with yellow and black boxes.

>> ^ant:

/me wonders if 3:27+ had yellow Norton boxes.


Those are Office 2007 actually

>> ^blackjackshellac:

I found myself with a monitor lacking a vga cable so I figured while driving by BestBuy that I'd pop in and see if I could get a replacement cable. Long story short: 45 !@#! dollars for a !@#! vga cable. I didn't even look at the HDMI cables lest my head explode.
Fuck Best Buy, stupid twats.
ps. Ordered one from newegg for 5$


I had a similar experience looking for HDMI stuffs only to come across 6' cables ranging from $50 to nearly $100 (?!) The sad part is I later found a Belkin 6' HDMI for $20 at Lowes. A hardware store. What the fuck Best Buy? (Guess which one I wound up buying)

Perfectly good explanation. Thanks for clarifying your stance for me.

In reply to this comment by Psychologic:
^ Posting a video is not an endorsement of its contents unless stated as such. This was posted as a point of discussion. I'm also not concerned with the methodologies of a particular video, but of those used to construct conclusions within the general realm of climate change.

The Cassiopeia Project contains a wealth of wonderful resources on various scientific subjects (physics, chemistry, evolution, etc), but this particular video struck me as unusual. Something about it doesn't sit right with me, but it isn't because of any specific data point it contains.

Here are some random reactions I have to the video:
-If most of the recent warming happened toward the end of the last hundred years then the "average increase per century" isn't very relevant.
-Focusing on "the last few years" in a statistical analysis is not all that useful.
-Regardless of the cause, the general trend has been one of warming. Saying it isn't something to worry about can, at best, only apply to increases up to this point.

My main questions:
-What is the mathematical relationship between CO2 concentration and temperature due to the greenhouse effect? Is it linear, logarithmic, or something else?
-What effect has water vapor concentration had on historical temperature trends? Does a large increase in water vapor continue trapping heat, or can it be offset due to more cloud formation?


I'm not advocating for any side of the debate. The problem is that my fascination with the subject far outstrips the available free time I have to invest in researching it.

When I look into this stuff I find mostly crap from people who start with a conclusion and then find evidence to support it... sorting through that becomes very time consuming. I know there are people on the Sift that have put far more time into researching this topic, so my hope is that I can benefit from their endeavors.

I also happen to enjoy controversial subjects, so this video seems to fit. =)


>> ^Stormsinger:

Then why are you promoting a video that says nothing about its methodology? If you want to understand the methodology shouldn't you actually be -looking- for methodologies?
Actions really do speak louder than words...and your actions and words aren't saying the same things.>

^ Posting a video is not an endorsement of its contents unless stated as such. This was posted as a point of discussion. I'm also not concerned with the methodologies of a particular video, but of those used to construct conclusions within the general realm of climate change.

The Cassiopeia Project contains a wealth of wonderful resources on various scientific subjects (physics, chemistry, evolution, etc), but this particular video struck me as unusual. Something about it doesn't sit right with me, but it isn't because of any specific data point it contains.

Here are some random reactions I have to the video:
-If most of the recent warming happened toward the end of the last hundred years then the "average increase per century" isn't very relevant.
-Focusing on "the last few years" in a statistical analysis is not all that useful.
-Regardless of the cause, the general trend has been one of warming. Saying it isn't something to worry about can, at best, only apply to increases up to this point.

My main questions:
-What is the mathematical relationship between CO2 concentration and temperature due to the greenhouse effect? Is it linear, logarithmic, or something else?
-What effect has water vapor concentration had on historical temperature trends? Does a large increase in water vapor continue trapping heat, or can it be offset due to more cloud formation?


I'm not advocating for any side of the debate. The problem is that my fascination with the subject far outstrips the available free time I have to invest in researching it.

When I look into this stuff I find mostly crap from people who start with a conclusion and then find evidence to support it... sorting through that becomes very time consuming. I know there are people on the Sift that have put far more time into researching this topic, so my hope is that I can benefit from their endeavors.

I also happen to enjoy controversial subjects, so this video seems to fit. =)


>> ^Stormsinger:

Then why are you promoting a video that says nothing about its methodology? If you want to understand the methodology shouldn't you actually be -looking- for methodologies?
Actions really do speak louder than words...and your actions and words aren't saying the same things.>

"Just use common sense when you're looking at this stuff."

according to the video, I think we're actually supposed to use "comin sence"

You can't make this....(looks at hand) stuff up.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

There's just so much choice that I haven't settled down yet. I bop around to the places I've lived in my life- mainly for nostalgia's sake- then just look for random stuff. LA talk radio, over to Japan for some J-Pop. Was listening to some Turkish stations the other day. A bit of Hawaiian music. I'm sure I'll settle on some favorites eventually. >> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
What stations do you listen to?

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
not their product anymore
A burger is a piece of beef with some vegetables and colored pastes on top which has been sandwiched between a cut roll. That's what the ad shows, what the restaurant prepares, and what the consumer buys and eats. So it IS their product which has been idealized to endure the rigors of a shoot while looking good. Film-makers do what they do and work with the subject to tell a story. In this case, the story is that when you go to the restaurant you will be served a piping hot, delicious hamburger. And that's what you get.
"But boo hoo hoo - I wanted the Hamburger GOD in the ad! Waaaaah!"
I regret having to be the man who shatters your delusions - but TV isn't real life. Oh - and Santa Claus isn't real, the Easter Bunny doesn't exist, and man-made Global Warming is a political hoax.
Actors on TV play a character, and get taped up, made up, slapped into designer clothes, and put on a set with radically different lighting & furnature than you'd experience in a real setting. You don't expect actors to look & act like thier TV show counterparts. So why would you expect the food you see in real life to look EXACTLY like stuff in an ad? The restaurant isn't a million dollar set with lights and that burger you're buying wasn't prepared by a Master Chef from specially hand-picked ingredients. Welcome to planet Earth. :eyeroll: If you're naive enough to think you're going to get that perfectly idealized hamburger GOD for $1.00 at McDonalds, then you really need help.


^It's an interesting argument, but fails on one large point: TV shows and movies aren't directly selling a product. The entire point of a TV ad is to advertise the product which is for sale (i.e. If you give us a certain amount of money, this is the product you will receive). However, it isn't the product you receive is it? Any person who eats at a fast food restaurant can tell you that.

This is why toy manufacturers were made, via court order, to show the hand of the child moving the toy in TV ads and not just show the toy move by itself. It's false advertisement.

This is a damn close parallel to a "magical" flying toy.

not their product anymore

A burger is a piece of beef with some vegetables and colored pastes on top which has been sandwiched between a cut roll. That's what the ad shows, what the restaurant prepares, and what the consumer buys and eats. So it IS their product which has been idealized to endure the rigors of a shoot while looking good. Film-makers do what they do and work with the subject to tell a story. In this case, the story is that when you go to the restaurant you will be served a piping hot, delicious hamburger. And that's what you get.

"But boo hoo hoo - I wanted the Hamburger GOD in the ad! Waaaaah!"

I regret having to be the man who shatters your delusions - but TV isn't real life. Oh - and Santa Claus isn't real, the Easter Bunny doesn't exist, and man-made Global Warming is a political hoax.

Actors on TV play a character, and get taped up, made up, slapped into designer clothes, and put on a set with radically different lighting & furnature than you'd experience in a real setting. You don't expect actors to look & act like thier TV show counterparts. So why would you expect the food you see in real life to look EXACTLY like stuff in an ad? The restaurant isn't a million dollar set with lights and that burger you're buying wasn't prepared by a Master Chef from specially hand-picked ingredients. Welcome to planet Earth. :eyeroll: If you're naive enough to think you're going to get that perfectly idealized hamburger GOD for $1.00 at McDonalds, then you really need help.

In MA, police have two groups of watchman: Internal Investigations, and Elected Officals. Believe it or not, both do look in when stuff like this happens. People want facts and evidence. The video does not have an audio portion, so unfortunately, words spoken come only from the officer and student in question, and any witnesses in the area. I'm not sure which state this happened in, and maybe the checks & balances in that state are different. Stuff like *THIS* would not go well on the guilty party (whether its the officer, student or both).

In our society, one is considered innocent until proven guilty. This video strives to argue the police officer is the guilty party. This will go to a trial, and both sides will have their say on the issue. The matter will either be decided by the jury and/or judge.

While I do not like police who abuse their power for any reason; I do support police in general. Watch the video, but remeber it is only one piece of the full story.

I look at this stuff as I would watch a movie. I let my mind wander and think "what if?" and then I put myself in that situation. Not everything "fake" means it's bad. There's actually a very large literary and cinematic genre called...um...shit, what's the name of it, again? Oh yea...FICTION!

It's just pure fun to fantasize about this stuff. And if one day this is exposed to be real, cool! If not, oh well back to the ol' imagination.

Well, I looked up some stuff for you.

"Mary Anne Layden, co-director of the Sexual Trauma and Psychopathology Program at the University of Pennsylvania's Center for Cognitive Therapy, called porn the 'most concerning thing to psychological health that I know of existing today.'

'The internet is a perfect drug delivery system because you are anonymous, aroused and have role models for these behaviors,' Layden said. 'To have drug pumped into your house 24/7, free, and children know how to use it better than grown-ups know how to use it -- it's a perfect delivery system if we want to have a whole generation of young addicts who will never have the drug out of their mind.'

Pornography addicts have a more difficult time recovering from their addiction than cocaine addicts, since coke users can get the drug out of their system, but pornographic images stay in the brain forever, Layden said.'"

This woman's opinion is rather extreme, but to an extent I agree with her, based on things that I've seen.

I didn't say that porn addiction is worse than alcoholism. I compared it to nicotine addiction. I admit, my assertion was based on purely subjective personal opinion. I have known several people who have overcome a nicotine addiction with no lasting physical or psychological affects. On the other hand, I have known people who have tried to beat a porn habit and either failed or are still tempted, even years later. A very good friend of mine married a guy who lied to her about his porn habit. She found out about it and went through some serious trauma. He bawled like a baby when she told him that she was emotionally incapable of having sex with him unless he quit the habit. He tried and failed to quit and the marriage ended. I know no less that three other guys who quit using pornography for personal reasons. Two of them, years later, expressed to me how difficult it was to quit. At times it felt impossible. And they are both still tempted. I have another friend who is manic depressive and he says that he can't get over his emotional dependency on porn, though he has been trying for years. One guy I talked to compared porn addiction to "chasing the dragon," a phrase that is used in reference to heroine. Another guy said that porn images still haunt him.

I admit that experts can't agree on whether or not porn is "addictive." Most of them agree, on the other hand, that it is a compulsion, habit-forming, and that the effects are lasting.

Skeeve, you said that my "pizza consumption (or at least some people's) does hurt people besides you... America is dying at continually younger ages of early onset heart disease, diabetes, etc., largely thanks to unhealthy diets. I guarantee you that fatty foods are not only physically responsible for more deaths in America than porn but also lead to more psychological problems in the people who develop negative body image thanks to that bad nutrition."

I started writing a response, but then I realized that it isn't worth my time to try and explain why your porn vs. pizza comparison is bogus.

>> ^ponceleon:
Sweet mother of god... look at that stuff he's soaked in... I cannot imagine the smell in there...

Everybody knows their shit don't stink in Britain...