It's good sci-fi. Follows a serialized format with a story arch lasting the season. The allegories are really good (Iraq war, Terrorism) which I think was season 3.. and of course everyones favourite Cylon who you want to frak (sorry, nerdy BG joke).

The problem with the show for me, is that they didn't know where they were going with the stories. Running into the same problem that 'Lost' did with many loose threads, making season 4 (the final series) the worst by far, ending with an un satisfying conclusion. There were also some heavy religious beats throughout the series which I didn't care for.

But the video is accurate, at the end of every episode "Awww you can't leave my hanging on that, let's watch the next one".>> ^zombieater:

So is it good?

Upvote for nervous nerdy giggle.

>> ^Fletch:

How many takes to make that many pancakes, ehh... yo?


His primary concern is making pancakes. Damn camera man interrupted him.

What do adults act like?>> ^mrsid:

>> ^Boise_Lib:
nsfw
That's a kid?

Nowadays everybody's a kid until they start acting like an adult...

>> ^Boise_Lib:

nsfw
That's a kid?


Nowadays everybody's a kid until they start acting like an adult...

In my humble opinion this is probably the single dumbest, most pointless, painfully unfunny video in the Top15 since choggie is no longer a member. Content-wise maybe, just maybe some of these examples of hers resonate with the ladies (although I highly doubt it), but I have to say I can't get over not standing this narcissistic girl, her attention-whoring and her pathetic - but alas, obviously effective - use of nerdy references. Blech.
/rant

>> ^G-bar:

I can't even count the amount of WTFs here... is it the Grandma with the sunglasses on the side? is it the Obviously friendless brother that can wield a butterfly knife? is it the choreography?! It's amazing and WTF at the same time.
bravo for the find!


This is an independent nerdy film in the vein of Napoleon Dynamite waiting to happen. I already have back stories and a few scenes for every character in my head...it's amazing!

self promoting... amazing nerdiness going on here.

*promote

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

It's a bit more nerdy, but this guy is really smart.

http://5by5.tv/criticalpath/

>> ^kymbos:

and they are?

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^mgittle:
The problem with fractional reserve systems using fiat currency is their reliance on growth.
I haven't watched the documentary you linked, but the only part of what you said I'd really contest is this part.
How is fiat currency reliant on growth?
Perhaps you meant it the other way around -- that fiat currency is just one more tool that's used to cajole the human race into participating in this "growth" whose value has become increasingly dubious?
That's how I see it, at least on the days when I see the face and not the vase. Most days I still see markets and capitalism as a positive net influence on the welfare of the human race, but their most fervent advocates sure do work hard at making me think otherwise.


Yeah, well put rearding the "fervent advocates". I did kind of mean it the other way around. Thank you for actually taking a second to understand my meaning rather than arguing literal points only (the literal-only thing being my definition for nerdiness).

It's not fiat currency alone that makes our economy reliant on growth. I should have been more specific, but such is life when you have to get to sleep...haha. Fiat currency just a part of the whole Fractional Reserve banking + legal tender law + fiat currency system. In my mind, the growth thing is probably tied most to the fractional reserve system. Hopefully none of this sounds condescending because I'm not sure how much of this you already know, but here's my understanding:

Because the money supply is variable and dependent on debt, an expanding economy is extremely good and a contracting one is extremely bad. Because banks are allowed to loan more money than they possess *and* charge interest, you run into a problem. Where do individuals get the money needed to pay the interest on their loan if it was created from nothing? You have to get it from the overall money supply, which is made up of money created by banks from other peoples' promises to pay.

Thus, with every new credit card swipe, mortgage signing, etc, more money is owed to banks than actually exists at any given time. It's only the time lag between borrowing and repayment that keeps the entire system from collapsing. This means that unless the total amount of debt continually increases at a sufficient rate, it's impossible for everyone to succeed in paying back their loans...there must be foreclosures. This is why people constantly get offers of new credit, *and* why recessions are such a bitch. It's very hard to get things growing again after the money supply decreases.

The system is also one in which individuals paying off debts have more money (less income goes to paying interest), but everyone paying off their debts leaves society with no money. Therefore, anyone who pays off their debt to increase their own personal financial security actually hurts the overall economy. It makes no sense for markets to rely on rational individuals' decisions if their individual decisions are bad for the economy in aggregate. For this reason alone, the system is extremely fragile.

Hope all that makes some sort of sense. Maybe I'm wrong in parts. I'm partially regurgitating the videos I linked earlier while adding in stuff I've learned from other sources. I've nor heard anyone refute the premise of the video, but I'm sure it's not infallible in its interpretation. I'd love to hear what other people think. It got sifted long ago but there was little discussion.

As for your comments about markets being a net positive, I don't disagree with you at all. It's when people rely on markets to solve every problem (including moral ones) and don't realize that there are some places markets ought not go that there becomes a problem. (Should courts enforce a custody contract between an infertile couple and a surrogate mother? ...and and endless list of other similar questions)

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^blankfist:
>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^blankfist:
Oh, I get it. Krugman says something Orwellian and now we're all the wingnuts.

Who else would be paranoid enough to think it's something anyone would actually try, and not just a silly, nerdy way to make a point?

No one thinks Krugman is entertaining this idea seriously. It's that he thinks it would be a good idea to manufacture a catastrophe with potentially huge life-loss that makes us wonder why people like you think he's the best thing since sliced bread.

Why would an entirely hypothetical, fake alien invasion lead to life-loss?
Like I said, it's a silly, nerdy way to make a point. Why are you pretending it's something worth getting even slightly upset about?
Is it any worse than Perry talking about Texans roughing up Ben Bernanke or accusing him of treason for doing the job the previous Governor of Texas appointed him to do?


Krugman thinks wars are excellent ways to stimulate the economy (even jovially alludes to it with his comment about WWII). The bigger the war, the bigger the stimulus. He's kidding about aliens invading, but follow his logic here. What's bigger than a war against another nation? Answer: a war against another planet.

Krugman doesn't care about the casualties, it's about the numbers. To him war is good because it creates jobs and stimulates the economy. Peace is bad.

This is why Keynesian economics is such bullshit.

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^blankfist:
Oh, I get it. Krugman says something Orwellian and now we're all the wingnuts.

Who else would be paranoid enough to think it's something anyone would actually try, and not just a silly, nerdy way to make a point?

No one thinks Krugman is entertaining this idea seriously. It's that he thinks it would be a good idea to manufacture a catastrophe with potentially huge life-loss that makes us wonder why people like you think he's the best thing since sliced bread.


Why would an entirely hypothetical, fake alien invasion lead to life-loss?

Like I said, it's a silly, nerdy way to make a point. Why are you pretending it's something worth getting even slightly upset about?

Is it any worse than Perry talking about Texans roughing up Ben Bernanke or accusing him of treason for doing the job the previous Governor of Texas appointed him to do?

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^blankfist:
Oh, I get it. Krugman says something Orwellian and now we're all the wingnuts.

Who else would be paranoid enough to think it's something anyone would actually try, and not just a silly, nerdy way to make a point?


No one thinks Krugman is entertaining this idea seriously. It's that he thinks it would be a good idea to manufacture a catastrophe with potentially huge life-loss that makes us wonder why people like you think he's the best thing since sliced bread.

>> ^blankfist:

Oh, I get it. Krugman says something Orwellian and now we're all the wingnuts.


Who else would be paranoid enough to think it's something anyone would actually try, and not just a silly, nerdy way to make a point?

Embarrassing factoid from my nerdy past.... I used to know how to squaredance, like, really well.

Do si do, stonebreaker, do si do with the top two vids!