Your video, Work Smarter not harder, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

I only pickup dead weight. Sure, some are 400 lbs or more but I got a helper that takes the head end because he's younger than me. Work smarter not harder.

I once knew a girl that asked me if I was strong. Of course I told her yes. She spit on the ground and said, "OK, pick that up".

work smarter, not harder

Chainsaws are designed that way. Just turn the key. Work smarter, not harder.

I feel like the "work' part of "work smarter, not harder" pretty much covers the fact that you still have to "work".

>> ^Crosswords:

Part of the problem is often the face of Mexican nationality in the US isn't the successful educated Mexican's, its the day laborers. Hired as skilled labor, but largely unskilled and paid next to nothing, often below legal limits if they're undocumented. They tend to do a shit job, cutting corners and generally not caring about the quality of work they do and trying to communicate with them through the language barrier is frustrating as all get out. Of course this only happens because companies, and it seems people as a whole, prefer cheap labor over quality labor. They only exist because the market for that kind of labor is huge, so large I think its degraded the quality of labor overall. But people don't make that connection, they see bad work being done by low paid unskilled labor who happen to be Mexicans thus Mexicans are dirty and lazy. The real connection should be that builders and contractors are greedy shysters.
>> ^bareboards2:
One pride movement that is starting, quietly, is the idea of Mexican Pride. I have only seen this a couple of places, and I am cheering it on.
Unfortunately, in America, the very word "Mexican" carries with it the echo of the phrase "dirty Mexican" -- one of the reasons we use back away to be "nice" and say Hispanic/Latino/Latina, when someone is clearly Mexican.
"Nice" becomes really ugly, when the word Mexican should be a descriptive word and not pejorative just by itself.
There are some Mexicans out there who are sick of it, and are starting to reclaim their national identity.
I had never thought of it this way, until I heard this famous actor interviewed (do wish I could remember who it was -- Salma Hayek? Someone smart and beautiful, I remember that.)
I have been trying to use the word Mexican ever since, and have screwed up, because it turns out I can't tell Guatamalen from Brazilian, so I end up insulting folks anyway. But I'm trying.
Mexican. Mexican. Mexican.



Maybe that was your experience with day laborers but, it is not representative of all day laborers or people of Mexican nationality (but, Spanish as far as their race). I have worked with and hired transitory day laborers and most of them do a better job and work just as hard (if not harder) than any permanent (usually unionized) worker.
And as for hiring them, they were paid well over the average wage of most American workers. They were paid beforehand and proceeded to work quickly and efficiently. The money they make in the U.S. is worth so much more in their country. THAT'S why they're willing to work for lower wages than most Americans. I currently work with a guy that said the money he makes in 2 hours at his job here in the U.S. would last a week in El Salvador.
The market wouldn't exist if people were unhappy with the end product. So, to say that their work doesn't meet quality standards doesn't make much sense. If they were producing inferior products nobody would be hiring them.

It's not "you're racist", it's "you didn't think".

It’s actually quite the opposite. I’ve thought about this topic about 10 levels deeper than everyone else. They just don’t like it because I’m daring to bring up politically incorrect, uncomfortable truth.

You went on about how responsible home ownership says something about a person...implying it qualifies you as good.

Responsible home ownership does say good things about a person. It does not mean you are a good person, but it does generally show a person is good at managing their finances.

Taking away someone's right to vote because they did something society doesn't like is a different issue, and you're confusing the two, IMO.

No I’m not. I’m applying the idea fairly, and that disturbs some people. Is it not logical to say that the people who took out subprime loans they knew they could not afford did “something to society” far more harmful than the collective actions of U.S. mass murderers? So, why are people mentally comfortable with limiting the voting rights of murderers (who do comparatively little damage to overall society) but are uncomfortable limiting the voting rights of bad borrowers who cause far more societal damage?

IMO it's a bad idea to give government lots of powers to disqualify people from voting. It's WAY too easy for it to be abused, modified in stupid ways, etc. It's a serious slippery slope without all the normal exaggeration the phrase "slippery slope" usually comes with.

When the full public has unlimited voting rights, the eventual dynamic result is that the primary concern of the voter becomes the claiming & retention of personal benefits. The resulting loose, debt-heavy fiscal policy collapses the government. Is that not a “slippery slope” at least as alarming as the slippery slope of limiting voter rights? Which slippery slope do you choose? Regardless, the left has routinely pooh-poohed the entire ‘slippery slope’ argument. The opposition to Obama’s health care bill was based on ‘slippery slopes’ of death panels and socialism but it was mocked as ridiculous. Why is the ‘slippery slope’ so absurd when it is applied to leftist political philosophy, but so pertinent on voting rights?

Voting needs to be easier, not harder.

Easier? Sure. But more restricted too. A good start would be to require a valid U.S. birth certificate, and current photo ID at the site of voting.

This is abhorant, fascist thinking. Godwin be-damned if I can't call a spade a spade. I normally ignore your comments, but this latest set of talking points needs to be called out for the bull that it is.

I think that your hyperbolic overreaction suggests that your policy of self-recusal should be reinstated, because this entry into the crucible of debate is woefully inadequate. Clearly you are unable to control your emotions when grappling with issues, and therefore you should quit the field to spare both yourself and others from your abecedarian efforts. Or you could just go breathe into a paper bag for a bit and come back and try again. Your call.

What's different is that the left understands that we shouldn't be taking away people's civil rights because people use them in ways we disapprove of instead we think we need to do a better job of getting the facts and our point of view out to people.

When the left loses in the court of the national discourse, they do not just shrug and try to ‘get facts and a point of view out’. They demonize, attack, insult, and slander. When that fails they dictate by fiat against the will of the people. In short, they take away people’s civil rights when those people use their freedom in ways they disapprove. So your statement is patently false. The left is only interested in ‘civil rights’ insofar as it advances their pet agendas.

Liberal electoral reforms are always aimed at making it easier for people to vote, and growing the percentage of the populace who vote.

You need to correct your position, because it ignores a lot. The left always finds a way to make it easier for the people it WANTS to vote, but always seems to oppose easy voting for groups it opposes. Regardless, the whole civil rights argument is a cheap rhetorical dodge. Nations routinely monitor, restrict, and regulate voting rights. Requiring vital documents, proof of citizenship, and basic intellectual capacity is not some sort of crazy, dictatorial power grab. It happens all the time in every civilized country.

Mostly these days that's making sure there are paper trails for electronic voting machines, but it's also making sure the people working the polling places are treating everyone the same. Curiously, the right always finds a reason to oppose every one of the above.

I disagree. The left that is the routine, documented, proven opponent of a rigorous, fair voting process.

@Winstonfield_Pennypacker

It's not "you're racist", it's "you didn't think". If all you got out of those several paragraphs I wrote was the couple of lines about literacy tests, you missed the point.

Also, don't twist your words. You went on about how responsible home ownership says something about a person...implying it qualifies you as good. Now you're coming back talking about only wanting to DISqualify people. That's the opposite idea. Qualifying people to vote based on some fact can be very arbitrary (property owners, race, gender, etc). Our country has made constant progress away from this way of thinking. Taking away someone's right to vote because they did something society doesn't like is a different issue, and you're confusing the two, IMO.

It's not that what you're saying here is completely whacko to me (like most of the time) it's that IMO it's a bad idea to give government lots of powers to disqualify people from voting. It's WAY too easy for it to be abused, modified in stupid ways, etc. It's a serious slippery slope without all the normal exaggeration the phrase "slippery slope" usually comes with. It's already bad enough that only 50% of people vote in Presidential elections...the dog gets wagged pretty hard as it is. You start taking away more and more voting rights and an ever smaller percentage of the population ends up controlling politics. i.e. the far left and the far right...the crazies. Hideous.

You graduate high school at 18. You can vote at 18. If you want to make civics classes in high school more rigorous and harder to pass, that's cool with me. Much beyond that is getting ugly. Voting needs to be easier, not harder.

Personally, I think ideally everyone should have to take a class like this to graduate high school:
http://www.justiceharvard.org/

>> ^Mcboinkens:

>> ^westy:
>> ^Mcboinkens:
<em>>> <a rel="nofollow" href='http://videosift.com/video/Who-is-this-guy-and-what-lab-was-he-built-in#comment-1063403'>^Seric</a>:<br />I wonder how good he would be if he'd spent that time learning real drums <IMG class=smiley src="http://static1.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/blank.gif"><BR></em>
Yeah, you kind of shot yourself in the foot. He's using a real drum set, not to mention he is using very advanced drumming techniques. He probably learned to played the drums as a kid and then just found this game as a fun way to learn to play new, complex songs.
Furthermore, you should keep up with the new Rock Band coming out. The goal is shifting from just a fun way to chill with friends to actual tutorials on the instruments. The guitar is actually getting 6 strings with fingersensing technology, and it WILL teach those that want to learn to play, with enough effort of course. On the drums, the ride, crash, and high-hat will have different locations charted than the snare and toms, further enhancing gameplay.
Also, Westy, the analogy you made to racing virtually and for real is extremely off. The two focus on completely different things, one is mastering the course and memorizing lines, the other is having a solid team to tune your car, quick thinking out on the course, knowing the course AND dealing with the G's.

You do reolise that G forces are only relivent in F1 and indy car maby some of the other high speed single seaters and evan then you could easily train for that over a year ? other than the phisical strain Gforces actual make driving a car ALLOT ESEAR as you can feal what the car is doing where as in a game you have to go of the stearing collom alone.
you allso reolise that the teams in f1 pritty much compelaty set the car up for the driver ?
You do know that Driving simulators are not just used for learning the layout of the track right? and that in f1 since testing time is so limited drivers themselfs spend a huge amount of time in the simulator testing the teems setups and car modificatoins that the mechanics have done for them ?
Have you ever played a sim racing game ? top sim racers have to do far more tweeking and car set up than a real driver would ever be exspecvted to do , allso sim drivers Drive FAR FAR tighter than a real world driver ever would litraly 100% on the limit to the millimeter.
sim racing is allso far closer and requires more race craft than the vast majorty of other pro forms of racing , due to the fact you can see far less and people are driving closer to the limmit , i dont know if u ever watch f1 but 90% of the grid hardly push the limit interms of race craft.
The largest fundimental factor that stops incredably tallented sim racers compeating in the real world is CASH pure and simple , you have to be a ritch basterd to race and thats without getting anny money back.
Things are slowly changing though , seems that more and more scoller ships are opaning up offering top level sim racers the chance to race in the real world
http://www.ferrari.com/Engli
sh/Formula1/News/Headlines/Pages/100901_F1_Maranello_unveils_new_online_simulator.aspx


I won't waste too much time responding, but you are basically spouting bullshit. NASCAR drivers take 2-3 Gs on turns, and that's about as low as it gets in racing. Your point on teams setting up the cars actually furthers my point. Virtual drivers that set up their own cars are not mechanics, they just get numbers off of the internet and in-game time trials. The true mechanics don't do it that way.
Furthermore, you are incorrect when you assume that driving simulators they use are video games. They cost thousands of dollars and are inside of model cars that can represent true G force feelings.
On to the next point, virtual drivers can get exact drive-lines down because they are not exposed to real racing conditions. Sitting on a couch moving a thumbstick is not the same as turning a steering column in the middle of a track. Less pressure too. Screw up on XBOXLive? Just quit. Screw up in real life and you lose what could be your career, car, or just money in general.
Granted, there may be 1 or 2 sim drivers that could actually compete(and do well ), but like I said, your anology comes nowhere close to Rock Band drums vs. real drumsets. Anyway..


Im sorry but your the one talking out your arse , The point was regardless of how many G you exsperance anything below GP2,and most drivers would be fine with it given a month to get used to it. allso annything below GP2 and the G's make driving easer than sim racing not harder , as it allows you to feel what the car is doing.


Lets focus on road racing as I don't know or care that much about nascar.

to specificity answer your points

1) Red bull use Rfactor pro which is likely to be fairly simular (going by what the people that make Rfactor have said) to normal r factor it just outputs more data and gives the team far better data as to what effect there modifications have made.

Lets bare in mind that all the top sim racers pretty much use Rfactor as there default simulator

Allso there is enough steering collom feed back in Iracing ,Rfactor , Netcar pro to alow a driver to become a significantly better driver by training on it so long as they are using annything above a g25 for input. ITS NOT SIMPLY A CASE OF LEARNING RACING LINES , simulators like Rfactor , Iracing give enoughf feel for you to drive reactively , They allso simulate close racing and sim racers will get to exsperance more racing with other people and as a rsult develop more race craft faster . Remember when all the poker players came from online and totaly dominated real world poker players , this was simply due to the fact that they played thousends more hands than evan vintage poker players , this is what will and has happend with top end sim racers. the onyl difference is you have to be a ritch basterd to get into motor sport in the first place this is why sim racers dont often trasnfer its a totaly riged sport controled by the ritch of the world , but this is slowly chainging.

2) The sole resoin that sim racers drive to the limit is that it dosent cost them annything to crash the car repatedly to find the limit , once they have found it they can pritty much stick to it.

ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME WHY THE FUCK WOULD I BE TALKING ABOUT xbox360 ? THERE ARE NO GAMES EVAN CLOSE TO SIMULATOR STANDERD ON THE 360 WHY WOULD YOU EVAN BRING THIS UP WTF?

3) There are a good number of top sim racers that would rape the vast majorty of real world drivers , they are far more or equaly skiled than real world drivers they just have never had the money to drive in real life. If you consider there are probably only what 1000 top level competative road drivers , the top 20 sim racers would be able to compete with 80% of the gird in F1 and they represent the best of the best.

>> ^Gallowflak:

Super awesome.
As a composer/musician/smurf, I find that most of the music that might fall under "electronica" is the immediate pleasure; it's easy to assemble and instantly satisfying. It's also the easiest way to make money. "Classical" music is the ultimate compositional challenge and nothing engages me so fully as the process of creating it.
Still, I don't think that's a reason to frown on trance/electronica/whatever. Snobbery and elitism never gets anyone anywhere and if an individual finds reward and a creative outlet in electronic music, they deserve nothing but encouragement.
TLDR; elitism in the field of creativity sucks huge balls.


I desagree , to make a comercaily sucsessfull and noticable Dance track is just as hard as making anny other form of music if not harder due to the saturatoin of music in this ganra because of its accessablity.

I would argue its far esear to make money from "classical" music as you can produce classical music of a very low standerd (relative to productoin quality of whats out there) but people will haplily hand over mor cash for it because of the bullshit factor.

allso most musicians make money from doing sound tracks and acompanying music rather than music bought directly by the publick and fact is general trancy stuff is not realy wanted that much , over basic clasical style music or just general music ( the sort u hear in tv programs or documentries or acompanying games).


But as you say , in the end its not realy important so long as the end product is injoyable the complexity is not realy an issue.

@mgittle:
Not to get into semantics too much, but the word "moral" comes from the latin "mores", meaning the generally accepted customs of a society. Morality is what people fall back on when reasonable argument fails. Reasonable people do disagree on a lot of issues, sometimes quite radically. I believe killing is usually immoral, yet it is quite possible to imagine a person truly believing it is OK to kill others, in a wider variety of circumstances than I might find acceptable. I can, of course, provide any number of rational arguments for my point of view, but so can the other person, and in some cases the conflict is simply irresolvable. Our moral views differ. In some cases, no amount of reason can change that, it is the essence of morals - they are the customs you grow up with, the societal norms you accept from outside, usually coming from some kind of higher authority, whether it is a deity, a strong leader or simply the society itself as a conglomerate.

What makes genocide possible is our ability to dehumanize others. I feel having a strong sense of morality makes this easier, not harder, because morality in general has a strong component of groupthink to it, which combined with the kinds of us-versus-them situations genocides usually rise from can be quite dangerous. If you believe you are right, not just in some rational sense, but also in a moral sense, then is it not your duty to do everything you can to eradicate opposition to your views?

That extreme consequence of the logic of morality is what makes my hair stand on end whenever I hear people proposing some kind of system for determining right or wrong. Mr. Harris, I'm sure, has the very best of intentions, but people en masse tend to latch on to certainties a bit too much. I admit I may be getting caught up too much on semantics here - if we were talking about ethics, a more personal kind of judgment, I would probably largely agree with what is being said. Trying to apply reason to find out for oneself what the best way to live one's life would be is a wonderful idea. Trying to use reason to figure out the best way for others to live theirs, less so. Not because reason is bad, but because you end up telling others what to do, and that is damn hairy business. So I guess I'm arguing for less morals, more ethics.

Jinx the issue is that this completely detaches the person doing the killing from the actual consequence of their actions.

They kill a couple of hundred people, or even very personally as in this simulation, a few people in a car... and all they see is an explosion on a screen at a distance.

No visceral feedback of the death and horror they just unleashed.

Plus... it spawns things like Truckchase's comment, where he's looking at the controllers etc. because it's so detached from the horror which it's actually performing that you can do so.

Things like this make killing easier, not harder.

>> ^rebuilder:
>> ^imstellar28:
Theres really no way religion can survive the internet, so I wouldn't worry about it. It'll be gone naturally in the next few generations as more and more people become connected.

Oh yes, obviously the Internet is fostering an explosion of rational thought everywhere.
Have you read comments on Youtube recently? Or any site with a wide-demographic audience? I'm pretty sure the Internet is making it easier for new and old religion, faith healing, miracle cures etc. to spread, not harder. The Internet just makes it easier to spread information, and that includes lies and irrational ideas.
Frankly, looking at the kind of rapid-fire discussion going on, I worry that the more reasonable, humane type of religion is dying out and a more crass type of religion is rising.


Unfortunately I am going to have to agree with rebuilder on this one.

>> ^imstellar28:
Theres really no way religion can survive the internet, so I wouldn't worry about it. It'll be gone naturally in the next few generations as more and more people become connected.


Oh yes, obviously the Internet is fostering an explosion of rational thought everywhere.

Have you read comments on Youtube recently? Or any site with a wide-demographic audience? I'm pretty sure the Internet is making it easier for new and old religion, faith healing, miracle cures etc. to spread, not harder. The Internet just makes it easier to spread information, and that includes lies and irrational ideas.

Frankly, looking at the kind of rapid-fire discussion going on, I worry that the more reasonable, humane type of religion is dying out and a more crass type of religion is rising.

Modern religions take what is a perfectly natural thing, and makes people suppress it. When you do this, the pressure builds and builds until it explodes. Just look at Ted Haggard... Porn is a pressure relief valve on society, and it should be it easier to access, not harder for those who need it.

Looking back over this message, I feel the need to stress that no puns were intended or harmed, in the creation of this post!