Can we drop the stupid scatalogical analogies and acknowledge the fact that inflation adjusted wages have been stagnant for 30 years while productivity and corporate profits have continued to rise at record-high rates?

The chief reason we're in this deflationary/neutral recession is that there's not enough demand, and there's not enough demand because consumers don't have money to spend, while the wealthy have nothing better to do with billions than put it into government bonds rather than spend it. Making income tax more progressive and criminalizing deceptive lending practices would solve it.

No problem! I like to scour the recent comments when I have nothing better to do, and you seem to do a lot for helping steer conversations on contentious topics towards a more productive direction.

I use zbrush primarily for my stuffs. Still learning my way through maya (previously I had used 3ds max, which I'm really tired of and not willing to upgrade on, so here I go again!) Zbrush has some second life sculptie export tools available for it, too from what I understand.

In reply to this comment by dcmisha:
Thanks for what you said! Btw, what software do you use for your 3D and animation? I used to use Maya (have to reinstall it) and have been doing a lot in second life with 3d and some animations.

>> ^furrycloud:
That was... for lack of a better word, disgusting.


This is why I have no faith in the world today. People have nothing better to do than to devote their lives to a stupid TV show. Granted they are kids, but they could be doing something better like playing games or, God forbid, studying their homework so that they can have a bright future.


*edit* and for the record, I don't mean just video games. I mean physical games or something that requires imagination. I guess a good game of portal would work.

I'm home alone and have nothing better to do than respond to this thread, because a lot of the comments in here still bother me. So... here goes nothing.

>> ^MarineGunrock:
>> The video in question (Dita) is an act of grace a beauty, not a vivid depiction of sex. The act is designed to be something that one merely watches, from which they are detached and it is forever that way. It is a solo act meant to please for the sake of a good show.


WRONG! There is absolutely nothing graceful or beautiful about that (or her, really). See my comment on the performance in a minute.


Dirty books, on the other hand, are of a couple's acts in the bedroom, written to suck the reader into the characters words and actions, even letting them place themselves into the character's shoes. The book is more about being a part of the act, making the reader imagine (through ample use of details and adjectives) every part of sex. It's porn you read, and not watch, though I will say it is not disgusting or objectifying as real porn.


You know why women love romance novels? Because we can imagine it's our significant other doing everything the protagonist in the novel is. Generally it's a scene that plays out in our minds with the characters, not us (women). But even if we were picturing ourselves in that mental scene, it would be with our significant other. Because really, the sex scenes in romance novels are a lot more exciting than ones in real life. If we got enough romance, we wouldn't need to read romance novels. There's nothing disgusting or objectifying about getting a little inspiration. It's erotica - not porn.


My question to you is this: How can you tell the internet in one comment that "Even I can appreciate burlesque" but in the next, tell the internet that it's not acceptable for men with significant others to watch it, if only for art of the performance?


Burlesque is an art, but that's not burlesque. That's a terrible, terrible striptease. You haven't seen any of the great old burlesque. It originated as a sort of comedy show. Gypsy Rose Lee (who, by the way, the Warner Brothers movie "Gypsy" is about. I guarantee you Dita is not burlesque if Warner Bros. did a burlesque movie) and Sally Rand (not quite as good, I don't think, but still notable, and the woman who originated the fan dance). Do you see any comedy in Dita's "work?" I didn't think so. It used to be a complete one-act comedy show, not a two-minute, poorly-done dance where you end up in nothing but nipple pasties and a g-string. Look up some of the Bettie Page stuff on here.

P.S. "Even I can appreciate burlesque" means I like some, but not this [Dita]. For someone who admits they've only seen two clips of burlesque, how dare you confront me on something like that? Look up the history of burlesque. Maybe watch someone other than Dita von Teese. It's like someone saying they don't like a particular artist, or a particular period in art history. It doesn't mean I dislike every painting ever made, or that no one should look at art anymore because I decided I don't like it. Burlesque has never been about the ability to strip down from a dress to pasties and a g-string in less than 20 seconds. There's nothing burlesque about her act - it's a striptease, pure and simple.


I hold that burlesque is only that; an art. I personally don't get any arousal from it, not does it raise any carnal desires within myself. Hell, I've only seen two instances of it, both here on the sift. The female body, with all it's curves, is designed to flow like water in almost all directions. Combined with graceful movements and a dynamic act, it is a thing of grace and beauty.


Oh please. You just admitted yourself you've only ever seen two instances of burlesque. How can you possibly go on about how graceful it is, and how it's such a glorious artform, when you've seen two "dances," both by the same woman?

>> ^MarineGunrock:
As I looked around, I saw (obviously) many women in bikinis. Don't get me wrong, there's nothing bad about bikinis, but it got me thinking about the whole "objectification" thing. If women, as a whole, don't want to be objectified, why wear such a reveling swim suit when there are plenty of good looking alternatives? [edit] What I'm saying it that it opens them up to it.
And for that matter, why put make up on?


1) You've heard it before, but it obviously bears repeating - Women don't dress up for men. They dress up for other women. I shouldn't have to think every morning when I get dressed, "If I see someone with a penis today, will he say something lewd if I'm wearing this? Might someone possibly get excited?" I dress for other women. Would they think I'm attractive? Intimidating? Smart? Chic? If I wanted to dress to attract attention from men, I'd walk around in a bikini top and shorts. But I don't.

2) Just because women wear revealing clothing doesn't mean they're inviting you to look. I lost 20 pounds and bought myself a bikini, because I felt good about my body again. I regained so much self-confidence just by owning it, and that I was no longer embarrassed or felt fat walking around in one. That doesn't mean I wear it just to attract attention, or in the hopes that guys compliment me. I wouldn't take a compliment seriously if I was wearing a bikini anyway - I know my boobs are all you were looking at.

Maybe I wear makeup because I want to feel pretty, or I got a pimple this morning, or I have a sunburn and my skin tone is uneven. Why should it matter?

>> ^LittleRed:
>> ^Drachen_Jager:
Also, Krupo, the official transcript reads "Ass", I'm sure he slurred it to make it sound like he could have been saying "house" but as you say, the french accent would make it "'ouse" not "Ass".

I've seen three other transcripts of this exchange online, and this is the only one that says "ass."
It's also by no means "official." It's from DailyKos, an american liberal website, and the transcript was provided by one of their users. It's just another guy with nothing better to do than listen to that nonsense 15 times.


Exactly. And I base my interpretation on living and working with Quebecers, and knowing their accent.

It was, if anything, a delightful cross-lingual pun.

Also, interview news from: http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5idPXM6GDkOzIX-_At5WVYrBoJ6JQ


In an interview Saturday, Audette told The Canadian Press it wasn't easy setting up the interview with Republican presidential candidate John McCain's running mate, and described the accomplishment as the pair's biggest triumph to date.

"It really took a lot of work," he said.

"We had to go through the Secret Service, the people in her entourage. It's the biggest coup so far. We're proud to add (this prank) to our top hits."

It took the pair, known for securing surreptitious interviews with celebrities, politicians and heads of state, five days to set up the call, Audette said. The secret to getting powerful people on the line? Time and persistence.

"I wanted to see how (Palin) was on an intellectual level," Audette said, comparing the latest prank to the duo's crank call with pop idol Britney Spears.

"You can see that she's, well, not really brilliant."

>> ^Drachen_Jager:
Also, Krupo, the official transcript reads "Ass", I'm sure he slurred it to make it sound like he could have been saying "house" but as you say, the french accent would make it "'ouse" not "Ass".


I've seen three other transcripts of this exchange online, and this is the only one that says "ass."

It's also by no means "official." It's from DailyKos, an american liberal website, and the transcript was provided by one of their users. It's just another guy with nothing better to do than listen to that nonsense 15 times.

I guess the left-wing fascists with nothing better to do (like jobs) following Sarah around didn't get the memo about "welcoming all points of view".

No matter. These modern attempts to rage against the machine couldn't overthrow a Teddy Ruxpin.

>> ^kronosposeidon: He's got a PhD in Geekology. And he's also a loser who has nothing better to do with his time anyway. In fact I'm sure he would enjoy the conversation. Because nobody likes him.


Love you too honey.

Look at VideoSift's Geek homepage for the operational definitions we employ here. The way I use "Geek" is basically to describe someone who is a dedicated enthusiast at almost anything that is not art or literature. Therefore you have computer geeks, comic book geeks, astronomy geeks, R/C model geeks, military hardware geeks, gadget geeks, etc. However I don't refer to art (including film) or literature enthusiasts as geeks because, well, I just don't. So that's just me.

If you have further questions maybe you should ask the geekmeister himself: Gorgonheap. He's got a PhD in Geekology. And he's also a loser who has nothing better to do with his time anyway. In fact I'm sure he would enjoy the conversation. Because nobody likes him.

I soooooo agree with you memo.

In reply to this comment by Memorare:
nobody gives a flying phk about "matt". Some rich boy with nothing better to do jets around the world and does a hamster dance. big phking deal.

nobody gives a flying phk about "matt". Some rich boy with nothing better to do jets around the world and does a hamster dance. big phking deal.

Ok, I've been a really big, nerdy Indiana Jones' fan and trust me when I say, my expectations were really, really low. Despite all that, I found myself agreeing with everything that's written below. It's a rant/review by another Indy fan which I found via imdb boards. In a nutshell, if I have to sum the film up in one word: meh. And a weak 'meh' at that.

This is probably (most likely) (pretty sure), the last time we will ever be able to see our childhood hero Indiana Jones in a new adventure. After years of waiting and wishing; after all the excitement, we get "The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull". The last chance for a new adventure and this is the waste we recieve. Digital prairie dogs, digital monkeys, and digital fire ants. I feel like I watched a cross between Caddyshack, Jumanji, and Close Encounters. Nothing can begin to describe how retarded this movie is.

The only thing epic about this film is it's fail. EPIC FAIL!!! Somewhere, someplace, some fan boys are killing themselves. This rant is coming from somebody who was quick to desregard nay-sayers and detractors of this film before it's release.

From a die hard Indy fan who honestly set his expectations low for this film, nothing could even begin to compare to how low expectations need to be for this film to be enjoyed. George Lucas should be ashamed and Steven Speilberg now strikes me as a man past his prime making movies just to kill time because he has too much money and nothing better to do.

SPOILER ALERT!!
When the flying saucer takes off, if Jar Jar Binks showed up in the window waving good bye, I would have expected it. At least it would have been satisfying to know that the film was just a big joke to begin with.

man, they wore some cheesy clothes in the 70s...
- always thought she was Betty Crocker as a kid...so she dinna like rabid gays, wtf, a lot of gay folks hate the, "We're Here we're queers" mentality-She really had nothing better to do, the busy-body, that's what a washed-up career in the spotlight does for some....

LOL

Ok, most storm chasers do it as a hobby. lol This video wasn't for carnage it was becasue of the impressive and agressive Supercell you see in the clip.

Most storm chasers do it to spot tornadoes (hence chasing Supercells, these types of storms are most likely to produce tornadoes) I think its just seeing the agressive side of nature.

I liked it but thanks for viewing the video anyway

On an off note, the real nutters chase hurricanes!! WTF! Why? wind and rain, now if you fly a scouting plane into the eye of the hurricance that would be cool

Have a good 'un

In reply to this comment by Trancecoach:
Can't get into this. Are these guys getting paid to report on the weather or do they simply have nothing better to do? If the latter, it seems like a pretty lame way to get your thrills. 10 minutes of this and not one fatality. Not even a taste of carnage. LAME.

Can't get into this. Are these guys getting paid to report on the weather or do they simply have nothing better to do? If the latter, it seems like a pretty lame way to get your thrills. 10 minutes of this and not one fatality. Not even a taste of carnage. LAME.