Really unhappy with the changes to Google, lately. More clicks to get where I want, obnoxious javascript rollover crap, inconsistent search results from computer to computer...

>> ^marinara:

Quick! we mush pass PIPA, SOPA or there will never be another CALL OF DUTY game!

<sarcasm>Yeah, that's exactly what I said. </sarcasm>

Basic comprehension has never been your strong point, has it?

>> ^gorillaman:


Piracy is totally acceptable. Intellectual property is logically and morally absurd. Patents - claiming you personally own a slice of the universal laws of physics - are particularly obnoxious; copyright - claiming you personally own access to a string of information, which nobody else is allowed to know without your permission - is usually only something silly that gets in the way of discourse. Merely silly, that is, until people (yes people, I hold each of them individually responsible) send their stormtroopers to attack the innocent just to keep themselves in business.
Mass media always costs more money to produce than it's actually worth. No movie or game, however many millions are spent in its creation, is worth more than the price of a single unit. When producers invest all this cash they're relying on the miracle of media duplication to get paid. That single unit can be copied and sold again and again and again, to thousands or millions of people, multiplying itself and its value. Often they're able to sell their one little media fragment enough times to make a profit - good for them, the bet paid off. To then turn around and complain when others take advantage of that same miracle to enrich their lives is not only a textbook example of biting the hand that feeds you, it's also deliberately obstructing a process that makes the world better, which is a monstrous crime.
These people don't 'deserve' compensation. They're gambling. Whether gamblers make their living gambling or not, they don't 'deserve' to win and it's nobody else's responsibility to ensure that they do.
This is an extremely simple issue.


Wow, I really don't even know where to start with how ridiculous that is. Intellectual property is not "logically and morally absurd". It is the result of peoples time and effort, and thus, has value. This is not about rewarding a studio who invests hundreds of millions in a game or movie, it's about paying a programmer, artist or hell, even the guy who gets coffee for the director.

As for the "gambling" argument, I have no problem with people with make bad products failing. That's fine. But you seem to believe that someone could put years of work into a great product and then still receive no compensation for it. Fine, but then why should you expect them to continue to put that effort into their work? Yeah, love of the craft, whatever, but people still need to eat, pay bills, etc.

You know what? pay the fucking writer.

>> ^ChaosEngine:
You don't think you're oversimplifying the issue just a bit? Or more likely, by an order of magnitude?
Games, moveis, music; all these cost money to produce. You don't think that the people (yes, people, not big faceless corporations) involved deserve to be compensated for their efforts?
People harp on about "a broken business model", but I've yet to see someone come up with a working alternative. Yes, treating your paying customers worse than pirates is not the right answer, but that doesn't make piracy any more morally acceptable.


Piracy is totally acceptable. Intellectual property is logically and morally absurd. Patents - claiming you personally own a slice of the universal laws of physics - are particularly obnoxious; copyright - claiming you personally own access to a string of information, which nobody else is allowed to know without your permission - is usually only something silly that gets in the way of discourse. Merely silly, that is, until people (yes people, I hold each of them individually responsible) send their stormtroopers to attack the innocent just to keep themselves in business.

Mass media always costs more money to produce than it's actually worth. No movie or game, however many millions are spent in its creation, is worth more than the price of a single unit. When producers invest all this cash they're relying on the miracle of media duplication to get paid. That single unit can be copied and sold again and again and again, to thousands or millions of people, multiplying itself and its value. Often they're able to sell their one little media fragment enough times to make a profit - good for them, the bet paid off. To then turn around and complain when others take advantage of that same miracle to enrich their lives is not only a textbook example of biting the hand that feeds you, it's also deliberately obstructing a process that makes the world better, which is a monstrous crime.

These people don't 'deserve' compensation. They're gambling. Whether gamblers make their living gambling or not, they don't 'deserve' to win and it's nobody else's responsibility to ensure that they do.

This is an extremely simple issue.

Like others, I found her to be obnoxious and her advice to be superficial and overly simplistic ("life satisfaction" equals getting what you want, you're not getting what you want because you're not acting impulsively enough, etc.)... had to really resist the urge to downvote.

I felt bad for Drew. Relieved he was okay -- that could have been brutal on his back.

NPH controlled the whole thing -- he is a master at physical comedy.

>> ^JiggaJonson:

Meh, it's got some comedic value but it's kind of obnoxious too. I actually felt bad for NPH.

Meh, it's got some comedic value but it's kind of obnoxious too. I actually felt bad for NPH.

I listened to it again after posting the link. I'll admit it was not as funny to me this time around. I do think it contains bits of brilliance, but yeah, comedy is hard to pin down, and it looks like eight-years-ago me and present-day-me can't even agree about this one.

>> ^spoco2:

>> ^budzos:
This is two hours of the best, funniest stand-up ever recorded.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxMNebZlsJI
^spoco2:>
You point me to ONE performance of his that is actually funny. Like, is AT ALL clever. AT ALL witty. AT ALL insightful.

If you say so. I've just listened to 10 minutes of it, and that was a friggen struggle. It's such inane, juvenile shit. It's high school humour, and crap at that.
You find it funny. Fair enough. But none of that is clever, witty or insightful. It's all 'Say something dirty for a laugh', 'say something obnoxious about women'...

>> ^BoneRemake:

I do not get why YOU @alien_concept are posting this poll ? You do not own the channel, the channel owner is alive and functioning on the sift, what gives ?
At first I though it might be a channel that was a system channel, but no it is not.
How much weight does this poll carry anyway ?? if dag is so willing to change things why not just do it if theGrimsleeper asks, if thegrimsleeper wants it changed that is, if he doesnt then who are you to introduce change in his channel ?
EXPLAIN YOURSELF
Please


Once again your obnoxious, bratty manner ensures the last thing I want to do is explain myself to you.

However, I will say this to @thegrimsleeper. I am very sorry if I've trodden on your toes, I didn't register that you were the channel owner, or that you were still around or I would have sent you a link to this poll

>> ^budzos:

This is two hours of the best, funniest stand-up ever recorded.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxMNebZlsJI
^spoco2:>
You point me to ONE performance of his that is actually funny. Like, is AT ALL clever. AT ALL witty. AT ALL insightful.


If you say so. I've just listened to 10 minutes of it, and that was a friggen struggle. It's such inane, juvenile shit. It's high school humour, and crap at that.

You find it funny. Fair enough. But none of that is clever, witty or insightful. It's all 'Say something dirty for a laugh', 'say something obnoxious about women'...

Possibly the most obnoxious "music" I've ever heard.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Shiny is here to 'sell' a point of view. Granted, it's the wrong audience to espouse fundamentalism, but if you see someone's house is burning in the night, you don't worry about their grumpiness at being awakened by total strangers.
Be grateful for hearing other points of view, and more grateful for resistance, it's the only thing that builds strength.

>> ^petpeeved:
>> ^quantumushroom:
Someone wrote of shiny: It's highly unlikely that you will ever convert anyone here but at the very least you'd be less despised if you weren't so angry and obnoxious all the time.
Shiny's the one being infinitely patient here, and by an act of free will endures these cheap shots. A less angry foe you do not have.
A good Christian spreads the Word, and in another Penn video Penn himself states if you Believe, you should be out spreading your message.
You should be grateful there are shinys out there to keep you honest, as honest as a liberal can be, anyway.

I can't swallow this. By its very nature, Christianity as espoused by Shiny is bigoted and infinitely intolerant (the ultimate end of impatience) of any view point in opposition of its literally written in stone beliefs.
Just because the evangelists adopt a cloyingly condescending tone that can be mistaken for politeness when they 'discuss' (read: lecture and don't listen) this with us heathens does not make them 'less angry' or 'infinitely patient'.



To use your metaphor, QM: I don't see shiny and his fundamentalist ilk as firefighters or concerned neighbors rushing to save anyone from flames. I see them as self-appointed building inspectors who refer to an ancient building code and attempt to demolish any house that isn't constructed according to their specifications.

Rock isn't flammable

"Everyone then who hears these words of mine and acts on them will be like a wise man who built his house on rock. The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on rock. And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not act on them will be like a foolish man who built his house on sand. The rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell—and great was its fall!"

>> ^luxury_pie:
>> ^quantumushroom:
Shiny is here to 'sell' a point of view. Granted, it's the wrong audience to espouse fundamentalism, but if you see someone's house is burning in the night, you don't worry about their grumpiness at being awakened by total strangers.
Be grateful for hearing other points of view, and more grateful for resistance, it's the only thing that builds strength.
>> ^petpeeved:
>> ^quantumushroom:
Someone wrote of shiny: It's highly unlikely that you will ever convert anyone here but at the very least you'd be less despised if you weren't so angry and obnoxious all the time.
Shiny's the one being infinitely patient here, and by an act of free will endures these cheap shots. A less angry foe you do not have.
A good Christian spreads the Word, and in another Penn video Penn himself states if you Believe, you should be out spreading your message.
You should be grateful there are shinys out there to keep you honest, as honest as a liberal can be, anyway.

I can't swallow this. By its very nature, Christianity as espoused by Shiny is bigoted and infinitely intolerant (the ultimate end of impatience) of any view point in opposition of its literally written in stone beliefs.
Just because the evangelists adopt a cloyingly condescending tone that can be mistaken for politeness when they 'discuss' (read: lecture and don't listen) this with us heathens does not make them 'less angry' or 'infinitely patient'.


Generally speaking you are right. But in this case shiny is a supporter of the company which only builds houses out of highly inflammable compounds. And he may was at the crime scene, who knows.

It isn't something that can be sold, but told, because faith comes by hearing. It is what is being offered freely..that the free gift of God is eternal life. It cannot be earned, but it is given to all those who would receive it.

You're right, certainly no one wants to be reminded that they are a sinner, but they certainly are going to wish someone told them later on. I had no trouble accepting this truth, personally..it was clearly obvious to me that I had done things which were offensive to a holy God. Some people are too prideful to admit it, though their conscience tells them otherwise. Why not humble yourself and be cleansed, rather than carry that weight around everywhere you go? It will never leave you until you ask for forgiveness.

So, I appreciate your words. I am only trying to do what is right. The people hated what the Lord had to say, and still do, but He loves us anyway

Romans 5:8

But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

>> ^quantumushroom:
Shiny is here to 'sell' a point of view. Granted, it's the wrong audience to espouse fundamentalism, but if you see someone's house is burning in the night, you don't worry about their grumpiness at being awakened by total strangers.
Be grateful for hearing other points of view, and more grateful for resistance, it's the only thing that builds strength.
>> ^petpeeved:
>> ^quantumushroom:
Someone wrote of shiny: It's highly unlikely that you will ever convert anyone here but at the very least you'd be less despised if you weren't so angry and obnoxious all the time.
Shiny's the one being infinitely patient here, and by an act of free will endures these cheap shots. A less angry foe you do not have.
A good Christian spreads the Word, and in another Penn video Penn himself states if you Believe, you should be out spreading your message.
You should be grateful there are shinys out there to keep you honest, as honest as a liberal can be, anyway.

I can't swallow this. By its very nature, Christianity as espoused by Shiny is bigoted and infinitely intolerant (the ultimate end of impatience) of any view point in opposition of its literally written in stone beliefs.
Just because the evangelists adopt a cloyingly condescending tone that can be mistaken for politeness when they 'discuss' (read: lecture and don't listen) this with us heathens does not make them 'less angry' or 'infinitely patient'.

Interesting stuff, in an obnoxious style.

$500,000 for 30 seconds of something with no tangible value is weird. I know people who insist that advertising does nothing to them, that their purchase decisions aren't based on what they see in ads at all. Hmm.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Shiny is here to 'sell' a point of view. Granted, it's the wrong audience to espouse fundamentalism, but if you see someone's house is burning in the night, you don't worry about their grumpiness at being awakened by total strangers.
Be grateful for hearing other points of view, and more grateful for resistance, it's the only thing that builds strength.

>> ^petpeeved:
>> ^quantumushroom:
Someone wrote of shiny: It's highly unlikely that you will ever convert anyone here but at the very least you'd be less despised if you weren't so angry and obnoxious all the time.
Shiny's the one being infinitely patient here, and by an act of free will endures these cheap shots. A less angry foe you do not have.
A good Christian spreads the Word, and in another Penn video Penn himself states if you Believe, you should be out spreading your message.
You should be grateful there are shinys out there to keep you honest, as honest as a liberal can be, anyway.

I can't swallow this. By its very nature, Christianity as espoused by Shiny is bigoted and infinitely intolerant (the ultimate end of impatience) of any view point in opposition of its literally written in stone beliefs.
Just because the evangelists adopt a cloyingly condescending tone that can be mistaken for politeness when they 'discuss' (read: lecture and don't listen) this with us heathens does not make them 'less angry' or 'infinitely patient'.



Generally speaking you are right. But in this case shiny is a supporter of the company which only builds houses out of highly inflammable compounds. And he may was at the crime scene, who knows.