@hpqp The point is that there is no such thing as "plain old religious fanaticism" - it's always tied up in whatever economic and political circumstances are shaping the region and family and the person committing the act. Sure - religious people would like to think that their religion is separate from their worldly circumstances, but if you don't give credence to any supernatural dimension of religion, it also becomes impossible to separate religion from the other socio-cultural-economic-historic factors that also drive conflict.

I work regularly with Muslims who each are rich enough to buy my worldly belongings a couple of times over, and violence is the farthest thing from their minds. Exploiting migrant workers and suppressing equality and freedom of speech is quite familiar to them, but violence - despite their Muslim faith - is very foreign to most of them. Which of course is why Al Qaeda considers them traitors to Islam - they have too much in common with their supposed enemies the Israelis or Americans, and almost no common points of reference with a radical Muslim Chechen or Afghan.

Islam today is the most violent religion only in its overlap with regions that are good breeding grounds for violent extremism anyway - there's no reason to believe that in a country with the material preconditions the US has that fundamentalist Muslims wouldn't be more like the Westboro Baptists. By trying to indicate that Islam is in itself a greater driver of violence than Christianity, Maher conflates extremely disparate cultures and regions and obscures the real issues.

Sensationalised BS here. The news about making guns is overly exaggerated right now, but won't be if the vision comes true that working, effective 3D printers are in every household with designs as easy to download as Napster did to fill mp3 players.

You can either print a non-working gun for a few hundred dollars, or laser-sculpt a working inferior gun for a few thousand dollars, or still buy a black market industry-standard gun for an amount in between.

American politics is pigeonholed into a linear spectrum, with points extending to the left and right of the Democrat and Republican goalposts. But it's really a wheel, and Cody & Glenn here don't overlap in between those, but at the other side with their Libertarianism.

Much of this overlaps with Talks as well, as most that would be in learning would also be in Talks. They do have different edge cases though, so I'm cool with it.

Actually, the way we understand colors is far more than what we see. It overlaps the tactile, the auditive (smell, temperature, ect.) and makes extensive use of memory. These are added dimensions to flesh out "knowledge". Mechanical organisms that can incorporate multiple forms of input tied in with memory can/will in fact have understanding (so long as processing is involed), perhaps even surpassing our own understanding one day.

Partly overlaps with *related=http://videosift.com/video/Jokes-That-Make-You-Go-Ooohhhhhhh

Lots of coincidences. There's only so many super rich pricks in the venture capital game. You are going to see overlap. Investigate it and accept the findings. These two just jump to conclusions.

Besides, regardless of their ties to Bain, venture capitalists have enough incentive to rig the election anyway.

If it's fake, then debunk is the natural next step - seems like an overlap to me.

>> ^KnivesOut:

Good point @Hybrid, I would like to hear from @BicycleRepairMan and get his take on it.
However, debunked seems more like video's dedicated to uncovering some kind of fakery, as in the process of debunking.

There's currently the debunked channel... I see some potential overlapping going on there.

>> ^Sagemind:

Never - Ever Purchase in-store warranty.
In-store warranty is just a gimmick add-on sale (and cash-grab)for the store. 99% of the time, the product's own warranty or the general store policy covers any defect or incidental damage to may occur.
Don't waste your money!


Warranty, replacement, and service plans can all be different and do different things. I used to work at a national computer retailer that made most of it's profit off various replacement and warranty programs so I've dealt with them quite a bit.

In my experience, in store warranty programs are no different than the manufacturer ones, and people tended to buy them for 2 or 3 years on items that only had a 1 year or less manufacturer warranty. The good ones would extend off the end of the manufacturer warranty, the bad ones would just overlap with it (theyd have redundant coverage the first year).

Replacement plans however can be quite useful and even beneficial. The company I worked for actually had to change it's policy for employees because it felt the system was too easy to game for us at discounted prices. The beauty of these is that they DO tend to cover accidental damage or wear and tear, which most warranties wont. They are usually short, 1 or 2 years and can be pricey if they cover stuff like screens or battery replacement.

Depending on your honesty or luck, replacement plans can be a way to replace or even upgrade your items for a modest price (for example I get an old headset replaced through a plan but I end up with a newer headset, and i just pay another $10 or so to cover the new set...rinse and repeat every couple of years).

For the few years I worked at that retailer, I was able to keep almost all of my hardware up to date for 10-50 bucks a piece every couple of years (at that time it included stuff like my video card and optical drives)!

Oh, don't tell me this!!!!!!

no no nonooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


In reply to this comment by WaterDweller:
In reply to this comment by bareboards2:
*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Louis-CK-Very-Offensive-Joke

I AM SO SAD RIGHT NOW.

But thanks for waiting until I got my power points, big guy. And eric gets to make Number One with HIS Louis video.

Why did you flag it a dupe? There was some overlap, but the one you posted contained jokes that weren't in the other one.

>> ^HadouKen24:

Interesting.
It doesn't make much mention of Hermetic Qabalah, though. It briefly mentions that the texts reached scholars who used it to interpret ancient Greek writings. This interpretation of the Kabbalah was eventually also fused with the grimoire traditions (which also contained practices preserved from ancient Greece, along with Christian and Muslim elements), to the extent that after the 16th century, nearly all serious magicians also studied Kabbalah. And this continued on for several centuries.
The version used by practicing occultists--who usually spell the tradition as Qabalah or Qabbalah--was refined and popularized during the occult revival of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Alongside the occult revival, and with many overlapping figures, was a revival of Paganism and a general rejection of Christianity. These twin movements sort of bubbled along under the surface until the 60s and 70s, when they started gaining steam. And with the rise of the internet in the 90s, as access to the ideas grew, the movements exploded.
With the rather curious result that there are now thousands of self-professed Pagans and occultists who, with no affiliation with Christianity or Judaism at all, nonetheless study the Zohar and the Sepher Yetzirah with a great deal of energy. Naturally, the traditions one finds among these communities differ substantially from Kabbalah as practiced by Jewish adherents.


excellent synopsis!

Interesting.

It doesn't make much mention of Hermetic Qabalah, though. It briefly mentions that the texts reached scholars who used it to interpret ancient Greek writings. This interpretation of the Kabbalah was eventually also fused with the grimoire traditions (which also contained practices preserved from ancient Greece, along with Christian and Muslim elements), to the extent that after the 16th century, nearly all serious magicians also studied Kabbalah. And this continued on for several centuries.

The version used by practicing occultists--who usually spell the tradition as Qabalah or Qabbalah--was refined and popularized during the occult revival of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Alongside the occult revival, and with many overlapping figures, was a revival of Paganism and a general rejection of Christianity. These twin movements sort of bubbled along under the surface until the 60s and 70s, when they started gaining steam. And with the rise of the internet in the 90s, as access to the ideas grew, the movements exploded.

With the rather curious result that there are now thousands of self-professed Pagans and occultists who, with no affiliation with Christianity or Judaism at all, nonetheless study the Zohar and the Sepher Yetzirah with a great deal of energy. Naturally, the traditions one finds among these communities differ substantially from Kabbalah as practiced by Jewish adherents.

This video belongs in the centre/overlap of that particular Venn diagram.

>> ^gwiz665:

The nice Christians generally don't argue. :]
Too many political debates are faith based, with no foundation in reality - us against them mentality, where I'm on this side because I'm against that other guy.
When I was younger, I always thought that voting with your brain (for the one that's most likely to win that's better than the other guy that I don't like) was the best, but in my ripe old age of 28, I'm voting more and more by heart. Be damned if they will actually get into government, at least I'll send a message. Here in denmark, whether it's the left or right getting into power is largely the same. By american standards they're all socialists. heh. Even the ones called "ultra-liberalists" (who I vote for) are FAR more socialistic than any american party, and they want to bring in the low low tax of 40 %.
>> ^NetRunner:
I honestly think Christians as a group aren't as prone to it as Republicans.
I've met plenty of Christians who admit upfront that their faith doesn't have logical/evidentiary support, understand that arguments from faith should not be expected to carry weight in secular environments, and accept the legitimacy of secular institutions in society (e.g. government, public schools, research, etc.).
I don't think most avid conservatives are even aware that they're engaging in faith-based reasoning, nor do they understand that arguments from faith deserve to be dismissed by others, nor do they accept the legitimacy of secular (i.e. not explicitly conservative) institutions.
Maybe it's just an American cultural thing though. Here there's a pretty high overlap between Christians who make fallacious arguments about God, and people who've adopted conservative political views.
>> ^gwiz665:
@NetRunner or Christians.




baby jesus told me to tell you that youre both dirty dirty sinners and youre doomed to hell



god bless!

The nice Christians generally don't argue. :]

Too many political debates are faith based, with no foundation in reality - us against them mentality, where I'm on this side because I'm against that other guy.

When I was younger, I always thought that voting with your brain (for the one that's most likely to win that's better than the other guy that I don't like) was the best, but in my ripe old age of 28, I'm voting more and more by heart. Be damned if they will actually get into government, at least I'll send a message. Here in denmark, whether it's the left or right getting into power is largely the same. By american standards they're all socialists. heh. Even the ones called "ultra-liberalists" (who I vote for) are FAR more socialistic than any american party, and they want to bring in the low low tax of 40 %.

>> ^NetRunner:

I honestly think Christians as a group aren't as prone to it as Republicans.
I've met plenty of Christians who admit upfront that their faith doesn't have logical/evidentiary support, understand that arguments from faith should not be expected to carry weight in secular environments, and accept the legitimacy of secular institutions in society (e.g. government, public schools, research, etc.).
I don't think most avid conservatives are even aware that they're engaging in faith-based reasoning, nor do they understand that arguments from faith deserve to be dismissed by others, nor do they accept the legitimacy of secular (i.e. not explicitly conservative) institutions.
Maybe it's just an American cultural thing though. Here there's a pretty high overlap between Christians who make fallacious arguments about God, and people who've adopted conservative political views.
>> ^gwiz665:
@NetRunner or Christians.