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

videosift.com

Dear Sir or Madam:

I am contacting you on behalf of Viacom Inc. (Viacom). Under penalty of perjury, I assert that I am authorized to act on behalf of Viacom, the owner of exclusive rights in the copyrighted work(s) identified in this notice, and that the information in this notice is accurate to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.

A search has detected that your web site, videosift.com, is hosting and/or linking to material that infringes Viacom’s exclusive rights in copyrighted work(s). The information provided below is a non-exhaustive, representative list of the Viacom copyrighted work(s) infringed by videosift.com, as well as the links and/or URLs corresponding to each listed infringement.

I have a good faith belief that the Viacom copyrighted work(s) identified in this notice of infringement has not been authorized for use or distribution via videosift.com by Viacom, its agent or the law. Therefore, I request that you immediately remove or otherwise disable access to the infringing material identified in this notice, and cease and desist from any further infringement of Viacom’s copyrighted work(s).

In complying with this notice, videosift.com should not destroy any evidence which may be relevant in a lawsuit relating to the infringement alleged, including all associated electronic documents and data relating to the presence of the infringing items on videosift.com, which shall be preserved while disabling public access, irrespective of any document retention or corporate policy to the contrary.

Nothing in this notice shall absolve you of any affirmative obligation to prevent or limit the infringement of Viacom’s exclusive rights in the copyrighted work(s) irrespective of whether you receive a notice of infringement for a specific work. Moreover, this notice is not intended as a full statement of the facts, and does not constitute a waiver of Viacom’s right to recover damages incurred by virtue of any unauthorized or infringing activities occurring on your network or site. All such rights, as well as claims for any other relief, are expressly reserved by Viacom.

If you need to contact me, I may be reached at the following address:

Sincerely,

Brad Bo
On behalf of Vobile as an agent for Viacom
2880 Lakeside Drive, Ste 360
Santa Clara, CA 95054
v: (408) 217-5000
agent@viacom.copyright-notice.com


Infringed Viacom property and URL/location of infringing content to be disabled or removed:
ColbertReport

http://videosift.com/video/Colbert-regarding-the-new-ATT


*kill

It's funny you call it a racket. The government funding model is the same as the mafia funding model. (That's actually a thing. Not making a joke).

Both rely on a tribute, both have enforcers to make sure you cooperate, and both provide the community with protection from touble makers that would harm productivity.

Heck, in south America, there are mafias that provide public services in places where the government doesn't have a presence. Utilities, policing, welfare, healthcare, etc.

I say this not as a criticism of either government or mafia. Simply pointing out that both work on the same basic principles.

-scheherazade

Typically yes, especially in a Lear, but you need the presence of mind to hook it up. He was barely holding on to consciousness as it was.

Depressing to contemplate that the casualification, lack of complexity (let alone city size), lack of ambition and the presence of a bloody-minded and counterintuitive game engine makes this sort of thing absolutely impossible in the latest SimCity piece of shit game.

Not only do i think this is wrong, but i think it is obviously and patently wrong.

It is demonstrable that a confrontation does not necessarily escalate the longer it goes on for. If you've been taught that in training by someone purporting to be an expert then i despair. I almost feel at a loss for where to begin - i have been in thousands of confrontations that de-escalated due to more time passing allowing both parties to explain or understand better, or for the blood to cool down. I've seen thousands of the same types of confrontation happening to other people. It literally happens all the time; misunderstandings get corrected and the situation de-escalates.

I hope that the brief explanation has betrayed what you really meant. Perhaps you were talking about a specific range of situations with a violent individual.

Or perhaps that's the problem and someone has been training law enforcement this falsehood which effectively encourages you to use the most extreme measure you have to end the conflict more quickly and keep it at a safely low level of escalation. And then you end up with mine- and rocket-resistant urban combat vehicles patrolling the streets, teams of camo'd police holding weapons INCORRECTLY in the presence of civilians on your own streets, and the mowing down of unarmed shoplifters...... all because it's more kind that way? I refute that, and before anyone says the most dangerous words ever spoken 'but we've always done it that way', in a discussion about the ineptitude or otherwise of law enforcement you aren't allowed the premise "law enforcement's methods are and always have been the best way to do things." -- Law enforcement, along with politics, should be the most heavily scrutinised and re-scrutinised systems that exist - because of their unique position to affect people.

I do NOT consider the concern for the safety of a police officer to be greater than the concern for the rights of a citizen; i was under the impression that police were the defence line between citizens and criminals, they put their lives on the line to keep society safe and running. Their job is to ensure we can be citizens, and they are paid to uphold the ideals of the society - freedom, respect for the individual and personal security. I genuinely hope they do so safely, but you don't play with feathers unless you're willing to get your arse tickled, as the saying goes. It is very possible to be safe, respectful and understanding all at the same time in the pursuit of law enforcement. If a person does not have the ability to behave that way they should not be in the job in the same way as someone who finds kids irritating and hit-able shouldn't go into childcare.

So caffeine still has an affect on your sleep way after you have put it into your system. Twelve hours later its still has a 25% presence/affect as it had when you drank it. So coffee in the morning can still make it potentially more difficult to sleep at night. I'd always heard it shouldn't affect your sleep if you had consumed it longer then six hours ago. So i guess the multiple cups before noon may potentially be part of my difficulty sleeping at night.

The more you know

I would and do thank you,. However, I would prefer to say the same of you.

I generally eschew discussions here. For all of the lip service to intelligent discourse, well, reality differs at least with respect to certain classes of topic.

Were it not for you extending yourself, and probably having repeatedly done so, I would not have. As such, thank you. In fact, your presence provided a mitigating influence. With all due respect, I perceive had it been almost anyone else purporting your argument(s), the timbre of the discussion would have been markedly different. Such is it and such has it been.

There are many here that I like a great deal. There are many here I respect for their humanity and intelligences. I agree with few about many things and fewer do I respect for their process. I was heartened to find two of the latter appreciated my comment.

So...thank you lucky760, Mr. Santor.

If you want to focus on science, then whatever God you prefer - intelligent designer, whatever you want to call it - is completely out of the discussion. If anyone wants a scientific assessment of God, then it goes like this - "I cannot measure it with any instrument, i cannot infer its presence by its effect on something else. There is no way i can measure or quantify any aspect of God or the effect God might have on the physical universe, so why are you asking me about it?"

What is your point? I don't think Dawkins has ever said that he can prove "God" doesn't exist, and if he did he's wrong because you can't prove anything about something that doesn't exist; if it can't be measured or inferred or otherwise observed, it doesn't exist to science, because science is simply our way of understanding what our senses tell us. A non-measurable entity does not form part of that understanding if it has no measurable effect on anything we can sense. It's like asking how loud a smell is - it doesn't have that dimension to it, it's not a measurable quantity.

I'd also like to add that "i refuse to respond to responses to this" is about as arrogant a statement as you can make. "This is what i think, and regardless of any new information i can access about the situation, i will not have my mind changed and i will not even listen to the thing that may change my mind." That statement is pretty much anti-knowledge and anti-understanding and clearly demonstrates the futility of discussing science with someone who believes in so called "intelligent design."

As for talking about Dawkins being able to "create" the "tools for evolution of a giraffe".....? What on earth are you talking about? You just told the man to stick to science - but we have a working scientific explanation for evolution with gene mutation, time and selective breeding. You're the one injecting anthropomorphism into the mix (and worse, implying that Dawkins needs to disprove that nonsense explanation in order to stand so firmly behind the SCIENCE of evolution), he IS sticking to the science. When he gets asked about "God", he dismisses it - because it is out of the question when it comes to science, and he sticks to science like you ask!

...the basic flaw of bad loud liars is that not only are they incapable of the critical thinking process and are then unmindful of that capability in others. Case in point...the successive timeline of It perpetrating that which it attempts to lay at others feet is Its own pathetic pathological pattern.

That others have no more interest in bothering to glean such no more than they would to follow the canine scatological trail of a poor neighbor doesn't provide grounds for Its delusions that It is believed by anyone here.

But, "Little...thing," I have a record of the pattern and...wait for it...past being merely tired of you and your abusive presence here.

Admirable, perhaps, to still cling to said belief, but not convincing in the least, considering it is something that is neither deniable nor undeniably a possibility. Concluding science to be "proof" of God is merely a logical trap to be avoided.

I say that the presence of design features in living systems is proof of a designer, and that is a logical conclusion. Further, ether life is designed or it isn't; how would you tell whether it was or wasn't? And why would you rule it out and on what basis you would do so? "Because science" is not a meaningful answer to the question. There are good reasons to believe it was designed, and it isn't just flipping a coin.

which your logical leaps and bounds are not able to compete with, no matter how hard your brain tries to find a hidden pattern in anything you can grasp for, like a man drowning in an ocean of possibilities.

Anyone can infer anything from something of similar value, ergo inference without a scientific basis is silly.

What we have observed is that information only comes from minds, and when we find a genetic code inside of our own cells, it is logical to postulate a designer from that discovery; that isn't much of a leap. To say otherwise is simply your own bias speaking. It is not inference without a scientific basis; the basis is our observation and lack of any credible theory to explain the presence of genetic information in our cells. There is no mechanism found in nature which has ever been observed to create it.

These sorts of arguments heavily weigh on definitions. What do you mean when you say life? Natural selection may not explain the presence of the first 'blueprint molecule' (which would probably be much simpler than anything we'd recognise now as DNA) but it can and does explain the massive expansion of data contained within that molecule.

A good definition is that something is alive when it is embedded with genetic information, and you can only apply the idea of natural selection to living systems. Non-living systems follow the laws of physics, not natural selection.

Similarly, what do you mean when you say 'information'? Clearly you aren't using the word in the way most people do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information

I think that definition covers the sense in which I am using it. The information in DNA is stored as a genetic code with language, grammatical syntax, meaning, vocabulary, error correction and many other features.

These sorts of arguments heavily weigh on definitions. What do you mean when you say life? Natural selection may not explain the presence of the first 'blueprint molecule' (which would probably be much simpler than anything we'd recognise now as DNA) but it can and does explain the massive expansion of data contained within that molecule.

Similarly, what do you mean when you say 'information'? Clearly you aren't using the word in the way most people do.

ChaosE - This may be a matter of semantics and definitions. Depending on how you define the terms, I agree with your point.

And, in moral philosophy, if it is not your _choice_, it is not an ethical choice. Sorry if this is philosophical bullshit, but think about it: your "not killing someone" because you don't have the motivation or means is not a virtuous choice, it is simply not NOT an unethical one. It is the lack of a negative, not the presence of a positive. Virtue is about our choices, not our defaults.

Virtue is like building a muscle. The virtue is demonstrated/evidenced in building my strength (taking the time and focus to work out and be disciplined), not in the fact that I am strong. If I stop working out, my muscle will decay.

This is like virtue. In a strange way, once we have habituated a virtuous choice to routine/automatic mode, it is no longer a virtuous choice. It was virtuous to build the habit, but it is not virtuous when it is automatic.

Again, it is philosophical quibbling/definitions, but it points to a real distinction that matters in our moment by moment experience. As moral philosophers put it, morality is about what you do in the face of difficulty and temptation, not when things are automatic. It is easy to be nice to people when life is going great for you. It is hard to be nice to others when things are stressful and falling apart. THAT is where the rubber of morality meets the road of reality/daily life. That is where virtue shows up (or doesn't).

I am married and monogamy is part of my commitment. If no other woman would deign to sleep with me, my not sleeping with them is no indication of my virtue. It is only in the face of propositions to which I say "no" that I am exercising the virtue of fidelity.

In this sense, the more we are responsible for our own choices, the more those choice CAN be virtuous and BUILD our virtuous character. In contrast, when other people make our choices for us, we neither act virtuously nor build virtuous character.

I am sure this is true in your own life. If you donate time/money/effort to a charitable cause, it impacts you personally and powerfully. When the government takes taxes from your paycheck to pay for social programs, it is impersonal and has virtually zero impact on your character.

Or, that is one way of looking at it - which the video is all about.

*****H*A*P*P*Y*****B*I*R*T*H*D*A*Y*****

I wish you the happiest of birthday's M'Lady.

It has been entirely too long since you graced us with your presence.

I hope and trust you and your daughter are well and happy. I hear you are in the land of kimchi.

May you have many more.

Enjoy, Lily.

Thanks Dolbs, that's good to know even if I will almost certainly never encounter a tornado. So, windows rolled up then. After further thought, I think the truck probably is the best idea in this scenario. Belted in and covered with a heavy blanket to protect you from flying glass should the windows break (and it's safety glass anyways) or other small debris, would be the way to go, or just curled up in a ball against the firewall if that's the only option. In the truck, you're insulated from lighting strikes or downed high tension lines, and it would provide reasonable protection from small whirling debris. You also have the mobility option should that need arise.

Granted, the truck could get hit by large missiles such as tree trunks, other cars, fat old ladies, cranes or other heavy machinery, or indeed itself be lofted hundreds of feet into the air. If any of that sort of thing happens, though, you were screwed anyways.

So, when it comes to this, I'm not really sure this is EIA in the truest sense. Given the (apparently) 30 seconds they had to plan, I think they made a reasonable choice among the options available to them. After all, it's definitely a situation where an okay plan now is better than a brilliant plan in five minutes. And yes, they probably should have come up with a plan as soon as they realized they were moving to a trailer park in ND, so a bit of EIA there. At least they kept on top of their priorities and realized the very first item of business was to film it happening, and I commend their presence of mind to hold the phone properly even in such a life-and-death situation.

Of course, since we're betting on the tornado not scoring a direct hit anyways. It could be that under a bed or in a closet in the trailer might have been just as well (losing the mobility, of course). Maybe having a trailer collapse on you is bad.

I dont' know why I find this scenario so fascintating to dissect.