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

I have to say I agree with you. It's been several years since our last overhaul of the UI. Because things on the web move so fast, we're a bit reactive in the way we add new features. Google+ didn't even exist when we did our last revamp. If anyone feels the inclination, we'd love to see some design ideas.

>> ^ghark:

>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^NetRunner:
@bcglorf that is the state of play at present. The thing is, terrorists in Pakistan or Yemmen can't hurt us until they come here, unless we go there.
It seems like things like "Homeland Security" should be able to handle that, and should be able to do well enough within the traditional legal framework of jurisprudence.
And to toss out a touch of radicalism, if they can't, then they can't, and if some attacks get through, well, no one said freedom would be easy.
Now I'm not ruling out the possibility of ever taking the fight to the terrorists, but it seems like we should completely change the whole way we look at this. We don't want a declaration of war on terrorists, that gives the U.S. President all this crazy unilateral power.
I think if we'd have viewed this as some sort of International-scale law enforcement matter, we'd have been in much better shape. And yes, we'd probably still give ourselves the right to come in with special ops and "arrest" people inside sovereign countries on our say so, but it at least should be something that comes after evidence is presented to a judge who's issuing a warrant...
And that approach would've made it clear that toppling the governments of countries and rebuilding them is completely beyond the scope of what's warranted to deal with terrorist threats.

The real trouble was the terrorists in Pakistan and Afghanistan. The terrorists in Afghanistan were able to hurt us here, and many of our interests and allies abroad as well. The formal government of Afghanistan when asked to choose sides with or against these terrorists chose to back them. Outright war with them in that context doesn't seem particularly absurd, nor even aggressive. The argument for reactive self-defense is rather strong.
You may not recall because our media avoided covering or discussing it much then and since, but Pakistan's formal government was right on the fence as well which way they would side. They still have well represented parties within Pakistan more enraged over Bin Laden's death than Benazir Bhutto's, and it's not the method or origin that offends them, but the nature of those dead. Bhutto was a moderate muslim women who was a former Pakistani PM and front runner in the upcoming elections. Bin Laden however, was to some well represented political parties a muslim hero and political ally rather than opponent. Showing that America had the will to play it's hand very strongly against the militants and terrorists hiding in Pakistan's tribal areas bordering Afghanistan I deem necessary to having encouraged Musharraf and the military leadership to at least pay lip service to siding as they have. Even now though, that may not have been enough. The militants are killing so many of our moderate Pakistani allies that there is a lot of momentum to accept a truce out of fear with them and who cares if America is still nominally at war with these militants.

And what is the root of this terrorism?


IMHO, human nature. The same human nature that led a bunch of majority privileged whites in America to form groups like the KKK. The same human nature that sees common hatred unifying groups of people throughout history, and often the it starts from greed or envy. I certainly wouldn't posit that the formation of things like the Westboro Baptists as being the result of their members being unfairly treated or wronged in the past, but rather their own vices and faults.

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^NetRunner:
@bcglorf that is the state of play at present. The thing is, terrorists in Pakistan or Yemmen can't hurt us until they come here, unless we go there.
It seems like things like "Homeland Security" should be able to handle that, and should be able to do well enough within the traditional legal framework of jurisprudence.
And to toss out a touch of radicalism, if they can't, then they can't, and if some attacks get through, well, no one said freedom would be easy.
Now I'm not ruling out the possibility of ever taking the fight to the terrorists, but it seems like we should completely change the whole way we look at this. We don't want a declaration of war on terrorists, that gives the U.S. President all this crazy unilateral power.
I think if we'd have viewed this as some sort of International-scale law enforcement matter, we'd have been in much better shape. And yes, we'd probably still give ourselves the right to come in with special ops and "arrest" people inside sovereign countries on our say so, but it at least should be something that comes after evidence is presented to a judge who's issuing a warrant...
And that approach would've made it clear that toppling the governments of countries and rebuilding them is completely beyond the scope of what's warranted to deal with terrorist threats.

The real trouble was the terrorists in Pakistan and Afghanistan. The terrorists in Afghanistan were able to hurt us here, and many of our interests and allies abroad as well. The formal government of Afghanistan when asked to choose sides with or against these terrorists chose to back them. Outright war with them in that context doesn't seem particularly absurd, nor even aggressive. The argument for reactive self-defense is rather strong.
You may not recall because our media avoided covering or discussing it much then and since, but Pakistan's formal government was right on the fence as well which way they would side. They still have well represented parties within Pakistan more enraged over Bin Laden's death than Benazir Bhutto's, and it's not the method or origin that offends them, but the nature of those dead. Bhutto was a moderate muslim women who was a former Pakistani PM and front runner in the upcoming elections. Bin Laden however, was to some well represented political parties a muslim hero and political ally rather than opponent. Showing that America had the will to play it's hand very strongly against the militants and terrorists hiding in Pakistan's tribal areas bordering Afghanistan I deem necessary to having encouraged Musharraf and the military leadership to at least pay lip service to siding as they have. Even now though, that may not have been enough. The militants are killing so many of our moderate Pakistani allies that there is a lot of momentum to accept a truce out of fear with them and who cares if America is still nominally at war with these militants.


And what is the root of this terrorism?

>> ^NetRunner:

@bcglorf that is the state of play at present. The thing is, terrorists in Pakistan or Yemmen can't hurt us until they come here, unless we go there.
It seems like things like "Homeland Security" should be able to handle that, and should be able to do well enough within the traditional legal framework of jurisprudence.
And to toss out a touch of radicalism, if they can't, then they can't, and if some attacks get through, well, no one said freedom would be easy.
Now I'm not ruling out the possibility of ever taking the fight to the terrorists, but it seems like we should completely change the whole way we look at this. We don't want a declaration of war on terrorists, that gives the U.S. President all this crazy unilateral power.
I think if we'd have viewed this as some sort of International-scale law enforcement matter, we'd have been in much better shape. And yes, we'd probably still give ourselves the right to come in with special ops and "arrest" people inside sovereign countries on our say so, but it at least should be something that comes after evidence is presented to a judge who's issuing a warrant...
And that approach would've made it clear that toppling the governments of countries and rebuilding them is completely beyond the scope of what's warranted to deal with terrorist threats.


The real trouble was the terrorists in Pakistan and Afghanistan. The terrorists in Afghanistan were able to hurt us here, and many of our interests and allies abroad as well. The formal government of Afghanistan when asked to choose sides with or against these terrorists chose to back them. Outright war with them in that context doesn't seem particularly absurd, nor even aggressive. The argument for reactive self-defense is rather strong.

You may not recall because our media avoided covering or discussing it much then and since, but Pakistan's formal government was right on the fence as well which way they would side. They still have well represented parties within Pakistan more enraged over Bin Laden's death than Benazir Bhutto's, and it's not the method or origin that offends them, but the nature of those dead. Bhutto was a moderate muslim women who was a former Pakistani PM and front runner in the upcoming elections. Bin Laden however, was to some well represented political parties a muslim hero and political ally rather than opponent. Showing that America had the will to play it's hand very strongly against the militants and terrorists hiding in Pakistan's tribal areas bordering Afghanistan I deem necessary to having encouraged Musharraf and the military leadership to at least pay lip service to siding as they have. Even now though, that may not have been enough. The militants are killing so many of our moderate Pakistani allies that there is a lot of momentum to accept a truce out of fear with them and who cares if America is still nominally at war with these militants.

Aw, gee. Now we've bonded. This is how I make all my friends. VS definitely one of the friendlier places on the net. That's why I gave you a rationale/weak apology for calling you a cunt!

And I think the best answer to your question about what explanation I would prefer is: a vague 2D force diagram sort of explanation with words and gestures if a graphic overlay is out of the question.

In reply to this comment by Ornthoron:
Ok, tempers can rise. I just don't like being called a cunt, especially when I can't see any reason for the increased anger. And I'm also used to VideoSift being a more friendly corner of the internet than many others. From your second comment on my profile I see that you have deeper reasons than I thought, but I believe you misunderstand my intentions, as I have partially explained below.

In reply to this comment by budzos:
By the way, don't take me seriously. I abuse my anonymity online and would not be this rude or reactive otherwise. And really I'm just procrastinating and trying to ward off anxiety. Plus I type really fast and sometimes fire off things that I probably wouldn't if I waited five more minutes. So no hard feelings.

In reply to this comment by Ornthoron:
May I ask what has made you so pissed off with me?

In reply to this comment by budzos:
Explain why you're being a cunt.

Ok, tempers can rise. I just don't like being called a cunt, especially when I can't see any reason for the increased anger. And I'm also used to VideoSift being a more friendly corner of the internet than many others. From your second comment on my profile I see that you have deeper reasons than I thought, but I believe you misunderstand my intentions, as I have partially explained below.

In reply to this comment by budzos:
By the way, don't take me seriously. I abuse my anonymity online and would not be this rude or reactive otherwise. And really I'm just procrastinating and trying to ward off anxiety. Plus I type really fast and sometimes fire off things that I probably wouldn't if I waited five more minutes. So no hard feelings.

In reply to this comment by Ornthoron:
May I ask what has made you so pissed off with me?

In reply to this comment by budzos:
Explain why you're being a cunt.

By the way, don't take me seriously. I abuse my anonymity online and would not be this rude or reactive otherwise. And really I'm just procrastinating and trying to ward off anxiety. Plus I type really fast and sometimes fire off things that I probably wouldn't if I waited five more minutes. So no hard feelings.

In reply to this comment by Ornthoron:
May I ask what has made you so pissed off with me?

In reply to this comment by budzos:
Explain why you're being a cunt.

Copper isn't all that reactive actually, it has similar properties to gold and silver. The similarity there is due to having a single electron in the "outer shell". That single electron is also why it does some interesting stuff.

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

You are truly a moron. I've tried not to say so, but you are. Your conspiracy theory videos and this retarded attack on immunisation just prove it.

Widespread vaccination has the potential to reduce cervical cancer deaths around the world by as much as two-thirds, if all women were to take the vaccine and if protection turns out to be long-term. In addition, the vaccines can reduce the need for medical care, biopsies, and invasive procedures associated with the follow-up from abnormal Pap tests, thus helping to reduce health care costs and anxieties related to abnormal Pap tests and follow-up procedures.
—American National Cancer Institute, [22]
(source)

If you're all fine with NOT trying to prevent two thirds of cervical cancer deaths based on a misguided fear of immunisations, then have at it sir, and then don't bitch when any woman you knows dies of it.

Go and look up what immunisation has done for the world, go on...

Children DIED because of the hysteria created around the MMR vaccine by the slime ball Andrew Wakefield. Children who would NOT have died did so because idiots like you made parents incorrectly fear a vaccine, so their children were not immunised, infection rates sky-rocketed, and children DIED.

I mock the fucking shit out of you because you are wrong, and your decisions put the lives of other people at risk too, not just your own. There's no two ways about it, vaccinations are a HUGE benefit to society, a HUGE life saver, a HUGE preventer of pain and suffering.

Do you use homoeopathic remedies to ward off evil do you?


>> ^marbles:

>> ^spoco2:
>> ^marinara:
mercury causes mental retardation, vaccines contain mercury, therefore vaccines=retardation.

A 6-ounce can of tuna fish contains an average of 17 micrograms of mercury, vaccines that contain mercury contain roughly 25 micrograms.
You think you're going to become mentally retarded by eating two cans of tuna?
No?
Then what you're saying is retarded.
That sort of knee-jerk, mindless shit is what causes people to stop getting their kids immunised and starts getting kids killed.

There's a big difference between ingesting mercury and injecting it straight into the vein.
Do junkies eat heroin? Why the fuck do you think they go to the trouble of injecting smack, why don't they just eat it?
Hardly any mercury is absorbed through ingesting, like around .01%. So that would be 1/1000 of 17 micrograms actually absorbed or .0017 micrograms / 6oz can of tuna.
And what do we actually know about mercury? Well, we know it's HIGHLY toxic. Let's go to the wikipedia page for Mercury poisoning:
Mercury is such a highly reactive toxic agent that it is difficult to identify its specific mechanism of damage, and much remains unknown about the mechanism. It damages the central nervous system, endocrine system, kidneys, and other organs, and adversely affects the mouth, gums, and teeth. Exposure over long periods of time or heavy exposure to mercury vapor can result in brain damage and ultimately death. Mercury and its compounds are particularly toxic to fetuses and infants. Women who have been exposed to mercury in pregnancy have sometimes given birth to children with serious birth defects (see Minamata disease).
Mercury exposure in young children can have severe neurological consequences, preventing nerve sheaths from forming properly. Mercury inhibits the formation of myelin.
/source

And since we're at it, let's have a peak at Thiomersal's wikipedia page:
Thiomersal is very toxic by inhalation, ingestion, and in contact with skin, with a danger of cumulative effects. ...
Few studies of the toxicity of thiomersal in humans have been performed. Cases have been reported of severe poisoning by accidental exposure or attempted suicide, with some fatalities. Animal experiments suggest that thiomersal rapidly dissociates to release ethylmercury after injection; that the disposition patterns of mercury are similar to those after exposure to equivalent doses of ethylmercury chloride; and that the central nervous system and the kidneys are targets, with lack of motor coordination being a common sign. Similar signs and symptoms have been observed in accidental human poisonings. The mechanisms of toxic action are unknown.
/source
But you can keep talking out of your ass like you actually have a fucking clue. And keep shooting up your children with neurotoxins too, while mocking those that oppose forced inoculations.
BTW statist idiot, the video is referring to the HPV vaccine. Why do fucking 10 year olds need to be vaccinated for STDs?

>> ^spoco2:

>> ^marinara:
mercury causes mental retardation, vaccines contain mercury, therefore vaccines=retardation.

A 6-ounce can of tuna fish contains an average of 17 micrograms of mercury, vaccines that contain mercury contain roughly 25 micrograms.
You think you're going to become mentally retarded by eating two cans of tuna?
No?
Then what you're saying is retarded.
That sort of knee-jerk, mindless shit is what causes people to stop getting their kids immunised and starts getting kids killed.


There's a big difference between ingesting mercury and injecting it straight into the vein.

Do junkies eat heroin? Why the fuck do you think they go to the trouble of injecting smack, why don't they just eat it?
Hardly any mercury is absorbed through ingesting, like around .01%. So that would be 1/1000 of 17 micrograms actually absorbed or .0017 micrograms / 6oz can of tuna.

And what do we actually know about mercury? Well, we know it's HIGHLY toxic. Let's go to the wikipedia page for Mercury poisoning:

Mercury is such a highly reactive toxic agent that it is difficult to identify its specific mechanism of damage, and much remains unknown about the mechanism. It damages the central nervous system, endocrine system, kidneys, and other organs, and adversely affects the mouth, gums, and teeth. Exposure over long periods of time or heavy exposure to mercury vapor can result in brain damage and ultimately death. Mercury and its compounds are particularly toxic to fetuses and infants. Women who have been exposed to mercury in pregnancy have sometimes given birth to children with serious birth defects (see Minamata disease).

Mercury exposure in young children can have severe neurological consequences, preventing nerve sheaths from forming properly. Mercury inhibits the formation of myelin.
/source


And since we're at it, let's have a peak at Thiomersal's wikipedia page:

Thiomersal is very toxic by inhalation, ingestion, and in contact with skin, with a danger of cumulative effects. ...

Few studies of the toxicity of thiomersal in humans have been performed. Cases have been reported of severe poisoning by accidental exposure or attempted suicide, with some fatalities. Animal experiments suggest that thiomersal rapidly dissociates to release ethylmercury after injection; that the disposition patterns of mercury are similar to those after exposure to equivalent doses of ethylmercury chloride; and that the central nervous system and the kidneys are targets, with lack of motor coordination being a common sign. Similar signs and symptoms have been observed in accidental human poisonings. The mechanisms of toxic action are unknown.
/source

But you can keep talking out of your ass like you actually have a fucking clue. And keep shooting up your children with neurotoxins too, while mocking those that oppose forced inoculations.

BTW statist idiot, the video is referring to the HPV vaccine. Why do fucking 10 year olds need to be vaccinated for STDs?

Hey, is it possible to re-activate my old account? All my old posts/comments etc. are listed under user 8777. It wasn't apparent how, or if, I could reactivate, so I just made a new account. Thanks much!
Snoozedoctor.

Sorry, no clue. Only Lucky760 or Dag would know if it is possible.


In reply to this comment by snoozedoctor:
Hey Mr. Deathcow,
Any idea how to reactivate an account? All my old posts/comments etc. are under user 8777. It wasn't readily apparent how to reactivate that old account, so I just made a new one. Thanks, snoozie.

>> ^Estuffing17:

Okay, all additional 'holier than though' ridiculously over-reactive comments aside, how the hell did this make the top fifteen? Honestly people, what the hell is wrong with you that you upvote such meaningless drivel? It's not funny, nor thought-provoking, nor sexy, nor informative, it doesn't elicit an emotional response of any kind. I come to this site for better stuff than this crap guys.


You just listed all the reasons I upvoted this video.

You have any idea how I re-register my old account? I couldn't figure it out easily, so I just made a new one, but I see all my old stuff is still under 8999 member, which I assume is just an inactive account. It's not apparent at all how you reactivate that, if you can. They should make that simpler to figure out.

In reply to this comment by moodonia:
Hey Dr. Snooze!

Great to see you back practicing at St. Videosifts! :

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

Consider it a community in-joke between friends. One more layer of patina.

>> ^Estuffing17:

Okay, all additional 'holier than though' ridiculously over-reactive comments aside, how the hell did this make the top fifteen? Honestly people, what the hell is wrong with you that you upvote such meaningless drivel? It's not funny, nor thought-provoking, nor sexy, nor informative, it doesn't elicit an emotional response of any kind. I come to this site for better stuff than this crap guys.