Problem: In order to get elected to office, a political candidate must promise things that they simply cannot provide. "Cannot" for multiple reasons, not the least of which is the constitutional separation of powers and system of checks and balances (which are good things).

When a presidential candidate says anything about legislation (we will pass laws providing affordable health care to every citizen, etc. etc.) they are blowing smoke up your ass. They are aspiring to enter office in the executive branch, which is specifically held at a distance from the legislative branch.

Why do they say it? First, they want to get elected, and to get elected they have to present themselves as being willing to be a proactive, trustworthy instigator of policy. And secondly, because it just doesn't sound as good to say "if the legislative branch provides me with bills that would provide affordable health care to every citizen, I promise that I won't veto them", although that would more accurately describe their role.

A majority of the president's political roles seem to me to be reactive rather than proactive. A president can make policy decisions, issue orders as military commander in chief, etc., but when it comes to actual laws that affect citizens most directly, his role is limited to putting up legislative roadblocks (veto), stalling (pocket veto), or clearing the way (signing).

When one party holds power in the Senate, House, and Presidency but fails to get things done, I don't think the president really holds the majority of the blame, beyond the simple failing of making promises which they simply cannot provide. However, I think that we as voters need to recognize those unachievable promises and base our voting on what they CAN do rather than what they would CLAIM to do.

>> ^shuac:

>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^shuac:
Agreed about Norton products sucking. In my 25 years as a PC enthusiast, I've tried all the AV products at one point or another and the New Orleans levy system had fewer breaches than Norton.

That's why it's the #1 selling Av product, because it sucks so much.

Yes, it's got a huge market share but not because it's an effective product. It's simply marketed well (this commercial for instance). And how much was it to produce this commercial? Those funds could have been used to make a better product, no? You see, son, market share is the important thing when you're as big as Norton, not program effectiveness.
I hate stating the obvious because it's such a waste of time & effort...but biggest does not mean best. I mean, duh. And aren't you just a tad biased, being a Norton employee? I have boatloads of PC experience. I've forgotten more about PCs than most people know and in my experience, Norton is a mediocre anti-virus/anti-malware shield.
Yes, I've used them recently. When you guys started using disc imaging tech for your install routines back in 2006-2007 (I may have the year wrong but you know what I mean), I figured I'd give you another try. Damn, it really did install the quickest I'd ever seen, I gotta give you that. But within the year, I found a fucking keylogger happily recording all my keystrokes. Seems to have slipped between the tightly-machined cracks of the #1 selling AV product. Well done. After changing all my passwords and getting a new debit card, I uninstalled that shit and never looked back.
These days, I run a combo of BitDefender and Emisoft Anti-Malware on Win 7 64 and manual-run-only version of Spybot. Emisoft in particular is a frighteningly effective malware shield. But I am completely non-loyal when it comes to AV programs. I buy a one year license and if I get stung during that year, out it goes.


Norton products were #1 in the market when I started here in '99 and we didn't have adverts like this back then, so what's you're explanation for that? Symantec didn't really start pushing the products until the last 5-6 years or so.

Yes I know that bigger isn't better, but Symantec has made strides to improve the product, and has accomplished that goal. Proven by the reviews and benchmark tests. And no I'm not biased. If it was shit, I'd be the first to say it was. I already admitted that I wouldn't touch the consumer products when I first started working here, what more do you want?

So let me get this straight, SON. You are blaming an AV software for your inadequacies? If you have "boatloads of PC experience" and have "forgotten more about PCs than most people know" you wouldn't get keyloggers on your system to begin with. I certainly have never had one on any of my systems. Guess you should stay away from warez, and games you download from torrent sites, eh? Because that's typically where they come from. Again, I have been using computers since '95 and I've had a total of 2 viruses, one from an ISP's installation floppy, and one that a roommate downloaded onto my system 2 years ago when I was at work which ended up to be a fake AV program or what I like to call extortionware. As Tymbrwulf said, you can't rely ONLY on AV, anti-spyware, and anti-malware products to protect your system, if you do you're a fool. It also takes common sense, OS patches, software patches, etc. Viruses/malware/spyware can, and do use vulnerabilities in OSes and installed software to infect a machine even though it has a 100% perfectly working AV software installed on it. But why am I telling you this? You're the computer expert you should already know this right?

"I hate stating the obvious because it's such a waste of time & effort", but there's no AV software that 100% effective. If you find one let me know because I can tell you it doesn't exist. As I said in a previous post, things will always get by AV software because they depend on customer submissions, and definitions in order to stop threats. They are REACTIVE not PROACTIVE. Which means if a new variant of an old threat, or a new threat altogether gets released in the wild. Guess what? You, or somebody else is going to get infected, period. Again, if you were the computer expert you claim to be you'd understand this fact. Also, if you seriously think that you will find an AV software that will protect you 100% from threats, you are in for a rude awakening my friend. I wish you good luck in your endeavors.

That last post got all fucked up, let's try again.

Indeed. Common sense goes a long way! I have been a computer user since 1995, a support technician since 1999, and I have had a total of 2 viruses on my systems.

I can also say that back when I first worked here (1999) I wouldn't touch the consumer stuff either. It was bloated and basically took over the computer. But as you said, the 2010 products are much, much improved over the older stuff. Things may still get by us but that's rare and mostly due to new variants of old threats or new threats altogether. Other products may catch more threats but they also have a higher false positive rate. Norton products have the lowest false positive rate of any AV software in the market today. The main problem with AV products is they are reactive instead of proactive. Once we can get to a proactive state things will change drastically.

http://www.notebookreview.com/default.asp?newsID=5278&review=Symantec+Norton+Antivirus+2010+Review

>> ^Tymbrwulf:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://duckman33.videosift.com" title="member since January 10th, 2008" class="profilelink"><strong style="color: rgb(43, 104, 238);">Duckman33: I've been a Norton user until '05, when I switched to ESET. As far as Norton goes, I wouldn't say it sucks, but it does not have a good track record over the past 5 years.
I would argue that your lack of development of FAST AV software is what gave you guys the shit reputation you have today. I heard Norton 2010 isn't as bad as previous versions, but I won't touch it until I read positive reviews citing benchmarks, detection rates, and other things.
I've recently made the switch over from ESET to Panda Cloud due to owning a netbook, and haven't looked back since.
Of course we all know the BEST AV out there: Common Sense™ 2011. Using this you'll avoid 99% of all viruses.


EDIT: /sigh, I give up...

>> ^Mcboinkens:

>> ^westy:
>> ^Mcboinkens:
<em>>> <a rel="nofollow" href='http://videosift.com/video/Who-is-this-guy-and-what-lab-was-he-built-in#comment-1063403'>^Seric</a>:<br />I wonder how good he would be if he'd spent that time learning real drums <IMG class=smiley src="http://static1.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/blank.gif"><BR></em>
Yeah, you kind of shot yourself in the foot. He's using a real drum set, not to mention he is using very advanced drumming techniques. He probably learned to played the drums as a kid and then just found this game as a fun way to learn to play new, complex songs.
Furthermore, you should keep up with the new Rock Band coming out. The goal is shifting from just a fun way to chill with friends to actual tutorials on the instruments. The guitar is actually getting 6 strings with fingersensing technology, and it WILL teach those that want to learn to play, with enough effort of course. On the drums, the ride, crash, and high-hat will have different locations charted than the snare and toms, further enhancing gameplay.
Also, Westy, the analogy you made to racing virtually and for real is extremely off. The two focus on completely different things, one is mastering the course and memorizing lines, the other is having a solid team to tune your car, quick thinking out on the course, knowing the course AND dealing with the G's.

You do reolise that G forces are only relivent in F1 and indy car maby some of the other high speed single seaters and evan then you could easily train for that over a year ? other than the phisical strain Gforces actual make driving a car ALLOT ESEAR as you can feal what the car is doing where as in a game you have to go of the stearing collom alone.
you allso reolise that the teams in f1 pritty much compelaty set the car up for the driver ?
You do know that Driving simulators are not just used for learning the layout of the track right? and that in f1 since testing time is so limited drivers themselfs spend a huge amount of time in the simulator testing the teems setups and car modificatoins that the mechanics have done for them ?
Have you ever played a sim racing game ? top sim racers have to do far more tweeking and car set up than a real driver would ever be exspecvted to do , allso sim drivers Drive FAR FAR tighter than a real world driver ever would litraly 100% on the limit to the millimeter.
sim racing is allso far closer and requires more race craft than the vast majorty of other pro forms of racing , due to the fact you can see far less and people are driving closer to the limmit , i dont know if u ever watch f1 but 90% of the grid hardly push the limit interms of race craft.
The largest fundimental factor that stops incredably tallented sim racers compeating in the real world is CASH pure and simple , you have to be a ritch basterd to race and thats without getting anny money back.
Things are slowly changing though , seems that more and more scoller ships are opaning up offering top level sim racers the chance to race in the real world
http://www.ferrari.com/Engli
sh/Formula1/News/Headlines/Pages/100901_F1_Maranello_unveils_new_online_simulator.aspx


I won't waste too much time responding, but you are basically spouting bullshit. NASCAR drivers take 2-3 Gs on turns, and that's about as low as it gets in racing. Your point on teams setting up the cars actually furthers my point. Virtual drivers that set up their own cars are not mechanics, they just get numbers off of the internet and in-game time trials. The true mechanics don't do it that way.
Furthermore, you are incorrect when you assume that driving simulators they use are video games. They cost thousands of dollars and are inside of model cars that can represent true G force feelings.
On to the next point, virtual drivers can get exact drive-lines down because they are not exposed to real racing conditions. Sitting on a couch moving a thumbstick is not the same as turning a steering column in the middle of a track. Less pressure too. Screw up on XBOXLive? Just quit. Screw up in real life and you lose what could be your career, car, or just money in general.
Granted, there may be 1 or 2 sim drivers that could actually compete(and do well ), but like I said, your anology comes nowhere close to Rock Band drums vs. real drumsets. Anyway..


Im sorry but your the one talking out your arse , The point was regardless of how many G you exsperance anything below GP2,and most drivers would be fine with it given a month to get used to it. allso annything below GP2 and the G's make driving easer than sim racing not harder , as it allows you to feel what the car is doing.


Lets focus on road racing as I don't know or care that much about nascar.

to specificity answer your points

1) Red bull use Rfactor pro which is likely to be fairly simular (going by what the people that make Rfactor have said) to normal r factor it just outputs more data and gives the team far better data as to what effect there modifications have made.

Lets bare in mind that all the top sim racers pretty much use Rfactor as there default simulator

Allso there is enough steering collom feed back in Iracing ,Rfactor , Netcar pro to alow a driver to become a significantly better driver by training on it so long as they are using annything above a g25 for input. ITS NOT SIMPLY A CASE OF LEARNING RACING LINES , simulators like Rfactor , Iracing give enoughf feel for you to drive reactively , They allso simulate close racing and sim racers will get to exsperance more racing with other people and as a rsult develop more race craft faster . Remember when all the poker players came from online and totaly dominated real world poker players , this was simply due to the fact that they played thousends more hands than evan vintage poker players , this is what will and has happend with top end sim racers. the onyl difference is you have to be a ritch basterd to get into motor sport in the first place this is why sim racers dont often trasnfer its a totaly riged sport controled by the ritch of the world , but this is slowly chainging.

2) The sole resoin that sim racers drive to the limit is that it dosent cost them annything to crash the car repatedly to find the limit , once they have found it they can pritty much stick to it.

ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME WHY THE FUCK WOULD I BE TALKING ABOUT xbox360 ? THERE ARE NO GAMES EVAN CLOSE TO SIMULATOR STANDERD ON THE 360 WHY WOULD YOU EVAN BRING THIS UP WTF?

3) There are a good number of top sim racers that would rape the vast majorty of real world drivers , they are far more or equaly skiled than real world drivers they just have never had the money to drive in real life. If you consider there are probably only what 1000 top level competative road drivers , the top 20 sim racers would be able to compete with 80% of the gird in F1 and they represent the best of the best.

>> ^mentality:

>> ^westy:
Its simular how to how the top sim racers could probably beat allot of the profesoinal drivers out there.
Racing sims help you to get to know the track and your lines, but this is complete BS. Have you ever been in a race car? It's a completely different experience than a racing sim.
The only "gamer" to turn pro was Lucas Ordoñez. He was already an amateur racer, and it still took ~1 year of training. If you think you can take the best sim racer with no actual track experience, dump him in a real car for a month or two and expect them to do well, you are ridiculous.


I haven't driven a Race car , but I know people that do sim racing who have jumped into cars and beaten people by over 1/2 second on a national level .

I would not describe sim racers as "gamers" there are at least 20 sim racers that would probably beat 70% of drivers out racing today , if they were given 6 months. ITS PURELY DOWN TO COST.

GT3 although probably the best console bassed "sims" , is pretty shit when compared to the top pc simulators intemrs of getting feal , But the fact is anything below GP2 , star Mazda , is so fucking slow and non reactive a talented sim racer would have absaluty no issues racing to a high level.

obvously u have allot of shit sim racers , but there are allot of people that are better than the majority of real world race drivers excluded purely by cost. ( I follow all the driving schooler ship programs and events allwing sim racers or noobs to get into a real race car , and so far nearly all of them are a scam to ethor milk money out of people or purely a promotoinal tool for a game developer and dont actualy lead to annything of anny sugnificance

The I assume the device simply reads EEG , due to everyone's minds been different you cannot cearly extrapolate much precise data or causality from what happens.

it depends how the EEG reader is calibrated as well , as eeg can measure multiple degrees of brain activity i asume this is calibrated to brain inactivity rather than a specific typ of brain activity/brain signature.


I think it would be intresting to use contrast die and have people play games whalst in a CT scanner to get procise data on how peoples brains work when playing games , this has been done with f1 drivers or people that are good at specifc activities and you can normaly see that people that are better at acitvities have increased blood flow to specifc parts of the brain , for reactive typ games people that tend to be good are people that can have the natural instinkt part of the brain do the working out.

We are reactive beings, languishing in self-centered accumulation. Blinded by envy, preyed upon by a societal structure that is profit, rather than welfare, driven.

The two primary locations that humans learn a desire to work to benefit others are home and church. The founding fathers knew this, which is why the Constitution is a moral document that humbly acknowledges that rights come from divinity and provided protections to stop men from infringing those rights. Hippies have/had little or no respect for church & family, and the intellectually pithless modern progressives mirror that disdain. Not very likely that hippies or progressives will create this 'welfare driven' society when they actively seek to subvert/destroy the two things most likely to teach people a desire to serve others.

"hippies" - (objective and free thought, care and consideration of others)

Bull feathers. I lived in the 60s and 70s and the hippie movement was nothing about free thought, care, or consideration. They used the labels you use, but when rubber meets road the hippies were all about selfishness, laziness, and the abrogation of personal responsibility for ones actions.

In particular - hippies were incredibly intolerant of anything that didn't goose-step to their point of view. You see this reflected in their miserable progressive scions today. Anything that challenges their perspective is met with hostlity, anger, resentment, and violence. So much for 'objective free thought, care, and consideration of others'. Such boons are only granted to those that bow and scrape before properly approved leftist dogma - like good little zombies. For example...

(note the above entry: "Global warmer, its natural, not man made". You sir, are excused from your idiocy, you are entitled to it, but your idiocy comes at an expense... And that expense, on a global scale, is our downfall...)

Always nice to see objective free thought in action, combined with care and consideration for others, isn't it?

Yes, we are at a crisis point.
We are reactive beings, languishing in self-centered accumulation. Blinded by envy, preyed upon by a societal structure that is profit, rather than welfare, driven.
"hippies" - is a term bastardized by those who disagreed with underlying tenets (objective and free thought, care and consideration of others) of the movement, applying that term equally to reactive thought (and/or angsty, hormonal teenagers). Free thought based on observation has always been validated. And in this case, it has, and...we're basically fucked.

Humanity and it's self-centered approach is probably just a blip on the evolutionary timeline, of which we are still in an infantile stage. Consider, of course, that a mere 200 years ago, the main concern for most people was feeding themselves whilst avoiding an untimely extremely-violent end. Shit, most of the world remains incredibly superstitious,... competing invisible men in the sky. Most people are simply sheep, conditioned from birth to repeat behavioral patterns...

Genetically we are still only 1% removed from chimps, and yet we act like arrogant, know--t-all fucktards (note the above entry: "Global warmer, its natural, not man made". You sir, are excused from your idiocy, you are entitled to it, but your idiocy comes at an expense... And that expense, on a global scale, is our downfall...

I'm was just about to reactivate my account. Hmm.

The problem of course isn't the majority peacefully singing O'Canada. What has repeatedly happened is that behind the large crowd, a few unconnected anarchists/vandals/scum bags, decide to start burning, smashing and looting whatever they can. Meanwhile, the police can't get to the criminals without going through the large peaceful assembly of protesters.

Does the failure of the peaceful crowd to stop/prevent the criminal few count against them?
Does the failure of the peaceful crowd to make way for the police to get to the criminals count against them?
Should the preventative police efforts to clear the street count against them?
Should the reactive police efforts to clear the street count against them?

>> ^BoneRemake:

hes just being a 13 year old bitch.
He didnt do the splits or anything exaggerate enough to split his scrotum. I say shenanigans and bullshit. over reactive little fucktard.
I am curse because what the fuck do you expect doing shit like that ? especially without a helmet. fuckit idiot. probably should of busted his nutsack so EIA couldnt happen anymore.


i dunno. i thought the same thing at first until the slow-mo hit.

the rest of the kids were just sitting there at first cause they thought the same thing, but if you watch closely at the slo-mo, you'll see...

that deck broke pretty fuckin jagged, and the combination of his splits and those wooden death spikes probably caused a significant amount of damage.

besides, if he saw blood, and it soaked through his jeans that fast, there was probably something punctured... his leg or his scrotum... either way i'm sure it was pretty gruesome.

hes just being a 13 year old bitch.

He didnt do the splits or anything exaggerate enough to split his scrotum. I say shenanigans and bullshit. over reactive little fucktard.

I am curse because what the fuck do you expect doing shit like that ? especially without a helmet. fuckit idiot. probably should of busted his nutsack so EIA couldnt happen anymore.

>> ^Shepppard:
>> ^westy:
Well whats more bull shit is that they only give a dam when he says it cures cancer , because everyone gose mental over cancer up untill cancer its all la-di-da.
also he is only as much bull shit as religions but i bet they dont give a shit if a chirch person came in trying to sell some rleigouse thing or raising money for a lochal chirch that would be ok.

They weren't going to back the product beforehand, you can see that all of them are giggling at how stupid the product is.
Claims such as "Pain from cuts goes away in less then a minute!" is stupid, because they usually do anyway.
He really is just selling water, and for minor things like that, it's no harm no foul, you spend 20 bucks, it's not a life altering situation. Refuse him nicely and leave him on his way.
However, once he started making claims like it was able to cure more terminal things like cancer, and he's been SELLING it as a remedy for cancer, then shit gets serious.
If people truly buy his product thinking that spraying it down your throat a couple times daily is going to cure their cancer, and do that rather then get a real form of treatment, then that man is selling people their death.



but ultimately its the same thing if your making a claim that something dose something which it dose not or you make a claim without any evidence. its just circumstance that it happens to bridge over to other things. besides at the start he says it cures everything.

Instantly from the offset if sum one makes a claim that seems out of the ordinary/remarkable then they are going to need good evidence to back it up i mean they obviously let him on the show in the first place so the TV producers wanted to out him and id be suprized if the investors didn't get any heads up at all.

Its really trendy for people on TV to get up tight and really reactive about cancer despite the fact that there are many other things to die from and illnesses that suck.

I dont evan see the need for them to get all emotive they should have just said right away , u dont have anny evidence good by

as i say i bet if they had a religious person come in that was selling christian stuff or pray materials then they would quite likely be fine with it.

There's a difference between arguing semantics in order to find out the truth of the matter, and arguing semantics in order to "reframe" something to make it appear as something that it is not.

Frankly, I think that the reason the word "progressive" gained so much use in the 2000's was due to the diabolically successful efforts of the right-wing noise machine to turn the word "liberal" into an almost universal pejorative.

I'm a word guy, too, but like it or not, there's often a difference between what a word means originally and what it means in the vernacular.

On a side note I do remember, in the run-up to the election of 2000, the Greens and the Libertarians were in agreement on...probably 75% of the issues...and that's another reason I'd like to see the end of our two-party system. I think we'd make more progress if Greens and Libertarians were represented.

And lastly, the reason that the Dems and the liberal left aren't making more progress is because we're more reactive than active. It's like playing a chess game where you can never seem to get into a position to launch your attack.



(Cut! Where's my fluffer!)

>> ^Krupo:
Kind of hard to tell from the angle seen, but it looks like the Vatican Guards took her down before she got to B16, but they took him to the ground as well as a protective (over-reactive?) measure, at least that's how it seems to look. It would make sense to do that, anyway, cover him in case she's not attacking by herself, has explosives, etc.
It looked to me like they got ahold of her and began taking her down just as she got ahold of him, so he was actually "collateral damage."