Your video, Epic Cat Jumping! (Nothing can rival the jumping cat), has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

I believe that by then the GOP would be something else; just like it was something else under Eisenhower and Lincoln. We are all moving forward; just at different paces. After all, we are just rivals in our way of thinking, not enemies. If for example, you get it and others don't so quickly, you shouldn't ridicule them for not jumping on your bandwagon so quickly. As long as we all have good intentions, the details will get sorted out with time.

>> ^st0nedeye:

In terms of the national presidential election, without major structural changes to the GOP they are finished.
Texas.
In 2020 to 2024, based on changing demographics, it will become blue. If/when it does, the GOP will lose 50+ electoral votes, and lose any chance to win a presidential race.

>> ^MonkeySpank:
I'd give the Republican party another 2 terms before it morphs into something else; obviously, extreme-right is not the answer, especially with a larger segment of the new voting population leaning center. You can see it today; Mitt cannot have a change unless he pretends he's a centrist. This not only goes for the general populace, but also for the republican registered voters themselves. It's no surprise Santorum didn't win the primaries. History books will look back at this era and reflect on the neo-conservative movement and its negative effect on American politics.
The great thing about the internet is that every video, document, public forum comment, and article can be stored permanently. Many people are on the wrong side of history, and their offspring will find that out.

Also on a separate note, Indigo Books and Music has joined forces with U.S. bookstore chain Barnes & Noble in refusing to stock or sell any books published by online rival Amazon.com. This is in protest to Amazon using predatory tactics that weaken an already struggling book industry. Citing the online company’s policy of reserving exclusive rights to sell e-books produced by Amazon's new publishing arm.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/books-and-media/indigo-joins-growing-boycott-of-books-published-by-amazoncom/article543954/


Not banning per say but a definitely proof that, we can only access what is offered to us.

>> ^lucky760:

>> ^CheshireSmile:
>> ^lucky760:
Strange that there's a gigantic British flag painted on the wall of a grade school classroom apparently in Russia.

that's english written on the board, too. probably an english class.

Right, he's clearly teaching English to the class. I'm not at all saying the video's fake if that's how I'm coming across. Just odd to me that they'd put in their classroom such an enormous flag. They just don't seem the type to permit such promotion of a rival, democratic power, despite that they're teaching its language.
For Soviets/Ex-Soviets/Russians "English" is better than "American". Hence the flag. It looks like a button part of a pull-down poster/teaching material.

>> ^CheshireSmile:

>> ^lucky760:
Strange that there's a gigantic British flag painted on the wall of a grade school classroom apparently in Russia.

that's english written on the board, too. probably an english class.


Right, he's clearly teaching English to the class. I'm not at all saying the video's fake if that's how I'm coming across. Just odd to me that they'd put in their classroom such an enormous flag. They just don't seem the type to permit such promotion of a rival, democratic power, despite that they're teaching its language.

You know, dictators like Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein regularly hired goons to go on rallies and protests against their rivals so that when western journalists come all you hear is 'praise Gaddafi! shame on the rebels! ahyayayayay!'

Just saying.

>> ^Sagemind:

The rule is one of several strict guidelines set by organisers to protect the exclusivity rights of sponsors such as Coca-Cola, Visa and McDonald’s and prevents ambush stunts from rival non-sponsors. It means that athletes are prevented from endorsing their individual sponsors throughout the event.
Athletes found in breach of the laws could be fined and disqualified from the Games, although this has never happened.
http://www.marketingweek.co.uk/news/olympians-hit-
back-over-sponsor-ban-rule/4003014.article


Seems like the UN is bigger than the IOC. Couldn't we just tell them "Fuck you we're not putting up with your shit!." I mean it's not like they have an army or anything, and I'm really sick of corporations ruling everyone.

I'm also sick of the Olympics not being about Amateurs anymore...it should be 100% non-professionals!

This app works with the catalogue not instead of it? The one book whose printing run rivals that of the Bible and its app doesn't replace the printed version. Weird to say the least. Maybe next year.

The rule is one of several strict guidelines set by organisers to protect the exclusivity rights of sponsors such as Coca-Cola, Visa and McDonald’s and prevents ambush stunts from rival non-sponsors. It means that athletes are prevented from endorsing their individual sponsors throughout the event.

Athletes found in breach of the laws could be fined and disqualified from the Games, although this has never happened.
http://www.marketingweek.co.uk/news/olympians-hit-back-over-sponsor-ban-rule/4003014.article

>> ^MrFisk:

They don't teach us this in journalism school.


They taught me just to show up at the disclosed location for the piece of paper that is handed out by the PR guy and bring it back, for the news! I noticed that our rival newspaper always copied our stuff; what gives with the plagiarism-OMG?


On a serious non-sarcasm note:

What a complete and utter blowjob fest so much of this world is now suffering from pointedly in the political, media, and corporate worlds. This just shows that we are evolving towards a precipice rather than backing away from it; I wonder if any of these idiots even realize it, as it WILL affect the mega-rich, whether they think they are safe on their private land with their "enforcers" or "private army" or not. If shit hits the fan, they WILL NOT BE. If society falls apart it will become...UGLY. I mean that in the WORST possible sense as I'm sure everyone reading understands.

Wolf Blitzer (as do many other prompter lead talking head "journalists" out there) calls himself a journalist, but he's the epitome of the very problem of the system--Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart, THOUGH COMICS are closer to journalists in every way as they have integrity, function, ability, information, tenacity, knowledge, WIT, comprehension, and reliability than any of the leading "News" networks... I could list other qualities they have to be sure, they have a great many, both. But, the point is that are news and information is becoming rapidly vapid and obsolete except to the idiotically inclined viewers, that unfortunately seem to still watch and worse still believe and accept what they say as true... Even though much of the information presented is in the form a Junior High student could understand, showing that they truly do know their audience as well...

Safe nuclear refers to many different new gen4 reactor units that rely on passive safety instead of engineered safety. The real difference comes with a slight bit of understanding of how nuclear tech works now, and why that isn't optimal.

Let us first consider this, even with current nuclear technology, the amount of people that have died as a direct and indirect result of nuclear is very low per unit energy produced. The only rival is big hydro, even wind and solar have a great deal of risk compared to nuclear as we do it and have done it for years. The main difference is when a nuclear plant fails, everyone hears about it...but when a oil pipeline explodes and kills dozens, or solar panel installers fall off a roof or get electrocuted and dies...it just isn't as interesting.

Pound per pound nuclear is already statistically very safe, but that isn't really what we are talking about, we are talking about what makes them more unsafe compared to new nuclear techs. Well, that has to do with how normal nukes work. So, firstly, normal reactor tech uses solid fuel rods. It isn't a "metal" either, it is uranium dioxide, has the same physical characteristics as ceramic pots you buy in a store. When the fuel fissions, the uranium is transmuted into other, lighter, elements some of which are gases. Over time, these non-fissile elements damage the fuel rod to the point where it can no longer sustain fission and need to be replaced. At this point, they have only burned about 4% of the uranium content, but they are all "used up". So while there are some highly radioactive fission products contained in the fuel rods, the vast majority is just normal uranium, and that isn't very radioactive (you could eat it and not really suffer any radiation effects, now chemical toxicity is a different matter). The vast majority of nuclear waste, as a result of this way of burning uranium, generates huge volumes of waste products that aren't really waste products, just normal uranium.

But this isn't what makes light water reactors unsafe compared to other designs. It is all about the water. Normal reactors use water to both cool the core, extract the heat, and moderate the neutrons to sustain the fission reaction. Water boils at 100c which is far to low a temperature to run a thermal reactor on, you need much higher temps to get power. As a result, nuclear reactors use highly pressurized water to keep it liquid. The pressure is an amazingly high 2200psi or so! This is where the real problem comes in. If pressure is lost catastrophically, the chance to release radioactivity into the environment increases. This is further complicated by the lack of water then cooling the core. Without water, the fission chain reaction that generates the main source of heat in the reactor shuts down, however, the radioactive fission products contained in the fuel rods are very unstable and generate lots of heat. So much heat over time, they end up causing the rods to melt if they aren't supplied with water. This is the "melt down" you always hear about. If you start then spraying water on them after they melt down, it caries away some of those highly radioactive fission products with the steam. This is what happened in Chernobyl, there was also a human element that overdid all their safety equipment, but that just goes to show you the worst case.

The same thing didn't happen in Fukushima. What happened in Fukushima is that coolant was lost to the core and they started to melt down. The tubes which contain the uranium are made from zirconium. At high temps, water and zirconium react to form hydrogen gas. Now modern reactor buildings are designed to trap gases, usually steam, in the event of a reactor breach. In the case of hydrogen, that gas builds up till a spark of some kind happens and causes an explosion. These are the explosions that occurred at Fukushima. Both of the major failures and dangers of current reactors deal with the high pressure water; but water isn't needed to make a reactor run, just this type of reactor.

The fact that reactors have radioactive materials in them isn't really unsafe itself. What is unsafe is reactor designs that create a pressure to push that radioactivity into other areas. A electroplating plant, for example, uses concentrated acids along with high voltage electricity in their fabrication processes. It "sounds" dangerous, and it is in a certain sense, but it is a manageable danger that will most likely only have very localized effects in the event of a catastrophic event. This is due mainly to the fact that there are no forces driving those toxic chemical elements into the surrounding areas...they are just acid baths. The same goes for nuclear materials, they aren't more or less dangerus than gasoline (gas go boom!), if handled properly.

I think one of the best reactor designs in terms of both safety and efficiency are the molten salt reactors. They don't use water as a coolant, and as a result operate at normal preasures. The fuel and coolant is a liquid lithium, fluoride, and beryllium salt instead of water, and the initial fuel is thorium instead of uranium. Since it is a liquid instead of a solid, you can do all sorts of neat things with it, most notably, in case of an emergency, you can just dump all the fuel into a storage tank that is passively cooled then pump it back to the reactor once the issue is resolved. It is a safety feature that doesn't require much engineering, you are just using the ever constant force of gravity. This is what is known as passive safety, it isn't something you have to do, it is something that happens automatically. So in many cases, what they designed is a freeze plug that is being cooled. If that fails for any reason, and you desire a shutdown, the freeze plug melts and the entire contents of the reactor are drained into the tanks and fission stops (fission needs a certain geometry to happen).

So while the reactor will still be as dangerous as any other industrial machine would be...like a blast furnace, it wouldn't pose any threat to the surrounding area. This is boosted by the fact that even if you lost containment AND you had a ruptured emergency storage tank, these liquid salts solidify at temps below 400c, so while they are liquid in the reactor, they quickly solidify outside of it. And another great benefit is they are remarkably stable. Air and water don't really leach anything from them, fluoride and lithium are just so happy binding with things, they don't let go!

The fuel burn up is also really great. You burn up 90% of what you put in, and if you try hard, you can burn up to 99%. So, comparing them to "clean coal" doesn't really give new reactor tech its fair shake. The tech we use was actually sort of denounced by the person who made them, Alvin Weinberg, and he advocated the molten salt reactor instead. I could babble on about this for ages, but I think Kirk Sorensen explains that better than I could...hell most likely the bulk of what I said is said better by him



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2vzotsvvkw

But the real question is why. Why use nuclear and not solar, for instance?

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

This is the answer. The power of the atom is a MILLION times more dense that fossil fuels...a million! It is a number that is beyond what we can normal grasp as people. Right now, current reactors harness less that 1% of that power because of their reactor design and fuel choice.

And unfortunately, renewables just cost to darn much for how much energy they contribute. In that, they also use WAY more resources to make per unit energy produced. So wind, for example, uses 10x more steal per unit energy contributed than other technologies. It is because renewables is more like energy farming.

http://videosift.com/video/TEDxWarwick-Physics-Constrain-Sustainable-Energy-Options


This is a really great video on that maths behind what makes renewables less than attractive for many countries. But to rap it up, finally, the real benefit is that cheap, clean power is what helps makes nations great. There is an inexorable link with access to energy and financial well being. Poor nations burn coal to try and bridge that gap, but that has a huge health toll. Renewables are way to costly for them per unit energy, they really need other answers. New nuclear could be just that, because it can be made nearly completely safe, very cheap to operate, and easier to manufacture (this means very cheap compared to today's reactors as they are basically huge pressure vessels). If you watch a couple of videos from Kirk and have more questions or problems, let me know, as you can see, I love talking about this stuff Sorry if I gabbed your ear off, but this is the stuff I am going back to school for because I do believe it will change the world. It is the closest thing to free energy we are going to get in the next 20 years.

In reply to this comment by ReverendTed:
Just stumbled onto your profile page and noticed an exchange you had with dag a few months back.
What constitutes "safe nuclear"? Is that a specific type or category of nuclear power?
Without context (which I'm sure I could obtain elsewise with a simple Google search, but I'd rather just ask), it sounds like "clean coal".

It doesn't matter if a god exists. The problem is two-fold: on one hand religious teaching is selectively obeyed, while on the other the purpose of morality isn't understood. They really go hand in hand. If these people learned to judge themselves before judging others, or to respect their neighbors and even their rivals, they would come to understand the purpose of morality. They use their morality to try and control the behavior of others. They should be using their morality to control their own behavior.

Dogma doesn't matter.

Schools need to be focused on JUST education, that would shrink their budgets when they don't have to provide stadiums, fields, coaches, equipment, operations after hours for sports, etc.

It's nuts how much money they just throw away on installing all of this stuff that has to be maintained while they have horrible laboratories, no money to do anything remotely interesting in their science classes when it would engage students who don't pick up from books as easy as others, worn out books, and poor technology offerings that are either outdated or completely out of place with no purpose served via software or access to information or whatever (IE, what they provide doesn't contribute to the education to any student, it's just screw off stuff because it's worthless for some reason: lack of software, problems, or just too slow to use effectively).

Make their communities pay for sports fields, etc, and keep it separate from the school budget.

Music, drama, and gym are possibilities for offerings for schools, but schools shouldn't be rivaling colleges for their facilities with olympic pools, and what not for their sports programs. It's too much budget burden to upkeep that crap, and very few people get to actually benefit from it when it's "for the kids"...definitely not enough to justify the outrageous cost they carry and then having ANOTHER or "private" offering for the adults who foot the bill for all that shit.


If they never consider STOP building all these sports related things, they haven't actually looked at their program. Education is their bread and butter.


Local school just tore down a gym, 2 story building and eliminated all it's fields. Built a brand new school with all that crap around it. And then remodeled a new school and basically tore down 75% of it. And they want another budget passed for upkeep costs....when only with the NEWEST budget did they actually improve the place the students spend nearly all of their day. Prior to that they built a gym that was largest in the state for high schools for awhile, a football field, etc. I actually went to this school and I haven't seen the inside of the new places, but it was a shit hole in terms of books, computers, etc... they air conditioned the fucking gym they built and we spent the day melting otherwise.

I have to wonder what in the hell these people think, I know the general public is not very happy with needing new budget increases to pay for stuff they keep pissing away money on instead of teaching their kids.

It's a hard call. Personally, I want the channel *homme to rival *femme. And like femme, it must have more than just a man present to qualify. I want to bring balance to the sift by promoting masculinism.
In reply to this comment by garmachi:
In reply to this comment by UsesProzac:
You're so close to Ruby! Have you given any thought to a possible channel?


Thanks to you!

I have, actually, but most of the things I'd like to see in a channel already exist: science, comedy, travel, etc...

I'll give it some serious thought though!

Yes, films can work for many different reasons. The number of reasons they can fail make the scales balance out nicely.

In case you haven't pinned it down yet, martial arts is not a favorite genre of mine. It's down there with animation and musicals. Despite this, I have seen films from each of these genres and enjoyed some of them.

I've never heard of the directors you mentioned but I can appreciate a meditative style. I didn't dislike Gus Van Sant's Gerry from years back, although I can't say I enjoyed it exactly. That was shot in the style you mentioned, I believe. So yes, I'm with you.

But if you expect me to meditate during the Raid, then I'm going to need more hard drugs. <- relax, this was a joke, I understand what you're saying about the role of story in the two kinds of films.
Jokes aside, however, I would respond to that point with this: which type of limited-story film allows for real-time reflection? The wall-to-wall actioner? Or an Andrey Tarkovskiy flick? Those slow-paced films can be downright transcendental if you're in the right frame of mind. I honestly can't ever see myself transcending anything while watching a martial arts flick. The story may be just as threadbare in each type of film but to my way of thinking, the meditative style brings more to the table by not only asking more of the audience but creating a setting where you can think about what you're watching while you watch. The Raid didn't involve me in that way. It didn't ask a thing of me. It just said, "here I am, no apologies, enjoy." Again, I am merely responding to your point about the role of story.

As far as my judgement of directors go, I wasn't really going there in my comments about The Raid. I was taking about the film only. If Bela Tarr or Apichatpong Weerasethakul (gesundheit!) made this film or that film, I'll only be able to say if the film was successful after I've watched it. If a director makes a film and it says what (s)he wants it to say and people see it and have a reaction...then that director is successful.

Despite what you may think, I do not have a checklist of things all good films must have before I declare them a success. Film is far too complex to attempt to codify all the things that make it good or bad.

>> ^Sarzy:

But different films can have different pleasures, and work for different reasons, can they not? Oldboy is an amazing film, yes, but it's good for very different reasons than The Raid.
Martial arts films have always been more about action poetry, and less about story and characters. Have you seen Enter the Dragon? It is regarded as one of the all-time classics in the genre, and yet the story is laughably simplistic, and the characters are all two-dimensional. The film works for reasons that go beyond its story and its plot. Bruce Lee was one of the greats, and that film was more about letting him do his thing than about telling a complex story. Film is about visual storytelling, yes, but if every film told the same story in the same way, and was restrained by the same rules, film would get pretty boring.
Bela Tarr makes films that unfold in amazingly long, uneventful takes. There is no story, nor are there (typically) any characters of any real note. His films are visual poetry, and they are rightfully loved by critics. Apichatpong Weerasethakul works in much the same way; his films are less about their stories and characters, and more about establishing a certain mood and tone using sound design and cinematography. By your rather narrow argument about what makes a film successful, both of these directors should be failures. They are not.
I love martial arts films because when they are done right, I feel like they are as close to pure cinema as you can get. There is no other medium in which you could tell a story like The Raid, and that is one of the things I love so much about it. It has a thin story, yes, but it has enough of a story to invest us in the characters and carry us through 90 minutes of action brilliance.
I think The Raid is a breathtaking piece of cinema. Ebert disagrees with me; that is his right. I agree with Ebert a lot, too, but in this case I think he's wrong. I get the impression that you haven't even seen it. Perhaps you should watch the movie before you argue so vehemently against it. (And don't say something stupid like "I don't need to watch it to know I'll hate it!" because that'll just make you look willfully ignorant. Open your mind a little bit.)
>> ^shuac:
>> ^Sarzy:
>> ^shuac:
One question for you, Sarzy. You say this film is a milestone. I'm sure you're right. Can you tell me why this film is a milestone?

Because the fight choreography and direction are peerless; the film's fight scenes easily rival anything that I've ever seen, and I've seen my share of action movies.

(Apologies for singling out in your quote what I felt is the real reason it's a milestone.) So this is the epitome of what a martial arts film is then, yes? Choreography and direction.
Well then I shall tuck my case under the covers and read it a story (a story your film lacks) because you just made Ebert's point.
Let me clarify a bit: do you know why the long, hallway fight scene in Oldboy was so effective? You know the scene I mean. That scene was effective because they paid for it, emotionally, in all the things that happened to that character before and after that scene. Not in spite of those scenes, the way The Raid seems to feel. But because of them. Conflict needs context or it's just action, action, action: like a mindless videogame.
Do you recall Red Letter Media's insightful Star Wars criticism series? He's the guy who holds hookers hostage while he makes them watch DVDs. Anyway, he made a similar point while discussing the big light saber duel between Anakin and Obi-Wan in Revenge of the Sith. His claim was that, as an action sequence, it failed because too sparse of an emotional investment was made toward these characters. Context is important.
Blankfist's not here to assist on this point but film is visual storytelling. Visual. Storytelling. I'm not going to try to tell you that one is more important than the other but they both should be there. At least, in the sort of films that engage me as a viewer.
To ChaosEngine: I'm unimpressed by ad populum arguments (that because it's popular, it must therefore be true, or good, or whatever). It's a logical fallacy and I don't dig fallacies so much. Also, regarding the case for the value of terse storytelling: well done sir! If only Ebert and I were arguing against terse storytelling, you'd really have us against the ropes. You dropped some straw, man.
Now, I don't agree with Mr. Ebert on everything, but our tastes are fairly simpatico. And I happen to know Sarzy's are too. Sarzy was the one who got me watching "Community," also the one promoting Paul Thomas Anderson's wonderful There Will Be Blood as though he financed it!