I'm so sick of hearing 'Bodies' in every MMA video.

But to the topic at hand... It's important to remember this is a 'highlight reel'. You didn't have this kind of brutality from start to finish in a Pride event.

I would like the unified rules to be a little more open just to keep the fighters moving, but not so much that there's a huge risk of serious injury. I like the fighters to keep coming back, not end up in a wheelchair.

The 12-6 elbow is obviously a really stupid rule. Elbows are fine as-is in unified rules aside from that.

Knees to the head of a grounded opponent are fine with me, so long as it's not to the top of the head (compressing the spine), likewise with soccer kicks.

Piledrivers and strikes to the base of the neck should remain illegal.

I'm not sure about headbutting. I don't know of a good reason for it to be illegal off the top of my head.

Whether or not they can grab the cage seems like a wash to me. I both like and dislike things about either approach.

One thing I really can't stand in Pride is the ring/ropes. Every time the fighters get near them a dozen people start grabbing at the fighters and pushing them away from the ropes. To me that's like allowing people on the sidelines of a basketball game to grab the players if they get close enough. Resetting the match in the middle of the ring doesn't make me any happier.

Yes, it's frustrating to see people get trapped against the cage in UFC sometimes, but the octagon is pretty damn big. You probably fucked up pretty badly to get yourself stuck there.

Also, remember that the UFC doesn't make the rules, the SACs do. UFC has been campaigning for rules changes for at least a few years now.

Those in power will do what is right for the powerful, regardless of what is right for the society they rule. Change anything you wish, but power will continue to feed on itself, and the weak will never inherit the earth.

The only way to get what you want is to align what you want with the ability of the powerful to stay in power. Do you want legalized pot and doctor-assisted suicide? You can't, because those Jenga pieces will topple the tower. Do you want single-payer healthcare and regulation of the markets? Don't even bother.

Do you want soldiers to be accountable for murder during wartime?
Do you want education to stay out of the hands of Texas conservative lawmakers?
Do you want government transparency?

Don't even bother.

Yeah the foreign media has it all wrong. They don't use camels and guns to blow up Palestinians, they use tanks bulldozers and airstrikes to destroy their homes! Completely different story! They're just aiming at the HOUSES (and occasionally the U.N.) not the PEOPLE.

Israelis deserve all the bad press they get in the Western media and more. Their country is more like Nazi Germany than they'd ever admit and it's painfully clear that they are on a mission of, 'ethnic cleansing'. But I guess the rules change when the jackboot is on your foot for a change huh?

I could imagine Magic: The Gathering using this type of technology way in the future. Something that could be a boon to give less experienced players a boost. Imagine cards that could sense the other cards on the playfield and and either let you know what cards you are allowed to affect of warn that the move you are about to make isn't legal. It might cut down on quite a few arguments.

Although with the way the rules change and are challenged, I could also imagine having to sync up all your cards with a computer like plugging in your iPod to download the latest 'firmware' and rules. Which could lead to more arguments when people jailbreak their cards and insist on playing by a previous ruleset because it was the best version before the company 'lost its way' (and it stopped benefitting that player's articular type of gameplay.)

I don't really see this type of thing happening for a game as complex as Magic in the near future. It might be interesting to come up with a game for this tech that let people play a turn-based strategy or even a real-time strategy game without a computer.

^ I think you misunderstand my position. I don't see government and free markets as being polar opposites locked in a struggle with one another for dominance, nor do I believe that "freedom" is the exclusive property of one or the other.

My view is more that the two exist in a symbiotic relationship, like the rulebook for football, and the game of football. You can't really have one without the other.

It's certainly possible that rule changes could be detrimental to the sport, but it's also possible rule changes could make the game safer, or more fast-paced, or more compatible with ad-funded television coverage.

To stretch the metaphor to the breaking point, if we're seeing excessive wear and tear on the fields after the game, what should we do? Just leave it up to the teams to curtail their own activity during games, or take it upon themselves to clean up the field without a legal or financial incentive to do so?

All we're talking about is saying that we'd like to add a new metric for measuring damage to the field, and letting each team have a certain amount of damage they can do during the season. Furthermore, we'll let them trade those credits between themselves. If they do damage without a credit, we dock their score for the game, so if they're smart they'll try to get through the season under the limit.

In other words, the idea here is to rely on the market's inventiveness to solve the problem, we're just changing their incentives so it becomes dramatically more likely that they will actually address it.

I say it often, but in a sane world, cap and trade would be the environmental policy conservatives would champion.

>> ^thepinky:Nevertheless, civil disobeyers occassionally clogged the machine despite the war being overseas.

The protests of the Iraq war, before it even began, where the largest most wide spread anti-war protests in world history. The day the war broke out many citys, including San Francisco, where I was living at the time, were shut down by protesters "clogging the machine". The war machine did not skip a beat.

If your premise is that it might work if we can do better than MK Gandhi and MLK combined, then I submit that we have, and it didn't even register, because the game has changed.

The power structures of the united states have restructured in the last fifty years, in no small part to counteract the threat of domestic CD. This restructuring has been massive, and pervasive, and it has, in effect inoculated the country from the effects of these sorts of actions.

Certainly committing massive fraud in the name of CD, such as in the story mentioned above, is still an option, but one which will simply require a rule change to dispense with.

When the people taking to the street has no power, when the prisons are run for profit, constitutional rights are dispensed with when traffic is interrupted, and being able to drive to work swiftly is more important to 98% of the population than the right to assemble, then you have been forced, by those in power to choose a new tactic, or to flail around uselessly.

CD is not a goal, CD is a tactic, even MK Gandhi agreed that in some extreme cases an armed revolution is justified when CD would be ineffective.

I agree with and have lived the ideal, I understand the argument, but the means do not justify the end.

Good comment. I think the problem is one of control. If i knew a person knew where my family was being held hostage and i thought i could force it out of him, i'd use any means. But i can't present a series of legal or physical bars to my government which allows them to do harm to do greater good without also allowing them to do harm alone. If the whole world were trustworthy and interested in the greater good, i could allow my government license to do ANYTHING and know that i would benefit. In this world, i can't trust people so far, and i must demand we put the bars and laws in place so that my conscience is clean, but also so that people who were tortured and knew nothing will not beget more violence in the future.

In reply to this comment by Mashiki:
>> ^Jaace:
The point here is that torture is bad and we don't do it...

Depending, torture isn't bad. Incorrect application of torture is bad, using it in a way that makes a suspect want to say anything in order to avoid having it applied again so you gain incorrect information is bad. Use of torture when you know they're already guilty in order to actually get something from them so you can save lives? Ethically or morally either of those it could be questionable.

If I slap you in irons, for, "speaking against the president." Beat you every day, starve you, and break all your fingers. Then tell you to confess, or I'm going to start working on your toes and legs. We've got a serioius problem.

If I catch you as a known terrorist suspect, that's already planted a device that will kill up to 5000 people. I have no freaking clue where it is. And I apply sleep deprivation, loud music, and humiliation(also torture btw) to go with lighter side. To make you crack, so I can save up to several thousand lives. What happens now?

I suppose most people are going to start to have issues with that whole ethical/moral dilemma bit aren't they? Then again, I know we've got death cultists here, and can easily say "my moral standards are higher, than the lives of 20, 400, or 5000 people," then again they've never been in that situation either. The reality is, someone's head will roll if the truth came out that there was an individual, who could tell them where it was and they didn't do everything. Then it becomes, why didn't you do everything? Well the public didn't like torture...so we let them stew in a room.

Stating an ethical choice on what you believe, and being in the ethical situation, and knowing the ramifications of those ethical choices in the end are wholly different. So are the choices. The rules changed when the "older" breed of terrorism came back to life. Questions in questions, what is an individuals breaking point for their own ethical code?

Lets say the catchism now. Ethics is fun!

>> ^Jaace:
The point here is that torture is bad and we don't do it...

Depending, torture isn't bad. Incorrect application of torture is bad, using it in a way that makes a suspect want to say anything in order to avoid having it applied again so you gain incorrect information is bad. Use of torture when you know they're already guilty in order to actually get something from them so you can save lives? Ethically or morally either of those it could be questionable.

If I slap you in irons, for, "speaking against the president." Beat you every day, starve you, and break all your fingers. Then tell you to confess, or I'm going to start working on your toes and legs. We've got a serioius problem.

If I catch you as a known terrorist suspect, that's already planted a device that will kill up to 5000 people. I have no freaking clue where it is. And I apply sleep deprivation, loud music, and humiliation(also torture btw) to go with lighter side. To make you crack, so I can save up to several thousand lives. What happens now?

I suppose most people are going to start to have issues with that whole ethical/moral dilemma bit aren't they? Then again, I know we've got death cultists here, and can easily say "my moral standards are higher, than the lives of 20, 400, or 5000 people," then again they've never been in that situation either. The reality is, someone's head will roll if the truth came out that there was an individual, who could tell them where it was and they didn't do everything. Then it becomes, why didn't you do everything? Well the public didn't like torture...so we let them stew in a room.

Stating an ethical choice on what you believe, and being in the ethical situation, and knowing the ramifications of those ethical choices in the end are wholly different. So are the choices. The rules changed when the "older" breed of terrorism came back to life. Questions in questions, what is an individuals breaking point for their own ethical code?

Lets say the catchism now. Ethics is fun!

>> ^Alak:
TURBO BOOST!


But sadly not in the Knight Rider way - the cars jumping over each other would be something worth seeing!

>> ^shveddy:
So much cooler than nascar; still boring to watch.


Nascar is boring as hell. People only go and watch them so they can try to break records for largest group of drunks at a sporting even

F1 is still pretty boring IMHO but the wrecks are beyond better.

"This housing crisis didn't come out of nowhere. It was not a vague emanation of the evil Bush administration.

"It was a direct result of the political decision, back in the late 1990s, to loosen the rules of lending so that home loans would be more accessible to poor people. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were authorized to approve risky loans.

"What is a risky loan? It's a loan that the recipient is likely not to be able to repay.

"The goal of this rule change was to help the poor -- which especially would help members of minority groups. But how does it help these people to give them a loan that they can't repay? They get into a house, yes, but when they can't make the payments, they lose the house -- along with their credit rating.

They end up worse off than before.

"This was completely foreseeable and in fact many people did foresee it. One political party, in Congress and in the executive branch, tried repeatedly to tighten up the rules. The other party blocked every such attempt and tried to loosen them.

"Furthermore, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were making political contributions to the very members of Congress who were allowing them to make irresponsible loans. (Though why quasi-federal agencies were allowed to do so baffles me. It's as if the Pentagon were allowed to contribute to the political campaigns of congressmen who support increasing their budget.)

"Isn't there a story here? Doesn't journalism require that you who produce our daily paper tell the truth about who brought us to a position where the only way to keep confidence in our economy was a $700 billion bailout? Aren't you supposed to follow the money and see which politicians were benefiting personally from the deregulation of mortgage lending?

"I have no doubt that if these facts had pointed to the Republican Party or to John McCain as the guilty parties, you would be treating it as a vast scandal. "Housing-gate," no doubt. Or "Fannie-gate."

"Instead, it was Sen. Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, both Democrats, who denied that there were any problems, who refused Bush administration requests to set up a regulatory agency to watch over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and who were still pushing for these agencies to go even further in promoting subprime mortgage loans almost up to the minute they failed."

--Orson Scott Card

http://www.linearpublishing.com/orsonscottcard.html

Geeee, I feeel better, .....always....

Guess I didn't appreciate the time lag
Guess i didn't appreciate the tone
Guess i didn't appreciate the .."manlinees" ( more than some insincere civility with regard to context) or the week-willed manner in which some Fuck You message was delivered, sounding all sweet, matter of fact, and "Nice".....Really do despise NICE- usually like some lubricant and soft words whispered in my ear from behind during that process......
Guess I just don't appreciate, period, huh???....(All the haters in the house say, who gives as fiddler's fuck.)


Fuck a channel, and fuck the station and the television it's on, I gueeeeeeess.....

That the way the sift feeeeeeels?....Fuck no. Most can't eat an ego sandwich made from their own forcemeat, but then, that's the world not simply some cool videoblog.

uhhhh, USED to be cool-and what choggie wants, has nothing to do with it.....

Who wants the new cunt channel.....anyone????
Dern, can't make one.....guess we need another rule change because of some asshole making trouble....

Any takers on whats true and false or goddamn meaningless here??? I still want the channel-and I ain't the least bit satiated yet........

>> ^Enzoblue:
IRL should merge with Champcar and get it over with!
Small note from us racing fans, In IRL the rules have it so that the car's weight limit is measured without the driver in it. So Danika gets a nice edge since she's got some of those guys by 30lbs or more.


Actually, IRL's recent rule change inlcudes the drivers for the car's minimum weight. And Danica criticized it, go figure!
and thanks for NHRA info, supersaiyan (I forgot about the hot-rodders)

>> ^blankfist:
I see the value in Fedquip's position. This whole SiftTalk post was spawned because I discarded one of GreatBird's posts. To me, it's a dupe, although some would and could argue it serves to better make this site a kind of catalog of video content. I think if it lives on the site somewhere else in some capacity then it's a dupe.
Of course, to be honest, I really don't care one way or the other. I'm not gonna sit here and pretend my heart will be broken if the rule changes one way or the other, because it's kind of a trite thing to get my blood boiled over, so I won't. I still think they're dupes, and whenever I post something that is part of another video, and it's brought to my attention, I discard it. Period.
I think the rule should be: if the video you posted is adding more as opposed to showing less of an already existing video, I think the consensus is that you can safely post it. Though, who gives a shit?
--Signed, the apathetic blankfist

...apathy never appeared so long-winded

I see the value in Fedquip's position. This whole SiftTalk post was spawned because I discarded one of GreatBird's posts. To me, it's a dupe, although some would and could argue it serves to better make this site a kind of catalog of video content. I think if it lives on the site somewhere else in some capacity then it's a dupe.

Of course, to be honest, I really don't care one way or the other. I'm not gonna sit here and pretend my heart will be broken if the rule changes one way or the other, because it's kind of a trite thing to get my blood boiled over, so I won't. I still think they're dupes, and whenever I post something that is part of another video, and it's brought to my attention, I discard it. Period.

I think the rule should be: if the video you posted is adding more as opposed to showing less of an already existing video, I think the consensus is that you can safely post it. Though, who gives a shit?

--Signed, the apathetic blankfist