Well, the wind could NOT EVER blow the wind into the shape of a sand Castle, because both the Humidity and Gravity are working against it. Even if there was rain or moisture that perfectly conditioned the sand to stick to itelf in the perfect consistency, then the wind couldn't quite blow it around in the way it would need to. And of course Gravity would always cause the sand to fall to it's lowest points.

I know I'm being picky here, but this just stood out to me.
Everything else in the video was engaging.

Careful, You wouldn't want to make @lantern53 angry, He knows how to be a tough guy on the internet. He can't make his own arguments, but he knows how to knock over other peoples' sand castles

...like a manly man

not one to stop people doing whatever they like so long as it does no harm to anyone else , but part of me does think what could this person have made if they spent the time working on another music tool and produced something that sounded better.

mind you playing is playing so cnt realy always think of things as having a goal in the same way its fun to build sand castles or just mess around in general.

Maby you could make an argument that a more sophisticated toy ( in some cases) would allow for more enjoyment to be had / or at least a more enjoyable end result could be achived.

Here's a script that I just came up with, for when you are digging on a beach and the cops show up.

"Can you show me the specific statute that says a member of the media cannot dig on a public beach?"

"Can you show me the specific statute that says a citizen cannot dig on a public beach, for that matter?"

Then when he can't or won't produce it ask him if he will take you to a supervisor so that you can ask them.

Don't be belligerent about it, but don't let them push you around. Remember I'm not a lawyer and this is not legal advice, just as a concerned citizen I think it's bullshit.

By the by, I still cannot find the statute on google that says you cant dig. Any google-fu masters out there?

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/09/building-sand-castles-floridas-beaches-illegal-feds-oilhunting-reporter/

Look, don't get me wrong, I'm undecided on the issue, and as such, am not propagating any particular side. Nor am I trying to fear monger, though I may be expressing my own concerns of the unknown, when I speak of Islam, I'm speaking of Islam as it is proscribed by the Koran. Though there certainly are many moderate muslims, the Koran's demands are worrisome:

"Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies of Allah and your enemies and others besides, whom ye may not know (8:60)"

"Strive hard (Jihad) against the Unbelievers and the Hypocrites, and be firm against them. Their abode is Hell,- an evil refuge indeed. (66:9, See also 9:73)"

"Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): "I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them." (8:12-13)"

In regards to my comment on the founding fathers' views and expectations having been corrupted, I was referring specifically to the power given to the banks. Here's Thomas Jefferson's view on banks:

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.
Already they have raised up a monied aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The
issuing power (of money) should be taken away from the banks and restored to the people to
whom it properly belongs."

As far as my worry about what they're preaching and praying for in mosques, how can I know for certain? Shall I infiltrate them? There's a mosque right around the corner from my house. Shall I attempt to gain entry? My best bet would be wearing a full cloth bag and pretending to be a chick! Yes... 'tis an excelent plan. Or maybe I'll just walk in and see how they react to my curiosity.

Funny story about that mosque actually, when I was a young kid I was biking around with a muslim friend and he needed to go to the mosque for a bit, he wanted me to come with said it wouldn't be long. I was pretty hesitant as I didn't feel it was appropriate, we biked to the back of the mosue where everyone was happy and cheerful and smiling and random muslims were coming up to shake my hand, lol, until my friend said nono he's not muslim. Anyhow, it was a little awkward. His holy book says this about me:

"Surely the vilest of animals in Allah's sight are those who disbelieve, then they would not believe(8:55)"

Regarding the Koran demanding the abolishment of all non-muslim religions, why would a moderate muslim have a different answer than a non-moderate muslim? The Koran either says it or it doesn't say it. Oh wait, I forgot. Religious words can be interpreted, misinterpreted and reinterpreted. Religion is so convenient and easily defended that way.

Also, Atheists are, or should be, fighting holy wars all day long. Fighting for better spending of resources, fighting for good science, and fighting against religion when it seeks to undermine, conceal, distort, exaggerate or otherwise abuse the truth to the great detriment of people.

And lastly, you defend Islams oppression of women by purporting that I should troll the streets in search of self-proclaimed moderate muslims and ask their opinions on the conditions of women? That's just silly. I can only speak on what I see, and what I see are TONS of women psychologically manipulated into roles of subordination. They gladly don their cloth bags in my neighborhood, if I were to spend the day on my stoop, in 35ºC weather, counting how many women walk by fully concealed, I would count many dozen.

One last thought: I'm not even American, I'm Canadian, but it seems Americans expect a lot of themselves. It's strange. You've got tons of people saying, "Hey, we'll be righteous and good, we will let them build a muslim community center a couple hundred feet from where muslims flew planes into our buildings and murdered close to FOUR THOUSAND of our brothers, sisters, mothers, and fathers, in one fell swoop."

But then when Americans invade other countries, some undevelopped and third-world, murder, rape and pillage resources, everyone stays quiet. There's no outrage. It's funny to me is all, America portrays itself as some morale bastion of freedom, justice and righteousness when it's not. And that's fine. It doesn't have to be.

Quit being hypocrites and tell them to go fuck themselves. Maybe next time their brother knocks down your sand castle at the beach they'll speak the fuck up a bit louder and tell him to quit ruining their good thing.

I'm sorry if this has been inflammatory or offensive in any way. It's a very contentious issue, and I'm happy I'm not the one having to make a decision on this. I don't hate any group. I have a lot of disdain for religion in general, but I am not so ignorant that I would hate blindly, nor should the ignorant be hated upon.

“The tax which will be paid for the purpose of education is not more than the thousandth part of what will be paid to kings, priests and nobles who will rise up among us if we leave the people in ignorance” -Thomas Jefferson

>> ^raverman:

This definitely needs eia these are the dumbest parents (and the other people on the beach) in the world.
Heaven forbid that a carcinogenic toxic spill should ruin your day building sand castles.

http://www.quicktsearch.com/is-oil-spill-sludge-carcinogenic/
"Direct skin contact with oil leads to skin irritation. At oil spill sites, exposure may cause headaches, dizziness, nausea, abdominal pain, and other unpleasant effects. Certain hydrocarbon components in crude oil are known to be cancer causing. All these evidences show that oil spill sludge is carcinogenic and extreme caution must be employed in the execution of oil spill cleanup."... Or letting your small children play in it...



http://videosift.com/video/Toxic-Vapors-From-Gulf-Oil-Spill-Reaching-Dangerous-Levels

This definitely needs *eia these are the dumbest parents (and the other people on the beach) in the world.

Heaven forbid that a carcinogenic toxic spill should ruin your day building sand castles.


http://www.quicktsearch.com/is-oil-spill-sludge-carcinogenic/

"Direct skin contact with oil leads to skin irritation. At oil spill sites, exposure may cause headaches, dizziness, nausea, abdominal pain, and other unpleasant effects. Certain hydrocarbon components in crude oil are known to be cancer causing. All these evidences show that oil spill sludge is carcinogenic and extreme caution must be employed in the execution of oil spill cleanup."... Or letting your small children play in it...

The 2007 National Intelligence Estimate on Iran (pdf), the consensus opinion of all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies:
"We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program."

That may be (I don't believe it) but I'm responding to this video where Reza cites the IAEA in 2003.

Citing "U.S. intelligence agencies" doesn't give me a lot of confidence considering they did not in fact know India had nukes (yes they knew they were pursuing them. Germans were pursuing them in WW2. I mean "had nukes" as in they actually had them. Ready to use. It was 1973 when India detonated one to the shock of intelligence communities around the world) .. But of course this is the intelligence apparatus that determined there were WMD's in Iraq.

Shouldn't Israel then as well. Instead of telling the Palestinians what form of existence they should enjoy? I mean honestly you talking about a nation whose power structure was assassinated by the CIA for oil rights brought in a corrupt Shah. Eventually lead to the Islamic revolution. No US dialog has been maintained since. It's like me kicking over someones sand castle and then becoming shocked at their attempt to punch me in the face.

You're changing the whole argument here to something that has nothing to do with this video. Now it's about Israel and Palestine. I know it's America's fault somehow because you mentioned oil and the Shaw. Not sure what is your point though? Does Iran resent and hate us because of the Shaw yet the people in the street now want to engage us and move past that? Bonus points if you can actually make it relate to this video.

Should Israel dial back it's rhetoric of what? That it will defend itself? They are faced with an enemy that is bent on their destruction. Iran. A sovereign state has made it a mandate that they will seek the extinction of this people. That's kind of rude huh? One of the main stumbling blocks for US foreign policy is Israel. Is that because Israel is so fucked up or because there are so many Islamic run regimes that are committed heart and soul to seeing Israel annihilated? Personally, it doesn't matter how you look at it .. they are our allies, and like Britain, Australia, Japan or any of America's trusted friends .. we are bound to defend and support them. It would be a lot easier to turn our back on our allies, but that isn't going to happen.

Is a nuclear armed North Korea? Russia? US? Seems to be alot of tolerance for that there. A state a believe far more willing to put its entire population at nuclear apocalypse.

I actually don't know what that last sentence means. Sorry.
Would the world be better if no one had nukes? Maybe. Will it be better if everyone has nukes? Of course not.

First strike policy is not pursued by any state. Actually, I think that's bullshit. Every nuclear state is trying to develop a first strike plan. We already know such plans exist with "acceptable losses" and such. The good news is M.A.D. has been affective and no one has really figured out an acceptable first strike strategy, yet. The problem is people like money, and what one state uses as a deterrent another emerging state uses as ransom. Iran and other "rogue" states could not actually assure destruction of the US the way the Soviets could during the cold war. So M.A.D. doesn't apply. It's just a threat .. like the Somali pirates. Fear our power. Pay the ransom. Iran (like N. Korea) see nukes as an an extortion tool. A bargaining chip. A chance to wield power and control a spot at the table of world affairs. Some of this is "give in to us or we sell it to others".

We know there are groups out there though that don't fear any retaliation. They don't have a state, don't give a shit if their people live or die because they are on a "mission from God" (sorry Blue's Brothers) .. and those groups buy these technologies from rouge states. So any state emerging with that technology deserves international scrutiny. Obviously.

We can't let every nation on Earth become nuclear states. If you want to argue about the US, Russia, China, etc and other nations that already have them then the only way to solve the problem is to build a time machine. Those nations already have them now and the only way to deal with it is to draw down the numbers of weapons in the stockpiles. Not increase the threat to the entire world by adding new members to the club.

Lastly, I specifically said it was not the Iranian people in general that are the problem, but the hard line psychos in charge. Yet, don't forget there are demonstrations in the streets for Ahmadinejad too. So they say.

>> ^burdturgler:
It is complete speculation on his part that there is no nuclear weapon ambition or program in Iran.

The 2007 National Intelligence Estimate on Iran (pdf), the consensus opinion of all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies:

"We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program."


The C.I.A. and the rest of Earth found out because India detonated one.

India announced the pursuit of atomics in 1946, in 1968 it did not sign the NPT, in 1974 it conducted its first tests. This doesn't sound like lack of knowledge to me. The information was kept from the general public to avoid a preemptive atomic confrontation between India and Pakistan. That issue as a whole is entirely different then the one in the Middle East.


Iran needs to dial back it's rhetoric and hate speech and get more in line with the international cooperation and dialog that it's people wants.

Shouldn't Israel then as well. Instead of telling the Palestinians what form of existence they should enjoy? I mean honestly you talking about a nation whose power structure was assassinated by the CIA for oil rights brought in a corrupt Shah. Eventually lead to the Islamic revolution. No US dialog has been maintained since. It's like me kicking over someones sand castle and then becoming shocked at their attempt to punch me in the face.


Does anyone honestly think a nuclear armed Iran is a viable option for world stability and peace?


Is a nuclear armed North Korea? Russia? US? Seems to be alot of tolerance for that there. A state a believe far more willing to put its entire population at nuclear apocalypse.

No nation attains nuclear weapons for the purpose of using them anymore. It just doesn't make sense politically, ever since the US detonated the Hiroshima bomb and the nuclear arms race of the Cold War that nuclear weapons simply exist as means of deterrence. First strike policy is not pursued by any state because its admission and allowance to be attacked first preemptively. Thus everyone claims base deterrence use.

I don't find it acceptable that Israel has UNDECLARED nuclear weapons still and somehow that is okay. The threat of them striking Iran is just as great in my eyes. Shit they bombed Syria and Iraq just for the smallest whiff of nuclear capability. But what kind of action is that? How is that acceptable.

Further more your entire line about Iranians being made into anti-Israel haters flies in face of the protests taking place now trying to depose a president who was clearly illegally placed into power and has spent the last 4 years doing nothing but talking garbage. I don't know why people are so willing to think Bush was retarded in his foreign policy assessments and somehow take Iran's president seriously.

>> ^dag:
That kind of tautology is not good enough for me. Bring on the fucking robot overlords because I'm losing my faith in collective humanity. I think the purposely set bush fires here is Australia are on my mind too. Different magnitude, same human dysfunction.
>> ^Farhad2000:
>> ^dag:
Why do humans need to fuck things up, kick over sand castles - etc?
Because we are humans.




It is sad the actions of few will sometimes end up in a catastrophy.. Most people I meet, just in my pathetic barista job are nice, friendly kind. And there are always some who just don't get it..

Some who think THEY are special, or at leats that they'd need special treatment. Who need attention... who bring their drink back 5 times, just because they changed their mind. Not because we made it wrong. But just because they know we'd make it over if they came back and complained. It is not the general human nature.. Something has gone wrong, and they just have to get attention, or lash out, or something..

Lashing out is not the way to do it though! I am sorry, but if you prove to be that volatile and untrustworthy, maybe because 'this is only an online thingy'.. NO! Go away, stay away! I will not trust you to be back! You have issues, well, so do I, and most people. We just don't go around and wreak havoc, or whatever the correct english might be.

Just ban him. Ban him and we never have to worry about HIM any more. God forbid, we might have otrher people with issues.

But just keep in mind: This is not the way to do it. This might be an online community, but we are real people, and we don't want to get hurt! You might not know anybody personally, but you are hurting REAL people with stupid, childish actions.

Maybe you think we are childish to care about something silly like queued videos and subsciptions.. But we do, just like you cared whether you were liked or not.. And believe me, you would have bene liked, like any normal person has you just been NICE!

WHAT IS SO HARD ABOUT BEING NICE??

End of rant for now.. I need sleep, and yes, I did get a drink, or two.. Not that I am feeling that much better.

Collective humanity was always shit. Greedy, selfish .. cruel.
It's the minority good of humanity, the ones who protect and rebuild the sand castles, that keep us going.
Don't lose hope. The story isn't finished yet. We need you.

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

That kind of tautology is not good enough for me. Bring on the fucking robot overlords because I'm losing my faith in collective humanity. I think the purposely set bush fires here is Australia are on my mind too. Different magnitude, same human dysfunction.

>> ^Farhad2000:
>> ^dag:
Why do humans need to fuck things up, kick over sand castles - etc?
Because we are humans.

>> ^dag:
Why do humans need to fuck things up, kick over sand castles - etc?

Because we are humans.

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

It really pissses me off that he would take a big dump on the community like that. I always gave him the benefit of the doubt - that he was really just just a parody figure and a bit of fun.

I guess you can never go wrong overestimating the vileness of your fellow humans. Now I'm depressed. Why do humans need to fuck things up, kick over sand castles - etc?

>> ^quantumushroom:
Some of you are reading this for the first time:
NO NATION HAS EVER TAXED ITSELF INTO PROSPERITY.
If you ain't sure, read it again.


Yes, exactly. To tax itself a society must already be prosper. What you can tax yourself into is not poverty though. It's either into a healthier, safer life (by redistribution of wealth) or plain bankruptcy (by squandering). And as shown by History, the fastest way a society can tax itself into bankruptcy is by raising armies and waging futile and/or unwinnable wars. Spoils of war only compound the problem, making those belligerent societies dependent on a continuous influx of foreign tribute (e.g. the Romans), when not outright ruining their economies with massive inflation (e.g. the Spanish).

Of course, nowadays it is very slightly more complicated, but a basic truth remains: every kind of capitalism makes the rich richer and the poor poorer, in the long run. It's a pyramid. A pure hierarchy. You can choose to mitigate this fact or not through a form of socialism. America chooses not to essentially because every damn idiot "Joe the plumber" living there thinks he can make it big, if only (add whatever you think you need to make it big here)! But of course, reality being reality, for every person that "makes it big", many others must make do with less. If not your next door neighbor, then the women in Mexico or the children in Bangladesh.

Conservatives (neo-liberal economists in this case) think socialists are Utopians, but it is clearly they who are: they think they can run the "economy", the "market", as if there was no effective rarity. Sorry, but replicator technology does not yet exist. The only thing they're doing is playing make believe as if they were still in kindergarten: they look out from their sandbox and see a world of wealth waiting to be plundered and brought back to their sand castles. They know in their minds the plunder is not infinite, but they act as if it was because there's only one thing in their heart: "more plunder for me!". You may confront them, argue with them, even convince them intellectually that they are wrong; still in the end all they can retort is: "I can do whatever I want! After all, it's all make believe right?"