This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by oritteropo. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

We already have the war on drugs. SOPA is the first step to outlaw independent media. Indy media will be ok, as long as it never uses any kind of copyrighted content. The instant it does, Indy media gets gets shutdown by financial sanctions, and gets shut off the web.

Sure, it's not the end of the world. But try making a news site without using "clips from the news"
Try making a comedy site without having a George carlin or Jon Stewart clip.
Try making a music site without having a sample of commerical music. (or a copyrighted melody, or copyrighted lyrics)

People on the internet are free to remix culture, to reinvent it. Until SOPA passes we are free.

Still quite happy so far. I have noticed that the battery seems to drain more quickly than with Gingerbread- not sure if that's due to my simply playing with it more.

Also, there was one weird thing that happened. The phone shut off and rebooted in the middle of a call! Now if there's one thing that any phone should be good at, smart or otherwise , it's making calls, It had never happened before, and hasn't happened again, so we'll let that slide for now.

As for general operation, yes the phone is really, really snappy. Apps seem to launch more quickly and there are no delays when scrolling through menus. The camera is a huge improvement- yes it's pretty much instant now, and the automatic panorama feature is really cool. I wonder how Google managed to pull off the quick camera thing, as phone cameras are notoriously slow to launch and use. Hell, it's the same camera, just a software change, so I'm curious.

Anyhow, all the best to you and yours for the Holidays. I personally celebrate Festivus, but haven't yet been defeated in the Feats of Strength, so I guess it's not yet over!

In reply to this comment by lucky760:
Because of the many vast improvements over my old phone, I'm still quite thrilled with it, but my problems are a bother. Connectivity is definitely spotty. Most times I have no 4G and when I do, most times a speed test will result in surprisingly low transfer rates (5-9mbps down), but occasionally I'll get 20mbps/19mbps (down/up).

Also for whatever reason, during some phone calls it's been giving me high-pitched electronic squealing/squeaking/cracking that's like needles in the ear drums. Problem is I have time to exchange it, but since they are so scarce, I probably won't be able to.

Awesome that you got ICS on your phone. Are you enjoying it? Is it pretty snappy? I'm more than happy with how incredible the OS is versus the old Androids. Since they say it's purely a software improvement, does ICS provide zero-delay photos for you now?

In reply to this comment by therealblankman:
Sorry to hear about your troubles with the Galaxy Nexus. Has it got any better? Are you having the signal problems that others are reporting?

I'm still happy with the ICS update. My only mild disappointment is that Face Unlock isn't part of the package with my Nexus S, maybe later on they'll add it or maybe it's only for the Galaxy... who knows.

>> ^dannym3141:

>> ^MilkmanDan:
I've entered my own personal bizarro world -- that was Family Guy, and I found it funny! Up is down! Black is white! Dogs and cats, living together, mass hysteria!
In all seriousness though... /upvote

Everything was fine with our system until the power grid was shut off by dickless here!


"Is this true?"
"Yes. This man has no dick."

>> ^MilkmanDan:

I've entered my own personal bizarro world -- that was Family Guy, and I found it funny! Up is down! Black is white! Dogs and cats, living together, mass hysteria!
In all seriousness though... /upvote


Everything was fine with our system until the power grid was shut off by dickless here!

She *fail s to shut off the water at the supply lines at :20, opening them wider instead.

P.S. If I noticed, does that mean I'm gay?

@direpickle @RedSky

Game Theory is dumb because it forces us to talk about morality in a vacuum. Real life choices have consequences that go beyond when the cameras shut off or an experiment ends.

That said, direpickle is mostly correct in saying that the "rational" choice, if executed by everyone, results in nobody getting any money. Having said that, how does that make the choice rational...unless you assume the other person does not have the same information as you? In this case you are in effect gambling on the other person having less "game theory information" than you.

You can still be wrong even if the average payout is higher by choosing steal. In any given specific case your payout can still be zero, regardless of your "theory". Really, the only option is, as mentioned, to tell the other person you fully intend to steal, but that you will share half the money if they pick share...and then actually share. If they pick steal even after you say this, you can just call them a moron and go home the same person you were before the show.

They should have the same game show and add in a box of kittens that gets dumped into a giant blender if either person chooses "steal". Y'know, to add in real consequences to the stealing other than "feeling bad", which many people (psychopaths) will not feel.

>> ^ulysses1904:

meh. They will report anything they hear when it's live TV, they have to keep up a constant stream of chatter. That morning at work we were hearing that there was smoke coming from the White House and that the Sears tower in Chicago was burning, blah blah blah. We heard lots of stuff that day, this is par for the course.
Also there's plenty of footage of eyewitnesses whose versions are at great odds with the actual videos of that day. Like some guy insisted the 2nd plane shut off its engines and glided into the 2nd tower.


Yeah hundreds of eye witnesses claim there was multiple ground level explosions, including firefighters, emt, and police. But the 9/11 commission didn't feel it was necessary to hear their testimony, and the few it did hear never made the final report. So obviously the eye witnesses are just delusional and must be suffering from post traumatic stress... :eyeroll:

meh. They will report anything they hear when it's live TV, they have to keep up a constant stream of chatter. That morning at work we were hearing that there was smoke coming from the White House and that the Sears tower in Chicago was burning, blah blah blah. We heard lots of stuff that day, this is par for the course.

Also there's plenty of footage of eyewitnesses whose versions are at great odds with the actual videos of that day. Like some guy insisted the 2nd plane shut off its engines and glided into the 2nd tower.

[citation needed]

In reply to this comment by Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Hm – well I’ll give the racist bigot host a 50% for being half right.

It is true that US citizens do have a hypocritical relationship with the big government’s socialist voter-bribery scams. However, he is dead wrong when he claims ‘socialism works’.

Socialism doesn’t work. European governments across the spectrum are being forced to increase privatization and cut social benefits in order to stave of fiscal collapse. When BM glowing describes all the great stuff European countries have (health care etc…) he totally ignores report after report after report of these so-called ‘services’ being abject, utter, complete failures. The UK health care system is being forced to ration SURGERIES (IE death panels) or collapse. Spain, Greece, Italy, France, UK, Germany, Portugal… The list of European socialist nations tottering on the edge of failure and having to pass ‘austerity measures’ to survive is myriad.

But the reaction that citizens have to cuts in socialist services in Europe is no different than that of the pork addicted public in the US when anyone suggests that shutting off the spigot. The riots in Greece prove that. It is nothing more than the principle Thatcher nailed so accurately in 1975… “The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people’s money.” This is merely an extension of Tytler’s argument that “democracy can only survive until the majority discovers it can vote itself largesse out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship.” Which then leads to his subsequent “Cycle of Tyranny” (Liberty, Complacency, Dependancy, Tyranny, Revolution).

Maher (and other of his ilk) love to pretend that socialism works. Problem is that every factual analysis of socialism proves quite conclusively the exact opposite. Socialism doesn’t work. It is failure after failure on parade. And the reason the US is failing is BECAUSE it has so much socialism in it already. We better hope the Tea Party can talk more citizens into agreeing to ditch socialism, or the US is destined to financial collapse and subsequent balkanization.

As a side note – oh YEAH Bill Maher… The US budget entirely goes to military spending and corporate tax breaks, eh? What a complete moron. Whenever he opens his mouth to vainly try and sound intelligent, he proves himself ever more conclusively to be an absolute idiot. The 60 trillion in unfunded federal obligations is for socialism, dummy. The biggest budget items are socialism, idiot. Defense spending could be cut to zero tomorrow and we’d still be 59.2 trillion in debt for all those wonderful social programs that everyone loves so much.

Maher calling Palin a retard is like a severed head calling Cain Velasquez a cripple.

Hm – well I’ll give the racist bigot host a 50% for being half right.

It is true that US citizens do have a hypocritical relationship with the big government’s socialist voter-bribery scams. However, he is dead wrong when he claims ‘socialism works’.

Socialism doesn’t work. European governments across the spectrum are being forced to increase privatization and cut social benefits in order to stave of fiscal collapse. When BM glowing describes all the great stuff European countries have (health care etc…) he totally ignores report after report after report of these so-called ‘services’ being abject, utter, complete failures. The UK health care system is being forced to ration SURGERIES (IE death panels) or collapse. Spain, Greece, Italy, France, UK, Germany, Portugal… The list of European socialist nations tottering on the edge of failure and having to pass ‘austerity measures’ to survive is myriad.

But the reaction that citizens have to cuts in socialist services in Europe is no different than that of the pork addicted public in the US when anyone suggests that shutting off the spigot. The riots in Greece prove that. It is nothing more than the principle Thatcher nailed so accurately in 1975… “The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people’s money.” This is merely an extension of Tytler’s argument that “democracy can only survive until the majority discovers it can vote itself largesse out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship.” Which then leads to his subsequent “Cycle of Tyranny” (Liberty, Complacency, Dependancy, Tyranny, Revolution).

Maher (and other of his ilk) love to pretend that socialism works. Problem is that every factual analysis of socialism proves quite conclusively the exact opposite. Socialism doesn’t work. It is failure after failure on parade. And the reason the US is failing is BECAUSE it has so much socialism in it already. We better hope the Tea Party can talk more citizens into agreeing to ditch socialism, or the US is destined to financial collapse and subsequent balkanization.

As a side note – oh YEAH Bill Maher… The US budget entirely goes to military spending and corporate tax breaks, eh? What a complete moron. Whenever he opens his mouth to vainly try and sound intelligent, he proves himself ever more conclusively to be an absolute idiot. The 60 trillion in unfunded federal obligations is for socialism, dummy. The biggest budget items are socialism, idiot. Defense spending could be cut to zero tomorrow and we’d still be 59.2 trillion in debt for all those wonderful social programs that everyone loves so much.

Maher calling Palin a retard is like a severed head calling Cain Velasquez a cripple.

He didn't really bomb

he told a few jokes then noticed people were recording him on cellphones and camcorders and he asked them to be turned off, they refused, he said he wasn't going to do his stuff until they shut off the camcorders. Of course they didn't, then a few were heckling him for smoking when they werent allowed to smoke so he cracked a few jokes. Then he basically just stood there "if they going to record, I'll just stand my black ass right here for them ha ha"

so he basically punished the crowd cause he didn't like people recording him. He does that at all his new shows since his "mental breakdown" anyone recording him he will stop the show.

Right after the camera shut off, the other cops tased the cop on the video.

If you watch the longer version of this video...I think this guy hit hard enough to trigger his fuel shut off. They are parked there for awhile and it looks like either someone is coming up to the vehicle or someone is getting in and out of it. And the truck keeps honking on it's own...either because of some sort of fuel problem or they shook a door open.

And it looks like there's 3-4 tracks. So it's like having 3-4 really close speed bumps and they launching off one to hit the side of another with their rear tires landing in between them making it even more jarring...so they probably can't help but hit the gas when they get jarred.

If it's like the way they do rail road track around here, they put space barriers on each side of the track so there's enough for the train wheel to fit between it at the block. Then they lay the asphalt up to the block so there's not a hard corner to wear down or pop tires. So the surface of the asphalt and the surface of the track are about level but the asphalt slopes up to and away from the tracks on both sides to return to roadway grade....probably for drainage reasons. And between the tracks is usually a treated wood or concrete gap space so there's not enough gap for wheels to drop down between the tracks when crossing them.

Can't imagine people don't recognize that as a railroad crossing considering the drop down bars and the Xing markings. Plus it has to look like a massive heaving in the ground when you drive up to it.

Fact is, you are explaining the existence of something from nothing by creating something else from nothing.

There never was nothing, that's the entire point. Either "someting" is eternal, or you couldn't have anything. If time and space began at the big bang, the cause of the Universe is immaterial and transcendent. You have the idea of nothing never existing which means the ultimate cause is eternal. So between those two things you have a match to God, who is immaterial transcendent and eternal. A Creation is indeed the simpliest explanation for this.

Somehow you've also convinced yourself this is the simplest explanation. Not to mention that not only must there be an all knowing, all powerful and all seeing god to you but he must be the judeo Christian god which assumes an almost endless list of events and facts from the bible, many of which we know to be false.

Like what?

Congratulations you've accomplished nothing but demonstrating your dogmatic adherence to a system of belief that 2/3 of the living world disagree with and belief in which is on the whole determined overwhelmingly by one factor, that the person in question was born in a country and familial environment where it was the dominant religion.

Not that numbers prove anything, but Christianity is the worlds biggest religion. I would think that the true God would have the #1 religion. Don't forget that 4/5's of the world disagrees with your conclusion that there isn't a God in the first place.
>> ^MaxWilder:
>> ^mentality:
>> ^shinyblurry:
I know all about the schitzophrenic nuance militant atheists attempt to interject into the debate ..which really is because atheism is completely indefensible as a belief. At least someone like Christopher Hitchens is intellectually honest enough to say he doesn't believe..but many atheists try to hide behind an ambiguous definition by redefining atheism as not making any particular claims, which is patently false. I really don't care what wikipedia says, I'll go with the dictionary on this one, as well as personal experience. I've yet to meet an atheist who said he "lacked" belief who didn't unequivocably assert he is right, and not only right, but so right that I was in comparison intellectually inferior. Which is amusing to me, because as far as I am concerned an atheist might as well be rubbing two sticks together for all the discernment about reality.
Wrong. It is not a "redefinition" of atheism. It's a way of classifying different kinds of atheism. The kind of atheism that you're used to dealing with is merely a subset of atheists, the explicit/strong kind. Did you even try to read the wikipedia article? Oh wait, you're too arrogant to care. How would you like it if people bunched all Christians together, and viewed all of you as the Westboro Baptist Church?
And yet again you ignore the rest of my post. I'll spell it out again for you:
"I know this... I know that... I know all about... I don't care..."
These are all the signs of your own hubris. You don't know. You don't know and you don't care that there are different kinds of atheism. You don't know string theory, or general relativity, evolutionary biology, or even what the word "evidence" means. Yet you have the arrogance to talk like you are an expert. You sound like Ray Comfort - a fool, sure of his own righteousness and superiority. In the end, the only thing you achieve is to marginalize the Christian faith and make religious people look bad.
Try to remember that religion is a personal thing. Faith does not need your silly proofs and God does not need you to defend him.
Goodbye and good luck.

Good luck reasoning with him, mentality. I had a very long and thorough discussion with shiny about the different kinds of atheism, but he trots out that one dictionary definition and shuts off his brain. No amount of reasonable discussion penetrates.
And all of his expertise on various subjects comes from creationist websites that warp science and quote-mine to back up their theological preconceptions.
If you designed a computer program to defend the worst, must unscientific perspective on Christianity, you'd get something like shinyblurry. He's programmed to believe one thing, and nothing anybody says can alter it in the slightest. I doubt he'd pass a Turing test.
I only post messages to him when I feel like venting. It's not anything like a conversation.


>> ^MaxWilder:
>> ^mentality:
>> ^shinyblurry:
I know all about the schitzophrenic nuance militant atheists attempt to interject into the debate ..which really is because atheism is completely indefensible as a belief. At least someone like Christopher Hitchens is intellectually honest enough to say he doesn't believe..but many atheists try to hide behind an ambiguous definition by redefining atheism as not making any particular claims, which is patently false. I really don't care what wikipedia says, I'll go with the dictionary on this one, as well as personal experience. I've yet to meet an atheist who said he "lacked" belief who didn't unequivocably assert he is right, and not only right, but so right that I was in comparison intellectually inferior. Which is amusing to me, because as far as I am concerned an atheist might as well be rubbing two sticks together for all the discernment about reality.
Wrong. It is not a "redefinition" of atheism. It's a way of classifying different kinds of atheism. The kind of atheism that you're used to dealing with is merely a subset of atheists, the explicit/strong kind. Did you even try to read the wikipedia article? Oh wait, you're too arrogant to care. How would you like it if people bunched all Christians together, and viewed all of you as the Westboro Baptist Church?
And yet again you ignore the rest of my post. I'll spell it out again for you:
"I know this... I know that... I know all about... I don't care..."
These are all the signs of your own hubris. You don't know. You don't know and you don't care that there are different kinds of atheism. You don't know string theory, or general relativity, evolutionary biology, or even what the word "evidence" means. Yet you have the arrogance to talk like you are an expert. You sound like Ray Comfort - a fool, sure of his own righteousness and superiority. In the end, the only thing you achieve is to marginalize the Christian faith and make religious people look bad.
Try to remember that religion is a personal thing. Faith does not need your silly proofs and God does not need you to defend him.
Goodbye and good luck.

Good luck reasoning with him, mentality. I had a very long and thorough discussion with shiny about the different kinds of atheism, but he trots out that one dictionary definition and shuts off his brain. No amount of reasonable discussion penetrates.
And all of his expertise on various subjects comes from creationist websites that warp science and quote-mine to back up their theological preconceptions.
If you designed a computer program to defend the worst, must unscientific perspective on Christianity, you'd get something like shinyblurry. He's programmed to believe one thing, and nothing anybody says can alter it in the slightest. I doubt he'd pass a Turing test.
I only post messages to him when I feel like venting. It's not anything like a conversation.


>> ^RedSky:
Fact is, you are explaining the existence of something from nothing by creating something else from nothing.
Somehow you've also convinced yourself this is the simplest explanation. Not to mention that not only must there be an all knowing, all powerful and all seeing god to you but he must be the judeo Christian god which assumes an almost endless list of events and facts from the bible, many of which we know to be false.
Congratulations you've accomplished nothing but demonstrating your dogmatic adherence to a system of belief that 2/3 of the living world disagree with and belief in which is on the whole determined overwhelmingly by one factor, that the person in question was born in a country and familial environment where it was the dominant religion.>> ^shinyblurry:
The description of the origin of the Universe is uniquely described by the judeo christian belief as a creation from no prior material. If time and space originated in the big bang, then the cause of the Universe is immaterial. The chance of existence being eternal is 100 percent unless you want to explain how nothing could create something. All of this confirms an eternal transcendent supernatural Creator..the appearance of design in the Universe further confirms it. It is the best and most simple explanation of the origin of all things.
>> ^RedSky:
Replace where I argued it always existed with temporary and impermanent. Im afraid you're pulling a straw man and not answering my question. Tacking on God to anything that we know about the origins of the universe is by definition less plausible. If you disagree, prove me wrong because up to this point the only response you have given to this is the erroneous assumption that it somehow 50/50.
Cosmic background radiation in no shape or form supports the existence of a judeo Christian god than it does the existence of Thor. I'm not kidding or mocking you, and again you are free to try to prove this point wrong.>> ^shinyblurry:
The simpliest explanation is that it was Created. Science agrees with this conclusion by postulating it had a beginning. The discoverers of the cosmic microwave background radiation said there couldn't have been a better discovery which matches up with the unique creation of the judeo christian God. The Universe shows every sign of being temporal and limited, not eternal. It was born and it will die.
>> ^RedSky:
Why is it implausible then for you to imagine then that the universe is eternal? It seems altogether simpler and more plausible.
Also it is not 50/50, just like it raining today is not 50/50 with it raining with thunderstorms. The first is ALWAYS more plausible.>> ^shinyblurry:
Here's basic logic..
nothing comes from nothing
something exists
Meaning, that unless the ultimate cause is eternal nothing would exist. This isn't a 50/50 probability..it's a 100 percent certainty.
>> ^erlanter:
Arrogant atheist: I don't know everything, but love evidence because it sheds light on the amazing world around me. I would believe in a god if there was evidence.
Humble believer: I know god made this amazing world for me. I know what god wants for me. I communicate with god daily. I know anguish awaits those who spurn god. Nothing can shake my faith.
Cheers.

>> ^RedSky:
If you are going to use the how did the Universe get here argument you must first justify how your chosen god came to be. "Always existed" is not good enough and I'm sure you're perfectly intelligent enough to see why.
Until then you must admit we (for the sake of argument, ignoring anything science has discovered on this topic so far) are equally oblivious when it comes to the origins of existence.
Going by basic probability too, that A is always more likely A & B, you should also be able to see how using basic logic, the universe existing because God created it having always existed is a less likely proposition than the universe having always existed in and of itself.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Well, I would say the things that science claims to explain it really hasn't explained at all..yes, we have newtonian physics fairly well understood (maybe)..but quantum mechanics? not at all...Nor, are any real questions answers..such as how did the Universe get here? The big bang..how did the big bang happen? Complete mystery. How did life get here? "life from non life"..how did it happen? No idea. The fundemental questions all have great theories..but are really just in our imagination. I don't think anything about the human condition has ever been sufficiently explained, nor the meaningful questions about life..a materialist explanation must aprori rule out a supernatural one..but if time and space started at the beginning of the Universe then the explaination is by definition supernatural..i think all we've done is make the issue more complicated obfuscating the simplicity of it all
>> ^ChaosEngine:
>> ^shinyblurry:
I'm suggesting that what we do know is fairly infestisimal when compared to what we don't. To suggest we can rule out God because humanity knows so much now is just laughable.
Well, the problem is that we don't know what we don't know (obviously). But we do know a helluva lot more than we used to, and so far, everytime we've studied we previously thought was supernatural, it turns out to have a rational explanation.
Besides, while there's tonnes we don't know about some things (cosmology, particle physics, neuroscience), we have a pretty good understanding of most of the things that affect our day to day lives (newtonian physics, electricity, chemistry), and once again, there's no evidence for god in any of them.
You'll also note that he's not "ruling out" god, merely that it is looking more and more unlikely, to the point of being vanishingly improbable, that god exists.