>> ^kceaton1:

How utterly ridiculous this is... I can't wait when an independent panel (who apparently has to be run by a, "Person of Interest"--some elite hidden issues force, that has no way to be undercut by corruption--hahahahahaha) is created who will be using advanced PET scanning technology to select all police officers for active for duty, they'll find out all the good ol'boys are KKK members or sociopaths/psychopaths. Either it will help out a bit or more than likely become corrupted and allow them to pick EXACTLY who they want--which is even more terrifying. They already use the stupid lie detector for certain areas, so I expect to see this soon on the federal level (hell, if not already).
Is there ANY way they can take this to the federal level if there are signs of corruption? I know there isn't most likely, but when a potential crime like this is so utterly swiped clean off the slate what the hell are you supposed to do. I've personally known someone in a small town that had all their life's possessions, everything they had ever bought, owned, or saved taken away from them and not ONE person lifted a finger (I'll have to find the exact city name again, but it was in Nevada--through a business that was protected by the local police and city officials, including defending city attorneys as well--higher level police through Las Vegas said he was SOL and it was out of their jurisdiction, who TF do they think they are kidding...) This is CRAZY! Who is Zimmerman exactly to have the police put their ass on the line like this, what are we missing?
Zimmerman will get assassinated if he sees no trial mark my words.


Yeah these are the situations that cause riots when you have blatant injustice such as this. I'm just surprised this isn't getting more attention. I've only heard about it on the internet.

How utterly ridiculous this is... I can't wait when an independent panel (who apparently has to be run by a, "Person of Interest"--some elite hidden issues force, that has no way to be undercut by corruption--hahahahahaha) is created who will be using advanced PET scanning technology to select all police officers for active for duty, they'll find out all the good ol'boys are KKK members or sociopaths/psychopaths. Either it will help out a bit or more than likely become corrupted and allow them to pick EXACTLY who they want--which is even more terrifying. They already use the stupid lie detector for certain areas, so I expect to see this soon on the federal level (hell, if not already).

Is there ANY way they can take this to the federal level if there are signs of corruption? I know there isn't most likely, but when a potential crime like this is so utterly swiped clean off the slate what the hell are you supposed to do. I've personally known someone in a small town that had all their life's possessions, everything they had ever bought, owned, or saved taken away from them and not ONE person lifted a finger (I'll have to find the exact city name again, but it was in Nevada--through a business that was protected by the local police and city officials, including defending city attorneys as well--higher level police through Las Vegas said he was SOL and it was out of their jurisdiction, who TF do they think they are kidding...) This is CRAZY! Who is Zimmerman exactly to have the police put their ass on the line like this, what are we missing?

Zimmerman will get assassinated if he sees no trial mark my words.

Your car analogy is accurate, but misleading. If the car were newer, then it would in fact be against patent law to make one on your own. The SCO case is, I believe, patent law, not copyright.

I don't get your argument regarding publishing companies of various kinds trying to make money for themselves and not paying artists much. This is the old "artists deserve more money" argument. Frankly, they don't. And I'm saying that as an artist. If you're an artist and you give someone your art in exchange for whatever percentage, then you've agreed to that amount and you deserve that amount, and no more. The fact is, selling art is hard. It might not seem that way because we see it everywhere, but having art sitting in your house or on your computer and making money off of it is just plain difficult. The easiest route is frequently to let someone else do that for you, and to artists who can't afford a cup of coffee, making some decent cash sounds like a good deal.

Artists who don't want to go that route are free to keep their content and sell it themselves.
>> ^Porksandwich:

I like to try to apply things to real life objects or processes instead of digital.
You can make an exact replica of a 1950s car (legal), but if you copy a PICTURE someone else took of a 1950s car you're in trouble (illegal). Or if you take the picture of a 1950s car (legal), the owner who spent all the time and effort on it is SOL if you just snap a picture of it and make a million bucks----but if it were a painting they painted and you took a picture of it to sell..they'd have you by your balls in court.
It's even confusing in the tangible world, but in general copyright is not used like a club to keep other people from producing things in the tangible world.
In the digital world, copyright is hard to enforce but it's more "chilling effect" is it being used like a club to take down things that might even remotely be related to their copyrights...whether or not it can be demonstrated or proven. Look at SCO over Linux, they have lost but they still have that whole case showing up in court even now...it took YEARS to get it settled and it's back in some form from what I read elsewhere. Youtube is full of examples of it being used to remove content that is not theirs.....they took down the music video MegaUpload guys paid for and put up using DMCA knowing it wasn't theirs because they "had an arrangement with Google/Youtube to be able to do so".
Tangible world of copyright has some sense of "reasonable expectation" when it comes to decisions and such.
Intangible world of copyright has no "reason" applied to it at any stage, it doesn't make sense to anyone. It's abused, the courts even allow it's abuse to go unpunished because THEY do even know WTF is going on with it. It's a crazy mess of finger pointing, denying access to distribution channels people want to be able to get content on (EA and Steam is a great example of this), price fixing (Publishers conspiring with Apple to price fix Ebooks to Apple pricing, Amazon is balking at this as are a lot of people), etc.
Hell the publishers are using copyrights and agreements as ways to lock in authors to prevent them from publishing themselves and are purposefully screwing with digital ebook sites to make it uncertain for non-affiliated authors. And it's not working for them as more and more authors are going self-published, BUT no one steps in and tells them to cut that shit out. The New York Times Bestseller lists won't even put Self-Pubbed author titles on their listing, even if they are best sellers. It's just another aspect of the digital world being treated like it's tangible and slow moving, the publishers are using their clout to try to force people into their "idea" of what it should all be...slow and expensive, with content creators getting less than 15% of the final sale price in most cases.
Corporate establishments should not be dictating policy.... they shouldn't be able to force distribution channels offline (netflix comes to mind, Amazon Kindle titles, etc) by dictating or forcing it to be unreasonably costly/restrictive in comparison to their own services (Hulu, Apple Ebooks, etc). They are forcibly carving a spot for themselves into the contracts and agreements, despite what's best for consumers and content creators and getting additional laws/policy to enforce it.
On the other side of dictating policy, we have corporations pushing to take away restrictive policies when it hurts their profits. And we end up with the housing bubble and economic crisis......
Laws and policy should be written with the people in mind first, society second, anything else, and corporations last. Corporations should be adapting to the will of the people and the laws of the society that reinforce their will, not telling everyone how it's going to be.

I like to try to apply things to real life objects or processes instead of digital.

You can make an exact replica of a 1950s car (legal), but if you copy a PICTURE someone else took of a 1950s car you're in trouble (illegal). Or if you take the picture of a 1950s car (legal), the owner who spent all the time and effort on it is SOL if you just snap a picture of it and make a million bucks----but if it were a painting they painted and you took a picture of it to sell..they'd have you by your balls in court.

It's even confusing in the tangible world, but in general copyright is not used like a club to keep other people from producing things in the tangible world.

In the digital world, copyright is hard to enforce but it's more "chilling effect" is it being used like a club to take down things that might even remotely be related to their copyrights...whether or not it can be demonstrated or proven. Look at SCO over Linux, they have lost but they still have that whole case showing up in court even now...it took YEARS to get it settled and it's back in some form from what I read elsewhere. Youtube is full of examples of it being used to remove content that is not theirs.....they took down the music video MegaUpload guys paid for and put up using DMCA knowing it wasn't theirs because they "had an arrangement with Google/Youtube to be able to do so".

Tangible world of copyright has some sense of "reasonable expectation" when it comes to decisions and such.

Intangible world of copyright has no "reason" applied to it at any stage, it doesn't make sense to anyone. It's abused, the courts even allow it's abuse to go unpunished because THEY do even know WTF is going on with it. It's a crazy mess of finger pointing, denying access to distribution channels people want to be able to get content on (EA and Steam is a great example of this), price fixing (Publishers conspiring with Apple to price fix Ebooks to Apple pricing, Amazon is balking at this as are a lot of people), etc.

Hell the publishers are using copyrights and agreements as ways to lock in authors to prevent them from publishing themselves and are purposefully screwing with digital ebook sites to make it uncertain for non-affiliated authors. And it's not working for them as more and more authors are going self-published, BUT no one steps in and tells them to cut that shit out. The New York Times Bestseller lists won't even put Self-Pubbed author titles on their listing, even if they are best sellers. It's just another aspect of the digital world being treated like it's tangible and slow moving, the publishers are using their clout to try to force people into their "idea" of what it should all be...slow and expensive, with content creators getting less than 15% of the final sale price in most cases.

Corporate establishments should not be dictating policy.... they shouldn't be able to force distribution channels offline (netflix comes to mind, Amazon Kindle titles, etc) by dictating or forcing it to be unreasonably costly/restrictive in comparison to their own services (Hulu, Apple Ebooks, etc). They are forcibly carving a spot for themselves into the contracts and agreements, despite what's best for consumers and content creators and getting additional laws/policy to enforce it.

On the other side of dictating policy, we have corporations pushing to take away restrictive policies when it hurts their profits. And we end up with the housing bubble and economic crisis......

Laws and policy should be written with the people in mind first, society second, anything else, and corporations last. Corporations should be adapting to the will of the people and the laws of the society that reinforce their will, not telling everyone how it's going to be.

Also, why stop at Foxconn? And China? I have visited such factories in China and in other countries that do high volume electronics assembly, and the conditions are much the same. The only reason the suicides are highlighted here is because of the fame of the Apple brand. I guess the people stuck making razr phones are SOL.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by Barseps.

He doesn't have anywhere near as severe an overbite as Freddie... but he's certainly got the pipes... wonder if he can write an amazing hit song (or 12!) like Freddie could..

>> ^Porksandwich:

Gotta wonder if him looking alike helps him sound more like him. Nasal structures, shape of the mouth, etc. I don't see the point in lip syncing something when you're trying to use it as an audition, if they believe it, you're SOL if they call you up.

Gotta wonder if him looking alike helps him sound more like him. Nasal structures, shape of the mouth, etc. I don't see the point in lip syncing something when you're trying to use it as an audition, if they believe it, you're SOL if they call you up.

yea I don't believe this global warming crap.

when I was in college we were taught about the solar cycles decades of warming and cooling and we are right on track.

lot the political correct morons wanna lump people who dont believe in global warming with religious or militia/conspiracy theorist just to demonize those groups to the public.

political correctness is the worst thing that has ever happened to this world and needs to be eliminated.


anyhow the kooky hair scientist on periodic table of elements doesn't believe in the global warming media propaganda either, we are in the earth's normal cycle of warming and cooling thanks to dear old Sol.

6 minutes!

It appears that the Sun got hold of this CCTV footage of a man so impossibly wankered he appears almost indestructible.

CCTV -- there to protect and entertain.


Incredible how the earth shakes like that and he stays poised and balanced the whole time.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by critical_d.

>> ^radx:

Haha, playing football on a soaking wet pitch is a blast -- until your studs catch grip in a hole and you end up with your foot up your own arse.


hahaha when you play soccer, studs catch a grip of your hole and put your foot in your ass?

I mean I knew soccer was gay, but...

First of all, you misunderstood me completely, I was talking about spiritual belief, there's a difference between believing the sun will come up and believing in god and even there I have a problem with the verb "believe". I don't believe the sun will come up, I know it has come up every day since the day I was born so I assume (with quite a bit of certainty) that it will come up again tomorrow.

I understood from your words that you believe in god, you talk about meaning with such certainty and then you talk about humility? To me, true humility is accepting you can't truly believe in things of the spiritual nature, they are metaphysical, you have no means of judging their meaning/existence or lack there of. You could look at the different explanations science/religion/your own personal interpretation can offer and say which you feel the most at peace with.

You talk about the "trap" of nihilism, again, ironic. As far as I'm concerned religious belief is the trap, it is in of it self arrogance, it is saying "I believe in something because I do, because I have faith". I don't "believe" in science, I accept that it is our most efficient tool at understanding the world, it isn't an answer, it is a means. I don't understand how any humble human being deems it justifiable to just pick from a plethora of so called "answers" or "truths" and say "this one, this is true, this explains everything, there is meaning". Again, if I misunderstood, I apologize, but if you are religious then why would you talk about something like the sun rising and falling? It is a physical phenomenon that we can observe and make (somewhat) objective assumptions about. You must realize that in religion logic is never on your side, it is the belief in spite of logic, the insistence on the least likely, arrogance.

>> ^shinyblurry:

>> ^NinjaInHeat:
The lack of conviction you speak of, the unwillingness to accept any "truth" as absolute is by definition the opposite of arrogance. How can anyone who -believes- in anything say to the "non-believer" that he's arrogant? A believer must be arrogant enough to say "I believe in this, I don't believe in that", a logical person simply says "I am not informed enough to decide what is true and what is not, I believe everything is possible". As far as I'm concerned, belief is the ultimate form of arrogance: a person allowing himself not to be completely objectiveBR>

Believing something is not the ultimate arrogance. I believe the Sun will come up tomorrow. Is that arrogant, or is it just good sense? Essentially, I am taking a leap of faith, but the precipice isn't very high. We can believe things just on the basis of observation and deduction. Just because I could be wrong doesn't mean I have no basis for my belief. My belief there is completely justified by the long history of the Sun coming up every day without fail, the stability we find in the continuim, and what we have observed about the behavior of Sol and other similar stars.
How is one supposed to be truly objective? Only God could be truly objective. We simply don't have enough information to be objective about anything. Our lives are consumed with self-interest. Just to maintain our life here we have to eat, be clothed, etc. I guarantee you no one on Earth is as interested in this as you are. We are inherently selfish for this reason. We have to be. It isn't like someone else could or would live our lives for us. Unless we reach out and grab it for ourselves, no one is going to be putting it in our hand.
A logical person may say he isn't informed enough to make judgments about everything, but he is reasonably informed enough about some things to feel fairly confident in his stance. Is that arrogance? To believe something is true, regardless of whether he could be wrong or not? We all have that in common, you know. Every one of us could be wrong about absolutely everything we know as true and real. I think its admirable, to take a stand for what you believe in, as obviously Mr Hitchins did and still does. I think its cowardice to dismiss it all as meaningless. The Earth is ripe with meaning, with value. It screams out to us every moment of every day. To look at this world and see nothing meaningful has got to be a mental illness at best.

>> ^NinjaInHeat:
The lack of conviction you speak of, the unwillingness to accept any "truth" as absolute is by definition the opposite of arrogance. How can anyone who -believes- in anything say to the "non-believer" that he's arrogant? A believer must be arrogant enough to say "I believe in this, I don't believe in that", a logical person simply says "I am not informed enough to decide what is true and what is not, I believe everything is possible". As far as I'm concerned, belief is the ultimate form of arrogance: a person allowing himself not to be completely objectiveBR>


Believing something is not the ultimate arrogance. I believe the Sun will come up tomorrow. Is that arrogant, or is it just good sense? Essentially, I am taking a leap of faith, but the precipice isn't very high. We can believe things just on the basis of observation and deduction. Just because I could be wrong doesn't mean I have no basis for my belief. My belief there is completely justified by the long history of the Sun coming up every day without fail, the stability we find in the continuim, and what we have observed about the behavior of Sol and other similar stars.

How is one supposed to be truly objective? Only God could be truly objective. We simply don't have enough information to be objective about anything. Our lives are consumed with self-interest. Just to maintain our life here we have to eat, be clothed, etc. I guarantee you no one on Earth is as interested in this as you are. We are inherently selfish for this reason. We have to be. It isn't like someone else could or would live our lives for us. Unless we reach out and grab it for ourselves, no one is going to be putting it in our hand.

A logical person may say he isn't informed enough to make judgments about everything, but he is reasonably informed enough about some things to feel fairly confident in his stance. Is that arrogance? To believe something is true, regardless of whether he could be wrong or not? We all have that in common, you know. Every one of us could be wrong about absolutely everything we know as true and real. I think its admirable, to take a stand for what you believe in, as obviously Mr Hitchins did and still does. I think its cowardice to dismiss it all as meaningless. The Earth is ripe with meaning, with value. It screams out to us every moment of every day. To look at this world and see nothing meaningful has got to be a mental illness at best.

Britain thought Sharia would never stain their shores, either. But hey, who am I to argue with a doctor?

A case of overimportance (sic)? Who else but the expert in over-importance, doctor Yogi, could make that diagnosis? Umm, this is a "comments" section for a video about the NYC mosque. It's where people post their thoughts/reactions/perceptions/jokes/gripes/etc about said video. Just because QM's opinion isn't exactly held in the highest regard by many here doesn't mean he can't post whatever the hell he wants (iaw the FAQ, of course). You may have thought attacking someone with widely unpopular opinions here would grant you some VS juice, but I don't see anybody jumping on your little wagon. So please, feel free to take your own advice, and shut up.

>> ^Yogi:
2. Building one Mosque doesn't mean we're going under Sharia Law. Wanting everyone to follow Sharia Law is the goal of every religion, just their different brands. You don't like a Mosque there, that's your right...you don't have a say in where people build things though...in fact I think people are suffering from a case of overimportance. Nobody asked for your permission, nobody asked if you cared about the city allowing a Mosque to be built in New York. So shut up.