In my opinion - and i think Brand's too, though i don't want to put words in his mouth - the motivation to act based upon nothing but profit is the largest and most significant drain on happiness and especially the advancement of us as a people. We need a revolution of principle, a revolution of the mind, we cannot keep on doing what we are doing when it is so clearly not working.

We have been pouring the results of our productivity into bank balances for so long now. If our productivity was represented by food instead of money, we would have been putting corn into a hole in the ground for 30 years and wondering why people are hungry. In a system based on corn, prosperity of a nation is based upon the free and active flow of corn.

I ask this question of you, because i don't know the answer. Do you think that we can continue pouring our productivity into big holes that other people sit on for "whenever they might need it?" Is it reasonable to build a system based on flow, but let huge clumps of it gather and expect everything to keep running quickly and without turbulence?

It just doesn't work anymore. The very rich don't realise it yet because they can afford to pay to avoid it, the quite rich notice it when they sit in traffic for example, but eventually things will become so clogged up that they will have no choice but to notice that there are no quality schools, hospitals, roads, airports, shops nor people to do their shopping, cleaning, cooking and driving. We all benefit, including the rich, if money is put into improving our infrastructure and facilities. We all benefit when productivity is flowing freely and quickly through the system. The opposite of that is called a depression, and it's when people don't have confidence in spending their money... we know that, we accept it, people were repeating it during the recession. How come we can't recognise the polar opposite? We're in a semi-permanent state of inverse depression, where those at the top don't have the means to spend their money, so it doesn't move.

This is an idea that needs to come from grassroots, everyone needs to come together somehow and unify over this idea. Because you can't blame any one individual for taking advantage of their fortunate position on the uneven playing field, or for fighting for a better position on the field. We all need to agree that the playing field has to be even, otherwise eventually the playing field will not be worth using.

I cannot stand this poisonous idea that you cannot ask a company for tax and here's my argument against that:
A lot of people live in the UK and a lot of people want to buy coffee and other assorted goods (starbucks, amazon). Even including tax, there is a lot of money to be made selling to these people. Let's say there is 2 billion pounds in profit available to be made by someone. That's still profit to be made by someone, and whoever offers that service to them under the correct rules makes that money.

The problem is that there's 4 billion to be made without tax, and it's cheaper to buy the politician for a billion to ensure you get the tax breaks. That is the poisoned system that psycho-capitalism has eventually produced... And it's so naive to think otherwise... so naive to think that those with billions of pounds wouldn't buy economists and lawyers, tout the favourable theories, generally spend top money on creating the right environment to make more money. Whether you think more or less tax is a good idea, surely have to agree that whatever the rules are, we adhere to them, or the system that we so carefully designed it around will fail.

Why are people so reticent to believe that we're being duped? No, surely not, it's the government, they can't possibly be lying to us. They stood in front of us, bare-faced, and told us they weren't torturing people, they had intelligence about WMDs, they weren't spying on us all. They prove themselves to be deceitful but like toddlers we trust the adult.

Fair enough, I should have expected to be laid in to for expressing a political opinion. Fair play to you -- It is the internet, after all

I spend quite a bit of time in the north and like it there, but most of my time is in the midlands so I'm not going to pretend to know what it's like to live there permanently. The only 2 Scots (only 1 of which could vote due to living there) that I'm in touch with regularly both supported staying unified but are looking forward to the greater powers that Scotland deserve and will get.

The difference between the parties, at least in England, seems pretty minimal to me. Blair didn't seem any better (or worse really, other than ditching the gold reserves all in one go at a rather low price) than Cameron.

I hate the premise, and I hate the term "white america". Of course racism still exists. And yes, there are racists and ignorant people who try to say that it doesn't. But saying "white america" just throws every white person into the same pool, which is racist in itself. Countless white americans have stood up and even risked their lives defending the equality of not just black people, but all races. Racism affects everyone. Ironically, and tragically, I think racism is a unifying factor. All races do it and all races suffer from it. And all races should get behind the elimination of it. It starts with balking against racist friends and family who, through societal pressure, casually compel you to blame, fear or find comfort in hating the "other".

As part of their training to give the impression of a unified authority, Police in the US are trained not to apologize or admit wrongful judgement. Less damnably so, but for the same reasons, they're trained in posture and body language, and the tone of voice they use, both of which I'm sure everyone has experienced if they've had any interaction with an officer in the US.

It's a biggest general reason why so many people say "cops are assholes", but in this case it's often not their fault, but the fault of the institutions that train them around the country.

research worth exploring in any case.... not sure why i would personally choose this product over a unified galaxy or an iphone though

I'm conflicted... I do agree with her, there is certainly more time given to the Israelis giving out their version of what is happening, but it also seems like she's wasting her opportunity to talk about the Palestinian side of things and it's spinning into a story about the coverage and putting attention on her.

Chris Hayes is likely being honest in that it is hard to find any "official" to speak for the Palestinian side. Since it's not a unified group, the government in Gaza doesn't seem to be involved, just Hamas fighters.

There is no doubt that these people are disgusting, but thankfully they are also rare. Every society has their fringe crazies - the US has Westboro Baptist Church, for instance - and they generally get way more attention than they deserve by being controversial.

This isn't to say that there isn't a problem with Israeli society's attitude toward the Palestinians, it's just to say that I think it is a problem that is far more subtle and widespread. Focusing so much attention on a small percentage of religious fanatics can be important because it does represent a movement and ideology that is problematic, but it has very little direct relevance to the current conflict.

The real problem, in my opinion, is a unique mixture of nationalism and a lopsided insulation from the reality of the conflict that is very common in Israeli society.

Israeli society is uniquely coherent in a particular way that stems from the relatively homogenous cultural identity facilitated by Judaism, and this coherence is also strengthened by the fact that Israeli society was built in the face of and as a direct result of considerable adversity. I think that this does allow for a sort of groupthink that inhibits Israel's ability to treat the Palestinians in a humane manner, but the effect manifests itself through society as a sort of cultural blindness and it manifests through the political process as hawkish policy.

(Also, whether or not you think they had the right to build that society in the first place is beside the point right now, I'm only talking about the existence of the unifying influence of adversity, and the effect it has on policy and the national psyche)

The other component of it is the simple fact that Israelis are extremely insulated from the realities of the Palestinian sufferings.

Even in the heat of a conflict like this, Israelis can pretty much go about their lives unimpeded. It is true that the rocket attacks are disruptive and that there is on a whole an unacceptably high level of danger from external attacks, but Israelis have leveraged a security apparatus that minimizes these realities in day to day life to an astounding degree, all things considered, and this fact is a double edge sword that creates a perfect breeding ground for indifference.

One side of the sword is that these measures are extremely effective at improving the lives of Israelis in the short term. However the other side of the sword is that it obviously makes these measures popular and politically successful. Furthermore, with all the calm and prosperity, it is very easy to forget about the abysmal conditions being imposed on 1.8 million people just thirty kilometers or so from your doorstep. The only time they really have to deal with the issue is when there is an inevitable flareup of violence at which point, naturally, people tend to be less empathetic. The rest of the time, during the lulls, the prospect of empathy is just placed on the back burner.

These are the tendencies that need to be addressed.

However calling Israel the 4th Reich and placing so much focus on youtube videos that give Israel's religious fanatics undue prominence is just as useless and destructive as all the Israelis and Israel sympathizers who insist on viewing Palestinian society as an unchanging, violent monolith that is accurately represented by its extremist elements.

The fact of the matter is that there are significant movements within Israeli society that are in fact attempting to change these trends. The same is true of Palestinian society, however it is more difficult for those movements because of the repressions imposed by Hamas, culture and environment.

If there is to be any hope in this situation, Israel's role as the dominant, occupying force means that they have the first move. They will have to shift from focusing on isolation and self-preservation to one of empathy to the average Palestinian, an empathy that is so strong that they must be willing to take considerable personal risks and let up their stranglehold on Palestinian society and allow them to prosper.

Because only then will the environment be in any way conducive for Palestinians to take considerable personal risks and defy the status quo en masse. Only then will the false succor of violent religious extremism loose its appeal.

Until that happens, we'll the cycle seems to return to square one every two or three years and I expect to have this discussion again sometime around 2017.

Unfortunately, it is going to be a hard and unlikely road because it takes a lot of empathy and effort to rise up and take huge risks during the times of quiet when prosperity and security easily distract from the continuing plight of the Palestinians. These aren't common traits. Humans are a very tribal species and we're not good at this kind of stuff when it concerns someone different who you don't have to interact with. This challenge is hardly unique to the Jews.

'But I still think their beating could have been avoided if they'd stopped when ordered' and '"Stop or I'll whip you," then you don't stop and they whip you, you reaped what you sowed'-It's this attitude towards the use of force for control which makes the future of a world government a horrifyingly paltry settlement.

Any sign that the future of the planet is headed in this direction should be met with unified opposition and any force, with creative and coordinated force in return.

Humanity still has the power to deny options which governments (criminal organizations) conjure in back-rooms then offer-up to us.

C-Engines' right, a war wouldn't do anything unless you're talking about the systematic elimination of individuals behind an empire that's designed to instill a lasting, generational fear in those who would continue the push for ultimate power and control. The only changes that will come will be more total control unless a dialog manifests with meaning and purpose directed at the control mechanism's infrastructure by a majority of regular peeps unsullied by the indoctro-education of so-called knowledge of the the way the world works.

Until people stop trying to work within the framework of rules and engagement that has been created by the same perpetrators of our enslavement, the majority of our sentient, big-brained species may as well get used to the idea that the few freedoms you imagine yourselves to have now are illusion and your children will not enjoy one one-hundredth of that same illusion in 30 years.

Guerrilla-tactics with a broadband and well-coordinated take-down is the only way to end the paradigm that has been in place for thousands of years. That or some unifying world-wide catastrophic necessity for the survival of the species....like a frikkin' meteor storm some other worldwide natural disaster or some influence from without.

I get the idea that people want their friends on the same system, so they can play with/against one another. But the degree all sides get worked up is just odd. It's one of those cases of can't we just agree to disagree, but all sides get nearly evangelical.

My take... I prefer the 360 controller to the PS3 controller. I like the weight, the button and stick placements... just the whole feel is better, for me, at least for most games. Some 3rd person games benifit from the PS3 layout a bit better, but for shooters and platformers I think the 360 layout is better. Most of the exclusive titles next Gen are leaning me to the One, but most are cross platform, so that has little influence. For the current generation, I found the PS3 to be a far superior media machine, beyond the Blu-ray support, I think it does Netflix better (even discounting the poor UI the XBox had prior to the upcoming unified interface), which might be an issue with my router and it working better with the PS3 than the XBox, but even for connecting to my Windows PC and PlayOn (a program on my PC that allows me to use Hulu on the TV without Hulu Plus, and allows me to play more media types from my PC on the TV), it was better. However, the multiplayer on XBox seemed better, despite the fee... which gets me to a rub against the One, I wish Microsoft would remove the Gold requirement to access video services like Netflix, YouTube and the like. Leave the Gold requirement for multiplayer gaming, but video services should be broke off.

That said, most of my gaming is PC side... though for a game like Battlefield 4 or Titanfall I prefer a console... do in part to my lower end PC... yeah, the graphics on those games would look better (if my PC was a bit more modern), but I don't know, something about those style games makes me like the experience on the console better... same with Assassins Creed 4... actually, many console type games... but Steam and I love one another...

I never saw how OWS could become a political movement. It never had a coherent or unified mission or objective save discontent with the status quo. A political movement requires putting forward an alternative, which OWS never had and would be hard pressed to agree on, what with the much berated "1%" being more individually viewed as anybody with significantly more wealth than me.

OWS was popular outrage at real problems, but it never got as far as proposing a clear and agreed upon solution.

I really believe that was Obama's main problem. I hate the guy now for his track-record, but I feel like he was really a naive idealist. I think once an individual becomes president, they're sat down in a little room and told how shit really works, and I think there's such scary shit in there that:
A) it's clear there's nothing they can do to change it
B) if they try to change it there will be a unified front that will effectively smear them
C) if they try to call out the unified front and how things "really work", the unified front will effectively smear them
D) (not likely, but): they're told straight up from the "real authority" in the US that if they have X% of influence on Y# of specific topics, and if they contradict the authoritative interests they'll be outright disposed of.
Don't feel like "D" is realistic, but at this point I wouldn't put anything past the people who've clearly had an iron grip on the US for some time now.

http://www.troublesmith.net/site_images/misc/snowman2016.jpg

It seems like a lot of people are just jumping on a big bandwagon as far as the XB hate. This is more of a series of PR mistakes than any real issue concerning the XBOne.

Since DRM is up to the publishers on both systems, the only difference is going to be the unified DRM system on XBOne versus a hodgepodge of DRM on the PS4. I can guaranty you there will be NO examples of a publisher releasing a game with DRM on XBOne and then releasing the same game on PS4 without DRM. It's not going to happen. Same thing for restricting the sale of your used game. If a publisher activates this feature on XBOne, you KNOW they're going to implement the same type of restriction on the same game released on PS4.

The only real issue seems to be the daily online system checks by XBOne and the hourly checks for online gameplay. This either affects you or it doesn't. In my case, it doesn't affect me, so it's a non-issue. If it genuinely affects you then you should absolutely buy the PS4, assuming MS doesn't reverse course on that decision based on community feedback, which they've already indicated is a possibility.

I suspect there are a lot more people displaying outrage over some of these issues who actually aren't affected in the least. I also promise you there's a large group of people who know this whole affair is overblown bullshit but they're not going to weigh in with their opinion in this toxic environment.

I'm not sure what Microsoft has going for it at this point. The hardware is so similar between this and the PS4 that making an exclusive publishing deal seems like throwing away money opportunities for a publisher. Its not like how it was with the PS3 and 360 where the PS3 decided to take a radically different approach hardware wise. Microsoft is betting on all the other features stacked into it. They've been trying for over a decade to make a "unified household media center" and this might be their next attempt.

Science damn you, Unified Atheist Alliance!