Love the Mac guy who is married to his Macs, using triplehead Dell 30+24 inch displays when he ought to have triple Apple Cinema Displays to go with his Apple computers. Made me LOL for real when I saw that. Maybe even he doesn't want to pay 25-40% premium for a white plastic veneer on several thousand dollars worth of monitor.

>> ^MarineGunrock:
>> ^gwiz665:
I get to show people something they might not have seen otherwise. I also get a direct reward in the form of star points and power points.
The Art of Sifting is that you get to "create" the framing of the video, you make the title, the tags and so on, this all has a direct influence on how a given thing sifts. Something can be hilarious, but if the title is bad, our nano-second attention spans flicker over it and miss the gem.
I suppose there is an underlying theme to what is sifted, but I don't think it's a persona as such. For some I presume the avatar is completely different than themselves, but my avatar is just a thin coat of veneer on myself. I'm pretty close to what I represent myself as here, and I think it's intellectually dishonest (not to mention douchebaggely) to do otherwise.
I do enjoy calling attention to obscure videos, but only if I like them. There are plenty of obscure stuff that I don't give two shits about.
CP420 and the rest of the conservative beacons call this place a liberal haven of atheists, but I don't see it that way. I think the IQ on this website exceeds most any other website, and that is the reason we are liberal and atheists; it's what smart people think. Stick that in your gun and shoot it.

So conservative Christians are just stupid huh?
So much for the "love everyone" policies that liberals claim to have.


Oh, she was pretty proud of what she posted...may as well let her be.

>> ^gwiz665:
I get to show people something they might not have seen otherwise. I also get a direct reward in the form of star points and power points.
The Art of Sifting is that you get to "create" the framing of the video, you make the title, the tags and so on, this all has a direct influence on how a given thing sifts. Something can be hilarious, but if the title is bad, our nano-second attention spans flicker over it and miss the gem.
I suppose there is an underlying theme to what is sifted, but I don't think it's a persona as such. For some I presume the avatar is completely different than themselves, but my avatar is just a thin coat of veneer on myself. I'm pretty close to what I represent myself as here, and I think it's intellectually dishonest (not to mention douchebaggely) to do otherwise.
I do enjoy calling attention to obscure videos, but only if I like them. There are plenty of obscure stuff that I don't give two shits about.
CP420 and the rest of the conservative beacons call this place a liberal haven of atheists, but I don't see it that way. I think the IQ on this website exceeds most any other website, and that is the reason we are liberal and atheists; it's what smart people think. Stick that in your gun and shoot it.


So conservative Christians are just stupid huh?
So much for the "love everyone" policies that liberals claim to have.

I get to show people something they might not have seen otherwise. I also get a direct reward in the form of star points and power points.

The Art of Sifting is that you get to "create" the framing of the video, you make the title, the tags and so on, this all has a direct influence on how a given thing sifts. Something can be hilarious, but if the title is bad, our nano-second attention spans flicker over it and miss the gem.

I suppose there is an underlying theme to what is sifted, but I don't think it's a persona as such. For some I presume the avatar is completely different than themselves, but my avatar is just a thin coat of veneer on myself. I'm pretty close to what I represent myself as here, and I think it's intellectually dishonest (not to mention douchebaggely) to do otherwise.

I do enjoy calling attention to obscure videos, but only if I like them. There are plenty of obscure stuff that I don't give two shits about.

CP420 and the rest of the conservative beacons call this place a liberal haven of atheists, but I don't see it that way. I think the IQ on this website exceeds most any other website, and that is the reason we are liberal and atheists; it's what smart people think. Stick that in your gun and shoot it.

>> ^quantumushroom:
The human heart is infinitely deceptive; anyone who thinks they can make up their moral code as they go along is already a victim of that deception.
Man remains a vicious animal, a reptilian brain with only a thin veneer of reason and rationality. There is nothing in the atheist's bag o' tricks to quell the beast (ego).
Apparently there's enough good in religion--any religion--that promotes human survival over destruction. I don't believe you can be an authentic atheist without acknowledging this.


Maybe you have only a thin veneer of reason, qm. I have several more layers of brain development on top of the reptilian portions that make me into a creature that is tribal by nature, part of a pack. As a member of this tribe, I strive to be recognized as a valuable member, contributing as much if not more than I receive. In that way, my peers will hold me in high esteem, and I will have access to plentiful resources which make my life much more pleasant. If I were to commit crimes against the tribe, such as theft, deception, assault, or murder, I would lose some if not all of the esteem of my peers. Aside from the retribution my peers might seek, I may also face ostracism or death. Knowing this, I don't even consider such actions within the realm of thought, excepting perhaps in only the most extreme of circumstances, where I would be facing death due to lack of such actions.

But most days I don't have to consider such dire choices. I am polite and considerate, yet assertive. In this way my peers may safely assume I will work with the team to hold up my end of the work we must do together, but I will not allow myself to be taken advantage of. And knowing that, they can plan their lives making me a part therein, and I can do the same.

And all without religion.

EDIT: The idea that you must have religion in order to be a good person is one of the Great Lies that religion teaches people. Individuals are selfish by design, but all it takes is a little thought to realize that being a part of a healthy community is essential to our well-being.

These strivings for an "atheist society" will have little impact, even if it is on public access TV.

The human heart is infinitely deceptive; anyone who thinks they can make up their moral code as they go along is already a victim of that deception.

Man remains a vicious animal, a reptilian brain with only a thin veneer of reason and rationality. There is nothing in the atheist's bag o' tricks to quell the beast (ego).

Apparently there's enough good in religion--any religion--that promotes human survival over destruction. I don't believe you can be an authentic atheist without acknowledging this.

McCain is really a disgusting person... there are too many counts of him showing his true colours, too many times you can see through the painfully thin veneer to the grumpy, angry, bigoted man underneath

Ok so.....hmmmm, Quite telling innit, that the Jar Jar Blob Chog is represented by a link, and not part of KP's shmorgasbard heah.....Would that be because true colors shine through cheap veneer???....Great pic Gorgonheap....waist down Jar Jar was the only one with staff and minerals, well....Sam Jackson comes in a lengthy second.....

Voilà! In view, a humble vaudevillian veteran, cast vicariously as both victim and villain by the vicissitudes of Fate. This visage, no mere veneer of vanity, is it vestige of the vox populi, now vacant, vanished. However, this valorous visitation of a by-gone vexation, stands vivified, and has vowed to vanquish these venal and virulent vermin vanguarding vice and vouchsafing the violently vicious and voracious violation of volition. The only verdict is vengeance; a vendetta, held as a votive, not in vain, for the value and veracity of such shall one day vindicate the vigilant and the virtuous. Verily, this vichyssoise of verbiage veers most verbose so let me simply add that it’s my very good honor to meet you and you may call me V.

Now replace that with all P's.

OK, you have my attention. What would you like me to read?

In reply to your comment:
“In reply to your comment:
“I've actually read Behe's "Darwin's Black Box" does that count as reading up on ID? ID is yet another "theory of the gaps".
There's a collection of theories under the umbrella of ID. The two main threads are:
1) Determining the amount of spontaneous complexity that shows evidence of intelligence
2) That the current theory of evolution can not explain the observed pattern of evolution.

1) is a positive sort of work, akin to what the SETI people have to do to figure out if they're looking at a signal or a random pattenr. 2) is a criticism of the current theory of evolution. It will result in the challenge either being discarded, evolution being modified, or evolution being rejected. Rather standard stuff from a Kuhnian perspective, actually.


You have to realise that when you invoke a "designer" whether that be god or whatever else, it's just the same as giving up.
Not at all. Especially Islam has this problem -- that nothing happens without God's permission -- and so there's no point to science since there is no cause and effect. But ID includes natural selection, so it can be studied (if it's found to hold a drop of sense) alongside everything else with our empirical models.

The problem with ID is that it tries SO hard to find out what scientists don't know, and when the proponents find anything, they gleefully shriek "see!? you don't know how that works, it must be a designer!!!"
Rather it is the search for things that would be contrary to the theory of evolution.

These ID people are the very advanced "researchers" like Behe and some others. I'll assume that you are among this elite group of "well-informed" creationists

Then you'd make a very, very bad mistake like most people who argue against ID. Not everyone who thinks that ID should at least be investigated are IDers, let alone a Creationist. I am neither. But it's typical a typical ad hominem bullshit reaction that someone who thinks that ID is at least interesting to conflate them with young earth creationists. Frankly, it's a more ignorant reaction than what you'd expect even from YECs.

Does it make you at all curious to note that the majority of your supporters are frothing at the mouth bigots? The same people who support "teach the controversy" are the people that oppose stem cell research, abortion for rape victims, and probably racial desegregation?

This is honestly the stupidest statement I've read today, and I spend a lot of time on Slashdot.

Why is it that Intelligent Design textbooks are word for word verbatim copies of old creationist textbooks?
Because Creationists see it as a sneaky way of disguising their beliefs in the veneer of science. However, they don't realize that ID is as opposed to Creationism as the TOE is.


Having read Behe, I agree that ID isn't straight religion. In fact, it's worse. It's straight up anti-scientific.

Actually, it's a classic challenge to an established belief, ala Kuhn. Not all challenges to established beliefs turn out to be right (like heliocentrism). It might very well turn out to be wrong. But it's not anti-scientific. It's antiestablismentarianism, and the conflict is actually rather typical.

Or did you mean a different sort of ID, that actually does some research? Because the only ID i've ever heard of simply sits and complains. Fearfully.

I think it's possible to do research to see if it's possible.

In any event, the video is an example of ID, not evolution.”

In reply to your comment:
“I've actually read Behe's "Darwin's Black Box" does that count as reading up on ID? ID is yet another "theory of the gaps".
There's a collection of theories under the umbrella of ID. The two main threads are:
1) Determining the amount of spontaneous complexity that shows evidence of intelligence
2) That the current theory of evolution can not explain the observed pattern of evolution.

1) is a positive sort of work, akin to what the SETI people have to do to figure out if they're looking at a signal or a random pattenr. 2) is a criticism of the current theory of evolution. It will result in the challenge either being discarded, evolution being modified, or evolution being rejected. Rather standard stuff from a Kuhnian perspective, actually.


You have to realise that when you invoke a "designer" whether that be god or whatever else, it's just the same as giving up.
Not at all. Especially Islam has this problem -- that nothing happens without God's permission -- and so there's no point to science since there is no cause and effect. But ID includes natural selection, so it can be studied (if it's found to hold a drop of sense) alongside everything else with our empirical models.

The problem with ID is that it tries SO hard to find out what scientists don't know, and when the proponents find anything, they gleefully shriek "see!? you don't know how that works, it must be a designer!!!"
Rather it is the search for things that would be contrary to the theory of evolution.

These ID people are the very advanced "researchers" like Behe and some others. I'll assume that you are among this elite group of "well-informed" creationists

Then you'd make a very, very bad mistake like most people who argue against ID. Not everyone who thinks that ID should at least be investigated are IDers, let alone a Creationist. I am neither. But it's typical a typical ad hominem bullshit reaction that someone who thinks that ID is at least interesting to conflate them with young earth creationists. Frankly, it's a more ignorant reaction than what you'd expect even from YECs.

Does it make you at all curious to note that the majority of your supporters are frothing at the mouth bigots? The same people who support "teach the controversy" are the people that oppose stem cell research, abortion for rape victims, and probably racial desegregation?

This is honestly the stupidest statement I've read today, and I spend a lot of time on Slashdot.

Why is it that Intelligent Design textbooks are word for word verbatim copies of old creationist textbooks?
Because Creationists see it as a sneaky way of disguising their beliefs in the veneer of science. However, they don't realize that ID is as opposed to Creationism as the TOE is.


Having read Behe, I agree that ID isn't straight religion. In fact, it's worse. It's straight up anti-scientific.

Actually, it's a classic challenge to an established belief, ala Kuhn. Not all challenges to established beliefs turn out to be right (like heliocentrism). It might very well turn out to be wrong. But it's not anti-scientific. It's antiestablismentarianism, and the conflict is actually rather typical.

Or did you mean a different sort of ID, that actually does some research? Because the only ID i've ever heard of simply sits and complains. Fearfully.

I think it's possible to do research to see if it's possible.

In any event, the video is an example of ID, not evolution.

Wow. Very... verbose.

May want to avoid dropping the 'i'-bomb (ignorant) next time, Farhad, as it only serves to coat any historical and contextual points with a veneer of opinion.

Liked your last sentences, detlev409. The one group at the table that can truly exist with no empathy for anybody else is the corporation (increase shareholder wealth!).

I simply detest this woman, her video and her goddamn book.

Nothing what she says is a secret, it's common sense that has existed for eons. If it was called "Positive Thinking For the Win" no one would have bought the book, but it's called the Secret and sold off as being some ancient texts and rubbish like that becuase it's the same rehashed story you can find in Self-Help texts dating back to the 19th century.

It's just so vapidly stupid... Her entire case is that if you think about it hard enough it will happen? Oh yeah? Tell that to the people in Darfur or Iraq am sure they can just wish all the death and violence away.

Oh I found something that does a much better job...

Karin Klein, editorial writer for the Los Angeles Times, called The Secret "just a new spin on the very old (and decidedly not secret) The Power of Positive Thinking [book by Norman Vincent Peale (1952)] wedded to 'ask and you shall receive'." The editorial, in one of its strongest criticisms, asserted Rhonda Byrne "took the well-worn ideas of some self-help gurus, customized them for the profoundly lazy, [and] gave them a veneer of mysticism..."

Journalist Jeffrey Ressner, reporting in Time, writes that some critics are concerned with the film’s attitude toward "using ancient wisdom to acquire material goods." In one example in the film, "a kid who wants a red BMX bicycle cuts out a picture in a catalog, concentrates real hard, and is rewarded with the spiffy two-wheeler."

Jerry Adler of Newsweek notes that despite the film's allusions to conspiratorially suppressed ancient wisdom, the notions presented by the motivational speakers who make up the film's cast have been commonplace for decades. Adler notes that the film is ethically "deplorable," fixating on "a narrow range of middle-class concerns — houses, cars, vacations, followed by health and relationships, with the rest of humanity a very distant sixth." Noting that the scientific foundations of the movie are clearly dubious, the Newsweek article quotes psychologist John Norcross, characterizing it as "pseudoscientific, psychospiritual babble."

Tony Riazzi, columnist for the Dayton Daily News, also questions the merits of The Secret, calling Byrne's background as a reality TV producer a "red flag." He also said that "The Secret's" ideas are nothing more than "common sense. Take out the buzzwords and pseudo religious nonsense about what you 'manifest' for yourself, ignore the vague prose and you get the message that thinking positively serves you better than thinking negatively."

The Knife is an electronic indie duo from Sweden formed in 1999. The band consists of brother and sister Karin Dreijer Andersson and Olof Dreijer.

One of the group's distinguishing characteristics is their unwillingness to cooperate with the media or the mainstream music scene. The group rarely makes public appearances, most of their promotional photos feature the members wearing masks, and until recently, they outright refused to perform live concerts.

The group gained greater notoriety in late 2005 when José González covered "Heartbeats" on his 2003 album, Veneer. The song was then used for Sony's Color Like No Other BRAVIA commercial and was released as a single in early 2006.

The Knife's song "We Share Our Mother's Health" from their album, Silent Shout, was featured by the iTunes store as a free song of the week in late 2006. Another video is avaliable on the sift for "Like a pen".

Well I already kinda lead considering I started pushing at a younger sifting age, I was so young and impressionable then blind to the realities of this serene and peaceful looking community, oh dazzle at it's relaxing white, grey and blue tone. The perfect emerging web 2.0 project, but sifting for a while and I got it, the fine innocent veneer vanished. It was crack, people at the sift are like fiends at the nightclub like that bit in Blade 2, with all them mental people in the club. Always looking for the next best thing, look at this queue, it's like the VIP den behind the nightclub were the really naughty things happen, before they are passed down to the unwashed masses.