My migraines aren't in remission but I don't suffer nearly as long as I used to since using light psychoactive CBD/THC. Duration of intense pain, loss of vision, loss of feeling in limbs, nausea, vomiting, and the rare seizure has been reduced from 6-12 hours every 2-4 weeks to maybe 2 hours every couple months, sometimes only with nausea, loss of vision, and minor or no pain.

However, the loss of vision, or what my doctors have referred to as visual "premonitions" are still a major pain that I'm not certain will ever go away. Luckily I don't get very many migraines any more. However, if I do get a migraine I still cannot drive or do anything that requires sight. Although I can technically see, it's severely impaired.

The absence or dulling of the pain during a migraine is the greatest thing that has ever happened to me medically. I had a migraine 2 days ago while I was jogging at the park, ran to my car so I could quickly get home before my vision was fucked, and then placed a soluble CBD + THC tablet (Trokie) up into the corner of my mouth where it was slowly absorbed into the facial branches of my carotid artery. After my vision cleared up, I had no headache.

Keep in mind I also take a pure CBD tablet every couple days, so it's not just the one tablet during episodes.

Look Mutter, nein helmut!

“The vision vehicle will act with foresight and is able to protect the rider at any time,” says Heinrich. Driver assistance features will continually monitor the environment, the route, the speed, the angle of lean, and myriad other factors, intervening to ensure the rider can’t crash. Gyroscopes keep the bike upright when stationary, so you can’t even fall when stopped. BMW’s roughly an eternity from actually telling riders to ditch traditional safety gear, but things like traction control, hill start assist, and antilock brakes are already making it harder to kill yourself on two wheels.
https://www.wired.com/2016/10/bmws-motorcycle-tomorrow-feels/

"That your gonna have some ups and your gonna have some downs. Most people give up on themselves easily, you know the human spirt is powerful. There is nothing as powerful, its hard to kill the human spirt. Anybody can feel good when they have their health, their bills are paid, they have happy relationships, anybody can be positive then, anybody can have a larger vision then, anybody can have faith under those types of circumstances. The real challenge of growth, mentally, emotionally, and spiritually comes when you get knocked down. It takes courage to act. Part of being hungry when you have been defeated, it takes courage to start over again."

It wasn't mental, emotional and spiritual growth when he took steroids to initially make his name. Also boinking his maid behind his wives back didn't take courage.

I am not drinking the lemonade on this one.

It was basically Leonardo's portfolio piece, showing subtlety and mastery without overshadowing the epic visions of potential future clients.

Last time I needed a new prescription, it was obvious that it was going to be way cheaper for me to go with daily disposable contact lenses instead. I only occasionally need 20/20 vision.

When my eyes deteriorate to the point where I need lenses for driving, I'm just gonna get them zapped.

Your video, WERD: Double Vision, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 24 Badge!

WERD: Double Vision has been added as a related post - related requested by PlayhousePals on that post.

WERD: Double Vision has been added as a related post - related requested by PlayhousePals on that post.

Isn't it so much more fun to actually exchange information and points of view, rather than getting snotty? I love it.

Maybe we are talking a bit at cross purposes. (Like, that has never happened before on teh intertubes, right?)

I try not to "re-edit" or "re-imagine" videos. I'm sure I do it -- I often do things that I later complain that other people do. This comment goes back more to your first response to me, however it applies to this comment, too. The idea that the video would be better if it this'd, or that'd, or it fails to do this other thing that it wasn't even trying to do. The concept of being conscious of "the bigger picture" is what I am addressing here.

However, isn't it just YOUR vision of what the bigger picture is that you say is missing? Because for me, I see a bigger picture being addressed quite nicely -- the vision that the video maker set out to address.

I wonder if the nebulous nature of your instinctive dislike to this video is indeed EXACTLY what the video maker was setting out to illuminate? Or rather, decided to be not obsequious to? Like women have been taught to be obsequious for eons?

I notice that you are sure that your difficult-to-describe instinctive reactions are "correct." What if it is actually your own internalized and unexamined sexism? I know you say thunderfoot bugs you, too. I also know that all my impassioned information about how women across cultures and time are expected to "tone it down" wasn't addressed in your response to me.

That is the elephant in the room here, as far as I am concerned. Sure, "condescension" is gender neutral. The whole video, though, is about sexism and the unconscious ways that it leaks out. I don't see you addressing that in your response -- except maybe, MAYBE, it is this nebulous and difficult thing you are struggling to understand and maybe, MAYBE, it needs to be examined and understood.

So maybe look at your feelings through that prism?

I say this as someone who has their own internalized sexism (towards men and women both) that I am constantly trying to identify and own and uproot. Racism, too. I so want to be the person who, like Stephen Colbert of old, who doesn't see race. And yet I do and I am mortified by it and I try to push through that lizard brain instinct and the training of my youth.

Something to think about maybe?

Or not. Maybe it just is as simple as you don't like the humor in the video, and I do. There are differences in taste, after all.

I suspect, though, that it is much more complex than that -- as you said, "maybe I'm going into it with the notion that I'm going to be offended anyway."

I took ayahuasca with a brazillian religion called Santo Diame... in the US, we would call them a cult. And cult-like it was! I've smoked DMT many times and I fully encourage "explorers" to start small and smoke it instead of ingesting ayahuasca. It's all very difficult to figure out scientifically, but one of the interesting aspects of ayahuasca to me, was that you could close your eyes and be in another dimension, open them up and basically feel drunk and know everything was OK, get up and walk around.

However, the visions that I had were absolutely violent, with archetypes of the day of the dead and greek mythology emerging while people puked and cried while I was attached to their sound and energies, brains exploding, the power of life telling me it was going to get me, I could fight it all I wanted (I just smiled the whole time), but it was going to get me - and then it let me slide, eventually. DMT has a known effect, that is of "ego-death" or "near death experience"... and I definitely fought it off, having experienced it before. It was a deranged, somewhat fun, somewhat enlightening, traumatic experience that I would recommend to no one. And I can see that it's definitely not a lone man/woman mission as in to dose yourself with this stuff because it's definitely more intense than LSD or mushrooms and the mixture, though simple - would require a bit of practicing and knowledge about it.

I just find smoking DMT to be way better, shorter and much safer, but also WAY more intense and awesome. But, it's certainly not for everyone, it's like unlocking the unknown/impossible laws of the Universe, it's impossible to understand but you understand it while you are there as it is communicated to you; might be just in your brain but somehow nature provided this (bizarre/impossible) experience for you to be able to have.... ---- do not understand

I disagree that it cannot be adapted to film. It could be done with a director that can function in a storytelling environment, which Snyder simply cannot do. The problem with Snyder was covered very well here recently, *related=http://videosift.com/video/Nerdwriter-Fundamenal-Flaw-Zack-Snyder-Batman-v-Superman
He was exactly the wrong director to have film this. I would have went with Del Toro or Whedon, but even they have their flaws.

Now, if the question is, can an adaptation be done that Alan Moore will feel 'suits' his vision? Probably not. He is an artist, in very good ways, but also in some very bad ones. He has a specific idea of how his creation must flow, which means he will never be satisfied with a medium outside of the graphic novel or comic.

Personally, I think one of the few un-adaptable works would be Gaiman's Sandman, but that's just my opinion.

For the record, I don't think @Drachen_Jager said anything wrong, or racist, or inappropriate.

He stated a fact. Period.

It took eric with his broader vision to point out the subtle thing going on.

I say this as someone who did the exact same thing. (And now I'm going to add to my caption and change the title.)

As a small sidenote, I think it's slightly risky to indicate, even tongue in cheek, that any of us were involved at the start of a movement that began in the 1800s... even if you're kidding, people might get the wrong idea. Third wave feminism, which coincidentally I think you're more opposed to than the first two waves, did begin (I think?) in the US in the 1980's or 90's, but the overall movement was a well-established global phenomenon at that point. None of us were close to being involved in starting it.

As far as your main point goes, I think it's partly a question of whether you define your own vision by the end goal you want to achieve, or the first problem you want to solve. "Black Lives Matter" is not the end goal, it's the first problem we need to solve on the way to a state free of police murder. Egalitarianism, on the other hand, can be the end goal. It doesn't tell me which problem areas you want to address though.

For some feminists, feminism is the end goal - a woman-centric world would be better, more sane, and more sustainable in their view than any other world. For other feminists, feminism is the first problem area to address, ie that we are literally living in a culture of undeniable male supremacy.

The problem with only defining your end goal is that it can become a little unclear what, if any, action you want to take. "You matter" is certainly fine, but I have no idea what you want to change in society, or if you want to change anything. I matter, you matter, and the Koch brothers matter - but we still have very different ideas about what society should be. In a perfect world I might want to join up under the egalitarian banner, but in the current mess we're in, I tend more towards environmentalism, socialism and feminism - because those are the problem areas I want us to address first.

'All houses matter' comes from an old cartoon referencing the "all lives matter" argument. Everybody can agree that all houses matter, but let's prioritize action on the houses that are actually on fire, and let's call ourselves firefighters instead of houselovers.

Like I said, egalitarianism is a respectable vision, and I think it's a decent counterpoint to, for example individualism. I just see an unfortunate behavior among many self-proclaimed egalitarianists to shout down activists by saying that equal treatment is more important than prioritizing specific social remedies. Eg "it's not about gay marriage, it's about all marriage; it's not about black lives, it's about all lives, and it's not about women's rights, it's about human rights." I agree - there's nothing in egalitarianism that inherently precludes any specific activism, but I see it as fairly common and non-constructive for people to act as though it does, or that it's somehow morally superior to care equally about all issues at once.

The other three TNG movies were awful, absolutely, but I think First Contact actually played pretty nicely alongside Roddenberry's vision.

We get to see flawed humans building a warp ship out of an old ICBM, there are questions of humanity (Data) and vengeance (Picard) and on top of that, it still manages to be a fun action spectacle.

Of course, arguing over taste is pretty pointless as it's entirely subjective, so you're perfectly entitled to dislike the movie, but I don't think it's fair to say that First Contact was as dumb as you say it was.

This trailer has none of that. I'm just hoping that Simon Pegg is a good enough writer (and he's a brilliant writer, watch World's End for evidence of that) to write his way out of the complete fucking mess that Lindelof wrote them into.