Yep. That's just dumb beyond belief, and dangerous misinformation to boot.

Sorry to burst your bubble people but this "report" is biased beyond belief.
I live very close to this problematic area. I don't deny for a second this is a problem and I don't presume to have solutions for this issue.
A few things to keep in mind though:

1. Tel Aviv is pretty much the Israeli capital of left-wing liberals, there is no shortage of people calling out for a humane and democratic solution to the problem here and no shortage of local criticism for the racism expressed here.

2. There's a lot of racism, ignorance and bigotry in Israel. Much of it is directly tied to "religious nationalism". It's quite similar to the type of bullshit you see every day on networks like Fox and to the unbearable ignorance of Christian Republicans. Showing video clips of religious leadership and right-wing mobs expressing that ignorance as if it represents the Israeli society as a whole is retarded. It's the equivalent of showing Glenn Beck videos as a portrayal of the US's stance on immigration.

Honestly it's these types of videos that make me wonder how deluded I am in thinking I have any semblance of understanding of American politics, being a foreigner exposed mostly to left-wing friendly content.

I can confidently say that this technology is being abused beyond belief.

It warms the cockles of my black heart to see that people still remember Mech 2 fondly. The tale of its creation is long and bizarre; I may finish writing it down (if I get off my butt someday); it got weird beyond belief before it was all done.

It was accused in the press of feeling like a flight simulator, which is funny because that's what it was. I re-used the overall software design from a (real) flight simulator I wrote for my previous aerospace-type job.

Activision was huge fun when it was tiny. My license plate still reads MECH2.

Thanks, all.

>> ^NaMeCaF:

I normally hate turned based games, but this one was surprisingly good. The only real frustrating bit that pissed me off beyond belief was the whole % hit chance thing. I think is a total lie and the whole shoot/hit thing is just completely random. When 30% and 40% shots hit more often than 90% and %80 shots, something is fishy.



Aw, you just didn't beg, whimper, cry and gnash your teeth at your computer before tentatively clicking on the fire button enough! At least that's my experience.

I normally hate turned based games, but this one was surprisingly good. The only real frustrating bit that pissed me off beyond belief was the whole % hit chance thing. I think is a total lie and the whole shoot/hit thing is just completely random. When 30% and 40% shots hit more often than 90% and %80 shots, something is fishy.

@ lonestar - you are beyond belief. It's because of people like you that rapists exist. Sex is so easily available these days, that if it were just about sex, rape wouldn't happen. But it's not about sex; it's about power, domination, hate and violence. Normal men who just feel a bit randy just go down the twon on a Saturday night and pick up a bird for a quickie or a one-night stand. If they can't find someone, there's always the red-light district. Your contention that rape only happens because men can't get it elsewhere or their girlfriends won't give out is moronic. It's not about availability! Besides which, you seem to think that women exist for only one thing. They have rights over their own bodies, just as you do over yours. They're not your sex slave. Why don't you just go and shove it in a hanging carcass when you get frustrated? I so, so pity your poor wife.

Yep. That's about it. The pastor probably couldn't be reached for comment, or didn't have the potential to be quits as iconic as this woman. For an news-tainment network pandering to the masses with limited capacity for independent critical thought, I think this interview was the right choice. If it had been NPR or the CBC, I would've been disappointed.>> ^hpqp:

Of course, it's not pastor Worley's statements that are stupid and homophobic beyond belief, it is just that the evil manipulators at CNN trawled through all the intelligent and ethical defenders of the pastor's stance to find the one pearl who would misrepresent him and his ideas the most. Nothing to do with the content of what she's defending, nuh-uh.
_{edit: reworded to give the pastor's congregation the benefit of the doubt}>> ^messenger:
She was probably hand-picked for her stupidity and accent so Cooper could humiliate her and make her the poster child for homophobes. This is CNN, remember, not an actual news organization.>> ^bobknight33:
What a poor interview. This should have been with someone who had the intellectual capability to have this discussion. Where was the Pastor, Deacon or such who could have properly defended, justified the statements from the sermon.

If she was to represent any one else on any other topic she would have been just as bad.

She was railroaded for the pleasure of CNN and its audience.
That's not news that abuse.

I was born in 1959 and I remember this show when it on. Even then I thought it was dumb beyond belief, I preferred The Monkees, Man From U.N.C.L.E. and Rowan and Martin's Laugh-In.

According to the story as it was presented the American Cancer Society turned down the money, they didn't say they would accept it if the group remained anonymous, they just flat out turned them down. And at any given time I bet we could find numerous other organizations, religious or otherwise listed on these ballots and you think that those organizations were acting purely out of the goodness of their own hearts?

The story here is misleading. What this was about is that they wanted to be one of the teams on the "relay for life" program. They were making a large cash donation specifically to be listed as one of those teams. So, they could have donated anonymously if wanted to; this seems to be more about their image. And yes, I agree with you that those listed in the rolls probably had other motives. Charitable giving by organizations and corporations is definitely more political than anything else, as QM was saying.

Granted, charity is at least part of the motivation but the whole reason this system works is because research needs money and there are many groups and individuals looking to brighten their public image by such conspicuous giving. At worst I'd say that the Foundation Beyond Belief is no worse than anyone else who gave and at least expected to be treated with the same respect as everyone else.

I agree with you that public giving is a big part of how these charities are able to operate. It is good in that it gets money to those in need, but bad in my view because it is promoting that we do good works for selfish reasons, for mere appearance. It is a superficial generosity, and I am sure many people after giving a large donation to a charity are patting themselves on the back for it all year, feeling that their good person quota has been filled up.

My two main points are this. One, that their motivations were not purely altruistic, as was being implied. Two, that if by giving you are seeking to get glory from men, you will have received your reward.

I'd be interested in seeing what would happen if we outlawed all public recognition for charitable giving, and while I hope I'm wrong, I'd bet that we would see a drop in giving if it really happened.

Sadly, I think you're right. Probably not from the people at large, but definitely from large organizations and corporations. It's all about image in that world. The reason they make large donations is because it is an investment in their brand. If public recognition were outlawed, I'm sure it would leave many of them saying "Why bother?"

>> ^00Scud00:
>> ^shinyblurry:
If they were humble, and this really was about helping cancer patients, they would have given the donation anonymously. Clearly for the atheists this was more about having a feather in their cap than helping people.
According to the story as it was presented the American Cancer Society turned down the money, they didn't say they would accept it if the group remained anonymous, they just flat out turned them down. And at any given time I bet we could find numerous other organizations, religious or otherwise listed on these ballots and you think that those organizations were acting purely out of the goodness of their own hearts?
Granted, charity is at least part of the motivation but the whole reason this system works is because research needs money and there are many groups and individuals looking to brighten their public image by such conspicuous giving. At worst I'd say that the Foundation Beyond Belief is no worse than anyone else who gave and at least expected to be treated with the same respect as everyone else.
I'd be interested in seeing what would happen if we outlawed all public recognition for charitable giving, and while I hope I'm wrong, I'd bet that we would see a drop in giving if it really happened.

>> ^shinyblurry:

If they were humble, and this really was about helping cancer patients, they would have given the donation anonymously. Clearly for the atheists this was more about having a feather in their cap than helping people.

According to the story as it was presented the American Cancer Society turned down the money, they didn't say they would accept it if the group remained anonymous, they just flat out turned them down. And at any given time I bet we could find numerous other organizations, religious or otherwise listed on these ballots and you think that those organizations were acting purely out of the goodness of their own hearts?
Granted, charity is at least part of the motivation but the whole reason this system works is because research needs money and there are many groups and individuals looking to brighten their public image by such conspicuous giving. At worst I'd say that the Foundation Beyond Belief is no worse than anyone else who gave and at least expected to be treated with the same respect as everyone else.
I'd be interested in seeing what would happen if we outlawed all public recognition for charitable giving, and while I hope I'm wrong, I'd bet that we would see a drop in giving if it really happened.

Basically it describes how people make money by producing nothing, providing nothing, and servicing no one.

If there were a lot of land available for farming and industrious small company could setup to compete, avoid futures and undercut everyone who plays in it. But the land, the seeds, and the lines of production are owned by one or two big companies.

Whole situation is crazy. Producing raw materials and goods, especially food, should be the number one thought...now how they can make money off the guys who produce by jacking the prices up and providing no benefit in doing so. Shipping things, good. Leaving things sit in the field or in a warehouse while the price goes up for the consumer but not the farmer because people are dicking with the market.....shouldn't fly.

Goes for oil futures as well. It's bullshit that some guy makes a buck off of oil that never changed it's location, state, quality, or anything else to make it worth more for legitimate reasons. And it's not like they hold on to this stuff like a collector would to preserve it, they might hold it for a day or a few months, but it's unlikely they hold it for a year.

And some how the scenario described in this video is so important and influential in the US it can kill the rest of the economy. Allowing it to continue is just stupid beyond belief, make all those guys take their money and invest in production or services if they are so knowledgeable.

He sounds like he had a bad dream in his semi-unconscious state.
I had Nightmares/terrors every night for the first half of my life.

These types of visions during sleep/unconscious are not uncommon - If fact everyone dream so I find this hard to attribute to a real God. I can however understand how a person can see dreams as something akin to interacting with the supernatural.

In my dreams Ive witnessed horrors beyond belief and immense spiritual awakenings - I've made connections with people I haven't seen in years. I've had dreams so real, I didn't know the difference between sleep and awake even once I was awake.

I do however understand that what ever I was experiencing was a manifestation of my mind sorting and placing facts during the active healing process that our bodies go through when we sleep.

And yes, some of those experiences, I'm still not sure whether they were real or not real, but using reason and reality, I'm able to overcome any sort of waking dilutions. Dilutions which religion uses to exploit and convince us of something miraculous.

one of the most popular web series to ever suck beyond belief. i used to get pissed when this garbage got on the top 50 of newgrounds back when i was a teenager, haha.