O'Reilly calls this a meeting of "Far-Left loons". I find it odd that he calls himself a centrist on his radio show however he would never think of insulting the NeoCons this way. He's a patsy.. he's part of the deception machine that has been uncovered spreading propaganda. He's doing "his job".

For one, This meeting was centered on non-partisan issues.. a VERY serious one at that. Truth in mainstream media, truth in journalism and integrity of information dissemination and distribution. If any pundit would call such a meeting with these intentions crazy, it would be because that pundit engages in non-truth in reporting journalism and lack of integrity.

Secondly, Seeing as this issue has even been debated in the House of Representatives and inserted related constraints regarding these issues from a legislative spending perspective in the FY2009 budget then more debating and scrutiny needs to take place regarding disseminating information that is fed to the public when an alterior agenda that affects this nation as a whole is clearly present. (this may fall into the category of a Clear and Present Danger to the American people.)

Thirdly, we have to ask ourself: "Did Bill O'Reilly participate in the campaign that the current administration funded in order to propagate support for the war in Iraq initially in order to facilitate regime-change via 9/11 as a mass-psychological catalyst or 'New Pearl Harbor'?"

Keep in mind that this war - like the past few other wars were engaged in an Unconstitutional manner. What good are Checks and Balances when Congress and the Attorney General (which is appointed incorrectly in my opinion - I feel that the President should not be able to appoint this position as it is a conflict of interests if the AG participates in "playing politics" as we have seen with Gonzales and now with Mukasey (This is the same judge that presided over the Larry Silverman Twin towers attack / Bldg 7 Collapse insurance trials: http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/04/29/attacks.insurance/index.html)) - when these governing branches ignore the Constitutional law to suit the objectives of a think tank that has formulated it's own global strategy using the full powers of the Executive branch and non-governmental policy-making institutions to impose it's will.

This clearly illuminates several failures in the system that needs immediate correction. Proper Checks and Balances have been seriously comprimised. This includes those in the mainstream media which are supposed to help by being the watchdogs of the system they are reporting on. When corruptive collusion takes place within any branches of our governing system then we ALL lose.

I'm not going to call bullshit on this at all, especially with the other followup angle, the reactions of everyone, the general behaviour, this does indeed scream of someone really having a serious mental break. It would be fascinating to know the story behind this. More than likely there's something personal going on, a breakup is a common catalyst.

I hope he gets the care he needs, and I hope when the office puts itself back together they all get LCD screens... those ones were horrid.

Also

The thing that makes me think this is fake is when the security guy catches whatever's being wielded as a weapon on the downswing. Looks like a long-handled axe or something. Anyhow, it looks like a pretty slow swing, like he was giving the guy a chance to catch it.

Oh bull, he's tired, half crazed and just lunging around, there's no reason to expect him to be violently swinging the thing at full speed. As for catching it on the downswing, well he does it early in the swing, which is when the least amount of energy is in it... seriously, if you're being attacked by long arm swinging punches or weapons being swung around, the BEST thing to do is get in close, far less power in swings and objects in close, it's if you move back and get clobbered with the END of the item that you'll get seriously hurt.

I really find this completely believable. If I'm proved wrong then it was one of the best fake setups ever, but I pretty much guarantee we'll see the confirmation of what happened in 'real' news outlets soon.

Police raid a house without a search warrant, man kills self. Police had no right to intrude into his house which was the probable catalyst for making him kill himself. Bottom line they went in without a search warrant better question why are you only chasing after NBC?

It seems that by not bringing the police into it you make your case stronger by saying that the party at fault is a 3rd party that isn't associated with the justice process and they are a corrupting force. The fact that police are going along with them seems to be being pushed under the rug in the face of putting all the blame on NBC. Even given the nature of the show and not to defend the guilty parties that are apprehended in the show but if the police are giving up confidential information and being coerced the news just wants its entertainment it's going to do ask and try to get this information the fact that the police are giving it up worries me more.

As despicable and disgusting an act internet predation is the law is still there to protect the rights of all parties even though many times we may not care if the seemingly guilty party has its rights removed.

The fact that this story focuses on making you see NBC as the bad guy is interesting.

Not sure why there is such dissent. It's a pretty innocent feature. Perhaps those who complain should take it for a test drive first. Ignoring a member doesn't make their comments disappear. Rather, the comment "block" is still present, while only the actual contents are hidden, but those can be viewed with a single click.

Why should people be forced to view comments from people they don't want to read? The real catalyst for this feature had to due with some members attacking other members to the point they felt ready to quit the Sift. By "attacking" I mean making personal insults, threats, and intimidation repeatedly via private profile comment.

If you think there's a more desirable way to handle such problems, we're always open to suggestions. But if you still have a problem with this feature, please explain what it is. We'd like to hear that too.

(It would be nice if all Sifters were mature/friendly enough not to resort to harassing other members, unfortunately that's not the case.)

Like someone said "a great place to start your research". Or the Onion article "Wikipedia celebrates it's 700th anniversary" It's faulty, no doubt. This is a fair expose' from what I remember.

http://www.videosift.com/video/Truth-About-Wikipedia

You said in the comments (your reputation for being difficult to understand is clearly undeserved, incidentally)

"Wikipedia a great tool for for fans and enthusiasts, who have researched their passionate interests, and nefarious at best, for anything but subjective editorials-It's a playing ground for defective process, and a catalyst for a type of newsspeak that assists in the dumbing-down of the masses, and breeding ground for revisionist history.
A soap-box for the mentally exhausted.

listen to the wisdom in the comment beginning at -34:00"

I agree in large part, but I think "revisionist history" could go both ways. It's good to challenge the history books. Doubleplus good.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Chemistry Physics Experiments Demonstrations Demo Reaction Peroxide Catalyst KI' to 'banned, redacted' - edited by Zifnab

The capacity to murder, maim, torture and do any untold number of horrors to fellow humans, and animals, lies within every person on this planet. All it takes, is the proper catalyst.

>> ^deedub81:
Which show... Star Trek: The original series? ...Because that's what is being advertised.
In reply to this comment by ant:
I second that!


I was replying to Catalyst's comment. It's TOS since he said Spock.

>> ^choggie:
Wikipedia a great tool for for fans and enthusiasts, who have researched their passionate interests, and nefarious at best, for anything but subjective editorials-It's a playing ground for defective process, and a catalyst for a type of newsspeak that assists in the dumbing-down of the masses, and breeding ground for revisionist history.
A soap-box for the mentally exhausted.
listen to the wisdom in the comment beginning at -34:00


Yes! It's doubleplus good! (why doesn't spell-check protest doubleplus? That's scary.)

Wikipedia a great tool for for fans and enthusiasts, who have researched their passionate interests, and nefarious at best, for anything but subjective editorials-It's a playing ground for defective process, and a catalyst for a type of newsspeak that assists in the dumbing-down of the masses, and breeding ground for revisionist history.
A soap-box for the mentally exhausted.

listen to the wisdom in the comment beginning at -34:00

As blankfist has described above, science is a method for gaining knowledge. Religion is merely a hypothesis, or rather a huge amount of smaller hypotheses, which can be tested with the scientific method. Thus there is no direct confrontation or contradiction between the two. That being said, religion demands faith of its followers, which is the belief of something in spite of evidence, and this means that it is corrosive to the scientific method. This is bad. And this is why religion hold up to any scientific fact. Faith is the opposite of knowledge.

The example of 1+2=3 is an overly simplistic one and not very useful, because there is only one correct answer; there can never be other answers, because math is a logical system. The world is not a logical system, and science is not merely logic.

An example which I think would be more apt, is the theory of a geocentric universe. Until Copernicus people had faith in the Bible's hypothesis that the universe circled around the Earth. His observations shattered that hypothesis and thus a new hypothesis was made, that the earth was circling around the sun. This has proven to be true through repeated observations and is as such regarded as a theory, or what we lay-people call fact. Every hypothesis that the bible has presented, which have been testable have turned out to be false, and thus it is within reason to regard the whole thing as bunk.

Evolution
Evolution is a theory, or what we lay-people call a fact. It has been observed in fossil records and is happening constantly every time any creature or life form has offspring. Evolution is the theory that life forms changes shape, abilities and such over generations.

Natural selection is a theory that tries to explain how evolution happens, which is why people call it Evolution by Natural Selection. Natural Selection says that the more you spread you genes, the more of your type there will be. (Seems pretty down to earth and intuitive, right?)

Evolution by Natural Selection is therefore NOT RANDOM, at all. Yes, any given mutations are random, but they are merely the catalyst by which natural selection works. Of all those random mutations, some are inherently better adapters than others and will procreate more than others, and that means more life forms with that mutation (which is no longer considered a mutation) will appear in the next generation. But I think we all agree on that particular point, but it is important to make it as clear as possible.

I have yet to see any knowledge gained from the bible that turns out to be true. Of course the things lifted from common sense, "Thou shalt not kill", that fact that gravity existed in the stories and so on are true, but any given hypothesis that the bible has made is always proven false, when it can be proven either way.

If something cannot be proven either way, there is no basis for evaluating it and thus it should not be considered in any situation. Doc_M, you say an agnostic says:

"there might be a God so I consider it when I look at data I take in on a daily basis"

That is false. An agnostic does indeed not consider the things he is agnostic about. I am technically an agnostic, but I am technically agnostic about many, many things. I don't consider them, why should a possible god be considered, more than the pixie-faeries of bubblegum forest? (sorry, I'm being a bit snide there)
--
When religion is evaluated with scientific terms, we have to break it down into smaller hypothesis. One such hypothesis, which is pretty basic to almost all religions is, "is there a God?"; the term "a God" must then be defined, so that we can test that hypothesis. If it is defined like in the bible, that there is a being which created everything and continually watches and judges humans, then the evidence until now clearly point to the hypothesis being false.

As I've written above, no hypothesis derived from the bible has yet been proven true. Thus there is no real reason to consider any of it true, and therefor no reason to live by its laws.

BOO cant watch the epp due to the universe of region restriction. who knew copyright law would be the catalyst that killed the internet-has-no-borders paradigm.

Fuckers.

They give him that smiling "poor thing" look to really take all seriousness out of his statements and im going to have to disagree with JC. I dont think his message is getting out there nearly as much as you think it is. Of course here on the sift it would seem surprising that he has barely ranked in really any states primary but the reality is not only will he lose and lose bad but no one will remember him afterwards or care once he's gone. Now I dont mean to be negative. I was pulling for him the whole way, you guys were the first to show me his ideas and i wouldnt of known about him if it wasnt for the sift. He was the only candidate that I could catch myself nodding to when he spoke, who could inspire me. Call it being jaded or losing hope but I have come to the realization that America doesnt give a shit, its sad but true. He can make all the sense in the world (which he does) but it just doesnt matter, period. It pains me to say it too, I really wanted the Revolution to happen, I really thought this would be the catalyst that would "wake" people up but all I see is we are still asleep and we dont want to be disturbed and its depressing to feel that that isnt going to change anytime soon

ELF, such as 60hz power, on the other hand is more likely to be a problem. ELF has been experimentally shown to increase mutations in mono-cellular organisms, both alone, and as a catalyst with other factors.

First of all, effects of anything on single-cell organisms can't be transferred directly to mammals. For example, short-term exposure to radiation on the level of party blacklights can have mutagenic effects on bacteria that humans would never suffer. Such comparisons are shoddy at best. In addition, to the extent of all studies I know of, the claim of ELF increasing actual mutations by itself, and as a "catalyst", has not been satisfactorily demonstrated, nor has an adequate mechanism ever been generally accepted. It would be nice if you backed that up with at least one study. An example of such would be a specific study such as High Density 60 Hz Magnetic Field Has No Effects on Mutagenicity and Growth of the Budding Yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae, which does nothing to counter an argument for an overall mutagenic effect for my argument (general negation being impossible with papers like this), but a similar paper demonstrating increase in mutation for any bacteria with causative effect well-established to ELF would be interesting enough to discuss.

Of course, then again, you still have to deal with the fact that epidemiological studies on ELF exposure in humans still trumps bacterial mutation.

I would not discount out of hand any concern about significant increases in electro-magnetic radiation, any more then I would discount concerns about pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere.

Mechanisms for and accounts of environmental damage caused by CO2 increases in the atmosphere have been well-documented, studied and analyzed. The same can't be said for EM radiation of the frequencies we are discussing on humans. Not the same at all.

The fact of the matter is that we are really past the point technologically where high-tension power lines even make sense. Using a less monopolistic energy system with distributed generation is more stable, cheaper, more efficient, and safer in terms of ELF exposure then centralized generation. Even if ELF exposure could be shown to be insignificantly dangerous, high-tension power distribution should still be abandoned.

Separate issue. Epidemiological arguments against ELF don't involve the pragmatics of such power distribution, that's another argument and one I don't have enough knowledge of to take up.

rambar:

I think it's important to differentiate the two claims, high-frequency transmitters, such as cell phones are very different then 60hz high tension power lines.

Cellphones and wi-fi systems use so little transmit energy it is difficult to be exposed to very much of it, unless you have an old cell phone and it's glued to the side of your head. While exposure of this kind may be a contributing factor, by facilitating some other mutation vector, it would require excessive cellphone use, and will not have anything to do with the towers, since the transmitters are so far away and use so little wattage.

ELF, such as 60hz power, on the other hand is more likely to be a problem. ELF has been experimentally shown to increase mutations in mono-cellular organisms, both alone, and as a catalyst with other factors. I would not discount out of hand any concern about significant increases in electro-magnetic radiation, any more then I would discount concerns about pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere.

The fact of the matter is that we are really past the point technologically where high-tension power lines even make sense. Using a less monopolistic energy system with distributed generation is more stable, cheaper, more efficient, and safer in terms of ELF exposure then centralized generation. Even if ELF exposure could be shown to be insignificantly dangerous, high-tension power distribution should still be abandoned.