@ChaosEngine
holy crap! you worked the maggot table too!
jesus..people just do NOT understand what a totally gross and repulsive job that is..oh,and call centers..lasted a week and pulled a half baked on the entire room.

fuck you
fuck you
fuck you
you're cool
and i'm out!

Thought this would be another half-baked, "Hey you can sort of do this in VR and it's good because ??? because it's VR man!"

This looks like a really well thought-out interface and a real, functioning app. Don't know who will buy it, but kudos to them for the effort.

Poor George, doesn't really get it even now.

It wasn't the fantasy/family subtext that drove your fans away, if anything that's part of the reason Starwars has such universal appeal.

It was that you quickly became a psychopathic alien toad-man overlord with an ego visible from space!

Episode 4, Written and directed, but not produced by GL. Good.

Episode 5, neither written nor directed nor produced by GL.
Outstanding.

Episode 6, mostly-written but not directed or produced by GL. Passable. (half baked script that gave us a glimpse of what was to come IMHO)

Episode 1,2,3, almost entirely written, directed and produced by GL.
Dogshit.

Nice to see a lack of verbal abuse in a discussion like this. I appreciate it as I know I'm probably treading on thin ice in a lot of minds.

I disagree that texts are devoid of meaning until we give them some. The text itself if a collection of ideas and some of those ideas are horrendous. It generally is not an individual's qualities that determine the violence of the religion as much as the history of that religion's practice in the area they were raised. A peaceful and loving Aztec that was faithful would still have supported sacrificing slaves for all the same reasons, because they would have believed the underlying superstitions that made it a rational act given the premises.

I'm not sure Maher & co. view is as a strictly religious phenomenon. You really have to do a case by case analysis. Some make no sense but for religion, while other are very easy for my to sympathize with, even as an atheist. I have to admit I'm more familiar with Harris' views than Maher's, mind you, as I find Maher's presentation of his ideas can at times be half baked.

The reason why they specifically strap bombs to their chests is largely religious. Everyone else prefers living to kill another day. There's a religious reason why they are willing to sacrifice their children in this way. The reason that they behead people instead of other forms of killing them is because that form of murder is enshrined in their texts. All of these religious justifications lower the barrier for action. They make it that much easier for someone to accept that it's a reasonable course of action. And that's because of specific words in specific books.

I agree that is smells like apologist BS when Harris talks about western intervention having good intentions. I don't think the west has good intentions most of the time. However you have to acknowledge that there is something less reprehensible about trying to kill even a likely dangerous person (with the likelihood of innocent collateral damage) as compared with deliberately targeting exclusively innocent people. Yes the wedding party massacre was horrible. That was the worst case possible from our point of view, and some efforts will be made to avoid it happening again. If think that is morally significant. If you don't think intentions are relevant to morality, we will simply disagree.

scientism is really like truthieness. It's a made up word, with a made up definition, that has no bearing on, or connection to reality.
Science is not about belief.
If data 'proves' that science can't ever answer any question about reality (not about human insanity, although it already goes a long way towards explaining that too), scientists would concede instantly. If it were a belief, they could never change it based on evidence, but science does change.

No one is asking you to 'bow' to any 'theory'. They are simply the 'rules' that 'science' has produced to explain how the world/universe works. They work just fine without your 'belief' in them or knowledge of them. That's just one thing they have over the supernatural.

Please give an example or two of scientific 'truths' that were half baked ideas. I think if you look throughout history, carefully, you will see the scientific method was developed mostly around the 12th century as explained here:

Amongst the array of great scholars, al-Haytham is regarded as the architect of the scientific method. His scientific method involved the following stages:1.Observation of the natural world
2.Stating a definite problem
3.Formulating a robust hypothesis
4.Test the hypothesis through experimentation
5.Assess and analyze the results
6.Interpret the data and draw conclusions
7.Publish the findings

but it's widely held that it was not solidified to the modern scientific method (eliminating guessing and 'induction' and requiring repeatable experimentation) until Newton. That means any example you might give should come after 1660 or so at the earliest, or you aren't talking about the same "science" that the rest of us are.

I think most scientist would say it is 'possible' that supernatural events happen, but incredibly unlikely, and constantly less so the more we know about the world and it's rules. It's just as likely that if I only eat the right color yellow foods I'll eventually 'magically' crap gold. I can't prove it won't happen (because I'll never know if I ate the 'right' color foods, if I ever tried), but I can use science to show it's absolutely unlikely to a NEAR certainty (no matter how one misunderstands quantum physics).
The supernatural is right there with my golden poops....and I can't tell which smells worse.

Scientism:

"Scientism is belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview or most valuable part of human learning to the exclusion of other viewpoints."

http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-folly-of-scientism

http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/gengloss/sciism-body.html

The idea that science has all the answers is a particular faith of some atheists and agnostics, with no evidence actually supporting the claim. The problem of induction alone throws that idea out of the window. I love science and I amazed by what we are able to do, technologically. I've studied astronomy quite a bit in my lifetime. Just because I love science does not mean that I must bow before any theory because it is accepted by the mainstream scientific community as being the current idea of what is true and real.

If you look through history you will see many of these ideas held to be truth by the scientific community turned out to be half-baked ideas based on pure speculation. Somehow, people think we have it so nailed down now that the major ideas we have about the cosmos have to be true. It's pure hubris; our knowledge about how the Universe actually works or how it got here is infinitesimal compared to what there actually is to know.

Draw a circle on a piece of paper and say that represents all of the knowledge it is possible to know. What percentage of it could you claim that you knew? If you're honest, it isn't much. Do you think that knowledge of God and the supernatural could be in that 99 percent of things you don't know? If you really think about this you will see that to rule these things out based on limited and potentially faulty information is prideful and it blinds you to true understanding.

The thing is, Brand does have notions of what the post revolution system would resemble but he does so by reference to people he considers better informed than himself.

i.e. he is reluctant to give people some half baked concoction of his own as it's not the area he is most qualified to speak about. Instead he points us at philosophers and activists who have a lifetimes study and insight on such matters.

I think this is a far more laudable position than either A. defining a post revolutionary world arbitrarily or B. taking no position at all.

It's far more dangerous for a Revolution to have a half baked goal than none at all, hence he keeps his mouth shut about specifics he's not qualified to comment on as any wise person should.

The worst possible position to me is to accept the status quo regardless of what better solutions one may or may not have. There is clearly a massive problem and moreover one which causes untold suffering on a global scale. It's essential to recognise that before anything productive is going to happen.

Brands only goal is to help make recognition of this simple fact more prevalent. From there people far better qualified step in to work on the details. Such people are very much already around and have done a great deal of work to further this goal but they don't have media platforms like Brand.

All he and other such media personalities have to do is switch people on to the idea, leaving other things to the better qualified. Good revolutions are co-operative efforts rather than personality cults. (I'd even go so far as to say they go bad precisely because figureheads fail to recognise their limits)

This is so sleazy, and it's the exact same schtick the Republicans used against Clinton.

1. Manufacture a bunch of half baked scandals.
2. Link them all to the President, whether he was involved or not.
3. Launch them all at the same time so they are hard to respond to.
4. Describe them with minimum detail and maximum hyperbole.
5..Cross your fingers that the public won't scrutinize your claims.
6. Use manufactured outrage to try and boost your corrupt, floundering, obstructionist party in the upcoming elections.

Most of these manufactured scandals have been debunked, or are a lot more nuanced than portrayed by this GOPer, but many will just watch this video and leave it at that.

Meanwhile, unemployment remains high, the infrastructure crumbles, gridlock keeps the congress from fixing the economy,, anonymous corporate cash floods our elections, economic disparity grows, there is still no accountability on Wall Street, the drone program continues to kill innocents and Bradley Manning sits on trial.

Windows 8 reminds me of Apple-style arrogance. Like charging $29 for an adapter, and foisting Apple Maps on users, Microsoft foisted Metro on users.

Having used it on my sister's computer, it's clearly not sufficiently consolidated with the desktop option. It doesn't offer any usability improvements to the extent I've used it. As the video points out, accessing menus is confusing and is immediately obvious to any power user who wants to set it up as they like.

Their intentions are clear. Consolidate desktop, tablet and to a lesser extent phone to a similar UI and thereby gain an advantage over Google/Apple which are relatively fragmented.

Problem is, they're approaching it by foisting it on people. As mentioned Metro/Desktop bridging is half baked. Rather than removing the start key, they should have made Metro optional, and incentivised people onto it through usability benefits.

The interface for desktop mode is not ready. In keeping it optional, they could have given themselves breathing space on top of the Windows 8 release to make integration far more seamless.

The point of full screen is clear from a productivity point of view. Clear all distractions and get the job done. Problem is, instead it is acting as a barrier to usability through confusion menu navigation.

While the video creator has exaggerated the problems I think his points are spot on.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

NO.


It is really neat when you are baked.

Have you ever watched this video when you are high man ?

* insert Half-Baked John Stewart clip *

This is not some half-baked excuse to create controversy for controversy's sake. I'm not a teenager. And I'm sure if I put my mind to it, I could manufacture some real harm. Rather, I embrace John Milton's Areopagitica, which is fundamental to the concept of free speech.
And I agree that as a community we have to instill certain rules and regulations. Also, I agree that each one of these people has proven incapable of "playing well with others." But they have contributed good videos. And because banning prevents these people from submitting videos, I'm being "robbed" of the opportunity to watch them. In effect, the pool that I drink from gets smaller. This is a negative. In my opinion, it's better have options than not.
Surely, we can hobble people to the point that they have no opportunity to lash out, self-destruct or hurt another member. Also, I'm fairly certain members can block other members if they want to.
I suggest that because that is all they are capable of doing, as demonstrated repeatedly by themselves, that that should be all they are allowed to do: submit videos and upvote. No comments allowed. No powers. Nothing but a few videos a month a handful of upvotes?
Also, it seems to me that banning is ineffective and indiscriminate, on top of minimizing the potential to watch good videos, which is the main reason I'm here.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Half Baked, Nasty Nate, Cocktail, Harland Williams, Tommy Chong' to 'Half Baked, Nasty Nate, Cocktail, Harland Williams, Tommy Chong, Squirrel Master' - edited by SlipperyPete

>> ^bobknight33:

And MSNBC isn't on it knees slurping OBAMA juice? Give me a break.




No, they are not.

Maybe they're not frothing at the mouth to regurgitate any half-baked horseshit conspiracy BREAKING NEWS story about muffins or cigarettes or secret UN camps like FNC, but MSNBC has close to as many negative stories about Obama as Fox does.

You probably won't read any of these statistics, since the little "liberal media" fantasy world you've created will crumble around your feet, but here you go:



(this is a study from August 2010, but it's no diff today, and maybe worse)

• During the past 90 days, MSNBC has run a total of 1,193 stories about Obama with only 44% being positive while 55% were negative towards the President. The positive to negative ratio is -11%

• In the past 90 days, FoxNews has run 2,064 stories about President Obama, 46% were overall positive and 53% overall negative. The ratio of Positive to Negative stories is -7%



Also, how the fuck does Anon expect to "shut down" Fox? I don't get it

>> ^bobknight33:

And MSNBC isn't on it knees slurping OBAMA juice? Give me a break.
>> ^TheFreak:
>> ^fuzzyundies:
Their comeuppance should be delivered by ... the power of free, informed markets.

Yeah, you let me know if you ever find any free and informed markets.
Fox is nothing but the proganda wing of the republican party preying on week minds. Take them down.

@xxovercastxx

I don't know where you come up with "rather high accuracy". There's so many factors you wouldn't know. You could estimate where they were, but you still wouldn't know. And like I previously said, you wouldn't know if other radar systems were patched in to cover probable gap areas. If a particular radar has a listed range, you still wouldn't know how far beyond the range you could still get a response or the quality of response, or at what altitude you would be flying "under the radar".
The ONLY way to know where the radar gaps were would be to analyze computer tracking data of hundreds if not thousands of flights in that area. I guess air traffic controllers could have done this, but it serves them no real purpose unless they were tasked with doing it. So for the hijackers to know the gaps, they would have had to had access to that data and someone to interpret it.

Sure, it's all coincidence. Actually all the planes had their transponders either turned off or changed. Flights 11, 77, and 93 did so in dead zones. Flight 175 changed it's code (identity) a minute after flight 11 crashed into WTC1. A few minutes later turns and changes it's identity again. 10 minutes later it crashes into WTC2. This is the flight where (to my knowledge) no radio communication has been released, but has the most video evidence of crashing into WTC2. However for the first few hours it was reported flight 77 was the one that crashed into WTC2. United thought 175 was still in the air somewhere and didn't confirm it had crashed until after all aircraft had been grounded and 175 wasn't found anywhere. It didn't use this protocol for flight 93 which it confirmed had crashed almost immediately after it was reported. But we also know that the flight that hit the south tower couldn't have been flight 175 because the engine that was found doesn't match that of United's Boeing 767 (@3:03 here). FAA and NORAD lost 77 on radar and thought it was the second flight that crashed. After they later "found" 77, some were identifying it as flight 11 on radio. Also false blips were on the radar screens from active war game exercises. These were on the for most of the attacks, until at least after the Pentagon attack.

The point is the only reason to be messing with the transponder codes is to confuse ATC. Which wouldn't work if they weren't able to switch the codes under poor quality radar coverage. The planes would still show on radar if the transponders were turned off. So without war game false blips to blend in with, that would also be pointless.

Somehow these hijackers knew where the radar gaps were, knew how to read the jet's instrument panel, and knew when the jet was entering the gaps. They also knew how to maneuver and fly Boeing jets at 500 mph. These are the same schmucks that couldn't pass basic flying school with a single engine Cessna. These are the same schmucks that were recorded on radio to ATC, thinking they were talking over the intercom to the passengers. Let's also not forget that none of the pilots squawked an emergency or hijack code, or announced one over the radio. 0 for 4: more highly improbable coincidence.

I'm sorry you feel that way about the "truther movement", but it's not about treating "all explanations that can be imagined" equally. It's about treating all hypothesis equally and searching for evidence and reason to support it. It's about letting the evidence lead the way to truth wherever that may be and NOT jumping to conclusions or "explanations" from authorities without evidence like the official story ie the official "theory" has done. There's probably all kinds of crazy theories that can be easily debunked with physical evidence. But for some reason the authorities didn't want to do an honest investigation. It took over a year of pressure from victim's families for the government to agree to do their job. And even then the 9/11 commission members admit their report is basically a cover-up. Government bodies concluding the original half-baked government story, ignoring or covering up any evidence to the contrary. That's not how a real investigation is done.

What do you get out of it? Well..., maybe you wake up. Let's go back to my original question: Do you disagree with the documentary or are you instinctively hostile to 9/11 truth efforts?

Well so far, you've only managed to bring up one thing you disagree with and like I've explained, your conclusions on that issue are erroneous. And it's not about "getting my ideas heard", it's about finding the truth and spreading that message to other people. So why are you hostile toward that message? Why do you hold a bias against that?

1. Hangover 2
2. Empire Strikes Back
3. Fight Club
4. Scarface
5. Dazed & Confused
6. American Beauty
7. Superbad
8. The Godfather
9. Are We There Yet?
10. There Will Be Blood
11. Road to Perdition
12. Coming To America
13. Airplane
14. Borat
15. Pee Wee's Big Adventure
16. American Pie
17. Ghost
18. The Graduate
19. The Karate Kid
20. Hangover
21. Death To Smoochy
22. Wedding Crashers
23. Half Baked
24. Fatal Attraction
25. Jerry Maguire
26. Little Shop of Horror
27. Tron
28. A Christmas Story
30. The Last Starfighter
31. The Dark Knight
32. Anchorman
33. E.T.
33. Along Came Polly
34. Wanye's World
35. Devils Advocate
36. 40 Year Old Virgin
37. Jaws
38. GoldFinger
39. Delirious
40. Full Metal Jacket
41. The Cooler
42. Ferris Bullers Day Off
43. Men In Tights
44. Men In Black
45. Blazing Saddles
46. Cable Guy
47. My Girl
48. Napolean Dynamite