>> ^ctrlaltbleach:

I'm unable to buy it. Errors out on me.


Well how about you piratebay it now and pay for it later

Thank you.

In reply to this comment by paul4dirt:
*promote

You have been awarded 1 Power Point for fixing the embed code for Dead Pool video Flying Lotus - Tea Leaf Dancers. Thank you for helping maintain VideoSift's reliability.

Congratulations on the shiny new ruby!

Flying Lotus-Beginners Falafel from Nick Torres on Vimeo.

Glad to hear everything's okay in RL!

So, to answer your first question, yes, I have read the Bible and many Buddhist sutras (particularly the Lotus Sutra). I'm familiar with some parts of the Koran, but have not read it in its entirety. What knowledge I have of Hinduism comes from Hindu friends.

Your interpretation of these religious texts is that they promote an obedience to a God or gods. For sure the Buddhist sutras do not, as most sects of Buddhism do not believe in sentient gods per se but in an innate (non-sentient) life force that we all share. But leaving that issue aside, I don't see how you can't have both themes (love thy neighbor/obey god). You couched it as an "either/or" solution, but why does it have to be? There's no logical reason why you can't follow your individual deity and treat other humans with compassion and respect. In fact, in most cases the themes go together--by treating other people with compassion and respect you are following the commands of your deity.

But let's take it further than that. I'm just going to quote you here: Of course you dont have to [interpret the Bible that way], and most religious people dont, read or interpret it that way. Wouldn't you agree that if most people don't interpret the Bible as a form of control, then really your interpretation is not the representative of Christian belief? For certain some people do interpret those religious texts as you have-- fundamentalists, for instance. But I would hardly consider them the majority of religious people or the average representative of religion. In short, just because you’ve interpreted a particular religious text in a particular way, it doesn’t mean your interpretation is by any means “correct” or mainstream.

On a side note, I agree with you that there's a lot of f'd up stuff in many religious texts. Take the Old Testament for example and the bloodshed and wars described within it. However, we’re looking at religion as a whole--not just superficially at the religious text but how that text is interpreted and how the people who follow that religion conduct themselves in daily life. One problem with this, as I mentioned in the last post, is that the most vocal nutcases are usually the ones that you see in the media and not your "average" religious person, so it is easy to form a biased perception of virtually all religions if you’re not associating with members of that particular religion on a daily basis. If you ask the majority of Christians what the major theme of the Bible is, you’ll almost certainly get some answer regarding love and redemption—not your interpretation or violence and control.

To address your second question about empirical evidence about the benefits of religious belief--there's lots. I don't have time now to find all the links. You’ll just have to Google it. I've seen the studies--legit ones on both physical and psychological health published in JAMA and other peer-reviewed sources--and they were enough to convince me. Very few counter-examples have been published with the exception of a recent one in 2010 that showed a correlation between religious belief and obesity, but it was such a small sample size that it could have been a chance finding or attributable to other factors (it drew its participants predominately from African-American /Hispanic communities which typically have worse health-care access than other ethnic groups).

Frankly, I’m a bit surprised at your next argument about MLK. You seem to be stating that it wasn’t MLK’s religious beliefs that prompted him to take action. All I need to do to refute this is point you to any biography of the man or his numerous speeches where he clearly states that his religious beliefs have led him to believe in both the moral imperatives of equality for all people and non-violence as a means of achieving this. Was religion the thing that made him what he was? Absolutely. Same with Ghandi. And Mother Theresa. And the Dalai Lama. And a host of other people who have attempted to or succeeded in changing the world for the better.

Next, let’s talk about the Hitchen’s challenge. I find the challenge ridiculous. Why should religion have to be somehow separate from daily life? All religions are deeply concerned with secular life—with how we live and act. Furthermore basic psychology tells us we don’t act because of any one reason but due to a complex interaction of many reasons, some of which are conscious and some unconscious, and which in the end are in our own self-interest. Hitchen’s challenge is a straw-man argument—replace religion with some other construct such as democracy or music and you will be equally unable to find anyone who meets that challenge (by promoting democracy you protect your own rights; musicians may love music but even they need to sell songs in order to pay the rent and will compose for money).

I think equally ridiculous is the argument that things such as genital mutilation have no other possible explanation or cause than religion. Wouldn’t misogyny be a much better and more rational explanation than religion? Clearly religion is used to fuel the misogyny but it would certainly be a mistake to assume that the misogyny couldn’t exist without religion. Let’s take another example—the Spanish Inquisition. The cause of that tragic slaughter was clearly secular in nature—having finally wrested the southern part of the country from Muslim rule, Ferdinand and Isabella chose Catholicism to unify a country in which many different religions co-existed. In short, religion didn’t cause the Spanish Inquisition; plain old political power-struggles did. Religion was simply the vehicle through which it was carried out.

And this is really what I’ve been saying all along—that religion is not, as you keep painting it as, the cause of humanity’s problems. It is a tool—a tool that, can be used for great good or great evil. As the folks at religioustolerance.org state: “Religion has the capability to generate unselfish love in some people, and vicious, raw hatred in others. The trick is to somehow change religions so that they maximize the former and minimize the latter.”

Later on, they go on to state that they feel that religion overall has a positive effect on society. That pretty much sums up my view of religion. If you do away with religion, you throw out the baby with the bath water. You lose the Martin Luther King Jr.’s, the Ghandi’s, the Mother Teresea’s, the Dali Lama’s of the world. It’s too a high a price to pay. For me, it’s all about dialogue—talking with others, getting them to see the common ground we all share, respect each other, and, as they said on their website maximizing the good and eliminating the bad.

As long as we keep talking—as you and I have been doing through these threads--we will keep moving forward. But I believe the instant dialogue ends—the instant you demonize the” other” and refuse to engage with them--you’ve planted the seeds of the next conflict: the next Spanish Inquisition, the next Bosnian massacre, or the next 9/11.

Keep in mind that this doesn't take into account the self employed who lost their work or their business, which I would have to assume is pretty high. Self employed aren't entitled to unemployment. I was self employed but then was lucky enough to work for someone else right before the recession because when I got permanently laid off I was able to collect unemployment. Not the full amount though. For some reason I was cut off at 81 weeks, and nobody can explain why.

I can't claim unemployment, I can't find a job even though I'm highly experienced as a telecom engineer (ran my own company, also was in charge of engineering departments for other big companies). I ran a sideline business building and troubleshooting computers and installing networks, etc. since 1995 and still have a few clients who I service their networks.

I've applied to telecom related jobs across the country for two years now. Either I'm over qualified or since I've ONLY engineered like 35 different systems and they want me to have experience on only ONE system and one which I haven't worked with (same technology, same connections, same just with a different name) then apparently I'm no good. I guess they don't want to have to pay me for the few hours it would take me to learn this system.

I've applied to IT related positions. Here's how it always goes:
Interviewer: You have experience with Lotus notes?
Me: I'm familiar but haven't had clients who used it. All my clients used microsoft email software.
Interviewer: We have a custom built database application.
Me: Oh good, I've built custom database applications using Microsoft SQL server and access databases.
Interviewer: Oh, well ours is custom, do you know how to use it?
Me: Well if it's a database driven program, I'm sure I could pick it up in a matter of minutes.

Seriously, they want someone off the streets to know their proprietary shit without any training? Or they don't understand that every email system is set up the same with the settings in slightly different places and a few different options.

My theory, the brain dead employers don't want to hire someone under them who have more skill, knowledge and experience. Regardless that you are willing to work for their measly offering wages.

From Thom himself.

hey everyone

ok so in April the other band.. that i got together to do the eraser and other stuff u know .. Mauro, Flea, Me, Joey and Nigel is going back out to do some shows in the US.. ending with playing with Coachella. we had too much fun to just leave it there...

it has been decided that we call ourselves Atoms For Peace. hope you like the name.. it seemed bleedin' obvious.

these are the shows & Flying Lotus is opening for us -
New York Roseland Ballroom 5th & 6th
Boston Citi Wang Theatre 8th
Chicago Aragon Ballroom 10th & 11th
Oakland Fox Theatre 14th & 15th
Santa Barbara Bowl 17th

for further details follow this link

all warmth
Thom


No mention if they will write anything together or not.

They won't miss these added features because those primarily exposed to Apple's mass marketed products won't expect them by default. If Apple can define tablet PC to lack or not require GPS, a camera, possibly even Flash then that will define their expectations. I'm sure more are and will remain oblivious to the likes of the Archos 5G/9 which is superior to the iPad and does everything it should:

Archos 9 - $600
1.76 lbs.
1.1Ghz ATOM Z510. Runs Windows 7.
8.9", 1024 x 600 pixels resistive, LED backlight.
10.08" x 5.28" x 0.67" thick
7.4v Lithium-Polymer battery, 5 hours, removeable. 36W (12v @ 3a) power adapter.
HDD 60GB (1.8")
WiFi (802,11b/g), Bluetooth 2.0 (EDR)
Microphone.
Stereo Speakers.
Headphone jack.
1.3mp Webcam,
Optical trackpoint mouse,L/R mouse buttons.
Built-in Stand, 2-positions.
USB port.
Lotus Symphony included: Documents, Spreadsheets, Presentations.

iPad - Starting at $500, but $700 for that amount of hard drive space.
1.5 lbs.
1Ghz A4. Runs iPad OS 3.2.
9.7", 1024 x 768 pixels, capacitive, LED backlight, IPS, Oleophobic
9.56" x 7.47" x 0.5" thick.
25Whr Lithium-Polymer battery, 10 hours, fixed. 10W (5v @ 2a) power adapter.
16GB, 32GB, or 64GB flash memory.
WiFi (802,11a/b/g/n), Bluetooth 2.1 (EDR)
Microphone.
Speakers: Mono Audio.
Headphone jack.
iPad versions of iLife apps: $9.99 each (x 3).

Also I think the user utility associated with Apple's products is exaggerated. It's simplicity that they do well, and again the kind of people who are not aware of the customization they might appreciate, are missing out on and might benefit from are the same people that laud it. That and the fact that user utility feels like it's too often conflated with style. The scroll wheel on the iPod sure was a fancy marketing gimmick but having used a 5G iPod now for over a year, I would gladly get tactile controls back. There's simply no comparison, and really the only thing I can assume is Apple users who claim it's efficient have no frame of reference. The same can be said with OS X, sure it's full of stylish transitions, animations and some good features, but I'd wager especially with how familiar everyone is with Windows, it's no more of an efficient work tool. I see Jobs made a big deal about pointing out that the iPad will have a similar user interface to the iPhone. I think that drives home the point that there's nothing that immensely intuitive about Apple devices. They still must be learnt. People are simply more willing to invest time into learning to how to use an interface of a device that is more popular and they predict will be around for a longer time.

Coming back to the iPad, I still think even the average consumer is going to be pissed off by the lack of some features. It's pretty clear that they didn't just want to make a portable internet device that surpasses the iPhone in usability, they wanted to make something that clearly doesn't eat into the market share of their budget MacBook and MacBook Air. They could have loaded a desktop OS on it, but they purposely didn't. I think many will struggle with the idea that an internet device like this can't do Flash, doesn't have a USB port and can't run their favourite PC/Mac programs.

That may be it's downfall or marketing, and simplicity as you mentioned may win out. If Apple says 'revolutionary' enough, maybe they won't realise this device is bested by something that came out in October 2009.

>> ^Farhad2000:
>> ^dag:
This would be fun for nostalgia's sake for about 15 minutes. Then I'd be good- and would want to return to games from this century.

Spoken like a true acolyte of the Apple. They can do no wrong! NO WRONG!!!
iPhone will never have business market penetration. Only consumer as usual per Apple strategy. It's a shit phone to use for business applications.


i use an iphone for business purposes and it works pretty well. we use lotus notes @ work, my phone connects via VPN, i have todos, calendar, mail, sametime (IM)... what do i need more? i'm not a big fan of the iphone itself but from a business perspective it has all one could wish for. the days that iphones were of no use for business users are long gone.

The Emperor's New Lotus?

Funny! its still going it just finished the 2009 season and they said there is a 2010 season coming and Lotus is joining again!

>> ^shuac:
>> ^jdbates:
I hate microsoft because of snake oil salesmen like him, They are the roman empire of the business world, the romans didnt innovate, they incorporated other culures ideas. For him to dis the iphone like that shows his lack of vision, which I feel accurately represents their company.

Agreed. Let's go down the list.

Apple's GUI (courtesy of Xerox) and OS/2 begat Windows

Playstation begat X-Box

Wordstar/Word Perfect begat Word

Lotus 1-2-3 begat Excel

iPod begat Zune

Google search begat Live Search and now Bing

Mac OSX begat Vista

Sun Javascript begat MS Javashit

Netscape Navigator begat Internet Explorer

Prodigy and AOL begat MSN

iTunes begat MSN Music

Apple Stores begat Microsoft Stores

Now, I'm not going to try to claim that no other company has derivative products in their lineup because that would be silly. After all, Apple didn't invent the mp3 player, that would be Diamond Multimedia. However, what I will say is that Microsoft has a vast preponderance of derivative products.
What did Microsoft ever actually innovate? Clippy, Microsoft Bob, and that fuckin' Search Assistant Dog.

How dare you use factual data to try and make Microsoft look like a bunch of thieves. You're not giving them the credit they deserve! They took each and every one of those product you listed, and made it worst. Now that's f*cking difficult.

>> ^jdbates:
I hate microsoft because of snake oil salesmen like him, They are the roman empire of the business world, the romans didnt innovate, they incorporated other culures ideas. For him to dis the iphone like that shows his lack of vision, which I feel accurately represents their company.


Agreed. Let's go down the list.

Apple's GUI (courtesy of Xerox) and OS/2 begat Windows

Playstation begat X-Box

Wordstar/Word Perfect begat Word

Lotus 1-2-3 begat Excel

iPod begat Zune

Google search begat Live Search and now Bing

Mac OSX begat Vista

Sun Javascript begat MS Javashit

Netscape Navigator begat Internet Explorer

Prodigy and AOL begat MSN

iTunes begat MSN Music

Apple Stores begat Microsoft Stores

Now, I'm not going to try to claim that no other company has derivative products in their lineup because that would be silly. After all, Apple didn't invent the mp3 player, that would be Diamond Multimedia. However, what I will say is that Microsoft has a vast preponderance of derivative products.

What did Microsoft ever actually innovate? Clippy, Microsoft Bob, and that fuckin' Search Assistant Dog.

Water lotus birth
http://www.videosift.com/video/Birth-As-We-Know-It-trailer

FAKE BULLSHIT! Everyone knows the only real Submarine-car is the Lotus Esprit.