Reminds me of Mr. Bungle's - None of Them Knew They Were Robots

Your video, Rachel Maddow: BP Bungles BOOMING!, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

more fing booming~! and thx for promote notarobots!


In reply to this comment by notarobot:
BP fails at Booming.

http://videosift.com/video/BP-Fails-Booming-School-101

Too bad they aren't better at following their own rules.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/therachelmaddowshow/4667450260/sizes/l/

Johnny didn't want to be like Mr. Bungle.

Mr.Bungle was a great project-

According to Wikipedia, I gather that the confirmation of Dark Energy makes the existence of Dark Matter very likely.>> ^direpickle:

>> ^Throbbin:
Right you are. Guess I bungled that in my glee.
Although I suppose the existence of the one all but confirms the existence of the other.>> ^direpickle:
It looks like this is a confirmation of Dark Energy and not Dark Matter. They're different things with unfortunately similar names.


I was really excited at the prospect of proof of dark matter! I'm less-excited by proof of dark energy, because that all but confirms a dismal end to the universe. Still, it's neat when science works. I'm not an astrophysicist, but I don't think the Dark Matter/Energy theories are related so that one implies the other. I could be wrong, though!


I know the sift boasts some experts in the field. What do you guys think?

>> ^Throbbin:

Right you are. Guess I bungled that in my glee.
Although I suppose the existence of the one all but confirms the existence of the other.>> ^direpickle:
It looks like this is a confirmation of Dark Energy and not Dark Matter. They're different things with unfortunately similar names.



I was really excited at the prospect of proof of dark matter! I'm less-excited by proof of dark energy, because that all but confirms a dismal end to the universe. Still, it's neat when science works. I'm not an astrophysicist, but I don't think the Dark Matter/Energy theories are related so that one implies the other. I could be wrong, though!

Right you are. Guess I bungled that in my glee.

Although I suppose the existence of the one all but confirms the existence of the other.>> ^direpickle:

It looks like this is a confirmation of Dark Energy and not Dark Matter. They're different things with unfortunately similar names.

It isn't sarcasm (a form of irony) because there isn't any contempt. Definitions really help here.

Irony (from the Ancient Greek εἰρωνεία eirōneía, meaning hypocrisy, deception, or feigned ignorance) is a situation, literary technique, or rhetorical device, in which there is an incongruity or discordance that goes strikingly beyond the most simple and evident meaning of words or actions. Verbal and situational irony is often intentionally used as emphasis in an assertion of a truth. The ironic form of simile, or the irony of sarcasm or litotes may involve the emphasis of one's meaning by deliberate use of language that states the direct opposite of the truth, or drastically and obviously understates a factual connection.

>> ^flechette:

I thought things like saying 'Isn't this nice' while a plane crashes and saying 'What nice weather we're having' while a hurricane rips off the roof is called being sarcastic, and has nothing at all to do with irony.
The 'unsinkable' Titanic sinking on her maiden voyage is ironic. Four U.S. Intelligence services bungling an investigation to the point where they're arresting/shooting each other because they're too hard-headed to share information with each other isn't ironic, it's just dumb. A terrorist suicide bomber getting the wrong address and blowing up a terrorist safe house would be ironic, because not only is it terrible terrorism, it'd still be terroristic.

I thought things like saying 'Isn't this nice' while a plane crashes and saying 'What nice weather we're having' while a hurricane rips off the roof is called being sarcastic, and has nothing at all to do with irony.
The 'unsinkable' Titanic sinking on her maiden voyage is ironic. Four U.S. Intelligence services bungling an investigation to the point where they're arresting/shooting each other because they're too hard-headed to share information with each other isn't ironic, it's just dumb. A terrorist suicide bomber getting the wrong address and blowing up a terrorist safe house would be ironic, because not only is it terrible terrorism, it'd still be terroristic.

Mr. Bungle!!! He sounds like the man in Mr. Bungle! (because methinks it is)

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
That chart fails to show death rates in comparison with birth rates...Afghanistan is hardly a dense place yet has an astounding birth rate. As with all things, it isn't as simple as A) more people = better for all people, or B) Less people = better for all people...there will always be haves and have not's. However, having MORE people does tend to show higher levels of specialization. For instance, in the US, we have some of the largest and most varied amount of professional athletes.
I think it is better to understand birthrates/death rates in tandem WITH the national economic context they are in. Healthy economic condition would see peoples standards of living increase as more people are added to the equation. There is a fundamental limit on this which is mainly technological in nature (traffic,food,pollution,ect). In other words, you have to compare apples to apples and realize that correlation isn't causation. Zimbabwe would not be cured if their population was halved, their condition is much more a result of political bungling then shear population size. Really, I think population isn't an issue yet on a macro level...micro though it makes all the difference. The difference of the quality of life of someone that has 5 kids and 2 is undeniable. But when the 7 kids are all older, that is 7 people to potentially contribute to the world with all their gifts and talents.
Also, what birth and death rates don't tell you about total population is immigration. Look at the US for that, birth rates here are below 2 on average (last stat I saw was 1.98), but US has always had strong immigration tendencies and our population still continues to grow. Not taking into account migration is to not paint a complete picture of the world.


Aye all good points, i just wish there was more of an emphasis on birth control in these places that currently get food aid, not that i am against giving hungry children food, but just feeding a few of them doesn't solve the core problems (i'm not saying just birth control will either). The death rates per country (as you mentioned was missing) closely matches that of the birth rates given in my earlier link, the top 40 is pretty much all African nations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_death_rate

I realise some work goes into education (in regards to use of condoms etc) in these countries with rampant poverty, but there is still much ignorance, in no small part because pretty much all the major religions oppose the use of condoms because of their view that chastity is "the only sure way of preventing the spread of HIV and Aids" (Pope Benedict). When ignorance of this magnitude is present in the world, bad things happen.
edit: just saw your name is Jesusfreak, hopefully you realise i dont mean to use the religious view on condoms as a personal attack.

That chart fails to show death rates in comparison with birth rates...Afghanistan is hardly a dense place yet has an astounding birth rate. As with all things, it isn't as simple as A) more people = better for all people, or B) Less people = better for all people...there will always be haves and have not's. However, having MORE people does tend to show higher levels of specialization. For instance, in the US, we have some of the largest and most varied amount of professional athletes.

I think it is better to understand birthrates/death rates in tandem WITH the national economic context they are in. Healthy economic condition would see peoples standards of living increase as more people are added to the equation. There is a fundamental limit on this which is mainly technological in nature (traffic,food,pollution,ect). In other words, you have to compare apples to apples and realize that correlation isn't causation. Zimbabwe would not be cured if their population was halved, their condition is much more a result of political bungling then shear population size. Really, I think population isn't an issue yet on a macro level...micro though it makes all the difference. The difference of the quality of life of someone that has 5 kids and 2 is undeniable. But when the 7 kids are all older, that is 7 people to potentially contribute to the world with all their gifts and talents.

Also, what birth and death rates don't tell you about total population is immigration. Look at the US for that, birth rates here are below 2 on average (last stat I saw was 1.98), but US has always had strong immigration tendencies and our population still continues to grow. Not taking into account migration is to not paint a complete picture of the world.

I was waiting for the part where something went wrong, as the title implies. Like an obscene word accidentally was put onscreen, or he bungles the job and starts cursing out of frustration. Or does that come up in parts 2 and 3?

I've felt so outraged at the historical actions and policies of western governments towards my people that if they persisted, I would be picking up a gun.

And Hitchens has already done you one better using his pen instead of a gun. His book on Kissinger has done far more to stop the outrageous actions and policies of the west than you ever could with a gun. This will be the last time I address this point, if you still insist on believing Hitchens doesn't appreciate the wrongs of the west there is nothing more that can be said.


The monsters that run Al-Qaeda and other violent fundamentalist groups are merely tapping into anger - an anger that exists BECAUSE of something else.


And even accepting your statement in it's entirety, there is still the quite obvious point that the something else consists of a great deal more than American foreign policy alone. What is more, the parts of American foreign policy that are the most relevant are not the atrocities, but the interventions to prevent atrocities.


My problem is that he supports the war in Iraq. Which is crazy talk. The war itself whether fueled by greed, religion or misguided revenge is NOT convincing Muslims that being extremists is wrong.


Hitchens opposed the war in Iraq until he visited Kurdish Iraq and spent much time there. He came back with THEM having convinced HIM that the removal of Saddam was very important. It is well worth noting that the war in Iraq helped persuade Libya to change course in it's policies and even more, provided the Islamic Kurds a very bright future in place of the continual genocide Saddam was making for them. when talking about support for the Iraq war among Muslims you may want to take into account the populations of Iran, Saudia Arabia and Iraqi Kurds and Shiites. You might be surprised at the support for the removal of Saddam that was present, even with the burden of Bush and Cheney's criminal bungling of the effort.