God created the devil, but he wasn't always Gods enemy. The scripture reveals that he was a cherub who covered the mercy seat in Ezekiel 28:11-19..here is an excerpt:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ezekiel+28&version=NKJV

14 “You were the anointed cherub who covers;
I established you;
You were on the holy mountain of God;
You walked back and forth in the midst of fiery stones.

15 You were perfect in your ways from the day you were created,
Till iniquity was found in you.

A cherub does not look like what is described in the popular imagery. You can find a description of them in Ezekiel chapter 1.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel+1&version=NKJV

We see in Isaiah 14:3-21 that Satans sin was wanting to replace God and be worshiped himself. Here is an excerpt:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+14&version=NKJV
12
“How you are fallen from heaven,
O Lucifer,[b] son of the morning!
How you are cut down to the ground,
You who weakened the nations!

13
For you have said in your heart:
‘I will ascend into heaven,
I will exalt my throne above the stars of God;
I will also sit on the mount of the congregation
On the farthest sides of the north;

14
I will ascend above the heights of the clouds,
I will be like the Most High.’

15
Yet you shall be brought down to Sheol,
To the lowest depths of the Pit.

In Heaven, Satan had a perfect life but he threw it away in a mad ambition to replace God with himself. This is exactly what he tempts us to do, as we disregard what God wants and sit on the throne of our lives as king. He got what he wanted in a way, as scripture calls Satan the god of this world, his rule over this world, as ours, is only a temporary affair; we will all stand before God on judgment day and give an account.

I think you have to take really high doses of larger particle colloidal silver to turn blue.

Cool idea, but we need to start looking for ways to support the sheer numbers of people we have on this planet before we start cutting down on mortality rates further. That's just my opinion, probably not a popular one.

Those were both interesting to see and helped me establish some of the pros/cons of the goalie playing aggressively like that -- thanks!

It is quite similar in many ways to NHL goalies. In hockey, an aggressive goalie will skate relatively far out of their net to cut down the angle on shots from the periphery -- but that can go very wrong if the opposing team can sneak in behind them and get a shot on an essentially empty net. Like the hockey equivalent of the second video there.

And some hockey goalies pride themselves on being able to play the puck; accurately pass it up and out of their half of the ice, contributing to offense (but usually 2-3 or more passes removed from a shot attempt), etc. Some goalies *want* to be good at that, but end up just getting themselves into trouble. In that first video, Neuer looks like one of the NHL goalies that likes to play that way AND is actually good at it -- I'll think of him as the football equivalent of Martin Brodeur from the NHL, maybe.

Thanks again for going out of the way to enlighten me. I've got lots of friends here in Thailand (native Thais as well as Brits and Europeans) that are big into football while I'm usually pretty clueless. I tend to relate to football through the lens of hockey, as I'm sure you can tell. But it is good to get a bit better informed.

Well to answer why he is not kickstarting it, he stands to make a lot more money in the short term by patenting it and then selling the patent to a tool manufacturer. Just like big oil and other companies, they buy up patents like this to prevent them from being made. This would cut down on the blades and tools you currently use to make corners and they want to sell more stuff overall, not less stuff that does more.

It makes perfect sense. With Rand Paul in charge, government will be cut down in all areas, until all that's left of the "United States" of America will be a single man holding down the fort. Please, please elect Rand Paul the next United States of America.

Well, cutting down the upwind trees would work... but so would cutting NO₂ and SO₂ emissions.

I hope no one in Atlanta gets the bright idea, "hey lets cut down trees!"

In the state I live in, if you go grocery shopping and want the store to supply bags, they charge you $0.15 for each one, to encourage you to bring your own re-useable bags from home and cut down on plastic bags in land fill.

I opted back in and did a "standard sift watching session" for me of a few videos.

This time I forced myself to actually look for things that I noticed weren't in the places that I was expecting.

Some more thoughts:

I tried to figure out where to see "who voted for this video", currently under the comment entry box. I can't find that information in beta UI. I must admit that the current location isn't particularly logical, but I know to look for it there and I can't find it at all in the beta.


The "sidebar" content changed from Sift of the Week / Comment of the Moment / Leaderboard List (of whatever section you are currently in; Top New Videos, Top Videos Expiring Soon, etc.) to Suggested Videos and Related Videos. I think the old sidebar content was more likely to be relevant to what I want.

I get that that stuff has been moved into the header menus, but in my opinion it is harder to access there:
For beta - mouse to Watch button/menu, hover, mouse to relevant section like Top New Videos, mouse to which one I want
Old - mouse to what I want in the sidebar, which is probably already visible but not taking up TOO much screen real estate, and if it isn't visible it is a quick mousewheel jump away

In the meantime, the new sidebar makes stuff that I personally don't care about at all BIGGER. I don't understand what/who suggests the "Suggested Videos" and by what criteria they are deemed to be of interest to me, and "Relevant Videos" are mostly relevant in a long-timescale sense (ie., stuff from a single video series, containing same/similar tags, etc.) where on the sift a big part of the appeal is to vote on what is hot NOW. But those two things take up more space than the old sidebar that was filled with stuff that I *did* care about; they are now big thumbnails with a title underneath plus lots of spacing between list items compared to small thumbnail with title *beside* and very minimal extra padding/spacing between list items. So, the new sidebar has stuff I don't want to see, and spaces it out so that I have to scroll the mousewheel a lot more to get through it (even though it has fewer total list items than before!).


A big part of my personal enjoyment and engagement with the sift is video comments. I'm not a big fan of the beta font for comments, but I think I could potentially get used to it. But more important than the font is that it seems like each comment gets less total screen real estate, and there is more padding/space between each comment AND the sidebar.

I'd like to see that spacing/pad cut down to more like the old style. Beyond that, I figure it is safe to assume that you're not interested in bringing the old sidebar content back (Sift of the Week / Comment of the Moment / Top X Videos) from its beta location in the menubar. Assuming that that will stay there, I'd *much* rather see comment boxes that take up the majority of the page width with NO sidebar. Old sidebar and old style comments would be my personal choice, but assuming that isn't going to happen, I just feel like the beta sidebar is unnecessary and massively oversized / overspaced.


So, I gave it another shot ... back to opting out for me for now.

Hockey is a violent sport. A lot of hockey people think that allowing fights, which in the NHL usually happen between each team's designated "goons", prevents or lessens other dirty/dangerous play that would build up with unchecked aggression that is a pretty natural part of the sport. That's an oversimplification, but one of the major justifications.

I love watching hockey. I think it is a great sport that allows for many different paths to victory -- you can have a winning team made up of fast, graceful, highly skilled players, OR cerebral, teamwork based players, OR intimidating, brute force goons. Or a mix of any/all of those.

I'm not an expert, but I'm a fan. I didn't grow up with hockey in my blood (not from Canada), but became a fan in my teens. But, I do actually see a certain amount of logic in the hockey pundits argument that fighting cuts down on other dirty play. I think that if anyone watches enough hockey, they see evidence that it is true. Maybe not quite as true as the pro-fight pundits suggest, but it is there.

Better officiating, penalties, and suspensions for the kinds of dangerous / dirty play that fighting is supposed to cut down on would help. Even though I think fighting has a place in the game, the NHL does need to evolve some more consistency in those areas.

I'm a Colorado Avalanche fan. The Avs main rival for a long time was the Detroit Red Wings, and then a former Wings player (Brendan Shanahan) became the head of player safety. His job was basically to review dirty plays or plays that resulted in an injury, and dole out warnings/suspensions/fines. He took a lot of flack for inconsistency; many people thought that in two similar incidents he might hand out a long suspension to one and a slap on the wrist to the other. But even though he was from my "rival team", I thought he did a pretty good job, and it represented a great step forward for the NHL. The thing that I thought he did really well was that for every incident he reviewed, there was always a video available on the internet showing what happened from multiple angles followed by his thoughts on it, what disciplinary action he was going to issue, and his justifications for it. Of course everyone isn't always going to agree about that kind of stuff, but he put it out in the open instead of behind closed doors.

To me, that was a big step forward for the NHL. If they continue on that path, I think it is reasonable to suggest that fighting will become less important/necessary/beneficial. But I think it will always be at least a small part of the game.

I used to be a pretty strong "doubter", if not a denier. I made a gradual shift away from that, but one strong instance of shift was when Neil Degrasse Tyson presented it as a (relatively) simple physics problem in his new Cosmos series. Before we started burning fossil fuels, x% of the sun's energy was reflected back into space. Now, with a higher concentration of CO2, x is a smaller number. That energy has to go somewhere, and at least some of that is going to be heat energy.

Still, I don't think that anything on the level of "average individual citizen/household of an industrial country" is really where anything needs to happen. Yes, collectively, normal people in their daily lives contribute to Climate Change. But the vast majority of us, even as a collective single unit, contribute less than industrial / government / infrastructure sources.

Fossil fuels have been a great source of energy that has massively contributed to global advances in the past century. BUT, although we didn't know it in the beginning, they have this associated cost/downside. Fossil fuels also have a weakness in that they are not by any means inexhaustible, and costs rise as that becomes more and more obvious. In turn, that tends to favor the status quo in terms of the hierarchy of industrial nations versus developing or 3rd world countries -- we've already got the money and infrastructure in place to use fossil fuels, developing countries can't afford the costs.

All of this makes me think that 2 things need to happen:
A) Governments need to encourage the development of energy sources etc. that move us away from using fossil fuels. Tax breaks to Tesla Motors, tax incentives to buyers of solar cells for their homes, etc. etc.
B) If scientists/pundits/whoever really want people to stop using fossil fuels (or just cut down), they need to develop realistic alternatives. I'll bring up Tesla Motors again for deserving huge kudos in this area. Americans (and in general citizens of developed countries) have certain expectations about how a car should perform. Electric cars have traditionally been greatly inferior to a car burning fossil fuels in terms of living up to those expectations, but Tesla threw all that out the window and made a car that car people actually like to drive. It isn't just "vaguely functional if you really want to brag about how green you are", it is actually competitive with or superior to a gas-engine car for most users/consumers (some caveats for people who need to drive long distances in a single day).

We need to get more companies / inventors / whoever developing superior, functional alternatives to fossil fuel technologies. We need governments to encourage and enable those developments, NOT to cave to lobbyist pressure from big oil etc. and do the opposite. Prices will start high (like Tesla), but if you really are making a superior product, economy of scale will eventually kick in and normalize that out.

Outside of the consumer level, the same thing goes for actual power production. Even if we did nothing (which I would certainly not advocate), eventually scarcity and increased difficulty in obtaining fossil fuels (kinda sad that the past 2 decades of pointless wars 95% driven by oil haven't taught us this lesson yet, but there it is) will make the more "green" alternatives (solar, wind, tidal, nuclear, whatever) more economically practical. That tipping point will be when we see the real change begin.

in an anarchal society the corporation could not and would not exist.they would go back to being temporary business alliances in order to complete an assigned project and then disbursed.

Who tells Enron or Blackwater they have to disburse? Who enforces this?

in an anarchal society,if a company wanted to move its plant over-seas and would leave thousands un-employed,effectively destroying that community.they would first have to seek permission from that township and/or sell the plant to the town in order to change base of operations.

Again, what's stopping them? In fact, what stops a company from cutting down a massive forest or polluting a river?

in an anarchal system,there would be no war on drugs.no criminalizing the poor.no war on terror or wars of aggression.

Maybe, but it would simply be replaced by something even worse.

look,the argument is always,and i mean always:power vs powerlessness.

anarchy is about power to the people in its purest form.
and i hold zero illusions that it may be remotely perfect but if i have to choose..i will always choose YOU over some wealthy elite power broker.

And that's why I believe in a representative democracy. To me there are only a few ways the world can work:
- there's what I would call historical anarchy, where there was nothing to stop groups of the powerful banding together to oppress the weak. This has been the default position for most of human history.
- there's small scale communal anarchy, where people live in small communities. It's possible for this to work, but some bright spark usually figures out that these people are easy pickings for oppression (see above). Even if that doesn't happen, it's incredibly limiting. All of our greatest achievements only happen with cooperation on a large scale. If we're ever to get off this rock and see what's out there, it's not going to happen with hippie communes.
- representative democracy. It's ugly, inefficient, susceptible to corruption, open to pointless "moral crusades" and can be heartless and bureaucratic. And it's still the best system we have....

Churchill really wasn't kidding when he said "democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others"

Well, it certainly involves a lot more video editing work, so it's not exactly for the lazy. And if it cuts down the length of your video by 50%, I'm all for it for numerous reasons. Too much content out there, ain't nobody got time fo dat.

And I like it, so I think I'll culturally appropriate it.

Link to the postmodern jukebox version with Koz they cut down and used for this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDvt5q6bt1s

The libertarian side of me disagrees, but I think active GPS tracking for any bike over 250cc would do a lot to help cut down on idiots.

The main problem is you can spend $5,000 and get a vehicle that can accelerate to 60mph in the low single digits, and easily go over 150mph.

Try spending even twice that much on a car and get any where near that performance.