Braken Bat Cave Meshweaver (Cicurina venii)
http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=J01D

To find a Braken Bat Cave meshweaver was a discovery of another kind altogether, akin to “stumbling on a new Galapagos Island in terms of the biological significance of the region,” said biologist Jean Krejca, Zara's president.

After the spider was collected in a bottle, it was dissected for it to be identified, Krejca said. Collecting and killing an endangered species is allowed for that purpose if done by someone with a federal permit. No other spiders have been spotted in the hole where the one was found.

Read more: http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Tiny-spider-is-a-big-roadblock-3849198.php#ixzz26qYn1CWL

And now the space dissection so that we can test projectile vomit in zero gravity.

education:

12 minutes on youtube
or
10 weeks + a couple thousand dollars and the chance to dissect a cat and one day repay your loans..


you choose, kids!

great video.. also contains the spirit of scientific inquiry and its distinction from creationist logic

"How am I doing this? It seems complicated..."

Science: It is and its amazing, here is how
Religion: God did it, now say he exists or you die.

Dissection at http://videosift.com/video/17-7-long-87-eggs-165-pounds-Dang-oh-mama

>> ^jmd:

ehh, I'm gonna nit pick.
#1 I HATE the fake camera shake. We all know this shit is done on dollys and steady cam out the ass, then to make it look like..frankly I have no idea why they inject camera shake, I don't want to see how Michael j. Fox see's the movie. .
#2 this bad guy seems to make everyone his target.. even little kids.. so why is he still alive? He is CLEARLY dumber then a stump and is lowest on the totem pole, some other punk would have put a bullet in him long ago.
#3 Our hero guy strolls in and really does not care...yet has the means to kill every single one of them in less then 10 seconds and some how eventually finds the will too. God damn this is 5th grade writing.
#4 oh my god.. the special effects... is this supposed to be gritty real life.. or mortal freaking kombat? It looks like that 5th grader also had a say in where blood was placed... cause he said EVERYWHERE!


Well first of all this is an amateur fan film with no budget. Second of all, can't you just enjoy a good, over-the-top short film without dissecting it like a art-house film critic with a shitty blog?

I've swam through a few of her books,the Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged,and I think her philosophy of Capitalism is Holy could work except for one basic problem:human nature. And her supporters in the GOP really don't get where she was coming from either. The protagonists of these books are people who run large companies struggling to provide their excellent products and services in spite of heavy regulations at the hands of the small minded government. They are personally involved with their companies,willing to go the extra mile and get their hands dirty in the persuit of delivering the goods and providing livings for their extended families of employees they feel responsible for. Yet the government in pettiness and jelousy scheme to thwart them in this:making the Creative Movers of Industry gasp under the strain of mad laws written by parasites to sap the energy of the Doers to feed the gluttony of the lazy masses. More or less this. Unfortunatelythis fairy story is a bit backwards nowadays...
Instead of clever creators marketing their dreams,we have souless corporations dissecting the labours of the many to feed the obscenely rich the lions share of profits,and existing only to figure out new ways of paying themselves incentive bonuses while the companies they run heave and expire beneathe them from the sheer weight of their greed. Emploees are not families to these executives,all cooporating with the mutual goal of seeing the company succeed,but disposable pawns easily replaced and forgotten,not worth providing benefits for and certainly not worth considering when cheap if not competant labour is available elsewhere.And regulations ? Taxes? Blasphemies!

Some of Rand's opinions I find valid:armies of the unambitious would swollow every dime you earn with demands for welfare and other government mandated largesses. For every brave sould with a creative spark there are a dozen happy to make them fall for the perverse pleasure of simply watching a great idea fail. These exist:but a socialism is not on the genda in this future of ours...it seems to be evolving into a new sort of feudalism where the Rich rule and the serfs provide the neccessaries. And I suppose there are entrepreneurs out there fighting the good fight,and fighting it with style and dignity for themselves and their employees.

They just don't make the headlines.

It's dead. It's one of these I believe. >> ^therealblankman:

Quick note regarding my upvote... thought the frog was fake... isn't it?

thanks for the response my friend.
you need to realize something,for it will save you a huge amount of time.
i am already aware of your theosophy so you dont have to reiterate every time we converse.
more practical that way.

Sure, always a pleasure my friend. I didn't get notification of your reply, otherwise I would have replied to this sooner. If I am reiterating anything it is to respond to bold claims and assertions about Jesus or the word of God that you're making.

I understand that in your eyes you have dissected the scripture for its "true" meaning, and that in comparison, you think I am rubbing two sticks together. Before I became a Christian and had gnostic beliefs, that is the way I approached scripture as well. I am not ignorant to your point of view, or your methodology. What I am trying to tell you is that by searching for the "true" meaning you have lost the true meaning.

i knew you would have a strong disagreement with not only my take on sin but how i dealt with those in a crisis of faith.
was to be expected. please remember that condensing 40 years down in to a few paragraphs much will be lost. so the answer would be:
no hell (not the version given by the church)
nor satan (again,not the version given by the church)
but i do not teach that salvation is a solo job.christ was the way and the light.
the path has been lit we need but to follow.
love and forgiveness are the first step towards that goal.

John 10:1

Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter the sheepfold by the door but climbs in by another way, that man is a thief and a robber.

The first step is to submit to the Lordship of Jesus Christ. What we need foremost is Gods love and forgiveness; that is how we are validated as human beings. This is the reason I am disagreeing with you, because you are distorting what Jesus said. You're teaching people to make up their own gospel, and thus, their own Jesus. This is what is called idolatry. You're teaching people to make Jesus into a false idol. Don't like the idea of eternal punishment? No problem! Jesus didn't really mean that..He loves you and accepts you just the way you are. Don't like the idea of Satan? No problem! Evil is just a state of mind..you don't really have an enemy trying to destroy you. God would never allow that, He loves you!

What you're doing is divesting Jesus and His word of its authority and teaching people to be a judge over scripture. Instead of conforming to Gods standards, you're teaching people to make God conform to their standards, and showing them how they can justify it. It's wrong, and you're doing them more harm than good, because what you're teaching them is in fact in opposition to everything Jesus taught us to do.

i dont really understand your disagreement with my internalization/externalization example

because then you turn around and kind of make my point and even back up MY perspective.
that was interesting.

I disagree because it is all the work of the Holy Spirit. No, it is not what I happen to call the Holy Spirit and you call something else. I am talking about the literal Spirit of God, who has a mind and is God Himself. I am talking about the Spirit who searches the deep things of God, and leads into all truth. It isn't a metaphor I am using. This is where we're disagreeing. The Holy Spirit is the one who transforms us into the image of Christ, and apart from the Spirit we are chasing our own tails.

You say the Holy Trinity = body mind spirit. This is the problem with gnosticism, that it makes all sorts of connections that aren't really there. By making these kinds of associations you are actually divesting it of its true meaning. The Holy Trinity is God, there is nothing to compare God to, or associate God with. God is God and no one and nothing is like God. The equation isn't body mind and spirit in any case, it is body soul and spirit.

http://bible.org/seriespage/man-trinity-spirit-soul-body

nor do i understand your reticence to being called a baptist.it is what most closely aligns to your theosophy.sometimes we need labels to help us relate.thats why i use gnostic.
ah well.not a big point really..was just curious.

They are closer to what I believe than other denominations but what they believe doesn't represent what I believe. That's why I reject the label. I am simply a follower of the Way, a disciple of Jesus Christ.

i was thinking of a long line of questions but feel they not express the revelation i desire.
so.let me ask you this ONE question:
did god create us so he could be worshiped?

God created us to be in relationship with Him, which includes love, worship, fellowship, and service. He didn't create us because He needed anything, He created us out of the abundance of His goodness.

Let me ask you a question. Do you feel God isn't worthy of worshipped, or that He doesn't want to be worshipped?

This is something people bring up, that they don't feel they should have to worship God. My position is, if you don't feel like worshipping God then you clearly don't know Him. He is worthy of all honor, all praise, and all glory.

i have to admit being a bit tickled by some of your responses.they actually fit quite well from a gnostic perspective.i know you didnt mean them that way..hence me getting the giggles.
so i agree in spirit.we ARE all ONE.
this is why i end many of my letters with:namaste
what a great word.

2 Corinthians 6:14

Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?

We are one when we are joined together in Christ. The body of Christ is the unity that God has set apart for Himself, separate from the world. We are all made in the image of God, true, but the spirit apart from Christ is dead in its sins and is incapable of pleasing God. The family of God is made up of adopted sons and daughters, and outside of that, there is no fellowship or unity.

OH.almost forgot (because "someone" keeps using bullet form responses)
when it comes to the bible the only thing i really give any authority to is the ministry of jesus.
the old testament is the old covenant and lets be honest.god is kind of a huge dick in that book.jesus made it irrelevant.and i have read all the gospels i could get my hands on,researched the meanings,the mistranslation,other theologians hypothesis and came to two conclusions:
1.jesus was most certainly here.
2.the bible is an incomplete text,fascinating as it may be.(boring to most though,but im a dork).

It might have skipped your attention but Jesus verified the Old Testament as the truth. He verified Genesis, Noah, Jonah, and many other things. It most certainly is not irrelevent for that reason, and for the reason that it is the prophecies in the Old Testament that predict the coming of Christ, prophecies which Jesus literally fulfilled. You can read the entire OT as being a type of the Messiah to come:

http://videosift.com/video/True-and-Better

However you might see the actions of God, He was dealing with a stubborn and evil people, who defied Him at every turn. Remember when He brought Moses up on the mountain? What is the first thing the israelites did? They made a golden calf and worshipped it saying "here is the god who brought us out of egypt." This was after God had done all of these mighty miracles before them. If anything, God was way too lenient.

I'm glad we can at least agree that Jesus was here. So let me ask you two 1/2 questions:

1: why don't you think Jesus is literally God (not someone who attained it, but is the literal creator of this reality)?
1a: was He raised from the dead, and if yes, by whom and for what purpose?
2: why is the bible "incomplete"? What do you think is missing?

ps:great book for ya right here.
http://frimmin.com/books/cosmicchrist.php

I've actually seen and read similiar books to these. They attempt to turn Christianity into a universalist enlightenment religion. The 12 steps to being as God is. It is to believe everything in general without believing anything in particular. It is the same thing the serpent said to Eve:

"ye shall be as gods"

Saying, we have to become as Christ to fix the Earth. That isn't what Jesus taught. He taught us that we are servants serving in His house, and that He has been given all authority under Heaven and Earth. He said in very plain language that He is the judge of the living and the dead, and that He is going to return to this fallen world and establish His Kingdom.

There is only one Jesus Christ, and we're not it. Why do you ignore the scripture that talks about His Lordship over Heaven and Earth but then embrace everything else?

and look up christ conciousness.
thats where my general theosophy lays.

It is indeed true that we need to have the mind of Christ, but again we can't do that without the Spirit of Christ. I think it is a noble pursuit to want to be like Jesus, but you can't do that by just emulating Him. You need His Spirit, the one that raised Him from the dead. We don't get the Spirit of Christ unless we are born again and confess Jesus as Lord. It is all a work of God, and apart from Him we can do nothing.

Galatians 5:22-23

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.

I hope you don't see my reply as being too harsh, because I am stating the truth of what I believe, just as you are. If you have taken any offense, please accept my apology. I don't compromise on truth, and I am only meeting you with it at the places where you have drawn the lines. Take care my friend.

>> ^enoch

that was a really good job dissecting a very flawed article but i noticed tom fell into the same trap he accused weis of falling after the 20min mark.
sorry tom but medicare,dollar for dollar is by far the most effective health program when put in contrast to the american health insurance industry and social security has done more to eleviate the poor for the elderly.
maybe that is because we all pay in to those programs.
but you cant accuse an author of an obviously flawed article for engaging in lazy tactics and then turn around and do the very same thing you were just accusing.

other than that this man nails it.

>> ^RadHazG:

of his argument against pascal's wager, there is also the bit about who's to say you guessed the right religion? Pascal's assumes automatically that whichever "god" you pick happens to be the right one.


I pick Zeus because Zeus is the shit and can kick any other god's ass if they try to start some shit.

>> ^SDGundamX:

He wasn't arrested for animal abuse, he was arrested for "willfully teasing a police K-9" which is an misdemeanor offense in Mason County (see this WSJ law blog). The reason for the law should be obvious--unlike your normal house pet, these dogs are actually trained to bite people and if you get them agitated enough they may attack without command and not respond to an officer's orders to stop biting.
From this web site on the behavioral nature of police dogs:
No matter how well-trained in suspect apprehension a police dog might be, all police dogs can easily make behavioral mistakes, such as attacking at the wrong time, attacking out of context, attacking a suspect when not commanded to do so, and failing to stop an attack after being commanded to do so by the handler. Because of the behavioral nature of aggressive responding in dogs, and despite the extensive training most police service dogs have been subjected to prior to being deployed in the field, they will make behavioral mistakes, thereby causing injury to a victim that was uncalled for or far beyond what was probably needed.
Teasing the dog increases the likelihood of that happening. The drunken dumbass who was barking at the dog was putting people at risk and got arrested for it. I love the 1st amendment but I have absolutely no problem with these charges sticking. First amendment rights don't mean you can say whatever you want to say whenever you want to say it. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater just for lulz and you can't intentionally agitate police dogs into a frothing rage.
I love how Judge Napolitano apparently made a snap judgment himself about the situation without bothering to look at the facts of the case (as reported in the WSJ link above). Upvoted to promote yet more awareness of the stupidity that airs on Fox News.


I agree with everything you said, except the part where you said stuff about the law. While there could be a case for civilly responsible for acts of speech (suing), the constitution on clear on criminal charges. I have been in a movie theater when a false alarm of the real system went off, we didn't send the alarm maker to jail...double standard. Two people were injured in that false alarm of the alarm system. It is pretty dubious to just start arbitrarily dissecting speech, even more so when no one was ACTUALLY harmed. We have enough problems and we take time to legislate theoretical ones, great. That is the only reason drugs are still illegal, because of all the theoretical stuff that could happen. Let real crime be punished, and let fake crime fall away as dodging a bullet.

</lunch rant>

@marbles, dgandhi already more or less gave you the argument I was planning on making in response, but I do want to respond to at least a few things you said directly. Forgive me for taking them out of order.
>> ^marbles:
Re: Why should there have to be a victim?
How else is there a crime?

Violating the speed limit is a crime. There's no victim.

>> ^marbles:
Re: Who decides what natural rights are?
No one decides. They’re inherent. They evolved in the human mind long before the organization of human society.

I'm a human, and I have a mind. I have no earthly idea what you think natural rights are, or why I should care about them.

I have my own reasons for what I believe, and how I approach the concept of rights, and it's clearly different from yours. How can that be possible, if "natural rights" are wired into us?
>> ^marbles:

Re: No, this is what a philosophical argument is like. You take a concept everyone "knows" and thinks they understand, and then you try to test it with thought experiments and logic, to see if you can really come up with a rigorous definition for it.
That’s already been done Hoss, centuries ago. You can dissect it and come up with terms like “positive liberty” all you want, but it serves no purpose but to undermine liberty as a whole.

This is really the crux of the dispute in all your myriad conversations on this video. You seem to think anyone who asks you to think about what you're saying is just trying to trick you somehow.

The only thing we're trying to do is get you to broaden your perspective a little. We're being polite about the fact that you seem to think us evil (or perhaps just stupid) for believing what we believe, and we're trying to help you understand a little bit of why we think the way we do, and see that maybe we're not monsters after all...

@NetRunner

Re: No, this is what a philosophical argument is like. You take a concept everyone "knows" and thinks they understand, and then you try to test it with thought experiments and logic, to see if you can really come up with a rigorous definition for it.

That’s already been done Hoss, centuries ago. You can dissect it and come up with terms like “positive liberty” all you want, but it serves no purpose but to undermine liberty as a whole. Property is an extension of life. If you deny the right of protection of property, then you’re also denying the right to protect one’s life.

Re: Just FYI, "freedom is slavery" is exactly what this video is saying. "Property is freedom" translates to "Absolute authority over other people when they're on my property...is freedom".

False. More hyperbole?

Re: Why should there have to be a victim?

How else is there a crime?

Re: Who decides what natural rights are?

No one decides. They’re inherent. They evolved in the human mind long before the organization of human society.

Re: I'm not talking about a thought crime, I'm talking about putting a sign in your store window saying "Whites only".
Would a law making that practice illegal be pro- or anti-liberty?

It’s none of my concern who a private individual decides to discriminate against. It’s their loss if they’re running a business. And it's some other business’ gain. Why would you want to reward a bigot by forcing him to do business with someone he doesn’t want to? And why would an individual want to do business with someone who is bigoted against them anyway? Outlawing an individual's choice to discriminate is not going to stop discrimination and only serves to remove the economic punishment one would receive by doing so. People have free choice. You don't have the right to not be offended.

Re: Honestly, this seems like a bit of progress. How did I enter into an agreement with the city/county? Is it only the city/county, or is it also the state/nation I entered into agreement with?

You entered the agreement when you bought your house and paid property taxes. I don’t claim that our land property system is consistent with liberty. Just like our tax system isn’t, nor our currency system. So you’re wasting your time trying to find fault with our property systems as a critique against the concept of property itself.

Re: If that's how you explain away authority, then who is ever exercising authority? Not the city/county/state/federal government -- they're exercising their rights as property owners and signatories to a contract.

I’m not explaining away anything. You’re trying to dismiss the notion of liberty by using “real world” circumstances where liberty is violated. The law is supposed to be the authority. And the law comes from the individual’s natural right to self defense.

Dad, I'm all for the high road.

And I am generally and often appreciative of your acumen, intentions, and perspectives. However, this time, I would prefer you to dissect and analyze this situation. Particularly before you so cavalierly wave your banwand in my general direction.

And to your inference to my ability to exercise self control I am underwhelmed. Your comment had my upvote until then. Perhaps you do not care though.

I am surprised and perplexed at you on this I am sorry to admit. You may not like having to intercede when your "children" or those that you perceive act thus do not play nice. I empathize. I have let things go and reached a capacity and so answered in kind. It might be argued reservedly so and in a manner to communicate my displeasure and that a cessation might be advisable. I am sorry others were drawn into it. I haven't divined the machinations of that yet but will. However, I have addressed each with equanimity.

As to you, I would appreciate more of a even hand rather than a rubber stamp.

In reply to this comment by dag:
Rather than dissect and analyse your comment and mine - or call out other users for similar action, how about you just be nice and perhaps stop commenting to this particular user.

If you don't think this is possible - or you don't understand my intent, perhaps take a break from the Sift - go out and smell the flowers, take some time off. If you're not capable of this, eventually, a break may be enforced. Thanks.


In reply to this comment by chicchorea:
Starred what out Dag? Point of fact, you/she/others may construe or infer to your mind's content or discontent. By design or otherwise, it is rather up to the mind(s) of the reader(s). However, it does indeed seem you are 'bots looking for bad words. Are you going to ban me for *'s. I have seen much worse here, by far. That is neither here nor there. It is your cite after all.

BTW, this unfortunate situation was promulgated by this individual(**********) calling me names and accusing me deleteriously and not just once. Hence my ire and venom. I rather feel like not letting it go as have I before, other cheek and all that.

While not generally given to responding in kind. I unfortunately feel justified if not morally on the high ground.

In reply to this comment by dag:
Just becaused you starred it out - it doesn't make it OK. We're not 'bots looking for bad words. These kinds of ad hom comments are against the guidelines of the Sift. Please desist.

In reply to this comment by chicchorea:
Awwwww...poor whiny *****...don't worry, you'll always be Queenie of the dupes.
In reply to this comment by bareboards2:
http://videosift.com/poll/Would-it-be-helpful-to-have-a-notadupe-invocation

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Rather than dissect and analyse your comment and mine - or call out other users for similar action, how about you just be nice and perhaps stop commenting to this particular user.

If you don't think this is possible - or you don't understand my intent, perhaps take a break from the Sift - go out and smell the flowers, take some time off. If you're not capable of this, eventually, a break may be enforced. Thanks.


In reply to this comment by chicchorea:
Starred what out Dag? Point of fact, you/she/others may construe or infer to your mind's content or discontent. By design or otherwise, it is rather up to the mind(s) of the reader(s). However, it does indeed seem you are 'bots looking for bad words. Are you going to ban me for *'s. I have seen much worse here, by far. That is neither here nor there. It is your cite after all.

BTW, this unfortunate situation was promulgated by this individual(**********) calling me names and accusing me deleteriously and not just once. Hence my ire and venom. I rather feel like not letting it go as have I before, other cheek and all that.

While not generally given to responding in kind. I unfortunately feel justified if not morally on the high ground.

In reply to this comment by dag:
Just becaused you starred it out - it doesn't make it OK. We're not 'bots looking for bad words. These kinds of ad hom comments are against the guidelines of the Sift. Please desist.

In reply to this comment by chicchorea:
Awwwww...poor whiny *****...don't worry, you'll always be Queenie of the dupes.
In reply to this comment by bareboards2:
http://videosift.com/poll/Would-it-be-helpful-to-have-a-notadupe-invocation