This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by jonny.

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Guitar-replicates-Ferrari-engine-sounds

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by chicchorea. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

Even though I can't call *dupeof http://videosift.com/video/Guitar-replicates-Ferrari-engine-sounds

Your analogy isn't valid, but even if it was it doesn't really answer what I am saying. It's fine if you think people are morally obligated to feed the hungry, or you want the government tax dollars to be spent on such things, but why is there the need to call it a human right? It's misleading and intellectually dishonest.

If I have the right to be fed, then you have the obligation to feed me. If you really believe that why won't you buy me dinner?


In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
I can't provide habeas corpus or freedom of religion for the whole world either. It doesn't change my view on whether I think every human being is entitled to it.

For that matter I tend to think people have a "right to life", but nobody can abolish death, or even just murder. I think we can do a lot for starvation and sickness, and probably a lot more about murder as well, but none of these things come free.

So I ask people to willingly agree to legal arrangements that establish these things as legal rights to services, and legal obligations to taxes, at least within the region known as "the United States".

Then they call this a violation of their rights, because, you know, taxes are evil or something. At a minimum, they come up with some arbitrary meta-definition of rights that they insist should supersede my own conception of rights.

And to be frustrating, I don't have rigid rules surrounding the limits of what people's rights should be. I tend to think of it in terms of what kind of injustice it would be to deny it to someone. Denying me a Ferrari doesn't seem so unjust. Denying someone the ability to see a doctor when they're ill, even if they're a convicted murderer, doesn't seem right.

In reply to this comment by imstellar28:
Stealing is the absence of an action, which is why it is a valid human right. I'm not stealing anything from you (of my own free will) so what other action do you wish me to perform? Healthcare, or food or water for that matter, is not the absence of an action but rather material goods. If you wish to claim such things are a right (a noble goal) then you would have to ensure that you can provide those things to the 7 billion inhabitants of this planet. I wish someone could do such things but it's clearly not possible -- hence why material goods or services can never be a "human right."

I can't provide habeas corpus or freedom of religion for the whole world either. It doesn't change my view on whether I think every human being is entitled to it.

For that matter I tend to think people have a "right to life", but nobody can abolish death, or even just murder. I think we can do a lot for starvation and sickness, and probably a lot more about murder as well, but none of these things come free.

So I ask people to willingly agree to legal arrangements that establish these things as legal rights to services, and legal obligations to taxes, at least within the region known as "the United States".

Then they call this a violation of their rights, because, you know, taxes are evil or something. At a minimum, they come up with some arbitrary meta-definition of rights that they insist should supersede my own conception of rights.

And to be frustrating, I don't have rigid rules surrounding the limits of what people's rights should be. I tend to think of it in terms of what kind of injustice it would be to deny it to someone. Denying me a Ferrari doesn't seem so unjust. Denying someone the ability to see a doctor when they're ill, even if they're a convicted murderer, doesn't seem right.

In reply to this comment by imstellar28:
Stealing is the absence of an action, which is why it is a valid human right. I'm not stealing anything from you (of my own free will) so what other action do you wish me to perform? Healthcare, or food or water for that matter, is not the absence of an action but rather material goods. If you wish to claim such things are a right (a noble goal) then you would have to ensure that you can provide those things to the 7 billion inhabitants of this planet. I wish someone could do such things but it's clearly not possible -- hence why material goods or services can never be a "human right."

It's a beautiful Ferrari, but I can't afford it.

>> ^Ryjkyj:

Just come out with the damn game already. For a company who's already loved by so many consumers, Valve sure spends a lot of their precious time masturbating.


So does Ferrari. As you imply with your comment, it seems to be a marketing strategy that is working for Valve. As long as they don't start charging luxury prices for their software, I choice to let myself be washed around a bit by their cherry-scented wave of artificial hype.

This man was criminally under-utilized on the Drew Carey Show. Like a Ferrari being used to tow a hay ride cart.

I want to think you aren't a dick, but to do so we need to get real here for a minute. Are you including the FICA tax in your numbers? Do you agree with the social security raiders? Is the real problem where the actual thresholds are? Because if your problem is with raising taxes on people in the 90k area, I'm on board with you. The question becomes, why is there no support to raise taxes on people that earn over a million a year? Why is there no support to raise estate taxes? Indeed, how does taking away the basic human right to organize and negotiate even have anything to do with a budget crisis, particularly when that group is already prepared to make the necessary fiscal concessions?

I'm currently being paid about 10% of what I could be making. I'm working in the basic science of retinal function on work that could lead to all sorts of advances that benefit you, or your children, or for that matter humanity in general. I could be making ten times as much as a machine vision expert building predator drones to kill people whom most often I have no beef with. That's what you get with your "only spend it on 'defense', and let me keep the rest" attitude about taxation. FWIW, that's where I'm coming from, and that's why it pisses me off when millionaires don't want to give up an extra Ferrari in order to better educate the (by no fault of their own) underprivileged youth. Then out of the other side of their mouth they won't shave the $78 billion from the defense budget the DoD doesn't even want.

Nobody is trying to legislate morality here. You can write off the money you already give back for a reason. We just need to pay for all the infrastructure your business needed to succeed somehow. You're paying less in taxes than at almost any time since WWII. Cut us a little slack. We're barely making ends meet.

>> ^ridesallyridenc:

Why would you want to punish the people that actually succeed? How would it help to take away an individual's incentive to get ahead by taking more than half of their earnings when they do?
In 2006, the top 20% of earners in the country brought in 66% of the revenue and paid 85% of federal income taxes. The bottom 40%, on the other hand /consumed/ 3.6% in tax credits and incentives. Cumulatively, the bottom 60% of earners in this country paid only 0.8% of the federal income tax.
So, if you're making over $91k / year (which, face it, isn't rich), you're considered "elite" and should be punished for your success?

I love me some fickle women who trade their boyfriend in a heartbeat simply because the guy next door has an awesome Fiero.
I also love women who would mistake a Fiero for a Ferrari.
Lastly, I loooooove women with no face.

If you're the president of a company, and the business is suffering, and the first place where you cut isn't your benefits and the benefits of the other executives, you are an asshole. Period.

If the business is suffering enough that you are considering firing people and you don't even touch the salaries and benefits at the top first? You are a horrible horrible person. Period

More than ever, I truly think that no one needs to be a fucking millionaire. I don't have anything against someone being one, but I truly believe it's way too much a for a single person.

If you make enough money that you can pay all your bills, take care of your family, have a decent car (and I don't mean a ferrari obviously. A good renault or VW should be enough for everyone), have a decent home, can pay for the education of your kids, save some money for retirement or rainy days, and have a few luxuries, like going out for a meal at least once a week, and movies whenever you feel like it, and maybe a big screen TV and whatnot, you should be satisfied. And that's still waaaaaaay more than 90% of the world population has.

If they were going to describe a car based on racial stereotypes, wouldn't a Mexican car be able to drive across rivers, jump 30ft. fences and work farm land?

To be fair, Mexicans practically build all the cars now anyway, why not build one of your own. Here's a list of car manufacturers who have cars that are currently built in Mexico: Acura, Audi, Bentley, BMW, Cadillac, Chevrolet, Chrysler, Dodge, FAW, Ferrari, Fiat, Ford, GMC, Honda, Hummer, Isuzu, Jaguar, Jeep, Lamborghini, Land Rover, Lincoln, Maserati, Mastretta, Mazda, Mercedes-Benz, Mercury, MINI, Mitsubishi, Nissan, Peugeot, Pontiac, Porsche, Radical, Renault, Saab, SEAT, Smart, Subaru, Suzuki, Toyota, Volkswagen and Volvo. [Wikipedia]

To answer some questions here, yes, this is ASL. Although most Deaf people would probably call it "signed English," since it uses English sentence structure.

Regarding the "mirror" aspect of ASL, your observation is accurate. ASL is considered a one-handed language, meaning that one dominant hand controls the signing. When another hand it used, it is almost always mirroring the dominant hand or not moving at all. A left-handed person would use their left hand as the dominant signing hand. Compare this to British Sign Language, a two-handed language, that uses both hands in distinct ways for most signs.

Naturally there are tons of crude signs in ASL. The girl in this video may not have known them or perhaps chose not to use them. They typically don't get taught in ASL classes. ASL has a great variety of regional differences, which is why some people may know difference signs for "fuck." Also, signs evolve over time. Some signs that were once considered perfectly fine are now rude or inappropriate (see "Irish"; the terms for gay and lesbian are also heading this direction).

Finally, a lot of popular proper nouns do have their own signs, but not all. I am not sure if Ferrari and Atari do.

@dystopianfuturetoday there also seemingly is no sign for "ferrari", deaf people can't drive super cars or what?????