@blankfist: Pac Man is this popular arcade game wherein a yellow character runs around in a maze. Most people associate a maze with being lost. (The other part of the clue referred to "pulling out" things from the oven with the silicone Pac Man oven mitt.)

Agreed that the clue for the second one wasn't at all obvious! I guess it was related to being lost in a maze. I ended up doing an exhaustive search, clicking through every product, and only found it half-way down the last page I checked

You think those quotes are made up? All you have to do is plug those names into google to find out who they are and what their reputation is. They're not made up and have nothing to do with the site itself other than being a collection of evidence which shows even evolutionists know their theory is completely flawed.

>> ^Maze:
I'd have trouble taking anything you've copied from a religious website seriously. It's hardly unbiased, is it?
http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/problems-with-the-fossil-record.htm
>> ^shinyblurry:
This video is complete fantasy. Take the evolutionary animation for instance..none of that is supported in the fossil record. All of those transitions are completely inference, especially ape to man. If you believe that, you are thick..do your own investigation. There isn't any conclusive evidence for ape to man evolution what so ever.
And you don't think they're looking for true transitionals? Why do you think evolutionists trotted out piltdown man and nebraska man as proof of evolution for over 50 years, and why today the desperate search is still on to find the missing link. They thought it was neanderthal man but it turned out to be a guy with arthritus and rickets. The fossil record isn't just incomplete, it is ludicrously so..with hundreds of millions of them uncovered yet no true transitionals. I'll let real palentologists explain it to you:
Our museums now contain hundreds of millions of fossil specimens (40 million alone are contained in the Smithsonian Natural History Museum). If Darwin's theory were true, we should see at least tens of millions of unquestionable transitional forms. We see none. Even the late Stephen Jay Gould, Professor of Geology and Paleontology at Harvard University and the leading spokesman for evolutionary theory prior to his recent death, confessed "the extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology."
He continues:
The history of most fossil species includes two features inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Statis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear… 2. Sudden Appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed'. 6 The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. 7... etc, etc..

>> ^Maze:

Keep in mind that these guys and girls don't have a choice in the amount of luggage they travel with. The government requires them to travel with a specific kit. They don't really have the option of "packing light".
Believe me, if I could just pack a change of clothes and a toothbrush for a deployment, I would.
Also, in reference to your second paragraph, it would be uncouth for me to tell you to "eat a dick", so I'll refrain.


I'm not blaming anything on the soldiers; I'm saying the government and Delta need to figure out what their contract is. If it's not sufficient, the government needs to fix it.

No need to be hostile towards me... I'm not sure how you interpreted what I said as a slight against soldiers.

I can't usually watch Pat because he likes to use the same tactics as Bill O'Reilly, where smugness is used like air freshener, and making people feel inferior is more the goal than the betterment of mankind. Many sift talks end up going in this sudo-intellectual, elitist route. Many have been consumed by its trollness, myself included. So before I get into what I want to say, I just want to say every conversation than ends up in draconian foot pounding here on the sift, even more so when I am the perpetrator, causes me weeks of anguish and usually sends me away for a week in trembling anguish for the loss of an opportunity to have real, meaningful conversation.

I like Pat's point, though, I think he muddles it a little; in the first half, he seems to rail against the notion that representative democracy works well, and in the second a rant about unelected representatives are destroying Ireland. Even so, I think the point of layers of democracy via representation seems to eliminate your representation through dilution. When you have a state, federal, continental, and world representative, it is hardly possible for your view of the world to be completely represented, or every fractionally. The policy of direct diplomacy had its failing, which was mob rule. I think an interesting problem that Pat is pointing out about representative democracy is very real...that you end up not having any representation because of the conflict between all the different levels. So while you got a vote a person into office, he wasn't the right person in the right office to affect the things that you wanted him to affect. A complicated maze where any change you want is impossible to get via a vote for your representative.

So for pure democracy, you get a direct voice that can get overruled by many shouting over your own. In representative, that same muddling happens when more and more systems of democracy are layered in. I would be interested to hear your opinion on this @dystopianfuturetoday. I think last time I dabbled in these waters I was called a fascist, trying to avoid a similar occurrence

I am not saying that representative democracy is systemically flawed absolutely, but has an undesirable entropy. I like trying to brain up better systems, it is how my brain works. Rep Dem has many benefits, though, some of the largest in the history of man...so trying to capture those same successes would be hard, but perhaps possible. Is there something better than Rep Dem...I surely hope so...lets vote on it!

refreshing to see ignorance so proudly on display. either read the paper, or shut the hell up, because nothing you are saying is even remotely tied to the actual subject matter.

>> ^marinara:

>> ^berticus:
uhh. they are not brain surgeons, they are cognitive and social psychologists. also, they are talking about something very human, specific, and operationalised -- reasoning. not logic.
i'm not sold on the argumentative theory, but it's a great idea.

You're right they aren't smart enough to be brain surgeons. Exactly how does runnign rats through a maze tell you about evolution of the brain? And reasoning isn't operational. It's general. Nor is it human, if you read gwiz's comment.
sorry if this sounds harsh. it's too early to mince words.

>> ^berticus:

uhh. they are not brain surgeons, they are cognitive and social psychologists. also, they are talking about something very human, specific, and operationalised -- reasoning. not logic.
i'm not sold on the argumentative theory, but it's a great idea.


You're right they aren't smart enough to be brain surgeons. Exactly how does runnign rats through a maze tell you about evolution of the brain? And reasoning isn't operational. It's general. Nor is it human, if you read gwiz's comment.

sorry if this sounds harsh. it's too early to mince words.

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

Why didn't they use the Ms. Pacman maze and sounds though.

*doublepromote


Untangle the maze!

>> ^bremnet:
mazing. I can't walk down the street without stumbling and falling, this guy is walking in the park
ps. anybody know the tune in the last 3/4 of the video? Very nice music.

Agree, great song! Had to do some looking: "Welcome Home" by Radical Face.

>> ^Entropy001:

That song is incredibly... lame.
Anyway, I wonder how the hell the pilot learned how to navigate through the maze that is LAX? Especially at night!


Progessive Taxi?

That song is incredibly... lame.

Anyway, I wonder how the hell the pilot learned how to navigate through the maze that is LAX? Especially at night!

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

You know - quite frankly - I don't see why people think Tom Hanks is that great. I remember him when he first came on the scene in "Bosom Buddies". He was moderately amusing, but no more so than Peter Scolari was. He did some bit parts in Family Ties, and did that lousy D&D TV movie "Mazes & Monsters". He did nothing exceptional.
Then he went on to do crappy comedies like Money Pit, Dragnet, Bachelor Party, and Joe Vs. The Volcano. He wasn't very good in any of them. His acting in these shows was one-note. Swap Hanks in Splash with Hanks in Money Pit and there is no difference. He was servicable, but he wasn't that great.
But I think "Big" for some reason started making people think he was a good actor. In the 90s, studios were always trying to turn comedians into "serious" actors. Robin Williams tried it with Patch Adams and Good Morning Vietnam. Jim Carrey tried with "Truman Show", et al. With Hanks, it was A League of Thier Own, Sleepless in Seattle, Forest Gump, and Philadelphia. I see very little difference between "80's Hanks" and "90's Hanks". He isn't a better actor than he was way back in "Mazes & Monsters". He's still the same old one-note Tom Hanks. He just has a better movie. You could take a potted plant and stick it in Forest Gump and get the same result. Some of his performances like in Polar Express and Angels & Demons are cringe-worthy.
So I don't see why Tim Allen has to take the shot here. He's shown at least as much acting "ability" as Tom Hanks. Hanks just got lucky and happened to end up getting better roles and more credit than he deserves.

Forrest Gump may be a cliche now, but his performance in it was great. He was great in Philadelphia and The Green Mile as well. For pure strength of acting, I think you've got to go with Cast Away. Not many actors can carry a movie all by themselves with only a volleyball to interact with. If you want a role that really steps out of the norm, try The Ladykillers.

Hanks may not be one of those guys who completely transforms himself for a role, but I still think he's solid. Tim Allen has never acted, to my knowledge. He plays himself in all his roles.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

You know - quite frankly - I don't see why people think Tom Hanks is that great. I remember him when he first came on the scene in "Bosom Buddies". He was moderately amusing, but no more so than Peter Scolari was. He did some bit parts in Family Ties, and did that lousy D&D TV movie "Mazes & Monsters". He did nothing exceptional.
Then he went on to do crappy comedies like Money Pit, Dragnet, Bachelor Party, and Joe Vs. The Volcano. He wasn't very good in any of them. His acting in these shows was one-note. Swap Hanks in Splash with Hanks in Money Pit and there is no difference. He was servicable, but he wasn't that great.
But I think "Big" for some reason started making people think he was a good actor. In the 90s, studios were always trying to turn comedians into "serious" actors. Robin Williams tried it with Patch Adams and Good Morning Vietnam. Jim Carrey tried with "Truman Show", et al. With Hanks, it was A League of Thier Own, Sleepless in Seattle, Forest Gump, and Philadelphia. I see very little difference between "80's Hanks" and "90's Hanks". He isn't a better actor than he was way back in "Mazes & Monsters". He's still the same old one-note Tom Hanks. He just has a better movie. You could take a potted plant and stick it in Forest Gump and get the same result. Some of his performances like in Polar Express and Angels & Demons are cringe-worthy.
So I don't see why Tim Allen has to take the shot here. He's shown at least as much acting "ability" as Tom Hanks. Hanks just got lucky and happened to end up getting better roles and more credit than he deserves.


Also, Tim Allen's a crackhead.

You know - quite frankly - I don't see why people think Tom Hanks is that great. I remember him when he first came on the scene in "Bosom Buddies". He was moderately amusing, but no more so than Peter Scolari was. He did some bit parts in Family Ties, and did that lousy D&D TV movie "Mazes & Monsters". He did nothing exceptional.

Then he went on to do crappy comedies like Money Pit, Dragnet, Bachelor Party, and Joe Vs. The Volcano. He wasn't very good in any of them. His acting in these shows was one-note. Swap Hanks in Splash with Hanks in Money Pit and there is no difference. He was servicable, but he wasn't that great.

But I think "Big" for some reason started making people think he was a good actor. In the 90s, studios were always trying to turn comedians into "serious" actors. Robin Williams tried it with Patch Adams and Good Morning Vietnam. Jim Carrey tried with "Truman Show", et al. With Hanks, it was A League of Thier Own, Sleepless in Seattle, Forest Gump, and Philadelphia. I see very little difference between "80's Hanks" and "90's Hanks". He isn't a better actor than he was way back in "Mazes & Monsters". He's still the same old one-note Tom Hanks. He just has a better movie. You could take a potted plant and stick it in Forest Gump and get the same result. Some of his performances like in Polar Express and Angels & Demons are cringe-worthy.

So I don't see why Tim Allen has to take the shot here. He's shown at least as much acting "ability" as Tom Hanks. Hanks just got lucky and happened to end up getting better roles and more credit than he deserves.