>> ^AdrianBlack:

I don't blame you, lol...yvw.

>> ^AdrianBlack:

dead


Fixed and thanks. I am not losing my 190 points.

This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by Duckman33.

>> ^geo321:

dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Ants-mimic-liquids


*bugs *isdupe

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by geo321. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Ants-mimic-liquids

http://videosift.com/video/Ants-mimic-liquids

My reply to gwiz dealt with your post as well. Really, I should have combined or separated them for more clarity. My bad, you're right, it does look like I was saying you agreed with the property rights thing, and the @ to you should have probably been in the second one along with the one for gwiz.

However, I stand by my opinion that voting needs to be easier instead of harder, and governments don't need more power to disenfranchise people. If we want better results, we need a more informed and educated public or a different form of governing ourselves. Like I said, I agree with the sentiment you and others are expressing, and restricting voting is a logical solution, but I think there are many unforeseeable and unintended consequences in implementing tests/classes/etc for voting. See my comments in that thread about corruption, etc.

Regarding birth in a country giving you specific rights, well, that's just how it happens to work culturally, right? I mean, if you look objectively at the concept of countries, they're automatically going to be fairly arbitrary simply due to the lack of choice in being born. Historically, it was and easy way of determining citizenship in a world where lines on a map could help you determine a lot. In today's world, those lines are all blurred, and technology gives us all sorts of options for keeping records, administering tests, etc. So, we have new options and there's nothing wrong with thinking out loud about that.

In reply to this comment by GeeSussFreeK:
You obviously didn't read anything I wrote because I didn't agree with the prospect of land being the basis for voting. I spin your comment on critical thinking back at yourself and challenge you to read my comments for how they were intended. GWIZ has a comment right above yourself that mimics what I have said in a much better phrasing. Perhaps try and be a bit more transcendent yourself, sir.

In reply to this comment by mgittle:
@GeeSussFreeK @Winstonfield_Pennypacker

Let's do a fun critical thinking exercise! You guys really need it.

Say someone's company asks them to move to a different state or city and take a position for 2 years, after which they'll be asked to move again to a possibly more permanent position. That person looks at the local rental/housing market and decides it'll be cheaper to rent for those two years because the cost of the loan/interest and the potential hassle of selling the house (possibly at a loss) is really risky to deal with when you know you're going to move.

That person, who is capable of making an intelligent and informed decision, shouldn't be allowed to vote? Even using your "logic", I can see how someone could feel it prudent to prevent "temporary" residents from voting on local matters like millages, mayoral elections, etc, but state and national elections? Really?

This also doesn't consider college students, people who are living together but not married (such as with significant others or family members who own homes), or millions of other people who simply can't afford homes or don't want the lifestyle, maintenance costs, etc of owning a home.

I was really trying to avoid making any sort of personal attack with this...but I have to ask, did you even think about what you were saying before you typed it out?

You obviously didn't read anything I wrote because I didn't agree with the prospect of land being the basis for voting. I spin your comment on critical thinking back at yourself and challenge you to read my comments for how they were intended. GWIZ has a comment right above yourself that mimics what I have said in a much better phrasing. Perhaps try and be a bit more transcendent yourself, sir.

In reply to this comment by mgittle:
@GeeSussFreeK @Winstonfield_Pennypacker

Let's do a fun critical thinking exercise! You guys really need it.

Say someone's company asks them to move to a different state or city and take a position for 2 years, after which they'll be asked to move again to a possibly more permanent position. That person looks at the local rental/housing market and decides it'll be cheaper to rent for those two years because the cost of the loan/interest and the potential hassle of selling the house (possibly at a loss) is really risky to deal with when you know you're going to move.

That person, who is capable of making an intelligent and informed decision, shouldn't be allowed to vote? Even using your "logic", I can see how someone could feel it prudent to prevent "temporary" residents from voting on local matters like millages, mayoral elections, etc, but state and national elections? Really?

This also doesn't consider college students, people who are living together but not married (such as with significant others or family members who own homes), or millions of other people who simply can't afford homes or don't want the lifestyle, maintenance costs, etc of owning a home.

I was really trying to avoid making any sort of personal attack with this...but I have to ask, did you even think about what you were saying before you typed it out?

>> ^srd:

Yes yes. But will they blend?
probably the same way water blends, right?

>> ^srd:

Yes yes. But will they blend?


I dare you to try it, murderer.

>> ^rottenseed:

this study also shows that as individuals, @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/ant" title="member since March 2nd, 2006" class="profilelink"><strong style="color: rgb(0, 136, 0);">ant s are useless


Shush or else I will send my clones after you.

There are better engines available already (except for the higher poly/shader/texture attributes). Hell this OLD pic of Crysis with crappy settings does almost everything the Unreal engine does and then it ups the ante by having FULL physics (killing an enemy by shooting out a leaning tree and watch it fall on him never gets old), a "stuck-in-a-box" solution (go where you want; also as a side note, limiting the playing area allows developers to throttle everything up since they render a one-block area vs. a metropolis).

The only problem I have with the Unreal engine is that it forsook many strides it made on the PC and then they pushed HARD to make themselves console friendly. That's another reason why their tools are great. Deathspank is a good example of what can be done with that engine when you think outside the pantomime of shooter console mimic.

But, in the end as was said above, it comes down to hardware.

Ok.
1)fullscreem this vid.
2)Pause at 0:10
3)Look at the Keyboard
4)See the white dots at the corners of each key?

Is it just me or does this video also contain a cool optical illusion?

Also, If these gesture mimic handwriting, why not just make the gestures actual letters?

So...I don't know...

Children are little mirrors of ourselves. This seems great when it's your own children and they mirror your values and beliefs. After all, isn't that part of your job? Part of being a parent is to prepare your children for the world by instilling in them an understanding of the world that will help them to succeed. How many people believe their own values and understanding do not represent the proper path for their own children?

Some people value logic, truth and critical thought and some people value faith, obedience and group assimilation. There are a million valid paths to a successful life.

Even though the values of these parents might conflict with your own, they are still loving parents who want their child to have the best life possible. Watching your children follow in your footsteps is one of the most endearing moments there is as a parent. If you're filled with revulsion to see your own child mimic your behavior then there's probably something not right about you. Being filled with revulsion by seeing other people's children mimic their behavior is perfectly normal though.

But at least try to keep a balanced perspective on it. I'm not jazzed to see another ultra conservative christian in the making but I wouldn't call it abuse.