I really wanted to watch the video... but... I just can't. I love the game FEZ for how well designed it was. And I thought I could care less who it was designed by or who thought of the concept.

The biggest problem with Phil Fish is the fact that he shows little restraint or has very poor choice of words when speaking his mind. I am all for being outspoken as long as you do it w/o pissing your playerbase off.

When FEZ was being promoted in various big name conventions (I forgot which), I posted a comment that perhaps it's better to try to finish up the game rather than promoting it and showing it off. Usually when it comes to games and unknown ones, it only takes some good word of mouth to help promote it. People will find out, one way or another. What I get is a rude reply from him.

It's unknown to me as to whether or not Phil is a nice guy or genuinely an asshole all around. But given his response to that one comment I made, I think it's the latter. I don't need the internet news media to promote the notion that Phil Fish is an asshole. All you have to do to know if he's an asshole is to disagree with him on something, no matter how small or how trivial it is.

So, I take it that you didn't click the link in my comment. If you had, you'd have seen the graph that shows an increase in the ice caps from May to October. (Psst: That's not wintertime, last I checked.)

Quoting: "“This modeled Antarctic sea ice decrease in the last three decades is at odds with observations, which show a small yet statistically significant increase in sea ice extent,” says the study, led by Colorado State University atmospheric scientist Elizabeth Barnes."

It measured an overall increase in the size of the icecaps over the last three decades. So while there may have been a decrease in the computer models, the ice caps have actually increased in size in reality.

Quoting again: "Sea ice in the Arctic Ocean underwent a sharp recovery this year from the record-low levels of 2012, with 50 percent more ice surviving the summer melt season, scientists said Friday. It is the largest one-year increase in Arctic ice since satellite tracking began in 1978."

I personally don't know if it is increasing or decreasing. But, suffice it to say, the science suggests that this is certainly not "obvious BS" as you seem to think it is...

But regardless, I needn't have to say it again: The folks at Bilderberg (or anywhere else) will do nothing to "stop" "climate change" one way or another. (And neither will you... And neither will the politicians.) For some, this "debate" is just a convenient way to justify the state's control over its citizens. Mr. Samsom was an employee of Greenpeace. Later, the CEO of a "green energy" company. Given his background and corporate connections, it is in his best interests (both politically and financially) to align himself within the "OMG! Climate Changed the weather!" camp. He probably ran for office on that platform, highlighting his "environmentalist" credentials. But he's a politician. Only politicians and videosifters seem to know what's "really going on." If there is any climate consensus at all, it is that most climate scientists have no opinion about it.

In fact, no more than 4% have come out with an opinion about what causes "global warming" or whether it is a "problem or not." And even this 4% has not been calling skepticism "BS" with the certainty that the online "pundits/scientists" like you seem to muster.

But I realize that this isn't really about "climate change." It's not even about Bilderberg. It's about "validation". Nothing more, nothing less. And so, for that, I wish you the best of luck in your attempts to "correct" those politicians (and/or "educating" those who "believe" or "pretend to believe" whatever you disagree with). Such is the condition of living in a "democracy" so you're going to need all the luck you can get!

If that's what he meant then that would be a better comparison (but I still think it is just not the best comparison because of what I wrote).

Unfortunately we're all arseholes one way or another.

I think that there does not even need to be a mention of adverse climate change (anthropogenic or not) for us to be doing the right thing by the current environment and our future environment.

From reading some of the comments, it would appear that many people still do not understand basic math.

Over population is a problem. It is real and it will self correct one way or another. Science can't save us (short of moving us all to a digital existence), and we will hit critical population density long before we achieve the kind of technological sophistication to allow us to colonise other planets (singularity notwithstanding).

Basically, there are three possible outcomes:
1. We voluntarily stop having so many kids and we certainly stop celebrating ridiculously huge families like those fucking morons on "18 and counting" or whatever the fuck it's called. This is the best case scenario, and IMHO, the most unlikely

2. Wide scale population control. One child policies, etc. unpleasant but still less unpleasant than...

3. We do nothing and the problem corrects itself. And when I say corrects itself, I mean global hunger on a scale not seen since the last ice age; massive pandemics or just plain ol' killing the fuck out of each other.

This is isn't some airy fairy, mother Gaia, hippy nonsense, it's simple math.

On the plus side, we'll almost certainly have made the planet nigh uninhabitable for ourselves by then anyway.

Cannabis is the closest thing I've seen to a silver bullet "cure" type thingy. But pretty much every edible plant (sans chemical agents) is going to combat cancer in one way or another. Going full raw vegan is a good start. Your body's alkalinity will also need to stay above 7.0. This will happen by itself with a good diet. Then there's your thought life, your stress levels, and on and on.

The funny thing is, if this plan existed, there would be one upside. The national debt would be paid for so quick. Corporations would gladly pay huge percentages of their profits just to out-vote other corporations. We'd be able to keep our bloated defense budget. We'd be able to throw all kinds of money at infrastructure, education, and science.

They'd just use their paid for politicians to refund them all money they spent in one way or another. Kind of like they already do.

"as an anarchist i believe all systems of authority and power to be illegitimate until proven otherwise."

I have a different take, in my preferred anarchism. The only one I see as functional, all voluntary hierarchies and authorities are perfectly legitimate. I am free to submit or not to any authority I choose to for my benefit and that is my legitimate right. Also private property owners have a legitimate authority over their property. I can do whatever I want with my property (without violating anyone else's self-ownership and property rights). And under the same conditions, I can legitimately enter into any agreements I want with anyone I want. That would be legitimate private property anarchy.

As of now, the government makes what is naturally legitimate, into something arbitrarily illegitimate, based on the whims of legislators and bureaucrats.

"the burden is on those who profess authority."

I understand what you are saying. And don't think the burden is on anyone. Do not initiate violence on anyone's person of property. Simple. That's it. There's nothing else to prove or not. If anything it is the "burden" to prove you own what you own, in cases of ownership disputes. For that, there is legal precedent on who has the burden of ownership proof etc.

"because even as an anarchist i have to recognize that there needs to be a system which keeps the hands on the scales that keeps the playing field even and the kids playing nice."

The only thing that can interfere and wreck a private property anarchy is aggression, i.e., the initiation of violence against anyone's person and/or property. To prevent that you have legal enforcement and arbitration services (courts). Just like now. Except that there wouldn't be a state monopoly over these. A private law society can work just as well or better than having a monopoly of law enforcement and courts. Monopolies are always inefficient and costly. Always. For any and all goods and services. No exceptions.

"these systems are for the people,by the people and run by the people."

There is not such thing as "the people," in any practical sense. Show me "the people" and I'll show you an abstraction. There are only individuals. "The people" cannot run anything. Even you and I disagree. How are we "the people?" (Furthermore, to have a truly non-violent society, individuals would have the choice as to whether or not to engage in agreements with other individuals. Unlike now, where people are forced into agreements by which "majorities" -- whether actual or rigged -- impose their will upon the minorities. That's what you call "democracy.")

"BUT..you stop there. are you implying that we have a free market now?"

No, we don't have a free market now. We have pockets in which free markets function, however.

"did you actually infer that america begot its wealth and power purely through free market exchanges?"

Yes, mostly it did.

"have you even been paying attention?"

What the fuck does that mean?

"corporate america has been exploiting third world countries for over a century!"

No, some corporations with the help of the US and/or foreign governments have been exploiting some people in third world countries, enriching those corporations and government officials in the US and mostly in third world countries. But this is what made these corporations and government officials wealthy, not what made America as a whole a wealthy nation. America is no longer a wealthy nation as a whole (particular companies are not "America"), but an indebted nation, because of things like these, which go hand in hand with military expenditures too. The average person profits nothing from these corporations and politicians exploiting third world (or any) countries. So no, this does not make America wealthy.

The free market, however (which this exploitation is not), did make America a wealthy nation with rapid economic improvement for the average person (with the regrettable exceptions of African and Native Americans).

"and our government has been the fist that punched the:exploitation,ruination and demise of those countries.hell thats the reason WHY they are third world!"

If you are arguing that the government has been responsible for all this evil, then you are preaching to the choir. Although I take issue with the idea that it is "our government." I don't own it, nor would I want to.

"its shameful and if thats your idea of a free market.
well..you can fucking keep it."

I don't think you have been paying attention, @enoch. No, I don't think we have a free market and you cannot have a free market if there is a government interfering with it. So I don't know what your, "you can fucking keep it," bullshit is about.

"you only seem to address one part of the equation.
or are you oblivious to the harm that corporate america has wrought for the past century?"

Corporate American is a corporatist system, kind of fascist if you want to get technical. It is a mix of private business with government-granted privilege. That is not a free market. Let me say it again, in case you missed it, a truly free market cannot exist while a government monopoly grants privilege to some businesses. That is crony-corporatism, fascism. A free market can only exist as market anarchy. Corporations exploit because of government privilege, be it granted by the US government/state or third world governments/states.

"who or what will keep that behemoth in check?"

Private law based on the rights to contracts and the right of freedom from aggression to person and/or property, enforced by a private legal enforcement system.

The state has not and will not "keep that behemoth in check" as you call it. In fact, the state is the "behemoth." It is absurd to expect the state to police itself. It has not and it will not. That plan is a failure. But "good luck with that."

(btw, I you want to know the real reasons third world countries are third world, particularly Latin America, I suggest you read Alvaro Vargas Llosa's well researched book, "Liberty For Latin America," and see how 500 of state intervention/abuse has led to the current situation. If you want to lecture me about why Latin America is "third world," you'd better do some more research first and really know your stuff. I am quite familiar with the situation there.)

"what do you think will happen when you take regulation off the table?"

When you take government-granted privilege off the table, things get better and corporations and (more importantly) governments cannot abuse individuals, as some corporations and virtually all governments now do. And you replace those privileges (euphemistically called "regulations") with laws based on non-aggression and enforcement of rights to self-ownership and property.

All "exploitation" comes from aggression. All of it.

Aggression means initiating violence. Without government support, no one can initiate violence without becoming a criminal. And criminals shall be dealt with accordingly. But as long as governments/states grant aggression privileges, then you have legalized crime.

"do you understand what feudalism actually is?"

Perhaps you'd like to restate this in a non-condescending way. If you have something to say about feudalism, then say it. Explain whatever you want to explain...

"we are living in what is now being called a "neo-feudalism" state."

I don't care to have a state, so you can take this complaint to the statists. (Good luck with that.)

"you point to the government but not to the invisible hand that owns it.which is corporate america"

"Corporate America" could do little harm if any, if it weren't for some corporations' use of government. Government serves no purpose other than to allow those who control it take from those who don't. The only solution to this is to not have that tool/weapon available to whomever takes control of it. Corporations don't own it. They just use it as much as possible (just like unions do, just like all sorts of special interest groups do, just like voting blocks do, and mostly just like politicians and bureaucrats do, and even citizens who "game" the system in one way or another).

"then again.i am a pretty crappy capitalist."

That likely makes you a "pretty crappy anarchist" too.
No offense intended.
Libertarian socialist kind of contradicts itself, does it not?
Take what you want from this message or not.
Good luck.

I've followed long rabbit warrens before on this, so let's start with definitions:
I am arguing from the definition of the following:
Atheist as the belief that there is NOT a God or Gods.
Agnostic as the belief that one does not, or can not know if there are or are not God(s).

From those definitions, non-theist religions would be completely compatible for an Atheist to be party to. If we already are in disagreement then hurray, we likely agree and it's just semantics.

From the above definitions though, my problem arises with claims that any particular belief or non-belief is far more 'special' than the others and it alone provides great benefit X to society. Those kind of bold proclamations have historically always led to fanatical behaviors and tragedy.

I don't recognize Atheism as being linked one way or another to forcing ones beliefs onto others. Plenty of theist religions claim strong prohibitions against forcing their beliefs on others. Atheism though, as you say, is merely a non-belief in God(s) and so said people can equally support or oppose forcing said belief on others. What might that look like? Well, North Korea perhaps if one must request the most extreme of examples. From strict definitions, I'm pretty sure it is accurate to describe the <ahem>Great<ahem> Leader(s) as atheists who have whole heartedly embraced forcing their own beliefs on their people at threat of death or worse. One can rest assured no North Korean is able to publicly be found out with the belief that some being exists that is greater than the Great Leader without grave repercussions.

I think the real story is that people seem to be xenophilic...which implies that eventually, we'll end up with a blending of all races. That oughta put an end to racism, one way or another.

So are we not putting isdupe for a reason? Just to make sure that people watch it one way or another? Wouldn't putting @enoch's video (the original) up at number one achieve the same thing or is there something I'm missing?

Unconsciousness is the best indicator of head injury severity (for non-external bleeding wounds). He didn't go unconscious which means he didn't get hurt that badly. I'm guessing he didn't even receive a contusion.

At the 0:05 second mark he hits the ground and it looks to me like his head does not hit the ground until he relaxes it back and then he rolls sideways. But, given the bad angle, low resolution, and distance from the child, none of us can tell one way or another exactly how hard his head hit the ground. We're all just speculating that part.

I've treated lots of people with serious head wounds - mushed skull, subdural bleeding, etc. Not bleeding (either internal or external) is exactly what you do want.

I find it terribly funny how everybody gets upset at this. Did you really expect your justice system to be fair? America is the world leader in jailing its own population and yet even the most obvious criminal behaviour (yes, I'm looking at you, Wall Street) isn't even investigated.
It doesn't matter who's at fault here. It's doesn't matter if hoodies are lethal weapons or listening to the police is a bad idea. The fact is that laws that allow these killings to happen in the first place are wrong, that's what matters. Like in many other cases we discuss the people involved in a problem, not the problem itself. I don't give a shit about George Zimmerman, he has blood on his hands one way or another. I don't care where Ed Snowden is hanging out right now either. I care about laws that give others easy excuses to murder me, I care about the invasion of my privacy. I care about the issues not the people bringing them to our attention.
If I gave a shit about Zimmerman, I'd tail him until he notices and confronts me and then I'd blow his brains out. "I was scared, I thought he was armed and would shoot me, so I shot first. Stand your ground."
But he's just a diversion.

@Kofi, If your gonna state that I'm using misinformation I'd appreciate telling me specifically where. I'll not claim to perfection, but I do my best to not knowingly miss state facts and if you think I have I'd like to clear it up one way or another.

If he made his oath to the US government, they broke faith first. All bets are off.

If he made his oath to the US people, which I believe he did, he has kept his word. Defending them against threats both foreign and DOMESTIC. The government is a threat.

Which doesn't bother me one way or another as an Australian. Strip away your bullshit diversions re: oaths, I see a very small man bravely standing up to a very big bully (the US government) and the cowards that support it (you...).

And if you do need more specifics...

http://southerncrossreview.org/78/madar-manning.html

Well referenced, although I doubt you'll give the reasoning the fair hearing it deserves. You've already made up your mind and decided to defend your stance no matter what.

Funny to me that Dawkins thinks he's charming, and the lack of the trait is due to negative media. Heh.
As someone who is Atheist/doubtfully-Agnostic (understanding that something like this can never, ever be proven one way or another, damn religious "logic"), I've really hated Dawkins and the late-Hitchens monologues about religious belief.
While I wholly agree with them, I could never reconcile that someone who had the world-stage could be so obtuse and offensive about spreading their beliefs. I could never claim they spoke for my beliefs, because they treated those who held that which they found false with such disrespect and disregard to the point of actually lowering themselves below those which they attacked.
You will never change the minds of those you disagree with by calling them ignorant or stupid, and for years that is exactly what they have done, in all all their own personal ignorance and blindness in the face of their celebrity. It was disgusting.
In this interview it seems like Dawkins has now found a "rival" who has tempered his idiocy to some extent (though the quote I started this post with would be argument to the contrary), but hopefully they will learn.
I abhor fundamental religious belief, but Dawkins and Hitchens were two atheists who, by their attitudes and egos alone, proved a need for a supposed moral belief system for all of mankind.

Wish those guys had gone to school or somethin'!