Not to overstate the obvious, but that's a HUGE croc! That elephant is a full-grown tusker and doesn't make the croc look that small.

Thanks Interesting article, and quite topical. He didn't anticipate how energy consumption in the west would skyrocket as aircon, big tv's, computers etc. would consume ever more and more power, but overall that article has anticipated many recent sift discussions.

To call me a fan of Wigner would be to vastly overstate my familiarity with his work... which begins and ends with that one paper.

>> ^CreamK:

What a load of bull... All thou he is right on one thing: we would see only carly-rae-rihanna-gaga-shit on that channel that we already are been forcefed. The reason they went for reality route is money, specifically advertisement value of "original programming" is way higher than any bunch of short 3-5 minute video clips, cost of doing one minute of reality show is hundreds of times cheaper than one minute of a music video.
It certainly is not because we steal music, it ain't about us wanting to hear Nirvana, that all is just pure lying. It's cost per minute vs revenue per minute.
Music videos are more important than ever, when you go to youtube and search for that one song you want to hear, you expect to see a music video. Even if it's one of the "b-side" songs you still expect it to have a visual part of the story..
The problem isn't our generation but the 14 year old girls, they get all the attention since they are most willing to spend money on fabricated dreams. Our generation, the 80-90s kids grew up seeing really ground breaking good music and wish to see more real art from the next generation. i would love to scream at MTV "too much dubstep", "kids these days are crazy, i don't understand this"... Now the music i see from youngsters is "this is incredibly stupid, monotonous, no substance crap" as we undertand very well what that Nicki Minaj crap is about.


It's not "pure lying". There's been a massive drop in what was a lucrative CD market. It made sense to push music videos when the tv screen was the only one you had access to.

With both those changes you can hardly expect to attract advertisers with music programming. Piracy has been a factor and while it serves certain interests to overstate it, the switch from physical media to downloads meant huge revenue drops.

Are videos still important? Yes but as he says the budget for these things has plummeted. And probably for the better. The more memorable videos of recent years have probably not suffered for the lack of speedboats and explosions.

>> ^xxovercastxx:
At best, life has found ways to cling to existence in nooks and crannies which are slightly less unpleasant than the norm.
And even this is overstating it, I think. The universe is neither encouraging nor discouraging to the development of life, except in one aspect:



Systems that perpetuate themselves have a tendency to perpetuate themselves. Systems that perpetuate themselves more effectively have a tendency to perpetuate themselves more effectively. Life is not particularly mysterious.

And I believe when it comes to the Universe, "Why" and "How" are the exact same question, and it seems like we're a long way from being able to answer that.

@hpqp
Good points, all.
However, the "cognition is sacred" (as opposed to "human life is sacred") viewpoint has a hole in it about the size of human consciousness. (Oh man, tangent time!) Some loudly proclaim the presence of a divine soul or spirit, but there is certainly something else there, aside from the physical form.
Obviously, human (and for that matter animal) experience and behavior is influenced by the physical brain and its processes. Damage to it predictably and reproducibly changes behavior and perception. As much as some of us would like to think otherwise, the physical structure and function of the brain influences who we are and what we do as individuals. I would honestly have no problem accepting that the physical universe as we've modeled it functions precisely as it has, autonomously. (Right down to fruitless debates between individuals on the Internet.) Evolution is a real thing. The brain has developed as yet another beneficial mutation that promotes the propagation of its host organism. Input in, behavior out, feedback loop. Click click click, ding.
But the problem is that we experience this. Somehow this mass of individual cells (and below that individual molecules, atoms, quarks) experiences itself in a unified manner, or rather something experiences this mass of matter in a unified manner. No matter how far down you track it, there's no physical accommodation for consciousness. To give a specific example, the cells in the eye detect light (intensity and wavelength) by electrochemical stimulation. The binary "yes\no" of stimulation is routed through the thalamus in individual axons, physically separated in space, to the visual cortex, where it's propagated and multiplied through a matrix of connections, but all individual cells, and all just ticking on and off based on chemical and electrical thresholds. The visual field is essentially painted as a physical map across a region of the brain, but somehow, the entire image is experienced at once. Cognition is necessarily distinct from consciousness.

What this means, practically, is that we must attribute value to cognition and consciousness separately.
Cognition may not be completely understood, but we can explain it in increasingly specific terms, and it seems that we'll be able to unravel how the brain works within the current model. It absolutely has a value. We consider a person who is "a vegetable" to have little to no current or expected quality of life, and generally are comfortable making the decision to "pull the plug".
Consciousness, however, is what we believe makes us special in the universe, despite being completely empty from a theoretical standpoint. If sensory input, memory, and behavioral responses are strictly a function of the material, then stripped of those our "unified experience" is completely undetectable\untestable. We have no way of knowing if our neighbor is a meaty automaton or a conscious being, but we assume. Which is precisely why it's special. It's obviously extra-physical. Perhaps @gorillaman's tomatobaby (that is, the newborn which he says is without Mind) has a consciousness, but it isn't obvious because the physical structure is insufficient for meaningful manifestation. I have difficulty accepting that consciousness, empty though it is on its own, is without value. "So what," though, right? If you can't detect it in anyone but yourself, what use is it in this discussion? Clearly, there IS something about the structure or function of the brain that's conducive to consciousness. We are only conscious of what the brain is conscious of and what it has conceived of within its bounds. So the brain at least is important, but it's not the whole point.
Anyway, there's that tangent.

The "stream of potential life" argument has its limits. Any given sperm or egg is exceedingly unlikely to develop into a human. For a single fertilized egg, the odds shift dramatically. That's why people seek abortions, because if they don't do something, they're probably going to have a baby. The probability of "brewin' a human" is pretty good once you're actually pregnant. The "potential for human life" is very high, which is why you can even make the quality of life argument.

Obviously, you realize how those on the anti-abortion side of the debate react when someone who is...let's say abortion-tolerant ("pro-abortion" overstates it for just about anyone, I suspect) says that they're considering the "quality of life" of the prospective child in their calculus. They get this mental image: "Your mother and I think you'll both be better off this way, trust me. *sound of a meatball in a blender*"
I appreciate that we're trying to minimize suffering in the world and promote goodness, but I think it's over-reaching to paint every potential abortion (or even most) as a tragic tale of suffering simply because the parent wasn't expecting parenthood. Quality of life is much more nuanced. Many wonderful humans have risen from squalor and suffering and will tell you earnestly they believe that background made them stronger\wiser\more empathetic\special. Many parents who were devastated to learn they were pregnant love their unexpected children. And holy crap, kids with Downs, man. What's the quality of life for them and their parents? Terribly challenging and terribly rewarding.
No, I'm not trying to paint rainbows over economic hardship and child abuse and say that "everything's going to be finnnnneeee", but quality of life is a personal decision and it's unpredictable. Isn't that what "It Gets Better" is all about? "Things may seem grim and terrible now, but don't kill yourself just yet, you're going to miss out on some awesome stuff."

Hrm. Thus far we've really been framing abortion as being about "unready" parents, probably because the discussion started on the "mother can choose to have sex" angle.
You've got to wonder how confused this issue would get if we could detect genetically if a fetus might be homosexual. Would Christians loosen their intolerance for abortion if it meant not having a "gay baby"? (Even if it would fly in the face of their belief that homosexuality is a choice.) Would pro-choicer's take a second look at the availability of abortion? Would it still be "one of those terrible things that happens in a free society"?

On western aid, you're spot on. It's so easy to throw money at a problem and pretend we're helping. Humanitarian aid does nothing if we're not promoting and facilitating self-sufficiency. Some people just need a little help getting by until they're back on their feet, but some communities need a jump-start. As you say, they need practical education. I've only been on handful of humanitarian missions myself, so I give more financially than I do of my sweat, but I'm careful to evaluate HOW the organizations I give to use the funds. Are they just shipping food or are they teaching people how to live for themselves and providing the resources to get started? Sure, some giving is necessary. It's impossible for someone to think about sustainable farming and simple industry if they're dying from cholera or starving to death.

>> ^MarineGunrock:

Yet.

And I mean that. >> ^bcglorf:
This can't be overstated. Abhorrent as the Tea Party may be, they aren't actively executing their political opposition and they aren't trying to institute death by stoning for women convicted of adultery(eg. being rape victims).
>> ^messenger:
"EDITOR’S NOTE: While they have way too much in common, the actual Taliban uses political violence to achieve its ends and the Tea Party doesn’t — and that’s an important distinction." --moveon.org




I do agree with this sentiment as the Taliban does it's "thing" differently, it should be made known though that tonight (and other talks too) at the RNC convention there was a large outcry for: making sure we have the best military ever and forever, ever; and, Iran and Syria, we may attack you at random if we have Republicans in office, so just keep yourselves on your toes. Oh and if you didn't know, we didn't need to really talk to anyone in the world about anything because, America is NUMBER FUCKING ONE AND YOU BETTER FUCKING KNOW YOUR PLACE!!!

Atleast, that is how it came across to me as a whole... So, as we have a VERY powerful military I'd say that we are a very active terrorizer of other countries (NOT just Syria and Iran; Mitt decided that Cold War part two was an excellent idea/threat to make). They may not be the Taliban, but they have a Pandora's Box that I imagine if opened and used, kills FAR more than the Taliban could ever hope to accomplish, both good and bad guys...

But, basically that was the entire gist of the "foreign policy" talked about. I'm sure the world is enamored with us right now, we can just ask people on here: If you thought the RNC speech's were extremely pro-American "Empire'ish" making many of the talks rude, condescending, and downright scary... Please vote me up. Otherwise, go for the opposite (remember this should be for the foreign crowd, if your the U.S. just reply or you can vote down, and then I'll just assume your a Teabagger).

@MarineGunrock not really going against anything you said (what you said was right anyhow and feeds into what I'm saying), I just wanted to grab all the quotes you had.

Yet.



And I mean that. >> ^bcglorf:

This can't be overstated. Abhorrent as the Tea Party may be, they aren't actively executing their political opposition and they aren't trying to institute death by stoning for women convicted of adultery(eg. being rape victims).
>> ^messenger:
"EDITOR’S NOTE: While they have way too much in common, the actual Taliban uses political violence to achieve its ends and the Tea Party doesn’t — and that’s an important distinction." --moveon.org

>> ^bcglorf:

This can't be overstated. Abhorrent as the Tea Party may be, they aren't actively executing their political opposition, they aren't trying to keep girls out of school by throwing acid in their faces and they aren't trying to institute death by stoning for women convicted of adultery(eg. being rape victims).
>> ^messenger:
"EDITOR’S NOTE: While they have way too much in common, the actual Taliban uses political violence to achieve its ends and the Tea Party doesn’t — and that’s an important distinction." --moveon.org



But they sure made a point of ensuring that everyone knew they were gathering up their guns now, didn't they? Or are we forgetting all those weapons turning up at political rallies a few years ago?

I'd say that was pretty clearly intended as intimidation through threats of violence. Different, maybe in scale...but still terrorist actions.

This can't be overstated. Abhorrent as the Tea Party may be, they aren't actively executing their political opposition, they aren't trying to keep girls out of school by throwing acid in their faces and they aren't trying to institute death by stoning for women convicted of adultery(eg. being rape victims).

>> ^messenger:

"EDITOR’S NOTE: While they have way too much in common, the actual Taliban uses political violence to achieve its ends and the Tea Party doesn’t — and that’s an important distinction." --moveon.org

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

Talk about wreckless, how about state-sanctioned murder by helicopter of journalists? Isn't Wikileaks doing a service to humanity by getting this information out? Doesn't this trump "putting our operatives in danger"? >> ^Hybrid:

From the article: "But despite similar warnings ahead of the previous two massive releases of classified U.S. intelligence reports by the website, U.S. officials concede that they have no evidence to date that the documents led to anyone's death."
Oh, so someone has to die first before it's branded reckless. I get it now.
>> ^dag:
You might want to read this. No state wants its secrets revealed - especially when they are violating international law, but sunshine is the best disinfectant. >> ^Hybrid:
Well I think the charges are likely to be espionage related, and I think they can easily be applied. Some documents leaked named key people in hot spots around the world, and put them and their families in immediate danger. This is the reckless part of Assange that I hugely dislike. He doesn't care what's the documents, he just feeds off the controversy. He's not an activist or journalist, he's a walking, talking egotistical, god complex.
>> ^dag:
What would the charges be? - or does that even matter. Seriously - would you charge him with copyright infringement? >> ^Hybrid:
If only it were that simple. Did Assange wake up to all these leaked documents and go "You know what, I'm going to release all these documents belonging to the world's biggest superpower and it will be fine because I'm not a US citizen and therefore they'll just forget about it"?
People get extradited all the time, and not always to their birth countries. The US is currently trying to extradite a UK hacker from the UK. That's right, the UK is debating extraditing one of their own. It happens when you break laws that have international ramifications.
But even if you put all the law/jurisdiction mess aside. It doesn't help that I hugely dislike Assange. He's an egotistical, reckless bastard out to promote his own name. Secondly, I hate The Young Turks. Cenk says Assange is being extradited for "actually doing journalism". Oh fuck off Cenk, releasing a bunch of documents in their raw format, is NOT journalism. Anybody could do that.
>> ^dag:
Just because the documents were classified by the US government - why is it binding on someone who is not a citizen of the US?
If Iran marks their nuclear enrichment plans as top secret - and they wind up on Wikileaks - do you also think Assange should be extradited to Iran to stand trial?
>> ^Hybrid:
I have no issue with seeing Mr. Assange being extradited to the US via Sweden. He made a conscious choice to leak knowingly classified information, now it's time to face the music.

From the article: "But despite similar warnings ahead of the previous two massive releases of classified U.S. intelligence reports by the website, U.S. officials concede that they have no evidence to date that the documents led to anyone's death."
Oh, so someone has to die first before it's branded reckless. I get it now.

>> ^dag:

You might want to read this. No state wants its secrets revealed - especially when they are violating international law, but sunshine is the best disinfectant. >> ^Hybrid:
Well I think the charges are likely to be espionage related, and I think they can easily be applied. Some documents leaked named key people in hot spots around the world, and put them and their families in immediate danger. This is the reckless part of Assange that I hugely dislike. He doesn't care what's the documents, he just feeds off the controversy. He's not an activist or journalist, he's a walking, talking egotistical, god complex.
>> ^dag:
What would the charges be? - or does that even matter. Seriously - would you charge him with copyright infringement? >> ^Hybrid:
If only it were that simple. Did Assange wake up to all these leaked documents and go "You know what, I'm going to release all these documents belonging to the world's biggest superpower and it will be fine because I'm not a US citizen and therefore they'll just forget about it"?
People get extradited all the time, and not always to their birth countries. The US is currently trying to extradite a UK hacker from the UK. That's right, the UK is debating extraditing one of their own. It happens when you break laws that have international ramifications.
But even if you put all the law/jurisdiction mess aside. It doesn't help that I hugely dislike Assange. He's an egotistical, reckless bastard out to promote his own name. Secondly, I hate The Young Turks. Cenk says Assange is being extradited for "actually doing journalism". Oh fuck off Cenk, releasing a bunch of documents in their raw format, is NOT journalism. Anybody could do that.
>> ^dag:
Just because the documents were classified by the US government - why is it binding on someone who is not a citizen of the US?
If Iran marks their nuclear enrichment plans as top secret - and they wind up on Wikileaks - do you also think Assange should be extradited to Iran to stand trial?
>> ^Hybrid:
I have no issue with seeing Mr. Assange being extradited to the US via Sweden. He made a conscious choice to leak knowingly classified information, now it's time to face the music.

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

You might want to read this. No state wants its secrets revealed - especially when they are violating international law, but sunshine is the best disinfectant. >> ^Hybrid:

Well I think the charges are likely to be espionage related, and I think they can easily be applied. Some documents leaked named key people in hot spots around the world, and put them and their families in immediate danger. This is the reckless part of Assange that I hugely dislike. He doesn't care what's the documents, he just feeds off the controversy. He's not an activist or journalist, he's a walking, talking egotistical, god complex.
>> ^dag:
What would the charges be? - or does that even matter. Seriously - would you charge him with copyright infringement? >> ^Hybrid:
If only it were that simple. Did Assange wake up to all these leaked documents and go "You know what, I'm going to release all these documents belonging to the world's biggest superpower and it will be fine because I'm not a US citizen and therefore they'll just forget about it"?
People get extradited all the time, and not always to their birth countries. The US is currently trying to extradite a UK hacker from the UK. That's right, the UK is debating extraditing one of their own. It happens when you break laws that have international ramifications.
But even if you put all the law/jurisdiction mess aside. It doesn't help that I hugely dislike Assange. He's an egotistical, reckless bastard out to promote his own name. Secondly, I hate The Young Turks. Cenk says Assange is being extradited for "actually doing journalism". Oh fuck off Cenk, releasing a bunch of documents in their raw format, is NOT journalism. Anybody could do that.
>> ^dag:
Just because the documents were classified by the US government - why is it binding on someone who is not a citizen of the US?
If Iran marks their nuclear enrichment plans as top secret - and they wind up on Wikileaks - do you also think Assange should be extradited to Iran to stand trial?
>> ^Hybrid:
I have no issue with seeing Mr. Assange being extradited to the US via Sweden. He made a conscious choice to leak knowingly classified information, now it's time to face the music.

Yeah...the day we get a virus, bacteria, or straight up parasitic organism that can tell our brains to do certain things--I'm quiting the human species (I might be overstating it, but I certainly will become very paranoid concerning certain conditions, if you understand me), assuming it looks like this is going to be able to be spread via a fairly hardy species of: younameit. Zombies are one thing, but seriously I REALLY, REALLY, do not want these type of attacks to EVER reach us. Could you even imagine?

On the other side of things, I wonder if that is considered as the best dump evAr.(?) Second, it seems like it just a GREAT species as it seemingly has atleast two worms from the onset of infection (although it looked to me as though there was atleast one more still to come). I mean can the Praying Mantis even survive this event? Is it now the Prayed Upon Mantis instead?

All of the fungi, insects, and other species that use mind or nuerochemicals on their prey and then FORCE their prey to do any sort of commands to do miscellaneous things (like this one, get to water the natural home for that creature). It's literally amazing and terrifying at the same time. My scientific side is extremely engrossed by this and I'm literally in wonder at the amazing biochemistry at play--needed to do this hijack of the mind and to literally reboot it with a new program that told a FOREIGN BODY, something with literally no connection to the predator, it took control and got that body to go to a body of water so that the "litter" could hatch in their primal environment--a TRUE wonder of evolution, even though it is used in such a terrible way, it may have huge things in store for us research wise.

I'm waiting for the day that one of these little bastards makes a little leap and crosses-over and affects humans. Could you even begin to imagine the panic? I imagine that whatever it is would be much like smallpox and shortly after a few infections it would be eliminated from the face of the planet.

>> ^messenger:

Buddhism is a religion. A religion doesn't have to have gods. Perhaps what you mean is Buddhism isn't a religion that requires total control. Jainism is another example of a religion without gods.
I didn't make clear my point about laws, etc. and control: I'm reading into your comments that anything that is about control is always a bad thing, or is always for nefarious purposes. I got this impression because you ended your argument with the conclusion that religions are all about control, as if that was a slam-dunk making them all cults. I pointed out a series of other instances where requiring control over a person wasn't evil, and was even benevolent. This should lead to the conclusion that a religion that asserts control over someone's life may be doing so with good intent. I also did this to highlight the difference between "control" and "excessive control" which you left out. Parental control is normally a good thing. Excessive parental control is a bad thing. Where's the line between control and excessive control? Dunno.
I think you overstated your challenge to me, as there is no religion that requires the relinquishing of free will. They either require or suggest self-control in certain areas, if that's what you mean, but none require relinquishing all decision-making, not even the extreme ones like Jainism, orthodox Judaism, or fundamentalist Islam.>> ^A10anis:
Buddhism is not a religion in the context of this discussion. Neither is the law etc! That said, I will gladly concede, if you can name me a religion/cult which does not require total submission and the relinquishing of free will. I'm done...>> ^messenger:
All faiths do not have the same agenda. That's a ridiculous statement, even if you restrict it to long-established religions. For example, Buddhism seeks to help you find the best person you can be for its own sake, not for the service of some higher power. That's not excessive, and equating it with Scientology in terms of degree of control is not accurate. As for control, yes, all systems --both religious and secular-- involve control. This includes laws, government systems, psychotherapy and parenting. You left out the word "excessive". It's important. Cults are perceived to have excessive control. What constitutes excessive is a matter of debate or personal opinion, but tarring them all with the same brush is still simplistic.

You are a moron, fond only of the nonsense you spout.You have nothing of intellect to convey, so be quiet and know your place...

Buddhism is a religion. A religion doesn't have to have gods. Perhaps what you mean is Buddhism isn't a religion that requires total control. Jainism is another example of a religion without gods.

I didn't make clear my point about laws, etc. and control: I'm reading into your comments that anything that is about control is always a bad thing, or is always for nefarious purposes. I got this impression because you ended your argument with the conclusion that religions are all about control, as if that was a slam-dunk making them all cults. I pointed out a series of other instances where requiring control over a person wasn't evil, and was even benevolent. This should lead to the conclusion that a religion that asserts control over someone's life may be doing so with good intent. I also did this to highlight the difference between "control" and "excessive control" which you left out. Parental control is normally a good thing. Excessive parental control is a bad thing. Where's the line between control and excessive control? Dunno.

I think you overstated your challenge to me, as there is no religion that requires the relinquishing of free will. They either require or suggest self-control in certain areas, if that's what you mean, but none require relinquishing all decision-making, not even the extreme ones like Jainism, orthodox Judaism, or fundamentalist Islam.>> ^A10anis:
Buddhism is not a religion in the context of this discussion. Neither is the law etc! That said, I will gladly concede, if you can name me a religion/cult which does not require total submission and the relinquishing of free will. I'm done...>> ^messenger:
All faiths do not have the same agenda. That's a ridiculous statement, even if you restrict it to long-established religions. For example, Buddhism seeks to help you find the best person you can be for its own sake, not for the service of some higher power. That's not excessive, and equating it with Scientology in terms of degree of control is not accurate. As for control, yes, all systems --both religious and secular-- involve control. This includes laws, government systems, psychotherapy and parenting. You left out the word "excessive". It's important. Cults are perceived to have excessive control. What constitutes excessive is a matter of debate or personal opinion, but tarring them all with the same brush is still simplistic.