Aw, no pigeon kills? Reminds me of some of those hawk-POV hunting videos.

That's true for a post industrial POV.
When machines already exist, and you just need energy to get things moving.

The energetic concerns of bygone eras were :
Whale oil, and later kerosene. For lighting. (note: back then, a day's work would only buy minutes of light)
Firewood, and later coal. For heating.
Manpower was the only energy user when it came to food production.

Early machines such as the combine were horse drawn, and did not need an energy architecture in place. (ignoring "food" as an energy)

Later machines used steam power, and hence could piggy back on the already existing wood/coal energy architecture (in turn stimulating it to grow larger).

Once the machinery industry was established, and the revenue generation was in place, it was possible to invest in improvements and alternative energies - ultimately leading up to oil burning machinery being common.

In any case, historically, industrialization drove the energy industry. (As it should, why have an industry to produce a product (energy) that isn't needed?)
And industrialization depended on a conducive society. A place where an inventor could own his invention, and could sell it, allowing things that were no more than ideas or garage trinkets to transition into products - which in turn place demand on other resources such as [forms of] energy.

In the past, there was nothing, so everything was build from the ground up. Industries grew out of nothing, they weren't established up front.
Modern times are different, where you have investment capital from entities who's entire existence revolves around investing, and you can front the establishment of an industry in the calculated hope of future demand.
(Granted, lords/aristocrats had a hand in industrial investment. Just not the kind or scale that you can see today.)

What you say applies a bit later, when industrialization was already well under way. Like when Thomas Edison used investment capital to fund power plants and an electrical network, in order to power the first [practical, but not 'first'] light bulb in New York.

-scheherazade

Don't even know where to begin with the statement, ' I also attribute this to black people and their culture--after all they should be better than crime since their roots come from an afrocentric value background.'

Even if you were hinting at sarcasm, that's a pretty fucking 'clueless-of-history' slavery in the U.S., POV

Afrocentric??? Gimme a fucking break, that's a rarity in black culture in the U.S. because it was systematically beaten and tortured out of the slave-class.

As to the other so-called groups cited well sir, it's your responsibility to associate and that with discretion, with any and all PEOPLE according to your own standards (or lack thereof) of ethics and morality, isn't it??

Life won't get any better for whom?? For youm???

If you are referring to the POV of the video, do you mean a less 'South American' view of Venezuela? I believe it was compiled by a Venezuelan.

"I don't like it it when mummy and daddy fight!"

Fair enough I can't disagree with a lot of that (your right to say it was directed at you upon a 2nd reading sorry).

As far as your criticism of Chingy in general your half right, but what I see after lurking on here for a few years reading posts is someone who has bashed his head against the same wall so long it's hurt.

Perhaps I'm projecting (don't we all?) but I see a pitfall I've fallen into myself many times throughout my life and it's the same pitfall we all fall into in our own ways. Love is the most virulent and dangerous of poisons!

Without wishing to delve into a very lengthy essay on the dynamics of dualistic consciousness/reality I strongly suspect that Chingy went through what is ultimately a very similar thought process to the one you just espoused i.e. "I'm sick of people not even trying to understand my heartfelt positions so fuck them".

Long story short: a lack of sympathy and patience on both sides.

Sad but entirely understandable and I have no desire to get on a high horse about it. I'm as bad if not frequently worse myself. This is the great curse of caring; we expose our flanks and allow our opponents blades to drive that bit deeper.

Is it really such a surprise that the more we care the thicker our armour of contempt becomes?

I guess when all is said and done though it's not my business to tell either one of you how to behave. Just from my pov your mutual bitterness here stems from a common source. Both of your arguments make perfect sense to me as does your contempt for each other and that on balance is probably what bummed me out enough to pitch in (futilely) with my own 2cents.


I'd like to ask you both to be a little more understanding with each other but I have no right to do that (nor would it work unless you each wanted it to anyway). So I shall end simply with "Do what thau wilts".

All the research I've ever read/heard from professional sources appears to completely refute what you are suggesting.

Maintaining a decent distance speeds up the average flow of traffic! Being a little further behind doesn't slow anyone down it just makes them further away from each other.

A car doing 30mph 2 feet behind another is going EXACTLY as fast as a car going 30mph 20 feet behind another. Distance between cars doesn't make anyone have to go any slower, simply that they are further away relative to each other.

It also has the benefit of reducing or even preventing the wave phenomenon which SLOWS DOWN the traffic or even stops it dead. (capitals just for emphasis not sarcasm).

The distinction you are suggesting between smooth and fast flowing makes no sense to me. Smooth flowing traffic IS fast flowing traffic. It's the wave effect that slows traffic down not the amount of tarmac taken up.

The physical length of highway a car takes up would only matter if you were trying to park them. I can see why this might seem to matter from the subjective POV of someone stuck in a jam/slow moving traffic. But if everyone maintained distance this situation would be less likely to occur (and reduced in effect when it does).


Smooth traffic is fast traffic. We are not confused. This is based on modern professional studies of traffic dynamics. Having less lanes is know to actually speed up jammed traffic under many circumstances (London M25 springs to mind)


Let me put this another way. Watch that vid again. He isn't going any slower than the flow of traffic he's just further away from the car in front. You can tell this because he's maintaining a steady distance from the car in front. The only people who are being slowed down are the asshats behind him driving bumper to bumper. They experience what seems like a temporary reduction in speed but this is simply an illusion created by giving back the healthy separation between vehicles that should have existed in the 1st place. i.e. they are just "paying back" a few feet of roadspace each, which they took up at a previous point in time. They won't get anywhere any faster or slower as a result & this way it helps to reduce the "slinky effect" which actually does reduce average travel time from point A to B.

Well when you find a scientist that can take notes from a molecular POV, let us know, eh??

What is a REAL scientist anyhow??

Your video, POV from the crazy christmas tree helicopter guy, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 3 Badge!

From my POV neither of those things is necessarily a negative

I suppose it must be difficult to appreciate a woman with a fuller figure if you have a penis like a cocktail sausage though right @cluhlenbrauck?

#feedingthetrollbecauseyourbored

(I also posted this reply on his profile not realising in case that causes any confusion)

My 1st post in that thread was intended purely to inform. Most people I meet who own dogs are painfully unaware of what I was describing and consequently foster futile behaviour and negative emotional outbursts around things their dogs do (the idea that everyone in that thread already knows about this is laughable). This is far from the biggest ill in the world but it's there and I saw an opportunity to present an alternative view of events in the hope that perhaps someone somewhere might learn something (or at least consider an idea rather than just mindlessly following social tradition). Where I learned that idea is irrelevant, it stands or falls on its own merits.

Your response garnered hostility because it was indistinguishable from saying "your spoiling our fun by trying to suggest that the animal might actually be terrified and confused and our fun is more important than someone/thing suffering". You didn't try to challenge what I said, you simply indicated some level of disdain for the fact I was even trying to say something intelligent, or because I didn't mindlessly jump on the "look at the terrified dog" bandwaggon like the rest.

Your damm right it was an emotional response, the attitude you displayed from my POV causes untold suffering throughout the world (and I don't just mean dogs which in the grand scheme of things is relatively harmless). If you read my reply again you'll see that at no point did I suggest you were disagreeing with me, I was insulting you precisely because you didn't even try, you just tried to indite me for trying to raise the level of the conversation. It was that and that alone that garnered my hostility, I'm happy to be proven wrong or even for people to switch off and ignore me but to give me flack just for trying I have little patience for.

You have clearly misunderstood my whole argument against you, if I were to take my own advice then I would either challenge your point (which I did) or accept that I didn't understand enough to try and counter intelligently.

What you did was insult me for just trying to make an intelligent argument. That is where the " little gem of "Fuck You"" came from.

Also it's no good getting on a high horse about me being "over sensitive" when you took the time to jump onto my profile and unleash a boatload of bile yourself. That argument would only have worked if you said it to yourself and got on with your life. But you didn't, you felt you had to give me a piece of your mind just like I did.
I'm not going to call you over sensitive, I'm just going to call you human because that's what you are, just like me ;-).

Edit: for the record that Bill Hicks quote refers to precisely the kind of anti-intellectualism I'm accusing you of. It was because an audience member objected to Bill trying to raise an idea above the trivial self interested level that they felt had been threatened. Or to put it another way Bill had spoiled their fun by trying to make an intelligent point rather than just wallowing in their own unconsidered ignorance. As far as I'm concerned it was entirely appropriate.

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

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Flying-Eagle-POV

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by eric3579. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by eric3579.

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Flying-Eagle-POV