Cool. Now when I leave my laptop unattended I'll let this run to make it look like I've been really busy figuring out really important stuff

That's absolutely happening here - it's a really good practical example of the speed of sound. It doesn't really take much distance for the effect to be noticeable - I was in marching band in high school and when we were spread out across a football field it was *really* important we pay attention to the conductor, or everything would end up sounding super muddled to the audience.

Who told you that?!
You mean the law that allows some border barriers when they are useful and don't violate other local, federal, or international laws? That did not authorize what's now proposed, and didn't pay for it either.

Btw, you do know he hasn't built a single foot of new wall, right? So far he's barely repaired old fences, but he tells you he's built hundreds of miles of new wall. You deserve to not be lied to. You don't have to sit still for that disrespectful abuse. Call him out when he lies to you. If the wall is really important, why allow him to get away with faking it?

"that doesn't justify using people in laboratory experiments"

uhhh, exactly how does holodoc think medical science works?
We use people in laboratory experiments all the damn time. It's called double-blind testing and it means that very sick people get given a placebo that we know does nothing.

I don't remember this episode, but I'm surprised at this lack of nuance from Star Trek.

And holo-space-nazi is right... it's funny how ethics go out the window when one of the main cast members life is threatened. But if a red-shirt is on the table....

Anyway, there's a massive difference between USING knowledge obtained by unethical means and GAINING knowledge by unethical means.

Don't get me wrong, medical ethics is really important. But throwing away knowledge after the fact is not only pointless, it's immoral. Especially in this case, where you're not even using the person who did the research, just a digital representation of them.

This is what I like about her. The Aziz story is... weird, and I certainly have my opinion on it, but I love the last minute here where she calls out what is really important and let me reframe the way I was approaching the situation. I like being made to think. It is just refreshing to have someone presenting logic and thoughtfulness as opposed to just screaming into the internet.

@eric3579
agreed,and i suspect most people struggle with this,but i think he made a really important point that we all need to address,and that is our own bias.

too many people for far too long have sought information that aligns with their own narrative,their own,personal and subjective understandings.we see those who identify as conservative reject anything that does not adhere to their own,narrow worldview,and we see those who identify as progressive do the exact same thing.

and yet if challenged,BOTH will stubbornly declare that their information is solid and without reproach.this is statistically impossible.

another great point he makes is how some people have been conditioned to accept opinion and conflict as somehow being "news".

he also makes a point on how some news outlets have done shoddy and poor work,but we should not throw the baby out with the bath water.while this may be true,i feel he was far too lenient on those who profess to be journalists.he gives them a pass for doing mediocre work,because that is what many journalists do in this new climate of:partisan hackery,access and propaganda.

so when we talk about "mainstream media",we are talking about only a few,monolithic corporations who DO have an agenda,and that agenda is PROFIT.

so we can look back to the run up to the iraq war,and see how phil donahue was fired from MSNBC for being critical of the war.the highest rated show on that network at that time.so if PROFIT is the model,then donahue being fired makes no sense..UNLESS you consider that the owners of MSNBC were general electric,who at that time were heavily invested in military contracts on the dawn of a new war.

so the profit was not from advertising from donahue's show,but rather the billions in defense contracts general electric was poised to receive from the impending iraq war,and donahue's criticisms of that war had the possibility to affect the profits of general electric.

and that is the one point that is missing from mr green's take on the mainstream media:their inability or outright refusal to criticize the current corporate establishment,and how many journalists kneel at the altar of their corporate masters.

so while he makes a lot of great points.that particular glaring omission is disturbing.

speaking only for myself i tend to only consume independent media,and focus on journalists who have earned my trust.

ultimately it is up to us to decide who we trust and who we are suspicious of,and to discuss those important issues among ourselves to better refine our understandings.

This is a fantastic, really important experiment. The principle is immediately, visually demonstrable, and showing this to a lot of people could save a lot of lives!

This is really important. *promote
MM lays out how REAL a President Trump is, based on some of Hillary's fatal flaws, like the TPP support and the loss of the Rust Belt support.

http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/michael-moores-5-reasons-why-trump-will-win

Yet she still continues to make poor choices, like double-down on Wall Street/Banking support with Caine, and a big wet sloppy kiss to Wasserman-Schultz after evidence surfaces of their conspiracy. This is the behavior of the Entitled, not the Deserved.

But maybe the stakes aren't as high for everyone else. The kind of people who would benefit most from Bernie might see the only solution is to vote in protest, maybe hope to push things to the point where fundamental change is the only option.

Equally, those guys might say you are crazy for voting for compromise election after election until things are so bad and homogenised between the parties that you may as well not have voted. In fact, I strongly believe that's what led to the rise of people like Sanders and Trump in the first instance - the complete failure of politicians to fairly represent the views of the people in the country.

I mean, depending on your position on the socioeconomic ladder, it's either hugely important to keep Trump out or just another meaningless exchange of faces. And then you find out that there's an inward corruption, the establishment machine shifts and rules you out again.

You don't have to convince me btw, I'm just saying those people do exist and if you take a close look you can kind of see their point. If someone proves themselves to be untrustworthy, you're on shaky ground by saying that they're the devil you know. If you don't know the devil you know, what are they?

For me, in my country, my patience for compromise is gone. Where would you draw the line in the sand on compromise and manipulation? The next candidate? Or the one after that? Isn't it always really important? Do we compromise forever and let global warming, nuclear war or terrorists from countries we destabilised wipe us out?

Compare that to Germany. Now go make America great again. Sorry to invoke Trump on this one, but my expert US advisor tells me it is her biggest worry about Trump, that his success will make more people feel like its OK to behave like an asshole.

Also the call obviously must have been something really important and time-critical.

Many self professed feminists believe it is about hating men too, but I assume "no true feminist" would ever do that right?

I wasn't trying to wilfully misunderstand you, but rather to pursue my whole contention about any political/social argument:

Individual People and specific arguments over ideologies always.

When the reverse is true and ideology is placed before people or the specific merits of an argument, the result is dehumanising and anti-intellectual (even if by the slimmest margins sometimes).

That's not to say that, where mutual understanding already exists, ideological terms are completely useless. But the moment individuals disagree, those ideological assumptions are going to get in the way of a productive dialogue.

My whole point I guess is that this seems rather anti-humanist if you will pardon the irony of taking an ideological position.
If as a humanist one believes that the optimal way is for everyone to be judged only on the merits of their individual words, deeds and capacity.

Rather than by culture, race, gender or some other involuntary and/or irrelevant factors.

Assuming you agree in principle with that definition of humanism in terms of goals, then what we are arguing here really is collectivism vs individualism.

You are suggesting we can get better results by pushing the "right" version of said ideology and suppressing the "wrong", correct?

I am arguing ultimately that we seem to get better results in the long term, by encouraging free and critical thought and allowing all ideas (no matter how egregious) a fair fight.

This puts me contrary to many tenets of the various feminist ideologies and concordant with others. Sometimes wildly so.

If I want to try to be a good humanist, I have no choice but to try and understand each on their own terms.

When someone describes themselves as a "Feminist", that could mean anything from "kill all men" to "women should have fundamental legal equality".

It seems almost as redundant as racial and cultural epithets, it tells me very little really important about you or how you really think, to know you are Black, or White or Asian or Polish, Spanish etc. etc. It's just another excuse to put an idea above the person in front of you or to not have to think too much about ones own.

i.e. Collectivist thinking.

I think this may represent the very antithesis of intellectual progress.

However I am a Hegelian and I just defined a Thesis-antithesis relationship............ That means the next great breakthrough should lie in the synthesis of the two.......

................

Collective individualism! All we should need is a mass movement of free critical thought and.....bollocks.

It's over people, we have officially peaked as a species! I'm calling it

I miss the old format.

I REALLY miss seeing the length before clicking thru. I can live with the channels, but the length is really important to me.

My aunt on my mom's Danish side would eat this. The really important thing, she said, was to always eat it outside. If you don't, you're going to stink up the inside of your house for weeks. =)

This is some next level advertising. A great video, evoking a rather intense emotional response to associate a communal life experience with a particular brand. It's the worst, but it's also the best.

Thanks to all the commentors for relating their experiences. I have no wife but recently grew a beard. I'm happy for people to have a different experience of my face but worried my future wife might like it too much and not like my shaved face. Maybe that's not really important...

A couple of things:

I have verifiable evidence than Marijuana is both addictive and harmful

unless you've conducted double-blinded randomised controlled trials, you don't have evidence, you have anecdotes. Yeah, that sounds kinda dickish, but it's really important.

no one should dictate what plants others can eat

That's pretty ambiguous. First, we're not just talking about eating, we're talking about using in other ways too (in this case, smoking). Second, we already regulate other plants/products, like alcohol and tobacco.

For me, it's pretty simple. Marijuana does not cause sufficient harm as to warrant making it illegal. If an informed consenting adult chooses to smoke, drink or get stoned, that should be their choice. Obviously you shouldn't be drunk or stoned while driving or doing surgery or caring for kids, etc, but we already control for these cases with alcohol.

TBH, as much as I love beer, whiskey and wine, it's much harder to justify keeping alcohol legal than it is to keep marijuana illegal.