Jeez lady, you haven't got a clue who I am or what my sensibilities are-Do you always read what's written and make it sound the way you'd like it to in your head? I mean, I do sometimes, but I heard tell that some are incapable of anything else.

I will gladly be the last person in line to hand in my firearms, in the perfect world of, "This isn't some whacky socio-genetic experiment I never signed-up for."

Again, focus on the dangerously inept beings groomed for failure in the United States by design, lose the big pharma/eroding family/and a general shit-think of, "I could give a fuck about anyone else but me" attitude that seeks to replace sanity, and guns aren't a fucking problem, they're just another tool in the shed.

...and yeah, coolhund, yo do "Gotta love the bigotry and hypocrisy on this topic. From both sides", otherwise your head may fucking explode!!

@CreamK - you can't expect a non-player to be interested in darts, no matter how good. After watching this, I put up my board in my shed and bought a new set of spears. It's like a compulsion.

The most consistent thing about the roads themselves is that there are cars on them. More so with parking lots. The Gas Station had way more than enough roof area to cover it's electricity usage, no need for putting panels underneath parked cars.

A light coat of dust on panels can decrease their efficiency by up to 50%... there would have to be a CONSTANT fleet of road washers, slowing down traffic. At least with roof/road mounted panels they can be tilted to shed most of the dust/pollen that accumulates, though they do have to be washed monthly.

And then there's the question of what happens with accidents. Sure, the tensile strength might be as strong as steel, but it's because of the enormous pressure it's under. it only takes one flaw in the surface to make the glass susceptible to shattering... just the thing to make car accidents more hazardous.

That's the least practical way to knock down a shed I've ever seen...

Thanks YouDieJoe for shedding some light on the situation. Glad someone was able to put some real input into the thread, rather than from their armchair and their ego.

http://videosift.com/video/Peter-Kay-On-The-Art-Of-Dipping-Biscuits-In-Your-Cup-Of-Tea This was the first one. I'm thinking maybe I can't accumulate more PP if I've got more than two? I had three there, but thought you could have up to four? Still doesn't shed any light on why I didn't get a notification, but yeah And this one http://videosift.com/video/Queen-Live-Aid-Entire-Performance-July-13th-1985.

Ta.

>> ^Fletch:

I watched this film the first time expecting more of an "Alien" prequelish movie, but the "Alien" stuff just seemed thrown in as an afterthought. I've watched it several times now and have grown to love it, though. I think it would be better without the "Alien" shit in it at all. There is simply a much bigger and better story here, and with Noomi Rapace and Michael Fassbender having already signed on for the sequel, it looks like the story will be going where ever they went.
There are some things that don't add up very well, like Charlie getting all depressed because they only discovered dead "Engineers". WTF, dude?!? Anyhoo, the illogical stuff is minor compared to the enormity of the main storyline, imho, and it doesn't bother me. Maybe a director's cut could shed more light. I did understand what was going on much better after seeing it a couple times. A little more exposition, Mr. Scott!


In no way was I ever confused by Prometheus. It being confusing was never the issue, it's not deep, it's not well thought out at all.

The issue was the characters do ass backwards stupid things, their motivations are slim to non-existent, and there's zero interesting payoff.

I'm glad you ended up liking it. I wish I could have, because it's a damn pretty movie. It set things up really well, and then, just.... squandered everything it had built.

>> ^Fletch:

I watched this film the first time expecting more of an "Alien" prequelish movie, but the "Alien" stuff just seemed thrown in as an afterthought. I've watched it several times now and have grown to love it, though. I think it would be better without the "Alien" shit in it at all. There is simply a much bigger and better story here, and with Noomi Rapace and Michael Fassbender having already signed on for the sequel, it looks like the story will be going where ever they went.
There are some things that don't add up very well, like Charlie getting all depressed because they only discovered dead "Engineers". WTF, dude?!? Anyhoo, the illogical stuff is minor compared to the enormity of the main storyline, imho, and it doesn't bother me. Maybe a director's cut could shed more light. I did understand what was going on much better after seeing it a couple times. A little more exposition, Mr. Scott!


I think there could have been a much better movie with the same source material, I think the concept could be really cool, but it's beyond a simple reedit repair job. The characters need a total rewrite to not be selfish, unlikable fucktards. There needs to be a lot more explanation and more time spent soaking in each of the more important subject matters and not this jump from one scene to the next with no flow and no reason.

I watched this film the first time expecting more of an "Alien" prequelish movie, but the "Alien" stuff just seemed thrown in as an afterthought. I've watched it several times now and have grown to love it, though. I think it would be better without the "Alien" shit in it at all. There is simply a much bigger and better story here, and with Noomi Rapace and Michael Fassbender having already signed on for the sequel, it looks like the story will be going where ever they went.

There are some things that don't add up very well, like Charlie getting all depressed because they only discovered dead "Engineers". WTF, dude?!? Anyhoo, the illogical stuff is minor compared to the enormity of the main storyline, imho, and it doesn't bother me. Maybe a director's cut could shed more light. I did understand what was going on much better after seeing it a couple times. A little more exposition, Mr. Scott!

>> ^scannex:

So your counter to the point of it being a behavior, is that it is term applied as the result of a series of behaviors which is a combination of over-eating and lack of exercise?
You must be kidding.
And sorry I have to put words in your mouth above, because aside from divine intervention I am not sure what mysterious factors cause one to be obese unless you are referring to genetic disorders/thyroid problems. Have fun finding a source on what % of obese Americans that covers.
It is behavioral, and its remedy is behavioral. I certainly will not say its an EASY behavior to modify (see previous arguments on leptin/dopamine), but you need to deal with it.
Also regarding what is impressionable you are simply incorrect. If you believe a child with two overweight parents that is the result of those parents having an idle lifestyle and providing garbage food for their kids isnt impactful youre dead wrong.
But here you go, some backup for that concept. From the AACAP
No one is advocating mocking is the right thing to do. And if you think this guys letter came from a place of hate or mockery I suggest you reread it. There really is no indication of that to me. It comes from a place of concern, even if that is misguided. You want to crucify this guy for trying to (perhaps poorly) encourage this woman to lose weight and that really isn't the right ethic either.

_{I realised why your comments annoyed me so much: they remind me of those MRA-holes who try to defend the missteps and/or bile of privileged/sexist people and then see them as being persecuted or "witchhunted". I can only hope I am wrong in seeing a connection.}

To the substance: you completely miss my point, go after strawmen, and then try to defend the unethical while falsely accusing the anchor and myself of persecuting a person (instead of criticising a... you guessed it, behaviour).

Yes, certain behaviour causes and/or aggravates obesity, but do you see her glamourously binge-eating junkfood while telling the news? Unlike a meth addict, there are plenty of overweight people who are overweight of no fault of their own. In fact, the example you give about obese parents having a higher chance of having obese children supports my point, not yours. Children of obese parents have a higher risk of being obese genetically, as well as environmentally, and that has nothing to do with imitating the parents' behaviour (but it's their fault, right? They should just exercise and not eat what their parents feed them, right?). Of course the parents who feed their children junkfood are responsible for their child's obesity, but what does that have to do with an overweight woman being on TV? Not to mention that even that can be more complex, since there are socio-economic factors, what with the US's terrible education system and the fact that its cheapest high-calorie food (i.e. what poor/hungry people will buy) is 98% corn-syrup (yes, I made that stat up, but the point remains). Finally, obesity can be a side-product of mental health issues / eating disorders (but then maybe you're the kind of ignorant douche who'd tell people with depression to just stop wallowing in self-pity and be happy; I hope not).

You go on in your second comment to, on your own admission, redefine what a behaviour is so it can suit your argument. Say the following phrase, out loud if need be, to realise how ridiculous your argument is:

"The woman on the TV is behaving/being overweight/fat/obese". See what I mean?

Finally, you accuse her of "wanting to crucify the guy". Did you even read my points 1) & 2) above (you know, the ones you ignored in your answer)? The "guy" is not being attacked (you'll note he has been left anonymous), what he is saying/doing is. His letter is being taken as an example to call out a certain kind of behaviour, one which is rampant in our society, and doing much harm. Whether his letter is a well-intentioned yet ignorant expression of misplaced concern (at best, and highly unlikely) or a surreptitious piece of condescending shaming (much more likely*) is irrelevant. It's anti-bullying month, and she's saying "people, don't do this, and here's why".

Your more recent comment is a perfect example of why what she's doing is of utmost importance:

the spectacle this woman made of herself for someone writing her a private communique over the internet does not warrant ANYWHERE near this attention.
She chose to shine a spotlight on something perfectly hidden, for the purpose of, I don't know... you tell me? To stop imaginary bullying (in her case explicitly here)? To not feel bad about being overweight? I really don't know anymore. Its a bizarre reaction to wantonly make a spectacle of someone suggesting you lose weight.

If what he said was not reprehensible, who cares if it's made public (note once again that no names are named)? Shaming people or projecting one's narrowmindedness on them is all fine, but shhh, don't shed light on it! It's just a private message on the internet, it does no harm! (because we all know that there is no bullying, shaming, sexism, etc. on the internet. Nuh-uh)

When only one side of an exchange says "shhh, don't tell anyone about this, it's private" you usually have a bad situation; and the fact that you would defend the letter-writer and his "right" to not have his error called out does not suggest anything good about your own mindset, either.

In conclusion, it is all the more to this woman's (and her husband's/colleagues') credit that she/they took a "seemingly" (to the thickest out there) innocent letter to expose this form of abuse; a harmful remark need not be shocking or particularly vulgar to leave its mark, and it can even come from good intentions. Maybe some people watching will realise that the words they themselves speak/write are harmful, even if not intentionally, and will be more aware of it in future, while others might realise that the words they heard/read were not so innocent after all, and that they should stop beating themselves up for feeling guilt/shame/self-hate when in fact they've been being worn down by ignorant and/or hurtful attacks.

_{*It would be quite easy to analyse just how ignorant and condescending this letter is, not to mention borderline sexist (try imagining this person writing the same letter to Chris Christie, for example, replacing "girls" with "boys"). Analysis starter kit for you: "choice/habit/lifestyle", and the cornerstone phrase "Surely you don't..."}

@CaptainPlanet I didn't say eating a healthy diet and exercise makes people depressed. I'm saying caloric restriction and exercise, over the long term (often the only way to maintain weight loss) makes people depressed. Calling caloric restriction healthy eating is a joke. If it worked for you, good on you. I know many for whom it simply hasn't worked. What works better is becoming comfortable with your body, exercising, and healthy eating over the long term. It often doesn't shed the weight, but you end up healthier and happier. The problem I have is with using the scale, or BMI, or waist size, or any other bullshit metric to measure health. The two simply don't correlate. I have a friend that was the pull-up champion at his gym that was qualified as "obese" by BMI.

>> ^00Scud00:
Nice, but I was hoping for a reveal at the end to see how it really works.
This won't completely explain it, but it'll shed a little light on the reality of the structure.

@hpqp
I am not at all ashamed of my verbose, self-indulgent dross, so here we go!

Something has to be extra-physical, as least based on our current model. I can fully accept that a brain by itself can receive sensory input, process it against memory, and thus act in a completely human way indistinguishable from a conscious human, but on its own can literally be no more "conscious" than a river flowing down a mountain. Our current view of the physical universe does not tolerate any rational physical explanation of consciousness. Any given moment of human experience - the unified sensory experience and stream of consciousness - does not exist in a single place at a single instant. To suggest that the atoms\molecules\proteins\cells of the brain experience themselves in a unified manner based on their proximity to or electrochemical interaction with each other is magical thinking. Atoms don't do that, and that's all that's there, physically.
I disagree that consciousness is subordinate to cognition in terms of value. Cognition is what makes us who we are and behave as we do, but consciousness is what makes us different from the rest of the jiggling matter in the universe.

A couple of posts back, you challenged my statement about abstinence education as demonstrating a lack of pragmatism. I didn't really address it in my reply, but I'd prefaced it with the understanding that it's not a magical incantation. I know people are still going to have sex, but I suggested that has to be a part of education. People have to know that you can still get pregnant even if you're using the contraceptives that are available. They have to at least know the possibility exists. It's one more thing for them to consider. People are still going to drive recklessly even if you tell them they can crash and kill themselves despite their airbags, seatbelts, and crumple zones, but that doesn't mean it's not worth it to educate them about the possibility. I fail to see how that's not pragmatic.

I didn't reply to your comment about adoption vs abortion because I'm not sure there's anything else to add on either side. As I've said, my beliefs on this are such that even a grossly flawed adoption\orphan care system is preferable to the alternative, even if it means that approximately 10 times the number of children would enter the system than have traditionally been adopted each year. (1.4M abortions annually in the US, ~140K adoptions, but there are several assumptions in that math that wouldn't hold up to scrutiny.) Many right and just things have unpleasant consequences that must be managed. (The typical counter here is that Pro-Lifers tend to also be fiscal\social conservatives and won't fund social services to care for these new individuals they've "protected" into existence. That's just another issue of taking responsibility for the consequences of choices. If they get what they want, they need to be held to account, but it's a separate issue. A related issue, but a separate issue.)

Criminalizing\prohibiting almost any activity results in some degree of risky\dangerous\destructive behavior. Acts must be criminalized because there are individuals who would desire to perform those acts which have been determined to be an unnecessary imposition on the rights of another. Criminalization does not eliminate the desire, but it adds a new factor to consideration. Some will decide the criminalization\prohibition of the act is not sufficient deterrent, but in proceeding, are likely to do so in a different manner than otherwise. The broad consideration is whether the benefits of criminalization\prohibition outweigh the risks posed to\by the percentage who will proceed anyway. Prohibition of alcohol failed the test, I expect the prohibition of certain drugs will be shown to have failed the test..eventually. Incest is illegal, and the "unintended" consequence is freaks locking their families in sheds and basements in horrific conditions, but I think most of us would agree the benefits outweigh the detriment there.

Is putting all would-have-been-aborteds up for adoption abhorrent or absurd? The hump we'll never get over is asking "is it more abhorrent than aborting all of them", because we have different viewpoints on the relative values in play. But is it even a valid question? They won't all be put up for adoption. Some percentage (possibly 5-10 percent) will spontaneously miscarry\abort anyway and some percentage would be raised by a birth parent or by the extended family after all. An initially unwanted pregnancy does not necessarily equate to an unwanted child, for a number of reasons. I do not have statistics on what proportion could be expected to be put up for adoption. Would you happen to? It seems like that would be difficult to extrapolate.

The "'potential' shtick" carries weight in my view because of the uniqueness of the situation. There is no consensus on the "best" way to define when elective abortion is "acceptable". Sagan puts weight on cognition as indicative of personhood. As he states, the Supreme Court set its date based on independent "viability". (More specifically, I feel it should be noted, "potential" viability.) These milestones coincide only by coincidence.
Why is it so easy for us, as you say, to retroproject? And why is this any different from assigning personhood to each of a million individual sperm? For me, it's because of those statistics on miscarriage linked above. The retroprojected "potential" is represented by "percentages". At 3-6 weeks, without deliberate intervention 90% of those masses of cells will go on to become a human being. At 6-12 it's 95%. This is more than strictly "potential", it's nearly guaranteed.

I expect your response will be uncomfortable for both of us, but I wish you would expound on why my "It Gets Better" comparison struck you as inappropriate. Crude, certainly - I'll admit to phrasing it indelicately, even insensitively. I do not think it poorly considered, however. The point of "It Gets Better" is to let LGBT youth know that life does not remain oppressive, negative, and confusing, and that happiness and fulfillment lie ahead if they will only persevere.
It's necessary because as humans, we aren't very good at imagining we'll ever be happy again when surrounded by uncertainty and despair, or especially recognizing the good already around us. We can only see torment, and may not see the point in perpetuating a seemingly-unending chain of suffering when release is so close at hand, though violence against self (or others).
This directly parallels the "quality of life" arguments posed from the pro-choice perspective. They take an isolated slice of life from a theoretical unplanned child and their mother and suggest that this is their lot and that we've increased suffering in the universe, as if no abused child will ever know a greater love, or no poor child will ever laugh and play, and that no mother of an unwanted pregnancy will ever enjoy life again, burdened and poverty-stricken as she is.
As you said, we're expecting a woman to reflect "on what would her and the eventual child’s quality of life be like", but we're so bad at that.
And all that quality-of-life discussion is assuming we've even nailed the demographic on who is seeking abortions in the U.S.
Getting statistics from the Guttmacher Institute, we find that 77% were at or above the federal poverty level and 60% already had at least one child.

On a moral level, absolutely, eugenics is very different debate.
On a practical level, the eugenics angle is relevant because it's indistinguishable from any other elective abortion. Someone who is terminating a pregnancy because their child would be a girl, or gay, or developmentally disabled can very easily say "I'm just not ready for motherhood." And who's to say that's not the mother's prerogative as much as any other elective abortion, if she's considering the future quality of life for herself and the child? "It sucks for girls\gays\downs in today's society and I don't think I can personally handle putting them through that," or more likely "My family and I could never love a child like that, so they would be unloved and I would be miserable for it. This is better for both of us."
Can we write that off as hopefully being yet another edge case? (Keep in mind possibly 65% of individuals seeking abortion declare as Protestant or Catholic, though other statistics show how unreliable "reported religious affiliation" is with regard to actual belief and practice.)

_{"Argumentation"? I have learned a new word today, thanks to hpqp. High five!}

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Building, Garden Shed' to 'Building, Garden Shed, Wonderwall, Brad Mehldau' - edited by UsesProzac