Where did I infer that; ""shit works okay, why should we bother trying to do better?" Nowhere. You appear to have missed my comment; "But we are getting there." Which, obviously, implies things are being done.
As for your patronising; " When you have seen enough information/had enough experiences." Not that it matters, but I have been around the world 3 times. I have seen - first hand - the sad state of some countries and try to do my bit.
FYI, technology and healthcare DOES actively reduce abuses. Also, we source from cheaper countries so that our goods are cheaper. Does that include bad working/remuneration packages? Sadly it does. But fair trade agreements are starting to tackle the issues. As badly off as some workers are, do you propose that we don't deal with the companies that exploit them? That would not be in their interest as they would have no income at all. And it would not be in our interest as we all like affordable goods. In that regard you are right, we are ALL complicit, but then we are all after making our money go further for our families.
Life is not fair my friend but, as I said, we are getting there.

I once tried to sift video of Dick Butkus (6'3", 245lbs, possibly the most feared linebacker ever) grabbing a fumble and then jogging into the end zone from near center field, as offensive tackles bounce harmlessly off his outstretched hand. Sometimes you don't need speed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/12/opinion/sunday/douthat-the-war-on-women.html?hp&rref=opinion

Thought of this comment stream when I read this. The last line.

It's been clear to me for decades that men have a rough go of it -- societal expectations and pressures that I would find crushing.

As a feminist/humanist, it has always been clear to me that men have to tackle that on their own. Women have been fighting against societal crap, men have to fight their own fight.

Our fights are different, however. (And we need to hold each other accountable. We need to get up in each other's grill about how we compartmentalize each other, and react to each other from our "lizard brains" -- the non-thinking part. Women do it, too -- example -- as much as I say I like a man to show his feelings, when a man cries, sometimes I recoil instinctively. Operative word -- "instinct". Not reason.)

It doesn't help when someone speaks up about their own problem, and someone else says -- yeah? well? I got it bad too. Shut up!

That isn't going to fix either problems.

If we could talk about how these problems are interrelated, that would be grand, rather than turning it into some kind of competition.

You can tackle it any which way you want to. It's really not my problem. For some reason those "multimillion dollar campaigns" don't have any effect on me.. like at all! But maybe they have a profound power of you... Because, of course there is a relationship between "incentives" and some people's health, incentives to buy and eat not-so-healthy food because it's cheap, or on every corner, or tastes "good" or the FDA or the AMA tells you that it's okay or even good for you, or whatever other "incentive" you're referring to here.. And yes, regulations or bans are about the worst possible way to tackle any of this.


EDIT: Nothing "incentivizes" the kind of unhealthy shit that passes for "food" like the billions of dollars in government subsidies given to say, corn syrup (which makes people sick, fat, and unhealthy in so many ways). And yet, it's heavily subsidized and therefore found in all kinds of "food-like substances." It'd be great to stop the subsidy of junk "non-food" through billions of "taxpayer" dollars. But good luck getting anywhere with that..
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/16/government-subsidies-junk-food_n_3600046.html

@Trancecoach

I think Jigga's making the argument on the collective level. Yes, we can all use self control to limit portion sizes.

But collectively, where the multimillion dollar funding of fast food marketing departments is geared towards incentivising larger portions as a method of eking out more profit from their saturated (excuse the pun) market size, it's quite likely that average calorie consumption goes up on the whole.

That doesn't excuse taking responsibility for your actions, and certainly you could tackle it with education campaigns rather than regulation or bans, but there's certainly a relationship here between incentives and national health.

@A10anis
while i do truly appreciate your change of tone,you fail to address that your original comment was smug and condescending.
which is what i was addressing.

and the word "ALL" is most certainly a blanket statement.

there are 4500 known religions (many defunct at present).
so maybe you can understand why i criticized your commentary as being overly generalized.

and i would also like to clarify a few things.
1.i find you to be an intelligent and insightful sifter.which is why i called you out.NOT to be an ass or to be confrontational but rather because i think you are a person who is better than your original comment.there are many i wouldnt have wasted my time on.

2.i am not a huge fan of organized religion.i have some serious issues with those highly influential institutions.

3.i actually agree with your basic premise:religion is control by use of fear.
so my issue with your original comment was not your basic premise but in its delivery.

4.dont be too quick to judge ALL religions solely based on doctrine and dogma.at its core religions are just human kind trying to make sense of reality and their place in it.religion is the beginnings of philosophy,and while it can be steeped in superstition and magic thinking,it has also offered some incredibly profound insights and understandings.
socrates,aristotle,plato..these were the beginnings of secular philosophy but before that? it was religion that tackled the big questions.

5.you really should watch the video.the book of enoch is...well..a bizarre apocryphal book.

anyways.i always enjoy your commentary and i hope you take my response with the humanity it was intended.

Obviously. He should have made the tackle.

Has anyone tackled the encryption through GPU means? As in this: http://boingboing.net/2012/12/05/cracking-passwords-with-25-gpu.html

@NinjaInHeat what would you say are the biased bits? I don't recall if he embellished in the commentary that much but the footage was pretty damning in itself. With the governmental ministers raving about infiltrators?

I'm sure not all of israel is like that, but i have to say that with a people so historically persecuted you'd almost expect the good israelis to show up to lambast the ignorant ones and/or raise them better, shame them in their own communities for being xenophobic. It's the same thing that i think of when it comes to terrorism. Surely terrorists are best tackled by the community and family and people that they come from, and if so then surely it will become less and less of a problem over time. If not, then maybe the overwhelming amount of good people from wherever you're talking about should be more proactive in stopping minority lunatics doing what lunatics do.

When nice people stand aside and allow some fringe element to politically and socially ostracise an ethnic minority based on colour or creed, things like world war 2 happen before it's resolved. And that's only if you're fortunate enough to have people in other countries to come and stand up for you. I'm not being funny, but i really would expect a jewish person to appreciate that.
(2nd and 3rd paragraph not directed at you specifically towards you ninja, speaking my general thoughts there)

I'll be impressed when I see it be able to tackle competitive SC2, which requires a sizable number of existing hotkeys AND the necessity to setup a doezen hotkeys on the go.

I'm not doubting, I'd just like to see 2 professional players go head to head: keyboard versus Steam Controller.

Gogogo!!!

I always thought Bad Lieutenant should be a franchise where different, distinctive directors tackle the corrupted cop story. Harvey Keitel and Nikki Cage were brilliant as filthy cops.

I really wish stuff like this wasn't promoted. It's junk/pie-in-the-sky science/engineering.

Anyone who has ever been in an ocean storm or had to deal with anything man-made that's had to survive a few months in the open ocean could tell you how this idea reeks of untenability. Stuff far less fragile than this proposed contraption go to the bottom all the time. In short: the oceans are far less forgiving than this kid would have you believe.

From its durability, to the difficulties of mooring a giant sieve in ~3000ft of water, to the actual quality of the plastic being harvested, to the fragility of plankton (the centrifuge is only one hardship it would have to endure) the list of why this idea can never float goes on and on.

I think this article sums it up nicely, but there are many, many others by people who are seriously trying to tackle the problem:
http://inhabitat.com/the-fallacy-of-cleaning-the-gyres-of-plastic-with-a-floating-ocean-cleanup-array/

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

My major problem with it is that the government/NSA claimed it disrupted terror plots because of it's surveillance. Am sorry but I call bullshit on that. Terror groups are aware of this kind of activity and wouldn't go planning anything. Human intelligence is still the best way of tackling this.

From my perspective this is just J. Edgar Hoover communist witch hunt excuses to basically keep taps on everyone Brave New World style.

The only issue would likely be if the hook(s) got caught in it's intestines. With any luck, they would be degraded enough by stomach acid that they would break if caught. Consider the size of the animal, a piece of wire and a few beads and/or spoons would pass right through, probably un-noticed. Even the lead shouldn't be a problem. These animals eat full size seals, with sharp heavy bones all the time, and they do just fine. That said, it would have been the right thing to do to remove the tackle before feeding the whales.
Now, when this happens salmon fishing it's usually a seal stealing the fish, and they often just bite the body off so they don't eat the hooks. The whale likely didn't get the whole fish (since it was still attached to the line and being pulled) so tackle may not be an issue at all.