Well that's odd I didn't know a youtube video COULD be region blocked. Sorry to anyone who can't view it. It is a U.S. TV series though and that kinda does sound like one of Disney's evil little tricks.
>> ^hpqp:

blocked

>> ^Sagemind:

Disney ? It that another Disney Channel? - One we don't get?
If so, that's too bad. I'll have to wait to acquire it in some other electronic method....


Disney 's web site has that new Spider-Man's series online. I hope it is the same for this one. However, it's Disney so it might suck.

You have been awarded 1 Power Point for fixing the embed code for Dead Pool video Muse/Marilyn Manson Mash-Up - Uprising vs Beautiful People. Thank you for helping maintain VideoSift's reliability.

Your video, Why the scariest sci-fi robot uprising has already begun, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

>> ^brycewi19:

Best one by a long shot this season.


Couldn't agree more.

That wasn't meant to be a comprehensive explanation of everything wrong with the ending, just one part. (MASSIVE spoilers to follow)

Also, when you say "Reapers prune only the few most advanced species in order to save less advanced organic life", save them from what, exactly? Synthetics? And Reapers are what, exactly? Synthetics?

Aside from the circular reasoning, it's also based on a premise that is at the very least debatable: the created will always rebel against their creators. I got to that conversation having brokered peace between the Geth and the Quarrians. Why wasn't it even an option for Shepard to question whether this was some iron law of the universe? Why is the Catalyst assuming peace between organics and synthetics is impossible? Why was it impossible for any ending to leave the Geth and Quarians both physically the same, and independent? Why wasn't it possible for Shepard to be annoyed about this?

Moreover, why kill organics to prevent robot uprisings? Why not have reapers wipe out synthetic races if/when they start to rebel, rather than wiping out organics before they can build synthetics?

If the Reapers are really saviors of the galaxy, why do they shoot first and ask questions never? If being converted into a husk is really a form of ascension, why not try to convince races to volunteer? Why not stick around for thousands of years to persuade us, if necessary? For that matter, why make this be some sort of every 50K year thing? Why not just make ascension into Reaper form a part of galactic culture, a reward given to races who've advanced far enough to warrant it?

But my biggest problem is that we don't really get to see any kind of real consequence of that final choice. All three endings are virtually indistinguishable, and there's nothing about the ending that reflects the choices you've made along the way, not even the ones from ME3. There's no real resolution for any of your crewmates either. I'd like to know what happens to Garrus, Liara, Tali, etc. after it's all over. "Stranded on a strange jungle planet" wasn't what I was looking for, either.

>> ^mentality:

>> ^NetRunner:
http://markel.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/f3p6x.jpg

That's stupid. Reapers prune only the few most advanced species in order to save less advanced organic life throughout the galaxy. Sounds like whoever made that was dozing off during the conversations with the catalyst.

Most horses can probably outrun it's max speed with a rider. So just make sure the horses don't get wiped out in the robot uprising.

Great video... Good summary of the current view forward.

However, historically, doomsday predictions appear totally accurate until a lateral change makes it all irrelevant.

We definitely can't continue a profit based industrialized society - but that doesn't mean we all resort to a pre-industrialized subsistence that the hipsters are dying for.

War, Climate change, Disease, Civil uprising... who knows. Not a new power source or life style change - but a new era. Something big and unpredictable and uncontrollable. People will probably die and we'll all see our way of life change. But i can almost guarantee riding a bike and growing lettuce and tomatoes in your backyard isn't going to help.

i was disappointed when i saw Bill talking on the issue... uninformed and with that lack of information, making wrong declarative statements

SOPA makes you guilty on assumption, and you are forced to prove your innocence...
and for MOST non-media conglomerates, that means you go out of business.. because your website is shutdown until you fight it out in court...

this isn't about copyright protection... its about competition elimination

and the scope of this bill lends itself quite well to being misused... this site is speaking out against the government, or an ally of the government, or talking about things we don't like? we'll just have SOPA shut the site down, maybe go to the amount of effort required to post a comment on the site that "justifies" the action... and the status quo goes on uninterupted

its the boundary line, its the point that when we cross it, the concept of FREE information over the internet ceases to exist... because any single country that takes action because of SOPA, it affects everyone else on the planet (who's government has also signed onto SOPA)

the uprisings that took place in the middle east due to social networks would be a thing of the past only... they'd NOT be allowed to happen anywhere else (most especially in the WESTERN world - I take it back partly, if there was oil/resource interests for the WEST in that country, it'd still be allowed)

and as for Bill's, "people just like to steal shit" comment... please, demonstrate that a person who downloaded Religulous would have bought it if they had no other option... you can't... its alot easier to show examples of people who DID buy it because they downloaded it in the first place

take a look at the VIDEO GAME INDUSTRY... while there are some big companies whose sole purpose is to rate/review/preview upcoming video games, you'll see alot of these are closing down... why? because fan created, by donation alternatives are providing a valid and sustainable alternative... that's ALOT of free advertising (dbl edged because it could be bad reviews) these companies get... and for some of the smaller video game companies/independant game companies, the ONLY advertising they get

how easily would all that be squashed with SOPA? didn't like your review... your site gets shut down. we only give permission to sites we KNOW will give us good reviews... etc etc

that's not protecting internet creativity... that's killing off internet creativity... and the ability for non-media conglomerates to compete

make sure your government knows the distinction between small business and monopolies
make sure they are serving your interests, and not their own pockets
businesses spending lobbying money and offering jobs to representatives to influence the creation of laws IS the end result of UNFETTERED MARKETS... the laws that they complain about, that hurt their ability to "compete", are laws that were enacted to protect YOU the consumer

change the USA to the UCA... United Corporations of America... they'll lobby to get rid of the America part... too restrictive

(top reddit comment) SixBiscuit 368 points 5 hours ago*

Predicting an Iraq war in April 2002 was not exactly difficult or limited to Ron Paul. The rest of the video has a certain amount of horoscope logic to it.

>> A major war... the largest since WWII.

Nope. Iraq is in no way larger than Vietnam even. -- http://www.lies.com/wp/2006/11/05/us-deaths-in-iraq-vs-vietnam-the-handoff/

>> The Karzai government will fail and US involvement will end in Afghanistan

Nope. -- http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/04/03/us-afghanistan-election-idUSTRE6320X220100403

>> An international dollar crisis will dramatically boost interest rates in the United States

Nope. -- http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/fed/key-interest-rates.asp

He is completely off on the scope of what he predicted. The video is manipulative. I'd really like to see a Paul supporter write these out and back them up.

For instance crude oil did shoot up to record highs but not because of an oil embargo. Does he get credit for predicting that? He's half right. Oil shot up because of instability in the region and speculation, not an embargo.

What about what he's left out. If he had such clever predictive powers why isn't Iran mentioned? Iran filling the power vaccum Iraq's destabilization left is something that could have been easily predicted but he doesn't.

Saying that the Arab Spring was the Islamic fundamentalist overthrowing their government is mischaracterizing what happened. Yes Islamic fundamentalist may end up in power in Egypt and Libya but they were not the instigators of the uprisings.

No doubt Ron Paul along with Hunter S. Thompson and a lot of people knew going into Iraq was a terrible fucking idea and would lead to ruin. That doesn't make him some sort of Cassandrian prophet. It means he was one of the few elected officials brave enough to speak out against it. Which is admirable but it hardly makes him alone. Powell believed it was a terrible idea at the time as well but was too chickenshit to stand up and stop it.

My immediate thought on reading the description was that they were voting to make sure AIs couldn't claim constitutional rights. I'm happier with the real meaning. >> ^rebuilder:

Cut to the robot slave uprising.

Cut to the robot slave uprising.

As to the video itself, I think Penn may have poorly stated the part about the unification of Christians, but he's still on to something. The different sects used to be less cooperative than they are now. Just look at the mistrust of JFK during his election. Now, clearly it wasn't too strong or he'd have lost, but you don't see that sort of thing as much now. It's still there; just look at the statements about Mormons by other Christians during the last and current election cycles; but most of the churches stand more or less together now.

The thing I really disagree with in this video is the Hitchens quote; the part about this being the death throes of religion. If anything, I see a power surge in religion since 9/11. Yes, the critics are louder now than ever and they are growing in "power", if you will, but I think religion is growing in power just as much. The balance is not shifting, we just have lots of previously neutral people picking sides.

If anything, I feel we're well on our way to a new Crusade with a not-insignificant portion of US Christians calling for the extermination of Muslims and a small but not-insignificant portion of Muslims calling for the extermination of Americans.

Depending on how things pan out, I would not rule out a major religious war in the next 50-100 years. Depending on how that goes, it could destroy or embolden religion in the US. If it's a long, hard-fought war, I could see people becoming disillusioned. If, as I suspect, the United States of Christianity simply blot out the "heathen uprisings", then I could see this being taken as an affirmation of the faith.

Yay, more bullshit from a professional bullshit spinner. Denying the fact that there was a popular uprising in Egypt and Libya, and is one currently in Syria is downright lying. I am not surprised that RT, a channel often criticised for being biaised and promoting conspiracy theories, would try to undermine the support for the popular uprising by spreading lies about it: Russia is backing Assad just as they are Ahmadinejad and his nuclear projects. It's all a part of global politics, just like when the US backed the Taliban against the Russian invasion during the cold war.

Thanks for trying to at least provide some references Ghark. I'm curious how credible you honestly believe them to be though. All but 2 of them are to the same blog, the one is a very short piece by Ynet with nothing more to say than that SANA declares itself the victim and the other is a different blog reporting proof that America supports activists in authoritarian countries.

That last bit seems to be the most veracious of all the claims, but I wouldn't call it 'news'. America(sadly, like virtually all governments) not only supports repressed activists but has also actively supported what can only be called terrorists and has on multiple occasions participated in the overthrow of foreign rulers through covert and even overt assassinations. Don't mistake my claims here as being based on the naive notion that America or the CIA would never do anything like this, as they have and without a doubt will again. My claim is much different, and so is Tarpley's.

The important nuance I think your missing in my disagreement with Tarpley here is that his claim is NOT CIA support for a Syrian uprising. His claim is that there is, in fact, no legitimate Syrian uprising and that it is all a facade orchestrated by the CIA, Mossad, or whomever else he thinks is the puppet master. The truth of the matter is that the Syrian people are now living under their second generation of brutal dictatorship. The truth of the matter is that the Syrian people have seen the difference between the free world and their own, and those people have taken to the streets. Importantly to our discussion here, one of the ways they have seen the difference between freedom and repression has been through social media, like facebook, twitter and to at least some extent our dear videosift here as well.

The sources you referenced supporting Tarpley's notions on Syria all point back to either SANA, the Syrian state media, Al-Alam, the Iranian state media or XinhuaNet, China's state media. For brevity I won't point out the massive number of articles from the NYtimes, the CBC and BBC all reporting on the Syrian protesters being brutally repressed and murdered by Syrian forces. If you wish, I can fill out a page with supporting links, but I hope you might be able to recognize that at the very minimum these sources balance out with equal support. I would go further and posit that state funded media like CBC and BBC are vastly more independent from the state message than SANA and Al-Alam, but it isn't necessary to my argument.

If you accept my generous notion that the above can be called a draw, and we throw them out as having a bias one way or the other, what are we left with?

We are left with Al Jazeera reporting an entirely different story than Tarpley's:
http://blogs.aljazeera.net/liveblog/Syria

If you want more links from Al Jazeera they have a wealth of stories from all manner of separate and independent sources all backing their overall view that there is a legitimate internal Syrian uprising independently demanding the basic freedoms of a democracy, and the Syrian government met them with deadly repression, over and over and over again.

Is Al Jazeera a pro American tool of the CIA?

I'm going to cite what I consider to be very basic, fundamental facts but if you want references for them I can provide them if you don't trust a 5 second google verification of them.

The UN human rights committee voted 122 in favor of condemning Syria's crackdown, are they a pro American tool of the CIA?

The Arab League has threatened to revoke Syria's membership and asked that Syria allow their monitors into the country as a path to reconciliation, which Syria rejected.

Is the Arab League a pro America tool of the CIA?