Here.

>> ^ant:

>> ^Trancecoach:
just listened to an hour-long interview with the actor who played Gollum.. he's also King Kong (in the recent remake with Jack Black and Naomi Watts) and the primate, Caesar, in the new Planet of the Apes.

Where did you hear it?

>> ^Trancecoach:

just listened to an hour-long interview with the actor who played Gollum.. he's also King Kong (in the recent remake with Jack Black and Naomi Watts) and the primate, Caesar, in the new Planet of the Apes.


Where did you hear it?

just listened to an interview with the actor who played Gollum.. he's also King Kong (in the recent remake with Jack Black and Naomi Watts) and the primate, Caesar, in the new Planet of the Apes.

>> ^rottenseed:

that guy stopped giving a fuck a long time ago and never looked back...

He doesn't give a fuck, he's totally bizarre, and any kids he may have are going to be utterly embarrassed anytime someone digs up some old video of their dad like this one...


...and that is why I tend to think he kicks ass! Reminds me to do my own thing, be happy doing it, and to completely ignore anyone that would tell me otherwise.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'nando, beats, reggie watts, beatbox' to 'nando, beats, reggie watts, beatbox, sampler' - edited by xxovercastxx

Below is an explanation of why it is both fair and logical for the rich to pay more taxes. Taken from http://www.zompist.com/richtax.htm The website also has an argument against the flat tax.

It was written a while ago (90s I'm guessing) but most of the points are still valid today.

For more than a century it's been generally recognized that the best taxes (admittedly this is an expression reminiscent of "the most pleasant death" or "the funniest Family Circus cartoon") are progressive-- that is, proportionate to income.

Lately, however, it's become fashionable to question this. Various Republican leaders have trotted out the idea of a flat tax, meaning a fixed percentage of income tax levied on everyone. And in their hearts they may be anxious to emulate Maggie Thatcher's poll tax-- a single amount that everyone must pay.

Isn't that more fair? Shouldn't everyone pay the same amount?

In a word-- no. It's not more fair; it's appallingly unfair. Why? The rich should pay more taxes, because the rich get more from the government.

Consider defense, for example, which makes up 20% of the budget. Defending the country benefits everyone; but it benefits the rich more, because they have more to defend. It's the same principle as insurance: if you have a bigger house or a fancier car, you pay more to insure it.

Social security payments, which make up another 20% of the budget, are dependent on income-- if you've put more into the system, you get higher payments when you retire.

Investments in the nation's infrastructure-- transportation, education, research & development, energy, police subsidies, the courts, etc.-- again are more useful the more you have. The interstates and airports benefit interstate commerce and people who can travel, not ghetto dwellers. Energy is used disproportionately by the rich and by industry.

As for public education, the better public schools are the ones attended by the moderately well off. The very well off ship their offspring off to private schools; but it is their companies that benefit from a well-educated public. (If you don't think that's a benefit, go start up an engineering firm, or even a factory, in El Salvador. Or Watts.)

The FDIC and the S&L bailout obviously most benefit investors and large depositors. A neat example: a smooth operator bought a failing S&L for $350 million, then received $2 billion from the government to help resurrect it.

Beyond all this, the federal budget is top-heavy with corporate welfare. Counting tax breaks and expenditures, corporations and the rich snuffle up over $400 billion a year-- compare that to the $1400 budget, or the $116 billion spent on programs for the poor.

Where's all that money go? There's direct subsidies to agribusiness ($18 billion a year), to export companies, to maritime shippers, and to various industries-- airlines, nuclear power companies, timber companies, mining companies, automakers, drug companies. There's billions of dollars in military waste and fraud. And there's untold billions in tax credits, deductions, and loopholes. Accelerated depreciation alone, for instance, is estimated to cost the Treasury $37 billion a year-- billions more than the mortgage interest deduction. (Which itself benefits the people with the biggest mortgages. But we should encourage home ownership, shouldn't we? Well, Canada has no interest deduction, but has about the same rate of home ownership.)

For more, see Mark Zepezauer and Arthur Naiman's informative little book, Take the Rich Off Welfare.

How about social spending? Well, putting aside the merely religious consideration that the richest nation on the planet can well afford to lob a few farthings at the hungry, I'd argue that it's social spending-- the New Deal-- that's kept this country capitalistic. Tempting as it is for the rich to take all the wealth of a country, it's really not wise to leave the poor with no stake in the system, and every reason to agitate for imposing a new system of their own. Think of social spending as insurance against violent revolution-- and again, like any insurance, it's of most benefit to those with the biggest boodle.

>> ^ForgedReality:

>> ^Opus_Moderandi:
Someone should conduct an investigation. Find out watt happened.

hahah! That was brilliant! You have a shockingly powerful pun sense. Ohm my god, I'm lightning so hard it hertz. Oh, the polarity! Put this man in charge! >_>
Okay. That's taking it too far. I think I just grounded that joke.


I bet someone at Oncor is gonna get a kick in the joules over this.

pun master, i think i love you. >> ^ForgedReality:

>> ^Opus_Moderandi:
Someone should conduct an investigation. Find out watt happened.

hahah! That was brilliant! You have a shockingly powerful pun sense. Ohm my god, I'm lightning so hard it hertz. Oh, the polarity! Put this man in charge! >_>
Okay. That's taking it too far. I think I just grounded that joke.

>> ^Opus_Moderandi:

Someone should conduct an investigation. Find out watt happened.


hahah! That was brilliant! You have a shockingly powerful pun sense. Ohm my god, I'm lightning so hard it hertz. Oh, the polarity! Put this man in charge! >_>

Okay. That's taking it too far. I think I just grounded that joke.

Someone should conduct an investigation. Find out watt happened.

@dystopianfuturetoday, Hayek was in defense of Classic Liberalism, so you can't call him Left or Right in the way you understand the two. He's certainly not either, not in the conventional understanding of right vs. left politics, which is vague to say the least. Some think fascism is leftist and others rightist. That's largely because the entire paradigm is based upon the French Revolution, which doesn't fit eloquently into world political positions.

Naomi Watts, the author of the Shock Doctrine, is certainly left-leaning, so I could see how she'd label him rightist in misguided error.

My garden is powered by a 150 watts high pressure sodium light gutted from a Security light. It works very well, last I heard of Led technology was from years ago, its very nice to see it going into such high production and applications. I have four month old big herb plants ready for outside, I had to take down my 3 foot brandywine tomato plant because it was just to damn big !

Indoor garden = FTW !

Depends on the power I guess. Typical affordable mirror is probably in the 90% - 95% reflectivity. If they pack a megawatt laser than your mirror will be absorbing between 100,000 to 50,000 watts.

Looks like we a got a new one to ride the wave.
>> ^Stingray:

This thread is an ohmen. Resistance is futile.>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Looks like we have sparked some new interest
>> ^Hastur:
I find your capacity for bad puns re-volting.
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
>> ^Psychologic:
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
>> ^gwiz665:
Power-ful humor you got going there.
>> ^Payback:
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
That's a bad train, your grounded!

Your attempt at humour is shocking.


It's just the way I am wired.

Seriously, watt is wrong with you people?

Sorry, threads like this get me amped.

This thread is an ohmen. Resistance is futile.>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

Looks like we have sparked some new interest
>> ^Hastur:
I find your capacity for bad puns re-volting.
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
>> ^Psychologic:
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
>> ^gwiz665:
Power-ful humor you got going there.
>> ^Payback:
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
That's a bad train, your grounded!

Your attempt at humour is shocking.


It's just the way I am wired.

Seriously, watt is wrong with you people?

Sorry, threads like this get me amped.