Heheh thanks, that might be the first thing that came to my mind when I was done being amazed!

In reply to this comment by nomino:
*quality blow job.

Ya, my friend and I were war gaming about this the other day, running things out to their logical limits. I have no doubt that the spending we did during the cold war most likely kept us safer then not spending it. However, it seems the when one nation finally "looses" and can't afford to keep up the game anymore, the power structure on the other side can't ever dislodge itself. The result is the spending that wasn't meant to last forever does, and the self destruction of that nation is destined as well.

In other words, the rise of two super powers means the eventual fall of two. It is a form of entropy related to the unstable condition they educe in each other. It might very well be that the cost of long term success is eventual failure; that all systems, no matter how good, if they intend to survive will end up imploding. It was kind of a neat topic

In reply to this comment by jwray:
Defense contractors get public money
Defense contractors buy political influence
Political influence puts more public money into Defense Contractors' hands
Defense contractors buy political influence
Political influence puts more public money into Defense Contractors' hands
Defense contractors buy political influence
Political influence puts more public money into Defense Contractors' hands
Defense contractors buy political influence
Political influence puts more public money into Defense Contractors' hands

And so on. That's why our military spending is outrageously inefficient and excessive, and we keep fighting wars that are irrelevant or counterproductive to our national security. No-bid contracts and cost-plus contracts should be explicitly forbidden by the constitution. The military should stop privatizing essential components of their operation and paying orders of magnitude more than it would cost to do in-house.

>> ^Bruti79:
Hey no problem, thank you as well for the civility. It's just one of those things where it's pretty damned clear what the time and date of the event was. I said earlier: I think who ever edited that piece, did exactly what they were told =(


That would be a shame, no, a tragedy. I have no love for any of the corporate news channels, but out right fraud is still beyond me to call on them...yet. I give people to much credit at times, I hope this is not one of them.

I have hopes for the internet being the new news, tucked away from the profit motif that big news has to have to survive. Though, I still think by in large people want to be entertained by the news, not informed.

I upvoted your comments, thanks for the civil conversation

Ya, one of the best sifts I have seen in awhile. As one that has been bullied into a bad position by police, it was very helpful and insightful for the future...though I hope to never need the knowledge

In reply to this comment by Januari:
Thank you for that... very sweet of you and enjoyed it a great deal.

In reply to this comment by GeeSussFreeK:
http://www.videosift.com/video/Dont-Talk-to-Cops-Part-2

http://www.videosift.com/video/Dont-Talk-to-Cops-Part-2

Saw you sifted something on Milton, so I thought I would throw this at ya Just a small nibble, I wish that the video went on longer.

http://fora.tv/2009/06/19/Looking_for_Work_A_History_of_Unemployment#The_Historical_Origins_of_Unemployment_in_the_US

Just in case you are still out there.


http://fora.tv/2009/06/19/Looking_for_Work_A_History_of_Unemployment#The_Historical_Origins_of_Unemployment_in_the_US

always glad to throw in, how much will your target keep you going for?

>> ^dag:
Hi GeeSussFreeK-
This is the part where I come to you hat in hand. VideoSift needs your help to get through the next few months financially. We've always relied on advertising to pay the server bills - but you may have read that the bottom has dropped out of the advertising market. We're no longer breaking even from our ad revenue and there's a risk that we may go into serious debt.
If you value a grassroots video community run by two guys who are actually around every day and active participants, then please donate a little bit to help keep VideoSift afloat. Please don't give until it hurts - if we all give just a little bit, the bills will be paid and we can keep enjoying what we've built together, the smartest, coolest video community in the world.
We'll use the money to pay the bills and work on new ways for VideoSift to survive without relying on advertising. Please use this link to read more about our fundraising and discuss it with us:
http://www.videosift.com/talk/VideoSift-Fundraiser
Thanks and cheers,
Dag
(And yes, this is a form letter, but use the profile reply link below if you want to talk about it - and I'll respond - promise)

In reply to this comment by EDD:
^ CONCERNING STRANGELETS:

First of all, strangelets are merely hypothetical type of matter. None have so far been observed or produced. We would see some corrution of Neutron stars more often if the stuff was actual and not theoretical. Lambda particles I think have happened, but they decay so fast it is not really a subject of much fear mongering

Secondly, the RHIC (Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider) in the US has been working for 8 years now and no strangelets have been produced there. In comparison, LHC collisions will have more energy, thus making it even less probable a strangelet might form (equivalent would be ice forming in boiling water). In addition, LHC quarks will be even more dilute than at RHIC.

Read this study on RHIC by MIT, Yale and Princeton physicists to find out more.


"It is believed that the higher energy of the lead-lead collisions of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), compared to the RHIC, will produce more strange quarks in the quark-gluon plasma (QGP) than are produced at RHIC's QGP. This higher production of strange quarks might allow for production of a strangelet at the LHC, and searches are planned for such upon commencement of collisions at the LHC ALICE detector."

"Angelis et al., "Model of Centauro and strangelet production in heavy ion collisions", Phys. Atom. Nucl. 67:396-405 (2004) arXiv:nucl-th/0301003 "

I thought that was an interesting read on the subject. It's all theoretical though, so far, we haven't really seen the stuff at all.

Sorry for the long gap between posts, the hurricane messed with my normal routine.

>> ^EDD:
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
>> Problem is that some people that that enforcing personal morality that doesn't steam from religion as ok, which is isn't.
HOLY SHIT, dude. I'll have whatever it is you're smoking, please.


hahah oops, grammer checker ftl! Thanks