Wow, at 1:11 he pulls his hands in and braces for impact.

'Be brave brudder be brave go go go!'

hey man!

http://videosift.com/video/HEALTH-We-are-Water-dir-Eric-Wareheim-wow-so-creepy

ahoy! I replied to this note, and attempted to maintain civility. cheers!

In reply to this comment by BansheeX:
Forget about stupidity on both sides, you people always pick a punching bag who can't defend their position to make your own dumb viewpoint seem like the right one.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/01/co2_fairytales_in_global_warmi.html

CO2 is a fundamental building block of life, and current levels are NOWHERE NEAR where they have been in the past. Moreover, the correlation of CO2 and Earth temperature is deeply flawed. It's far more likely that temperatures rise and fall in the short term as a result of solar cycles or some other phenomena, and that increased CO2 levels are a corresponding RESULT of temperature change rather than the cause. That's what gives the idiots that nice correlating graph where they can claim the opposite. A more detailed look at ice core graphs show us that temperature changes occur BEFORE changes in CO2 levels. The global warming crowd has it completely reversed that CO2 is driving temperature.

Moreover, the last century's warming trend has been a mere .8 celsius, well within natural expectations given the last 1000 years. I suppose the vikings were also somehow responsible for the even larger climactic swing in temperature known as the Little Ice Age from 1000 to 1200 AD? From 1940 to 1970, there was a cooling trend which led to a global cooling scare. We were all supposed to be frozen in ice by now.

The idea that mankind is capable of affecting earth's temperature is just laughable. If it was even possible to have globally banned coal and oil the last 200 years, the only thing you'd have accomplished is a complete eradication of 200 years of human progress towards cleaner, more efficient technologies like nuclear (which you luddites have also blocked while countries like China and France kick our freaking asses).

http://www.dailytech.com/Chinas+Nuclear+Power+Efforts+Surge+Ahead/article14911.htm

So what exactly are we supposed to do? We can't do nuclear because you boneheads don't want to recycle or store the voluminously small captured waste, you'd rather burn your fuel and disperse it into the atmosphere than put something in a single mountain for a thousand years until we jettison it into the sun. You herald wind power, which takes massive amounts of steel, land, and maintenance for relatively little power output. You'd have to cover an area the size of Montana with windmills just to meet TODAY'S domestic power demands. That's how bloody inefficient it is relative to nuclear, and unless you magically discover a magical material like steel that is way cheaper and 1% as heavy, it's going to hit a wall pretty soon. Wind is fine for the wind belt and rural areas in Iowa, solar is fine for the desert in Arizona. But to say that wind and solar can themselves provide even a majority of our national need for cheap power is pure insanity. It's pure insanity, and anyone who's looked at the numbers knows it.

hah, i was just listening to that.

and coke is for scumbags. (with the exception of the late r.james, who was more insane than scumbag)

In reply to this comment by Farhad2000:
Um check this out http://www.videosift.com/video/Hexstatic-Wild-Stlye-Mash-Up-Battle

In reply to this comment by bamdrew:
the mix at ~8:30 is rad

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_In_Gaza
... the info was in your description,

In reply to this comment by Farhad2000:
What was the name of the Doc?

In reply to this comment by bamdrew:
I watched this documentary a few years back.

Intense to say the least.

I'm upvoting, but I'm not watching this part again.

ahh, many thanks

In reply to this comment by youdiejoe:
In reply to this comment by bamdrew:
do you have a (cheap) video editing software recommendation for a pc?

I use Vegas Pro 8 on the PC, it runs around 600 bucks, they make a home studio version of the software called Vegas Movie Studio 9 which I think is under 100.

do you have a (cheap) video editing software recommendation for a pc?

In reply to this comment by Kreegath:
Could anyone clarify for the uninformed how long ahead of time people are able to cast their vote, if at all? There's been talk of early voting, but is that only for some states?



Most states with early voting stopped today at noon. If you missed out you can still call down to the courthouse (or an Obama or McCain office) to learn how early your nearest vote-sites will be open tomorrow. If you show up late for work but have an 'I Voted' sticker, well... it helps.

I voted on Friday at a nearby courthouse (lafayette,IN), and it was McCain, Nader, Obama or select to type in someone else.

In reply to this comment by swampgirl:
I looked at a 'sample' ballot for Indiana. In every race but president could you write in someone. Why not president?

ever see this site? http://upsidedowndogs.com/

all the floppy dogs are the best.

Hold up; I'm in Indiana right now and I need a few days to grab some things and get up to Canada...

In reply to this comment by Farhad2000:
Who cares about your stupid conservative religious world view... Bush was a conservative religious person and look where it got us.

Fucking idiots. Fucking nuke America. They need a reboot.

hey, I'm scrounging up votes for a Fleet Foxes post... no pressure!
http://www.videosift.com/video/Fleet-Foxes-He-Doesnt-Know-Why

"This is the problem of infinite regression. You are not answering the question, you are merely creating a new entity to cover your bases. Where does your family, friends, or culture get their morals from?"

No, its definitely finite, just beyond anything comparable to the time human civilization has been around and recording how we act as communities. Why do certain animals groups fight one another but preserve and help those in their groups? Seriously man, you're making this far more complicated and principled than it needs to be.


"I'm not looking for "innate principles" I already provided you a firm, clear, answer for the basis of my philosophy: "the right to life" which I explicitly defined. It is not innate, it was developed with reason and logic. Why is it not possible for you to provide me with the same?"

Woah, okay,... I see now. So you're not even an individualist. You're applying a very significant moral standard that was just made up, in order to limit individual choice. Well. I feel like I wasted a lot of time.


"If collectivism and individualism are polar opposites why is it that my philosophy provides a clear moral guide, whereas yours provides none?"

I described how we are at two different places on a spectrum of individualism vs. collectivism, and I went into a huge amount of detail describing what I mean and why I'm further over towards one side than you. This detail included what the far collectivist side offers for morality, namely that sacrificing individual interests for the benefit of the group is a moral obligation, and in return the group distributes benefits... again I'm going to reiterate that I'm not a strict collectivist, I'm in the middle, so my morality is PERSONALLY from family, friends, experience, etc...

I mean, if you simply want me to make up some bullshit and call it the principle I base my philosophy of human life on, how about this, "sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, but lets all try to be civil about it".


*This is the last one sided answering session; you have to go back and answer the ONE question I asked you in the last response.



In reply to this comment by imstellar28:

yes, it was on purpose, as you instigated his comment (which I was replying to with the other side of the coin).

In reply to this comment by Farhad2000:
You commented this to me instead of Doc_M. I still like you though.

In reply to this comment by bamdrew:
MY understanding is that two things ruffle feathers:

1)no cell lines derived from extra sperm-plus-egg after in vitro fertilization ("no you may not use this for experiments, its precious... now off to the incinerator with it"),

and

2)arbitrary limits on what scientists can do based on a moral feeling, determined independent of the usual methods employed to protect populations or otherwise limit research, and which lead to a somewhat illogical end; telling scientists its not moral to add chemicals to human stem cells moments after they've added them to a dish of any other animal's stem cells can seem odd... they're both a couple of dishes with cells in them... neither is going to ever bark or say hi.

And slippery-sloping it, as some do, to saying things like "if we let them do this they'll have cyborgs modeled with Arnold's stem cells" is bogus, precisely because according to them scientists can do the same thing by reversing adult cells into pluripotency. Anyhow, placing restrictions on a tool like the use of a human cell line for moral reasons is strange to me,... and I'm more curious how far the pendulum will swing when it swings back the other direction.



In reply to this comment by Doc_M:
You can probably guess by now that I am not an abortions supporter for most reasons, so naturally, I don't support production of new embryonic stem cell lines by that method. I think that the advances of adult-derived stem cells are FAR more valuable than any other research of its type. I have friends who study embryonic lines and those who study adult derived lines. I have to confess that that the adult derived lines seem to produce more results and more promising futures than the embryonic lines ironically.

I support a ban on embryonic stem cell line generation simply because there is a significant chance that it is wrong. We don't need them. We have shown that we don't need them. Let's work on something we know to be worth what is spent. I feel similarly about animals; use them only when absolutely needed, and though that is often, use them minimally.
And BTW, Net, 3.2 million is nothing. Talk to me in billions. My lab alone (of thousands) is budgeted a million a year, though lately we haven't been spending that much.