Had the broadcaster said, "You're a convicted rapist, and I think your association with the politician may possibly taint his bid to win this election," then you'd be correct. But he didn't. He brought allegations without citing sources, which is unethical. And I'm not arguing that Tyson was charged and convicted in a U.S. court of law for rape -- I'm arguing that the broadcaster probably never heard anybody say that it would look bad for a convicted rapist to endorse a politician, and if he had, then he has a responsibility to audience to say exactly who said it. For example, had he said, "ChaosEngine, from Videosift, said you're a convicted rapist who may sully the politicians chances to win an election. And he called you an asshole," then we'd know the source. But he didn't, and Tyson called him out for it.

That said, Professor of Law Alan M. Dershowitz, Harvard Law School's most high-profile professor <--[Cite your sources!], said the evidence against Tyson for the rape conviction is flimsy and incomplete.
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1993/4/13/dershowitz-wages-media-war-for-tyson/

Saw in the news the Supreme Court upheld the right to restrict cover (5:4), for "closely-held" corporations based on a 1993 law that limited the ability to restrict religious freedoms.

I kind of see the logic of saying that if non-profits corporations can already avoid providing it (which seems to be the case), then for profit corporations should have the same rights. But then I don't see why non-profits should have had the right to deny it either.

Either way though, I agree with John Oliver's bit. Plenty of people would have liked to veto funding for the Iraq war but obviously never had the option. To say that religious objections are specifically excluded is highly arbitrary. No employees who receive a salary should be excluded.

The "closely-held" provision is also highly arbitrary, almost implying that the court doesn't like the law and are trying to limit it's impact. Maybe it was some kind of compromise to get a majority. Either way, I imagine the notion of "closely-held" will be stretched as loosely as possible in practice.

http://time.com/2940577/supreme-court-hobby-lobby-contraception-obamacare/

Please do give us a closer look at ISIS is doing. Massacres, torture, rape, collective punishment and on, correct? Maybe killing what, 100 people at a time in the worst instances? That doesn't distinguish them from Saddam. Within Saddam's rule those crimes are what guys like yourself colloquially referred to as Saddam's 'firm' hand. They are his, so to speak, lesser and more routine crimes. I'd left them beneath mention thus far.

If you must insist on parroting your ignorance of Saddams al-Anfal campaign I'll resort to posting excerpts as evidence that the gassing was but a small part of it.

4,500 Kurdish villages were destroyed by Saddam, that's entire villages turned to rubble.
182,000 dead civilians by counts gleaned from Saddam's own records of how many Kurds his forces had succeeded in eliminating.
The concentration camps Saddam ran were pretty clearly modeled after Hitler's:
With only minor variations ... the standard pattern for sorting new arrivals [at Topzawa was as follows]. Men and women were segregated on the spot as soon as the trucks had rolled to a halt in the base's large central courtyard or parade ground. The process was brutal ... A little later, the men were further divided by age, small children were kept with their mothers, and the elderly and infirm were shunted off to separate quarters. Men and teenage boys considered to be of an age to use a weapon were herded together.

The conditions within the camp were terrible and torture, abuse and beatings were routine. The men of fighting age though were sorted for the express purpose to later drive them out into the desert by bus or truck for mass execution. This is how Saddam carried his genocide of the inhabitants of the 4,500 villages he'd destroyed.

Anyone interested in more or questioning the veracity of the above account can find more and endless references and evidence here:
http://www.hrw.org/reports/1993/iraqanfal/index.htm#TopOfPage

As for American policy, I don't quite see where I suddenly bear personal responsibility to clean up the world if I choose to form my opinions on world events independently of it's 'fit' to American policy.

I don't care much if it was Bush or Putin that took Saddam out of power aside from hedging on which would leave a better Iraq, either would be tough not to be an improvement from Saddam. Similarly for Sudan or the Congo, I'd be rather glad if world powers finally cared enough to try and spare the people there suffering under brutal military repression and endless war crimes. I'm not quite sure why you wouldn't share such a view?

Red Dwarf - "Tongue Tied" (1993) has been added as a related post - related requested by oritteropo.

I was expecting the other Tongue Tied - *related=http://videosift.com/video/Red-Dwarf-Tongue-Tied-1993

I said "cronyism aside" to explain the pure theory. Of course cronyism throws a wrench into the system. And cronyism is a function of government-granted privileges. As long as you have the monopoly we call government, you will have cronyism. Plain and simple. The most potent way to "slant the playing field" is through the use of government: a powerful and widely accepted tool of legalized aggression and coercion.

In fact, that's one of the main 'uses' of government regulation: to ensure that others cannot "catch up." The minimum wage laws are an example (contrary to the rhetoric surrounding the issue). So is taxation. And currency inflation used to pay for the bailouts. The list goes on and on.

Sociopaths win when they can use government to prevent competition. And make no mistake, the government itself is rife with sociopaths. (One might say that it's a prerequisite!)

(BTW, what exactly do the sociopaths "win?" To my mind, any "wealth" they have was not "won" at all, but was stolen by force, using the government as a mechanism of income redistribution. Without this tool, they'd have no choice but to offer actual goods/services that others want to pay for, if they want any wealth.)

.....
(And just as I was about to post this, I found this!) You think it's harder for poor folks to climb the income ladder now than it was 20 or 40 years ago? You're wrong, say the folks at the Equality of Opportunity project. (Let me note that these are NOT "right wingers." Saez is the darling of many progressives because of some his earlier work on inequality.) "The authors of this study measured the ability of children born in different income strata from 1971 to 1993 to move into different income groups. For example, it found that a child born in 1971 in the bottom 20% of household earners had an 8.4% chance of eventually making it into the top 20% of earners by his or her 20s or 30s. The chances of a child born in 1986 making a similar ascent was 9.0%."

It's from the 1993 made-for-TV "Gypsy" with Bette Midler. It was actually a really nice version of the musical, IMO. I believe this number takes place in a "budget" burlesque house.

It was a similar story on July 24th 1993 at Fairford, when two MiG-29s of the Russian Air Force Russian Swifts aerobatic team collided in mid-air and crashed, but safely away from the public. Incredibly no one was injured on the ground and both MiG-29 pilots (Alexander Beschastonov and Sergey Tresvyatsk) ejected from their aircraft. Aircraft investigators highlighted that pilot error was to blame where it was shown on video that one pilot had carried out a reverse loop and flew into clouds, whereas the other pilot lost visual contact with his wingman and aborted the display performance.

Huh, yep. Disney totally had 50 years of suck in the movie department.

Unless you include
101 Dalmatians 1961
Sword in the Stone 1963
Mary Poppins 1964
The Jungle Book 1967
Bedknobs and Broomsticks 1971
Freaky Friday 1976
The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh 1977
The Rescuers 1977
Pete's Dragon 1977
Tron 1982
Honey I shrunk the Kids 1989
The Little Mermaid 1989
Beauty and the Beast 1991
Aladdin 1992
The Muppet Christmas Carol 1992
Homeward Bounds 1993
Cool Runnings 1993
The Lion King 1994
Pocahontas 1995
Toy Story 1995
Hercules 1997
Mulan 1998
A Bugs Life 1998
Tarzan 1999
Toy Story 2 1999
The Emperors New Groove 2000
Monsters Inc 2001
Lilo & Stitch 2002
Finding Nemo 2003
Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the black pearl 2003
The Incredibles 2004
Chronicles of Narnia 2005
Cars 2006
Meet the Robinsons 2007
Ratatouille 2007
Enchanted 2007
Wall-E 2008
Up 2009
Princess and the Frog 2009
Toy Story 3 2010
Tangled 2010
The Muppets 2011
Brave 2012
Wreck it Ralph 2012
Monsters U 2013

But, other then that, yeah, no, nothing since 59. Except the other hundreds of classics that I didn't bother mentioning.

Magic: The Gathering has been around sice 1993.

http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Summoner/

1993?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xk93mv6jZEM

CBD possesses sedative properties (Carlini and Cunha, 1981), and a clinical
trial showed that it reduces the anxiety and other unpleasant psychological
side effects provoked by pure THC (Zuardi et al. 1982). CBD modulates the
pharmacokinetics of THC by three mechanisms: (1) it has a slight affinity for
cannabinoid receptors (Ki at CB1 = 4350 nM, compared to THC = 41 nM,
Showalter et al. 1996), and it signals receptors as an antagonist or reverse agonist
(Petitet et al. 1998), (2) CBD may modulate signal transduction by perturbing
the fluidity of neuronal membranes, or by remodeling G-proteins that
carry intracellular signals downstream from cannabinoid receptors, and (3)CBD
is a potent inhibitor of cytochrome P450 3A11 metabolism, thus it blocks the
hydroxylation of THC to its 11-hydroxy metabolite (Bornheim et al. 1995).
The 11-hydroxy metabolite is four times more psychoactive than unmetabolized
THC (Browne and Weissman 1981), and four times more immunosuppressive
(Klein et al. 1987).
CBD provides antipsychotic benefits (Zuardi et al. 1995). It increases dopamine
activity, serves as a serotonin uptake inhibitor, and enhances norepinephrine
activity (Banerjee et al. 1975; Poddar and Dewey 1980). CBD protects
neurons from glutamate toxicity and serves as an antioxidant, more potently
than ascorbate and α-tocopherol (Hampson et al. 1998). Auspiciously, CBD
does not decrease acetylcholine (ACh) activity in the brain (Domino 1976;
Cheney et al. 1981). THC, in contrast, reduces hippocampal ACh release in
rats (Carta et al. 1998), and this correlates with loss of short-term memory consolidation.
In the hippocampus THC also inhibits N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA)
receptor activity (Misner and Sullivan 1999; Shen and Thayer 1999), and
NMDA synaptic transmission is crucial for memory consolidation (Shimizu et
al. 2000). CBD, unlike THC, does not dampen the firing of hippocampal cells
(Heyser et al. 1993) and does not disrupt learning (Brodkin and Moerschbaecher
1997).
Consroe (1998) presented an excellent review of CBD in neurological disorders.
In some studies, it ameliorates symptoms of Huntington’s disease, such
as dystonia and dyskinesia. CBD mitigates other dystonic conditions, such as
torticollis, in rat studies and uncontrolled human studies. CBD functions as an
anticonvulsant in rats, on a par with phenytoin (Dilantin, a standard antiepileptic
drug).
CBD demonstrated a synergistic benefit in the reduction of intestinal motility
in mice produced by THC (Anderson, Jackson, and Chesher 1974). This
may be an important component of observed benefits of cannabis in inflammatory
bowel diseases.

--"Cannabis and Cannabis Extracts:
Greater Than the Sum of Their Parts?
John M. McPartland
Ethan B. Russo"

This one is from 1993 and I have never heard it either! What an awesome "discover new songs" day. Thank you very much!! I shall add this new gem to my "Procrastinatron" playlist!!!

I have a habit of clicking on the "comments" tab and reading all the recent new comments on a regular basis and our messages have taken over. We're chatting a lot today. It's fun. I have to go now though...I know you said yesterday around this time that "it's getting late"...not sure what time zone you're in....it's about 6:45pm here in Toronto. Have a great night if I don't talk to you again this evening.

What? Render time? I'd guess minutes at most. C'mon, this is 2013, not 1993.

But you're right: Oculus Rift + This = Star Trek Holodeck in real life. Sports is possibly the best application for this combination, since the area of play is limited and well defined. Let me build upon your vision of the future.

It would require the ability to change your camera angle even when the "video" is playing. They'd also need to thoroughly map all audio sources on the playing feild. Heck, I'm sure there are tons of other massive technical hurdles that I haven't even thought of, but if you will, imagine this:

Go to an empty baseball field (or other large, flat area) during a time when you can be assured you'll be totally alone. You'd need to set up some kind of markers, four in total, non-coplaner. They would track your movement on the field in 3 dimensions. You might also set up a large circle fence around the outter edge of the field with sticks and string, to make sure you don't run into a tree or a building, since you'll be totally blind once you don your Oculus Rift. Then, put on the Rift, and play the video with your vantage point on the field as the camera angle. You'd be holding in your hand a remote control which can pause, rewind, or fast forward.

You could literally be IN THE GAME, AS IT PLAYS, with the ability to run along side your favorite football player as he runs into the end zone, seeing everything he sees, hearing everything he hears. Or stand in the endzone, and watch your favorite plays from every imaginable angle as though you were really there. Rewind the "video" and watch again from the vantage point of the quarterback, or the referee, or the coach.

There is no higher form of sports immersion. It is Nirvana.

4 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.