Hell a tech brained kid in the 90s might have known about Apple, but they were on their way out of near everything. I can recall using them in middle school, around when I was in maybe 6th or 7th grade and even then they were trying to get rid of them when budgeting allowed.

Amiga was the one everyone used to talk about because video games and graphics were the new things coming along for games. Prior to Doom you had Archon, Oregon Trail, Zork, and other text based stuff....that was early and mid 90s. Think I got my first computer around 95, Doom came out in 93. But when stuff came out back then it didn't spread as quickly as it does now since people owning computers was rare and if they did it was 50/50 if they could do much of anything when it came to games.

Never physically encountered an Amiga, but that was the stuff all the "big studios" were using for their video production and what not if you heard about them at all.

Apples were novel, just because having one meant you had a computer. And computers were pretty rare. Consoles were where it was for actually "good" games for a long time, PCs were ungodly expensive.

Congratulations! Your dedication to keeping VideoSift clear of dead videos has earned you your "Grim Reaper" Level 93 Badge!

Hi, welcome to the Sift

*discuss for spam content (although I must admire the obvious way in through the compo back door)

Your video, Top 1% Captured 93% Of Income Gains In 2010 --TYT, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

>> ^Edgeman2112:

I call a bit of BS on this one. There is some information that is likely omitted.
It all depends on how you define "economic recovery." We know it has nothing to do with employment because the employment rate has either stubbornly remained high for this 2009-2011 period, or simply crept lower. So yes, it's no wonder the average american household income fell with so many people unemployed. Derp.

Economic recovery, as defined by economists, has to do with whether the economy is getting better, or getting worse, not whether the economy is "good" or "bad" in some absolute sense.

Unemployment is still too high, but it's been falling consistently. That's recovery.

Also, why would higher unemployment necessarily fall more heavily on the lower income groups? What's shifting the average in part is that the people making the least are losing their jobs, while the people making the most are getting big bonuses.

That's the whole complaint here -- 93% of the income gains are going to the top 1%.

Derp.
>> ^Edgeman2112:

So where is this large percentage of suspiciously named, "income gains," come from? The stock market! The fed has done 2 (some say 3) rounds of QE which inflate the market. So yes, it's no wonder rich people got richer because they have a ton more disposable income to throw around and double.

The stock market is still below its peak. If you invested $100 in blue chips in 2007, you'd only have $90 to show for that investment now.

On the other hand, if you ran a business that was able to raise prices, bust unions, ship jobs overseas, etc., you could cut your labor costs and make record profits, which a lot of companies have been doing.

>> ^Edgeman2112:
And to be even more frank, I have many middle class friends. I don't see any of them becoming poor or in any serious financial risk not due to healthcare costs. They're having children. Working hard. Earning money. Buying homes too. Saving for retirement and college. They're doing just fine despite the evil rich cadre.
The more I watch Cenk, the more I see him glossing over the issues instead of studying them with a rational mindset.


I agree, you should look at some data. Did you know that if wages had continued to track productivity gains that the average household income would be $92,000 instead of $50,000?

The behavior of the Republican party makes dealing with important issues, especially this one, impossible.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

The Republican primary fight has distracted us from more important issues, like this one.

Completely agree! That is the argument that is logical to make, but it will never hold up in a federal court because it is the philosophy and the freedoms that are availed to us that lead to the problems, not the money itself. And I wouldn't want to limit that type of freedom.

A poor person with a tiny income can decide what to do with their income the same way large, multinational corporations can. And by that I mean either act in a way that is decent, respectful and responsible, or they can spend it questionably.
>> ^Grimm:

While that kind of welfare is a problem...it's peanuts compared to the kind of corporate welfare that goes on.>> ^Edgeman2112:
I worked at a grocery store when I was younger outside Philadelphia in a bad section. I would watch people pay for groceries with food stamps, then pack the groceries into to their lexus suv. No joke.

Unemployment has went down some, but they don't qualify that. Some people haven't found work in years, and they may not be counted. Some people may be employed, but at half their previous wage. Etc. The measurement for this may even be the same, but on the whole while the numbers are going down it doesn't appear that the people who've been affected by the initial crash are actually recovered from it. Whether due to unemployment, partial employment, or that they were so damaged by the crash that they are going to take a lot longer to recover to some kind of sustainable living, or at least behave like they expect the living to be sustainable.


On the reverse side of the coin, the rich were telling everyone how they need low tax rates to create jobs. They kept sticking to that message and still are. Evidence of rather high unemployment and people getting by with less than they used to earn shows that while taxes are low, they are not creating jobs. And here we have evidence that they are actually earning substantial amounts more than the rest during the recovery. No matter what the reason for this is, the plan is not working if the richest people in the country get 93% of the recovery...that least 7% for the rest of the 99%.....that's RECOVERY from a crash, not in addition to reaching the old levels and then more on top..it's not even back to where it was and they are getting 93% of it.


The bailout may factor into their gains, but that just shows that the government should have done something different. Showing a gain in the market that virtually no one in the market actually gets is not helping the country. The rich can not possibly circulate as much money as regularly as a bunch of normal people living pay check to pay check. Yet the programs that showed the most growth, which was coincidentally unemployment was hated by near everyone. It generated 1.6 dollars for every dollar spent into it. I haven't seen numbers on showing what the bail out generated for each dollar spent into it, I would assume it was all gobbled up and squirreled away before anyone could record it.

Arguably the nation had the best results following WW2, everyone was generally earning more. The rich had to invest back into the company or face losing most of their earnings to taxes, meaning employees of worth earned more in line with the CEOs and such. Tax rates were high, but people could also live on one salary and raise 2-3 kids often more quite easily. We are steadily moving away from that mindset and moving into the mindset of "the people with the money know what to do" but they leave off the ".......to earn themselves more money no matter the cost."

While that kind of welfare is a problem...it's peanuts compared to the kind of corporate welfare that goes on.>> ^Edgeman2112:

I worked at a grocery store when I was younger outside Philadelphia in a bad section. I would watch people pay for groceries with food stamps, then pack the groceries into to their lexus suv. No joke.

Take an unbiased point of view. You must realize that is not the only money (stumulus, bailouts) in the world. People, and banks, have money that earned through their own private investments. Now, the government gives a business a million dollars, then you read later they earned a million, that is not a legitimate reason to get pissed at them. But that's what is happening.

Here is a 100% true story that servers as an analogy:

I worked at a grocery store when I was younger outside Philadelphia in a bad section. I would watch people pay for groceries with food stamps, then pack the groceries into to their lexus suv. No joke. Yes I got mad, but it wasn't illegal. The same thing happened to the banks. They need help, but they also have money to afford other things that they value. If the government stepped in, they would be powerless because the shopper spent money that was not the government's money.

And before you start replying with proposed government regulations, realize that government isn't the cause of that food stamp SUV problem. They can't fix it either. The problem was that that person was able to afford the SUV by leasing it. The problem is not that the government failed to check her income level. Now the question becomes whether it SHOULD be fixed at all. Ponder that further.

>> ^Grimm:

...he's blaming the current administration for not taking measures to help insure via the bail-outs and stimulus packages that the vast majority of the recovery isn't being funneled to the top 1%.

I trust that Cenk's information is based on more real research and real data then the anecdotal evidence you refer to.

Banks may not be lending as freely as they used to...but they're lending and they're lending with billions of dollars of virtually interest free money we loaned them.

I don't think Cenk was blaming the 1% directly...he's blaming the current administration for not taking measures to help insure via the bail-outs and stimulus packages that the vast majority of the recovery isn't being funneled to the top 1%. >> ^Edgeman2112:
Banks aren't lending due to their stricter rules (I just refi'd. I know).

And to be even more frank, I have many middle class friends. I don't see any of them becoming poor or in any serious financial risk

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

The Republican primary fight has distracted us from more important issues, like this one.


oooooh shinies!

Stop defending Obama. He's done nothing for jobs.

I was listening to a podcast today:
http://blackagendareport.com/content/listen-black-agenda-radio-progressive-radio-network-glen-ford-and-nellie-bailey-%E2%80%93-week-febru

It was memorable when David said "How can you argue that we can't attack Obama? We've gotten nothing from him. And we're supposed to remain silent because he can't have opposition?"

*length=93

I’m going to respond to your last comment in two parts. The first part regards the god argument in which you have mischaracterized me as being closed minded and of having a bias. I can easily show that I am neither and this is my view on the whole god thing so you can at least understand my view if for nothing else. The second part I will address my primary contention against your methods of argument.

I am willing to listen, however, on its face the statement "I don't care about the whole god argument" indicates both bias and closed-mindedness. It also shows an intellectual incuriousity.

I admit that I don’t believe in a god or gods, or even advanced aliens. I just don’t see any reason to believe any of it. This doesn’t mean that I am saying that god doesn’t exist; I’m saying “I don’t know, but I highly doubt it and I don’t buy it.” What do you find confusing about that?

We have no real reason to suppose from direct evidence that a god, or gods, exist. Do all effects have a cause? Do all causes have an effect? If yes, why do you suppose it’s a god who caused all of the effects that you attribute him to such as the “fine tuning” or “the appearance of design”, why can’t it be something else? By resting on a god hypothesis as the answer to mysterious phenomenon, you are precluding all other answers that are just as good as a god, that have the same amount of direct evidence.

Scientific evidence indicates that time, space, matter and energy all had a finite beginning, making the cause of the Universe timeless, spaceless, unimaginably powerful and transcendent. Those are all attributes of God, and fit an unembodied mind. The fine tuning, information in DNA and appearance of design all point to a creator. Logic itself tells us that the first cause of the Universe must be eternal because nothing comes from nothing and you can't have an infinite regress of causes. Frankly I think it is ridiculous to believe that Universes just happen by themselves, and especially, as the greatest minds of our time are suggesting, out of nothing. Can't you see that when someone says that, it means the emperor has no clothes?

Does the god that you believe in have a cause? If not, how so? By what mechanisms does your god exist but without having had a cause? How can your belief be proven and why should anyone believe it based on rational information? What evidence is there that compels you to believe that your god indeed doesn’t have a cause? These are the kinds of questions that I think you should be asking for yourself. If you resort to “just needing to have faith” as an answer then you are actively avoiding exercising critical thinking faculties.

God is eternal, and He has no beginning or end, so no He doesn't have a cause. A God that was caused by something else wouldn't be God. My evidence is from logic which demands an eternal first cause. Otherwise, you're left explaing how you get something from nothing, which is logically absurd.

Unlike you, I don’t see the appearance of design in the complexity of biological systems or in anything found in nature. I study evolutionary biology, astrophysics, and chemistry for myself because I find it the mechanisms fascinating, not because I’m trying to disprove god.

Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed but rather evolved.

Francis Crick Nobel Laureate
What Mad Pursuit p.138 1988

Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.

Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker p.1

Even hardcore skeptics concede there is an appearance of design.

There is inherent beauty in all of it and it’s a shame that most people are ignorant of what we do actually know. While I’m open to the idea that a god designed the system then put it in motion, there just isn’t direct phenomenological evidence that suggest that’s what happened.

The information in DNA is direct evidence that a higher intelligence designed the system.

There is enough information that we do know about speciation to suggest that evolution through natural selection does happen, is happening, and will continue to happen. The genetic code is enough to suggest common ancestry between all living things in a tree like family lineage.

natural selection can weed out some of the complexity and so slow down the information decay that results in speciation. it may have a stabilizing effect, but it does not promote speciation. it is not a creative force as many people have suggested.

Roger Lewin Science magazine 1982

The genetic code also suggests a common designer. As far as your tree claim, you need to research the cambrian explosion. It is quite a let down for gradualists, unfortunately. All the major body types, including the phylum Chordata (thats our phylum), were there from the beginning. We actually have less diversity today, not more.

(on the cambrian explosion)
And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists.

Richard Dawkins - The Blind Watchmaker 1986 p.229

Certainly, we do not know yet exactly how the whole process of DNA or RNA reproduction started, but if we postulate that a god started the process without sufficient evidence, only on the basis that there is no better answer, then we can also postulate that it was an advanced inter-dimensional race of ancients who populate planets with the seed of genetic mechanisms. If we don’t have the answer to how the mechanism got the whole thing started, what’s the difference between those two different origin hypotheses?

I don't postulate that God 'started the process'. I postulate that God spontaneously created everything. You rule out God apriori and thus you accept this just-so story about how life got here. In your eyes, it must have happened. Interpreting the evidence to fit the conclusion isn't very scientific, is it?

Also unlike you, I don’t see what you call “fine tuning” and I also study all sorts of physics, my favorite being astrophysics personally. The term “fine tuning” implies that something above the system changed some dials to a perfect goldilocks range to support what we have right now. This is an interesting idea however I find it to be more prudent to see it the other way around; that what has formed, has only formed because the conditions allow for it, that the environment dictates what can exist. Wherever you look at an environment and find life, you find life that fits into that environment and we also see that when environments change, so to do species change to adapt to the new conditions. We never see an environment change to fit the species.

I don't think you're understanding the fine tuning argument. Many of those finely tuned values, if even moved an inch, would make life impossible in this Universe. Not just improbable, but impossible. The fine tuning is extremely fortuitous to an incomprehensible degree. The odds of these values randomly converging is virtually impossible. For instance, for physical life to exist, the mass density of the Universe must be fine tuned to better than one part in 10 to the 60th power. For space-energy density, it is 10 to the 120th power. That's just two out of dozens of values.

You claim that we haven’t seen macro-evolution taking place? Are you sure about that, how exactly do you know this is true, where did you read this? How do you know that what you are calling macro-evolution is the same thing as what evolutionary biologists call macro-evolution? The fact of the matter is that the fossil record has nothing to say about the most recent research on macro-evolution. It’s a fascinating material and I would suggest that you get out there and find it for yourself. Talk Origins has as list of the studies done on macro-evolution, you can start there if you like.

Yes, evolutionists are trying to dump the fossil record in favor of genetic evidence because the fossil record is actually evidence against their theories. As I've said, common genetics also indicate common designer.

Darwin made a great discovery, that creatures can adapt to environmental conditions. That's something that has hard scientific evidence. What didn't have any evidence was his extrapolation from that to the theory of all life having a common ancestor. He was counting on the fossil record to prove his case but it didn't, which is why he said this:

innumerable transitional forms must have existed but why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? ..why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links?

Geologoy assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain, and this perhaps is the greatest objection which can be urged against my theory.

Charles Darwin
Origin of the Species

Here we are 150 years later with billions of fossils and there still isn't any evidence. If Darwin was right, we should have indisputable proof that one species changed into another, but we don't. All we have is a smattering of highly contested transitionals which are all "more or less" closely related, but no true ancestors. When the facts don't match the theory it is time to throw that theory away, but the theory of evolution is the cornerstone of the secular worldview, and it isn't going to die without a fight, no matter how loudly the facts cry out against it.

The question becomes, if there was/is a designer, what was designed first, the creature or the environment? To me, you are suggesting that humans were designed first in the mind of god, and then the environment was finely tuned in order to sustain the idea that god already had for us. Don’t you think this is a little bit too egotistical of a view? If that’s true, what makes everything else necessary? I don’t know if you study astrophysics or astronomy at all but there is a massive amount of stuff out there that has nothing to do with us and if we’re a part of god’s plan, he sure did create a lot of waste.

I'm saying He created all of it at the same time, in six days as Genesis describes. Why is the Universe so large? It could be for a number of reasons, such as that it gives us room to grow. If we were just hitting some sort of wall in space, it would also be a wall in knowledge that we could acquire. If it wasn't as large and complex as it is, we wouldn't be where we are today. Why are solid objects actually mostly composed of empty space? Isn't God wasting all of that space? Or is it integral to His design? Does the fact that almost everything is made up of empty space reduce the significance of solid objects? The size of the Universe doesn't say anything about our importance relative to it. The Heavens also declare the glory of God:

Psalm 19:1-2

The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.

Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge.

To me, if the Christian beliefs are the most accurate representation of reality, god isn’t a very good designer. There millions of ways that he could have done a better job if he is all powerful. Of course, you can revert back to, “we can’t know the mind of god”, or “god works in mysterious ways”, but those aren’t answers, they are just ways of maintaining a pre-existing belief by silencing further inquisition.

Have you ever created a Universe? If not, how then would you know what a superior design would look like?

“Unless you can demonstrate a purely naturalistic origin of the Universe, you have no case against Agency.“

Agency needs to prove itself and so far it isn’t doing a very good job. Science as a whole isn’t making a case against agency and neither am I by suggesting that there are likely to be naturalistic causes. Agency simply isn’t necessary. That is what I think that you don’t understand. It’s that I don’t accept the case for agency until agency can be proven. A suspended judgment is better than an accepted unverifiable and untestable claim.

You can rule out the necessity of Agency when you can explain origins. To say that it is not necessary when you don't know what caused the Universe is not something you can determine.

If you are in any way the kind of person who culturally relates to Christianity then there is nothing that anyone can do for you. It is very difficult to have an intellectually honest conversation with someone whose basis for belief is deeply tied to a sense of culture or social belonging. Challenging your beliefs is synonymous to asking you to become someone else if your beliefs are tightly woven into your identity. The only thing I can ask of you is to ask yourself if what you believe determines how you will process new information that comes to you.

I'll give you a little background on me. I grew up without any religion, and until a few years ago, I was an agnostic materialist who didn't see any evidence for God or spirit. Growing up, I hoped to become an astronomer. I have studied all the things you have mentioned, and although I am just a layman, I know quite a bit about biology, astronomy, physics, etc. Like you, I assumed because of my indoctrination in school and society, that the theory of evolution and other metaphysical theories were well supported by hard evidence. When I became a Christian, I was willing to incorporate these theories into my worldview. It is only upon investigation of the actual facts that I was shocked to find there not only is there no real evidence, but that much of what I had been taught in school was either grossly inaccurate, intentionally misleading, or outright fradulent.

So, you're not dealing with someone who grew up outside of your worldview, who feels threatened by it and is trying to tear it down. You're talking with someone who was heavily invested in it, and even willing to compromise with it, and has turned away from it because of my research, not in spite of it. If it was true, I would want to know about it. Since it isn't, I don't believe in it.

At the very least, you can see now that I am not diametrically opposed to the idea of a creator or agency behind everything. The notion is interesting but I don’t believe that there is enough real credible information to suggest that it’s true.

You are more openminded than I originally gave you credit for, but you definitely have a huge evidence filter made out of your presuppositions.

There are enough logical arguments against the idea of a god or gods existing that the whole notion is worth dismissing.

The only logical argument of any value that the atheists have is the argument from evil, and that has been soundly debunked by plantigas free will defense. Feel free to bring one up though, because I have never seen an atheist offer any positive evidence for his position. "Worth dismissing" = close minded and biased, btw.

If there is as god or gods, they aren’t doing a very good job of making themselves known or knowable.

Do you think that is why 93 percent of the world believes that God exists?

The simple fact is that naturalistic explanations are more useful ideas than any god concept because they provide both predictions that we can verify and help us make decisions about where to study next. No god hypothesis has ever provided either, therefore, in the pursuit of knowledge; the idea of god is useless.

Did you know that the idea that we can suss out laws by investigating their secondary causes is a Christian idea, based on the premise that God created an orderly universe governed by laws? Did you know that modern science got its start in Christian europe? Doesn't seem so useless to me. Science now must assume a little thing called "uniformity in nature" to even do science without the belief that there is a Creator upholding these laws. How do you get absolute laws in an ever changing Universe? What is the evidence the future will be like the past? Can you explain it?

Now you see why naturalistic explanations are predominate in science as the default standard.

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the unitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine foot in the door.

Richard Lewontin, Harvard
New York Review of Books 1/9/97

No evidence would be sufficient to create a change in mind; that it is not a commitment to evidence, but a commitment to naturalism. ...Because there are no alternatives, we would almost have to accept natural selection as the explanation of life on this planet even if there were no evidence for it.

Steven Pinker MIT
How the mind works p.182

I have faith and belief myself... I believe that nothing beyond those natural laws is needed. I have no evidence for this. It is simply what I have faith in and what I believe.

Isaac Asimov

I see why you say that, and now you know why you believe that, because those who teach you these ideas are doing exactly what I have been saying all along. Suppressing the truth.


>> ^IAmTheBlurr: