There's actually a distinction between waking up because one has to urinate and dreaming about having to urinate. While the latter can lead to the former, there's a reason why you don't wake up in order to pee and instead remain asleep and dream about urination...

While the meaning of any particular dream is far too important to take anyone else's word for, it's been my experience that such dreams about urination often have something to do with the feeling/desire to express oneself more freely, and/or to "speak one's truth," as it were, in a free and unobstructed way.

While your mileage may vary, there are frequently multiple layers of meaning to any particular dream (dream image, or dream fragment), but there are also universal themes that tend to come up (which makes sense to me, given that we're all humans in human form experiencing much of the same things, especially -- or perhaps exclusively -- when it comes to the human body).

(P.S. I've take several classes on the topic of 'dream interpretation' and some of the meaningful work has been the result of studying with this man.)
>> ^raverman:

I only remember dreams of needing to pee... and we all know what that means.

It's not the same video. The old one was less than 10 minutes and has been removed from QS's channel. Fragments of the old one can still be found on YT in reaction videos to the original, but I can't find the whole thing. I hope you can remove this embed before someone declares dupe on the new one I just sifted: http://videosift.com/video/QualiaSoup-Substance-Dualism-Part-1-of-2

@dag @lucky760 Is it possible to remove an embed without replacing it?

[Edit: Also, since my sift of this embed is the same as this embed here, I cannot modify video details, which I'd like to do. Is there any way around that?]>> ^Almanildo:

I think QualiaSoup removed his video and replaced it with an HD version. Let's hope it's the same one.

I'm not a clinical psychologist, so I apologize if I offended any schizophrenics out there. Thanks for encouraging me to learn the difference between DID and schizophrenia.

http://www.christiansurvivors.com/didvsschizophrenia.html
>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^KnivesOut:
You guys trying to argue with the crazy person on his terms are so far down the rabbit hole... I'm sorry, but it's time to pull out.
It's like trying to lawyer a schizophrenic into a logical corner using the fragments of his psychosis as proofs. You can't trap him, because his magical imaginary friend will always provide an escape clause.
Just like in real life, best to not make eye contact and keep a steady pace as you walk on by.

What if you're interested in how schizophrenics think and experience the world? Should you refuse to speak to one or ask him/her questions just because his/her answers might be absurd?
ps. I think you've confused schizophrenia with DID.

>> ^KnivesOut:

You guys trying to argue with the crazy person on his terms are so far down the rabbit hole... I'm sorry, but it's time to pull out.
It's like trying to lawyer a schizophrenic into a logical corner using the fragments of his psychosis as proofs. You can't trap him, because his magical imaginary friend will always provide an escape clause.
Just like in real life, best to not make eye contact and keep a steady pace as you walk on by.


What if you're interested in how schizophrenics think and experience the world? Should you refuse to speak to one or ask him/her questions just because his/her answers might be absurd?

ps. I think you've confused schizophrenia with DID.

Every time I argue religion, I find one more reason not to believe it. For example, until today, I'd never questioned these rules, or "consequences", as SB prefers to call them. If God made everything, then he made those consequences too, right, a fact which holds its own logical consequences for supporters. I suppose in the end none of it matters since he's already made up his mind, despite agreeing elsewhere that if I found a single inconsistency in the Bible that he'd renounce his faith.>> ^KnivesOut:

You guys trying to argue with the crazy person on his terms are so far down the rabbit hole... I'm sorry, but it's time to pull out.
It's like trying to lawyer a schizophrenic into a logical corner using the fragments of his psychosis as proofs. You can't trap him, because his magical imaginary friend will always provide an escape clause.
Just like in real life, best to not make eye contact and keep a steady pace as you walk on by.

You guys trying to argue with the crazy person on his terms are so far down the rabbit hole... I'm sorry, but it's time to pull out.

It's like trying to lawyer a schizophrenic into a logical corner using the fragments of his psychosis as proofs. You can't trap him, because his magical imaginary friend will always provide an escape clause.

Just like in real life, best to not make eye contact and keep a steady pace as you walk on by.

You have been awarded 1 Power Point for fixing the embed code for Dead Pool video Front Line Assembly - Fragmented. Thank you for helping maintain VideoSift's reliability.

ill never forget the sound of my teeth being smashed and the sight of bloody teeth fragments being removed... oh and the unimaginable pain that comes after the pain killers wear off.

@Kreegath: this whole playlist (4 videos) is episode 1 of "JM on France", titled "Fragments of an Arbitrary Encyclopaedia"

SREDNI VASHTAR

Conradin was ten years old, and the doctor had pronounced his professional opinion that the boy would not live another five years. The doctor was silky and effete, and counted for little, but his opinion was endorsed by Mrs. De Ropp, who counted for nearly everything. Mrs. De Ropp was Conradin's cousin and guardian, and in his eyes she represented those three-fifths of the world that are necessary and disagreeable and real; the other two-fifths, in perpetual antagonism to the foregoing, were summed up in himself and his imagination. One of these days Conradin supposed he would succumb to the mastering pressure of wearisome necessary things---such as illnesses and coddling restrictions and drawn-out dulness. Without his imagination, which was rampant under the spur of loneliness, he would have succumbed long ago.

Mrs. De Ropp would never, in her honestest moments, have confessed to herself that she disliked Conradin, though she might have been dimly aware that thwarting him ``for his good'' was a duty which she did not find particularly irksome. Conradin hated her with a desperate sincerity which he was perfectly able to mask. Such few pleasures as he could contrive for himself gained an added relish from the likelihood that they would be displeasing to his guardian, and from the realm of his imagination she was locked out---an unclean thing, which should find no entrance.

In the dull, cheerless garden, overlooked by so many windows that were ready to open with a message not to do this or that, or a reminder that medicines were due, he found little attraction. The few fruit-trees that it contained were set jealously apart from his plucking, as though they were rare specimens of their kind blooming in an arid waste; it would probably have been difficult to find a market-gardener who would have offered ten shillings for their entire yearly produce. In a forgotten corner, however, almost hidden behind a dismal shrubbery, was a disused tool-shed of respectable proportions, and within its walls Conradin found a haven, something that took on the varying aspects of a playroom and a cathedral. He had peopled it with a legion of familiar phantoms, evoked partly from fragments of history and partly from his own brain, but it also boasted two inmates of flesh and blood. In one corner lived a ragged-plumaged Houdan hen, on which the boy lavished an affection that had scarcely another outlet. Further back in the gloom stood a large hutch, divided into two compartments, one of which was fronted with close iron bars. This was the abode of a large polecat-ferret, which a friendly butcher-boy had once smuggled, cage and all, into its present quarters, in exchange for a long-secreted hoard of small silver. Conradin was dreadfully afraid of the lithe, sharp-fanged beast, but it was his most treasured possession. Its very presence in the tool-shed was a secret and fearful joy, to be kept scrupulously from the knowledge of the Woman, as he privately dubbed his cousin. And one day, out of Heaven knows what material, he spun the beast a wonderful name, and from that moment it grew into a god and a religion. The Woman indulged in religion once a week at a church near by, and took Conradin with her, but to him the church service was an alien rite in the House of Rimmon. Every Thursday, in the dim and musty silence of the tool-shed, he worshipped with mystic and elaborate ceremonial before the wooden hutch where dwelt Sredni Vashtar, the great ferret. Red flowers in their season and scarlet berries in the winter-time were offered at his shrine, for he was a god who laid some special stress on the fierce impatient side of things, as opposed to the Woman's religion, which, as far as Conradin could observe, went to great lengths in the contrary direction. And on great festivals powdered nutmeg was strewn in front of his hutch, an important feature of the offering being that the nutmeg had to be stolen. These festivals were of irregular occurrence, and were chiefly appointed to celebrate some passing event. On one occasion, when Mrs. De Ropp suffered from acute toothache for three days, Conradin kept up the festival during the entire three days, and almost succeeded in persuading himself that Sredni Vashtar was personally responsible for the toothache. If the malady had lasted for another day the supply of nutmeg would have given out.

The Houdan hen was never drawn into the cult of Sredni Vashtar. Conradin had long ago settled that she was an Anabaptist. He did not pretend to have the remotest knowledge as to what an Anabaptist was, but he privately hoped that it was dashing and not very respectable. Mrs. De Ropp was the ground plan on which he based and detested all respectability.

After a while Conradin's absorption in the tool-shed began to attract the notice of his guardian. ``It is not good for him to be pottering down there in all weathers,'' she promptly decided, and at breakfast one morning she announced that the Houdan hen had been sold and taken away overnight. With her short-sighted eyes she peered at Conradin, waiting for an outbreak of rage and sorrow, which she was ready to rebuke with a flow of excellent precepts and reasoning. But Conradin said nothing: there was nothing to be said. Something perhaps in his white set face gave her a momentary qualm, for at tea that afternoon there was toast on the table, a delicacy which she usually banned on the ground that it was bad for him; also because the making of it ``gave trouble,'' a deadly offence in the middle-class feminine eye.

``I thought you liked toast,'' she exclaimed, with an injured air, observing that he did not touch it.

``Sometimes,'' said Conradin.

In the shed that evening there was an innovation in the worship of the hutch-god. Conradin had been wont to chant his praises, tonight be asked a boon.

``Do one thing for me, Sredni Vashtar.''

The thing was not specified. As Sredni Vashtar was a god he must be supposed to know. And choking back a sob as he looked at that other empty comer, Conradin went back to the world he so hated.

And every night, in the welcome darkness of his bedroom, and every evening in the dusk of the tool-shed, Conradin's bitter litany went up: ``Do one thing for me, Sredni Vashtar.''

Mrs. De Ropp noticed that the visits to the shed did not cease, and one day she made a further journey of inspection.

``What are you keeping in that locked hutch?'' she asked. ``I believe it's guinea-pigs. I'll have them all cleared away.''

Conradin shut his lips tight, but the Woman ransacked his bedroom till she found the carefully hidden key, and forthwith marched down to the shed to complete her discovery. It was a cold afternoon, and Conradin had been bidden to keep to the house. From the furthest window of the dining-room the door of the shed could just be seen beyond the corner of the shrubbery, and there Conradin stationed himself. He saw the Woman enter, and then be imagined her opening the door of the sacred hutch and peering down with her short-sighted eyes into the thick straw bed where his god lay hidden. Perhaps she would prod at the straw in her clumsy impatience. And Conradin fervently breathed his prayer for the last time. But he knew as he prayed that he did not believe. He knew that the Woman would come out presently with that pursed smile he loathed so well on her face, and that in an hour or two the gardener would carry away his wonderful god, a god no longer, but a simple brown ferret in a hutch. And he knew that the Woman would triumph always as she triumphed now, and that he would grow ever more sickly under her pestering and domineering and superior wisdom, till one day nothing would matter much more with him, and the doctor would be proved right. And in the sting and misery of his defeat, he began to chant loudly and defiantly the hymn of his threatened idol:

Sredni Vashtar went forth,
His thoughts were red thoughts and his teeth were white.
His enemies called for peace, but he brought them death.
Sredni Vashtar the Beautiful.

And then of a sudden he stopped his chanting and drew closer to the window-pane. The door of the shed still stood ajar as it had been left, and the minutes were slipping by. They were long minutes, but they slipped by nevertheless. He watched the starlings running and flying in little parties across the lawn; he counted them over and over again, with one eye always on that swinging door. A sour-faced maid came in to lay the table for tea, and still Conradin stood and waited and watched. Hope had crept by inches into his heart, and now a look of triumph began to blaze in his eyes that had only known the wistful patience of defeat. Under his breath, with a furtive exultation, he began once again the pæan of victory and devastation. And presently his eyes were rewarded: out through that doorway came a long, low, yellow-and-brown beast, with eyes a-blink at the waning daylight, and dark wet stains around the fur of jaws and throat. Conradin dropped on his knees. The great polecat-ferret made its way down to a small brook at the foot of the garden, drank for a moment, then crossed a little plank bridge and was lost to sight in the bushes. Such was the passing of Sredni Vashtar.

``Tea is ready,'' said the sour-faced maid; ``where is the mistress?'' ``She went down to the shed some time ago,'' said Conradin. And while the maid went to summon her mistress to tea, Conradin fished a toasting-fork out of the sideboard drawer and proceeded to toast himself a piece of bread. And during the toasting of it and the buttering of it with much butter and the slow enjoyment of eating it, Conradin listened to the noises and silences which fell in quick spasms beyond the dining-room door. The loud foolish screaming of the maid, the answering chorus of wondering ejaculations from the kitchen region, the scuttering footsteps and hurried embassies for outside help, and then, after a lull, the scared sobbings and the shuffling tread of those who bore a heavy burden into the house.

``Whoever will break it to the poor child? I couldn't for the life of me!'' exclaimed a shrill voice. And while they debated the matter among themselves, Conradin made himself another piece of toast.

Thanks for the thought out response MMD. Actually, my father and grandfather owned guns and kept them in the house. They were former marine and army, and definitely believed in the 2nd amendment. My father even gave me a rifle for a birthday as a child and taught me basic safety and maintenance.

But I never saw them use their guns in an emotional outburst to make some argumentative point. They had too much discipline for behavior like that. The guy in the video is clearly very angry and emotional (from the timbre in his voice) before and while using the gun.

As far as the legality of him doing what he was doing. From my experience, cops can make up a charge if they really want to, and maybe they (and child services) would at least bother the guy enough to make sure he thinks twice before brandishing a gun in this manner and putting it on youtube.

Yeah people shoot at things all the time, but a laptop? I know how they are assembled, and there are several layers of components that make up the machine, including many brittle materials that can easily shatter. Not to mention toxic materials like solder, etc. I doubt this guy has been taking laptops down to the quarry for target practice regularly enough to know how they take a hollow point.>> ^MilkmanDan:

>> ^longde:
Thinking about it more, what really bothers me about this video is the gratuitous use of the gun. To display that level of intimidation and violence in his home is one thing, but to broadcast it to other youth in his community is reckless.
One unintentional lesson that kids will take from this is that it's acceptable to wave a gun around and shoot off a few rounds to vent your anger and resolve a problem.
If I were a parent in this community, I would be making a few calls to the authorities.
And I'm the guy who supported belt whipping guy. I think gun guy is way worse than belt beating guy.
(also, how did this genius know that there would be no flying shrapnel from the components in the laptop?)

I fully understand and appreciate your concerns here, but once again I'm on the other side of the fence. Maybe just because I grew up on a farm in a rural area where a very high percentage of households owned at least one firearm and most kids in those homes were taught how to responsibly use a gun.
A lot of people think that there isn't really any justification for owning a gun outside of being a soldier or policeman, and that therefore the only way to practice being responsible with a gun is to simply never own or fire one. I would disagree, but if that is the mindset I'm not going to be able to convince anyone otherwise.
Anyway, I don't see his use of the gun as displaying any "intimidation" or "violence", so I don't have any problem with his posting the video on his daughter's facebook and/or youtube or whatever. By shooting the laptop, he wasn't telling his daughter "straighten up or next time its YOU!" (intimidation), he was telling her that actions have consequences and since the laptop is his property he can do whatever he wants with it -- including destroying it rather than have her feel like she is entitled to it.
There are plenty of freely available videos on the internet (even here on the sift, say) where people use firearms in genuinely reckless and irresponsible ways orders of magnitude beyond this one. And that is before considering ubiquitous reckless or malevolent use of firearms in fictional media like movies, etc.
If you were a parent in his community, you would be welcome to call and complain to the authorities, but they would tell you that he definitely didn't do anything against the law. So you'd pretty much be wasting your breath.
About the risk of flying shrapnel, I think that he "knows" that there wouldn't be any (or at least that the risk is acceptably minute) because he has used firearms before. Part of learning to use a gun responsibly (at least, how I would define responsibly) is shooting at things and seeing what happens to them. You shoot a BB gun at cans or bottles set up on posts. You shoot a rifle or handgun at targets at a shooting range or in a rural area with nothing in front of you. You shoot a shotgun at an empty 2-liter bottle thrown up in the air, or at clay pigeons.
While doing those things, you notice that whatever you are shooting at generally doesn't explode like it does in the movies. If any fragments fly off (not likely), they won't have much mass, they won't be traveling very fast (vastly slower than the bullet), and they will most likely be traveling in the same general direction as the bullet -- not back towards you. Physics dictates that his shooting the laptop was relatively safe, even at close range like that.

>> ^longde:

Thinking about it more, what really bothers me about this video is the gratuitous use of the gun. To display that level of intimidation and violence in his home is one thing, but to broadcast it to other youth in his community is reckless.
One unintentional lesson that kids will take from this is that it's acceptable to wave a gun around and shoot off a few rounds to vent your anger and resolve a problem.
If I were a parent in this community, I would be making a few calls to the authorities.
And I'm the guy who supported belt whipping guy. I think gun guy is way worse than belt beating guy.
(also, how did this genius know that there would be no flying shrapnel from the components in the laptop?)


I fully understand and appreciate your concerns here, but once again I'm on the other side of the fence. Maybe just because I grew up on a farm in a rural area where a very high percentage of households owned at least one firearm and most kids in those homes were taught how to responsibly use a gun.

A lot of people think that there isn't really any justification for owning a gun outside of being a soldier or policeman, and that therefore the only way to practice being responsible with a gun is to simply never own or fire one. I would disagree, but if that is the mindset I'm not going to be able to convince anyone otherwise.

Anyway, I don't see his use of the gun as displaying any "intimidation" or "violence", so I don't have any problem with his posting the video on his daughter's facebook and/or youtube or whatever. By shooting the laptop, he wasn't telling his daughter "straighten up or next time its YOU!" (intimidation), he was telling her that actions have consequences and since the laptop is his property he can do whatever he wants with it -- including destroying it rather than have her feel like she is entitled to it.

There are plenty of freely available videos on the internet (even here on the sift, say) where people use firearms in genuinely reckless and irresponsible ways orders of magnitude beyond this one. And that is before considering ubiquitous reckless or malevolent use of firearms in fictional media like movies, etc.

If you were a parent in his community, you would be welcome to call and complain to the authorities, but they would tell you that he definitely didn't do anything against the law. So you'd pretty much be wasting your breath.

About the risk of flying shrapnel, I think that he "knows" that there wouldn't be any (or at least that the risk is acceptably minute) because he has used firearms before. Part of learning to use a gun responsibly (at least, how I would define responsibly) is shooting at things and seeing what happens to them. You shoot a BB gun at cans or bottles set up on posts. You shoot a rifle or handgun at targets at a shooting range or in a rural area with nothing in front of you. You shoot a shotgun at an empty 2-liter bottle thrown up in the air, or at clay pigeons.

While doing those things, you notice that whatever you are shooting at generally doesn't explode like it does in the movies. If any fragments fly off (not likely), they won't have much mass, they won't be traveling very fast (vastly slower than the bullet), and they will most likely be traveling in the same general direction as the bullet -- not back towards you. Physics dictates that his shooting the laptop was relatively safe, even at close range like that.

>> ^marinara:

Quick! we mush pass PIPA, SOPA or there will never be another CALL OF DUTY game!

<sarcasm>Yeah, that's exactly what I said. </sarcasm>

Basic comprehension has never been your strong point, has it?

>> ^gorillaman:


Piracy is totally acceptable. Intellectual property is logically and morally absurd. Patents - claiming you personally own a slice of the universal laws of physics - are particularly obnoxious; copyright - claiming you personally own access to a string of information, which nobody else is allowed to know without your permission - is usually only something silly that gets in the way of discourse. Merely silly, that is, until people (yes people, I hold each of them individually responsible) send their stormtroopers to attack the innocent just to keep themselves in business.
Mass media always costs more money to produce than it's actually worth. No movie or game, however many millions are spent in its creation, is worth more than the price of a single unit. When producers invest all this cash they're relying on the miracle of media duplication to get paid. That single unit can be copied and sold again and again and again, to thousands or millions of people, multiplying itself and its value. Often they're able to sell their one little media fragment enough times to make a profit - good for them, the bet paid off. To then turn around and complain when others take advantage of that same miracle to enrich their lives is not only a textbook example of biting the hand that feeds you, it's also deliberately obstructing a process that makes the world better, which is a monstrous crime.
These people don't 'deserve' compensation. They're gambling. Whether gamblers make their living gambling or not, they don't 'deserve' to win and it's nobody else's responsibility to ensure that they do.
This is an extremely simple issue.


Wow, I really don't even know where to start with how ridiculous that is. Intellectual property is not "logically and morally absurd". It is the result of peoples time and effort, and thus, has value. This is not about rewarding a studio who invests hundreds of millions in a game or movie, it's about paying a programmer, artist or hell, even the guy who gets coffee for the director.

As for the "gambling" argument, I have no problem with people with make bad products failing. That's fine. But you seem to believe that someone could put years of work into a great product and then still receive no compensation for it. Fine, but then why should you expect them to continue to put that effort into their work? Yeah, love of the craft, whatever, but people still need to eat, pay bills, etc.

You know what? pay the fucking writer.

>> ^ChaosEngine:
You don't think you're oversimplifying the issue just a bit? Or more likely, by an order of magnitude?
Games, moveis, music; all these cost money to produce. You don't think that the people (yes, people, not big faceless corporations) involved deserve to be compensated for their efforts?
People harp on about "a broken business model", but I've yet to see someone come up with a working alternative. Yes, treating your paying customers worse than pirates is not the right answer, but that doesn't make piracy any more morally acceptable.


Piracy is totally acceptable. Intellectual property is logically and morally absurd. Patents - claiming you personally own a slice of the universal laws of physics - are particularly obnoxious; copyright - claiming you personally own access to a string of information, which nobody else is allowed to know without your permission - is usually only something silly that gets in the way of discourse. Merely silly, that is, until people (yes people, I hold each of them individually responsible) send their stormtroopers to attack the innocent just to keep themselves in business.

Mass media always costs more money to produce than it's actually worth. No movie or game, however many millions are spent in its creation, is worth more than the price of a single unit. When producers invest all this cash they're relying on the miracle of media duplication to get paid. That single unit can be copied and sold again and again and again, to thousands or millions of people, multiplying itself and its value. Often they're able to sell their one little media fragment enough times to make a profit - good for them, the bet paid off. To then turn around and complain when others take advantage of that same miracle to enrich their lives is not only a textbook example of biting the hand that feeds you, it's also deliberately obstructing a process that makes the world better, which is a monstrous crime.

These people don't 'deserve' compensation. They're gambling. Whether gamblers make their living gambling or not, they don't 'deserve' to win and it's nobody else's responsibility to ensure that they do.

This is an extremely simple issue.

1. people are becoming more isolated, nuclear families are normal
2. people's beliefs are becoming more fragmented
3. churches suck
4. pastors suck
5. religion sucks

consider the fact that network television is losing viewers. they are losing viewers to netflix, cable tv, WWW, x-box. Similarly, churches are losing parishioners.
Combine that with the fact that only the lowest intelligence, least curious people are going into the pulpit.
And keep your sons' penis out of the priest's mouth. (am i too direct?)

did I leave out anything