Perhaps they realize that the end of their earlier relationship was "tacky and pretentious". Maybe here they are saying "let's drop this bullshit"?
You don't have to be on the same trip they are on. If you don't dig it, that's cool... - don't need to knock 'em for it though.

When an artist uses themselves, and their own emotions in their work, it usually comes off as contrived and egocentric... because it is. Sure, if they focused on others we would be less likely to judge them for it. That said, life is subjective. The only authority with which they could imbue art focused on others stems from their own personal experience. That's just one step removed from the egocentric work that draws our distrust.
Perhaps love is sacred, and should not be examined or put on display. They obviously don't think so. I'm not going to tell them that they are wrong, and in the meantime I'm going to learn what I can from what they are doing.

Maybe you should reconsider just what "succinct" means, before you start insulting people who disagree with you.

The entire thrust of your comment was an implication that it's perfectly reasonable to outlaw pit bulls. And you're wrong, it's as simple as that. public flogging or pillorying the people who abuse them, and make that action widely known, and you'd have a lot few abused dogs who are vicious (of any breed).

In the meantime, I don't have time to spare on assholes, so if you intend to continue behaving like one, please let me know.

That was beautiful! I see the KHL branding and East vs West, so I assume it was from an All Star game or something there? (Confirmed via Google, answered my own question)

Gary Bettman and the NHLPA take months to settle a labor dispute for an expiring CBA that has been on the horizon for years, and in the meantime stuff like this is happening in the KHL. Yeah NHL, who's bush league now? I love ya, but this is why you'll never crawl out of last place in the North American "big four" sports race.

They're intended to protect the dog's paws against the cold, slippery and/or hard surfaces, salt and grit on winder roads. They're quite a good idea but it does take some dogs a while to get used to them. In the meantime, they look a bit hilarious in the process, but that's hardly the owner's fault, so I think you're overreacting a bit there.

Speaking from personal experience as one who only just recently got silver, I have a stockpile of points not because I intended to do so, but because there wasn't anything much I could do with them besides promote my own video's (not something I do often). It makes a kind of sense to limit the new folks like this as there isn't much they can do with the points anyway and it keeps them from going nuts with the points they accumulate in the meantime the instant they get to use them on other things. I do think that a max of 1 for each year is a bit stiff though. 2 per year or something? At least something that scales slightly more?

Yea, if it's not 100% effective then it is completely pointless and a waste of time. Surely best not to do anything at all, because in the meantime the most comprehensive solution is too expensive.

Might be a drop in the ocean, but at least it's something.

Ah , well I wasn't expecting this! What is that, parchment in the background? Or my crazy monitor again?

I like a refresh but it will take time to bed in with me.

In the meantime I do worry about the teeny channel labels and hard to see text. Speaking for the elderly and hard of seeing this is a concern.

Showing only the last 3 promoted videos? Hmmm....

Also no love for channel owners? Was hoping to see some new features there. And I can't see how to find new channel submissions. Clicking on a channel shows the latest videos but Upcoming just shows everything.

Are the old RSS feeds broken?

I would also like a *complete* listing of all videos on a channel.

Also there are filtering options for Upcoming videos but none for sifted ones. Said it before we need easy filtering options whenever there is a list of videos.

It partly explains voter apathy on the Dem side. Obama was sent to the White house with a clear mandate (which he ran on), and he largely ignored it or "compromised" it away after he got there. And don't post me a link to that "lookie at what all Obama's done" page. It's horseshit. This election, many Dems are just voting for Obama because he's not Romney.

Also, fusion has been 30 years away for about 40 years now. How about a Manhattan Project-level effort towards that? In the meantime, let's help Japan build their space elevator so we can have a safe method of disposing all the nuclear waste from all the nuclear power plants we are going to need to build until fusion is viable.

Interesting, definitely need more investigation into this. In the meantime, however, this is still borderline *conspiracy (as well as *politics and *elections).

That's a nice theory and all about tuition is high only because of government involvement. Let's ignore the fact that it takes two. It takes government grants to assist those in need, and it takes the colleges to say "well fuck it then, let's just keep raising prices then if government is going to help out"

Schiff seems to forget that a lot since he made the same argument about wall street. Wall street keeps doing bad things, but it's the government's fault for not stopping them. Maybe if wall street stopped doing bad things, the government wouldn't need to stop them.

It takes two. But one organization is trying to help, the other organization is just trying to get away with having more money. So you tell me which one is worse. If a criminal has a gun to your head and says he will shoot you if you don't do X. If you refuse to do X and the criminal shoots you, who's fault is it? Yeah it's the fault of the fucking criminal with the gun to your head!!

The idea of removing government grants to education would have the effect of lowering tuition costs actually is something I might support. It's a sound idea. Problem is, what do you do in the meantime while you're waiting for the effects of supply and demand to kick in. Government pulls its money from higher education, and supposedly colleges will be forced to lower prices since much fewer people will be able to attend. Stuff like that doesn't happen over night, you're going to have a large gap where a ton of people will not be able to go to college for a significant period of time. What do you do about that?

I quite honestly don't think it will work. Colleges originally never had government support and did they lower prices to let the peasants in back then? Nope. Colleges were the home to the rich and the affluent. If you like the idea of only the rich getting an education, then proceed. If you like the idea that wealth shouldn't be a factor in education, then we need a better answer.

>> ^Enzoblue:

I so wanna be rich and good looking.


Becoming rich takes 5-25 years, depending on luck and starting position.

The people in this video are on the far right tail of the attractiveness bell curve, and for us to get there for most of the population... that will have to wait a few or several decades for reprogenetics & advanced cosmetic procedures (stem cell tech etc.).

In the meantime, most people can substantially improve their attractiveness through normal means (exercise, build a good personality, devote all of our life and intelligence to our careers, and so on).

@ChaosEngine

Oh sweet irony, I'm being called wilfully ignorant by a young-earther.

I'm not going to refute you. I don't need to; @BicycleRepairMan has already done an excellent job of it.

An excellent refutation? He cherry picked one sentence out of my reply, a reply where I had demonstrated the fallacy of his argument from incredulity by proving his assumption of the constancy of radioactive decay rates was nothing more than the conventional wisdom of our times. Is this what passes for logical argumentation in your mind? He posited a fallacious argument. I exposed the fallacy. He ignored the refutation and cherry picked his reply. You seem to be showing that in your eagerness to agree with everything which is contrary to my position that you have a weak filter on information which supports your preconceived ideas. Why is it that a skeptic is always pathologically skeptical of everything except his own positions, I wonder?

@BicycleRepairMan

...and to see an exampe of such a racket, check the flood "geology" link.

Seriously, you cant see the blinding irony in your own words? So, things like radiometric dating, fossils, geology, astronomy, chemistry, biology are all just parts of a self-perpetuating racket confirming each others conclusions in a big old circlejerking conspiracy of astronomical proportions.. well, lets assume then that it is. So they are basically chasing the foregone conclusion that the universe is over 13 billion years old and that life on this planet emerged some 3,6 billion years ago and has evolved ever since. But where did these wild conclusions come from? Who established the dogma that scientists seems to mindlessly work to confirm, and why? And why 13,72 billion years then? Why not 100 billion years, or 345 million years?

The thing is, what you have here is an alleged "crime" with no incentives, no motivation.. Why on earth would all the worlds scientists, depentently and independently and over many generations converge to promote a falsehood of no significance to anyone? it might make some kind of sense if someones doctrine was threatened unless the world was exactly 13.72 billion years old. Or if someone believed they were going to hell unless they believed trilobites died out 250 million years ago.. The thing is, nobody believes that.

The truth is pretty much staring you in the face right here. The conclusions of science on things like the age of the earth emerged gradually; Darwin, and even earlier naturalists had no idea of the exact age of the earth, or even a good approximation, but they did figure this much: It must be very, very old. So old that it challenged their prior beliefs and assumptions about a god-created world as described in their holy book. And thats were nearly all scientists come from: They grew up and lived in societies that looked to holy books , scripture and religion for the answers, and everybody assumed they had proper answers until the science was done.If scientists were corrupt conspirators working to preserve dogma, they be like Kent Hovind or Ken Ham. Ignoring vast mountains of facts and evidence, and focus on a few distorted out-of-context quotations to confirm what they already "know".

Not only was your prior argument fallacious, but I refuted it. Now you're ignoring that and cherry picking your replies here. Seems pretty intellectually dishonest to me? In any case, I'll reply to what you've said here. I was going to get into the technical issues concerning why scientists believe the Universe is so old, and the history of the theory, but so far you have given me no reason to believe that any of it will be carefully considered.

Instead I'll answer with a portion of an article I found, which was printed in "The Ledger" on Feb 17th 2000. It's interview of a molecular biologist who wanted to remain anonymous

Caylor: "Do you believe that the information evolved?"

MB: "George, nobody I know in my profession believes it evolved. It was engineered by genius beyond genius, and such information could not have been written any other way. The paper and ink did not write the book! Knowing what we know, it is ridiculous to think otherwise."

Caylor: "Have you ever stated that in a public lecture, or in any public writings?"

MB: "No, I just say it evolved. To be a molecular biologist requires one to hold onto two insanities at all times:
One, it would be insane to believe in evolution when you can see the truth for yourself.
Two, it would be insane to say you don't believe evolution. All government work, research grants, papers, big college lectures -- everything would stop. I'd be out of a job, or relegated to the outer fringes where I couldn't earn a decent living.”

Caylor: “I hate to say it, but that sounds intellectually dishonest.”

MB: “The work I do in genetic research is honorable. We will find the cures to many of mankind's worst diseases. But in the meantime, we have to live with the elephant in the living room.”

Caylor: “What elephant?”

MB: “Creation design. It's like an elephant in the living room. It moves around, takes up space, loudly trumpets, bumps into us, knocks things over, eats a ton of hay, and smells like an elephant. And yet we have to swear it isn't there!”

Here are some selected quotes:

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. 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, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

Richard Lewontin

"In China its O.K. to criticize Darwin but not the government, while in the United States its O.K. to criticize the government, but not Darwin."

Dr. J.Y. Chen,

Chinese Paleontologist

Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic."

S. C. Todd,
Correspondence to Nature 410(6752):423, 30 Sept. 1999

"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,
Professor of Psychology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA., "How the Mind Works," [1997]

"Biologists are simply naive when they talk about experiments designed to test the theory of evolution. It is not testable. They may happen to stumble across facts which would seem to conflict with its predictions. These facts will invariably be ignored and their discoverers will undoubtedly be deprived of continuing research grants."

Professor Whitten,
Professor of Genetics, University of Melbourne, Australia, 1980 Assembly Week address.

"Science is not so much concerned with truth as it is with consensus. What counts as truth is what scientists can agree to count as truth at any particular moment in time. [Scientists] are not really receptive or not really open-minded to any sorts of criticisms or any sorts of claims that actually are attacking some of the established parts of the research (traditional) paradigm, in this case neo-Darwinism. So it is very difficult for people who are pushing claims that contradict that paradigm to get a hearing. They find it hard to [get] research grants; they find it hard to get their research published; they find it very hard."

Prof. Evelleen Richards,
Historian of Science at the University of NSW, Australia

Speaks for itself, I think..

Someone should * promote this. In the meantime I shall *quality.

>> ^shinyblurry:

The gay community in that town already knew about it, and sent someone in to get refused so they could create a story for the media with the hype and drama that has surrounded it, and generate sympathy for their cause.

Legitimately so. If he truly believes his bullshit he should be happy to advertise it. In the meantime, everyone else is now aware of his stance and can choose to support or ignore him.

>> ^kymbos:

@Deano, agree it was the best, but that doesn't say much. And still there's the whole 'wearing glasses - Clark Kent, no glasses - Superman' silliness.
I saw a great idea for Superman written somewhere. Maybe Reddit. I've googled it and can't find it. It's something like Superman is around in the 1940s, but Lex Luthor puts him into stasis until around now. In the meantime, Luthor builds a mighty media conglomerate and slowly convinces humanity that Superman wasn't a hero, but in fact was evil. When Superman re-emerges, the world sees him as a massive terrorist and loathes him. He has to overcome the distorted power of modern media and a malleable, ignorant populace to defeat his enemy.
Something like that. Not my idea, but a great way to modernise the story a little.


That idea sounds a bit weak to me. He'd only need to get a good PR firm and a twitter account and he'd be sorted!