@blankfist

"I'm sure the researchers there are fantastic."

You are such a hypocrite. In your post you praise the discovery, and now you bash the university that made it all possible with a snide bit of sarcasm.
-----------------------
-----------------------
"He developed and released a cure to polio, but today the restrictions on the market makes this kind of charitable action illegal."

What EXACTLY are the restrictions that prevent someone from independently researching and independently developing a cure for a disease; and then openly publishing information about said cure.

And before you say "Well the FDA piles on regulations/fees DURRR, that's what my article said!"

Your article also said "Some observers would say that reducing FDA restrictions would reduce the price of drugs consumers face. I do not believe this to be the case. After the R&D is spent, firms price their drug to maximize profits subject to consumer demand."
-----------------------
-----------------------
Incidentally, the polio vaccine you referred to was also discovered at a state university.
----------------------
----------------------
We have lived in a world without the Pure Food and Drug Act. All it led to was maximization of profit through insidiously horrible work conditions, disgustingly inferior products for consumers, and the publication of The Jungle.

>> ^Ornthoron:

It seems to me that Ron Paul is so enamoured with the concept of freedom that he believes it should extend to selling unhealthy food. There is simply no good reason to sell unpasteurized milk. Having a food and drugs administration that makes sure foodstuffs on sale do not cause serious infectuous diseases is hardly impinging on anyone's freedom. If Ron Paul cannot distinguish the two, I must call into question his judgment on what constitutes freedom for the layman and consumer, and what constitutes freedom for producers to sell dangerous products.


You mean healthy food like fast food which is FDA approved? You could say there is no good reason to sell carbonated beverage as well, as drinking carbon dioxide is basically poison. Not a very effective one, mind you, but isn't it my right to be stupid with what I eat. I would argue eating is one of those most fundamental rights that can't really be regulated anyway, much like the drug war. In this day and age of fear mongering on the news, it would be hard to get away with "the jungle" without massive public retaliation.

But back to the point at hand, what about cigars, surely those should be illegal by this logic, or not running once a week? If you sell a product you know to be harmful, advise people thusly, and they still choose to, then by all means shouldn't it be allowed. I'll even give you grounds to liability if companies knowingly sell harmful products, criminally liability, not just civil. Even with that, I still don't see the need for an FDA. That seems to favor people who can manipulate the laws better than a true consumer protection in many cases, because the meat industry today is about as gross as it ever was in spite, or arguably, because of the FDA.

I digress, though. I don't know how a man could craft a moral argument to make food products illegal that aren't explicitly harmful. Hell, even foods that ARE explicitly harmful are legal today, but only the ones that make tons of money for big business, not struggling farmers.

>> ^budzos:

>> ^ant:
>> ^budzos:
Carmack genuinely one of my heroes. "Masters of DOOM" is a terrific book if you're interested in the 3D renaissance of 90s PC gaming.

DOOM ruled. See my mods: http://zimage.com/~ant/antfarm/files/doom2/j2doom/j2doom.html

Awesome. That's pretty hardcore.


If you're interested to vote or whatever: http://videosift.com/video/Ants-Da-Kills-LevelMap-2-recording-from-Da-Kills-DOOM2-mod and http://videosift.com/video/Ants-death-match-recording-from-Jungle-DOOM-2-PWADmod ...

I thought Indy 4 was almost there....
a) The two best Indy movies (1 & 3) had their roots in Biblical myths, this made them feel sort of 'legit', a nice sort of 'what if' these stories were true. Temple of Doom lacked this with him not searching for anything really, just stumbling across the Thuggees. The crystal skulls could have been a pretty good myth to work with, but there wasn't enough decoding scripture or writings or anything really to _do_ with the myth... I think that's where the two weak films initially fail, they aren't a good 'search for a lost item' story.

b) Far too much CGI, the chase through the jungle, while having some nice action and set pieces, just feels like a cgi scene, doesn't feel based in reality.

c) Too much lame humour. It's where Lucas failed a lot with the Star Wars prequels too... resorting to fart jokes and bad slapstick when the originals had a semblance of subtlety to them.

d) The end... just... a spaceship... really? The first one, we have ghosts... that's good, honest, old school movies. The second has some heart ripping and glowing stones, the third has life giving/sapping cups... but none of them have alien creatures coming to life and a space ship taking off... just doesn't work. That really should have been played down a lot, lot more. Some sort of alien power source that activated and made a whole lot of ancient machinery come to life would have been more in keeping.

I really enjoyed the motorcycle chase, I like Shia, I think he does well with whatever he's given. I think Harrison is still excellent in the role, there were some great action pieces. It's just really annoying to see a film get so close... so close and miss out due to what feels like just not having one more person look over the script and say 'Hey guys... you're kinda missing a few key "Indy" things here... and a few of these scenes are really very hokey'

But yeah, not as bad as some would make it out to be.

Welcome to the jungle.

King of the jungle? More like pussy of the jungle.
And wtf w/ its busted tail?

Time and time again, I see conservatives struggle to understand that their general worldview is completely subjective. You see it in Ayn Rand's 'Objectivism' which is anything but. You see it in the Christian right's 'Moral Relativism' which comes with so many subjective assumptions. You see it in right wing 'Libertarianism' which assumes that a very narrow and specific political-economic worldview IS liberty. You see it in scripture, which is taken as law and revealed truth.

I think these conservatives are unable to empathize with anything they cannot directly experience themselves. "I'm white and experience little to no negative consequences because of it. Therefore, all people must experience little to no negative consequences due to their race." Then they find a quote from Larry Elder or Bill Cosby that confirms this bias and think, "See? All those other black people are just a bunch of whiners."

I think this is how blankfist is able to see the words 'cracker' and 'nigger' as the same thing, despite the vast historical, social and political differences between the two words. It's the same way he and other conservatives are able to see scientific consensus on global climate change and corporate anti-science PR as equitable. Fair and Balanced (not to mention he's been submitting a lot of FOX NEWS over the past year.)

I also find it interesting that as much lip service as blankfist pays to anti-authoritarianism, he fails to see the authoritarianism of whites, of males and of rich people in this country. It's extra ironic when you consider that the government for which we both loathe is comprised primarily of rich white males. Put the pieces together, my cracker!

Conservatives just have too much psychological baggage when it comes to racism (sexism, homophobia or other types of bigotry). Just to get to square one would require hacking through a million acre jungle of psychology with a machete. It's the kind of thing that will never happen unless an individual conservative has the will to make it happen for him (or her ) self

In short, this conversation is futile.

From their website, the lyrics: Map Of Tasmania ft. Amanda Palmer & Peaches


They don’t play the song on the radio
They don’t show the tits on the video
They don’t know that we are the media
They don’t know that we start the mania
Your Eyes don’t want to see what I’m making you
Your ass is off its seat and I’m shaking you
Walking down the street I’m the lady – ah -
Showing off my map of Tasmania

Soft and sweet and shaped like a triangle
Some girls want no shape and they shave it all
That’s so whack, it hurts with the stubble
Walking ’round and look like an eight-year-old
Soft and sweet and shaped like a triangle
Some girls want no shape and they shave it all
That’s so whack, it hurts with the stubble
Walking ’round and look like an eight-year-old

I say grow that shit like a jungle
Give ‘em something strong to hold onto
Let it fly in the open wind
If it get too bushy, you can trim

They don’t play the song on the radio
They don’t show the tits on the video
They don’t know that we are the media
They don’t know that we start the mania
You Eyes don’t want to see what I’m making you
Your ass is off its seat and I’m shaking you
Walking down the street I’m the lady – ah -
Showing off my map of Tasmania

My map is symbolic
It get drunk a lot
Hey, does that make it an alcoholic?
Call it M.O.T. for short
Let’s take this bottomless case straight to the court
Freedom down there, i swear, do you see me smirkin’?
Do you see me wearing a merkin ?
Get in the formation let start
Triangle jerkin’
Triangle jerkin’

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

I am a little confuzled about calling @Skeeve and my conversation both true and a non sequitur. I guess because I am addressing a more theoretical, man kind building question and you a more practical one. Your talking about the more practical, of making things work now, I am talking more about how I want things to work, for always. A the difference between the tangible and the ideal I guess.

It seems you weren't all that confused, that's exactly what I was getting at.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

I have been considering the statement "the needs of the many..." for the course of a few weeks now.

...

I find that the statement of "the needs of the many..." very closely relates to the Democratic position.


I think the "the needs of the many..." quote is a pretty crude statement of the type of moral reasoning you find on the left. The more refined version can be found described in John Stuart Mill's Utilitarianism, but if you want a brief synopsis of the philosophy, try this.

I would also say most modern liberals tend more towards a Rawlsian political philosophy.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
When your tribe is 20 people, and the fate of your people all hang in the balance of routine decisions, evolutionary speaking, to survive, it is easier to remove the rational component of this choice. The rational implications of every choice you make determining the fate of your entire race is a burden that doesn't aid in decision making. It is much "better" to program in an emotional response and have that being post-rationalize later, intelligence is actually more of a burden than a tool in this area. This way, we remove the impotence one might face in the light of such a larger than life issue, and set in that mind a continuing sequence of emotional ties to the event through post-rationalizations.

I totally agree. I tend to think of a lot of what humans use rationality for is to rationalize decisions they really made at a gut/emotional level.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
I think the reason Democracy works so well, given this situation, is it very closely mimics the "rules of the jungle." By that, I mean force. Democracy is an interesting formalization of the rules of the jungle. Instead of the force being a stick or a knife, it is a vote.

This, on the other hand, I think is totally false. Democracy is a tool to try to tie large, diverse groups into a single tribe by getting rid of the "tribal leader makes the decisions for the tribe" aspect of tribal society. The reason we want to do that is that even though we're no longer just a pack of 20 trying to deal with tigers in a jungle, we are still facing all sorts of threats from the outside world (e.g. disease, natural disaster, food scarcity, water scarcity, etc.), as well as threats generated by our inability to cohesively work as a unified tribe (war, pollution, persecution, extreme resource inequality), and that we should all be united in dealing with that common cause.

The "rules of the jungle" is more something you see in markets. The idea in most right-wing philosophy is to keep the idea that tribes should stay entirely hierarchical, and that no tribe should feel fundamentally obligated to any other tribe. Strong tribes should be allowed to amass resources they take from weaker tribes, and weaker tribes get killed off. Theoretically there's some method for preventing these inter-tribe conflicts from being violent, but nobody's worked out a way to do that other than creating a state who will use sticks and knives (and guns and nukes) to make people play by the rules of the market by force.

The evolutionary component of markets is really the key to what its proponents like -- evolution brings us forward progress, after all. The position over here on the left is that morally speaking, evolution is cruel. People like me see the benefits of markets, and the moral downsides, and want to try to find a way to make markets less cruel. People much further to my left are moral absolutists who want them destroyed because they're inhumane.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
The course of discovery seems to be without end for man. It seems inevitable, that in time, each human will have access to such a level of technology that any one person could end all life on the planet with little to no effort. Our only current solutions for it are that of liberty, which would only take one crazy person to end it all, or regulations, of which would have to be of the most extreme kind to protect against knowledge that is easy to acquire and use. It seems that the current rules that bind this planet along with mans advancement in technology have set us on a collision course with a cruel destiny. While not a certainty, I do believe it is certain that the tools of Democratic force will not save us from our own self imposed destruction.

I think the way to deal with it is to realize that the choice between "regulations on world-destroying weapons" and "liberty demands that crazy people have the right to own world-destroying weapons" is actually a really, really easy choice, since one of them ends with no one left alive on Earth...

Will "democracy" protect us from being stupid about that choice? No.

But if humanity is ever going to make it through its technological adolescence, we're going to have to set aside these childish notions that "liberty" only exists if you can completely disavow any sense of obligation to the rest of humanity.

@NetRunner

I am a little confuzled about calling @Skeeve and my conversation both true and a non sequitur. I guess because I am addressing a more theoretical, man kind building question and you a more practical one. Your talking about the more practical, of making things work now, I am talking more about how I want things to work, for always. A the difference between the tangible and the ideal I guess.

The examples you pose are actually the exact ones I was thinking of when I think of the brutality of democratic things, at times. I have been considering the statement "the needs of the many..." for the course of a few weeks now. Forgive me, about to go on a tangent, but I want a trial by fire to so speak if you have the time. This will be a wall of text for the uninterested.

When I was first exposed to this phrase/idea, it was from Spock. And from then on, I always took it as the rational position one has to take to help the whole at the cost of the one. It was a profound idea in my youth. It had such a charity to it. It seemed to speak to the core of what is good. Everything that is good about man was contained in that one simple phrase. The devil is in the details, though, so I decided recently to examine my long held Vulcan heritage.

Over the past couple of years, since my fall from Grace, I have been increasingly interested in the role of evolution in the social development of our species. We have a lot in common with our animal kin, especially the social nature of mammalia. The role of emotions and intuitive social orders with post rationalized rule set changes are the order of our creed. For an animal that has a very long gestation period, few offspring per litter, and long maturation periods, certain social orders HAD to be developed or we wouldn't survive. Many of our longest held evolutionary advances aren't because they are "good" morally, but are good for survival when being chased by tigers. In that, I think the democratic pricible is actually as old as social creatures, and even more basic, as force.

I think the reason Spock's words stung so true in my heart of hearts is it spoke to millions of years of culture beyond my ability to fully comprehend. It spoke past my reason to the core of my being. Now, when I examine the phrase "the needs of the many..." and take into light the core being, I find a much different sentence. Let me tell you what I found that I didn't expect.

I find that the statement of "the needs of the many..." very closely relates to the Democratic position. When your tribe is 20 people, and the fate of your people all hang in the balance of routine decisions, evolutionary speaking, to survive, it is easier to remove the rational component of this choice. The rational implications of every choice you make determining the fate of your entire race is a burden that doesn't aid in decision making. It is much "better" to program in an emotional response and have that being post-rationalize later, intelligence is actually more of a burden than a tool in this area. This way, we remove the impotence one might face in the light of such a larger than life issue, and set in that mind a continuing sequence of emotional ties to the event through post-rationalizations.

I think the reason Democracy works so well, given this situation, is it very closely mimics the "rules of the jungle." By that, I mean force. Democracy is an interesting formalization of the rules of the jungle. Instead of the force being a stick or a knife, it is a vote. We might not consider our vote a weapon, but essentially, when you boil it down it is our most trusted language. So much so, that every animal we face understands it. We have subjugated nearly every animal on this planet via force, and now try our hands at the very planet itself. All the while, we never asked ourselves the question, is using force right?

When being chased by a tiger, you can't ask that question. Even more so, it is the application of force that seems to drive the evolution on this planet forward. However, it only advances the flags in the due course of force. Any being that comes after HAS to play by these rules or be defeated before it can flourish. But is this the way it HAS to be? Does humanity find itself on the precipice of being able to change the entire course of evolution on the planet? Perhaps so. Slowly, we have taken the cunning, and brutal wolfs of the winter lands to being the noblest of companions. And cats, wait, never mind, fuck cats.

Humans might soon, within perhaps our children's, children's lifetime, find themselves in the unique position to change the rules of the game, for good. Weather or not we want to will be the only question. So the question is, why? What is so wrong with Democracy and the underlying shreds of managed force something to be concerned about? Let me bring on my final point.

The course of discovery seems to be without end for man. It seems inevitable, that in time, each human will have access to such a level of technology that any one person could end all life on the planet with little to no effort. Our only current solutions for it are that of liberty, which would only take one crazy person to end it all, or regulations, of which would have to be of the most extreme kind to protect against knowledge that is easy to acquire and use. It seems that the current rules that bind this planet along with mans advancement in technology have set us on a collision course with a cruel destiny. While not a certainty, I do believe it is certain that the tools of Democratic force will not save us from our own self imposed destruction.

While I have still not made all my points, like why I also think the democratic position is actually bad (perhaps even morally bad); in spite of that, I do suppose that it is insufficient to manage our path. It isn't that I want it to be wrong, it is that we truly need something else if we intend to survive past an infant species. If we lose the game, the cycle of force will most likely continue on without us, spawning forth new entities of force. But if we win, we will rewrite the rules for all existence on the planet. No longer bound to rules that keep up from being eaten by tigers, but by rules that extend us to the furthest reaches of our dreams.

I think it will all start by eating all the cats, because anything that will bite you in your sleep isn't fit in this new world. And I yield my time back to an audience that is most likely not interested in my thought processes that go to solving less than practical problems. I will only continue on request as to not come off as pedantic, well, more so.


edit, grammar

>> ^solecist:

really good. wish they didn't set it up so much, though. it would have been more interesting live.

indeed live performance would've been more interesting than that swarm of fake fans, nonstop cuts and pre-recorded audio.

Tracklist:

1. ABBA - Money Money Money
2. Coldplay - Cemetaries of London
3. The Clash - Rock the Casbah
4. Common - Play Your Cards Right
5. Podcast Tour of London
6. The Bravery - An Honest Mistake
7. Corrine Baily Ray - Seasons Change
8. Vangelis - Conquest of Paradise
9. Nadia Ali - Fine Print
10. Plastician - Japan
11. Rihanna - Disturbia
12. Beirut - Elephant Gun
13. Burial - Endorphin
14. Nine Inch Nails - Deep
15. Gospel Choir - You are Worthy of My Praise
16. Jimi Hendrix - Purple Haze
17. Danny Byrd - Ill Behaviour
18. Bruce Springsteen - Down to the River
19. Podcast Japanese 101
20. Katy Perry - Teenage Dream
21. Jay Z - Jigga that N***a
22. Disney's The Jungle Book - I Wanna Be Like You
23. Jessie J - Price Tag
24. Bonobo - Kota
25. Lady Gaga - Highway Unicorn
26. Vybz Kartel - All Out
27. Travis - Love Will Come Through
28. Black Eyed Peas - That's the Joint
29. Drake - Sooner Than Later
30. Fleet Foxes - The Shrine / An Argument
31. Kings of Convenience - I Don't Know What I Can Save You From

Taken from YouTube description>> ^Opus_Moderandi:

^ ^ 2 very good points. Can someone that's not as lazy as me compile a list of the songs and artists mentioned? I can only pick out a few here and there...

This is a bit much, but all our playgrounds here have been soccer mom'd to the boring so much they're mostly empty all the time except for toddlers. All swings are under 8 ft, big slides removed for plastic curl ones, jungle gyms under 6 ft, high dives removed from the pools and deep ends reduced. Kinda sad.

I have better things to do than to refute this. The evidence is freely available on the Internet from more reputable sources than Creation Science, but I don't want to waste my time sifting through your quote jungle to show that they are either quote mined or stated be a "creation scientist" aka a fraud.

Irreducible Complexity and Intelligent Design is a hoax, it's creation by another name and it is false. the video I linked above shows that, and there are many many more. If nothing else, look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

And notice when you google Intelligent Design you ONLY get creation science sources. Why is that, I wonder?

Now refuting ID doesn't automatically make Evolution true, and vice versa. They are not linked except in that they want to explain the same thing.

Here's some basics on evolution which you might benefit from:

What is your favorite sift out of your submissions?
Hmmmm...difficult. One of those that spring to mind is: http://videosift.com/video/Jeff-Koons-Cicciolina-Very-NSFW Just because it's so unusual and obscure, and I like the artist.

What is your favorite sift out of everyone else's submissions?
Today it's either http://videosift.com/video/Werner-Herzog-Loves-the-Amazon-Jungle or http://happy.videosift.com/video/The-Beatles-Real-Love (as I've promoted the second one at about 10 times)