If they think that people are starting to lose interest in the main parties, they will spend the next 4 years highlighting war, terrorism, uncertainty and scarcity so that people are less likely to take any kind of risk. They will also highlight the uncertainty of voting for anyone else - i.e. these third parties are inexperienced, they don't understand, they are weak and/or sympathetic towards our enemy.

It's basically what they've done with Corbyn over here. "They" control the press so they also control the national will.

I think the only way we progress beyond this profit for the few, managed decline for the rest phase is to destroy the stranglehold that the media moguls like Murdoch, Barclays (the brothers, not the bank), etc. have over mainstream media.

They are literally peddling falsehoods and distractions so that people will target anyone other than those responsible.

Perhaps the most important thing with anything that you buy from the store is to read the label, organic or not. There are brands that try to use clever labeling to try to mislead customers, as the video alludes to.

One of the ways labeling can be deceptive is that it is often extremely unclear where the ingredients come from. A box of cereal might be 100% organic, but if the ingredients are all from China you simply cannot know what quality you're buying, for a multitude of reasons, including poor regulation, poor water quality etc.

A couple of other points:

Farming traditionally, without synthetic (petrochemical) fertilisers, pesticides and herbicides is sustainable... forever.
Farming techniques that require oil will have to be phased out eventually, because it's a finite resource. So in this regard, the video is wrong (in regards to them both being able to sit side by side), at least in the long term.

Grow your own food (you don't need much space for a garden), or buy local. Transportation/shipping causes an unbelievable amount of pollution.

Nono, you gotta courtesy flush. That's where you flush right after finishing the excretion phase and before beginning the clean-up phase. It gets rid of a lot of the smell-causing material and the excretion isn't aerosolized because it's blocked by a large mass (at least in my case..)

Of course, the courtesy flush might just be deadly with a toilet like this but... y'know, you win some, you lose some.

Good stuff. Same year as his Rappin' Rodney phase, which was pretty forgettable.

@RFlagg

A disenfranchised person would say that threats or promises about what Trump or Hillary might do in power aren't as effective as they used to be. People who understand that lies are part of the new game aren't going to be surprised when the game reaches the lying phase. At this point, each party promises the world but soon the game will move on and they will do as they please.

Playing the game is giving your consent to what the person eventually does - and that IS scary to some people. I gave my consent to Tony Blair, and I consider him one of the key players in causing some of the most terrible British/worldwide problems, including the current problems with Islamic fundamentalism. Personally my line has been crossed and I'm not going to be convinced by a 'better than the other' option.

'Better than the other' is EXPECTATION MANAGEMENT. They have already set the terms of the debate; now there is no other option but to choose between these two things that are not good enough. There is no time left, our neck is in the noose and we're voting to tighten it an inch at a time for fear of it tightening all at once. Climate change needs attention NOW; poverty and suffering are happening in our communities NOW; diplomacy has to happen in the middle east because children and families are dying and it is happening NOW.

I think the world needs change or protest now, I suspect we only disagree on the time scale. I agree Hillary would be 'better' than Trump. All I'd say is 'better than the other' hasn't worked in 20+ years. We might already be too late.

Talking to a conspiracy theorist about either the moon landing or the flat earth theory is exasperating. They discredit a scientific theory on the slightest technicality in your brief retelling of it, but if you baulk at their vague one-sentence alternative you're brainwashed.

You can tell them about the retroreflectors, or the satellite images we have of the landing site. You can tell them about sundials, the phases of the moon or constellations.

They don't care - anything can be faked and their definition of "proof" boils down to seeing it with their own naked eye.

It's totally impractical to take everyone up in a Red Bull balloon to see the curvature of the Earth for themselves. Presumably you'd have to take everyone up twice at two locations to show that the circular horizon is not an edge. Or kill two birds with one stone and take them to the moon landing site and back again because nothing less will suffice.

Because if I take them to the most advanced telescope in the world and focus it on the moon landing site - the image could be faked. You could show them how the telescope works, but each component could produce a faked output. The only way they would accept the telescope information is if they built it themselves from raw materials - oh you used a standard electronic device such as a basic motor? Illuminati dude, that thing can produce EM waves that fake the image. You're going to use a Macbook to read the USB output? Are you a shill?

Literally nothing is good enough but they are all, without exception, too fucking lazy to go and prove it to themselves from first principles.

Which is called "getting a degree in physics", where you are also taught to question every step, AKA being "brainwashed".

Or alternatively 100 years after that once the last stubborn few have died out!

I was born a few years after Australia switched, and my birth weight was recorded in grams, but now 50 years AFTER the switch some people record their baby's weight in grams and others in lbs and oz.

If the same trend holds in the U.S., then even 100 years after phasing it out of schools there will still be some rural folks out there who don't hold with these new fangled metres and stuff and want to stick with the furlongs and fathoms that grandpappy used.

An indicator of a developed nation is electronic bus signs, but London has transcended past that into the artesian phase of development.

I've already discussed why helicopters and drones are good in areas of light cover while sucking in areas of high cover. They fulfill a role, but realistically they aren't always the best option.

I also explained what happens in real combat. So called fast movers end up being tasked to do roles that they were not designed for. No plan stays certain in the face of the enemy. There will come a time when the F35 is expected to provide the same type of support as the A-10 and it is going to suck hard at it, planes will be shot down and pilots will die or be captured. I suspect this will happen especially with the forces using the F35 that are not the Air Force, such as the Marines. Here is a link to the laughable failures that the Marines had with the plane, but due to the 'cannot fail' nature of the project, they certified it anyway. http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/not-a-big-suprise-the-marines-f-35-operational-test-wa-1730583428

Finally, the A-10 was absolutely not designed initially to be a Soviet tank killer. The initial A-X program was created because of the DISMAL performance of the Air Force and F4 in providing close air support to troops.

The Secretary of the Air Force contacted Pierre Sprey and asked him to come up with a design spec for a close air support plane. After consulting with the pilots we had in Vietnam, mostly the successful ones that were flying the prop driven A-1 Skyraider (which btw, destroyed the F4 JET in CAS operations), it was indicated that the ideal aircraft should have long loiter time, low-speed maneuverability, massive cannon firepower, and extreme survivability. It was only later, after the plane had been mostly designed, that the USAF asked that it be also tasked to counter the Soviets.

As I said, the Air Force has always hated providing CAS to the other branches of the Armed Forces. They constantly forget that you need to make a multi-role fighter actually function in a multi-role environment, preferring to think that they can buzz in and buzz out while the rest of the military does the 'dirty' work. However, they always get burned for it. Just like now, when they were fighting as hard as possible to kill the A-10, they discovered that fighting a force that is mobile and that hides in cover/cities (ISIS) is damn near impossible with fast planes/drones. Which is why they changed paths and rescheduled the A-10 phase out to 2028 (or beyond).

As I said to @newtboy sometime ago in a similar(ish) conversation, I appreciate your responses. It's nice to talk to someone not just spitting bile (which you'd do less if you ate a plant-based whole food diet ).

Those 'multiple phases of science' saying some food was good or bad at various times of your life is mostly the lobbyists and corporations making smoke screens. It's been known for decades that a plant-based whole food diet is protective against the #1 killer in the Western world. Again, it's the same as the tobacco companies. When the science disagrees with you, you cause a confusion smokescreen so people say exactly what you just said. And evidently it worked -- until the last few years when the internet and a handful of movies and books have started making it very clear what's going on. If you have a short attention span, I suggest you watch just a few 5-min videos on NutritionFacts. The guy is funny and has videos about just about everything in nutrition. And he takes everything from the newest studies. He also has a great book that came out recently, How Not to Die which is a fun read considering it's a diet science book.

Re: personal choice -- I understand you annoyance at being belittled by vegetarians/vegans, but you have to understand that we don't see it as a "personal choice". We see it as a moral one. Why is it not a "personal choice" to molest children? What if someone likes to molest children? It doesn't matter because, morally, you should not. And you're causing harm to another. The question is why are animals not allowed inside our moral-consideration-circle. Why are they excluded?

I personally think that vegetarians are hypocrites if they're doing it for moral reasons alone. You could argue that meat is murder, but dairy is torture. But, you gotta take whatever steps you need to get there. It's hard, I know. Giving up dairy was really hard.

My argument usually isn't about sentience. It's about choices. Why cause harm to something you don't need to just for your pleasure when there are literally better alternatives? We do, indeed, have to eat, so I eat the lowest form on the food chain that I can to survive. They just also luckily happen to be the most nutritious.

It makes sense that we would process plants somewhat better than meat, as meat in a survival situation is hard to come by compared to vegetation. However, it cannot be denied that we evolved as omnivores and still are such barring a personal choice.

A plant based diet may be more healthy for you, I don't care to argue the science of it. I would note that science, at least in regards to our diets, continually changes. I went through multiple phases of science saying that a certain substance (alcohol, chocolate, eggs, butter, etc) was bad, only to reverse the decision as time went on and further studies were done. I don't say that as an excuse or to deny which diet is best, simply that we have a long way to go in determining what is best for one of us versus another.

My complaint about vegans is that they usually slam anyone who doesn't choose to be vegan over their choices. I've had many vegetarian/vegan/pescatarian friends tell me that the food I choose to eat is sentient. Where do we draw the line on sentience, I usually ask them? For a vegan that seems to mean on any non-plant product, even honey. A vegetarian might choose to drink milk or eat cheese, since nothing is being killed. A pescatarian obviously thinks fish are the cutoff for sentience. But if we are going to cut to the nitty gritty, insects that most any scientist would agree have no idea of what is going on other than an instinct to perform a set series of actions are consumed in mass quantities for their protein. Worms, insects, crabs and lobsters don't even have the pain transmitting chemicals that allow a creature to feel pain. Of course, they do react to stimuli, but so do plants.

Basically we all individually make a determination as to what we consider to be truly sentient and able to understand the far reaching concepts of death and pain. Some people draw the line at plants, others at lower level life forms, but in the end it all comes down to what you believe.

They aren't concerned about privacy so much as weakening their code, which will leave them vulnerable to customer anger and possibly lawsuits later on.

Trust me, after having worked for them for years, I can unequivocally declare that if they could figure out a way to give the government a permanent backdoor while still protecting themselves, they would in a heartbeat. Therefore, they aren't so much a patriot as they are a mercenary.

The main issue is that they can unlock individual units, which they have done before for the FBI, but that means that the FBI and other agencies have to get a new warrant each time. The Feebs don't want to do that, they would prefer a blanket unlock that would nicely bypass the 4th Amendment and allow them to access your digital information at any time. Unfortunately, a blanket unlock method would leak out into the wild at some point and leave everyone open completely. Apple has had that happen before, notably during the early phases of .Mac/MobileMe, and the legal department got slammed with claims/suits because the unlock workaround leaked.

I didn't listen to the video, I just read the comments. I guessed what the video would say, and the comments 100% supported my intuition.

I'm a "second wave feminist." And guess what? There were plenty of "man hating" women back then, just as radical and separatist and angry as these presumed "third wavers."

And we were pretty angry back then. I was one of the angry ones. Until I understood that everyone suffers under the patriarchy. And until I understood that I had to go thru the mad phase so I could change my thinking. It was a growth process, not unlike being a angry teenage.

And then you grow up.

I find it pretty damn funny that literally nothing has changed in 40 years. I heard these same arguments back then.

It's all good. It is better now. Women have much more freedom than they used to have. (When I was a teenager, a married woman couldn't get her own credit card. Everything was in her husband's name. How fucked up is that?)

And there is work to do, including work that men need to do to break free of the crap that the patriarchy traps them with. Nobody can do it for them, though. It is their work.

Please don't lecture me about not watching the video. I know I "should." But I have 40 years of this crap. I don't need any more.