I don't understand the energy levels here. One moment, you can barely stand up, and it's hard to move your arms, and in the next instant your executing a perfect flying roundhouse kick. ...then you want to sleep again. Then you're tossing a guy through the air like a tin can... aaaand then you're so lethargic you fall over. Again and again...

You can actually complain to the actual broadcasters. Its likely more effective than complaining to the cable companies, seeing as they actually have some say. Or you could complain to congressman and ask for bills forcing ala carte service. that would be effective.

If you haven't had cable service in three years than yeah a lot has changed. In my area, Comcast went all digital to reduce bandwidth used by their television service on their lines (which happily resulted in them doubling the speed on most of their internet packages as a result). Now if your bill is late (like 30 or 40 days late, not right away) of you decide to quit their service its off the same day. You just get an activation page on internet and the cable says "one moment please".

I suppose you could consider it going on a tangent but I think it's more escalating the topic to the point of being interesting. Anyone who has been around computers for a long time knows how file deletion works and all of us have seen video or movies about people piecing together shredded documents.

The connection to life and information is quite relevant to the topic of deletion. In fact I believe even Stephen Hawking concerned himself with the concept of information loss (deletion) with regards to blackholes and the problems with conservation of energy (energy in the form of entropy). The resolution he came to involved the outer edge of a blackhole maintaining a version of this information forever.

If you expand the scope of the definition of information to be a specific state of the universe at a point in time, including its complex members (ie us and our consciousness), and remove the temporal importance of "now" then we are all information about states of the universe at varying points in its existence.

The point at which even that basic information (the current unique state of the universe) becomes erased or irrelevant (ie heat death when there is a perfectly homogenous distribution of energy throughout the universe) is quite interesting and depressing. At that point any record of the past and the ability to discern one moment of time from the next is gone. With no variation in the universe even time itself becomes impossible to measure unless your an objective viewer of the universe (God?).

I think the most important word in Hoffman's talk was the word "epiphany."

Often these moments are blazing and complex ideas, delivered as a whole in one moment. Not easily delivered to others in a couple of sentences in an interview.

If you haven't had the epiphany, haven't worked to understand the epiphany, or haven't already fully understood and lived the complex ideas so you understand what the epiphany is.... well, you might want to slow down the reaction comments and attempt to work at understanding what he understood in a flash, all those years ago.

In my opinion, of course. In my opinion.

the snuff rule for videosift should be reducible to a simple set of questions... lets come up with the test:

1) Is an animal or human witnessed being killed, where you can actually see them die? (this plane crash is not snuff by this rule)

2) Is something seen alive in one moment and then dead in a later scene, even though you do not witness their death? (this plane crash is not snuff by this rule)

3)....

I'm glad you enjoyed the video and I appreciate your thoughtful reply. I'll reply by saying that if you accept meaninglessness as a fact, then there are many implications to such a belief. For instance, if it true that life is meaningless then it is also true that there is no such thing as justice. It means that any truly terrible things that happen to you will never be adequately recompensed, and that frequently, the purveyors of such will get away with it scott free. It means that ultimately, might does make right, and he who has the gold makes the rules. If you are smart enough to get away with it, or powerful enough to avoid the consequences, you will never face any justice for any evil that you've done.

It also means that everything you have worked for and dreamed about could be randomly taken away from you at any moment, and so could all the people you love and care about. One moment you are an eternal optimist, the next, you get into a car accident and become a parapalegic. Now, you can say that this could happen to you even if there is a God, since it obviously happens to people all the time. This is true, but, if this life is all you have then it means that the hope you have is a very limited and fragile commodity. Hope is not a limited commodity for a Christian. For instance, the closer you are to death the less happy and hopeful you will become. When you're young, you don't concern yourself with it as much, even though it could happen at any time. As you get older, you start to realize how little time you have left to accomplish your goals. Your mobility starts to decrease, the sharpness of your intellect and your beauty fades. You become less desirable to others and to society in general. What this means is that your happiness is always situational. Eventually, when enough tragedy happens to you, you will break down and the future will become more and more like a millstone around your neck.

Yes, some people are able to squeeze some happiness out of desperate circumstances, and more power to them, but they have no real hope. A meaningless universe provides you with zero hope in the end. Many people believe they will achieve some lasting legacy but think about all the people you remember from the last century. Shockingly, a poll done by college age kids from America and Germany showed that many of them had no idea who Hitler was. If no one can remember Hitler, they probably won't remember you either. Where does that leave you? Your best case scenario is that you lead a completely pointless life where you hopefully experience a modicum of pleasure before expiring prematurely, never having reached anything near your true potential, with all your love and dreams being cruelly erased from existence forever.

People become depressed because of a lack of hope. If you look at the world today, and constrast it to our history, you will see that nothing has really changed on planet Earth. For all of our so-called progress, humanity is just as sick and depraved as it always has been. Evil is increasing, not decreasing, and mankinds destructive appetites will never be satiated. There is no hope in man, but there is in God. I think you know that.

Now, you make an argument about following your bliss, but if what is good to do is simply what makes you feel good, then you could excuse some of the worst crimes in history. People murder, rape, cheat, steal, etc because it makes them feel good. I'm sure Hitler took a lot of pleasure in what he did, and was following his bliss for aquiring absolute power. You can't use what feels good as a compass for what is right. Now, I think you're trying to insert the caveat that we shouldn't do what causes harm to people, but what if it is someones bliss to harm people? You would be stopping their bliss and thus violating your own rules. In short, there is no way to impose any absolute standard of morality when you are determining it by a completely arbitrary standard. In a meaningless Universe there is no right and wrong, so why shouldn't you just do whatever you want? Why waste your time trying to navigate some moral landscape that you don't even believe exists? Why not just take what you can, when you can, before you lose the opportunity?

For myself, what led me to start thinking about what was true was to notice how much this world was going down the tubes, and with seemingly no one in the drivers seat. I noticed the love I felt from this world being slowly drained away, year by year. I saw that humanity was on a collision course with ultimate destruction if nothing changed. If life is meaningless then it doesn't matter. But deep down, you don't really believe its meaningless, and neither did I. That's probably another reason why you're depressed. Your head says its meaningless but your heart tells you that this is a lie. Until the two reconcile you will never be happy and you will never be truly free. It's only Christ that can reconcile them, because He knows the reason that you're here, and only He can point you in that direction. It is only by discovering the meaning of your life, the reason that you're here, that will lead your mind and heart to agree with one another.

>> ^messenger

>> ^legacy0100:

Oh no! Out of promote points!!!
How can a creature so vicious against its own owner at one moment cuddle with up a child the very next?
Maybe the mom should have waited until the cat was calmer. Yeesh.... Cats...


Cats are kinda like that. They freak out if they think they're in danger.

Oh no! Out of promote points!!!

How can a creature so vicious against its own owner at one moment cuddle with up a child the very next?

Maybe the mom should have waited until the cat was calmer. Yeesh.... Cats...

>> ^Skeeve:

Agreed, for the most part.
He obviously has talent, but to be a great artist one tends to need life experience (often of a darker nature) and that is something he doesn't have.
It should come with time though.
As for why we haven't seen a Mozart, etc. in hundreds of years, maybe its because the great artists of our time aren't composing classical music (which tends to cultivate the misbelief that it is somehow superior). Now, I'm a fan of classical music, but listen to While My Guitar Gently Weeps, Gimme Shelter, or All Along the Watchtower and tell me you don't feel as moved as when listening to Eine Kleine Nachtmusik, or The Marriage of Figaro.
>> ^TheFreak:
Bullshit.
Try listening to Jay Greenbergs Symphony no 5. It's horrible.
It's an unorganized cacophany. One moment it sounds every bit like an action movie score then immediately it swings the other way and you'd think you were listening to the music from a 30's cartoon. There's no rhyme or reason behind any of the sounds you hear, no progression, no building of emotion, no story being told, no subtlety or purpose...just great big sloppy swipes of an oversized lyrical paintbrush.
That 60 Minutes segment describes Jay's early and enduring interest in writing music. I believe that's about the only element of the story that's not pure hyperbole. From listening to his music you can tell that he has obviously learned a great deal at a young age about arranging orchestral music. He has knowledge. What he lacks is everything else necessary to create great music.
Boys his age do one thing with great expertise and skill....masturbate. And that's what "Blue Bird" is doing with his music...masturbating all up in your ear holes.
Jay Greenergs interest and dedication to study clasical music composition, as well as the encouragement he's received, has brought him a long way. The real shame is the uncritical feedback he's getting from the people around him. Without anyone to tell him that his music is ham fisted and clumsy there's every likelyhood that his narcisistic self appraisal will lead him to nothing.
Jay Greenberg has demonstrated an impressive ability to learn how to compose in a classical style. It remains to be seen if he can turn that technical skill into artistic achievement.



Brilliantly said. If you really listen to some music of "recent" times, it can be amazing. Gimme Shelter is a perfect example. Listening for the voice cracks when the lyric is being yelled "rape! murder!".. I could reel off an entire bunch of pink floyd songs that i think are on par with classical music.

I think that the reason there were "more musical genius" around back then is for several reasons - what else was there for an intelligent and interested young person to do then? Let's face it, the most interesting thing around back then was a piano. We have more instruments now, the world is more connected, we can sample each other's music and combine it. There's too many reasons. And you died by the time you were 40, so when else were you gonna do your burst of creativity if not from a young age?

I'd say that's more an indictment of the schooling he's received than a statement of his abilities as a composer. (Symphony No. 5, to me at least, is more or less indistinguishable from some of the symphonies written by the "great" composers of the last century or so.)

Sadly, the classically harmonious qualities (including the "progression," the "building of emotion," the storytelling) that many of us appreciate in, say, Mozart or Beethoven or Chopin are no longer in vogue (and haven't been for quite some time). Contemporary composition—and the same could be said of most contemporary painting, sculpture, writing, et cetera—aims more for fragmentation, disruption, and discord. The audience isn't meant to feel harmony; we're meant to be dislodged.

This could become a pretty serious rant, I guess, but I'll hold back. I will say, though, that the brief clips of his early compositions (5:52–6:12) sounded quite pleasing to me, if a little imitative. And the part where he inverted the Beethoven sonata was pretty darn cool. (It reminded me, in a roundabout way, of the scene in Amadeus where Mozart plays the piano while lying upside down.)
>> ^TheFreak:
Try listening to Jay Greenbergs Symphony no 5. It's horrible.
It's an unorganized cacophany. One moment it sounds every bit like an action movie score then immediately it swings the other way and you'd think you were listening to the music from a 30's cartoon. There's no rhyme or reason behind any of the sounds you hear, no progression, no building of emotion, no story being told, no subtlety or purpose...just great big sloppy swipes of an oversized lyrical paintbrush.

Agreed, for the most part.

He obviously has talent, but to be a great artist one tends to need life experience (often of a darker nature) and that is something he doesn't have.

It should come with time though.

As for why we haven't seen a Mozart, etc. in hundreds of years, maybe its because the great artists of our time aren't composing classical music (which tends to cultivate the misbelief that it is somehow superior). Now, I'm a fan of classical music, but listen to While My Guitar Gently Weeps, Gimme Shelter, or All Along the Watchtower and tell me you don't feel as moved as when listening to Eine Kleine Nachtmusik, or The Marriage of Figaro.
>> ^TheFreak:

Bullshit.
Try listening to Jay Greenbergs Symphony no 5. It's horrible.
It's an unorganized cacophany. One moment it sounds every bit like an action movie score then immediately it swings the other way and you'd think you were listening to the music from a 30's cartoon. There's no rhyme or reason behind any of the sounds you hear, no progression, no building of emotion, no story being told, no subtlety or purpose...just great big sloppy swipes of an oversized lyrical paintbrush.
That 60 Minutes segment describes Jay's early and enduring interest in writing music. I believe that's about the only element of the story that's not pure hyperbole. From listening to his music you can tell that he has obviously learned a great deal at a young age about arranging orchestral music. He has knowledge. What he lacks is everything else necessary to create great music.
Boys his age do one thing with great expertise and skill....masturbate. And that's what "Blue Bird" is doing with his music...masturbating all up in your ear holes.
Jay Greenergs interest and dedication to study clasical music composition, as well as the encouragement he's received, has brought him a long way. The real shame is the uncritical feedback he's getting from the people around him. Without anyone to tell him that his music is ham fisted and clumsy there's every likelyhood that his narcisistic self appraisal will lead him to nothing.
Jay Greenberg has demonstrated an impressive ability to learn how to compose in a classical style. It remains to be seen if he can turn that technical skill into artistic achievement.

Bullshit.

Try listening to Jay Greenbergs Symphony no 5. It's horrible.

It's an unorganized cacophany. One moment it sounds every bit like an action movie score then immediately it swings the other way and you'd think you were listening to the music from a 30's cartoon. There's no rhyme or reason behind any of the sounds you hear, no progression, no building of emotion, no story being told, no subtlety or purpose...just great big sloppy swipes of an oversized lyrical paintbrush.

That 60 Minutes segment describes Jay's early and enduring interest in writing music. I believe that's about the only element of the story that's not pure hyperbole. From listening to his music you can tell that he has obviously learned a great deal at a young age about arranging orchestral music. He has knowledge. What he lacks is everything else necessary to create great music.

Boys his age do one thing with great expertise and skill....masturbate. And that's what "Blue Bird" is doing with his music...masturbating all up in your ear holes.

Jay Greenergs interest and dedication to study clasical music composition, as well as the encouragement he's received, has brought him a long way. The real shame is the uncritical feedback he's getting from the people around him. Without anyone to tell him that his music is ham fisted and clumsy there's every likelyhood that his narcisistic self appraisal will lead him to nothing.

Jay Greenberg has demonstrated an impressive ability to learn how to compose in a classical style. It remains to be seen if he can turn that technical skill into artistic achievement.

Winning has nothing to do with being right. Appealing to the masses is another logical fallacy. Every individual has their own subjective view of the rightness or wrongness of a situation.

The point that you avoided was that even those that live under the supposed objective rightness of the lord are themselves confined within a subjective reality of their own making. No one can escape the confines of their own mind to know the true will of whatever imaginary friend they subscribe to.

Try following your own conclusions. If morality is subjective, then if everyone agrees that something is right or wrong, it is. Therefore, if the nazis had won and everyone agreed that the holocaust was right, it would be. The only way it would be wrong even if everyone agreed it wasnt is if it were objectively wrong.

All they can do is interpret what they think their lord would want them to do, from one moment to the next. What you call "following the will of god" is actually just guessing at what you think he wants you to think/do/say.

Millions have "followed the will of god" to do horrible things in his name. THAT was my point. Your fantasies about objective morality are irrelevant.

Again, that man does evil says nothing about the existence of an absolute standard of morality. It was *because* man does evil that a law was given in the first place. There is no gray area in an absolute standard. Millions of hypocrites exist, that's true..it doesn't prove anything except that a law is neccesary.


>> ^KnivesOut:
Winning has nothing to do with being right. Appealing to the masses is another logical fallacy. Every individual has their own subjective view of the rightness or wrongness of a situation.
The point that you avoided was that even those that live under the supposed objective rightness of the lord are themselves confined within a subjective reality of their own making. No one can escape the confines of their own mind to know the true will of whatever imaginary friend they subscribe to.
All they can do is interpret what they think their lord would want them to do, from one moment to the next. What you call "following the will of god" is actually just guessing at what you think he wants you to think/do/say.
Millions have "followed the will of god" to do horrible things in his name. THAT was my point. Your fantasies about objective morality are irrelevant.
>> ^shinyblurry:
You just don't understand the nature of good and evil according to scripture. Man, when he sinned, decided to go with his own interpertation of what good and evil is instead of trusting God. That is the subjective part. This led to his fallen nature. Because of this, Man is naturally inclined to do evil. God however knows absolutely what is good and what is evil. His law is there to provide the standard of conduct that man in his fallen state is naturally disinclined to do. This was the reason that Jesus came to earth to die for our sins, because every man has sinned and fallen short and earned punishment for himself.
Thank you for admitting there is not nor could there be an objective standard of behavior under atheism. So in your world, if the Nazis won, the holocaust is moral. Right?
I didn't dodge anything. What I explained was that there was no institution of slavery in the bible. I also explained that people in those times were frequently slaves voluntarily. I don't see rules governing the treatment of slaves as condoning slavery in that light.

Winning has nothing to do with being right. Appealing to the masses is another logical fallacy. Every individual has their own subjective view of the rightness or wrongness of a situation.

The point that you avoided was that even those that live under the supposed objective rightness of the lord are themselves confined within a subjective reality of their own making. No one can escape the confines of their own mind to know the true will of whatever imaginary friend they subscribe to.

All they can do is interpret what they think their lord would want them to do, from one moment to the next. What you call "following the will of god" is actually just guessing at what you think he wants you to think/do/say.

Millions have "followed the will of god" to do horrible things in his name. THAT was my point. Your fantasies about objective morality are irrelevant.
>> ^shinyblurry:

You just don't understand the nature of good and evil according to scripture. Man, when he sinned, decided to go with his own interpertation of what good and evil is instead of trusting God. That is the subjective part. This led to his fallen nature. Because of this, Man is naturally inclined to do evil. God however knows absolutely what is good and what is evil. His law is there to provide the standard of conduct that man in his fallen state is naturally disinclined to do. This was the reason that Jesus came to earth to die for our sins, because every man has sinned and fallen short and earned punishment for himself.
Thank you for admitting there is not nor could there be an objective standard of behavior under atheism. So in your world, if the Nazis won, the holocaust is moral. Right?
I didn't dodge anything. What I explained was that there was no institution of slavery in the bible. I also explained that people in those times were frequently slaves voluntarily. I don't see rules governing the treatment of slaves as condoning slavery in that light.

Looks like you screwed the pooch with that prediction
>> ^Goofball_Jones:
Who's this guy? Oh right, yet another rapper that was here one moment as the "next big thing"...then disappeared off the face of the Earth.
Bet he'd talk to Triumph, the Insult Comic Dog about now, eh?