fuckin christ sakes.

siftbot is a piece of broken shit with cogs of frozen piss meshing together to create the ultimate of a fuckup in a bot.

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Sixty-Symbols-on-the-Nobel-Prize-for-Physics-2010

what a waste of a good mannered promote.

give me my money back ass-bot.

Those are fishing jigs, which have weights inside the plastic worm. The motor is turning that cog which is probably rotating magnets on a wheel inside the box that have alternating polarities. So when a positive comes by, it sucks the worm to the wood, and when a negative goes by it pushes it away. Its just not strong enough to throw the worm. Its just strong enough to push it into suspension.

Thats what I think at least.

>> ^BoneRemake:

what a dumb overly tanned fucktard. I find it absolutely idiotic that people are assumed to have to hold religion up to some higher standard then other ideas or beliefs. This guy is a brainwashed idiot; going up to bat because they called his beliefs a myth.. what about those that think all the Norse gods or the Hindu gods or Egyptian gods are real... OHHHHH snap, oh no you didnt ??? you calling RA in to question ? ima get myself on the news and bring this book against ra's sun god intentions into question...

MAN. people who believe in invisible unscientific, unproven JACK ASS beliefs. really piss me off. I am really just mad that humans can be so, blatantly ignorant and idiotic. whe are all cogs in our species demise, its funny though how we can witness it and understand it, yet do nothing about it.. oh thats right, god will make it all good in the end, no worries mates


Im an atheist through and through*, however he has a point:

You can't call society's religion myth, as that implies falsehood: which if you missed it, is athiests forcing belief on others. Which is of course, is disappointing as its the victim becoming the victimizer.

I would not call the Australian aborigine's Dreamtime stories "mythology", Id call it a creation belief or even better, a religion belief.


*Even though that sounds like I'm a Christian plant posing as an atheist

what a dumb overly tanned fucktard. I find it absolutely idiotic that people are assumed to have to hold religion up to some higher standard then other ideas or beliefs. This guy is a brainwashed idiot; going up to bat because they called his beliefs a myth.. what about those that think all the Norse gods or the Hindu gods or Egyptian gods are real... OHHHHH snap, oh no you didnt ??? you calling RA in to question ? ima get myself on the news and bring this book against ra's sun god intentions into question...


MAN. people who believe in invisible unscientific, unproven JACK ASS beliefs. really piss me off. I am really just mad that humans can be so, blatantly ignorant and idiotic. whe are all cogs in our species demise, its funny though how we can witness it and understand it, yet do nothing about it.. oh thats right, god will make it all good in the end, no worries mates

@NetRunner. Does the Watchmen even have a moral to teach? Sure, it's political, but a moral? Who cares either way, I suppose.

The fundamental difference is within the agenda of an interest group aimed at social engineering children vs. an author writing a political narrative. You seem to think somehow I'm trying to censor people or trying to enact a law to combat them, which is simply not the case, and quite frankly a pedestrian effort at a smear. I thought Mark Evanier's blog entry above was interesting and worth continuing the exposition, so I did because the nature of interest groups trying to secretly influence children is insidious and worthy of note, in my opinion.

It's not that it's solely aimed at kids; it's because of the hidden agenda to socially engineer us through repetitive indoctrination. Repetition is how children learn, and it's irresponsible of them to decide what subversive lesson to secretly teach children. If every Saturday morning cartoon taught children to go with the pack, be sheep and not question voices of concert, then think about the indoctrination they then reap upon their minds when they go to public school. We were taught American history as a historical triumph with clinical distance to the shameful parts of it. We were told to stand and cover our hearts for the pledge of allegiance. The presidents of the US were shown to us as nearly godlike champions in which we were to enshrine with our craft paper and glue. I still remember my President Lincoln log cabin I made from paper that had a silhouette of him in the door. We were all forced to make that, by the way. That wasn't something I chose.

That's the issue I take. The one-size-fits-all indoctrination of how to be an uber-citizen by doing what the group tells you is right. This is a horrible message to teach children. This has nothing to do with harmless teamwork and trying to be social and getting along with others. It's about being a cog. That's the issue I take. Clear enough?

You're a really smart guy and from all accounts pretty darned talented, so I really don't understand this almost obsessive loathing that you have for anything that remotely resembles a group effort, i.e. collectivism. If I didn't hope to have a beer with you and "tie on one" someday I wouldn't even bother responding to your anti-collectivist, lone cowboy diatribes.

I think you're...kind of shooting yourself in the foot by ascribing a blanketed evil intent on everything that seems to involve two or more people working together to achieve a common goal.

I mean, even your movie, man. Look at your movie. You didn't do that all yourself. You couldn't have. You probably did a lot of it, and I'm not diminishing that effort, buy if it were left to you and only you to write, direct, produce, perform in, light, record, film, score, edit, and promote...you'd be working on it to this very day, and it wouldn't be nearly as good. And that kind of cooperation, that group effort for a greater good, applies to almost everything, not just movies.

And I'll make you a bet, anything that you can name, any goal, any achievement that you think you and I could do on our own, if I have one person to help me in reaching that goal, I'll get there before you. If I have ten people I'll get there even faster. And if I have a hundred, faster and greater still.

I know I'll lose some of those bets, but I'm confident that I'll win enough of them to make that loss insignificant.

Gonna watch "The Hurt Locker" tomorrow. Looking forward to it.






In reply to this comment by blankfist:
In reply to this comment by rougy:
Hmmmm. A lot to digest there, Kubrick.

Sort of neutral on J.D. Salinger. Only read Catcher in the Rye and one of his short stories, Banana Fish. I heard rumors that he and Thomas Pynchon were one in the same, and I really enjoyed Gravity's Rainbow, but I doubt the rumor was true after just now googling it.

Terrance Malick I really, really, really fucking like. I thought The Thin Red Line line was sublime. The New World, Days of Heaven, Badlands...I genuinely loved each and every one of those films. Each would deserve a post of its own for me to share my critique. The man has a gifted eye.

Gilmore Girls? Maybe I'll check it out. Doubtful. I really thought you knew me better than that, because from your description, it's not my kind of show at all. I don't really watch much television, especially series oriented shows. I only watch it now because I'm living with mamason and the thing's almost always on, or tempting me to turn it on. When I finally sell the house and get the fuck out of Roswell, I won't have a television in my home for a long, long time, not even for Netflix vids.

Few people detest...nay, despise the "corporate cog" scene more than I.

I thought you would have known that by now, too.



I was being facetious. I know you aren't the type to like Gilmore Girls, that's why I used them as an example, because they were so typical American fluff with typical pro-topical issues storylines. Entertainment Weekly and Time Magazine thought the show was fantastic. How lame is that? And they like it for its quick dialog. Really?

My point was that just because you're not pro-social doesn't mean you're wrong. There are a lot of great people who were recluses, and that is distinctively not pro-social behavior. The get along gangs need us contrarians. We like individualism over collectivism. Martin Luther King Jr didn't ask that we judge a group by the content of their character.

Hmmmm. A lot to digest there, Kubrick.

Sort of neutral on J.D. Salinger. Only read Catcher in the Rye and one of his short stories, Banana Fish. I heard rumors that he and Thomas Pynchon were one in the same, and I really enjoyed Gravity's Rainbow, but I doubt the rumor was true after just now googling it.

Terrance Malick I really, really, really fucking like. I thought The Thin Red Line line was sublime. The New World, Days of Heaven, Badlands...I genuinely loved each and every one of those films. Each would deserve a post of its own for me to share my critique. The man has a gifted eye.

Gilmore Girls? Maybe I'll check it out. Doubtful. I really thought you knew me better than that, because from your description, it's not my kind of show at all. I don't really watch much television, especially series oriented shows. I only watch it now because I'm living with mamason and the thing's almost always on, or tempting me to turn it on. When I finally sell the house and get the fuck out of Roswell, I won't have a television in my home for a long, long time, not even for Netflix vids.

Few people detest...nay, despise the "corporate cog" scene more than I.

I thought you would have known that by now, too.



In reply to this comment by blankfist:
So I take it you have a problem with recluses like J.D. Salinger and Terrence Malick?

I hear the writers of Gilmore Girls are all there to get along and do whatever the group wants. You'd probably like that show. So unoffensive and vanilla. A real non-think piece for the lowest common denominator with ample pop-culture references to make you think you're thinking. "Hey, that was a reference to Alec Baldwin's estranged relationship with his daughter! I got that because I read People Magazine! I'm well read!"

They tackle tough situations like relationship topics and social classes and whatever else the pro-social corporate censors allow them to. Being a team player means fitting in and doing your job. And that's just the sort of slave "corporate cog" message you can expect. Here's your minimum wage you fought so hard for ensuring only corporations could afford to pay the wage, now get back to your fluorescent lit hole and mass produce for them! And be sure to watch their 1984 approved tv shows that tell you you're right for believing what they believe. So say we all.



In reply to this comment by rougy:
"I just think that "pro-social" message was bogus and ill-conceived."

Because "anti-social" messages would have served the children so much better.

If he was a watch maker, would his mother suck cogs in hell?

I really do question what we've learned in school. I think it's national indoctrination, that's why I dislike the public school system so much. That, and my education was sub par, and I was not the sharpest tool in the shed at 18 because of it. I've done better as an autodidactic which has also lead me to understand what I learned in school was not so much a lie but a cherry-picking of information devised for social engineering and thinly veiled as unbiased education. Regardless, I don't think any of my classes properly explained Capitalism to me, nor the free market, nor fiat currency, Corporatism, the Federal Reserve, etc. etc. etc. They didn't teach me a lot of things except how to be dumb and be a cog.

I get it. I don't tow the lines. But, you seem to want to lump me in with anti-abortionists (I refuse to call them by any euphemism), creationists, anti-immigrationists, homophobes and racists. Seriously? All of that is antithetical to my positions and those of Libertarians. In fact, if California was a Libertarian state, I bet gays would no longer be secondhand citizens like they are in the blue state. Democrat civil liberties fail.

What's so wrong with personal liberty, DFT? What's wrong with giving the individual a right to be captain of his own destiny? Why shouldn't we honor self-reliance over dependency? Why do you feel people are too stupid and incompetent to live with freedom? I believe you veil elitism under the banner of democracy. Most people do who believe they know what's best for everyone instead of allowing the individual to choose. When your direct democracy leads to bad legislation and tyranny you will pretend it wasn't democracy, but a lack of it; and therefore it's a selective democracy where the pro-Democratic voices should be heard, but dissenters should not. To me your party sounds a lot like the other party.

Also, I understand your fears of Corporations. I, too, am anti-Corporatist and I certainly don't trust them. They wouldn't exist if government didn't allow them to. In fact, it used to take an act of Congress to create a Corporation; now it all has to do with how much money you have. And it's government regulation that allows them to monopolize the markets by squeezing out the small business owners. Corporations, like government, hate competition, and most regulation is set up to protect Corporate interests, not ours. I've given a great example of this here in the 5th and 6th paragraph and show how a protective government bureaucracy like the EPA is only used to further the Corporate agenda, not protect us. That's your government regulatory system failing... again.

I could ask you the same question about being a Democrat that you asked me about being Libertarian. Seriously, if you were part of the Green Party or a Marxist I'd probably have more respect for your position. But a Democrat? Sure I can see how you agree with some of their positions, but all of them? Hell, most of them? The continuation of the unconstitutional war? More troops sent to Afghanistan? No mention from your party on closing the 700+ military bases in 130 countries overseas. And, what about the Patriot Act? Your party isn't moving to repeal it, only modify it. Your party is a sham. And the fact that you can't see how similar your party is to the Republican Party is very amusing but mostly frustrating. Pot, meet kettle.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday

>> ^blankfist:
Wait, did you just blame WalMart for this because they didn't train the employees (cogs) appropriately how to spot child pornography? That's a highly elitist remark to not accept individuals as smart enough to do that themselves. That, and honestly the busybody bureaucracies, in my opinion, are the ones truly to blame.
Look, I'm as suspicious of Corporations as the next guy, but Walmart isn't the problem in this video. Walmart didn't physically take the kids away from the parents, then have strangers give them sex tests. Walmart didn't put the parents on a sex offender watchlist and deny them access to their kids. That would be your beloved government that did that.


My point was, that once the determination was made by the Walmart employee(s) who saw the photos, everything was in the hands of, as you say, the system. That system seems to be built to exercise maximum caution in this situation. Once the police was notified, they had no choice but to investigate, and once CPS was notified, they moved immediately to place the children in a relatively protected environment (I have no illusions about what being in CPS custody means) and at some point, someone had to find out if there was any actual sexual abuse going on.

To me, this situation is a lot like an innocent man being charged with murder. It's unjust that he spends even one second in jail until his trial, but the trial is where he will be proven innocent (again, no illusions about that either, but in theory).

The only place in this chain where there was any place for a personal opinion was at the Walmart employee(s), and I believe that in a company the size of Walmart, there has to be a corporate policy in place regarding such photos.

>> ^demon_ix:



Wait, did you just blame WalMart for this because they didn't train the employees (cogs) appropriately how to spot child pornography? That's a highly elitist remark to not accept individuals as smart enough to do that themselves. That, and honestly the busybody bureaucracies, in my opinion, are the ones truly to blame.

Look, I'm as suspicious of Corporations as the next guy, but Walmart isn't the problem in this video. Walmart didn't physically take the kids away from the parents, then have strangers give them sex tests. Walmart didn't put the parents on a sex offender watchlist and deny them access to their kids. That would be your beloved government that did that.

While this entire incident went horribly wrong, there doesn't seem to have been any choice in the matter from any of the parties involved...

- The Walmart dumbass saw what could be child pornography, and either he or his supervisor didn't want the responsibility of a headline stating "Walmart knew this was happening and did nothing".
- The police had a case brought to them with suspected child pornography, which automatically suggests possible abuse, and contacted CPS while the case was being investigated.
- CPS, once involved, had no choice but to investigate the matter, which meant removing the children from the custody of the parents for the duration of the investigation and examining the children to find out if there was any abuse going on.
- The school can't, and shouldn't permit a suspect in an ongoing investigation related to both sexual abuse and children to continue to work in close proximity to other children. Once they find out, they're liable in the event that something else happens afterwards.

All of this could have been avoided with a little use of common sense from the Walmart employee. But Walmart doesn't train employees, it trains Cogs, and this one functioned perfectly to protect the interests of the Walmart Machine.

As far as I'm concerned, the lesson in this case was summed up by KnivesOut.

>> ^KnivesOut:
Can we all just agree that the first mistake was putting one foot inside a walmart?

"I'm not a conservative. There's no such thing as a free lunch because someone's always paying for it, and a free lunch provided by government will tend to cost a lot more than lunch paid by charity."

Sounds like a generalization, and not fact. There is structure within the goverment (local, state, and federal) to over see, and keep an accurate report of funds being spent. When this number rises rapidly by unknown reasons, people examine it closely and make changes as needed. The Goverment Accounting Office, is one such cog in the workings of the machine. And yes, strange as it might sound, most charities are not as aefficient as the US Goverment when doing things. In addition, if you, the citizen dislike what is happening, you can sue the goverment (under the 1st Amendment) or talk to your representative or senator.

"Society prospers the most if individuals are free to cooperate with each other voluntarily."

Society discintigrates the most if individuals are free to kill/mame/maul with each other voluntarily. As we saw with civil rights in The South, during the 1870-1960s. The KKK ran around torching black churchs and houses, murdering people. So yes, Society can be designed for individuals, but for the purpose of destruction of some, for the betterment of others. Like the Nazis of Germany before WW2 broke out. Or the groups operating in Iraq during Saddam Hussein's time, or Iran at current.

"In a free society, an individual accumulates wealth by being productive, you can only be productive by helping others, by honestly convincing them to give you money in exchange for some service."

What planet do you spend more of your time on?

The concept of a free society, is one based entirely on philsophy and fiction. The moment reality sets in, the free society is destroyed. We Americans have MANY examples of individuals who got their wealth, not through the betterment of others, or by being honest and giving their services in exchange. No, the ones that made the big bucks did things that were neither legal nor ethical at the time. Since, to be illegal, there would have to be a legal to begin with, right? For something to be unethical, first, there has to be an ehtical standard.

J.P. Morgan did it, Bill Gates did it, Even Mr. G. W. Bush did it. Unlike the fantasy of a society you believe we live in, the reality is rather plain: We live in the Rule of Law. Laws are created and enforced, because past examples and events turn to show how people, left to their own morals (or usually lack any moral code) have unleashed misery, destruction, and predatory visions of a future on the people and land around them. Without well structured laws, this free society you claim you live in, would not exist. Laws can be created with good or bad intentions, as well ass, carried out and executed for good or bad. The President, I would bet good money on, has good intentions, and the will to make sure the law past will be for the good of America.

The concept of Health Care for all Americans is a good one. We can easily pay for it. If we can pay for Iraq ($3 trillion and climbing now...), we can pay for Health Care for 330 million people. Now, if an individual has better, or they like their health coverage, that's fine. This concept only gives people an option.

Just remeber, that unlike railroads, auto industry and even the steel industry, there is NO, anti-trust laws in effect for Health Care in the USA. That means, the health care companies could secretly pass your information between each other, and jake up the price you pay out of pocket. That's perfectly legal, even though its totally dishonest. But for-profit health care companies are just that....the least effort for the most buck. They are not there, for the betterment of mankind, only their kind. I think we saw what happens when we go easy on financial rules during the Bush Administration and Wall Street companies. Do we really need this sort of crap with Health Care?

>> ^xxovercastxx:
I always wondered why they made them like that in the first place.

According to Wikipedia, the large wheel served two purposes:
First, and most important, it allowed higher speeds with less pedaling. Later "safety bicycles", similar to what we know today, used chain drives with cogs of different sizes to achieve the result.
Second, the larger diameter afforded a smoother ridge over rough terrain like cobblestones, a problem later solved for smaller wheels with the advent of the pneumatic tire.

>> ^conan:
but how to stop without getting of?

I'm not an expert on the subject, but I think the design of the penny-farthing almost prevents you from stopping without getting off. If you don't slow down very gradually you're going to take a vicious header and the Gravity-Pavement Complex is going to do the "getting off" for you. Even if you did manage to stop without getting off, you'd have a devil of a time keeping yourself balanced.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

This is precious. It's like you can see the cogs turning in his brain.