@newtboy
yep,i misunderstood you.
never really looked at it that way.maybe that is due to how i consume news.

while i think that newsprint such as washpo,NYT and the wall street journal have become more suspect in my eyes.i do not dismiss some of the good work they do also.

and hedges has been critical of the russian oligarchs,and in particular putin himself.i do not have anything at this exact moment,but i will make it a point to post something soon.

on one point hedges is incredibly consistent:criticism of power and authority.
which on that note i have to admit appeals to my anti-authoritarian views.

but i never really considered how having hedges,or hartman,on RT would indirectly legitimize russian oligarchic propaganda.

and that is a fair point.

You might note that insurance is incredibly bad at paying for emergency room bills, even in one's they contract with (in network), because there's no incentive/requirement for the doctors to be under contract, so their bills are rarely covered at all, just like all the other departments in the hospital the emergency room doctors might use to treat you. That means you can't be an informed consumer of insurance, the hospital won't tell you what's covered and what's not until after they bill you.

A simple google search shows that lawsuits and insurance against them make up 2-2.5% of healthcare costs, health insurance, at least 20% . You don't even break even with tort reform (it's not free) but you make it FAR more dangerous by removing any incentives for doctors to follow good practices instead of the fastest most profitable treatments that make more money with no worry if it kills or mains you through malpractice, but you save >20% removing the insurance industry and only lose red tape and roadblocks against any expensive treatments one might need to live.

@newtboy
i agree in theory,but disagree in practice.
as i stated in my comment:discernment.

it appears we approach news and journalism differently.

i do not consume the institution,but rather the individual reporter.which is why i will watch a report by shepard smith from FOX,but ignore anything by tucker carlson or bill o'reilly.

the HUGE mistake you make about hedges,is just that,an assumption.

chris hedges mistake.
is the same mistake that other media personalities have made,such as cenk uynger when he was on MSNBC.

hedges criticized power.
in fact,in the run up to the iraq war hedges was pushing out story after story that was highly critical of the bush administration,and..ironically..was using the very intelligence reports that you mentioned.he was challenged by the new york times editorial board to either cease and desist,or face disciplinary action.

he chose to retain his integrity,and honor his father (great story right there,he always chokes up when telling it) and walked away from a successful career,full of adulation and respect,rather than bow at the foot of the kings throne and kiss the feet of the powerful.

the man has guts,in spades,and i admire him very much.

but if you think my opnion is biased,then let us take phil donahue who was hosting the most popular show on the newly founded MSNBC.

he too,was critical of the bush administration and had guests on that were countering the avalanche of white house narratives flooding the cable news networks.

he was fired,while simultaneously hosting the most popular and highest rated shows on MSNBC.

what i am saying,is exactly what hedges is saying:
criticize power and you will be branded,blacklisted and shunned from the "mainstream media".you will be relegated to the fringe for your defiance to power.

/chuckles..i find it interesting that pretty much everybody uses the term "mainstream media" to epitomize:lazy journalism,propaganda,fake news and yet the media THEY choose to consume..well...thats not mainstream at all.the media THEY choose to consume is top notch journalism.

i am not saying my choices are right,but i do choose them carefully.i do not subscribe to institutions but rather individuals who have proven the test of proper journalistic integrity:chris hedges,matt taibbi,bill moyers,henry giroux,laura poitrus,jeremy scahill,amy goodman,paul jay

you may notice that every one of these people are critical of power,and that..my friend..is the basic premise of the fourth estate.

the washington post,along with the new york times and wall street journal have become rags.just my opinion,feel free to disagree.

We can all help to keep these beautiful creatures alive by consuming less meat (preferably none):-)
The choice and power to help or harm them is ours, with every meal.

@bobknight33
ya know bob,at some point you are going to look back at these comments,or someone is inevitably going to bring them to your attention in the future,and you are going to be forced to eat a slice of humble pie.

i am not disagreeing with you in regards to corporate media bias,and that some people consume only those outlets that appeal to their own prejudices and biases.

as this election has made abundantly clear:both those who identify as democrat and republican are guilty of confirmation bias,and had fallen into the trap of their own personal echo chambers.

so many supposed "news" outlets were aught red-handed pandering,obfuscating and sometimes promoting outright propaganda.

the latest outlet to get caught in this fuckery is the washington post,and i suspect there will be many many more.

my point is simply this.
propaganda works,and it is an effective tool to control attitudes and opinions,they do not even have to "win" the argument,they just have to make a person reconsider their position by postulating possibilities,make one go "well,maybe..that could happen"...and they win.

so you are right in regards to fake news that appeals to the more "liberal minded" but do not think for a second that there are also corporate "news" outlets that appeal to the more "conservative minded".

we all,each and every one of us,are susceptible to this tactic.we all can be manipulated by appeals to emotions,our sense of justice and fairness,and of course..our prejudices.

the only way to combat this tactic is by remaining vigilant and do our due diligence.this starts by listening to people we may disagree.by fact checking and discussing with one another to test the veracity of the claims by certain outlets.

speaking only for myself i dumped corporate media years ago.

it is still an imperfect system i use,and i have posted fallacious content (not intentionally) and been called out for it's bullshit.

i didn't like being called out,and felt shame for my laziness and the fact i posted because it adhered to my own preconceptions,but i was the better for it.

so be careful when you make declarations of certitude by using corporate media outlets as a source,because more often than not,that information has been manipulated to appeal to a certain mindset and attitude.

liberals have known for decades the FOX news is a corporate media propaganda machine,but they have also been just as much a victim of the very same tactics by such outlets as MSNBC and CNN.

american conservatives are not the problem,nor are american liberals.

it is the corporate media who is beholden to those who wield power and influence,and seek to manipulate the opinions of the american people in order to retain THEIR power and THEIR influence and therefore diminish the cohesive community of the american people.

ok..i really don;t know where i am going with this..i had a point somewhere.

basically stop using corporate media as your references bob,otherwise you are going to be pantsed in public,and that is an ickly feeling.

@bareboards2
pure and utter sophistry.

and i resent the fact that you slyly attempt to imply that i will just sit back and remain silent to injustice.

when i feel quite confident my records on this site prove the exact opposite.i have vociferously and aggressively taken on those who would bully,berate and belittle anyone who would voice their opinion.

i believe i have come to YOUR defense on more than one occasion.

what i found disturbing in your comment and maybe i should clarify is this "As Homeland Security says, if you see something, say something."

this is LITERALLY what was posted on almost every open venue in east germany.

and for you to tacitly excuse this statement by dismissively stating that "the stasi operated in secret".as somehow being evidence of your own righteousness belies an ignorance of just how oppressive and fearful those people were living in those conditions.

so you are morally superior because you openly called to out,and i quote "benevolent dictator with a light touch",and did not do so in private?
THIS is your justification?
THIS is the evidence you present to me to...what? exactly?

if you truly feel that you have somehow struck a blow for justice and taken a stand for moral integrity,then i submit that you have no clue what free speech really entales,nor do you understand the implications when we,as a community,start calling in the big daddy in the sky every time someone writes an offensive potty/racist or bigoted word.

and just LOOK how you consumed @gorillaman 's comment.
you made no reference to his salient point,but rather focused on ONE thing:nigger prince.

now was this appropriate?
taken singularly i would have to agree with you.
no..it is not appropriate.

but when we take our understandings of @gorillaman,who has been a contributing sifter for over 10 years,and consider his humor..which is dark and incredibly dry (like sahara dry),then with this context added to the mix,we can conclude that he was probably making a joke...you are certainly within your rights to find that joke in poor taste,and with this community,you are also within your rights (and even encouraged) to take @gorillaman to task for his poor taste.

but instead you called for big daddy in the sky to bring the hammer of justice down,and punish this dirt potty mouthed racist.his crime?
racist verbiage.

no consideration of who was writing it.
no consideration of his history on this site,which you openly admitted is a community.
you just..focused..on..the..word.

and then you preen like a peacock thinking somehow you have struck a blow of righteousness?

please sister.....you accomplished nothing except to put dag in an awkward position,and came across as a self righteous moralizer.

when you simply could have done what other sifters here actually DID.
you downvote his comment.
and if you felt so inclined,and it appears you ARE so inclined,directly call @gorillaman out for his poor choice of verbiage.

look BB,
i actually find you to be a sweetheart,with a huuuuge propensity for empathy and compassion,but every time i engage with you my sphincter tightens up like it is preparing for a colonoscopy.there is this ever-present apprehension that my words will not be taken with humanity that they are written,or the open honesty i am trying to convey.

i am sure that if we were actually sitting in a cafe,sipping that delicious coffee you guys are so proud of, i would not experience this anxiety when engaging with you,but it seems EVERY time i disagree with something you post,or an opinion i may take issue with,i offend you in some manner.

you ..and i am sure this is not done on purpose..make it incredibly difficult to disagree with something you post,because i always feel i have hurt your feelings somehow.

real or imagined...i am just being honest here.i always approach any interaction with you as if i am walking on eggshells,underlined with landmines.

i am simply disagreeing with you here.
calling for a ban on gorillaman because of a joke made in poor taste,while simultaneously disregarding his contributions to this site,and taking his personality into consideration,is simply an over-zealous reaction and in no way deserves the attention of dag.

because if gorillaman deserves to be banned for an offensive phrase,than i should be banned as well.

free speech is just that...free.
of course we are free to ridicule that speech.
yaaay free speech!

That's not true either. Following their directions doesn't mean you won't be negligent. Not following their direction doesn't mean you are negligent. You're conflating things. Each situation needs to be judged on it's own merits.

Removing safety features is not negligence unless you make the firearm unsafe. None of my firearms have a firing pin block from the factory. They're all safe firearms. My triggers have been lightened - they're still safe firearms. I've seen triggers lightened so much that they are unsafe. As before, each instance is judged on it's own merits.

I'll soon finish my mechanical engineering degree (and don't you know it, I'm looking for a job in firearm designing), so I do know a little about this stuff. Whilst with the proper equipment you can detect crack propagation or premature wear, this is not done on consumer products like firearms. That's why I wrote "this sort of item". Unless you're going to spend more money than the firearm is worth trying to detect cracks, you won't know it has cracked until you visually identify it.

Sure proper cleaning and gun inspection is part of having a safe, well functioning firearm. But don't fool yourself into thinking it's an aeroplane or space shuttle in inspections. Go ask your local gunsmith - the best one you can find - how many times he's done x-ray diffraction on a firearm for preventative maintenance. Chances are he's going to say zero.

Spend 5 seconds on google and I know you will find multiple videos of factory condition firearms discharging unintentionally. You'll also find recall information affecting millions of firearms - firearms at risk of unintentional discharge.

I should have qualified "much". More or less than 2500 rounds a year?

tldr: The decisions made in creating and rearing offspring are subject to a different set of moral criteria than all others because those decisions affect everyone.

Here's the problem with that thought. You didn't just make a decision that affected your life. Or even one that affected the lives of yourself and others you know. You intentionally created another sentient being. Because of human nature, that sentient being is now not just your responsibility, but everyone else's as well. Your decision quite literally affected the entire species. Or should I say infected.

There is no other decision anyone can make that has such an extent of repercussions (with the possible exception of murder). Whether you further choose to be responsible for your offspring is, from a decision making point of view, completely separate from the decision to create that offspring. And likewise, the decisions you make regarding the care of that offspring are entirely separate from the decision to create it. Those decisions are, whether you like it or not, subject to critique. You may not like it, and you may in fact see the entire process (conception, birth, weaning, rearing, etc...) as a single act. Either way, the entirety of the species is now constrained by your initial act of creation. The question is not whether you are a “good parent”. The question is how much of a burden upon or boon to the species will you be.

Just to make this contrast clear…. if I, as thinking adult, decide to consume alcohol in such excess that it causes my liver to fail, I can ask the species to help me to the point of giving me a new liver - which may or may not be granted based on my own words and actions. If you ask a similar favor on behalf your offspring, however, it’s an entirely different moral calculus.

Very interesting, but I have some questions about the efficacy of those rules/laws with regards to actually keeping the uncensored versions out of German hands.

Here in Thailand, since 2008 all GTA games are specifically banned (after a nutter who killed a taxi driver said he was influenced by GTA), along with any games with "excessive violence" or sexual content. In spite of that, the majority of male students in the High School where I teach have played GTA5 or other GTA games. There are no legit physical copies for sale in stores (I assume they are also removed from Steam for Thai users but I dunno), but like with all media here piracy is rampant and kids either torrent/download pirated copies of the games for themselves or buy a pirated copy of the game on DVD from vendors that can be found in markets in every city or village.

The rampant piracy also circumvents Thai censorship laws that require movies to blur out people smoking, drinking alcohol, or nudity / sexual content. Legit copies (which are rare) adhere to the rules, but most people end up with pirated copies that are more often than not sourced from uncensored versions and therefore don't follow the local rules.

Pretty weird situation. Makes me wonder if now in the internet age many German consumers might have no moral qualms with buying legit German-censored versions of things and then downloading pirated / cracked versions from the internet that circumvent the censorship.

"As it is, Not as we would like it to be"

When we have a desire or expectation on what we want or how things should go, but it does not turn out the way we 'hoped' or 'wanted' (desire), then we loose the balance of our mind.
Desire is based on illusion, we desire (hope) something that has yet to happen and we think about how perfect it would be 'if', yet when that 'if' turns out to be something we did not expect, intend or desire, then we become agitated, sad or depressed that it did not transpire the way we thought it would be. We then take that agitation and we try to share it with others. We don't like to feel the way we are feeling, so we express it to others, spreading the drama. Most people take on the agitation of the one with agitation and become emotional in some way to either commiserate with them or it brings up our own internal agitations about so many things, that we then become embattled with the one that is agitated. Then the fire that is inside is being spread to each other and sometimes it gets bigger and keeps spreading to those around the ones that are agitated. Then it keeps growing and we have a tendency to hold on to that agitation from moments past or days, weeks or years past and it keeps building. It becomes a habit pattern and we keep repeating the same process because we are consumed with it.
But we all know that the only thing that puts out a fire is water. Water is the cooling substance to quench the fires lust to consume. It is the same way with human beings, water (calm cool words or actions) can help diffuse oneself or others.
When we are agitated we lose our self-awareness and travel down the path that our sensations or emotions are taking us. We in essence lose control, we allow ourselves or others to guide us down a path that is never helpful to any situation.
But there are many paths to change that habit pattern within ourselves and gain mastery over our minds and change the habit of allowing ourselves to lose our equanimity.
Science has proven that no one can make you feel a certain way, or make you do anything. Yet we still have a habit of blaming others for our agitation or sadness, or even praise others for making ourselves happy. Yet we are the only ones that can make ourselves happy or sad. We have the ability to accept things as they truly are be it 'bad' or 'good' and be OK with it. Why do we cry when the milk has spilt? It has spilt, crying or any other emotion over that reality is not going to make the milk un-spill. Cleaning it up and learning or teaching on not to have the milk spill again and moving on from that moment is the most important thing.
We are incredible beings with so much power and beauty. To be with ourselves and learn from within our own beings is so important and the key to dealing with the world around us.
So yes, hope can be a very dangerous thing when that hope consumes us to the point of anger and depression when that hope it not fulfilled.
We do not have any control over how things transpire outside of ourselves, but we do have the ability to master ourselves so we can be mindful to the ever changing world when our hopes are not fulfilled. As we grow we learn not to have so many expectations (hopes), but allow life to unfold around us and 'Act' to any situation instead of 'React' with emotion. When we Act, we start to become aware instead of becoming blurred when we are reacting with unawareness.

'Be well on your journey, May Truth and Awareness be your guide'

@shagen454, You're on to something about the nature of the future of economics, and also society through the 1% vs. the 99%. You're not wrong that a lot of *money has made it's way to the top, and is staying there.

But it wasn't always this way.

In his film, Inequality For All, Robert Reich points out that during the time of great prosperity in the US (1947-1977) inequality was low, and taxes on the wealthy were much higher than they are today.

A correlation of the effect this was how marketing was thought of. In CBC's "Under The Influence" episode on The World of Business-To-Business Advertising they point out that B2B marketing used to be the boring place that nobody in advertising really wanted to work, but now B2B marketing is surging.

The CBC radio show doesn't get into asking why that changed, but through the lens of modern economics it isn't hard to see. B2B marketing used to be boring because with low inequality, consumers--*working people*--had all the money. Now, with high inequality, consumers are broke, and all that money is just flowing among corporations, never really trickling more than a few breadcrumbs upon the serfs.

This has deep impacts on society and politics, especially in a land where "money is speech" and all the money is just passed between a few companies and their owners. This means that in the US, there are as few as 144,000 people who have enough "speech" (meaning money) that their voice actually matters, as is pointed out by Lawrence Lessig.


Videos:

--Robert Reich --

I rail against mindless consumers all the time, but I went to the hardware store a few years ago to get a new cordless drill, and ended up buying an Impact Driver because I had to own something called an Impact Driver.

I think her argument is incredibly flawed.
It misses out the crucial aspect of training. An umbrella needs no instruction to function inside the parameters it's designed for. It's comes ready for use. Babies, however, require a lot of resources and training to perform even somewhat satisfactory. The amount of time you need to invest to train tricks, like walking and not-pooping-the-pants successfully, greatly outweights the demanded time period to acustomise yourself with the functions and limitations of a new umbrella. To even learn the boundaries of what babies are capable of leads quite often to a frustrating process of trial and error that can render your baby unusable. Which leads of to the next issue.
To procure an umbrella you have varying retail options, including online distribution, as well as exchange of services or goods among acquaintances. For some unfathomable reason, these options are frowned upon by a political correctness obsessed society in regards to babies. The only viable option that won't cause offense among your peers is manufacturing one yoursef. Imagine what our economy would look like if we handeled all goods this way. It's preposterous!
So you are stuck with whatever baby you can produce on your own, relying on unskilled labor in most cases. Not only do you have to go through the time consuming and strenuous acts of sexual activity, which we all now can lead to severe cases of depression and anxiety, there is a unreasonable waiting time included as well. Imagine you had to wait 9 months for every Amazon delivery. This is just customer harassment.
Loosing an umbrella is not worse than losing a baby but it's not because of reasons that cannot be fixed. If we as a society would work together and openly oppose the unfair unequality in treatment of babies and umbrellas, our lives could be improved in unpredecented ways. But we don't. We are all to blame for this.

I've been watching a lot of anti-SJW stuff lately, mostly because I am a rabid supporter of freedom of speech and I don't like the authoritarian direction a lot of the most vocal (and yes, it's a minority) of SJW's seem to be calling for.

And you know the really hilarious thing? Gays like Milo Yiannopoulous (who has to be the most conflicted gay guy on the planet), or trans like Blaire White? They are accepted. Milo drinks the kool aid a little (okay, he bought the company and consumes their entire output), but Blaire seems fairly centered, and they are accepted by fucking right wing college guys who you would think would be the first ones to yell "OMG get away faggot" or some such shit.

People are still bigoted and I have a sneaking suspicion they always will be in certain aspects, but sometimes tolerance comes from the most unlikely of places. Maybe it's acceptance due to ideological alignment, or perhaps the current generation has the exposure such that gay/trans etc isn't really that big a thing anymore, I don't know.

ps. I think Trump cashed in on riding the Bernie wave of discontent with the establishment, mostly tantrums just make you look like a dumb cunt. ; )

pps. I think my greatest disappointment with the post Trump tantrums is that the total electoral turnout is somewhere around 30-40% of eligible voters in the US? So it's not even a quorum picking the leader of what is still pretty much the biggest and most dangerous nation in the world. There's tonnes of blame to go around here unfortunately, and part of that goes to people who don't give a shit either way, something the DNC really has to own. I think Bernie would have seen record voter turnouts, whereas Clint-bot... /facepalm

I'm always curious about the 'free energy' claim.
Even if it's not expensive, it won't be 'free', and if it is so perfect that it's free, what happens to the millions that work in the energy field today? I'm not suggesting that issue is in any way a reason to not go forward, just that it's an issue that must be dealt with in the eventuality that 'free' energy becomes reality.
They should hype it as possible 'cheap, efficient, clean energy', never 'free', imo.

Are there any reactors trying to use both methods....magnetic confinement/compression and laser compression combined? It seems like they could use much less powerful (and less power consuming) compression/heating devices if they used both together.