Technology isn't to blame for the damaging and exploitative nature of capitalism. As our production capability increases our society must necessarily get richer. Only the distribution of that wealth is in question. Basic income is long overdue as an obvious good.

If we have fewer menial jobs to do, that's great; the elimination of drudgery can't have a net negative effect except through gross social mismanagement. Destroy capitalism and democracy, put rational people in charge and everything gets better fast.

What I recall was him saying single payer was what he preferred, but he totally caved in and we got the ACA (like most programs, misnamed) which is an insurance industry hand out IMO.
Since it's not 'evolving', there is no 'end game' as I understand the term. It is what it is, flawed but better than the nothing we had, but far worse than single payer... like most of the rest of the first world has.
I wish we had, or were moving towards single payer, it's FAR cheaper, simpler, and eliminates the needless health insurance industry. The rich can always buy better care if they like, but everyone will have basic minimum care and not use the most expensive ways to get it (like emergency rooms they don't pay for). Seems proper and intelligent to me, but what does a newt know?

I'm only analyzing your statement(s), not you.

Another huge problem with the video:

3:05 "There are three live options: ..."

False. There are three hypotheses that have been brought to your attention. This is not an exclusive list. There may be other possibilities not yet considered. So eliminating two and then deciding the third must be correct is bad logic, so the video's whole argument fails even if "necessity" and "chance" can be properly eliminated and "design" not.

The narrator proposes three hypotheses that would explain the "finely tuned" appearance of the universe. He analyzes the first hypothesis and decides it's impossible. He then analyzes the second hypothesis and decides it's impossible. Then he DOES NOT ANALYZE the third hypothesis, but just shows some beautiful photos of the universe and gives some quotes agreeing with the "design" hypothesis. He then decides it is true, even though the exact same analysis that he did for the "chance" hypothesis would eliminate the "design" hypothesis as well.

The narrator himself established one definition of implausibility: "There's no scientific evidence for X: it cannot be detected, observed, measured or proved and it requires fine tuning." That same test can be applied to the "design" hypothesis to determine by the same logic that it too is false. Any other argument is special pleading. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading

@dannym3141

Broadly speaking, I tend to subscribe to the view that capitalism is the worst economic system anyone ever invented, except for all the others. There are plenty of problems with it but also practical solutions that could be implemented. Pining for a better system is great, but this quasi-vague revolution that Brand is espousing is as almost guaranteed to be as direction-less and short lived as the Occupy movement.

Take campaign finance reform, of what I'm familiar the Mayday PAC in the US is proposing a voucher system where either (1) each voter is given and limited to a set amount tax refund they can spend on campaign contributions or alternatively (2) there is public finance for something like a 10 to 1 matching system for smaller donations. That seems like a good solution to the problem. It's not perfect though, as speech via the media (TV, internet) would still be wielded disproportionately by those with power. But it's a start. More transparency on where donations are coming from would also help.

I'm no fan of inequality either, but it's a far more difficult issue to grapple with. If you approach it with taxes, the problem is you need global coordination. A single country raising taxes will just see incomes shift elsewhere particular the highest percent who are the most mobile. There needs to be some kind of standard on taxation globally as to whether it is incurred where it is earned or where the company is registered, otherwise you have companies like Apple paying next to nothing because they avoid it in both countries (known as the double Irish, although this has now been eliminated it's a good example).

Should investment income be taxed higher? Probably, I'm not too well informed on this subject but it certainly entrenches established wealth. Should there be an estate-like tax of sorts that limits wealth passed on through generations? Perhaps, but it seems like a band-aid of sorts and a double dipping on what should really be collected through income tax in the first place.

I'm all for public services where it makes sense to provide them publicly. I don't like political cronyism either. But solutions need to be practical. Eliminating tax avoidance by multinationals is good policy because otherwise these companies paying virtually no tax intrinsically sets up barriers to entry to smaller competitors which is terrible economically and leads to monopolistic behaviour and higher prices. Targeting finance with a specific tax probably isn't. Business will just shift globally and countries like the UK will lose out more than they gain.

scientism is really like truthieness. It's a made up word, with a made up definition, that has no bearing on, or connection to reality.
Science is not about belief.
If data 'proves' that science can't ever answer any question about reality (not about human insanity, although it already goes a long way towards explaining that too), scientists would concede instantly. If it were a belief, they could never change it based on evidence, but science does change.

No one is asking you to 'bow' to any 'theory'. They are simply the 'rules' that 'science' has produced to explain how the world/universe works. They work just fine without your 'belief' in them or knowledge of them. That's just one thing they have over the supernatural.

Please give an example or two of scientific 'truths' that were half baked ideas. I think if you look throughout history, carefully, you will see the scientific method was developed mostly around the 12th century as explained here:

Amongst the array of great scholars, al-Haytham is regarded as the architect of the scientific method. His scientific method involved the following stages:1.Observation of the natural world
2.Stating a definite problem
3.Formulating a robust hypothesis
4.Test the hypothesis through experimentation
5.Assess and analyze the results
6.Interpret the data and draw conclusions
7.Publish the findings

but it's widely held that it was not solidified to the modern scientific method (eliminating guessing and 'induction' and requiring repeatable experimentation) until Newton. That means any example you might give should come after 1660 or so at the earliest, or you aren't talking about the same "science" that the rest of us are.

I think most scientist would say it is 'possible' that supernatural events happen, but incredibly unlikely, and constantly less so the more we know about the world and it's rules. It's just as likely that if I only eat the right color yellow foods I'll eventually 'magically' crap gold. I can't prove it won't happen (because I'll never know if I ate the 'right' color foods, if I ever tried), but I can use science to show it's absolutely unlikely to a NEAR certainty (no matter how one misunderstands quantum physics).
The supernatural is right there with my golden poops....and I can't tell which smells worse.

This is a few years old, since refueling has been eliminated the pitstops now get down to only a few seconds... 10 seconds would count as disasterously slow.

See this one from last year for instance *related=http://videosift.com/video/F1-Pit-Stop-Perfection

I'm going to make a point of Down-voting Compilation videos.
Sorry, but so many of these are already posted on the sift and each video have merits of their own. Why post them all in a compilation? They primarily become Dupes and they are completely unsearchable.

If there aren't videos in these compilations that aren't sifted, then SIFT THEM. Don't eliminate them by having them included in one huge random inclusion.

I wouldn't put blame on any individual parents. And certainly everything I've read says not to stress kids out about elimination. Given where this kid seems to be, the dad is probably reacting fine (minus filming it).

It is pretty weird though that we westerners teach our babies to poop on themselves. It's by no means universal. If you give infants an cleaner way to poop, they'll generally use it. Anal control shows up naturally as soon as they start eating solid foods.

@lucky760 The issue I take with what Harris is doing is that whenever he wants to use an example of something that is 'bad', he tends to use an example of something done in the 'muslim world'. There's no argument that there are plenty of bad ideas coming from Islam (which Cenk states several times), but Harris is biased in how he uses his examples (he always seems to dip from the same well), so it seems very clear that he has an agenda. Whether that agenda is to sell books, or for some other reason I don't know.

To understand him better, I would recommend watching more of his video's, you will see what I mean.

The other thing going on here is that Maher has already made up his mind about Islam/Muslims being extrememists before anything is said. You can easily tell this by watching who he interrupts. Ben gets constantly interrupted whenever he tries to say anything - Harris does not - it's just like watching Fox. He's not interesting in listening to reason, he has decided what he believes and if any guest tries to disagree with him then good luck trying to get a full sentence out.

@JiggaJonson are you sure about your definitions? Try reading article 4 of the United Nations Human Rights "International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination". I'll put the important part of their definition of racial descrimination here for you.

it includes "all propaganda and all organizations which are based on ideas or theories of superiority of one race or group of persons of one colour or ethnic origin"

The important part there is that it includes ethnicity, and there is no distinction between the two. So in essence, those trying to call out @billpayer for using the term incorrectly... have not educated themselves on what the term means.

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CERD.aspx

Whoops, well, for all the objectivism displayed here, it still looks to me like one side of the coin. Aside from the comments from the folks I have ignored on the sift, I don't see any criticism of the USA or very much criticism of Christianity. I don't really want to be that guy, but just remember that especially in the last decade our international reputation among countries on the receiving end of bombs has gone down the crapper. All of these "opinion polls" are trying to link Islam with anti-US sentiments and methods (eg. terrorism), when it's only demonstrating the correlation. Obviously if we bomb a predominantly Muslim country and innocents die, how do you think poll results would lean among Muslims in that country? How would your religious demographic feel if Russia bombed Manhattan and killed a dozen random citizens? What about if we had no Army, Navy, or Air Force, and these bombings happened every week?

Meanwhile, citing statistics from a website which has a clear agenda of being a hit-piece on Islam is a fucking ridiculous idea. Come on, guys. If that website lists 300 polls which emphasize their point, do you think they will include a reference to even one poll which disputes it? If they sifted through thousands of polls just to find those 300, would you still have statistical confidence in their results? I admit that the multitude of sources they pulled polls from is initially impressive, but the #1 goal of statistics is to eliminate bias, and that website is pure uncut bias.

"Both sides now crippled beyond repair, the remnants of their armies continue to battle on ravaged planets, their hatred fueled by over four thousand years of total war. This is a fight to the death. For each side, the only acceptable outcome is the complete elimination of the other."

I hate the premise, and I hate the term "white america". Of course racism still exists. And yes, there are racists and ignorant people who try to say that it doesn't. But saying "white america" just throws every white person into the same pool, which is racist in itself. Countless white americans have stood up and even risked their lives defending the equality of not just black people, but all races. Racism affects everyone. Ironically, and tragically, I think racism is a unifying factor. All races do it and all races suffer from it. And all races should get behind the elimination of it. It starts with balking against racist friends and family who, through societal pressure, casually compel you to blame, fear or find comfort in hating the "other".

While the climate is complicated, the climate science is not. The U.S. winter temperatures plummeted from 1950 to 1979. The scientists reacted to this with a "global cooling" scare, as reported by Science News in 1975 (PDF). As such, NASA warned of a new ice age by the year 2020. Then, after 1979, temperatures got much warmer, so NASA's James Hansen began the global warming scare (PDF).

But after the year 2000, temperatures began to plummet again. So NASA and NOAA responded with the only sensible solution. They altered the data to eliminate the earlier warmth and the current cooling.

But that wasn't sufficient for keeping up with the cooling temperatures, so they renamed "global warming" as "climate change."

It is for these and other reasons that climate science undercuts its efforts with fraudulence.

Traffic accidents would be virtually eliminated. The insurance industry probably has the most to lose when it comes to self driving cars, without a risk to insure against they can't make any money.

Regarding features like this, I've just got a new Golf with adaptive cruise control. This measures the distance between you and the car in front and maintains a pre set gap up to a set speed. They have a lane assist option too, like the video here but I don't have that and I'm really glad. The cruise control is teaching me to not react when a car slows down in front of me or pulls into the lane in front of me because the car is doing it for me.

I've noticed I'm letting my eyes wander for longer when looking at the radio, or flicking through options on the display. It's not intentional, taking my eyes off the road is dangerous. I know that. But I can steer between white lines using my peripheral vision so as long as nothing really bad happens the car will save me, so the temptation to look at something just a little longer creeps in subliminally. I don't want to be doing it, and I try not to. Thing is, if you're driving a long way it's pretty certain you're not going to have the self control to be 100% focussed on the road every millisecond.

I can't wait for driverless cars. I can't help but think that features like this being drip fed us are not really that helpful. It's just teaching us to pay less attention when actually the cars aren't that clever yet.

And to anyone who's going to say 'if you take your eyes off the road you're a bad driver, you should be able to keep concentrating, blah blah blah', you don't understand how the mind works. Your body adapts to the situation you're in. When I drive an auto I don't go for the clutch all the time, my body adjusts. It's not a conscious thing, it's automatic. it's the same with these driver aids, your body learns to take advantage of them.