For enoch-Uhhh, at the end of the day, who are we to judge, period? My gentle chiding of Sagemind was more was more of an atomic bomb indictment of his take on 'reality' ( a personal construct ), the loaded use of language to parrot a framework for a way of thinking whereby so-called intelligent peeps give power away rather than embracing it, and my own coluratura-filled vitriolic on the overall tone and timbre easily recognized by anyone who doesn't think too hard about how they are being ass-fucked daily by shit-think.

Your own reductio ad absurdum with the dick-sucking options available to hard-working individuals well, I can appreciate your coming to the defense of a wayward soul but....Maybe the smarter and more fastidious folks in the herd should get more creative with such actions suggested later like tax fraud or even homicide if they want to see some tangible changes to digression of systems they so fervently defend.

Mr missed-his-name would be Rhod Gilbert, a reasonably decent comedian from Wales (in case the accent didn't give it away).

http://youtu.be/G6afnyV8bf8 is him in action. Takes a while to get going, but the egg and cress sandwich stuff is good.

Not to be "that guy" and nitpick, but it's not the tilting of the video that gives it away, it's the fact that the image rotated counterclockwise!

tags kinda give it away

Obviously fake (clothes are more fire retardant than that), but really very very well done apart from the fire.
Usually there are multiple tells that a video was faked, but here it is only condensed story telling (the whole story is told from start to finish in 37 seconds, real life is a little more boring that), and from candles to full on torch in 2 seconds that gives it away.

1. Read the First Amendment and tell me where it is granting you any right:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The operative phrase is a restriction on the power of Congress, not the endowment of a right upon individuals.

Also, the Declaration of Independence backs me up:

"that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"

As does the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

"Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,"

These rights are yours simply because you are human, and they are inalienable - you can't give them away even if you want to.

2. You can not bring a lawsuit in US court for a violation of rights based upon legislation unless you have standing. In effect, you must demonstrate that a law has actually caused you harm in some illegitimate, unfair, or unconstitutional manner. One of the easiest ways to gain standing is to violate the law and suffer the consequences of what you perceive to be an unjust law.

3. The Supreme Court has only recognized a right to privacy from government intrusion not from individual or corporate intrusion. Furthermore, there is no assumption to a right to privacy in a public place. The most logical reason for the need to get a permit to film there is that the Park Service recognizes the economic value of licensing something that is in high demand (filming in front of the White House) and could care less about the privacy of individuals (citizens and non-citizens alike).

As a book reader, I've been looking forward to this -- and by this I particularly mean seeing the reactions of people who haven't read the books to this scene. So, this was fun.

As for the scene itself, not too surprisingly I liked the book version better, but I thought the show version was not bad and rather better than it could have been.


...Without giving anything away, lets just say that I'm also looking forward to what is coming next also. Even more than I was looking forward to this one.

I'm not really a weapon expert, so I dont know anything about the AT4, but I have used M72's (or M66 as we called it), and yea, I know you can put in and reload practice shots, but then they just become a really, really crappy rifle. You could probably do 10 times the damage with a standard issue glock or a cheap hunting rifle.

But give a crazy guy an AK47 or similar assault rifle... those are just plain murder machines. The name really gives it away, they are ASSAULT rifles, and thats the only thing they are good for: Assaulting and killing several people, the kind of thing you do in a WAR.

He needs a different filming setup for this to work as well as it should - as it stands, focus blur kind of gives stuff away (you could see this even in the thumbnail). Cool anyways.

It's simple.
What you got.
You gotta give it away.
So give it away.
Now.

It's such a dark and negative troll to sustain for such a long time. And it doesn't seem like it reaps enough outrage to be worth the time commitment. I say he's the real deal. I've heard plenty of conservatives talk like that with similarly bad grammar.
>> ^Locque:

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Poe's Law >> ^Locque:
It amazes me that bobknight isn't automatically filed away as a troll. He tries so damn hard. Bill O' was comparatively machiavellian.


It's his tone that gives him away, rather than the sum of his contents, but I suppose. It just seems obvious to me. But who knows, he really might believe what he says. But I don't think so. Yet.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Poe's Law >> ^Locque:
It amazes me that bobknight isn't automatically filed away as a troll. He tries so damn hard. Bill O' was comparatively machiavellian.



It's his tone that gives him away, rather than the sum of his contents, but I suppose. It just seems obvious to me. But who knows, he really might believe what he says. But I don't think so. Yet.

Many authors spend years just trying to get their name out there, so for awhile...it's in their interest to have their work shared if it's not selling like hot cakes on day one.

Once they become more established and known, then the sharing will have more of an impact on their income.


Basically, starting out...without a name they are going to be lucky if people even consider reading their stuff. Lots of guys go a decade before they get to where they can make a living off their work. It's quicker now to pass your work around, but there also a lot more competition with the digital age. A fairly active self-published author whose been tracking his progression on his blog for years says that a writer's best effort for advertisement is writing more books. So that the chance of you being featured on Amazon or some other digital offering is higher, and that you have the ability to offer one of your older books for greatly reduced prices or even free to pick up new readers who may go on to buy your products. It's one of those scenarios that you're kinda damned if you do, damned if you don't on both sides of the equation. Customer can't buy every authors books nor read them all, so free might be what it takes to get your foot in the door with them. However authors can't make a living giving away all their stuff to get noticed, but they may never get enough of a notice to make a living off of their work without giving it away at some point to pick up reviews and word of mouth.


An author, their feelings on the issue is going to vary greatly depending on their success. If they've been at it for years, they might be happy to pick up the extra eye balls from someone spreading their work around. Where as someone like King probably takes a much dimmer view on it. But there's been an up swing in complaints from publishers about libraries and how much they pay for digital stuff, so all that complaining kinda becomes white noise after awhile despite how valid their complaints may be...because every industry seems to be complaining about "lost sales" with some astronomical number to attach to it.

So many levels of pure awesome:
* Direction: Really nice, feature film quality
* Animation: Again, feature film quality there, beautifully done
* That it's done with a game engine: Just amazing
* That it's done with a fricken in engine movie editing suite...
* They're giving it away for free

That's just brilliant work on their part, and is only going to increase interest in Source powered games, which is good for them.

And good for Steam because that's how you get the editor.

Nice work Valve, nice work.

Music and arts are probably more important than math or history when it comes to developing critical and creative thinking skills. Healthy sex is as important as eating and sleeping and are all very important to memory function, logic, problem-solving, etc. You seem to think sex is so different from other human activities but it isn't. Categorizing things into social and non-social doesn't apply here since a major function of schools is to teach kids social skills so that they can be productive members of society.

99% of success in life depends on social skills. Right now the best and the brightest are not accomplishing anything because they are too shy or messed up by their history to use their abilities to the fullest.

Oh and condoms are a tool used in forging the mind. Sex is one of the most powerful forces that drives our beings so of course tools and knowledge regarding this major part of our lives is important.

Your version of schooling has never been and hopefully never will be. Please check out some of the research that is out there. There has been much talk the last few years about the serious problems caused by removing music and art programs from schools for example.
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

>> ^rottenseed:
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Sex isn't something that is happening in school

Translation: I NEVER HAD SEX IN SCHOOL! ...or since

Blah, way to be a jerk and not stay on topic.
I shall be a little more clear with what I am saying as I think my message got lost in peoples spin on doing the hibbidy dibidy all the live long day.
Books, teachers, science labs, paper, pens, are part of the education process provided by the state. Having sex in the middle of the class is not. While sex education is a must, having sex in school is not on the curiculum as far as the state should be involved in. IE, condoms are not a pen, a book or any other tool used in forging the mind.
Like some have pointed out (tackfully unlike the nice person above), sex is part of the natural social evolution of a person. Right, but that isn't the focus of the classroom. Schools are for classes and expanding your mind, that is what the state is supposed to be providing. I have problem no problem with my taxes going to books and pens and things that are developing the young minds of tomorrow. But I have a problem with my tax dollars sponcering another childs sex life and/or other social, non-education things (recreational sex is not educational sex . I would be just as against schools providing some sort of free music program on the government dime on the logic that music is needed for a well devolped social mind.
I also don't preach ignorance or being unprepaired, I am just against paying for it on the government ticket. Schools shouldn't be in the business of providing anything but education. If someone can show me how a condom is an education device, besides maybe just learning how to put one on, then I will be convinced, otherwise, it is the school system trying to be more than it is roled to be. This isn't a night club, this is a school. Sex may happen on campus, that is not what I was saying at all, what I am saying is that is the subject of social interaction and not the domain of the school to provide materials for out of our tax budget. Once again, if someone can show how a condom is like a pen (hahaha don't go there), then I'll be more adpt to listen, but so far it seems like "ehh why not" kinda arguments? Perhaps I misunderstood yall as much as yall did me
And if they are just giving them away, then it should be avalible for all citizens everywhere, not just kids...and I would be against funding my fellow americans sex needs in the same way I am against this
Thanks everyone for your respectful comments...minus one

edit: And did no one else think that the video was totally biased? The lady arguing for the side of schools not providing for that thing had some very unconvincing speaking methodology