Not a straw man one bit. I didn't say you made the list, but you accepted it as the topic and your examples.

Again, they didn't personally profit. Government employees don't own patents on what they create on the job, and didn't profit personally from them. That came later from the public sector. Even in the private sector, inventors often don't profit from inventions they create at work, their company does. I'm certainly not saying people don't profit from their inventions, just not in these publicly funded cases.

100% of the examples were based on purely taxpayer funded inventions, created not through capitalism, not created for profit. Publicly funded projects are SOCIALISM. Those who spout hate of anything socialism should immediately get off the internet.

Again, G5 and G6 are being led by communist countries. Invention isn't tied to profit, especially these inventions.

Necessity is the mother of invention, not profit.

Do we need another round? We're going in circles because you insist socialist academic inventions are due solely to the incentive of profit, ignoring their history and origins.

ballerina or figure skater? Used to going in circles?

I like the black dog going in circles.

Redditors mentioned musical videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ezrDCy6Pqo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjPfGlKhfno

awwww..did the big bad man on the internet hurt your feelings? How can you have possibly survived the internet for this long with such thin skin. Your "hurt" feelings are just another attempt at distraction and use of emotional manipulation.

No one cares about this argument eh? hrm, that's funny, *you* cared enough to reply to perpetuate it. Again...and again....and again. So, another failed argument. You have a decision to make. I hope you make the correct one.

Lets summarize shall we? You haven't demonstrated how more gun control makes anyone less free, you haven't defined what freedom is or how you even measure it. You keep attempting to evade these questions and tug at heart strings by using words like freedom, and coercion to attempt to manipulate the argument. You make repeated false equivalencies. And you have made no attempt to justify why the right to bear arms is exempt from requirements and other controls the same way other rights and freedoms have requirements and controls.

I answered your question yet you continue to pretend otherwise. I showed you numerous examples of requirements before freedoms and rights are granted and no one is claiming they are less free because of them. You make the claim that people are less free because of gun control but you REPEATEDLY fail to demonstrate how other than to suggest we should be an anarchy. Who cares how many people suffer, they'll learn their lesson eventually right?? right?? Sorry, we tried anarchy, didn't work..we moved on. Just because you wrapped your claim in the form of a question doesn't mean shit other than you're really to play Jeopardy with Alex Trebek. You're still making a claim that people will be less responsible with less freedom. Its your claim, you need to prove it. I've said this before and you still haven't done it.

Debate??!! Who said this was a debate? This is an internet forum. This is merely someone calling another person out on their BS I guess we can add strawman to the list of your logical fallacies now. That and you're making another attempt at distraction. There are actual rules in debate. Oh wait, you think rules take away freedom so I guess you won't be participating.

Don't cry foul, don't whine about name calling...be an adult and own up to your role in this. Suck it up. You chose to step into this and I called out your faulty logic. You made your bed, now lie in it. You claim it's pointless...yet you keep responding and asking for more. You can continue going in circles and bending and twisting your rationalizations as you go, or you can make an alternative choice. Put up or shut up.

Take your own advice. You have freedom and it appears that you have made a mistake. I am awaiting you to learn your lesson.

It's up to you amigo.

The stops are shown on various websites (local authority, news, etc). So people who are in those areas shouldn't be surprised by them. And if you're so "upset" with the checkpoints, or sobriety points, or anything that is similar to this (or just checking into a flight, where they check your ID as well, do you *not* fly?) you can easily check online where they're holding the stops. It's required that they announce/post where the stops are being held. They expect and hope that not everyone has the presence of mind to check where the stops are at, that's the *point* of the stops, to find people who are not of legal status in this country.

And I bring up Illegal Immigrants, because that's the reason as to *why* these checkpoints exist. (hence why in the video they ask what the persons citizenship is)

As for the probable cause debate;
As several law journals suggest (e.g. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/probable+cause ), probable cause is subjective, there can be many instances of probable cause, but there can also be a lesser form called "Reasonable suspicion", which could essentially be used in this instance.

You simplify things way too much, the law isn't just a clear cut black and white instance. The law isn't simple, you can't quantify it in a simple explanation, and lawyers, law enforcement, judges (etc) know all this. Laws aren't water tight either, many contradict each other, or can be interpreted differently (which is why there's a supreme court, they dictate the wording and meaning of the laws).

Edit: I don't know how I got into defending the DHS or the checkpoints, as I said, I think the stops are ridiculous, and probably won't do anything worthwhile. But at this point, we're just going in circles. in the end, this video is just over-sensationalism at it's best.

Are the stops irritating to civilians in those areas (which are *very* limited, and not some wide spread epidemic as many seem to think it is)? Of course they are. Are they some form of "police state"? No, they're not (see examples above), they're localized stops, where the states have enacted laws allowing DHS / Law Enforcement to literally stop *anyone* they want and question them regarding citizenship.

last edit them I'm done, I swear
Where were all these kids and "freedom fighters" when the Patriot act was enacted, the illegal wiretaps, bugging and tracking of students and civilians happened? Oh.. that's right it was to "protect" us from the Terrorists. Everyone was OK with that....

That was my exact thought too.

>> ^Sagemind:

The purpose of stirring food as it cooks is not to make it go in circles but to separate the pieces of food and stop it from sticking.
With this, everything still sticks together but now it also spins as one big glob...

The purpose of stirring food as it cooks is not to make it go in circles but to separate the pieces of food and stop it from sticking.

With this, everything still sticks together but now it also spins as one big glob...

Idiots! One of them is trolling the rest of the herd into going in circles, but I can't spot him!

>> ^rottenseed:

"...centrifugal force; you never know where they're going." Sorry, the physics nerd in me has to point out that you'd know they're going in circles. You'd even know what size circle, velocity and position. Carry on.


I thought the same thing when I heard that, but then I tried to think what he might have meant by that and I came up with the following which made me feel better:

"Its like a centrifugal force" possibly refers to something like someone/something clinging to a spinning wheel/surface and you never know when or which direction they will go flying off in. Kinda like all those morons on merry-go-rounds powered by their mate's scooter.

EDIT: Also I realise that if you know all the factors involved such as friction, grip strength etc etc you can possibly predict even these things but let's assume you can't be sure when fatigue etc will set in or something like that

"...centrifugal force; you never know where they're going." Sorry, the physics nerd in me has to point out that you'd know they're going in circles. You'd even know what size circle, velocity and position. Carry on.

A skyscraper falling into its own footprint at freefall speed. If you can provide evidence of this happening that wasn't the result of controlled demolotion then you might have a valid point. Until then you are arguing from incredulity which we have already established is a fallacy.>> ^shponglefan:

No, the NIST report claims there is no blast sound within certain parameters (i.e. loud enough to indicate a charge capable of destroying a column). I've watched various videos of the WTC 7 collapse and the sounds in them, whether explosions or not, do not sound like any controlled demo blast.
So again, where's the evidence of a controlled demo? "Loud noises" isn't good enough.
>> ^Fade:
Ugh, this really is going in circles. The NIST report claims that there was no blast sound and that nobody heard it. True. However, that is factually incorrect. There is video evidence of blast sounds before the collapse as well as eyewitness testimony. NIST ignored it. That's why there is the belief that there is a conspiracy. Do try to keep up.

No, the NIST report claims there is no blast sound within certain parameters (i.e. loud enough to indicate a charge capable of destroying a column). I've watched various videos of the WTC 7 collapse and the sounds in them, whether explosions or not, do not sound like any controlled demo blast.

So again, where's the evidence of a controlled demo? "Loud noises" isn't good enough.

>> ^Fade:
Ugh, this really is going in circles. The NIST report claims that there was no blast sound and that nobody heard it. True. However, that is factually incorrect. There is video evidence of blast sounds before the collapse as well as eyewitness testimony. NIST ignored it. That's why there is the belief that there is a conspiracy. Do try to keep up.

Ugh, this really is going in circles. The NIST report claims that there was no blast sound and that nobody heard it. True. However, that is factually incorrect. There is video evidence of blast sounds before the collapse as well as eyewitness testimony. NIST ignored it. That's why there is the belief that there is a conspiracy. Do try to keep up.>> ^shponglefan:

Yes, it is an insane idea. I've already outlined the extremely complex logistics in bringing WTC 7 down as part of a secret plot on 9/11. Am I being incredulous? You betcha! You're suggesting a secret conspiracy with little more than flimsiest of "evidence"; so what do you expect?
For example, you say "Eye-witness testimony mentions explosions" . So what? There probably were some explosions. Many things can explode, especially in the presence of a large seven hour fire: fuel storage containers, electrical transformers, etc. Plus other loud noises like falling debris may be misconstrued for explosions. To jump from "people heard explosions" to "secret plot to wire up WTC 7 for a controlled demo" is leaping several football fields worth of logic.
If you want to go the more complicated route, you need evidence of why that route is a more probable explanation and why it supercedes the more obvious explanation: that a debris damaged building burned for seven hours and then collapsed due to structural failure.
And if we're going to start trading things to look up, now you can look up Occam's razor.
You may also want to re-read the NIST report on WTC 7. They specifically mention that there is no evidence of a "blast event" capable of destroying a singular column in WTC 7. They discuss that such an event would be extremely loud (130 to 140 dB) and be heard from at least a half mile away, and that there were no witness reports of such an event nor such audio heard in any recordings of the WTC 7 collapse.
>> ^Fade:
It's not an insane idea in the slightest. NIST wont release any of the data that they used to come to their conclusions and the computer models they have released don't map to the observable video evidence. Eye-witness testimony mentions explosions. So test for explosions. The complexity of setting up demolitions doesn't rule them out. Argument from incredulity is a fallacy. Look it up

My point is -- this sift blog is going in circles. Blankie and others are still complaining about Burd instabanning. I would love to move forward from Burd's angry action in the moment (instabanning) and start talking about what IS okay.

I have asked if where we are right now is fine with blankie -- a line drawn in the sand with bk33, that if bk33 CHOOSES to cross it again, he will be banned in the future.

I don't feel like we have agreement on that. As a community. Whenever I try to move forward, I read "oh, burd was terrible for instabanning."

I thought if we could leave that behind, we might make some headway on this racism issue and things could calm down. That folks wouldn't be afraid of being instabanned, because as a community we are saying that is not an option.

So. Folks who say instabanning is not okay now include bb2, blankie, campionidelmondo and netrunner.

Folks who say there needs to be some process whereby some standards are held by the Sift in action and not just on the FAQ page are burdturglar, netrunner and bb2.

Blankie's blog essentially asks -- what is a bannable offense? I am trying to work towards an answer to the question that blankie asked.

Perhaps I am wrong to do that? Somebody help me here. Have I stepped on toes, not knowing the difference between a blog and a sift talk?

I'm quite happy to back out of this.

Blankie? Do you want me to back out of this? I will, if you say so.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^blankfist:
And NR didn't speak negatively of the instaban that I can find.
>> ^NetRunner:
I don't think a permanent ban is warranted, but I do think comments like that should result in something more serious than a mere response in comments.
@bareboards2 I don't like instaban generally. I'd rather there always be some sort of process involved so that it's not a single individual getting to make a unilateral decision to permanently ban someone.
To @blankfist's larger point, I wouldn't be heartbroken if bobknight never came back. I would not volunteer myself as an impartial judge to preside over his case, either. What's your point? Are you suggesting we set up objective rules and a process to try to get the most impartial result possible?

@Darkhand you really should just shut up about the situation, you are going in circles.

@Payback I laughed, but I wont upvote it , I tried playing that game a couple months ago, just looses its lustre after you play the 3d game.