"Transparency is in the eye of the beholder."

It's scary that he would say that, because it's blatant double-speak from empowered people who are supposed to protect us. We should be more scared that the media representatives who were present didn't collectively take him to task on it. We should be even more scared that democratically elected representatives give their passive consent.

Who watches the watchmen?

Here's an example of a project we'd have 2-weeks to finish:

A Space for 2 people to live out their life-cycle together.
Site: Desert (Southwest US)
Requirements:
- mass-based passive heating/cooling w/ profound southern views
- brise-soleil with morning privacy
- compost privy as hearth of house


about 3 years of projects like this, fast-fast-fast, with our Senior Thesis being a year-long self-initiated/directed exercise. Fluidity and broad gestures were rewarded...but not as we were discover in the "real world".

Me, too. There are technologies available and the will is present in the Architecture community to have active systems passively fueled. Just look at the Arab Institute in Paris, where the opening & closing window screen diaphragms are completely powered by the gas/air-tank heated by the Sun:



horrible vid, I know...I'll look for a better one...and perhaps many other examples as well.

Good point. I admit I'm mostly quoting The Economist's recent article on it, since I haven't compared them myself:

"Meanwhile, fees as a percentage of assets under management have dropped from 0.68% in 1983 to 0.12% today (see chart). This compares with an industry average of 0.61% (or 0.77%, when excluding Vanguard itself). Fees on its passive products, at 0.08% a year, are less than half the average for the industry of 0.18%. Its actively managed products are even more keenly priced, at 0.17% compared with an average of 0.78%."

http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21700401-vanguard-has-radically-changed-money-management-being-boring-and-cheap-index-we

Also: http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21700390-rise-low-cost-managers-vanguard-should-be-celebrated-slow-motion-revolution

Totally agree with you on diversifying across index funds (as safe as fund managers are in theory compared to other financial institutions, I would never assume any financial company is 'safe') and of course staying under $250K FDIC insurance level.

so i am sitting here drinking my coffee reading this thread and i have to say...

depressing.

so many wonderful people that i admire and respect getting twisted about?

words.

not the intent,nor over-all context..but words.

i can see where @newtboy is coming from,and what he is laying down is pretty non-controversial.i also see what @bareboards2 is laying down,and is not really in opposition to what newt is talking about.

both ideologies can reside in the same context and not be in conflict.in fact they compliment each other and ....and maybe i am reading their positions wrong..they actually agree on the fundamentals.

@bareboards2 actually addressed this by pointing out that "tone" can be misinterpreted.(good for you BB) and really the exchange between newt and BB was about their own self-identification.

yet this entire thread is almost exclusively focusing on words,and the gravitas and weight given to those words by the individual,which is subjective.

i feel newts pain.
i had a run where i was posting videos exposing hyper-militant third wave feminists and how they were using the justice system to punish those who disagreed with them,and every self-identified feminist came out of the wood work to declare their disappointment in me and defend the very thing they identified with.

what confused me was why people would even attempt to defend that absolute cluster fuck of abuse as somehow even being remotely to do with actual feminism.until i realized that many hadn't even watched the video or read the articles .so they were not defending those third wave feminists that had abused a justice system but rather defending a term that they self-identified as.

after long (and i mean long ..@Payback is still in therapy) back and forths between myself and fellow sifters.when i FINALLY got them to address the specific situation,not one...not ONE sifter..felt morally obligated to defend those feminists actions.

why?
because taken on its singular merits,those feminists were fucking wrong.

then why all the defensive posturing?
why the passive aggressive swipes at me?
and the exhaustive back and forths just to get self-identified feminists to at least admit that those particular feminists had abused their position to punish a man for simply disagreeing.

because they were defending feminism in general.
because they self-identified as feminists and failed to see the situation as it was and jumped to defend a WORD that they happened to identify with.

as a whole we can,as a society hold onto philosophies that are not mutually exclusive.
so you can be a feminist and a humanist.
or a humanist and an MRA advocate.

@bareboards2 may be a feminist but i know that if she witnessed me being harassed and discriminated against she would jump to my defense,as would @newtboy.

there are people who identify as something and yet can still be major dickweeds.so what they self-identify as does not automatically give them a pass.

so dont get so caught up in identity politics my friends.
they are just words after all.
just listen to the person talking,they will reveal if they are a total tool soon enough.how they self-identify is irrelevant.

I have only been restating my opinion slightly differently to correct those who MISREAD my posts for the last day....like you

Yup, when everyone else in the thread disagrees with what you are saying, or how you are saying it, or the other things you're doing, it's obviously everyone else that has the problem... =)

No, I'm more worried about what the movement actually does, and feminism only works for women's equality.

Wow, talk about painting the world in broad strokes. I guess all Catholics are pedo's too?

You people were all triggered and apparently can't read because of your anger.

*giggle* Yup, it's everyone else. Not you.

PS: The bold (by which I think you mean the capitalized) was not PASSIVE aggressive, the edit was.

No, the bold that I put bold html tags around so it showed up as bold...

And I'm the one that apparently has reading problems. X D

I'm just done with this constant sniping by people who can't or won't read. Bye.

Don't let your ego hit you in the ass on the way out the door. /waves!

ps. You have far more in common with the 3rd wave feminazi's than you would like to think.

Edit: pps. Downvote me more baby, just shows you for the petty little sook that you are. ; )

Then perhaps you need a reading comprehension class. I have never even IMPLIED that others should follow my lead EDIT: UNLESS THEY ARE LIKE MINDED. I have, in fact, repeatedly said this is ONLY MY OPINION, NOT INSTRUCTIONS. I have not tried to "talk her out of" anything. I have repeated that 'others may think differently' ad nauseam.
I have only been restating my opinion slightly differently to correct those who MISREAD my posts for the last day....like you. You can't grasp that someone might have an opinion that different, but is NOT telling you or others to think the same way? That's on you.

YES IN MY OPINION. DUH. You can disagree all you like, but don't say I told you to follow, don't say I told you you're wrong to belong, don't say I tried to shame you. I did no such thing.

No, I'm more worried about what the movement actually does, and feminism only works for women's equality. If they also worked for male equality, I wouldn't care so much that the name is 'misleading'....IN MY OPINION. Since they don't work towards men's equality as well, it's apt....and it's not for me....it's also clearly only working for women's rights, not for total equality for all, contrary to many unsupported claims.

Go back to 8th grade and take reading comprehension.
I did not say or imply that 'only those like minded can understand', but 'only those like minded are being discussed'.
I'm just done with this constant sniping by people who can't or won't read. Bye.

You people were all triggered and apparently can't read because of your anger. Before you reply in kind, I scored in the 99th percentile in reading comprehension....how did you score?

PS: The bold (by which I think you mean the capitalized) was not PASSIVE aggressive, the edit was.

I re-read my post, all I said was that you were doing pretty much what Bareboards predicted, ie:

"Is this going to be one of these long back-and-forths, where you try to talk me out of something? I really don't want to go there. It's exhausting. "

We are all well aware of your opinion. And as I said, you have gone well past the point of discussion and now you're just repeating the same opinion over and over again as if reading it for the umpteenth time is going to peel back scales from our eyes...

I'll quote you earlier:

I'm stating that the word "feminist" as a word is not descriptive of a movement that works for "equality", it's descriptive of a movement that puts women first.

Some of those of us that have worked for equality of the sexes for decades are somewhat insulted by that misnomer, and very insulted by those that use the name "feminist" to describe man haters (that means both the man haters themselves and those that call all feminists man haters).

A misnomer in your opinion. We heard you the first time, I'd guess almost everyone understood you the first time. Some of us just don't agree with you, and a certain member has already politely asked you not to do exactly what you're doing. You're so worried about what name is attached to the movement to accord everyone equal rights that you forgot common courtesy? \= |

ps. I particularly enjoyed the passive aggressive snipe in bold below. Only like minded people really understand you and those that disagree are obviously misunderstanding (otherwise they'd totally agree right???). You'll just have to live with the concept that the sift is not a trigger-free-safe-space-echo-chamber. ; )

I joined Videosift and an ex-friend who I didn't bother freaked out. If he wants to be passive aggressive and claim he is leaving, fine, he won't. All he craves is the attention your giving him now. Narcassists usually roll that way.

I would say that the poisonous ones are passive killers rather than active, making them akin to every teenager out there.

“Passively accepting these beliefs, carnists take pride in eating “cage- free” eggs, hams from “free” pigs, cheese from the milk belonging to “humanely raised” cow’s calves, and legs from “free” dead chickens. These consumers have become washed into believing that a little improvement in egg, meat, and dairy production has stopped the harm. They settle for the slight inconvenience of choosing and paying for a different box of eggs or a non-factory-farmed slab of meat. They believe in happy death, happy meat fantasies, and thus find escape from doing what is really needed. They avoid true and effective personal change.”-Will Anderson

I disagree with your take on two counts.

First and foremost, just because somebody else is wrong or being a jerk does NOT automatically make the proper response being an equal or bigger jerk. Even when dealing with police officers. Yes, we expect officers are supposed to be the ones taking the higher road, but lets not just automatically lower the bar for everyone else. Lets encourage the civil part of civil society.

The second point is the presumption that an officer responding to complaints from people is somehow wrong. We have laws in place to balance the rights between all of us. In this case people have the right to walk on the sidewalk without watching to be run over by bikers, and bikers have the right to ride on the sidewalk at no more than 3mph(a very slow walk). If an officer gets complaints from folks about the bikers, he's not being a jerk to go over and check things out. It is, in fact, his job. The people complaining have the same rights as the guys on their bikes and it's the nuance of our laws that dictate who's in the right. In this case it certainly appears that those who complained to the officer where within their rights to do so because it's pretty certain the bikers weren't dropping onto the sidewalk from above at less than 3mph. The bikers were technically within their rights to point out to the officer that merely riding their bikes there was also legal. For the officer's part it looks like he started off with the actual impression that biking on sidewalks was not allowed, but backed off when the biker convinced him it was. In fact, the biker convinced him so much the officer FAILED to properly enforce the bylaw by insisting the bikers slow down. At this point, the complainers rights were stepped on by the officer being too passive and the bikers were left to ride faster than the bylaw states they should.

They didn't put the skimmer on to skim their own credit cards.

I always find myself passively inspecting devices I put my card through for this kind of thing. I didn't realize they could be so undetectable, or so it would seem.

If you are going to quote him, me thinks you should say 'your comments' instead of "his comments" or it just seems passive aggressive. But that's just how it sounds to me.

We have high school students sending cameras into space. Testing the air at 30k would cost < $500/balloon. If all of the chemtrail theorists put in $100, they could EASILY afford to acquire the 'proof' they needed.
1) Decide what chemicals you want to test for
2) Select a way to test for those chemicals in the air. (active vs passive?)
3) When "Chemtrail" spotted, send up 50+ Weather Balloons in vicinity w/ chemical tester across range... 1 per half mile = 25 mile spread. (it takes 30 mins to climb to 30k feet)
4) Retrieve devices.
5) If no chemicals were found, either:
A) Dispersal of the chemical via chemtrail is terribly inefficient, absolutely no reason to worry
B) No chemicals were found

OR... and here is the brilliant part. Monitor chemicals on the ground. If they are in high enough concentration to have an effect on the human body, they'll be high enough to detect on the ground.

Testing that contrails are nothing but H20 would require a high-altitude drone or just charter a flight. It isn't that difficult to test, but the chemtrails theorists wouldn't trust a non-chemtrails theorist (otherwise they'd be over it for now).