CRACK OPEN THE PICKLE JAR !

He's conflating a lot of stuff by the end of this.

Knowing "where the pickle barrel is" has not "always been the harder problem". In the fleet battles of the 18th century, they often had a very good idea where there opponents were for weeks or months. They knew where enemy shipyards were, just like the Allies in WWII knew where that chemical plant was - they just couldn't strike them effectively. Modern weaponry would have insta-won lots of historic conflicts as there would have been no problem finding stuff to blow up. It's not like Norden was trying to solve the wrong problem, he just didn't have the right solution.

Sometimes stuff doesn't work in the field - sometimes it does. There's interesting lessons there, but they're unrelated to the next thing he talks about, which is:

Sometimes you can't use your great tech effectively. They can hide the SCUDs. The Taliban is not going to all get together like a Napoleonic army or try to make a big Hannibal pincer. They make themselves harder to be found.

But that doesn't mean the weapon is ineffective - it's very effective, it limits your opponents possible tactics. And those limited tactics are one reason why direct American casualties are so low in modern wars - the enemy can't ever really show in force, and thus only has a limited set of tactics available.

Sometimes your equipment or strategy is going to directly work, sometimes it's going to work less directly. Every action you take could provide a reaction, and sometimes those could be very bad. Hunting with drones might create a terror attack across the world. There's interesting ideas there, but again you can't just conflate it all together as "technology and war... something something... Norden bombsight".

And it certainly doesn't reason into: War is often a bad idea. Obviously that's true, but it doesn't follow from the story. Sure, sometimes having good tech can make war seem more attractive than it would if we had less tech. You get the illusion of clean war.

Interesting. But the fact that the above is true - that Americans can kill thousands of dirty foreigners while suffering few casualties - is kind of the opposite lesson from the Norden bombsight. If the Americans had a bunch of "Norden bombsight" style ineffective weapons, they wouldn't have nearly the success they do in slaughtering people who were born in the wrong place and maybe the US would end up in less wars.

So maybe that's the lesson? It's better to have complex, works-in-the-lab-only tech, because otherwise it'll be too easy to kill people? Or something?

Anyways, the base story is interesting - his attempts to supply the moral at the end are much less so.

The interaction between tech and war goes lots of different ways, and I'd say sometimes the "Norden"s of the world are right and their war technology does reduce aggregate suffering. For example, I think it's at least arguable that the tech race prevented the Cold War from ending in a total war scenario that would have killed millions. (Note: if you plan on telling me that I'm crazy and the Cold War was all some kind of fraud or illusion or power consolidation for the elite or that Russia was never a threat or whatever, don't feel bad if I don't bother to answer - it's probably because I'm intimidated by the great arguments you made.)

>> ^nanrod:

OK let's check the list.
Polish the pope
Spank the monkey
Choke the chicken
Bash the bird
Beat the meat
Jerkin the Gherkin
Tickle the pickle
Burp the worm
Charm the snake
Nope that's a new one.....adds Pets the Tortoise to list


Double-click your own mouse

Oh wait, that's for females. One finger for Mac users and 2+ for Windows.

OK let's check the list.

Polish the pope
Spank the monkey
Choke the chicken
Bash the bird
Beat the meat
Jerkin the Gherkin
Tickle the pickle
Burp the worm
Charm the snake

Nope that's a new one.....adds Pets the Tortoise to list

Congrats on making silver, Mr Pickle.

It's not about the downvote, it is simply about the dishonesty in saying that he is somehow being impartial with me. What further test do I need beyond the public displays of affection? As far as what I should or shouldn't be doing here, you have plenty of people providing the duck baby videos you intelligent and well educated people are clamouring for. If I ever get a star I am sure it will be by accident, and that is just fine with me.

>> ^shuac:
>> ^shinyblurry:
You're on record for saying you don't like me, anything I have to say, and you think everything I submit is garbage..you've said it again in this video..or the fact that 95 percent of videos I've submitted here have an HPQP downvote, or that you've openly stated that I should be publically ridiculed and ignored. I think that's evidence for a bias. Are you this openly hostile and unsupportive to any other member? I very much doubt it. If you want to tag along, I really don't care..I just think your behavior is extremely petty and juvenile.
>> ^hpqp:
So I say you're right and this is how you thank me?
I've told @marinara and I'll tell you: I downvote videos whose content and/or form I do not like, and the religion channel is my favourite haunt (i.e. I watch all the vids posted therein). It just so happens that your posts are always in that channel, and practically always atrocious.
But if it rubs your ego the right why to think I stalk you, feel free, (but beware or my VS sweetheart @Yogi -bear might become jealous).
>> ^shinyblurry:
Sniping at me from the peanut gallery yet again, are you? Please come down from the balcony, Waldorf. Instead of stalking me and downvoting all of my videos, perhaps you could actually contribute something for once.
>> ^hpqp:
You're wasting your time @Skeeve, you'll get more out of arguing with a pile of sun-bleached dog poo than with the poster of this video... but you probably know that already.
@enoch I'm afraid shiny's right about original sin: Jeebs' whole skit is completely meaningless without it.




Now, now shiny-hiney: hpqp never said he didn't like you (in this thread) so please be accurate. Do not claim things that are demonstrably false. That's what got the intelligent design folks in such a pickle.
I also think your videos are garbage but I don't downvote them, usually. I don't downvote hardly anything except those horrid Hitler Downfall parody videos: I have a strong bias against them (much to the dismay of my fellow sifters) because I think they are bereft of wit and humor.
People are free to downvote anything they like, so long as they have a bronze star or higher. Now if you ever deigned to take my advice and post a baby ducks video or the odd sleepy puppy video now and again, you'll eventually get a bronze star too and gain the ability to downvote...which I encourage you to do. But you'll never get there insisting on taking the role of Reverend Shiny preaching some bronze-age, self-righteous piddle to a group as intelligent and well-educated as us. <IMG class=smiley src="http://cdn.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/teeth.gif">
I'll bet if you made an attempt to sift baby ducks or sleepy puppies, we could test whether hpqp was genuinely biased but the way you're going...how can we? See the dilemma?
In short: Mix it up, son.

>> ^shinyblurry:

You're on record for saying you don't like me, anything I have to say, and you think everything I submit is garbage..you've said it again in this video..or the fact that 95 percent of videos I've submitted here have an HPQP downvote, or that you've openly stated that I should be publically ridiculed and ignored. I think that's evidence for a bias. Are you this openly hostile and unsupportive to any other member? I very much doubt it. If you want to tag along, I really don't care..I just think your behavior is extremely petty and juvenile.
>> ^hpqp:
So I say you're right and this is how you thank me?
I've told @marinara and I'll tell you: I downvote videos whose content and/or form I do not like, and the religion channel is my favourite haunt (i.e. I watch all the vids posted therein). It just so happens that your posts are always in that channel, and practically always atrocious.
But if it rubs your ego the right why to think I stalk you, feel free, (but beware or my VS sweetheart @Yogi -bear might become jealous).
>> ^shinyblurry:
Sniping at me from the peanut gallery yet again, are you? Please come down from the balcony, Waldorf. Instead of stalking me and downvoting all of my videos, perhaps you could actually contribute something for once.
>> ^hpqp:
You're wasting your time @Skeeve, you'll get more out of arguing with a pile of sun-bleached dog poo than with the poster of this video... but you probably know that already.
@enoch I'm afraid shiny's right about original sin: Jeebs' whole skit is completely meaningless without it.





Now, now shiny-hiney: hpqp never said he didn't like you (in this thread) so please be accurate. Do not claim things that are demonstrably false. That's what got the intelligent design folks in such a pickle.

I also think your videos are garbage but I don't downvote them, usually. I don't downvote hardly anything except those horrid Hitler Downfall parody videos: I have a strong bias against them (much to the dismay of my fellow sifters) because I think they are bereft of wit and humor.

People are free to downvote anything they like, so long as they have a bronze star or higher. Now if you ever deigned to take my advice and post a baby ducks video or the odd sleepy puppy video now and again, you'll eventually get a bronze star too and gain the ability to downvote...which I encourage you to do. But you'll never get there insisting on taking the role of Reverend Shiny preaching some bronze-age, self-righteous piddle to a group as intelligent and well-educated as us.

I'll bet if you made an attempt to sift baby ducks or sleepy puppies, we could test whether hpqp was genuinely biased but the way you're going...how can we? See the dilemma?

In short: Mix it up, son.

>> ^Morganth:

Cute, though does this violate HIPPA?
On one hand, she just revealed private medical information about him on national television. On the other hand, you probably sign something before going onto court tv about all submitted evidence becoming publicly available.
I'll bet something like that is a tricky legal pickle.


Naw, I deal with FERPA and HIPPA all the time and in this case it is pretty likely that he signed a release basically saying that any documents brought on the show could be read out. She didn't go into a file against his will, he brought his files to a TV show with no legal standing to be read out loud if she so chose.

Cute, though does this violate HIPPA?

On one hand, she just revealed private medical information about him on national television. On the other hand, you probably sign something before going onto court tv about all submitted evidence becoming publicly available.

I'll bet something like that is a tricky legal pickle.

>> ^DrewNumberTwo:

He walked down the street legally with an item that he was legally allowed to walk down the street with. We don't know why Jeremy was walking around with his gun, and it doesn't matter. If you would like to walk around with a jar of cat piss, why would I give a fuck?


i couldnt tell you why you should "give a fuck" if i walk around with a jar of cat piss because there isnt any real reason you should "give a fuck". im not arguing that at all. what i am rebutting is this idea that any ridicule of this mans behavior, while it may be well within his rights, is objectionable on the sole premise that "because he fucking can".

imagine you see me walking down the street legally with a legal jar of cat piss. you dont know why i am walking around with a jar of cat piss and it doesnt matter. if i would like to walk around with a jar of cat piss, why should you give a fuck? but if you think im weird for it, youre a paranoid idiot.....now does that make any more sense than chiding me, or anyone else, for very reasonably thinking "jeremy" a douche pickle sandwich, given the context of the situation.

i dont really give a fuck that he was lawfully open carrying. but given the situation that unfolded and how he unnecessarily reacted to it, i am inclined to think he is a douche captain who had no real motive to open carry other than to instigate an awkward scene with the police with the hopes that he may capture video evidence of police brutality that he instigated in the first place to prove a retarded point

for all i care he can continue to act in this way as is his right. doesnt mean im not gonna stop calling him a douche for it though

"Pickle and honeypuff"... that's some *quality Takei right there.

Not a great fix unfortunately, but it was all I could find! The punchline is "so the queen goes, is it a black man's cock" and then gets himself into the usual pickle when the black guy turns up next to him and wants in on the joke. Awkward as ever!

Speaking of Mexican food... if you're ever in the Bay Area check out El Farolito's nachos: http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQKawJNdeUpdZq9Qa4W8h7W15lgAeH6gujt8-_vTvar0wK7QB34-A

they are an amazing heart attack of $5.75 goodness.

Or even the Carne Asada super quesadilla (ask for pickled jalapenos)
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-2Vq2Z9nm4Ew/Tb4-bKur24I/AAAAAAAAJ6g/7nzlxtiKwm0/s1600/SF_April_ElFarolito_+010_SFP5.jpg

And yes this girl really gets my nerves - she is like the female (butch) version of Buzz from Toy Story except not as real. Ouch!

I almost thought she was going to be cool this time since she was going to be making tacos... SOFT... tacos... (here's another food porn pic - real tacos http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_4alP-GsbfSI/TL0sRpg35TI/AAAAAAAAAzc/pvSxI9FZLzI/s1600/Taco+at+El+Farolito.JPG)

>> ^dgandhi:

>> ^shinyblurry:
Did you know that Cyrus freeing of the slaves confirms the bible is true?

[sarcasm]
[PROPHESY] I'm going to eat pickles while writing this post [/PROPHESY]
Clearly, since text can not be edited, all text which precedes a statement must, of necessity, predate it. Therefore if a claim is made in a text, and then said to be fulfilled in the same text, the author must be a true profit.
[/sarcasm]
>> ^shinyblurry:
Titus Flavius Josephus. The same historian who confirms that Jesus was a historical figure and affirms His life death and resurrection.

Josephus's testimony is widely considered forged, and few, excepting christian ideologues, claim that it has not been at least altered. The older Arabic translation does not contain a profession of faith, just an account of the claims of the followers, and saying that christians exist, is not the same as saying that they have their facts straight.
Josephus, of course, is not the only source on Cyrus, he ruled a fucking empire, he was not some two bit sheep herd. Yet you avoid the issue, you made a claim, Cyrus refutes it.
>> ^shinyblurry:
This agrees with modern historians, almost none of which make the ridiculous claim that Jesus never existed.

Some do make this "ridiculous" claim, and those who are left still have not provided the slightest shred of evidence that someone of that name did anything like what is stated in the gospels.
There is no historical reason to believe that such a person did exist, and the gospels are so glaringly contradictory that the authors clearly cared nothing about historical accuracy. Absent any historical authority in the gospels, or the forgeries, there is just as much chance that some guy named meatloaf was tearing around Galilee on his motorcycle at or around 30CE, but I don't believe it.
P.S. I ate pickles

+1 for the pickles...

I had Antelope.

>> ^shinyblurry:
Did you know that Cyrus freeing of the slaves confirms the bible is true?


[sarcasm]
[PROPHESY] I'm going to eat pickles while writing this post [/PROPHESY]

Clearly, since text can not be edited, all text which precedes a statement must, of necessity, predate it. Therefore if a claim is made in a text, and then said to be fulfilled in the same text, the author must be a true profit.
[/sarcasm]

>> ^shinyblurry:
Titus Flavius Josephus. The same historian who confirms that Jesus was a historical figure and affirms His life death and resurrection.


Josephus's testimony is widely considered forged, and few, excepting christian ideologues, claim that it has not been at least altered. The older Arabic translation does not contain a profession of faith, just an account of the claims of the followers, and saying that christians exist, is not the same as saying that they have their facts straight.

Josephus, of course, is not the only source on Cyrus, he ruled a fucking empire, he was not some two bit sheep herd. Yet you avoid the issue, you made a claim, Cyrus refutes it.

>> ^shinyblurry:

This agrees with modern historians, almost none of which make the ridiculous claim that Jesus never existed.


Some do make this "ridiculous" claim, and those who are left still have not provided the slightest shred of evidence that someone of that name did anything like what is stated in the gospels.

There is no historical reason to believe that such a person did exist, and the gospels are so glaringly contradictory that the authors clearly cared nothing about historical accuracy. Absent any historical authority in the gospels, or the forgeries, there is just as much chance that some guy named meatloaf was tearing around Galilee on his motorcycle at or around 30CE, but I don't believe it.

P.S. I ate pickles