OK, so here's the thing:
- Taily wags when your excited, not when you're happy: it reacts to heart rate.
- That's not a flying lawnmower, that's a remote control single-wing model aircraft built to look like a lawnmower. There's a propeller on the front. It cannot cut grass.
- Babywings - ok, call it a straightjacket if you must, but haven't you all heard of swaddling clothes? Like from Jesus in a manger type stories? Yep, swaddling clothes involve tightly wrapping a baby in fabric to restrict their arm movements. Why? Because their poor motor control / skills mean that their arms flail uncontrollably and unsettle the child. Having them wrapped up allows them to relax, and to rest. Yes, this practice has been around for thousands of years.
- That vehicle is parrot *operated*, not parrot powered.
- Binocular soccer was a one-off stunt for a Japanese gameshow, it's not a real thing.

We have a "post-privacy" movement in Germany (I'm sure this exists in other countries, too).
They stand for full identification in any interaction on the web.
here is a statement from the CCC which sums up their case pretty accurately.

I don't like it.
>> ^dag:

Is there a movement to accountabilise the web? I sure haven't seen much evidence of it. Most places I visit - it's pretty much anything goes.
I don't think it's just honesty and dumbfuckery. It's more about what the article describes, the feeling that "it's just a game" and a fantasy outlet for expressing sublimated rage, sadness etc in a "safe" way (without a chance of retribution).
I agree with @ReverendTed that scaling moderation by members is the way to handle lots and lots of comments.
>> ^gorillaman:
There wouldn't be any reason to visit videosift without the comments.
The reason you see so much dumbfuckery online is people are able to be more open about who they are, and most people, at their core, are dumb fucks. So deal with it; it's better than living your life in a straightjacket of manners and convention.
I despise this movement to 'accountabilitise' the web. It comes from those who enjoy their social power too much and want to tighten their grip over the few remaining sanctuaries of free expression. I'm not talking about big evil governments; I'm talking about the control of people who are able to punish your dissent in ways like not inviting you to a wedding or blocking a promotion. If we're able to have open, honest interactions without fear then their power dissipates.
RL conversations should be more like web conversations; honesty is valuable and bullshit taboos and rituals are not.
If this puts me in the vocal minority, then I am glad.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Is there a movement to accountabilise the web? I sure haven't seen much evidence of it. Most places I visit - it's pretty much anything goes.

I don't think it's just honesty and dumbfuckery. It's more about what the article describes, the feeling that "it's just a game" and a fantasy outlet for expressing sublimated rage, sadness etc in a "safe" way (without a chance of retribution).

I agree with @ReverendTed that scaling moderation by members is the way to handle lots and lots of comments.
>> ^gorillaman:

There wouldn't be any reason to visit videosift without the comments.
The reason you see so much dumbfuckery online is people are able to be more open about who they are, and most people, at their core, are dumb fucks. So deal with it; it's better than living your life in a straightjacket of manners and convention.
I despise this movement to 'accountabilitise' the web. It comes from those who enjoy their social power too much and want to tighten their grip over the few remaining sanctuaries of free expression. I'm not talking about big evil governments; I'm talking about the control of people who are able to punish your dissent in ways like not inviting you to a wedding or blocking a promotion. If we're able to have open, honest interactions without fear then their power dissipates.
RL conversations should be more like web conversations; honesty is valuable and bullshit taboos and rituals are not.
If this puts me in the vocal minority, then I am glad.

There wouldn't be any reason to visit videosift without the comments.

The reason you see so much dumbfuckery online is people are able to be more open about who they are, and most people, at their core, are dumb fucks. So deal with it; it's better than living your life in a straightjacket of manners and convention.

I despise this movement to 'accountabilitise' the web. It comes from those who enjoy their social power too much and want to tighten their grip over the few remaining sanctuaries of free expression. I'm not talking about big evil governments; I'm talking about the control of people who are able to punish your dissent in ways like not inviting you to a wedding or blocking a promotion. If we're able to have open, honest interactions without fear then their power dissipates.

RL conversations should be more like web conversations; honesty is valuable and bullshit taboos and rituals are not.

If this puts me in the vocal minority, then I am glad.

Hrm, interesting since I am drunk... But you said, "Also too," which makes all that you wrote moot! Ha, also can mean "too!" I win!

All jokes aside...the constitution, as I said, is understood backwards by Paul. If it isn't wrote, the government has the ability to do (At least the State.)

Universal healthcare is legal, not because of the commerce clause...but because it is.

>> ^NetRunner:

@heropsycho ahh, but you do need to be careful with the whole "enumerated powers" malarkey. After all, there's nothing in Article I, Section 8 about Congress being able to create an Air Force -- just an Army and a Navy. The Air Force is unconstitutional.
Also too, it doesn't say the government is allowed to build roads, just "Post roads" for the post office's use! Don't even get us started on things like power lines or telephone cable.
According to the likes of Ron Paul, the Constitution isn't open to even a little bit of reinterpretation, but instead that it's a straightjacket that should constrain the Federal government from doing anything that isn't explicitly listed in Section 8.
Hell, he's even implied that since the Constitution uses the verb "coin" to describe Congress's authority to create money, that paper currency (backed by gold or otherwise) is also unconstitutional.
IMO, I'd be fine with that interpretation, as long as people stopped pretending that the constitution was some holy scripture filled with infinite wisdom passed down to us by messiahs. We should be rewriting and re-ratifying the Constitution to fit with our modern ideals of how things should function.
For example, there should be something in the constitution about the nexus of money and politics, but there isn't.
There should be something more about the legal definition of "people" -- do fetuses or corporations count?
There should be something in there about the Air Force, and the Marines too, for good measure.
Do we have a right to privacy, or don't we?
Right now we mostly let the Supreme Court decide these things by letting them "interpret" a 200 year-old document based on their supposed ability to divine the mental state of the long-dead authors of the sections they feel are relevant.
Why shouldn't those questions be put to a vote?

For the record, I'm not a strict constructionist. However, I do recognize the danger of looser interpretations, even though I'm politically moderate person. I don't have a good answer for example about the Civil Rights Act of 1964, because that law was sorely needed, but it sure does open Pandora's box about what the gov't can and can't regulate. Regulation of interstate commerce allowed for things like environmental regulation, the formation of the EPA, etc. But it sure can cause the gov't to regulate things it shouldn't, too.

The formation of an Air Force though is an easier argument constitutionally, and it's a useful thing to review because it illustrates the thought process of the Supreme Court. When something isn't outright said in Article I, Section 8, those powers in combination with interpretting other sections such as the Preamble ("provide for the common defense..."), or sometimes other documents the forefathers wrote such as the Federalist Papers, the Declaration of Independence, etc., provide ideas about their intent. It's clearly implied that since they could form an Army and Navy for defense, once flight was possible, it's implied we need an Air Force.

As to the things below you're saying should be put to a vote, they are, but not directly by the people. That's how the Amendment process works. Should it be a direct vote by the people? In my opinion, that would be a horrible idea. The people simply for the most part do not understand the ramifications of amending the Constitution.

>> ^NetRunner:

@heropsycho ahh, but you do need to be careful with the whole "enumerated powers" malarkey. After all, there's nothing in Article I, Section 8 about Congress being able to create an Air Force -- just an Army and a Navy. The Air Force is unconstitutional.
Also too, it doesn't say the government is allowed to build roads, just "Post roads" for the post office's use! Don't even get us started on things like power lines or telephone cable.
According to the likes of Ron Paul, the Constitution isn't open to even a little bit of reinterpretation, but instead that it's a straightjacket that should constrain the Federal government from doing anything that isn't explicitly listed in Section 8.
Hell, he's even implied that since the Constitution uses the verb "coin" to describe Congress's authority to create money, that paper currency (backed by gold or otherwise) is also unconstitutional.
IMO, I'd be fine with that interpretation, as long as people stopped pretending that the constitution was some holy scripture filled with infinite wisdom passed down to us by messiahs. We should be rewriting and re-ratifying the Constitution to fit with our modern ideals of how things should function.
For example, there should be something in the constitution about the nexus of money and politics, but there isn't.
There should be something more about the legal definition of "people" -- do fetuses or corporations count?
There should be something in there about the Air Force, and the Marines too, for good measure.
Do we have a right to privacy, or don't we?
Right now we mostly let the Supreme Court decide these things by letting them "interpret" a 200 year-old document based on their supposed ability to divine the mental state of the long-dead authors of the sections they feel are relevant.
Why shouldn't those questions be put to a vote?

@heropsycho ahh, but you do need to be careful with the whole "enumerated powers" malarkey. After all, there's nothing in Article I, Section 8 about Congress being able to create an Air Force -- just an Army and a Navy. The Air Force is unconstitutional.

Also too, it doesn't say the government is allowed to build roads, just "Post roads" for the post office's use! Don't even get us started on things like power lines or telephone cable.

According to the likes of Ron Paul, the Constitution isn't open to even a little bit of reinterpretation, but instead that it's a straightjacket that should constrain the Federal government from doing anything that isn't explicitly listed in Section 8.

Hell, he's even implied that since the Constitution uses the verb "coin" to describe Congress's authority to create money, that paper currency (backed by gold or otherwise) is also unconstitutional.

IMO, I'd be fine with that interpretation, as long as people stopped pretending that the constitution was some holy scripture filled with infinite wisdom passed down to us by messiahs. We should be rewriting and re-ratifying the Constitution to fit with our modern ideals of how things should function.

For example, there should be something in the constitution about the nexus of money and politics, but there isn't.

There should be something more about the legal definition of "people" -- do fetuses or corporations count?

There should be something in there about the Air Force, and the Marines too, for good measure.

Do we have a right to privacy, or don't we?

Right now we mostly let the Supreme Court decide these things by letting them "interpret" a 200 year-old document based on their supposed ability to divine the mental state of the long-dead authors of the sections they feel are relevant.

Why shouldn't those questions be put to a vote?

The girl with the straightjacket is Ophelia,This video and song is based in the character Ophelia from Hamlet Shakespeare ,Ophelia character goes insane because she could not be with her only love.

why is the girl in a straightjacket and all sad and stuff, the melody aint that sad.

i even looked up the lyrics
http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/Ophelia-lyrics-Natalie-Merchant/9C39433E9731E2D948256926002A4226

WOODY ALLEN: That's quite a lovely Jackson Pollock, isn't it?

GIRL IN MUSEUM: Yes it is.

WOODY ALLEN: What does it say to you?

GIRL IN MUSEUM: It restates the negativeness of the universe, the hideous lonely emptiness of existence, nothingness, the predicament of man forced to live in a barren, godless eternity, like a tiny flame flickering in an immense void, with nothing but waste, horror, and degradation, forming a useless bleak straightjacket in a black absurd cosmos.

WOODY ALLEN: What are you doing Saturday night?

GIRL IN MUSEUM: Committing suicide.

WOODY ALLEN: What about Friday night?

GIRL IN MUSEUM: [leaves silently]

"Play It Again, Sam", Paramount Pictures, 1972

Gee thanks kittty..
Being here has shown me that the world of idgits continues to breed more of the same, this microcosm here on the sift proof that most are still not ready to create our own individual spaces in the world with a view to erasure of the arcane paradigm so many love to wallow in....The consequences too damaging to already damaged egos, ids and assholes.....What are you afraid of..Aliens?

GREYFACE
-Principia Discordia


In the year 1166 B.C., a malcontented hunchbrain by the name of Greyface, got it into his head that the universe was as humorless as he, and he began to teach that play was sinful because it contradicted the ways of Serious Order. "Look at all the order around you," he said. And from that, he deluded honest men to believe that reality was a straightjacket affair and not the happy romance as men had known it.

It is not presently understood why men were so gullible at that particular time, for absolutely no one thought to observe all the disorder around them and conclude just the opposite. But anyway, Greyface and his followers took the game of playing at life more seriously than they took life itself and were known even to destroy other living beings whose ways of life differed from their own.

The unfortunate result of this is that mankind has since been suffering from a psychological and spiritual imbalance. Imbalance causes frustration, and frustration causes fear. And fear makes for a bad trip. Man has been on a bad trip for a long time now.

It is called THE CURSE OF GREYFACE.

Bullshit makes
the flowers grow
& that's beautiful.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'lessons, twist, los straightjackets, italia' to 'lessons, twist, los straightjackets, italia, 50s' - edited by swampgirl

Los Straightjackets hired these gals to dance for them at shows....lotsa viddies with these gals.....