>> ^Contagion21:

It actually seems way more real. I'd prefer to watch the interviews this way all the time if I could.


Well hell yeah??!...But then when would you watch the Tide and Lexus commercials??

If you feel so strongly about it, stop paying your taxes ala' Thoreau's Walden. Thoreau went to jail because he didn't pay his taxes and got mad at Emerson when he bailed him out. Not because he didn't like his freedom, because he believed so strongly in his principles.

I personally like paying my taxes. I feel a sense of patriotism knowing my money has contributed to the whole of society, including those who are part of any welfare system and are suffering from bad tidings.

The bottom line here is that you lack the courage for your convictions. Take the license plate off of your car, cut up your social security card, and stop paying your taxes. Otherwise, you're just contributing to a system that you believe is impinging on a majority of the populace's freedoms (a hypocrite).

>> ^bobknight33:

I think the same way and I'm not rich, never been rich, and will never bee rich. But Mitt is right. There are too many people that will take advantage of the system and and become freeloaders, voting for who ever keeps the money flowing to their pockets.
The greatest enslavement is government warfare. The greatest freedom is self reliance.

You can enable 1000 fps in the client by using what they show here:
http://michaelkrukar.com/2012/blog/dota-2-1000-fps/
Apparently built into the Source engine and sometimes used with TF2 videos as well...

The music:
M83 - Lower Your Eyelids To Die With The Sun... that link is to their songs that have been sifted so far...

http://youtu.be/avk5YDc1dsk

>> ^CaptainObvious:

What soundtrack is this? Really like this video - I wonder how they got 1000 fps, is that a playback feature?

>> ^lv_hunter:

Looks like a scrap yard?


It's most likely Alang, a shipbreaking town in India. Old ships are driven ashore during high tide, then systematically dismantled for scrap. The two partially dismantled hulks beside it provide further evidence that this was an intentional beaching.

Jesus, Tide. That container looks SO much like a candy jar you think it was almost done on purpose

>> ^messenger:
Wow. I'm surprised to hear there are Christian churches that don't practice sacraments. Do you mean, none of them? No weddings, no communion, no confession, no confirmation, no last rites, no.... the other ones? Especially communion seems a strange omission since you were commanded by Jesus to do so. Or did you interpret, "Do this in memory of me" to only apply to the Apostles?


You won't find the word sacrament in the bible. Marriage, that is fine. Baptism too, although it isn't sprinkling like the catholic church teaches; it is full body immersion. Child baptism is not biblical. Christians should take communion, but not according to the pagan rituals of the catholic church, or regarding what they call the "trans-substantiation". The cracker does not literally become the flesh of Jesus, nor the wine His literal blood. It is simply something we do to symbolize our fellowship with Him, and the body of Christ.

The rest you have mentioned are nowhere to be found in the bible. They simply come from the traditions of the catholic church. It is not a Christian institution, and this is why neither you or your family has ever come to know Jesus Christ.

>> ^messenger:
With my question here, I was indirectly taking issue with your assertion that only if I pledge myself to Jesus can I truly commune with God. So in my question, my intent was to find out if you ever fully give yourself to any religion before Christianity, like become an active, fervent follower. I'm guessing the answer is no. If I'm right, then I don't see how you can say Christianity is the only way to commune with God. If I'm wrong, and you did fully dedicate your soul to some other religion first, then I'd simply like to hear about that experience.


My experience was, that after I became aware that God exists, He led me through the various religions and philosophies of the world over a number of years. He gave me clues along the way, leading me step by step, until He finally brought me to the bible. This was not a natural progression for me, because I had a big resistance to Christianity. It was actually one of the religions I thought was the least likely to be true. But He had given me signs beforehand about truth that was in the bible that I didn't understand at the time, so that when I started to read the bible, I could see it was His book. This gave me enough faith in it to give my life to Christ, and when I did, He supernaturally transformed my life. This isn't stated metaphorically; I mean it in a literal sense.

>> ^messenger:
I think you know what I believe and don't, and what I know and what I don't. At this stage, I think definitions are just semantics, and I'm not going to explain again what those words really mean. So, here's my official statement with all the contentious words taken out: I don't believe that any description of God I've ever heard is true, and I don't know if my belief is accurate.


What that means is that you don't know if there is a God or not. That makes you an agnostic and not an atheist.

>> ^messenger:
Seriously? You cannot claim to understand science, and then state that the burden for a non-claim lies with the person not making the claim. Scientist Anna says, "I believe the Higgs boson exists." Scientist Bob says, "I don't believe that the Higgs boson exists." Neither of them have any evidence. Anna is introducing a novel assertion about something. Bob isn't. Bob can ask Anne to prove it exists. Anne cannot ask Bob to prove it doesn't exist. Anne may, however, ask Bob why he doesn't believe it exists, since the Standard Model predicts its existence. If Bob shows why be believes the prediction is false, either by showing the SM has been used incorrectly, or stating he doesn't believe in SM at all, that's the end of his "burden" for that question. He does not have to scientifically prove the Higgs boson doesn't exist. He can't. It's logically impossible.


I understand I have my own burden of proof, but if someone wants to say that I am wrong, they are making a negative claim. It's up to them to provide reasons to substantiate their claim, and no, I don't think this need constitute absolute proof. If they're just saying "I don't know", then that is a different story. Most atheists don't want to concede that they don't know, because then they would have to admit that God could possibly exist, so they invent a new definition of atheism to obscure their true position.

>> ^messenger:
The theistic equivalent is you asking my why I don't believe in God. To this I tell you that to me, there's insufficient evidence, which is a position you should understand since it was exactly your own position until you got some direct evidence. That's the end of my "burden".


It depends on what you're trying to claim, about your own beliefs, or mine. Yes, I can relate to your position, having been there. That is why I describe atheism as religion for people who have no experience with God. I too was a true believer in naturalistic materialism until that veil was torn, and then I immediately realized that everything I knew, was in some way, wrong. Can you even conceive of such a thing, messenger? Do you care enough about the truth to be willing to let the tide take your sandcastle away from you?

>> ^messenger:
An equivalent for you might be if I asked you to prove to me that Thor and Ra don't exist. You couldn't. You could only give your reasons why you believe they don't exist. Same here. I'm in the same position as you, except I don't believe that Thor, Ra or Yahweh exist.


I wouldn't try to prove to you that Thor or Ra do not exist. I believe they do exist, but that they are not actually gods. They are fallen angels masquarading as gods, as with every other false idol.

>> ^messenger:
And my point is I wouldn't spend any effort trying to rule it out at all. I would just assume you're another false buried money promiser and move on. The reason I'm talking now isn't to rule anything out -- I never accepted the premise to begin with.


That's exactly the point; your conclusion is fallacious. You merely assume I am wrong because some people have made similar claims which were false. That is not a criterion for determining truth. If you had an incurable disease and only had a few days to live, and some people came to you promising a cure, and some of those claims turned out to be false, would you refuse to entertain any further claims and simply assume they are all false? I think not.

>> ^messenger:
Changing my whole perspective of the universe is an immense effort of mind. It's not "nothing". And why would I bother? Just to win an argument with you? Like I said above, I don't for a minute accept it's true, so I have no motivation for spending any energy proving it.


What effort does it take to entertain a possibility? You could simply pray something like this:

Jesus, I admit that I do not actually know if you are God or not. I would like to know whether it is true. Jesus, if it is true then I invite you into my life right now as Lord and Savior. I ask that you would forgive me for all of my sins, sins that you shed your blood on the cross for. I ask that you would give me the gift of faith, and help me turn from my sins. I ask that you send your Holy Spirit to me right now. I thank you Jesus for saving me.

If you pray that and sincerely mean what you say, then I have no doubt Jesus will answer it.

>> ^messenger:
1. No. If that's true, he gave me my life, and he can take it away if he wants to, but I have no respect for Indian givers.


It's appointed one for man to die, and then the judgment. He isn't going to take away your life, he is going to judge the one you have. Do you believe that you should be above His law?

>> ^messenger:
2. No. I don't serve anyone. He can do what he likes. He made me the way I am -- someone who relies on empirical evidence and sceptical about all superstition, and if he doesn't like it, it's his own fault. He should love me the way I am. And if he does, he should just let me come into heaven because he loves me, not because he needs me to worship him. I don't like egotists any more than Indian givers.


That isn't true; you serve yourself. If God has a better plan than you do, and your plan can only lead to a bad end, why wouldn't you serve God?

Yes, God made you the way you are, a person who knows right from wrong and has sufficient understanding to come to a knowledge of the truth. He loves you, but not your sin. He gave you a conscience to know right from wrong, and when you deliberately choose to do wrong, it isn't His fault. Yet He is patient with you, because He wants you to repent from your sin, so you can go to Heaven. As it stands now, you're a criminal in His eyes, and you are headed for His prison called hell, and He would be a corrupt judge if He just dismissed your case. But He is merciful and doesn't want to send you there. That is why He has given you an opportunity to be forgiven for your sins and avoid punishment. He sent His only Son to take your punishment, so that He can legally dismiss your case and forgive you, but also you must repent from your sins. If you refuse to stop doing evil, why do you think you should be allowed in?

>> ^messenger:
3. Yes and no. Yes, if Jesus turns out to be God, then there'll be no faith required. I'll know it. You can't disbelieve something you know is true. But no, I wouldn't trust him. A god isn't by definition benevolent or omni-anything. If he told me to accept that anal sex is a sin, he and I would get into a debate about what "sin" really is, why he defined sins to begin with, why he created the universe such that people would sin, why sin displeases him, and how those people can be faulted for following God's own design. And if the only way he could convince me he was right was by threatening me with eternal torment in a pit of fire, and promising to reward me with eternal happiness if I agreed with him, then I'd think he must have a pretty weak argument if he has to resort to carrot and stick tactics. I likewise don't like people who resort to violence or threats of violence to make people agree with them.


There'll be no faith required when you die and see Jesus at the judgment seat, but it will also be too late to receive forgiveness for your sins. Neither is God trying to convince you that He is right, because your conscience already tells you that you are wrong. You know that you are a sinner, and that you've broken Gods commandments hundreds, if not thousands of times. You're acting like I don't know you are a human being. What are you possibily going to have to say to a Holy God with your entire life laid bare before Him?

Neither good sir!

The bowl looks strangely full of water before they put anything in! Its almost as if they have a block in the pipe to allow this extra water.....because after the flush, the water is at a lower level!!

Explain that? You cant! Tides go in, tides go out!

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

..Either you lack a fundamental understanding of how toilets work.. or you live in a country which apparently poops directly on cold porcelain..
You wouldn't happen to be german, would you?
>> ^charliem:
I suspect shenanigans.....why is the bowl half full of water before they dump their test load into the thing....and after it flushes theres a normal small level in the bottom of the well?
Does this thing not perform as well when its not pre-loaded with a.....shit load....of water before hand?

Get anything good, dag?
In reply to this comment by dag:
Thanks UP.
In reply to this comment by UsesProzac:
Happy birthday, dag. Glad tidings. Be well!

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

Thanks UP.
In reply to this comment by UsesProzac:
Happy birthday, dag. Glad tidings. Be well!

Happy birthday, dag. Glad tidings. Be well!

http://lyrics.wikia.com/Stan_Rogers:Make_And_Break_Harbour

How still lies the bay, in the light western airs
Which blow from the crimson horizon
Once more we tack home, with a dry empty hold
Saving gas with the breezes so fair
She's a kindly Cape Islander, old but still sound
But so lost in the longliner's shadow
Make and Break and make do, but the fish are so few
That she won't be replaced should she founder

Now it's so hard to not think of before the big war
When the cod went so cheap, but so plenty
Foreign trawlers go by now with long-seeing eyes
Taking all where we seldom take any
And the young folk don't stay with the fisherman's ways
Long ago they all moved to the cities
And the ones left behind, old and tired and blind
Won't work for a pound, for a penny

In Make and Break Harbour the boats are so few
Too many are pulled up and rotten
Most houses stand empty, old nets hung to dry
Are blown away, lost, and forgotten

Now I can see the big draggers have stirred up the bay
Leaving lobster traps smashed on the bottom
Can they think it don't pay to respect the old ways
That Make and Break men have not forgotten
For we still keep our time to the turn of the tide
And this boat that I built with my father
Still lifts to the sky, the "one lunger" and I
Still talk like old friends on the water

>> ^dannym3141:

Sure they're some pretty pictures. But think of the volumes of water moving in this. Think of the energy needed to move it all. Bloody hell.


yep, the amount of power in tides and currents is staggering. The problem is harnessing it.

HAhahahah! O'Reilly calling for a "strong leader" to "explain dubious associations" is *comedy gold. Any such leader would have their hands full just with O'Reilly's dubious tide-goes-in-tide-goes-out associations, let alone all of Fox's.

>> ^therealblankman:

>> ^Barseps:
>> ^Boise_Lib:
>> ^PHJF:
>> ^Boise_Lib:
>> ^PHJF:
Trick question, without knowing the speed's vector direction one could very well end up exactly where one started while traveling at a constant 80 miles per hour.

But--you will have traveled 80 miles.

Not true my good sir, for you see we are all at this very moment hurtling through space at great velocity! The only correct answer to the man's question was "not enough information given, please reexamine your query."

If you are traveling at 80mph--no matter what the directional component of the vector is--at the end of one hour your wheels will have covered 80 miles of distance.

Of course, I'm not considering the Earth's rotation, or the motion of the Earth compared to the sun, or of the sun compared to the galaxy, or of the galaxy compared to the Local Group, or of the Local Group compared to the Great Attractor.

The tides, the tides....don't forget the tides. The MOON plays it's part as well y'know, if you don't believe me, just ask any werewolf.

But what if I'm carrying a coconut?


mind = blown

>> ^therealblankman:

>> ^Barseps:
>> ^Boise_Lib:
>> ^PHJF:
>> ^Boise_Lib:
>> ^PHJF:
Trick question, without knowing the speed's vector direction one could very well end up exactly where one started while traveling at a constant 80 miles per hour.

But--you will have traveled 80 miles.

Not true my good sir, for you see we are all at this very moment hurtling through space at great velocity! The only correct answer to the man's question was "not enough information given, please reexamine your query."

If you are traveling at 80mph--no matter what the directional component of the vector is--at the end of one hour your wheels will have covered 80 miles of distance.

Of course, I'm not considering the Earth's rotation, or the motion of the Earth compared to the sun, or of the sun compared to the galaxy, or of the galaxy compared to the Local Group, or of the Local Group compared to the Great Attractor.

The tides, the tides....don't forget the tides. The MOON plays it's part as well y'know, if you don't believe me, just ask any werewolf.

But what if I'm carrying a coconut?


Depends, African or European coconut?