I have always had 2 different versions of pretty, TV pretty, and normal pretty...seldom do the 2 meet.

@chilaxe Wow, that is really interesting. And while I find measures like this rather dubious, I had no idea people were even attempting to standardize something like this, thanks for the interesting read

Agreed, I love Teller's shtick

From what I understand, this is a pretty typical New York Subway experience.

Thanks, and nice hat!

Whew, that is better than what I was imagining. I was thinking about how they used to fire machine guns through prop planes.

Ya, hard for me to know what they were really talking about, they could of been talking about how chicken tastes better in China for all I know.

Wait, ejections seats...how the hell does that work?

And that's where the rare earth minerals for you iPhone came from

I should point out that I agree with the thrust of this statement, just not the aim. People don't need unhealthy food either, but I would rather convince them rather than dictate it, if that makes any sense. 'Don't need' and 'shouldn't be allowed to possess' are 2 different arguments.

I would be interested in your argument for the non-possession of assault rifles. How will you justify it versus other things that are legal and demonstrably more lethal? Would the argument be consistent with the prohibition of drugs or alcohol, if not, how does it differ?

Why does the general public need high fructose corn syrup? Why does the general public need anything but for which you have allotted them? Is now need to be the only measure of what right should be allowed? I can't make a good argument for why many things that exist, do, and if that is to be the measure of the law, I doubt videosift would exist at all.

(edit, arg, 2am grammar)

You don't need high speed internet either, technically (I do, but I am a robot). Technically, you don't need a lot of things, it is all pretty much arbitrary when you talk in those terms. When you make people have to sign up for certain rights via some sort of process, it is the beginning of a real erosion of rights. I'll even meet people half way to say if you want to be in public areas with a gun, some kind of permit is needed like cars...I don't like it, but Ill give you that. But as long as I am not using it to commit crimes, your right to restrict my behavior is over...period. It might be that freedom comes with a hefty prices of dead people, innocent people, innocent people that we could of protected with ever increasing restrictions of social liberties. I mean, look at Saudi Arabia, lower murder rates than even some European countries of pretty good order. But they live in a totalitarian dictatorship, and I am not trying to make a scarecrow argument about totalitarian dictatorships and whatnot, what I am trying to say is people dying isn't the only important metric when talking about rights to do things.


It might be true that more people will die with lacks gun laws, it might be true that more people die because of lacks drug lacks, lots of things might be true about how freedom serves to make economics weak, countries less secure, more prone to internal strife and faction, it might be true that the seeds of freedom and the ability to self regulate cause harms that extend beyond ones self. Even so, I still don't think a better framework exists for conducting ourselves that doesn't cripple and stifle people who have done no wrong. If the price for a drunk driver is abolition, the price of a murder disarmament, the price of wreck less driving horse drawn carriage, then we have failed to address the underlying problem and snub out freedoms ability to creatively deal with complex social challenges via the creative process of problem solving.

I think history has shown that any attempts to snub out action instead of guide it fail miserably. Gun control starts and ends with people, not laws, I suggest we start there. Starting neighborhood gun responsibility programs, safety education for youths, ect...whatever, I don't know, I can't pretend to know what is the best way to address the complex issue of gun control for every community, the point is that is their bag, it can be done without force given the context of the USA. Not every country has that luxury, children roaming the streets with AK-47s is not a real problem in this country, nor would it be if gun control laws were more lacks. We do have problems, I don't want there to be any mistake about that, but I don't think the solution is wholesale elimination of thing that only CAN be dangerous, I mean, anything can be dangerous, ask the folks in Oklahoma about ammonia nitrate...you don't even need a licence to buy that stuff.

Point is, the world is dangerous, and I think freedom allows for a certain amount of that danger to exist. It is the price we pay. We should look to the unwritten code that manages us, the code of culture and community.

"The freedom which we enjoy in our government extends also to our ordinary life. There, far from exercising a jealous surveillance over each other, we do not feel called upon to be angry with our neighbour for doing what he likes, or even to indulge in those injurious looks which cannot fail to be offensive, although they inflict no positive penalty. But all this ease in our private relations does not make us lawless as citizens. Against this fear is our chief safeguard, teaching us to obey the magistrates and the laws, particularly such as regard the protection of the injured, whether they are actually on the statute book, or belong to that code which, although unwritten, yet cannot be broken without acknowledged disgrace."

Pericles' Funeral Oration from the Peloponnesian War

You just described my love life!

This is why I never do Karaoke

That's what she said err wait