Just because it hasn't been posted yet, 50,000 people spending 3 mins on Youtube beats 100 people spending 1 hour.

"It was a hearing aid device native to the 1920's.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/23909185@N06/5108888518/"

*shortfilms

*shortfilm

Incidentally:
http://videosift.com/video/QI-The-Commonest-Cause-of-Death-for-Mountain-Goats

Take a wild guess

Let's go to Twitter!...for a completely pointless statement. God, journalism is dead.

>> ^ChairmanRoberto:

>> ^Zyrxil:
Obscure yet acceptable 2 letter words are the bane of scrabble.

You obviously don't play much Scrabble. Two-letter words are an essential part of strategy, and any Scrabble player should have them committed to memory (for a serious game), or at least the players should have a list of them during the game. Also, there are several different lists of two-letter words, so players must agree on which list they use. Most of these two-letter words are not particularly obscure. I suppose "xu" and "za" are obscure, but if everyone knows the two-letter words, then there's no "bane", now is there?

You're admitting to the existence of multiple lists of acceptable 2 letter words. I don't see that you have a leg to stand on. You can't actually want play Scrabble and not have it devolve into 'use 2 letter words to block everything so there's only space for other two letter words' as if it were a world championship tournament.

Obscure yet acceptable 2 letter words are the bane of scrabble.

From a *geek perspective- meh. A lot of it wasn't the chest symbol, but just a graphic drawn on comic covers behind the title. Also they included Batman Beyond, which is a different character/person. And they didn't include the chest symbol from Batman: Arkham Asylum the videogame, which is pretty nice.

Favorite is still the symbol from the Burton movies.

>> ^Seric:

So many references to the first Mafia game I lost count.


You mean...two? Beginning and end basically.

Please inform me of the rational logic behind this guy's statements.>> ^Morganth:

You've forgotten the meaning of phobia, which is an irrational fear.
Look at something like actively oppressive sexism. If you're fundamentally and morally opposed to sexism, you don't want it endorsed by your government and you don't want it taught in your schools (and it is in some parts of the world!). However, would you say you have a phobia of actively oppressive sexist people? Probably not.

Of course it's not superior, but human beings tend not to have foresight. They'll vote against new taxes, or the very concept of being taxed, from now till eternity and not think about it until it's their house that burns down.

>> ^blankfist:

I forgot to pay my life insurance premium and died. But, seriously, I feel like if you pay taxes you deserve the services. It's lazy for policy makers to use all the money in the general fund and double dip with added service fees.

It's a rural area. They didn't have fire service at all until the city offered it as for pay. They had a big proposal for covering it with a tax, but it was predictably shot down, so they went with the service fee instead.>> ^Trancecoach:

any investigation as to the cause of the fire?
small town accidents have a way of being not so accidental.

Again, minor karma. He caused it himself. He was burning leaves, which in most places (and there too probably) is illegal just for this reason.

>> ^deathcow:

promote WTF plz explain someone


There are annotations in English explaining everything, I don't know why they aren't on by default in this. You have to turn them on using the little menu next to the Fullscreen button.

Replace all the morality arguments for firefighters not standing by with healthcare and doctors. Now check if the homeowner or anyone in the video who said the firefighters should have put it out supported (the concept of) healthcare paid for by taxes.

This guy got called multiple times to remind him he didn't pay. Of course it was intentional on his part. Now karmaically that's not really a burned down house worth of offense, but buddy, YOU are the other foot the shoe is on. How do you feel now?

>> ^ReverendTed:
Your argument (and Stormsinger's) also misses a critical point:
Just because we don't want to give up our income to the government to subsidize one welfare program or another doesn't mean we aren't charitable people. I would rather designate my charitable giving to institutions and organizations that I trust will manage it well and make effective use of it.
The government is not known for its efficiency or efficacy.
What Stormsigner might interpret as "I got mine, fuck you", in some cases might be "I got mine, and I'll give some to those in need. I'd just rather give it of my own free will in meaningful ways than have it legislated by and into the Washington bureaucracy. "


And what -you're- missing is that that is no replacement. What Americans give to charity (worldwide, not just to incountry causes) every year does not even cover just the Federal budget for social services, much less State and Local. And that's for tear-jerking causes like starving children and natural disaster victims.

In your selective payment setting, what would get paid for? Roads? Plenty of people don't drive. Education? A ton of people don't have kids. Medicare/Welfare/Unemployment? "I'll never need those! Only those (non-existent) welfare queens use 'em!" That just doesn't work. Like vaccinations, some things absolutely need to be done by nearly everyone for it to work at all.

Now I'm not saying there's nothing in Government that could be cut- 50% of our military budget for sure, and ending the Drug War's popular on the Internet. But that's not what these people are saying. They take offense with the whole concept of taxation to fund the Government. That's completely broken fantasythink, that a tiny tiny government would lead to a better world.


Edit: Forgot about "I would rather designate my charitable giving to institutions and organizations that I trust will manage it well and make effective use of it. The government is not known for its efficiency or efficacy."
That's also a fallacy. There's plenty of inefficiency and overhead in charities as well, and it's an easy argument to say there's a a lot of goal overlap and effort wasted with charities with similar goals and no cooperation.