NOVA ScienceNOW did an episode on the brain recently and had a bunch of magicians doing tricks. They talked about how people are sort of wired to track certain types of motions, which is why pickpockets and magicians so easily deceive. Would be pretty cool to see magic tricks and such with this tech.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/body/how-does-the-brain-work.html

@MaxWilder Ahh, I see what you were trying to say. Yes, I also didn't understand that exactly, but it was a debate and sometimes people are forced to debate things they don't believe in 100%. I don't know.

>> ^MaxWilder:

What is the difference between "whistle blowers" and WikiLeaks???
Each one makes claims and provides what evidence they have available, as a last resort because normal channels aren't working.
It blows my mind that these people are talking like they are different things. Wikileaks just gives whistle blowers a platform to be heard.


They are different things. There is a legal difference. If you leak classified documents in the US, that is a punishable offense because you probably signed some contract saying you wouldn't leak things in order to be able to get a classified clearance of some kind. If you report to others information that has been leaked by a whistleblower, that falls under freedom of the press and is not punishable by law.

That's why the US gov't is trying to hard to find evidence that Julian Assange coerced Bradley Manning into leaking classified information...to connect Assange to a crime. You say "Wikileaks just gives whistleblowers a platform"...yeah, so do all sorts of news organizations. Trade any news source with "Wikileaks"...try your sentence out with "New York Times", for example.

Don't ask a rhetorical question when you don't already know the answer.

Yeah...so there's this thing called the bill of rights. Police should probably be aware of it. Just sayin'.

I like Taibbi for his ability to explain this stuff in a broad sense. I read his book "Griftopia", and since I've already done plenty of learning about what all these different financial instruments are, I appreciate his taking the time to provide a decent narrative to it all. Once you have the background info, it doesn't take much evidence before you're convinced of just how hideous these people really are...and just how corrupt the financial/government/corporate system really is.

It also doesn't take long to realize the Democrats and Republicans aren't very different when it comes to the financial world and regulation of banking/finance/etc.

The one at :24 is just so bored of being sexy.

They're just starting in Michigan now.

http://www.cleanwateraction.org/feature/rush-drill-threatens-michigan%E2%80%99s-water-and-quality-life

Unfortunately, the economic situation in many states is forcing mineral rights sales...fun times. I can't see how risking contamination of as much fresh water as is in question here can possibly be a good idea for anyone. Can you imagine the economic damage that comes with entire areas of the country having unsafe drinking water?

There needs to be some sort of standard punishment for causing long-term damage to any public system, whether it's economic or environmental. The fact that the gas companies can do this or banks can do similar things economically and get away with executive bonuses and such is simply intolerable. In the case of fracking, even if some case were somehow brought against Halliburton can you even put a true dollar amount on the damages you'd be responsible for as a corporation when you're talking about an entire aquifer or watershed?

How appropriate that the guy who played Quark is in a movie that deals with making money.

As for self-starting vs. hoping society will make your life better...it's not really about that. It's about "what's a fair start?". You can't tell me that someone who inherits a ton of money has just as hard a time "self-starting" as someone who inherits nothing or starts life in an impoverished state or living in a house with lead paint.

It's about whether you believe you deserve your start in life (whatever it may be). It's a nature vs. nurture argument. Libertarians tend to discount nurture and the inherent differences between the way people begin their lives. Children are not tiny humans. Their brains don't work correctly unless they're shaped by experience and environment. "Life isn't fair" is not a counter-argument to this inherent unfairness that exists in the world. Because we have the capacity to do something about this type of unfairness, we must consider it. Whether or not we should actually act on it, well, most of you who will bother posting have already made that choice.

lol...I doubt an actual Russian guy would need to wear a CCCP shirt to be convincing...not to mention the terrible fake accent.

Also, watermelons would've been cooler and more informative.

>> ^Enzoblue:

Ok, so did he say that the reason democracy allows the freedom of assembly is so that the leaders can see all there enemies in one place?


No, he was saying democracies value freedom of assembly because democracies require freedom of assembly to form. Everyone needs to know that other people feel the same way they do because it gives you collective power. If a group of people want to form a different type of government, they must first collectively agree that the current government is crappy, and you can't do that without the freedom to group up and communicate.

Obviously, increasing connectedness through communications technology is having quite an effect on that whole "I know that they know that I know" thing. Not only does information spread quickly, but the knowledge that other people know the same things you know also spreads faster than it ever has in the past.

Agreeing with stuff other people say is not arguing. Well, technically it is as long as you have an actual premise. It's a pretty standard technique of people who lack critical thinking skills to just use whatever premises they want and argue past everyone else in the room by making statements that seem obviously true to their own ears regardless of the truth.

I'd be interested to see any of these people defend their statements while alone and speaking with someone who has the ability to challenge them based on facts. Calling someone on beliefs vs. facts is always hilarious. I bet most of them would get angry with extreme speed because the cognitive dissonance being exposed would boil their brains.

My favorite would be telling them about the Constitution and the requirements for running for president. Some people I've run into are truly shocked that Muslims can be president. Watching someone argue that the Constitution is an amazingly perfect document (but let's amend it so we can have only Christians in the White House) is a pretty spectacular sight.

Anyone else find it ironic when they read the 3/5ths rule parts of the Constitution in congress?

I disagree with Tracy, unless he's talking about metaphorical political porn or something.

Fail...no choppas.

Let's bring back King George the Benevolent.

It's actually kinda too bad this was delivered through satire, because the rant was pretty powerful without it. Usually satire adds something...in this case I think it's taking away.