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

Banning is punitive, instead - here's a method for deactivating your own account permanently:

1. In the login section of your profile, change your email address to something nonsensical
2. type some nonsense into notepad or anything else that will accept text
3. Paste the gibberish into the password and confirm fields of the login section of your profile
4. Logout

Sorry we don't have an easier one button approach for this. We will put this on the list of potential features to add for 4.0

Cheers





In reply to this comment by MINK:
i am not threatening you with destruction, i'll just post a self link or something. i was trying to leave quietly, without "theatrics" like a deliberate self link or a "fuck you" thread... i thought it would be quieter if i ask you to ban me.

the reason i want to be banned is because if i "just leave" then i can still come back, and i don't want to, because that will just piss you off, which i don't want to do. I have "quit" twice already and it didn't work. You're a sucker for trollbait, i'm a sucker for retards. if you ban me then both our lives will improve.

So, seeing as you don't offer an account cancellation and self blocking feature, i am asking you to do it by hand, to do us all a favour. it's win win.




In reply to this comment by dag:
I will not ban you and please don't threaten me with doing harm to the community.

If you're unhappy with the Sift and you feel that you've exhausted all your efforts to engage the community. Just. fucking. leave. No need to break the furniture for a dramatic exit.

In reply to this comment by MINK:
dude just ban me, or i will force you to ban me. let's do this the easy way, eh?

In reply to this comment by dag:
Please don't go on a flameout downvote spree - but if you feel the need - may I suggest taking a breather from the Sift.

In reply to this comment by MINK:
so ban me. or do i have to go on a flameout downvote spree?

In reply to this comment by dag:
MINK-

I read Jonny's post - asked for a clarification in the thread and continued to monitor the discussion when I could.

Sift Talk posts are not "letters to Dag" they're for discussion and consideration by the community.

You're right, personal insults do get a response from me - like many people I'm a sucker for troll bait.

Don't bother apologising again.

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

The short answer is no. We don't allow retroactive deleting of comments.

Banned member comments are still vieweable

We don't delete accounts, it leaves too many holes. We can only Deactivate an account which prevents someone from logging in.

Rosie O'Donnell is such a munch she did not have the intellect to actually understand what Tom Selleck was saying and then convey what she was saying in a reasonable non hyped fashion.

I think people should be free to do as thay want so long as there is minimal risk to others, I don't see why anyone would need to own an active hand gun ,automatic rifal , if you want to shoot then you could go to a government gun club where thay would store and keep varouse hand guns and rifals that you could rent and use within the premisice on a target ranges and what have you.

it should be legal to have replica , deactivated and model guns but illegal to brandish them at people,

i think specific hunting rifles with slow reload rate , air soft and air guns should all be legal for home use, due to the minimal risk to others.

and the vast majority of money derived from the gun clubs and gun licensing should go directly into education and schemes designed to reduce gun crime.

its like drug policies a drugs danger level should be rated and made very clear the more dangerouse a drug the more lopp whoels sumone would have to go through to aquire the drug and the grater the tax on the drug to recoperate medical chosts of the persons using the drug.

the only drugs that should be illegal are ones that have a really negative affect on others and afectvly kill sum one regardless of quantity/are highly chemicaly adictive.

Thanks so much for your reply, Doc. I'll just make some small points and leave you to you and yours.

Your scam anecdote is an interesting one, and as a scientist I'm sure you'll understand when I point out that the vast majority of people do not understand or appreciate the value of chance and coincidence in their daily lives. However, the majority of those people don't believe in chance or coincidence either. What happens is a "plan" or simply placed there by something unexplainable.

As fantastic as your prayer and sign may be I'd simply recommend reconsidering that you were going to get that email regardless. A far more obvious sign from god would have been an email whose contents actually contained a message from god, IE: "Doc you asked for for your account to be cancelled if it were wrong and it is, therefore I have had the company in charge of it deactivate it. Signed, The Lord."

I'm sure you can see where I'm coming from here. Another good example is in Bill Maher's movie Religulous when he's talking to "The Ex-Jew for Jesus" and that man said when he held his empty glass outside and prayed for rain for a drink and it rained he considered that a miracle for the existence of Christ. Bill's response was excellent when he pointed out that if he asked for rain and it rained he'd realize that, hey "It sometimes rains!". Now if it rained frogs he and I both would take pause and consider that to be a miracle. (Even though, as a scientist, I'm sure you know of the meterological phenomenom which has caused it to rain small frogs and fish in the just the last century,)

I also do not understand how someone as schooled as yourself can take the Old Testament as "fact". There is still no archeological evidence what-so-ever for Jews being used as slaves in ancient Egypt. And for a civilization that kept such excellent records of everything (I once had a fundie-xtian tell me they wouldn't document a "Jew slave rebellion") they might make a small note that an entire race under their command left them after a series of miracles befell the Kingdom.

And on the idea of Jesus dying for everyone's sins (which I know full well about; I was raised Protestant and, no I don't hate Christians or Christianity, I am concerned for their mental health and well being) I just think that it is a little too presumptuous if you catch my meaning. God creates original sin (which many in the church now say is just symbolism) then sends his only son to die for all of man's sin (including the "symbolical" original sin). No one asked for this, God merely forces it on us. Then attemps to guilt us into being saved by this Christ Figure (who has the exact same story as countless other Christ figures before his time) or else!.

But, hey, as I've pointed out I'm an Agnostic Atheist. The scientist in me sees no evidence for the existence of a god or god, therefore I don't believe. I've read the Bible front to back, as well as the Quran and other "holy" texts. They all read the same (aside from some Hindu scripture). And as an Agnostic I don't know if there is a god or gods because the evidence hasn't presented itself yet. Maybe if a miracle of such unexplainable value descends into my life I'd start believing, but it certainly wouldn't be the Christian god of the Bible. Why you might ask? Because the Bible is rife with contradictions, errors, hypocrisies and historical fallacies. And if "God" wanted that book to be written I'm sorry to say he might be a little bi-polar and attention deficit disorder.

And thanks for the 100 Star congrats!

In reply to this comment by Doc_M:
Hello my furry-hatted friend:
First off, you can read this in brief reply to you comment:
http://www.videosift.com/video/Dawkins-Conversing-Badly-A-Converted-Muslim#comment-625934

I'll now continue in private.

I see that you are (by your profile) rather read in science. Fantastic! Few are these days. I may be a Christian but I'm also a scientist as a profession atm. Many see that as either insane or hypocritical, but I can flatten that argument every time people land it on me in person, mwahaha. As for my life:

I once had a scam going where I could trick multiple "ad-bars" (those advertising bars that would stay on your screen and paid you per active minute) into thinking that I was "active" all freaking day every day even though obviously I was sleeping or in class most of the time. One night I felt convicted and prayed asking "if this is wrong, just cancel my account." I arose that morning and checked my email to find that my account WAS CANCELED DUE TO ABUSE... That very morning. That very day. It could have been that very instant.
I realized my behavior was theft and I stopped it. This has happened once more since! Instantaneous evidence.

In addition, if you look at the evidence for when and who wrote what book in the bible, you'll find that the majority of scholars support the "old testament before new testament" history. That continues to say that the prophecies and foreshadowing of the old testament is a valid justification to say that the new testament is valid as well.

People who hate Christianity are often simply misinformed. Jesus did not die as a sin sacrifice for "good" people or for "christian" people or for "generous" people. He died for ALL people, free of charge, should they only accept it. God is good, but God is just, and for some things death is just, and Jesus spent that punishment for us all. All we need do is believe that the price is paid for us in Jesus. The justice has been dealt to Jesus on our behalf. That is by no means insane. That makes legal sense. It makes human sense. It makes honorable sense. No new dedication is required.

Also, grats on 100 stars.

In reply to this comment by Raigen:
I would be extremely interested to know the evidence you've witnessed that makes you a believer. And why Dawkins is a douchebag. Send me a PM if you like.

>> ^Doc_M:
Well my friend. I've looked at the evidence and I believe. Cook that in your oven. I'm an inch away from Ph.D. and Dawkins is so plainly a D-bag, it almost makes him the definition of such.

I've seen a few videos of the SawStop in action, and I'm left speechless every time I see it in action.

The table saw itself costs a lot of money, and at 60$, the replacement blade/brake modules aren't exactly cheap, but compared to the medical bills, workman's comp costs, and other costs associated with losing fingers, I don't see how most major woodworking companies can afford to NOT replace their older table saws with this system.

>> ^PerfectlySane:
This is a great idea but I've always wondered what else could legitimately go through the saw and carry a charge. What about wet wood or other common building materials?


They've thought of that too. From their faqs:

5. Will cutting green or “wet” wood activate the SawStop safety system?

SawStop saws cut most wet wood without a problem. However, if the wood is very green or wet (for example, wet enough to spray a mist when cutting), or if the wood is both wet and pressure treated, then the wood may be sufficiently conductive to trigger the brake. Accordingly, the best practice is to dry wet or green wood before cutting by standing it inside and apart from other wood for about one day. You can also cut wet pressure treated wood and other conductive material by placing the saw in bypass mode.



6. Can I cut conductive materials?

Yes. You can operate the saw in Bypass Mode which deactivates the safety system’s braking feature, allowing you to cut aluminum and other known conductive materials. If you are unsure if material you need to cut is conductive, you can make test cuts using Bypass Mode to determine if it will activate the safety system’s brake.



7. What happens if the blade comes in contact with a nail or staple in the wood?

Generally, the safety system will not activate when a nail or staple is cut. Although conductive, these objects are not large enough to cause the safety system to activate unless they are grounded to the table or operator when they contact the blade.

CaptW, that's just untenable as the community grows. If we don't want the sift to turn into trial-a-day, there needs to be a simpler, self-maintaining policy.

It seems to me that if a user gets ignored by a large number of privileged users, that could be used to put them on an auto-ignore list for all users. And the auto-ignore list could be deactivated in your account settings if you enjoy the ramblings of trolls.

It would take some effort to program, but once it was working it would be self-maintaining.

Of course, messing around with video channels and titles would be a separate issue, but it would easier to make rules clear about that.

Not so much.
Religion is the byproduct of a gene that is supposed to deactivate when you reach an age capable of thinking for yourself. It looks after you as a child, makes you follow what your parents tell you without question, good for survival etc.

But its broke, and doesn't always turn off apparently.

Q: Why isn't homosexuality eliminated by natural selection?

A: Probabilistic gene expression and kin selection. Your gay uncle helps the tribe hunt for food, which helps his straight brother (who carries a similar set of genes, which through environmental factors might be deactivated epigenetically) reproduce.

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

Account deactivated at member's request

I should preface that I'm a virologist and I get my flu vaccine every year. I'm glad I was vaccinated as a child and I intend to vaccinate my children when that day comes. I've so far been "forced" to receive one vaccination, and I wasn't bitter. Heck, I'm now immune to one more virus.

First off, this is very important: when you are vaccinated, you are not being injected with a "disease." It's a misconception. You will likely be injected with proteins from a virus, a deactivated (non-reactivatable) form of the virus, or "virus like particles" which have many viral proteins, but not all those required for an active infection (there are other methods as well, like the gene gun and such...). You'll also likely get a little bit of an adjuvent (or essentially and irritant) to induce a bigger immune reaction. So far, I haven't seen any good reason to think that vaccination will have any ill effect on your immune system. In fact, the opposite is more likely true IMO. Vaccination is not a "belief" system. These vaccines are the product of biomedical science. Though I'll admit, the concept of vaccination was discovered and found to be affective before we know exactly what was going on molecularly, we have since advanced to the point in our science that we design vaccines to work how we want, when we want, and better than the older methods.

Next, due to our current level of scientific "openness" (so to speak), no virus that has been sequenced will ever be "gone for good." I personally know how to remake them in the lab and so do thousands of biologists world-wide. This is obviously worrisome in terms of the bio-terrorism threat. For example, if HIV died out, reviving it in the lab would cost about $20,000 in supplies and maybe 6 months to a year for one skilled lab worker. However, that does not change the fact that vaccination has been responsible for the [near] eradication of several viruses, the best example being polio. The same could potentially be done to HIV in the future... or HSV, or HPV, or HBV, etc. We are in fact set on a decent course to eradicate HBV (Hepatitis B) in the next generation or so, iow, your kids won't get HBV, unless you don't have them vaccinated! If you don't, insure their livers today.

We should also be aware that vaccine development is typically done on gov't money. Some companies are getting in on it, but it comes down to large amounts of academic research leading to the discoveries. That's where the gov't ends and drug companies pick up. They produce the stuff, and begrudgingly most of the time. They just don't make that much profit from them. It has in the past taken significant gov't interjection to get enough of the vaccines produced for the population that wants them. The companies just don't want to waste their time and resources making something so lame in terms of profit. They make 1000% more on drug treatments than vaccines, so vaccination is NOT all about money. The exception to this rule is the new HPV vaccine. It's a money maker because they were able to put their own price on it since it is not really an essential vaccine. It is purely optional. The gov't has no business forcing lower pricing on that one.

As for requiring it of every citizen, I'm still on the fence. I don't like the gov't forcing anything that "close-to-home", but every person who chooses not to be vaccinated certainly puts others at risk (and yes, they do offer one more host to potentially allow for mutations that could render the working vaccine ineffective...which could be devastating). Every person needs to be educated on the benefits/risks and encouraged to receive them. Vaccination of children should be considered the automatic pathway of medical treatment unless the parents protest.

So, yeah, we need an option, but people need to know that vaccination is the better choice, for them, and for those around them. Public safety absolutely IS affected by people choosing not to be vaccinated. Jailing is not a useful deterrent of not getting vaccinated.

[edit:] Crap, that was way long. Sorry for the wall of text.

One more thing, the gov't should have the right to initiate emergency mandatory vaccination in the event of a pandemic be it due to a biological attack or a coincidental outbreak. In those cases, those who reject vaccination could still be quarantined to protect their lives and prevent their getting/spreading the disease.

for what it's worth, my father worked in Cheyenne Mtn for 10 (?) years, and I live all of 10 minutes from it... so if we want more information, or possibly a photo album or something, i might be able to swing that. the mountain has since been "Closed", or rather "Deactivated" so no idea what they do now. They certainly don't do the same job they did at the time of this broadcast though.

It annoys me to no end that some of the great ideas for male contraception have never been brought to market.

The best invention I've heard of is a small bimetallic insert for the vas deferens. It creates an electrochemical cell when the spermies pass through, which deactivates them. But you can't get it anywhere. There's also a magnetically-operated valve that can be turned back on non-surgically if you decide you want kids. Also not available.

In the meantime, men's only options are condoms (high failure rate) and vasectomy (pretty damn permanent).

At least women have the pill, depo provera, iud's, diaphragms, female condoms, rhythm, foam, sponges, rings, patches, and sterilization to choose from.

Not that I'm saying all of those are ideal either, but it would make a lot more sense if men had more options too. It's much easier to stop the little wrigglers at source than once they're already racing to their destiny.

That isn't a tie, it's a special solar panel designed to ensure he doesn't lose power and deactivate in front of a crowd of reporters.

This experiment proves absolutely nothing. When you eat food, it's not molds and household bacteria that break it down. There are specific acids, enzymes and chemicals in the digestive system that break down everything we eat into it's basic components. Fries, which are basically pure starch, begin being broken down as soon as they enter your mouth, where salivary amylase breaks it down into maltose and dextrin. The process continues after it leaves the stomach (salivary amylase is deactivated by the acid in the stomach). Watching food rot is no way to demonstrate how the "food is breaking down in your body".

I see we've deactivated combo-invocations. Good to know. Well then I'll suggest we first *discard away - what does siftbot say to that?