Yo Jack! I'm real happy for you, and Im'ma let you finish, but Kanye had the best microphone interrupt of all time!

Went full circle, huh. I guess it's time for the *meme to die then.

just watched the 37min clip (unfinished and very roughly cut, barely coherent, ends half-way through)
i never was a big fan of hers.. always struck me as an over-rated cliche.. but she was damn pretty in this
such a shame we never saw her come full circle proper

I'm a long time PC Gamer. While I cut my teeth on Colecovision and Atari, PC gaming still remains my favourite way to play.

Traditionally I've been mainly a FPS gamer, starting off on Wolfenstein 3D and moving on from there. Quake II multiplayer (and Action Quake 2) took up good amounts of my time in the late 90s. Even went to a couple competitions. Shit, has it been that long?

My library has gotten pretty big over the years: Doom (Ultimate, II and 3), Quake (original, II, III and 4), Unreal, System Shock 2 (one of my all-time favourites), Deus Ex (don't get the sequel, it sucks), Half-Life (original with expansions, 2 and both episodes), Team Fortress 2, FarCry, Crysis (which kinda sucked), S.T.A.L.K.E.R (one of the scariest games I've ever played), FEAR, Bioshock, No One Lives Forever 2 (fucking awesome, I hope a good sequel is eventually made), WoW with both expansions, Fallout 3, BF2, BF2142, RTCW, a bunch of Star Wars Games like Jedi Knight and X-Wing vs TIE Fighter... and that's just what I remember having and not merely what I have played =P I don't think I want to know how much I've spent on games over the years.

I'm an addict =)

I continue to build custom PCs for my gaming needs. My current system is a AMD 64 X2 4200 + 4GB DDR2 6400 + GeForce 8800GTS 640MB + RAID 0+1 array running Windows Vista (yes, all my games work, even the real old ones), soon to be Windows 7. I've calmed down on the upgrade front and mainly just build a new system instead when the time is right. In this case that might happen in the next year or so. Then again, I may just upgrade storage and video. Who knows?

This is a hobby I don't think I'll ever outgrow. It's cool how PC gaming has gone full circle and is getting back to it's indie roots (remember Apogee and Epic Megagames shareware?). Valve is helping this a ton with Steam, making easier for one-man operations to put out profitable games. I'm considering trying some game development of my own.

Let's go full circle. They were merely doing their jobs when they took the Jews from the train to the showers.

I don't believe in some "purpose" to life. To believe in a purpose implies that there is a set objective that is required by some being of sentience for each member of humanity to contribute to/accomplish.

And that brings us back full circle to the whole God topic.

But to answer the question, I think that the meaning of life is to simply to live and experience it to the fullest.

we're all homos.

especially u

i like how he comes full circle.. to realize it's not wrong, just not normal.. soon he will realize that normal is whatever you are... and then realize normal is essentially meaningless in terms of people... and then he'll garry a may and he bappy

I think it should be like the Kung Fu/Last Dragon Method. You just come full circle back around to probie.

Hey.. it's the circle of life man.

Yes.

In reply to this comment by AceOfKidneys:
Aw fuck, now i get it again.

OMG I had soo many theorys and im starting to remember them all because of this. This is as good at acid (and minus the voices), its funny but its things ive though of since i was about 8. Everything comes around full circle.

Aw fuck, now i get it again.

OMG I had soo many theorys and im starting to remember them all because of this. This is as good at acid (and minus the voices), its funny but its things ive though of since i was about 8. Everything comes around full circle.

This video has brought my "Epiphany" full circle. I hate to say this, but, I now know what Gwen Stefani was trying to say when she said "This Shit is Bananas!".

Perhaps the Uraban Dictionary needs to have a new definition.

This passage is bananas:

1 Corinthians 1:21-31 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)

Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society
[NIV at IBS] [International Bible Society] [NIV at Zondervan] [Zondervan]

21For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.

26Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. 27But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. 28He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, 29so that no one may boast before him. 30It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. 31Therefore, as it is written: "Let him who boasts boast in the Lord."

This is where we come full circle to our ideological differences. I'm all in favor of alternatives and conservation. I just don't see any valid reasons not to allow oil companies to expand production while that work continues. I've heard all the "it won't make a difference" stuff before as well. The flaw I see in your idea of trivial amounts of oil is that it comes from estimates made many years ago (as in prior to the moratorium in 1981) with outdated equipment. The same organization responsible for this OCS estimate (the MMS) also placed numbers from the Gulf of Mexico at barely 9 billion barrels. That was in 1987, many years *after* they estimated the OCS numbers. Now, with modern technology, that estimate has skyrocketed to upwards of 45 billion barrels. I think that warrants another check.

Also, since you keep bringing up the leases not being used, this is also false. In fact, it doesn't even make any logical sense. After checking around, I think it is safe to assume that the source of your information is once again the MMS (Minerals Management Service). It seems they have a listing of over 7,000 leases out with only just under 2,000 identified as "producing." Well, the devil is once again in the details. The MMS does not classify a lease as active until it produces over 130,000 barrels a day. Since those leases have been purchased, there has been exploratory drilling, developmental plans filed, environmental surveys taken, spill recovery plans filed, and infrastructure is being produced to actually begin getting the oil out of the ground. So, once again, it is a problem with not checking out the details of what is being claimed.

Again, I am all in favor of alternatives being developed. I'm just not in favor of it being artifically forced through government market interference. There really have been no valid reasons not to produce more domestic oil while developing alternatives that I have seen. From what I have seen and heard of it, Bob Barr's energy policy ideas sound like something I can agree with. Unfortunately, no one pays attention to things outside of the two party system.

^Dear GeeSussFreek,

you call yourself a scientist. That is fine. However, I will warn you right away that many on this website would question your devotion to scientific method based on your username alone - tell me, is it a coincidence that it's pronounced exactly like "Jesus-Freak"? I'm asking this (rather rhetorical) question because religious fanatics claiming to be scientists are often proponents of Intelligent Design, which is (I'll be frank here) a load of steaming bull excrement. I hope you are not one of this fold, because I've had my share of "dialogue" with these folks, and it has never, ever resembled anything close to a reasoned, structured discourse.

With my worries laid before you, my response is this:
there are many fields of science and from your short stay on the Sift you would apparently style yourself as a jack-of-all-trades (economics, military, political science, theoretical and quantum physics, chemistry, just to name a few of which you've shared your opinion). Yet, it would also appear that you may be master of nothing.

A scientist (especially one talking about science and scientific method) would not ever, under any circumstances, attempt to draw their own definitions of FACT. Or any concept previously and universally known, for that matter. Me, I was taught what general as well as specific definitions of 'fact' are in secondary school. It would appear your "science diploma studies" have taught you nothing of this. Scientific fact feeds directly back from scientific method, which includes fancy notions such as peer review, one which has unfortunately so far eluded the scope of ID proponents. In science, fact may at times not be the absolute truth, it's what's agreed upon by the informed public. Our knowledge in most advanced fields of study can never be perfect and complete, but the ones most often making this claim are religious folks, saying that scripture "has all the answers".

Now, mass. My oh my.
Mass, assuming we're talking about gravitational mass, not inertial-7th-grade-physics-mass here, is the interaction of gravitational fields. In other words, yes, gravity. The same concept you differentiated, indicating exactly how much you understand of this and that I have no need to go into supergravity, supersymmetry and duality and start actually looking things up. Thanks for that. Oh, and by the way - mass is not created. Neither is matter, for that matter.

Continuing on-
regarding your nonplussed ideas about quantum theories, I have to disappoint you a little bit - it's still discernible, natural science; it hasn't obliterated all previous theories in physics; in fact, I dare you name three it has. Yes, the math involved is a 'bit' harder, the conjectures deeper and at times wilder, but scientific method is still applied.

You also said: "The fact is, that science doesn't deal with facts and has no method of proving things true, only methods of proving them false."
First of all, I LOVE your use of "fact" in this sentence, just love it. Anyway, hypocrisy aside, all we need is a scientist performing a YES/NO or a TRUE/FALSE experiment. Their initial assumption will either be true, and they will prove something to be true, or it will be wrong, and they will prove that it is wrong. Works both ways, just like logic's supposed to, in your brain.

In conclusion, I have come full circle and return to my initial lines:
"You call yourself a scientist. That is most definitely not fine."

He's actually so bad that he goes a full circle, from bad to good to bad again.

I just rewatched this - it gets more dumb

"God controls the weather for the whole Universe"

If every policitian ran with this you could have "The War is failing, let us pray to god for victory"

"Troops died because of not enough prayer....not the Presidents fault, not enough people praying..."

etc etc, what a load of crap.

"Gov, whats your plan for combatting the drought?"
"Pray."
"Great, we've come full circle"

Of course he's liberal, but nothing he said in those links was wrong.

The 2nd link had it right...

"Bill Moyers is, as Dan Rather would say - a partisan political operative, cloaked in the auspices of a journalist taking tax money from the public against the will of the majority."

...my point all along.

And last time I checked, Fox news and the reactionary "new media" aren't taking over. Huffington Post, CrooksAndLiars.com, and Daily Kos each have more hits per day than Free Republic, National Review, or Michelle Malkin. Huffington Post gets more hits than MM, NR, and Freep combined times 3. Slate.com, which is definitely to the left of Fox, gets more hits than MM, NR, and Freep combined, but half as much as Huffington Post. TheDailyShow.com gets 10 times as many hits as billoreilly.com. This is all from Alexa.

The miracle is there's any center/right-of-center content at all. Coming full circle, 20 years ago Moyers wouldn't have to deal with any resistance. The ratings/numbers aren't a big deal, sensationalism versus truth.

Thanks for writing. I appreciate your willingness to debate and/or offer an alternative point of view to my alternative point of view. haha!