If you can't watch it, let me fill you in... pretentious British game reviewer, and Australian resident, waxes snarky about said games in Powerpointesque internet videos that, for some reason, many viewers find entertaining, even though they all contain the same recycled shtick over and over. Apparently, fans are so enraptured by his worldly accent and monotone, comma-bereft delivery that they don't care that they can't even tell whether he liked the game or not.

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

He likes big bitches.

Show him both. He'll let you know which he likes better (Star Wars).

He liked it, said it was like a slip n slide with the fabulous scent of a BBQ.

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

Hmmm. No love. Let me try. Bow to my will Siftbot! (he likes that) *promote

>> ^bareboards2:

One word.
Kids.
This guy is an idiot to have his guns unsecured.
@radx just sent me a link -- http://www.technologyreview.com/
news/506466/given-tablets-but-no-teachers-ethiopian-children-teach-themselves/
This thing would not stop a kid.


Who said he had kids? WTF is wrong with you people? He likes guns. He probably enjoys collecting guns, (one of the points @deathcow was making that, apparently, flew right over several of your heads). Maybe he even enjoys shooting them. So what? You don't like guns? Fine. Don't buy them. JFC, so many paranoid leaps of logic here.

@spoco2
Guns can kill when people USE them to kill. It's a childish argument to claim that all guns are inherently dangerous. The vast, VAST majority of gun owners are responsible gun owners. Unless you're claiming this guy is a killer, or, as @L0cky lamely implied, wants to use them to justify the money he spent. Maybe he's a terrorist! There are about 350 million guns in this country and about 250 million vehicles, yet the number of fatalities for each is about the same each year (and over half of the gun fatalities are suicides). Why are you so worried about guns? I won't even mention alcohol, electricity, bathtubs, McDonald's, and icy sidewalks. Just because something isn't "designed to kill people" doesn't mean it isn't "inherently dangerous". Hunting rifles aren't "designed to kill people". Are they safe for kids? And what is the deal with using a red herring like kids? Using kids playing with loaded guns as the nails in your soapbox is almost as silly as decrying automobiles because they are dangerous for kids to play in with the engine running. And, again, WHO SAID HE HAD KIDS?

I don't own guns. I don't like to shoot guns. They don't do anything for me, although I would consider getting one some day if SHTF began to seem inevitable. I'm definitely not a fan of guns, but some of you people are just ridiculous.

>> ^VoodooV:

first sentence into the interview and yeah, I have to agree, he sounds like he's trying to wash his hands of any responsibility. If he wanted to just be a good engineer, he didn't have to become a co-founder. He could have said "thanks steve, but no thanks, I like working in my garage"
as corporations get more and more powerful, the issues of their responsibility are going to be bigger and bigger.
I dunno, the way I see it, the internet is too big to be cracked down on and locked down. Of course there are always going to be people who try to lock it down but it will be temporary at best. sure there are always going to be your walled gardens and areas where things are locked down, but the internet at large will probably always be free.
There would be too much outrage if they were actually successful in locking people out.
but like anything, you can't just rest on your laurels and do nothing and assume it will be free without doing anything. freedom has to be fought for. There has to be pushback. The protests of PIPA/SOPA did have an effect and if someone tries to take something away from you, you fight to keep it.


Yeah the first sentence is do important people have a responsibility to speak out about regulation of the internet! No questions about taking responsibility for the actions of ones company. Of course the people running a company are responsible for the actions of the company. This was never talked about in this video. Woz states he likes it when anyone in the public eye speaks out for what they think is right. I cannot believe people are trying to correct me and still completely fail to understand basic English. Whether or not Woz is defensive about Apple in other situations I don't know anything about and is also irrelevant since he hasn't had any influence there for decades.

We need to take the word libertarian back from right wing cranks like Peter Schiff and the Cato Institute. Schiff is free to defend the 1% all he likes, but let's not pretend it has anything to do with liberty.

Good conversation points Yogi.

Hurting people isn't a freedom of speech issue. He stalked her and tormented her. If he'd done it by distributing flyers it would still be criminal, not protected speech.

I don't think that vigilantism is justice, but when someone does something bad to someone else, IMO they give up the expectation that others won't do that same thing to them. In other words, while I wouldn't be the one who maliciously distributes his info, he has to accept that it's fair by virtue of his own actions.

Thanks for being honest and open about your feelings relating to judgement of her suicide. You've made most of my argument for me already, but I'll add a couple things. First, you say, "... I don't think words is a good enough reason." You say it like words are just painless electric signals produced in our brains from oscillations of our eardrums, and so shouldn't cause anxiety. I can't disagree more. I was bullied as a kid for two years, and looking back, I'm really thankful that it was almost all physical and exclusion. It hurt, and I felt powerless, but the people bullying me didn't spend a lot of effort attacking my character aside from calling me fag. They also didn't begin to ruin my social life by turning entire schools against me, even after moving. And even if it weren't that severe, to a teenager, any words that contain some ring of truth will stick. And teens are extremely self-conscious, so anything negative they will accept as probably accurate.

Second, you say, "...without good reason". The word "good" is itself a judgement. That guy told Amanda since she was 12 that she was never going to have any friends, and he had made sure of it. She had never known any other social reality, and it seemed like the torment was literally going to last forever. To a bullied 15-year-old, the time when things will be better is probably four years away. To me that's nothing, probably you neither. I'm going to be 40 in four years, and it feels like it's next door. Yet for me at 15, 19 was an imaginary concept. Having no friends at 15, in our primitive brains, equals certain death. It wasn't a logical decision any more than hooking up with some guy with a girlfriend who said he liked her.

Finally, and this isn't my strongest point here, you say that you went through hard times and never thought suicide was the answer. For you. You're not the yardstick the rest of the world is measured by. I could equally ask you why you didn't kill yourself when clearly Amanda thought it was the answer. People are just different.

Less to argue with you, and more to move along your internal debate.

As for me, I'm not exactly settled in my full opinion, but I can say I respect the decision to commit suicide. This article by Michael Landsberg about his friend, hockey player Wade Belak's suicide was formative for me. In it he says, "People kill themselves when the fear of living another moment outweighs the fear of dying at that moment." People with loving young families and without any "obvious" problems find reason to kill themselves. I have to acknowledge that reality in any personal opinion of suicide.>> ^Yogi:

This is a very sticky subject especially if you don't understand all the nuance. I mean it's about freedom or speech which Americans cherish rightly but it's also about not acting like a complete dick, which it seems most Americans still cherish. Now tormenting or abuse I think is much different than me coming on here and telling @Sagemind to go kill himself because he smells.
I'm not sure if I agree with Anon releasing this persons info either. Maybe it makes you feel good in the revenge center but is that really how we want justice to work?
Personally I also have an issue with someone who committed suicide. I'm still exploring it because I don't think it's right for me to tell someone how they should react to things, especially when given differences in upbringing or simple brain chemistry. I guess I'll just say that I think suicide is quitting, I don't like it and I don't really respect people that do it without good reason, and I don't think words is a good enough reason. This is my experience from my life of horror and feeling like utter shit a lot of the time. I never thought that ending it would be an answer and I don't necessarily understand those that do. Sorry I didn't want to cede the intellectual ground but I felt I had to be honest and maybe that'll start a conversation about how other people feel about people who commit suicide.

I think he liked it.

It's weird the way he's flopping around like a fish.
Kinda gay.
Does he like fishsticks?

Wow... from Wikipedia:

Williams had first attempted suicide in 1993 by hammering a knife into her chest; the knife lodged in her sternum and she changed her mind, calling Swenson to take her to hospital.[5] She attempted suicide again in 1997 with an overdose of ephedrine.[5]

Williams died at age 48 on April 6, 1998 of a self-inflicted gunshot wound in a wooded area near her home. Rod Swenson, who had been Wendy's significant other for more than twenty years, returned from shopping to the wooded area where the two had lived since moving to Connecticut from New York. He found a package that Wendy had left him with some special noodles he liked, a packet of seeds for growing garden greens, some oriental massage balm, and sealed letters from Wendy. The suicide letters which included a "living will" denying life support, a love letter to Swenson, and various lists of things to do set Swenson searching the woods looking for her. After about an hour, and after it was almost dark, he found the body in woods near an area where she loved to feed the wildlife. Several nut shells were on a nearby rock where she had apparently been feeding some of the squirrels before she died. Swenson checked the body for a pulse, and there was none. A pistol lay on the ground nearby, and he returned to the house to call the local authorities. "Wendy's act was not an irrational in-the-moment act," he said, she had been talking about taking her own life for almost four years. Swenson reportedly described her as "despondent" at the time of her suicide.[13] This is what she is said to have written[14] in a suicide note regarding her decision:
“ I don't believe that people should take their own lives without deep and thoughtful reflection over a considerable period of time. I do believe strongly, however, that the right to do so is one of the most fundamental rights that anyone in a free society should have. For me, much of the world makes no sense, but my feelings about what I am doing ring loud and clear to an inner ear and a place where there is no self, only calm.

>> ^PostalBlowfish:

>> ^Jinx:Firstly he isn't giving any credit to Hitler.

Yeah, that's pretty much exactly what he did do. It's not like he was saying he liked Hitler or something, but the one sentence that referenced Hitler gave him credit for liquifying coal.
Not sure why anyone cares, though. He mentioned a positive thing Hitler might have been involved in, and it stands to reason that there must have been a few positives to the guy. But when you bring him up, you're going to catch some shit (I guess) if you don't end up condemning him.
And now, in order to avoid hand-launched vegetables, I conclude with...
That Hitler, what a horrible guy!

Ok, you even mention Hitler and you immediately have to finish your sentence with some bullshit disclaimer. I mean, the article in the OP contradicts its title by the second paragraph by way of explaining that Mitt wasn't actually supporting Hitlers politics with this statement but then close by saying he should be more tactful? Tactful for who? For the morons who'd take something so far out of context that a offhand comment about Hitler's energy policy suddenly becomes a call for the massacre of Jews? Fuck. That.


You notice how frequently people are outraged on behalf of "some people" - This unnamed silent group almost entirely fabricated for the purpose of a narrative. This is a non story with a bunch of chumps sitting around talking about how Mitt should watch his words in case "some people" get the wrong end of the stick. Find me these vegetable launchers, and if you do please explain to me why they matter?

Its sad because I think politicians are so afraid of being eviscerated for such minor "tactless" comments that they frequently end up saying nothing at all. We the people end up paying for this allergic reaction with politicians who will only answer in platitudes. It goes for policy too frankly. Perhaps if the democrats aim was to fulfill their promises rather than avoiding raising the ire of their opponents then more would have been done in the last 4 years...

As for the advances in science made by the Nazi regime...well thats tricky. Perhaps its unfortunate that we can't put some knowledge back in the box if it was discovered unethically. Still, the idea of liquified coal is quite seperate to say, the genetic experiments in concentration camps. We use Jet Engines that were first put to practical use by the Nazis, rocket science was given a big boost by the advances made in developing the V2...the list goes on. Unfortunately war of any kind is a big motivation for inovation. Even if we could, should we forget the advances made that have a loose connection to an ideology we oppose?

>> ^Jinx:Firstly he isn't giving any credit to Hitler.


Yeah, that's pretty much exactly what he did do. It's not like he was saying he liked Hitler or something, but the one sentence that referenced Hitler gave him credit for liquifying coal.

Not sure why anyone cares, though. He mentioned a positive thing Hitler might have been involved in, and it stands to reason that there must have been a few positives to the guy. But when you bring him up, you're going to catch some shit (I guess) if you don't end up condemning him.

And now, in order to avoid hand-launched vegetables, I conclude with...

That Hitler, what a horrible guy!