Thanks
In reply to this comment by kulpims:
*promote chinese bukowski

#1 is true "on videosift" as I asserted. I stand behind that statement. Nothing wrong with it, just the way it is. Do you disagree?

#2 The reason why this stereotype exists is because lower-income voters (those with a household income of fewer than $30,000 per year) lean HEAVILY to the left and favor the democrat party by a margin of 17 points.

My original comment was completely tongue-in-cheek, playing on the stereotypes about a liberal bias and lazy welfare loafers but you looked right past it and accused me of being shortsighted myself. You obviously don't have a sense of humor when it comes to politics. I'll be more careful in the future.
>> ^NetRunner:

Oh, I agree, they're not completely uniform, but most of the time it's just a difference in intensity, rather than some substantively unique outlook on the world.
In the narrow scope of my earlier comment, I was defining conservative as believing in one or more of the fairytales the social group known as "conservatives" like to tell themselves. You espoused two:

1. That "liberal bias" exists.
   
2. That liberals are lazy lieabouts who don't work for a living.
   

Do you claim that those are based on some sort of factual evidence, and would hold up to a skeptical review?
>> ^deedub81:
I like to think that everyone's political opinions are at least slightly different. I'd love for you to tell me what you think conservative beliefs are. You seem to be pretty sure of yourself.
This is me: http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=2.50&a

mp;soc=-4.41

Oh, I agree, they're not completely uniform, but most of the time it's just a difference in intensity, rather than some substantively unique outlook on the world.

In the narrow scope of my earlier comment, I was defining conservative as believing in one or more of the fairytales the social group known as "conservatives" like to tell themselves. You espoused two:

1. That "liberal bias" exists.
   
2. That liberals are lazy lieabouts who don't work for a living.
   

Do you claim that those are based on some sort of factual evidence, and would hold up to a skeptical review?
>> ^deedub81:

I like to think that everyone's political opinions are at least slightly different. I'd love for you to tell me what you think conservative beliefs are. You seem to be pretty sure of yourself.
This is me: http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=2.50&a
mp;soc=-4.41

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by ReverendTed.

Fok Li
>> ^A10anis:

1.52. for a second I thought the left name board said Fuk U

<ol>
<li><a href="javascript:self.close();">don't click this (?)</a> [edit: doesn't work, good!]</li>
<li>don't know if there's a limit on <br></li>
<li>^{echo^{echo^{echo^echo}}}</li>
<li>&hearts; = ♥</li>
<li><:t = <:t</li>
</ol>

>> ^messenger:

All faiths do not have the same agenda. That's a ridiculous statement, even if you restrict it to long-established religions. For example, Buddhism seeks to help you find the best person you can be for its own sake, not for the service of some higher power. That's not excessive, and equating it with Scientology in terms of degree of control is not accurate. As for control, yes, all systems --both religious and secular-- involve control. This includes laws, government systems, psychotherapy and parenting. You left out the word "excessive". It's important. Cults are perceived to have excessive control. What constitutes excessive is a matter of debate or personal opinion, but tarring them all with the same brush is still simplistic.>> ^A10anis:
>> ^messenger:
A good question, what the difference is. Trying to come up with any definition that distinguishes a religion from a cult is very difficult for me. Saying there's no difference because of the similarities is simplistic though.
OED's definitions of the two are basically the same except for this:
cult: 1 ...

a relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or as imposing excessive control over members.
So, if there is a difference between the two, it's in your point of view, like the difference between "stubborn" and "determined" is whether you like what they're doing.>> ^A10anis:
What is the difference between a "cult" and any other "faith?" There is NO difference. They all take advantage of the weak, desperate, and gullible. They all have leaders who exploit these peoples weaknesses for their own ends. They will all end up consigned to the history class when we realize that education is the key. When you are educated you begin asking questions, which is exactly what these cult leaders want to prevent. Stay stupid and a slave, or get educated and be free.

It is not "simplistic" to point out that "faiths" all have the same agenda, their numbers are irrelevant. Actually, your OED definition could be seen as simplistic, as the numbers involved in "cults" are obviously lower, simply because of the shorter time they have existed. And, cults being; "regarded by others as strange, or as imposing excessive control over members," applies to ALL "beliefs," regardless of the number of people involved, because they are all, ultimately, about control.



Buddhism is not a religion in the context of this discussion. Neither is the law etc! That said, I will gladly concede, if you can name me a religion/cult which does not require total submission and the relinquishing of free will. I'm done...

All faiths do not have the same agenda. That's a ridiculous statement, even if you restrict it to long-established religions. For example, Buddhism seeks to help you find the best person you can be for its own sake, not for the service of some higher power. That's not excessive, and equating it with Scientology in terms of degree of control is not accurate. As for control, yes, all systems --both religious and secular-- involve control. This includes laws, government systems, psychotherapy and parenting. You left out the word "excessive". It's important. Cults are perceived to have excessive control. What constitutes excessive is a matter of debate or personal opinion, but tarring them all with the same brush is still simplistic.>> ^A10anis:

>> ^messenger:
A good question, what the difference is. Trying to come up with any definition that distinguishes a religion from a cult is very difficult for me. Saying there's no difference because of the similarities is simplistic though.
OED's definitions of the two are basically the same except for this:
cult: 1 ...

a relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or as imposing excessive control over members.
So, if there is a difference between the two, it's in your point of view, like the difference between "stubborn" and "determined" is whether you like what they're doing.>> ^A10anis:
What is the difference between a "cult" and any other "faith?" There is NO difference. They all take advantage of the weak, desperate, and gullible. They all have leaders who exploit these peoples weaknesses for their own ends. They will all end up consigned to the history class when we realize that education is the key. When you are educated you begin asking questions, which is exactly what these cult leaders want to prevent. Stay stupid and a slave, or get educated and be free.

It is not "simplistic" to point out that "faiths" all have the same agenda, their numbers are irrelevant. Actually, your OED definition could be seen as simplistic, as the numbers involved in "cults" are obviously lower, simply because of the shorter time they have existed. And, cults being; "regarded by others as strange, or as imposing excessive control over members," applies to ALL "beliefs," regardless of the number of people involved, because they are all, ultimately, about control.

>> ^messenger:

A good question, what the difference is. Trying to come up with any definition that distinguishes a religion from a cult is very difficult for me. Saying there's no difference because of the similarities is simplistic though.
OED's definitions of the two are basically the same except for this:
cult: 1 ...

a relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or as imposing excessive control over members.
So, if there is a difference between the two, it's in your point of view, like the difference between "stubborn" and "determined" is whether you like what they're doing.>> ^A10anis:
What is the difference between a "cult" and any other "faith?" There is NO difference. They all take advantage of the weak, desperate, and gullible. They all have leaders who exploit these peoples weaknesses for their own ends. They will all end up consigned to the history class when we realize that education is the key. When you are educated you begin asking questions, which is exactly what these cult leaders want to prevent. Stay stupid and a slave, or get educated and be free.

I was told once that a religion worships a deity, and a cult worships another person. They're both batshit, imho.

>> ^messenger:

A good question, what the difference is. Trying to come up with any definition that distinguishes a religion from a cult is very difficult for me. Saying there's no difference because of the similarities is simplistic though.
OED's definitions of the two are basically the same except for this:
cult: 1 ...

a relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or as imposing excessive control over members.
So, if there is a difference between the two, it's in your point of view, like the difference between "stubborn" and "determined" is whether you like what they're doing.>> ^A10anis:
What is the difference between a "cult" and any other "faith?" There is NO difference. They all take advantage of the weak, desperate, and gullible. They all have leaders who exploit these peoples weaknesses for their own ends. They will all end up consigned to the history class when we realize that education is the key. When you are educated you begin asking questions, which is exactly what these cult leaders want to prevent. Stay stupid and a slave, or get educated and be free.

It is not "simplistic" to point out that "faiths" all have the same agenda, their numbers are irrelevant. Actually, your OED definition could be seen as simplistic, as the numbers involved in "cults" are obviously lower, simply because of the shorter time they have existed. And, cults being; "regarded by others as strange, or as imposing excessive control over members," applies to ALL "beliefs," regardless of the number of people involved, because they are all, ultimately, about control.

A good question, what the difference is. Trying to come up with any definition that distinguishes a religion from a cult is very difficult for me. Saying there's no difference because of the similarities is simplistic though.

OED's definitions of the two are basically the same except for this:
cult: 1 ...

a relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or as imposing excessive control over members.

So, if there is a difference between the two, it's in your point of view, like the difference between "stubborn" and "determined" is whether you like what they're doing.>> ^A10anis:

What is the difference between a "cult" and any other "faith?" There is NO difference. They all take advantage of the weak, desperate, and gullible. They all have leaders who exploit these peoples weaknesses for their own ends. They will all end up consigned to the history class when we realize that education is the key. When you are educated you begin asking questions, which is exactly what these cult leaders want to prevent. Stay stupid and a slave, or get educated and be free.

I think it's pretty straightforward if you examine the card buffers.

Part of the intended misdirection is that the cards are cut, but because of the way the cards are stacked, the cut stacks are always restored.

After the initial stack-up, the sequence 100% of the time is:

• 9 random cards on top of
• 1 ace on top of
• 15 random cards (which were cut then put back together when stacked) on top of
• 1 ace on top of
• 15 random cards (which were cut then put back together when stacked) on top of
• 1 ace on top of
• 10 random cards

Once they're in this specific order and the top 4 cards are moved to the bottom, the sequence is simply to always keep the aces in an even position by alternating top-to-bottom then bottom-to-top as you repeatedly divide the deck in half.

Et voila.

[edit]
Or now that I read the other comments ^above, yeah, what they said.

Yes, have heard of him. I would need to go and re-listen to see if it's coincidence that I've upvoted all the ones without him and none of the ones with him I think it might be...

As for adding Lisa Hannigan... I didn't really think I needed to! I spent a bit of time doing a playlist though. A few non-folk ones may have crept in along with the borderline ones. Feedback welcome.

http://videosift.com/playlists/oritteropo/Folk-music-suggestions
In reply to this comment by lampishthing:
Have you guys ever heard of Damien Rice, btw? Lisa Hannigan & him used to be a thing. She features a fair bit on his gorgeous gorgeous album "O".>> ^lampishthing:

And, cough , Lisa Hannigan...>> ^oritteropo:
I feel somewhat underprepared! Since all my favourite performers have at least one vid here on vs already, perhaps a eurofolk playlist is in order? I've been following Le Cargo, since every google search of bands I liked ended up there, and posting my favourite ones here.
For a non-exhaustive list to start, I would recommend these English bands:

• This is the kit
• Merz
• I am Kloot

And these from the rest of Europe

• The Swell Season
• Melpo Mene
• Alela Diane

I welcome any other suggestions, too
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Could I request a European folk listening list from you in this thread, oritteropo?
You find some nice stuff.

Have you guys ever heard of Damien Rice, btw? Lisa Hannigan & him used to be a thing. She features a fair bit on his gorgeous gorgeous album "O".>> ^lampishthing:

And, cough , Lisa Hannigan...>> ^oritteropo:
I feel somewhat underprepared! Since all my favourite performers have at least one vid here on vs already, perhaps a eurofolk playlist is in order? I've been following Le Cargo, since every google search of bands I liked ended up there, and posting my favourite ones here.
For a non-exhaustive list to start, I would recommend these English bands:

• This is the kit
• Merz
• I am Kloot

And these from the rest of Europe

• The Swell Season
• Melpo Mene
• Alela Diane

I welcome any other suggestions, too
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Could I request a European folk listening list from you in this thread, oritteropo?
You find some nice stuff.