Name recognition and irony, I suppose.
My diet has been about 90% soylent for the past 7 months and I can't imagine going back. I've reduced my body fat, have more energy and more ambition, I'm healthier, better moods, spend less on food, waste less food, waste less time figuring out what to eat and when I eat the food I actually enjoy it tastes amazing.

Over all the years, the "alternative media" over here never even acklowledged the existence of MMT. Not a peep to be found, anywhere, aside from the occasional blog entry. One might think the current crises would have been the perfect timing to take a closer look at matters of macroeconomic finance.

This month, however, I came across at least half a dozen articles about the basics of MMT on the most widely read news sources outside the mainstream, including numerous links to the works of Randall Wray, Warren Mosler and Bill Mitchell. MMT might finally gain some recognition among my fellow citizens.

Which is why no one should be bringing evidence from their high school textbook to this debate. However, there are thousands of serious academics who have studied the war in detail, and are quite intelligent enough to tell government propaganda from reliable sources.

The irony of course is that many "I don't trust the government" takes on the civil war, instead put their trust in the public statements of the Confederate government. In reality, the confederates had as much incentive as any other government to lie about their motives. Moreso in fact, since they saw European recognition as central to their survival, and the English disgust with slavery was the primary obstacle to that.

I finally saw the movie, and I can't understand why they slapped the Mad Max name on it. I would have been happier if they made it a stand alone movie, maybe even a new series, but it almost seemed to me like they added 'Mad Max' as an after thought just for name brand recognition.
Having the last of the V8 Interceptors in it made no sense at all if you watched the first 3 movies, it was completely destroyed in Road Warrior, as it was in this movie (no spoiler, it's in the trailer) so someone please explain to me, how is the car supposed to be in both movies?
I still liked it.

Now we're arguing semantics. Yummy.

racism:"noun
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement"
See, the keyword here is achievement. There are no achievements without any form of judgement. Think of it in the most simple terms, X Box or Steam achievements. Let's say you play Call Of Duty 18 and get the "Used a gun!" achievement for firing the very first shot in the game. You got this because the game's code made a judgement. Did the player fire a shot? Yes or no. Sure, it's easy to judge that, the facts are very clear and easy to read. Are you worthy of this achievement? Are you as much worth as I am, the guy who finished the game and got the achievement?
And what about the guy who never got that achievement because he played the entire game only using a knife? Think about it, playing any Call Of Duty single player campaign using only melee weapons and throwing knives. Who's worthy know? Who achieved more?
Achievement depends entirely on the definition and who's making them. The knife guy played the way harder game and got no recognition but the guy who got the "Used A Gun!" and the "1000 Headshots!" achievement is the one bragging online about his achievements and medals next to his name.
Who has achieved more, the ethnic group that developed many different technologies (like, say, guns) or the ethnic group that still runs naked through the jungle and considers knives high-tech? "Those naked dudes are clearly stupid and less developed than I am because I got guns!" said the white man in Africa.
One of the biggest racist prejudices black americans hear is that they are lazy because they achieve so much less than white folk. They guys with the titles and medals and guns.
Achievements are the acknowledgements that you gained skills, positions, posessions, knowledge or reputation. That can only be acknowledged becaused somebody judged you. Like the test or dissertation I have to write to become a Professor of Physics. This achievement will cause other to have prejudices about me, like "He's a professor, he must be smart!"
The definition of racism you posted says this:
"racism is the belief that depending on your race you can develop in a certain way or to a certain level"
This is a modern definition based on racist expirience. It says that racists think you can not achieve more than they can based on the achievements your ancestors had compared to theirs. "Once a slave, always a slave. If black people weren't so lazy, they wouldn't need a good whipping!" That train of thought.
All that of course underplays the emotional component of hatred, the driving force of racism in its worst forms.
Now my fingers hurt.

Your last sentence sums it up pretty well. Given the opportunity, we would screw it up beyond recognition.

Hey Ant..., Looks like I duped your video - Pixels Trailer...
I just spent two power points to promote it though --- So lets leave it up so it gain some recognition before Duping it.
Not to worry - You'll get the points in the end!

So it occurred to me, as I watched this, that although this makes perfect sense and it's pretty much how I see things as well, does everyone think like this.
I've seen the people who claim that morality comes from religion, and that without religion, we wouldn't know right from wrong.

So, that's when I wondered:
Are there people who actually don't know right from wrong? Are they missing that piece in their brains that limit their comprehension of empathy. That feeling when they are doing something wrong. There are no thoughts of doubt, no pangs of guilt. No recognition that they are hurting others, even if just emotionally.

And, if so, are these the people that need a God? Are all those god fearing people good members of the community just because they "fear a God"
Without a god to tell them, would they end up being the most unruly people on the planet? Is it religion that is keeping them at bay? Is chaos and anarchy the result of no religion? Not because we need it, but because without a GOD, certain people (currently religious) would have no compass, and would they feel free to randomly hurt, kill, steal and otherwise be the lowest of humanity?

Just some thoughts....

He cares enough about recognition to make/participate in these videos and post them...that's -got- to be more of a pain than dealing with Guinness would be. Especially when he's been doing these for several years now, and -claims- to be the world record holder.

By that standard, I could claim to hold any world record I wish, too.

^I noticed in this other video (below) of a different shooter using one of Lars' 'tricks', similar speed and accuracy is achieved by using the method of holding the arrows in the bow hand, and could be sped up by more than double the shooting speed if the method of notching the arrow on the outside were used. This other video shows how useful speed is in 'battle', and shows just how much only one of Lars' tricks speeds up the shooting speed without diminishing accuracy.
I admit, it is odd that Lars is not recognized as the fastest arrow shooter by Guinness, but not definitive. Some people just don't care about recognition or Guinness. I'm now on the fence, but still leaning towards it being 'real'.

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Rapid-Fire-Bow-Shooting-From-Horseback-Mongol-Hun-Style

Yeah I just didn't want to use the 'official' term for them because they don't deserve the recognition.

I could be wrong though, I just recall a lot of info that seemed to suggest they arose from the same social arena as the former group. Let's hope I'm wrong?

Lost in all this is an aspect that's becoming more and more relevant to today's kids, and their future adult life: when this girl is grown up, pictures of her naked kiddie self will be floating around online for anyone to see.

Would you like it if naked kiddie pictures of you were there for any random person to look at? Would you be comfortable with any person you happen to introduce yourself to finding these pictures? What about strangers on the street able to use facial recognition software to find, among other things, these pictures of you? People looking you up on dating sites? (It may not be possible today, but it will in all likelihood be common in the future, and if your photos are already online, there's no way back.) Don't kids have the right to privacy? Why do parents get to post a shit-ton of less than respectful (often humiliating) pictures of their kids online, with no regard for the kids' future well-being and social life? (Not saying that's the case here, as I haven't seen all his pictures, nor do I care to.)

As someone once said, there should be a law against that.

Before posting pictures of your kid online, ask yourself this: When my kids are grown up, will they thank me for posting those pictures online? No? The opposite? Maybe you shouldn't post them, then.

So much fun to see alums from So You Think You Can Dance included -- Cyrus, Marco, Phillip Chbeeb and choreographer Christopher Scott. Also, the main "robot" fellow has danced as the show as part of the League of Extraordinary Dancers.

Yippee! Dancers getting work and recognition as individuals!

1) Northern Europe is the closest comparison income wise to the US besides Japan which is culturally very different. I don't think it's unreasonable to aggregate these countries in comparing. There isn't going to be a perfect example, but Russia is very far from it.

Your argument about the death penalty is a null point because what you're proposing is impractical and thus not worth debating.

2) & 3) Greenland has a GDP per capita of 22K and is a highly idiosyncratic example given its population density. I think that's pretty much self evident. If Greenland is your best example I think I've proven my point.

I have no doubt that greater surveillance and enforcement will reduce crime rates. I'm not disputing that. Technology will naturally improve this through the likes of ever improving facial recognition. But I don't think a UK style CCTV policing system would be affordable given that the US is less densely populated in cities. As for enforcement, I don't think there's been a lack of money thrown in that direction. The issue, as this video points out, is more that if it was targeted at violent rather than drug offenders the overall benefit to society would be greater. There I would not disagree.

4)

Germany and the Netherlands are other examples where it has worked:

http://www.takepart.com/article/2013/11/14/some-european-prisons-are-shrinking-and-closing-what-can-america-learn

What you're proposing (visa vi death penalty) is something no democratic country has accepted (or will, I think). What I propose is at least accepted by to a large extent by many European developed countries. The US may shift eventually if it is recognised the current policies have been consistently failing.

5)

Yes there are many reasons why Venezuela is not a fair example. I think you make my point. Surveillance and enforcement are both necessary to reduce crime. Of course if you pick countries distinctly lacking in them then it supports your case.

But I'm arguing about which would be better given the baseline of current US policy. I think you would agree that both surveillance and enforcement are of a much higher standard in the US, with largely meritocratic and corruption free police forces. If that's the case then other developed countries, with roughly similar incomes and therefore tax revenues to afford comparable police force standards are a good reference. Venezuela is not.

Far from conclusive, but the idea of a designer-god (demiurge) was at one time a thought provoking perspective on existence.

However, your statement is best expressed as a belief made through faith; NOT a conclusive argument made through PROOF, the definition of which you're incorrectly ascribing your statement to.

Which makes it less thought provoking now that we have more advanced ways of reasoning and pondering the universe. i.e. the scientific method.

Admirable, perhaps, to still cling to said belief, but not convincing in the least, considering it is something that is neither deniable nor undeniably a possibility. Concluding science to be "proof" of God is merely a logical trap to be avoided.

EDIT:
"...therefore the inference to the best explanation is that which points to a mind, and therefore a designer."

Also, just because our theories of abiogenesis are not as sophisticated as our theories of evolution, does not suddenly mean that a designer is the final, undeniable conclusion. If that were the case with science we'd drop all of our theories in conclusion that it must be a god. We can't connect our theory of gravity to abiogenesis, therefore it is God. Laughable conclusion based in logical fallacy.

The only thing that infers such an explanation is your mind saying it is so. Similar to my inference that trees being phallic and in abundance, necessitate a giant penis god. You fail to see that science isn't merely based upon human logic and pattern recognition, it is based in mathematical observation -- which your logical leaps and bounds are not able to compete with, no matter how hard your brain tries to find a hidden pattern in anything you can grasp for, like a man drowning in an ocean of possibilities.

Anyone can infer anything from something of similar value, ergo inference without a scientific basis is silly.