Constitutional or not? Forget the constitution for a moment.
Ask yourself if the Mafiosi during prohibition (or now for that matter) who exacted payments from business owners in neighborhoods in Chicago under promise of either protection or retribution for non-compliance were protected under any laws save those of corruption, graft, extortion, and thuggery.

No difference here simply an emperor in new clothes. Rather than allowing such insanity to continue why don't we all pull our collective heads from our asses and wake up to the crime being perpetrated in just about every piece of legislation set forth from now on?

Let's suggest a solution to the health problem in the United States: Train the next two generations of TV-Addicted robots to stop putting poison in their bodies and place serious limitations on adverts for crap food. Dismember the Agri-lobby crowd inside the beltway. Dismantle Monsanto and other poisonous corporations dead-set on CREATING the health problems of the U.S. , etc. Ban advertising of a battery of staple products, fast-foods, etc.

Charge MORE money for crap food instead of making deep-fried roadkill from MC D's, Pizza Hut, etc. dirt, fucking cheap. Make the Mayo clinic's power foods list the most affordable stuff on the planet.

Reprogramming of dysfunctional habits is what is needed. Not some crap president's evil plan to keep the statusquo. He's a tool, his plan is bound to add to his legacy of shit. Fuck, the man is FROM the most corrupt city in the country!?? Can't those with an IQ over 110 get the gist?

"A third unknown factor which causes both the economic gap and the wide array of social "decay" in country after country."

Nobody alive knows how to bring white people's average test scores up to the scores of north-east Asians and Jews, or NAMs (non-Asian minorities) up to the scores of white people. Naturally, permanent gaps in test scores cause all manner of social decay, all deriving from population replacement.

This chart concisely explains every problem the US experiences (the need for income redistribution, high murder rate & prison population, low test scores, high unemployment. On every societal factor, if you break it down by region of ancestry, the US scores equal to or better than the countries its population came from, and it's the population replacement responsible for problems.



Before I leave the sift, we should place a bet.

You bet is OWS will help fix these problems by creating a shift to the political left. If the next president after Obama is Republican, as I expect, or if the economic decline continues in liberal states, that would seem to be counter to your prediction.

My bet is the US is in permanent economic decline that will correlate (just as it already correlates) with 1. how liberal a state is and 2. the proportion of the state population that's not White/Asian/Jewish. Next time you notice statistics suggesting that the global fiscal crisis only occurred because it was assumed NAMs would manage their finances in the same way Whites/Jews/Asians do, question whether it's really in society's interest to pretend reality isn't the way it is. If these achievement gaps close within the next 100 years without the help of reprogenetics (reprogramming genetics will probably start via embryo selection around 2040, and liberals will oppose it until they finally reverse their position in the latter half of the century), that would disprove my prediction.



Some sources that Cenk would be furious we're talking about without applying deception:
• NYT: Triumph Fades on Racial Gap in City Schools
• The Great Dumbing Down: California Skills Decay Due To Immigration



Anyway, I'm off. This should be my last substantive comment on videosift. Best of luck on your path, Messenger.

I agree, though my comment was somewhat rhetorical.

>> ^rosekat:

Sometimes it's both. They all require reprogramming, this is unacceptable in the workplace!>> ^Sagemind:
Is she harassing them by taunting them, or are they harassing her by thinking sexy thoughts while she innocently eats her pop-cycle?

Sometimes it's both. They all require reprogramming, this is unacceptable in the workplace!>> ^Sagemind:

Is she harassing them by taunting them, or are they harassing her by thinking sexy thoughts while she innocently eats her pop-cycle?

@marbles

Radar requires line of sight (with slight deviation due to atmospheric refraction) so, yes, you would be able to determine the coverage of each station with rather high accuracy just by knowing its location and the surrounding topography.

I also think it was a waste of time for the hijackers to change the transponder codes. I can only guess it was paranoia that drove them to do this. I think you're getting ahead of yourself when you say "somehow the hijackers knew where the gaps were". If they had, then why did only 2 of 4 planes change transponder codes while they were in dead zones? It's quite possible that this was pure coincidence. It's not like these planes even changed course to fly into dead zones. Their regularly scheduled courses brought all of them into dead zones.

I'd like to point out that, were the planes under remote control as is being alleged, it still wouldn't make any more sense for the transponders to be reprogrammed mid-flight.

I said he was either dishonest or ignorant and the one issue we've discussed is not the only reason I came to that conclusion. The entire video; indeed the entire truther movement, from what I've seen; is based on the flawed premise that all explanations that can be imagined are to be treated equally. I fully expect there are truthers out there who believe that aliens teleported onto the four planes and locked them on their course before teleporting back to the safety of the mothership. No doubt this was done to bankrupt the US, halting our space program before we could threaten their civilization. And we'd all be expected to treat this theory with the same credibility as "terrorists hijacked the planes and flew them into buildings because they were pissed off about us occupying their homelands."

Ultimately there were two reasons I did not want to participate in a discussion on this topic and I will say I seem to have been entirely wrong about one of them. That was my expectation that you could not keep this civil. Kudos to you on that.

The other reason is that there's just nothing of any interest or note coming from the truthers. It's all wild speculation backed up by claims that said speculation hasn't been investigated and/or disproven. You get to have your ideas heard by participating in these discussions, but what do I get out of it?

>> ^Stormsinger:

>> ^marbles:
>> ^Stormsinger:
>> ^marbles:
>> ^Stormsinger:
@marbles
If you put in remote control that can override the pilot, how long do you think it's going to take before some hacker takes over a plane? And considering that it's a -whole- lot safer for the hijacker than doing it in person, I'm pretty sure it will happen more often than terrorist hijackings have.

What are you talking about? It's already there. It's called remote access. The autopilot software has had remote access capabilities for decades. Read the essay you quoted.
On a side note, the NORAD computers were probably hacked.
Ptech software (loaded with back-doors and trojans) was on pretty much all the government's computer systems. Ptech clients included the FAA, NATO, United States Armed Forces, Congress, Dept. Of Energy, Dept. of Justice, FBI, Customs, the IRS, the Secret Service, and even the White House.

“Most modern aircraft have some form of autopilot that could be re-programmed to ignore commands from a hijacker and instead take direction from the ground . . . .”
Note the words, "THAT COULD BE". Implying that it doesn't do so at this point.

Are you purposely acting dense?
"at this point" ??? It doesn't do so until if and when you need it to ignore commands from a hijacker... like DURING A HIJACKING. That's one of the main purposes of having remote access to the autopilot.

I give up...I thought this was a real discussion, but it's become clear you aren't interested in that. "Could be reprogrammed" does not mean on-the-fly, in the middle of a hijacking. That would be called "turning it on". Frankly anyone who would attempt to reprogram an autopilot on a plane while it was in the air should be locked up for many years, and NEVER allowed near any kind of computer ever again. You have a better chance of surviving the hijacking than of some nitwits attempt to write complex programs correctly the first time and to do so in mere minutes.
Let me know when you're willing to read what I fucking write, instead of twisting it to try and make it some attack.


How about reading what you fucking quote first. Tell yourself whatever you need to. ""Could be reprogrammed" does not mean on-the-fly" -- it doesn't? of course it does. Do you expect the hijacker to land the plane so you can reprogram it?

Read the other quote from the former head of British Airways “suggested ... that aircraft could be commandeered from the ground and controlled remotely in the event of a hijack.”

It's part of the autopilot system. There's no need to hack into the system and "write complex programs correctly ... in mere minutes."

Why is that so hard to understand?

>> ^marbles:

>> ^Stormsinger:
>> ^marbles:
>> ^Stormsinger:
@marbles
If you put in remote control that can override the pilot, how long do you think it's going to take before some hacker takes over a plane? And considering that it's a -whole- lot safer for the hijacker than doing it in person, I'm pretty sure it will happen more often than terrorist hijackings have.

What are you talking about? It's already there. It's called remote access. The autopilot software has had remote access capabilities for decades. Read the essay you quoted.
On a side note, the NORAD computers were probably hacked.
Ptech software (loaded with back-doors and trojans) was on pretty much all the government's computer systems. Ptech clients included the FAA, NATO, United States Armed Forces, Congress, Dept. Of Energy, Dept. of Justice, FBI, Customs, the IRS, the Secret Service, and even the White House.

“Most modern aircraft have some form of autopilot that could be re-programmed to ignore commands from a hijacker and instead take direction from the ground . . . .”
Note the words, "THAT COULD BE". Implying that it doesn't do so at this point.

Are you purposely acting dense?
"at this point" ??? It doesn't do so until if and when you need it to ignore commands from a hijacker... like DURING A HIJACKING. That's one of the main purposes of having remote access to the autopilot.


I give up...I thought this was a real discussion, but it's become clear you aren't interested in that. "Could be reprogrammed" does not mean on-the-fly, in the middle of a hijacking. That would be called "turning it on". Frankly anyone who would attempt to reprogram an autopilot on a plane while it was in the air should be locked up for many years, and NEVER allowed near any kind of computer ever again. You have a better chance of surviving the hijacking than of some nitwits attempt to write complex programs correctly the first time and to do so in mere minutes.

Let me know when you're willing to read what I fucking write, instead of twisting it to try and make it some attack.

@dystopianfuturetoday

1a. Some of globalization might be improved, but a lot of it is inevitable. At most, we can hope to reduce the efficiency of humankind by blocking people in developing nations from fairly being employed where they're most needed (by 1st world companies). If we had to overpay for unskilled labor, automation in the US would just increase even more quickly, so transferring labor from humans in the developing world to machines in the US wouldn't be a big help overall.

1b. Yeah, the public sector is definitely good at a lot of things, like the areas you mentioned. But the point still stands that, in effect, I'm probably more prosocial than my collectivist friends because I pursue career like an individualist, and it's through our careers and our resulting personal development that we contribute to the world.

2. Ok.

3a. The cliff notes version of human bio-diversity is that most problems with society that liberals dislike are caused by neurogenetic inequality, not by policy. The current push by liberals to restore racist discrimination against Asian Americans at California universities is tacit admission of this.

3b. The problem with regulation is that liberals moved the goal post by replacing the population of our society with the population of a poorer society. The result is things like fabricated "failures of the market" like widespread unemployment, permanently lowered academic test scores and health outcomes (which increasingly correlate with cognitive complexity as personal health management becomes more complicated) and a workforce that's too unskilled for society to be able to afford things like infrastructure and cutting edge 21st century healthcare.

3c. The good news is that, by all appearances, reprogenetics (reprogramming genetics) will begin around the middle of this century to solve all the problems caused by natural neurogenetic inequality. Embryo selection has been in use in in-vitro fertilization clinics for several years to screen out embryos with disease genes, and its use will continue to grow as genetics knowledge continues to advance at an exponential rate.


Good chatting with you also, DFT

@hpqp

Fine fine, you're the big bad intellectual and I am the intellectual cripple. Yet, if you're wrong, I would say the situation is more the reverse. But you're entitled to your wild conjecture, fevered ego and primitive stereotypes. I'll answer your questions:

1. Yes, I do believe that Adam and Eve are historical figures.

2. Special Revelation and no, you didn't understand. It states that all those He was given by the Father He will not lose. Therefore, anyone who is saved is always saved. If you reject the Holy Spirit you are not saved, therefore you were never a Christian in the first place.

3 If you're so much more intelligent than I am, why is it you're having trouble grasping this simple concept? Though Adam and Eve did not yet have the knowledge of good and evil, they were informed by God directly that it was bad to disobey him and there would be consequences. God imparted his knowledge of good and evil to them, on that circumstance, so they had the free choice.

God didn't seperate himself from man, man seperated himself from God. Instead of starting over, God went through all of this, even sent His Son to die for us, to reconcile us back to Him so we could again live together in paradise. All of this is for our benefit, and if some people prefer death to life, God isn't going to reprogram them to change their minds. He doesn't coerce love, He doesn't do evil. He gives man the choice to seek Him out or not. He shows them plainly that He is there. If they want to ignore Him and break all His rules and be seperated from Him forever, that's their choice. That's what hell actually is. Seperation from God. It's the worst punishment anyone could ever receive.

I see the distinction now. Sounds like a good idea. What do mexicans/mexican americans call themselves in spanish?




>> ^bareboards2:
Hey, I'm just quoting a Mexican. Who isn't Chicano, right? Google tells me Chicano is Mexican-American.
Notice, please, that it is a Chicano movement. Not Mexican-American movement. So even they backed away from the word Mexican.
This is specifically about reclaiming the word Mexican, according to this smart, talented Mexican woman.
I have been stewing over @<A rel="nofollow" class=profilelink title="member since November 18th, 2007" href="http://videosift.com/member/Crosswords">Crosswords post since I read it hours ago. Something about it bugged me.
I think what it is -- why bring up the reasons why the word Mexican has a bad rap? We know all that stereotypical stuff. Why not go the other direction and start to replace this narrow response to the word with other images of dignity?
Frida Kahlo. Diego Rivera. Entertainers, sports figures. Politicians. Cesar Chavez. The Dog Whisperer Cesar Millan. The millions of Mexicans who work hard, often living under a pall of fear of deportation, taking care of our children and our homes. Dedicated to their families, sending money back home. Mexican nationals who have lived their whole lives in America, choosing to become soldiers and fight for what they consider to be their country even though a piece of paper says otherwise. Even construction workers who work hard for a days pay, hoping that they will have a job the next day and in fact do a great job.
We need to start reprogramming ourselves to hear a different image when we hear the word Mexican. That is what I heard that famous Mexican woman talking about.
Mexican. Mexican. Mexican.
>> ^longde:
Have you never heard of the Chicano Movement? Chicano or mexican pride has been around for decades. >> ^bareboards2:
One pride movement that is starting, quietly, is the idea of Mexican Pride. I have only seen this a couple of places, and I am cheering it on.
Unfortunately, in America, the very word "Mexican" carries with it the echo of the phrase "dirty Mexican" -- one of the reasons we use back away to be "nice" and say Hispanic/Latino/Latina, when someone is clearly Mexican.
"Nice" becomes really ugly, when the word Mexican should be a descriptive word and not pejorative just by itself.
There are some Mexicans out there who are sick of it, and are starting to reclaim their national identity.
I had never thought of it this way, until I heard this famous actor interviewed (do wish I could remember who it was -- Salma Hayek? Someone smart and beautiful, I remember that.)
I have been trying to use the word Mexican ever since, and have screwed up, because it turns out I can't tell Guatamalen from Brazilian, so I end up insulting folks anyway. But I'm trying.
Mexican. Mexican. Mexican.

Hey, I'm just quoting a Mexican. Who isn't Chicano, right? Google tells me Chicano is Mexican-American.

Notice, please, that it is a Chicano movement. Not Mexican-American movement. So even they backed away from the word Mexican.

This is specifically about reclaiming the word Mexican, according to this smart, talented Mexican woman.

I have been stewing over @Crosswords post since I read it hours ago. Something about it bugged me.

I think what it is -- why bring up the reasons why the word Mexican has a bad rap? We know all that stereotypical stuff. Why not go the other direction and start to replace this narrow response to the word with other images of dignity?

Frida Kahlo. Diego Rivera. Entertainers, sports figures. Politicians. Cesar Chavez. The Dog Whisperer Cesar Millan. The millions of Mexicans who work hard, often living under a pall of fear of deportation, taking care of our children and our homes. Dedicated to their families, sending money back home. Mexican nationals who have lived their whole lives in America, choosing to become soldiers and fight for what they consider to be their country even though a piece of paper says otherwise. Even construction workers who work hard for a days pay, hoping that they will have a job the next day and in fact do a great job.

We need to start reprogramming ourselves to hear a different image when we hear the word Mexican. That is what I heard that famous Mexican woman talking about.

Mexican. Mexican. Mexican.

>> ^longde:

Have you never heard of the Chicano Movement? Chicano or mexican pride has been around for decades. >> ^bareboards2:
One pride movement that is starting, quietly, is the idea of Mexican Pride. I have only seen this a couple of places, and I am cheering it on.
Unfortunately, in America, the very word "Mexican" carries with it the echo of the phrase "dirty Mexican" -- one of the reasons we use back away to be "nice" and say Hispanic/Latino/Latina, when someone is clearly Mexican.
"Nice" becomes really ugly, when the word Mexican should be a descriptive word and not pejorative just by itself.
There are some Mexicans out there who are sick of it, and are starting to reclaim their national identity.
I had never thought of it this way, until I heard this famous actor interviewed (do wish I could remember who it was -- Salma Hayek? Someone smart and beautiful, I remember that.)
I have been trying to use the word Mexican ever since, and have screwed up, because it turns out I can't tell Guatamalen from Brazilian, so I end up insulting folks anyway. But I'm trying.
Mexican. Mexican. Mexican.

Spoco2 isn't talking about how the kid shouldn't have defended himself, he's talking about how such a horrible situation should never have happened. His apparent resolution is to punish all individuals that contributed to the situation.

But, let's say that you're a kid in school who realizes that the social atmosphere is completely horrible. What do you do? Do you stand on a soapbox and make a momentus Martin-Luther-King-like speech to get everyone to stop treating each other like shit, and to care about each other instead? Outside the box looking in, perhaps you can do something. The teacher who made a long comment on here has obviously figured out very clever ways of doing it by manually adjusting the social environment...at least in their own classroom. But, if you're one of the people stuck inside the problem trying to deal with it, the situation is exponentially more difficult.

In short, it's going to take much more than 'punishing all those involved' to correct the atmosphere; every kid in the school would need to be punished. For any school fight, you still see people forming a circle around the two people watching and commenting. Such is the default nature of things for humans. Back in elementary/middle school, I was pretty low on the totem pole, but I also am guilty of treating other people like shit (those lower than myself), and relishing violence whenever I saw it. If you're going to override the default, it's going to take major torrents of social reprogramming.

The basic definition of a virus is a thing that:

1. Seeks out hosts
2. Bypasses natural defenses via use of cheap trickery
3. Once inside, it reprograms the internal machinery of the host to build more of the virus
4. Uses the host to spread itself to new hosts.

This video is a virus.

I suspect many here are immune to such a crude variant, even if you're already infected with other strains.

Why won't religion just go away already? They're so desperate. Look how they try to reprogram kids. It's really quite sad. I never see atheists going door-to-door trying to sell their beliefs. Leave us sane people alone please.

I searched and couldn't find this on the sift, so I don't think it's a dupe. This youtube video has the full length, but visit the original for better sound quality. I consider "old school flash" those videos that were popular on the internet before youtube-esque lossy-video-embedded-inside-flash became popular. Wasn't sure if I could embed the original though, so I just linked to this youtube video.

Here is the author's site, but geocities is slower than albinoblacksheep.
http://www.geocities.com/clownstaples/swf/winnoise.html

From the FAQ on his page:
"The statement at the end of the movie is absolutely true. The soundtrack was made entirely in Sound Recorder. But that may be misleading, since it took more that just sound recorder to make the movie.

Structurally, the sound track is made of short clips of noises or combinations of noises. Each of these clips was made in sound recorder by distorting one of the four sounds used: ding, chord, chimes, and the Mircosoft sound.

Then sound recorder was used to mix each of these clips together into one synchronized file. Considering the amount of repetition in the song, this part was really quite easy.

Finally, the sound track was imported into Macromedia Flash, and used as the basis for the animation.

No, I didn't reprogram sound recorder to be able to play by itself. It is not a screen-captured movie of something that actually happenned on my computer. It is a fictional depiction of one way the soundtrack could have been generated (but wasnt).

The fake sound recorder windows were built out of pieces of screenshots of sound recorder, and then flash was used to animate their movement. I used mspaint (another of my favorite programs) to cut my screenshots up to get the pieces I needed."