Wow. This is obviously an incredible feat of engineering. However, is this technological advancement seriously going to enrich our lives or is it merely another tool that marketers can exploit and use to sell products? It seems to me that the main aim of "sixth sense" is to reduce the amount of thought required in selecting a product which will streamline our preferences to make participating in a market economy more efficient. Personally, the more I willingly buy shit that I don't need, the less enriched my life is.

>> ^chilaxe:
Wow, if only they could streamline this with some kind of computer-machine that could model clay-like characters in virtual space!


I'm sorry but it's just not the same. With Stop-Motion you can see the attention to detail, where the animators have touched the objects between frames. You can't get that kind of reality from computer generated images.

Wow, if only they could streamline this with some kind of computer-machine that could model clay-like characters in virtual space!

>> ^RhesusMonk:
Lame post. First of all, it's .78 trillion, which is only a big difference when one considers that the difference is $220,000,000,000. Second, you have set up a straw man by calling for proof, but asking only for "theoretical explanations, historical examples, or other data" none of which, of course, are proof. I guess I understand what you're getting at, but as one of the "lot of intelligent users on this site" I think you should streamline your thinking before presenting it to the group. I'm not hating, I'm just sayin'.


I'm not trying to set up a straw man, because I'm not trying to disprove anything here. I am only interested in viewing and understanding the evidence which shows how and why a stimulus will correct the economy. Whatever choice is made, it should be well understood, don't you agree?

Lame post. First of all, it's .78 trillion, which is only a big difference when one considers that the difference is $220,000,000,000. Second, you have set up a straw man by calling for proof, but asking only for "theoretical explanations, historical examples, or other data" none of which, of course, are proof. I guess I understand what you're getting at, but as one of the "lot of intelligent users on this site" I think you should streamline your thinking before presenting it to the group. I'm not hating, I'm just sayin'.

i've had it for a while
it definitely streamlines the process
ya did a great jorb

>> ^Jerykk:
Some of you are missing the point. He's not insulting games that have stories. He's insulting games that focus on story or cinematic values at the expense of gameplay (which is a growing trend). The fact is that games are getting dumber and less challenging by the second. The platforming in Assassin's Creed consisted of holding down one button. The platforming, puzzles and combat in the new Prince of Persia were all dumbed down and streamlined compared to the games in the Sands of Time trilogy. Genres with steep learning curves have been or are being phased out. Western RPGs and survival horror games are now more like action games. Shooters now have regenerating health, third-person cover systems, aim assist, trajectory indicators, invincible squadmates, etc.
The sad reality is that developers are focusing on accessibility over depth, challenge and longevity. Games are becoming increasingly automated and decreasingly interactive for the sake of "cinematic immersion." Anyone who's been playing games for a while (particularly on the PC) can see the downward spiral that gaming has taken.



To paraphrase: Gears of War

Some of you are missing the point. He's not insulting games that have stories. He's insulting games that focus on story or cinematic values at the expense of gameplay (which is a growing trend). The fact is that games are getting dumber and less challenging by the second. The platforming in Assassin's Creed consisted of holding down one button. The platforming, puzzles and combat in the new Prince of Persia were all dumbed down and streamlined compared to the games in the Sands of Time trilogy. Genres with steep learning curves have been or are being phased out. Western RPGs and survival horror games are now more like action games. Shooters now have regenerating health, third-person cover systems, aim assist, trajectory indicators, invincible squadmates, etc.

The sad reality is that developers are focusing on accessibility over depth, challenge and longevity. Games are becoming increasingly automated and decreasingly interactive for the sake of "cinematic immersion." Anyone who's been playing games for a while (particularly on the PC) can see the downward spiral that gaming has taken.

I actually agree with most of what you're saying. I agree that we need to make welfare (and other social programs) more like the hardhat than Vicodin. Better still, I want it to be like a cheap-but-effective hardhat, plus good training that makes sure people understand how to safely handle nail guns. People who want nicer hardhats are free to buy 'em, too.

As for Obama's qualifications, I agree about his resume being thin, but we've had a lot of great Presidents with thin resumes. To be truthful, I think his argument that a President needs more judgment than experience is accurate as well. The President will always be availed with the best experts he can find on any subject matter -- his job is to listen to the advice and call the shot. In a sense, as long as the President is passably familiar with the issues at work (and Obama has shown that he's more than passably familiar with the issues we face), and has a record of good judgment (which I contend Obama has had), he can be effective.

I'm glad you're more moderate than most around here -- seems like we have a lot of market fundamentalists hanging out here. I also agree with what you're saying about needing to make government more efficient in how it uses the money. I think Bush has shown that the modern Republican party is trying to make government as inefficient and broken as they can, so more people lose faith in government and fall for the siren call of the "small government" Republican party. Democrats on the other hand want desperately to fix it, make it efficient and effective, in order to restore people's faith in government. They're not the Socialist party -- increasing the size of government is a means to an end, not an end in an of itself. If reducing the scope of government proves more effective, Democrats will go for it (think Clinton with capital gains tax cuts, and NAFTA). We just don't see reducing the scope of government as some sort of absolute necessity that shouldn't ever be questioned.

As far as taxes go, Obama's plan is primarily aimed at shifting the burden, but it does both increase the amount of expected tax revenue, while cutting some spending (Iraq war), and introducing new spending (healthcare). It includes a deficit, but a smaller one than McCain's (since he doesn't even come close to offsetting his tax cut with spending cuts).

I agree with you that corporate benefits can help regular people, I just think we've gotten to a point where we're doing too much corporate welfare, and not enough of the regular kind. I share your concern about cracking down too hard on oil companies, since the price of gas will likely increase, but I don't think there's anything wrong with giving them a big push towards helping find alternatives to oil, rather than new places to drill for oil. They're supposedly "energy" companies, after all.

I also think corporations have too much influence over government policy generally, and that the government shouldn't be run by people who equate corporate interest with common interest. There's certainly overlap, but common interest should be the priority when they diverge.

In reply to this comment by deedub81:
I don't think that anyone makes a conscious decision to be homeless. It's a consequence of their actions. The result of the sum of their decisions over a period of time landed them where they are today. Only 3% of homeless people in this country have mental disabilities, so it's not like they just one day woke up homeless. It's not that I don't feel compassion for somebody who has made mistakes and found themselves in a really bad spot. I do. But that's why I choose to give back in my donations. I believe we should be focusing more energy on prevention and education. If you've got a nail in your head, Vicodin will make it feel a little better -Or I could have provided you with a hardhat so that you didn't get that nail in the first place. Welfare is meant to be the hardhat but, over the years, it has evolved into the Vicodin. Now we've got to surgically removed the nails and pass out hardhats. I'll stop before I get too carried away. My point is, the government doesn't do much with my money to help people rise above poverty. It helps them to stay alive while continuing to live their poor quality of life while not doing much do address the reason that they are there in the first place. Guess what happens to their children.


I agree with you that wealthy people have different concerns than do poor people, but my point is that they aren't as far removed from the rest of us as you make them out to be. Again, I didn't vote for John McCain, nor do I want him to be our next President. That doesn't make Barack Obama qualified. If you present me with a rotten peach and a rotten apple, I'll tell you that neither of them is appetizing.

I don't believe in fundamental capitalism. I'm happy to pay taxes to fund roads and education and defense, among other things. All of those things are good. I just feel that this country already collects more than enough money from it's citizens. We need to concentrate our energy on being more efficient and effective, not on collecting more money from the rich or from anybody. Not adding new programs, but streamlining the programs that we already have in place. Does all the money collecting from the gas tax go to maintain our transportation infrastructure? It was supposed to. Speaking of roads, is our long term expenditure on our roads efficient? No. We focus too much on getting them done quickly on not enough on building them to last. We work over and over on the same problems when we could have done it right the first time for a little more money up front.

I also feel that those who have succeeded have a greater responsibility to support our common good. I just don't believe that they should be forced to shoulder the cost of the common good more than anybody else does.

When corporations receive monetary benefits resulting from legislation, it's not always a bad thing. It's always a bad thing when lawmakers make it harder for large corporations (don't get me started on military contractors like Lockheed. You and I will probably agree a lot on that issue). Too many people in this county have a negative attitude toward Exxon and other oil companies. I think we've done a VERY good job keeping fuel inexpensive. Even with all the recent price increases, fuel is still cheaper here than in most other countries, including Japan and the UK. As soon as you increase taxes on corporations like Exxon, or increase restrictions that cause their profits to be reduced, their responsibilities to their shareholders dictate that they must increase their margins. In other words, picking on big oil only hurts the lower and middle classes in this country. ...or picking on any big business for that matter.

I don't think that anyone makes a conscious decision to be homeless. It's a consequence of their actions. The result of the sum of their decisions over a period of time landed them where they are today. Only 3% of homeless people in this country have mental disabilities, so it's not like they just one day woke up homeless. It's not that I don't feel compassion for somebody who has made mistakes and found themselves in a really bad spot. I do. But that's why I choose to give back in my donations. I believe we should be focusing more energy on prevention and education. If you've got a nail in your head, Vicodin will make it feel a little better -Or I could have provided you with a hardhat so that you didn't get that nail in the first place. Welfare is meant to be the hardhat but, over the years, it has evolved into the Vicodin. Now we've got to surgically removed the nails and pass out hardhats. I'll stop before I get too carried away. My point is, the government doesn't do much with my money to help people rise above poverty. It helps them to stay alive while continuing to live their poor quality of life while not doing much do address the reason that they are there in the first place. Guess what happens to their children.


I agree with you that wealthy people have different concerns than do poor people, but my point is that they aren't as far removed from the rest of us as you make them out to be. Again, I didn't vote for John McCain, nor do I want him to be our next President. That doesn't make Barack Obama qualified. If you present me with a rotten peach and a rotten apple, I'll tell you that neither of them is appetizing.

I don't believe in fundamental capitalism. I'm happy to pay taxes to fund roads and education and defense, among other things. All of those things are good. I just feel that this country already collects more than enough money from it's citizens. We need to concentrate our energy on being more efficient and effective, not on collecting more money from the rich or from anybody. Not adding new programs, but streamlining the programs that we already have in place. Does all the money collecting from the gas tax go to maintain our transportation infrastructure? It was supposed to. Speaking of roads, is our long term expenditure on our roads efficient? No. We focus too much on getting them done quickly on not enough on building them to last. We work over and over on the same problems when we could have done it right the first time for a little more money up front.

I also feel that those who have succeeded have a greater responsibility to support our common good. I just don't believe that they should be forced to shoulder the cost of the common good more than anybody else does.

When corporations receive monetary benefits resulting from legislation, it's not always a bad thing. It's always a bad thing when lawmakers make it harder for large corporations (don't get me started on military contractors like Lockheed. You and I will probably agree a lot on that issue). Too many people in this county have a negative attitude toward Exxon and other oil companies. I think we've done a VERY good job keeping fuel inexpensive. Even with all the recent price increases, fuel is still cheaper here than in most other countries, including Japan and the UK. As soon as you increase taxes on corporations like Exxon, or increase restrictions that cause their profits to be reduced, their responsibilities to their shareholders dictate that they must increase their margins. In other words, picking on big oil only hurts the lower and middle classes in this country. ...or picking on any big business for that matter.

^
Tom Cruise isn't pretty, he's just streamlined.

>> ^LittleRed:

Honestly, I've got nothing. It already is a sausage fest. I am more than willing to give you a list of problems I have with the site, though.
1) The way of judging whether or not a video stays is if you, a MAN, get an erection after watching. When was the last time a woman's perspective was taken into consideration? Never. Chances are women either feel objectified or get irritated for whatever reason watching a video like the one that prompted this post.

I'd say the reason for the "wood test" is because 99.99999% of porn is made to arouse men.
Therefore, if (the majority, if not all of) men are not aroused, then I think that means it's not porn.

Someone mentioned elsewhere (I think it was Farhad) romance novels. I would say that if a woman would be upset by her boyfriend watching this, then her guy should be just as, if not more pissed about them reading dirty romance novels.
Those things can be on par with some nasty Penthouse Forum "letters".

The video in question (Dita) is an act of grace a beauty, not a vivid depiction of sex. The act is designed to be something that one merely watches, from which they are detached and it is forever that way. It is a solo act meant to please for the sake of a good show.

Dirty books, on the other hand, are of a couple's acts in the bedroom, written to suck the reader into the characters words and actions, even letting them place themselves into the character's shoes. The book is more about being a part of the act, making the reader imagine (through ample use of details and adjectives) every part of sex. It's porn you read, and not watch, though I will say it is not disgusting or objectifying as real porn.

My question to you is this: How can you tell the internet in one comment that "Even I can appreciate burlesque"

but in the next, tell the internet that it's not acceptable for men with significant others to watch it, if only for art of the performance?

I hold that burlesque is only that; an art. I personally don't get any arousal from it, not does it raise any carnal desires within myself. Hell, I've only seen two instances of it, both here on the sift. The female body, with all it's curves, is designed to flow like water in almost all directions. Combined with graceful movements and a dynamic act, it is a thing of grace and beauty.

The male body is usually ugly from an artistic standpoint. It has lots of hard edges, and is not visually streamlined with gentle curves. I believe that's why you don't see any form of male burlesque.

Actually, I'm kinda disappointed. Yahtzee really phoned this one in. That review could've been the review of any of the previous MGS titles, but MGS4 actually has streamlined controls, and very inventive gameplay that builds on the strengths of the previous games.

The story is what it is, and it gets wrapped up nicely, if not particularly inventively in this game. However, given how many people come to yell at me about how everything I post is meaningless because CFR is a shadow government ruling the world from behind the scenes, I'd imagine there'd be a lot of people here who would easily buy the plot of MGS as being an unauthorized history of the real world (just replace CFR with Patriots, and you're set).

I take from his review that he never liked any of them, which is fine, but it's a shame that he couldn't even come up with some original ways to eviscerate it.

The only thing I really want to see is dag in a grass skirt and dancing the hula for my viewing pleasure. Oh about the site, well fist of all keep the motif going but dang there is a lot of clutter. All the things darkrowan said except the latest talk posts, that I still like because it streamlines the talk page and leaves it less cluttered.

There is also the discussion of whether shorter clips, where a longer version has been posted before. I remember a Bill Hicks standup show, where parts of it were posted afterwards - this should be acceptable to some degree. (Maybe, *long videos can be posted in bits, or *short videos can be posted of a regular video).

In any case, a *dupe (URL) would be a great streamlining of the process, but to prevent misuse, accidental or otherwise, maybe the dupe should be back by at least on other sifter - and maybe at least one of the two should be gold.