Owledge

Plug the holes, or if they are too big, abandon ship. Making people do sysiphos work will only spread despair. The ship is sinking because it wasn't heading for safe waters, but the opposite. Debt relief is one thing. It helps to show that debt is ultimately void. Paying debt for someone else will only solidify the illusion of it being anything else than a monetary scam. What we need is not so much prominent people who give some of the money of which they have more than they need anyway to criminals, but some bravery by standing up to those criminals. Of course the former will be some temporary relief, but it's not really changing anything. Bad times are built into the system, and they are necessary in order to make clear how the system is flawed. If you buffer the inherent phases of hardship (bank bailouts are another result of this approach), it will confirm that the system is a 'success'.

That article clarified it. Philanthropic redistribution of wealth that keeps the system that creates the problems alive by participating in it. Doesn't sound like activism to kinda sabotage or rebel. It's a bit like that gasoline boycott where you think you can show the gasoline sellers that you control them while not realizing they still control you, because you still need gasoline and will have to get it later and/or from another company: fundamentally flawed approach. They could just as well pay the debt for households directly. Then the banks benefit directly and the vultures somewhat less. But there's hardly any moral disdinction between the former and the latter. What distinguishes fake activism from real activism is that real activists realize that you can't rebel against a system by participating in it. Oh, this just reminds me of somewhat of an example that I heard about recently: peace activists in Israel. Seems they all oppose occupation of Gaza and West Bank, while none oppose Zionism. Or how about a popular quote to show the difference: "There will never be a revolution in Germany, because stepping on the lawn is forbidden."

Anybody got insights, more info, anything noteworthy about this?: http://divinecosmos.com/start-here/davids-blog/995-lawsuit-end-tyranny

Exactly. Making a point is the last thing we want to do in this matter.

Project Camotah: Paint over all those black dots with the desert-sand-like color of the fur and see whether that improves their survival. I mean, seriously, they should hire Darwin as a consultant. They might look pretty, but their prey will notice that easily and run away in time. Maybe that's why they are so endangered compared to other species. Cheetahs are really asking for extinction with that color pattern.

What I find very valuable about this game is that it shows people how much of an MMO's fascination actually comes from the basic principle of progress. If you find yourself actually running that game for a prolonged time and checking your new equipment every once in a while, you're probably easy to 'catch'. ;-) The radio program about the game is interesting in that regards: http://progressquest.com/CultureQueuePqInterview.mp3

Maybe Tibetan Buddhism is different, but if not, then honoring all life surely doesn't allow to eat meat. It is avoidable, and eating meat is a deliberate act of supporting the killing of animals for a moderate personal benefit. I can only assume that Tibetans indeed treat that aspect differently, since this specific case involves no crucial necessity, and there are dietary alternatives for meat-replacement. I'm sure the Dalai Lama has no problem with availability of those.

Eating meat would mean deliberately supporting the killing of animals. If he put his personal health over that, he'd be a corrupted Buddhist. (Well, some of his politics are very controversial (shugden), so I'd not be too surprised if it was true.)

Why don't YOU tell us your source?

Smokers claim cigarettes taste good. I wonder why they're not eating them.

I can almost guarantee you that it's just another tiny step and not the real thing. In the USA there are companies advertising their running-on-water conversion kits, and they don't advertise that clearly that it's merely a small addition of water to the regular combustion process. It's a bit like lean-burn technology. Nothing special. Also, I consider the Prius outdated technology. It replaces the simplicity of a bit more gasoline consumption with the complexity of battery technology and hybrid engine. Resource-wise not necessarily a clever idea. Well, considering that it's already tricky to further optimize that technology, 25% to 75% is quite a huge jump, almost comically. Basic technologies have their limits. (And I consider things like making laser spark plugs for combustion engines to further optimize the burn process madness.)

There could be Chinese Muslims among them.

How is it embedded in the contract? Does a youtube user get money for every view of a video/page with an ad? Or is it youtube doing that for themselves? But if so, why only on some videos? Does the user get stuff like higher quality / max length benefits when allowing youtube to show ads?

This is good. It means that all 'chairmen' are free to be devoured. :-D

Thank you. I feel it is yet another corrupting influence, that's why I asked. There's a case (details unimportant) where makers of moderately creative videos talk about how important it is for them to get likes in their 'fight against big competitors', and I find it sad that they make their existence dependant on this mentality, that they don't make videos because they like to, but in order to dominate others. They claim that likes and subscriptions help them a lot as small-time video posters, but actually it doesn't make sense, unless they don't find the motivation to make the videos if people don't watch them en masse. But then this might be an indication that they are redundant. If someone truly believed that their videos were a valuable addition to the youtube content, they would make them anyway. Reminded me of the saying: Don't try to compete, then nobody can compete with you. To me a small-time youtuber begging for likes is just what it sounds like.

House of Numbers: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_p-ttLfkZHQ Deconstructing the Myth of AIDS: People in denial can always find stuff to take it apart, but if you focus on the most solid information and don't interpret stuff into it that's not claimed, if you realize the implications and maybe know a thing or two about anthropology, the history of science and the likes, then those videos (the first one should be sufficient) will be enlightening. Two points that require special attention is the difference between HIV and AIDS and the different diagnosis of what constitutes HIV and especially AIDS in Africa compared to other countries.

The myth that Africa is a problem population-growth-wise is perpetrated by those who create the problem in the first place (some influential armageddon-cult freaks with too much time on their hands). Just like any animal, humans procreate at an accelerated rate when their survival is threatened, in order to increase the chances to prevail as a species. The ironic truth is that by providing enough food and decent living conditions for the whole of Africa would reduce population growth there, just as it is evidenced by more industrialized countries. China has an interesting strategy to counter population growth. Every pregnancy beyond the first child is followed by a big monetary penalty. If you are middle-class and can afford the penalty, you can have three happy kids in your house. If you can't afford the penalty, they will forcibly cut the unborn out of the mother, probably traumatizing her for the rest of her life. And one would think that population is a productivity asset for a country and thus desirable, but a crazy fear of overpopulation will manifest in crazy measures. Now the so-called developed countries, in their hybris and control-issues, expect Africans to slow down procreation WITHOUT helping them develop decent living conditions. The actucal intention behind this becomes clear. It makes it even easier to wipe them all out. And once an African country's population has been reduced suficiently, they won't have high productivity, they won't have a significant army, and thus conquering them is very easy, freeing up vast new landmass for populating it with your own people. And I didn't even go into the whole African AIDS scam at this point.

Well, not the negentropically enhanced one. That one is so economically unattractive that big corporations would like to make it vanish in their vaults.

Thanks, this makes the video much more appealing.

What do you mean?

An who has the time to watch a 1-hour video without knowing what's in it, posted by someone who may or may not have seen it herself, but if so, is kinda lazy to not give a summary for the benefit of others? :-P

"Power Density is the key to our Sustainable Future" Power density has little to do with sustainability, unless you mean low density equals sustainability. It all depends on what kind of a world you want to have and how much power density you need for that to make it practical. Solar panels have an inherently low power density. But since it's a booming industry, they will go more and more into the extreme to secure their investment. Just like the conbustion engine becomes crazier and crazier regarding energy efficiency, while very crude alternatives are superior in any way. But they are too superior. The dominant powers are still control freaks. And metaphorically speaking, there might be Afghan blood running through your solar panels. Electric cars are another problem like this. To manufacture all the batteries for having all cars in the world on electric, you'd need more mineral resources that are available today. But... that's why the USA tries to get their hands on as much as possible ... see Afghanistan. Also, solar panels will need an energy buffer storage for when the sun doesn't provide. This requires a lot of material resources - a paradise for the chemical industry. Subsidization: huge scam for people who don't realize that they are being given their own money in order to push inefficient technologies over more efficient ones. It's all about opening new markets and new business opportunities. In the grip of the pyramid scheme that is the interest-based monetary system, the economy is forced to grow all the time, quicker and quicker. You see this in action where 'new' technologies like wind power are pushed beyond what the power grid can handle. It's technologically not possible at a given moment, but they MUST produce more stuff, build more, economy has to grow. I prefer the Philippine inventor's Toyota Corolla that runs on water. (apparently zero point electrolysis)

I don't have the ability right now to figure all this out, but it sounds like an attempt at a solution WITHIN a scam instead of getting rid of the scam. How does Rolling Jubilee look on the backdrop of the global pyramid scheme that is the dominant monetary system? Actors and such are involved, so it might be something that doesn't dig too deeply into truth. Hollywood loves stuff that makes them FEEL doing good, but usually actors don't do very much in-depth research if it sounds good on the surface.

@Marblehead Saying that amazing feats like building the pyramids could have been accomplished by man alone does not negate the possibility of E.T. involvement, but it can be used as a belief system by scientists who then set out to prove it with math and stuff and once they did that they claim this has to be the truth. Very often people make logical conclusions, but on flawed fact basis. You might not know about decades old articles in newspaper archives about battles between flying objects in the sky being observed by many people in a populated city, with detailed descriptions. You might not know that on the U.S. west coast there is an annual reenactment of an event during WW2 where AAA was shooting like crazy at a hovering object in the sky, with shrapnel from all those projectiles raining down and even killing some people, while the hovering object wasn't harmed and eventually flew off. Again and again I realize that there are documented facts about all the wonders in our world, but many people just don't know. Ignorant people can even call undisputed facts nonsense. It's all a matter of knowing, of accessing sources of information.

A self-contradicting posting.