No real point trying to recruit me. I did create a coun try on the Alliance server (you'll know it if you see it), but I'm just going to go inactive in a few days.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

Long time no see. Who's still around?

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

Well, I just forgot to play for 4 days... so whatever kind of set it is, I don't think anyone has anything to worry about.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

Question: Does anyone who enjoyed this video have reasonable Karma on reddit and want to post it on the /r/PoliticalVideo sub?

I tried, but I've never been much of a reddit user, so haven't earned enough karma... which got me rejected by a bot.

I'd really appreciate it if someone more reddit-savvy did that :)

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

This is actually my secret goal. I don't care what people think about terrorism... I was all chairs replaced with standing work stations or exercise balls.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

I agree Xintros, it is too analytical... and lots of people will zone out.

But I don't think a emotional approach would have served any better. People's emotions on this are so fixed, and have been for so long, that I don't think trying to introduce a different set of emotions would get through at all.

My feeling is that most people haven't throught much along these lines. So, if I provide analytical information, at least those who are willing to think about it can do so... and I'm not competing directly against the existing biases with emotion v emotion.

I dunno... there's not really a good way to do this... and there's definitely not an approach which will convince everyone. But at least this way, the information is out there in some form for people to think about. Best I could do...

(Actually, I'm already playing around with writing a new script for another video which takes a different approach... not sure if I'll complete that though...)

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

That's not what I'm saying.

The closest I come to making that argument is this: I believe that if the money we spend on fighting terrorism were spent fighting another cause (or causes) of death -- the increase in lives lost due to terrorism (if any) would be far smaller than number of people we could prevent dying from other causes.

But that's not the core of my argument.

Basically, I believe this:
We know that the costs of how we fight terrorism are significant.
- Lots of soldiers have died.
- Lots of money has been spent.
- Lots of rights have been given up.

There can be no debate that the costs of fighting terrorism the way we do are high.

At the same time.
- We don't know if our methods are particularly effective (pretty much all the terrorist plots we've disrupted were done through pre-9/11 methods).
- There's good reason to think our methods are leading to far more dangerous secondary effects (ISIS?)
- There's little reason to think that the planned/attempted attacks would have done a significant amount of damage (The disrupted attacks we know about, and the government has every reason to not keep them secret, might have killed hundreds more... but not many multiples of what we've seen)

We know for a fact that fighting terrorism costs us a lot -- and not just financially.
And we have every reason to think that doing less to fight terrorism would only lead to a very modest increase in risk.

So why pay a huge cost, for unclear returns, when we know that if we invested that much elsewhere we could get so much more back?

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

That's actually a reasonable point... and it's one of the weaknesses of my argument. We don't know how much terrorism there would be if we didn't go to all this effort to prevent it. This is why I went to such great lengths to show that even an absurd increase in terrorism is actually something we could afford to ignore.

But, seriously, how much terrorism do you think there would be without those efforts? I know it's impossible for us to know... so feel free to give me high-ball estimate. The most you think terrorism might increase before the possibility seems absurd.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

More seriously:

When someone dies, who cares if it's "RADICAL ISLAMIC fluffING TERRORISM" or not? They're equally dead.

If you could, for an identical cost, eliminate half of all murders in the US (Which would save 8000 lives/year) or eliminate half of the terrorism deaths in the US (which would save 100 lives/year)... which would you do?

If your answer is eliminate the murders -- you pretty much agree with my "closed minded horse fluff lie propaganda film".

If your answer is that we should eliminate the terrorism -- how are you going to justify that choice to the families of the 8000 people you're letting die?

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

So, I suppose I should mark Heston's feedback down as neutral?

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

What's FFA?

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

Hello friends,
I've just made my first ever youtube video. It's about how terrorism really isn't dangerous. I don't know if it's any good, but I'd love it if you could watch it and tell me what you think. If you really like it, it would be even better if you could share.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAbYG-nFiHg

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

:)

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

Because, India/Pakistan.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

http://www.cnn.com/...suit/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

So, I know Boehner is looking to sue Obama over his use of Executive Authority. But I can't figure out exactly which uses of Executive Authority he takes issue with, and what makes those uses of his authority illegal. Boehner's op-ed isn't a lot of help... he doesn't give a single example. He only refers vaguely to "health care law, energy regulations, foreign policy and education".

Okay, fine. So what are the specific things he's done in each of those categories which overstepped his authority. Everything I can think of either has recent precedent, well established precedent, or is clearly within his authority as written in the constitution.

Anyone want to help a dumb Canadian understand?

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

In our legal system, if you do something illegal, and as a result of that illegal act someone is accidentally killed -- that's generally treated as worse than either the illegal act on its own or accidentally killing someone in the same way without breaking the law. Accidentally hitting a pedestrian is tragic. Running from the cops is a crime. Accidentally hitting a pedestrian while running from the cops is murder.

She made the decision to stop in a highway traffic lane. She did not have to, there was no justification for it. That's illegal. The potential consequences (ie. someone crashing into her) were predictable by a reasonable person. She chose to stop anyway. That's negligence. Her negligent choice to take an illegal action caused someone's death. It sucks, but it's true.

And despite some comments, the following car is not always responsible in rear end collisions. Blame goes to the person most able to prevent the accident. That's usually the following driver, but in a case where the driver of the car in front did something so clearly against the law with such predictable results, that's not the case.

Having said all of that, I don't think anyone particularly benefits from this young lady serving jail time. Unfortunately, there's no litmus test for "who benefits" in our legal system.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

I know you're joking Scode, but at the same time, fluff you.

Whatever your intent is with a comment like that, it will cause others to think it's okay to say similar things. And comments like that permeating our culture directly cause rapes to occur. I don't mean that in some general abstract or statistical sense -- I mean individual women are likely to be raped by people who come to these forums because comments like that are made here.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

Yes, how obnoxious, exactly the word I'd use. How obnoxious of them to think women shouldn't be murdered for choosing not to have sex with someone.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

Doomsday? No. Canadian winter? Yep.

I go camping when it's down to about -15, so I've got plenty of good cold weather gear. And I keep about a week's supply of dehydrated/canned food (again, the same stuff I use to camp) in case I'm stuck at home without power. We also have one of those water dispensers which takes the 5 gallon jugs... and I keep a few extra jugs around.

Where I'm living, I got snowed in twice this winter (where I was snowed in for more than a day), and lost power a few times (the longest was for 18 hours) and there's people in the area who did worse. So I don't think what I have is excessive in any way.

Though, if I'm honest, I like the idea of being reasonably self-sufficient and could see myself becoming a real prepper. Though, I think I'm sane enough to realize that I want to do it because I think it's an interesting hobby, and not because I think that the government is about to declare martial law and cut off all food to the people of my country.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

A lot of work places have really strict HR policies in place where some things are "zero telerance", not because they want to fire everyone who does it -- but so that if they need to get rid of something for an issue not directly laid out in their policies, they have a ready excuse.

I feel like that may be akin to what the school is doing here. They're concerned about the airsoft guns and other items, but those aren't specifically listed as "weapons" within their policy. So, to charge him with the crime for having those, includes the extra step of convincing a jury that they violate the spirit of the law and that ought to be enforced. However, since their policy specifically identifies all knives as weapons and they technically have a "zero tolerance policy", they can prosecute him on that (even if they might otherwise turn a blind eye) and accomplish the same end result without all the legal hurdles.

I don't know if this is really the case or not -- but sometimes written zero tolerance policies are valuable discretionary tools when you're concerned about something else.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

It makes me so happy to see a "special agent Jones" there.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

You can't get Molson Ice in Canada.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

Okay, is it too late to do it tonight? Or would tomorrow be better?

I'm on a business trip in Toronto (well, Richmond Hill) this week, and don't have much to do in the evenings. Wanna hang out?

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

If anyone's interested in some more technical speculations, http://www.airliners.net is a large community of airplane enthusiasts which includes lots of real experts from the industry. You can't post on their forum without paying, and they've written so much by now that it would take some time to wade through. But that's the place if you want speculation from people with real detailed knowledge about airplanes.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

Thanks for all the best wishes.

And Cerb, I'm glad you care enough to offer advice and try to protect others from what you've gone through. I always knew you were a nice guy. :)

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

Maybe, but at least I get to regret it with the person I want to regret it with :)

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

No one... I've been a mod for years, and I don't think I've ever issued a ban. Maybe a spam bot who made it past the captcha... but I'm not even sure about that.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

So, I haven't been around much of late. But I imagine there's a few people I've known over the last 17 years (17 years?!?) who'd like to know that I proposed to my girlfriend of 3 years last Sunday, so I'm getting married at some point in the near or distant future (no date yet).

:)

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

The problem is, you can't live by both a "zero sum game" and "non-zero sum game" ideology simultaneously. So the only way to gain adherents is to move them away from their current ideology. Therefore, the act of spreading this ideology is itself a zero-sum game.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

That's stupid. There's no malicious intent. There's no negligence. Am I guilty if a bald eagle crashes into the side of my house?

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

Amazing how all the Canadians more or less agree...

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

I think filibusters are a bad idea... I think that simple majorities make the most sense in virtually all circumstances -- especially obviously politically polarizing issues such as Presidential Appointments.

But, if filibusters are going to be permitted, it is absolutely inane to require someone to stand for 12 hours (or whatever) in order to perform one. I understand the impulse to want fewer filibusters, and so make legislators demonstrate that they "really want it" when they filibuster, but having a bill pass or fail based upon whether an elected official has the stamina to stand for a set period of time makes no sense. It makes passage of a bill an arbitrary process, determined by something completely separate from the merits of the bill. It also gives additional legislative clout to politicians who are capable of standing for the period needed -- while stripping power from those without that same stamina. Who wants to see laws determined based on that?

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

I play a bit.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

Ah, the anger which comes when one finds his world view demonstrably false. Or is it because you were challenged to take some level of personal responsibility, and not just fluff about the best intentions of others? Motives can be so hard...

(Braden, I'm sorry that I don't know enough to marvel at your knowledge. I've never heard of Elanora Duse, so it's hard to be impressed that you know she had tea with Cleveland's wife. I know La Città Morta was a play, because I studied Sarah Bernhardt in University. Sorry.)

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

Cerberus, you're making a few mis-representations there.

First, it's simply mis-leading to characterize what's happening as "refusal to enforce" the law as written. When a law isn't ready to be implemented, it's pretty routine to delay it until it can be made ready. In fact, that's a good summary for a civics class about why an executive is involved in the process at all. Where untidiness of the real world encroaches on the theoretical perfection that is legislation, the executive makes the allowances to make sure things work.

Second, there's no first precedent being set here. Literally, none. No new ground, what-so-ever, is being tread in the decision to delay the corporate mandate.

I often find the "this is a dangerous precedent" argument a strange one, because its use more often serves as an indictment of America's education system than as an indictment of the person purportedly doing the thing which is a "dangerous precedent". This is especially true in this case, because the most obvious precedent (Heckler v. Chaney) not only came down 9-0, but the opinion was written by Chief Justice Rehnquist whose conservative bonafides are pretty well established by his being appointed by Ronald Reagon (oh, and his legal rulings, which were somewhat right of draconian).

This is settled law. There is no extension of power here. None. In other words, no precedent, dangerous or otherwise for us to concern ourselves with. All that matters is whether or not it's a good decision, because the President does have this power.

Third, the president can't use this power (which he already has) to "override ANY law passed by the congress AFTER it has already been enacted". That same case I cited above (I did cite it due to more than its conservative bonafides) established exactly how far this power of the president extends. Basically, the president can't "refuse to enforce a statute he opposes for policy reasons". That's settled law too.

Look, I'm sorry a law has been passed that you don't agree with. I understand the impulse to take an "ends justify the means" approach to opposing such a law, and take hold of any opportunity which gives you an opportunity to make the law seem illegitimate. But you're better than that, even if others aren't. You gain more credibility by opposing baseless arguments (even... actually, especially when proposed by those whose end goals you agree with) than you ever will be jumping on the band wagon and spewing forth ignorance. And that credibility is political power. Even if you never run for office, or actively participate in a political campaign, that power can only serve your interests in the future -- especially if combined with similar power accrued by thousands of other people seeking the same end goal as you.

Just a thought.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

I can't believe I'm wading into this, but:

1. Executive orders have been part of America's method of governance right back to George Washington and have been exercised by (virtually) every president since.

2. Executive orders are not unconstitutional. While they are not mentioned in the constitution, they are the obvious method for the president to exercise power which is specifically granted to him by that document. Claiming they are unconstitutional is much like saying buying a gun is unconstitutional because only the right to "bear arms", not purchase them, is mentioned in the second amendment.

3. There is a significant body of legislation, passed by congress, which specifically and implicitly indicates powers which the executive can wield through orders. Therefore there is a tacit understanding that executive orders are a legitimate part of the executive's function.

4. The number of executive orders Obama is issuing has been trending down, not up.

5. The number of executive orders issued by Obama has never been on track to significantly eclipse the number issued by his most recent antecedents and has certainly never been on track to eclipse those of the

6. As of the end of Obama's first term, his executive order/year ratio is lower than any president since Grover Cleveland.

7. Executive orders are not some mystical, uncontrollable force. They can be challenged and overturned by the judiciary.



Until you're somewhat more specific about what executive orders you're concerned about, and where you heard these "sounds", I'm afraid I can't be more specific. But my thoughts can probably best be summed up as this:

There are certainly times when it is reasonable to oppose an action, not because it will have negative consequences, but because it could set a precedent to be abused. No one wants to give a leader the power to save a tenth an empire, only to have his successor use the precedent of that power to destroy it all.

However, the precedent here is well established. It is difficult to see how Obama's use of executive power is overstepping or extending the precedents already established in American history.

Therefore, the discussion ought to be entirely focused on the merits of his agenda, not the legalistic avenues he walks to enact that agenda.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

When measuring kgs, you must either use a balance scale with a known mass on the opposing side, or you must zero your scale using a known mass. Either way, the measurement will remain the same regardless of changes in gravitational forces.

The fact that you can make a scale give an incorrect answer by mis-using it does not alter reality. Your measurement is simply wrong.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

Anyone needing to account for changes in gravitational force.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

http://what-if.xkcd.com/67/

Kilograms are a measurement of mass, not weight. Mass does not vary depending upon gravity.

(Needed to get that out of my system)

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

((The content of this post has been removed))

Out of curiosity, why did you title this "live in Ontario"? This happened in Quebec.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

Same thing happened to me earlier today... so I don't think it was user side. It was definitely just that the CSS wasn't loading.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

I do get things right from time-to-time. I'm sure it has more to do with probability than any innate intelligence I may have.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

I couldn't agree more. All kinds of flawed studies trying to show climate change isn't real.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

Isn't this relatively common now?

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

Copper, you said you were about to let this issue go. I'd suggest you do so now.

If you like, PM me your evidence. You've already done a pretty thorough job of alienating this game's admin team. Your credibility is pretty well used up. But I've never spoken to you before (so far as I can remember) so have nothing against you, and I'm no dullard when it comes to web application security.

If what you send me actually proves something, I'll work through it with the admin team. I'm in a far better position than you are to be taken seriously.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

This isn't a lengthy debate I'm going to have with you. Here's what I'll say:

It is a derogatory term, regardless of its historical source. Even if it was used in the past without derogatory overtones, it cannot be used in a manner which wholly escapes those meanings now.

Since you did not mean it in a derogatory fashion, it should be no burden for you to use less ambiguous language which definitely will not lead to confusion.

I also do not understand your stated resentment. I am sure I am not the only person to view your statement as racially derogatory. By pointing it out, I've given you the opportunity to clarify your true intent. Unless you value being mistaken for a bigot, this is something you ought to thank me, not resent me, for.

Now, that's the end of this discussion. As I said, you're welcome to continue to espouse your point of view on the subject matter in this thread -- without the racial epithets.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.