The video you're referencing is pure sensationalism. The Fox news casters go out of their way to imply an anti Ron Paul conspiracy when clearly these people were concerned that said individual was transporting drug money (hence the repeated references to the DEA while the Fox news casters make no reference to it). While not in itself a crime, moving large sums of cash across state borders in this modern age is certainly suspicious.

I am fairly certain that if he had just stated that he was carrying Ron Paul tshirt money he'd be fine.

I find it incredibly unlikely that politicians had anything to do with this directly. It sounds more like a bureaucratic mistake or an unintentional loophole.
Using this event as a rationale for means of generalizing about politicians seems kind of silly to me.

My only problem with this is that it would seem that they would have to require an active internet connection for playing the game. What if I want to play a game on my laptop while traveling or what if my internet connection is down at home?

One of the several arguments he uses goes like this:

The Devil stands at a podium on a stage in a giamungus room. One person comes in. He says to her:...

How on earth does rolling dice with some mythical figure equate to real life? I get that there is an attempt at metaphor here but it is not a very good one.

From this kind of reasoning and a judgment on the threats against humanity (both external - comets, asteroids, solar flares, etc. and internal - nuclear war, ecocide, biological warfare, malthusian die off, etc.) he figures we have at best a 70% chance of surviving the next 500 years, and significant odds of dying out within the next 250.

As far as external threats go they are all so improbable over a 500 year span that they barely pose any threat to humanity. As for a human caused extinction for the human race I just don't buy it. It would seem that it would have to be deliberate in order to be successful and the idea that one could muster the resources to kill off the entire human race while maintaining the will to do so, seems unlikely.

"Step outside the city and you'll see that the planet as a whole is not overcrowded:..."

Which city are you talking about? If you are referring to Beijing or New Delhi I am quite certain most would continue to maintain that the world is over populated. Or perhaps you are referring to outside cities in quite a few places in Africa and Asia where they can not produce enough food to feed their native populations? ...a fact I'm reminded of every time I look out my window and realize that I have only a handful of neighbors within a 1 mile radius. It's extremely rare that I see more people than animals when I look outside.

Looking out one's window is hardly a means of determining anything besides the local weather.

Ha. I suppose I look a bit slow on that one. Thanks for spelling it out.

There were some posts about eating Obama poop a bit ago that also had some racist crap in it. I wonder if there's a link?

Flamebate? I knew my post would get marked as such when I wrote it. Do people not understand parody? I was clearly just mocking the flamebate that was the post I was responding to.

Sorry I didn't have any Mod Points so I had to make due with a post.

First of all DO NOT TAKE YOUR KIDS.

This movie flirted with an NC-17 rating. Some language, really not to bad in that department, lots of bone breaking violence, a few boobs, but mostly Dr. Manhattans ever present dong.

I have to agree with another poster when I ask, how the hell is a kid seeing a male penis (in a non-sexual context of course) warrant far more of a warning then the violence? How is basic human anatomy worth such a large disclaimer when pretty fucking horrific violence gets a bare minimum mention?

Talk about confused priorities.

Wow. Your only objection is that it's a long movie? How about it's rated R and not at all (in any way, shape, or form no less) suitable for children?

I remember seeing Iron Man (PG-13 BTW) and having to listen to some poor child complain to his parents that he was to scared to watch some of that movies very grizzly intro material (the first 20 minutes or so when those soldiers get butchered in Afghanistan). I was sickened that someone would bring a young child (sounded 6-8 maybe) to such a movie.

Maybe I'm missing something but how is that a "wink-and-nod" to the squid monster?

Wow, your response to that review makes me sick. Have you never seen another serious movie before? If counting your fingers counts as mental exercise then your response would have give you a few things to think about. but if you've already figure dout how to count to twenty, then you'd probably be bored by it.

Seriously? I hope this is an ad targeted at Frenchmen (he obviously speaks natively some Latin based language) who are thoroughly unimpressive while speaking English. I hope this is a large and affluent market for Dell to tap into otherwise I don't understand... ...Oh jesus...

Did the native English speaker just refer to this laptop as an aphrodisiac!?

The thing that makes me the most angry is that the person who approved this little gem probably makes more money than me. I just hope the person in charge of making it doesn't (but sadly I think they might)

What in gods name...

OK, seriously, how the hell is forcing some one to run off a cliff in a game different from doing damage to them? All you have figured out is how to waste what was probably a substantial amount of time in figuring out how to do a very large amount of indirect damage to some one under absurdly specific conditions. What does this have to do with anything?

This really just seems to be just bad science to me. For starters, just asking people what they like more as they did in the 2,500 person study is no way to determine anything like this. Next, the sample size is entirely too small on the game play tests for them to mean anything. Finally, why on earth are they using a sample group that is disproportionately female in a study about game violence when it is males that a)generally spend far more time playing games and b) are generally more attracted to violence?

Now just as a disclaimer, I'm not promoting any viewpoint in regards to video game violence. I just think the studies in question here are bullshit (at least as they are described in the article).