Ellen Degeneres Videos

Home

Ellen Degeneres Related Videos

Chris Rock - Funny Videos - Stand Up Comedians

Ellen Degeneres Sponsors

You like it? Share it!

Search

Ellen Degeneres videos :: Social Bookmarking

:: Videos are copyright their respective owners :: Design by: Css

Ellen Degeneres Videos

Currently Watching: Watching: Ray kurzweil on ive got a secret

Video scenes shots:

Watch the video:

URL:
Embed:

Display Video Comments | Hide Video Comments | Add Comment

Latest comments made on this video:

if we could "put" a ...
By: MarzioBalducci82. on 13 Nov 08, 01:23:26
if we could "put" a copy of our brain inside a computer we could multiply the thinking process

ray sez he will be ...
By: corduroy99. on 24 Oct 08, 17:08:27
ray sez he will be able to download his consciousness into a computer in the near future. Well, that only means that A COPY of his consciousness will be in a computer but HE WILL STILL DIE! NEEEEEEEEEEXT!

oh damn i just got ...
By: Maplesyrup41. on 18 Sep 08, 00:29:58
oh damn i just got it nice one !

haha... good man. : ...
By: LennyBound. on 05 Aug 08, 06:56:26
haha... good man. :-)

You know what's ...
By: RoboDouche. on 03 Aug 08, 04:50:37
You know what's cool? If Ray is right about some of his predictions he's gonna end up looking like the kid in this video post singularity.

Haha, so true.
By: ubentu. on 03 Jul 08, 22:07:48
Haha, so true.

Ooh! Bess Myerson! ...
By: anonyMoses. on 14 Jun 08, 18:54:34
Ooh! Bess Myerson! If you don't know...Kurzweil makes amazing keyboards. He and Moog teamed up, and evolved the form. Ray is a world-class visionary, inventor, and genius. We like him! He is largely responsible for the democratization of orchestral music and its composition and performance. Some of my own work the kurz is right here on the tube!

IQ is obsolete son ...
By: Reido2828. on 06 Jun 08, 20:17:23
IQ is obsolete son its emotional IQ now

genius
By: qkholster. on 31 May 08, 21:42:39
genius

lol i know!
By: mrsdaronm23. on 09 May 08, 20:13:18
lol i know!

Ah, this is amazing ...
By: ubentu. on 22 Apr 08, 06:14:41
Ah, this is amazing...O.o What's his IQ score again? I have a Conceptual quotient...not really an intelligence quotient. So when it comes to wiring something I tend to depend on someone else...I get the idea, ray seems to have IQ CQ PQ and SQ

Read: "The Age of ...
By: theothertube. on 17 Apr 08, 04:54:45
Read: "The Age of Spiritual Machines" by Ray Kurweil. Amazing book :)

whoa he was cute ...
By: nerdelicious5. on 04 Apr 08, 04:01:55
whoa he was cute back then XD

This is entirely ...
By: TheOriginalEntz. on 23 Mar 08, 14:13:09
This is entirely amazing! At age SEVENTEEN he built a computer that writes music! And the music was not bad either. He managed to make it all work. This is years ahead of its time.. at age SEVENTEEN!

what surprised me ...
By: dduppie. on 20 Mar 08, 10:15:12
what surprised me the most was miss america's intel

now that's cool ...
By: 1schwererziehbar1. on 20 Feb 08, 00:45:08
now that's cool hardware.

I've already ...
By: duquid. on 13 Jan 08, 21:01:23
I've already complained to few women in the bibliography.

Is this kurzweil ...
By: duquid. on 13 Jan 08, 20:59:07
Is this kurzweil computersthat think?

and hopefully he ( ...
By: Bzdi138. on 05 Jan 08, 19:59:11
and hopefully he (and us) will be around for quite some time (by this I mean hundreds of years!)

"Is it writing ...
By: sharpspike06. on 31 Dec 07, 20:37:22
"Is it writing music?" hahaha

It's interesting to ...
By: ChipsnTreats. on 31 Dec 07, 19:03:56
It's interesting to see the size of this computer. I just love to see how Steve is able to make such witty comments on the spot.

wow, vacuum tubes, ...
By: gamecarnivor. on 26 Dec 07, 11:20:51
wow, vacuum tubes, I live in a time to have no experience with them. Kurzweil is my hero, Ill will continue to learn and try to live up to him.

I think he is. I ...
By: Dirtfire. on 02 Dec 07, 18:20:27
I think he is. I myself, based on the sorts of technologies I've seen, expect it maybe somewhere between the year 2015 and 2020. I won't say what that technology is, however, because I wouldn't want some gun-toting Sarah Connor wannabe to read it. :)

so is kurzweil.
By: Nerudah. on 24 Oct 07, 20:09:19
so is kurzweil.

great guy, i hope ...
By: historywillabsolve. on 09 Oct 07, 07:26:18
great guy, i hope he's right about the singularity.

Other videos by this author:

The Fountainhead - Howard Roark Speech (Ayn Rand)
Posted by: Sidewinder77

Video duration: 353 seconds

From The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand, Gary Cooper as Howard Roark delivers the memorable courtroom speech in self-defense for dynamiting Courtland.

Display Video Comments | Hide Video Comments | Add Comment

Latest comments made on this video:

"but anyone with ...
By: podunkest. on 03 Dec 08, 21:30:53
"but anyone with common sense knows that our markets have never been deregulated to the extent of true functionality" I was just about to say essentially the same thing I quoted above. What about that? You're blaming laissez-faire capitalism because one idea was implemented in a non laissez-faire system and didn't work. That'd be like putting a baseball player in a basketball game, and if he does bad, you say he's bad at baseball. Not the best analogy, I know, but I'm sure you get my point.

early 2008 it was ...
By: CrimsonToast. on 03 Dec 08, 13:37:20
early 2008 it was announced that they are making a film version of atlas shrugged and that Angelina Jolie would be starring as Dagny Taggart (Angelina Jolie is surprisingly an avid reader of Rand)but with Jolie's pregnancy there is doubt that the movie will be made. :-(

deinse81 - Lying ...
By: BlackProteus. on 02 Dec 08, 01:51:50
deinse81 - Lying about the puppy forces me to misperceive reality to your advantage ... even if your advantage is frivolous and pathological. It is therefore wrong. But if your end is to somehow save a factory full of Jews from Nazi genocide, then it justifies the lie. Why are we arguing this? And what is your point, really, about ends and means? Somehow this has a bearing on whether or not the current economic troubles are due to market deregulation?

And just to end a ...
By: deinse81. on 01 Dec 08, 04:49:15
And just to end a conversation I'm getting tired of, here's why lying is fine in your Nazi example: When Hitler came to power in Germany, and first started attacking Jews,then everyone else, every person in that country had a decision to make: they could either support him, or do the moral thing and oppose him. As a result, from that point on moral, anti-Nazi Germans were at war, and could do anything to any Nazi they saw, including kill them, and such an act would've been perfectly moral.

It's irrelevant ...
By: deinse81. on 01 Dec 08, 04:41:52
It's irrelevant what objectivists believe. The point is that someone claiming to be qualified to pass judgement over an entire philosophy should've been able to understand what lying is and what it isn't: Let's say I lie to you about having a puppy here in the room with me. What power does that give me over you, and what does that force you to do against your will, if your idea that lying is coersion is true?

deinse81 - This is ...
By: BlackProteus. on 01 Dec 08, 00:52:25
deinse81 - This is not such a controversial point, I didn't think, even for Objectivists. And we are far away from the issues, but I'll play along. Lying is, as I wrote, an expression of power over someone by misleading them. It is an intellectual form of force or coercion. Just like physical violence, it is generally wrong and immoral. However, one's purpose -- or end -- can make it ethical. For example, self-defense.

Allright, now we're ...
By: deinse81. on 30 Nov 08, 03:41:10
Allright, now we're getting somewhere: we established that lying means misleading someone. However, you declared a moral principle: "Lying is wrong." Now it's your turn to prove this principle, derive it from some fundamental truth, or at least another, higher principle. So far all you have offered is that it's generally accepted: well guess what, so was slavery at one time: that doesn't make it right. Why is the principle "Lying is wrong." true?

deinse81 - I have ...
By: BlackProteus. on 29 Nov 08, 19:03:29
deinse81 - I have already explained it. The example of a game is different because both sides, by virtue of playing a game, already know that they will be withholding information from each other. They have, on equal ground, agreed to do that at the outset. Same with fiction, etc. Lying, on the other hand, is when there is no such agreement, and you are not just withholding, but misleading.

If lying meant " ...
By: deinse81. on 29 Nov 08, 06:21:24
If lying meant "depriving of correct information to one's advantage", we would constantly be lying. Are you suggesting that Bill Belichick (head coach, Patriots) is a liar, because he doesn't brief the opposition before every game, even though they clearly need the correct information on what tactics he will use? So let's start at the beginning: What is lying, and why is it wrong? I feel like we're learning something other than Latin terms here:).

deinse81 - I ...
By: BlackProteus. on 29 Nov 08, 01:07:11
deinse81 - I really have to explain to you why lying is generally wrong? That's surprising. Well, lying is wrong because it is an expression of power over someone else, by depriving them of correct information to your advantage. That is a kind of abuse. The Latin and Greek I'm using can be found in your standard English dictionary, I assure you. These terms are part of the English language, which is a syncretic tongue. And my use of them has meaning. Don't be so proud: look them up.

Well, since you ...
By: deinse81. on 28 Nov 08, 19:29:04
Well, since you can't even answer a simple question: "Why is lying wrong?", I don't see what I could possibly get out of talking to you, so go spew unrelated Latin and Greek terms and other nonsense some place else. By the way, lying isn't abuse, so how did you start with "lying to A" and arrived at "abuse A in any way you want"?

deinse81 - Lying ...
By: BlackProteus. on 28 Nov 08, 19:05:11
deinse81 - Lying is an abstract concept, and we generally consider it wrong. However, I am saying it is situationally right or wrong -- based on the end result, or telos. You are -- perhaps because of Rand's ad hominem-based, fallacious ideology -- using the men involved in the example as the measure. By your logic, the maliciousness of Nazis makes any abuse of them ipso facto ethical. That's faulty logic.

"makes the means no ...
By: deinse81. on 27 Nov 08, 08:30:05
"makes the means no longer wrong" clearly implies that they were wrong at first, and then they became right. You are not explaining to me why lying to some nazi (about pretty much anything, let alone jews) was wrong in the first place. I say it was never wrong to say the lie, so the idea that the result of the lie, years later, is what somehow made it right, is false.

deinse81 - My ...
By: BlackProteus. on 27 Nov 08, 07:20:42
deinse81 - My point is that the ethics of lying is contingent on the circumstances -- as with most things. Therefore, lying is usually wrong. But it is right when you are lying to Nazis to save Jews. So in the latter example, it is the ends -- saving innocents -- that makes the means no longer wrong but rather right.

A principle such as ...
By: deinse81. on 26 Nov 08, 03:35:14
A principle such as "the end doesn't justify the means" is simplistic, but declaring that "lying is wrong", just because it happens to fit into your argument, is perfectly ok? Why is lying wrong? You're justifying doing bad things by saying "lying is wrong, but right". It's not wrong in the first place, in Shindler's case, it's right from the start. It didn't become right when he succesfully saved people, and therefor lead to a good end.

deinse81 - The ...
By: BlackProteus. on 26 Nov 08, 01:02:51
deinse81 - The Virtue of Selfishness is a mish-mash of other people's ideas: Nietzsche, Aristotle, classical liberalism. Rand, by her own sweeping definition, is a second-hander. To say that the ends never justify the means seems simplistic. Chopping off my leg is pretty harsh means, but I'll accept if I have gangrene in my foot, and so that my life will be saved. Lying is wrong, but it is right if that's what it takes to save innocents from being unjustly murdered (Ex. Oskar Schindler).

denise81, the only ...
By: cad40324. on 25 Nov 08, 12:19:21
denise81, the only function of the government should be the protection of its citizens. Government interference has always destroyed the free market, leading to many other problems throughout the nation. If we are to call ourselves capitalists, we must keep the government out! Money is the lifeblood of this nation and should not be poisoned by government "re-distribution" to those who refuse to produce. This is trading a dollar for a nickel. It doesn't work and you know it.

Ayn Rand believed ...
By: cad40324. on 25 Nov 08, 12:10:20
Ayn Rand believed that the means should be worthy of the ends.

I'm sorry, I ...
By: deinse81. on 25 Nov 08, 07:03:51
I'm sorry, I must've missed all the character studies in "The Virtue of Selfishness" for instance, where she presents her reasoning for her ethics and politics. Oh wait, there aren't any characters in that book, it's not fiction. And talk about lack of reasoning: you're jumping to healthcare, before you bother answering this question I keep asking: Does the end justify the means? Because if it does, I have a great idea for cheap production of much needed food, that will save lives: slavery.

deinse81 - I ...
By: BlackProteus. on 25 Nov 08, 06:32:27
deinse81 - I already told you, my source on Rand is Rand. She was for limited government, in a fundamental way -- I think in an excessive way, and without much real proof or reasoning. Her proof and reasoning comes by way of character studies of characters she created herself in her novels. Her faith in laissez-faire seems ironically mystical. There's a good case for public health care, for example. She would dismiss it out of hand, call it evil and depraved, etc.

As far as ...
By: deinse81. on 25 Nov 08, 03:56:13
As far as government doing good, sure: without government our civilization would crumble. We would have no good at all, we would all go back to living in anarchy. Objectivists know that well. I don't know where you get your ideas about Objectivism from, but you really need to stop paying attention to that source: it is clearly lying to you. The only thing Objectivism disagrees with here is that "the end justifies the means", whether in politics or one's personal life.

If by "there is ...
By: deinse81. on 25 Nov 08, 03:49:48
If by "there is nuance" you mean the same thing the dictionary does, namely that some good things are better than other good things, and some bad thing are worse than others, Ayn Rand would be the first to agree with you. However, if you mean that everything is relative, and there is no good and evil, and the goal justifies the means, that's not nuance.

chronotriggerfan - ...
By: BlackProteus. on 25 Nov 08, 02:54:34
chronotriggerfan - "Talking-points"? I am not a politician, so that term is a misuse of the term. Subprime lending alone would not have caused the havoc of this autumn. It would have brought down whatever firms were involved in it, but would not have spread much. The stupid deregulation of credit default swaps -- formerly regulated for generations -- is what interlinked multiple firms in such a way that the whole system is verging on collapse. That's market-fundamentalism for you.

deinse81 - ...
By: BlackProteus. on 25 Nov 08, 02:44:16
deinse81 - Government can do good and ill. Objectivism ridiculously claims it does nothing but ill. That's because of Rand's binary thinking: all is good or evil, depraved or virtuous, with little nuance.

shamgar001 - By ...
By: BlackProteus. on 25 Nov 08, 02:42:32
shamgar001 - By whose definition was the USA most prosperous in the 19th century? That's highly debatable.

Myth: Gun Control Reduces Crime
Posted by: Sidewinder77

Video duration: 271 seconds

From ABC 20/20 Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity with John Stossel, Myth #10 Gun Control Reduces Crime
Download this video at DivX Stage6: http://stage6.divx.c om/user/Sidewinder77 /video/1729445/Myth: -Gun-Control-Reduces -Crime

Display Video Comments | Hide Video Comments | Add Comment

Latest comments made on this video:

You need to start ...
By: sletborrie1. on 04 Dec 08, 20:06:43
You need to start somewhere you know. You can't expect a ban to automaticly put a end to guncrimes. It takes time, especially for a gun country like the US to get rid of the idea than gun possesion protects you, because you're actually protecting yourself from other gun owners. People are less likely to commit a crime if they have to fight with bare hands or with knives. Drive-by's will be reduced etc. etc. But it takes a long, long, long time to be excepted by the people.

Okay sounds logic, ...
By: sletborrie1. on 04 Dec 08, 20:03:21
Okay sounds logic, but listen. A ban on firearms takes at least 20 years to have full effect. Let's say 1 of the 4 American citizens owns a firearm. That's around 90 million people. If you put jail sentences on possesing a gun (like here in Europe) some people will throw their guns away. Than you have like 60/70 million people left who still care guns (illegaly). Eventually they'll be forced to get rid of their gun in order not to be put in jail.

Supply and demand ...
By: jsmite04. on 04 Dec 08, 19:52:50
Supply and demand my friend........nothing more, banning "legal" fire arms will translate into a lucrative business for the "illegal" fire arms dealers. There will be no drop in ownership, only the system of tracking the owners will suffer. Pre ban, we know who has LEGAL weapons. Post ban, who knows? Besides the Clinton AW ban ran for 8 consecutive years, the only effect it had was when it was lifted, there was a buying frenzy by folks that wouldnt've wanted one before the ban.

I know guns/drugs ...
By: sletborrie1. on 04 Dec 08, 19:35:44
I know guns/drugs etc. are available, even when it's legaly forbidden to carry/use them. But there's a difference between buying a gun in a shop at the age of 18 and looking for illegal arms-dealers. Especially when you're gonna serve like 5 years for purchasing only (if you get caught) . So if you take guns away from the "normal" who have normal legitimate jobs the homicide/suicide rate will drop sicnificly.

The USA "bill of ...
By: warriorprince1010. on 04 Dec 08, 19:24:04
The USA "bill of rights" was based on the English "bill of rights". You broke away from the UK because it was a power grab, that is all. The UK has a monarchy and the USA has no health care, both are old fashioned, only one kills people. The UK is 10 years ahead in average wage and human rights.

sletborrie1 said: ...
By: jsmite04. on 04 Dec 08, 18:57:31
sletborrie1 said: "You replied to the wrong person jsmite04. lol " Not entirely, but I am also responding to anyone that believes that a ban will hinder anyone except the responsible people that already obey the law to the letter. Banning anything in the US will NEVER keep it from criminals, if you don't believe this, please tell me why there is so much illegal drug traffic here?....Isn't there a ban on them?

(you're all)
By: GL2330. on 04 Dec 08, 18:24:48
(you're all)

This thread should ...
By: GL2330. on 04 Dec 08, 18:23:03
This thread should really only be accessible to U.S Citizens, all these foreign COMMIES like to spread their filth an hatred for FREEDOM here! I'm sorry your all not part of the GREATEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!lol

No, You explain why ...
By: GL2330. on 04 Dec 08, 18:19:51
No, You explain why crime is so LOW in areas with the LEAST gun control compared to the HIGH CRIME in areas with the MOST RESTRICTED GUN CONTROL in the U.S; Mr. Ignorant Foreigner. Guns in good hands stop or deter crime! And I'm not waiting 20 f-ing years to see if Your theory is correct, and one-hundred-million U.S gun owners won't either!

You replied to the ...
By: sletborrie1. on 04 Dec 08, 17:55:47
You replied to the wrong person jsmite04. lol

We can't stop ...
By: jsmite04. on 04 Dec 08, 17:13:42
We can't stop cocaine, heroin, crank from import(I think their illegal too)so how the fuck can you stop illegal weapons from import? Use your head, we had a ban for 8 yrs moron, NO effect! Tex, you've got to be an 8yr old, research a subject before embarrasing yourself, the web offers a huge amount of info, no research = stupid comment. Research = factual comment. The ONLY way to possess a machine gun is thru the ATF license process since 1934, any other way is illegal.

Automaticly I'm a ...
By: jsmite04. on 04 Dec 08, 17:00:40
Automaticly I'm a redneck?, typical un researched ejaculate from a fraidy cat, if you don't like it it's got to be bad. In the film?, you do believe everything the tube tells you don't you?, can't distinguish the difference between fantasy and reality? Why did the 8 yr.old have a gun? fumducks like you can't teach their children or put dangerous items out of a childs reach? Makes me wonder where you store your house cleaning items, should the govt regulate them(ban)too?

If you American ...
By: sletborrie1. on 04 Dec 08, 14:48:38
If you American citizens are so confident gun control doesn't make any difference then explain me why your murder rate is so extremely high compared to countries that have banned gun possesion?

The reason why the ...
By: sletborrie1. on 04 Dec 08, 14:44:09
The reason why the murder rate dropped is because it takes a long time before guns are of the streets. You can't expect every gun to be removed after a gun control law. Put gun control on America and wait for 20 years. I'm confident the murder rate has dropped with 80%.

oh of course that ...
By: TexWhatever. on 04 Dec 08, 08:47:59
oh of course that MUST be true. that's why the 8 year old boy blew his head off with a micro uzzi a couple of weeks ago! my theory ISN'T shit 'chief'. nugent was waving full autos on stage during the elecction. in the film 'hell's angels forever' they were firing LEGAL machine guns around for fun.. i doubt with an ATF license. i think you are trying to mislsead. no, i'm not. gun control IS about gun control. you read what you like into it (you rednecks usually do). no handguns, no autos/semis

hell yeah dude
By: Janilenae2007. on 04 Dec 08, 06:16:58
hell yeah dude

US population, 301 ...
By: Marine0431S4. on 04 Dec 08, 05:30:42
US population, 301 Million UK population, 60.1 Million. Annual UK population increase through immigrantion, 185,000. Annual US population increase through immigrantion, 1.6 million. Why did our (US) Founding Father leave the UK, establishing our 'Bill of Rights', which the UK does not have? Becasue life didn't work in the UK. Why is the US called, 'The Land of Opportunity' and not the UK? In the 21st century UK still has a monarchy for Christ's sake. Please. Ten years ahead...

it proves it all ...
By: xxSickwithpainxx. on 04 Dec 08, 04:30:26
it proves it all wrong Guns saves lives guns dont kill people. only people kill people.

I think both ways ...
By: gongj123. on 04 Dec 08, 03:51:31
I think both ways will work. Ban guns totally or allow everyone(good ppl)to carry every where. different gun laws will only create more problems. In the U.S. it is almost impossible to ban all guns.

Gun deaths USA... ...
By: warriorprince1010. on 04 Dec 08, 03:11:01
Gun deaths USA....30,000 a year. Gun deaths UK...47 a year. The UK is again 10 years ahead of the USA.

i think they should ...
By: disturbedone5009. on 04 Dec 08, 02:44:40
i think they should be used as our invasion force next time we need to invade a country. they seem so good at killing people why not let them kill off our enemy before our real troops get sent in.

Git 'r Done!
By: Alternate2GOP. on 04 Dec 08, 01:31:40
Git 'r Done!

TexWhatever said:" ...
By: jsmite04. on 04 Dec 08, 01:12:55
TexWhatever said:"why do you need a fucking machine gun" Ummm, unless the law's been changed... "a fucking machine gun" is unlawful to own and has been for over 74+ years without an ATF licence and several thousands of dollars, so your therory's shit chief. You as well as most of the control crowd seem to pass judgement on tainted fabricated information, it's not about control, it's about some fuctards trying to force their ideals on those who aren't like them.

TexWhatever I ...
By: PJThatOthersMayLive. on 03 Dec 08, 23:58:40
TexWhatever I would think our founding fathers are more wise than you. Who are you to say somethig 200years old is irrelevant? The Second Amendment guarantees the others. It is what keeps our government in check. In actuality, the founding fathers wanted every household to own the same type of weapons as the government. Other than atomic/biological weapons, my state allows me to own just about any weapon I can afford.

TexWhatever ...
By: PJThatOthersMayLive. on 03 Dec 08, 23:52:34
TexWhatever Removing handguns is illegal as per the Supreme Court. Machine guns are VERY controlled and VERY expensive. Entry level full auto is about $5000 plusa $200 tax stamp. You have to have a serious background check, a local LEO head must sign the application, and have a safe place (gun safe) to store it. BTW - why are you concerned about something used in .07% of crime? The Australians I know buried their weapons. How do you propose we remove MILLIONS of guns?

Myth: Corn Ethanol is Great
Posted by: Sidewinder77

Video duration: 284 seconds

From ABC 20/20 Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity with John Stossel, Myth #1 Ethanol is Great
Download this video from DivX Stage6 here: http://stage6.divx.c om/user/Sidewinder77 /video/1729477/Myth: -Corn-Ethanol-is-Gre at

Display Video Comments | Hide Video Comments | Add Comment

Latest comments made on this video:

Please educate ...
By: brianninneman. on 02 Dec 08, 16:31:16
Please educate yourself before believing Mr. Stossel. This video ia full of ignorance and half truths. And the OXYMORON comment is way off. Do you think oil companies drill for gasoline? No they drill for OIL. The oil is refined using fossil fuel. Ethanol is not driving up food prices. Corn and oil prices are low but yet food prices remain high. Why?

bass-ackwards
By: andrewbnkjv. on 02 Dec 08, 11:25:36
bass-ackwards

The Great State of ...
By: brianninneman. on 01 Dec 08, 18:19:06
The Great State of South Dakota

where is your ...
By: jloveshe. on 01 Dec 08, 00:32:26
where is your ethanol plant located?

He's better than ...
By: cube11235. on 21 Nov 08, 20:08:20
He's better than arrogant fuck-wad liberals.

AMEN the other ...
By: phil656565. on 19 Nov 08, 18:36:06
AMEN the other thing is that ethanol has recently led to higher corn prices we sell that corn to other countries making money for the US and the midwest. The only problem is that fertilizer prices have risen to over 1000 dollars a ton so farmers are still nowhere close to rich hell we can barely break even and usually lose money. the people out there who despise ethanol do not understand basic economics and should learn a thing or two before complaining

First time I've ...
By: chucknorris360kick. on 17 Nov 08, 17:09:35
First time I've agreed with this arrogant fuck-wad. Ethanol makes as much sense as an electric powered Hummer. Stossel seems to enjoy taking contrarian viewpoints on issues. But, dickhead as he is, he be pro ethanol if it were unpopular politically. He'd just find some "experts" who'd go on camera to validate his opinion.

re: JCPIS2COOL4U == ...
By: greyflcn. on 16 Nov 08, 21:01:58
re: JCPIS2COOL4U =="RichFarmers" yeah right== More like rich agricultural corporate giants. i.e. Monsanto, Cargill, and Archer Daniels Midland.

re: Jimbogf Well ...
By: greyflcn. on 16 Nov 08, 21:00:01
re: Jimbogf Well the issue isn't so much "edible food" as it is scarce resources such as: Fresh Water Ammonia Phosphorous Potassium Farm Land It also has to do with the raw limitations of photosynthesis itself. greyfalcon. net/ biolimits.png

That's because ...
By: psugeog11. on 12 Nov 08, 06:58:17
That's because people are too poor to drive cars. They historically have the worst rates of inequality of income.

Let me rephrase ...
By: Jimbogf. on 12 Nov 08, 06:10:16
Let me rephrase that. There are corn products in most of the food we produce. Anyways I admit my ignorance about how much corn increases food prices. Inflation and higher oil prices increase food prices. BUT a lot of low income nations used to rely on cheap imported corn from the US for a lot of their food needs and now have to tear down forests to grow their own corn.

'Most of our food' ...
By: brianninneman. on 11 Nov 08, 16:19:34
'Most of our food' How do you figure. How much is the cost of corn in a box of corn flakes? Just 5 cents. Avg distance food travels to store shelf = 1500 miles. Corn value in a truck load of corn flakes (4200 boxes) = $281.40. Cost to get a truckload of corn flakes to the store = $881.25.

1 acre of corn ...
By: JCPIS2COOL4U. on 11 Nov 08, 06:58:28
1 acre of corn produces 549 gallons of ethonal.. higher corn prices are Not responcible high grocery costs, even with current corn prices there's only around 5 cents worth of corn in a box of corn flakes.. "RichFarmers" yeah right - 1500 acre farmer makes an avaerage take home income of only $20,000

Corn ethanol is a ...
By: Jimbogf. on 11 Nov 08, 00:40:09
Corn ethanol is a horrible idea. Converting a product we use to make most of our food into a fuel, driving food prices up. Plus there is a world food shortage, but here in the US we are gung-ho about using fossil fuels to make this food product into another type of fuel, it's an OXYMORON. Like the video stated, all it does is line the pockets of the growers and producers of ethanol and screws everybody else.

Here's a little ...
By: brianninneman. on 08 Nov 08, 00:38:57
Here's a little secret that the EPA can't tell you. Blend 20-30% ethanol in your gas tank and you may actually gain fuel economy. I own a 2003 Dodge Ram that is not a flex fuel vehicle and I use a 30% blend and notice no economy loss but save 10 cents a gallon. Big oil has everyone thinking ethanol is 'evil'. Right now ethanol is the best option for this countries energy independence. Cellulosic ethanol is coming and will be even a better solution. ETHANOL IS GREAT

What are you ...
By: Caveman4RC. on 03 Nov 08, 08:19:33
What are you talking about? Controled, self-sustained fusion is not already here. Fusion does not require helium-3, it requires Deuterium and Tritium. (It produces Helium-4) Both prevalanet enough in the top inch of the worlds oceans to power the world for 200 years.

It's not just ...
By: 241Groundhog. on 01 Nov 08, 18:51:43
It's not just processing fuel, corn takes carbon from the ground as well as the air. So, when it dies, carbon goes into the ground and soil, like oil. So, when you burn it, all the exhaust (the carbon bond with oxygen as carbon dioxide) goes into the air. Renewable energies are favored b/c they were typically not polluting like fossil fuels, but renewable doesn't mean that. Ethanol is renewable hell. Ever available pollution.

But ethanol is ...
By: blur880. on 01 Nov 08, 04:39:39
But ethanol is horribly inefficient, and all of the recent scientific studies are saying that ethanol is going to double greenhouse gas pollution in 30 years--compared to oil. It takes nearly as much engery to grow ethanol as it gives you in the gas tank, and all of the extra corn just leads to more air, soil, and water pollution. Often, it is more environmentally friendly to drill than grow corn. The only thing more inefficient is the beef industry.

The main point ...
By: BrainUndead. on 31 Oct 08, 21:41:49
The main point being that it costs so much to... grow corn. Ever consider how much it costs to drill for oil, especially in remote locations? to ship it across oceans? And dont forget how much we need to spend on the war machine (theres the gas, bullets, sometimes body armor) so that we can access these tar pits? Fun fact:a by-product of ethanol distilling is an incredibly healthy feed for livestock; the yeast eats starches that livestock cannot digest, so no corn is wasted, its in fact improved

I love Stossel's ...
By: 2001ricerocket. on 30 Oct 08, 03:46:28
I love Stossel's condescending pretentious informative tone.

Brazil has been ...
By: elbarto22. on 24 Oct 08, 20:53:53
Brazil has been running on on ethanol for 30 years and being one the biggest citys in the world there is hardly any pollution what so ever, unfortunately there is a downside with land clearing to grow sugar crane on the up but ethanol is cleaner cheaper and burns better through testing than ULP.

even if we used all ...
By: puremilkgenius. on 18 Oct 08, 19:11:01
even if we used all the corn in country and all the land left able support crops, we still only get 20% of the fuel we need. and guess what, ethanol is 20% less efficient than gasoline, so it's a net contribution of 0%.

I hear we could ...
By: Conservativesaregood. on 18 Oct 08, 02:40:33
I hear we could import ethonal from brazil that would elminate nearly all of these problems. if they even are problems

Nice to see a ...
By: THEFERMANATOR. on 12 Oct 08, 04:52:43
Nice to see a truthful video regarding ethanol. Every gallon of ethanol produced uses the equivelant of around 2-2.5 gallons of non renewable fuels such as gasoline, diesel, natural gas and coal. Do some research for yourself and see that ethanol in the current stage we are producing it and see we have increased our useage of foreign oil.

So this ...
By: RedDaVincy. on 11 Oct 08, 18:30:19
So this right-winged lunatic comes up with something that isn't a straight-up, bald-faced lie. I guess even a broken clock is right twice a day.

ABC 20/20 Freeloaders - Creating Dependency Segment
Posted by: Sidewinder77

Video duration: 474 seconds

John Stossel examines homelessness in America. Should we help the homeless or are we creating a culture of dependency that makes it difficult for people to improve their lives?

Display Video Comments | Hide Video Comments | Add Comment

Latest comments made on this video:

Good god, the ...
By: j95lee. on 01 Dec 08, 06:45:19
Good god, the sarcams did NOT come through apparently.

Although I'm for ...
By: bonod1700. on 25 Nov 08, 18:31:51
Although I'm for Barack Obama, your entry here lacks any common sense whatsoever. Obama is going to the President of the United States, but he isn't JESUS or some magical man in the clouds. I think he'll make some great changes to this country, but to expect what you're expecting is delusional.

Are you retarted?
By: earthtorob. on 24 Nov 08, 15:12:17
Are you retarted?

Actually it is not. ...
By: Joyness333. on 18 Nov 08, 20:01:17
Actually it is not. You've obviously either lived a privileged and sheltered life, or haven't much of an education. Look how much worse things have gotten for the world due to globalization and capitalism.

So you don't want ...
By: jerrywanna96. on 18 Nov 08, 18:36:26
So you don't want jobs to go away. So that means you get no new jobs either. You want stagnation. You are afraid of the creative destruction of life and how it is reflected in a free society. Unfortunately you can't give responsibility for facing this to the government without horrendous side effects, not the least of which is lost of freedom. Grow up and quit your pouting. Capitalism is not the ideal but it is the best system that actually exists.

Barack Obama will ...
By: j95lee. on 10 Nov 08, 22:28:12
Barack Obama will eliminate poverty in America once and for all. The end of pestilence and famine is also near. These homeless people will soon receive a generous check that will improve their lives tremendosly. Those old fashioned people who opposed welfare and insisted the bums find jobs were wrong. They are resisting hope and change. Theyw will soon go to hell.

find me a ...
By: ForTehNguyen. on 06 Nov 08, 02:47:59
find me a successful socialist country, oh right there arent any. China and vietnam's economy grew massively once they started to incorporate free market and property rights instead of communism

Thoes jobs being ...
By: EasyEs. on 04 Nov 08, 05:19:34
Thoes jobs being shipped overseas didn't improve the life of the people taking thoes jobs? Does every job need to be protected for eternity from change or becoming obsolete? Socialism may provide you with a job that pays money that you can take and stand in line with in hopes of buying some food or medice. Strange Oil rich Venizuala has shortages of milk,bread,eggs,soap, meat, medicine eyeglasses. Are these necessities or not? Not to mention a 25% decline in oil production.

"Capitalism has ...
By: Joyness333. on 03 Nov 08, 03:03:20
"Capitalism has done more to provide for the basic needs of humans then any other idea." Wrong. Actually capitalism has taken jobs away due to outsourcing and shipping in illegal aliens wo work for less, and ridding the country of the union. Socialism would ensure jobs for everyone, and at a rate of pay that provides for necessities. Major corporations are charging more, but not raising the minimum wage to compensate for it, and they get away with it.

And that didn't ...
By: EasyEs. on 16 Oct 08, 00:52:59
And that didn't happen in the Soviet Union or China or Vietnam or Uganda? I said very clearly that in terms of wealth creation they are equivalent don't twist it if you don't understand it. Again wealth was created through the production of goods and services which slaves provided but not paying them wasn't a net gain for anyone but the slave masters it was a net loss for the nation for reasons I described.

Slavery did create ...
By: jjsmilemore26. on 16 Oct 08, 00:44:59
Slavery did create wealth in America! other countries did get wealth through slavery as well. slavery and socialism are two different things and you are ignorant to imply otherwise. slaves were raped, beaten, murdered for standing up for themselves,denied of religon and thier own culture. taken from their own homeland and forced to work for nothing. I think you are a racist bigot who does not have a concept of the other. walk a mile in somemone elses shoes.

Because they both ...
By: EasyEs. on 16 Oct 08, 00:39:23
Because they both consolidate economic decision making away from the many and into the hands of the few. If the slaves were payed America would have gotten richer. Putting money into the hands of slaves would have expanded the economic growth at the time. Economic decision making was held by the slave masters. Africans were not going to send the money back to Africa if they got it they would have spent it buying goods and services in AMERICA!

No but things that ...
By: EasyEs. on 16 Oct 08, 00:36:33
No but things that allow for movement around that bracket are influenced by it. Slavery did not create wealth it limited wealth growth. Why didn't African and Asian middle eastern south American nations who practiced slavery at the same time get rich like you claim America did? In terms of wealth creation slavery and socialism are the same. What is a slave? A slave is essentially a person through state law cut off from economic participation. They were fed clothed and looked after remember

disposable income ...
By: jjsmilemore26. on 16 Oct 08, 00:08:36
disposable income is not a part of the index of poverty. you are obviously a racist and don't understand the very real issues of race in America. slavery created the wealth that bought the means of production. maybe WE are not living off of the wealth created by 300 seasons of cotton growth but some families in power in America are. as well as tobacco growth. 1865 you didn't need as much money to be rich as you do today to be considered rich the comparison has to be backed by the cost of living

I know your wrong, ...
By: jjsmilemore26. on 16 Oct 08, 00:01:27
I know your wrong, Capitalism is not the problem it is the people who are acting it out. the American government with the help of other world powers are forcing thier way of life on others exploiting their own people and others across the globe. there is no justification for it. Marxism has nothing to do with this. is it so hard for you to understand that there is room for everyone in this world and that those who are disadvantaged are so because of a corrupt system you are ignoring history

Yes their standard ...
By: EasyEs. on 16 Oct 08, 00:00:42
Yes their standard of living is worse they live in smaller houses and have less disposable income. Also Black men in prison for shooting another black man is not slavery in any meaningful term. America got rich off capitalism. The amount of wealth created up until 1865 was tiny compared to the wealth created afterwords. Slavery does not build wealth it only dictates where the limits of wealth transfer are. We are not living of the wealth created by 300 seasons of cotton growth.

no, there standard ...
By: jjsmilemore26. on 15 Oct 08, 23:54:47
no, there standard of living is not worse although not perfect. America and Great Briton were not set apart from the rest of the world by the abolition of slavery. it exists today in new forms. we are all indentured servants and the prison system is filled with African american men this is the new face of slavery. and what time are you even talking about? America got rich off of slaves. the Africans worked on plantations, the Asians built our railroads. the list goes on.

Capitalism has done ...
By: EasyEs. on 15 Oct 08, 23:54:07
Capitalism has done more to provide for the basic needs of humans then any other idea. Look at South Korea Taiwan Singapore, all at the end of WW2 had roughly the same GDP and poverty as Nigeria Sudan Niger and Kenya. One group embraced capitalism the other embraced afromarxism. Look at Estonia Poland Lithuanian, highest growth rates in Europe because they have a great deal of economic freedom. People die needlesly and the biggest reason is Marxism.

Yes but their ...
By: EasyEs. on 15 Oct 08, 23:49:14
Yes but their standard of living is worse and 40% of that population lives at a standard that you feel is unacceptable for Americans. Here is a tip, American and great great Briton are powers because of ideas, one of those ideas that separated it from the rest of the world at that time, was the outlawing of slavery.

your right and ...
By: jjsmilemore26. on 15 Oct 08, 23:48:24
your right and thats because capitalism and the need to make more profit has taken precidence over the needs of humans. we have to get back to humanity and we have to not only make sure all our own people are fed, clothed and taken care of but we do have to stop our country from exploiting others for our comfort. we are our brothers and sisters keepers. for without people what would this world be. you cannot aleviate all suffering but a lot of suffering today is unneccesary and preventable.

actually, Sweden ...
By: jjsmilemore26. on 15 Oct 08, 23:43:16
actually, Sweden has the lowest income inequality in the world at 6.5 percent. I do expect more from America because if we feel we have the right to tell others how to live we should at least be a role model instead we are hipocrytes and have been since the founding of America. we have been founded on liars, exploiters and abusers and it's time for America to become a real democracy. the American dream has been an illusion for quit some time. equality is a joke in America as any minority.

Darfur is a huge ...
By: EasyEs. on 15 Oct 08, 23:38:20
Darfur is a huge mess which yes oil is one aspect of. If we switched to all solar then the materials needed for solar panels would start conflicts around the world. On the flip side 5 million children die a year from the pollution caused by wood fires and indoor smoke because of lack of access to heating oil, natural gas, coal, or electricity.

It is true also ...
By: jjsmilemore26. on 15 Oct 08, 23:30:48
It is true also that oil is killing many people all over the world. Darfur for example.

And what nation is ...
By: EasyEs. on 15 Oct 08, 23:29:30
And what nation is doing right to their people. You hold America to a utopian standard that no nation in the world can live up to. 40% of Swedes would be considered to live in poverty by American standards. American is based on equality of opportunity which it does very well. Results have to be earned.

your right it is ...
By: jjsmilemore26. on 15 Oct 08, 23:26:46
your right it is not epidemic but we do need other sources of energy because we have understood for many years that it is not sustainable. but that is off the original topic which is that America is not doing right by its people.

Michael Crichton on Environmentalism as a Religion
Posted by: Sidewinder77

Video duration: 261 seconds

Michael Crichton on Environmentalism as a Religion

Display Video Comments | Hide Video Comments | Add Comment

Latest comments made on this video:

and it's most ...
By: Animalll2003lll. on 27 Nov 08, 21:42:53
and it's most likely that the present rises in temperature, between 1900-1940 and 1970-1998 are just natural, not driven by human CO2 emissions. the curve doesn't show any kind of special response, different from previous fluctuations. it's behaving totally normal. and we're still exactly in the middle of the +0.5C of middle ages and low of -0.6C of 18th century. so calm down everyone :) and read about Gore's misleads!

ok so I finally ...
By: Animalll2003lll. on 27 Nov 08, 21:35:55
ok so I finally found a good graph about it, and it confirms what you people were telling me: CO2 has a negligible warming effect when you increase it passed 300ppmv (which we already passed): it can only increase temperatures by 2.5 C max. that's not very dangerous. look it up: (google image : 'Greenhouse co2 greenhouse X4 png' ...and pick the logarythmic curves) so conclusion: the effect of human produced CO2 is not as dramatic as told in Gore's movie for example. it's max 2.5 C.

last news: ...
By: Animalll2003lll. on 27 Nov 08, 08:33:17
last news: apparently, doubling CO2 (from 280ppmv to 560ppmv) would increase global temperature by 1.5 to 4.5 degrees celsius. humans already brought CO2 from 280ppmv to 380ppmv. so if we go on for another 100ppmv it might be quite dangerous. but we might not have enough oil to produce another 100ppmv. so it might not be so dangerous. don't know. tired.

after having said ...
By: Animalll2003lll. on 27 Nov 08, 07:36:38
after having said all that, I have to state something that's a bit out of topic, but not completely. it's oil shortages. oil shortages is the reason why we need to 'go green'. people talk a lot about GW, because it's scary, but they don't realize the danger is even closer: it's oil shortages. everyone agrees we have to move away from oil, and we're going to make gains if do it fast. look at GM today: that's what will happen to all product using lots of oil. we have to be smart and adapt fast.

the public deserves ...
By: Animalll2003lll. on 27 Nov 08, 07:32:58
the public deserves to be better informed before voting for policies to counter GW, like Kyoto. all that fuss might be in a large part wishful thinking---from both sides. some people are too quickly prone to fall for the 'protect mother earth' without actually asking for precise infos (gore's movie is misleading though and lots of people thought the graphs were proof)---but many others won't look at the data just because they're too scared there might be a link. so both parties need more INFO.

it might be a drama ...
By: Animalll2003lll. on 27 Nov 08, 07:27:09
it might be a drama if the temperature rises much more, like 6 degrees. but so far we can't predict this is going to happen. not as long as we lack a precise model for how much CO2 drives warming. very hard to know. so conclusion, we can't know just by watching the graphs. we need some theoretical calculations about CO2 properties in certain environnment, to predict when and how much CO2 drives warming. SO CONCLUSION: we deserve more information than Al Gore's graphs before buying in for Kyoto

the globe is ...
By: Animalll2003lll. on 27 Nov 08, 07:17:46
the globe is presently warming, but we can't know if it's because of the few more ppmv of CO2 that we added ourselves. the curve just isn't going crazy up--not at all. MAYBE IN THE FUTURE IT WILL, but we can't know for sure now. maybe that above a certain concentration, CO2 has more effect, but as I said before, the temperature managed to come down when levels of CO2 were much higher than nowadays. and the temperature has already been higher, during the middle ages. so it may not be a drama.

but maybe it had an ...
By: Animalll2003lll. on 27 Nov 08, 07:10:44
but maybe it had an insignificant effect on warming. today we didn't feel the effect of CO2 yet, if there is any. the temperature curve behaves totally normally so far. we are still between the last peak of 0.5 C (in the middle ages) and the last low of -0.6 C around the 18th century. we're at 0.3 C, and the curve doesn't go crazy up, not more than it has been doing before, when humans were not yet releasing CO2. So we don't have any evidence that CO2 is warming the globe.

BUT, what we can ...
By: Animalll2003lll. on 27 Nov 08, 06:58:01
BUT, what we can see is that the levels of CO2 have been way higher 50M yrs ago and before. and the temperature eventually still managed to come down from 24C average to 12C average, many times. so IN SPITE OF CO2, FOR OTHER REASONS (like solar activity), the temperature could come down. but since we don't know the impact of solar acticvity etc, we can't guess HOW STRONG CO2 was pulling the temperature up. maybe solar activity dropped dramatically and CO2 had an huge effect but wasn't enough;

3/ since humans are ...
By: Animalll2003lll. on 27 Nov 08, 06:47:27
3/ since humans are living on this planet (-5M yrs), and even a long time before that (-50M yrs), CO2 levels were never above 500ppmv. in fact it's always oscilating between 180 or 200 ppmv(during ice ages) and 280 and 300 ppmv (during warm periods). today, since the 50s, it has been rising exponentially from 280 to 360ppmv, obviously because of humans. now what's hard to guess is how much that new induction of CO2 will affect the warming. it's hard to guess because we can't 'try to see'.

the more the ...
By: Animalll2003lll. on 27 Nov 08, 06:30:36
the more the temperature rises the more it's likely to stay like that because the CO2 contributes to that warming. so the CO2released during warmings acts like a 'feedback' that amplifies an initial warming (various unkown causes, like solar activity etc). that 'amplifier effect' of CO2 is called greenhouse effect--everyone heard of that, but we just don't know exactly how much it heats the planet for each unit of concentration added.

Ok so after all ...
By: Animalll2003lll. on 27 Nov 08, 06:26:10
Ok so after all these comments I feel like I should give my conclusions on GW. I kind of changed my mind a bit! 1/ Al Gore's graphs don't show that CO2 drives temperatures. if the 2 curves correlate so well it's because CO2 gets trapped in oceans when the temperature cools down and gets released when warming it's a very tight equilibrium--or exchange. 2/ CO2 does have an amplifier effect, according to pretty much all scientists, but it's very hard to know how much. in other words, the more

this excellent ...
By: Animalll2003lll. on 26 Nov 08, 05:22:17
this excellent comment is taken from a comment under shitty video "al gore debates global warming" so after all these comments, it seems pretty clear. Gore has indeed simplified a bit the explanations with his graphs--he didn't explain the whole complex set of reactions that trigger global warming today. he didn't go to the whole boring process of explaining the complex causes--but he is still right on the principle that CO2 drives GW. so a bit reprehensive but effective on public.

china - Warming ...
By: Animalll2003lll. on 26 Nov 08, 05:15:00
china - Warming from orbital forcing does in fact redistribute CO2 from oceanic and terrestrial sources into the atmosphere, but biota play a small role, and animals even less. Much of it simply reflects reduced solubility of CO2 in warmer water. Once atmospheric CO2 increases from this effect, it exerts a warming influence of its own, amplifying pre-existing warming or slowing any? cooling tendency. In modern times, no pre-existing warming occurred, and so anthropogenic CO2 was the initiator.

(...)ice ages ...
By: Animalll2003lll. on 26 Nov 08, 04:51:02
(...)ice ages should be thought of as a "feedback", much like the feedback that results from putting a microphone too near to a loudspeaker. In other words, CO2 does not initiate the warmings, but acts as an amplifier once they are underway. From model estimates, CO2 (along with other greenhouse gases CH4 and N2O) causes about half of the full glacial-to-interglacial warming. this is from site: "What does the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming?"

here's another ...
By: Animalll2003lll. on 26 Nov 08, 04:49:57
here's another quote that complements it very well: From studying all the available data (not just ice cores), the probable sequence of events at a termination goes something like this. Some (currently unknown) process causes Antarctica and the surrounding ocean to warm. This process also causes CO2 to start rising, about 800 years later. Then CO2 further warms the whole planet, because of its heat-trapping properties. This leads to even further CO2 release. So CO2 during ice ages (...)

this is taken from ...
By: Animalll2003lll. on 26 Nov 08, 04:46:01
this is taken from site "The inconvenient truth about the Ice core Carbon Dioxide Temperature Correlations" and I think it sums it up very well. very well explained.

To the dismay of Al ...
By: Animalll2003lll. on 26 Nov 08, 04:44:35
To the dismay of Al Gore, the answer is that this graph doesn't prove at all that CO2 has any effect on the global temperature. All it says is that there is some equilibrium between dissolved CO2 and atmospheric CO2, an equilibrium which depends on the temperature. Of course, the temperature itself can depend on a dozen different factors, including CO2, but just the CO2 / temperature correlation by itself doesn't tell you the strength of the CO2??T link. It doesn't even tell you the sign.

and that's not very ...
By: Animalll2003lll. on 26 Nov 08, 04:34:21
and that's not very suprizing if you heard of the principle of greenhouse gases. overall I'm suprized that Gore's graphs were so misleading. is it possible that they didn't show anything? it's strange, especially if overall climatologists agree that CO2 can amplify a first temperature increase during glacation era switch-aways. couldn't he just have explained that?? confirmation/ discussion welcome.

so the conclusion ...
By: Animalll2003lll. on 26 Nov 08, 04:21:29
so the conclusion is, overall, that CO2 level is increased by temperature rises--in other words, if the curves correlate so well it's in a large part because of an automatic equilibrium between these 2. on this, it's true that Al Gore's graphs are misleading. on the other hand, climatologist say that CO2 has, after a first increase triggered by an external cause, an amplifier effect on that initial temperature increase. so it means logically that it's playing that amplifier role again today.

so it's true Al ...
By: Animalll2003lll. on 26 Nov 08, 04:14:12
so it's true Al Gore's graphs are not really evidence, they don't really show a cause-effect relationship--it's true that CO2 level respond to temp rises. it's funny you guys just couldn't explain it to me properly. you seem more worried about green policies slowing down the economy than by getting your facts and infos straight. that's a noble cause, but don't distort facts for anything. it's better to face hard choices than to lie/ not see the evidence and think you're taking an easy decision.

so it makes it more ...
By: Animalll2003lll. on 26 Nov 08, 04:08:10
so it makes it more than plausible to think that if CO2 is human driven, that maybe it could start playing its 'amplifier' role even before it gets triggered by an external cause. that's very plausible to me. ice core studies confirm that CO2, released during temperature increases can have an amplifier effect on that very temperature increase. it means if CO2 is artificially released in the atmosphere its going to play its role even without a first trigger by a natural temperature increase.

So this means that ...
By: Animalll2003lll. on 26 Nov 08, 04:01:13
So this means that besides all the skeptics and the complex equations that do not always help us understand today's situation, even the most skeptics agree that CO2 had a role of helper or amplifier and was indeed higher when the temperature rises. that's not very suprizing for anyone who heard about the principle of greenhouse gases. people writing these articles specify they don't have the key to proving anything for today. but they still agree on CO2 being an amplifier.

ok I checked these ...
By: Animalll2003lll. on 26 Nov 08, 03:57:12
ok I checked these 2 sites: The inconvenient truth about the Ice core Carbon Dioxide Temperature Correlations and: What does the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming? ..the conclusion is yes CO2 concentrations have been higher and temperatures also higher; and yes CO2 did play a role, not in triggering the temperature increases (ending glaciations) but played a role of 'helper' or 'amplifier', after a first trigger by another cause (like solar cycles).

that would be a ...
By: Animalll2003lll. on 26 Nov 08, 01:19:02
that would be a very good argument against AGW. bring the data! :)

The 4 Ways to Spend Money by Milton Friedman
Posted by: Sidewinder77

Video duration: 195 seconds

1. You spend your own money on yourself.
2. You spend your own money on someone else.
3. You spend someone else's money on yourself.
4. You spend someone else's money on someone else.
Sorry for the horrible quality on this one. The original source was a low quality .rm file from http://freetochoose. net/media.html

Display Video Comments | Hide Video Comments | Add Comment

Latest comments made on this video:

The only succes ...
By: zsylvana. on 03 Dec 08, 06:17:32
The only succes Friedman was responsible for that was widely and internationally adopted was one that greatly increased the ability of central governments to collect taxes.Called PAYE,Pay As You Earn. Obituaries of Friedman sing of his successes. But close examination will show them to be few,and none unalloyed.

For all his high ...
By: zsylvana. on 03 Dec 08, 06:16:37
For all his high public profile - thanks to his regular column in Newsweek and series on US television, Free To Choose, which made him into something of a star - today no mainstream academic economist is a monetarist and Friedman left no lasting school of academic heirs. Even the "Chicago school" at the University of Chicago has waned in influence, eclipsed by the mighty MIT army of economists that followed Samuelson.

The world has not ...
By: zsylvana. on 03 Dec 08, 06:14:13
The world has not been kind to Friedmans Neo-liberalism, that grab-bag of ideas based on the fundamentalist notion that markets are self-correcting, allocate resources efficiently, and serve the public interest well. It was this market fundamentalism that underlay? Thatcherism, Reaganomics, and the so-called Washington Consensus in favor of privatization, liberalization, and independent central banks focusing single-mindedly on inflation.

A quarter-century, ...
By: zsylvana. on 03 Dec 08, 06:12:41
A quarter-century, there has been a contest among developing countries, and the losers are clear: countries that pursued Friedmans policies lost the growth sweepstakes.Though neo-liberals do not want to admit it, their ideology also failed another test. No one can claim? that financial markets did a stellar job in allocating resources in the late 1990s, with 97% of investments in fiber optics taking years to see any light,and the more recent massive misallocation of resources to housing.

His point is that ...
By: rpgambit. on 02 Dec 08, 15:08:41
His point is that the same money spent on socialized projects could be spent on those same projects run by private entities more efficiently to achieve the same, or better, ends. Take a look at "John Stossel goes to Washington" a fantastic vid from the late 90s on govt spending. Back THEN we spend 40 grand per poor person! Tell me they wouldnt be better off just *receiving* that in cash

He focused way too ...
By: jimladx. on 25 Nov 08, 23:32:40
He focused way too much on money and too little on the forms of capital that he couldn't value. Socialized projects to enhance this other capital might not make as much money, but can make us more wealthy.

We miss you Milton! ...
By: cwclemons2007. on 24 Nov 08, 03:33:10
We miss you Milton! We need you now more than ever!

Why do people vote ...
By: 1776Bob. on 23 Nov 08, 17:22:55
Why do people vote for bad government programs? THEY DON'T SEE THE COSTS. The Federal Reserve is the best way to hide costs, because no one ever complains about the inflation tax. Instead everyone blames the war in Iraq for the high gasoline prices and lawyers or speculators for the rising costs of medicine and housing. Abolish the Fed and reinstitute hard currency and you will have destroyed a powerful practical means for creating poverty that people do not often identify with the government.

While Freidman's ...
By: ericwolff6. on 16 Nov 08, 06:53:49
While Freidman's point is important, the biggest benefit of spending your own money is not that you'll be more careful with it. Its that you know more about your own needs then somebody else ever could and thus you'll be more efficient in filling those needs. No matter how much care you put into getting a gift for someone, you rarely buy the gift they would have bought themselves. Effective mobilization of knowledge, the #1 most valuable commodity, is what makes capitalism superior.

Capitalism is the ...
By: OhMymy. on 08 Nov 08, 07:00:34
Capitalism is the way to go. Life can only be improved under a Capitalist System.

Truly a man ahead ...
By: SyphaxStossel. on 30 Oct 08, 06:37:35
Truly a man ahead of his time. The ideas he proposed in the 50s(Negative income tax, steady money growth, vouchers, floating exchange rates and a volunteer army) were all considered radical at the time but have all since become popular and successful. Through the fall of the Berlin Wall and the global failure of communism to the extraordinary success of countries like the China, Singapore and Hong Kong history has proven him right. As he move forward he will likely continue to be vindicated.

You belong to a ...
By: zsylvana. on 21 Oct 08, 15:42:12
You belong to a minority among minority!"Invisible hand" that sort things out to best.Even Austrian Schoool and Neo Classicals leaved that ideea long time ago. IF ONE thing proven by 300 years of Economical research,is that the "Invisible Hand" is INVISIBLE is simply,becasuse it´s DO NOT EXIST!(Even Friedman was no "True Believer" in the pure in a Pure Invisible hand!The idea is "Stone Dead" since 1750-Physiocratic schools failure and that times Booms that was were much like ours!

Yeah because the ...
By: taubstumm. on 21 Oct 08, 01:16:03
Yeah because the Banks count on the government bailouts. If the banks couldn't rely on that, they would've been more careful.

The housing bubble ...
By: taubstumm. on 21 Oct 08, 01:15:20
The housing bubble was only possible because the government had their fingers in this shit.

What a pile of bull ...
By: taubstumm. on 21 Oct 08, 01:13:11
What a pile of bull. Look at China, Chile, Ireland, Estonia. What the fuck are you talking about?

The world has not ...
By: zsylvana. on 18 Oct 08, 20:54:51
The world has not been kind to Friedmans neo-liberalism, that grab-bag of ideas based on the fundamentalist notion that markets are self-correcting, allocate resources efficiently, and serve the public interest well. It was this market fundamentalism that underlay Thatcherism, Reaganomics, and the so-called Washington Consensus in favor of privatization, liberalization, and independent central banks focusing single-mindedly on inflation.

For a ...
By: zsylvana. on 18 Oct 08, 20:50:29
For a quarter-century, there has been a contest among developing countries, and the losers are clear:countries that pursued neo-liberal policies . lost the growth sweepstakes.

Though neo-liberals ...
By: zsylvana. on 18 Oct 08, 20:47:25
Though neo-liberals do not want to admit it, their ideology also failed another test. No one can claim that financial markets did a stellar job in allocating resources in the late 1990s, with 97% of investments in fiber optics taking years to see any light.and the more recent MASSIVE!! misallocation of resources to HOUSING!

Defenders of market ...
By: zsylvana. on 18 Oct 08, 20:45:50
Defenders of market fundamentalism want to shift the blame from market failure to government failure.But US banks mismanaged risk on a colossal scale,with global consequences, while those running these institutions have walked away with billions of dollars in compensation.

Neo-liberal market ...
By: zsylvana. on 18 Oct 08, 20:44:08
Neo-liberal market fundamentalism was always a political doctrine serving certain interests. It was never supported by economic theory. Nor, it should now be clear, is it supported by historical experience. Learning this lesson may be the silver lining in the cloud now hanging over the global economy.

or dumb enough to ...
By: swixican. on 13 Oct 08, 09:11:31
or dumb enough to vote for kerry... or dumb enough to vote period

he is absolutely ...
By: danthemango. on 06 Oct 08, 07:29:21
he is absolutely right when he says when you have money you have power, it doesn't mean that everyone has the same amount of power. Anyone should know, particularly through the example of hollywood, that production doesn't try to give to the masses what they want, but what sells the best, and that is usually to the few of society.

There is no such ...
By: TimeWarp66. on 02 Oct 08, 16:02:32
There is no such thing as a 'society" there are only individuals. When individuals are taxed half to death by this well organized mob we call the government, it makes them less likely to be charitable in the first place! Look at the 1920's in the U.S. No social safety nets, and so many private charities sprung up. I don't know what makes you think, if the government doesn't do it, no one else will? And where do you find these angels that are going to organize society for us?

What are we sheep ...
By: TimeWarp66. on 02 Oct 08, 15:57:48
What are we sheep to you samraw22? "I don't agree this would happen if we gave every individual COMPLETE freedom over their wealth." who is "we"? The collective hive mind of humanity? Or the government? I take it you mean the government. The government has no right to reach into your pocket and steel from you every April 15. Or any other time for that matter? Do you think the government knows what is best for you? Knows what to do with your money better than you do?

You didn't ...
By: TimeWarp66. on 02 Oct 08, 15:52:16
You didn't understand this video at all "juury."

Penn and Teller - The FCC
Posted by: Sidewinder77

Video duration: 86 seconds

Penn discusses the FCC on the Profanity episode in season 2 of Bullshit!
He brings up the Thomas Jefferson quote that "A government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have...The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

Display Video Comments | Hide Video Comments | Add Comment

Latest comments made on this video:

Without the FCC ...
By: bumpyjjeans. on 03 Dec 08, 00:21:26
Without the FCC Penn & Teller's boss, Viacom owner Sumner Redstone, could use his billions to buy up all the airwaves and run commerical ads and coporate propaganda 24/7. Already Redstone used his clout get a federal court order allowing him to track what each individual YouTube user watches. Sumner Redstone is elitist billionaire scum who scoffs at civil rights for working Americans. Penn & Teller are his errand boys.

I'm with Penn and ...
By: darkblood626. on 02 Dec 08, 21:24:36
I'm with Penn and Teller on this one - if you don't like, or are offended by something you see on TV, then SWITCH THE FUCKING CHANNEL OVER. Simple!) Hell yea who are the fuck do some people think they are do determine what every one can and cant watch this is the censors augment I am morally object to this and me in my value system witch is so superior to every one elses you all should get behind me

some one raised ...
By: darkblood626. on 02 Dec 08, 21:24:11
some one raised this augment when I was at school (I said what is something wrong with your remote of are u stupid enough to set up a presentation about getting offended rather then getting up and changing the channel on the TV

I'm will Penn and ...
By: RivaJane. on 30 Nov 08, 03:12:35
I'm will Penn and Teller on this one - if you don't like, or are offended by something you see on TV, then SWITCH THE FUCKING CHANNEL OVER. Simple!

Another "size of ...
By: Xerock. on 26 Nov 08, 06:17:25
Another "size of government" correlation myth to attempt to show causation. The size of government is not related to the amount of power government has. The accountability of government officials to the public has more to do with the amount of domestic power the government has, than the size of government ever will. Regardless, the FCC is indeed, full of shit. Though, I wonder, when TV goes digital, will the FCC still have jurisdiction?

fuck the fcc.
By: cloud4an. on 24 Nov 08, 19:58:29
fuck the fcc.

The FCC is about ...
By: mmmrazor. on 24 Nov 08, 14:22:50
The FCC is about more than dirty words. But greedy mainstream media moguls like Penn & Teller's boss Sumner Redstone want to mislead you. They want no FCC regulation so they can flood the airwaves with corporate fascist propaganda and imbedded commercial advertising 24/7.

i smell pussy.. is ...
By: snowblue18. on 24 Nov 08, 13:31:03
i smell pussy.. is that u glanz? i smell pussy... is that u funboiii? i think someones scared... These retards spam every page like 13yr old fan girls.. austin powers wants to know 'Who do you work for?'

fuck the fcc only ...
By: monobrowj. on 21 Nov 08, 17:44:19
fuck the fcc only stupid and crazy ppl act on what they see on tv and we shudnt care about them anyway. penn and teller wheather they read a promt or not have a good msg thts bringing probly 10/20 ppl a year over to the smart side not going for hollistic treatments or following sum dumbass church which makes ppl pay money ( evangelists and the like) so fuck what u guys think i think there doing a public service and show get paid more money

The lie of ...
By: walterglanz. on 20 Nov 08, 13:55:35
The lie of television is that the person electronically in your living room is a trusted friend speaking extempore from the heart. Lies. >>> "Pretty much the consensus you'll get from all but their paid sycophants and publicists, and Cato Institute interns." >>> "Penn & Teller are a couple of money-grubbing fascist tools. They'll spread any telepromptered propaganda for? a buck. The ExxonMobil-funded Cato Institute and Viacom's media ghoul Sumner Redstone dictate what's on this show."

The FCC is an anti ...
By: camino1ca. on 19 Nov 08, 10:35:38
The FCC is an anti libertarian organization. It has no place banning free speech on any medium.

...But does not ...
By: rebdomine2k. on 18 Nov 08, 19:13:10
...But does not regulate the content published in the 'Net. You can't even spell for fuck's sake! Go back to elementary school first before you start posting shit on Youtube AGAIN!

Penn Jillette and [ ...
By: freestuffffff. on 18 Nov 08, 11:44:07
Penn Jillette and [Raymond] Teller appear to be very intelligent men. Hard to accept they believe the rightwing crap they're paid to spew. >>> "Pretty much the consensus you'll get from all but their paid sycophants and publicists, and Cato Institute interns." >>> "Penn & Teller are a couple of money-grubbing fascist tools. They'll spread any telepromptered propaganda for? a buck. The ExxonMobil-funded Cato Institute and Viacom's media ghoul Sumner Redstone dictate what's on this show."

can you prove those ...
By: FatherTime89. on 17 Nov 08, 19:27:01
can you prove those are not his opinions?

Then how come often ...
By: Mikalotia. on 17 Nov 08, 15:17:48
Then how come often times what happens on this show comes from the Penn & Teller stage shows that they themselves wrote? I'm not sure if you've seen this show much but the views of Penn & Teller on it are often the libertarian points that they have been trying to get across for a long long time, long before the past six years this show has been on television.

Penn Jillette is ...
By: funboy7979. on 17 Nov 08, 14:34:22
Penn Jillette is paid millions to read the opinion written for him on the teleprompter. >>> "The ignorance as to the powers and scope? of the FCC as evidenced in this video and in the comments agreeing wth it are astounding. Penn & Teller are aggressively stupid and try to be a major force in dumbing down America to the point they will bend over and accept the complete fascist takeover of the US. Somebody's making millions on TV giving their opinion? Automatically -- do not believe them."

Viacom's Sumner ...
By: funboy7979. on 17 Nov 08, 14:31:30
Viacom's Sumner Redstone, Illuminati cryptkeeper, calls the shots. >>> "Viacom yanked all their videos off Y/T last year but Penn & Teller's propaganda remained."

the fcc do regulat ...
By: clancydave. on 17 Nov 08, 05:54:39
the fcc do regulat the internet cheek the sticker on the back of your keyboards they got a bilt in chip in all of them

Yes the guys who ...
By: FatherTime89. on 14 Nov 08, 18:48:28
Yes the guys who said we should switch to nuclear power are CLEARLY exxonmobil pawns, it makes perfect sense in a nonsensical sort of way

I would LOVE, ...
By: FatherTime89. on 14 Nov 08, 18:47:06
I would LOVE, absolutely LOVE to buy the building directly across the street from the FCC and hang up a banner saying. "The FCC is a bunch of myopic, hypocritical, usless baboons, totally incapable of anything resembling intelligent thought, that are better suited as livestock feed than public policy makers." Maybe put it in big neon lights.

Viacom yanked all ...
By: mmmrazor. on 12 Nov 08, 14:16:59
Viacom yanked all their videos off Y/T last year but Penn & Teller's propaganda remained. >>> "The ignorance as to the powers and scope? of the FCC as evidenced in this video and in the comments agreeing wth it are astounding. Penn & Teller are aggressively stupid and try to be a major force in dumbing down America to the point they will bend over and accept the complete fascist takeover of the US. Somebody's making millions on TV giving their opinion? Automatically -- do not believe them."

Pretty much the ...
By: tonzimala. on 12 Nov 08, 13:23:34
Pretty much the consensus you'll get from all but their paid sycophants and publicists, and Cato Institute interns. >>> "Penn & Teller are a couple of money-grubbing fascist tools. They'll spread any telepromptered propaganda for a buck. The ExxonMobil-funded Cato Institute and Viacom's media ghoul Sumner Redstone dictate what's on this show."

ohyeah i saw that ...
By: swedishzug. on 12 Nov 08, 05:37:54
ohyeah i saw that nice job

I was making a ...
By: nr1341. on 11 Nov 08, 02:08:18
I was making a family guy reference. Search for "family guy freakin fcc" It's hilarious =)

why not fucken
By: swedishzug. on 10 Nov 08, 12:08:58
why not fucken

2.7 - Chile (Commanding Heights Sample)
Posted by: Sidewinder77

Video duration: 525 seconds

Commanding Heights: The Battle for the World Economy
What Chicago stood for
Cutting the tail off the inflation dog
Growth at a high human price
A tainted legacy
Watch all of Commanding Heights at PBS.org
http://www.pbs.or g/wgbh/commandinghei ghts/hi/story/index. html

Display Video Comments | Hide Video Comments | Add Comment

Latest comments made on this video:

Chilean ...
By: luisdaniel84. on 03 Oct 08, 07:27:01
Chilean dictatorship was one of the worst but their economic policies were the best, no doubt.

2,400 LIVES seems ...
By: 7buitre7. on 05 Mar 08, 08:21:26
2,400 LIVES seems to me like a very high price to pay. Economic transitions have proven to be both extremely bloody and complex as history has shown. What makes the lives of those who died in the process of change more valuable than those who are better off today? I am all for change, trust me, especially being from a country where socialism and nationalization policies are threatening to destroy the economy and divide the country. But not wiht a gun to my head.

Nice to hear ...
By: jackson32. on 08 Dec 07, 00:35:52
Nice to hear someone from Sweden come out with an anti-communist comment like that. The hypocrisy and ignorance from both the left and right is remarkable. What went on in Soviet Russia and Red China dwarfs anything that hitler did, but the silence from the media and hollywood is deafening. Notice how much of a big deal they make about Chile, yes Chile had problems too, but it looks to me that Chile made the unpardonable sin of trying to be more free market oriented. Ron Paul 2008

El crecimiento ...
By: pansigo28. on 27 Nov 07, 23:18:15
El crecimiento económico de Chile, se debe a las políticas de Libre mercado. Impuestas por el gobierno de Augusto Pinochet, en los 70. Posteriormente en 1990, (En democracia) se mantuvo el modelo económico chileno, lo cual a permitio reducir la pobreza de un 13%.

Pathetic with the ...
By: narcissistisk. on 20 Nov 07, 02:14:10
Pathetic with the left wing demonstraters in my country Sweden during the Cold War. No one of these people demonstrated against Soviet Union and their imperialism in Eastern Europe, and no one cared about the khmer rogues who killed millions of people in Cambodia.

01:15 Sergio de ...
By: ZakkWyldeCL. on 23 Aug 07, 04:23:46
01:15 Sergio de Castro said: Generals prefered an economy agreed to the Military historical system: commands.

This series is just ...
By: jackson32. on 09 Aug 07, 05:30:18
This series is just propaganda with the goal not of promoting the free-market but of undermining it. Chiles economy moved in the direction of more economic freedom, not even close to a true free-market mind you, had the largest rise in the standard of living in South America, and the poor and middle class did benefit greatly from this, and yet we are told it was done at a high price. There's no such thing as growth without it being good for the poor and middle class.

i sorry for bad ...
By: 4Ninesfine. on 01 Jul 07, 01:10:36
i sorry for bad english i chilean i say friedman do very good for people though he help Pinochet

At the end of ...
By: sebaparker1. on 18 Jun 07, 03:51:49
At the end of Pinochet ADM, Chilean GDP growth was 10,6% (1989) and unemployment was 9%. en dot wikipedia dot org/wiki/Chile#Economy And all the successfull growth it`s and it was based on liberal monetarist economic reforms implemented in Chile under the government of President Augusto Pinochet.

Pinochet made Chile ...
By: sebaparker1. on 16 Jun 07, 23:10:33
Pinochet made Chile the top one latinamerican country

The reason is that ...
By: GKilliansIrishRed. on 29 Apr 07, 20:14:57
The reason is that not a single leave was moved in China after his visit when it comes to political views. In Chile his entire theory was placed into practice with only 5% of the population receiving the real benefits of the economic boom: Mainly the pro-Pinochet sector, so it becomes a political issue.

Ironically, no one ...
By: econdoc. on 24 Feb 07, 08:49:05
Ironically, no one protested Friedman when he spoke with the head of the Communist Party in China during the early 1980s. He spoke to him for over an hour and a half rather then the minimal 45 minutes spent speaking to Pinochet.