tossacct

Part of the text of your citation is available on google books. It seems like an academic memoir to me - lots of personal accounts, some quotes from period books on cheating, little else. Certainly not scientific. Here's a quote:

>>>Certainly not all - and probably not most - college students cheated and plagiarized.

It has neither data nor studies. It is Sue Carter Simmons' professional opinion.

That said, I agree with you that modern kids don't necessarily cheat more than non-modern kids do. I agree that parts of theologic's comment were directed at "modern kids" and the teachers of these modern kids. I can see how a reasonable person (you, stdbrouw) could infer that theologic was saying that modern kids have different cheating habits than non-modern kids. I submit that there is another reasonable person (myself) that does not infer that theologic was saying that modern kids have different cheating habits than non-modern kids. Let me explain:

>>> The best way to slow cheating is to not give an opportunity to cheat in the first place

This is the last line of theologic's comment. The proposed "best way to slow cheating" works equally well for modern and non-modern kids, it does not target either group.

The other references to modern kids inherently do not explicitly say anything about non-modern kids. There is no comparison or contrast, which leaves room for you and I to make our opposing inferences.

To be fair, if theologic had said something explicit about non-modern kids, I would tend to agree with your inference.

Please explain. Note, this is not a comment about the teacher. Nowhere in my comment do I reference the teacher.

>>>That's no justification to sabotage a math Q&A site.

I assume you mean: [learning a valuable lesson about the internet is] no justification to [knowingly post an incorrect answer to] a math Q&A site.

I disagree, and I think that the justification the OP mentioned is an excellent one, for one very specific type of sabotage (posting an incorrect answer). I will try to paraphrase their justification:

Someone who reads an answer on a math Q&A site and does not check to make sure the answer is correct will learn "a valuable lesson about the internet" if the answer turns out to be incorrect.

I assume that the lesson could be that "thinking that an idea is true doesn't make that idea true true". A more specific lesson about math could be "check your work". In my mind, these lessons are both valid justifications for the one specific type of sabotage mentioned. Some people believe that checking your work strengthens your math skills, so the people who checked to see if the answer was correct or incorrect may have improved their math skills as well.

stdbrouw, here's your link :) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_dishonesty#Academic_di...

The following is for anyone who hasn't heard of wikipedia:

Wikipedia is often a good place to begin research. It can often provide a set of words that you can use to look for scholarly works that can provide "good, non-anecdotal data".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_dishonesty

This article features words like: Plagiarism, fabrication, deception, cheating, bribery, sabotage, professorial sabotage, and personation. These may help you in your search for "good, non-anecdotal evidence".

Wikipedia also provides links to "good, non-anecdotal evidence" from time to time, and calls these links "references". These references can often be accessed online, but sometimes require you to access a physical book.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_dishonesty#References

The things that you read in wikipedia are not necessarily the truth. Wikipedia has information and mis-information on many topics.

OP's point could be that the bot could have "stimulated the american economy" in a way that fed "80 human beings in poor country", as opposed to buying him random things.

I'm not sure that the OP was "outraged at a person's lost productivity". It seems like badv0r may have thought that the project could have potential merit if it focused on something like "feeding 80 human beings in poor country" instead of "Buying random things from amazon each month".

To be more general, the bot currently buys:

<unneeded thing> for <person who can afford it>

while it could buy

<needed thing> for <needy person, who can not afford it>

It seems like you think that baddox might be trying to make a "point" that is more complicated than what they have written in their posts.

baddox>>>All patents, and in fact all forms of intellectual property protection, by definition apply only to abstract ideas.

Looking at his posts, I'm not sure that baddox was "leading anywhere". Baddox may have just been making a simple statement of fact.

AnthonyMouse>>>Take any given patent and you can find some degree of abstraction in it. The question is in some sense whether there is anything else there too...

Correct! This is what is addressed in the lengthy amicus brief, which is summarized by the fine blog poster. Here is a quote that the blogger felt was representative of the amicus position:

>>>Many computer-related patent claims just describe an abstract idea at a high level of generality and say to perform it on a computer or over the Internet.

>>>... describe an abstract idea at a high level of generality...

I suspect that the key here is the phrase "high level of generality", not "abstract idea". So a more accurate article title could be "Companies ask courts to reject patents that are described at a high level of generality". According to current patent law, patents must be useful - a vague, broad, or general idea is not useful or difficult to create. According to current patent law, patents must be new - which currently means "non obvious to an ordinary person in the inventor's field". Patent law has changed over time as a result of legislative action and Supreme Court action, and will presumably continue to do so.

The reason why these companies signed and submitted this amicus brief is to influence the court into taking some action that will benefit them. Private citizens are permitted to submit amici as well.

There are some links about copyright below. The summaries are very accessible, but are overly simplistic. The actual text of the legislation is also overly simplistic. The Legislature may pass a law that seems fairly readable, but this is deceptive because the Judiciary and the Executive are the interpreters and enforcers of these laws. When you notice that you vehemently do not agree with an interpretation or enforcement of a law, you must communicate this in some way to the government. Citizens generally communicate by voting, direct communication(such as amicus briefs or visible protests), and civil disobedience(nonviolent but illegal actions).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_35_of_the_United_States_C...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_copyright_law

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause

That said, I did not entirely agree with them :)

I agree that Kickstarter is unlikely to raise 300 million dollars for the next Hobbit trilogy. I disagree that a huge blockbuster will never be crowdfunded. Transformers, Harry Potter, and Avatar all cost less than 300 million dollars. 30 million people pre-paying 10 dollars is not ridiculous, when you look at how many people use Google, and how many users Facebook claims to have.

Surprisingly, movie studios don't necessarily fund the projects that they profit from. Since you mentioned LotR universe:

"New Line made enough pre-sales in foreign markets, and there were enough subsidies to pretty much cover their costs. New Zealand was not the only subsidy. There was also the British Commonwealth subsidy and the German tax subsidy in those days. New Line didn't have to put up any cash to make that movie."

Also movie studios consistently claim to not make profits from their movies.

"However, New Line later produced accounts showing that instead of making a profit, the movies made "horrendous losses". According to Hubbard: "We found it surprising because it was one of the biggest box office success of all time.""

Other funding options: a company could start making short films and then transition into making larger, more expensive ones once it gains the trust of its audience. The films could be broken into "episodes" to reduce the amount of money that each chunk would cost. This all ignores patronage, another alternative funding mode.

Lastly, most movies aren't blockbusters. Even if everything I just said is a lie, the vast majority of movies will be just fine, because their budgets are laughably small. District 9 was shot for 30 million dollars. Primer was shot for 7000 dollars. When Harry Met Sally cost 16 million dollars. Citizen Kane cost 15 million. Pretty Woman cost 14 million. The government funded BBC has produced such things like The Office, Monty Python, and Billy Elliot on less than 5 million each.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&#...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting#Examples

Someone who will not be named replied with the following comment, then deleted it. The commenter wasn't wrong, and it wasn't a bad comment.

>> Kickstarter ain't gonna raise enough money to fund the next Hobbit trilogy. Sorry but huge blockbusters aren't ever going to be able to find enough people willing to put down enough money via Kickstarter. Small indies yeah, hundreds of millions of dollar type summer blockbusters no.

>>>Altruistic systems don't scale (see communism).

Altruistic systems don't necessarily scale. GNU, Linux, and Apache would like to tell you that it absolutely can scale.

>>I just can't believe that you think that big budget software like say an operating system could be funded through a threshold pledge system and then distributed for free. It seems rather naive

I completely agree with you that it seems naive. I wouldn't believe it myself if I wasn't using it to send you this comment.

This is not a comment about piracy.

>>>I can assure you that vast, vast majority of people you might meet who work in film spend their time thinking about making films, not price fixing.

I believe you. The people who create the content, with jobs like editing, directing, writing, acting, camera work, special effects, logistics, costuming, set design, and even the runners and gofers are all hardworking people who "spend their time thinking about making films".

The result of the hard work done by these laborers is a film. This film's "copyrights" are "owned" by the people who financed the venture, also known as "capitalists". These are people who do "spend their time thinking about ... price fixing". Under law, they have monopoly rights regarding certain elements of copyright. Armed with these rights, they employ accountants in an attempt to make as much money as possible. The most blatant and greedy of these attempts are lumped together with the phrase "Hollywood Accounting".

There is a great contingent of consumers that would like to give more of their money to the workers, and less of their money to the financiers. Please refer to indiegogo, kickstarter, and the ancient concept of patronage for well established ways of legally doing this.

This is not a comment about piracy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patronage

Also, cheers if you are this Mr Scruff: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MS_CLIF1h-o

My friends and family were effected much more by the satire

should be

My friends and family were affected much more by the satire

There were many effects of the movie - one was to make the watchers cry, the other was to make dinosaurs explode onscreen. They were affected by the movie. I have affected the deal - pray that I do not affect it further.

Affect is always a verb. Effect is always a noun, except when it's a verb. In that case you rely on a subject/object agreement thing, and English should really drop both words and use ffect instead.

I would be shocked if I was the first person to put this into a flowchart. There are some very reasonable people who claim that it is very rare that anyone ever really "comes up with" anything. One of these people put it into the old testament : Ecclesiastes 1:9 - "there is nothing new under the sun". That chapter is a good starting point in a rather detailed argument, and a fun debate.

Example: George Orwell's "5 Rules For Effective Writers". Did Orwell "come up with this" or was there "inspiration" from Hemingway's 5 tips for writers?

1. Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.

2. Never use a long word where a short one will do.

3. If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.

4. Never use the passive where you can use the active.

5. Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.

6. Break any of these rules sooner than saying anything outright barbarous.

Another example, is Apple a design company? http://i.imgur.com/whMW7.jpg I bet you that Braun designers would happily take the credit for those very "inspired" Apple products. But I would also bet that the Braun people had some "inspiration" of their own, perhaps from a certain group of Greek folks... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio

I think that when speaking about small teams or individuals you are generally correct - it is generally faster to skip step 4, and always branch from step 3 to step 5. But like everything, there are edge cases: sometimes assigning blame actually does "help solve the problem". I would totally agree with your comment without question if you had written the first sentence like this:

FTFY>>>Step 3(assign blame) is unnecessary if and only if assigning blame doesn't help solve the problem. A pragmatic will realize this, and skip step 3 when it is unnecessary to assign blame at that point in the process- you get to the solution on step 5 faster.

Upon careful reading of your comment, I imagine that this is what you meant, but some people will read your version and imagine that you are saying that "assigning blame generally doesn't help solve the problem". It's the problem of [logical AND &&] vs the English construction [ , and ] which can mean the start of a new semi-related clause. Note that I did try to hint at this in my description of (step 2) - Do we need to assign blame "at this moment"?

Completely agree with your second sentence.

One specific edge case for small teams or for individuals - the process of assigning blame can reveal toxic team members (one of which could be you). Getting rid of a bad team member has the potential to speed things up radically.

In large organizations, assigning blame can often be done in parallel with fixing the problem. I would imagine that the benefit of the fix would generally outweigh the benefit of the blame. However there can be good reasons for management to demand that you offer up the scapegoat(as opposed to a sacrificial lamb) before your team gets permission to fix a problem. One of them is the small team edge case that I mentioned.

You offered two possible attitudes: "nothing is my fault" and "everything is my fault", then stated that the second was a "generally more productive mindset". It doesn't matter, because the most productive mindset is this:

step 1 - Here is a problem. [goto 2]

step 2 - Do we need to assign blame at this moment? If yes [goto 3]. If no [goto 4]

step 3 - Assign blame [goto 4]

step 4 - Is this a problem I should be involved in solving? If yes [goto 5]. If no [goto 6]

step 5 - Help solve problem [goto 6]

step 6 - Problem does not exist. Do we need to assign blame at this moment? Go right ahead.

All of this should go without saying, since this is the essence of the engineering and hacker ethos, and we can therefore make the assumption that at a website called "Hacker News", everyone understands this intuitively. But if you look downthread, you will see that some people legitimately don't think like problem solvers yet.

Note: This is only tangentially related to our thread.

The word "agency" is often used to describe the ability of a human to act as an agent, or the ability of a system to act as an agent. Philosophers like Marx often focus on systems as agents, other philosophers (I am not well read) and sociologists commonly focus on individuals as agents. Debating agency is very fun, and can be done at all times in all places, since literally everything is an "agent" :) . How much free will does a given agent possess; how are an agent's choices constrained by the systems in which it exists and the tools it has available?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agency_%28philosophy%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agency_%28sociology%29

Also there is an academic philosophy thread here that you might be interested in: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4891502

I mostly agree with what you are saying, and I don't feel like it is in conflict with anything that I said in my comment. One point about our trash - is it "simply thrown on a big pile", or is it "strategically centralized so that future people can effectively recycle it when it becomes economically feasible"? In a post apocalyptic wasteland, you will find me making runs to the "grocery store" that is the trash dump.

I think it appealed too much to "the masses" to be enjoyed by "sophisticated" people. And I think that the satire bits were much too sparing to really be absorbed by "unsophisticated" watchers. No one under the age of 18 that I talked with has any idea that this movie is a "withering criticism of where we are". Here's why:

I do agree with you that the movie had satiric elements, and I agree that it pointed out the specific issues that you say it pointed out. But if you watch the movie, these issues are only briefly mentioned, they are not explored or analyzed. If the film was pared down to the satire bits, it would be about 7 minutes long. The plot of the film was Luke Wilson the time traveler saving the world, the serious satire elements were the setting. Well if the plot doesn't get the message through, we can use the characters, right? Unfortunately, the low IQ people in the film were incapable of talking about their problems in a sympathetic way that most people can understand. Few people recognized that the characters were actually caricatures, because they were so dumb and happy about their lot in life. When you watch Schindler's List, do you relate to the characters that are unsympathetic oppressors or to the characters that are sympathetic and oppressed?

My friends and family were effected much more by the satire in Planet of the Apes, which is very similar movie to Idiocracy. The main thrust of both plots is "a hero saves the day," and the satire elements are mostly setting. PotA works as satire because some of the ape and human characters had problems that they were struggling with, just like you and I! None of the lower IQ people in Idiocracy was struggling with anything; the "dystopia" was NOT a nightmare for them, because they had IQs too low to express any anguish and garner any sympathy.

I think the movie would have made an excellent short film, and I think Luke Wilson would have been brilliant in it. It would have made a fantastic Family Guy episode for those that enjoy Family Guy. It failed as a feature length film which is disappointing from such an effective artist as Mike Judge.

That's an opinion(so of course it can't be wrong) that I have heard, it is being debated fairly intelligently downthread along with a debate about the fantastic King of the Hill and Office Space.

Here is a list of movies that critics and non-critics consider to be much better post WWII satires than Idiocracy, according to internet ratings of these movies. Note: many of these are more humorous and brutal while being less crude and light-hearted than Idiocracy. Also many have plot, emotion, and deep characterization.

Films: American Psycho, A Clockwork Orange, Fahrenheit 451, Nineteen Eighty-Four, Dr. Strangelove, Office Space(also Mike Judge)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire

My main problem with Idiocracy as a satire is that the message it sends is flatly incorrect, because the rules of their world are not the same as ours. It is a satire of some alternate universe in which we are not living, it has no applicability for the world we live in.

Film's message: "If our societies ever end up giving a competitive advantage to low IQ people, time travel will be necessary to correct society's decline."

The truth:"If our societies ever end up giving a competitive advantage to low IQ people, natural selection will take care of it, since intelligence seems to be a competitive advantage for apes."

I think the true message is also a better call to arms for both intelligent people and unintelligent people. The movie Idiocracy seemed like it was made to be consumed by the citizens of the low-IQ world, in both plot and acting. I do enjoy its light-heartedness.

Much more realistic are the famous dystopian texts, especially Harrison Bergeron: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Bergeron

Did the people in the show seem happy to you? Did it seem like Bobby, Peggy, Hank, or Dale were satisfied human beings? Boomhauer is the only person that really seemed to accept their role in life without regrets, and that's only because I could never understand what he was saying.

Note: I didn't watch the show religiously.

We can agree that there were specific times when the characters were happy but I think we can also agree that there were times of deep sadness. Mostly the happiness was portrayed as being very superficial, and the sadness was generally existential and deep. In the episodes that I saw, this deep sadness was due to how the "traditional power structure" tried to mold them. It's a pity that they didn't break out of their molds, but as a show I think the zeitgeist was their deep dissatisfaction with their lives, punctuated with small insignificant victories.

Think about Beavis and Butthead. Do I think that it glamorized(to some extent) acting like a jackass? Yep. Did it make me want to act or be like either character? Nope. Do I think it "convinced" any normal humans into acting like jackasses any more than the evening news does? Nope.

I appreciate your responses in this thread, I feel I have learned something from them. I want to make sure I am reading you correctly here:

>>>as long as the reduction [of Methodological Naturalism] remains provisional, it has tremendous explanatory power. In practice, it far too often becomes a de facto metaphysic, unwarranted and unproven within its own assumptions.

It seems like Karl Popper is saying something identical here: >>>"A naturalistic methodology (sometimes called an "inductive theory of science") has its value, no doubt.... I reject the naturalistic view: It is uncritical. Its upholders fail to notice that whenever they believe to have discovered a fact, they have only proposed a convention. Hence the convention is liable to turn into a dogma." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)#Karl_Po...

I will try to synthesize the two previous paragraphs here: "Methodological Naturalism assumes that what humans can observe is the only way to gain more knowledge about the observable AND unobservable world. It is helpful for addressing immediate concerns of the observable world. However, let's not pretend that its usefulness somehow makes it true. Predicting the FUTURE is difficult, so let's hedge our bets in case things start getting weird."

Do you agree that your statement and his are equivalent, or are there some differences? If there are no significant differences, is my statement a reasonable synthesis?

Popper seems to express my (and I'm assuming yours and his own) sentiment about naturalism with his concept of falsifiability, which science seems to have accepted. In my opinion that is science taking a very good thing from a modern philosopher.

Can you briefly explain or point to something brief that explains the specific things that are significantly harmful or incorrect with relation to Descartes' Discourse on Method?

I agree with you that dogmatism is probably a negative thing, unless the dogmatism enforces being non-dogmatic. My shallow reading of Popper and Descartes seems to indicate that they are dogmatic about not being dogmatic, so I really quite like their dogma.

Any other problems with reductionism would be especially interesting.

Any answers to the classic regress argument would also be appreciated, I am not very clever and neither are my acquaintances - we haven't seemed to find anyone to convince us why "A proves B" is epistemically useful...though surely there is some argument

[C PROVES why "A proves B"], and surely some argument

{D PROVES why [C proves why "A proves B"]}, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regress_argument

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_the_Tortoise_Said_to_Achil...

It makes me very happy to hear that there are parts of the world where my anecdotal experiences are not representative of the real statistics.

Note, I expressed that among technologically inclined ethivegs there was universal acceptance of the idea among those that I introduced it to, meaning that their hearts and minds still work...they just aren't hackers or engineers that see a problem and then try to fix it using whatever technology possible, extant or not :D.

RE luddites: there is a vast number of luddite ethivegs that reject any technology that they didn't create themselves - including metal, medicines, making paper, and etc. It can be a brutal life and I imagine it is only possible in some areas of the world. They also acknowledge that they only survive due to law enforcement protecting them with armaments that they do not allow themselves to use. The real crazies do all that and then refuse to use domesticated animals! Fruitarianism, eat your heart out :D.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruitarianism

summary: I am hoping for some clarification

>>>Can I ask you a favor? If you do truly care about "responsibility" of "improving the world," please stop using exclusively strawman arguments against vegans, a group which adapts their entire lifestyle and existential place in the universe toward positive change. This is far more than most meat eaters. You have a really patronizing tone and make little, subtle suggestions that vegans are just idiots. This crosses the line.

It seems to me that you are offended. If you would like to give me some specific examples of what offended you, I would love to read them and potentially change the way that I post comments here.

Disclaimer: The rest of this comment further explains my confusion and desire for specifics, it is not necessary for you to read it. If you choose to read it, note that it is likely written in a tone that will offend you. I ask you to be as civil as you feel you are capable of being, as you are posting this on a public forum, and Poe's Law is in full effect :D(this smiley face is to indicate a lighthearted mood as opposed to some sarcasm that may offend you).

Until you can help me understand what offended you, I can not intentionally stop offending you, since I did not intend to write anything offensive and you have not cited specific examples about what was offensive to you. I honestly don't know what you think needs changing. I would recommend not reading the rest of this comment since it will likely have the same tone, and serves only to offer some academic frameworks designed to explain why we are having conflict.

-------academic communications issues---------

It is interesting that what I meant to say (thingA), what I actually said(thingB) and what jicksta2 voluntarily chose to infer(thingC) are at the very least two completely different things, related only by the pixels that jicksta2 saw on their screen. It is unfortunate that they were not all identical. The relationship between thingA, thingB, and thingC has been studied by many very famous academians, and is often lumped into a field known as "communications", more specifically "linguistics." More specific to the issue at hand is "semiotics", which concerns the relationship between the "signifier" (pixels on a screen) and the signified (what I actually meant).

Obviously the relationship is very complicated and there is another issue about the relationship between what I said and what I meant(thingA & thingB), which opens up a bunch of epistemological, existential, and quite frankly solipsistic waffling that Dagmar :D Descartes famously reduced to 'cogito ergo sum', Latin for "QED - Trust me, this proof proves it :D." Lojban and other engineered languages are attempts at alleviating some of these issues. There is a conversation about Lojban elsewhere in this thread.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/René_Descartes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q.E.D. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_de_Saussure http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiotics

I am not an ethiveg. I ask literally every ethiveg I meet if they have heard of in vitro meat, because asking them is an incredibly easy thing to do, and if they spread awareness and generate support for the science then the world will be a measurably better place. I am impressed that you ask literally every ethiveg you meet if they have heard of in vitro. Keep up the good work, improving the world is the responsibility of all those who can help improve the world.

Some people in western culture choose not to eat animal products or meat, and have historically referred to themselves as vegans or vegetarians, respectively. Some of these people make the choice due to their ethical concerns about the food producing animals involved in the process. In this comment, they will be lumped into the group of "ethivegs". In my experience, a fair percentage of ethivegs are either luddites and technophobes, and vanishingly few of the technology embracing ethivegs are generally interested in science. Absolutely no ethivegs that I have met has been aware of in vitro meat research. Which is odd, since in vitro meat research meat has the ability to almost completely remove ethical concerns for an animal from the production of food.

Interestingly, PETA has heard of the technology and did a little advertising stunt for the research. Anecdotally, none of my NPR listening or PETA supporting acquaintances have ever heard of this stunt (which was on NPR) or the concept of in vitro meat. Happily, every single ethiveg that I have introduced to the concept of in vitro meat has felt very positive and excited about it.

So in my experiences with ethivegs, the consequence of in vitro meat research coming to fruition is this: eating meat will no longer require an animal to be treated unethically. Interestingly, many ethivegs have lamented that currently "unethical meat eaters" will no longer be punished with mad cow disease, high prices, or nutrient imbalances. However, they are generally more concerned with the ethical treatment of animals than they are with punishing humans who currently eat meat.

I find this interesting because some groups are less interested in correcting the sin, and more interested in punishing the sinner: http://i.imgur.com/Irgo2.gif

The only value of the article is to briefly mention the existence of "in vitro meat" and the concept of a scientific approach to flavor and taste. The article also includes some namedrops that I don't think are significant, but is otherwise completely worthless after you read the first sentence of this comment. For actual information on these topics beyond a mentioning of their existence, please visit wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_vitro_meat

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flavor Catchall for any sensory experience involving food or eating.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taste What happens with the taste buds of a human.

you're the man now dog - looping audio with gifs

Good example - http://jeffgoldblum.ytmnd.com/

www.ytmnd.com started 2001 - memes and fads. Mostly gradeschool level humor: sophomoric, casual racism, sexism every ism you'd like to mention. Equally hilarious and offensive.

http://yourethemannowdog.ytmnd.com

http://jurassictourettes.ytmnd.com/ - mashup of jurassic park and "tourettes guy", watch the best parts of jurassic park in 10 minutes

http://ytmnd.com/sites/top_rated/alltime

http://ytmnd.com/info/about