In top 3 or 5 for USS Callister? I enjoyed it because I'm a Trek(ie/ker).

OMG I had to check Snopes.

That thing is real!

It also violates several sections of the US flag code. (ie this is considered "disrespectful" to the flag.) Using it as a blanket, letting it droop to the floor, or draping it over anything are all violations.

But Trumpians don't care about ACTUALLY disrespecting the flag. They just care when black people are doing anything resembling protest and they'll make it about the flag or other cultural institutions (which they've shown time and again they don't really care about) if they can possibly twist it that way.

Sadly, he (hopefully not willfully) has missed the point of "Whataboutism" entirely. The issue is not saying "what about..." this other thing about the thing we are talking about, but rather, when you say "what about..." this thing about something entirely unrelated. As an example, from his video, If someone were to say "Jeeze, Bush really wasn't that bad", you would be fully within your rights to say "What about all the people he inadvertently killed?".

It's when you, for example, say "Trump is a lunatic" and the response is "Yeah, but what about how Hillary sold children for sex in a pizza shop" that people have a problem with. The current Republican way of handling anything tricky is to throw out some non-sequitur and hope it sticks, while never actually discussing the original topic.

Again, saying: "Hillary was the best Sec. State ever" and having some one say "Yeah, but what about Benghazi?" is perfectly acceptable and not at all what John Oliver et al. are complaining about.

On another note, the clips he showed relating to how democrats would love to have Bush back, are being interpreted without the understanding that they are being spoken in jest (ie. sarcasm). They don't really want him back they are just attempting levity in that they want to show how much they think Trump is unfit for office by saying that they would even take the buffoon back if they could get rid of him. This is not an approval of Bush, but a lesser of two definite evils thing.

@eric3579 -- I agree that that is a sticking point. I have trouble buying it because there are already limitations on the "right to bear arms".

The 2nd amendment:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


Certainly, one could argue that licensing / registration of firearms would count as infringing on the right to keep and bear arms. However, "arms" is rather unspecific. Merriam Webster defines it as "a means (such as a weapon) of offense or defense; especially : firearm".

The government has already decided that limiting the access to some "arms" is fine, and doesn't infringe on the constitutionally guaranteed right to bear arms. For example, in many states it is "legal" to own a fully automatic, military use machine gun. BUT:
1) It had to be manufactured before 1986
2) Said machine gun has to be registered in a national database
3) The buyer has to pass a background check

So there's 3 things already infringing on your constitutional right to bear a specific kind of "arm". A firearm -- not a missile, grenade, or bomb or something "obviously" ridiculous. And actually, even "destructive devices" like grenades are technically not illegal to own, but they require registration, licenses, etc. that the ATF can grant or refuse at their discretion. And their discretion generally leads them to NOT allow civilians to exercise their right to bear that particular sort of "arm".

If those limitations / exceptions aren't an unconstitutional infringement on the right to bear arms, certainly reasonable expansion of the same sort of limitations might also be OK.

I empathize with pro-gun people's fear of "slippery slope" escalating restrictions; the potential to swing too far in the other direction. But at some point you gotta see the writing on the wall. To me, it seems like it would be better for NRA-types to be reasonable and proactive so that they can be part of the conversation about where and how the lines are drawn. In other words, accepting some reasonable "common sense" limitations (like firearm licensing inspired by driver's licensing) seems like a good way to keep any adjustments / de-facto exceptions to the 2nd amendment reasonable (like the laws about machine guns). Otherwise, you're going all-in. With a not particularly good hand. And that's when you can lose everything (ie., 2nd amendment removal rather than limited in sane ways that let responsible people still keep firearms).

If a website wants to only publish about black on white crime, I'm fine with that, as long as they aren't saying they are publishing stories about crime in general. Specialization can be a good thing, allowing people to become an expert through time, repetition, and pattern recognition. Talking about all the other bad countries and dictators around the globe can be done by others, it's fine to focus your attention on one, which also happens to be the one we have the best ability to change(ie voting)

Alrighty, so when challenged with an obvious flaw in your original post (ie. posting in a video about how the alt right trolls while using the exact same methodology), you change up the terms on engagement rather than answer the original criticism...

1. Short quip about how said boxed people are insane.
2. Go on about why said boxed people are mentally deficient, then crap on about Trump.
3. Get in to a pedantic explanation about the 50% figure and whether or not it was entirely accurate.

None of which addresses my original criticism and further goes to show that you are doing exactly what this video is talking about.

I don't give a fuck about Trump or his supporters, and while I do agree there are likely some racists/crazy people in the mix, I theorise that they mostly voted for him because he was different. Which is neither here nor there, the video is a smug left winger pointing out what a bunch of pointy headed gits alt right trolls are and you prove that the left is equally capable of being smug, pointy headed and trollish gits... = \

I don't disagree with your discontent re: the parlous state of affairs in the US at the moment, and I have a great deal of sympathy for American's who don't want that orangutan representing them. But if you (collective left, not you personally) want to try and occupy a high ground and dismiss the alt right, you need to actually live up to the standards you use to castigate people like Bk33.

Was just watching the old Mythbusters where they took an actual driving road test while intoxicated or talking on a cell phone. But, being actual driving, they legally had to stay under the .08 BAC limit even though it was on a closed course.

Really cool to see this place, where they can test things at mild/moderate/high levels of impairment, other types of intoxication, etc.

However, I did have one minor complaint, sort of the same as in the Mythbusters episode: it would be nice to see additional tests where the driver isn't ever expected to look at a video camera and/or respond correctly to questions. Ie., what if you're talking to somebody on the phone hands free, or talking to a passenger in the car, but you're not expected to devote a lot of attention to that ALL the time. In a real scenario, you can keep your eyes on the road and pay attention to driving while also listening to someone or even talking to them a little bit. If you see something in the road that requires your full attention, it seems like your brain should be able to do a reasonable job of prioritizing the driving (more important) over paying attention to the conversation (less important).

I'd wager that on average, people in that sort of scenario are slightly impaired compared to drivers putting 100% of their attention on driving, but not by a big margin. Probably lower than a lot of other distractions, some of which we deem acceptable (hard to legislate things like "driving while preoccupied" angry/sad/whatever).

In my american-english word list (which does have the problem that it includes names and doesn't only list word stems, so it has zanier, zanies, zaniest for instance) the counts are:

• i before e: 4503
• ei not following c: 794
• c followed by ie: 181
• ei following c: 65

Getting soaked is a crock of BS. They're paying often times 20% effective tax rates.

And when income and wealth inequality is as bad as it is today, what you're pointing out points to how ridiculous the economic system is when almost half of Americans pay no federal income taxes and still see their effective income drop over the last four decades, while the rich have experienced steady income increases during that time.

IE, the inequality is so great, even if you literally don't have people pay taxes, it's still resulting in growing wealth inequality.

And I'm sure you're gonna claim that I'm suggesting pure income/wealth equality is what we want, which I'm not. However, it is absolutely essential to a functioning market economy that wealth and income inequality do not become too great, as that was one of the contributing factors to the Great Depression. If the economic lower class does not have money to purchase goods and services the businesses owned by the rich produce, those businesses will inevitably decline.

Very analogous to Westboro Baptist "church" stooges. They (ab)use their constitutionally protected rights to free speech to say the most offensive and provocative crap that they can come up with, specifically with the intention to incite a (violent) reaction against them. Why? Because pretty much the entire Phelps family are lawyers, and they know that they can generally win any assault case that they can provoke people into. All that hate they spew boils down to a stupid, petty moneymaking scam.

Is the Seattle Nazi that devious and cunning? I doubt it. Probably just a crazy / fucked up guy, as Maher said. That doesn't excuse his fuckwittery, but it does reinforce Maher's argument that punching the guy is NOT the best response.

Morello is awesome, with RATM and Audioslave, and now Prophets of Rage, etc. But he's dead wrong on this issue, and comes across as a bit of an "internet tough guy". Outside of just ignoring them, I kinda think the only way to one-up these people is to know the law, what constitutes assault etc., and essentially beat them at their own game (ie. provoke them into doing something to you). On the other hand, there's something to be said for using using passive-aggressive snark to mock / humiliate them in a nonviolent way, ala the Foo Fighters:

No Netflix for me, and no luck on a quick search of torrents, but I'll keep my eye out for that show/series.

Many metrics to compare. Ecologically, that system sounds great for static locations with enough of an elevation gradient and reservoir areas to make it work. On the other hand it seems like the ecological damage done by constructing batteries, factories, and disposing of them is likely quite small compared to many other alternatives, particularly fossil fuels (which also have long-term scarcity concerns on top of plenty of other issues).

A major advantage of battery tech over hydro storage would be mobility. If the thing consuming energy doesn't sit in one place, hydro storage won't work. Another somewhat less significant advantage is the ability to install anywhere -- a battery farm recharged by mains and/or a solar/wind farm could be installed in places where hydro storage couldn't. And for one more item in favor of batteries, I'd wager that the land area footprint required for batteries is much smaller per kWH stored, although that might be wrong for extremely large reservoirs (ie. a hydroelectric dam, pretty much). But by the time you're getting to that large scale, the location requirements and ecological disruption are also much more extreme.

Anyway, I don't mean to pooh-pooh the idea of hydro storage -- it really does seem like a very good and ingenious idea where it would be applicable. But there's certainly room for improved battery tech, too. I don't think that we're going to get fully or even significantly weaned off of fossil fuels quite as fast as the video would have us hope for, either. Fossil fuels were the primary tool in our toolbox for a LONG time. And as the saying goes, since all we've had is that "hammer", we've started to think of everything as a nail.

They weren't making it out, they were going downhill in the same direction the water was backflowing from...

Seriously people, if you see flooding like this (and I hope you never do), if you have an 'uphill' to go to (ie. behind the white building following the red pipe), go that way. You can't get to your family in time, so ring them up on the mobile and get fucking safe. Even if you do survive by some miracle, some poor rescue worker has to come try to save you.

Only two official videos from Shout at the Devil (original) were Looks that Kill and Too Young to Fall in Love. In '97 they did a video for the remake of Shout at the Devil.

IE, this is fanmade.

First piece of advice. "Clever" code is usually bad code. If I saw that line of code in a code review, I would have to have words with the programmer.

More seriously, it depends where you are. There area lot of jobs right now. If by no professional experience you mean no internship experience, that can make things harder but isn't a huge obstacle at all (the experience itself doesn't often count for much, it's really more of a "why didn't you get an internship?" sort of thing). A good way to start in that case is to look for contract-to-hire positions, possibly through a recruiting/placement agency (look for ones that specialize in engineers). They generally know what they are doing, and will work hard to find a good place for you and they are genuinely on your side. We like to use these where I work because you can hire someone on a three month or whatever contract, and if it doesn't work out, it's a relatively painless separation for everyone (ie, you weren't "fired" you just finished the term of your contract). It's easier to get your foot in the door through a CTH, and then you just have to diligently and prove yourself.

As for preparing for real work (the actual coding part), that's harder. Since you really don't know what you'll be doing, it's not easy to prepare for it. You really have to learn software engineering on the job, and companies hiring entry level talent know that. That said, if you have a particular field in mind, looking for *good* open source projects along the lines of what you want to do and studying the source is good idea. Exposure to real-world, non-academic code is very useful. Getting involved and maybe becoming a contributor is a great idea (and looks good on a resume and gives you something to talk about in an interview). Working on personal hobby projects is a good thing too (though not as good as working on larger projects with other people), which again, gives you something to talk about in an interview. Keep your hand in. Have something to talk about at your interviews.

There are some good books. "The Pragmatic Programmer" by Hunt/Thomas is an excellent general-purpose programming practices book (more about mindset and approach and good patterns than technical details), and I can't recommend it enough. There are some others, but they escape me at the moment. Google is probably your friend here. If you can find a second hand set of Knuth for a reasonable price, buy it up. It's not even remotely worth actually reading, but it looks good on a shelf.

Good luck and don't sweat it. You have a degree that makes you very employable. You'll find something that you like without a doubt. If you're lucky it will be your first job, if not, no big deal--move on to the next thing.

Not old in the slightest (42) but I love the looks I get blasting Mudvayne at the lights from 'kids' (ie. 20 somethings).

Yes, we don't all hand in our fun cards and get Zimmer frames at 30 folks!