Are you sure it's his tail? It seems to grow and shrink several times during the trailer.

Now I'm nervous about seeing that radioactive fire breath.

I'm confused. They imply a 3 day trip to mars is possible, but is that at the maximum speed photonic propulsion can deliver, or do they include the acceleration and deceleration times? As I understood it, photonic propulsion can deliver extreme speeds, but only at a minimal acceleration. That means that maximum speed is much faster, but accelerating to that speed takes immensely longer, and the same goes for deceleration. Maybe they've invented a new method I've not heard of with much higher acceleration, but that's not really mentioned in the video.
They actually seem to imply they plan to use the same tech as cyclotrons, which means essentially a huge rail gun (and that's not photonic propulsion BTW, it's magnetic). Again, the amount of propulsion is miniscule, but the top speed is high with that method. Yes, you can expel matter at near speed of light, but only in tiny amounts and using huge amounts of energy.
Yes, it may take 10 minutes to achieve 30% the speed of light....with single molecules or atoms.
There are MANY reasons why we can't do this at macro sizes. Just look at the size of a cyclotron needed to accelerate an atom to those relativistic speeds. Now think about sizing that up to accelerate enough matter to move a spaceship instead of a single atom and it's likely near the size of the entire planet. We won't be building a cyclotron that size ever, nor will we likely ever shrink the accelerators to a size where they can fit inside a spaceship to shoot trillions of atoms out like a light speed gun. They are just too big and use too much power. Maybe once fusion is perfected and miniaturization also perfected it could work for interstellar travel, but never for local space travel, the acceleration levels are just too small.
Also, it seems solar sails give the same or better acceleration to the same top speeds without the impossible technology....but they don't work too well for stopping except at other stars.

One point...from what I saw, Bernie DIDN'T question Hillary's credentials as a progressive, he was questioned ABOUT Hillary's credentials, and he answered the question based on her own record/statements. In no way is that unfair or unseemly, indeed it's the proper way to delineate the distinctions between the two candidates.

I think we've seen now a few times that Hillary changed a view and a vote in favor of those who gave her large 'donations'. She can claim all she wants that it wasn't because of the huge sums of money she's been given, but she won't be convincing anyone of that who's not already firmly on her side.

It's really a crying shame that the fix is clearly in and, if the 'leaders' of the Democratic party have anything to do with it (and make no mistake, they do have control), Hillary will be the nominee, primary voters be damned. Sadly, that likely leaves us with President Trump, as polls show them in a dead heat (Clinton and Trump) but Trump's support is growing and Clinton's is shrinking.

#feeltheburnfromthefingersinthebootyassbitch

I imagine the driver of the pickup coming the opposite way at the end being all like "you best turn around" and camera car driver being all like "no *you* best turn around" and the camera pulls up and slowly reveals them both to be on a rapidly shrinking island of land as the water washes in around them. pull back to clouds. pull back to earth from space with unrecognisable shrinking continents. movie title: ominous subtitle. Summer 2016.

It's not all dairy farms, but it's most. See http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/430528/err47b_1_.pdf or page 7 of http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/sb/sb978.pdf (note my requirement of .edu not some blowhard blogger).

Namely:
The number of dairy farms with fewer than 500 cows (your "good places") has decreased significantly and the number with more than 500 has increased majorly. And those farms with more than 500 account for 50% of the milk made.

So, yeah. There are some good farms out there. But the number is shrinking and they're unable to compete with the large factory farms.

Also, from one of the docs cited above:
In 2000, about 71.1 percent of production came from
operations of 100 or more cows, up from 55.2 percent
in 1993. Production from the smallest herds, not a
large share to begin with, fell by about half—from 4.1
to 2 percent

---

Rather than refute any of the other claims above, I'll just leave it at this. I have vegan exhaustion. My point is that these aren't just made up vegan facts from PETA, these are studies by the USDA.

Shouldn't there be a circle outside the fundamentalist circle? I'd think the way she's talking she's outside that circle too. The sheer numbers in all the discussed circles is certainly something to be weary of, and I agree the issue needs to be addressed more by those outside the fundamentalist circle.

The same circles can be applied to Christians as well. The inner circle includes people like that guy who killed those at the Planned Parenthood. The next Islamist circle would be mostly the Tea Party type Christians, those that want to force one type of Christian view on others via political action. The Fundamentalist include fundamentalist Christians, those that think gay marriage is a sin and should be outlawed. Now beyond that inner circle, most of Christianity has outgrown it's radical violent past... though their support of the death penalty and stand your ground and murder somebody for stealing your TV sort of suggests they haven't... They criticize Muslim support for chopping off hands of thieves as barbaric, but believe in stand your ground for theft... And those in the fundamentalist circle and further to the center are the ones who do all the speaking for Christianity. There was no outpouring from Christians after the Planned Parenthood terrorist attack about how he doesn't represent Christianity. There is no mass outpouring from the majority of Christians who have no issue with gay marriage to stand up for those who sin differently than them, instead letting the fundamentalist rule the show and present their views as the dominant Christian view, which appears to be that it is worth judging homosexuality as a far worse sin than the ones that they committing... The same arguments she's making for the moderate Muslims to be standing up against fundamentalist to Jihadist Muslims should be applied to Christians as well... no, they radicalized Christians generally aren't as big a threat in terms of violence, but the growing public image of Christians as being bigoted, self-righteous, feeling repressed demigods is a real problem for Christianity as well, and is in large part to blame for its shrinking numbers.

Violence and war against Islam though helps grow the radical elements. As much as Christians love to play the "help help we're being opposed" card, Muslims are increasingly more able to play that card with legit purpose. Trump's call to stop them all from even visiting the US, to register all US Muslims into a database and track them is an open invitation to radicalize more, to move more of them from moderate to fundamentalist and to move fundamentalist towards jihadist... and if it was just one radical idiot like Trump that would be one thing, but he has a huge swath of support, which makes it again easier to radicalize more as they can point out that their faith is under a real and legit attack... which proves their faith is the one true faith as the enemy is working so hard to attack it... this is an argument made by Christians all the time with the we are being oppressed cries, that prove that Christianity is the one true faith, because the devil is working so hard to push Christianity down, yet they don't recognize their attempts to push Islam down proves the exact same point to the Muslims...

I think they all show that religion does far more harm than good.

1) Depends
2) WHY?!?
3) Dunno. It shrinks as girls age, possible it helps keep germs etc out before, you know, anything else might need to go there.
4) The same way as women prolly. Winky Face. I'd wager men have probably _seen_ about as much, or possibly more, hymen (Hang on, plural of hymen? Hymens?) than women given-
a) I don't imagine it's actually that easy for women to see their own hymen - feel free to correct me on this ladies.
b) Gynecology, as indeed almost all of the medical specialist areas, has been the domain of men until recently.

Oh, and I did google it and I don't regret it because of this entry on the wikipedia page:
"In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, medical researchers used the presence of the hymen, or lack thereof, as founding evidence of physical diseases such as "womb-fury", i.e. (female) hysteria. If not cured, womb-fury would, according to these early doctors, result in death."

One wonders what treatment they might have prescribed for WOOOMB-FURY!!!!

Now here's a question...
Since water expands when it freezes, shouldn't these bubbles grow slightly?
But since water freezes, that cools down the air inside, which decreases its volume, shouldn't these bubbles shrink a little?

It was always inevitable that the printer industry would shrink significantly as things become more digital, but it's always baffled me that they responded to that by making it harder and less desirable to print things.

Hardware is worse than it was 20 years ago, the drivers are much, much worse, and ink is more expensive. At this point we should have had rock-solid printers that you top up once a year from a litre (or bigger) refill bottle.

But hey, free market, right?

It's a discussion we've been having in this country for as long as I can remember and was one of the prime arguments made for a vast set of reforms a decade ago. And I still don't buy it.

At the very basic level, the argument is that a declining percentage of working age people have to pay for an increasing number of pensions. But that's only half the story. The working age population has to generate enough output to sustain not just themselves and retirees, but also children, the unemployed, the sick, anyone not working. A shrinking population means less children, and most importantly less unemployed. Increases in productivity are more than enough to compensate for that, no need to increase birth rates or immigration.

Germany is regularly paraded around as a country in dire need of immigration, given our low birth rate. Even if we ignore for a minute that any 50 year population forecast of the past has been invalidated after maybe 5 years, the "worst" they could conjure up was a decline in working age population of 34% by the year 2060. So what? That's 0.8% a year. And since it's based on a population decline of 20% over the same time, it's an annual drop of 0.2%. That's their worst case scenario, and it's statistical noise.

We've had a massive increase in average age over the last century as well as two world wars and our system managed just fine. And an annual drop of 0.2% is supposed to bring it to its knees? Pah.

Now, I'm all in favour of immigration, primarily to spice things up and prevent our society from becoming too homogeneous. But our pension system needs neither mass immigration nor an increased birth rate. What it needs is for politicians to stop funneling funds from our "PAYGO" system towards their buddies in the private sector. Current income = current payments, public system. Everything else is too volatile and susceptible to the Vampire Squids on Wall Street.

I've watched much of the clip at 1/4 speed and learned a little. SPOILER ALERT.

The marker vanishes are now definitely obvious. The first time he slips it into his vest. The second time he flips it to the back of his fingers then drops his hand behind him and discards it.





So, the vest definitely does come into play a lot. He also pushed a card into the lower opening in his vest at about 3:45 while misdirecting by spinning a card in his other hand.



That's all good and fine, but other things are not simple sleight of hand.

At 5:10 with his back turned he shows us the signed card with the hand behind his back. Then in full view he simply turns the card against his back. Then his other hand raises up from the other side of his body to reveal the "same" signed card. (The one that was in view, btw, he tucks up into his vest at this point, keeping in hand the blank that was paired with it.) The only possible explanation for the same card being in two places at once is there must be multiple copies of each signed card, which means he has stooges who sign the exact same way every time or he has a technological advantage like others have mentioned (tiny scanner and printer).

The other thing that confounds is how he has a signed card in one hand and a stack of cards in the other. Then in full view the tall stack shrinks down to (approximately) one card and the single card grows into a stack instantaneously. I guess there must be some kind of technological solution to this as well, but I don't know how a functional stack of cards (and not just the appears of a stack of cards) could collapse and appear... unless they aren't functional and it's a trick deck that can easily expand or shrink to look like a deck or single card.

At 6:00 when he just shakes the bag and the signed card inside changes to the other signed card, I think he just flips the bag around with his shake motion and that the single card is printed on the front with one signature card and the other signature card on the back.

That's the only thing that makes sense... which again requires a special scanner and printer setup... I guess.

Interesting, but they might have messed up the process. I think the blade should be straight until they quench it after claying. The curve of the blade is a product of the different shrinking between the hard steel outer edge and the soft core, which is why it's so perfectly curved when done in the traditional manner.

UGH! I tried that once. I got a tongue covered in kiwi fur/hairs. I'm not falling for that again! ;-)
Really, we split them then dehydrate them. They last way longer that way (although keeping a kiwi isn't a problem, they don't ripen until you put them in a bag with an apple...I've kept ripe ones on the vine for months with no effect.). It also shrinks them by over 1/2.

Again, you are misrepresenting the road tax. There is literally no way that you do not use the road or travel system in some fashion unless you walk everywhere cross-country and make no other trips other than for food and work. Even if you ride a bike on a road or take a bus/train, you are using the transport system and therefore should have to pay for it.

Most of the rest of your points about education and healthcare are opinions and I refuse to waste time on them.

The numbers I listed are per dollar per family. I fell I've been very transparent on this and the fact that you continue to rail against it is doing nothing to impress upon me that I am wrong. The numbers are accurate. As far as the middle class, it is still the largest portion of our class structure. Yes, it is shrinking and this should be addressed, but it is what it is at the moment. They are the average American still.

Some of them are happy with it. There are numerous articles from Norwegians discussing their unhappiness with the system, especially since they are having an influx of poor immigrants like the rest of Europe. They suddenly do not like having to pay for people who moved to their country, odd right?

The idea of being the same as everyone else is a fucking cultural meme in Norway and similar countries, its called the Law of Jante. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Jante. Again, I feel I have been very clear and open on this and you are pissing me off by picking at it like i'm making it up. I don't make stuff up, I find facts and I list them. If the facts do not agree with your viewpoint, that is not my problem.

Finally, we are so far off the topic at this point and you continue to nitpick my facts instead of disproving them, so I am done.

It depends...social security, about 1937, medicare, more like 65, public schools, that depends on what you want to call different systems, but in North America it started in 1647
https://www.raceforward.org/research/reports/historical-timeline-public-education-us
The road bit is a PERFECT example of how, even if you don't directly use a service, you benefit from others using it....just like EVERY OTHER SERVICE MENTIONED.
Because we don't deny medical services to those without money, it's a question of do you pay less beforehand or more later, because either way you pay.
Because uneducated children cost society FAR more than educating them does, standing on your myopic moral high ground demanding 'personal parental responsibility' is a self defeating stance demanding people 'give' more than some have to give with no option for the children of the poor. (That said, I can get behind the 'public schools being free only for the poor' plan I think Jefferson had, as long as those schools are on par with private one's)
I explained clearly why even those average numbers are misleading.
Again, is that purchasing power per dollar, per person, or what?
OK, 'middle class' is not the average American. How about give the average American salary instead of cherry picking a rapidly shrinking sub-group that makes your point?
We all pay through the nose...it's just about when and how. You pay for the indigent by paying higher insurance and medical bills...it would be FAR cheaper to simply pay for their medical care in the first place (as in single payer health care). That saves the 10-25% that insurance companies take as profit on day one, and saves on overall medical care cost per person by properly taking care of people instead of waiting until there's an expensive emergency to pay for. (and makes a much healthier, so happier society as a whole)
The fact is that they are happy with their system. It does not make them all 'perfectly equal', there are rich and poor in Norway...or do you not believe that? People DO get ahead in Norway, probably more so than the average person in America who has seen their financial/social status in life, purchasing power, benefits, opportunities, and security go backwards over the last 40 years, unlike Norway.
No, I think the entire 'identical to everyone else' thing is something in YOUR head, not theirs, and not reality.
Don't have disposable income?!? In Norway, not the US?!?! You've GOT to be kidding. Let's ask someone who lives there...@BicycleRepairMan , is there only one social class in Norway, all equal, all making the same amount of money, all poor and destitute with no disposable income?
Well, the American system certainly disagrees with you. Those that put the most effort into their jobs usually make FAR less than those that put little effort into taking advantage of the opportunities available to them, but not to others. Those that make more in our society almost NEVER do it with manual labor, the hardest work to do. They also rarely do 2 or 3 full time jobs, as many poor must do. It's simply not true that working harder gets you advancement in the US, opportunity and connections get you advancement.
I do agree, giving medals for average/expected performance is ridiculous, but that rarely happens in business.