I had to call my grandpa sir. I grew up most of my childhood hearing my father refer to him as sir, as well. However, he was not a very nice man, my grandpa. If my father didn't call him sir, I'm pretty certain he would get a beating... even as an adult. >.<
If only gramps had been a kinder man like the one in this video. Alas, now we pick up hitchhikers and murder them, using their faces for halloween masks. Hail satan! Down with the commies!

Alas, hope still for my own state of sequester which has told the Common Core to suck a dick.

Yeah, this common core bullshit is nothing but agenda-oriented think-tank implants/appointees working in tandem with politicians and their pals to guide the populous headfirst and forward into how to think like automatons and wage slaves without the capacity or will to fight the powers that bees.

Actually, now I'm curious.

2 perpendicular lines.. easy

3? why not, just extend the third line along the z axis (of course any 2 representation of this wouldn't be perpendicular, but still)

Could you have 7? In some crazy n-dimensional space graph (ala a hypercube)?

Any maths geniuses want to weigh in on this?

This guy is actually really cool.

I used to watch his YT channel but alas I simply can't find a link at the moment, maybe some one with great powers can help. I remember being introduced to him by a video on this site, I just can't remember the content, I think it was looking at different Puzzle Boxes.

Anyway, basically he has a bunch of videos reviewing toys from all over the world and he has a real great way of talking about them. This little snippet gives you a funny idea of how he presents, he does that a lot where he ends a review with a single word like "Amazing".

In case you can't tell, the ball is actually CG, added later. I was disappointed as well, hoping that the bot would be able to actually throw down some sick loops and counterloops, but alas it's all faked.

ass A Holy @!!

*notdead

*blocked

tried to fix it four times with the same embed always getting " no changes detected " then clicked on video and it played. You are wrong, I am right, the video embed is good. tra la l ala la

> "[Austerity] frees up resources for private investment" is a statement that
> does not match my perception of reality"

Well, far be it from me to try to introduce you to some basic epistemologies to which you may not be familiar: like rationalism, deduction, etc, in order to move you away from "authority" as the only path to knowledge you seem to use. Unfortunately, however, this "authority" method is inappropriate to the study of economics.

> "So, demand vs supply... we all know that discussion won't be resolved here,
> ever."

Keynes and Hayek were at it for a while. It's all in the two hip-hop videos.

> "It's utterly pointless."

Yes. There is nothing new not covered by Keynes vs. Hayek.

> "Shamelessness was my addition, my interpretation. "

Bad thymology (my interpretation).

> "He "weakens" society, economically, by suppressing aggregate demand.
> The more wealth you accumulate, the less of it, as a percentage, translates
> into demand."

I see. So, by this logic, any making of money is, in itself, a "weakening" of society. Unless I'm a socialist, like David Simon, then I cannot make money without also "weakening" society.

> "But since you apparently share the views of Hollenbeck, all of that was
> probably hogwash to you."

Yes, at best hogwash. Alas, I've no interest in going into this with you, especially since you've no have interest in actually looking at it. Had you any interest at all -- or studied the subject beyond deferring to the "authority" method of epistemology -- you could at least provide me with a concise explanation as to why you think the Austrian/Misean economic position falters. Rather than thinking for yourself, however, you dismiss it as "wrong," "right-wing," or "pointless" to debate or go into. "Here Be Monsters, period."

The Keynes/Hayek debates have the similar tones, with Keynes simply ignoring all of Hayek's points, evasions, and going off into something else. You clearly agree with the Keynesian approach/theory, which likely means you cannot really explain anything except through unfounded claims, that are "pointless" to argue, debate, or rationally defend.

As I have said before, one cannot have this sort of intellectual relationship with those either unwilling or unable to grasp basic economic principles, like for example those clearly explained by Hazlitt's "Economics in One Lesson." There's simply no common language through which to communicate. Confronted with these kinds of beliefs, one can either try to educate (but only those who ask for it, since attempting to educate those who do not want to be educated will likely fail, as any public school teacher can tell you) or one can pull out the snake oil and the cash register. The third option involves ignoring such ignorance altogether, and use what one knows for one's own financial and life benefit in ways that don't involve such people in the first place.

There are so many errors in the Keynesian 'demand' theory of economics (you can find much on that if you want to read up on it), but Keynesians tend to avoid any real debates. You're coming from the Keynesian fallacy of saving money as being bad for the economy (because spending it all/consumerism is supposedly what gets the economy going). And the even more absurd fallacy which presupposes (with no proof of it at all) that rich people keep most of their wealth stored somewhere outside of circulation. When in reality, rich people only save some and the richer they are the more they spend/invest. Of course, when the economy seem fragile, due to central banks meddling, bubbles, etc., investors get nervous and don't invest as much a they otherwise would. When they don't invest, it shrinks supply of things people would want to spend on. Demand does nothing, it doesn't exist, if there is nothing to supply that people want to buy.

In fact, I am starting to think that central bankers are not really Keynesian at all, in the sense that they don't really believe their own bullshit. They know better but also know how to exploit their positions as central bankers, making folks like @radx buy into it, the snake oil. For example, he may not care for gold, but bankers do. Whatever they say against it, folks will still buy it, both for themselves and the banks they run. And as @radx rightly says, he's a human. And apparently he can sell his 'charm' if push comes to shove.

Stealth was dumb. During the escort mission though, I was hoping he'd grab the guys hand and drag him along, ala Ico.

One order of scrambled eggs ala nickel with cheese, please!

Hahahaha, I fucking love it! Tried to submit it, but alas it is not to be mine

*promote

...WE HAVE A WINNER ! ! !

How long before ammunition is made unavailable ala supply of material or finished product, cost, or regulation. The last major US lead smelter is closing.

By the time this technology is widely affordable I hope phaser plans are available.

You can actually complain to the actual broadcasters. Its likely more effective than complaining to the cable companies, seeing as they actually have some say. Or you could complain to congressman and ask for bills forcing ala carte service. that would be effective.

If you haven't had cable service in three years than yeah a lot has changed. In my area, Comcast went all digital to reduce bandwidth used by their television service on their lines (which happily resulted in them doubling the speed on most of their internet packages as a result). Now if your bill is late (like 30 or 40 days late, not right away) of you decide to quit their service its off the same day. You just get an activation page on internet and the cable says "one moment please".

He can play any scene, but just one character.... every damn movie. Unless he is trying to overcome a bad public image in which case we get a purposely against type character ala Tropic Thunder.

I would declare this *dead if I had privileges. Alas, I do not, as Siftbot will promptly inform you.

First, you again label me with your convenient labels knowing absolutely NOTHING about me. You make the mistake of assuming I'm an average consumer/waster/litterer. You would be wrong. I've never once thrown litter out my window or elsewhere since I was an adult, including cigarette butts and water bottles. In fact, I have bought fewer than 5 bottles of water in my lifetime. I grow my own food for the most part, and I don't buy much, so my garbage output is severely limited. Even my driving habits are below average, well under 5K miles per year.
(You have it backwards, in your scenario the asshat wants to shove his shit into my ass because I don't want it on our roads. If you think that's OK, I just don't know what to say except stay the hell away from me and mine!)
Second, you seem to be up in arms that someone would have the unmitigated gall to call someone else out on their illegal, immoral, and incredibly rude behavior by returning the offending litter, and your knee jerk reaction is to say you would do something worse to that jerk that had the gall to call you out and return your litter? Hmmmm. That's not a reasonable or logical reaction, and is what I expect from 5 year olds and meth heads.
The guy throwing shit out the window repeatedly after someone went to the extreme of going into traffic to retrieve the litter and return it has the death wish, he's poking an unstable bear (OK, really 2 unstable bears) while ensuring no one would come to his aid when it all goes wrong.
Interesting, in private you agree with me on many points, but when I call you out in public for making ridiculous statements attempting to be a little fucking thing (another way to say an annoying object, which is exactly what you have told me you are trying to be) you go off in unintelligible tirades. The hilarious thing about this one is we both seem to be suggesting similar responses, just by different parties. It seems if I don't agree with you 100%, I must disagree with you 100% (in your mind) and therefore must be insanely unreasonable.
Repeatedly littering when numerous others have gone above and beyond to stop you is insane, out of control, rude, and illegal, and is asking for some other idiot to take things a step farther out of control. Ramming one of their cars was BEGGING to be ripped out and beaten, he was just lucky the guy he hit wasn't the same kind of hot head. You think everyone besides you is insane, uneducated, and completely lacking self control, so how does antagonizing them and escalating the already hot situation do any good for anyone?
I just can't understand how anyone with the intelligence to type can defend the litterer in this. Even if you think everyone in the situation was wrong to some degree, the litterer A. started the situation B. was doing something both illegal and immoral C. repeated this action and D.escalated to vehicular assault. You really need some serious mental gymnastics ala Eric Cartman to make him the one who was wronged or righteous.