If you see the behind-the-scene filming of your favourite movie or tv show it looks a bit cringy too. but it's what you see onscreen that is the subject to be judged.. I think these people are trying to do things that mimic what they see pro models/actors/musicians do in videos/photos. and it works, they try all sorts of angles and find a good shot then post it and it makes people think they are awesome and are worth following/listening too.. then they plug products and get paid. no big deal.. just the tech has gotten cheap for consumers and distribution is simple.

*quality

There is a Chinese car company called Kandi that is planning to build their super cheap EV's here in the US to avoid tariffs and shipping costs. If they go through with it and the cars aren't absolute trash, you will be able to pick up a bare bones EV with a range of 100 miles for about 10k after tax credits.

This looks like pure shit. On-a-rail gameplay and quick-time events? Yeah, naw!

On the other hand, Reagan in CG looking not unlike the Joker in the Batman games is good for a cheap laugh.

I meant the start and stop year are each off by 1.

Circumstantially it looks like maybe her mom called Larry King Live to ask for guidance way back in 1993 (the content of the exchange matches, as does the date, but no names were given). Could be unrelated.
Supposedly neighbors were told. Again, who knows.

If zero corroboration was good enough for Ford (Named first hand witnesses said they remember nothing of the sort), then maybe it's only fair to give Reade the same benefit of the doubt?
The double standard is quite conspicuous.

Personally, I wouldn't condemn anyone without physical measurable evidence on which to decide. Talk is cheap.

Maybe she does exaggerate. She wouldn't be the first.

-scheherazade

She really was great. And I REALLY enjoyed how his attacks on her body went over like .... nothing.

Cheap jokes vs Brain jokes.

I love the world right now.

Marble is translucent, the same as human skin. When they cover marble they lose all the the inner refractions, and it ends up looking like cheap plastic.

I'm not saying the statues weren't painted, but art historians ought to at least try truculent paints.

1) Definitely - but without a market improvements fall flat and dont stick. Ancient people had a lot of good ideas but overall progress was really slow and retrograded often until.. well until capitalism became a thing. Abolishing serfdom, general civil rights, separation of church from state and the fall of absolutism made the Iphone possible.

2) No, that is my point. People "discover" things all the time, some of these things are deemed useful by the general public and capitalism provides the tools to finance production and distribution (the profit part is optional - it is entirely legal to sell your invention for any price or indeed give it away for free).

So to get to the original point capitalism did not discover or design the Iphone but it certainly MADE the Iphone.

3) Not impossible but incredibly slow. Generations lived out their entire lives without perceptible changes in their environments prior to the onslaught of capitalism and the industrial revolution. The advent of science from the renaissance onwards was OK, but only once factories and transport infrastructure became a thing did living conditions start to change for everyone.

A big problem with free markets is that they are never really "free". A theoretical free market implies too many things that dont ever happen in real life, like everyone having all relevant information and being able to make a good decision. People just dont do that IRL.

Also not everything can be solved by free markets because you cant just let your neighbors die poor because the market says they deserve it. However the Iphone is really not something the state should subsidize. I understand that it paid for some of the technology that went into designing it. But true socialism would have to make sure everyone could afford one, and would design a cheap bad phone to fit the need.

That would be great, but I would gladly settle for cheap travel to the moon on a pair of space elevators.
Strapping wings onto my arms and being able to fly like a bird in underground chambers always sounded like fun to me.

It is relatively easy to get a quite common pre 1986 machine gun.

The whole process is cheap. $200. Fill out a ATF form 4 and attach a passport sized photo. There are only a few questions to answer (that take up about 2.5 pages). This took about 30 seconds on google to find out. It is not more difficult to pass this background audit than that of a federal agent. I've looked into applying to be a federal agent and their process is an order of magnitude more stringent.

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/form/form-4-application-tax-paid-transfer-and-registration-firearm-atf-form-53204/download

"What you, me, or others consider firearms means nothing."

You asked me what I considered a firearm. I answered both my personal opinion, and then specifically said that what the government considers a firearm to be is what it is. I'm surprised you seem to have missed this.

Registries are a step towards being able to confiscate guns en-masse. If you know who has what it is much easier to take it away from them. This sentiment is well documented on pro-gun forums.

"It doesn't take any money to ban certain firearms, certainly not a boatload"

Very true. I was tempted to point this out but I didn't. I believe that this is one of the core reasons they want to do it. It makes you think they are doing something when they aren't, and it costs sweet fuck all compared to say, spending money on anything else that will genuinely improve the average man's lot.

'your off hand assumption that, without your derisive "warning", he would be "dumb" enough to make an assumption'

Now that's the thing about warnings, you aren't assuming the behaviour of anyone. You only know it is a possibility that you don't want to happen. You don't know if it will happen or not. So you put up a warning. That's how warnings work.

But hey, this is your house right? Make no mistake, you've stamped yourself all over videosift like a dog marking its territory. Outsiders who don't comply with your way of thinking basically aren't welcome.

Machine guns are firearms. You can buy pre 1986 machine guns in the USA (I'm not sure what form you have to fill out). The 1986 cutoff is fairly pointless.

I don't consider bazookas, grenades, mortars, etc. firearms. To me a firearm is essentially a rifle that fires cartridges. But if the US government considers them as firearms then that is what they are for legislative purposes.

I believe there is case law regarding what scope of arms they were referring to in the 2A and the result was any common firearm. This currently includes almost all pistols and rifles, both automatic and semi-automatic (with the exception being automatic guns must have been made before 1986 - I believe this limit should be removed).

I'm very much against restricting semi-automatic rifles. There are no good reasons for restricting them. It is unconstitutional. They are not the "weapon of choice" for mass shootings, pistols are. The lethality of them in mass shootings is the same as that of pistols (someone ran an analysis just recently). This last point surprised me a little.

https://www.reddit.com/r/gunpolitics/comments/d7ypcv/no_mass_shootings_carried_out_with_semiautomatic/

I'm for background checks (i.e. for second hand sales which are the only sales left without a background check) as long as the service is cheap and no records are kept (i.e. it isn't used to create a de-facto registration database).

Public health wise, talking about firearms is a red herring. If I were to drop a bucket load of money into stuff in the USA it would be into making health care and mental health care cheap and available and reducing poverty. This would have more affect on mortality and morbidity rates then any gun legislation will. And yes, I would give fully subsidized health care to the poor.

By now you should be asking yourself what planet someone comes from where they support the 2A and free health care at the same time.

There are commercially available drones that have a large enough cargo capacity off-the-shelf to for delivery of a big enough explosive to start a fire that could be quite destructive if delivered to the right location. Just $5k or $10 will be enough for each aircraft itself. Depending on how close the pilots want to be they could go as cheap as $1k for each drone, maybe lass.

Lucky for the Yemeni the technology in this video won't be available for another 3-5 years....

Looks delicious. Eels are one of those foods like oysters, that used to be dirt cheap but, due to overfishing and pollution, are pretty expensive now.

The VideoSift public speaks... "How dare you speak critically of our highly developed belief in cheap videos!" I imagine you're all highly impressed by professional wrestling too. The idiocracy power base.

HA! I can hear it saying that one word after each throw. LOL

Next (clank) Time (clank) Dont (clank) Buy (clank) The (clank) Cheap (clank) Seed..... (clank)

next time dont buy the cheap seed.....