Singapore. Malaysians tend to say tree for three as well (and @westy has a lot of typos)

This video was way ahead of the curve, the technique has just come up again recently.

*length=114

I didn't know the investigation and the trial was already over. Guess that's it then.

You do realize that even if this situation was properly officiated by the police, that that is still a problem with people? I also hope you realize that, again if this situation is proper that still Black people aren't treated properly in America.

I understand that there are always these controversial situations which everyone jumps on. They try to pick teams and make sure they win as best as they can, but this isn't about winners and losers. This is a society, and it has rungs, those at the bottom tend to be disproportionately Black and they get abused by those higher up. That is hardly debatable, and we have to decide if it is tolerable.

Unsurprisingly those at the bottom rung have decided it is not tolerable, which happens occasionally in history. It's a constant struggle and many gains about been made. I want to be on the side of history that espouses equality, that is ahead of the curve. I find it noble to drag humanity, kicking and screaming sometimes into a future of further enlightenment.

I'm not going to name people as racists or not-racists. It seems to me though a choice must be made by the individual. If this isn't tolerable to you than you can stand up. If it does not concern you then you need not inject your voice. It's not an attack on you, your world or your advantages. It's a struggle for those who see a problem, they will keep going. Those who stand with the status quo will not be remembered as noble people, they become the false prophets of history.

This is a really nice example of sinusoidal motions and Lissajous trajectories! The center of mass of all the points makes a circular 1:1 Lissajous trajectory, which gives the false impression that the points are curving: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lissajous_curve.

However, to mark this as an 'illusion' is a bit of a stretch. Illusions are created by a failure of our assumptions about a system we are viewing, and strong illusions maintain this failure upon viewing even when the mechanism of the illusion is revealed to the viewer. Many people may have the 'illusion' that the balls were traveling in arcs in the beginning, but once it was pointed out that the balls were traveling in straight lines, viewers have no problem viewing the original movie without being deceived. To call this an illusion would be like calling horse galloping an illusion: http://100swallows.wordpress.com/2008/06/29/horse-dont-hop/, which is another case where people were just incorrectly applying their intuition, rather than properly observing the details.

They apparently didn't know that that nerve innervates the heart and other chest organs. From Gray's Anatomy:

"As the RL nerve curves around the subclavian artery or the arch of aorta, it gives several cardiac filaments to the deep part of the cardiac plexus. As it ascends in the neck it gives off branches, more numerous on the left than on the right side, to the mucous membrane and muscular coat of the oesophagus; branches to the mucous membrane and muscular fibers of the trachea and some filaments to the inferior constrictor."

And as the lady is separating the nerve from the chest area, she is actually cutting those nerve innervations. Oh, and one more thing. The long nerve does NOTHING to weaken the neck, or the animal itself, as is seen in the following video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7HCIGFdBt8

Oh Bob. It's better to remain silent and let people think you an idiot than to open your mouth and prove it.
97% is not the same thing as 97. Also, the correct number is really closer to 99.9% of all published climatologists, if not higher. Those who know, know. Those who believe don't know jack.
There are many ways to differentiate human produced CO2 from naturally occurring CO2, and therefore prove the rise is due to man. This has been done repeatedly and conclusively. The simplest way is to simply look at the graph of the rise and compare it to our use of fossil fuels, they are exactly the same curve at exactly the same time, with exactly the same dips and bumps. It's certainly not the only method, but is a simple to understand one.
It's ridiculous to state that to live 'green' you must live as if in a 3rd world country. That is simply BS stated by unreasonable men without any knowledge (and usually with a financial incentive to be anti-green/pro-fossil fuel).
It's also ridiculously ignorant to state that being 'green' is not cost effective. As someone who has had a solar system for 7+ years, I can tell you it's paid for itself already (with an estimated 13 more years before needing serious upkeep), has kept me away from the 40-50% rate raises that have happened to others in that time, it heats my house, my shower, and my hot tub and keeps the lights, TV, washer/drier, dishwasher, and fridge on when the grid goes down. It's not at all the expensive, powerless, sacrifice forcing technology you seem to think it is. It saves money even in the short term, and significant amounts in the long term AND has many other benefits. You've been listening to the wrong people about this issue, people who either totally don't know what they're talking about or are bold faced liars. I speak from actual experience.
Cost effective 'green' technologies have existed for well over a decade. You are simply wrong about your estimations.

I think it has more to do with the torque curves of the two engines, and perhaps the lower centre of gravity and gearing ratios. I'd expect the rat bike to do fairly well against a gokart actually... at least over the same distance

The Honda should certainly have smoked him over a slightly longer distance and would win fairly easily on top speed, even if 180hp might be a slight exaggeration.

There already are reasonable restrictions.

(I can't really ask to be exempt from laws that don't even exist. But I can ask for those new laws to not be written.)

Consider this.
Maybe /you/ are not special.
Maybe /you/ are not in this world to do with other people's lives how /you/ see fit.
Maybe /you/ should take the very advice you would give to violent offenders, and just leave people in peace.


Yes, this country has clusterfuckish problems.
But guns are not the cause.

We have a very high percentage of uneducated people. For example, my high school, in one of the nicest areas of the entire country, with the super easy U.S. curriculum, with the super relaxed and curved U.S. grading policy, 30% of kids that entered never graduated. And that's one of the better examples in the country.

The problem isn't even the education system. It's cultural. Kids show up to socialize, and smart kids get made fun of. Often they have no parental pressure to perform either. No amount of money can fix that kind of schooling, because it's not a schooling problem.

They don't just miss out on an education that helps them obtain gainful employment. The concepts of empathy and solidarity are essentially omitted.

There is a proverbial horde out there, many under strong financial pressures. Having the same consumer impulses that most people here have, they resort to augmenting their incomes with questionable activities.

The median *individual* income in the U.S. is around 26k / year. Half the population makes less than that... The cheapest unassisted rent in my area is ~800/month. Go to new york, and you could be paying 1600/month each with 3 other people for a rat hole. After water, electricity, food, fuel, you'd be wiped out. Any emergency (broken down car, medical expenses, whatever), and you are in the hole.

The nice areas you see on TV are a minority. Most of the country is a po-dunk shit hole, full of people that get desperate the moment things go bad. Which leads to restricted activities, and that tends to lead to violent encounters.

We have a very high percentage of arrested/jailed people.
When you're arrested, even if not convicted, you're not acceptable by a large proportion of jobs. The police even call your employer right away to let them know you've been arrested. You are essentially marked.

Like I said, 1 in 18 men are in the system. That's a LOT of people. Other than those on parole, they aren't working. Those that are working aren't making much money (on account of the undereducation and arrest record), and will likely be back in the system.

BTW, more than half of them are in jail for an activity that never even involved another person.
Most are there for harmless stuff.

Once these people do get out of jail, if they weren't already under financial pressure, they likely now are, and will stand a good chance at reinforcing the problem population.

(eg. Person with their life more or less in order goes to jail for having a bag of drugs, then they get out, can't get a job, and they need to resort to sketchy crap to make ends meet. Maybe get into violence, but often just return to jail.)

But, it's not by accident. Our jails are for-profit, with people in government making money from the jailing industry. Either by campaign contributions, lobbying, or by having financial stake in the companies.

The most self-serving thing the government can do, is keep the problem going, and tell people that they should rely on the government to fix it by getting tough. Then the govies make money on the jailing side, and they reinforce their public mandate.

The jailing companies themselves put inmates to work making cheap goods (ever bought a t-shirt that was made in the U.S.? It was probably inmate labor.), and then 'charge the inmates rent', effectively paying them a penny a day. Modern slavery.

All along the way, the taxpayers are paying the bills, and it's just a giant trough to feed from.

I hope you can imagine why I'm averse to making more ways to jail people that aren't being a problem.

It's also why I'm inclined to make drugs legal (pretty much try Portugal's approach). So as to bring that trade into the light, and end the gangster turf wars (which are a high proportion of the gun violence).

A lot of this could be fixed long-term by social engineering, using media to elevate the prestige of education and productivity. But we know that that is not going to happen when there is no money to be made on it.

-scheherazade

People who stand on the outside of curves on a rally competition are gigantic idiots.

Well, if you just HAVE to stand on the outside of a high-speed curve, do it on a giant pile of heavy bricks.

As much as we would like those who pass judgement on us to be intelligent, the notion that this test-range is based on, is stable from a governing perspective.

Take the emotion out (concerns of ones personal safety/punishment) and review the situation again.

i.e. Businesses are financially driven and therefore do not hire people that are over educated for a role, as they do tend to feel unsatisfied and eventually will leave for a reason that falls within a bell curve (knowing they can do more). This sensibility is in direct relation to sustainability. If as a standard they kept hiring people unnecessarily skillful who will likely get bored and also know they could do something more intelligent/challenging/satisfying, they would blow all their money and go out of business.

Would you rather have,
1. No service (or and including, a perpetually collapsing service that exists only by way of endless cash injections that drains a countries budget), or
2. A relatively ok service that is trained to follow a fairly simple set of guidelines, with a dispute system (courts) to back up any non-time sensitive poor decisions?

There's no justifiable value to a required service if it's not sustainable.

They will still hire intelligent people, but for the right roles, which will be with different testing criteria. Not the more common base-level operator (widespread foot soldier) roles.

One of the many core and wrong ideas in Feminism is that the sex of a person doesn't seem to play much of a role in anything. And in this case, Feminism is responsible for holding back medical science. Feminism is a blight on intellectual discourse. I'm not going to spend the time it takes to unravel a snake like Feminism here, but in brief, it's an untenable ideology.

One of its core philosophies is the idea of the Patriarchy, which is not only theoretical, but creates hypocritical scenarios in Feminist debate.

For instance, Feminists state that the Patriarchy supports and allows men to lead privileged lives. Yet when it is pointed out that men are sentenced twice as long for exact same crimes; men have zero protection of their genitals as babies; that there is FAR more funding for women's schooling, businesses, and health; or that in any emergency situation it is expected that men's lives are forfeit - the argument you'll get back is "See, Patriarchy hurts men too!". This rebuttal is in obvious contradiction to the idea that Patriarchy allows men to live privileged lives.

Another core idea is wage gap which has been disproven over and over for decades, even by some Feminsts:

http://www.topmanagementdegrees.com/women-dont-make-less/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christina-hoff-sommers/wage-gap_b_2073804.html

Feminism also focuses a great deal on "objectification", which presupposes that men are (always) sexually attracted to something *other* than the curves of a womans body. This is not only obviously off kilter for anyone with a basic understanding of evolutionary psychology, but has been scientifically proven false. Men are biologically wired to base mate finding on looks.

So the word 'objectification' actually becomes Feminist propaganda for the demonizing of male sexuality.

Furthermore regarding female objectification in society - we all often see the viral videos "How Women's Bodies Are Changed Beyond Recognition in Photoshop!" But consider that 80% of consumer dollars are spent by women. So in essence we have women complaining about women being objectified while women buy into objectification. What exactly do we expect advertising agencies to do?

I've even seen scenarios for men in which, if he found a woman attractive, then he's objectifying her; and if he found her unattractive, then he's shallow for only caring about looks.

Then there is argument from Feminists that Feminism helps to empower men as well. No, it doesn't. In fact much has been shown in the opposite: http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/g2eme/feminists_tell_you_that_the_solution_to_mens/

98% of workforce deaths are male. You never see Feminists rallying to take on these jobs on the front lines in combat, or in jobs that involve heavy machinery, working outdoors in inclement weather, inhaling toxic fumes, or apprehending dangerous criminals. Why not? After all, fair is fair! Let's remove the stigma around men being "losers" if they are stay-at-home Dads, while Moms can be the breadwinners for once.

It's clear that Feminism isn't about gender equality. You never see Feminists rallying about how He-Man set an unrealistic body image for boys, but the focus and attention on Barbie has been unreal.

Take into consideration, among everything else I've stated, that words like "mansplaining" are part of Feminist vocabulary, and I think you start to get a picture why no self respecting man has anything to do with Feminism.

There's much much more research, evidence, and articles I can cite, but the final point is that Feminism is a toxic and counterproductive movement.

Perhaps there will be "equality between the sexes" when the likelihood of men becoming estranged from their children and families after a divorce is the same as it is for women... Or when the expectation of "supporting" one's family is actually spending time with them and not simply being their "wallet"...

I'll see equality when the life expectancy between men and women is the same... Or when the risk of becoming homeless is the same... Or to become a victim of violence (or simply being suspected of violence or threatened with violence due to ones gender) is the same.. Or when the probability of dying by suicide is the same. . . Perhaps we'll all be equal then.

I'll stick with Eve Online I've played since 2003 for multiplayer
For amazing sandbox single player I'll stick to tried and true X series X3 has higher learning curve than eve but setting up mining / build a space station and hire cargo ships to run your trade routes while you hung pirates in a fighter is fun

So they added auto-braking-system before sharp curves, decreased speed limits, but didn't change their "re-training" program or penalties?

Next time I'm in Japan, if the train is more than 10 seconds late, I'm not getting on that one

Wowzers ... I never would have known this song was from 1932! Talk about ahead of the curve.

You might be ahead of the curve on that one.

I agree that a bit (or a lot) of fear might force our representatives all over the world to realize that even the richest donor cannot provide you with a replacement for your head after it was chopped off by the mob. Hell, we might find out soon enough if the troika keeps choking the life out of Greece, Spain and Portugal.

Similarly, the damage being done by secrecy of all kinds, particularly to core elements of democracy (see: deep state), might very well outweigh potential damages caused by putting an end to it entirely.

But I'm not there yet. Iceland and, to some degree, Switzerland are showcases that shit can be turned on its head much quicker than anyone thought. Nationalising banks, jailing bankers, referendums about maximum wages and basic incomes... if the Swiss can openly discuss the "1:12" initiative, a disbandment -- or at least a complete restructuring -- of intelligence services is not as impossible as one might think.