Answer: you spend a -lot- of time repairing your models.

The longer answer: This kind of ribbon-cutting is virtually impossible. At many of our RC competitions, we used to try to cut a ribbon trailed by a balloon (so not even trying to dodge). Over the course of several years, I believe I saw a single successful cut.

@moonsammy:

Have a look at this interview from 1980. Pay attention to the patterns of his speech. Notice how they are different than the example used in the Nerdwriter analysis I posted above.

http://www.msnbc.com/documentaries/watch/today-show-1980-with-donald-trump-589527619719

At a later interview (1988?) you can hear that the patterns in his speech are a bit closer to the Nerdwriter. You can hear how he occasionally repeats words. He has had more practice with interviews here than in 1980 and it shows. How he crafts his speech is not a product of an untrained mind--it is intentional.

The way he dodges the "are you smarter than other people?" question is also interesting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmClYIQqEn8

Again, I'm not arguing that he's a genius. Just that assumptions of his intellect based on the choice to use simple language have been mistaken. His choice to use simple language is a big part of what gave him broad appeal among voters for whom higher education was out of reach. It may have won him the presidency.

I don't like him, but he isn't stupid.

I understand that trying to duck, dodge and otherwise change the topic is maybe the best defense you can come up with, but I'm not biting either. You may want to consider if you're the one that should give an inch on occasion and not just support the 'monsters' you've defended for their single racist tweet.

Focus.

You callously said the victim 'only' lost their job, and then posted a link that can only be read as implying the victim truly is filled with a hateful ideology that they should be repenting of.

I understand that trying to duck, dodge and otherwise change the topic is maybe the best defense you can come up with, but I'm not biting. You may want to consider if you're the one that should give an inch on occasion and not just the 'monsters' you've identified off a single tweet.

@drradon -- It was cool to compare this with the limited stuff I can remember from taking an intro to fencing (foil) class in college.

There was a different parry for incoming attacks to each quarter of your body facing the opponent (top-left, top-right, bottom-left, bottom-right). And that's just for 2 opponents both using the same general stance and weapon. I'd guess these guys would have different counters for each combination of stance/style, weapon of their opponent, and target area. That's a lot to remember -- although a lot would be relatively consistent across different combos.

I liked the high guard styles (two named "guard of the lady" stood out), because they seemed to pair nicely with "beat attacks" -- where you attack and swing to hit the opponent's weapon rather than their body. Gets their weapon out of position and leaves you in better position to make a second attack that they can't easily parry.

I wasn't very good at fencing. Bad footwork, not good form, and pretty slow on parries. But the one thing that let me win matches was aggression and beat attacks. The instructors and more skilled people could see it coming and dodge or otherwise counter it (especially after they figured out that was the one reliable tool in my box), but it was a fun technique to use for me. Cool to see these guys do pretty much the same thing, but just as a small part of a much bigger bag of tricks than I had.

*kids love a good game of hide and seek.*promote doggie dodge

So this is relevant because of a recent surge in support for "radical left" (i.e. democratic socialist, centre-left) Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn who has had a huge surge in popularity in recent weeks in a general election campaign he was expected to catastrophically lose by all mainstream sources.

Since winning two Labour party leadership elections in 2015, voted in by historic margins by ordinary members having their say for the first time, he has faced hostile criticism from all mainstream media sources and most politicians including his own party.

The grass roots, which helped drive his earlier victories, appears to be doing the same thing for him in this general election campaign. The grass roots involvement has included youth musicians, artists and activists coming together from multiple campaigns (Save The NHS, WASPI, most unions, including teachers, fire, police and transport, and far too many other interest groups to mention, including multiple disability campaigners). As well as individuals, parents, elderly, and Momentum - a group formed in the afterglow of his leadership win.

On the other hand, Theresa May's and the Tory party's campaign has gone from disaster to disaster. After claiming to be the party of economic security, they released an entirely uncosted manifesto (Labour's was fully costed, other party's included some costings). After trying to make it a match of personalities, she has gone from robotic gaffe to robotic gaffe, dodging questions whilst Corbyn's easy charm and honesty has gone quite a way to show those weaknesses up. She has claimed to be stable and strong, and the best hand to negotiate Brexit, but performed u-turn after u-turn and is now avoiding all but mandatory press contact because her and her brand have become toxic, thanks to things like the "Dementia Tax" and a promise to vote again on allowing barbaric fox hunting. She has been caught out, and regardless of the results of the general election, Theresa May is finished as Conservative leader. Potentially, the back of austerity has been broken and exposed. A movement has been started and even if the Tory's win, watch out for a mass people power'd intervention over their heinous plans.

God i could go on, this has been amazing to watch. Obviously i'm biased towards Labour, and whilst a centre-right opponent might describe things differently, the facts are the same.

Significant things are happening in the UK right now, not wholly dissimilar from the rise of Sanders, only this time it's for the actual prime minister position - Corbyn managed to outmaneuver the corruption of his party. If the election was 2 weeks longer i would predict a huge Labour landslide. After being so ridiculed by a hostile media for so long, election bias rules have forced the press into giving Corbyn a fair hearing and the more people see, the more they appear to like. The question is, have people already cast their vote by post? Will people turn up and vote? A big turnout is expected to favour Labour. A strong youth turnout will be hugely beneficial to Labour.

We really do see an entirely different world.

What I see originally happening here is a dispute/conflict between two citizens. The driver and the cyclist. There was a collision that damaged the car and maybe the cyclist. The cyclist is a minor, and the only account we get on video is the driver fairly insistent they were the ones that got hit when the cyclist ran a traffic sign. Blame on that doesn't matter to the video though because the police aren't meant to address blame and never attempt to.

Do we agree on the above preamble view of what happened at least? I think we do, so I'll pick up with that assumed.

The cyclist does not want to cooperate with the required exchange of information for insurance and liability purposes. So presumably the driver got the police get involved. This is exactly what I think we all should want. Rather than expecting the parties involved resort to their own use of force, we want to defer that to trained police officers. This is preferable for either party to simply being victimised with no recourse for injury to the cyclist if the driver's at fault or damages to the car if the cyclist is.

I again would hope we are still on the same page at this point, lets call it point B?

If I understand right, we now diverge in that I believe when office says come here to the cyclist, the cyclist is in the wrong for instead dodging around the officer and trying to take off on their bike. When the officer immediately stops them from that physically and tells them they are being detained, the cyclist is again wrong for actively resisting for the entire remainder of the video.

You seem to think the officers would be angry to see their child in the video, and we agree on that. We disagree on whom they would be angry with though. I'm pretty sure the officers would angry with their kid for consistently resisting the officers and would likely be telling their kid they are lucky the officers were as gentle as they were because they absolutely didn't need to be.

I don't know who to credit the analogy to, but this feels to me like an instance of the police being the wolf hounds protecting the us sheeple. Their use of violence and force looks scary to us and we just wish those mean, nasty and violent wolfhounds would be replaced with more mild mannered sheep. It's not until an actual wolf comes along that all of sudden we wonder were those hounds are because we went to get as close under their shadows as we can.

The reason it comes to mind is because having 3-4 officers spending hours begging, pleading and otherwise trying to non-violently persuade a cursing, kicking, resistant teenager to take accept pretty basic instructions is not what I want. I get the impression you would prefer that, but I do not. I want the officers sitting at nearby coffee shop bored and eating donuts instead. When they come to deal with this incident, I want them back to those donuts as quickly as possible. The reason being, when a wolf somewhere starts up a domestic dispute, or starts beating up someone in the street, or breaking into somebodies home I want the police unhindered and ready to their 'real' jobs.

Come here is the very first thing the cop with the body can says to her. She responds with don't f'ing touch me, dodging back around him and trying to ride off on her bike. Officer then physically restrains and tells her she IS being detained. Pretty straight so far in support of the officer unless you think ignoring the police and resisting arrest is cool.

She had very good reason to be detained as from the only report so far, she was fleeing the scene of an accident. Whether she caused it or not, tracking down teenage girl on a bike isn't going to be easy without some manner of identification first. Maybe you and I disagree this fundamentally, but in the case of fleeing the scene of an accident, not only do I think police should physically prevent that, I believe private citizens should have the right as well.

It sounds to me like you were totally her dick under glass, and she got pissed that someone else might break that glass, and more pissed when you didn't appropriately react to her generous decision to finally break it herself. Clearly she expected you to have been pining for her and excitedly jump at your chance.
I think you dodged a bullet there.

i agree that, generally speaking, the best way to deal with stupidity is to let it expose and screw itself. but there is definitely a limit to that, a point where the stupid becomes too big to stop, and you have to take a stand before its too late.

I dont think that was the case here (though all I know of peterson is what was in the CBC article). But I would definitely protest if my university was paying an idiot a ton of money to give a speech where they could make themselves look smart; and lets not be naive, for all the calls for "free speech" and "debate", usually these speakers take few questions and dodge anything critical with the host moderators protecting them from embarrassment. So if my university wants to pay kissinger or hillary hundreds of thousands of dollars to talk about human rights or ethics, yes I would protest that...

this guy is small fry and is basically looking for it to validate his position, as the article stated other speakers declined precisely because they could foresee that the free speech vs political correctness summit having a speaker whose contribution to the discussion is: "[he] does not recognize another person's right to determine what pronouns he uses to address them." I dont care what whose beliefs are, if you dont want to call someone how they want to be called, you are looking for a fight. and if the other person does not recognize your right to self determine how to address them?! Wow, so deep. this is really what university is for!

my response also comes from a recent discussion elsewhere, regarding the pervasiveness/frequency of the "safe space, snowflake, trigger warning" phenomena that occasionally comes up in videos like these. how many people actually have personal experiences, even indirectly, with professors giving trigger warnings or of a safe space? i have several professors in my circle of friends and family and none have ever witnessed it.

"If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball."

If the media had more of this kind of stuff in the past few decades instead of sensationalist or partisan bullshit, we wouldn't be in a position to need it.

It's easy to call media fake - a lot of it has been for a very long time. We who watch and discuss politics videos here would be celebrating Sanders if he was on TV right now talking about how biased a lot of media was.

The left and the right have a lot that makes them different but essentially they want the same things - security, happiness, prosperity. They disagree on how to get those things and that's all ok, but we agree to a level playing field so that things like Hitler, Trump, etc. can't happen. The playing field has to be level for everyone or people get angry. When people get angry under a theocracy or dictatorship they revolt. When people get angry under democracy, they vote for populists.

We need to hope that the playing field can be levelled again. People aren't happy with a rigged system - crony capitalism, profits before people, corporate welfare, tax dodging...

You know how people were saying it should have been Bernie vs. Trump? Well, that's because ordinary people on the left and right saw unfairness everywhere.

The left weren't going to seriously mobilise for a wishy washy weathervane like Clinton. But the angry right had their ideal candidate and they DID seriously mobilise. The kind of mobilisation that has teeth? You only get that when people believe they've got the right guy.

In my opinion, an Ocean's Eleven style heist occurred some time ago involving, basically, businessmen. People who wanted money. The best way to make money was to be involved in politics. So some businessmen joined political parties, or donated money to them and demanded a few favours. A few politicians think, hey i could use some extra money, and make a few promises. This goes on for long, eventually business and politics become the same thing and policies are designed around business and profit.

People aren't happy, the system is rigged. Trump is the immediate problem, but concessions must be made by those with money and power or another Trump will happen. He is a symptom not the cause. Desperate people place desperate votes.

The weird thing is just about everyone makes a "Hemi" head for their engines, and mostly Dodge uses Hemi as a brand name.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemispherical_combustion_chamber

Why is there something rather than nothing is the essential question, which Ricky Jervais dodged.

There are only two choices: either there is something eternal or everything spontaneously was created from nothing, which is impossible.

If there is something eternal, that opens a whole host of new questions.