>> ^Thumper:

Finally some good shots of this storm...the dialogue is a little odd. Double Rainbow?
Here's your Double Rainbow

Finally some good shots of this storm...the dialogue is a little odd. Double Rainbow?

you used to be in with a good shot of being upgraded if you asked nicely and they had seats free. I've not flown in years now so I don't know if thats still the case.

The nicest flight I ever had was British Airways from London to Mexico when I was 14 or something. I was flying without an adult so the flight attendants made you comfortable. Couldn't blag first class though. I always loved the experience of flying. Even the airports. There is a strange glamour to them that still kinda enchants me.

Well, ants don't have the same tongues like most people and creatures.

http://blog.wildaboutants.com/2010/01/21/ant-tongues/ ... http://roberto.kellerperez.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/anochetus-emarginatus-mouthparts2.jpg from http://antfarm.yuku.com/topic/14480/Re-Good-close-up-photographs-photos-of-ants-tongues ... Will that be OK? If so, then I will need to find a good shot. They remind me of Aliens' "tongue".

Letting BoA fail won't do much of anything to prevent other banks from doing what they shouldn't be. And the simple fact is BoA or any corporation that size isn't monolithic. Some people had nothing to do with the fraud, and would lose their jobs.

Not to mention what it would do macroeconomically to the US.

>> ^bookface:

Those are all fine ideas but the time for them has passed. If our leaders had the integrity, ability, etc. to do as you suggest then there wouldn't be an Occupy movement. If our politicians, judges, and other civilian authorities were not wholly owned subsidiaries of the banking industry then I think the suggestions you make would have a good shot of happening.
>> ^heropsycho:
You can make an omelet without turning the gas up all the way for a few minutes and then light a match.
Instead of letting BoA fail, which likely would trigger another massive recession and undoing the economic rebound since the crash, why can't we...?
Institute regulations to prevent the fraud in the first place?
Massively commit to and reform regulatory bodies to be able to enforce these regulations?
Bring those responsible for fraud to justice?
Reinstitute Glass-Steagall?
There are a ton of things that can be done without letting a BoA fail with the economy still fragile.
>> ^bookface:
Can't make an omelet…
>> ^heropsycho:
I'm all about punishing those who perpetrated fraud, but I don't think he understands what the damage would be to the US and world economy as a result of Bank of America going under.

Those are all fine ideas but the time for them has passed. If our leaders had the integrity, ability, etc. to do as you suggest then there wouldn't be an Occupy movement. If our politicians, judges, and other civilian authorities were not wholly owned subsidiaries of the banking industry then I think the suggestions you make would have a good shot of happening.

>> ^heropsycho:

You can make an omelet without turning the gas up all the way for a few minutes and then light a match.
Instead of letting BoA fail, which likely would trigger another massive recession and undoing the economic rebound since the crash, why can't we...?
Institute regulations to prevent the fraud in the first place?
Massively commit to and reform regulatory bodies to be able to enforce these regulations?
Bring those responsible for fraud to justice?
Reinstitute Glass-Steagall?
There are a ton of things that can be done without letting a BoA fail with the economy still fragile.
>> ^bookface:
Can't make an omelet…
>> ^heropsycho:
I'm all about punishing those who perpetrated fraud, but I don't think he understands what the damage would be to the US and world economy as a result of Bank of America going under.

Neither was it a hole in one. Hey guys, this video is a phony! A BIG FAT PHONY!

Still a good shot though.

>> ^Samaelsmith:

Forgive me if I seem a bit disappointed but I didn't see the ball actually hit the water in this video, only a vague splash as the camera flashed past.

Sorry this is so long in response--I forgot I wanted to respond and it is an ocd compulsion of mine... Seriously... I have OCD... (Now I have free time to write Yay.)

To the suspect topic, OJ Simpson was a forgone conclusion...Ramsey's parents were too. Casey Anthony's mother... Etc. These suspects were all the intense, single-minded already-formed conclusions that investigators focused on---to their tunnel vision.

A suspect is far more than just a person with a few

So what we are talking about really is what the police said? Well, reversing the situation, as you suggest, lets say the kid shot a police dog in the backyard and claimed self defense. What would the police say? I don't know and neither do you. What would his parents say? It was self defense? You bet your ass. A clean shoot? Sure. But lets say the kid brags about it and the parents find out later--they may do the right thing and snitch the child out.

But you bet your ass they would come out to little Johnny's defense early...

>> ^jimnms:

>> ^Lawdeedaw:
A "suspect" is an already forming conclusion which, by your logic, is an outrage perhaps?
They call it a "good shot" but then, let's pretend, a neighbor comes out and says the officers laughed about it later and noted how they weren't afraid, that changes things. It is mandatory procedure that every time a gun is pulled an investigation stays open for a certain period of time. Just like when child services come to your house, even when somebody reported you falsely--they still open the file and keep it open for their own protection...

A suspect has nothing to with a conclusion or "my logic." A suspect is just that, a suspect, there is no conclusion formed. If the situation was reversed, say a father shoots a police dog claiming it attacked his kid playing in his yard. There certainly would be an investigation as to whether the father was really was defending his family. The father would be the suspect of the investigation, but the police wouldn't comment to the press that it's still under investigation AND say it was a good shoot. In that situation, they would say they can't comment on an open investigation.
But in this situation the cop shot a family pet. There should be an impartial investigation as to whether it was justified. This BS line they give saying it was a good shoot, but it's still under investigation is basically them saying that there is no investigation, we've already concluded that no matter what, the cop did nothing wrong.

>> ^spoco2:

I don't get what he's talking about in terms of removing time units and replacing them with a number of moves, and this somehow 'clearing up the player's headspace'.
Huh?
How is 'number of moves' different to 'amount of time units left'?
I don't get it.
Still, having said that, this looks true to the original, and pretty bloody awesome.
Loved that game then (pfft, usb sticks... pfffft, USB did not exist when the original came out sir), and would love this version too.
If... you know... I had time to play games anymore. Release an Android version I can play on the train in and out of work and I could


In addition to what @gwiz665 said, different soldiers would have a quantity of TUs to represent how fast they were (faster soldiers had more and thus could do more per turn). You could increase the a soldier's max by "exercising", eg: if you used a soldier a lot during a mission, (s)he'd have more TUs in the next mission.

TU costs were also adjusted for your carry weight and skills. If you were just carrying a pistol, maybe it cost 2 TUs per step but if you were carrying an RPG, maybe it cost 10. If you were a good shot, it might have cost you 15 TUs to fire a rifle. If you were less skilled, maybe it cost you 20.

In the new game, it sounds like you get maybe 3 "actions" and they can be any combination of move/shoot/use. This is way simpler than doing the math of the old system, but it also means all the soldiers are the same and never get better, at least in that respect.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:
A "suspect" is an already forming conclusion which, by your logic, is an outrage perhaps?
They call it a "good shot" but then, let's pretend, a neighbor comes out and says the officers laughed about it later and noted how they weren't afraid, that changes things. It is mandatory procedure that every time a gun is pulled an investigation stays open for a certain period of time. Just like when child services come to your house, even when somebody reported you falsely--they still open the file and keep it open for their own protection...


A suspect has nothing to with a conclusion or "my logic." A suspect is just that, a suspect, there is no conclusion formed. If the situation was reversed, say a father shoots a police dog claiming it attacked his kid playing in his yard. There certainly would be an investigation as to whether the father was really was defending his family. The father would be the suspect of the investigation, but the police wouldn't comment to the press that it's still under investigation AND say it was a good shoot. In that situation, they would say they can't comment on an open investigation.

But in this situation the cop shot a family pet. There should be an impartial investigation as to whether it was justified. This BS line they give saying it was a good shoot, but it's still under investigation is basically them saying that there is no investigation, we've already concluded that no matter what, the cop did nothing wrong.

>> ^jimnms:

I don't get it when they say "the case is still under investigation" but then go on to say: "It's a good shoot. An officer was being attacked." If they're calling it a good shoot, then it sounds like they've reached a conclusion, so how can it still be under investigation? If it's still under investigation, you can't know whether it's a good shoot until the investigation is completed.


That isn't to hard to understand. Not all investigations have to partial...at all. In fact, no investigation is partial at all. All investigations have outcomes clearing as they form--even if those outcomes are incorrect. A "suspect" is an already forming conclusion which, by your logic, is an outrage perhaps?

They call it a "good shot" but then, let's pretend, a neighbor comes out and says the officers laughed about it later and noted how they weren't afraid, that changes things. It is mandatory procedure that every time a gun is pulled an investigation stays open for a certain period of time. Just like when child services come to your house, even when somebody reported you falsely--they still open the file and keep it open for their own protection...

I've got a 25 minute video of driving this stretch of road about 10 years ago. Instead of Morricone, I used Moby as a soundtrack.

Perhaps I should upload it, and let folks decide whether or not to sift an edited version of it.

Good shots, @dft!

I seriously thought you may have some connection to Hewlett Packard (stock symbol: HPQ)

In reply to this comment by hpqp:
1. One of my earliest memories is being on a boat between Japan and Korea during a sea storm. Rolling around in the room as the boat was rocked was terrible fun to the 3-year-old I was.

2. I been to more countries then I care to mention. People are really all the same all over. I hate big cities.

3. Played in a mine field for a whole afternoon. The next day a farmer died there. For the year we lived on Croatia's border we could hear/feel the bombs shake the house.

4. Am often told I do not act my gender. Sometimes I play it up on purpose.

5. Am not afraid of nor particularly moved by death. This causes me problems with my family when relatives/siblings die.

6. Am a pretty good shot with both ARs and handguns, even won a few medals in my teens. Stopped shooting because the atmosphere at the club was sexist/macho. At least I'm ready for the Zombie Apocalypse, and can take photos without a tripod at 1" exposure.

7. Like to use quotes from an opponent in a debate to attack their argument. Like to debate in general. i can be argumentative just for the sake of being contrary.

8. I dreamed of being multi-lingual as a child. I'm better at writing than talking. I was the first (and only) in my family to go to University.

9. Grew up in a fundie christian family. Read the Bible innumerable amount of times, learned verses and whole chapters by heart. Am now atheist and antitheist, like most of my family.

10. Been diagnosed schizoide, borderline, bipolar, etc. Take antidepressants to avoid incapacitating breakdowns.

11. 90% of my waking life has been spent procrastinating. VS is my latest fix, and the only online community I've ever become a part of.

12. I love dreaming. Most of my best memories are from my dreams. I daydream often, but retain full situational awareness. Lucid dreaming is awesome.

13. All of the major injuries I've sustained were self-inflicted, albeit by accident. Never broke a bone, but my body is always sore (and not always in a good way).

14. Originally left-handed, but forced to be right-handed during childhood because left-handedness is of the devil. Leftie is now my primary masturbation hand <img src="http://cdn.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/xd3.gif" class="smiley" />

15. I watch porn at least once a week. Consider myself a feminist.

16. Grew up around boys. I don't really count my first time as my first time. Hardly any one I know knows about my first time.

17. Have never been in a successful relationship. Longest and most enjoyable was as someone's lover/fuckbuddy.

18. I have no patience for stupid people.

19. I've never even been tempted to try drugs, cigarettes. Stopped drinking before turning 18. I have little enough control of my brain and emotions as is.

20. I love cinema, I think cinema is humanity reflected, our dreams, desires, hopes, fears and experiences. When watching a movie, I am frequently the only person laughing.

21. I don't really like being the center of attention.

22. My profile name is not an acronym. When I started using the webs I wanted a username that was anonymous and meaningless to all but myself. It is supposed to be an obscurely emoticon-ish version of Robby the Robot from Forbidden Planet.

23. Forbidden Planet freaked me out when I first saw it as a kid. It is still one of my favourite sci-fi movies. I would like to write an SF novel, but fear I lack the discipline and talent.

24. Like to think I'm special/unique, but know that I'm not. Some of this list is copy-pasta'd from others' posts, but also applies for me. (can you find which parts? : )

25. I still have absolutely no clue what I want to do with my life.

1. One of my earliest memories is being on a boat between Japan and Korea during a sea storm. Rolling around in the room as the boat was rocked was terrible fun to the 3-year-old I was.

2. I been to more countries then I care to mention. People are really all the same all over. I hate big cities.

3. Played in a mine field for a whole afternoon. The next day a farmer died there. For the year we lived on Croatia's border we could hear/feel the bombs shake the house.

4. Am often told I do not act my gender. Sometimes I play it up on purpose.

5. Am not afraid of nor particularly moved by death. This causes me problems with my family when relatives/siblings die.

6. Am a pretty good shot with both ARs and handguns, even won a few medals in my teens. Stopped shooting because the atmosphere at the club was sexist/macho. At least I'm ready for the Zombie Apocalypse, and can take photos without a tripod at 1" exposure.

7. Like to use quotes from an opponent in a debate to attack their argument. Like to debate in general. i can be argumentative just for the sake of being contrary.

8. I dreamed of being multi-lingual as a child. I'm better at writing than talking. I was the first (and only) in my family to go to University.

9. Grew up in a fundie christian family. Read the Bible innumerable amount of times, learned verses and whole chapters by heart. Am now atheist and antitheist, like most of my family.

10. Been diagnosed schizoide, borderline, bipolar, etc. Take antidepressants to avoid incapacitating breakdowns.

11. 90% of my waking life has been spent procrastinating. VS is my latest fix, and the only online community I've ever become a part of.

12. I love dreaming. Most of my best memories are from my dreams. I daydream often, but retain full situational awareness. Lucid dreaming is awesome.

13. All of the major injuries I've sustained were self-inflicted, albeit by accident. Never broke a bone, but my body is always sore (and not always in a good way).

14. Originally left-handed, but forced to be right-handed during childhood because left-handedness is of the devil. Leftie is now my primary masturbation hand

15. I watch porn at least once a week. Consider myself a feminist.

16. Grew up around boys. I don't really count my first time as my first time. Hardly any one I know knows about my first time.

17. Have never been in a successful relationship. Longest and most enjoyable was as someone's lover/fuckbuddy.

18. I have no patience for stupid people.

19. I've never even been tempted to try drugs, cigarettes. Stopped drinking before turning 18. I have little enough control of my brain and emotions as is.

20. I love cinema, I think cinema is humanity reflected, our dreams, desires, hopes, fears and experiences. When watching a movie, I am frequently the only person laughing.

21. I don't really like being the center of attention.

22. My profile name is not an acronym. When I started using the webs I wanted a username that was anonymous and meaningless to all but myself. It is supposed to be an obscurely emoticon-ish version of Robby the Robot from Forbidden Planet.

23. Forbidden Planet freaked me out when I first saw it as a kid. It is still one of my favourite sci-fi movies. I would like to write an SF novel, but fear I lack the discipline and talent.

24. Like to think I'm special/unique, but know that I'm not. Some of this list is copy-pasta'd from others' posts, but also applies for me. (can you find which parts? )

25. I still have absolutely no clue what I want to do with my life.

i'm little more qualified than you in this area..in this case im an ornithologist and you're some guy who saw daffy duck..this is a huge issue in the church right now..over half the church is roiled in complete apostacy..


Well... yeah. It's cool that you've figured out true Christianity but you have to understand you're not the only one who thinks so (and you can't all be right). Do you think you know the Bible better than, say, an Eastern Orthodox priest? You don't. Oh God how you don't. I've seen nothing in your posts to demonstrate more than a passing, only-my-denomination-which-isn't-really-a-denomination-it's-just-the-truth understanding of the Bible or Christianity in general - whereas Dr. Priest has been studying his whole life, and not just the Bible but delicate moral arguments reflected upon for centuries by a unified body. And he's praying for God to bless all Orthodox Christians. He's specifically excluding you from his prayers because you're a nutcase apostate - just like you're allowing into definition only the Christians you want based on the criteria you got from your nutcase, exclusive, non-Christian (according to 80% of the world's other Christians) teachers/pastors/whatever.

Think you know your Bible better than a devout Jehovah's Witness? Again, you don't. Dude has been arguing with other Christians 4 hours a day his entire life. He's 100% confident that he's gonna live on Paradise Earth talking to pandas, eating watermelon, and not having to hear anything from you ever again. He believes something radically, radically different than you and he's using the same book (well, mostly the same anyways) to support his wacky-by-any-objective-measure belief. I don't think JWs have a natural reading of the Bible - but I don't think "mainstream American Christians" have one either, and to the extent they do it 100% isn't reflected in their behavior or politics. Jesus's politics were so far to the left of Democrats and Republicans, it doesn't even compute.

Guys in this video? They have just as much claim to Christianity as you. You think his fruits are rotten? Obviously he doesn't think so. He thinks he's saving souls from homosexuality. That's, like, super awesome mangosteen tasty-time fruit. Does he show "love, one to another"? He thinks so. He thinks he's showing ++extra love because he's willing to do the uncomfortable and be the only one to reach out to these kids and save them from everlasting sorrow. I think he has a really good shot at you, in fact: why don't you want to help these kids? If you believe homosexuality is an abomination (which you'd better), isn't it worth some discomfort now if it has any chance of turning them on the right path? Is it because you've been corrupted by modern liberal values? He's so sad that, like, 60% of modern Christians have left the true path and opened themselves to worldly influences/the devil.

Me? I think a true follower of Christ would welcome anyone to call themselves Christian if they believed in Christ and showed love one to another - and certainly wouldn't attempt to exclude other Christians based on their affiliations, ritual foibles, or doctrinal quibbles. From first Corinthians:

Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided?


Unfortunately, though, it doesn't work to build a normal religion on top of Christ's teachings, because his teachings prohibit all the ways a normal religion works: divisions, shame, sanctimony, self-righteousness, greed, hate-for-those-different. How can you really get a crowd going if you're just telling them to be nice, accepting, and peaceful without stoking their egos, inflating your authority as a preacher, claiming an exclusive connection with God and truth, suggesting doubt is of the devil, and simultaneously making the congregation feel unworthy because of their secret sins? So modern Christianity (in all its wacky rainbow) just have to make do and shoehorn Jesus into "religion" (the same psychological tricks that have been used throughout history to subjugate people).

But I don't know why I'm talking to you (and I suppose mostly I'm not). I don't have any expectation that you're discussing in good faith or that you're at all permeable to reason. I've seen your beliefs on science before, and they're clear, clear signs that you're not interested at all in considering anything that doesn't already fit with your beliefs.

In fact, just to be sure I don't have to hear your moronic rebuttal or something, I'll give you an easy excuse to not talk to me because I'm oh-so-mean-and-bad: I think you're a fantastic moron.