Blasphemy. If anyone should be killed in this game it's Gorge Lucas.

no homer falling down the springfeild gorge!?

Tymberwulf is right here. They were seen diving for some of the many insects that are attracted to the light. As is their instinct they were gorging on prey. They caught an opportune moment to feed so as to bulk up for their migration most likely. WIRED is way off on this one.

Full Youtube Description:

Where is the cheesiest place in Britain? Helen and Olly from comedy podcast Answer Me This! (http://bit.ly/bay3c9) launch their new video series GREAT BRITISH QUESTIONS with this investigation into Britain's cheese obsession.

They visit Cheddar Gorge in Somerset, and see its famous namesake maturing in the caves; Leagram's Organic Dairy in Lancashire, where cheesemaker Bob Kitching teaches them how to turn milk into cheese in minutes; and renowned cheese emporium Paxton and Whitfield in Bath. Then it's off to meet film star Warwick Davis at the annual cheese-roll championships in Stilton, Cambridgeshire, where dozens of teams compete in this bizarre sport to win a cheese the size of a footstool.

Get Helen and Olly's weekly podcast at http://answermethispodcast.com
Follow VisitBritain on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/LoveUK

Looks like The Gorge in George, Washington.

>> ^Confucius:
so.....wtf is the rope tied to????


IIRC, a suspended rope swing is attached out in the middle of a high tension cable stretched across the valley/gorge/fjord.


(edit) Actually, after viewing again, Ghostly is completely correct.

SUPERLATIVE SUPERLATIVE SUPERLATIVE SUPERLATIVE SUPERLATIVE SUPERLATIVE SUPERLATIVE

This is where Apple's closed system begins to fail. On the iPhone/Ipod Touch it was okay that you were heavily limited to Apple approved products, applications and functions. People have low expectations from smartphones or at least did when the first version came out.

This is a different beast entirely. Since it's more or less looking to surpass the netbooks in a number of areas, it will be judged by near-PC functionality, and well ... it comes up short. Sure once they've gorged themselves on micro transactions which push the actual cost of the device way above the $499 introductory price, having youtube, ereader, video, music and an office suite should be enough for most people. Who knows that might be just enough to make it sell well.

But the point is, many people will be disappointed it doesn't offer them the range of packages that a Windows or OS X based PC does. They'll miss the free 3rd party content that they already have on their PC/Mac or have bought and can't simply transfer over because it's not a desktop level OS.

I remember a study found that a large majority of netbook buyers who bought it purportedly as their first laptop ended up disappointed because there was a preconception that it would perform as well as a full fledged PC. Apple denizens who staved off until now for a cheap and compact PC will be likely left out in the cold in the same way.

much regulation stifles innovation and growth, but there are behaviors and practices that are strictly parasitic or needlessly risky which should be reined in

The history of the housing meltdown is long and tortured - but it began in the 70s under Carter and culminated in the 90s under Clinton. When Clinton's admin repealed Glass-Steagall it lit a slow fuse on the economy which finally blew in 2008.

Congress (both Dem & Repub) wanted more people "in houses" because it got them votes. AIG and other financial houses lobbied for the changes because they saw they could make money by selling financial packages. I remember VERY well in the 90s the rancorous debates on this subject. People who opposed the repeal of Glass-Steagall were labelled by political opponents as 'evil rich fat cats' who 'oppressed the poor' and who wanted to 'deny the American dream to the working class...'

Do you remember that rhetoric? I sure do. They were able to argue very strongly that they were doing a GOOD thing and that opposing them made you a lousy, slimy, no-good dirtbag who hated the working poor.

So the law changed, and ALL BANKS (not just the lobbyists) were forced to deal with new market realities. If you didn't complete - you died. So they opened up financial options for 'the poor' they never would have DREAMED of messing with before. Now the poor could get loans. But in most cases the 'poor' SHOULDN'T have gotten loans because they couldn't afford them. But everyone was told, "Don't worry - Freddie Mac & Fannie Mae will get your back." So they did it anyway not because they were irresponsible or malicious. It was what they were TOLD to do because that's what government wanted, and as such it created a marketplace reality they couldn't avoid.

Moreover, it wasn't just the poor for whom financing got easier. The middle class could make a quick buck by flipping multiple properties. Speculation went wild. Housing prices skyrocketed. People got rich quick for virutally nothing. It was all going great until people overseas finally decided they couldn't keep make money on financial packages built on poisonous debt forever. POP!

I'm hesitant to lay the blame for this all on 'risky practices' of 'parasitic financial companies'. They played a big part - very true. But I've always said the housing problem was a THREE part problem. I list the problems here in order of culpability...

1. Government arranged the banquet and set the table.
2. Financial houses provided the food and sold the meals.
3. Stupid consumers gorged themselves on food they didn't need and couldn't afford.

Most people ONLY look at #2. I think that is a foolish & myopic approach that ignores the most important player (government) and gives a free pass to #3 (consumers).

Then when they bite, you exploit them with all of the things written in the fine print in that contract they signed.

People keep acting like bank credit with interest is some 'secret'. Everyone knows that credit cards have high interest rates and fees. When a bank hits you with fees then you pay off the balance and cancel the account. Or (better) never run a balance and you'll never have a fee. Or (best) never borrow money from a bank. It isn't complicated.

Also, some are acting as if banks should behave like altruists. It's as if you are pretending the world is Bedford Falls, that banks are the Building & Loan, and bankers are George Bailey. No no no... Customers must walk into the bank with the mindset that they are dealing with Mr. Potter. Banks sell a useful, but dangerous product. If you are smart and careful you can come out well. If you are stupid and careless you will lose every time. Pretending that banks should act like friendly charities is foolish.

I don't know why the government hasn't made strict guidelines as to how a bank must conduct itself.

They did. The government was the entity that opened the 'free money' floodgates by repealing Glass-Steagal because they wanted more people buying homes & cars. Banks were cool with it because it allowed them to be one-stop-shops, repackage debt into paper commodities, and government promised Freddie Mac & Fannie Mae would cover it all. Government set the table & provided the food. Banks sold the tickets to the banquet. Customers gorged until they ruptured internally. Three parties were involved, and the blame is shared by all three equally.

I'm just saying the government needs to protect those less savvy about credit and debt and keep the banks from exploiting these poor fools.

I'm all for the concept, but how do you implement it? Force everyone to take a class or sit down with a lawyer before they can get a loan? I don't think that will help except maybe 1 case in a million. Almost no-one goed to banks with the delusion that they don't have to make payments or incur interest.

I volunteer time as a sort of career/money counseller to help people out of financial trouble. I've sat down and explained the whole 'never borrow money because of interest...' formula very patiently and clearly. It doesn't matter. People hear the speech, and turn right around and get in debt to the gills buying crap they didn't need. They don't want to sell the stuff and pay the bill either. They want someone to pay the bill or absolve the debt so they can keep their stuff. That's just the way human beings are. So forcing banks to sit people down and go through a "here is how debt & interest work" education is helpful, but will not make the problem go away.

The only sure fire way to 'protect these fools' (as you put it) is to have the banks use a means-testing system by which they deny credit to 'risky borrowers'. "Sorry - we're not lending you money for your own safety." That's a recipie just asking for a lather-rinse-repeat of the whole 'red lining' accusation in the 90s. Can't win for losing. Banks are 'evil' if they expect to be paid back.... Banks are 'evil' if they refuse to lend money to people who can't afford it... Nice catch 22.

I would disagree. We are currently in a financial crisis because an unbridled, short-term incentive laden banking industry leveraged itself into oblivion.

And I would argue that this financial practice only came into existence because of government interference in the private lending market. It was looooong leadup where government and lobbyists joined together for their own agenda items to change the rules. This crisis was NOT simply a crisis of capitalism gone amok. That is a neolib conceit, and it is inaccurate because it ignores 66% of the problem. The crisis was a THREE PARTY problem. 1. GOVERNMENT was the one that set the table. 2. Financial houses were the ones that sold the food. 3. Citizens were the ones that came and gorged themselves stupidly on unnecessary, unaffordable debt.

Also, can we call it a "public option" please? Our good friends in the public relations office spent a while coming up with that one. Listen, the bottom line is we already pay for everyone's health insurance.

There have been numerous studies that show conclusively that the real problem is not the lack of socialized medicine. The problem was the creation of an government mandated 'insurance' system that screwed up the private market. THere are two kinds of insurance really. One kind of insurance is 'universal' and it supposedly covers all expenses. THe other kind of insurance is 'catastrophic' which is supposed to only kick in when something serious happens.

The problem here is that people want to treat health insurance like "universal" insurance, when they really should be treating it like "catastrophic". Americans need to get it through their thick skulls that health insurance is not and NEVER WAS designed to cover drugs, doctor visits, band-aids, flu check ups, and stubbed toes. Health insurance as a concept can ONLY WORK if it covers only large scale, catastrophic disease or injury. Everything else should be paid for out of your own pocket by direct interaction and discussion with doctors & providers. That would bring costs down to affordable levels so fast it would make your head spin.

Think about it. If you treated your car insurance like you treat your health insurance then it would cripple the industry. People would be taking their car in to change their oil, rotate their tires, replacing headlights, fixing scratches and so forth. Suddenly the demand for those services would skyrocket because they were 'covered' and people would be doing them a lot more often because they were 'free'. Suddenly, oil changes would cost $100. Tire rotations would cost $500. All because they were 'insured' and the laws of supply & demand got screwed up by an artificial system that was inserted into the private market.

But auto insurance stays relatively cheap and affordable because you can only use it when something 'big' happens. And you can go get your oil changed for only $20 because you are negotiating directly with the provider for a cheap commodity service. That's how our health care should be. CHEAP basic services we negotiate directly in the free market, with insurance for the unexpected major problems.

Yes. Define excessive.

Excessive = anything beyond what was prescribed in the original US constitution and bill of rights. I.E. pretty much 99.99999% of what the federal government is currently doing except national defense.

Actually, 3:28 is not nearly as impressive as other portions... think about the lines of force on his two arms, and while it would be really hard, and there's certainly no way I'd be doing it, other stuff they do shows more skill and control.

Pity that displays of skill like that are combined with such crap music and stupid things like 'Oh gee, he can gorge himself on hamburgers, brilliant.'

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Good riddance. The writing has been on the wall for years that home video rental is a twilight industry. Blockbuster didn't adapt in time and continued to gorge itself on punitive late fees. They will not be missed.

Not even a lightsaber can hack through a Gorge LucASS script.

Worst. Episode. Ever!

Most fresh water turtles will eat anything and I mean ANYTHING, dead or alive. They're opportunistic scavengers through and through and some can survive for half a year without eating at all. If a consistent food source is available they will gorge themselves. And hey, I say pigeon beats pond algae any day of the week. I don't know where this image of a cute & friendly aquatic vegetarian comes from but it needs to be dispelled now, FOR THE SAKE OF THE CHILDREN.

yaaaaay i just broke 1k, too i'd lob you a *quality but i'm outta points... d'oh!

and i think i will take mintbbb's suggestion and gorge myself on something decidedly unhealthy.