I kind of liked it; nothing groundbreaking; bragging about how much money you have seems kind of played out, but in his case he actually does have tons of money

In 1997 I was working on a groundbreaking new idea - a small clamshell box, maybe 15cm square, with a built-in keyboard and lcd screen, that you could plug into your network to send and receive email. I wasn't aware of anything else out there that would make email so portable.

This was the year Cassini was launched. This was the kind of level of technology it went out there with. Fortunately, unlike the box above, Cassini really went places.

Jordan Peterson is a good salesman. His products are well known, simple and basic educational rules. Teach the child to help itself, to find own solutions and support it, when it makes mistakes along the way. Help the child to grow up and help it learn from experiences. And he sells them as GROUNDBREAKING NEW DISCOVERIES!

And then comes some right-wing conservative and takes this "product" to rationalize his own lack of empathy and his hatred of whiny liberuls.

I was amused but mostly watching out of respect for everyone involved in this groundbreaking movie -- but then the credits killed me. I guess I'm easily amused by comedic fonts and text, I thought the funniest parts of Lego Batman were the opening title gags.

To more directly respond to the video though, the answer, as they already talked about is the media's fault. Bernie, despite his open socialism, is not very controversial. He's nuanced, shown that he can give complex answers to complex problems and actually seems to be interested in governance.

THOSE THINGS ARE BORING! Doing your job well is often boring. Media doesn't like boring. The media has their profits to think about, so they're going to generate controversy.

This is not groundbreaking at all. I call it the Cartman effect. South Park episodes usually focus on what crazy thing Cartman is going to do next. The show revolves around it. He does completely insane, amoral, disgusting things that no one should ever do...but the audience laps it up. Similar thing occurs with Sheldon of The Big Bang Theory. As I've already compared it to, Reality shows do the exact same thing. The contestant who everyone hates is kept on as long as possible, who otherwise would have been eliminated long ago. People love to hate that person. They keep watching to see what they'll do next.

This perfectly describes Trump. People who will never vote for him in a million years still follow what he does just to see what happens next. This also describes Fox "News" It recently just got ranked the highest in viewership for 2015 again. The right loves to pretend that means that their views are popular. No, that just means everyone wants to watch the trainwreck.

This is also why the Republican debates got more press than the Democratic ones. All the Republican candidates were fighting each other tooth and nail. All were going after Trump. There were a lot of catfights and lots of drama. Meanwhile, in the Democrat debates, everyone gets along. Even when they disagree, they do so in a constructive manner and everyone gets along. No drama, therefore no press. Being serious is boring and that doesn't generate ad revenue for media.

Having an outrageous, controversial candidate is still not enough to get elected though, in fact it cuts both ways. When you put forth a "Cartman" candidate, sure it rallies lots of supporters. But it also rallies lots of opponents (or more) against the candidate. This is exactly what happened with Palin.

Elections have turned into being more about voting against the person you don't want than voting for the person that should be in office. "Anybody but X"

Quite.

At least they seem to have stepped back a bit from some of their earliest hype where they were talking up their use of procedural generation in a way that implied it was a completely groundbreaking new concept that no other game has used before.

Because.. it is trivial. (not to rag on your very sweet comment tho)

In effect, the gender segregation is still present and will be for quite while.

Not to mention, UFC President Dana White's long-standing assertion that "Women will never fight in the UFC. Those types of fights aren't interesting enough".

So yeah, the decision to include women in bantam/lightweight divisions is purely business driven.


The UFC first gained Bantum & Light divisions when they absorbed the WEC in 2010/11.

This was part of Zuffa, UFC's parent company, consolidating their assets following the decline of MMA's popularity. 2005/06

So essentially; Dana & Zuffa realized the easiest way re-ignite interest in the UFC was to include female fighters on the same card.

The alternative being:
Create a separate "Women's UFC" franchise with all the low-draw problems from before + the notorious low-draw attached to women's franchises i.e. - WNBA, LPGA, etc.

Any groundbreaking policies here are purely PR benefits for a company struggling to stay relevant. And moreover, solvent.


So yeah, UFC isn't all-of-a-sudden concerned for the plight of women fighters..

It's just another gimmick to sell seats/PPV.

little girls like dolls...this is groundbreaking!

groundbreaking, huh...

Hey man, groundbreaking. Let it stand, yo?



After all it has already been here, FOUR AND A HALF YEARS!!???

Yes, but he proved it. That's the key difference. People have been saying this has been going on but not provided any hard proof of it. Snowden not only provided proof, he showed the world that the NSA is collecting vastly more information than anyone imagined through a variety of means that many hadn't imagined possible. Surely that is groundbreaking, no?

Thanks In many ways it was a groundbreaking car, and quite a beautiful one. Add some wings and it would look right at home amongst much later F1 cars Lets just overlook the safety side though...

If you want to see another cool Hybrid look here
http://www.autoblog.com/2013/03/05/subaru-viziv-concept-geneva-2013/
The Subaru Viziv runs a diesel through a CVT to drive the front wheels and a separate electric setup to drive each rear wheel so Its still AWD with variable torque all over.

" By independently controlling the drive power applied to the left and right rear wheels, the rear drive system provides more torque to the outside rear wheel and less to the inside rear wheel when cornering to generate inner-directed yaw momentum on the vehicle and achieve extremely quick and smooth "on-the-rail cornering". Besides helping acceleration and all-terrain performance, this groundbreaking AWD system also uses drive power to help turn the vehicle. Along with its thrilling handling and cornering that responds faithfully to driver operations, it also offers outstanding handling stability that ensures a high level of secure feeling and confident drive."

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

I was thinking the same thing. Sometimes it's not groundbreaking technology, just putting the components together in the right way. (iPhone)

I'm not sure they need to do anything groundbreaking. Sometimes, it's just a combination of the right product, built from common components at the right price and put together with the right marketing.

Risking the ire of the apple haters here but look at the iPod. There wasn't really anything particularly special about it. There were plenty of other MP3 players around with similar (or better) specs at the time, but the iPod is the one that succeeded.

It could just be that the background level of technology has reached a place where it's now feasible to do decent HMDs.