search results matching tag: idle

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds

    Videos (123)     Sift Talk (12)     Blogs (15)     Comments (380)   

"The Rutles" - Eric Idle's parody of The Beatles

noims says...

BTW, in the past day or two Eric Idle released his 'Sortabiography' called 'Always Look On The Bright Side of Life'. I'm only two chapters in, but if you like Rutles-style wordplay, then you'll love those two chapters (and probably the rest of the book, but I can't vouch for that quite yet).

The House Centipede is Fast, Furious, and Just So Extra

How Much Fuel Needed to Idle or Turn OFF / ON

Payback says...

Starting/stopping the new engine in my Mustang takes about 4 hours of fuel. Not four hours idling my car, four hours idling a cruiseship. Four hours idling in my car would require 3 fillups.

God I love this engine...

notarobot said:

tl;dw: starting the engine takes about 7 seconds of fuel.

bobknight33 (Member Profile)

How Much Fuel Needed to Idle or Turn OFF / ON

BSR says...

Back in mid 80's I had a '66 Dodge Coronet. I got to work one cold and snowy day just a little early.

I sat in my car with the engine idling while listening to Pink Floyd on the 8-Track.

I went into work and forgot to turn the engine off. 8 hours later I was the only one whose car wasn't covered in snow.

It used just about a half tank of gas in 8 hours.

That's the price I paid to climb into a warm car.

Conductor scares two girls who were walking on the tracks

cryptoz says...

I fix locomotives, when idling they don't sound much louder then a semi idling so if the wind is in their face and they are talking I doubt they would hear it... If your talking about walking down the track, ya after some time with Loco I now walk beside the tracks and if it's been longer then 2 minutes since the last time I looked over my shoulder, I get mad at myself for being so stupid. Best stay at least 1 arm length from rail or just avoid altogether

FlowersInHisHair said:

How fucking dumb do you have to be.

How Star Wars The Last Jedi Should Have Ended

notarobot says...

I think you misunderstand my opinion of TLJ here.

Had this video been used to build a script for TLJ, it would have been better than TLJ because ANYTHING would have been better.

As evidence, we can compare TLJ to a two-hour video of a garbage fire, and indeed, the garbage fire would have had better writing.

The movie was terrible.

If they were going to have vaudevillian humour in the opening scenes with Poe prank-calling Hux---while dozens of star destroyers with hundreds (thousands?) of fighters sit there idle----they may as well have gone full 'Snakes on a Plane' B-movie fan service and let Ackbar do the same thing with an "it's a trap" gag. But that wouldn't do, because that would involve some kind of consistency. And one thing I can't stand is scripts and characters in stories that contradict their own being.

e.g. Luke "I see good in the most evil villain of movie history" Skywalker considering killing his own nephew, because maybe he's too far gone. Darth Vader wasn't too far gone, but somehow the son of Leia and Han was? See how that kinda goes against Luke's character? There are a million ways they could have written the fall of Ben Solo into the dark side that didn't involve violating the essence of existing characters.

A garbage fire wouldn't have done that. A garbage fire would have known better.

TLJ was terrible movie that just happened to have the massive budget for some cool special-effects scenes and some A-list actors wasted on an awful script with a thin, scattered plot.

Now maybe TLJ is your favourite movie, and if so, whatevs. We just have different taste I guess. I'm not going to get into a flame war over a garbage-fire.

ChaosEngine said:

No, it wouldn’t. That’s the joke here. It’s pointing out how cliched and boring that would have been.

Don’t get me wrong, TLJ had its problems, but the obvious fan boy criticisms (Holdo, Luke, etc) are not the right ones.

Granted, this is all subjective.

Hungry ex!

NICEST Car Horn Ever- DIY

My_design says...

I see a lot of pedestrians that think that because they have the right of way that they can stop in front of cars so that they can play a game of Parcheesi, finish a text, or maybe just enjoy the sweet smell of exhaust while they idle on by. When I'm crossing the street I do my best to get across as quickly as I can, it would be nice if others showed the same courtesy.

Buttle said:

I see a lot of drivers that seem to think that, if they cede the right of way to a pedestrian as required by law it's some kind of personal favor, and the lowly pedestrian should tug his forelock, say "thank you baas", and run.

Bullshit.

HCT: Salt Recommendations Don't Line Up with Recent Evidence

jimnms says...

I have low blood pressure too, as well as a low body temp (normal for me is 80/40 and 95°F). I don't get light headed unless something causes it to drop farther (which would probably happen to someone with a "normal" blood pressure). It just "idles" low, but as soon as I become active, it ramps up to 120/60.

It always freaks nurses out when I go to the doctor and they take my blood pressure and temp.

I rarely ever add extra salt to food, but after hearing that low sodium can be bad too, maybe I should see about taking some sort of sodium supplement.

Khufu said:

I have low blood pressure, which at times makes me light-headed, but if I eat a little extra salt, my blood volume increases and everything is cool.

enoch (Member Profile)

radx says...

A snippet from Lord Beveridge's "Full Employment in a Free Society":

The proposition that there should always be more vacant jobs than unemployed men means that the labour market should always be a seller’s market rather than a buyer’s market. For this, on the view of society underlying this Report — that society exists for the individual — there is a decisive reason of principle. The reason is that difficulty in selling labour has consequences of a different order of harmfulness from those associated with difficulty in buying labour. A person who has difficulty in buying the labour he wants suffers inconvenience or reduction in profits. A person who cannot sell his labour is, in effect, told that he is of no use. The first difficulty causes annoyance or loss. The other is a personal catastrophe. This difference remains even if an adequate income is provided by insurance or otherwise, during unemployment; the idleness even on an income corrupts; the feeling of not being wanted demoralizes. The difference remains even if most people are unemployed only for relatively short periods. As long as there is any long-term unemployment not obviously due to personal deficiency, anybody who loses his job fears that he may be one of the unlucky ones who will not get another job quickly. The short-term unemployed do not know that they are short-term unemployed till their unemployment is over.

How George Harrison Saved Monty Python

noims says...

Part of the reason George did this was that he and Eric Idle were good friends; Eric speaks about him a lot. There's one story that I love that tells a lot about their relationship. There are a few versions out there, but very roughly...

George heard that Eric was flying to Australia after a bout in hospital, and asked if he was going to be flying over India. As 'the spirital Beetle' he had a strong affinity to the country. As it happens, the flight did cross India, so George gave Eric an envelope to open when they were in Indian air space.

The cabin crew let Eric know when this was the case, and he solemnly opened the envelope. It contained one piece of sage advice: "Shag a Shiela for me."


Bonus fact: George appears in Life of Brian as "the gentleman who's letting us have the mount on Sunday": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbZRNM-9RKo

No single terror attack in US by countries on Trump ban list

newtboy says...

Death sentence, maybe, maybe not, but so dangerous that they didn't go, and the rest, yes. He's the polygamist leader that had sex with all the group's children....in prison now, but in charge of his own fiefdom for decades with next to no interference.
Edit: sorry, that's Warren Jeffs
That makes no sense. You don't prove the need for the military by having it sit idle while you're attacked.

I actually do think we should have done far more, if not gone to war with Pakistan when it was clear the military and government were harboring Osama (and others, and supplying terrorists, etc.) and claiming to be our allies....but, they've got nukes, so it won't happen....well, wouldn't happen, today all bets are off, so who knows.

bcglorf said:

@newtboy,

No, it's about law. Warren Jeffries people did all that, on a smaller scale. They weren't their own country, even though they got away with it for decades. Law.

Forgive my lack of familiarity with him, but your telling me he (on a smaller scale than Texas), stopped paying taxes, and instead collecting them. Started up his own legal and justice system. He created his own borders within which the police would not dare set foot because it would be a death sentence for them. And after he'd done all this the US military itself failed to remove him as well?

Or are you meaning not just scale, but severity and all the other rather meaningful extremes of sovereignty that the Taliban and Al Qaida achieved? It's the same then in the sense that me punching you is violent just me killing ten people is violent, but in another sense they are nothing alike...

No, but they couldn't indiscriminately bomb Houston and any large gatherings either....not even if Spencer might be there. The first American civilian they kill will start a war...a real, legitimate war.

Your not embracing the analogy. Spencer's terrorists are still killing American civilians every week, outside of Texas borders. The American military is just corrupt enough that as long as its democrats/republicans dying,(whomever we choose to not be in power) they let it slide because it shows the need for the military to 'protect' the country.

You need to take a harder look at Pakistani politics to see just how powerful Al Qaida and the Taliban's control over the tribal areas has been.

More over, all of the above definitions of state within a state violence and jihad doesn't require war as the response to acts of war. To invade Afghanistan to prevent another 9/11 is dubious at best. Even the Kissinger's of the world wouldn't count the value of that trade off, losing a couple thousand Americans to an attack each decade or so is 'acceptable' loses.
Call it the price of freedom and carry on. The real trick was that if the Taliban and Al Qaida were so tight with Pakistan's military and intelligence services, how concerned should America be that the Pakistani proxies in their tribal regions and Afghanistan are so keen to target Americans. That lead directly to Pakistan's nuclear arsenal being a big enough concern with that pairing that maybe it was time to tell Pakistan they had to end their little dance with terrorists hitting Americans and they had better make a choice who they are going to side with in the Jihad that was already being waged for 2 decades.

YouTube Previewing Videos on Hover? (Sift Talk Post)

lucky760 says...

Naw, bro.

I'm talking about the whole embed itself, not yet clicked, sitting idle on a page... when you hover over it the poster starts switches every ~1 second progressively to another frame from the video.

eric3579 said:

Is this what you are referring to?
http://imgur.com/xEVjW3c
If so i don't recall when i couldn't do that.
If not i need to know what you are referring to
I need to know all the things.

Zawash (Member Profile)



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon