That one was cool. Very interesting to try to infer what their algorithms / strategies are based purely on their emergent behavior.

I'd label 3:46 a "come at me bro" strategy -- present a target and attempt escape when the opponent charges.

Lots of "spirograph / can't hit what you can't see" in there. Never sit still, go straight until the edge of the ring is detected, turn and repeat.

And the "matadors" are also very interesting, with their distracting / confusing actuated flags.


As an aside, I'd assume there are weight classes?

Yes, and she does "come here", then he lets her get on the bike without telling her not to. It didn't look like an escape attempt to me, but may have to them. That's not the point, the point is they didn't tell her to stay there when she turned around and went back "here". It's clear to me that her problem is being touched by strangers, and had they simply told her to sit, no one would have had to touch her, and things would not have escalated.

Detained is not under arrest, so you can't be charged with resisting detainment. Ignoring the police is totally fine until they give a lawful command....one that doesn't end with "OK?".

Again, you're assuming she was trying to flee and not just being an OCD (ADD?) teenager trying to avoid being touched. That's how she appears to me, spoiled, trouble, disrespectful, yes, but also scared, troubled, confused, and under assault.

I do think they should stop her from fleeing, (if that's what she was trying to do) I just think they should start with "sit down" or "stay right there" before manhandling a child that's just been in an accident, especially if the contention is they are "detaining" her because she might need medical treatment. "Come here" is a command satisfied when she returns "there", it does not command her to stay anywhere, no matter how logical it is to infer that.

As a citizen, you do have the right to arrest her (which they should have done if they thought she was fleeing the scene, not just "detained" her) but you had better be able to totally justify any force you use to hold her...as should the police. The force used must be reasonable, minimal, only what's required to prevent escape, and on par with the crime she's being detained for. They might have 1 out of 4 covered in part if they stretch it.

My issue is far more about the pepper spraying her for not moving her foot rather than the manhandling, but I do think both were wrong and more about disrespect and power trips than trying to calmly handle the accident. ONce she was handcuffed and in the car, she wasn't escaping anything, nor was she a threat to anyone. The pepper spray was totally out of line. The rest is just questionable to me and absolutely not how you make the community support you, but probably not illegal.

"Hillary Clinton was the lesser of two evils...."

I beg your pardon Bill? What part of lesser of two evils was an endorsement for Trump?

If one were to describe Hillary as the lesser evil, would that not effectively be an endorsement? The underlying inference being that Trump was the greater of the two evils surely?

I think I'll just chalk that one up as a brain fart and assume he said it bass aackwards.

Though lets not forget Mrs Sandwitch would have given us TPP and the Syrian no fly zone.

Genuinely struggling to call it between who would have been most disastrous.

Trump was probably worse for America, I suspect Clinton might have been worse for the rest of the world. Not that it matters what any of us think in hindsight.

& yes @LiquidDrift it clearly isn't an actual Muslim ban! The fact that the majority of the worlds Muslim population is not affected by it should probably have been a big clue.

I guess though, given Trumps rhetoric, people can be forgiven for seeing it that way.

But yes it's a list of seven countries compiled by Obamas administration for being hotbeds of terrorism (if not before being bombed, certainly after). Not even close to banning all Muslims from entering the country.

Probably useless and needlessly divisive, but the man does need to at least appear to be fulfilling his campaign promises.

I certainly don't think the Nazi comparisons are at all helpful. There's no shortage of genuine things to attack the man on, hysterical fabrications just make him look right.

You know you're on shaky ground when Piers Morgan is the voice of reason

The question isn't whether you can be good without God. Atheists and agnostics can do good works as much as anyone else can. They love, they have kindness and compassion, and so on.

Do you know that if, when I died, I arrived at Heavens gate and I met Jesus..and He asked me this question "Why should I let you into My Heaven?" and my answer was, "because of all of the good things I did", He wouldn't let me in?

Why is that? Atheists and most religious people actually have something in common; a fundamental misconception of what goodness is.

Most people have a list of certain crimes in their mind that, so long as they have not committed them, they consider themselves to be good people. They'll say to themselves "I'm a good person. I haven't killed anyone." "I may not be perfect but I am no Hitler or Stalin". Or, they think if their good deeds outweigh their bad deeds, they're good people. There are some religions like that.

It's a relative goodness. Most everyone will acknowledge that they've done some wrong, but most will tell you far more right than wrong.

The problem with a relative goodness is that is all it is; it is relatively good. It is only good some of time. That is how human beings are. Goodness in Gods eyes is not relatively good, it is perfectly good. That is why the bible says there is no one good except God. The reason why Jesus won't let me into Heaven based on my performance is because once I've sinned even once I have failed to meet Gods standard; moral perfection. That is the only thing God considers good. Once there is a fly in the ointment, it is ruined.

The inference here is, if that is true then no one can get into Heaven. That's the dilemma, and that is why God sent His Son to die for our sins on a cross. Jesus had met Gods moral standard, He had never sinned. He was Gods spotless lamb, qualified to be a sacrifice for our sins on our behalf, taking the punishment that we deserve. Because of sin we are disqualified but Jesus qualifies us, that is why we need Him, why He is the Messiah.

Because Jesus took the punishment for our sins, when we believe in Him as Lord and Savior, God can forgive our sins and impute the righteousness of Christ to us. God counts our faith in Jesus Christ as righteousness. Not because we ourselves are righteous, but because He is righteous and our faith is counted towards us as righteousness. It is a legal transaction, once we believe God can dismiss our case because justice has been done for our sins by the atoning death of Jesus Christ.

So, when Jesus asks me why I should be allowed in, the only possible answer is this: "I am not worthy to get in; it is your righteousness counted to me that will open these gates. You died for my sins and rose the third day; I believed your gospel and received you as my Lord and Savior."

Atheists can be good without God, so can hindus, buddhists and even Christians. The trouble isn't whether they can be good, the trouble is that it isn't good enough.

Correlation and causation is distinguished by controlling for variables directly where the list of possible covariates or confounders is known & limited, or when it is not, using say machine learning techniques to infer a model from the data and repeatedly cross validating it with different test and training samples to ensure that it is rigorous. Read:

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

There is nothing about repeatability.

Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-validation_(statistics)

Repeatability has nothing to do with testing for correlation / causation. Okay, you repeat an experiment. It looks like X causes Y, like in the first test. But it turns out that Z (that you didn't consider or can't measure) is acting on X & Y at the same time, creating the appearance of a relationship between X & Y where none exists. Read:

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

If anything the political hype is underblown. Politics deals with the immediate, tangible and the "what directly helps me now." With the financial crisis, politics in the US has decreed that any action on climate change that might marginally impact wages or living standards is out of bounds.

If we assume the risks are real - polluting has specific benefits (cost reduction to polluters) and incredibly dispersed costs which are almost imperceptible for decades while the damage is being done. It requires global coordination for a cost on carbon to be politically feasible. And the effects are seen at least 40 years into the future:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climate-Change-The-40-Year-Delay-Between-Cause-and-Effect.html

That's the problem, by the time the effects are obvious, it will be too late to react. In the meantime, you have massive amounts of money, interest groups, politics and delayed effect all acting against any action being taken.

But you have zero proof. You're stating that you have enough proof, but yet you really don't have any proof. You have circumstantial evidence.

I have zero doubts that DWS once in that position helped because she and Clinton are friends and political allies. But that's not quid pro quo. If Clinton hires her to help in her campaign, it isn't quid pro quo if Clinton hired her because of DWS's skills in the area. You have zero proof that's why DWS was hired. You have zero proof DWS did "whatever Clinton asked her to do". You have zero proof Clinton asked her to do anything that broke the rules in the first place. None.

You are inferring every single accusation you made against Clinton. There's absolutely no evidence of any of them at all.

Clinton has zero insights about what the public thinks? You're kidding, right? The woman who was the front runner for the Democratic nomination, who has been in the public spotlight at the national stage for almost 25 years doesn't have any insight about what the public thinks?

Come on, man.

Also, DWS's job wasn't solely to ensure the nominating process was fair. She had a ton of responsibilities, and many of them she did well. That was my point. All you're seeing is the part where she screwed up because it hurt your preferred candidate. Her job was also to protect the Democratic party, and help Democrats win elections, too.

Perhaps a few might say DWS wasn't the reason Sanders lost? A few? You mean like.... ohhhhh, I dunno... Bernie Sanders? How about Bernie Sanders' staff members? But what the hell do they know, AMIRITE?

Dude, Sanders got crushed with minorities. You know where that can allow you to win the nomination? The GOP. Unfortunately for Sanders, he was running for the nomination where minorities are a significant part of the voting bloc. Absolutely CRUSHED. Clinton won 76% of the African-American vote. Before the primaries really began, Clinton was polling at 73% among Hispanics. You honestly think that was because of DWS? Let me put that to rest for you. Hillary Clinton did well among Hispanics against Barack Obama. Was that DWS's doing, too?

That's the thing. I have clear cut FACTS about why Sanders lost. I have the words from Bernie Sanders and his campaign staff. You have speculation about whatever small impact DWS's had on primary votes.

Valarie Plame? No, Bush never named her. It ended up being Karl Rove.

How did I shove Hillary Clinton down your throat? Explain that one to me. I didn't vote for Hillary Clinton in the primaries. In VA, I chose to vote in the GOP primary to do whatever I could to stop Trump, which was vote for Marco Rubio, as he was polling second in VA. I didn't do a damn thing to stop Sanders or help Clinton win the nomination.

Why didn't I vote for Sanders? Because of his lack of foreign policy experience, and he wasn't putting forth enough practical policies that I think would work. I like the guy fine. I'd vote for him as a Senator if he was in Virginia. I like having voices like his in Congress. But Commander In Chief is a big part of the job, and I want someone with foreign policy experience. He doesn't have that.

I also value flexibility in a candidate. The world isn't black and white. I like Sanders' values. It would be nice if everyone could go to college if they had the motivation. I very much think the rich are not taxed nearly enough. But I also think ideologies and ideals help to create ideas for solutions, but the solutions need to be practical, and I don't find his practical unfortunately. Sometimes they're not politically practical. Sometimes they just fall apart on the mechanics of them.

Gary Johnson has more experience? Uhhhhh, no. He was governor of New Mexico for 8 years. That compares well to Sarah Palin. Do you think Palin is more experienced than Clinton, too? Johnson has zero foreign policy experience. Hillary Clinton was an active first lady who proposed Health Care Reform, got children's health care reform passed. She was a US Senator for the short time of 8 years, which is way less than Johnson's 8 years as governor of New Mexico (wait, what?!), was on the foreign relations committee during that time. Then she was Secretary of State.

Sanders is the only one who I'd put in the ballpark, but he's had legislative branch experience only, and he doesn't have much foreign policy experience at all. Interestingly enough, you said he was the most experienced candidate, overlooking his complete lack of executive experience, which you favored when it came to Gary Johnson. Huh?

Clinton can't win? You know, I wouldn't even say Trump *can't* win. Once normalized from the convention bounce, she'll be the favorite to win. Sure, she could still lose, but I wouldn't bet against her.

Clinton supporters have blinders on only. Seriously? Dude, EVERY candidate has supporters with blinders on. Every single candidate. Most voters are ignorant, regardless of candidate. Don't give me that holier than thou stuff. You've got blinders on for why Sanders lost.

There are candidates who are threats if elected. There are incompetent candidates. There are competent candidates. There are great candidates. Sorry, but there aren't great candidates every election. I've voted in enough presidential elections to know you should be grateful to have at least one competent candidate who has a shot of winning. Sometimes there aren't any. Sometimes there are a few.

In your mind, I'm a Hillary supporter with blinders on. I'm not beholden to any party. I'm not beholden to any candidate. It's just not in my nature. This is the first presidential candidate from a major party in my lifetime that I felt was truly an existential threat to the US and the world in Trump. I'm a level headed person. Hillary Clinton has an astounding lack of charisma for a politician who won a major party's nomination. I don't find her particularly inspiring. I think it's a legitimate criticism to say she sometimes bends to the political winds too much. She sometimes doesn't handle things like the email thing like she should, as she flees to secrecy from a paranoia from the press and the other party, which is often a mistake, but you have to understand at some level why. She's a part of a major political party, which has a lot of "this is how the sausage is made" in every party out there, and she operates within that system.

If she were a meal, she'd be an unseasoned microwaved chicken breast, with broccoli, with too much salt on it to pander to people some to get them to want to eat it. And you wouldn't want to see how the chicken was killed. But you need to eat. Sure, there's too much salt. Sure, it's not drawing you to the table, but it's nutritious mostly, and you need to eat. It's a meal made of real food.

Let's go along with you thinking Sanders is SOOOOOOOOOOO much better. He was a perfectly prepared steak dinner, but it's lean steak, and lots of organic veggies, perfectly seasoned, and low salt. It's a masterpiece meal that the restaurant no longer offers, and you gotta eat.

Donald Trump is a plate of deep fried oreos. While a surprising number of people find that tasty, it also turns out the cream filling was contaminated with salmonella.

Gary Johnson looks like a better meal than the chicken, but you're told immediately if you order it, you're gonna get contaminated deep fried oreos or the chicken, and you have absolutely no say which it will be.

You can bitch and complain all you want about Clinton. But Sanders is out.

As Bill Maher would say, eat the chicken.

I'm not voting for Clinton solely because I hate Trump. She's a competent candidate. At least we have one to choose from who can actually win.

And I'm sorry, but I don't understand your comparison of Trump to Clinton. One of them has far more governmental experience. One of them isn't unhinged. One of them is clearly not racist or sexist. You would at least agree with that, right? Clinton, for all her warts, is not racist, sexist, bigoted, and actually knows how government works. To equate them is insane to me. I'm sorry.

And this is coming from someone who voted for Nader in 2000. I totally get voting for a third party candidate in some situations. This isn't the time.

Edit: You know who else is considering voting for Clinton? Penn Jillette, one of the most vocal Clinton haters out there, and outspoken libertarian. Even he is saying if the election is close enough, he'll have to vote for her.

"“My friend Christopher Hitchens wrote a book called No One Left to Lie To about the Clintons,” Jillette says. “I have written and spoken and joked with friends the meanest, cruelest, most hateful things that could ever been said by me, have been said about the Clintons. I loathe them. I disagree with Hillary Clinton on just about everything there is to disagree with a person about. If it comes down to Trump and Hillary, I will put a Hillary Clinton sticker on my fucking car.”

But he says he hopes the race will turn out well enough that he feels safe casting his vote for Gary Johnson, who is running on the libertarian ticket, and who he believes is the best choice."
http://www.newsweek.com/penn-jillette-terrified-president-trump-431837

It follows exactly. We are accountable for the things we do and for the things we would do if circumstance allowed.

Were I to tell you I was, say, pro-choice, you would be in a strong position to guess at my attitude toward a particular ethical question. If you then learned that I'd had no abortions personally, would you therefore label me a pro-lifer in spite of my stated position?

Well then, what if I tell you about an infamous tyrant of my acquaintance, a monster who committed every crime against humanity he had the means to commit, and whom I believe to be the very best person who ever lived. I tell you I intend to follow the shining example of this nightmare, shall we say religiously, for the rest of my life. Do you really presume to claim that no negative inference can be drawn about my character whatsoever? What guess would you make about my propensity for insane, vicious murder?

I have yet to have an abortion, it might be said largely in consequence of my lacking certain procedural necessities. Yet I remain pro-choice. The majority of muslims in civilised countries, the minority in muslim countries, have committed no great atrocities. Yet they remain muslim.

Ahhh...OK...for paraphrasing, you should use ' , not ".
I'm not sure what you're saying....they said the picture shows a connection with the campaign, as in evidence that he's a supporter, not evidence that there's a connection as in he was directed to do this by Hillary herself...BUT that is what the Clinton campaign did, attempted to say that a picture of a 'Bernie Bro' with Bernie was proof that he was involved with THEIR actions and that he was personally involved with directing them.
If you draw that inference from this picture, that's on you, because they (TYT) clearly said what it was presented to show, AND they clearly said they don't 'blame' Clinton in any way for having taken the picture with him nor do they assign blame to her based on it, even implied blame....but if you drew that inference from the other picture with Bernie and a Bernie Bro, that's on THEM (the Clinton campaign), because THEY publicly made the case that it WAS proof of a connection and direction.

Well, from my read that's much worse.

I'm sorry, that's apparently wrong, it's been reported that they did go around the internet shutting down videos.

If you're correct (I note that on their video they use the word copyright time and again to explain exactly what they DIDN'T copyright, leading to the inference that they have a copyright), then they got a permanent trademark for a format of show that they didn't create, a format that's quite popular and ubiquitous.
React videos are something that's been around since the 60's. Ever hear of Candid Camera? It's a bit like trademarking 'news programs' and anyone who makes 'news' or calls their video 'news' now has to beg for permission-or like trademarking 'talks' videos. They didn't invent this format, they aren't the only creators of this content, they are simply trying to grasp control over this content. Eventually they'll likely require payment for that permission and they'll claim it's to cover costs until it's clear that it's not.

No matter what the reality of the situation is, they screwed up and killed their company with this internet power grab...and I think they deserve go out of business. What a terrible, unnecessary idea to boost their youtube channel.

I don't assume anything more than Adam is assuming. He even says police don't believe in it yet claims it is believed in...

And what are you saying about Africa? I made the point to say,
A-Some Africans believe in something, but most do not. It should not be attributed to their population at large.
B-In this same manner a relatively few (even 1/2 million Americans is a paltry sum, since our population is in the hundred millions) Americans believe in lie detectors.

I did not imply anything more. Nothing about educating, nothing about anything. It was a comparison. I guess you could infer it, but then I am fine with videos like this (So long as they don't blow the proportions out of proportions.)

Again, my point is clear. A very minor amount of people believe. Just like a flat earth is still believed in. Unfortunately people lose perspective of HUGE numbers, like millions. So yeah, there is that.

I did not. You may have inferred one, but I did not imply one.

On the contrary, in fact. I said that while we are talking about one, why are we not also talking about the other? Not sure what could have given you the impression that it was anything more than that.

You may choose to impart any hidden meaning you wish in order to furnish whatever paranoid perspective you have with ill-conceived evidence, but that's your choice and your fallacy. I won't try to convince you otherwise.

The inference being that I have a choice..? =) We don't in Aus.

But you're missing the point, X >= 1 feed in tariffs are being subsidised by other users on the grid. You upload your power regardless of demand peaks (so you could be sending power when it really isn't required). Electricity companies are not going to massively drop production of regular power as it takes a considerable amount of time to spool up/down baseload production, and they are still going to switch on high cost gas turbines during peak load just in case a big old cloud blocks out the sun for an hour or so and solar production falls in a heap...

And peak usage times are usually ~8-9am (schools and business start up, switch computers and air con on etc) before solar production really kicks in, and later in the afternoon when it get's hotter, people are getting ready for dinner. If you have significant daylight savings time shifts, then you can certainly get better production when peak demand in the early evening is occurring. If the panels are facing west rather than east or north (because that's where you maximise production and make the most money... =)

As for "the idea that it might take more energy to produce a panel than it will produce itself is ridiculous", I didn't say that it did, just that it's return on that energy invested is comparatively poor. You coal analogy is patently wrong though. Depending on which source you go to, coal is anywhere from 30:1 to 50:1 for EROEI (energy returned on energy invested). It's cheap to obtain, burn and dispose of the waste, despite being toxic/radioactive.

eg. http://bravenewclimate.com/2014/08/22/catch-22-of-energy-storage/

When you talk about solar PV and the energy required to make it, you're not just talking about the production line, you're talking mining the silicon, purifying, the wasted wafers which aren't up to snuff, the cost of the workers and the power that goes in to building, transporting etc, lifetime maintenance, loss of production over time and disposal. The above link puts PV at the low 1.5-3:1 which is well beneath the roughly 7:1 required to sustain our modern society (and does not cover the massive increases in energy demand and consumption from developing countries). And as the author of the article notes, these are unbuffered values. If you add buffering to load shift, the sums get even worse.

"Put simply, if solar PV is such a bad deal, how are they saving me so much money even without any rebates?"

I didn't say solar was a bad deal, I said it's a poor way to reduce carbon pollution. If the electricity company you are connected to is willing to pay high feed in tariffs to you and you save cash, that's great, but that doesn't automagically (intentional typo mean that solar PV is making any sort of serious inroads in to reducing carbon pollution.

If we're going to fix man made climate change, we need to be prepared to pay a far higher cost and worry less about our hip pockets. Nuke might not be economically viable without causing jumps in bills, but in terms of the energy output it provides over it's life time, it is one of the highest returns in energy for the energy invested in building it, paired with very low carbon emissions.

Obviously, the figures on EROEI depend on which article you read, as it's a very complex number to work out (and will always be an approximation), but it's fairly commonly acknowledged by people who do not have a vested interest in solar PV (vs low carbon power sources in general) that PV is a feel good technology that doesn't actually do a hell of a lot in terms of carbon reduction.

You are saying I ignored the subtext, but that would infer that what you interpret is in fact what is being written between the lines. Perhaps someone should ask Stewart what his position is on polygamists marrying prior to attacking him based on a subjective interpretation of what he said?

I have no cards in the game so to speak, I'm straight and "conventionally" married (for whatever that is worth), but I 100% support the right to marriage equality for people able to legally consent. I'm not a Stewart fanboy and I don't believe he is infallible, but I just do not see your interpretation in what was said (and what wasn't). We obviously have a difference of opinion, and think each other incorrect, but that's cool as well, we aren't required to agree. But saying 'it's completely obvious and if you don't see it my way, don't bother replying' is a cop out... Never mind adding Nazi's and an inferred cocksucking insult. You going for a world record of logical fallacies in one post? \= )

Irt marriage in general, my point wasn't that the institution itself was perfect, it's that every couple should be allowed to define their relationship on their own terms without anyone else stepping in to define it for them. Yes, it's a contract, but like any contract we choose to enter in to, we have to be satisfied by the terms of it. That it can be toxic is stating the obvious, but that's neither here nor there irt the topic at hand.

As to whether monogamy is a natural state, that's kinda irrelevant to the topic at hand.

And my naughtiness? \= )

"but monogamy is inconvenient for damn near everyone who practices it."

How is this not defining other people's relationships? That statement is pretty unequivocal. Not really much to be inferred there. ; )

Just to be clear because I'm sure there are folks who won't infer my actual feelings, I don't feel any and every fist-bump is a ghetto move, but that it will give the impression that my boys are unprofessional and uncouth if that's their primary method of salutation, particularly upon meeting a new acquaintance (especially if professionally).