Hm, so the minigun in Predator wasn't *quite* so ridiculous. Since we can grant Jesse Ventura an extra 50-75% strength since he was a fictional action hero, and since in action movies the weight and quantity of ammunition a character may carry (even if its's for miles and miles through a dense jungle) only matters if it is directly relevant to the plot, I think I now consider "Painless" a perfectly reasonable gun for fighting aliens and South American guerrillas.

I'd be down with a Space 1999 reboot, but the fundamental premise of a nuclear explosion pushing the moon out of orbit and then somehow to another star system for a new episode each week is so ridiculous l it would have to be replaced, but by that point it's hardly a Space 1999 reboot. I guess you could have the same basic setup with a moon base but use wormholes or string magic or quantum whatever and that might be okay. A show taking place on a moon base that keeps jumping randomly through alternate dimensions could be kind of interesting for a while maybe. Like Sliders, except they take the moon base with them and have Eagles to fly around in.

I advocate for more firearm regulations, as does the NRA finally, and more enforcement of them. My home is protected by multiple legal firearms. These two statements of fact are in no way at odds.
Only a provocateur would say any regulation equates to a complete ban. No thinking person would make themselves look so ridiculous by spouting such nonsense.

How about comparing murder rates.....4.8 per 100000 U.S. vs .92 Britain. I'd rather be burgled than murdered.

So this is relevant because of a recent surge in support for "radical left" (i.e. democratic socialist, centre-left) Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn who has had a huge surge in popularity in recent weeks in a general election campaign he was expected to catastrophically lose by all mainstream sources.

Since winning two Labour party leadership elections in 2015, voted in by historic margins by ordinary members having their say for the first time, he has faced hostile criticism from all mainstream media sources and most politicians including his own party.

The grass roots, which helped drive his earlier victories, appears to be doing the same thing for him in this general election campaign. The grass roots involvement has included youth musicians, artists and activists coming together from multiple campaigns (Save The NHS, WASPI, most unions, including teachers, fire, police and transport, and far too many other interest groups to mention, including multiple disability campaigners). As well as individuals, parents, elderly, and Momentum - a group formed in the afterglow of his leadership win.

On the other hand, Theresa May's and the Tory party's campaign has gone from disaster to disaster. After claiming to be the party of economic security, they released an entirely uncosted manifesto (Labour's was fully costed, other party's included some costings). After trying to make it a match of personalities, she has gone from robotic gaffe to robotic gaffe, dodging questions whilst Corbyn's easy charm and honesty has gone quite a way to show those weaknesses up. She has claimed to be stable and strong, and the best hand to negotiate Brexit, but performed u-turn after u-turn and is now avoiding all but mandatory press contact because her and her brand have become toxic, thanks to things like the "Dementia Tax" and a promise to vote again on allowing barbaric fox hunting. She has been caught out, and regardless of the results of the general election, Theresa May is finished as Conservative leader. Potentially, the back of austerity has been broken and exposed. A movement has been started and even if the Tory's win, watch out for a mass people power'd intervention over their heinous plans.

God i could go on, this has been amazing to watch. Obviously i'm biased towards Labour, and whilst a centre-right opponent might describe things differently, the facts are the same.

Significant things are happening in the UK right now, not wholly dissimilar from the rise of Sanders, only this time it's for the actual prime minister position - Corbyn managed to outmaneuver the corruption of his party. If the election was 2 weeks longer i would predict a huge Labour landslide. After being so ridiculed by a hostile media for so long, election bias rules have forced the press into giving Corbyn a fair hearing and the more people see, the more they appear to like. The question is, have people already cast their vote by post? Will people turn up and vote? A big turnout is expected to favour Labour. A strong youth turnout will be hugely beneficial to Labour.

You are insanely wrong.
Processed cheese, the saltiest, averages 1.2% salt. 25% salt would mean a large pizza could have up to 3/4 of a pound of salt. Eating one slice would kill you....Eating 2 slices of American cheese would too, quickly. Where did you get those crazy numbers, your Dr guru? It sounds like him.

With your information being so ridiculous, why would anyone take your advice?

she's so ridiculously adorable

OMFG, that's so ridiculously adorable that my uterus just collapsed in on itself.

Sometimes I wish I could say stuff like that.

*quaity adorableness

$14k is more than a business class airfare, but less than first class return to Europe... I would guess that the speaker went first class and her staff went business class. The $5k was for a helicopter charter, not ground transport... it's only an hours drive, so not more than $200 for a taxi or a government car.

I am equally bewildered about Abbott and Harper. All I can say is that I think my countrymen were rather naive... it was obvious to me that the claims he was making prior to the election were so ridiculous that the best thing for the country was for him to simply turn around after the election and say "I lied!"... and he has pretty much gone back on every claim, only without actually admitting he lied.

I'm not sure what happened to Canada, either.

Maybe one day I'll have to move to New Zealand...

This was painful to watch... so much fail, didn't even get past level 1.

My friend and I beat this game as kids, but we had to use the Konami Code.
If anyone could actually beat this game w/only 3 lives and 3 continues, my hat is off to them!

The 2002 PS2 remake (Contra: Shattered Soldier) was one of the few games I gave up on because it was so ridiculously difficult. (and I've beat VVVVVV)

I don't watch regular TV for two reasons.
1). The shows are so dumbed down, I find them insulting.
2). Cable access is so ridiculously over priced, and they force you to pay for channels you don't want.

As far as commercials. I view commercials as short films. They have 30-60 seconds to sell a concept and a story. Most fail, but some get it right.

Some imprecise, false and misleading statements and baseless assertions in the video that are cogent to the argument:

0:20 "Scientists have come to the realization that these numbers have been dialed to an astonishingly precise value, a value that falls within an exceedingly narrow life-permitting range."

Imprecise. The highlighted bit implies that scientists have discovered an agent who did the "dialing", which is not the case. Rather, scientists have come to the realization that these numbers have values that fall within extremely narrow life-permitting ranges."

2:24 "... these and other numbers have been exquisitely balanced ...

Imprecise. Again, you cannot claim that they "have been balanced" without tautologically claiming a designer.

3:55 "The probabilities involved are so ridiculously remote as to put the fine tuning well beyond the reach of chance."

Assertion. For this statement to be true, someone would have to define when a probability becomes "too remote". We're talking about something that we don't understand, so it's not possible to determine that it is "too remote".

4:03 "So, in an effort to keep this option alive, some have gone beyond empirical science..."

Imprecise. Nobody decided the Multiverse was a good way to explain the appearance of fine tuning. The Multiverse arises unbidden out of other theories of mathematics, with the effect of making chance quite a viable possibility.

4:35 "... and this universe generator itself would require an enormous amount of fine tuning"

False. A machine making massive numbers of universes only has to create one with our balance of numbers one time. If I can shoot a billion arrows at a target, I can afford for the sights on my bow to be much less finely tuned than if I only have one arrow, and if I have an infinite number of arrows, I don't need any fine tuning at all. I can shoot in random directions and be assured that I will hit the target by pure chance.

The chart about high and low order universes

False. A small universe with a single observer may be more likely, and may also exist in addition to our own. The fact that our universe is vast (relative to what, exactly?) doesn't mean others don't also exist.

AND Imprecise. You cannot measure the creation of universes on a time line. Time is created within our universe.

4:55: "... a vast, spectacularly complex, highly ordered universe ...

Assertion. Vase, complex and ordered in comparison to what? We don't know if ours is very complex compared to how complex a universe could be.

5:05: "So, even if the Multiverse existed ... it wouldn't do anything to explain the fine tuning."

False. That's exactly what it would do, or at least it would easily explain away the appearance of fine tuning as random chance.

AND Misleading. It should be phrased, "... to explain the appearance of fine tuning," which is what we're trying to explain.

Here in BC our water is so ridiculously clean the companies that bottle water barely have to filter it, and if they do, it doesn't do much.

I don't understand parents who buy their damn kids a car and pay for their college and shit. That's so ridiculous. Pay your own way. That's how I had it.

I don't see what is so ridiculous about this. Except that poor ol women have positioned themselves to capitalize with selling their bodies. To be fair - the hot ones did this, and they've been doing it since the beginning. I would love to live in a world where men could sell their bodies and sexiness. Oh, wait, we do. It's just women get more of the pie then men do. This pisses me off, is the modeling industry just so sexually biased that we men can't get a fair shake? Never bed a feminist - it's gross.

the whole "molly is the pure version of ecstasy" argument is so ridiculously wrong.