I spent October 21st skateboarding with the wife. Ahhh, 1950s Tony Hawk, thank you for inspiring the future -- even if you didn't make hoverboards a reality.

But really, the fun of skateboarding is in the resistance that the wheels have on the ground. Being able to propel oneself forward and back; tick tacking, drifting, ollieooping (hah), and other fun maneuvers not possible with a hoverboard. I truly prefer wheels, berrings, and the donuts & trucks which support them.

Glen Ford on police training:

"A cop’s verbal exclamation, when characterized as a “lawful order” or “command,” becomes a license to kill. Once the order has been issued – no matter how outlandish, or even impossible to comply with – failure to obey is a crime and the basis for rapid escalation of the conflict. Individuals or groups can easily be maneuvered into non-compliance with police orders, followed quickly by death."

I think Dumdeedum might have been talking about the reckless maneuver 33 seconds into the video.

Looks more like a hazing ritual than any sort of training. Unless you're trying to attract attention with the pop sound, I can't think of any reasonable application for this "maneuver".

What a douche bag yellow #71 is. He totally 'PIT' maneuvered the #10 white car, causing both to wreck. I hope he gets fined.

Your video, The Carbonite Maneuver, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

He would have had enough power to maneuver, but not enough to outrun the waves. If there was a big enough break in the sets, yeah, he could have just motored in.

The skill here was in timing the power to get in front of a wave and then steering it to keep on the wave. It's not actually that difficult to do, but the consequences of getting it wrong are pretty nasty.

Unlike a surfboard, I fail to see where this captain had any input whatsoever over this. You know, other than floating around until the wave happened. If he had the engine power to maneuver, why bother surfing? Unless he's just trying to capsize, sell the boat to the insurance company...

They forgot these:

- Cabin service so frosty it makes a Moscow winter look like fucking Maui. (See: Icelandair)

- Fist-swinging free-for-all trying to grab aisle seats near the front of the plane (See: Southwest).

- The prepaid-for seat shuffle where the seat you reserved three months ago gets taken from you and you're reassigned somewhere near the head at the back of the plane. (See: Alaska Airlines)

- "Aww, Sweetie, did you want a sandwich on this 7-hour trans-Atlantic flight? THAT'LL BE 30 FUCKING EUROS PLEASE. Oh, you want to pay in dollars? Ok, that'll be 45 bucks at the current exchange rate plus conversion and transaction fees. Here, enjoy this three-day-old reindeer meat sammich that's dryer than the twats of the frigid cabin crew who served it to you." (See: Icelandair (again))

- Ladies and Gentlemen, we apologize for the 6g maneuver our former Air Force pilot is about to pull in order to avoid having to do a go-around because we were too busy discussing the new stewardess' tits to watch the glide path. Please keep the screaming in terror to a minimum as he startles easily . . ." (See: Delta)

- "Ladies and Gentlemen, we've now arrived in Scranton . . . oh, fuck, this isn't Pittsburgh!" (See: Delta (multiple times))

Yeah -- I just LOVE flying.

Okay, what everyone else typed, sorry, but TLDR for the most part.

The sedan did absolutely nothing wrong at all. There was plenty of room. It was clearly visible to the trucker, and it signaled its intention to change lanes before doing so. No problem. It would have been wiser to pull in behind the truck (presumably, who knows what's going on back there) because trucks don't stop on a dime, but in heavy traffic, I wouldn't fault the sedan's maneuver at all.

The truck driver should have his license revoked. Anyone who would deliberately risk a road accident as a matter of pride shouldn't be driving.

A couple of points.
1) several people stated that the truck driver sped up to keep her out. There is no proof of that. There is proof of a decreasing amount of space between the truck and the vehicles ahead of him.

2) The truck in which the video is being shot from appears to be a semi and not a pickup. You can not expect them to speed up or slow down like a passenger car.

3) The vehicles in front of the truck appear to be slowing down due to conditions in front of them, causing the decreased distance between the truck and traffic in front of him.

4) Even though the audio is not that good, there does not appear to be a change in the engine noise to indicate that the truck driver was speeding up to keep her out.

It appears to me that several vehicles in the slow lane saw that there was a semi in front of them that they wanted to avoid. They saw the space in front of the semi in the high speed lane and decided to occupy it. They then passed on the right hand side of the truck.

*warning legal mumbo jumbo*
Straight from the State of Texas Statutes and Legislation web page
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/TN/htm/TN.545.htm

Sec. 545.001. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:

(1) "Pass" or "passing" used in reference to a vehicle means to overtake and proceed past another vehicle moving in the same direction as the passing vehicle or to attempt that maneuver.
------------------------------------

Sec. 545.057. PASSING TO THE RIGHT. (a) An operator may pass to the right of another vehicle only if conditions permit safely passing to the right and:

(1) the vehicle being passed is making or about to make a left turn; and

(2) the operator is:

(A) on a highway having unobstructed pavement not occupied by parked vehicles and sufficient width for two or more lines of moving vehicles in each direction; or

(B) on a one-way street or on a roadway having traffic restricted to one direction of movement and the roadway is free from obstructions and wide enough for two or more lines of moving vehicles.

She was passing on the right by their definition and she did it illegally The truck being passed did not meet the requirements to legally allow passing on the right.

Seeing the video and having read the appropriate law that applies in this situation, It is my opinion that the driver of the passenger vehicle was at fault.

He was passing the semi.. just not as fast as the 2 other cars. Unfortunately the law does not give exceptions for people "passing too slowly". Not one but BOTH cars were pulling unsafe maneuvers because they thought they should be able to pass the semi faster and ahead of the truck in the left lane. That is now how it works.

Maybe you don't realize how much you suck at driving. -_-

I'm obviously making a big leap in my assumptions, but they're based on the limited hard evidence presented to the court. I am assuming Lardass was not just "driving poorly," but using intentionally dangerous aggressive maneuvers and smiling while he did so.

It is not likely that a father would go so ballistic and try to reprimand someone over their simply not driving very well. If Fatfuck was putting people in danger, I would not consider it unacceptable to approach and question his driving behavior.

I've been on the receiving end many times of douchecocks intentionally swerving into me, slamming on brakes in front of me, etc., and it is definitely something that warrants some kind of response.

If, however, the douchecunt really was simply driving poorly (e.g., failed to signal a lane change, took a couple of seconds to go when the light turned green, wasn't wearing his seatbelt, etc.), then yes, the father is completely at fault and out of his mind.

But based on my Sherlock Holmes-like skills of deduction, my guess is Comicbookstoreguyfromthesimpsons was a huge prick and intentional instigator. With a smile.

I agree with your general point.

I personally would never consider 'replacing' the A10 with the F35.

But I still think you don't design weapons for what you need now, but to be ready for what you could need in the future.

Su-35 / Mig35, pak-fa, J-10, J-20, fighter tech is moving along in the world. The goal of systems like the F35/22 is to remain superior in any theoretical/potential future conflict. The only thing the F22/35 have to do with today's conflicts is the possibility to be shoehorned into dropping bombs on some scare crows in the middle of nowhere.

Sure, people pick on the F35 for being fat and happy - but fighters are more than turn turn turn turn shoot. They are systems to sense/detect, share info, build a battle field picture, jam opponents, strike the opponent's sensors, build situational awareness while denying the opponent his own SA. They build an environment where your forces can maneuver around enemy forces, strike key locations, and leave (without an actual fight), so that the enemy eventually finds himself with nothing left to defend, and they just quit without ever fighting. Modern fighters are an information system as much as a weapons platform.

Even in WW2 the powers learned the lesson that a good fighter is not necessarily a good pure dog fighter. The zero was the best turning fighter of the war - and it sucked. US planes would just not bother dogfighting with it. US planes would fly high above, dive down onto a zero, shoot at it, fly right by, and zoom back up. They didn't have to dogfight, because they had more speed and altitude, and the zero was helpless, it was a fighter stuck playing defense in air to air combat.

Times changed, today's tactics are not speed and altitude, they are situational awareness and detectability. It's the kind of fighting the F35 is tailored for, and it's not worth being too hard on it for not being ideal for more classical combat applications.

-scheherazade