The last time an Aussie was on the podium for a home race was Allan Jones back in the 80s, but that was a non championship round!

Certainly Magnussen has gone some way to justifying McLaren's decision to replace Checo (Sergio Perez).

One more honourable mention - to Bottas, for keeping the racing interesting long after the podium positions had been decided.

Aussie got on the podium and first time Dane on the podium

Somehow I think this was more panic-induced-describe-what's-in-front-of-you rather than "racist". I bet the poor woman was chanting "don't say something that could be termed racist" to herself all the way to the podium.

What Thatcher basically did was take all the prosperity from most of Britain & bring it south to London & the home counties. In the *80s, every time you turned on the television or read one of the Tory papers, all you heard/read was about the "prosperous south east".

*Steps off podium.

Why someone down votes is personal to them. There is no right way or wrong way to down vote. The idea that someone put in the time to sift a video as a good reason not to down vote it is in my opinion ridiculous.

Now for a personal rant that has nothing to do with you, bjornenlinda: This site was set up to weed out video mediocrity and have its members exposed to the best videos on the internet. Its not suppose to be about quantity of videos you can sift. Its suppose to be about the quality of the ones you sift or videos you love and just have to share. It use to say at the top of the site "VideoSift quality control". I think the site has somewhat got away from that and now is about how many videos i or we can get sifted and the quality of sifts have suffered because of it. "leveling up" use to be a byproduct of sifting, not why you did it. I will now step away from the podium

>> ^hpqp:

Not comparable; models are starved by the fashion industry ("either you're a twig or you're fired/not hired" starved), whereas I doubt the network is pressuring this woman to be overweight. It would still be totally wrong to send an email to a model telling her she shouldn't be on tv/a podium because she's unhealthily skinny; that's still a personal attack.
>> ^SDGundamX:
[...] I'm a bit disturbed at the idea that pointing out that someone is overweight is somehow now "bullying." Is pointing out that so-called "supermodels" are too skinny also bullying? [...]


Seriously? You'd be against someone telling a clearly underweight supermodel that she's a role model for millions of young girls who are dangerously trying to emulate her--some through purging and others through diet pill abuse? That's bullying the supermodel? How about when a sports athlete gets caught driving drunk or engaging in other unethical behaviors (say, sending unsolicited pics of his private parts to females). Am I bullying him by sending him an email telling him how millions of kids look up to him and he needs to think about how his behavior affects them?

As others have already aptly pointed out, this was a private email. His concern seems to be with the message she's sending young female viewers. The proper response would have been the one I mentioned above--replying to his email and smacking him down about how his conception of being a proper role model only considers appearance and nothing else. Instead she went all hysterical publicly. Over one email. If this guy was sending emails every week, or if she were getting these kinds of emails from a host of people regularly, I'd see the need to do what she did.

Now, you're right--some people's obesity is medically-induced (blood-sugar issues, thyroid problems, etc.) but for the vast majority of Americans it is a lifestyle problem--too many calories and not enough exercise. Just to be clear, I'm not saying these people (of which I am one) are lazy--I'm saying they've made a choice to prioritize things other than their health. That is indeed their right and they shouldn't be disparaged for that, but at the same time we shouldn't pretend that there aren't any consequences (both to the individual and society) to that choice. And we certainly shouldn't call people who point out those consequences "bullies."

Again, just my 2 cents though. You and I don't see eye-to-eye on lots of issues (Islam, male circumcision, etc.) so I don't really expect us to agree on this issue either.

Not comparable; models are starved by the fashion industry ("either you're a twig or you're fired/not hired" starved), whereas I doubt the network is pressuring this woman to be overweight. It would still be totally wrong to send an email to a model telling her she shouldn't be on tv/a podium because she's unhealthily skinny; that's still a personal attack.
>> ^SDGundamX:

[...] I'm a bit disturbed at the idea that pointing out that someone is overweight is somehow now "bullying." Is pointing out that so-called "supermodels" are too skinny also bullying? [...]

Do all these places Dan speaks at think it's a requirement to set him up with a wood podium and a black, cloth backdrop?

I swear, these talks all could be at the same place and they're just swapping out the university crests on the podium!

Once again because of shitty media, I can't take any sides. The interview was just noise. Neither side makes their case well. The only argument I can make is that once again, there is this ridiculous notion that this supposed bombshell was just missed during the 2008 election and just magically is discovered coincidentally before another election. It just reeks of desperation. In addition it's nothing that dramatically bad. There is no smoking gun. When push comes to shove, the argument is "Obama will give preferential treatment to blacks" not exactly a bombshell.

You can tell a man by the company he keeps. If the left is going to brand Ron Paul a "racist" for things he didn't write in newsletters bearing his name 30 years ago, then King Obama introducing another kook to the podium is more than fair game.

I also find it funny. Conservatives get so angry when the left "plays the race card" but its ok when Conservatives play it?

It's not racist to shine the light of truth on Obama's well-hidden-by-the-non-FOX-media history.

I don't see the point anyway. As if conservatives need any sort of evidence or logic. They're going to hate Obama regardless of what he does.

Here's where we kind of agree, at least as far as there being no need to excessively castigate Obama on his shady history when we have his nearly 4 year RECORD OF FAILURE staring us in the face. If the fakeservatives lose it will be for this reason.

The obvious undercurrent here is that there is sensitive information which could be exposed by talking about the specifics of the targeting. It is often hard to tell what an enemy could glean from a public airing of "what we know." For instance, they might be able to figure out "how we know it." In this case the high-school debate champ behind the podium did the right thing in erring on the side of prudence. Further, he's probably on a very short leash. That there is such an uproar to protect the rights of this fuckwad with little attempt to suppress it suggests that the terrorists have not, in fact, won.

>> ^notarobot:

I think he's applying the Socratic method of asking questions he already knows the answer to in order to get those answers from the guy squirming at the podium. >> ^GeeSussFreeK:
I love how confused the reporter is, I am also as confused.



I think your right on many of the questions towards the end, but the Socratic method still allows you to be stupefied by the answer...even if it is known

I think he's applying the Socratic method of asking questions he already knows the answer to in order to get those answers from the guy squirming at the podium. >> ^GeeSussFreeK:

I love how confused the reporter is, I am also as confused.

All I ever get out of these debates is that one side is fighting to pollute and destroy in the name of profit. It's their right to do so, says god and liberty, and capitalism, etc.

Anybody who disagrees is a big government, nanny state, socialist hippy, tree hugging devil worshipper.
I think if Jesus came back and made a fuss about murdering off chunks of the natural world for cash, he'd be disappeared like Jimmy Hoffa.

Alarmist? Socialist? Communist? Intellectual? Elite? Community organizer? Professor at a podium?

Sharing is bad, and smart people are evil, and this planet is disposable, amen.

Chris definitely gave us a Roberto Benigni moment. James Bacon was equally as entertaining. The video doesn't show how many times he circled the bannister by the steps before he rushed up to podium to say something.

Yeah, it's definitely not a trick. This is a famous illusion in still-life, and there is no bizarre rendering required. However, it is indeed a 'trick', and that trick is your assumption of what shades each of the tiles are. You look at the board, and immediately believe that this is a standard checkered board with exactly 2 different shades of tile. This assumption, and therefor your perception of the color of the tile, is false.

SamaelSmith had it right; there is a deception in how much shadow is actually being cast by the podium sitting in front of the metal floodlight. Consider the MASSIVE light shining above the stage, and consider the smaller floodlight in the back, and reconsider how much shadow you would actually expect there to be on the checkerboard. There would be only a faint shadow, not the dramatic shadow that they have cast across it. The tiles are colored to make it appear that there is a strong shadow, when there should only be a weak one.

Thus, it is your normally adaptive assumption that there is a strong shadow cast by the podium that causes you to believe that the dark tile looks white in contrast to the very dark tiles surrounding it.

>> ^entr0py:

That was a well done video. Though, I've always thought that illusion is not actually an illusion, but just a trick. It always relies on ignoring the fact that one tile is in shadow and the other is in light when you go to compare them. If you physically did move the tile as animated above, it would suddenly appear much lighter when it moves into sunlight, because that is how light works. They must have gone to some work to render it in 3D, and then not have that one tile be effected by the scene lighting.