OK, that sounds pretty messed up, but where are the women led businesses and their sponsorships?
Back when I raced off road, I went to hundreds of businesses looking for any sponsorship. I never got any. I don't think it had anything to do with how I looked, or even my personality (although I could be wrong there). Getting a business to put out money to MAYBE get mentioned during a competition is not an easy prospect, especially when you are relatively unknown. I wonder how many businesses actually said 'no' to her, if it's <100, she just didn't try hard enough.
OH....watching to the end, now I have to say the title is totally misleading. She got sponsorship from 'a very important brand', so obviously 'not being hot enough' was not the problem, she didn't suddenly get hotter this year. Now I wonder how many competitions she had won before last year, since after winning one in NZ she got fully sponsored.

@00Scud00

I don't disagree that alcohol and tobacco policy is hypocritical and yes alcohol is worse, but that still doesn't change the fact that pot can be abused and if you have a megaphone, making it sound cool doesn't help.

Also, I would say promoting using it alongside legalization actually worsens arguments for decriminalization in general because rather than focusing on it how it ruins lives and job prospects, detractors can just paint you as someone who wants to get high. I think those who don't use pot are better advocates.

@radx

I tend to see controlling the quantity of money along with the interest rate as a valid way for central banks to influence the economy when necessary but I admit in or after crises they are generally almost useless. Economics being a social science is always going to be notoriously unreliable in both prediction and in isolation the causes of a prior event, some would say almost useless.

Controlling purely the interest rates on overnight bank deposits for banks at the central bank (what setting the rate is, as opposed to the commonly held belief that the central bank dictates lending and borrowing rates) is if anything of little impact. These rates can be at 0% and if banks consider economic prospects poor, that will not cause them to lend any further.

Such was the case in the US in the immediate years after '08. i would argue the only action to have real economic impact was the buying up of distressed mortgage securities by the Fed. The parts of QE1, 2 that involved injecting money into the banks basically just led to them investing in low risk securities and earning interest (effectively just sitting on it) because they were not willing to risk lending it.

While I'm not a big fan of ceding authority to a largely independent organisation, I have to admit that since central banks have become independent, inflation in those countries has become a thing of the past. Now granted they get things wrong (e.g. Greenspan inflating the '08 bubble) but their main advantages is being willing to take measures that cause short term pain but long term gain. I don't think any elected politician would have been willing to take the measures Volcker did to curb inflation for example. In fact, while he was at the Fed, Reagan's government effectively inflated the Savings and Loans bubble.

jesus christ you two!
it is a prototype for fuck sakes!

i am not saying you both are not bringing up valid points,but can you at least put your cynicism aside for at least one second and just marvel at the mere prospect of flying cars,using this technology,in the somewhat near future?

ah well...
i thought this was pretty neat.
then again i am easily impressed.

The mixture of valid points, exaggerations, ignorance of context and completely false information makes it a bit... difficult to digest.

Generally speaking, a lot of errors were made regarding Cologne.

The police fucked up entirely and basically was unable to maintain control of the square in front of the central train station where shitloads of theft, sexual harassment and even a few rapes were committed.

The public media did not report on it properly. They did, in fact, refuse to report it at all at first. But that doesn't stem from an obession with PC nor is it special treatment for refugees/immigrants -- it's good old-fashioned pro-government bias. A few days later, they were all playing the same tune again: bad immigrants, bad muslims, need more law-and-order, close the borders, need new laws, etc. Same shit as always.

And yes, you cannot expect all these refugees to be model citizens from the get-go. Different culture, different language, segregation, no work permit, no familiy, maybe first-hand experience with war -- they are bound to commit crimes, assuming otherwise would be naive.

And accepting a million refugees might have been a bad idea after cutting down public personnel and services for two decades straight. But what's done is done. The question now is what can be done to improve the situation for everyone involved. What doesn't help is further segregation (refugee camps), private security (aka mobs hunting brown people, happened in Cologne already) or downplaying the massive problems.

As for that wierd tirade from 1:07 onwards about true Germans: except for all the people from Bohemia, Prussia and Silesia, aka Poland; or the millions of immigrants from Italy and Turkey; or the folks from former Yugoslavia; etc. Two thirds of the bloody country has family names that mark them as n-th generation immigrant. Half of my extended family is from what is now Russia (Kaliningrad) while my family name is distinctively Dutch. "Paid German taxes" gives a hint to his motivations. Folks in East Germany didn't pay German taxes: do they count? Refugees from former German enclaves ("Russlanddeutsche") didn't pay German taxes, nor did they speak proper German: do they count?

All in all a very misguided rant, too eager to abuse real fuck-ups for his own ideology. Rape culture, SJW, PC -- doesn't apply in this case. It's small government, media with establishment bias, a general inability for open discussion of problems, and a shitload of incompetent arseholes in positions of power (e.g.: chief of police in Cologne, gone now).

By the way, he forgot to mention the hundreds(!) of refugee shelters that were set on fire during the last few months. Bands of immigrants committing crimes are a problem, bands of Germans committing crimes are a problem.

We had a six digit number of prime suspects for trouble already: young, male, unemployed, un(der)educated, no fucking hope. It's the main cause for the persisting problems with Nazis in East Germany: no hope. Adding a million additional people, lots of them with equally bad prospects, without any serious effort to integrate them is bound to blow up in our faces eventually.

The best thing that can happen for the entire Eurozone would be a massive integration program in Germany. And by massive I don't mean a meagre billion Euros. We're talking 15-20 billion a year, for at least five years. The more the better. Even in the current economic regime, it would be much cheaper than the repercussions from staying the current course: doing fuck all.

The title here is bullshit. He doesn't face jail for "disagreeing" with a feminist. He's facing jail for online harassment of a feminist.

Whether the charge is warranted or not is another matter, but even in Canada, disagreeing with people is not a crime.

I tried to watch the video, but I couldn't get past the rampant MRA bullshit, so I went and researched the actual issue.

First, let's quit fucking pretending this is about equality.

Making a game about beating up Anita Sarkeesian is straight-up misogynistic assholery, and if you put said game out in a public forum, don't come crying when people publicise your fucking stupidity.

What Guthrie did was perfectly valid. If you make a public statement, be prepared to back it up. If I made a game about punching (for example) Donald Trump in the face, I would be perfectly happy for any prospective employer to see it. I would stand behind it as a parody/protest/whatever. So fuck Spurr, I have zero sympathy for him. If he doesn't want prospective employers finding out he's a misogynist asshole, he should have made an artistic statement to that effect in public.

Oh, and if you honestly can't understand the difference between a game of punching Sarkeesian or punching Thompson/Bin Laden/Bieber, you're either deluding yourself or you're an idiot.

Oh, and one more thing before I get accused of censorship. I am not in any way saying Spurr should not be able to make that game or it should be banned. I would vehemently defend his right to make and publish such a game, and my right to call him a complete fuckknuckle for doing so.

Now, as for Elliot, I've read several articles now, and all it's done is make depressed for the pathetic state of what is laughably called journalism in that none of them ACTUALLY CONTAINED THE FUCKING TWEETS!

I have no idea if what he said warranted a criminal charge or not, but on balance, his "harassment" doesn't appear to be of a threatening nature. I reserve the right to change my mind either way once I've actually read what he tweeted.

Re. Anita and Bendilin. He freely created a game where you beat up Sarkesian, Guthrie freely pointed to this fact out to his prospective employer. Presumably they exercised their freedom of judgement to decide whether to employ him or not. Freedom. (but not from consequences). Maybe I am missing something, but if he made a game that he didn't want potential employers to see...then, err, yeah.

I don't know anything about the Greg Elliot thing, and I don't know how harassment cases are dealt with in Canada. I'll admit that I've really no idea how you criminalise harassment without it being exploited relatively easily. It should go without saying, but I'll say it anyway, that somebody who uses feminism and false testimony to pursue personal vendettas against somebody who offended them is NOT what the feminist movement is about.

I must say I find it quite ironic for the guy in this video be talking about self-inflicted victimhood. . If there really is a cabal of feminists trying to silence those with differing opinions then, well, for the most part they don't appear to be doing a very good job to me.

This demonstrates why I wouldn't mind picking up little crabs like these, but would run away screaming in horror if faced with the prospect of doing the same with spiders or insects. Crabs don't have any grip, they fall right off your hands. Spiders, however, will stick to your hands, and crawl around and up your sleeve.

Granted, it's stupid and they can and probably should leave most of it out, but the thing is, it's designed to catch, or more importantly discourage, stupid people. There isn't really anything you can do to stop smart people, but thankfully most would-be terrorists are really quite dim witted. That single fact combined with the relatively small pool of prospectives is why there isn't much actual terrorism on planes. This is really directed at them. It's unfortunate that the rest of us need to put up with it. And, of course as I said, I don't think they're doing a real bang up job even of the security theater, but hopefully they'll sort that out.

I had a theory once. It had to do with multi verses. What if bodies of gravity, such as galaxies reacted and multiplied the effects of gravity on they're prospective planes. It would be as if several millions if not billions of Milky Ways were stacked up on each other. Sure there would be "infinite", but the idea is that a number of galaxies would have moved in a different direction or some particular Milky Way didn't form properly...

Anyone else freak out at the prospect of bubbles leaving that sticky shit on your hardware?

Me too... Except that I came to the opposite conclusion, decided it wasn't worth it, and that I actually *would* rather spend the time at home than go to that particular sort of party (the sort where you are hoping to meet new interesting people and/or attractive members of the opposite sex).

On the other hand, a "party" with a relatively small guest list of people that I generally already know and like has always been a much more interesting and attractive prospect for me. In that sort of situation, I don't have any expectations about what I'm going to "get out of" it, other than chatting and hanging out with people I know I like, and occasionally 1-2 other people that I have reason to believe I will like because they came with people I know.

I met my wife at a "party" like that, even though I had no expectations of that happening. So, good things can happen at "parties", but I still figure that is more likely to happen in a scenario where you feel most comfortable rather than one where you're not particularly comfortable but "on the prowl"...

This is a very interesting question that I've thought quite a lot about during my life (to myself, not in any sort of professional capacity).

The conclusions that I have come to (so far) are:
I think that, yes, religion in general terms IS a significant (but it is a stretch to say the ONLY) restraint on a pretty large number of people. Which is a prospect that I personally have a negative and pessimistic reaction to, similar to what it sounds like you do.

However, I think that there are lots of mitigating circumstances. First, many different religions currently provide that restraint to people. And in the past, many many more religions provided it to even more people. Many of those different religions have been very very different. Some have been near polar opposites. That proves that if your goal is restraining people from being utterly evil, and someone suggests that religion has made or is making a noble effort towards that (like your uncle), the positive aspects they are cheering for are not unique to any single religion, or dogma, or whatever.

If one accepts that many many diverse and completely different religions can potentially have the positive effects that we're looking for, then the actual source of those effects can not be something specific to any one religion. Instead, it has to be something that is held in common by all such religions.

Religions are so diverse and different, it might be hard to imagine something that they have in common. No specific god is held in common, even though all the Abrahamic religions might arguably share that aspect. Not even the simple idea of a god or gods or creator is far from universal; Buddhists revere no god.

Yet I believe that there is one easily overlooked thing that all religions DO have in common. Humanity. They all come from flawed but usually well-meaning people.

However, atheists hold that humanity in common with religions as well. And that makes me believe that if we understand humanity better, either through psychology, or empathy, or whatever, we can achieve the positive effects of religions without the religions themselves. Certainly without the stone-age dogmatic nonsense -- which tends to have arguably as many if not more BAD effects as good. This actually gives me great hope for humanity; rather the opposite to the conclusion that I came to originally when pondering the question.

There may always be people who have no empathy, and for whom nothing would serve to restrain them from what humanity at large would easily identify as great evil. No religion will handle such individuals any better than no religion ... so I guess I don't lose any sleep over that.

You are partially correct, I listed the rank of a top submarine officer incorrectly, but not his position, I'm not in the Navy. He was Executive Officer of the first nuclear sub, but only First Lieutenant of the diesel. EDIT: He "qualified for command" of the nuclear sub...probably why I thought "commander" but properly should have said "was in command". Shortly after being assigned to lead the nuclear sub trials, after helping design and build it, he led the American shut down of the Chalk River reactor, lest you continue to insinuate he was an 'armchair warrior' that never held command.
(record below)

◾17? DEC 1948 - 01 FEB 1951 -- Duty aboard USS Pomfret (SS-391) Billets Held: Communications Officer, Electronics Officer, Sonar Officer, Gunnery Officer, First Lieutenant, Electrical Officer, Supply Officer Qualifications: 4 Feb 1950 Qualified in Submarine


◾05 JUNE 1949 -- Promoted to Lieutenant (j.g.)


◾01 FEB 1951 - 10 NOV 1951 -- Duty with Shipbuilding and Naval Inspector of Ordnance, Groton, CT as prospective Engineering Officer of the USS K-1 during precommissioning fitting out of the submarine.


◾10 NOV 1951 - 16 OCT 1952 -- Duty aboard USS K-1(SSK-1) Billets Held: Executive Officer, Engineering Officer, Operations Officer, Gunnery Officer, Electronics Repair Officer Qualifications: Qualified for Command of Submarine Remarks: Submarine was new construction, first vessel of its class


◾01 JUNE 1952 -- Promoted to Lieutenant


◾16 OCT 1952 - 08 OCT 1953 -- Duty with US Atomic Energy Commission (Division of Reactor Development, Schenectady Operations Office) From 3 NOV 1952 to 1 MAR 1953 he served on temporary duty with Naval Reactors Branch, US Atomic Energy Commission, Washington, D.C. "assisting in the design and development of nuclear propulsion plants for naval vessels." From 1 MAR 1953 to 8 OCT 1953 he was under instruction to become an engineering officer for a nuclear power plant. He also assisted in setting up on-the-job training for the enlisted men being instructed in nuclear propulsion for the USS Seawolf (SSN575).


On December 12, 1952, an accident with the experimental NRX reactor at Atomic Energy of Canada's Chalk River Laboratories caused a partial meltdown. The resulting explosion caused millions of liters of radioactive water to flood the reactor building's basement, and the reactor's core was no longer usable.[7] Carter was ordered to Chalk River, joining other American and Canadian service personnel. He was the officer in charge of the U.S. team assisting in the shutdown of the Chalk River Nuclear Reactor.[8] The painstaking process required each team member, including Carter, to don protective gear, and be lowered individually into the reactor to disassemble it for minutes at a time. During and after his presidency, Carter indicated that his experience at Chalk River shaped his views on nuclear power and nuclear weapons, including his decision not to pursue completion of the neutron bomb.[9]

Fashion, like most pursuits that require some narcissism on someone's part (music, theater, art), has plenty of scope to exploit people at both ends of the runway...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/learnvest/2012/09/21/the-finances-and-career-prospects-of-being-a-model/