SNL Hair & Makeup Quick Change: Roller Coaster Accident -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8496Q8xVjI

Asinine whining.

As was written in the obituary being referenced, he was once an austere religious scholar. The quickly changed headline was a cut and paste mistake, which was immediately replaced with "extremist leader". Get over it idiot snowflakes. No matter what the WaPo does, these morons will twist it to try to make it seem negative.

Now, @bobknight33, please explain why Trump notified the Russians ahead of the operation but ignored his lawful obligation to notify Congress. The answer is obvious, he believes he works for Putin/ the Russians and not America. His moronic excuse, that congress would have leaked it so he couldn't tell them, is not only just dumb, it's wrong and illegal, and doesn't make a whit of sense since he did tell our enemies-Russia and Syria. If congress had leaked anything about the secret operation before it was declassified, he could and would have insisted the DOJ prosecute them for releasing top secret info....and exposing top secret information is something Trump has done repeatedly, once directly telling Russian ambassadors top secret information that did irreparable harm to ongoing intelligence gathering against Daesh, then declassifying it after the fact.

Which mistake makes zero difference, and which is an intentional attack against American law, our government, and the constitution?

Liberals applauding a murderer with a gun when its their hide being saved.

Funny how liberals quickly change their mind when its their life on the line, then it's ok to have a gun.

Yeah, he used a CO2 canister-based pump. Very handy for quick changes, but you need to be careful to do as he do and aim upwards when inflating (downward facing = greater chance of freezing inner tube - from experience). Note: Depending on temperatures and canister size (12g, 16g etc), CO2 canisters often only get you back up to 80-90PSI, which may or may not be enough for your setup


This was a great (and impressive) display. As someone who has changed HUNDREDS of flatties, my ramblings, FWIW:
- The tyre/rim combo can often mean removal (and reseating) of the tyre is a PITA, due to slightly small ID tyre bead and slightly oversize RIM OD. Inevitably this requires n+1 tyre levers, with n being the number you have in your pocket (tip: wheel quick releases make good emergency tyre levers at a pinch)
- 30 seconds spent identifying/removing source of puncture (glass/wire/thorn) saves many minutes of rework when you get another puncture a minute later from the bastard wire strand you didnt look hard enough for
- always carry a patch kit (or 1-2 of the self-adhesive sticky instant patches). Two punctures on one ride is rare but it happens and being stranded out of cell coverage then trying to peel off bar tape to seal a puncture is a way to ruin a good ride
- Replace old tyres. There is an exponential growth curve that describes the relationship between tyre age to incidence of punctures. Old tyres are the single most effective way to spend lots of time on the side of the road yelling

>> ^jonny:

dead


Fixed and thanks.

>> ^critical_d:

I have my books
And my poetry to protect me;
I am shielded in my armor,
Hiding in my room, safe within my womb.
I touch no one and no one touches me.
I am a rock,
I am an island.


Exactly what I thought of, critical_d!

What a load of crap.

I don't often side with the cops but this guy (driver) is a genuine waste of taxpayer money. If he's driving around using a bull horn and blowing off at cops while driving, I would argue he IS a distracted driver.

I think it's funny that the second the supervisor showed up his story quickly changes from "I mayyyy or mayy not have been using a blow horn." I would further argue that this attempt to cover up his actions is consciousness of guilt.


Edit: On a side note, I hate the fact that he's throwing around his military credentials like he shouldn't be subject to the same laws as any other American.

No one on the left criticized Stossel when he was questioning private industry. But when he turned his floodlight on government fraud and waste and liberal organizations, that quickly changed.

HA, wow, I don't know where to start on this one. First off, I was feeling super good and fun about my reply, lighthearted and playful if you will. Then you go and paint this grim picture of my "life" and world view, thanks!

My world view isn't popular? Even though I debate as to how true this statement is, it isn't even relevant. Eating sushi may or may not be popular, but hardly a meaningful event. Even more so when that is exactly the conversation we are having, majorities silencing out minorities.

I want mine to be accepted is true in a sense, but ultimately isn't my chief concern. Everyone thinks they are right, or else they would change their mind (with some exceptions). Either that, or they choose to remain agnostic. But ultimately, "I" don't want people to believe me, I would want them to accept it on their own. My days of prosthelytizing are done. But, when people misrepresent or my views aren't represented I feel as if something is missing. Many times on these threads you get the same reinforced thoughts which over time start to lack proper consideration of different elements. It is nice to break those up and make sure you don't trap yourself into a type of thinking without room to consider other things. It is the only reason I post on these types of usually fruitless threads. In the hopes that it does blossom into a meaningful conversation, usually both parties are left wanting.

To your third point, that seems to be even more grandiose than I would ever dare. I don't care about "the masses" of people swooning to my footsteps. Mainly I care about those 2-20 people that I regularly interact with, you included! If our conversation doesn't enlighten either one of us, then we waste our time and energy!

Revolution is always the answer! But that doesn't necessitate that it be a violent one. There have been many a intellectual revolution that fired narry a shot! But if you want real structural change of powers and whatnot, people do not usually cede power with grace. To be clear, I am not a violent man, I can't even stand the sight of my own blood. It was merely a commentary on the human condition that has driven the past 7000 years of recorded human history, that change usually is violent. It isn't desirable, but it seems to be par for course.

What I described wasn't how liberty undermines itself, but how in the current expression of it does. Pure democracy seems to me to be only a temporary reprieve from moral dictation. In time, groups overpower each other and make rules the other can't quickly change and thus spirals out of control. This isn't to say that all systems of liberty will undermine themselves, but things with pure democracy at the core seem to trend that way. The jury is out, perhaps we can save this one, but for certain, it is in need of saving.

As to the belief that 2 heads are better than one; for certain, they are at some tasks. Get 300 million heads try and figure out what they want for dinner though, and your asking for a hard time! For certain, some place were we can all address common issues HAS to exist. I mean, it just has to! My only problem has always been who gets to do that. For me, I would always prefer it not be the people with the guns. Sometimes it has to be them, but sometimes I think the job falls to them because of reasoning that I think runs counter those root things that we wanted to protect. Anyway, it is late and I ramble.

In the end, I wanted to say that I found your comments slightly persnickety, but perhaps I brought it on myself. I was being silly and playful and not knowing me better it could be taken as trying to knock wind out of you sail...which I wasn't trying to do. So my apologies if I was sounding like an ass, I meant to be a funny ass!

My take on the ending was the same as Sarzy's. What happened on the island really happened, and what happened in the alternate reality was not purgatory or punishment, it was more of a Coda. The love fest in the sanctuary at the end was way too happy and non-denominational to be mistaken for grim Catholic mythology.

In general, I found the show to be more of a wild, unpredictable ride than a tight believable narrative. At many points in the show, the writers were clearly making it up as they went, but because of the creativity of the writers and the strength of the characters, it worked just fine. Most of the unanswered questions probably had no real answers to begin with. The writers just thought it would be cool to put a four toed statue and a couple of polar bears* on the island. Fair enough, coolness is cool.

BSG, on the other hand, took it's story and characters much more seriously. The narrative was much tighter, making a satisfying ending that much more important to me and tougher for the writers - and boy did they fail badly.

Lost avoided those expectations. Lost managed to stretch my suspended disbelief so far (without alienating me), that they could have pretty much done whatever they wanted with the ending, as long as it was cool, exiting, suspenseful, weird or otherwise entertaining. So the ending didn't carry the same importance for me as it did for BSG.

Anyway, those hours watching Lost were well spent, and the finale was a nice way to say goodbye to the lovable and lovably hateable characters that brought this thing to life.

KP, you'd probably dig this show if you gave it a chance. I felt the same way that you did, but quickly changed my mind last august when it came to Netflix streaming. It's a very unique show that can't really be understood without jumping in feet first.

*Yes, I know they explained the polar bears**.
**They were used for experiments carried out by the Dharma initiative.

First off, thanks for replying. I enjoy these conversations. They give me lots of great things to think about and explore.

Now, I think you unintentionally changed my argument. My argument wasn't "How does science explain why I like sugar?" I know people like sugary foods already. My point was that science cannot tell me why it is that of all the yummy flavors of ice cream out there, I like chocolate chip mint best. This, by the way, is not a technical limitation of science. Science can, as you noted in your post, provide an explanation as to why I prefer eating ice cream to say, spinach. It can indeed tell me about all the processes that occur in my brain (which areas get activated, what chemicals get released, etc.) when I eat chocolate chip mint ice cream. The problem is that these processes will not be the same for all people who eat chocolate chip mint ice cream.

So what we have here, then, are people experiencing that same exact objective event--we're all eating the same ice cream--and getting different results. Science is utterly unprepared to deal with this situation. Science only works in a situation in which objective knowledge can be obtained. It shouldn't matter who is doing the measuring--you should get the same result. Yet in this situation, we have multiple people "measuring" (ie tasting ice cream) and getting different results depending on the person.

To truly answer the question of why I like chocolate chip mint best, we are forced to refer to subjective knowledge and explore my personal life history up to this point, including things like my experiences, feelings, attitudes, likes and dislikes, etc. These things cannot be measured. How do you measure an experience? How could you possibly understand what I meant by without being me--having access to all of my memories, thoughts, feelings, EVERYTHING that is me? The answer is simple: you couldn't. I could explain to you in crude terms that I like chocolate chip mint better than chocolate chip by only a little bit, but you will never be able to "know" exactly what I mean "by only a little bit" (without being me, that is).

Your argument is that this problem is simply a technical matter, but I'm curious if you've taken that view to its logical conclusion--that we have no free will and are simply automatons that function at the whim of electrical impulses and chemical reactions in the brain. If science truly could explain to me why I like chocolate chip mint ice cream over say pistachio without taking into account my subjective experiences, then subjective experiences would have no meaning at all. Is that really what you're suggesting?

Let me next address a couple of unspoken assumptions you made in your reply to me. One seems to be that people of faith stop searching for answers because they believe in a god or higher power. But here clearly we have significant counter-evidence to your belief--namely in the vast number of scientists who are also believers in some religion (see this article). As scientists, they must continue to look for answers and re-evaluate new evidence as it arises, which seems to run counter to your assumption.

Another assumption seems to be that science and "rational thinking" makes people less likely to believe in religion. Again, see the previous article, which shows the percentage of scientists believe in religion hasn't changed so much despite the advances in science from 1916 to 1997 (when the second study was done). Are there religious people who are closed-minded and refuse to re-evaluate new evidence as it arises? Absolutely. But that is not a characteristic of many religious people and therefore your assumption would be an over-generalization.

Now, on to your next assumption--that no one will cry over the loss of dark matter. While I agree that in an ideal world, this would be true, I think you and I can agree the world we live in would be far from ideal. Science takes a great deal of time to change. The very skepticism that science holds so dear also puts the brakes on quick change in consensus within the scientific community. People will refuse to change their beliefs quickly. Experimental data will be checked and re-checked and I'm sure criticisms will be made about experiment design and other factors. Few experiments are performed that are so well designed as to be able to defy criticism. Skepticism doesn't just require evidence for belief, it requires overwhelming evidence and hence any change will be slow (there are still scientists arguing against global warming).

Ironically, I think you could look at religious people as reverse-skeptics. Where a skeptic will not believe anything without overwhelming evidence to support it, a religious person will not change their belief in something without overwhelming evidence that the belief is wrong. And this, I suppose, is the main reason why skeptics and believers simply cannot agree with each other. There is not enough (I would say any, actually) reliable evidence (objective or subjective) to convince either side. How could there be? Most skeptics discount subjective knowledge (their own included) right from the start. Everyone is arguing over apples and oranges.

Now, by all means, when someone says the world is 6000 years old, or that Jesus walked with dinosaurs, or that evolution is "just a theory," by all means take these people to task. They're wandering about in the realm of objective knowledge where science reigns supreme. But when someone says they believe in something (religion, Democracy, volunteering, world peace, whatever), demanding they show objective evidence of their belief and ridiculing them if they can't meet your arbitrary standard of proof (science requires overwhelming evidence, but there's no clear definition of how much is enough) is just plain wrong in my opinion.

In reply to this comment by BicycleRepairMan:
Perhaps, but no religious apologist I've ever heard has managed to convince me of that. Thats my whole point. If a believer came to me saying something like "we have independent statistics showing a significant benefit of prayer among cancer patients", that would be the kind of thing that might make me admit that belief in god was a rational and logical decision.

To your point about chocolate preference, I wouldn't be as sure, it may be a technical limitation rather than an absolute one. We already know why people tend to like chocolate, for instance (evolved sugar craving) its a tad more tricky to find out the specifics of your particular taste, but if we fully understood every detail of the brain, it might not be impossible, even without actually being you. Either way, Chocolate is a perfect example of how our subjective experience fails us: Because our ancestors lived in environments where sugar was a rarity, our bodies treat every carbohydrate molecule like it was the jackpot, basically our bodies telling us "Sugar in large quantities is great for you" Well its not, and thats a perfect example of how objective knowledge and scientific thinking always prevail over the subjective assumptions we make.

Which brings me to the point about the sun moving across the sky, which is again were science triumphs: Yes, the default assumption was that the sun, moon and stars moved around the earth, but the important part of the story is that as scientists and curious apes as we are, we arent happy just making assumptions and stop there, we keep investigating, as we will do with dark matter, it may be the best assumption we currently have, but thats not the important thing, the important thing about science is that we keep trying to figure out exactly whats going on, and if that means scrapping the whole idea about dark matter, no scientist will shed a tear, (just like we didnt when it turned out we werent the center of the universe) we will rejoice in our deeper understanding of things.

>> ^SDGundamX:

What you see as a leap-of-faith may be to the experiencer a perfectly rational and logical decision.

>> ^Sarzy:
^Exactly. (or in internet speak, "This.")
I had the same problems with the front page as described above when it changed over to "hotness." A quick change over to newness makes the front page act exactly as it did before (ie. almost entirely new videos all the time, other than what's been recently promoted). I personally think it should still be the default way to view the front page.


I always have mine set to newness, and there are still days when 90% of the posts on the front page are ancient videos that were promoted.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

The problem we had, when "new" was the only available view - was that things were making it to the front page and sliding off before people had a chance to see them. "Hot" was our solution to point people towards things that were trending upward. It's a problem of information organization that we haven't quite solved yet.>> ^Sarzy:
^Exactly. (or in internet speak, "This.")
I had the same problems with the front page as described above when it changed over to "hotness." A quick change over to newness makes the front page act exactly as it did before (ie. almost entirely new videos all the time, other than what's been recently promoted). I personally think it should still be the default way to view the front page.

^Exactly. (or in internet speak, "This.")

I had the same problems with the front page as described above when it changed over to "hotness." A quick change over to newness makes the front page act exactly as it did before (ie. almost entirely new videos all the time, other than what's been recently promoted). I personally think it should still be the default way to view the front page.

I think this cuts to the core of Republican beliefs and the whole evangelical Christian movement being all about deference to political and religious leadership.

It's clear it even comes at the cost of their core beliefs. Bush was able to run on a non-interventionist foreign policy and quickly change lanes on such a key issue and yet keep the base of the party on the same page. Obama on the other hand is getting assailed from the left for even proposing the loose idea of prolonged detention and military tribunals.

The same is true of religion. Prominent televangelists can get away with saying atrocious things counter to general moderate perceptions of religion without any backlash.

And because of this point of view in their own party, they in turn reflect and expect the same manner of discourse in the Democratic party. When they turn to criticise evolution they insist on calling people who disagree with Darwinists because they assume that any opposing view is propped up by that same dogmatic loyalty.

The same things happens when it turns to politics as seen in this discussion. I mean the guy makes what is a pretty obvious Freudian slip, but his general values stop him from being able to admit what he's really thinking.