Lazy bastard, yes, but not too lazy to read these...they were on topic at least....mostly.

Ok, the first one said what I said, that she used the term technically. It's maybe the listeners who don't understand that a 'prostituted woman' may be prostituting herself, so it's not pejorative or denying women having 'agency of their own'.
The second was the same thing, commentary about her saying the words 'prostituted women'.
The third was about the Westburrough Baptist Church?!?! WTF? Yes, it mentions "radical feminists" and derides their puritanical prudeness, but it never mentions Sarkeesian, and never quotes these "radical feminists" to support their claim that they really are puritanical.
I bothered to read all 3, and nothing there was in dispute, she did say sex workers are "prostituted women" (and disgustingly ignored the prostituted men, that uber bitch, burn her!). EDIT: because some took it as " agency-denying code phrase used by sex-worker-eliminationist radical feminists" does not mean it was meant that way, perhaps it was, but I'm not yet convinced. A video of her saying it with disgust on her face and in her voice would convince me....if that matters to you. She's off my radar.
I said originally that I think the term applies, and is only pejorative if the listener thinks selling sex is bad. That's why I can't understand porn stars being upset by it, but could understand them being upset by being called 'dirty whores on film' or something like that.
I still can't say if she meant it in a negative way, only that it's clear that she likely said the words about sex workers, and some took it negatively.

EDIT: I never said she was a good speaker, which is why I'm not a fan. She had a point to make originally, but her style and the over reaction to it overshadowed her cause. That makes her a terrible spokesperson for anything....in case you thought I support her.

CG is fantastic, story doesn't make much sense though. Plus there was already a movie called Leviathan from 1998 (and a 2012 documentary that I never heard of).

How can they have faster-than-light travel technology, and NOT have some kind of radar that would easily track this huge creature?

Need a steerable phased array of microwave emitters, along with the IR-camera. Could evenly heat food with varying water concentrations. A good use of that military radar tech.

The world isn't static.
For example, the J-20, between its stealth capabilities and its ability to jam radar, significantly lowers the range of our BVR radar guided missiles, because our radar guided missiles can't track them beyond a given range.
So you have to get closer - ideally without moving into range of the opponent's missiles.

A Super Hornet (which BTW is an ~entirely new plane compared to the original hornet. It's not an 'upgrade' to an existing airframe.) can't move in closer without exposing itself to fire.

Furthermore, the F35's ability to get closer than conventional fighters makes it 'take point' for information gathering and transmitting data over the network.

Yes, the F35 is has a wasteful inflated budget in large part architected to throw money at political friends - but the vehicle does exist to plug a real hole.

-scheherazade

I thought you were going into the sarcastic for a minute there (as in; "they are obviously much safe now" lol.

This would be pretty useful up high in Afghanistan or on the Syrian border over ISIS; no fuel needs, probably surprisingly hard to shoot down with standard small arms, essentially infinite duration, the ability to have a ground tracking radar mode---Very useful indeed.

I disagree. A-10's do fly low, often below AA capabilities to shoot, or even radar's ability to 'see' them.
They are designed to be tank busters, so not really the ideal equipment against militia, but would actually be useful against Iran and N Korea (after we smart bomb their AA emplacements and radar...just in case) which both have tons of older tanks, the kind the A-10 is designed to destroy. They worked great against Saddam, and he had the largest tank army in the world and plenty of AA (at the beginning)!

EDIT: Since no one else did, I'll have to mention my favorite thing about the A-10, which is that it's 'gun' is so powerful that it must be used in small bursts, because it significantly slows the plane down and could cause it to stall! That's just awesome!

good film. definitely flew under most peoples radar.

My thought was actually to have multiple projectors per block approximately 10 feet up (building mounted) with sensors to identify people and have them 'place' a smallish ball of light at about 8-10 feet up that floats above and in front of them, but with much less light needed than a 'street light'...and maybe stationary one's in intersections (these could even have 'covers' to stop wasted light from going up). Or, it could project tiny lights (like in the video) near ground level to illuminate the sidewalk, but that's not as useful by far.
By my estimation, there could be less pollution because there would be fewer, smaller lights on at any one time (where normal lights are just ON all night). I agree, there are many issues to solve, but it's doable if thought about thoroughly.
It's a little too late to worry about 'light pollution'...in fact I bet it's not on the average person's radar. Sadly, many people in cities have never seen stars at night and don't have a clue how much is hidden from them. (I live in the boonies of far N cali, and we still have light pollution from nearby towns, but nothing like in a city...I've even watched the international space station get re-supplied while sitting in my hot tub! That was amazing!).

Unfortunately nobody here can really do anything about the fact that the main character of Super Mario Bros. is a man, you'll have to take that up with Nintendo. Making such a change today wouldn't be too difficult I'm sure, but back in 1985 I doubt such things were even on anybody's radar.
Which brings me to my next point, if Miyamoto wasn't even considering player gender as being a big issue then I doubt Mario was born out of a malicious desire to debase women(so no Warioesque mustache twirling then). The damsel in distress story is probably as old as storytelling itself, yes, it's a trope. Stories can enlighten us, make us think, make us feel, and of course entertain us; but we should not allow them to define us. I think that's a crucial difference between my beliefs Sarkeesian's, she wants to use the media to tell us how to think, act and believe, where I think we are perfectly capable of deciding that for ourselves.

Nope, this does not slip quietly under the radar. It's 2001, goddamnit!

*promote

Not happening, not on my watch!!

Numbers don't tell the whole story, do they? Were all of those deaths ruled as unjustified?

According to an article at propublica, as many as 440,000 deaths per year are attributed to poor medical care in hospitals. So what are you doing to do, take all the doctor's scalpels away?

This video shows a cop trying to find marijuana, which is still illegal in most states. What this video doesn't show is the amount of stolen property that is recovered by the same technique, which is bluffing. But of course, people who commit burglaries and thefts don't videotape the encounters they have with police officers.

Today, more and more people are learning their rights and exercising them, and fewer busts are made through bluffing. But the police will adjust to it.

When I worked the road, I didn't give a crap about speeders, so didn't run radar or laser, and I didn't really care about marijuana because alcohol is far more dangerous to people, but I did bust a couple of bikers from a biker gang trying to sell a grocery bag full of marijuana. They also had a 9mm, which would have been used to a criminal manner, I'm sure. By the way, they got off of the marijuana charge because the judge said I didn't have enough probably cause to make the stop, even though I knew through observation that they were up to something highly suspicious.
how'd you like to buy your grass from a biker with a semi-auto on him?

I know, when I was buying grass in my college days, I didn't buy it from bikers, but a lot of people do.

Pakistan, yes. I think we have at least a small force there. Not at all sure about the others, but likely we've got some there.
Those are not the only places we've droned, not even the places we've droned the most. Try Afghanistan and Iraq. You just hear about it more when we do it in places we aren't technically 'at war' with.

It makes little difference what the delivery system of the explosive is, that's why I always wondered what the big deal is about suicide bombers. They're just another delivery system, a low tech, radar cloaked delivery system. It's the bombing/indiscriminate killing that matters. Right? Not the delivery system.

Drones have their proper uses, and improper uses. Bombing someone you can see is setting up a booby trap to kill you or allies is appropriate. Bombing people based on their height is an improper use. This has little to do with the drone, and more to do with the leadership and their 'rules' for who's a target. For me, it's not about 'drone vs manned aircraft' though, it's 'giant bomb vs precision assassination'.

Do you think Obama is watching a little screen deciding 'bomb that guy, and that building'? He is not involved at that level, and you know it. I don't trust a disinterested tech thousands of miles removed from their actions to do the right thing, they've proven they can't be trusted, and they're the one's that matter in this instance. That said, if there were much better rules for engagement and they were draconically enforced, I would have little problem with keeping expensive planes and pilots out of danger.

Your video, Weather Radar Captures Stunning Dawn "Torrent" of Birds, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Both sides have conclusive proof that it was the other side, so... Aliens?

Jokes aside, if it really was a Gadfly, there has to have been radar activity specific to that type of SAM. Given the ongoing military activity in that zone, someone must have recorded it, be it a ground station or an airborne surveillance platform. Everone's going to try to spin the flow of information to their use, so we might not get to see it for a few decades, but still...

The term is insulting, but I think it should be. I would say it draws attention to a behavior that could just be innocent or non-intentional or it could be that the person is a real condescending a-hat that needs to be called out and deserves ridicule.

The term popped up on my radar not that long ago. It's interesting understanding the nuances better so thanks!