You would not believe how much attention the media over here spend on his appearance and overall attitude. Shaves his head, doesn't tug his shirt in, doesn't wear a tie, drives a motorcycle... a rockstar by every measure.

There were regular forecasts that the chicken would come home to roost for him any day now; that the public would recognise his responsibility in their suffering and that they would turn against them.

And every single time, the public cheered him on even more. The press couldn't understand it at all. What a glorious fella he is, throwing the entire establishment out of balance like this. Maybe someone should project his face onto the ECB monstrocity in Frankfurt at night, just to rub it in.

Anyways, I don't have a clue why he resigned. There are several rumours, but beyond that, nothing solid.

As for the comments: they are my way of processing my rage. Doesn't work particularly well though, I'm still pissed off. But it's nice to hear that it provides a different perspective for some folks.

I totally have that!
I love watching shaving and Indian head massage videos. I get goosebumps all over from them.

History is littered with people who tried amazing things and payed a heavy price for it. I think the world would be a much more boring place without those people.

And I'm sure you can remember many times in your life where you survived something silly only to think back later "What the fuck was I thinking???". I know I've had more than a few close shaves where my life could have ended and become one of those cautionary tales on the evening news.

Great title, and I concur ... definitely that is the proper way to shave off a beard.

Only wish I could grow mine as epic as that!

Your video, Tormund Giantsbane Demonstrates How to Shave Off A Beard, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 3 Badge!

"Shave and a haircut" at 1:29 haha

Adrenaline rushes aren't dangerous if they're done properly. Personally I'm going to make sure my little boy is exposed to plenty of 'scary' things as he grows up so he can learn about risk and how to assess/handle it properly.

I saw a great documentary about this with Danny MacAskill called Daredevils: Life On The Edge. It looked at adrenaline junkies and investigated why they do what they do. At the end of the program there's a really nice choreographed sequence with MacAskill and various others performing tricks as they descend down the step into an underground station in London, and through the station itself.

The sequence was directed by a hollywood stunt specialist who has worked with all the top guys in big blockbuster movies and he said that the stuntmen and women, far from what most people think, are the least likely people in the world to do something risky. There are two parts to this. Firstly they've learned how to be very good at assessing risk. They understand extremely well what makes something safe or risky. They've had a lot of experience and have learned from it.

Secondly they are very highly skilled. What would be very risky for us to do isn't for them because they have the training to perform safely. We only think what they're doing is dangerous because we ourselves would be very likely to be hurt doing it.

If you insulate a kid from risky experiences you deny them the chance to learn in a controlled environment. It's like teaching a kid to cook. If you look after them really well and provide everything they need and cook them fantastic nutritious meals every day until they leave home they'll love you immensely for it. Then they'll move out, try to look after themselves and end up burning the house down with a pan fire or cut the end of their finger off with a knife or shave the skin off their hand with a grater.

Teach a kid how to use a sharp knife safely and how to sharpen it and keep it keen and they'll be safe for the rest of their life. Kids should be able to use sharp knives, under strict supervision of course, to learn the safe way of doing it. They should be doing 'dangerous' things to learn to do them safely. Part of the learning process is probably going to hurt. They may well get a few cuts before they get their knife skills up to scratch, but if they're in a controlled environment these should be small compared to the injuries that happen when someone with no idea about knives forces a blunt one through something tough.

As for adrenaline sports, the more they fall over the better they learn to balance. If this kid goes on a bit of a bigger slide and gets thrown off in the corners it's going to hurt, but it's not going to kill him. He'll find his limits and respect them more.

I'd rather my kid makes his mistakes while I'm still around to clear up the mess

I'm intrigued by the different strategies they seem to have taken with regards to different markets.

The US market has been covered here already. Living off the grid, buffer for power outages, etc.

But they appear to market the Powerwall as a decentralized buffer system for our regional/national grid, as a means to shave off the spikes in power usage at times when both wind and solar fail to meet expectations. Seems like a virtual power plant of Powerwalls would be an alternative to gas turbine plants. Add some pumped-storage hydroelectricity in Norway and the Alps, and the need for standby power plants would be vastly reduced.

Additionally, they are probably aiming at the time when diminishing feed-in tariffs for PV panels make it more attractive to charge batteries instead of feeding into the grid.

However, even if they manage to sell only a handful of Powerwalls, it'll force all the other players to get off their fat asses for once. Politics managed to kill the local solar industry and the big players came up with fuck all in terms of meaningful innovation over the last years.
Yes, I'm looking at you, Siemens!

Sorry for my honesty. That's really all I can ever say.

I'm a serious control freak like before you date me sign this contract and shave twice a day. Always comb, etc. Etc. All I can say is that's just the way it is.

Earth, a land where obsession dominates. Blame my lord and master Satan on these problems. Amen.

It's wind resistance, it makes a massive difference. When they're really far apart the rear driver is just driving better and shaving time off the lead, so he catches up, but once there it's down to drafting to get the little burst of speed to get alongside. The carts are probably approximately equal in power, so he reaches level from the draft position easily enough, but can't keep the momentum to get a lead with the new air resistance on him, just draw level. So they're level, but obviously there's only one sweet racing line to take to keep your speed up and lap time down. You can either pass on the outside (in which case you have to go faster into the turn to stay ahead) or the inside (in which case you have to turn sharper at speed to stay ahead) both of which are risky, or you can return safely to the racing line - i.e. not by swerving into him, but by conceding the lead to him and dropping in behind him. If you do that, you take less risk and give yourself the chance to try again because you're in draft position again. He needs to stay as close as he can and find the right place to overtake so that his superior driving can give him the lead into the racing line of the next corner, at which point he gets right of way and the position advantage the lead gives. Sometimes that's not even possible and lead to what some would call boring races (Monaco Grand Prix) where the leader is decided on the first corner and doesn't change unless they crash out.

I'll draw two parallels:
1. DRS in F1 racing, where a tiny part of the tail opens up for a small part of the track, which drastically increases speed and allows for more interesting races because it almost ensures overtaking. You can also see the same application of the racing line and people conceding position or trying to take different lines and spinning out or locking up.
2. In cycling, the commonly quoted figure is that you can save 40% of your energy by drafting behind a leading cyclist. The Tour de France and every other cycling road race is defined by drafting, cos no lone cyclist would ever be able to keep pace with the peloton which 'cycles' riders in and out of the wind-protected bunch throughout a day. This should convince you more as cyclists are not streamlined objects but still offer significant gains. Go and watch a cycling sprint finish - it's a case of whoever gets behind the fastest guy wins by conserving energy in his wake until it's time to burst out alongside and pass.

About 15 months ago, at a conference in Austin aptly titled "Can the Eurozone be saved?", my favorite Greek mathematician/economist Yanis Varoufakis made center stage with his "Modest Proposal".

Now that he's in charge of Greece's finances, the media is firing broadside after broadside at him, trying their best to discredit the man. Doesn't even wear a tie, shaves his head, wears biker jackets, has a temper... the usual ad hominem bullshit. Yet it only took him three days to give the debate a new direction. Calling the austerity program "fiscal waterboarding" was a stroke of genius.

Him and Tsipras created the first crack in this bubble of lunacy that we call Eurozone. Someone might even realize that the Emperor is, in fact, naked.

Oh, and my personal word of the week: Stahlhelmökonom

(lit.: steel helmet economist, as in "a level of denial and ignorance made famous by the German military on the Eastern front" applied to economics)

Then slow down with theories of our impending demise, the IPCC doesn't support it. You want to talk about not denying the science, then you don't get to preach gloom and doom. Don't claim a large percentage of farmland is going to be lost to sea level rise by 2100. Don't claim coastlines are going to be pushed back 10 miles by a worst case 1 foot rise of sea level by 2100.

We are talking about advancements solving problems like a maximum sea level rise of a foot in the next 100 years, with best guesses being lower than that. I think it's modest to suggest our children's children will have figured out how to raise the dikes around places like New Orleans by a foot in the next 100 years.
The concord and moon trips are no longer happening because they are expensive. We can do them if we needed to, and more easily than the first time around. Finding out people aren't willing to pay the premium to shave an hour off their flight doesn't mean the technology no longer exists. Just because America no longer needs to prove they can lift massive quantities of nuclear warheads into orbit doesn't mean we couldn't still go to the moon again if it was needed. There's just no reason to do it, the tech exists still none the less.
Yes, there are social problems that confound the use of new technology. You fail to notice that is also the problem with feeding everybody. Food production isn't the problem, but rather the men with guns that control distribution. Stalin's mass starvation of millions was a social problem, not climate change or technology. Mao's was the same. North Koreas the same. All over Africa is the same. We have more than enough food, and plenty of charities work hard to send food over to places like Africa. Once the food gets there though the men with guns take most of it and people still starve. The reason Africa has so many crop failures is the violent displacement of the farmers. Exactly the same problem that saw millions starve in Russia, China and North Korea.
You are right that a changing climate could compound Africa's ag industry a bit, but it's a small hit compared to the violent displacement problem. Also, don't neglect to consider to impact of meaningful CO2 emission restrictions around the globe. A large scale global economic downturn probably means a lot more war, bloodshed, and starvation. If you do not reduce emissions enough to trigger that downturn and instead just 'marginally', you get stuck with both because Africa is still going to see virtually the same climate changes through the next hundred years.

And if you are worried about losing the glaciers in the Himalayas by 2100 there is very good reason to believe that's gonna be alright:
http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S41/39/84Q12/index.xml?section=topstories

not shaved. waxed.

Well, she's a person with an agreeable form, and I've never ruled women out for their faults, be they inverted breasts, buck teeth or tattoos. Best sex I ever had was with a tatted up buck toothed woman that didn't shave her armpits.