Misleading title. Didn't take out the road; it was clearly still standing at the end of the video.

*dead removed by user ... guess he got discovered. From King 5 News in Seattle July 24, 2014:

Seattle's iconic Space Needle is still standing after police received reports of a drone crash at the popular tourist attraction Tuesday night.

The Seattle Police Department Blotter says witnesses reported seeing a small drone buzz around the top of the Space Needle and possibly crash into an observation deck window. Witnesses said the drone - described as a white quad-propeller unmanned aerial vehicle equipped with a camera - then glided to a nearby hotel, where it landed inside a fifth floor room.

Police said no damage was found at the Space Needle.

Investigators tracked the drone to a guest staying at the hotel. The man told police he flew his drone past the Needle, but claims it didn't hit anything. He showed video from the drone's flight, which showed people waving from the observation deck but no collision into the Needle.

The man told police he was an Amazon employee visiting from out of state and had bought the drone at a hobby shop. After police educated the man about Seattle's recent drone-related controversies, the guest agreed to not fly his drone again during his visit to Seattle.

Whatever you say, but my point still stands. She's not the greatest athlete that can do this, there are many many women that can do this.

Wait...did they have cameras on you? Were you broadcast? Are you attractive? There are several layers...you can get in line for American Idol, that doesn't mean anything for the actual SHOW.

Like I said, she's there for a reason.

No arguments there on the good at math idea not being funny... I never suggested such an option. What would have been good funny alternative bits for Colbert to have done could be a separate conversation I think (good satire punches up, etc).
I appreciate your personal note. It indeed jives with what one of my Asian American friends told me- they don't find particularly offensive either. This friend also mentioned that their experience is not equal to every Asian American experience though. For others, it seems that it stings quite significantly. So I don't think this is case closed.

The question I posed with my analogy still stands -- while this is not true for yourself or my friend, for some people of Asian descent, "the Ching Ching ding dong foundation for cultural sensitivity" might be offensive on a level similar to how it would have been for Blacks if he had used "The cotton-picking nigger foundation for cultural sensitivity". How many? Maybe that number is at 10%. Maybe that number is at .1%. Maybe that number is at 50%. I have no idea. How do we as a society figure whether that is the case? I think we do it by having a big old dialog where a lot of people of Asian descent are involved.

Instead what I see is a whole lot of posturing, sabre-rattling, and band wagon jumping from people that are not of Asian decent and therefore have no personal experience with this particular form of racism to bring to bear on the matter. Those people should be primarily listening and asking questions, not posturing and sabre-rattling.

Thank you, generous human being. You are a shining example of the grace, humbleness and Flow of Energy.

[I thought I was on my own page and missed this gift. HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA. Still, on behalf of the radx, the thanks still stand.]

Do you think The Wire paid for their production assistants' healthcare? Did they make more than the $50/day for their 12 hour days (if they weren't working for free as "interns" for the 'privilege' of 'paying their dues' in 'the industry')?

Haha, of course, "liberals" get a pass from other "liberals", but no pass for the Kochtopus (even though the Kochs give way more money to charities than The Wire would even be able to). Plus, The Wire gets a PR benefit that they need in order to film in Baltimore in the first place so I assure you that their reasons aren't purely altruistic.

"but they continuously ran charity after charity, on top of the money the production poured into the local economy."

How does this top Koch? Or the Waltons? Or, the other David Simon? Or Perkins. Are you keeping track of who contributes to what or not and how much?

How is one David Simon "contributing" more than the other one?
And why should he get a hypocrisy "free pass?" (Especially when this hypocrisy amounts to just another PR stunt.)

"His point about a lack of guilt, the shamelessness on part of two mentioned individuals, still stands though."

Yeah? Like you know (the other) David Simon and can vouch for his "lack of guilt?" And "guilt" about what? Having money? Being successful?

"So if a privileged individual actively weakens society to further increase his own wealth"

Does he? Really? How? And how are you doing more for "society" than that? Who are you and what exactly is your great "contribution" to society?

Since the 'inequality' hobgoblin keeps making appearances, this article may help put that to rest.

Two main causes of inequality: profit (good) and central bank currency inflation (bad). When you (or anyone else) profit, you increase income 'inequality', in a good way. When central banks inflate currency, they create income 'inequality,' in a bad way. Let's not conflate one with the other. And anyone so misinformed as to ignore central banks as the overwhelming source of undesirable income inequality cannot really contribute much to the debate or to providing solutions. All other remedial measures that ignore the main cause will not only fail but create countless new problems.

No idea how much he is worth. But The Wire in general, and David Simon in particular, were involved in the financing of food banks and rehab centers in Balitimore. They couldn't skim it off their budget, unlike other individuals do for personal purposes, but they continuously ran charity after charity, on top of the money the production poured into the local economy.

If I remember correctly, they also left sizable accounts and donations during and after their runs, so I'd be willing to give him a pass where hypocrisy is concerned.

His point about a lack of guilt, the shamelessness on part of two mentioned individuals, still stands though.

During the first part, Simon specifically mentions that any additional income of his, particularly in form of tax brakes, does the economy no good. "You can only have so many yachts" is a rather fitting hyperbole in this case. So if a privileged individual actively weakens society to further increase his own wealth -- which is already at harmful levels, economically speaking --, the lack of guilt and shame becomes incomprehensible to many people, myself included.

And if a privileged individual then tops it off by likening his treatment to that of Jews in '30s/'40s Germany... well, sociopathic is one way to describe it. We all live in our own bubbles, but their perception of reality truly is disconnected to such a degree that almost makes me pity them. Almost.

I have played Blood Dragon.....3 times now.


@9547bis 's point still stands. 80's revivalism/nostalgia has been with us before either this or Blood dragon (I'm pretty mad into my "retro synthwave" at the moment)

Blood Dragon has
No Nazis
No Thor
No "Hacking through time"
No Bright red 80' sports cars
No Vakyrie warrior maidens

i.e. basically anything in common other than being inspired by the cheesiest elements of a particular decade.

Plus Blood dragon while also being very very silly had a somewhat more realistic edge to it than this and draws more on war and sci-fi films & games. Rather than the broader action & kung fu film strokes in this trailer.

I'm not saying there can't have been maybe a touch of inspiration/motivation from blood dragon, but the material they have produced so far bears no resemblance to me of a rip off in any way shape or form.


It's like saying The Last Starfighter was a rip off of Starwars.
Last Starfighter may have been motivated by the success of Starwars but the resulting film felt entirely original (well as original as any standard format hero epic).

I kinda saw it as being presented as comedy that becomes tragedy that becomes horror. Dark stuff. Sagemind hit the nail on the head for me. And thanks shatterdose, but I did know about the AP thing. I saw an earlier bit that was on the Daily Show or Conan (or both) on the sift that was a very similar view of the news as press release reading pod-clones. I was TFWO by that vid too.

But even though I know the apparent reason for why this content exists, in droves, my initial statement still stands: What, the actual, fuck?!!

It's 190 degrees in Farenheit. In Celsius that's only 88 degrees. It's well below boiling and I dare say most of us do handle boiling water regularly.

I agree her story is an important cautionary tale and reminder just how dangerous boiling water can be. I do NOT believe it means that selling boiling or near boiling water to customers should be considered unethical and reckless. Boiling water is a common enough substance, and well enough understood that hands down the responsibility for handling it properly should fall with the user.

I guess I still stand with the idea that suing somebody for selling you boiling water because you later spill it on yourself is as stupid an idea to me now as ever.

The players near the strike who were still standing and fine most-likely were in mid-trot and not grounded-

Peeps still play in there?? I joined it to check it out back in 02' and my avatar fell into the bay and I couldn't get him out....Logged-on a year later and it was still standing in the bay...

Sure, there is no need to speak in terms of civil war. Unless you're one of these guntoting, armed to the teeth nutjobs who think it would be a good idea. You know, the kind of people who buy an *assault rifle* for self defense.
However, no matter how well trained your riot police is, their less than lethal tactics are only useful up to a certain amount of people, they can become rather useless if the crowds get too big to contain or simply too violent themselves. That's when it gets interesting, that is when protest can turn into riots.
When the cops face huge, somewhat peacful crowds, they might enter Tiananmen Square. At what point would american cops or military personnel start thinking that it's unwise or inhuman to start firing into the crowd? Before the first shot? After the second magazine? On day three?
It's not the 1960s anymore but the sixties are not forgotten. Not by those who faced police officers willing to fire into the crowd. You know, black people. The kind of people whose parents and grandparents are still alive to tell them about their fight against oppression. This is still alive in the american concious, it shaped your country and it won't go away soon. Just ask Barak about his birth certificate.
Civil unrest is part of your recent history, the seed is there. Even under a President Stalin all you'd need go from isolated, contained riots to complete and irreversible shitstorm is a Martyr, a Neda Agha Soltan or a Treyvon Martin. No matter what ethnicity (although african american would be nice), that would present a tipping point.
Your police can bring out the tanks on Times Square if they want but if half of NY shows up, these guys inside the tanks might want to get out ASAP.
The Erich Honecker regime of the German Democratic Republic was basically brought down by somewhat peaceful demonstrations of people shouting "I'm mad as hell and I won't take it anymore" in east german accents.
The StaSi, the Ministry of State Security, who was efficient enough to make *every* citizen a potential informant in the eyes of their opposition, ran from the protesters like little girls. They used to imprison and torture people who spoke up.
The east german border used to be the most secure in the entire world. It was protected by minefields and guards who shot and killed anyone who tried to cross it. Before David Hasselhoff even had a chance to put on his illuminated leather jacket the government caved and just fucking opened it. People just strolled through Checkpoint Charlie and bought Bananas as if it was Christmas.
This was the beginning of the end for the Soviet Union. You know, the guys who lost over 20 Million people in WW2 and still kicked the Nazis in the nuts.
Nobody brought a gun. All the east germans had was shitty cars and lots of anger. They tore down not just a dictatorship, they tore down the iron curtain.
And they didn't even have a Nelson Mandela. Or Lech Walesa.
I still stand by my point: strength in numbers, not caliber.

I think interpreting resource officer = armed guard is a bit of a stretch, but I'll admit that was my initial reaction too. I interpreted it as "I'll leave it up to the individual school to decide what they want"

which is probably the right thing to do.

As I write this, Immediately to my right, on the sift, is an ad that says "Obama says, Ban Guns!" say no!"

So the strawman is still standing. Nowhere, no how is anyone...ANYONE going after anyone's guns. Yet in the minds of certain people.....

If it weren't for the fact that hundreds, if not thousands of innocents would be probably be killed, I'm to the point of saying that if these assholes think the gov't is tyrannical, let them revolt. Let's see how far they get, they don't have popular support, they don't have military support. If you want to live free or die and you think you aren't free, then put your money where your mouth is asshole and do something about it.

I'm sick of the whining and the conspiracy theories. put up or shut up. They think gov't is tyrannical, but they do nothing, guns were unlawfully confiscated during Katrina, but they did nothing.

We've got people who honestly think the recent shootings were all staged. Prove it or shut the fuck up. Talk is cheap.

I hear a lot of whining from people like this, but not any action.

You are an a-godzilla-ist and that is entirely a practical concession to the fact that you can't really afford giant monster insurance considering recent statistics for giant lizard attacks and indeed going through life avoiding Tokyo at all costs is just kinda a bummer - imagine all the fresh sushi you could miss out on.

You can't actually prove that there never was a Godzilla or that there never will be a Godzilla and you can only assume (not demonstrate) that there is not a Godzilla planet orbiting one of the stars a few galaxies down the way.

All you can really say is that Tokyo is still standing and that all the various accounts of Godzilla's antics across the myriad of B-movies and hollywood blockbusters that feature him as a character seem to have no basis in reality for various reasons. You move on with your day, smile a bit and never really bother to duck for cover.

And that's all we're saying about God. To my knowledge, that is the bleeding edge of audacious claims being made by anyone who is even vaguely respected - simply that we can't take religious claims seriously any more, so we are going to move on with our lives, only dealing with religion directly when it decides to be a bit too influential for our tastes.

But fine, based on the secondary predicate principle and a lengthy philosophy 101 essay with no shortage of verbal meandering through Descartes, et al., atheists kinda sorta make a claim of some sort. What's your point.

And if you think that the atheist experience simply trawls the bottom of Christian intellectualism then who would you have them debate, Ray comfort? Matt Slick? Perhaps you?

More than anything, the most disgusting trait of Christianity is that it equates child rapists and children as equally sinful in the eyes of God. There are certainly various arguments saying that different consequences will be felt here on earth, or perhaps that there is an arbitrary age of innocence, etc... But almost universally, Christians agree that the following scenario is at least possible:

Rapist rapes child, we'll start with that.

The child struggles through the resultant torturous anguish across a lifetime, starts a support group, mans a hotline, works in the community to support fellow victims, increases awareness and so on while loving his/her family and friends, making mistakes periodically and occasionally letting loose at a concert or something. The child (now an adult) is unfortunately just a minimally observant Jew and never really gave Jesus any consideration, so when he/she gets hit by a drunk driver at the unfortunate age of 34, he/she is tormented in hell for the rest of eternity.

The rapist, meanwhile, goes on with his (statistically probable) life, perhaps he rapes some more children (also statistically probable) and maybe he then stops at some point, realizing it is wrong and maybe even feels guilty about it. Ridden by guilt, the preaching of a wayward street preacher catch his ears one day. He ventures into church for the first time. He is moved. He proclaims his belief in Jesus and the resurrection. He feels his sins are forgiven and he can feel years of guilt being washed away. Maybe he even admits his history as a rapist to a sympathetic inner circle of confidants, spiritual advisors and friends. He dies of a heart attack, and spends eternity in heaven.

That is disgusting and a god that sets such a system up is disgusting.

Many compassionate people are blinded into thinking this is just and good in an effort to tenaciously preserve their own sense of eternal safety and cosmic worth at all costs. That is less disgusting just because it is an understandable impulse, but it is disgusting nonetheless.