Heh, I do exactly the same. Will I say dog, horse. I came, or my girlfriends mother?

It's a tricky business talking to her family.

It tricky innit.

I do think addiction is disease, but I think it must be exhausting to love somebody with an addiction, so I do feel this video comes across as a bit callous.

Yep Taxes can be tricky at times.

That's the point. Free speech can potentially be an act which causes harm to others.

I don't have the answer for this. When I was younger, I tended to be a free speech absolutist. My opinion was freedom of expression was absolute and that we just had to accept the consequences as a price to pay.

I no longer believe that.

As a general rule, I am opposed to censorship. People should be free to say what they want and others should be free to respond appropriately.

But it's naive to think that free speech is absolute. Nothing is. So we all have to be mature and accept the fact that (as distasteful as it is) some speech is not protected. At a bare minimum, we have things like libel and slander (which are important, but also open to abuse as well).

Back on the topic of hate speech.... it's a tricky one. For me, it comes down to how you define "hate speech", and there isn't really a widely accepted definition.

It ranges from nonsense like anti-blasphemy laws (victimless crime, IMO) to controversial things like holocaust denial (patently bullshit, but not actively harmful IMO) to reasonable provisions against incitement to violence (neo-nazis etc).

There's also the concept of "negative liberty". X has the right to free speech, but Y also has the right not to be threatened or intimidated in their daily life (note: they don't have the right not to be offended).

Again, I don't have all the answers. My point is simply that the world isn't black and white.

Ironically, I'm somewhat echoing the sentiments in the video, in that facing an uncomfortable truth requires you to think and that's not a bad thing. But my uncomfortable truth is that not all speech can be free.

I'd love it if they could paint a virtual shadow on the ground directly below high balls in rugby, football etc so you have some indication of depth. Guessing it is pretty tricky to know the ball's coordinates with sufficient accuracy.

I enjoyed this movie so don't let this article I'm about to post deter you from watching -- but it's something that has to be mentioned:

http://shashalaperf.blogspot.com/2011/04/voice-tricky-topic-of-race-and-voice.html

I'm not passing a judgement on this flick because especially in voice acting, people don't need to match the race they're voicing. Case in point, Phil LaMarr is one of my favourite contemporary voice actors and he has voiced a range of different races, including the Japanese hero in Samurai Jack.

Food for thought.

there's kind of this weird rhetoric that i keep noticing that implies that "gays" and "islam" are the same category of thing and can be compared but can't be prioritized because they're somehow equal. they're not.

homosexuality is an inherent quality. there is nothing to critique or change other than our views of it.

islam, however, is just an idea and needs to be treated as such. it absolutely can be critiqued and changed and i would argue this is required.

the tricky part i see is the conflating of "islam" with "muslims" and using the ugliness of islam as justification for mistreatment and ostracizing of muslims. sometimes to the extent of treating them as sub human, most notably in refugee conversations. islam is gross, imo, and should be criticized (fervently) but muslims are still people and need to be treated as such, just as the gay community should. they both have the right to live and have the opportunity to live with some semblance of safety. people deserve compassion. ideas do not.

Filming with a potato can be tricky though, sometimes you can't be sure of the alignment before you actually check the footage back at home.

DIC is extremely tricky to treat and he would likely have died either way. The only consensus guidelines are to treat the underlying cause, which in his case was antivenin. Treatment with platelet transfusions and FFP are recommended only in certain circumstances (such as emergent surgery) and even this recommendation is without strong supporting evidence for its efficacy. Added FFP and platelets without treating the underlying cause can exacerbate end organ thrombosis. This thrombosis may be treated paradoxically with heparin.

If vegans are getting into arguments with you about whether their food is healthier than yours, well, maybe they're right, maybe they're wrong. I listen to my buddy extolling the benefits of his paleo diet. If he's quick about it, I don't see the harm, whether he's right or not. If he won't shut up about it, or tries to push it on me, he's being a jerk. It sounds like you might have met some vegans who are jerks. So have I.

I also don't think your final question was genuine. You've clearly thought about this long enough to see how avoiding animal products reduces the amount of mistreatment. If you don't think it's important, or you don't think it's worth it, that's fine. The population of dairy cows is large enough that the 1-2million vegans in this country certainly affects how many are bred and subjected to the treatment they receive.

But telling me I shouldn't want meat is just bizarre. It should be pretty clear by now that I'm a vegan because I object to needlessly killing or mistreating animals, and try to reduce that number. I'm not offended by eating meat, just what has to happen to get it on my plate. If Nike used child slave labor to make its shoes, and I didn't approve of child slave labor, would you criticize me for buying another brand of shoes because I "shouldn't want shoes?" Meat tastes great. I don't like killing animals. There is no contradiction between those two sentences.

It sounds like your issue is with the "tells you all the time" part of your analogy, and that's tricky. On the one hand, people who sermonize and try to vilify your decisions are being jerks. On the other hand, if a cause is important enough, it's clearly worth being a jerk. It's a sliding scale. Civil rights campaigners were moralizing jerks too, but in hindsight, we mostly feel they were justified. The inquisition, less so. Some animal activists feel they fall reasonably well on the scale.

There's a long history of people trying to make other lead moral lives. And there's a long history of people getting various degrees of pissed off about it. I would encourage you to tell individuals who actively annoy you to stuff it, and to just relax about the rest of us.

And if you want moralizers to leave you alone, I'd also encourage you not to call their moral choices "stupid" on the internet. Counter-intuitive, I know, but give it a try.

As for more ideas; I didn't hear if the Rubik's Cubes were random (as in P & T went and bought their own for this trick). If he brought his own Cubes, then things change again. Since after all he could be engineering Rubik's Cubes with some added perks.

It'd require some pretty good "quirky" engineering knowledge (and BTW, this is quite common with magicians)... But he may be able to make a Rubik's Cube that with a touch to a button, change in acceleration, heat & cold, etcetera, perform many simple yet crucial tricks to complete his act.

Anyway, it all depends on what his goal is for the Cube. He may NOT want a Cube that solves itself instantly with a press of the button (plus that may be a little too much over-engineered). But, you could have stickers that switch color via various means, like a switch based on temperature.

It all depends as well as what is available out there. There are a lot of very tricky things you could accomplish if you truly had the ability to get some of these items.

It's very hard to tell you what types of abilities this Cube could have; it's probably easier to tell you what features it wouldn't have based on the performance we saw (like I said, one that "solves itself" would more than likely be over-engineered)...

But, to me it's far more easier to see it via a extraordinary ability in sleight of hand and an extreme amount of experience with a Rubik's Cube (go look at Rubik Cube videos; there are a lot of people that do very neat things with Rubik's Cube...).

I was thinking the same thing. We had a good deal of choice of what classes to take. I didn't take Lit, but I did do the basic English classes, where we read some Shakespeare and the like, but not to the degree the Lit students did. I didn't do any complex math classes either, I did Algebra. But then I also did Applied Business, or whatever it was called. I did Civics with the base History classes. I did Home Economics in 9th grade, not a required class, but an elective. Woodshop was another example of an elective class. Have they removed electives from schools? If not then it's this dude's own fault for not choosing the proper electives. If they are gone and all that is taught is the core, then there may be too much core.

I got to disagree with the video's premise that Math, History and the cores aren't needed. Do you need Calculus, no but you should graduate with a strong understanding of basic Algebra. History is important to, though I'm not sure the methods used are effective, route memorization of facts and dates for tests, rather than a general understanding of history and how to avoid the same mistakes. Teaching for tests period is a problem... Lit isn't important and should remain an elective, but having read some of the "classics" is important too, even if it is just a quick Cliff Notes sort of version of it (do they still have Cliff Notes?) Actually a Cliff Notes rundown of lots of the "classics" would probably be better than what most English classes do, while encouraging students to read more modern what they want fare for reports and the like. I didn't take Biology, but basic Science understanding is important, problem is it's politicized and rather than stick with the facts, too many people want to introduce at the very least doubt about the facts if not introduce ideological ideas that contradict the facts and are based on a misunderstanding of what the facts actually say... due to a messed up literal reading (well when it's convenient to take literal, other times things are dismissed as "literary" or "poetic" be it about the Earth not moving or bats being birds and on and on) of one particular bronze age book.

Also you can't teach people who to vote for... you gain understanding of the issues in History and Civics... so...

How to move away from testing is a tricky thing. You need to prove you have an understanding of how to form an Algebraic formula and to solve one. You need to prove you understand the issue(s) of the Civil War and the basic era (I'm not convinced you need to remember exact dates, know it was the 1860s), same with the other wars. What was one's nation's involvement in the World Wars and what caused those wars in the first place, and again basic era, if you don't know the exact year of the bombing of Pearl Harbor or D-Day or the dropping of the atomic bombs, okay, but a basic close approximation of the years. For English you need to prove you can write and read, and a basic understanding of literature, not details of classic books, but narrative structure etc. There should perhaps be more time spent on critical thinking and how to vet sources. You need to have a basic enough understanding of science not to dismiss things as "just a theory" which proves you don't know what theory means in science, and don't ask ridiculous questions like "if we came from monkeys why are there still monkeys" instead you should be able to answer that. You should be able to answer properly if somebody notes that CO2 is good for plants or that compact fluorescent have mercury in them so they aren't better for the environment than older bulbs.

How does one prove these things without tests? That's the question. And it needs to be Federally standardized to a degree to ensure that you don't have lose districts teaching that the Civil War wasn't about slavery nearly at all, rather than the fact it was the primary reason, or that Evolution is "just a theory", or deny the slaughter of the Native Americans or interment of Japanese Americans. You need to insure that all students are getting the same basics, and insure they have a good range of choices for electives. It's the basics though that basically need tested for, and I personally can't figure out a way to prove a student knows say what caused the Civil War or that they know what Evolution actually is, or how to form an Algebraic formula to solve a real life problem without a test.

Your video, The Tricky Art of Female Emotional Combat - Amy Schumer, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

It's a tricky one. On one hand it could be improved, but on the other hand I'm happy with a system that converted UKIP's (Team Purple) 13% into 0%.

Well happy with that part, less happy about being stuck with the bloody Tories for another five years.

Fault is a tricky one there, on a normal road the car would be at fault and on a road with a bike lane the bike would be. In the video the honking happens just as the cycle lane ends so it's a bit of a grey area.

That said, he should have checked behind him and shouldn't have taken offence at the horn.