I don't know if there's something wrong with me or what, but to me her post makes sense. It's not eloquent, it's not funny, and it's certainly not smart, but it does make sense. She's said worse. It's only when Colbert reads it this way that it seems insane, which is why I guess the humor doesn't really work for me.

True.

I just wanted to know. What I would next propose is that groups of "women in general" amongst themselves consider themselves to be girls. Like "native americans" consider themselves indians and "african americans" consider themselves black or niggers.

So its not about the word count, but who and how uses the words. So if an old white man uses the word "girl" condescendingly, it is different to athletes calling themselves girls within their group. So counting words is generally a bad idea and misuse of statistics.

Similarly reporting on this and trying to do the same in reverse by using a poisonous tone and attitude doesnt really work, it is counterproductive to the effective presentation of the content.

Now the sports commentators in the video are extreme, but generally sports commentating is difficult because the level of familiarity within a sporting community tends to be much greater than in the general public or given by TV standards. Resulting in awkwardness and miscommunication and hilarity.

And Eugenie is a joke.

Interesting, but pepper does really work on some things.

It's hard to beat the simplicity of a perfectly cooked steak with just salt and pepper.

What's going to be really shit if Trump wins is that it will be blamed on Sanders.

He's campaigning for all the right reasons and he's trying to move politics along, away from the stale and shitty status quo. Good things will only happen if people really work for them.

But so much of the media and the democratic party seem to want to keep their cushy status quo that they'll spin this out as his fault for trying to be disruptive. The public will lap it all up and progressives wil become a thing to hate, to be scared of.

It'll be shit.

In the end she needs Sanders' supporters. Her job as a leader, is to reach out to Sanders and his supporters and get them behind her. I still think she and the DNC need to give him the primary Prime Time spot during the convention, and they need to give other members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus a large percentage of the time during the convention. That move, along with a good progressive VP candidate (I think Dennis Kucinich for reasons I've detailed before) would go a long way to helping secure the nomination. And as pointed out by @newtboy, her supporters in '08 were Democrats, so it isn't nearly the same story as what Sanders is doing now. The Democrats will continue to vote for her, it is the independents that you need to turn out and vote against Trump. Trump is doing better than expected at getting the Republicans behind him, and their hatred of Clinton can't be understated. Not to mention of course fears of indictment and other issues ahead of Clinton, such as the likely hood the Republicans would try to impeach her first thing... even if they don't impeach her, they'll stonewall congress like they have against Obama anyhow. They need to get the independents out to vote against the Republicans and have a Senate change as well, and I don't see them really working to that end yet, which mystifies me to no end.

The main theme and imperial march don't really work... the music is just too western.

But the other three are really good!

You asked if I was a pig some food related thread. And I said yes and posted a picture of me in the Bahamas

I totally agree that the development and costs are ridiculous. I honestly don't care if the plane sucks or not(although I would rather my taxes be wasted on a functional plane at least!), but the reason I'm taking the time to reply is because I think the performance and capability concerns of the plane are unfounded for these reason:


1. Nobody can say for certain what the F-35 is capable of or not capable of. It's all classified. There are simply no facts or data that the public has access to. Anything the public sees is watered down a lot, and I think this is where the majority of confusion is coming from. Not one article I've seen can tell you 1 specific bit of information about why it's a bad plane. Because there is no data. They'll say it's bad, and then start going on about congressional corruption (which is legitimate, but nothing to do with the planes capabilities).

2. The general media does not have an understanding of how air combat really works.

3. Nobody can predict the future, so the media making claims about certain things becoming obsolete is just a guess, and quite often irrelevant. They also seem to ignore the fact the F-35 if it becomes obsolete in 10 years, then so have all of the 40 year old planes. All anyone can do is be prepared for the things they know about, because it's not possible to be prepared for something that you don't know about.

That is the logic I am thinking with anyway. It's sensationalism vs corporate propaganda, and there is no way to tell who is right since there is no data.

Who is this woman and why did I give her an hour of my time?

I listened to the whole thing.

I don't disagree with everything she said. She's right that supply side tricklenomics doesn't really work that well, and she does a good job outlining problems. But the narrative she weaves is all over the place when she starts talking about solutions. "Let's address inequality by taking on debt to increase spending to help transfer money to large private corporations." (I'm paraphrasing.) Increasing debt transfers power to the lender. Will they borrow from big banks? The Rothschilds? China? What's that quote? "Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws."

And "lets pay our debts by just printing more money." What kind of solution is that? The Weimar Republic called. They'd like to have a word with you about hyper-inflation.

And her "angry birds" analogy was insufferable.

Did not the supreme court recently declare this program was unconstitutional anyway? I can't understand how they could possibly extend a program that's unconstitutional. That doesn't make sense.

Of course, they try to not admit that this program has been useless. They have ignored that it's not stopped any of the terrorist acts on our soil or elsewhere, not even contributing in a meaningful way towards stopping any. NOT ONCE. It's astonishing that all but one senator is claiming the opposite, when their own independent investigations proved it repeatedly. It's also astonishing that they have completely ignored the findings of the supreme court that declared it unconstitutional. I guess the whole 'swear to uphold the constitution' part of their oath comes with an unspoken caveat 'unless I don't want to, it's inconvenient, or I get paid not to'.

I'm not normally a fan of Paul, but I think he got this one right. I hope the spin machine (now on overdrive from both parties. Impressive, he actually brought the two parties together!) doesn't convince people that he's the one that's got it wrong (him, along with the supreme court) and all the other senators are really working to try to keep us safe and free, all evidence to the contrary not withstanding.

EDIT: Also, the USA Freedom act, the proposed replacement, still has all the data kept, just kept by the private companies involved. Personally, I don't trust private companies to keep my information private. Not only is there the likelihood they'll be hacked, there's also the likelihood they'll SELL that information eventually, no matter what their 'privacy policy' or 'terms of service' say. Often, when companies are dissolved, that customer information is sold as an asset, even when the company is contractually bound to keep it private and NOT sell it. Once the company is dissolved, there's no one to sue over them not keeping their obligation. This happens all the time now. I certainly don't want my calls, to who and when I made them, all purchases, and my location to be sold to the highest bidder(s), I don't know about you.

Yeah, but that isn't the purpose of these. They tried that with OLPC and it was a good design but there were much more helpful ways to spend money to help third world children and it didn't really work out for a variety of reasons. These are, at best like the Raspberry Pi, intended for poor and middle-class western kids, to give them a 'hackable' platform that encouraged learning about how computers work (like the Commodore 64s and BBC Micros of old). Ideally, they would be distributed to public school students. Cheap is important, but not if it means you forgo the 'hackable'-ness.

But also my advice was really more intended for those here, who would be buying something like this to mess around with for DIY stuff.

That's what annoys me. There is so much great music out there, it's just lazy to use those tunes.

They're good songs and the first time they were set to an action video, it really worked. But it's been done to death now.

Hell, use this http://videosift.com/music/video/David-Hasselhoff-True-Survivor

or this http://videosift.com/music/video/Chilly-Gonzales-Deconstructs-Pop-in-2015

or this http://videosift.com/music/video/BARONESS-A-Horse-Called-Golgotha

Kudos to those *kids

Can't say that xylophone Zep really works for me, but there's no denying the effort!

I like the idea of what you're saying but as far as the ring goes I would look at it this way. Say you build a super weapon, the problem with a super weapon is if anyone else gets their hands on it they could use it on you, so you build it in such a way that it only really works for you. But you make it nice and shiny and encourage would be thieves to use it (sweet! I'm invisible!) so when they do it will quietly call the cops (or Ringrwraiths in this case) when it's logged on to a network like some stolen iphone from hell. Of course you never want them to have any real power, just the promise or illusion of it to keep them on the hook while security tracks down the stolen item, then you can eat them, "raw and wriggling" if that's your preference.

tldr: Actually, games do this all the time, but usually only for water surfaces!

The reason for this is that the way you render a proper reflection is to "flip" the camera to the other side of the reflective surface plane: looking down on a lake, you'd render the water reflection from the point of view of the camera looking up from under the water surface, flipped over. This is called "planar reflection". In order to do this, you render your entire scene again, so it's not cheap. Also, the reflection only works for that one plane: if you had two altitudes of water (or two differently angled mirrors) they'd be on different planes and so you'd have to render a reflection for each one.

You can't render curved surface reflections this way, though. For example it doesn't work on a car (what plane would you flip the camera over?). For that, the trick is called "cubic environment maps". I won't go into the details, but it only really works well for faking reflections on objects since it shows the correct view from a single point. You can create them dynamically for things like racing games, but they require 6 scene renders (one for each face of the cube) for each environment map.

Half Life offered both techniques for water reflections, so one could fire that up and compare them that way.

This demo seemed to use environment maps for the mirrors and I suspect all of the other shiny surfaces.

Note that these techniques are to get detailed reflections: specular lighting (where you don't reflect an image, but instead mathematically simulate simple light bouncing) is easier and cheaper, since it's just math to get a color and strength.

You could do planar reflections for every mirror, but it's a full scene re-render for each one so your frame rate would tank or you'd have to take out other features. Compromises!

Game graphics is all trade-offs and smoke and mirrors: it's our job to fake things and make you think the game is doing sophisticated simulation when actually it's doing as little as it can to get as much as possible.

"Arguments for" an idea are worthless. "Evidence" is what is needed, and there simply isn't any provided here.

That's not even addressing the straw man at the very beginning. That's not a binary question being asked.

These people really work hard at their stupidity though.