The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by eric3579.

From http://aveugles.org/felix-impressionne/ this was filmed at the summer camp of the Fondation des Aveugles du Québec (Quebec Foundation for the Blind). (and therefore *canada)

Felix was born 3 months premature and his retinas detached due to oxygen toxicity at birth, and at first they were unsure if he would ever talk... so his family is very happy that he has turned out to have such a talent for music.

Felix loves BB King, of course, but also Les Colocs, Bernard Adamus, Stromae, Robert Johnson and Eddie Lang. He takes advantage of the summer camps to bring his guitar and put on a show.

It also says some other stuff about how the camp provides opportunities for blind children like Felix, and they hope he continues to flourish through music.

In genetics, that is pretty much how it works. The dominant black/dark-haired gene will trump the recessive blonde-haired gene. Punnet squares for the win!

However, as I remember things in the Song of Ice and Fire books, it is presented as though that understanding of genetics isn't really common knowledge in Westeros as it is for us. The books play up the "seed is strong" thing even more, which to me suggests that while people who stop to consider it the most (ie., Jon Arryn) feel that Robert's "seed"/genetics are strong and should be probably be expressed in his "kids" with Cersei, MOST people of Westeros just accept that they "must take after their mother more" and don't think anything is amiss. Ned getting wind of the "seed is strong" idea and thinking about it himself makes him suspicious too, but he doesn't have our understanding of genetics to provide the (nearly) ironclad parentage proof at a glance.

So, you're both right, kinda.

I think our understanding of genetics would make a Jon Snow born of Lyanna (likely carrying double dominant brown/black hair gene BB) and Rhaegar (I think platinum blonde, so guaranteed to be double recessive bb) either have a 100% chance of being dark-haired (BB cross with bb will result in 100% Bb children, carrying the blonde gene but expressing the black) or at most a 25% chance of being blonde IF Lyanna happens to be a carrier of the blonde gene (which seems unlikely).

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by eric3579.

*b-bb-bb-b
BOOYa ke-Shaw!
BOOYa ke-Shaw!

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by eric3579.

Sorry bb, but who on earth am i telling to smile? And in what way am i being like these other terrible men? And in what way are you accusing me of not listening when i have gone out of my way to investigate the matter further!? I think you're guilty of taking great liberty with my comment, and that's putting it nicely!

My comment, in short, tried to encourage anyone wanting to promote this message to promote it in a way that is understandable and unambiguous, and to learn lessons from those times when your attempt is ineffectual. Well, it wasn't presented unambiguously and that is why people are still discussing it. It's very wrong of you to accuse me of being sexist just because i didn't get the message. It's counter-productive to feminism, in fact, to do that. By folding your arms and saying "huh, you understand it - you're being like all those other men", you're being sexist yourself by definition.

I looked into it, and here's the reason why we seem to disagree and why i seem to be acting sexist in your eyes: I read the title of the video and watched it asking myself this question: "In what way is it sexist to tell someone to smile?" My conclusion was that it wasn't, and so the video was crap. I didn't even give it the full duration - long enough to gauge whether or not i agreed that it was sexist to say "smile!" to someone. That, and nothing more! Because that was how the problem was presented!

So without wanting to repeat my earlier comment, here it is again. It is the duty of the deliverer of the message (or those who subscribe to it) to make it clear what the message is. I completely agree that harassment and cat calling in the street is wrong, and i can understand that stuff like that can make a person feel scared regardless of what is said. And if the video had a more descriptive title or the point established in clear terms then i wouldn't have my name next to the list of downvoters, because i wouldn't have misunderstood the point and given it short shrift.

I think it's very important to realise just how my comment has been taken out of context and misconstrued as sexist by you (in your accusation of me being like those other men). Only after i read a part of your comment which said that it was about a wider issue did i suddenly realise the misunderstanding. Isn't it ironic that you told me i was being sexist by asking for the point to be made clearer, when all along we were talking at cross purposes because the point wasn't made clearly to me?

And yet more ironically, you accused me of being sexist when in fact it was you being sexist to me, in your assumption that my misunderstanding could only stem from sexism!

And i think, to be fair, you should go back and read my previous comment in which i encourage you to ensure that everyone understands your point before you accuse people of being sexist for disagreeing with it.

Crap video full of crap. And I've worked in the US myself, and lived most of my life in Canada(being Canadian).

Even up here in Canada, Walmart pays more than the min. wage. Hell it pays more than the average local store, or even larger stores, chain stores, or other bigbox retail stores for PT/FT in terms of wages.

Example in Ontario: Walmart starting wage: 13.25/hr(current min wage 10.25/hr), FT/PT, not counting benefits.
Gas station attendant: 10.55-12.08/hr
Large bigbox store sale clerk: 10.85/hr
L-BB Manager: 13.85-15.80/hr
Mom&pop specialized clerk: 10.85-12.10/hr
Fast food: 10.25-12.10/hr
Non-unionized janitors: 10.25-13/hr
Managers fast food: 13-15/hr
Regional Managers Fast food: 14.25-25.30/hr
Managers Walmart: 16.25-25/hr
Regional managers Walmart 18.80-27.80/hr

And...on top if that here, if you need a hand go to the damned food bank. And stop blowing your money on the latest gadets.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by eric3579.

Back in my college days, I remember seeing this game on bulletin board system (BBS) friend's new N64.

Yeah bb, pretty sad that

Favorite line from one of his great short roles as Maj.
Fambrough in Dances With Wolves:

"I just pissed in my pants... and
nobody can do anything about it."

Do enlighten me: How do you think "dominant corporation(s) or collusion thereof [will] strongarm retailers?" That simply won't happen. Rather, there will be fewer barriers to entry for other widget manufacturers to enter the market, either independently or working for competing "dominant" corporations when they discover that it's more profitable to not be "paid off" but to compete in the market instead.

A dominant corporation cannot buy every possible competitor. That's absurd. And there will always multiple "dominant" corporations, and not just one, or one and a number of "start-ups." Where there is Coke, there will be Pepsi. Where there is Apple, there will be Samsung. In a free market, monopolies and cartels cannot exist except in the very short term and at an eventual loss (unless they have the primary monopoly of the government to back them up).

If there are patents, there's no free market. A free market, by definition, must exclude all patent, trademark, copyright, and other such IP law. So, you may have picked the worst example.

Free markets without patents is not a problem at all. Not for the market and not for consumers. Companies may just be more careful about spies. They certainly wouldn't be incentivized (like they are now) to spend $millions just to hold patents on products that are never produced, only to corner the market and "strongarm" competitors (like they do now).

Companies like Bed, Bath & Beyond have been trying to price upstarts out of the market for years, decades even! And they're still not able to get rid of competitors! Same can be said about Walmart. Many stores other than Walmart sell TVs, even at higher prices, and remain competitive. Other stores sell linens besides BB&B. So, you have a distorted view of how markets actually work. No one corporation can monopolize the sale of any goods or services. That's just incorrect (unless the government helps them to do so). It just doesn't happen.

There's no such thing as a "natural monopoly." Name one. In Texas, for example, there are competing utility providers, and people can choose which energy service to use. This is in contrast to CA, where most of us are forced to "choose" PG&E over zero other alternatives.

"Restriction of information/prevention of rational, informed consumers"

I'm sorry, but anyone who has been involved in business knows this is complete horseshit. If you have a better product/service (the only way to outdo the competition), you will let the customers/market know right away.

And there's no scale at which markets collapse. The same forces of the market apply to big, small, and medium businesses. There is no arbitrary size for which these forces do not apply. And keep in mind that without government granted privileges, corporations would be much smaller than they are now, because competition would make it easier for competitors to participate, thereby forcing a re-allocation of resources to accommodate the market's demands.

So, yes you most certainly "overstated" your case. All markets can be free, regardless of size. Whether it's a small farmer's market or Whole Foods. The same market forces apply. They all have to court voluntary customers through service, price, quality, etc. Again, anyone who has had to work with marketing will know this.

BTW, things like "price dumping" are circumvented all the time. Does Rolls Royce care that Hyundai sells cheaper cars? Does Mercedes care that a Prius is less expensive?

Target makes money because Walmart is cheaper, not in spite of it!
And everything Walmart sells, you'll find many other stores selling it, even though Walmart might sell it cheaper.
The local natural food store in my neighborhood sells, more or less, the same things as Whole Foods. None of your objections pose any real problems in the real world.

I don't see Walmart buying every other TV seller, or even trying to do this. Microsoft tried but, so what? They failed, because they could not buy every single competitor in the software world, could they?

Even in Somalia, to use @enoch's example, in the telecommunications industry (to pick one that saw growth), no one even remotely managed to do any of the things you say could happen. In 20 years, no corporation did any of these things. Why not?

Because they couldn't.

And did "dominant" corporations take over all small retailers and sellers? No way, not even close! They couldn't. Only regulations can really kill all small retailers (and they do it all the time). Your outrage is gravely misplaced. Do the countless bazaars and sellers of Turkey, India, or Thailand get taken over by "dominant" corporations?

Hint: No.

Only when government meddles, do the big corporations wipe out the little ones, and sometimes each other.

In any case, Coke will not eliminate Pepsi (or Sprite, or Dr. Pepper, or A&W), government or no government.

Thank you BB...you are very kind.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by oritteropo.

Your video, A Boy, a Mouse, and a BB Gun, 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 37 Badge!