No sir. There is a world of difference between slight bias in reports about the nationalistic leader who continues to attack all actual news reporters like a 2 year old and direct his terroristic followers to attack them as enemies of the people and a deeper level of bias against all non right wingers paired with outright campaigning for the same anti free press candidates.

Wait...you still defend Fox as having reporting but claim you don't need someone to bend facts? Bending facts like using proper English to describe a scene? But reporting on the birther movement for years as true, and the ridiculous waste of money named the Benghazi investigation, continued denial of climate science, etc. does bother you? Fox doesn't bend fact, they omit it. They don't get credit for using 5% (yes, that's exaggerated) truth to sell their lies.

I watched Chris Wallace interview Conway just yesterday (for as long as I could stand it, which admittedly was only a few minutes), his questions were ok, but delivered with a slow underhand pitch and with no follow-up or contradiction of her ridiculous rambling factless replies. That's not good reporting, it's being the setup for spreading their agenda/propaganda.

You think CNN goes to far by using words like "accost" to describe 3 policemen tackling a topless woman in tights, and while you claim to have looked up the definition , you still claim the word is somehow loaded and not proper. Please explain.

When the police were going after the fleeing armed supporters of Mr Bundie under Obama I think you likely called them violent thugs who attacked that poor innocent man unnecessarily....Fox did. That man was armed and an anti American terrorist, but right wing so Fox called him a strong patriotic American standing up for American values that the unAmerican Kenyan thug in the Whitehouse wanted to murder.
There is no equivalence. Fox is (disgusting unAmerican) entertainment, not news. There is no right wing news outlet, they are all propaganda outlets and little more today.
The Ministry of Truth doesn't need fact, you will believe any nonsense they tell you to, even when it contradicts what they had you believe yesterday. They have you believing any non Trump biased news is fake news reported with hyper liberal bias, even in other countries, but Fox has good reporting and less bias.
*facepalm

Edit: True, Trump didn't say all Mexicans are rapists like some others have claimed, he said all Mexican/central American immigrants are rapists....like I claimed.

They used "accost" because 3 large men tackled a topless woman in tights (so clearly unarmed unless she had a snuke), hard....it's a proper and correct description using the correct terminology. Your inference that they were implying something improper by the police is likely your bias coloring what they said.

Lol. Censor you!? I think perhaps you might look up that word too, because I don't think it means what you think it does. I certainly don't have either that power or desire. I wish only to dissuade you from being an unwitting dupe of an Orwellian movement against fact and truth.

There is no equivalent stupidity or bias on the left, not by half...not by 1/10.
Again, please name reporters that speak at Democratic rallies....from any non right wing network since limiting you to CNN yielded no answer. If the left is just as bad as the right in this regard, that should be incredibly easy to do.

It seems having it pointed out that there is no equivalence is intolerable and like an attack in your eyes, but it's simply fact.

I know, facts are for liberals. The truth isn't the truth. What you see and hear isn't really what's happening....also known as blackwhite/duckspeak.

There is no other main stream network besides Fox who's viewers are actually less informed than people who watch no news at all, and OAN and Info Wars likely perform the same job for minor networks. CNN isn't perfect, but it's viewers actually gain information and become more informed rather than loose it, becoming more ignorant. They are not equivalent.

Thanks admiraltronton, I did not notice probably because of the tags we used.

I think i might be able to start a duplicate thing

*dupeof=https://videosift.com/video/Flexible-DRAGON-drone-morphs-to-fly-through-tight-spaces

This video has been declared a duplicate by the original submitter; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof declared by b4rringt0n.

I don't have the power to tag, but this is a duplicate of https://videosift.com/video/Flexible-DRAGON-drone-morphs-to-fly-through-tight-spaces

Tight skimpy outfits, twirling upside down with legs spread is "nothing provocative"?!?
You might guess, I find this provocative and inappropriate for girls (or boys) below the age of consent ....and pretty damn creepy too.

Can be! It depends on the contents of the container and how air-tight its construction and materials are. Generally materials packed for transport are supposed to be strapped or otherwise held in place so that they don't shift and upset the transport vehicle (see the 747 that crashed in the Middle East when its cargo shifted...). But that's just the stuff that was meant to be in the container. Every ship has to contend with the risk of water ingress. Un-contained water in a vessel forms a "free surface" and the so-called free surface effect applies. That's where that material can and will move based on gravity, often making a bad situation much much worse. Imagine water in a tank (itself a free surface) vs. water sloshing around the cabin of a plane. This is what usually causes ships to capsize: water gets in and isn't contained, so it can move tremendous amounts of mass anywhere it wants to go -- usually in the direction it's already going. Calculations of ship stability for things like cargo loading and ballast assume minimal free surface in the ship, because you have to. That's how ships stay upright and afloat.

How does this apply to lost containers? Depending on how watertight the container is and how well strapped in the contents are, some amount of water may get in and form a free surface. This free surface will move around until the container finds its equilibrium which may or may not be watertight and less dense than the water around it, which defines whether it floats or sinks and what direction it faces when it does.

A container with a lot of weight on one side but otherwise watertight will stand upright and perhaps still sink (like the one at the end of this video). A container with well-distributed weight would tend to end up flat. Whether it sinks or not depends on whether it's watertight and what its density is -- the weight of the container displacing ocean vs. the weight of the ocean it displaces.

Sadly, a significant number of containers end up at the worst possible density/displacement where they float just at or near the surface and lay in wait to devastate passing ships, regardless of the orientation of the container itself.

What? Apparently we didn't watch the same thing.

They had both her arms, tight, and the third one seemed to be reasoning with the dog, while telling her "your fine" as she's held tight and repeatedly bitten. They didn't ever try to pull her away either, they held her still (probably hoping that would calm the dog enough to stop mauling her).
If it was biting one of them, they would punch, kick, taze, pepper spray, and shoot that dog. No question in my mind, I've seen dozens of instances where they did just that for far smaller, non threatening dogs.
I sure as hell wouldn't want them to hold me down where I couldn't defend myself at all while they let the dog continue to bite....that's how they did it in the 60's, and it's still not ok.

Wow, so NOW you know what context is?

Unless you can actually provide some, you're worse. There's clearly enough context here to make this support the claim that American prisons are modern-day slave houses. It's not proof, but it's certainly valid evidence.

Simply throwing that away, because it's not air tight, while offering nothing of value just demonstrates that you have absolutely no evidence yourself, all of your opinions are based on your personal biases and never on fact.

As the good Republican says, "If the ideology fails in the real world, there's obviously a problem with the real world."

In motion, there's subtle clues that tell you it's not quite human, BUT, if you were to manipulate it into an expression and take a screenshot... I don't think I'd be able to tell it wasn't real. It's the muscle range, the way the wrinkles appear, the way the blood coloration changes in response to the tightness of the skin, the pores, the subsurface scattering, the facial hairs, etc... incredibly convincing on a whole new level, even extremely close up, which is where the illusion normally breaks down. Very very impressive.

Interesting that Maher thanked / congratulated Jillette for voting for Hillary, but didn't note that he outspokenly did so as a "vote swap" thing where he (in an "important state" re Electoral College) voted for Hillary in return for a friend (in a meaningless / foregone conclusion state) voting for Gary Johnson.

I think that is a fine way to mildly game the system, which is more than mildly broken with the idiotic Electoral College. On the other hand, I think it is fine (honorable even?) to vote your conscious and vote for a third party candidate that has no actual chance of winning, even if you're in a tightly contested swing state.

But my favorite bit is Jillette talking about potential benefits of the Trump presidency. "Trump as a cautionary tale" is actually a very real thing, that will actually have long-term benefits. Whether or not those long-term benefits outweigh the short-term disaster definitely remains to be seen.

Agree. Can't stand all the superfluous fetch quests - at this point I'm even sick of inventory management. In games like Fallout, or Elder Scrolls, Witcher - these days I hardly even loot the corpses because I'm so sick of it after 25+ years.

One of the best games I've played recently was - What Remains of Edith Finch - a linear, "walking simulator" which implements innovative/interesting design solutions to drive the story forward, very detailed and very tightly designed - kind of on the opposite spectrum of open-world RPGs - but very awesome.

Yea your right - nothing smarter than a liberal comedy writer pretending to be a politician.
That against a person of critical thought who knows his shit.

Yea your tight.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

It's THE problem of content on the Internet and it hasn't been figured out yet. As you can rightly guess - VideoSift has a hand in this too - as advertising pays the server bills.

I don't know what the answer will be. Nobody likes ads really. The experience of watching TV commercial free, or Netflix spoils you for ever watching standard broadcast or cable TV.

I don't know what the answer is - I suspect it will be some kind of tightly integrated weaving of content and advertising, like product placement.