Obviously.

We all as human being need to put organized religion, and the auxiliary religious fanaticism, where it belong, while not realistically possible to the dust bin (it's too useful a device for war, conflict, greed & power for those that seek them), but at least to a place where it does not harm. Right now, and since the dawn of time, organized religions all over the world did a lot of the opposite and never owning up to it.

You’ve said the same about people in their homes, even about George Floyd if I’m not mistaken, he wasn’t running, straw man.

I do see his issue as a problem. I don’t think it’s an excuse to break the law in multiple dangerous or malicious ways like he did. I think, like most other countries have, we should pay people their normal wages to stay home quarantined so we might stop being the worst at COVID response on the planet and avoid this kind of situation altogether.
You seem to think we should pretend the pandemic is a fraud and go back to life like it was pre 2020....problem solved. Your words say as much. Sorry, that’s not realistic. That “plan” kills millions at best and destroys the economy in the process.

Btw, we've been over this a dozen times, I’ve never taken a dime of government assistance, and my wife and I live on $30k a year. Just because i don't need government assistance doesn't mean I don't see the need for others, just like even though I'm "retired" I can still understand the need for a paycheck, but needing money is not an excuse to break the law or heroin dealers and bank robbers would be good guys who just need to make money.

Yes, the government doesn’t care, that’s why it just passed another COVID relief bill that again gives the vast majority of the money to corporations and state government, not citizens (likely with the same lack of protections that let Kushner and a few Trumps take millions from the first relief bill). For once, Trump at least publicly tried to do the right thing (credit where it’s due) by insisting on larger payments like Democrats wanted all along and Republicans killed the idea.

Imo, the peace process isn't dead, but it's deathly ill because Israel keeps expanding.

Want and can accept are two different things.

We give them most of that military might, and back it with ours. Without that interference, they might be more fair and equitable, with it they clearly won't, they'll continue to bully their weaker, poorer, displaced neighbors.

Popular opinion in Israel seems to be the Palestinians should be eradicated, so fair, equitable, compassionate treatment is incredibly unlikely and not realistic without being forced into it.

First I swear I'm not stalking you. I was going to write off your comments as trollish or whatever. A video unrelated later, a picture of britney spears (hey she's hot) , and I find this comment discussing Britts talent.

": newtboy: While I do get your point, I think perhaps you miss the point that a real live singing/playing concert is different from a 'pop star concert' (although I do think they should be billed as 'pop star performances', not 'concerts').
If I go to the opera, I am expecting to hear people sing live while performing a play.
If I go to a 'concert', I expect to see a singer or band singing or playing live, but not doing much else (old Van Halen and GWAR being the exceptions).
If I go to a pop star performance, I usually expect to see flashing lights, smoke, sparks, special effects, stunts, and crazy dancing while you hear a track of the performer.
It's not possible to do the stage performance AND sing competently at the same time. If I expect to see dancing, I should not expect the dancer to also sing live, that's not realistic to me."

But this 13 year old, with the pressure she is under singing as sweet as she does, while being humourous at the same time using talent from a forgotten time of family entertaining. What do you expect from this show? I've literally never watched an episode, saw this and was amazed, and here you are all high and mighty on her. wtf?

@bareboards2, yeah, I'm not a fan of Ansel Elgort either, and I'm kinda worried about him playing Han Solo.

@Drachen_Jager Ronin, hell yes! Such a great car chase. Totally underrated movie.

I haven't seen Baby Driver yet (doesn't come out until the 20th on NZ), but isn't the whole point that it's NOT realistic? I thought the concept was basically "car chase musical"? Agree about the cutting, though, which I'm surprised at from Edgar Wright.

Dog fighting does not exist, and has not existed since WW1.

Even in WW2, planes attacked in passes. They start up high, fly down to pick up speed, attack and keep flying so that the enemy cannot catch them.

As that is happening, another pair of planes is already on it's way to make another pass.

Planes do not chase each other dodging around like X-wings and Tie Fighters. Because as soon as you do that their wingman shoots you down.

TopGun trains pilots in BFM and team work skills, not so much dog fighting. While one v one dog-fighting is part of learning good team work skills and becoming familiar with different scenarios, it isn't the focus.

In Vietnam, the missiles and radars were unreliable and missile had to be fired from a fairly close range. That hasn't been the case for some 30 years now, with missiles getting better all of the time with some insane ranges upwards of 80 miles. The plane is becoming more of a launch platform for missiles than anything else. That's why every fighter plane after the F-4 was designed that way primarily. The worlds best fighter is still the F-15 which has a massive radar and the best missiles. And less maneuverability than the F-16. Because they know dog fighting does not happen.



The scenario you mentioned where the planes are flying close together is not realistic - close in air to air combat is 100 miles.

Especially if the enemy plane has better maneuverability(which all Russian planes do already do anyway, apart from the F-16 if lightly loaded).
Pilots know very well the strengths of their planes, they would never put them in a position like that. They would be pinging each other to make their presence known (if a show of force was the desired effect) from over 100 miles away.


None of this makes the F-35 a good plane by any means. But I just don't agree with the reasoning in the comments here and in the media.

For example people keep mentioning the "Jack of all trades" issue. But they ignore the fact that ALL fighter planes built over the last 40 years have been turned into jack of all trades through necessity. Yet nobody criticizes them for it.

I mostly fly the same simulators as the US national guard does. So I'm hoping that it's accurate. But more than that I read a lot of books written by pilots about air to air and air to ground engagements. Which makes me more knowledgeable than 99.99% of the journalists reporting on the F-35. You'll notice that most aviation specific sites don't tend to bag out the F-35 because have a much better idea of how air combat works than the regular media sites.

EDIT: I was not aware they were ignoring failed tests. That's pretty worrying. Do you have more info on it I can read about?

Just so I'm clear... Both partners planned to have the child walk around with a realistic toy gun, then planned to be the responding officers so that they could then murder the child. These are the facts as you know them? Otherwise, there was no murder here... Possibly manslaughter...
That being said, we should not have to expect the police to hold off on shooting someone with a gun. As was mentioned, having a child with a real gun is not out of the realm of possibility. The gun pictured looks very real, especially in the few seconds they could see it.
Yes, the police are there to serve and protect, not die.
They have a right to protect themselves and stopping to analyse whether a gun is real or a toy is not realistic.
If this had been one of the colorful nerf type guns, I would have a different opinion, but that gun looks real.
I guess in your book, you would have the police hold fire until they are shot at? Well, at that point it may be too late.
This was a tragedy, but I do put part of the blame in the parents court as well as the child..
Too be honest, with all the backlash police are getting, what happens if they decide to all be more hands off?
Hello 911, whats your emergency?
Someone is breaking into my house.
OK, let us know when they are done and we will come investigate.

I'm not saying that we should just ignore what the police do in their actions, I'm just saying we shouldn't crucify every action since the outcome doesn't please us.

That's not a viable as a practical solution.

Consider option 1: The officer backs away. He keeps walking backward and the suspect keeps advancing. He'll just keep walking backward until he's hit by a car or he trips over something or the suspect lunges at him. (Maybe he should have just turned around and run away! .) Or maybe as he backs away the suspect jumps into his police cruiser and drives away.

Option 2: The officer jumps into his car to hide from the suspect. Officers are trained to confront and stop a potential threat, not hide from it. (That's what they're there for, so the rest of us can run and hide.) It's just not realistic that in any situation an officer could sit down in his car and lock the door and hope the suspect will become manageable after that or calm down and start following commands.

If the guy walks back to his car, the cop would jump out and yell at him to stop again, then if he came back the cop would jump back in the car to hide again. It's not something they train for to put themselves into a position where the outcome is totally unpredictable.

While I do get your point, I think perhaps you miss the point that a real live singing/playing concert is different from a 'pop star concert' (although I do think they should be billed as 'pop star performances', not 'concerts').
If I go to the opera, I am expecting to hear people sing live while performing a play.
If I go to a 'concert', I expect to see a singer or band singing or playing live, but not doing much else (old Van Halen and GWAR being the exceptions).
If I go to a pop star performance, I usually expect to see flashing lights, smoke, sparks, special effects, stunts, and crazy dancing while you hear a track of the performer.
It's not possible to do the stage performance AND sing competently at the same time. If I expect to see dancing, I should not expect the dancer to also sing live, that's not realistic to me.

I get her point about how women are represented in many games, but certainly not all games. There are also many strong, intelligent female characters out there, and a good dose of ineffective, whining, useless male characters too.
If she and other women feel under represented, they need to buy more games like 'The Last of Us' and support realistic characters in gaming. If games like that sell, game companies will make more of them...guaranteed. It's a supply and demand issue, they just need to create more demand and what they want will be supplied.
On another note, she and others need to keep in mind that most gaming is FANTASY, and as such does not realistically represent men or women. Asking it to do so is akin to asking sci-fi writers to be less inventive and more down to earth in their stories, or movie makers to be more realistic when making movies about the Matrix. It's kind of missing the point.

He is right -- you need innovation to create things and then competition to bring prices down, but then arrives at some strange conclusions and inconsistencies. (All the while sounding like he is on crack.)

He makes a case for government giving money to entrepreneurs. Isn't that the "partnership system" that we have now? The mix of giving "public" money to "private" entrepreneurs?

His "solutions" require omniscient central planning to know who to give money to.

It's kind of sad the level of audience he is addressing his ideas to.
MTV meets pop-econ.

Basically he is advocating, like in the other video, a form of crony capitalism here. And the "problem" is that we don't have enough of it. So we should be giving more money to cronies because it doesn't matter if their "pizzas" get bigger, their "success" will "trickle down" to the rest of us and everyone will have a bigger pizza even if it's nowhere near as big as that of the wealthy entrepreneurs. A dog chasing its tail.

It's a weird sort of crony capitalism, though, because you give money to everyone and then one or two of those will build successful businesses and employ everyone else who didn't do as much with the money that was given to them. That's a kind of circular and it's not realistic to think that a couple of entrepreneurs will make up for all the money "given" to everyone else, and the resulting inflation and the myriad of problems therein.

I think he is trying to appeal to both left and right wingers, but it seems rather incoherent, a fact he may be trying to disguise with the fast pace and choppy editing, i.e., a video version of "fast-tlking" (i.e., swindling) to prevent any real and careful analysis of what he says.

I think there's more useful information in the videos this guy produces, but alas, they're not as "zany" as these...

I agree with everything you said. I should have said "I wish" first.

The 4 million people in my city would not have any luck after awhile of everyone hunting.......so ya just wishing I guess, not realistic.

Grown meat better taste good!! I really like that idea too, man if we could decrease the amount of cows on the planet we'd all be way better off for a couple of reasons down the road.

Yeah, Tony Stark and Clark Kent are two very different individuals. Clark always puts others first, to the point that he won't use all his strength and power to its full extent, because he knows he could cause more damage than the villain he's trying to stop. Yes, he's a boy scout, but there's a bit of a lesson in a story about an alien who tries to act more compassionate towards humans, than most humans.

Also, he's THE superhero. period. I don't care if they make his powers and villains not realistic. I'm so fucking tired of lex luthor. He's a great villain, but geez, give it a rest already. There's a bunch of other great villains in the superman lore, and it's about time we see him be matched physically and not just intelectually. Zod is one, Darkseid is another. I would also love to see Doomsday or Brainiac.

Primarily they are douche bags. /endsarcasm I say this from years of experience, both good and bad. Plenty of nice ones, but for every good cop there are a couple impatient asshole cop doing an arbitrary job at keeping the peace. But, really, the common denominator is that they are human. So I'm fair in my judgement and so I have decided to point my hate at most humans. Tolerate most people, yes, for the most part. If cops were a showed their humility as public servants, admitting to their poor decisions as they recognized them, then unacceptable behavior can be easily forgiven. Unfortunately pride fucks with even the best of mankind's heads.

Cops shouldn't let their personality quirks inform their decisions as law enforcement. Sort of like rulers should be philosopher kings. It's not realistic to think that this will change all that much over the years, but it is realistic to try and at least confirm to others that most interactions with cops will NOT end in your favor. They will, however, protect the shit out of you when actual f'ed up criminals show up. It's just a shame that (often) they take out the time in between on the common citizens, who could use some firm law enforcement without the macho bullshit.

My judgement is based off of the frequency of my interaction where I either should not have been at fault or was at fault in one way or another and treated as if I were were a hardened criminal, my opinion minimized and was downright insulted by their candid and inappropriate comments. (I was once derided for getting into an accident with my mother's car when I was 19. "You're still driving your mama's car?" That really helped my mental state after climbing from the now upside down wreckage.) There were several occasions where I was completely at fault and, in fact, most of these times I had a fairly nice and patient cop. But the number of bad interactions at inappropriate times outweighs this, so I can only assume that there are more bad cops than good.

>> ^valorumguygee:

Then stop going online. Assuming that all cops are like the ones specifically pointed out in videos about abuse is foolish and makes you look uninformed and silly.
>> ^mxxcon:
>> ^Zaibach:
>> ^mxxcon:
>> ^Bruti79:
Those cops must be tired of dealing with that guy.
TOO FUCKING BAD. Cops are getting PAID to respond to calls. IF THEY DON'T LIKE IT, GET ANOTHER JOB. Powerhungry self-centered control freaks want this society to walk on their toes around cops. Fuck them!

Looks like someone got arrested recently lol!
nope, just getting more and more tired seeing power abuse.

It's never a all of nothing...

Do I agree that, in the best or worlds, education should be free. Absolutely.

Do I think that, in the financial situation this province is in, it's realistic to protest against a tuition hike that still will make it (one of) the lowest tuition in North America? Absolutely not.

We have a bunch of problems to solve - including waste government spending etc...and I'd love nothing better than to have a free education system...but as it is, we have the highest income tax rate in Canada (probably North America), we have debt issue, health system issues, etc. It just is not realistic at this point.

Have a little protest to make your point, and move on. Get some concession to have a bit better bursaries to help those students that need it, sure. Have a 200k protest where you jam up everybody during rush hour, close bridges, etc...I'm sorry, that justs feels like first world problems to me.

Do I have any evidence or polling about who agrees with the protesters...no. That's just based on what you hear on the street/news - which isn't scientific, of course...but I'd bet that there's a greater likelihood that it's the correct situation than not.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^Tokoki:
Students protesting about tuition hikes...when they have the cheapest tuition in all of North America!
Typically, when a group is protesting about something, you find a decent part of the general population that agrees with them. In this particular case...pretty much everyone here agrees that they're out in left field on this - including most of the other students who were actually trying to go to school.

Ummm why would you think this? Just because it's cheaper there than it is in America doesn't make it right. Higher education like community colleges should be free. Mexico has free state schools that are comparable to American ones across the border...yet they're free in a poor country and in a rich country they'r not. Does that seem right?
Also why not present some evidence or polling about who does and doesn't agree with these protesters.