He ended up doing 1:13.556, but it looked quite ragged compared to this years (slower, at 1:14.381, due to this years rules) effort by his team mate. If they showed the whole lap onboard this year's pole lap, I missed it.

Porksandwich,

I'm totally onboard with criticizing the Obama administration for not breaking up too big to fail banks, punishing the banks for their misdeeds, etc. That should have come part and parcel with the bailouts. But, the bailouts were still successful because they stopped the bleeding.

There's plenty to criticize the Obama administration and Congress for. It's not the bailouts that I have a problem with. It's the inaction afterwards to prevent another crisis.

Unfortunately, the GOP is bound and determined to nominate a candidate I can't consider voting for.

1. Yes, Randall should die. It's unfortunate, but by his own admission, he's already confirmed that the group he was with are not the most savory characters. He knows where the farm is and who Maggie and her family are. Plus, he knows that most of Rick's group are keen to kill him, which makes his motive for escape that much more enforced. At least his former group never tried to kill him. (We can't speculate here; only that facts that are presented to us, the audience) So he's definitely a liability to Rick's group.

2. Karl wants to prove himself. He's got two father figures telling him what to do, on top of a guarding mother. How should his parents approach the situation? Well...they haven't seen anything "wrong" yet, other than mouthing off to Carol. They don't know he stole Darrel's handgun, or confronted a zombie in the woods, etc. As for Karl wanting his Dad to shoot Randall, I'm sure Rick will have a sitdown and try to explain to him the logic behind his initial decision, and then the subsequent change of mind. Will he confess responsibility about the zombie? Tough call; if the writer's stick with the old Karl, he will. But Karl has changed (per his actions in this episode) and we never saw an apology to Carol. He could just shut down and harden up. Will the guilt get the better of him? I'd say yes, due to 1) he seems to have been brought up with a sense of justice and "doing the right thing" in part because of his father being a cop, and 2) at that age, when you screw up that bad, you don't just hide it away. He'll either confess, or confide in someone. I would have said he would have confided in Dale, but...well...you know....

3. Was it the right time to kill off Dale? Is it the right to ever kill of a character? Well, seeing as they've COMPLETELY strayed from the original Dale/Andrea story line in the original source material, I guess now is as good a time as any. My guess his Hershel will step up and take the mantel of the archetypal wise old man; it could give his character some redemption, if the writer's choose to go that route.
My immediate reaction to him dying was thinking "Well, Jeffrey DeMunn's off the show....I wonder what he'll do next with Frank Darabont..." Was his early death motivated by television politics....who knows. It seems to me that when you get an actor/director pairings, like DeMunn/Darabont, Russell/Carpenter, Depp/Burton, those tend to be pretty strong allegiances. I'm sure if there was some background gaffing over Darabont leaving the series, DeMunn was more than onboard with Darabont and wasn't surprised his character was killed off. I'll wait for the eventual news story/tell all book.

***Possible spoilers ahead if you haven't read the graphic novels***
As an aside, I'll cut back to season 1 for a moment, and what Jenner whispered to Rick before blowing up the CDC. I don't think he whispered some major secret to Rick; I have a feeling Jenner explained to Rick that "they" were the walking dead, and not the creatures outside. This is given in a huge, revelatory speech at the end of one of the books, don't remember which, after Rick breaks down from all the stress/guilt/death (that will eventually happen?). Seems a perfect fit into the storyline as they haven't mentioned it since the beginning of season 2 (when he's trying to reach Morgan on the radio). And I'm still waiting on Merle to show back up as the Governor.

Thanks for the comments and kind words, really appreciate it.

First and foremost it's definitely about SEEING the skills being performed. The end result being on show e.g the painting, sculpture, cool machine etc isn't enough.

The focus is initially on two areas. First, dexterity, where people perform everyday actions in an incredible way and in the realm of craftsmanship.
The exception here is mostly musical - for example many people can play the guitar very, very well and there's not much to be gained therefore by including lots of music videos in the channel. And how well someone sings is definitely a matter of opinion. I'm not against a few masters of their art being included but the vast majority would not.

Secondly physical feats. There's a lot of skill to be seen in controlling and applying the human body in various ways. We already have some breakdancing because the skill level there is clearly high. Popping could also be added. Martial arts is looking to be popular but to avoid a flood I will try to only select the best (and eventually a martial arts channel will appear and I'd hate to have a lot of overlap).
The exception is mostly going to be professional sports where the skill level can be variable and a product of the team ethic. So most sport clips would not be in skillful though I can see a classic Messi goal getting in

So mental skills. That's really interesting and initially that sounds just fine to me. My concern is that if it's not externalised in some way then the video might not be that interesting. I'd like to see some example videos. Chess sounds good and so does world records because that's someone doing something exceptional. Great oratory might be more subject to debate and opinion particularly if you don't agree with what's being said. For that reason I suggest keeping those within politics/talks/comedy.
Another exception for this might be anything in the Magic channel. Where the underlying skills are partially hidden because the performer is trying to fool the audience.

Glad to have you onboard! I hope the above sounds reasonable but if it can be further modified then let me know what you think.

In reply to this comment by dannym3141:
Hey deano, this is probably my favourite channel. I've never even had a favourite channel before, because they never provided me with what i wanted.

So is it specifically for demonstrations of skill? As in, a video of the mona lisa is not skillful, but someone drawing the mona lisa, that's being skillful. But also, couldn't certain music videos be included then? Break dancing, body popping? Does it have to be practical skill? Could mental skill be involved? A game of chess, or perhaps Richard Feynmann videos? Oratory skill perhaps? What about world records and stuff?

Or is it like an overall feeling - if you feel like wow, they just did something incredible then it's skillful? But then i'd still need to know where you stand on mental skill.

Sorry to pepper you with questions, but it's the first time a channel has held any interest for me.

A. Overly simplistic, and you're confusing to some degree what is Keynesian. A central tenant of Keynesian economics is counter-cyclical budget deficits. When there's a recession, the government should run deficits, and the larger the recession, the larger the corresponding deficit. That's been a non-stop, although admittedly abused, government policy since the Depression. Also, Keynesian economics had components in it for monetary policy as well. Keynes advocated for lower interest rates during times of recession along with increasing the monetary supply. Yes, he did believe that during more severe recessions that monetary measures would not be enough, but he nevertheless advocated for the various monetary policies. These align up with most recessions as far as what the gov't did from the Great Depression on. Just because Keynesian policies disappointed during the 1970's, the ideas were not altogether abandoned ever since. The simple fact of the matter is aside from 2007, there hadn't been a particularly severe recession since the 1970s, so it's reasonable to assume that direct employment wasn't deemed necessary, not that it was seen as bad policy in all cases.

B. It happened to me by the hand of Microsoft. I'm pretty sure they didn't have flunky MBAs. ;-)

C. There are a lot of similar issues involved. My point was only that you can't just tie requirements to it, and that's that. There are a huge myriad of issues that would come hand in hand with stipulations to unemployment. Your idea is still something I'd be onboard with if those devils in the details were addressed. I do see as an example that some people become unemployed because of structural changes to the economy that causes their jobs to never come back. As a case in point, textile factory workers who lose their jobs due to offshoring are suddenly in a position where market forces have no remedy. They lack the skills to get jobs in areas of growth such as more in depth computer skills, and likely lack the financial resources to get the education and training to get said skills because they're unemployed. This is a perfect example in my opinion where the market and free trade fail from time to time, and some force, likely the gov't, needs to step in for the good of everyone. These people would benefit from retraining, so they can get a good job, business owners benefit from increasing numbers of workers who can do the jobs they're needing people to do, and it becomes a win win situation.

D. The last time we tried no deposit insurance, it failed miserably. Banks lent money for people to buy goods and services they couldn't afford, and stocks on the margin. People stuck their money in banks anyway. The only difference is when fear hit the market after the crash, a lot of people, many irrationally, pulled their money from banks, causing a collapse in the banking system, which tanked the entire economy even further.

People lack the time and/or motivation to stay informed on all kinds of issues from local politics, to PTA meetings. I don't see how they could begin to assess what loans their banks were making as far as riskiness. And the typical American when it comes to finances? Yikes! Next to no savings, can't understand how much they should be regularly investing, etc. And it's not just the stupid people. Most Americans don't even know what a mutual fund actually is. How could they possibly make intelligent decisions about the riskiness of their banks' portfolios? I consider myself smarter than the average bear, but even I'd be paralyzed with fear selecting a bank based what little info I could find of their portfolios. Instead, I make sure they're FDIC insured, because that in and of itself entails objective benchmarks to even get that insurance.

And honestly, I don't see many people making decisions about their banks based on rates alone. As a case in point, very few people I know put money in online high yield savings accounts instead of the local credit union, bank, or large megabank, despite the fact that in most cases online savings account providers such as ING Direct pay 2-3 times the interest. I don't believe that's what caused the madness in the banking industry at all. At the very least, there's a massive list of causes well above FDIC insurance, and even if FDIC insurance did play a role in causing the crisis, it also served well in preventing runs on the banks in general that would have compounded the crisis further.

>> ^bmacs27:

@heropsycho
A. Because we've been leaning on monetary policy as our intervention of choice. Direct employment has been called socialism for 30 years. That doesn't suggest a dominant Keynesian ideology. Really it's been this mix of monetarism and supply-side economics which morphed into some mutilated crony-capitalism.
B. I suppose it could happen, but it would take a rough business climate, or some flunky MBAs. In that situation I'd try to increase my business (i.e. make $200,000).
C. That's why we have food stamps. It isn't a perfect solution, but the kid starves if her folks spend the whole check on smokes too. Vices aren't the kind of "demand side" stimulus I'd like to see (one flaw in the Keynesian argument given the current living conditions of the American poor).
D. I really do believe that if the FDIC didn't exist, "the market" would not have allowed deposits to be leveraged by banks investing in exotic financial instruments. Like you said, even the bankers didn't know what the hell they were doing! Without the FDIC people would very quickly ask, "what the hell you doin' with my money?" Rather, since their money is backed by the government they ask, "what sorts of rates are you offering?" It's that pressure from the distorted marketplace that pushed banks into more and more leverage to stay competitive. Those rates were realized by making massively leveraged bets that were only possible by hedging with exotic instruments. Once upon a time people knew their banker. I think that's the best FDIC there could be. There might be some legal patchwork of the Glass-Steagall flavor that might make it work, but chasing down all the unintended consequences would be a challenge. Certainly figuring out how to unwind all the securitized mortgages that already exist makes that sort of policy direction seemingly prohibitive.
F-. Dude, Peter Schiff is a quack.

No, you can't. >> ^Chaucer:

The window frosts up so you cant really see what happens next. If you look real close though, you can just make out the one cop tazering the audi driver.

Flying's such a huge part of life there of course you know there's no way to get around it. Very tragic. And since I have a close relative there I'm always concerned. One thing: I'm always puzzled why nobody has come up with an effective retractable or retract/inflatable pontoon. Those things are worse than wire struts as far as drag is concerned. It's like a freaking flying pontoon boat. I've tried to fly model float planes and they are the worst ever.

>> ^deathcow:

We just had a float plane land on the ground here in Alaska... after clipping another plane and killing a family of 4 onboard : (
http://www.adn.com/2011/07/31/1994251/plane-in-collision-that-killed.
html
Pics of plane coming down if you click on the family and go to pic 3 or 4

We just had a float plane land on the ground here in Alaska... after clipping another plane and killing a family of 4 onboard : (
http://www.adn.com/2011/07/31/1994251/plane-in-collision-that-killed.html
Pics of plane coming down if you click on the family and go to pic 3 or 4

>> ^Enzoblue:

In the book it seemed to me Loras loved Renly like a subject loved his king. I guess since Martin is onboard with this series that it may have been more. Definitely wasn't man gravy slurping gay though.


No, this is wrong. You should reread it. They are both gay in the books. It is meant to be something you have to puzzle out, like "J" is "L" and "R"'s son. On your reread, you will realize that George put in a ton of clues for you. Rainbow Guard. Loras never leaves Renly's side. Renly loves bright colors. Renly never consummated his marriage, and everyone believes it. Even things that Renly and Loras say to each other can be taken as one thing, but meant another. Speaking of that, many of the jabs and derisions that Littlefinger and Varys point in their direction are also clues.

It is easy to read Martin's books and miss how much he is putting into each sentence. It really comes out only after you have read them a few times. In some sense, he is a master at foreshadowing.

Anyway, my advice is to read it again.

In the book it seemed to me Loras loved Renly like a subject loved his king. I guess since Martin is onboard with this series that it may have been more. Definitely wasn't man gravy slurping gay though.

Thanks God I don't have a computer camera and mic(rophone) [wait, how do you disable an onboard/internal one like you put a tape over the camera on a lappy?]

I always thought it would be neat to have a "sifter colloquium" sort of thing via sift talk, but a podcast format would be even better probably. One thing I like so much about the sift is everyone has such a different background and "specialty." Because of this I thought a weekly or monthly "colloquium" where one person is spotlighted and would give a brief talk on their specialty via a sift talk would be really fun to read. An audio interview over the phone/internet available for podcast would also be really neat to listen to, I think. It would be fun to hear sifters actually talking about the things they are most passionate about in an interview setting. Alternately, I wouldn't mind listening to @dag talk about the history of the sift via podcast, it sounds really interesting to me

that's assuming you could get people onboard to talk to

edit: by the way, thanks @dag for posting the link to those siftography interviews. I had no idea such a thing existed and they are really interesting

>> ^shinyblurry:

Okay, the theory is that something mutates and creates something beneficial which then is selected to survive because it reproduces...well..how does natural selection choose for parts for components that dont exist and dont work? why would a creature with 1/40th of a working part be selected to survive so that it could get another part for a component that still doesnt work it just does not explain things like the flaggelums tail..thats what irreducible complexity is all about..there is no reason why flaggelums with a 10th an onboard tail motor would be selected to survive..just because each component could independently grow in some scenerio doesnt mean anything..no mutation for a non working part is beneficial..there would be no reason to continue on down that line or why the creature would survive in the first place.
another problem for evolution is that we can observe it in action..a generation of bacteria grows in no time..and at no time has there ever been observed one kind of bacteria mutating into another kind. we can test evolution this way..yes things mutate all the time..but they don't produce new kinds. not even once. so evolution is just not happening today

Concerning your first paragraph:
Just from the top of my head the Appendix comes to mind, which seems to not serve any function.
Regardless, you still use the irreducible complexity argument, which I should believe enough evidence has been presented to you to show that it is incorrect.

Your 2. paragraph:
Google is a b***

Now I am growing tired of this game because we came full circle.
I have only one question for you now:
How did, to the best of your knowledge, life end up like we see it today(I am not asking for how life came to exist, that has nothing to do with evolution)? And please provide evidence.

Okay, the theory is that something mutates and creates something beneficial which then is selected to survive because it reproduces...well..how does natural selection choose for parts for components that dont exist and dont work? why would a creature with 1/40th of a working part be selected to survive so that it could get another part for a component that still doesnt work it just does not explain things like the flaggelums tail..thats what irreducible complexity is all about..there is no reason why flaggelums with a 10th an onboard tail motor would be selected to survive..just because each component could independently grow in some scenerio doesnt mean anything..no mutation for a non working part is beneficial..there would be no reason to continue on down that line or why the creature would survive in the first place.

another problem for evolution is that we can observe it in action..a generation of bacteria grows in no time..and at no time has there ever been observed one kind of bacteria mutating into another kind. we can test evolution this way..yes things mutate all the time..but they don't produce new kinds. not even once. so evolution is just not happening today

>> ^TheGenk:
>> ^shinyblurry:
Professor Edwin Conklin observed, "The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the Unabridged Dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop." or
Sir Fred Hoyle, of Cambridge University stated that statistically the chances of one cell evolving was the same as a tornado passing through a junkyard and giving you a fully functional Boeing 747
it's just taken on faith that it happened, of course..but there isn't even a good theory for it. pea soup getting electrocuted a cell does not create. its just not plausible.
Those quotes are all true, but the fail on one point: They assume a very complex endproduct (Here: the unabridged dictionary, the boeing 747 and the cell). Which is simply false.
Arguments about the statistical chances of something happening being very unlikely when it demonstrably happened are moot.
I could use that to argue that statistically the chance of you being created from the genetic material of your parents is so small that therefore you could not possibly exist. But clearly you do.
I'll just address the last one:
No one claims that the fully formed cell was the first "life" to pop into existance. There are other more "primitive" forms which came first. I can't find the articles but I know of at least one which demonstrates how a less complex version of a cell membrane every cell enjoys today "creates itself" in a primordial soup like environment. Add the amino acids that form in the same environment and you got yourself a very primitive cell.

This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by chicchorea.