Why can you see that here but not in the identical circumstances on the other video where dogs were released before anything?
Where the tackle was immediate with zero resistance?
Where the man who was just released from a voluntary commitment because he thought police were trying to kill him was immediately violently attacked by a dozen police with dogs because they thought he might have done something….there’s no report of any escapees or crime but he’s WWB, that’s suspicious itself, and open ended suspicion by cop is apparently a crime to you. (Hint, it’s not, and stopping someone for “suspicion” but having no idea of what is called harassment and is illegal).

Mind blown. But, cynically, what if Kubrick told a different version of the ending to a different person (that he even bothered to tell to)'s inquiry? I enjoy endings that leave room enough for some open-ended posibilities if expertly crafted.

You could recreate this with the exception of 3D. http://www.algodoo.com/.

Been playing with program for years and it's fairly simple once you play with it for a while.

Algodoo is a physics-based 2D sandbox freeware from Algoryx Simulation AB as the successor to the popular physics application Phun. It was released on September 1, 2009 and is presented as: a learning tool, an open ended computer game, an animation tool, and an engineering tool.

Come on, it's ok if we agree on something . Your African examples aren't really oppressive dictatorships, they are collections of failed states or outright anarchy, which I'll readily agree is easily possible with or without a well armed population. If you want to note African examples, when Kagame seized control of Rwanda, he didn't exactly decide to leave the genocidal opponents he cast out open ended gun rights. As is always the case, removing their ability to wage war was kind of prerequisite to his control of the country.

Simple tests like this are meant to reveal how comfortable an applicant is at interpreting a problem and quickly translating it to code. It's analogous to how math tests in school required you to translate word problems to algebra. If someone struggles at this stage, they probably won't be a good coding hire. Or instead they might show some foresight into likely problems, gotchas, scalability, or testing.

I've been whiteboarded in a few interviews, and I've been hired based on a phone call. I don't know what the best method is, but I really hate the idea of "instant-fail" questions with a narrow "correct" answer. It's better to ask a few relatively easy, open-ended questions and see how comfortable the applicant is.

If the head of his penis is the open end of the bottle she's doing it wrong in more ways than one.

Yokay, glad to be of service. I think egalitarianism as an overall goal is a fine position, though maybe a little open-ended, but I don't think it should be used as an excuse not to prioritize. It seems to me that there's a risk that 'egalitarianism' without a follow-up falls into the trap of 'all houses matter.'

I don't think it's supposed to be taken in a general way and applied to "gay" people, but rather telling the story that isn't very often heard about those people who don't identify as either gay or straight, or who fall into the bisexual, asexual or questioning (gay/bi/trans curious) categories of the LGBT[QIA].

The truth is, we want to believe SO BADLY as a society that we are either gay or straight. And then we want to label ourselves to find community and identity SO BADLY, that some people get caught in the middle of two (or more!) different worlds, and that neither normative communities quite describe their sexuality. Hence the final comparison with the romantic comedy Sliding Doors. Also, that's why these crazy parties exist in the first place. (You're NOT invited.)

Let's see, there's:

L is for Lesbian, which is women's special gay letter. Technically you could just call LGBT, GBT, as some women identify as gay but not lesbian, or vice versa, or both. But women are special because of feminism, so they get L and G but men only get G.

Don't get on my ass because I speak the truth. I attend plenty enough GBT events to know the fluctuating social stigmas within the group, as well as the bitter rivalries between different letters of the acronym (or those who want to lengthen or shorten the representative letters). It's confusing to people who have this misconception that all stories of gay or lesbian people apply to all gay or lesbian people. It's so diverse, what's even the point of labels any more?

Anyway, moving on.

G is for Gay, which is women or men, but in common usage was (or is, depending on your perspective) for men. Yet as time goes on and the information age fills in our social gaps, women have begun to identify as gay. In fact, I have a genderfluid friend who was born female, but often identifies as a gay male, and has even been accepted into the ranks of the the Gay Men's Chorus. Take that label obsessed society!!

B is for Bisexual, which is a broad category that I'd say more aptly covers this situation, but even more so I think the Q (Questioning) with a little or a lot of A (Asexual) of the greater acronym LGBTQ or LGBTQIA is an even better term for these two star crossed lovers.

T is for Transgender, which is another broad category but with very specific splinter factions of crossdressers, transexuals, transvestites, genderfluid, etc. etc. Some of these terms, depending on the context are either outdated, have new or older and more specific defining characteristics, or even more often, people define themselves as the umbrella term itself, transgender, because the feelings of one or the other specifics oscillates and changes as transgender people (male and female) age. I know trans people of all ages and wow, the perspectives are vast, and are rarely consistent throughout the years. (You just DON'T know how you'll identify at the age of 65+.)

Q is for Questioning, which is for people who just don't know what they are. This one is really an open ended letter and often isn't included because it represents an ignorance of the self. Maybe you figure out your sexuality or gender specifics right away or maybe it takes you years of experimentation to find your niche. Or maybe you transcend the boundaries forever, always changing and never staying the same throughout the years. The main thing here is that you don't know. Maybe you have a gay romance and then you're like, "Damn, I'm definitely straight" and now you're not even part of LGBT. Q is like the gateway letter. lol

I is for Intersex, which is for people who have genitalia or other gender defining anatomy which is different, not entirely present, is equally both, or more of one than the other. Look it up, because I'm the least familiar with this one, though I do have friends who are intersex. I just haven't asked them enough specifics out of respect. Also, recent research into genetics has shown that you could have a portion of your body that isn't gender defining, but which is made up of the opposite sex's genetic code. I've heard of people who have had their toe or their heart identified as male, but the rest of their body is female. Some people will never even know they're intersex, and depending on what part of their body is intersex, may not experience any feelings other than their body's dominant sex. (I don't have a scientific link, but it was part of a topic that I attended at PRIDE.

A is for Asexual, which is for people who don't have sexual feelings, or who don't act on sexual feelings for any number of reasons intellectual, physical, or both. I don't know how broad this category is but I myself go through periods (sometimes years) of asexuality. A defining characteristic for some people who have misidentified as gay or bi. For example, my parents thought I was gay and I had friends who would openly call me gay, despite me not showing ANY sexual emotions towards either sex. Though I did have both guys and girls who would hit on me or have sex (oral or otherwise) with me on the down low, despite my half interest in both! People are curious and when you can't figure out someone's sexual identity, some people will lay it on so thick, it could be seen as sexual harassment. I knew several girls that just wanted to have sex with me so bad to figure out if I was gay or straight. I just didn't care about either sexes at the time, though I was pleasantly stimulated to varied effects.

I think this is the story that isn't told. If you're asexual or going through an asexual period, that doesn't make you gay!

There could be more movies or shorts out there telling this story, but this is the first honest look into the Q and A of LGBT that I've ever seen. Shit, and I thought when I published my book I'd be the first. Damn. heh

I don't necessarily disagree with you. My opinions, while oft contrarian, are really just open ended processes without judgement or declaration. They are hardly even opinions, as I almost always simultaneously believe and hold dear multiple conflicting ideas about particular subjects. An enlightened doublethink as it were. Everything is a theory worth pondering. Thanks Socrates. Thanks for making me not know anything.

Now while tenure certainly holds clout, it can also blind us to the moments in time which were shorter but sweeter than any of the fine tuned complexities of empire. The Internet as we know it, with youtube and Facebook, for example, may be the fixture but I'll always think kindly upon those early 90s, when it was the awkward but mysterious world wide web.

So, cool, yay for fixtures, but I'm a founders man, not a member of the club after its maturity. The Thomas Paine -- Cool, the revolution is over, now fuck yo couch. Where's the next one?

Other examples where the fixture isn't necessarily the only method to decide value by: Van Halen's prolific career versus that first, highly exceptional, fast and heavy album. Or the short but sweet years Ronnie James Dio or Glenn Huges sang for Black Sabbath -- Ozzy is the fixture, but those short moments of time where something strange and magical was created with other diverse geniuses, prior to or after the bread winners, those are the moments of fascination.

I love Jon Stewart but this ain't no thang. My interest was already piqued and held years ago, before him. He's great though and far better than a single television show.

There was actually a 1985 G.I. Joe Commodore 64 game from Epyx:



It was open ended, and, from what I recall only loosely based on the movie... but it's an interesting comparison to this animation.

Aha, Ainur, thank you! I knew I was probably thinking of the wrong term.

Either way, didn't know there was "raging controversy". I did however get to work on Lord of the Rings Online for 3 years, where I had daily access to one of the best lore-historians in the US( Chris Pierson, who sat next to me).

Pretty sure he said something along the lines of "One of the last in Middle earth that we know of", so there was definitely an open-ended element to the topic

He means you fold up the open end to keep it fresher for tomorrow.

@carnivorous
let me first start by apologizing to @pumkinandstorm for derailing her thread.i always seem to do it to her posts.poor thing must hate me.

as for @carnivorous, i usual dont respond to any other posts after i rant (unless its shinyblurry) but i feel you are worth the time.i have read many of your comments and i sense you are a decent sort.

and though i am loath to do it i shall form my response in bullet form,more for expedience than laziness.(bullet responses are a lazy form of argument in my opinion).

1.my comment was not directed at you specifically,hence my generalizations and the use of the open-ended pronoun of "you".though you were certainly included in that use of "you".if i had issue with YOU i would have formed my comment in that manner addressing YOU..specifically.

my problem with some of the comments was not with a moral conflict but rather:presumption and ignorance.your commentary displayed both.

this is not an attack on you nor is it a reflection of how i feel/think/react to you.
it is just a statement based on your commentary.
i was hoping that my rant would possibly illuminate that fact for you (and others).

please reread your commentary in regards to @shang.
notice anything?
presumption.
you presumed to know and understand @shang 's intentions,even when he stated the opposite.
unenlightened.
or ignorant.you decide.because your whole premise is based on how YOU feel/think about a certain activity and you projected that morality onto @shang and found him lacking.
self-righteous.
because @shang participates in something you find abhorrent,it appears by your commentary this gave you the right to chastise and judge him,based on YOUR morality.

2.i do not think you are a bully.i think you were being presumptuous and self-righteous.read your commentary.

3.your rebuttal was no rebuttal at all but rather a conflation.the family you used as your example as "hunters"were not hunters.we have a name for people like that "sadistic psychopaths".appears they made it a family affair.
but to conflate those sick individuals and hunters is obscene and reveals an utter lack of understanding in regards to actual hunters.

4.i respect a man who stands up for what he believes in and i would never ask you to apologize but thats not what my commentary was addressing.

i was addressing the presumptions you were making about @shang based on pretty much nothing.
and while he was responding in a decent fashion you kept sniping at him from the bleachers.

its all trumpets and parades for standing up for what you believe in but how about a little bit of respect and appreciation for someone taking the time to respond to your questions?
especially in regards to something you obviously know next to nothing about?

you cant demand respect for your morals and beliefs and then turn around and deny anothers right for the very same thing.

i mean,think about it man.
you missed out on an opportunity to understand the mindset,motivations or passion for an activity that is alien to you.

your understanding has not moved an inch because of a pre-conceived notion based on what?
a childhood memory?
a few anecdotal experiences?

what a wasted opportunity.
would you have still disagreed?
yeah..most likely.
but at least you would have understood more.
and this practice is also known as empathy.

ah well...
i hope you read this is the context it was written.
with humanity and not an attack on you.

@aaronfr-I can't elucidate more than a gut-feeling on the matter and a few questions perhaps.... Why in the fuck are they doing this and who is in charge?

What is the great necessity for such "readiness" and at whom would such an operation be directed?? The "invisible" terrorists who threaten the "American way of life, fuck you very much" OR as a means of overwhelming control should an open-ended lock-down occur and never end?

At face value, it's scary ball-flexing by the MIC who is used to doing whatever the fuck they deem necessary to maintain their control over the world full of slaves who are drunk playing the system's games by the system's rules, and it's complete insanity.

The only terrorists are an illusion created by the real terrorists, the 1 fucking percent.


OH, and they frequently use random events like a couple of punk Muslim freaks making homemade bombs to further their process of control-Opportunistic, scheming power-hungry control-freak sickoid sociopath inbred cunts, all.

http://googleblog.blogspot.ca/2013/06/what.html

"Dear Google users—

You may be aware of press reports alleging that Internet companies have joined a secret U.S. government program called PRISM to give the National Security Agency direct access to our servers. As Google’s CEO and Chief Legal Officer, we wanted you to have the facts.

First, we have not joined any program that would give the U.S. government—or any other government—direct access to our servers. Indeed, the U.S. government does not have direct access or a “back door” to the information stored in our data centers. We had not heard of a program called PRISM until yesterday.

Second, we provide user data to governments only in accordance with the law. Our legal team reviews each and every request, and frequently pushes back when requests are overly broad or don’t follow the correct process. Press reports that suggest that Google is providing open-ended access to our users’ data are false, period. Until this week’s reports, we had never heard of the broad type of order that Verizon received—an order that appears to have required them to hand over millions of users’ call records. We were very surprised to learn that such broad orders exist. Any suggestion that Google is disclosing information about our users’ Internet activity on such a scale is completely false.

Finally, this episode confirms what we have long believed—there needs to be a more transparent approach. Google has worked hard, within the confines of the current laws, to be open about the data requests we receive. We post this information on our Transparency Report whenever possible. We were the first company to do this. And, of course, we understand that the U.S. and other governments need to take action to protect their citizens’ safety—including sometimes by using surveillance. But the level of secrecy around the current legal procedures undermines the freedoms we all cherish.

Posted by Larry Page, CEO and David Drummond, Chief Legal Officer"