That or just your mom using social media.

Edit:
Heck, even those of us who pride ourselves on our health, still experience occasional infirmity. I count myself among those people - in fact, I believe that I suffer these dips more often than many. There is an ironic aptness, I have often felt, in the fact that I named my daughter 'Grace' - a virtue I find myself lacking all too frequently.

Just recently, when rock-running, I tripped over my own two feet and fell face first to the ground. I received excellent medical care and recovered, but if I were of a progressive mindset, I would no doubt find the very idea of someone inquiring as to my recovery both condescending and sexist. I would also be glad that Hillary can evade that kind of questioning, thanks to the biased support she receives from the pro-establishment media which shields her from legitimate inquiries. The fact that she is running for the highest office in our nation does not seem to persuade the media that these questions are legitimate and necessary to pose.

If you ask me, the real sexism on display now is the odd reluctance of the media to ask hard-hitting questions, and its willingness to accept the ridiculous excuses offered by Hillary Clinton's campaign for the lack of proper e-mail management. Rather than demand the real contents of those e-mails, the media is content to accept a disarming and stereotypical list of everyday 'women's activities' such as yoga or wedding planning, for fear that if they point out the obvious ridiculousness here, they will be lambasted as sexist.

#SAD

Vimeo is better, but it's still pretty low. I'd like for their bitrates to be at least double what they are right now. 4x would be ideal, but I know even 2x is asking a lot.

For instance, the "Posing and Rendering CGI Characters" video from Filmmaker IQ:

Youtube 720p - 782 kbps video (44 khz 125 kbps audio / 178MB file)
Vimeo 720p - 1,077 kbps video (48 khz 256 kbps audio / 135MB file)

Youtube 1080p - 1,474 kbps video
Vimeo 1080p - 2,545 kbps video

Also, if downloads are enabled for the video on Vimeo you can download the original file, which looks like this:

Vimeo 1080p original - 10,100 kbps video. (1.35 GB file)

Thus it was passed down to me...
It's believable.
Although I think there's really only been two golf moments like that in my life; the other being Tiger's hovering put at the 16th (?) at Augusta, that posed with its little Nike symbol for a good, long while before finally tumbling in---what was that---2001? 2000?

Yes, and that's why I display such contempt and distrust of them.

As I understood it, yes, 3 pairs of cuffs, all 3 attached to his wrists, not a chain of 3 pairs to make him comfortable. I mean, why is he cuffed at all? WTF?!? He's not 500lbs, the only time they use more than one pair in a chain is when the perps hands can't fit behind their back, NEVER for comfort....that's simply not what cuffs are about...EVER.

Yes, this level of 'incompetence' (if that's what it was, and I don't concede that) MUST be intentional. It falls so far below the bar we have set as reasonable, or the standards that police MUST meet through testing, that the only way it could actually be his incompetence rather than intentional negligence is if his supervisor intentionally falsified his test results to keep him on the force....so it's either HIS intentional negligence or his supervisors, but either way, it's intentional. No question in my mind that SOMEONE along the chain of responsibility intentionally allowed this behavior...or this level of incompetence that it's clear would lead to this behavior. There was intentional negligence, no way around it.

It actually seems to indicate a lack of a reason for shooting in the first place to me.

I've seen a dozen videos about this. Numerous times they mentioned an over 15 minute wait before he was seen by medics, during which time they had him handcuffed, bleeding in the street, but not charged with any crime or even suspected of one....why the cuffs?

I think that there is a point where negligence is SO intentional, and the results of that negligence SO foreseeable that it's indirect intent. Cops shoot to kill...period. If they shoot inappropriately, like at someone not posing a threat, that's attempted murder IMO. Period. They intend to kill, it's not accidental. Wounding him was accidental and clearly incompetence, which should be another charge IMO, unsafe discharge of a weapon...at least twice for those times he missed completely....and attempted murder 3 times.

(Side note...how in the hell do you miss from that close with a rifle?!? That, as much as anything else, should have people up in arms, that an officer is so non-proficient with his weapon, but still allowed to carry and use it. WTF?!? I want every officer with a firearm to be reasonably proficient with it...really any person with one, but that's another discussion. Police have to train, and prove proficiency with their weapon....how can this possibly happen without intentional skirting of the standards/rules/law?)

The biggest problem IMO is there's rarely any justice at all, even in those cases where there's incontrovertible evidence of guilt. Instant justice would be nice, but delayed justice would be FAR preferable to no justice, which is the current situation. How many recent killings of unarmed men have gone completely unaddressed? Far too many to count.
The system is set up in such a way that those charged with prosecuting police have personal and professional relationships with them that deny impartiality in almost every case. That is why there's rarely any prosecution, and even when there is (usually because they are pressured into it by public outcry) they blatantly throw the case in the toilet with no consequence....and there's still no justice.

Does the Ryan guy ever not pose like he's powering up his next form?

not really-life = sentient life is the only assertion which i clarified and this assumption was stated from the beginning so was implied. the suggestion that this changes everything is a classic straw man fallacy.

the imperatives which i am espousing on are merely non-violence and a rejection of oppression, exploitation and using others as property and economic commodities which almost every human believes when it concerns humans and perhaps a few other species. it is only the others whom should be considered under the umbrella of moral concern which is the key point of the issue for most people.

as far as the population, the main reason WHY the human population IS such an issue is due to the consumption of animal products. along with the obvious moral and ethical issues of murdering other sentient beings, the production of animal based foods requires many times the resources to produce an equivalent calorie compared to plant based food which drives things like climate change, resource depletion, water scarcity, biodiversity, species extinction and other aspects of environmental devastation.

when a video such as this one comes up which highlights people being kind to an animal, it is disturbing that people are so disconnected that they do not make the connection between the animals in the video whom they feel good about being rescued and the countless others which are being tortured and murdered for their dinner plate. this is exactly what the short article i posed above articulates so well.

“Ask ten people on the street if they think it’s wrong to injure or kill animals for one’s amusement or pleasure, and nine or ten will say yes, of course. Chances are all ten of those people freely consume animal products, simply because they like to and they’re used to doing it." - Karen Manfrede

"Doing these things as a prelude to proselytizing means they aren't altruistic..."

Altruism isn't the right word. When people help others to their hurt, that is called agape love, a word the Christian community has owned for 2000 years. You're right of course, that more than a few churches out there are always trying to figure out how to get more members, more money etc. But that isn't all the churches, or even nearly so. For instance the churches in this community dont care who goes where; they all work together and no one is taking the credit for it. This is just one counter example to the broad brush strokes you're painting here.

I think you need a little more nuance here too, newtboy; for instance, would you say it is wrong for atheists to do good deeds in the name of atheism? Or, for the red cross to air commercials showing their accomplishments so they could raise more money to expand their mission in the world?

"And yet, here you are calling attention to yourself (and them), so you proved your statement wrong by stating it publicly. Oops! ;-)"

I didn't mention what I do newtboy, but I have no problem calling attention to the righteous who glorify God through their lives.

"Churches are for profit institutions.."

The church according to the bible is a non-profit organization. Whether churches in America reflect that or not is another question entirely. I know for my church, and almost any other church, you can request to see how the church spends its money year by year. None of the churches I have dealings with are making "profits"

"Once again I would ask, why do you question your god's clear wish that I (and others) not believe in him..."

Jesus Christ died for our sins, yours and mine. God already demonstrated His love for us while we were sinners, now the only question is, will you reciprocate? The insanity of the question posed to Stephan Fry, ie what would you say to God, is exposed by the answer "How dare you!" by Stephan. It seems that people believe God is a man who needs to explain Himself, who has something to hide. Yet, Stephan and every other human being have a lot to hide; the brutal and ugly truth of how we have all lived our lives here.

It's easy for a man to say to people who know nothing about him that he will shake his fist at God when they meet. Yet, what will he do when all of his lawless deeds are exposed and the secrets he has kept from everyone are brought to light? All the fight will go out of him immediately, this I guarantee you. Yet, this in itself is still ridiculous, considering that even merely being in Gods presence is enough to make the most hardened sinner fall to his knees and weep uncontrollably. But people won't be weeping because God loves them on that day, they will be weeping and gnashing their teeth after being confronted by the fact that they have missed the boat for eternity.

"Shirley.."

My name isn't Sherlock..

"Doing 100 good deeds and one incredibly evil deed makes one evil. No church in history has ever reached that level of goodness. Churches are evil. I hope that clears things up."

I'm glad you understand what I have been trying to explain to the sift for years; a relative goodness is no goodness at all. If you set fire to someones home, and then built 27 orphanages, would people call you good? Why is it then that people think that all of our good deeds should cause God to forgive us for a single sin? This is the reason Jesus died for us, because we can't earn Gods forgiveness and our good deeds can't erase our bad ones. Could you ever go to court and say "your honor, although I commited this crime I have done over 1000 hours of community service in my lifetime, so please dismiss the case; will that ever happen? That wouldn't be justice, and if God threw out our case without true justice, He wouldn't be a just judge.

What would I say about churches who have done evil? These are institutions; the true church is the body of Christ, of which every born again believer is a member of. That is what is happening in my community, is that no one cares about the institution of the church; they are just being the church. The reward is simply this, to serve God honorably by living a sacrificial life predicated on sacrificial love.

That idea came directly from ahimsa, (who I've been going back and forth with all day) who specifically said today that convincing people to adopt veganism is about 'social justice'.
I'm sincerely sorry if I attributed that sentiment to you inappropriately.

What I find insulting is the sudden influx of a number of vocal, shaming, guilt spreading vegans here trying to make everyone think just like they do or else feel ashamed and like they're terrible, evil, abusive people...or unthinking idiots. I'll only speak for myself, but I don't want to see that here.
You're welcome to your opinion, and welcome to share it, but when you start telling other people what THEY should or must do/feel/think, you've crossed a line into social justice warrioring, and I'll rail against it every time I notice that happen. When you add multiple propaganda links, the bile will build quickly.

I read the update. It gave some insight to your thought process, but didn't solve my issue.
You're mistaken, and it seemed a bit narcissistic, to think everyone that doesn't agree with you must just be naïve and has never considered this subject thoughtfully. The anger stems from THAT (apparent) insulting thought, not from some internal logic struggle about loving some animals and eating others (or maybe loving AND eating some), it's anger at people telling others how to think, how to act, how to feel, how to eat....and vitriol when the reasoning behind that direction comes from questionable at BEST, completely discredited at worst, internet propaganda posing as science. THAT is a big pet peeve of mine, no matter what the subject may be, and I've been dealing with it all day long.
It may have been inappropriate to lump you in with him, again I apologize if the complaint didn't fit.

When we can't even count on PBS to be in any way unbiased, we're screwed. As far as I can tell, there is NO unbiased news to be had anywhere today. It's ALL opinion, one sided 'reporting', and pure commercial posing as 'news'. Anyone calling themselves a reporter these days should be ashamed of their profession.
I fear the people wont stand against this. We're too placated by 1/2 truths that fit our narrative, and all too willing to listen to our cheerleaders and ignore the other side's cheerleaders, and not even notice than neither of them are offering facts or specifics.
We're hosed. Incredibly sadly, that means the planet is hosed, as we control so much of the planet's resources.
Where's a black plague when we need one?

It's a root cellar with a questionable shape posing as a very inconvenient fridge

I hadn't thought I was ever disagreeing on Bush and Cheney and company approving war crimes in the form of torture(in particular stress positions and later on water boarding). They were shockingly open about it and basically just defended it by saying they didn't think it was that bad...

When you posed Abu Ghraib as an example of military following illegal orders though, I disagreed. You know, based upon the fact that the acts of sexual assualt, physical assault, rape and murder were counted as crimes by the military. This standing apart from 'lesser' torture like loud music and stress positions which was 'ok'.

If you want to be taken seriously stick to the truth. Trying to run out hyperbole like you were by alluding to rape and murder being an executive order and standard procedure does you no credit. Trotting out Abu Ghraib is even worse as it disproves your hyperbole, what with the military discharging and putting on trial those involved and all.

And yet almost no Republican has a problem with the Death Penalty. Almost no Republican has a problem with War, in fact they love it and want more of it. Almost no Republican has a problem with Stand Your Ground and execute a guy for trying to steal your TV.

What about Jesus teaching that "blessed are the peace maker" he didn't say that there be blessings on the warmongers. Yet the party is the party of warmongers, and looking for any excuse to enter a battle and murder and kill people who haven't done anything to anyone here in the US... just on the threat they may pose. Yes, the war against bin Laden was just, but Bush and the party abandoned that soon after for a set of lies about Iraq, which had done nothing to us. How many people have to die in war after war before the so called pro-life people start saying enough is enough?

Jesus said that if somebody steals your coat, give them your shirt too, not to mention turn the other cheek. Which I don't think he meant to literally let people walk over you, but it is hard to justify the death penalty and stand your ground legislation when you support murdering another person. Murders, rapists, etc may deserve it, but it is impossible for somebody to claim to be pro-life when they support the death penalty and stand your ground.

Hell, that's all without getting into the whole fact the party doesn't want to support that life if they are poor and needy after they are born. The party wants to get rid of food stamps and all other programs to help them. It doesn't matter that half the people who work for Walmart qualify for food stamps, despite the fact they can easily pay all their workers living wages, give the benefits and still be hugely profitable, the bad guy to the Republican right is those needing food stamps, and in fact they want to reward the owners/operators of Walmart and other businesses that refuse to pay living wages while punishing those who work for them... go work 80+ hours if needed is the Republican right's response. Plus Republican's oppose their own plan to create an affordable health care plan, just because it was passed by a black Democrat. They much rather roll back to the days where only those with really good jobs could have affordable health care, let everyone else die, they way they chanted at the one 2012 debate. You want to stop abortion? Then make sure every woman has access to affordable health care, including birth control... in fact encourage the use of birth control, especially IUDs which is ultra effective in stopping pregnancy (and contrary to the Republican right's teachings, modern non-copper IUDs don't reduce the chance of a fertilized egg from embedding... even modern copper ones's have only a very slight reduction) . The only difference between the women having abortion and those not is the issue of affordable health care and access to affordable and reliable birth control... and don't give the usual bull shit about how the pill is only $5 or so, you still have to be able to see a doctor and all that goes with it... plus the pill isn't the most effective method as if she forgets...

1:00 - Your iPad... is a hat. *strikes pose*

Also, somebody better tell her about the threat posed by Dihydrogen Monoxide!

He says (posing as a Blizzard exec) @3:44 --
"all of our franchises are based off of other people's games:
Hearthstone -> Magic the Gathering
Starcraft and Warcraft -> Warhammer
Diablo -> Baldur's Gate
Overwatch -> Team Fortress 2"

I can't comment on the first and last. Star/Warcraft being influenced by Warhammer makes sense. Diablo being influenced by Baldur's Gate... Not so much (I'd even disagree with saying Diablo as a *franchise* being influenced by BG as a *franchise*, ignoring the timing issue of original Diablo vs original BG).

I too was disappointed with Diablo not being "RPG enough" compared to, say, the Ultima series. But once I got past that, I actually had a lot of fun with it (and Diablo 2).