They're both kinda petty nitpicking, but there's a pretty big difference, both in substance and style.

The supposed issue behind NotOptimalGate is that Obama was showing a disregard for the lives lost. If you watched the interview, or even the actual video clip of just that question and answer, you can tell that's not the case at all.

With binders full of women, I didn't really get the sense that people were really thinking that phrase itself was a big problem, just that it was an inartful phrase that seemed to be the launching point for a whole lot of jokes made at Romney's expense.

So on the one hand, you have Republicans willfully distorting what was said in order to gravely accuse Obama of being disrespectful towards the dead in the aftermath of a national tragedy...and Democrats using Romney's inartful turn of phrase to make fun of him.

One seems really unscrupulous and hostile, the other seems like the kind of trash talk you get between sports fans when the other team fumbles the ball.
>> ^bobknight33:

Republican stupid reaction Not Optimal gate. Just as stupid as the Democrats the week before with Binder gate.

I'm with @silvercord, suit him up and see what happens.

His distance field goal accuracy didn't seem spectacular compared to clips I've seen of NFL kickers in similar practice situations (ie. no angry linemen trying to rush you, block the kick, or rip your leg off and stuff it up your ass), but still very very good.

However, his punt accuracy would allow for some very interesting set special teams plays. Not just reliable coffin-corner punts, but onside kicks, punting to a specific target and trying to force a fumble, etc. etc.

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

I suppose it depends. If you have fat pipes and the experience is near instant - then it's no big deal. For slower connections, (I'm often on mobile) it's a drag - the quality from 360 to 480 is negligible, but it often means an extra 30 seconds of buffering, when I was watching it just fine before I fullscreened. >> ^lucky760:

@notarobot- I think that's just you.
@dag- Funny, that's a feature I love. It's very helpful for me that when I go into fullscreen mode it automatically switches without me having to fumble around to pause the video, find the (now weird looking) resolution button, and finally (hopefully) get it switched to the highest available resolution before starting it back up. The manual method is especially annoying because clicking the resolution from that pop-up menu sometimes doesn't work or causes a freeze for a few seconds.
Another new feature I love is the thumbnail preview when hovering over any part of the playback/timeline bar. Very helpful.

@notarobot- I think that's just you.

@dag- Funny, that's a feature I love. It's very helpful for me that when I go into fullscreen mode it automatically switches without me having to fumble around to pause the video, find the (now weird looking) resolution button, and finally (hopefully) get it switched to the highest available resolution before starting it back up. The manual method is especially annoying because clicking the resolution from that pop-up menu sometimes doesn't work or causes a freeze for a few seconds.

Another new feature I love is the thumbnail preview when hovering over any part of the playback/timeline bar. Very helpful.

Tolkiens pacing was terrible

I'll dispute that. Story pacing is highly dependant on the reader's level of immersion, and Tolkien was attempting a deeply immersive story where the 'pacing' was largely irrelevant. Many people are quite jaded in this regard, and if the plot isn't moving along at a brisk pace they lose interest. That isn't necessarily the fault of the author, but a matter of a lack of tolerance/patience on the reader. No work of literature can satisfy every reader in that regard - so the end result of whether a book is properly paced is highly individualistic. You have writers on both extremes. Some move so fast that the reader feels like the story is choppy and shallow. Then you have guys like Jordan who spend so much time on so much background that the plot is almost utterly lost. I think Tolkien strikes a masterful middle-ground where he provides depth of background and detail, while not having so much that the average reader feels the plot is moving too slowly. Again, that isn't universal because everyone is different - but the fact that LOTR has endured the test of time and remained a classic proves that it is an assessment that applies to 'most' people.

and some of the characters (looking at you, Tom Bombadil) add nothing to the story.

Depends on what you mean by nothing. The Old Forest, Bombadil, and the Barrow Downs are chapters that some people don't get. If the hobbits had just gone straight to Bree then a lot of people would be happier. It can be argued, but Bombadil gives some background to Middle Earth that Tolkien felt was important. For him (JRR) the work was a literary exercise in establishing what he felt were 'lost' Anglo-Saxon mythology. Iarwin Ben-Adar was part of that world for him, and a part that he felt mattered. He is referenced in the Council of Elrond, and here and there in other parts of LOTR. He may fill no vital plot function, but he certainly adds to the story (not to mention background on the Northern Kingdom, and the Westernesse blades).

The first half of book 6 is essentially "Sam and Frodo keep walking to mount doom", but it really drags.

I felt quite the opposite. I thought that the chapters of Sam & Frodo walking to Mt. Doom were rather a breakneck pace compared to what was happening. But at that point JRR is breaking down both Frodo and Sam physically and spiritually, so it can't just be a rapid "Poof! We're at Mt Doom now!" thing. It had to be a hot, blistering, difficult slog. For it to only be 2 chapters was actually pretty breif I thought. Escaping Cirith Ungol took a chapter - then two chapters were them walking and Mt. Doom itself. All in all I thought it went pretty fast.

It all depends on what folks like, really. Some people can't stand it when Tolkien takes 2 pages here and there to describe the landscape of the Woody End, or a couple pages there to talk about some bit of Rohan's history, or whatever. Some people love it. I personally felt that JK Rowling's pacing blew chunks because she spent tons of time focusing on bullcrap character junk (mostly Harry whining). But some readers just eat that stuff up, so I have to allow that my personal tastes cloud my judgement on Rowling's pacing. It's a matter of taste. What seems irrelevant to you may be pure gold to someone else.

Jackson and Walsh's story is better structured

Don't get me started on Jackson & Walsh. I liked the LOTR movies generally, but these two ham-hands did some pretty awful writing considering the pure perfection of the source material. One example: Aragorn's perfect speech, "We shall make such a chase as will be accounted a marvel among the three kindreds - elves, dwarves, and men. Forth, the Three Hunters!" was changed to the god-awful, "Let's hunt some orc!" I could literally go on for hours listing scripting crime after crime. Jackson/Walsh were NOT either masterful writers, or pacers. When they stuck to the story and didn't jam thier fumble-witted fingers into the pie it was great. The more they took "creative license", the worse it got.

I'm not sure it's already been stated and I don't feel like reading all the comments right now, but I feel like people are really missing the point. It's not that he forgot the word, or fumbled trying to remember it, people do that all the time -- yes even presidential candidates. Presidents/candidates give a LOT of speeches and talks so its really not that hard to find or cherry pick moments when they misspeak. The problem here is that this exposes the fact that Rick Perry is a candidate who can only memorize talking points and has no real concreate understanding of the the actual policies he's talking about. He had no Idea what the third department actually did, just memorizes and spouts the names of the departments because reducing government size by eliminating those departments sounds good to his base.

I'm not saying either way whether axing those department IS indeed a GOOD or BAD thing, just that a candidate who has no understanding of what he's talking about but is only talking about it to get elected is probably NOT a GOOD thing.

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^packo:
>> ^NetRunner:
There are two key questions that I think we should try to keep distinct here.
First, was this legal? Well, yes. This isn't a criminal matter, this is war. You don't put enemy forces on trial before you shoot them, you just shoot them. There are still limits on what you're allowed to do in war, but simply killing people is generally considered legal. Even targeting specific people providing aid and comfort to the enemy is not forbidden under the rules of war.
The other question is...should this be legal?
Well, I think the fact that declaring war on non-state organizations gives government latitude so wide that it becomes legal to engage in targeted killing of one of its own citizens is a pretty powerful reason to believe that it shouldn't be legal. An easy way to change the law to make it illegal would be to pass a resolution delcaring that AUMF against Al Qaeda null and void. Then this whole thing would revert to a matter of law enforcement, and not "national security".
The thing is, to prevent future Congresses from being able to declare war on non-state entities would require an amendment to the Constitution -- right now it just says Congress has the power to declare war, full stop. It doesn't say that they can't declare war on whatever entity they choose.
But I think people out there wanting to claim that it already is illegal simply haven't been paying attention.
politics

technically it isn't war because terrorists are not afforded the same rights as active participants in war... via the Geneva Convention for example
the burden of proof, and right to trial... are paramount in these times... when things are at their darkest, that's when upholding these value is MOST important (to point the finger at your opponent and say they aren't playing by the rules is quite CHILDISH, especially when you've went through such lengths to formalize the opinion in your citizens that the reason the enemy attacks is because they hate your freedoms/way of life
the problem with classifying people as terrorists and then assassinating them without any due process is that the "arguement" is made in the court of public opinion... usually by the media networks who are biased and lacking of journalistic integrity... if that's all you need to justify killing people, the arguement can QUICKLY/EASILY be made about ANYONE
the ONLY real, understandable reason I can contemplate would be putting these individuals to trial and making the proceedings available to the public would reveal many skeletons the US has in it's closet... but the validity and morality of this are another debate
as a religious text I don't believe in says (paraphrased)... how you treat the lowest of me, is how you treat all of me... this doesn't just equate to the poor/downtrodden... but to the most vile and unrepentant
holding your morality/standards to be so high compared to someone else means very little when you sacrifice them (irrespective of whether or not it is convenient or easy to do so)

You misunderstand.
It isn't war because America, or NATO or the west has declared war against the terrorists. That's not where this started. Your naive belief in that is what's tainting your understanding of this.
The Islamic Jihadists have openly declared and been waging war on us since long before the events of 9/11. The 'us' I refer to in this is not merely America, or the west, but anyone and everyone who is not themselves an Islamic fundamentalist as well.
You can fumble around all you want over reasons and 'proofs' that America is not really at war with the jihadists, but the reality is that THEY are at war with America. It is the very identity they have taken for themselves for pity sake. We've only been able to ignore it for so long because 90% of the casualties in this war have been middle eastern moderate muslims. Your ilk seem to want to claim sympathy for religious differences by allowing the status quo to continue were muslims get to continue to bear the full brunt of the jihadist war against us both. It's twisted and I detest it.


I never mentioned anything to the beginnings of hostilities.. you are making assumptions there. And with the government (multiple administrations) labelling these actions as the "WAR ON TERROR", by definition, they declared it war (even if they choose to not adhere to the rules of war)... the fact that they then went through the trouble (primarily for interrogation purposes) declared terrorists not covered by the Geneva Convention, and thus having no rights as war participants is what I was pointing out.

It's nitpicking, and childish to resort to a "who declared war on who" because if you want to get down to it, you are plainly ignoring western powers foreign diplomacy/intervention over the last 50+ years. There is many reasons why these fundamentalists are hostile... if "your way of life" actually makes the list, its not your love of fast food, miniskirts and women's rights... its how your way of life is subsidized through intervention in terms of their leadership, whether it be through installation of puppet/friendly regimes (no matter how oppressive/brutal) or through regime change or through economic hardships placed on nations who's leaders don't fall in line... let alone other issues such as Israel.

It's this police state mentality which garnered the West such a lovely reputation in the middle east... and as much as you'd love to point out it's for stability in the region, or so democracy can make inroads, or whatever other propaganda you happen to believe in... the truth is it has ALWAYS been about oil and oil money... not even in the interests of the western power's citizenry as much as for the oil lobbies.

Democracy and freedom are only ok as long as they fall in line with Western (particularly American) interest. If they were being honest it would be outfront there, plain as day the MAJOR issue there is ENERGY (and the money to be made from it).

So as much as you believe it is WESTERN nation's responsibility to solve problems (forcebly and usually without consent of those involved) in this manner, its EXACTLY this type of thinking that got us here. And if you honestly think we've only started meddling in the Middle East, you are naive (perhaps blind is a better word).

Extremism will only be defeated by the environment in the Middle East being such that it can't take root and grow. This will never be accomplished by force or political buggery.

You should stop playing cowboy's and indians, come back to reality, and start detesting the real issues at play here... not FOX TV political rhetoric.

All of the above doesn't even touch on the original point I made that if you are a US Citizen, you should be viewing the assasination of a US Citizen, at your government's sayso, without their providing ample reason (or any really) as to why he could not have been captured, with some foreboding... let alone the US government's denile of his family trying to get him legal representation etc...

If you want to hold yourself up as a shining beacon for the world to follow... when the going gets tough, better not falter or backup and do a complete 180, or all the preening and puffing you did early... it shines in a different light

What do they call that when 1 person (or entity) gets to decide what the laws are, at any given point in time, irrelevant as to what they may have been just a few moments earlier?

>> ^packo:

>> ^NetRunner:
There are two key questions that I think we should try to keep distinct here.
First, was this legal? Well, yes. This isn't a criminal matter, this is war. You don't put enemy forces on trial before you shoot them, you just shoot them. There are still limits on what you're allowed to do in war, but simply killing people is generally considered legal. Even targeting specific people providing aid and comfort to the enemy is not forbidden under the rules of war.
The other question is...should this be legal?
Well, I think the fact that declaring war on non-state organizations gives government latitude so wide that it becomes legal to engage in targeted killing of one of its own citizens is a pretty powerful reason to believe that it shouldn't be legal. An easy way to change the law to make it illegal would be to pass a resolution delcaring that AUMF against Al Qaeda null and void. Then this whole thing would revert to a matter of law enforcement, and not "national security".
The thing is, to prevent future Congresses from being able to declare war on non-state entities would require an amendment to the Constitution -- right now it just says Congress has the power to declare war, full stop. It doesn't say that they can't declare war on whatever entity they choose.
But I think people out there wanting to claim that it already is illegal simply haven't been paying attention.
politics

technically it isn't war because terrorists are not afforded the same rights as active participants in war... via the Geneva Convention for example
the burden of proof, and right to trial... are paramount in these times... when things are at their darkest, that's when upholding these value is MOST important (to point the finger at your opponent and say they aren't playing by the rules is quite CHILDISH, especially when you've went through such lengths to formalize the opinion in your citizens that the reason the enemy attacks is because they hate your freedoms/way of life
the problem with classifying people as terrorists and then assassinating them without any due process is that the "arguement" is made in the court of public opinion... usually by the media networks who are biased and lacking of journalistic integrity... if that's all you need to justify killing people, the arguement can QUICKLY/EASILY be made about ANYONE
the ONLY real, understandable reason I can contemplate would be putting these individuals to trial and making the proceedings available to the public would reveal many skeletons the US has in it's closet... but the validity and morality of this are another debate
as a religious text I don't believe in says (paraphrased)... how you treat the lowest of me, is how you treat all of me... this doesn't just equate to the poor/downtrodden... but to the most vile and unrepentant
holding your morality/standards to be so high compared to someone else means very little when you sacrifice them (irrespective of whether or not it is convenient or easy to do so)


You misunderstand.

It isn't war because America, or NATO or the west has declared war against the terrorists. That's not where this started. Your naive belief in that is what's tainting your understanding of this.

The Islamic Jihadists have openly declared and been waging war on us since long before the events of 9/11. The 'us' I refer to in this is not merely America, or the west, but anyone and everyone who is not themselves an Islamic fundamentalist as well.

You can fumble around all you want over reasons and 'proofs' that America is not really at war with the jihadists, but the reality is that THEY are at war with America. It is the very identity they have taken for themselves for pity sake. We've only been able to ignore it for so long because 90% of the casualties in this war have been middle eastern moderate muslims. Your ilk seem to want to claim sympathy for religious differences by allowing the status quo to continue were muslims get to continue to bear the full brunt of the jihadist war against us both. It's twisted and I detest it.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'chitty chitty bang bang, roses of success, disaster, roald dahl, beards' to 'chitty chitty bang bang, fumble, less, roses of success, disaster, roald dahl, beards' - edited by calvados

>> ^nach0s:

I love how he fumbles and fumbles with it, and at the end sets it aside like "ah fuck it."


Reminded me of that take-salvia-and-try-to-drive video a while back...

I love how he fumbles and fumbles with it, and at the end sets it aside like "ah fuck it."

Come on, King is the instigator here. He walks all the way down from the other side of the bus (looks intoxicated), then walks past the limo. He's off screen at this point and hangs up the phone. As he comes back on screen he is making hand gestures and harassing the people around the limo. He then makes another call and continues to make hand gestures (again like he's drunk). He approaches the luggage and starts talking shit to the big security guy (who's mostly off camera). The guy in the red shirt goes and gets in-between King and the luggage. King says something to the guy and then turns away. The red shirt guy turns and lightly advances him away from the luggage when King turns to shove back. Then the big guy approaches, hits him and tries to grab him. King fumbles around and trips on the curb. He appears to have hit/scratched his head on the pillar (he checks his hand for blood). It wasn't a direct or hard hit or he would have been more concerned with and touching his head. The big guy stands over him for a few seconds and walks away. King then proceeds to stand up and fall back down multiple times like he is either drunk, faking, or both. He then gets up and hurriedly walks away.

Besides that, King's attorney claims "He didn’t know he was standing anywhere near somebody famous". Also King is seeking damages from the airport and a taxi dispatcher for allegedly "failing to provide a safe, secure environment for patrons".

This is kind of a dupe of http://videosift.com/video/Anderson-Cooper-Attacked-By-Pro-Mubarak-Thugs

So much fumbling around I can't tell if they're exactly the same... Actually it's not exactly the same footage.

Exactly. It wasn't an incomplete pass, it was a fumble (as the ball was knocked out of the QB's hand while his arm was back) and, as the whistle wasn't blown, it was a live ball that could be picked up for a short sprint to the end zone.
>> ^Stingray:

It's always seems like these are very controversial, but in this case he clearly was not moving his arm when he was hit... therefore fumble recovery leading to touchdown. It was very surprising to me when watching the game that no one reacted sooner than they did to pick it up and run it in. You gotta pay attention to the whistle.

It's always seems like these are very controversial, but in this case he clearly was not moving his arm when he was hit... therefore fumble recovery leading to touchdown. It was very surprising to me when watching the game that no one reacted sooner than they did to pick it up and run it in. You gotta pay attention to the whistle.