Just a theory here: look at 0:42 and how the tanks are connected together at the bottom with a crossover, then the fuel line goes UP to a fuel filter. Depending on how each of those two separate tanks are venting if you keep a hard left bank like that it will starve the engine when your gas is trying to dump into the left tank to find level. Combined with the air in that filter you'd lean out or quit pretty fast. Vapor lock.

1982 to 1993 plus spinoff and shared world cameos on St Elsewhere and crossovers on Wings.

Successfully processed your "amazon" invocation - view all Amazonized posts here

>> ^jonny:

dead


Fixeed and thanks.

Hmm, the video has a kinda Skyrim Rockband crossover feel to it.

So to answer your question: DRAGONS!!



>> ^blahpook:

All I want to know is: What's up in the sky that so damned interesting?

Absolutely. I believe that Newt's fidelity issues (given their frequency and consistency) are indicative of a larger lack of personal integrity that I don't find desirable in a presidential candidate. Legally it still does not disqualify him, but I'd sure as heck not vote for him, nor do I think he is above scrutiny. It's much like the people protesting abortion clinics getting abortions themselves, a la "The only moral abortion is my abortion", except replace "abortion" with "affair."

My point of replying to QM's rhetoric (of which the 'sift is familiar with) was to remind him that both cases must be treated the same, as it's just another crossover of sexual transgressions with political career. If he vilified Clinton during the Lewinksy scandal then he is obligated to similarly vilify Gingrich; the flip side being that if he supports Gingrich in spite of his flaws, then he must have opposed Clinton's impeachment in 1998.

P.S. I'm of the camp that thinks QM is just a very good troll and doesn't actually believe the stuff he says. But for the sake of the sift we still have to take his comments at face value.

In reply to this comment by RadHazG:
>> ^HaricotVert:

I had to read the entire Starr Report - yes, all of it (for a class) - and nowhere is it remotely suggested that Lewinsky was coerced into doing what she did (emphasis in your quote below). In fact, quite the opposite: she had very strong feelings for Clinton, who reciprocated much of them.
But that minor detail aside, it sounds like you and I are in agreement on the point of marital infidelity not outright disqualifying someone for the office of the Presidency. Since you're giving Newt a free pass on his moral/ethical scorecard, you must have similarly given Clinton a free pass during the scandal and believed he should have never been impeached in the first place. After all, any other position would just be a double standard, no?
>> ^quantumushroom:
A Republican isn't perfect? SOUND THE ALARM. Suddenly it's time for liberals to pretend to have ethics and morals again! Remember that sociopathic adulterer elected to the White House in the 90s with that whole 'Suck this or lose your job' thing in his past? Yeah, me neither.



marital infidelity is one thing, it's the way in which Newt handled and participated in it that I find reprehensible. Clinton got his dick sucked and lied about it (and more importantly actually went to court about it even if he did get off. no pun intended) and Newt has treated his wives as if they were little more than cars he kept trading off for a newer model after test driving the new one for a while on lease.

I've actually been pondering doing this so I can vote in the Republican presidential primary, especially since there likely won't be a Democratic primary I care about in 2012.

I haven't gone looking at election law though. As I recall Ohio passed some laws to make it harder for people to do crossover primary voting.

IMO, we should replace the primary/general election process with instant run-off voting.

I also think we should ditch the electoral college, and go straight to popular vote, so politicians will have to worry about their popularity in all 50 states, not just the big swing states like Ohio and Florida.

Pure awesome, but I still want to see the kids react/EMT crossover.

>> ^TheSluiceGate:
>> ^vpvpvp: She can sing, why the hell does she keep doing what she's not good at... Rapping. Ugh. I don't like this or the previous one. A whiter than white dainty female jazz singer reinterpreting rap tracks is a lot more internetz friendly than a jazz singer singing her mainstream jazzy pop stylings. I don't get the impression that she's done this cynically - it's just something that's resulted in her getting lots of attention. Her own stuff is a world away from this, and I can't see much of a crossover possibility in terms of people who'd be into her original stuff... But it's hard to turn down all those internet hits that lead to guest spots on Ellen. The fact is, even if you're ridiculously talented at what you do, you don't necessarily get to choose what people decide gives you notoriety. ( not that she necessarily is.)

Well put, and true. Still as a rapper myself it's annoying to see someone getting notoriety for something they don't even do well just because it's done in a novelty way. What makes rap something to appreciate is the writing and delivery by that writer. All the puns, play on words, metaphors, similes, and just over all display of clever wit. I'm just a die-hard I guess so seeing some chick covering a song pretty much exactly how it already is bugs me. And the dude in the video might as well not even be there?! He plays like two chords and sings a note or two in each video. Good job?!

>> ^vpvpvp:

She can sing, why the hell does she keep doing what she's not good at... Rapping. Ugh. I don't like this or the previous one.


A whiter than white dainty female jazz singer reinterpreting rap tracks is a lot more internetz friendly than a jazz singer singing her mainstream jazzy pop stylings.

I don't get the impression that she's done this cynically - it's just something that's resulted in her getting lots of attention. Her own stuff is a world away from this, and I can't see much of a crossover possibility in terms of people who'd be into her original stuff... But it's hard to turn down all those internet hits that lead to guest spots on Ellen.

The fact is, even if you're ridiculously talented* at what you do, you don't necessarily get to choose what people decide gives you notoriety.

(*not that she necessarily is.)

Dark & Cute are not channels with a whole lot of crossover....

She basically says the same thing when she was on the Tyra Banks talk show.

to her credit, she's got a mind of her own -- and, at the very least, managed to catch the eye of director, Steven Soderbergh, in the "crossover" film she made with him a couple years ago.

Now that's some odd place for a game that needs to get you running fast crossover and how do we even dribble? Probably with basketball shooting aids this sport can be possible.

Great stuff and a well produced Video. Really liked the crossover with breakdancing.

>> ^rychan:

The advice might be good but the reasoning they're using to justify it is false. Things are much more complicated than they make out.
Why not take their third grade reasoning to the extreme and propose that you should run with zero bounce? If you tried this you'd find it requires very unnatural and inefficient movements.


Things don't need to be complicated if you don't go into the metabolism side of things. Running is different from walking in that both of you feet are off the ground at the same time. You're basically flying through the air most of the time, or should be. Bouncing too much shows that you make contact with the ground for too long. By simply landing on the balls of your feet (not your toes or, worse, your heels) without trying to push yourself forward (i.e. with legs straight down under you at the instant your whole foot is contacting the ground and then pulling the foot up instead of pushing out with your toes), you can create a spring like reaction in your leg muscle that will give you just enough vertical energy to stay level with the ground, reducing the bounce to a theoretical minimum of zero. What makes you advance forward is your previous momentum combined with gravity making your slightly forward-leaning body fall at an angle (the lean will need to be more pronounced the faster you want to run). With good form, you can easily create a very constant stride without bounce since you do not rely on your leg muscles to propel yourself, but only to keep you up in the air for the longest possible proportion of time (resulting in less friction, more energy transfer from gravity, etc.). Look at horses : their hind legs are bent backwards for propulsion, yet they still have no bounce (we feel a bounce because we ride in the middle, but in absolutes they do not bounce). Plus, their front legs always hit the ground at a 90 degree angle right under them. In human terms, the front legs are our legs, the hind legs are our slight forward lean. If we had not adapted this way, we'd either be running like kangaroos, i.e. by actually bouncing, or we'd not be able to run at all, like monkeys.

tl;dr : landing on the balls of your feet keeps you in the air at a stable, constant height; leaning slightly forward allows gravity to pull you forward.

Walking though is very different. Here you want the pendulum effect created by the arms to conserve energy, but the same principle applies for maximum efficiency : land with the legs at 90 degrees to the ground, under your center of gravity and don't push with your toes. Of course there are ways to walk/run faster with less efficiency, it all depends whether you're in a marathon or a race.

>> ^Sagemind:

After ripping my knee out in a dirt-bike accident (think snapping a chicken wing in two), I don't run.
Having said that, I think it's crazy that man has reduced a basic function of the human body down to scientific knowhow! Should we tell our tribal ancestors they've been doing it all wrong all this time??


On the contrary, they're the ones who have been doing it right all along. Mass consumerism + fad marketing destroyed our feet with "running" shoes. Plus, scientists have assumed for a long time that everyone knows instinctively how to run properly. They were wrong. Just as we learn how to walk we must learn how to run. Some can learn on their own, some copy others like Angua1 and some just can't run or end up copying bad running forms from people who "unlearned" how to run thanks to padded "running" shoes. Our ancestors learned how to run properly because for them it was a vital skill, just like using a bow, a knife or a sling. Plus they didn't have padded shoes, medical treatment or motorized locomotion so running badly was not an option if they were to survive long enough to reproduce.

That said, the video is bullshit. Go look for the POSE method of running for accurate information. This method also addresses the crossover problems.