I'd mention the canoe joke, but Bud Light isn't beer.

I've had .5% dime store that tastes better.

That comment is a reflection on what I hear on a daily basis.
Perhaps my wordage is off, but the stuff coming at us 24-7 is created by studios, not musicians. So much of what I hear is produced by guys sitting at mixer boards and computers.
My comment isn't aimed at every person out there making music, in fact I know there are lots of musicians out there with talent and skill..., but we never get to hear them over all the crap being dealt out by the industry which is breeding Egos as musicians. (I'd choose Beck over Beyonce any day of the week.)

Sure, I know, it may seem like I'm digging a hole and jumping in but the system is broken and the good music is being squelched. Maybe not 100% of the time, but listen to the music. The electronic age is filtering everything out of the music, no more drummer, no guitar, auto tune, synthetic voice. where is all the character? Where are all the happy accidents that real music serves us. How many of today's artistes (on the charts) can serve us music without a guy mixing it to make them sound good, double tracking, and keeping their voices in tune? I know these tricks have been used for years but never to the extent they are being used today.

I remember a quote by Niel Young, way back when he was recording. The guys at the board keep telling him he wasn't hitting the note, and his answer was "Hey, that's my style man!" So they had to leave it in, and the result was great. Pure Niel Young.

So, I guess it's not so much the musicians out there, so much as it is the recording studios, and the system of pump out the next clone hit...

It was Tony James that initiated this era, back when he created Sigue Sigue Sputnik. He had a dream, a vision of what the band looked and sounded like. He hired people that looked like what he wanted, none could play music, he taught them three chords and they they became the number one, unrecorded, unsigned band in history, and EMI finally Won (relative term) by offering them the most money. From that point all the music was produces electronically in the studio. It sounded like crap, but I loved it. It was new and sounded different. And people ate it up. The studios caught on, and realized they didn't need musicians any more, they always wanted money. It made more sense to hire nobodies, they were a dime a dozon and they could be made to sound any way they wanted them too. Just like the Boy Bands and Girl Bands (Spice girls, Pussy Cat Dolls)

Okay... so I'm rambling now..., it's been a long day...
The industry feeds us synthetic garbage because it's cheep, makes money and is easily replaced by the next song/artist.

Meanwhile the real artists are doing everything they can to get recognized and struggle to make a living giving us their soul served in a song and doing everything they can to be heard over the sounds of the industry.

So, I am an auto liability adjuster. I do this for a living--I take statements from drivers and witnesses, review damage and, when it's available, I watch videos of car accidents to see where fault lies.

In this particular accident, it seems pretty obvious that both parties contributed to some degree or another. The VW's driver was obviously making an unsafe lane change. However, the trucker had the last clear chance to avoid the accident, and from the audio in the cab was clearly distracted by a cell phone. The truck thus contributed by failing to maintain driver attention.


So we're going to need to assess partial negligence on both driver's. So, how much will we need to assess, and what does that mean for how much each person might or might not get paid?

In terms of negligence law, Texas is a Modified Comparative state under the Not Greater Than rule. What this means is that in order to recover money from the other party, you cannot have more responsibility than they do in order to recover any money. But you can only recover the percentage that the other party is at fault. So if it's 50/50, each party gets half of their costs from the other party. If it's 51/49, one person owes the other guy 51%, but the other guy doesn't owe a dime.

In this case, 50/50 would be a likely and attractive option for the insurance companies. Both parties clearly contributed, and each party had equal opportunity to avoid the loss, so each insurance company would pay the other 50%.

The gross negligence of the driver of the pickup is such that I don't see less than 50% negligence on that driver. However, I can see the car's insurance company arguing for a higher responsibility on the truck.

When the car puts on the signal and starts moving over, there is clearly room to move over without striking the truck. The car starts moving over, and the truck starts to overtake the VW. The trucker was closing the distance with the traffic ahead. The VW appears to hit their brakes as the traffic ahead is slowing down--but the trucker doesn't, and appears to be accelerating.

Moreover, as the driver of the larger vehicle, the trucker has a greater duty to maintain driver attention and avoid accidents, as a mistake on his part has greater likelihood of causing more serious physical damage, and severe bodily injury or death.

I believe that it would be justified to put a slight majority on the truck, 60-70%. This would be my preference. So they would owe for 60-70% of the VW's damages. The trucker will have to go through his own insurance or pay out of pocket for his damages.

Okay, what everyone else typed, sorry, but TLDR for the most part.

The sedan did absolutely nothing wrong at all. There was plenty of room. It was clearly visible to the trucker, and it signaled its intention to change lanes before doing so. No problem. It would have been wiser to pull in behind the truck (presumably, who knows what's going on back there) because trucks don't stop on a dime, but in heavy traffic, I wouldn't fault the sedan's maneuver at all.

The truck driver should have his license revoked. Anyone who would deliberately risk a road accident as a matter of pride shouldn't be driving.

@RedSky

The need to be kept afloat by European funds is pretty high on the list of things Syriza is keen to do away with. Varoufakis was clear on this pretty early on, at least 2009 as far as I know. They treated it as a problem of liquidity instead of a problem of insolvency, and therefore any funds funnelled into Greece were basically disappearing down a black hole. They are bleeding cash left, right and center, and the continuous flow of credit from Europe doesn't help a bit in its current form.

As of now, they can't pay shit. Any additional credit has to be used to pay back interest on previous credit. Their meagre primary surplus is less than their interest payments. With that in mind, some of the ideas floating around sound rather intriguing, especially given the horrendous failure all the previous agreements have produced. These ideas include: cap interest payment (1.5% of primary surplus), use the rest for investment or humanitarian relief; no payments on debt below 3% growth, 50% of agreed upon payments at 3-6% growth, full payments at 6+% growth.

Yet even those ideas are purely theoretical, because there is no growth in Greece. The celebrated growth in Q3 2014 of 0.7% might very well be a fluke, as Bill Mitchell described here (prices falling faster than incomes). For Greece to be able to have any meaningful growth, they'd require not just a complete reconstruction of its institutions (structural reforms), but also massive investment.

And there's where it breaks down again, since you rightfully pointed out that the Germans in particular won't spend a dime on Greece, especially not with investment in Germany in equally dire shape (shortfall of about a trillion € since 2000).


Which brings me to another point: Germany vs France.

Productivity in both countries was en par in 1999, and productivity in France in 2014 was only slightly below German numbers. "Living within your means" is a very popular phrase in the current discussion, which basically means living in accordance with your productivity.

Subsequently, there should be a similar development of unit labour costs within a monetary union, with growth targets set by the central bank. In our case, that would be just below 2%. Like I've previously said, Greece lived beyond its means in this regard, and significantly so.

But what about France and Germany? The black line marks the target, blue is France, red is Germany. That's beggar-thy-neighbour. That's gaining competetiveness at the cost of your fellow Euro pals. That's suppressing domestic demand in order to push exports.

German reforms killed its domestic market (retail sales stagnant since early '90s) and created an aggregate trade surplus to the tune of 2 trillion Euros. That's 2 trillion Euros of deficit in other countries. And we're looking at an additional 200-210 billion Euros this year. If running trade deficits is bad, so is running trade surpluses.

Ironically, there's even been legislation in Germany since 1967, instructing the government to balance its books in matters of trade (and other areas). They've been in violation of it for 15 years.

With this in mind, everytime a German politician calls for the other countries to run trade surpluses just like Germany, I get furious. Some of them, on the European level, even have the audacity to say that everyone should run trade surpluses, and all it takes to get there is massive wage cuts. That's open lunacy and a failure of basic math. No surplus without deficits, no savings without debt.

And while we're at it, it's not the savings rate in Germany that bothers me. It's the moral superiority that is being ascribed to running surpluses in every way imaginable. Every part of society is expected to have a positive savings rate, because debt is bad. Well, if everyone's saving and nobody's accruing the corresponding debt, you get the current situation where there is no investment whatsoever, a gargantuan shortfall in demand given the national productivity, and a cool 200 billion Euros of debt a year that foreign actors have to rake up so that Germany can have its massive growth of 0.5-1.5% annually.

Finding borrowers for all that cash is getting more difficult by the day. The ECB's QE is basically one big search for new borrowers, since everyone either doesn't want to borrow or cannot borrow anymore.

If Germany wanted to help the Eurozone, they'd start by increasing their ULC vis-á-vis the rest of the countries. Competitiveness should be regulated through the foreign exchange rate, not this parasitic race to the bottom within the zone. Ten years of 4% increase in wages, annually. That ought to be a start.

Additionally, allow the ECB to fund the European Investment Bank directly, instead of this black hole of QE.

Or go one step further and seriously consider Varoufakis' ideas, including the old Keynesian concept of a global surplus recycling mechanism.

But all that is pure fantasy. I don't think a majority of Germans would support either of these measures, not with the overwhelming fear of inflation this society has. Add the continuous demonisation of debt and you get a guarantee that very few countries might be compatible to be in a longtime monetary union with Germany.

2 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by eric3579.

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Guy-Stacks-3-118-Coins-On-A-Single-Dime

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by messenger. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

Boy, if I had a dime for every time someone had to cut a can off of my head...

Maybe that's because the officer spoke to him like a human being deserving of respect, not a criminal shithead deserving of a beating. Hmmmm?

American cops would have jumped in front of the bike, screamed at the rider 'get the fuck off your bike, what the fuck is wrong with you, you can't ride that here!' then manhandled him for advancing on the cop (because he was riding and you can't stop on a dime) then, when they realized their mistake, rather than apologize, they will search for any infraction possible to write a ticket for....I speak from experience, one that was almost exactly the same bike path situation in Palo Alto, Ca, but with far fewer pedestrians.

Where to start, Lawdeedaw?
First, your comment was not limited to American colleges, so your admonition to @bareboards2 is a misstep.
Second, I must guess from the grammar and your estimations that you were visiting these colleges, not enrolled, because my experience was far different. I was a struggling full time, minimum wager earner while I went to college on my own dime for YEARS, because I wanted to learn things, not for a 'degree' to get a good paying career. I knew many others there that may have hoped to better their earning potential, but also wanted to better themselves, and so took many elective classes that didn't further an academic career, as did I. I also knew some of those at Stanford, but fewer.
EDIT:The poor not caring about education is not only wrong, it's extremely insulting. Because attaining good education is more difficult does not make it less important to them, in fact it's likely MORE important, and many sacrifice to a degree inconceivable to the 'rich' to educate themselves and their children.
And not all Americans are overt consumerists ruled by their base emotions and without any self control. Many are, but not all by a long shot.

Your perfect-world news-report fantasy works fine in theory, does it?..'peer reviewed' till the cattle are housed in mandatory temporary-to-permanent dirt-floor & barbed-wire accommodations CE??....Maybe your own verbal ticks will develop into a similar, "well, very specifically" when you are NOT being arrested lawfully and tossed into an asylum where a company doctor can render you insane, deprogram you, and use you as an 'example' of what one can or can't say on Facebook?

Forest-for-the-trees lackeys are a dime-a-dozen at a peer-reviewed fantasy camp on the outskirts of (insert city or town near you in the future you've helped to create).

You are already on planet police-state, keep up the fine work and pour-through those tomes of toilet paper and perhaps hone your own 'axe' (a fucking metaphor for reason or wisdom, the kind that cuts both ways....HELLO?!)

How bout an interview?

I lived in many places in SF from 2001-2011, TL, SOMA, Bernal Heights, Lower-Haight and for a longer while in the Mission.

Never paid more than $550.

Been living in Oakland the last year - have a house 2 small blocks from BART, 1 stop to SF (although there is no need) 7 bedrooms, 2 roommates, 3 bathrooms, 2 living rooms, large backyard (with many fantastic substances growing), laundry room... and still do not pay over $550 and Oakland is where all the cool people are anyway these days + Quality of life in my opinion is much better especially because the cost of living is a lot lower since I'm not being nickel & dimed (One Dollared) everywhere I go. I can walk to work without any fucking stupid fucks saying a fucking word to me, I could take the bus and not sit in fucking piss & blood and it isn't crowded usually 1 or 2 people on the bus.

Been in SF a few times over the year to see Acid Mother's Temple, Meshuggah and also Panda Bear live...but Oakland even has better Mexican food so it's increasingly off my radar.

So... how did time factor into earth stops spinning theory? Seems like he digressed completely after he explained essentially what would happen. But the thing is... the content only makes mention on what would happen if it stopped on a dime. It's only later did he elaborate (albeit a little) on what would be the effect if the earth wasn't spinning in the first place.