I think it's a result of studying for the exam. These cars would do really well on the old test, which is what they were optimised for.

I'd love to know if the better performance of the other cars is due to studying real-world crashes, planning for the new test, or just luck?

I ordered my current glasses from an online store from canada for $7...with my prescription. It also lets you get out of the racket where they demand a new eye exam every year.

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

That's OK - but you misunderstood the meaning of the * discuss invocation. It's used for when there i a problem. A video that violates a guideline, or something similar in the comments. Ta. >> ^shveddy:

Oops, I figured that sending something to the sift talk is pretty self explanitory. I find a topic interesting, and I'm randomly in the mood to talk about it. I thought that my previous comments would indicate how I feel about it.
And hey, I don't necessarily log into videosift every ten hours - especially when I'm cramming for an analytical chemistry exam.

Oops, I figured that sending something to the sift talk is pretty self explanitory. I find a topic interesting, and I'm randomly in the mood to talk about it. I thought that my previous comments would indicate how I feel about it.

And hey, I don't necessarily log into videosift every ten hours - especially when I'm cramming for an analytical chemistry exam.

"Make a woman get a breast exam" Make? =)

>> ^bmacs27:
I think most criticism of gun ownership is alarmist, and heavily influenced by confirmation bias and sensationalist media.

I don't really agree with this. There really is only one major criticism and that's the amount of death and injury caused by firearms, which is backed up by statistical research rather than media hyperbole.

If you're a 25 year old US citizen you're almost as likely to die by gunshot as you are by a vehicular accident.

You may or may not agree with the justification (I, like you, agree - the world is an inherently dangerous place) but vehicles do bring obvious benefits to society in many ways.

I have a hard time saying the same about guns.

I know a few European countries have a relatively high gun ownership rate (about a third of the US) but without the same death and injury rate, so I agree it's not a simple relationship between ownership and injury. Perhaps it'd be fairer to say that the US' high gun ownership, and their high injury/fatality rate has a common root. I see that as the gun regulations.

Taking Switzerland specifically (which, as you said has half the gun ownership of the US) they have compulsory conscription. I had two separate friends who (both reluctantly) had to do it. They learn how to use their weapons and I believe this has a positive impact on reducing death and injury. Their conscription is not about guns though; using a gun is just one part of that experience.

I don't really agree with the whole concept of mandatory conscription though, so don't see that as a solution.

In Switzerland the issued firearms have to be stored separately from the bolt. Carrying is only permitted when you're called for service, unless you have a specific permit, a valid reason and pass an exam once every 5 years.

In Finland you need a specific reason and evidence in order to gain a gun license such as hunting, sport or your job. Self defense is not a valid reason. Only firearms appropriate to your license purpose can be purchased.

In Iceland you have to take compulsory training and exams before you can get a license for a shotgun. Self defense with a firearm is not a valid reason for a license. A year of training is required for a handgun license. Semi automatic and automatic weapons are illegal. You can't buy ammunition for weapons you are not licensed for. Licenses are only granted by your local chief of police. Licenses are only granted for hunting, sport, or collecting.

France, again you need a hunting or sport license, and they limit the amount and type of ammunition you can purchase. You can only purchase firearms appropriate to your license class (hunting rifles for hunters, etc).

In Austria you need to pass a psychological test, and pass a shooting exam every 2 years. Non sport weapons require evidence of requiring them from your employer (such as the police).

They all have laws about storing weapons in lockable closets; and laws against carrying (you can only carry a weapon to the place of purpose, and in a manner that accords to regulations) with the exception of Germany which requires training, tests, an additional license and a provable reason for requirement to carry; such as your job.

If your justification for gun ownership is hunting, sport or collecting then why object to implementing these kind of controls?

>> ^messenger:

Why do you think so? What makes this guy studying for exams different from someone in a classroom studying for exams?>> ^charliem:
Rote learning for exams and using that experience to describe a full 4 year education is dubious at best.
Throw this guy a non-exam question, see how he handles it vs. someone thats done the actual 4 year course.
Id be willing to bet not too well.



My experience with people who obtain knowledge intended to be spread over a large ammount of time, but done so in shotgun approach, is that they are have a very limited scope of understanding of the topics they have read up on.

Typical university courses that run for 3-4 years gives you time to explore concepts in depth. Rushing that in a year is like putting horse blinkers on....you focus soley on the objectives, and dont capture bigger picture lessons that you would otherwise get if you spent a lot longer time investigating something.

Take for example Cisco's CCNA/CCNP program. Ive met people who have brain-dumped for the exams with a 2 week super-course, sat the exam, passed, but cant even use or decypher wireshark dumps.

In theory its a good idea, but you lose so much if you focus on just the end goal to complete objectives in the shortest time possible.

Why do you think so? What makes this guy studying for exams different from someone in a classroom studying for exams?>> ^charliem:

Rote learning for exams and using that experience to describe a full 4 year education is dubious at best.
Throw this guy a non-exam question, see how he handles it vs. someone thats done the actual 4 year course.
Id be willing to bet not too well.

Rote learning for exams and using that experience to describe a full 4 year education is dubious at best.

Throw this guy a non-exam question, see how he handles it vs. someone thats done the actual 4 year course.

Id be willing to bet not too well.

That's the thing about many republican views. They take an ideal, utopian world view....and work backwards.

"In a perfect world, there is no rape or incest and health care is perfect, thus there would be no need for abortion, therefore we should ban abortion."

That's nice and all, but it just isn't that simple. Yeah, if we lived in a perfect world where every single citizen was financially and emotionally secure and nothing ever bad happened and no one ever accidentally got pregnant, sure I would oppose abortion.

We don't live in that world, we won't ever live in that world in our lifetimes, so why would you propose a law that only applies in a perfect world?

A baby is not the equivalent of getting a pet for your kid to teach them responsibility. why would you needlessly punish the baby by forcing it to be raised by parents who are incapable of adequately raising it? You're trying to correct a mistake by forcing people to make another mistake. Some people should just never be parents, ever. Even if they were financially able to take care of a kid.

To use an analogy that even a republican should understand. An abortion is like a gun, you hope to hell you never need to use it, but you're going to be glad you're able to use it if you need it.

Samantha Bee demonstrated the republican hypocrisy perfectly. It's ok for THEM to make a choice, but it's not ok for YOU to make a choice.

Whenever you masturbate (oh wait, republicans never masturbate) Even when you're having legitimate baby-making sex. The male ejaculates millions of sperm. Each one of those sperm is a potential life. Yet only one of those sperm will make it, and the rest will die. Republicans don't seem to care about those millions of potential lives being snuffed out. And with the woman, every time a woman has her cycle, that's another potential life snuffed out.

Standard selective logic. We care about those lives, but not THOSE lives. Even when someone chooses to have the kid, Republicans seem to stop giving a shit since they propose cutting support for pregnant mothers and medical exams. Adequate education for those potential lives?..yeah fuck that. More hypocrisy we've come to expect from the right.

>> ^ReverendTed:

As much as it pains me to say it, I agree with bobknight33 here.
I believe a woman has the right to choose what to do with her body. I also believe we should be responsible for the consequences of our choices. I believe a woman has the right to decide whether to have sex. (So, yes, I do believe in exceptions for cases of rape, incest, and threat-to-life.)
Seeing how quickly a fertilized egg develops into a fetus is striking (there can be a detectable heartbeat at 5 1/2 weeks), and that's where I get my opposition to elective abortion. I cannot accept that this is merely some part of "a woman's body" to be excised and discarded when it is so clearly a developing human.
I sincerely believe that we will one day look back on our tolerance for elective abortion with the same reprehension as we currently hold for slavery, ritual sacrifice or witch trials.
I know how difficult it is to have a rational discussion about abortion, but I find it hard not to say something. I try to keep an open mind and view issues from others' positions, but I can only really see this particular argument coming down to a discussion of when "life" begins; where does it go from being "termination of pregnancy" to "termination of a human life"? At conception? Birth? Or somewhere in between? Obviously, it's murder to kill a newborn, and it seems like there's a general consensus that it would be unethical to terminate a late pregnancy, but how far back does that reasoning go? And if we don't know when human life begins, it seems rational to err on the side of caution.

>> ^pumkinandstorm:

Ohhhhhhh, it's so tinyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy.


And loud.

*nature

You did take the driver's exam, right?

I'm going to *promote this, as it really is as important that men do this as women do breast exams.

That, and I like how they did not show that guy's penis after she handled him, I suspect he was not flaccid... I know I'd find it damn hard (tee hee) to stay un-aroused with her doing that, especially dressed like that.

Now that is just a logical fallacy, girl. I am 58 years old, Phi Beta Kappa, Summa Cum Laude graduate of UCLA with a major in economics. Passed the CPA exam the first time (4% do that, most with the minimum passing grade -- I did much better than minimum passing.)

Granted, I'm not as smart as I used to be -- getting older SUCKS -- but still. I get by.

In any case, don't you think that just maybe, just once, I might have been right? Sometime in 58 years?

But then, you aren't talking logic, are you? Unlike me, with my pearlescent gem that I have thought about and polished and honed over all these long years.

I'm baaaaaaaad.

>> ^Yogi:


You're never right Boy.

A common final year exam question (one of the short questions on one paper) in our physics dept is "would it be possible to power Ireland solely on Wind energy given that total consumption is x KWh". There's one professor who hates and derides wind energy and keeps throwing it in. The basic outline solution is that even if there were turbines on every step of the coastline you still wouldn't create enough energy.

I bet the bastard never thought of helium. Hah!