I'm impressed the little bugger did this, but it's also incredibly annoying. My reasoning is because there's absolutely 0 reason you should ever need to know that, and yet kids spend more time practicing these shots then the core-techniques you actually use in a game.

You will never ever ever find an opportunity in a game to perform something like this, and if you do, then you're risking a perfect, open opportunity for an easy goal to instead dazzle people with at meaningless trick-shot (and risk missing). Yet again, kids spend most of their time practicing this stuff then anything else.

Plus this specific shot has been done to DEATH for the past decade. Not to shit on this kid's parade or anything.

http://lyrics.wikia.com/lyrics/The_Weakerthans:Tournament_Of_Hearts

Now the lounge is full of farmers for the 7:30 draw
Teammates all left before they had to buy a round
When they pull the 50/50 and I've lost again, I'll go
Maybe have one more brown one for the snowy road

All the championship banners going yellow on the wall
Add my name when it gets closer to last call

So Elvira brings my bottle, hold it up and let it bend
Figures of two rinks battling an extra end
And I'm peeling off the label as they peel a corner guard
Dance down the sheet to the tune of "Hurry, Hurry Hard"

And my popcorn squeaks a question
Wonders why I'm not at home
Where you wait beside a silent telephone
Doodle circles within circles all alone

Have to stop myself from climbing
On the table full of empties to yell why

Why, why can't I draw right up to what I want to say?
Why can't I ever stop where I want to stay?
I slide right through the days
I'm always throwing hack weight

Right off, no never never ever ever
Right off, no never never ever never
Right off, no never never never ever
Right off, no never ever never ever

Now the senior Bonspiel winners, circa 1963
Are all staring, glaring disapprovingly
From their frame in that old photograph at me

And I know you're out there waiting
For an answer I can't give you
So tell me why

Why, why can't I draw right up to what I want to say?
Why can't I ever stop when I want to stay?
We roll right through our years, we drip right through our months
We slide right through our days, I'm always throwing hack weight

Right off, no never never ever ever
Right off, no never never ever never
Right off, no never ever never ever
Right off

Internet high five on growing up and escaping Mormonism. I'm the only one of eight kids that has dropped Mormonism so far at age 21 (started questioning it back in Jr. High, was forced to go to church until I went to college). Shit's absurd.

In reply to this comment by peggedbea:
>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

You guys were all upset at the congressman who shouted out during Obama's speech. Howcome you're all, "This guy has guts to do this..." for the rudeness of Mr. Prop 8, but you're all like, "What a jerk!" for Mr. "Liar!"? Howcome one guy is 'couragous' and the other is 'rude' when they're both doing publically pre-arranged stunts for the purpose of generating controversy?


can you honestly not see the difference between someone interrupting someone elses speech with heckling and someone waiting their turn to give their own speech?

whats going on in this video is something that happens the first sunday of every month. its fast and testimony sunday. members fast and then those who feel compelled take turns and bare their testimonies to the congregation. he waited his turn, felt compelled and bared his testimony.

and of course the camera was present because he knew what he was saying was going to get him kicked out. but he had the courage and strength and felt strongly enough to say it.

and the mormon church was VERY ACTIVELY INVOLVED in a perpetuating a fear and smear propaganda campaign to its members during church services. across the nation. what kind of church finances were spent i have no idea, but i do know for a fact that church officials intentionally sent down memos full of lies and hate and political opinions to be shared with the priesthood and relief society. to scare them into to supporting prop 8 initiatives nationwide. one of those lies was that legalized gay marriage would threaten and abolish their ability to get married in the temple. (which is EXTREMELY important) they told members all across the country that if gays were allowed to get married, if the church refused to marry a gay couple in the temple then the law would take away their ability to marry ANYONE in the temple. sounds ridiculous to me. but it sounds terrifying to millions of people who think that god himself guides church appointments and would never ever ever allow someone who would lead his people astray to be appointed into a position of authority.

how do i know this? I WAS FUCKING THERE.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

You guys were all upset at the congressman who shouted out during Obama's speech. Howcome you're all, "This guy has guts to do this..." for the rudeness of Mr. Prop 8, but you're all like, "What a jerk!" for Mr. "Liar!"? Howcome one guy is 'couragous' and the other is 'rude' when they're both doing publically pre-arranged stunts for the purpose of generating controversy?


can you honestly not see the difference between someone interrupting someone elses speech with heckling and someone waiting their turn to give their own speech?

whats going on in this video is something that happens the first sunday of every month. its fast and testimony sunday. members fast and then those who feel compelled take turns and bare their testimonies to the congregation. he waited his turn, felt compelled and bared his testimony.

and of course the camera was present because he knew what he was saying was going to get him kicked out. but he had the courage and strength and felt strongly enough to say it.

and the mormon church was VERY ACTIVELY INVOLVED in a perpetuating a fear and smear propaganda campaign to its members during church services. across the nation. what kind of church finances were spent i have no idea, but i do know for a fact that church officials intentionally sent down memos full of lies and hate and political opinions to be shared with the priesthood and relief society. to scare them into to supporting prop 8 initiatives nationwide. one of those lies was that legalized gay marriage would threaten and abolish their ability to get married in the temple. (which is EXTREMELY important) they told members all across the country that if gays were allowed to get married, if the church refused to marry a gay couple in the temple then the law would take away their ability to marry ANYONE in the temple. sounds ridiculous to me. but it sounds terrifying to millions of people who think that god himself guides church appointments and would never ever ever allow someone who would lead his people astray to be appointed into a position of authority.

how do i know this? I WAS FUCKING THERE.

ok just to clarify, hes never ever ever gonna get it and im only making myself crazy by continuing to read his weak asinine arguments right?

In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
^ Without delving into a deeper topic, let me knock down your engineering example. There's tons of regulation on engineers, especially civil engineers who're building bridges. It's true that computers and electronics are fairly lightly regulated through the bulk of the segment, but you'd be surprised at how many regulations there are when you come to things that people's lives depend on, like the flight control computer of an airplane, or even the computer in your car's engine.

If you'd gone to an engineering school, they would've told you about that...

"Oh my gosh, guys. This discussion is beneath me. I've already given my opinion in such a discussion several times. That's why I'm only popping in to tell you that this argument isn't worth my attention. Oh and plus I just want to say this one thing..."

If you're disgusted by "this garbage," why did you even click, read, and comment? The rest of us are doing just fine and enjoying the discussion without you coming in here to congratulate yourself. I'll tell you what kind of garbage I'M tired of.

>> ^Farhad2000:
Not this garbage again.

I have participated in such a discussion 5 times or so on this site alone.

Every time some one comes and says "WELL IF THEY HAD A NUKE AND U HAD 1 GUY U COULD GET INFO IF TORTURE WHAT THEN?!?!"

Never mind that shit never ever ever happened in the real world.

RE:Cheney and CIA memos. LOL! Please 2 memos? Explain why not a single intelligence apparatus of the US refuses to acknowledge Cheney's statements. Not to mention countless reports over the Bush years have shown that the Administration cherry picked CIA intelligence to support their cases. See Curveball intelligence re:Iraq and WMDS.

FAIL. PLEASE TRY AGAIN LATER.

Not this garbage again.

I have participated in such a discussion 5 times or so on this site alone.

Every time some one comes and says "WELL IF THEY HAD A NUKE AND U HAD 1 GUY U COULD GET INFO IF TORTURE WHAT THEN?!?!"

Never mind that shit never ever ever happened in the real world.

RE:Cheney and CIA memos. LOL! Please 2 memos? Explain why not a single intelligence apparatus of the US refuses to acknowledge Cheney's statements. Not to mention countless reports over the Bush years have shown that the Administration cherry picked CIA intelligence to support their cases. See Curveball intelligence re:Iraq and WMDS.

FAIL. PLEASE TRY AGAIN LATER.

You asked us to think of how things are, not how they ought to be. Well, the fact is that there will probably never be a "ticking time bomb" scenario to the extent that we discuss it in our torture debates. Why don't we just make the decision never to use torture RIGHT NOW, and then we will never have to make the decision again however sorely we are tempted?

I have been using this idea for most of my life. A very mild example is my decision to never drive my car to school because I live close to campus. I made that decision once, and I never have to make it again. It may be raining out, I may be late for class, I may be tired that day, but those things don't tempt me because I already made my decision. However, I know that there are certain situations that are unlikely but which may force me to drive or to get a ride. If I injured myself, for instance.

What is we made the decision never to use torture so that we were never tempted to use it, even for a really good reason? That is what our government has been doing: Using torture for really good reasons.

We all agree that torture is wrong, but it isn't black and white (only Sith deal in absolutes). However, I think that we should make the decision NOW to never use torture. We know that torture works and that we have prevented tragedies by its use. But torture is wrong. We have to think about the precedence that we are setting, the example that we are to the rest of the world, and our moral obligation. In the long run, the lives that are immediately at stake are less valuable than the ideal. The ideal must be kept and the moral upheld.

One theory of Ethics is that human suffering determines whether something is moral or immoral. If it decreases the happiness in the world, it is right. If it increases the happiness in the world, it is wrong. I don't agree with this usually, but it is pertinent to our discussion. We don't like death because it causes great suffering, but is death really the worst thing that could ever happen to somebody? No, not at all. Torture also causes suffering. So, if we break a moral code and torture someone to save 10,000 lives, will we ultimately be causing more suffering by giving the world and ourselves permission to do it in the future? I think we might. If the United States of America tortures, what are we saying to the world? How much suffering are we causing by losing our high moral ground? Probably a lot more that we realize.

But there is still that big question: WHAT IF? The way that I see it is that we either need to set a very specific, very strict line at which torture is justified, or else we never, ever use it no matter what. If we use torture only for "really good reasons," the situation will deteriorate. We will continually be tempted by a lower standard each time we do it. But if we make the decision only to "use our car" when we are injured and have no choice, we'll never be tempted to use our car when it's raining.

But THEN you're faced with the dilemma of choosing the point at which torture could be justified. How do you determine that? I don't know that it can possibly be done. I have difficulty with the idea that the justification increases with the number of lives lost. 5 lives aren't worth the torture of one man, but 10,000 lives are? There is no way to come to a conclusion about that. I think that it is an impossible standard to set.

That is my long-winded way of saying that the worst-case scenario will probably never happen and that torture should never, ever, ever be legal. Perhaps morally, we could justify using torture in certain situations. Perhaps. But I don't think that a government purposely allowing torture is ever, ever okay. Maybe at some future day we will be faced with a situation where we have a man in custody and we are 100% sure that he has knowledge that can save 1 million lives. We tried being "friendly", but it didn't work. If that ever occurs, I hope that we will have a law in place that forbids torture. I also hope that I am there to break the law and torture the fool.

1 - California is and has been controlled by some of the most rabid members of the GOP for decades. Even as a minority party, with Prop13, we're fucking doomed. QM is 1000% FAIL on this one.

2- Winstonfeld is also 1000% FAIL. The last three GOP preznits have all increased the defecit, while massively inflating the budget.


Every single motherfucking graph on the planet shows that Reagan was an economic and job-creation nightmare, as was Bush I and Bush II. While Clinton, was not. He actually boosted the shit out of the economy, cut taxes (Reagan raised them) and created the fuck out of some jobs.

The notion of "fiscal responsibility" when it comes to conservatives is a fucking laugh riot. I mean hell, I can call myself an 80 foot woman, doesn't mean it's true. But, I guess QM/WP would rather live the lie, which is weird since they both seem to be very smart people.

So if you two are so seemingly smart, why do you buy into this bullshit lie that has never, ever, ever shown to be true?

Oh, but I guess graphs and data have a well-known liberal bias, so why would WP/QM ever believe historic, accurate and empirical evidence when they can just take whatever they want out of their asses?


http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/4599/budgetdeficitorsurplus.gif
http://northshorejournal.org/LinkedImages//2009/01/unempl-rates-bar-graph-for-1992-2000-2008.jpg

it could Max... and it would be wrong...you mean accurately extrapolate. i believe you would be correct.. you can't make something from nothing.

i am willing to bet something equally as mind boggling, however, will be performed by a computer before i see the end of my days. its a matter of the data available to the machine and the machines themselves.

2d into 3d
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuoljANz4EA

http://make3d.stanford.edu/

content aware resizing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qadw0BRKeMk

3D morphable face models
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nice6NYb_WA

facial recognition:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6I0k7UofR4
and related replacement
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZMrNYSa9pI

photosynth:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p16frKJLVi0

and finally... a realistic use of photosynth on CSI....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0suot89qXY4

so maybe you can rejoin the fan club.


really what we're talking about here is insanely increasing the resolution of the original photo to begin with, so the manipulation software isnt the issue... maybe you have video technology that takes multiple levels/layers/scenes and can on demand get that data... thats more of an issue with the recording technology then analyzing.

but, you're right... NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER NO WAY if we're talking about software.... or.... maybe there is and you don't know it yet... as illogical as it may seem.

yer basically right, but don't say no... think of a way.

http://www.hasselbladusa.com/news/hasselblad-announces-new-50-megapixel-camera-and-upcoming-645-sensor.aspx

--------> http://www.gigapxl.org/

good day!

Like...woah. I'm NEVER EVER EVER allowing my wife to visit her crazy christian mother ever ever ever again. Woah.

Religion should never, ever, ever, ever EVER EVER EVER take ANY part whatsoever of modern government. Religion and belief is an individual right to exercise one's own opinions, and the government should spend any money it chooses ONLY on defending that right, NOT on pandering to those beliefs.

I read a little while ago in "A Short History of Nearly Everything" that the most likely event (theoretically) that could've created the element, gold as we know it. Is the direct collision ograterwo neutron stars. Apparantly that's the only thing that could generate the required heat.

Since I read that, I find gold much more interesting. I mean, we can create diamonds in a lab now but we might never, ever, ever find a way to create gold.

(incidently, this is a great way to make your wife think that she'd rather have gold than diamonds.)

*promote

You will never ever EVER see something like that in American baseball. Totally awesome.

I know that sports is all about winning, but if it can't be entertaining as well then who gives a rat's rectum? To me this is one of sports finest moments.

what is needed is separation of news and opinion.

news organisations should have a license which can be taken away if they are caught spreading bullshit without reliable sources, or having "discussions" where the host is the main protagonist. news organisations would compete to get the licenses withdrawn from their rivals, thereby ensuring everyone is very careful about what "facts" they report, and how many times they use the word "allegedly". there should never be "debates" on the news, only reading out of different viewpoints backed by evidence. it should probably not be very entertaining, just like eating brown bread isn't as fun as eating lasagne.

every other broadcast should be 100% unrestricted and self policing, but should never ever ever be allowed to call itself news, just like you can't call sparkling wine champagne if you grew it in california.