I've seen a few brick layers work while doing asphalt work off to the side. I was under the impression that a good brick design needs a layer of sand underneath and sand spread in between and over top of it to fill in voids. Where the sand in between is from the top and bottom layers of sand being shifted around as they place the bricks. Which doesn't appear to be happening here. So are there steps left out, or is this a "cheap" brick job versus someone who takes time to work the sand by hand to make them stable and last longer? And the machine loading and dropping like that is going to chip and break bricks more often as well...and cutting to fit patterns, etc is still manual.

Need more footage to see if this is an actual advancement or one of those machines that is trying to justify it's existence.


I know with asphalt the machine actually lays a better job than people can do by hand in the same time frame, but there's a lot of prep work to be ready for the machine and an hour or two of post work monitoring and rolling/compacting it when needed. Less time investment on the post work on highway jobs because they use low temperature material and it cools off much faster, and they tend to lay a lot of layers which cools off quicker because they aren't as thick.

This has "actor" all over it. Maybe it's some kind of viral, maybe she was using this service to prep for auditioning, maybe she's just putting on an act for other reasons I can't fathom. But I'd be very surprised if this was anything like the way she really is.

Aaaaaaaaaaawwww, that's obviously a serious brain disorder. Nurse you strap him down, I'll prep the lethal injection.

>> ^NetRunner:
@<A rel="nofollow" class=profilelink title="member since May 3rd, 2010" href="http://videosift.com/member/Lawdeedaw">Lawdeedaw, you seem confused.
I'm opposed to escalating Afghanistan. I'm also opposed to people trying to make sweeping generalizations about Democrats based on a series of false premises and fallacious logic. People are entitled to their opinion on Obama and the decisions he's making as President. What they aren't entitled to is their own facts about what Obama has said or done.
If there's a candidate in 2012 who's a better fit to my values than Obama on the ballot with a credible shot at winning, I'll vote for 'em.
Ron Paul is vehemently opposed to what I believe on 9 out of 10 topics. Even so, I don't see why the remaining Paultards think Ron Paul's empty campaign promises will get followed through on any more than anyone else who's ever run for President, especially given that he's got no support for his platform within his own party.
I definitely don't understand why they think they're going to win support from anti-war Democrats with their messaging strategy. All the CFL ever does is call everything we try to achieve "tyranny", unless they happen to agree with us on a topic, then they just call us hypocrites because we don't all immediately disown the Democratic party and swear undying loyalty to Paul the minute he makes an empty promise on the topic.
It seems mostly like just crap he tells his supporters so they'll repeat his line of reasoning thinking they're engaging in some sort of open-minded bipartisan outreach, when what he's really doing is prepping them to get all hostile and defensive when said "outreach" inevitably gets rejected.


Fair enough. I was just pointing out that Bush did not even follow his own doctrine. Also, santions (Of the economic type) are a blockade of sorts and are at least an aggression.

Lastly, I was saying, in relation to Obama's approach to war, he is nearly identiacal to Bush. I say this not because his strategy is similar, rather, he follows the base of his party in the matter. If they said Home, he would bring them home. If they say Escalation, he escalates. If they say carpet bombs, he throws carpet bombs.

At least this is MO, not actual fact. Perhaps he is doing what is best for the war. Howdy knows.

@Lawdeedaw, you seem confused.

I'm opposed to escalating Afghanistan. I'm also opposed to people trying to make sweeping generalizations about Democrats based on a series of false premises and fallacious logic. People are entitled to their opinion on Obama and the decisions he's making as President. What they aren't entitled to is their own facts about what Obama has said or done.

If there's a candidate in 2012 who's a better fit to my values than Obama on the ballot with a credible shot at winning, I'll vote for 'em.

Ron Paul is vehemently opposed to what I believe on 9 out of 10 topics. Even so, I don't see why the remaining Paultards think Ron Paul's empty campaign promises will get followed through on any more than anyone else who's ever run for President, especially given that he's got no support for his platform within his own party.

I definitely don't understand why they think they're going to win support from anti-war Democrats with their messaging strategy. All the CFL ever does is call everything we try to achieve "tyranny", unless they happen to agree with us on a topic, then they just call us hypocrites because we don't all immediately disown the Democratic party and swear undying loyalty to Paul the minute he makes an empty promise on the topic.

It seems mostly like just crap he tells his supporters so they'll repeat his line of reasoning thinking they're engaging in some sort of open-minded bipartisan outreach, when what he's really doing is prepping them to get all hostile and defensive when said "outreach" inevitably gets rejected.

Well it does look like they were prepping themselves to do so, pulling up their jeans, testing the water, which I imagine was damn cold by her reaction. I guess they would have eventually taunted each other in to crossing, the guy simply sped it a long, keeping them dry and without frozen feet >> ^Lann:

I don't know why it was such an issue for them to get wet but upvote for the wakeboarding!

Your video, QI - Stephen Fry's Prep School Tailors, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 7 Badge!

Here's the thing--after you watch that video, pay particular attention to the pathos being elicited, as we watch the hopes and dreams of thousands of children riding on a particular bingo ball being selected. So much emotion, designed to make the viewer ANGRY that it's come to this. But research (reported in Freakonomics and other places) has shown that every child in that auditorium is just as likely to succeed in their respective educational career, whether or not their number is called.

Say what? The authors speculate that, like so much in life, who you are is far more important than what you do. They found positive correlations between the number of books in a home and a child's long term educational success, so Blagojevich, governor at the time, ordered books for every home with children under age six. This is exactly the sort of faulty interpretation of research findings that cause so much consternation in educational reform efforts. It wasn't merely the number of books a child could read--it was the total number of books present in the household. The authors mused that such a collection transmitted a clear set of values to the child. Parents who treasured reading had children who treasured reading, and these children did rather well in testing situations. Similarly, merely the desire to improve one's current state through applying for new educational opportunities seems to be the factor in whether or not a child succeeds. I worked at a magnet high school in Chicago, and I have to be clear--the desire must come from both the parents AND the child. Parents who enrolled in the lottery to place their child in a 'safe' school against that child's wishes were sorely disappointed with the result, which usually included 27 other children (and their parents) annoyed at the disruptive element in their midst.

There are a number of reports from the Consortium of Chicago School Research (based out of the University of Chicago) which finds, quite astonishingly, that the best indicator of a student's long term success is NOT a standardized test score (which in CPS is the Prairie State, which is the ACT plus three other tests) but rather GPA. Think about that for a moment. Here you have BAD teachers in FAILING schools. I mean, that's what the movie's talking about, right? The research shows, though, that these 'bad' teachers are actually fairly good at gauging where the student is at. They're not necessarily dumbing down the material, or handing out C's for having a pulse. You would think that if they were so terrible, they'd avoid the stress of report card pick-up by passing everyone, but they don't. They do the right thing. They pass the ones who are passing, and fail the ones who are failing, and somehow this aggregate does a better job of predicting how well that student will do in life than the standardized test. That one conclusion should be studied at every school in the nation, but it seems to be ignored. Why?

Remember that joke about the guy who finds his best friend frantically looking for his wallet in the street late one night, and helps him out, but after an hour, asks, "Are you sure you lost it here?" The friend replies, "Oh, no. I lost it in the alley over there. The light's better here." That, right there, is most of what's wrong with the current fetishization of accountability in education. In order to hold schools accountable, they've chosen something that's easy to count. However, is what it's counting IMPORTANT? Accountability that doesn't count the right thing shouldn't count at all. The alternative is hard, sticky, prone to errors with few moments of identifiable triumph. In short, it makes the bureaucrats work, and Ghod help us all if they have to do THAT.

A quick statement to establish my bona fides. I was selected to participate in Teachers for Chicago, the spiritual predecessor of Teach for America. I was part of the first group of library media specialists put through the program. We were a different breed of teacher, sent to confront a new breed of student. I have worked 14 years in CPS, six in the elementary school setting, eight in high school. I have watched the rise of charter schools, and know why they're so effective--the Freakonomics folks called it. They do better because they WANT to do better, and that desire manifests with the choice to forego the neighborhood school for the charter school. But the students who wanted into the Charter school and did not are still doing well--they're just drowning in a sea of knuckle-heads, and their successes are being diluted when it comes time to rank schools in how well they prepare their students.

I've written quite a bit, because I have a lot to say. I'll see this movie when it comes out (because I'm that kind of librarian), but I'm almost certain that they'll ignore most of the new evidence that's come out indicating that charter schools don't live up to the hype (read The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice Are Undermining Education by Diane Ravitch for a comprehensive view of this) and that the problems confronting us seem almost insurmountable. They certainly defy easy metrics that would allow standardized testing to be used to establish accountability. The problem, to me, is plain. When A Nation At Risk came out in the 1980s, the US education system entered triage mode. We've never left it. We've pandered to corporate interests, as they sell us 'proven' tests (the creators of those tests have gone on record as saying that it's useless to test the sort of thing that politicians want tested) and curriculum delivery systems that simply do not work. As anyone will tell you, the entire hospital cannot be run like the ER, and yet we do just that. There is a solution, but it is all but unthinkable in the current climate. I've discussed this with other teachers, and they've rebelled against the notion, even though they later admit that perhaps it's the only way.

One last comment. I am currently working at one of the selective enrollment schools featured in the Freakonomics study. Students merely have to apply, and there's a lottery. There are, as a result, a wide variance of student ability levels, but not 100% bell curved--the very top can score well enough to get into Northside College Prep or Walter Payton College Prep. I arrived at the end of March, when the Prairie State push was in overdrive. Metrics were everywhere, and the pie-in-the-sky target of 18 was pretty much unattainable, if the various practice tests were to be believed. When the school's score came back 19, though, there was the usual jubilant celebration, but undermining this was 'the fear'. One administrator said when asked by a teacher what was done differently this year, he replied, "I don't know." They'd tried a lot of things, and clearly one was the winner, but which? Why is this navel gazing important? Why do I call it "the fear"? Because schools all over the area will be sent to this school, to learn from them. They're a success, after all. They did much better than predicted. Will these schools settle for, "We don't know?" I doubt it.

Seriously, I could watch a whole show that just covered SNL's backstage prep. And NO, don't make it a "reality show" with added BS drama....

ryan is correct, it tilts back so gravity will pull you into the back of your seat, simulating heavy acceleration.

Ideally the person's center of gravity would remain stationary, but you can see at some points where he's raised and lowered. That's to prep the machine for maximum effect when heavy braking/acceleration can be anticipated (ie the car is going at a really high or low speed).

Bioshock 2 was very good. Yahtzee just likes to be a whiney tart. As far as I can tell, the real reason why people don't like the sequel is the fact that they're taking part in an established universe. Really, what made Bioshock incredible was the fact you're in a totally alien atmosphere. Once that initial feeling of wonderment has worn down, the story WILL seem less original and the game less inspired.

The action(with prep for little sister harvesting fights) took a great improving leap from the original gameplay. The change to hacking is understated in this video... since changing it to quicktime events means that the hacking is realtime in game, making hacking more challenging. The point of the sequel was not to expand on the universe but to offer more depth of the world, which was certainly done. It wasn't as long as I hoped but it was certainly very entertaining.

I never take Yahtzee's reviews seriously and I wish more people would do the same, he is objectively one of the worst game reviewers I know of. He's very entertaining(!) however he (1) nitpicks like a bratty kid, (2) reviews games without regard to the game's merits(i.e. multiplayer) and (3) ALWAYS comes off negative because well, hey kids, that's why Yahtzee is popular and that's how he's making those dollar bills.

Sign me up...food preps a bitch, and a lousy job at that!

Point? Since when has Mr. Doofus ever had a point? He's the guy that the Democrats allow to be their crazy, cat-throwing aunt. Most of the time they keep him locked up in the attic. But every once in a while they unlock his door and take off his muzzle so he can jibber jabber. Then they take his verbal diarrhea and spoon it around HufPo, DU, and other leftist house organs for the fringe kook dogs to lick for a while. That's his only function. He's a guy the leftists use to toss red meat when they think the fringe kooks need something to chew on.

So he pops up and reads a laundry list of the Bush Administration's many failures. Yawn. Old news. What he isn't so keen on doing is making a laundry list of Barak Obama's many failures and how they are as bad or worse than Bush's.

For example - I don't really see a whole lot of people getting on Obama's case for 'taking his sweet time' in dealing with Haiti. During Katrina, people whined about Bush's slow response before the Hurricane had even left New Orleans. But the fact was Federal relief was already moving before the storm even hit, and things only got really bad because of the stupidity and sluggishness of Nagin and Blanco (Democrats). Haiti is a horrible disaster and things down there are deteriorating rapidly. Relief has been slower getting there than it was for Katrina, and yet I don't hear Mr. Doofus blaming Obama for that. Why is is OK to blame Katrina's bad outcome on Bush, but Obama gets a pass for Haiti? One simple answer... Blatant, obvious, naked, politically motived BIAS.

So I'm not impressed when Mr. Doofus rattles off a series of liberal, left-wing bones he has to pick with the Bush administration. He gets no points for that. You know what would be impressive? If he rattled off the huge, massive, impressive list of failures in the Obama administration, and his own Congress. It is at that point he would deserve some props for having a pair, and would show he was a person with principles. This? This just proves he's one more in a long line of liberal, left-wing, Democrat party lapdogs.

Just like I'm not impressed when Micheal Steele rips Democrats. Yawn. Why not rip into your own party Mikey and get after them for being big-spending, government program loving special interest tools? The Democrat party is in the process of practically HANDING you the House and maybe even the Senate this year. Why aren't you prepping your party to do the right thing and cut federal spending by 50%?

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

I'm not sure I could live with myself if there was another one. It was like taking candy from a scared baby.>> ^deathcow:
cool story... I did a lot of work as an independent contractor inventorying various pieces of telecomm equipment across Alaska for Y2K prep... great project , we should convince everyone they need 2012 post-apocalyptic certifications now

cool story... I did a lot of work as an independent contractor inventorying various pieces of telecomm equipment across Alaska for Y2K prep... great project , we should convince everyone they need 2012 post-apocalyptic certifications now