Is it possible to solve 3 sides of a Rubik's cube whilst the opposite sides are scrambled?

I think he solves the cube in the bag when he reaches in to take it out. I wonder if he is doing the behind the back toss one the same way. I can only imagine that for the last trick he is able to eye up Teller's cube and "solve" his one to match, which would be pretty astounding even without all the sleight of hand.

I solve the cube at like a minute or so, so I'm not terrible at the cube, but Ive only caught one trick so far , at 1.57 he only solves the red/green/white side and leaves the blue/orange/yellow sides looking scrambled. he then simply flips the cube so it now looks solved, you can see he starts scrambling* right away so they wont catch him out.

*probably isnt scrambling but actually a trained sequence to get to the next trick.

Your video, Indian scrambled eggs with a surprise, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

You know, the spatula is made of metal. He could've easily scrambled that.

Bicycle, the last sentences showed me that you have a level head and stopped me from my knee-jerk reaction... The case here was from the start a very possible deadly force.

Double murder suspect...the guy had nothing to lose, already by judgment of safety, because he murdered two people and lets be honest, if he killed the cop he now had another gun. It is not the officer I worry about (though it would be sad if he lost his life) but the innocent guy driving by who gets shot for his car.

Second, the guy here obviously had a method to murder people. Whether he killed those two with a knife or gun would be irrelevant. I can kill you with a knife within 21 feet before you have time to draw your weapon, and that is a fact.

Third, 8% of officers die by their own weapon. That is not a small number. I would play the lotto with those odds...just saying. Once in hand to hand you better be able to win regardless of their skill...

You shoot to kill because of what might happen, not what has happened. Drawing the gun was 100% right. That four seconds where you are scrambling is three shots from the bad guy--at least I can get off three.

This totally reminds me of this one short story they showed us in school a long time ago, where everyone had to be equal, the beautiful had masks, while the smart had implants to scramble their thoughts. Can't remember the name.

I'm the only one on my dev team who is using a Windows laptop instead of a MacBook. Every time someone else needs to present, it's a scramble for a dongle, and then their WiFi drops and it takes five minutes to get reconnected.

Yeah, my ThinkPad looks like an industrial accident compared to those admittedly sexy MacBooks, but unlike those, my Windoze machine "just works (TM)."\

Yep, Lode Runner is another game I had on the apple2.
Yeah, far too much of my childhood was spent in arcades so I have seen and played it, but I preferred scramble for side scrolling helicopter-like games, so chop lifter didn't eat too much of my money.
I think a friend also had the colecovision port that I've played.

"The rich keep you fed enough that you bark at the intruders." - Some youtuber.

Yes he's a little out of his depth and he's so desperate to try and get people to understand that he's hurrying and nervous. Well, he's a comedian, he isn't used to public speaking, he knows how to make people laugh not convince them in an argument. But he's out there, putting his neck on the line when he doesn't even NEED to - because as the tabloids (controlled by who?) enjoy pointing out he's rich. At least he got rich through his ability to make people laugh, rather than tricking people into voting for him because he'd act in their best interests then selling their decisions to the highest bidder.

We are seeing politicians scrambling for ANYTHING they can to hold power and keep making money for a little longer. That anything is immigration and they're quite happy to let people convince themselves its the immigrants. Even if we are slightly overcrowded for our infrastructure in Britain, we wouldn't be if the money in the system was active and being used to build and be productive instead of sitting in the pockets of people who have everything they want and 8 figure bank balances. These people in charge keep telling us they're going to tackle all these problems, but they never do anything to close the loopholes being used by all the huge corporations who have been paying NO TAX WHATSOEVER during the times of extreme wealth and growth. Is it any wonder our countries are in a dire condition? Our tax system has been starved of hundreds of billions, possibly trillions, who really knows!? And why weren't they closed? Just look at the links between big business and and politics, the only reason we aren't all saying "what the fuck is going on?" is because they can distract people through their control over the media and their convincing oratory skill into going "it's your neighbour.. it's his fault. was he born here? why is he using your hospital?", meanwhile we lose out of BILLIONS because the post office was sold off on the sly! Only to be told next election THAT WE ARE SHORT ON OUR FUCKING BUDGET. You're ok with that happening?! Why is it ok for them to keep coming back having lost our money and asking for more, but if it was a man who came directly to our door to collect our money in exchange for services, we'd tell him to piss off? It's EASIER to blame someone who looks and speaks differently rather than the clever bastard with a gleam in his eye sitting in the pub silver tonguing his constituents.

We are not fucking short on productivity - how many people do you know that think they have a lot of spare time and freedom from work? But that productivity is not being directed appropriately, and if you don't believe that then you need to get outside and talk to people who are less fortunate than you... benefit of the doubt, maybe you just haven't had to see it. But all the money that went on bonuses could be going into improving schools, police, hospitals, public transport and roads and god knows what else. A bunch of people would go without a brand new range rover sport or yacht or champagne holiday for 30... in contrast, thousands less people would die - think of the old people dying in the cold each winter? or hospital beds and treatments for those with cancer or anything that the NHS can't afford to treat? All the freshly educated nurses and doctors thanks to our universities being given cash to improve their facilities and training.

The theory behind all this was trickle-down-wealth, the money will be distributed through society by paying those at the top a lot of money. It CLEARLY does not work, and anyone who suggests otherwise would surely be considered insane. It's not working, we see it not working, so why aren't we fixing it or getting angry and making those in charge fix it?

If Brand is advocating anarchy (and i'd like to know your argument for saying that, i could stand to be convinced), it's because he's exasperated at our inaction and wants to try and stir people to act. We're currently at the other extreme - watching it happen. People are criticising the crowd for being too into brand, too "leftist" or some nonsense. But those are the people that are having their lives drained by these leeches at the top, of course they're only going to come and cheer if someone is going to say what needs to be said. Any other night, it's just drones debating different ways to stack the odds against everyone.

Edited: Tried to make it nicer, more readable, sorry for the long post but he's really really got a great point and i can't understand why we are all ignoring what's going on. We seem to accept that big business WILL get away with not paying billions in tax like that's fine.. but it's not, we can change it, we just have to stop fucking ignoring it and hold these twats to account like Brand is trying to do. It's not like he's suggesting some wild and risky change, he's just saying STOP LETTING AND HELPING PEOPLE STEAL MONEY FROM US. They won't, and watch Farage go bright red when brand talks about his scandals and rich business partners. If they won't, we need to get rid of them. You may not like his demeanour but he is expressing democratic and egalitarian points.

No, it means that it's too late to have no climate change as a result of human produced greenhouse gasses (thanks to the impressively effective interference and intentional confusion caused by politically motivated climate change deniers who have delayed meaningful action thus far), but it's never too late to stop adding to the problem and making it worse.

The 'right wing' stance so far has been "It's not real, no...I mean, It's being faked by scientists, no...I mean, it's not a problem, no...I mean, it's not man made, no...I mean, it's too expensive to do anything, no...I mean, it's being faked by scientists, no....I mean, it isn't real, no...I mean, it's too late to do anything." I quit giving them an ear at "It's not real", because I can read and do math, and can understand science.

EDIT:And please-oh-please. Give me the URL of the UN speech you quoted as saying "Quit thinking about Climate Change, and act to empower us even further than we already are! What wealth still exists is shrinking, so we need to scramble harder for your last dollars!" I'm thinking you made that up.

@ChaosEngine @newtboy
Well, if Climate Change is now "irreversible," does that mean that the Climate Change believers will stop trying to use the government to try to reverse it? (I say it's one less thing to worry about! Alas, there will always be contrarians to this malarkey, as the U.N. pouts "Quit thinking about Climate Change, and act to empower us even further than we already are! What wealth still exists is shrinking, so we need to scramble harder for your last dollars!" You boys should donate if you care so much.)

The cop called in for backup after a severe and unsustainable bout of cognitive dissonance (reading aloud in his own voice the law that proved he was wrong).

Unable to process this information because his fragile concept of self is shattered publicly and captured on video to the cheers of the crowd, but yet also trying to reason with the madness in his mind, he decides that "ejecting" is better than "arresting". Fully knowing that both solutions are wrong.

Fearful, because his brain is scrambling like an egg in a blender, he moves far away from what is really just a man standing alone singing. Moves away because somehow he is unable, unsafe as an NYPD cop, to handle a man armed only with a guitar and a voice. He needs backup.

With all of his bravery, and hand on his holster, he marches back to the musician and takes the guitar away, but the song keeps on playing.

Literally unable (4:37) to physically affect an arrest or "ejection" against a completely docile and non-resisting "suspect", our embarrassed crime fighter lets everyone know it's none of their business.

But don't worry, help arrives at last! (6:03) And now officer illiterate can be a tough guy hero in front of his cop buddies and manhandle the dangerous singer. See? He didn't even need their help. He was just biding his time for the right opportunity to capture that criminal guitar player.

I've had nightmares where I'm driving along, and suddenly the car goes out of control. Mainly because I've suddenly found myself in the back seat, and I'm scrambling to get behind the wheel.

Usually, those videos where the person's car hasn't been properly put in park and takes off without them makes me flash back to those nightmares.

This video gives me the willies.

In theory, the player performing the break could pot a red and then continue on that break, but that would be extremely unlikely and probably a very bad move. At no point in snooker do you get two shots in one turn, not even on the break.

The break shot requires that the player hits a red ball first. Since the pink is at the top of the rack (the triangle of balls), this prevents the player from breaking like you would in a game of 8 or 9-ball. Therefore, you are unlikely to get a red ball to move with enough momentum to make it to a pocket. And if you did manage to do that, everything on the table would be scrambled to hell which does not lend itself to easy, predictable shots or high scores (following the red-black-red-black pattern).

So, instead, in snooker the perfect break sees the cue ball striking one of the bottom corner balls, sending it in to the bottom cushion with the momentum moving along the back line of balls sending the other corner ball into the side cushion. Ideally, both of those balls will return very close to their starting position with the rack essentially undisturbed. At the same time, you want the cue ball to move around the table and come to rest either against the top cushion (as far away from the reds as possible) or hidden behind the green, brown, or yellow ball.

TLDR: No, breaks in snooker are defensive in nature.

So it sounds as if we would agree, we think it would have failed in both places if the child were obviously Muslim.
Having Fry's disease, the telepathic signal becomes scrambled in my head...it confuses the non-damaged hive minds near me (and me).
EDIT: and my statement wasn't unfounded, I verified with myself that it's what I thought. That's a verified statement about an unfounded opinion! ;-}