Probably a good idea to steer clear of this one.

Well according to the clip of Stallone's arm wrestling show, apparently drinking automobile oil before a match does NOT make you stronger or better at it (much like Popeye and a can of spinach). BUT, it does seem to show that it has the ability to induce a superpower allowing a seemingly normal person to become schizophrenic...

BTW, I said superpower rather than mental illness, because from the schizophrenic individual's perspective he is surely battling Hell's most dangerous beasts, demons, and devils. Merely with the power of his arm wrestling techniques backed up by the miniature fission based nuclear reactor in his gut. It also leaves him in a perpetual manic state, where much like the Lego Movie, "Everything Is Awesome"...

I imagine that he may upgrade to a mixture of anti-freeze and power steering fluids; absolutely logical.

/insanity
//off-topic

The next election is going to be interesting. I wish Labour had realised that fighting over the center was only a sound strategy when there was no risk of encirclement earlier, because now the left is split. How complacent to assume support from leftist Scotland when they've neglected their base for so long.

People talk of how Corbyn is at the wheel of a sinking ship, but it was not he who steered it into such treacherous waters. I heard a Labour supporter on the radio today saying that principles are nothing without power, as if to slight Corbyn. I understand that she probably meant that you need both, but I think the frustrations with a lot of politicians is that they seem all too willing to sacrifice principles for the sake of power. Learn the lessons of the Lib Dem fiasco well Labour, do not repeat their errors.

Yeah, I'm a little disappointed by the unnecessary misquotes and 'making up arguments' myself, sort of kills the debate. I never made excuses for the cops, and I always agreed they were in the wrong. I never said Hammond was a threat to anyone, or that I felt threatened by filming.

What I have been saying, again and again, is that he can be a tool for intentionally trying to provoke this reaction, even if the cops are completely wrong. It's not a discussion about whether or not his action was legal, but you keep on bringing up the cops reaction as though that is relevant. Which makes it sound as though your argument is: "as long as what he did was legal, he can't be a tool for doing it." Which I disagree with; see also 'open carry' protests etc.

As for what effect the first amendment audits will have on legislation, I imagine it'll be a similar scenario as when corporations exploit tax loopholes. Once somebody comes up with a clever way to remain within their legal rights but still act like an asshole, the system tries to evolve to close those loopholes. I'm all for trying to steer the system in the right direction, but I'm not going to applaud those exploiting loopholes to act like assholes.

As for the strange argument about the watch list, I don't know what you're trying to say - I already told you he's on the list and that I don't think that necessarily means anything. What more did you want to say about that?

Are you going to get back to, again, the fact that the cops were in the wrong? I think we haven't explored that angle yet, let's try going over it three or four times more.

In the early 1980s I conned my way into a London chauffeur's job. I figured I could slowly learn my around. To my utter horror, my first job was to pick up Mr Starkey(Ringo) and his beautiful actress wife Barbara Bach from the Dorchester Hotel. I had no clue where the Fk I was going. He soon realised but he could not have been nicer or more understanding. Leaning forward and telling me which way to steer the Rolls, he put me totally at ease. He never told my boss, for which I was even more grateful than the substantial tip (which he would not let me refuse). I know it's a minor anecdote, but it gives a small insight into his decency.

The devil is in the details, isn't it?

For instance, what kind of guaranteed minimum income are we talking about?

The context they used (automatisation, labour supply) suggests to me something along the lines of an unconditional basic income. If that's the case, it cannot be compared to a minimum wage at all, since it has effects that go far beyond the labour market and the income situation. It's a massive reshaping of how we organise society. And it becomes a pain in the ass to even conceptualise properly once you talk about how to finance it...

A minimum wage, no matter how decent it is, doesn't even put a dent into the disparity between income from labour and income from capital. It makes life less horrible for those it applies to and it somewhat curtails the welfare queens among corporations who like their wage slaves being paid for by society. Yes, I'm looking at you, Walmart! Still, on its own, it does very little about income inequality, and nothing at all about wealth inequality.

How would I address income inequality?

In German, the words for taxes and steering are the same: "Steuern". If you want to steer the income towards a more equal distribution, taxation might be the easiest way to go about it. Treat all forms of income equally in terms of taxation. Or go one step further and treat wages preferentially to support employment.

However, redistribution will only get you so far. So why not address it at an earlier stage: distribution. Mondragon serves as a successful example of how a cooperative structure puts democratic checks and balances on the wage structure within a corporation. One person, one vote puts the lid on any attempts by higher-ups to rake in 300 times as much as the peasants on the factory floor.

Yet it doesn't do anything about the inequality between wages and capital income. Even a combination of progressive taxation and fixed income-ratios doesn't do much about it. Especially since non-wage income can evade taxation in a million different ways and most politicians in every country in the world seem more than eager to protect what loopholes they created over the decades.

So what's my suggestion? Well, progressive taxation of both income and wealth, living wage plus job guarantee, support of democratic structures at the workplace, international pressure on tax havens (which includes my own fecking country). Realistic? No. But neither was our welfare system until it was implemented.

He's obviously an experienced driver.

If you watch closely or slowed down you'll see how expertly he corrects just enough to avoid over-steering. A less experienced driver without those reflexive actions would've spun out or eaten shit into the trees off the side of the road (or hit one or both of the other vehicles!).

Still freaky as heck! I pooped in @newtboy's pants.

It looked like it had paddle shifters, but he wasn't using them. Is it also an automatic?

At one point he was adjusting something on the center pad of the steering wheel. I wonder what that was.

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

That isn't a tourist, that's a german license plate on the car. What this guy does is obviously intentional. There is no way he couldn't notice the big fucking red firetruck with lights and sirens going. Also, that's not a panic reaction either, that is pure assholery right there. It goes against every normal, responsible, civilised driving-behaviour.
If I were behind the steering wheel of that truck, I would've forced him out of the way. With my big ass truck.

Good job! Reminds me of a desert race I was in where my steering shaft broke, so I put a pair of vice grips on what was left and kept going. It was a bit harder to hit holes and jumps, and I had to lean over to reach it, limiting my vision, but it worked.

He would have had enough power to maneuver, but not enough to outrun the waves. If there was a big enough break in the sets, yeah, he could have just motored in.

The skill here was in timing the power to get in front of a wave and then steering it to keep on the wave. It's not actually that difficult to do, but the consequences of getting it wrong are pretty nasty.

Would not even try this, i've rode a bike for 35 years, never used a car so it's my only method of transport and needless to say, i'm pretty good at it, really a second nature since i ride more than i walk... I already often think when going downhill what would happen if my brain messed up and started thinking backwards... Steering with your hands crossed, you only need to do it couple of times before you come into same conclusion as this video. I'll rather have the wiring i desperately need than mess with it.

Did a few of miss the part where you can select the parts that are automated and manual?

You're asking for situations where you can choose and the video shows that almost as the first feature. It's there people

Personally for me, it makes sense to have it be 100% automated by default, place your hands on those bits for 3seconds to enter manual. Release both hands, reverts back to automatic.

The 3 seconds is more of a human thing, I'm sure the the car never actually stops any of its automatic calculations, it simply turns on/off if you can control steering and acceleration.

Presto, enjoy driving however you want and not driving whenever you want.

I'm still a firm of advocate of 100% forced automation, sorry, humans are just far too incapable to be driving death machines. I'm sorry if you enjoy it, we'll just create little "driving vacation spots" and we can all move on? After all, you're probably not getting nostalgic about your commutes to work.

But it'll take a while yet for the automation to be able to handle 100% of driving. In the mean time, this sort of dual mode looks pretty great to me.

Come on sift...we got Wheels, Water, and Wings (OK, really just flight without wings) all in one vehicle/event...with metal! That does nothing for ya?! ;-)
*promote
EDIT: My favorite is 5:04 where the steering wheel comes off and he tries over and over to re-attach it as he 's flipping down the hill.