I am copy-pasting my previous comment from here:

For those totally unfamiliar with Snooker, let me explain a couple of points: Putting the black earns you 7 points, but you'll have to put one red before putting another.

So there really is only ONE way to get 147. you have to put all the balls in exactly this order. red,black,red,black.... and so on until all reds are down, then you HAVE to do yellow,green,brown,blue,pink and finish it of with black. ONLY that order. He could NOT, for instance, pop down the blue or something in the middle there, it HAS to be in this particular order.

Now, most of you have probably tried pool. And if you think pool is hard (like me) try just looking at a snooker table, its about twice as big, and the balls are smaller, and the holes are f¤%&&ing IMPOSSIBLE to put into. Not only are they smaller, but unlike a pool table, they have these rounded edges that makes it even harder.

So when I said this is hard, I really, really mean it. Only an elite few in the world can do this, and it doesnt happen often. Even in big star games like this reaching 100 is considered really, really good. The fact that O'sullivan does this one in 6 and a half minutes, and another one in 5 minutes and 20 seconds, makes him one of the coldest sons'o'bitches on the whole planet IMO, and its one of the greatest sports achievements ever.

Points for the various colors:

red-1

yellow-2
green-3
brown-4
blue-5
pink-6
black-7

Every color, except red, gets placed back on the table, for as long as there are reds left, so you COULD do red-blue,red-yellow, red-black and so on, except then you are "using up" reds to put low-scoring balls, so to make 147, you have to start with red-black,red-black etc.

When all the reds are down, the remaining balls, have to be done in the order of their points, from 2 to 7

Haha, Ian McKellen sounds more like Stewart than Stewart does.

AGAIN with the statue of liberty being mamed? for gods sake LEAVE HER ALONE!!

2:29-2:30 for the cool part, video is 2:57 too long.

I dont understand the interviewer or people being wildly upset by this, do they really think the zookeepers, who feed and care for this giraffe are simply sadistic morons who kills a giraffe for fun or just because they can? Obviously there was a reason for this.

I am , however, in principal against zoos. they may be educational on some level, but I have a distaste for the concept of keeping wild animals imprisoned like this. But I do think that most zoos and zookeepers do their best under the circumstances to keep the animals happy as they can be. Most wild animals in the wild of course, live in perpetual fear and/or hunger, and so forth, but I am much more in favour of us spending money on preserving wilderness, and stop the perpetual destruction of their natural habitat, instead of keeping specimens in special "cages"/zoos.

His name is Fishburne with an e. That is Lawrence Fishburne's name, not Samuel L. Jackson

Too little detail in this story, they never specify what kind of "hack" this is. My bet is on wifi hotspots set up by the hackers, which means you have to take the bait first, in order to be "hacked". In reality, when you log on to some complete stranger's wifi, you're basically saying "you're welcome to steal anything from me". Never, ever log on to a wifi-network you know nothing about. of course, this simple piece of good advice isnt as sexy as a "HACKERS WILL HACK YOU!!" headline

fake

Those are some weird results that shouldn’t really be possible, since the female is born with the eggs and thus the genetic material for the future offspring is already set when the mother is born. But nature is full of surprises.

But the other thing that separates Darwin from Lamarck, and even Wallace, was how much he really got completely right about evolution. Common decent, gradualism and the fact that evolution happens as a change in populations are all , in addition to natural selection, things that Darwin got spot on , and this was before we had even discovered genes. These insights is why we call it Darwinism, and not Wallaceism

His Darwin/Wallace descriptions is rather unfair on Darwin, Darwin had been working for 20 years on what became "The Origin of Species" when he received Wallace's letter, He already had his theory of natural selection worked out, he just hadn't actually published yet. This is a pretty well known historical fact, based on extensive documentation(Darwins notes/letter etc, see http://darwin-online.org.uk/ .

Also the jump to "nazi Germany" is complete bullshit. If natural selection looks like any political system it would have to be unregulated capitalism or total anarchy. Both of which might turn out to be very bad, but why should you base a political system on natural selection anyway? He confuses Darwinism with "social Darwinism" which really has nothing to do with Darwin or his theory. At best, it was a complete misreading of the theory, confusing strength/looks/class with fitness and using it as an excuse to sterilize and or kill the "unwanted" and "weak". But even social darwinism really had nothing to do with "nazi germany", As the extermination of the jews were largely based on religiously inspired resentments and superstitions, combined with an exploitation of the frustrated german people, looking to place the blame for their post WW1 plight.

Seems like this guy also misunderstands why Darwin/Wallace is credited with "discovering evolution". Its correct that they didnt, but neither did Lamarck, really, as it was obvious for some time that animals seemed to have looked differently in the past, and that something had changed over time. What Darwin and Wallace discovered was the mechanism: How evolution actually works, why it works, and so on. Lamarck also presented a mechanism (inheritance of acquired traits), but it turned out to be wrong.

"At least someone found something to do that's fun when it's freezing cold outside."

He's Norwegian, and we are experiencing the mildest winter in recent memory right now, its about +6 Celsius here now. in January. In Norway. Thats absolutely mental for this place. There is no snow. It rains, its foggy and shitty all over the place. Usually its -10 to -15 and white snow everywhere by now, but not this year.

There is a statement on his website: http://michaelbay.com/2014/01/06/ces/

For those of you who haven't seen the Aurora (borealis, in my case) light, just go fix that immediately, its a sight to behold. Sure you can find videos of it on youtube, but so can you of a beautiful sunrise or sunset. Seeing it in real life... it really is something else entirely. I was once stuck in a tent on top of a mountain in northern Norway (in Troms) and went out for a wee, and then.. then i looked up.. the ENTIRE night sky (like edge to edge vision and horizon(s) ) was moving and dancing in spectacular green, purple and every other color I could imagine, it was a sight to remember, I tell you.

Also, not gonna go all live-commenting here, but Greenwald notes the difference in reaction to surveillance of Merkel and to politicians vs the german public, there is an obvious difference: it goes without saying that the NSA is not actually listening to every german personally, but that this sort of thing is done to snap up conversations of interest. But targeting politicians is a completely different form of surveillance, where the privacy of the individual is being mapped and all their communication noted (probably) iow, theres a difference between having parts of your communications (among millions of individuals and billions of messages) potentially being snapped up, and being under constant surveillance, as in a specific target. And when that target is a democratically elected leader, the problem is even bigger.

"Targeting ordinary germans, by the hundreds of millions"
Germany has a population of 80 million. Way not to sound hyperbolic, Greenwald. Alright, gonna watch rest of video now.