It's not new. They've been around since about 2001.

It's the next Rickroll. Storing away for future use.

Just to clarify/echo the content of the video, they do not have a camera that is actually capable of taking 1 trillion frames per second. They are simulating that ability by having a laser continually shooting pulses of light, and then having the camera take a picture at a different slice in the travel of the photon by moving the mirror accordingly. Eventually the mirror captures every relevant interval of the path of the photon, composites the images, and generates an animation like the one with the soda bottle. Very clever piece of science and engineering.

Here's the Highway Bill Christie is referring to.

It was the bill that contained the famed "bridge to nowhere," signed into law in 2005 by Bush. If congress had re-authorized it in 2009, it would have appeared to have been an endorsement of the "pork-barrel spending" that was such a hot-button issue in the 2008 election.

It's hardly something that Obama personally can be held responsible for, and it was probably a good thing that it expired. One can only hope that the 2012 replacement bill that is currently on the table will not suck as bad.

I know this isn't Extras, but this scene is very reminiscent of it. Hilarious.

More info at Snopes.com - http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/secretservice.asp

Conclusion: completely unverified and unverifiable given the 'anonymous' nature of its alleged "source." Downvote.

>> ^blackoreb:

The gentleman in the video appears to be parroting a debunked chain email. By "parroting", I mean the dude is repeating an anonymous email and pretending he heard the information first hand. And by "debunked", I mean the email claims to list highlights from a real book ("In The President's Secret Service: Behind the Scenes with Agents in the Line of Fire and the Presidents They Protect" by Ronald Kessler), but the contents of the book do not match the contents of the email.
More Info:
http://www.factcheck.org/2011/06/secret-service-tattletales/

They just don't make 'em like they used to.

IIRC, the winner was the gentleman who went 5th in the order.

Rightfully so, since he does some mind-blowing footwork at about 3:48.

It's a BBC promo that is supposed to make you want to watch the rest of the episode - hence the BBC2 branding at the end of it.

>> ^messenger:

So what's the answer? What a lame place to cut off a QI clip.

Isn't that exactly what I just said? That regardless of how "hard" (the word is in quotations because I am not sure if semantically speaking we are working from the same definition of "more hours worked") someone works, the government is already taking a set amount? I've bolded your own words that mirror my own.

If the government takes a quarter of what you make no matter how hard you work, are you going to work harder?

If the government takes 1/10th of what you make no matter how hard you work, are you going to work harder?

If the government takes 1/100th of what you make no matter how hard you work, are you going to work harder?

That was exactly my point and you seem to agree with it - the government is taking a set amount regardless of how hard you work, whether that's 15 hours a week or 40 hours a week or 80 hours a week. How "hard" (again, as in # of hours) someone works is irrelevant to how much the government is taking.

Your underlying assumption is that working more hours = more money, which is simply not the case for 1. all salaried employees in the workforce and 2. businesses that are subject to market forces/demand. How can someone work 80 hours a week if their business doesn't have sufficient demand/customers to even produce that much? That's like saying home construction workers/architects/building contractors at the trough of the housing crisis would have worked harder if only the government would lower taxes on their income. That's bullshit because home building and renovations/improvements were at record lows during that time.

Unemployment itself is a far, far bigger problem than lowering taxes if we're talking about average Joe Citizen trying to make an honest living.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Why do you think you're the standard for what I'm talking about? You're not running a business, are you? Because those people put in 80 hours a week easily, and are preyed on by the system far more than regular workers.
This isn't rocket science, peeps. If you shovel sh1t for 10 hours and the government takes half of what you make no matter how hard you work, are you going to work harder? I'm dealing with liberals so I've tried to type as slowly as possible.
Oh, and Genjkerk, I'll remove the splinter from mine eye when you remove the beam from yours.

Since I am salaried and thus taxed at a set rate determined by what tax bracket I fall into based on my income - completely independent of how many hours I actually work - what makes you think that I (or anyone else who works a set # of hours during the week) will work harder simply because the IRS takes less of it?

Even when I wasn't salaried and had a contract position, I was allotted 40 hours a week, and no more, per my contract. Those 40 hours a week were taxed all the same. I still had to show up and put in 8 hours a day.

I assure you, financial incentives are hardly the motivation for hard, productive, and creative work. In fact, monetary bonuses can actually decrease performance for tasks that require any sort of rudimentary cognitive skill.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Liberals are good at understanding "complexity"?
That must explain why they miss simple concepts like, "People work harder when allowed to keep more of what they earn" and "Private property rights are the foundation of freedom."
And when will Supergenius Barack Hussein Obama be releasing his kollij grades?

I think the only reason the announcers are losing their collective $#!@ over this run is because it's mind-blowingly fast in comparison to the rest of the field. It's sorta like if the first place car in the Indy 500 lapped the entire field and came back into first place again. In rain. With jumps.

>> ^Esoog:

>> ^Yogi:
Best commentators ever. When you're watching something as extreme and ridiculous as that you want a quality nutso call...and that's what that was.

I respectfully disagree. The announcers made me hate this video.

Why are there so few (if any) engineers, scientists, and mathematicians involved in politics?

Obviously because we're smart enough to know better.

Kidding aside, his underlying point that the House of Representatives does not actually represent (nor reflect) the American people is spot on. Perhaps it is more indicative of a broken election system designed to keep incumbents in their jobs...

*findthumb