Did he do that on purpose? He could have kept going straight and gone past them, but he veered to the left. And it doesn't appear to be a parking area on the left.

Oops, she even says it's April Fools at the end. I guess you just forgot the sarcasm tags

derp derp Trancecoach. This is obviously parody. Everything in this video is intentionally bad math, mocking those who tried to use these same bad arguments against her original video.

It was advertised heavily on tv. The problem is the ad was garbage. No story elements, characters, or any dialogue at all were in it. It was just a collection of half second long action sequences stuck together telling you absolutely nothing about the movie other than that it has a decent special effects budget.

I have to say he's wrong on a number of points.

For one, sports rules are arbitrary. In any competitive game, the only purpose of the rules is to provide an agreed upon environment in which people can compete, in order to make scores easy to tally. For example, imagine basketball with no rules, a player takes a ball from one end of a court to another without dribbling and shoots and makes it. How many points should that be worth? How about using a ladder to make the basket, or any one of the limitless number of other ways a person might come up with on the fly while playing? By having all the competitors agree to a set of rules, regardless of what those rules are, it's possible to referee the game and determine a winner. You can take any game, make arbitrary changes to the rules, and all you've done is create a different game. From chess, to poker, golf, football, curling, or anything else, the only difference is the rule set. Take volleyball, make a few a tweaks, and you have sepak takraw. People might find one rule set more aesthetically pleasing to watch or fun to compete in than another, but that is completely subjective. There are an infinite number of possible rule sets, and if there were infinite people you could find somebody to enjoy each one of them.

Also, it's more than the essential nature of a thing that matters. Nonessential parts can have effects on the essential ones. The golf cart thing is the perfect example. Walking may not be an essential part of the game, but the fatigue it produces has an effect on swinging the club which is an essential part. It's easy to imagine a person unable to walk, but still able to swing a club with force an accuracy. So being disabled does not disadvantage this person on the essential parts of the game. This person spends most of his time on a golf cart, exerting little energy, and shaded from the sun. The other players do a lot of walking, getting tired, sunburned, sweat in their eyes, etc. That could definitely have an effect on the essence of the game.

So the question is then, which is more important: letting golf be defined as having the particular set of rules that it currently has, or being fair by letting the disabled play?
If it makes sense that the court can redefine the rules of golf so that a disabled person can use a cart and it still be called "golf", then surely it makes sense to still call it golf after you change the rules so that everybody can use a cart. And if the court has the power to do the former, it has the power to do the latter. And the court clearly chose the virtue of fairness over the "sanctity" of the rule set. And, since letting only one person use a cart would still be unfair, just to different people, the only sensible course of action is let everybody use one.

Favorite new word: Robeast

Ugh, this guy is psycho. Based on just this video, which is even the father's version of the events, I'd have to say the daughter is completely right at the father is completely wrong in so many ways. People get pissed off and vent, it's normal. She vented by complaining to her friends. That's about as benign as venting gets. And he flips out and punishes her for it. Does he think people are supposed to never get upset? What a fucking tool.

0:10
I'm pretty sure Hannah nor her friends thought her post was cute. She was upset and venting, and her friends were probably sympathizing. The father seems thinks her Facebook post was some kind of performance piece intended to elicit laughter at his expense. He seems to be self centered, and indifferent or oblivious to his daughter's frustration.

0:18
He thinks other parents don't know their kids curse or get angry and vent. And given his level of shock and over reaction to his daughter's behavior, he apparently didn't know it himself. How could he be that naive and out of touch?

0:25
I doubt she thought she was being "smart". She was sharing something with her friends, it wasn't meant for her parents. Phone conversations are by default private, Facebook is not so she had to make it private. On this point he's effectively getting upset at his daughter over idiosyncrasies of different technologies or the fact that Facebook is currently the trendy way to communicate. This reminds me of the judge that flipped out on his daughter over a computer. God bless America and its luddite rednecks, ruining childhoods one at a time.

Also, him using words like "cute" and "smart" to describe his daughter's behavior again hints that he is completely out of touch with how she feels and why she's acting this way.

0:45
Is he hinting that he found the post by logging into Facebook as her on her comp and snooping around? If so, that's pretty fucked up. There's nothing quite as infuriating and rage inducing and relationship ruining as having your parents treat you like an animal with no right to privacy.

1:35
It's absolutely disrespectful and extremely inconsiderate to track dirt across a floor that you know somebody else has to clean. If you have shitty shoes, take them off at the door. If he can't be bothered to do this he's an assbag.

1:40
Telling her to get a job at 15? If she wants to get a job at that age, in addition to school, then good for her. But telling her she has to get one? What an ass.

3:15
What a smug douche. He absolutely should pay her for doing chores. The amount she makes should correspond to the chores. If the chores amount to nothing, then so does her pay.

3:35
She has to wipe the counters? Really? In itself that's a minor thing to do, but it indicates that he(or his wife, or somebody) doesn't clean up after themselves. It's exceptionally infuriating having to run around behind fucking slobs and clean house.

3:52
Making beds. What an entirely useless activity. I have never understood peoples' obsession with this. And it's her bed, not his! Does he hold business meetings in her bedroom? How many shares of stock does he own in her bed? Is he afraid Martha Stewart and the SS are going to drop by for a surprise daughter-bed inspection? Being uptight about pointless (and unseen) aesthetics fits in with his overall douchiness.

4:15
Oh my god, she wants a battery and a power cord! That is so much to ask for her! How dare she ask her parents for relatively cheap items that are essential to her education!

4:25
Calling your daughter a lazy ass. Good parenting, bravo good sir! That'll surely strengthen the familial bond and her encourage her to be productive!

4:40
Just because you had to deal with a lot as a teenager doesn't mean your daughter is capable or should have to do the same. What kind of psycho parent wants their kids to have as hard a life as their own? Don't most loving parents want the opposite?

4:45
Well no, just a moment ago you also listed chores she has to do. Using hyperbole is not a way to get your daughter to respect your argument. You sound like a husband bickering with his wife.

5:15
Is this the same instance of grounding as he mentioned earlier, for three months? But he can't remember what it was? Did he have a stroke? Or does he just not give enough of a shit about his daughter's life and concerns to remember what he grounded her for three months for? Three months! For three months he had to enforce restrictions on her. Every day for those three months he would obviously have to remember she was grounded, and that in turn would reinforce his memory of what she was grounded for. But now he can't remember?

5:18
More name calling.

5:30
Pure unbridled psychotic. He got so pissed off at his daughter using Facebook that he felt a serious urge to discharge a firearm into her laptop? Grade A fucking lunatic. This man is dangerous.


I'll stop here, it just gets worse. I'm going to try to find out what town they live in and contact the local police. This guy may be a hard worker, but he is an extremely shitty parent, is no doubt terrorizing to his daughter, and possibly a danger.

Fantastic idea. Until one of the kids snorts up one of those brain eating amoebas.

It's easy to calculate the real probability. A single byte can represent 256 different values, so for example in ASCII each character is encoded as a single byte, since there are less than 256 characters in the alphabet. Lets assume that the monkey's keyboard has keys for all 256 values, for simplicity. Let's also assume the complete works of Shakespeare add up to 10 megabytes. The chance that the monkey gets any single byte correct is 1/256. The chance that he gets two bytes right is (1/256)^2, three bytes is (1/256)^3, and so on. So then the chance that the monkey gets it all right is (1/256)^10,000,000. That's 1 divided by (256 raised to the 10 millionth power).

You could get a more accurate number by making x be the number of different types of characters and punctuations in the works, y be the actual count of all those things, then the probability would be 1/(x^y).

@Ariane, your math doesn't work. You are arbitrarily saying that the sequence we want occurs only once in any given set, but there's no reason to assume this. Think of flipping a coin, we want heads, we could flip it x times(where x is finite) and they could all be heads, or all be tails. Plus, once we say we're flipping the coin an infinite number of times instead, that demands that we get an infinite number of every possible outcome. So in your limit, when x is finite, you don't know what the numerator should be. But when x is infinite, the numerator should also be infinite, in which case the limit gives 1 (that is, 100%) instead of 0.

This is retarded. They have stairs like that on the Virginia Tech campus, and nobody has ever complained that I know of. The only way anybody would see more than just calf is if they were standing directly under the stairs, which would be obvious. Even if somebody was under the stairs they'd see no more than if the woman was wearing a bathing suit. And the problem is trivially fixed by placing a couple potted plants under the stairs so people can't walk under it. Why is this on the news?

Teeth damage from fluoride in drinking water is definitely a very real phenomenon. I grew up in Suffolk, VA, which has a ridiculously high concentration of fluoride added to the water. We didn't know about it when I was growing up, and now my teeth have very dark brown spots on them, it looks like complete fucking shit. I've been getting them fixed, a couple at a time, over the last couple months, at a cost of $500 per tooth.

Illogical and prejudiced, yes. And also arbitrary and rather dumb in how you desperately try to rationalize your discrimination.

You imply that gay people have the right to marry since they can still marry a person of the opposite sex. But having the right to marry means exactly having the right to marry who you want. This is where you should have used your brain, applied your reasoning to other situations, and pondered if it actually made sense. For example, suppose black people were not allowed to marry each other, and the powers that be tried to pull the same trick you just pulled by saying black people can still marry any morbidly obese white person they want. Would black people have the right to marry? Absolutely not. Suppose a government claims its people have freedom of speech since it does not preempt any attempts at speaking; instead it just goes around, after the fact, and punishes anybody who said something it dislikes. Do the people have freedom of speech? No.

The issue of definition is a non-issue. Any language that has a population of native speakers is undergoing constant evolution. You must be religious, since you think words are sacred, and apparently magical. (They must be magical, if words defined in one age have the ability to correctly dictate morality into the unknown future.) Again, we can imagine this applied to race, i.e. marriage defined to be between "a white man and a white woman".

You seem to imply you'd be okay with it if there was a different word and corresponding laws. I doubt that, it sounds like a grasp for a rationalization. But lets suppose that actually happened. The end result would be exactly the same. The vast majority of the population would continue to use the word "marriage" when talking about same sex unions. The people against gay marriage would be the most likely to use the word "marriage" because their real concern is the act, not the word; the issue of sacred word definition was only ever an excuse, one which they would not want to give up. They would claim that legalizing gay marriage under the phrase "civil unions" was merely a bureaucratic trick, and rightfully so since the body laws concerning straight marriage and gay civil unions would be identical except for the phrase used to name the act. And after a few decades, the dictionary publishers would update their definitions to match the language people actually use: mar riage (mar-ij) n. the state in which two people are formally united for the purpose of living together(often in order to raise children) and with certain legal rights and obligations toward each other. (straight forward adaptation from the Oxford American Dictionary)

And finally, whether it is a choice or not has absolutely no bearing on the morality of it. All that matters, in general, is whether an act causes harm to non-consenting parties. Gay marriage does not. That means, as far as morality is concerned, being gay or straight is merely an issue of aesthetics. Therefore, you getting irked over gay marriage is quite similar to a teenage girl, who upon seeing another teen girl whose shirt and pants do not match, becomes irate that another person would dare wear something that she personally dislikes. Please grow the fuck up.



>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^Aniatario:
"Heya gay folks, we love you but can't give you the same rights as everyone else. Sorry!"
^Right..

Who's stopping gays from getting married?
Truth is, nobody is stopping them from getting married. There is no test or query when getting married. Nowhere in Canada or the US are you asked if you are gay or not when getting married.
Please explain then, what rights are being denied to "gay folks"?
Oh, right. The existing definition of marriage meaning a union between a man and a woman. Changing definitions is NOT a right in my book, sorry.
If the problem is wanting similar legal privileges for a union between two men or two women as there exists for marriages, then pursue changes to the law, not the definition.
I'll go for even more down votes here by noting my belief that one's sexual behavior is a choice, not a genetic predisposition. Flame me all you want, but if you can explain to me where I'm being illogical or prejudiced in any of this I'd like to hear it.

Okay, wow, I checked the dictionary. "snigger" really is an alternate spelling of snicker.

I thought that word referred to Snorks who are fans of Eminem and Insane Clown Posse.

/Ponders whether he should have left that joke alone.

I'm pretty sure the word you're looking for is "snicker" lol

>> ^Reefie:

Upvote for the quiet snigger at the end, the owner being careful not to offend their feline friend