Honestly? Good. Don't park on clearways right near the time, sorry but that seems like a no brainer, you should be gone before the time (even 5-10mins before). Not on it or a little after it, before it. The most frustrating thing in the world after cyclists (feel free, I don' hate you but you're still annoying as fuck ) is dicks who park on clearways, this causes a lot of traffic delays.

>> ^EvilDeathBee:

Goddamn vultures. In Melbourne, I've seen tow trucks driving up and down a section of road whose clearway times start soon so they can tow cars the second the clearway starts

Goddamn vultures. In Melbourne, I've seen tow trucks driving up and down a section of road whose clearway times start soon so they can tow cars the second the clearway starts

Ok, this list didn't marry with my experiences at all (but them I'm older than her, so I guess it wouldn't).

10. Never saw it
9. Only vaguely aware of it
8. Seen the spidey gif, but never heard the song with it
7. Very much DID love this. But that's because the song is by a Melbourne band TISM Love them
6. Badgers and mushrooms... nope, no idea never watched it
5. Yatta? nope, never seen that
4. While the song, and Eurovision itself are hardly unknown, that video itself... nope never saw it
3. Nope, never saw it
2. Ultimate showdown IS an awesome video/song
1. Homestar runner is fricken awesome, and my wife and I even made a trogdor t-shirt for our first born


So, I knew 3 of the 10 videos. And she doesn't even like the best one of them... this is continuing to remind me why I've stopped watching videos on thatguywiththeglasses.

That and youngens like her talking about the recent past with a nostalgic fog, as if they're the elders remembering a time long past, gets a little grating.

It may not look it, but here is a link to a YouTube video where they clock it on radar: http://youtu.be/biCs3OM5-ns

This particular video I linked to was shot in North Kingston, RI where the Acela runs at it's max of 150mph. I posted this because I just read a news article yesterday that they were running some tests over the next few evenings at 165mph: http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2012-09-24/news/bs-bz-amtrak-high-speed-test-20120924_1_acela-trains-acela-express-northeast-corridor

You can read more about the speed that they go through stations here: http://discuss.amtraktrains.com/index.php?/topic/32743-how-fast-are-acela-trains-allowed-to-go-when-passing-through-stations/

>> ^charliem:

There is NO way in the world they are running at full speed.....the deuce are you talking about? Unless these things are bloody slow trains, the ones in melbourne race through stations on express services faster than that, and they only have max speed of about 130kph....AND they slow down for the stations!!

There is NO way in the world they are running at full speed.....the deuce are you talking about? Unless these things are bloody slow trains, the ones in melbourne race through stations on express services faster than that, and they only have max speed of about 130kph....AND they slow down for the stations!!

Being able to fly from Montreal to back home in Melbourne in 1/3 the time it takes now? Where do I sign up?

I just hope this doesn't go the way of Concorde

You know, here in Melbourne, if we want to ride on a tram for free, we just get on it.

Only those from out of town pay to travel on trams here!

(And are we sure they're sniffing glue? Could be huffing spray paint)

@ChaosEngine

Oh sweet irony, I'm being called wilfully ignorant by a young-earther.

I'm not going to refute you. I don't need to; @BicycleRepairMan has already done an excellent job of it.

An excellent refutation? He cherry picked one sentence out of my reply, a reply where I had demonstrated the fallacy of his argument from incredulity by proving his assumption of the constancy of radioactive decay rates was nothing more than the conventional wisdom of our times. Is this what passes for logical argumentation in your mind? He posited a fallacious argument. I exposed the fallacy. He ignored the refutation and cherry picked his reply. You seem to be showing that in your eagerness to agree with everything which is contrary to my position that you have a weak filter on information which supports your preconceived ideas. Why is it that a skeptic is always pathologically skeptical of everything except his own positions, I wonder?

@BicycleRepairMan

...and to see an exampe of such a racket, check the flood "geology" link.

Seriously, you cant see the blinding irony in your own words? So, things like radiometric dating, fossils, geology, astronomy, chemistry, biology are all just parts of a self-perpetuating racket confirming each others conclusions in a big old circlejerking conspiracy of astronomical proportions.. well, lets assume then that it is. So they are basically chasing the foregone conclusion that the universe is over 13 billion years old and that life on this planet emerged some 3,6 billion years ago and has evolved ever since. But where did these wild conclusions come from? Who established the dogma that scientists seems to mindlessly work to confirm, and why? And why 13,72 billion years then? Why not 100 billion years, or 345 million years?

The thing is, what you have here is an alleged "crime" with no incentives, no motivation.. Why on earth would all the worlds scientists, depentently and independently and over many generations converge to promote a falsehood of no significance to anyone? it might make some kind of sense if someones doctrine was threatened unless the world was exactly 13.72 billion years old. Or if someone believed they were going to hell unless they believed trilobites died out 250 million years ago.. The thing is, nobody believes that.

The truth is pretty much staring you in the face right here. The conclusions of science on things like the age of the earth emerged gradually; Darwin, and even earlier naturalists had no idea of the exact age of the earth, or even a good approximation, but they did figure this much: It must be very, very old. So old that it challenged their prior beliefs and assumptions about a god-created world as described in their holy book. And thats were nearly all scientists come from: They grew up and lived in societies that looked to holy books , scripture and religion for the answers, and everybody assumed they had proper answers until the science was done.If scientists were corrupt conspirators working to preserve dogma, they be like Kent Hovind or Ken Ham. Ignoring vast mountains of facts and evidence, and focus on a few distorted out-of-context quotations to confirm what they already "know".

Not only was your prior argument fallacious, but I refuted it. Now you're ignoring that and cherry picking your replies here. Seems pretty intellectually dishonest to me? In any case, I'll reply to what you've said here. I was going to get into the technical issues concerning why scientists believe the Universe is so old, and the history of the theory, but so far you have given me no reason to believe that any of it will be carefully considered.

Instead I'll answer with a portion of an article I found, which was printed in "The Ledger" on Feb 17th 2000. It's interview of a molecular biologist who wanted to remain anonymous

Caylor: "Do you believe that the information evolved?"

MB: "George, nobody I know in my profession believes it evolved. It was engineered by genius beyond genius, and such information could not have been written any other way. The paper and ink did not write the book! Knowing what we know, it is ridiculous to think otherwise."

Caylor: "Have you ever stated that in a public lecture, or in any public writings?"

MB: "No, I just say it evolved. To be a molecular biologist requires one to hold onto two insanities at all times:
One, it would be insane to believe in evolution when you can see the truth for yourself.
Two, it would be insane to say you don't believe evolution. All government work, research grants, papers, big college lectures -- everything would stop. I'd be out of a job, or relegated to the outer fringes where I couldn't earn a decent living.”

Caylor: “I hate to say it, but that sounds intellectually dishonest.”

MB: “The work I do in genetic research is honorable. We will find the cures to many of mankind's worst diseases. But in the meantime, we have to live with the elephant in the living room.”

Caylor: “What elephant?”

MB: “Creation design. It's like an elephant in the living room. It moves around, takes up space, loudly trumpets, bumps into us, knocks things over, eats a ton of hay, and smells like an elephant. And yet we have to swear it isn't there!”

Here are some selected quotes:

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

Richard Lewontin

"In China its O.K. to criticize Darwin but not the government, while in the United States its O.K. to criticize the government, but not Darwin."

Dr. J.Y. Chen,

Chinese Paleontologist

Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic."

S. C. Todd,
Correspondence to Nature 410(6752):423, 30 Sept. 1999

"Because there are no alternatives, we would almost have to accept natural selection as the explanation of life on this planet even if there were no evidence for it."

Steven Pinker,
Professor of Psychology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA., "How the Mind Works," [1997]

"Biologists are simply naive when they talk about experiments designed to test the theory of evolution. It is not testable. They may happen to stumble across facts which would seem to conflict with its predictions. These facts will invariably be ignored and their discoverers will undoubtedly be deprived of continuing research grants."

Professor Whitten,
Professor of Genetics, University of Melbourne, Australia, 1980 Assembly Week address.

"Science is not so much concerned with truth as it is with consensus. What counts as truth is what scientists can agree to count as truth at any particular moment in time. [Scientists] are not really receptive or not really open-minded to any sorts of criticisms or any sorts of claims that actually are attacking some of the established parts of the research (traditional) paradigm, in this case neo-Darwinism. So it is very difficult for people who are pushing claims that contradict that paradigm to get a hearing. They find it hard to [get] research grants; they find it hard to get their research published; they find it very hard."

Prof. Evelleen Richards,
Historian of Science at the University of NSW, Australia

Speaks for itself, I think..

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

This achievement has earned you your "Silver Tongue" Level 5 Badge!

>> ^AeroMechanical:

You know, if they'd just used one of these suits in the Jurassic Park films, and only used their digital magic to erase the operator's legs, it would have looked much more realistic in the end.


They're making more movies.

>> ^EvilDeathBee:


Have you ever been to Japan?

Nope, but I'm going in september... can't wait

>> ^EvilDeathBee:

Every where else is a mixed bag. You get friendly, you get indifferent. You get surly, you get downright rude.

True, there are definitely highs and lows, but overall, I've found the standard to be much higher in the US than almost anywhere else I've been in Europe, Asia or Oceania.

>> ^EvilDeathBee:

The place where I encountered the friendliest waiting staff was my local cafe back in Melbourne (god i miss it) where I've never been obliged to tip (did occasionally though).


Haven't been to Melbourne in a few years, but I remember it being pretty good there too (and great coffee!).

I dislike being expected to tip regardless of service. I remember being outraged that a service charge of 15% was added to my bill at a reasonably expensive restaurant in Ireland where the service was just awful. I point blank refused to pay it.

On the flip side, I'm happy to tip in countries where it's not the norm if the service is good.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
Hah! But no, seriously.
@lantern53 knows.. that depriving servers of a living wage and forcing them to bust their asses for 5% gratuity on a $130 check.. you know, builds character.
Struggling in quasi-poverty for years of your life is what the American Dream is all about! duh.
That's why Mitt Romney is such a great American and needs to be President.
He knows what it's like.. to force people to struggle. For their own good.
p.s. - Everyone knows that raising the minimum wage is just another Socialist/Marxist scheme by Obama to disenfranchise the Job Creators in this country.
While I completely agree that people should be paid a living wage, I don't really have a problem with tipping. People should bust their asses in their job, especially if your job is customer facing. Customer service in the USA is so much better than almost anywhere else I've been, (it's particularly bad in NZ)


Have you ever been to Japan? Only country I've been to where shops and restaurants have been consistently friendly and welcoming (with a couple exceptions). Every where else is a mixed bag. You get friendly, you get indifferent. You get surly, you get downright rude. The place where I encountered the friendliest waiting staff was my local cafe back in Melbourne (god i miss it) where I've never been obliged to tip (did occasionally though).

It's a little known fact that all Melbourne cats can play guitar.

In reply to this comment by heathen:
>> ^alien_concept:

And before you say it, he came before Russell Brand


I wasn't even aware they were having sexual intercourse. ;

Brilliant, hahaha

>> ^alien_concept:

And before you say it, he came before Russell Brand


I wasn't even aware they were having sexual intercourse.