You asked how bad ideas can be oppressive and I think I told you. We can consider these things intellectually; thinking and reasoning does produce evidence.

I don't know if I have to remind you, I shouldn't have to, but I'm not the guy from the video. Our opinions are not the same.

There's really no such thing as women. It's not a useful category, vast and arbitrary as it is. The characteristics of women are those of all humanity; no traits emerge to distinguish those groups. Biological sex is a trivial marker, not substantially different from hair color or whether you can curl your tongue, and gender is a personal construct. There's nothing to be said about women that doesn't apply to everyone - so what does feminism have to say? Nothing.

The phenomenon of men as the oppressor of women, so far as it exists, is just a silly little anthropological quirk of our social evolution. It's not something to be taken seriously. There are a hundred worse ways in which unregulated instinctual behaviours are damaging our society every day.

Well, it IS just a preview, but I kinda see your point. But movies are fantasy. Big budget movies require big audiences, and one way to bring them (and me) in is to make movies like this. I, for one, enjoyed the hell out of the previous movie (think I'll watch it on BluRay right now), and I have no doubt I'll love this one.

Is character development really needed for characters we've known for over 45 years? Granted, new actors will portray them a little differently, and the reboot takes place earlier than TOS. Maybe it's just me, but I didn't find myself wanting for more character exposition after the last movie. Hell, I thought they did an awesome job of introducing each character and laying out their individual personalities and quirks.

My least favorite of all the Star Trek series was TNG. I dug it, but it would be at the bottom if I had to rank them. I dunno, too idealist and preachy, maybe. JFC, I think Picard referred to the Prime Directive at least once an episode. Some episodes just bored me to death. I wanted every episode to be Enterprise vs. the Borg. I much prefer Kirk kicking a Gorn's ass, or fighting alongside Abe Lincoln, or in pursuit of the Praetor's finest flagship, or battling Apollo or "General Trelane, Retired". TOS was often campy, but always fun, and that's how I prefer my Star Trek.


Edit: Noted that you were speaking more generally about movies nowadays, and I'm speaking specifically about Star Trek.

Yeah, one of our strange quirks causes us to frown on sex offenders and want to see them behind bars. It dates back to the Roman conquests probably, mad I know.

>> ^cosmovitelli:

>> ^thumpa28:
Assange is a self obsessed rapist (believe it or not that what they call people who have sex where the other party refuses or withdraws consent) whose lust for publicity has led to lots of death. The 1300 in Kenya by his own admission and the Taleban thanking wikileaks for helping them identify those who cooperated with the americans and what about an Iranian spy to name but a few we know about. Chinese dissidents, middle eastern journalists, people fighting for democracy in dangerous places have suffered because of this self serving turd.
How many people have suffered and died so Assange could lap up the publicity, shouting about the freedom of speech whilst gagging his own staff and of course planning to stiff the morons who looked after him whilst he was fighting extradition and especially those who posted bail. Everything out of his mouth is designed to keep Assange safe, by playing on the Great Satan angle and finding those fools idiotic enough to lap it up and throw money at the cause, especially those who posted bail for him, then left looking like right twats when he did a runner to the Ecuadorians. What a bunch of muppets.
Quite frankly, after all this nonsense the US wont bother to try and extradite him. I just hope the UK grabs him when he steps outside the one place the fucker can hide, preferably using a dum dum round to the nuts, before dragging his pathetic self off and slamming him into jail where he will face trial for being self obsessed, even during sex.
>> ^Hybrid:
You think this isn't about getting him extradited to the US via Sweden? That's one thing I and nearly everyone else in this thread do agree on. Be in no doubt, if Assange ends up on Swedish soil, he will end up on US soil soon after.>> ^Babymech:
Hybrid, don't be ridiculous. It would be illegal for Sweden to extradite him to the US. It would be political suicide for any Swedish politician or authority to be anywhere near involved an extradition to a country that practices the death penalty. Barbarians.



You sound like the Putin suporters in moscow who want those 'Pussy Riot Whores' hung for daring to challenge the Man..
In most of the world state power does what it likes; murder, torture, indefinite imprisonment without trial.
England is supposed to be one of the few places that shit don't fly.

My parents had a cat, when I was growing up, that was deathly afraid of a blue shammie-like material. We called it devil material because she would freak out if it was brought close to her. It didn't smell strange to me...and AFAIK it was new when we bought it so it shouldn't have smelled like another animal that wasn't in the house. And she was afraid of it for months and years through many washings. And was afraid of materials like it, especially if they were blue. Was a weird....no one had any guesses as to why she was like that and we had her for all of her life minus a few weeks in the beginning when she was born to a half-tamed stray some neighbors of my grandma had. She lived to be almost 18 years old and never dropped these weird quirks, I just assumed they were because she was part siamese...they are known for being amped up and weird.

>> ^A10anis:

I'm afraid I cannot see any correlation between driving a car, and climbing into a cage with a lion! A car is an inanimate object. It is not susceptible to whims, or moods, and has not existed for millennia with the sole purpose of tearing living animals apart to feed it's family. Of course they both have risks - putting on your socks has risks. But there are rational risks, and bloody stupid risks. Your example, which compares one as equatable to the other is, frankly, a non-sequitur. As for
Steve Irwin; His death, as any, was tragic. But here was an "expert" who, despite his knowledge, died at the hands of a wild animal. I think that proves my point, there are NO experts.


Although the car is inanimate, it is susceptible to whims and moods -- certainly the whims and moods of other drivers (and yourself), but arguably also the occasional "quirk" in the machinery or state of some parts that can exhibit itself almost like a living thing. Perhaps it was a poor example or non-sequitur (RIP Mitch Heberg), but it makes sense to me anyway.

Maybe there are no "experts" with these wild animals (-- maybe there are no expert drivers?) but the difference between a rational risk and a bloody stupid risk is subjective, and I think that the people that work with these animals for a living (or as their passion) are personally quite comfortable with what they are doing, and believe that the risks they are taking are rational. Even if they know/believe that what they are doing has more risk of injury/death than other jobs/hobbies/activities, they feel that it is worth doing.

We don't have to agree with them. I find things like smoking or bungee jumping to be bloody stupid risks (or more accurately activities with an extremely poor cost-benefit analysis), but to people that do and love those things, my personal difference of opinion with them is of no concern (nor should it be). Life's a messy thing; no matter how much padding or how many safety nets we surround ourselves with our luck will run out eventually. I think that for the dude in this video (and for Steve Irwin), the chance to live their lives loving what they do is worth the risk of dying from it.

Primarily they are douche bags. /endsarcasm I say this from years of experience, both good and bad. Plenty of nice ones, but for every good cop there are a couple impatient asshole cop doing an arbitrary job at keeping the peace. But, really, the common denominator is that they are human. So I'm fair in my judgement and so I have decided to point my hate at most humans. Tolerate most people, yes, for the most part. If cops were a showed their humility as public servants, admitting to their poor decisions as they recognized them, then unacceptable behavior can be easily forgiven. Unfortunately pride fucks with even the best of mankind's heads.

Cops shouldn't let their personality quirks inform their decisions as law enforcement. Sort of like rulers should be philosopher kings. It's not realistic to think that this will change all that much over the years, but it is realistic to try and at least confirm to others that most interactions with cops will NOT end in your favor. They will, however, protect the shit out of you when actual f'ed up criminals show up. It's just a shame that (often) they take out the time in between on the common citizens, who could use some firm law enforcement without the macho bullshit.

My judgement is based off of the frequency of my interaction where I either should not have been at fault or was at fault in one way or another and treated as if I were were a hardened criminal, my opinion minimized and was downright insulted by their candid and inappropriate comments. (I was once derided for getting into an accident with my mother's car when I was 19. "You're still driving your mama's car?" That really helped my mental state after climbing from the now upside down wreckage.) There were several occasions where I was completely at fault and, in fact, most of these times I had a fairly nice and patient cop. But the number of bad interactions at inappropriate times outweighs this, so I can only assume that there are more bad cops than good.

>> ^valorumguygee:

Then stop going online. Assuming that all cops are like the ones specifically pointed out in videos about abuse is foolish and makes you look uninformed and silly.
>> ^mxxcon:
>> ^Zaibach:
>> ^mxxcon:
>> ^Bruti79:
Those cops must be tired of dealing with that guy.
TOO FUCKING BAD. Cops are getting PAID to respond to calls. IF THEY DON'T LIKE IT, GET ANOTHER JOB. Powerhungry self-centered control freaks want this society to walk on their toes around cops. Fuck them!

Looks like someone got arrested recently lol!
nope, just getting more and more tired seeing power abuse.

"Ok, you need to understand two different concepts........the odds of getting so much similarity by accident is exceedingly small.

So in light of this reality.....supposedly bring down evolution."

Minor disagreements? I'm having a hard time believing that you've seriously investigated this subject if you are now claiming (scaled back from your prior claim of perfect agreement between "scores" of them) that molecular and morphological phylogonies typically have a high level of agreement. They don't. Agreement is the exception, not the rule. Even worse, molecular phylogonies don't agree with eachother either:

As morphologists with high hopes of molecular systematics, we end this survey with our hopes dampened. Congruence between molecular phylogenies is as elusive as it is in morphology and as it is between molecules and morphology. . . .

Partly because of morphology’s long history, congruence between morphological phylogenies is the exception rather than the rule. With molecular phylogenies, all generated within the last couple of decades, the situation is little better. Many cases of incongruence between molecular phylogenies are documented above; and when a consensus of all trees within 1% of the shortest in a parsimony analysis is published (e.g. 132, 152, 170), structure or resolution tends to evaporate

Congruence Between Molecular and Morphological Phylogenies

http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.es.24.110193.001101

"If only you were a bit better at it. Even the quotes you chose to mine serve to undermine your point. I think my point can be summarized by the following quote from your reference"

“On one side stand traditionalists who have built evolutionary trees from decades of work on species' morphological characteristics. On the other lie molecular systematists, who are convinced that comparisons of DNA and other biological molecules are the BEST way to unravel the secrets of evolutionary history.”

The relevant part here is the word “best.” These people are clearly just trying to decide what the most accurate method of phylogenetic determination is and this article represents nothing more than a discussion of one of the many battles that go on in the constant refinement of science. And this disagreement does nothing at all to disprove evolution""

Your charge of quote mining is false. Quote mining is the logical fallacy of quoting something out of context, distorting its intended meaning. The quote I provided was very much in context, and showed support for the assertion that molecular and morphological phylogenies do not have "perfect" agreement, and now I have further supported that assertion (and disproven your scaled back claim of very statistically significant agreement) that their agreement is actually very superficial. It is far more significant how little agreement there actually is.

The very reason there is a contention about which is the "best" method is precisely because there is so little agreement. In any case, molecular homology appears to be winning the battle, perhaps because the evolutionists are getting tired of never finding any evolution in the fossil record.

Which brings us to the many issues with molecular homologies, specifically, their lack of falsifiability:

"We believe that it is possible to draw up a list of basic rules that underlie existing molecular evolutionary models:

All theories are monophyletic, meaning that they all start with the Urgene and the Urzelle which have given rise to all proteins and all species, respectively.

Complexity evolves mainly through duplications and mutations in structural and control genes.

Genes can mutate or remain stable, migrate laterally from species to species, spread through a population by mechanisms whose operation is not fully understood, evolve coordinately, splice, stay silent, and exist as pseudogenes.

Ad hoc arguments can be invented (such as insect vectors or viruses) that can transport a gene into places where no monophyletic logic could otherwise explain its presence.

This liberal spread of rules, each of which can be observed in use by scientists, does not just sound facetious but also, in our opinion, robs monophyletic evolution of its vulnerability to disproof, and thereby its entitlement to the status of a scientific theory.

The absolute, explicit and implicit, adherence to all the monophyletic principle and consequently the decision to interpret all observations in the light of this principle is the major cause of incongruities as well as for the invention of all the genetic sidestepping rules cited above."

A Polyphyletic View of Evolution

Schwabe and Warr

This is why Schwabe, a biochemist, wrote:

Molecular evolution is about to be accepted as a method superior to paleontology for the discovery of evolutionary relationships. As a molecular evolutionist I should be elated. Instead it seems disconcerting that many exceptions exist to the orderly progression of species as determined by molecular homologies; so many, in fact, that I think the exception, the quirks, may carry the more important message

It's a shell game where virtually any kind of data can be accomodated, and at no point is the theory questioned. Ad hoc explanations can be invented for any kind of discrepency.

""There are analogous debates going on in nearly all branches of academic study. Taking an example with fewer existential implications for religion, look towards the Holocaust. There is an ongoing effort by Yad Va Shem, a jewish organization, to catalogue all those who died under the Nazi regime as well as those who aided jews in various ways (http://www1.yadvashem.org/yv/en/remembrance/hall_of_names.asp). Now at the moment they have verified only three million names and something like 24000 people who helped, and details on each vary. But wait, oh no! We all know that there were roughly six million victims! And we don’t even have complete information about the paltry three million we’ve catalogued. Does this mean that the Holocaust did not happen? Of course it doesn’t. You need to take the internal debate in context and realize that the total sum of evidence is overwhelming. Creationists, however, can not be so objective with such a threatening theory as evolution.""

A mountain of weak, circumstantial evidence (much of which contradicts itself) does not prove macro evolution. "We're working on it" does not somehow validate that evidence. We know the holocaust happened; there is no proof for macro evolution.

""As for your junk DNA article, you similarly blow the relevance way out of proportion. Here’s the last sentence from the text that summarizes the relevance of the article:

“The present study suggests that some selfish DNA transposons can instead confer an important role to their hosts, thereby establishing themselves as long-term residents of the genome.”

Here it states simply that some of the junk DNA, not all of it, can become useful to the cell. This sentence proves you wrong in two ways. First, it admits that they have only found a few instances of utility for this junk DNA, which is a far cry from the evidence that would be necessary for the slow death you speak of. Second, the acknowledges that this as an instance of Junk DNA incorporating itself into the genome and taking on novel and useful roles. In other words, evolution!

The genome is huge and nowhere in biology does it say that all of the DNA we have designated as junk is most certainly junk. Again, this is just another example of incrementally refining our understanding about how things work, but it is not revolutionary and it still demonstrates a clear framework.

And regardless or whether or not your article shows that a lot of Junk DNA has function (which is common knowledge, by the way), it does not at all disprove the fact that junk DNA shows typically exhibits much higher rates of mutation because its specific sequence is less rigidly constrained than coding DNA (http://www.nature.com/nrg/journal/v12/n11/full/nrg3098.html?WT.ec_id=NRG-201111). It is not a complete lack of function that demonstrates evolution, but simply a higher rate of mutation that results in sequences that will be more varied the more distantly related two species are.""

There are numerous sources showing that junk dna is not junk:

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/04/28/1103894108.full.pdf+html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071025112059.htm

http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/transposons-or-jumping-genes-not-junk-dna-1211

Based on your earlier argument, "we're working on it", you should realize that what some scientists consider to be junk dna stems entirely from ignorance. The idea that it got in there by "viral dna insertions" and the like is simply another ad hoc explanation among many.

""And finally, read these articles if you want a more complete understanding about how the comparisons between phylogenetic trees are indeed imperfect, but well supported and constantly refined:

http://cmgm.stanford.edu/phylip/consense.html
http://taxonomy.zoology.gla.ac.uk/rod/cplite/ch4.pdf
http://www.mathnet.or.kr/mathnet/paper_file/McGill/Bryant/03ConsensusAMS.pdf
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2105/10/423
http://bioinformatics.oxfordjournals.org/content/23/12/1556.full

There are literally hundreds of thousands of these articles detailing what is essentially a whole, distinct area of study. Just search the term “consensus trees” and you’ll see what I mean.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=consensus+trees&hl=en&btnG=Search&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=onhttp://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=consensus+trees&hl=en
&btnG=Search&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=on""

I have already demonstrated that the consensus is very weak. What you need to provide is data backing up your claims regarding cytochrome c. I am awaiting the "scores" of phylogonies that will match that data.

Haha, it might sound like that, but I didn't think about it at all until it came to this thread. And I believe I do just enjoy the show. We can't all be simple creatures who only scratch the surface of everything

>> ^Tokoki:

Sounds like you both spend way too much time thinking about this.
Just enjoy the show!
>> ^legacy0100:
Sounds like you've caught a serious case of the fandomitis.
I remember having a similar conversation with this guy from a group lunch. I brought up Modern Family and how it was getting popular, and he said that he couldn't stand watching Modern Family because they were all 'fake' and their acting made him feel uncomfortable. He said he couldn't quite put his finger on it, only that he kept saying that the actors were overreacting to the situations.
I told him I felt the same way about Portlandia and how I felt very uncomfortable when the actors were being very aggressive with their ultra-liberal agendas and stop watching whenever they were about to have another fit. This was ironic because the person who didn't like Modern Family absolutely loved Portlandia and had no problem watching it.
For the record, in my subjective opinion I felt that the person I was talking with was a very giddy person, like the personalities in Modern Family, while I sometimes can be an argumentative smart mouth when it comes to certain topics.
Perhaps we were seeing a little bit of ourselves in these shows, and it was making us uncomfortable? Weird, eh?
>> ^alien_concept:
>> ^VoodooV:
I both love and hate this show.
I hate how it reinforces all the shittiest stereotypes, the flamboyant gay couple, the straight couple with the man is the bumbling idiot and the woman who he is ridiculously lucky to have.
But yeah, it is a damned funny show.

I honestly don't think they write these characters stereotypically at all! That's why I find it so hilarious, you think you know what you're going to get then they play it out completely differently. Like they're a gay couple and they do gay flamboyant things, but one is ginger and one is fat and they're certainly not the perfect adoptive parents, they fuck it up all the time. And Phil and Claire, yeah she's way out of his league at first glance, but then you realise what a complete mentalist she is, and how she's wonderful but difficult to love if you weren't a husband who understands he's punching above his weight and also autistic so can let most of her quirks go. And then there's the old rich guy with the trophy wife and the precocious step kid. I can't even think of anything usual about that routine

Sounds like you both spend way too much time thinking about this.

Just enjoy the show!

>> ^legacy0100:

Sounds like you've caught a serious case of the fandomitis.
I remember having a similar conversation with this guy from a group lunch. I brought up Modern Family and how it was getting popular, and he said that he couldn't stand watching Modern Family because they were all 'fake' and their acting made him feel uncomfortable. He said he couldn't quite put his finger on it, only that he kept saying that the actors were overreacting to the situations.
I told him I felt the same way about Portlandia and how I felt very uncomfortable when the actors were being very aggressive with their ultra-liberal agendas and stop watching whenever they were about to have another fit. This was ironic because the person who didn't like Modern Family absolutely loved Portlandia and had no problem watching it.
For the record, in my subjective opinion I felt that the person I was talking with was a very giddy person, like the personalities in Modern Family, while I sometimes can be an argumentative smart mouth when it comes to certain topics.
Perhaps we were seeing a little bit of ourselves in these shows, and it was making us uncomfortable? Weird, eh?
>> ^alien_concept:
>> ^VoodooV:
I both love and hate this show.
I hate how it reinforces all the shittiest stereotypes, the flamboyant gay couple, the straight couple with the man is the bumbling idiot and the woman who he is ridiculously lucky to have.
But yeah, it is a damned funny show.

I honestly don't think they write these characters stereotypically at all! That's why I find it so hilarious, you think you know what you're going to get then they play it out completely differently. Like they're a gay couple and they do gay flamboyant things, but one is ginger and one is fat and they're certainly not the perfect adoptive parents, they fuck it up all the time. And Phil and Claire, yeah she's way out of his league at first glance, but then you realise what a complete mentalist she is, and how she's wonderful but difficult to love if you weren't a husband who understands he's punching above his weight and also autistic so can let most of her quirks go. And then there's the old rich guy with the trophy wife and the precocious step kid. I can't even think of anything usual about that routine

Sounds like you've caught a serious case of the fandomitis.

I remember having a similar conversation with this guy from a group lunch. I brought up Modern Family and how it was getting popular, and he said that he couldn't stand watching Modern Family because they were all 'fake' and their acting made him feel uncomfortable. He said he couldn't quite put his finger on it, only that he kept saying that the actors were overreacting to the situations.

I told him I felt the same way about Portlandia and how I felt very uncomfortable when the actors were being very aggressive with their ultra-liberal agendas and stop watching whenever they were about to have another fit. This was ironic because the person who didn't like Modern Family absolutely loved Portlandia and had no problem watching it.

For the record, in my subjective opinion I felt that the person I was talking with was a very giddy person, like the personalities in Modern Family, while I sometimes can be an argumentative smart mouth when it comes to certain topics.

Perhaps we were seeing a little bit of ourselves in these shows, and it was making us uncomfortable? Weird, eh?

>> ^alien_concept:

>> ^VoodooV:
I both love and hate this show.
I hate how it reinforces all the shittiest stereotypes, the flamboyant gay couple, the straight couple with the man is the bumbling idiot and the woman who he is ridiculously lucky to have.
But yeah, it is a damned funny show.

I honestly don't think they write these characters stereotypically at all! That's why I find it so hilarious, you think you know what you're going to get then they play it out completely differently. Like they're a gay couple and they do gay flamboyant things, but one is ginger and one is fat and they're certainly not the perfect adoptive parents, they fuck it up all the time. And Phil and Claire, yeah she's way out of his league at first glance, but then you realise what a complete mentalist she is, and how she's wonderful but difficult to love if you weren't a husband who understands he's punching above his weight and also autistic so can let most of her quirks go. And then there's the old rich guy with the trophy wife and the precocious step kid. I can't even think of anything usual about that routine

>> ^VoodooV:

I both love and hate this show.
I hate how it reinforces all the shittiest stereotypes, the flamboyant gay couple, the straight couple with the man is the bumbling idiot and the woman who he is ridiculously lucky to have.
But yeah, it is a damned funny show.


I honestly don't think they write these characters stereotypically at all! That's why I find it so hilarious, you think you know what you're going to get then they play it out completely differently. Like they're a gay couple and they do gay flamboyant things, but one is ginger and one is fat and they're certainly not the perfect adoptive parents, they fuck it up all the time. And Phil and Claire, yeah she's way out of his league at first glance, but then you realise what a complete mentalist she is, and how she's wonderful but difficult to love if you weren't a husband who understands he's punching above his weight and also autistic so can let most of her quirks go. And then there's the old rich guy with the trophy wife and the precocious step kid. I can't even think of anything usual about that routine

With a little bit more practice, they'll definitely be the center of national attention. Not sure if the quirks are mistakes... but they do got potential to perfect it.

>> ^deathcow:

i'll take some fresh spring rolls, crispy spring rolls, pad ped kai, pad thai, basil chicken extra spicy, kang karie and some chicken satay


Since you clearly like your Thai food, I thought I'd reply here with some pronunciation and literal translation quirks about those menu items -- the staff at a Thai restaurant (assuming they are Thai anyway) will get a kick out of it if you play up the right angles. This gets long (sorry), so anyone not interested skip to the next post...

Spring rolls - "bpo bpeah" in Thai. The bp is a phoneme that we don't really have in English -- try to combine the two sounds but err on the side of sounding more like "p" than "b". The second word sounds sort of like "bpEEE-uhhh", or like how somebody with a thick Massachusetts accent would say "beer" or "peer". For crispy spring rolls, you would just add the word "toht" to the end, which means "fried" or deep fat fried -- "bpo bpeah toht".

Pad Ped Kai - Pad means "fried" also, but more like pan fried. Ped (sounds more like "pet") means "spicy". Kai means "egg". So all together I would think that would mean "stir-fried spicy egg", but it isn't a menu item that I have heard of before. I think that maybe the Kai should be Gai instead -- Gai means "chicken". The "g" sound in Thai is sort of halfway between a g and a k, so sometimes things get phonetically translated in different ways. But if it is chicken, make it sound more like a g; like "guy".

Pad Thai - sort of indirectly translates as "that fried dish that is famous/popular in Thailand", which is descriptive but not in a content / culinary way like most Thai food.

Basil Chicken Extra Spicy - the most popular Thai dish that is heavy on basil is Pad Kapow (sounds like the word for hitting someone; ka-POW). So, I bet that the Thai name for your Basil Chicken would be Pad Kapow Gai. Throw a "Pet Maak" on the end to specify extra spicy -- "pad kapow gai pet maak".

Kang Karie - I usually see this one romanized into G's instead of K's. Usually "gaeng gallee" (I'd argue that is the best phonetic guide also). "Kang"/"Gaeng" means "curry", and "Gallee" is a specific type of curry. However, point of interest, "gallee" also means "whore". This Thai homonym is responsible for menu translations like the one you can see here. To explain that link, "gallee" curry comes in powder form. The Thai word/phrase for gallee curry powder is "foong gallee". Run that through google translate or the like, and instead of getting "gallee curry powder" you get "whore dust". This is a source of great amusement to Thais, making fun of their friends when ordering, etc.

Chicken Satay - not originally a Thai thing (loooong time ago), but it is very popular here now. In the US I always heard it said like "saw-tay", but in Thailand it sounds more like "SUH-tae". Chicken satay is available, but generally more popular among foreigners here. In areas without a large farang (western foreigner) population, 99% of the time satay will be pork. I actually like the pork version better now. Anyway, in Thai chicken satay would sound like "gai suhtae" and pork would sound like "moo suhtae".

It's your judgement and call if you see it that way. I believe it's staged rather than calling it aimbot or a fancy edit. We know that aimbot programs are known to snap to a target. But it's probably unknown to us just how sophisticated their programming is when it comes to targeting pilots' heads.

BF3 makes use of a different network code that differs a lot when compared to other games and previous BF games in general. Having burned over 300 hours, I can tell you for sure that it definitely has its quirks. The most obvious is likely how bullets interact with hit registration. There are tons of instances where players would run and duck for cover, only to find themselves still hit or died by the final bullet 0.5 second after behind cover. It has happened to me and I have seen it happen myself.

His profile can be looked up, as his soldier name is "Stun_gravy". After looking at the name again, I realized that he's the same one who RPG'd an enemy jet earlier that made its way around. His youtube channel is also there too if you click into his channel/user page. His numbers don't show anything that would be obviously evident of aimbot. And most dumb aimbot users tend to abuse its system rather than being careful with it. Granted, his numbers are not hard evidence at all. But they are clues as to what kind of a player he is.

In the end, the only one who knows the real truth is the player himself.

Good idea. The whole slippery slope thing, when applied to everything, is stupid.

I think that as a society we just have to have some extreme things that we just will not tolerate no matter how much you're into free speech and libertarianism. Child pornography is one area like that, as would be, I hope, videos of murdering people for pleasure/amusement.

If there is anyone who is honestly bemoaning this move, and thinking that their particular quirk is next in line, maybe question your particular quirk, because if it's anywhere near child pornography you're a pretty scary member of society.