Of course you stand by your statement, because you it is what you really want to believe, and you are too lazy / ignorant / arrogant, to assume that anyone who disagrees is telling the truth or doing their jobs properly. Which the news are. Which the school is (belatedly). Etc.

"Lewisville Independent School District (ISD) interim superintendent Kevin Rogers announced that their week-long investigation into the February 13 sign incident was conducted through a variety of means. Those included witness interviews, including Flower Mound High School (FMHS) and Lewisville ISD administrators, staff, students and spectators; an in-depth review of surveillance and game footage; social media research; and cooperative, continued communication between FMHS and Plano-East Senior High School (PESH) administrators."

From yt description:

This is a semester project in mechatronic control systems at SJSU.

The 6 DOF platform is a proof-of-concept prototype that we created for our senior project (motion simulator). Here, we are using 2 axes of the platform as the output from a PID controller that uses a resistive touch panel mounted on the platform as input. All processing is being done on an Arduino Uno that is controlling 6 R/C servo motors.

For more information about this project or our senior project, please visit our webpage at http://www.fullmotiondynamics.com

@chicchorea, @youtubeyj is lying through his fucking teeth.

He's responsible for Senior Audience Development for the company who focuses on "SEO optimization" (which mean search engine optimization optimization) and tactical cross-promotion for their customers.

This garbage is the worst kind of self-link/spam for Rudimental, by someone who knows exactly how they're attempting to stealthily violate our posting guidelines and is trying hard to bend us over a barrel and violate our collective rectum.

It amazes me that these "reputable" companies still only try to improve their customers' online presence through fucking disgusting, deceitful spam like this bullshit.

*banwithavengeance

I was clear from the beginning that I came to lend a Christian voice to the sift. I enjoyed videosift and had been using it for some time before I created an account. I registered an account specifically because of the number of anti-christian videos that I was noticing were hitting the top ten. I wanted to engage with the people here over the topic of Christianity because the sift was, and primarily still is, an echo chamber for the worldview of secular humanism. That's the way the sift likes it, and the sift is intolerant of any voice which challenges that viewpoint. Period, end of story.

There's nothing wrong with my coming to represent Christ, here. Have I utterly failed to do so? Yes, most definitely. However, it is up to me how I want to use this site. I have commented here almost exclusively on religious topics, either on my videos or someone elses it. Occasionally I will comment on a political video or something else, but usually only on religious topics. The point being is that, that is the way I have chosen to use this site. I don't run around and dictate to anyone else how they could or should use the sift, so why should I be singled out? I didn't cause any material harm to anyone, I wasn't off topic, I didn't flout the rules. I was on topic on the videos I commented on, and I brought a Christian viewpoint to the discussion. The sift, being inhabited primarily by atheists, agnostics and anti-theists, utterly rejects that viewpoint. It's not any different if I were to go to the comments section of any major website and say anything positive about Christianity. I would instantly get 2 to 3 comments mocking everything I said.

I stated in my post that I realized that bringing a Christian viewpoint to the sift would get me a lot of flak. I didn't always react well to that, and I acted like a jerk at times. I am sorry for that. I could have done more to build relationships here and I never put in the time. There is some truth to what you have said, that I brought the way I was treated on myself. But your rant is also a product of the simplistic and distorted lens that you view me through. I mean, you on one hand call my treatment here a persecution fantasy and on the other hand say I brought it upon myself. That's just intellectual dishonesty, pure and simply. The truth is, there was a concerted campaign to deny my participation on this site, and whatever you think the reason may be, it did happen.

As to the video, if this video was of a senior consultant from the Bush administration admitting that they systemically deceived the American people this would be #1 on the sift. You're deceiving yourself if you think that the reason this video is being suppressed is due to anything other than the ideological bent of the sift.

To me it's not about his having to move out, it's that his family is angrily disowning him forever because of who he is (what kind of idiocy is it to think people choose to be ostracized, disowned, discriminated against, degraded, attacked, etc....?).
When your mother asked you to move out, did she also tell you to never come home, not to call or contact her or the family, and that there will be no support or contact from your parents or siblings from here on out? If not, it's a different situation.
I was thrown out during my senior year in high school (got my GED and went on to college while I worked) for being behind on one homework assignment. I didn't even cry to my family about it, I just went to work and lived on a friends couch for a year. Even with that animosity, my family didn't disown me, and was there for me later in life, so my situation was also not as bad as his.
That said, I also don't understand him getting funding.

Simply by having the same education level does not grant you equal pay (unless you're working in government). You're paid for the supply and demand of your skills. There are by far MANY more men than women in engineering and physical sciences, and those fields pay rather well. There are by far MANY more women than men in veterinary and educational fields, and those fields pay atrociously.

It is indeed unfortunate if any discrimination occurs, and even if women achieve 99% of men, it is still not nice. However, recognize that nobody is particularly certain about these numbers. I see numbers ranging from 87% to 103% in this video, so our certainty is horrible. Inequality is bad, but if you're going to get particularly opinionated about it, crunch the numbers for yourself instead of letting other boneheads skew the numbers for you.

The statistics can be pulled either way by horrible analyses, and trying to compare 'equal jobs' can be hard...particularly when you factor in cost of living differences, seniority, relative success of different companies, etc. The most compelling evidence was the Yale study where identical resumes with different names were awarded different amounts of speculative money. That was the only real telling evidence that, at least among the people in that study, there is a bias towards paying women less for exactly the same job. However, the statistics can be pulled either way in a study like that as well; what is the uncertainty of the pay level for that poll? Is it random chance and statistical noise happened to end up with the woman paid less in that study? If they surveyed an order of magnitude more people, would the average salaries converge to the same value? In most polls and studies like this, the sampling size is usually quite poor, and getting such an exact dollar figure difference with high certainty is nearly impossible. It would be great to see that study to make an assessment of how much uncertainty was present for myself.

Oppsie! Brain flatulence? Senior moment? Multitasking fail? ... Fixed

This is not as relevant as the rest of the discussion here, but an interesting addendum to the clip: the President doesn't set the salaries of White House staffers - they're set according to a schedule established by an administrative affairs body. The President has some say, though, in who gets hired to senior positions, and whether it's mostly men or women in the high-paying positions. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/04/14/obama-is-nudging-the-white-house-toward-gender-pay-equity.html

I'm 35, HS class of 96, so Gangsta's Paradise came out early in my senior year.

I remember there was a volunteer exercise in health class where we were asked to bring in a song that we found powerful or meaningful, play it for the class, and then discuss it. Someone brought GP in and, during the discussion portion, the teacher told us that so far at least one person in every class had chosen this song.

Even people like myself who generally did not listen to rap appreciated this song. Only the honkiest of honkies felt otherwise.

There was definitely something about this song in that time.

If the "soon to have" mentality was even remotely true, then shouldn't all of our senior citizens be rich?

It just doesn't pass the most basic level of scrutiny. You've got to be supremely dumb to buy into that theory.

Now don't hold me to this because I don't have any exact definitions in mind, but I wouldn't mind it if there was an alternate way to earn some powers so that long-time, active members who don't submit much don't have to be treated like second-class siftizens.

I think of it like a drawing where you can win either by making a purchase or just sending in a self-addressed, stamped envelope (SASE).

For members who've been here and participating actively for literally years, I always feel bad when they can't execute even the most basic of invocations.

But then I do also feel it may be too unfair to give them those powers when everyone else who has them got them by submitting videos. If a good number of starred members voted in favor of granting seniority-based powers, I think it may be a good idea.

I've heard reports from several men who had sex before and after and said there was zero difference in sensation.

I circumcised my boys but not at all because of aesthetics, nor to "look like me", and especially not for any kind of religious reason.

We weren't dead-set against leaving them un-cut. In fact, we initially figured we'd just let them be natural.

One reason we decided to go ahead with it is we heard about lots of uncircumcised men have issues that require them to have it done later in life (e.g., phimosis, etc.), but the bigger reason was recent (at that time) studies showed strong evidence that circumcised men are at substantially lower risk for serious life-threatening diseases such as HIV and penile cancer (that results from HPV).

>> Yep, it's fucking barbaric. It is genital mutilation of children, period.

Talk about misinformation from a bunch of barbarians.

It's more barbaric to be completely close-minded, backward-thinking, and ignorant as to why there might possibly exist valid reasons to provide your children an almost 100% chance to avoid a plethora of penis-related problems and life-threatening diseases for their entire life in exchange for what's really a very minor procedure when done soon after birth.

The reasons against it? "It's fucking barbaric." Because... why again? "It just is," I'm sure is the best possible response.

The reasons in favor of it? Don't be so glib. Read the research.

Science Daily from Jan 2010:

Other epidemiological studies have shown that male circumcision is associated with significant reductions in HIV acquisition in men.

The strongest evidence for a cause-and-effect relationship between circumcision and HIV risk reduction came from three randomized-control trials in sub-Saharan Africa, where the circumcision rate is relatively low and the HIV infection rate is relatively high. All three demonstrated a more than 40 percent reduction in HIV acquisition among circumcised men.

The largest of these three studies -- in Rakai, Uganda -- was led by Dr. Ronald H. Gray, an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins and the scientific paper's senior author. Dr. Gray's group collected penile swabs from all of the circumcision trial study participants, which provided the data for the new TGen-Johns Hopkins study.

The new study found that circumcision -- the removal of the foreskin, or prepuce, from the penis -- eliminates an area of mucous membrane and dramatically changes the penile bacterial ecosystem. Significantly, TGen's analysis of more than 40 types of bacteria, using a 16S rRNA gene-based pyrosequencing approach, suggests that the introduction of more oxygen following circumcision decreases the presence of anaerobic (non-oxygen) bacteria and increases the amount of aerobic (oxygen-required) bacteria.

HPV can also cause cancer of the penis in men. HPV infection is found in about half of all penile cancers. It’s more common in men with HIV and those who have sex with other men.

There is no approved screening test to find early signs of penile cancer. Because almost all penile cancers start under the foreskin of the penis, they may be noticed early in the course of the disease.

...

The 2 main risk factors for genital HPV infection in men are having many sex partners and not being circumcised.

The risk of being infected with HPV is strongly linked to having many sex partners.

Men who are circumcised (have had the foreskin of the penis removed) have a lower chance of getting and staying infected with HPV. Men who have not been circumcised are more likely to be infected with HPV and pass it on to their partners.

Gotta love Krugman.. not as an economist but as a world class hypocrite rivaling Molière's Tartuffe. He's getting paid $25,000 a month to do zero work, while calling for the end of income inequality. <scoff> I wonder if he's ready to give up 70% of that to the federal government like he says all "wealthy" ought to do.

The headline might as well read, "Rich economist constantly holds forth on the evils of income inequality, while...." You get the point. Here's the back-of-the-envelope math on his recent windfall:

Not counting the $20,000 in non-transferable travel budget, moving bennies, etc. that they offered him, CUNY is paying Dr. Krugman a nine-month salary of $225,000. I presume he won't be working summer semesters, so let's say that's all his salary from CUNY for the year. Now normal tenured senior professors at CUNY make at most $116,364 a year. Adjuncts at CUNY make about $3,000 or so per course; you can teach at most 9 hours a semester. So let's say you're an adjunct maxed out at a 3/3 load; you make about $18,000 a year for that. So if Dr. Krugman wanted, he could pick out 6 adjuncts at CUNY and *double* their yearly income, just by giving away the amount of money he personally makes *over and above what the best-paid senior faculty make*. If he were willing to do the job (*) for a nominal fee (as you may know, Prof. Krugman has another line of work), he could literally pick some lucky adjunct at CUNY and double their entire year's income -- *every month of the year.

And honestly, @radx, what did the "progressives" expect would happen? This so-called "Democracy" can never be anything other than an "oligarchy," if not a governance by "mob rule" (and sometimes a combination of the two). If "Democracy" is the "least bad" kind of state/government possible as some (like Mark Twain) have claimed, then it's high time "the people" climbed out of the dark ages and lived without rulers, altogether.

The resultant "chaos" that would ensue would not be any worse (and in fact far better) than the kind of unintended chaos that results from the centralized power structures of state governance.

------

*Which, let's be clear, involves no teaching load, and seems to mainly mean that maybe he'll drop by the office every few months to share his brilliance with whoever happens to be there. The point for CUNY is almost certainly to purchase some of the aura from his name on the letterhead

Oprah is another dim-bulb that promotes these types...
Seniors, in particular, are easy prey for these con artists, probably because they've lived long enough to see friends and family die.
My mother - suffering the early symptoms of dementia - put her and her 3rd husband deeply into debt because of these creeps. After she was institutionalized, I went through her paperwork and discovered the letters that she had written to various psychics asking for help. It broke my heart -- once they had her hooked they sent her endless letters each promising to reveal big secrets to her and she dutifully sent them money time and time again.
Ellen, show some backbone...

I worked with a locksmith for about 18 months as part of a senior highschool job study thing. The way he taught to pick a lock wasn't so complicated. You just apply rotational force just like in the video except instead of going at the pins one-by-one you "rake" the pins quickly a few times and it eventually open. Raking is moving the tool from back to forward while keeping a slight upward pressure. I think this is how the electronic ones work as well.