Not to speculate, but the bitch who mentions the sugar seems like a lawsuit chaser. Or at least vindictive and ready to lie. Like finding a finger in a McDonald's burger...oh wait that belonged to the people trying to sue McDonald's. The hard part is that the prison can't defend itself if this isn't true. People won't believe them anyways.

John Oliver sure as hell didn't need any proof to suck her tits. (And abdominal wounds do tend to ooze...just saying...)

In fact his blatant discrimination shows itself when he attacks the guy who made a joke--yeah the joke was tasteless, but it was made to emphasis a point, which it absolutely did. Did John make note of the valid point? That inmates sometimes lie? Fuck no. Did the other guy take a more balanced position, even admitting that some inmates claims are true? Yeah.

It would have been a scandal in F1 too if it had come out at the time instead of 17 years later This sort of cooperation between competing teams has been speculated on over the years, but this is the first time I can recall it actually being confirmed by someone involved.

Wait. So the guy who may or may not have actually reached out to Tim Cook personally about his sexual orientation simply (and correctly) refused to discuss any actual names, but some random talking head with no special knowledge about Tim Cook's sexual orientation claimed he was gay, and that is supposed to constitute an outing?

The title should read: "CNBC host behaves unprofessionally and spreads unconfirmed rumors." Saying that he outed Tim Cook implies that the CNBC host had some special knowledge confirming that the rumors are true, and at this point we just don't know.

The real issue here is that some guy wrote a column about gay CEOs and consistently ran into the fact that very few of them are willing to be named.

This is speculation here, but my guess is that if you've managed to become the CEO of a fortune 500 company, then on a personal level you are probably confident enough and socially stable enough to come out of the closet.

The real reason these gay CEOs (whoever they may be) aren't coming out of the closet is very likely just because the act of a CEO coming out is perceived to negatively affect share prices. I don't know whether this is just an assumption made personally by these CEOs or if the board of directors at their company actively made it clear to them that it would be a bad move, but this phenomenon is the real story and we shouldn't let all of this viral nonsense about Tim Cook being "outed" distract us from fixing it.

This vid made me sob. Those smiles of observers - both male and female.... how horrible.

I am so glad that female violence towards men is getting attention.

What else is finally getting attention? Something I didn't know about until recently -- the vast majority of sexual assaults in the military are against MEN. Which means men have been sexually assaulted for hundreds of years, a thought that breaks my heart.

This video addresses something that I have known for years -- that men have it bad, but until they start talking about it, nothing will change. Men have needed their own "liberation" movement, too -- to be free from the need to hide their "weakness."

I'm not sure that I would draw the conclusion that "I don't know that [women] have it as bad as we might think." Yes, they do. Women are still murdered by their partners at a much higher rate than men are.

What is changing is that we are learning that men have it worse than we collectively think.

Why this need to make this into a contest about who has it worse, anyway? Let's just fix the problems for us all, yeah?

I think that once men get real about how terrible it is to be under this pressure to be stoic, and masculine, and strong, and start to become their more authentic selves, the violence rate in our society will go down, and men's life spans will start to match women's.

That is just speculation, though.

That is what the Feminist Movement was, too. Women wanted to break out of imposed roles and become their authentic selves.

Indeed. I think it's pretty well "speculated" that Tim Cook is gay.

At 8:10ish - what the hell kind of rentacop is that and why should anyone believe his utter speculation on the future impact of surveillance cameras? What an irrelevant bit of footage - some random plod who happened to join the police force in the 80s and end up in the camera room telling us about the complex civil and social implications of a spy network on a populace? Get fucked, give me a university professor at least.

Also, I think you are misinterpreting the GRRM quote about killing perceived heroes of the series once they become popular.

First of all, the Red Viper and Ned stark were introduced and killed in the same book. Their deaths were planned all along and served the story. They didn't have a chance to become popular with the fans before they died. It only feels that way because you are watching a tv adapation of the books.

Secondly, the MOST POPULAR candidates for the heroes of the series are still alive as of book 5. There is one prevailing theory based on plenty of hints GRRM scattered throughout his books on who the real heroes of the story are, and so far the books have been consistent. Of course, that does not mean they will survive the series ending.

GRRM has specifically stated that he does not want the books to become like the TV series Lost, where the writers actively tried to outwit reader speculation. GRRM said he wanted to strike a balance between giving the readers what they want, and maintaining some element of surprise.

So in summary, I don't think GRRM is killing characters unfairly just because they're popular. In retrospect, I like the series even more because so few books leave such a lasting impact on me.

Searched the web to find a cause, just found one video where a guy treats it like a death of a child and pleads with everyone not to speculate out of respect or something. http://jukinvideo.com/videos/focus/boats/90-long-range-motor-yacht-sinks-at-launch/235/37978

What's interesting about Al Sharpton is rarely have I seen anyone come under such scrutiny throughout their entire life. All their choices places under a microscope as they navigate the already perilous political landscape of Activism. The wild speculation and misinterpretation would be enough to crush most men.

His life is what I could see happening to Martin Luther King Jr. if he lived. MLK was about to make a speech and start a campaign against specifically poverty and inequality before he died. It was going to be his next project and one that had a lot of support among blacks and the lower class. It was already starting to happen that mainstream state supporting media was turning against him. It's the idea of "Ok we agreed with you on this but now you've been radicalized." The idea that radicalization is when you try and do something we can't possibly support, like fair wages or money out of politics.

Not trying to say that MLK and Al Sharpton are equals, but if MLK had lived I'm certain that his Wikipedia page would be, along with Sharptons, an essay on every misspoken word, every misguided action. Everything placed under a microscope which not even the most pious and dedicated man could escape. It would be a farce, and that's how you destroy an opponent, any opponent. This is why our politicians are all pieces of cardboard that suck.

@BoneRemake et. al.:

I will answer to your comment for a change, Read the following paragraph, which is one of the last paragraphs and the meat of the matter if you want the short answer. For you or any that desire to join in Group Therapy, then continue reading.

Submissions to this Site are governed. I do not care...nor am I constrained to care or consider if, when, where, whether, how, etc., someone reads or does not read the guidelines. Nor am I constrained to care or consider whether their violation of said guidelines is intentional, accident of misinterpretation, the violators age, intelligence, sex or lack thereof, hair color.... AND I DO NOT CARE ! I am empowered to initiate, second, contest (which I do), or ignore an invocation of Ban. The reason I do not care is that each and every banee is informed at the time of banning that there are available avenues for redress in the occurrence of mitigating circumstance(s) or professed reorientation and thereby capable of productive and compliant participation at the Sift if that is, becomes, or ever was their intended purpose.


<Do you honestly have no clue as to what you do ? >
On one hand I might say arguably better than do you...on the other who really does?

<The only thing I personaly respect about what you do with the ban thing is that you adhere the Terms of service ( which everyone reads of course right ??? ).>
What can I say to that...ok.

<The rest of the time you deny possible gems in the rough without any warning.>
Blanket generalizations are inherently ridiculous and unsupportable. Aside from that your statement of observation is highly speculative and the issue of warning is mute besides.

< I mean I do not want to be so in your face, but to see you write that made me mad.>
I was polite and succinct. It is my privilege to exercise to inquire....the rest is a personal problem with which you must deal though I would wish otherwise for you and myself.

<You have denied so many possible peole here without any incling of the genuine purpose of the site,>
I have denied no peole(sic) here, possible or otherwise. As far as my having an incling(sic) this is again arguable to contestable and at best highly speculative on your part. I would submit to you, however, that the purpose of the site is served and supported by the originator(s) of the site and the rules and policies that they deem necessary and relevant. The interpretive perimeters by which they are implemented are set and monitored for compliance by those same individuals. If you have an issue with those policies there is ample avenue for open discussion and elucidation, not with me...not my job by happenstance or inclination.

<you just outright ban people>
I patently do not. I may and do initiate or second a ban and that only. Checks and Balances.

<and we are not stupid>
I wouldn't touch that with a ten foot pole. Really...we?...am I included?...how many are you?...whom all?...of course you are not.

<it is so you can garner some form of level up>
Your point? My motivation(s) for participation on any or whatever level I so chose or in what manner I choose is my own and not for you or anyone else to judge but for a quantifiable breach of demeanor and then not solely by but a couple of individuals. Do you not submit videos, comments, polls, etc., and accept comments, votes, badges, etc? If I were someone else here I might comment on the desirability of some number of those submissions as relates to the quality and genuine purpose of this or any site for that matter. But I am not that or any someone else and make no such judgement at this time about your contributions including the relevant comment.

<you got called on a lot of things in the past in that regard>
Really, how many...how many with objective merit or...on down and so what? As far as called on, you might say that is true of both of us and perhaps more so for you and then comes the argument respective to justifiability on grounds.

<SERIOUSLY ? ? you ask her why she explained

that ??>
You got me on that one, Yes, However, I did not pass a value judgement, express any alternate or opposing view or stance. Therefore I might profess some surprise at the timbre of your comments. Love you still.

While much of that which I attempted to cover strained answerability, much or most of the remainder defies it and so the following which is a departure from the set format.

Speaking to what may be trenchant to this matter overall is the following:

Submissions to this Site are governed. I do not care...nor am I constrained to care or consider if, when, where, whether, how, etc., someone reads or does not read the guidelines. Nor am I constrained to care or consider whether their violation of said guidelines is intentional, accident of misinterpretation, the violators age, intelligence, sex or lack thereof, hair color.... AND I DO NOT CARE ! I am empowered to initiate, seconded, contest (which I do), or ignore an invocation of Ban. The reason I do not care is that each and every banee is informed at the time of banning that there are available avenues for redress in the occurrence of mitigating circumstance(s) and thereby capable of productive and compliant participation at the Sift if that is, becomes, or ever was their intended purpose.

All the indulgence outside of this stance which is the sole province of the commenter and not binding...is merely that...indulgence and any and all are free to exercise their proclivity to such.

That was fun, overall, and I too love you enough to respond having done so with no vehemence, unsupportable assertions, profanity, personal aspersions, ear biting, eye gouging, or tongue pulling.

Again, love you Boneremake. Let's do this again sometime....NOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooooooo...,

I couldn't even find the original The other copies I found didn't have any more info - for instance http://www.lematin.ch/video/?video_id=183466

The ll comments have speculation along the lines you suggested, but no real info that I found.

"Most reasonable people would see that as the South engaging in war and the union responding to attack."

This is not a factual argument. This is your opinion based on your ignorance of what "most reasonable people" think or not about it. These are speculations or fantasies about what "most reasonable people" think or not. These are also not "arguments." (But I do find it rather telling how important it seems to be for you for me to "lose." Hmmmk? "Lose" according to whom? You? And what does that even mean, that I "lost?" It won't change the facts. What is this "competition" you're waging? It certainly isn't with me...)

The guys filming are germans speculating that the guys having a dragrace are russians.

Were you not paying attention in physics class the day they explained the difference between mass and weight? As @Payback pointed out the energy required to overcome inertia is the same no matter what the gravity, low gravity simply allows you to "spread the duration" of the force like a fulcrum.

I.e. it would be easier than on earth but you still have to apply enough force to move 2-300kg of mass, you just have the option of doing so less rapidly (making it easier but not easy).

Even if this were not the case your argument still makes no sense. If it was indeed faked then surely they were on wires anyway? How else are you proposing they replicated the effects of low gravity?

The fact your comment got 3 likes is rather depressing. As someone who makes researching conspiracy theories a borderline obsessive hobby I can say with some confidence that the whole faked moon landing thing is about the most debunk-able one ever conceived. It is an insult to the very term "conspiracy theory" and helps give the rest of us a bad name .

Radiation belt? = 7 mins of expertly calculated exposure, there is a 1000ish page NASA manual on how they did this.

Cameras? = they had about 20 DIFFERENT cameras & much like anyone else would the crappy poorly framed or exposed shots weren't used for publicity

Multiple light sources? = The surface of the moon is both highly reflective and uneven. (mythbusters did the shit out of that one)

Most complicated machine ever built? = Actually launched, several times, to the freaking moon and back!

Waving flag? = Funny how every single shot of the flag waving is when someone is holding/touching it eh? (& what kind of retard leaves evidence of wind in the most expensive coverup of all time?)

The Russian space programme? = They just turned a blind eye to their arch rivals lauding it over them? They were in on it? You have to get really paranoid before that one starts to make any sense whatsoever.

etc. etc. etc.

I have a lot of time for conspiracy theories and I'm happy to speculate with the best of them but I've yet to find a single good argument for the landing not happening. I can maybe work with the possibility that some things were omitted/covered up (Monoliths etc.) because this could not be conclusively refuted by empirical facts. Suggesting that it never happened however is so easy to disprove it blows my mind that people still have time for the idea.

For your own sake try looking into the opposing arguments. There are plenty people with PHD's and direct experience who are happy to take you through the counters to all this stuff. And they back it up with actual evidence and experiments rather than conjecture and selective information. Your mind will thank you for it

there is some pure speculation involved in this here video.