already have that homeboy. not sure i would change my list by much
http://www.flopturnriver.com/pokerfo...top+ten+movies
Printable View
already have that homeboy. not sure i would change my list by much
http://www.flopturnriver.com/pokerfo...top+ten+movies
FTR gets blocked on the Montreal airport wifi cuz gambling.
so canada vs usa today. national pride fired up for the first time in years. bring it on.
I'm pretty sure that everything good that has ever been done by Canada has been undone and then some by Justin Bieber.
And Nickleback.
But then you remember who actually bought all those albums (Mercans!! Fuck yeah!!) and you realize you did it to yourselves.
LOL you dumb commie, that's the point of America. A bunch of ignorant suckers with too much money so you can make your nut.
Don't hate that j.beebs and nickleback beat you to the punch.
This is how you remind me
of what I really am
This is how you remind me
of what I really am...
(tilt thread is about half a page down)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lukie
pure unadulterated tilt.
So I've watched a bit of the Daytona 500, and 2 thoughts come to mind:
1. It just isn't that exciting to watch a bunch of cars go around in a circle. Yes I know it's a bit more complicated than that, blah blah blah, but I can't really get into it. Then again, surely some people don't get the infatuation with a game involving lots of hitting and throwing around a giant egg-shaped ball with endless commercials, so I don't want to come off as too pretentious.
2. There is absolutely nothing these racecar drivers are doing that I couldn't have done, if I had the opportunity to race cars when I was younger. Or, anybody else who has good timing, concentration, and spacial awareness for that matter. Unfortunately my high school didn't have racecar driving as an after school extracurricular activity.
My friend, this is true of an uncountably many things. Not just racing cars and including things you consider yourself to not have a knack for.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lukie
All of the drivers are intelligent, cunning, and aggressive. They have keep their car pushing the envelope of the endurance of the engine and vehicle, while simultaneously outwitting other drivers into making mistakes which cost them either time or durability... for an hours long span of time.
The kind of mental endurance and sustained high-level focus required to do this for hours at a time is not something everyone can ever hope to do, even with practice. Not to mention, you'd have to wear a diaper... and if you win... you have to do an interview while you're standing there in your own mess. Think of that next time you see the winner popping that champagne bottle.
It's really a mental game, and if you see it as a driving game, then you're probably not seeing the sport for what it is. Of course, if you see it as an excuse to gather up with strangers and drink beer and have a good time, then the sport is kinda irrelevant.
Also I might be wrong here but aren't you a pretty big guy Lukie? I'm pretty sure most drivers are on the small side and I think it's pretty important. I know it is in F1, drivers over 6 foot tall are very rare.
omg dont call lukie a big guy. he'll prove it by throwing a football over them mountains
I'm 6'2" and a bit under 200lb but I seem to recall that at least in one of the organizations (NASCAR maybe?) that you can have a lighter car weight with a heavier driver. So if I'm 200lb and another guy is 150lb, my car can be 50lb lighter, something that is pretty ridiculous-- it basically mitigates the one physical advantage a driver can have. But then again, I don't know if races being dominated by midgets is good for business, so it's probably better off as is.Quote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
I can definitely go with this. It is definitely a huge mental grind. My beef is with people who call these guys elite *physical* athletes and say the races are unbelievably physically draining, something I find preposterous (not saying that extremely mentally demanding activites can't wear down someone physically, they certainly can, but I don't find it massively different than top level chess players or 10 tabling shorthanded NL.)Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
You could manage the grind if you grew into it.
I used to regularly play long toss from goal to goal on a soccer field*Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
*with a baseball
Ok, back to the weight thing.
Say I wanted to bankroll a car/driver or whatever, and I was competing in a league where there was no adjustment for driver weight. How much of an advantage would a driver who was say 4' tall and 70 pounds have?
Are there any important issues I'm not thinking of here?
Here I go again with this stupidass rambling... lol
Ugh. Obviously being lighter and equally capable gives you an advantage in a game where you're physically trying to move from A-B. Same locomotion, smaller cargo = advantage.
The way more interesting aspect is developing into a driver which has an advantage over other drivers with the same aims.
I'd imagine he'd be at a pretty big disadvantage not being able to reach the pedals.
I think it's mostly just a weight thing though and the fact that it's not as simple as just dropping weight because to be a top race car drive you want to be in very good physical condition because the forces you put your body through are very draining so being tall and skinny doesn't cut it.
I'm not knowledgeable of any specific NASCAR rules, or any racing rules.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lukie
I do know that the idea behind NASCAR, apart from a means to recruit and further train booze smugglers during prohibition, was to put different drivers in identical cars, in order to have a race in which the outcome was attributed to the minds of the drivers, and not a superior machine.
Presumably, if you have X less weight in driver, then you can have X more weight in other stuff. Even a few extra gallons of fuel might be the difference in 1 fewer pit stop during the race, which can win it.
EDIT: I misread your statement... this is assuming that all { driver weight + vehicle weight } are the same.
If the vehicle is the same, and the only difference is reduced mass (m), then it will have greater acceleration (a) under the same force (F).
F = ma
a = F/m
If m is smaller, while F is the same, then a goes up.
MMM
The limit Lukie is referencing for Nascar is a minimum, not a maximum. Also, I'm pretty sure it's a weight sans fuel.
Lukie, we've been over this, we almost certainly won't agree, but I again will express my view (from experience) that people have a baseless bias when judging the athleticism of motorsports. Some motorsports certainly do not require anywhere near the physical conditioning as say basketball, hockey, etc-- but many are certainly on that level. I think the disconnect comes from the fact that a lot of the exertion seen in motorsports happens due to the body resisting, or attempting to find rhythm with, forces exerted on it, rather than the exertion more common in "traditional" sports, where the cause is the body putting strain on itself.
I do have to say I'm kind of curious why you bring this up again, and from the exact same never-been-down-this-road perspective. Either go get some relevant experience, back off of your uninformed but strong opinion, or defer to those who do have relevant experience.
On a related note: Ping pong is more of a sport than baseball, and by that I mean, table tennis players are truer athletes than baseball players. Despite how obvious this is, most Americans would laugh at this statement.
nailed it :)Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
And I think ping pong is a great sport that requires amazing coordination to be successful at it. I'm not going to go into the whole 'is it a sport' thing; that is even dumber than arguing about the skills needed to be successful at racecar driving. Suffice it to say, I think ping pong/table tenis is a sport in every sense of the word and to the about the fullest extent possible, if that makes any sense.
I'm fine with that-- although it still leaves me fairly baffled as to why you'd bring this up again.
Explaining death to a 4 year old is quite fucking tricky. I suddenly see value in religion.
Try explaining religion to a 4 year old
Small children get the concept of imaginary friends and understand that some children are bossy. So shouldn't be too hard.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
So I've applied for a new job within my existing company. Should I get it I'll get a £15k pay rise, decent company car, prob bmw or Audi or something, and have a much more senior position. Go me! (and prepare for inevitable disappointment)
Part of mthis job will involve giving presentations to the likes of some of the previous companies I've worked for.
My current fantasy that gets me through the day is visiting my previous company where the guy who was then my boss is a complete cunt and is still there in the same position and I will be considerably more senior than him at a different and better company, and I'll need to give a presentation to him and his team. My plan is to subtly undermine him repeatedly throughout, doing things like waiting for him to speak, interrupting him by putting a hand on his shoulder and saying "what Steve is trying to say......".
I know this is incredibly sad but I'm bored and need to share.
Feel free to add your own ideas of how I can do this. It will aid my day dreaming. I prob won't actually do it cos I'm a nice guy and don't really enjoy fucking people over but it's fun to think about.
It leaves me fairly baffled why you are fairly baffled about someone sharing random thoughts in the randomness thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
[img]http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lhnmkdXYGs1qe2uju.jpg[/img]
jk don't hurt me boost <3
Rong, imagine yourself reacting to his cuntiness, not being a cunt yourself simply as revenge. Instead of fantasizing about undermining him just for the sake of it, the loophole is to imagine him doing/saying something shitty and you responding appropriately. Also, probably nothing will infuriate him as much as you simply not giving a shit. Just relish in the fantasy of you clearly not caring enough to even make an effort to undermine him. Kill him with kindness. Better yet, apathy.
not that I speak from any kind of experience with this kind of thing but that's my two cents.
:goldstar:
There are cunts in the world, but ultimately, the idea is to realize that you hate cuntiness, and avoid hypocrisy (that is, avoid emulating what you dislike).
I'm fairly baffled that a veteran FTR member still hasn't gotten his img tags figured out yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lukie
The image tags weren't working so I just said to hell with it and posted anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Galapogos
Best way to drive someone crazy in a business setting is on conference calls. Just repeatedly act like they didn't say anything. When he joins and announces he's on, ignore it. Leave him out at roll call. He asks a question? Don't answer, just leave dead air and then ask if anyone else has any questions. If he calls you on it say you can hardly hear them. Must be their headset.Quote:
Originally Posted by rong
Nothing is more frustrating to an asshole than not being able to proclaim his assholery.
I love all three ideas proposed by rong, BennyLaRue, and aubreymcfate.
Ultimately though, I think aubreymcfate's idea is far and away the right play. The other two give you a legitimately awesome "karma's a bitch, and she thought it would be grand if I let you know it" stories to tell to your grandkids, but the anti-cuntiness play will actually make you feel good.
in before 250,00 views
:cool:
whats up guys
i think personal satisfaction probably is enough dan no need to stoop to douche levels. though it is fun to think about i give u that
sour grapes just makes you look sour. i should know because my grapes get soured from time to time, and when i point it out i just look like a douchepancake
nobody cares about other peoples' sour grapes. humans are too selfish for that
Haha Benny that's great.
But yeah I wouldn't actually do any of that. It was just a bit of fun.
I always find putting upward pressure on people far more effective than downward pressure. ie telling them how important they are and how you're relying on their help as opposed to how they should respect my authority and fall in line.
Not as much fun though.
Figures this would happen in Blackpool*.Quote:
Originally Posted by rong
* - I have no idea where that is, I just think someone always makes fun of somewhere
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201...utations.shtml
wuf, where is your "we can trust the nsa" god now?
If the NSA does anything unconstitutional to any US citizen, that citizen has standing and an army of lawyers will trip over themselves to crush the NSA. The only substantive problem with these NSA things is the revenue waste of tax dollars. If the NSA doesn't get taken to court, it shows they aren't doing things literally, just in some weird abstraction, and the slippery slope argument of "but things will be worse later" doesn't sway me
How can anyone be aware of what the NSA is doing when it's all classified and the oversight is lacking (see: FISA courts)?Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Even the house and senate were in the dark about what was going on pre-snowden (outside of the senate intelligence committee), and members of said committees were quoted as saying that the snowden revelations were just the "tip of the iceberg" see: https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/08/17-3
Furthermore, let's say you are an activist that the NSA targets, and spreads false information about you. How do you prove that it was them when the foxes are guarding the henhouse?
All this stuff was done using the "extra constitutional" powers given post 9/11, by things like the patriot act. Such measures aren't uncommon in times of war, but this nebulous "war on terror" with no clear endpoint, we're already starting to see the legal creep take hold, and once government gets some power, they're extremely reluctant to ever give it up. The feds are out of control.
"Extra constitutional powers" is a misleading claim. What the NSA is doing is all gray area stuff that doesn't affect those protected by the constitution. As for problems with the NSA in all areas outside of that, I completely agree. My comments have always only been about US citizens who think the NSA can take away their rights. The answer to that is no they cannot, but you should hope they try because then you'll get famous for bringing down the NSA in court.Quote:
Originally Posted by d0zer
This is a story of government waste, not of unconstitutional behavior. When it becomes one of unconstitutional behavior, the NSA will get royally fucked. It appears to be unconstitutional on the surface because the constitution doesn't protect a lot of gray area stuff like the CIA secretly getting away with murdering you
I agree that this should all come to light and probably the NSA should be disbanded and all that jazz. But the unconstitutional claims and the notion that the NSA can get away with infringing on constitutional rights are shaky at best
To be clear, this is government trying to get away with things in secret, not so much do things unconstitutional. When we talk about the constitution, it involves legality and the light of day. One of the flaws (or perks) to the legal system is that things can't get tried if the defendant doesn't have grievance. This basically means the NSA can only do what it can do in secret. Revealing the secrets is very important, but framing it as if it's unconstitutional isn't that fitting. That's always been my main gripe.
This is a fantastic example of the inherent problems created by mandated revenue streams in taxes. There's no true oversight to agencies that operate on unconditional revenues (taxes, basically), and they can get away with this kind of waste. +1 for free markets
The CIA comment might not be accurate. I don't know. Law is technical and specific yet nuanced, and open to interpretation where there is no precedent. My overarching point is that if the NSA was doing what people are worried about it doing, it would get lol-smashed in court and that would be that. All this stuff being in secret tells me that claims of unconstitutionality is the wrong course to take. If constitutionality was the right course, we'd already see legal claims and the SCOTUS would be prepping to hear a case if they hadn't already
The biggest problem is the databases. Information is being dragnetted and warehoused. Information is power, and so when it is warehoused it becomes potential power. What happens when marshal law is enacted under some future administration for whatever reason, and then all the people who can be linked to the unofficial My Little Pony fanclub are rounded up?
You surely will claim "this can't happen-- the constitution, and, and, this is the United States, not North Korea!!" But, I mean, come on, read a history book. They may not be violating the fourth amendment, but that is only because the forth amendment predates the internet. The purpose of protecting against unjust search and seizure is that a government has a vested interest in self perpetuation, and therefore and interest in suppressing opposition groups, no matter how legal and legitimate they are. Not only do these sort of databases make such suppression possibly and swift, but they also likely make it unnecessary because they inspire self-censorship. People start to tow the line, else they end up on a Homeland Security list, or worse.
You say I should read a history book. Well, I read a lot of history, and what I've learned from it is that the premise you're working with isn't representative. In a nutshell, modern western states with dynamic economies operate on legitimacy. The idea of "they'll just declare martial law" isn't relevant without catastrophe that makes 9/11 look like just one pebble on a sandy beach. The state with the most similar example to ours is Nazi Germany, and there were some key issues that the US doesn't have nor will likely ever come close to having. This means things from existential catastrophe (US had that once: the Civil War) to system of government (presidential vs parliament)Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
If the judiciary loses its power of review, it means a rampaging kaiju emerged from the sea and Orwell is the least of our problems. Slippery slope has always been a specious argument
Edit: Bill Gates was wrong. Information is not power. Knowledge is power. All the emails the NSA is collected are being dumped into a void that will never return to take on the masses. Maybe if Orwell was right it would, but that was Soviet style, not the Huxley we now have. Maybe if taxes were 75% and elections were conspicuously rigged would the government have enough manpower to gather knowledge from all that information
fuck assholes who steal your internet cable out of the fucking box thing outside.
but lol at them going to be getting charged with a federal crime when the company links it back to them.
Bill Hicks died 20 years ago today. He was the fucking shit.
http://www.theguardian.com/stage/201...-comedy-legacy
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/patton...b_4860527.html
His documentary made me wanna do shrooms.
I have trouble with a lot of "old" comedy. My comedic sensibilities have been molded by their influences, which often took things further...or something. I'm not entirely sure.
But Bill Hicks is still hilarious to this day.
do it! and report back to me. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRkA6zugNMQ
^^ not really sure what the right word is for this.. genius? brilliant? insane? I love it.
I hate Bill Hicks and love George Carlin. I am the one percent.
lol spoon i'm not surprised at all that you hate hicks.
George Carlin was the first comedian I really got into, back in middle school. I was pretty obsessed. I saw him on my 15th birthday, which I think was in 2005... So happy I got that chance.
You're so young I hate you.
i guess this isn't the place for me to moan about my quarter-life crisis then, eh? :p
btw does anyone here dabble in the dark arts of jazz improv?
what exactly does a quarter life crisis consist of?
Quarter life crisis is an interesting concept that may have validity. One way I might describe it is that a mid life crisis is when somebody reaches an age where age is beginning to catch up with them, and they have to face the lies/facts of life. A quarter life crisis might be the same thing of having to face the lies/facts of what life really is, except that it doesn't come on with age but experience. It could be this way because the mid life crisis theme comes out of a place where the first half of a person's life didn't involve much in existential crises, but today those existential crises appear to hit much earlier. This could be because previous generations were able to go through the motions of getting steady work and having a family without questioning it until later, but current generations are disenfranchised to those, and so the crisis is quarter life
Can I have a fifth life crisis?
No, you're a contrarian.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
Bill Hicks isn't that funny or revolutionary looking back at his material, but put him in the context of his time. If you want to drag Carlin into this, Carlin made faces and goofy voices when he was 33.
Sometimes I feel like Hicks is beating me over the head, and not making me laugh.
At least when Carlin beat me, I was laughing.
http://www.pattonoswalt.com/index.cfm?page=spew&id=170
A lot of the thing he says about Lenny Bruce also apply to Bill Hicks for me. He is my Curt Kobain of comedy. It's stuff that I loved to death as a teenager, and they both changed my whole view on what they do, but if you can't listen to it with fresh ears it's beat down and sucked dry.
Carlin is the best comedian of all time so any comparison to him is going to come up short, even from Hicks. I love Bill Hicks, but I can definitely understand where the haters are coming from. I think its unfortunate that he so often gets compared with hackish "rage" comedians of the day like Sam Kenison or Denis Leary.
I think those of us who grew up in the southern U.S. have an easier time liking Hicks because his rage hits so close to home for us. That's the thing that surprises me about spoon not liking him.
Hicks is completely irreverent when it comes to trying to make the audience laugh, for the most part. I understand what people mean when they say he's not funny - he's definitely not a punchline kind of guy - but personally, I find his mannerisms and storytelling style super engaging. I wouldn't mind having a few people over at my place and just watching him rant and rave in my living room over beers and a joint.
Also, the big thing about Hicks is that he had a lot of heart. He wasn't a complacent cynic, he wasn't just taking drags of his cigarette and hating on a world he stopped giving a shit about a long time ago. He was actually pretty spiritual, and constantly challenged his audience's preconceptions about things, particularly drugs (and particularly psychedelics). He has many beautiful bits that are not funny at all, the famous "It's Just a Ride" ending to Revelations being one of them.
But Pryor...Quote:
Originally Posted by Renton
I can't believe "hackish" and Sam Kinison were used in the same sentence. Kinison, like Hicks, was a "comedian's comedian". I've heard a lot of praise for both from other funny people in interviews.
I'm not saying whether or not either is "hackish". I don't think I have the background to make such a call.
I have heard a lot of anecdotal evidence which says both were highly respected among their own community. Isn't that really the measure of a hack? Whether or not someone is respected by their respectable peers?
***
All of this goes to my point that Bill Hicks wasn't necessarily trying to be a comedian. So judging him as a comedian is going to make him look like a poor comedian.
***
Yeah, Richard did it his own way. I didn't get him at all when I was younger.
Surely the whole point of a comedian is just to entertain us for whatever amount of time it is we are watching them for. It doesn't matter if they are funny so long as you are entertained.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
I have always thought Bill Hicks footage that I've seen (few youtube clips and a DVD) were mostly good but no better than a lot of other stuff I've seen but without the appreciation for the time that it was done it all becomes a bit of a mute point because all the comedians who love him, who see many more comedians than I do, all were around at that time and a lot of them at quite impressionable ages. Lots of comedy just doesn't age very well especially when a lot of the stuff you've already seen is very derivative of that material.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSEtMZh2exc
Something that gets lost in the conversation is how the socially liberal movement of the 60s/70s was coming to an end, replaced by ultra evangelical social conservatism. Bill Hicks was one of the few who noticed that. The world we live in today, the one that gave us the Iraq War, is a product of what Hicks claimed was scaring the fuck out of him about the direction of the country
Pryor was great but his career lacked the breadth and evolution of Carlin's (for tragic reasons). I also don't think his stuff has aged as well. Even the old old Carlin stuff like "Carlin at Carnegie" is still fucking hilarious.Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
Had Pryor had a chance to churn out shit in his autumn years, it would likely have been a different story. "Life is Worth Losing" is some of GC's best work and he had to do like 15 HBO specials over a 50 year career to get to that point.
Yeah, I really like Carlin, and I probably would have hi fived you in agreement some time ago-- so I'm not mad, I'm just not so sure anymore.
Kinison had some great material but his act hurt him. He started out looking great but then he did the thing where you find out you get laughs when you intimitate your audience not realizing that it's not because it's funny but because it's a base instinct. I think his material is funnier in writing than it is the way he delivered it is what I'm saying.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey