cubix

For better or worse, people are transferring this pattern to written language as stylistic device.

Prior to the performance they would find an audience member's Facebook page using their credit card or mailing address (presumably), and write a sketch based on the details extracted from his or her page.

They incorporated the lucky patron's inevitable reaction into the sketch under the pretense of reprimanding him for disrupting the show. After letting him squirm a bit under the spotlight, the punchline was projecting his Facebook page on the screen across the stage.

However, I was expecting -- I'm not sure -- Google engineers contributing their technological expertise somehow.

Granted it's not recommended, but the likelihood of an experienced rider going down from a short, low wheelie like that is quite low. Saying that it is likely to lead to a pile-up and multiple deaths is hyperbole hardly worth addressing. Pile-ups almost always involve inclement weather.

Anyway, it's no more dangerous than the countless drivers I see chatting on their cell phones, disciplining their children in the back, eating lunch, etc. -- activities that probably the majority of drivers engage in at some point.

However, how was the rider a threat to anyone by that point? He couldn't run the officer down like you could with a car (he would just end up on the ground). He was boxed in.

I would also challenge the notion that the rider is an 'idiot' and a danger to himself or others. Of the 3m39s long video, there's only about 10 seconds (starting at about 0:35) where he accelerates significantly faster than the surrounding cars, and that was clearly to get around a group of cars/transport trucks. Otherwise, he was going just slightly faster than the general flow of traffic. Both of these tactics are basically inline with conventional motorcycle safety recommendations: http://www.sportrider.com/ride/146_9508_motorcycle_riding_ti...

Also, it appears that the officer is hiding his gun when the marked cop car pulls up behind them. I think it's worth pointing out that they charged the rider with wire tapping (which the judge ultimately threw out) and raided his house after discovering the video had been posted on YouTube. It's hard not to interpret these actions as embarrassment on the part of the police. Why would they object to the video being posted if he was completely justified?

The video wouldn't be approaching a million views on YouTube if most people agreed that his actions were as reasonable and mundane as you imply. He didn't show his badge or even identify himself as a police officer until after charging at the guy with gun in hand. That doesn't strike me as 'professional'.

Work at office => Work from home

Indeed some people have come to this conclusion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutually_assured_destruction

  "Lulu handed me her 'surprise', which turned out to be a card,"
  writes Chua in her explosive new memoir... "More accurately, it was
  a piece of paper folded crookedly in half, with a big happy face on
  the front. Inside, 'Happy Birthday, Mummy! Love, Lulu' was scrawled
  in crayon above another happy face. I gave the card back to Lulu. 'I
  don't want this,' I said. 'I want a better one – one that you've put
  some thought and effort into. I have a special box, where I keep all
  my cards from you and Sophia, and this one can't go in there.' I
  grabbed the card again and flipped it over. I pulled out a pen and
  scrawled 'Happy Birthday Lulu Whoopee!' I added a big sour face. …
  'I reject this.'"

http://www.cdc.gov/ace/findings.htm

http://www.frasermustardchair.ca/resources/what-does-the-evi...

Impossible? Why is perfection the standard? At a minimum she could have bought a $50 external drive at Best Buy, used the back-up software included in the OS, and the probability of this outcome occurring drops substantially.

This is basic stuff that anyone doing cancer research should understand. The fact that she admits to feeling guilty is an indication that she knows better.

Blaming the IT department, in this instance, would be like not brushing your teeth and blaming your dentist when they start falling out.

By this point I had studied Spanish for a couple of years; I was by no means fluent, but usually knew enough to get by. However, under the stress of the situation, what ability I did have was completely gone; I started to become angry, inarticulate and flustered. A small group of employees encircled me and tried to speak to me in broken English, while I tried to respond in broken Spanish. After a few minutes, another driver entered the group and announced he had found the voucher. He easily could have pocketed it and collected the money as pure profit, but instead turned it in. I was impressed, and relieved.

I've also heard pedophiles claim that looking at child porn sates their desire to act out those fantasies, so perhaps fewer children are being harmed? That sounds plausible to me since 'normal porn' works, to some degree, as substitute for sex for many non-pedophiles.

If you're innocent, there's no moral obligation to stand trial. The onus rests with the accusers to make the case. It may or may not be in the accused's best interest to offer a defense, but I fail to see how he's bound merely by the accusation.

Not being able to check the time with a quick flick of the wrist would be a deal breaker for me when it comes to watches.

An employee is free to resign if he would prefer to work for someone else. He can't be sent to a gulag. Customers aren't forced to accept a company's product or service, and can choose a competitor instead. Managers can fire incompetent or insubordinate workers. Customers can criticize a product without fear of being shot.

Customer, manager, employee, investor -- everyone is in the situation voluntarily, so they must negotiate on the basis of mutual self-interest. The company as an entity is more stable because its constituents aren't essentially at war with one another.