Slashdot Mirror

Then you are not familiar with the show. In it the world is run by a few mega corps that basically stay in power by keeping their media ratings higher than their competitors thus reaping the highest ad revenue. Network XXIII being the one of the biggest. The first episode has one of their own reporters investigating why a guy spontaneously combusts only to learn its because Network XXIII's latest ad technology (Blipverts, which are 30 seconds ads compressed to 3 seconds so the viewer will not be tempted to change the channel) short circuits the victims nervous system. All pretty well spelled out in my OP and relevant to the GP headline.

Then you are not familiar with the show. In it the world is run by a few mega corps that basically stay in power by keeping their media ratings higher than their competitors thus reaping the highest ad revenue. Network XXIII being the one of the biggest. The first episode has one of their own reporters investigating why a guy spontaneously combusts only to learn its because Network XXIII's latest ad technology (Blipverts, which are 30 seconds ads compressed to 3 seconds so the viewer will not be tempted to change the channel) short circuits the victims nervous system. All pretty well spelled out in my OP and relevant to the GP headline.

The Curious Case of Country C, Grant Brown

http://youtu.be/eA8djGrsttA

Injustice is ubiquitous in this world. Heaven knows there is enough of it in Canada that we do not have to look abroad to fill newspapers with alarming stories of discrimination and oppression. Still, we might learn something about how a blind eye is turned to injustice by considering the case of a relatively minor country--call it Country C--which, amazingly, ranks favourably in United Nations reports.

Country C contains two groups, the majority Xs and the minority Ys. In spite of what the UN says, the standard social indicators suggest that the Ys are an oppressed minority. Among other things, oppressed people tend to experience poorer health, more violent victimization and aggression, discrimination in the administration of justice and in employment, and disadvantage in educational attainment. The following is a brief indication how the Ys fare in these respects, relative to the Xs.

The infant-mortality rate among Ys is higher than that among Xs. Ys are also more prone to alcoholism, drug abuse, and a host of psychological problems. Adding insult to injury, a highly disproportionate amount of public health-care money is spent on Xs. About twice as much medical-research money is spent on illnesses experienced almost exclusively by Xs, than on those experienced almost exclusively by Ys. In the final analysis, the life expectancy of Xs is seven years longer than that of Ys.

In Country C, Ys are a particularly brutalized group. Most violence committed by Ys is directed at Ys themselves; whereas most violence committed by Xs is also directed at Ys. Overall, Ys are twice as likely to be victims of violence, and three times as likely to be murdered, compared to Xs. Yet the mainstream media of Country C devote a hugely disproportionate amount of their coverage to the violent victimization of Xs, especially that perpetrated by Ys. Government commissions have been set up to look into the problem of violence against Xs, but not into the much larger problem of violence against Ys.

Ys are about nine times more likely than Xs to spend time in prison. Besides the harsher social conditions that tend to make violence a part of the Y culture, this difference is due in part to the fact that the law in Country C treats violent Xs differently from violent Ys. Ys are more likely than Xs to be investigated, charged, and convicted for similar crimes on similar evidence; Xs are more likely to be believed innocent, given favourable plea bargains, and awarded probation--even when participating together in the same crime with Ys. In violent conflicts between Xs and Ys, it is standard police procedure to haul the Ys off to jail even before establishing who was at fault or who was the aggressor. Perhaps most alarmingly of all, the law of Country C recognizes several excuses for Xs to kill Ys, with no parallels for Ys who kill Xs. In a large number of cases, Xs who kill Ys serve no time at all in prison.

Although a minority of the general population, Ys account for about 85 per cent of the homeless adults in Country C. It has been estimated that as many as half of these street people have been displaced from their homes by angry or violent Xs. Public money is spent on subsidized housing and shelters for needy Xs, much of it to the exclusion of equally needy Ys. (Public housing for Ys takes the form of jail cells.)

The education system, although officially integrated, nevertheless systematically favours the Xs. Especially in the early grades, when life-long attitudes toward scholastic achievement are formed, the distinctive needs and interests of Ys are ignored or trampled on. Few Ys have teacher training at the primary level, leaving young Ys without positive role models. As a result, the grades attained by Xs are, on average, higher than those attained by Ys throughout their school years; and Ys also have higher failure and drop-out rates than Xs at every le

I said Rosetta, this here's the Rubber Duck, and we ain't gonna pay no toll. So we crashed the gate, doing 98 (m/s), said let them truckers roll, 10-4.

http://youtu.be/0gu2_ALY7oA#t=...

Not a finished product. But this http://youtu.be/ldvk_jAGjQI?t=... shows that there are other companies trying to make things with large e-ink screens.
I'm not sure about screens so large but I have a 9.7 inch e-ink reader and I love it.

I leave you with this vaguely relevant and addicting song.....Energia!!!

http://youtu.be/BVWfqOSdzs4

Obviously you need enough capacity to ensure a certain baseline

How about 30x the load (nameplate installed ~30 GW, 99% guaranteed ~0.9 GW; that's over the whole country). With Germany's ~70 GW average consumption you'll need to install ~2100 GW of nameplate power (or about half of the world's current installed power capacity). Assuming 10 MW wind turbines (which have around 200m rotor diameters) you'll need ~210000 turbines. As a general rule of thumb, wind turbine spacing suggests 6-10 rotor diameters, so taking 8 as the neat central value, each such turbine requires ~2 square km of space around it. 210000 turbines times 2 square km is about 50000 square km more than the entire area of Germany (most of which isn't particularly rich in wind resources anyways), so clearly something needs to be done about lowering this requirement. You'll need storage. And that's expensive and frequently also area-intensive.

There are no simple solutions and there's a decent chance they won't ever materialize. That is not to say that they can't. Obviously if they do come around, so much the better. However, at present storing energy at grid-scale is extremely hard and most lay people deeply underestimate how hard and costly it's going to be to resolve.

Do you really think Germany was down 60GW of wind power at any one instant?

This is a graph of actual wind production figures in Germany at daily resolution for 2011. Even if you don't speak German, the three yellow lines in there represent: nameplate installed capacity (29.06 GW), average power (5.145 GW) and minimal power delivery at 99% confidence (0.918 GW), all at 1 day resolutions (the problems get much worse at finer resolutions). I'd call 1/30th of the install nameplate capacity pretty much zero. With larger installations on a country the scale of Germany (not a small country by any account) what will change is only the absolute values, but the relative proportions of them are going to stay mostly the same. Even if you take the average into account the average production as your goal, wind varies between days easily by 5x or more. Take for instance the troth in the middle of April (04) - that's nearly a week long drop to 1/5th the average output. Who's gonna jump in and pick up that effort? Also, look at the average power in relation to nameplate installed power, about a 4-5x relation. Germany requires 50-80 GW of constant production a day. So are they going to install 300 GW or more of nameplate wind capacity just to get the averages right? That'd be more than a doubling of their current installed capacity of 180 GW across all energy sources. Who's gonna pay for that? And who's gonna smooth the output and how much is that going to cost?(*)

So you see, I have done my homework and actually analyzed real data. Have you done yours?

(*) That same video shows a statistical calculation, taking real wind & solar production data from 2011, combining them and calculating the price of adding storage to the grid that would get around 4/7 of the average in reliable power. Results: ~100 billion Euros for 430 new pumped hydro plants (to replace 3-4 nuclear plants which would cost a fraction of that) or >250 billion Euros if battery storage were used. Keep in mind: these are based on actual combined wind & solar production curves, so you can't just dismiss them as being theoretical - this is based on actual data. You know, reality is that thing which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.

1. Zero realistic cost-analysis. Wind doesn't blow? No problem, solar is here to save the day! (Except that just doubled the cost in installed generation capacity). Wind AND solar not there? No problem, geothermal/hydro/whatever! (Triple the cost.) And how do you site so much geothermal or hydro capacity, considering most places either don't have them (geothermal) or are already maxed out (hydro). Also hydro can't produce for one week at a crack, most dams are limited to 6-8 hours at full power. So gas peaker backup? (Quadruple the cost?) See these are the problems when you intend to build a grid with a reliability higher than that of some 3rd world country.
2. A demonstration of one ideal week is a sham. You need to look at worst case scenarios, not best case. And those are the things that dictate capital expenses, as you pay for installed capacity and only earn for delivered energy. If power plants (either fossil or hydro or geothermal) don't operate a considerable amount of their lifetimes, they'll either never ROI (i.e. go bankrupt or just won't get built at all) or they'll have to be operated at a loss to the utility, which will again just make electricity more expensive.
3. Transmission grids are only to temporarily even out partial outages of a small portion of generation capacity or sell of some small portion of excess capacity in one locality to another. What intermittent sources require is lots of high-capacity bi-directional transmission, i.e. tens of GW across long distances. These simply don't exist and constructing them will cost A LOT, not to speak of the amount of pushback from land owners.
4. Prolonged wind lulls and Solar non-production are commonly experienced on country-wide scale. Notice the . Where's that gonna come from? Are we supposed another 60 GW of solar just to cover this eventuality? And during those times that it's not needed, what will we do with it? Who's gonna pay for this?
5. Forecasting does absolutely nothing when your forecast is for a 2-week long wind lull. You can't just tell your users "sorry, no power for this week, wind ain't blowing". You have to do something. And we know what countries like Germany are doing: firing coal at record rates, increasing, not decreasing their CO2 emissions.
6. And all of this before we get into issues such as sub-synchronous resonance on the electric grid due to tens of thousands of turbines.

I'd also recommend, if you understand German, a talk by Hans Werner Sinn about the upcoming failings of the German Energiewende: http://youtu.be/m2eVYWVLtwE?t=... He calculates, taking real wind & solar daily production figures from 2011, that even if you take the seasonal opposite trend of wind & solar together and wanted to provide power at 99% reliability, it'd take an additional 100 billion Euros just to provide an extra 5 GW of reliable power (i.e. replace around 5 nuclear reactors which would have cost less than a quarter of that) through 450 new pumped hydro installations (Germany has ~35 of them now and new constructions are being protested everywhere), for which Germany probably doesn't even have the places to put them; or about an additional 254 billion Euros if you were to use the batteries of EVs (not the EVs themselves, just the batteries!).

In short, the problem is a lot harder than you think and a lot harder than that pretty video you sent me tries to make it out to be. These things look pretty from a semantic point of view unless you come down to real brass tacks, commit the numbers to paper and start making hard investment decisions. I'm on Bill Gates' team here and think that people deeply underestimate what a hard problem it is to rework the entire electrical grid to work reliably with these unreliable inputs.

1. Zero realistic cost-analysis. Wind doesn't blow? No problem, solar is here to save the day! (Except that just doubled the cost in installed generation capacity). Wind AND solar not there? No problem, geothermal/hydro/whatever! (Triple the cost.) And how do you site so much geothermal or hydro capacity, considering most places either don't have them (geothermal) or are already maxed out (hydro). Also hydro can't produce for one week at a crack, most dams are limited to 6-8 hours at full power. So gas peaker backup? (Quadruple the cost?) See these are the problems when you intend to build a grid with a reliability higher than that of some 3rd world country.
2. A demonstration of one ideal week is a sham. You need to look at worst case scenarios, not best case. And those are the things that dictate capital expenses, as you pay for installed capacity and only earn for delivered energy. If power plants (either fossil or hydro or geothermal) don't operate a considerable amount of their lifetimes, they'll either never ROI (i.e. go bankrupt or just won't get built at all) or they'll have to be operated at a loss to the utility, which will again just make electricity more expensive.
3. Transmission grids are only to temporarily even out partial outages of a small portion of generation capacity or sell of some small portion of excess capacity in one locality to another. What intermittent sources require is lots of high-capacity bi-directional transmission, i.e. tens of GW across long distances. These simply don't exist and constructing them will cost A LOT, not to speak of the amount of pushback from land owners.
4. Prolonged wind lulls and Solar non-production are commonly experienced on country-wide scale. Notice the . Where's that gonna come from? Are we supposed another 60 GW of solar just to cover this eventuality? And during those times that it's not needed, what will we do with it? Who's gonna pay for this?
5. Forecasting does absolutely nothing when your forecast is for a 2-week long wind lull. You can't just tell your users "sorry, no power for this week, wind ain't blowing". You have to do something. And we know what countries like Germany are doing: firing coal at record rates, increasing, not decreasing their CO2 emissions.
6. And all of this before we get into issues such as sub-synchronous resonance on the electric grid due to tens of thousands of turbines.

I'd also recommend, if you understand German, a talk by Hans Werner Sinn about the upcoming failings of the German Energiewende: http://youtu.be/m2eVYWVLtwE?t=... He calculates, taking real wind & solar daily production figures from 2011, that even if you take the seasonal opposite trend of wind & solar together and wanted to provide power at 99% reliability, it'd take an additional 100 billion Euros just to provide an extra 5 GW of reliable power (i.e. replace around 5 nuclear reactors which would have cost less than a quarter of that) through 450 new pumped hydro installations (Germany has ~35 of them now and new constructions are being protested everywhere), for which Germany probably doesn't even have the places to put them; or about an additional 254 billion Euros if you were to use the batteries of EVs (not the EVs themselves, just the batteries!).

In short, the problem is a lot harder than you think and a lot harder than that pretty video you sent me tries to make it out to be. These things look pretty from a semantic point of view unless you come down to real brass tacks, commit the numbers to paper and start making hard investment decisions. I'm on Bill Gates' team here and think that people deeply underestimate what a hard problem it is to rework the entire electrical grid to work reliably with these unreliable inputs.

"The Truth About Israel and Palestine": http://youtu.be/iKzlh9kN4HI

Whether or not Mitsubishi fucked up their cutter head bearing design, or Seattle Tunnel Partners forgot to read the documents that described the exact location of the previous exploratory bore pipe, regardless of if it's even possible to sucessfully extract the cutter head without sinking the current viaduct with all the additional excavation and ground water pumping, this virtual video flythrough from four years ago is my favorite thing to come out of the project.

And if you enjoy crappy flash web cam software, you can watch the current progress on the cutter head replacement shaft here.

As a native German, most drivers actually yield to faster traffic (,,Stay-right-except-when-overtaking''). I drive on the Autobahn every day (especially the notorious A555); on the rare occasions where I do see someone tailgating, the person being tailgated is usually unnecessarily blocking the lane and hence causing a more fundamental problem to begin with.
While that doesn't justify tailgating, it's questionable whether that's worse than overtaking on the right, or similarly suicidal stuff.

As for enforcement, we don't live in a police state (anymore), so more often than not, there's simply no police around to notice someone tailgating, but if there is, and they do then you're in for a MASSIVE ticket, potentially including having to turn in your license. In this context, it is quite strictly enforced, indeed.

Just for what it's worth Entirely legal no-tailgating rather clean high speed run (~250 km/h)

http://youtu.be/VBxm7EP93h4?t=...

+1 "dun-dun". http://youtu.be/gP3MuUTmXNk

But.. but...but didn't mac's come with some magic magnetic connectors to safeguard them against cable strain ??

Proof: http://youtu.be/qfv6Ah_MVJU?t=...

Actually the earthquake did damage the plant in a very critical way. The emergency cooling system was broken, so that even when they started pumping in water from fire engines it didn't cool the cores and they went into meltdown.

I suggest you try watching this documentary: http://youtu.be/ldki2ji5-gU

Natural radioactivity is mainly something that hits you from the 'outside'... it hits your skin

Except for the ~5kBq of K-40 in your nerves. And the C-14 in all of your tissues. Also, cosmic radiation doesn't stop on your skin - it's comprised of extremely high energy particles at 1 GeV or more. Those sort of energies make the radiation from nuclear reactors seem like child's play. That is not to say that you'd rather be inside of a nuclear reactor - most definitely not, the flux there is many orders of magnitude larger - but it does show that cosmic rays don't just "hit your skin", but instead fire right through you and irradiate your internals quite easily.

First of all a healthy person has no Uranium or Thorium in his body.

I'd be careful with throwing around superlatives like "none", but it's probably fair to say that the abundance of actinides in most humans would be classed as "trace" at best.

you are again mixing up external radiation by natural sources with radioactive elements incorporated into the body

Except that both K-40 and C-14 are both natural and inside your body. In fact, we use C-14 abundance in tissues to date when organisms died. Whether something is or isn't natural has no bearing on where it is harmful.

The fallout is measurable every where in north Japan.

This statement, while true, is misleading, or at the very least oversimplified. We have extremely sensitive measurement equipment, but the mere detection of the presence of a radionuclide does not in itself imply any danger from it. What needs to be assessed is the particular type of radionuclide, its abundance and sample distribution, in order to be able to at least roughly assess the potential biological impacts. In pretty much any scoop e.g. topsoil you'd be able to find all manner of toxic stuff, from mercury through arsenic, lead and even to uranium - this is simply a consequence of the magnitude of Avogadro's number.

I'll leave you with just one tiny factiod: long-haul flights are associated with elevated exposure to cosmic rays, easily 20-30x sea-level background and comparable to some of the hotter parts of the Fukushima exclusion zone. This has been repeatedly assessed and demonstrated. As such, one would expect to find radiation-related cancer clusters among airline crew, who spend a sizable amount of their lives in this elevated radiation environment. And yet, no reliable evidence for this has been found so far.

And yet we know how to engineer such systems. That having been said, Fukushima clearly demonstrated how poorly water performs as a coolant in nuclear power plants.

what? I thought dam technology was already here. Are you telling me I get to invent pumping water into a reservoirs to store potential energy and the release it when the is a higher demand?

Dam hydroelectric power is already pretty much maxed out globally, since there's only limited numbers of suitable sites and flows.

Pumped hydro, meanwhile, cannot scale to the required energy volumes and is excessively expensive (despite being the cheapest storage option yet). It really falls apart when you consider the problem quantitatively (using Germany as an example here):

• Germany averages ~60GW of power use over the course of a day.
• They have 36 pumped storage plants with a total capacity of ~37.7GWh, which means they could power their existing grid for ~30 minutes before running out of water.
• Variability in wind & solar resources means that in order to approach a 100% renewable grid you'll need at least 1-2 week's worth of storage, but at 60GW average per day, this means ~20000TWh total storage capacity. So far, they've got ~1/500th of that, so they'd need to build ~18000 new pumped hydro plants. This is quite simply not going to happen (there aren't that many sites or that much money in their economy to do that).
• Aha! But wind & solar will cover each other and with smart grids & stuff we can lower the energy storage demand dramatically! Right? Well, no. To reliably back up 4GW even taking wind & solar complements into account would require ~440 pumped hydro plants, which when extrapolated out to 60GW still boosts this number back ~7000 and a rough cost of 1.44 trillion Euros (about 1/2 of Germany's yearly 2.73 trillion Euro GDP, or ~5x the German federal budget of $250 billion Euros) - and keep in mind this is without any transmission upgrades and without putting a single kW of generation capacity on the grid, just the storage to solve the intermittency problem.

Put simply, this cannot and will not be built.

For example, when there's an excess of power being produced, utilise some of it to do stuff like cracking water into hydrogen, etc. for use in cars; then when the wind drops just cut production of hydrogen rather than having to deal with a shortfall on the grid at large.

Good luck with that. Wind has been shown to vary by at least 30x on a day-to-day basis even at national scale(*) (and much more on an hour-by-hour or minute-by-minute scale) and solar obviously varies by infinity (zero output at night). There's two solutions: either massive energy storage on a scale not seen before, or never let intermittent power sources climb over some small percentage of supply (~25%-30% seems to be the threshold). The former requires fundamental breakthroughs which have yet to materialize and may never arrive. The latter requires deployment of nuclear to offset the CO2 emissions from the remaining 3/4 of the power mix and has already been done (France's grid is ~3/4 nuclear). Greenpeace - a religious cult at this point - prefers the former. Pragmatic environmentalists - such as George Monbiot and James Hansen - prefer the latter.

(*) In case you don't speak german, this graph shows german wind power production at daily resolution for 2011. Nameplate installed capacity: 29GW. Maximum output with 99% availability: 0.9GW.

Soccer superstars are sick

Hospital
Hamas using UN ambulances
Bombing at gaza school, probably from hamas rocket falling short
Hamas rockets in two different UN schools

This isn't rocket surgery, not by a long shot. Hamas really is "the bad guys." Haven't even started on the tunnel stuff yet, and them using them as weapons storage. And commandeering all those materials meant for housing, and instead built it up for the sole purpose of terror, war, and screwing over the civilians.

"A look at the YouTube comments for her 2010 PAX East panel is stomach-churning." => "Comments are disabled for this video."
Yeah, I find censorship stomach-churning also.

Our politicians are a bunch of pork-minded, short-sighted luddite political hacks more concerned with their privileges than with doing what's best for the American public?

John Oliver nailed it.

The 1 in 4 statistic is completely debunked, it comes from a survey which included having sex whilst drunk as rape.

http://youtu.be/FKgrYVtYSCk

But more importantly it doesn't have reaction traction.

http://youtu.be/5ooEz9QtErM

You need to watch this: http://youtu.be/P6MOnehCOUw

Laughs aside, I guess the point is, conspiracies just don't scale.

Great. This is going to be like trying to talk to one of those software customer service reps on the phone: insanely inefficient. As long as there is nothing unusual about your checkin, existing kiosks work great. If there is something unusual, the fake human won't be able to handle it any better than a standard interface will, and you'll need a real human.

Interesting moderation there. Gee there /. mod, something not sitting well with your limited view of the world today? I'm guessing it was the missiles found in a school in gaza. Not the first time either, it's much like hamas using ambulances to transport terrorists around.

We've gone and formed a committee.

I'm pretty sure also they're required by law to put ACCURATE contact info into the registry...

"It's impossible! I never broke the law. I AM THE LAW!"

Really? The women-hating Daily Fail is your source. Literally the last place you would go to find any reliable, balanced information on women's issues. Even the photo in the story was selected to show the maximum amount of boob.

How about I just leave this here: http://youtu.be/r9dqNTTdYKY

http://youtu.be/a4uC2H10uIo

Actually, not new.

The aereo case isn't about user redirection but rather if a company can redirect OTA broadcasts. Shockingly the legal answer is no.

I am shocked, SHOCKED, at the gambling that goes on in this establishment! http://youtu.be/SjbPi00k_ME

"I am shocked, shocked, to find that gambling is going on in here" is the quote.

I am shocked, SHOCKED, at the gambling that goes on in this establishment!
http://youtu.be/SjbPi00k_ME

It looks like there's more to it than increased surface area - the Coand effect may be at work here, making the plumes of hot gas creep along the "trenches" rather than flare out. There's a video where it kind of shows what I mean at (1'25").

Then again, this may be just a case of increased area for heat transfer. I'm not a rocket engineer.

Maybe there's more to it - the Coand effect may be at work here, making the plumes of hot gas creep along the "trenches" rather than flare out. There's a video where it kind of shows what I mean at (1'25"). Then again, it may be just more surface for transfer.

It looks like there's more to it than increased surface area - the Coanda effect may be at work here, making the plumes of hot gas creep along the "trenches" rather than flare out. There's a video where it kind of shows what I mean at (1'25").

Video of it on the Top Gear channel: http://youtu.be/cDoRmT0iRic

Dear Zombie Santa...

Musk strikes me as a lot of things... Carnegie and Franklin aren't among them.

He's an emerging master at PR and managing public opinion, and his fan base (very prevalent here on Slashdot) just laps it up.

His rockets get to orbit with RP-1, not PR. You don't get a $5 billion launch manifest with PR.

Yes, there are delays and difficulties with both Tesla and SpaceX. Now show me someone that is building more compelling electric cars than Tesla. Owner's of Tesla's love them. If it wasn't a good car, it wouldn't have the satisfaction ratings it does. Car magazines wouldn't be raving about it.

Show me a "new space" company that is delivering cargo to the the ISS, returning mass to Earth, developing a manned capsule, self-funding reusability development, self-funding development of seriously big rocket engines for Saturn V size rockets.

I'm an unabashed fan because he's making interesting shit happen. The main reasons I've seen for people bagging on him are envy or ideology (Tesla got a government loan - that they paid back, SpaceX got NASA money - to deliver cargo cheaper than any competitor, etc...)

http://youtu.be/cBdxDFpDp_k Neil deGrasse Tyson breaks down the differences between weather and climate change.

there's no basement in the Alamo http://youtu.be/XuWSK9A_A1M

before we quit running Cat 5 through our mothers basements.

Look a Yankee

There are almost no basements in Texas.

there's no basement in the Alamo! http://youtu.be/XuWSK9A_A1M

so much trouble in the world nigga

Indeed. And in this review, the guy explains how to build a solid gaming PC for $500, same price as the quite weaker Xbox One (before they got rid of the Kinect).

Bell Helicopter is developing a tilt rotor aircraft for this competition: http://youtu.be/1O3Onyas984

If you take the V-22, and remove the Marine Corps' requirements for blade-fold-wing-stow and rotors small enough to launch off of a Marine helicopter ship, you free up a huge amount of design room to increase performance.

Uhm, no fucking shit. Obligatory

Boxing is not a sport, but not for that reason.

http://youtu.be/veEhirVCcdQ