search results matching tag: Dark Side

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.007 seconds

    Videos (172)     Sift Talk (10)     Blogs (10)     Comments (357)   

To A Childs Delight, George Lucas Says Jedis Can Get Married

newtboy says...

Jedi aren't allowed to fall in love...so married is kind of out of the question. EDIT: Unless we're talking loveless marriage, like one of convenience or to gain citizenship for someone, that might be acceptable. ;-)
Loving/putting a single individual over everything else is a path to the dark side.

eric3579 said:

Are Jedis not allowed to get married or something?

Batman vs. Darth Vader

notarobot says...

I might expand this point to Vader's character (original trilogy.) Wouldn't Vader recognize a cunning opponent and attempt to persuade him to cross over? Bruce Wayne already started using the force a little, hasn't he? (Light Sabre?) A line or two about how Batman already treads near the Dark Side already, and how he could make a powerful ally to the empire ("Join me," or "don't make me destroy you,") could have added some depth to the story of an otherwise wonderfully produced short. (Plus, they captured Superman??? What is Batman doing in Space? How did they capture Superman? What else is going on?)

Anyways, if the goal of this video was to leave the audience wanting more, it's succeeded in me. I want answers.

poolcleaner said:

Cool video. But, as a Batman fan I downvote this on principle alone...

Batman vs. Darth Vader

gorillaman says...

Maybe the first time I've been happy to receive a downvote. A suitably and if I may say so, attractively, nerdy analysis.

I don't know, the Batman I know might just have been arrogant enough to try something like this - he did once fistfight a bunch of white martians. Or this could be the fight as it plays out in his head while he's deciding he needs a better plan, if you've read Midnighter you know what I'm talking about.

I always thought the dark side was unreasonably maligned. That old Batman as a green lantern story was a disappointment; I now want to read a book about Batman growing up in the Star Wars universe...learning about the force...deciding the Sith had to be dealt with...

poolcleaner said:

Cool video. But, as a Batman fan I downvote this on principle alone...

Batman vs. Darth Vader

poolcleaner says...

Cool video. But, as a Batman fan I downvote this on principle alone. Detective Comics, FEATURING Batman. Not, Batman sometimes -- Batman ALL of the time. You just don't ki... -- SPOILER ALERT --

Batman is a detective above all other things. This is Hollywood brute force shallow understanding Batman. He has the intuition to study his enemies physical weapon, yet not to understand the power of the dark side? Not the Batman I know. He would likely have not placed himself in that situation in the first place, or would have hunted down a relic or a friend with powers to combat Vadar's force powers.

Also, no reference to "fear" leading to anger... Batman's use of fear has even made him a candidate for Sinestro Corps' yellow power ring. Batman IS fear. If this series is against Batman's frequent use of other heroes, he would have gone out of his way to study the force himself, embrace the dark side for which he already serves, and THEN fucking force crush Vadar into submission. Pitiful.

Good video, poor writing based on an inferior understanding of the Batman. This is a video supposedly based on nerd cred, so wtf I have to put my nerd rage somewhere.

I shudder at the future of Batman. Ben Affleck, nooooooooooo... Daredevil... Batman... WHAT NEXT! And, yes, I despise all of the movie Batmen. None are the equal of the actual Batman.

Cops Acting Badly

speechless says...

I just want to reply to this bit. It's been proven that human beings (and mammals in general) alter their behavior when they are aware that they're being observed. That doesn't mean they all reject the dark side, but it's clear that for the vast majority, the fear of being caught doing something wrong is greater than whatever impetus there was to do wrong.

Body cams are good for cops and for civilians. It can prove they were right or they were wrong. Either way, the proof is there that wearing a body cam does alter a cop's behavior because they know they're being recorded.

Without a doubt, anyplace that has "installed" body cams on police officers has seen a vast reduction in abuse complaints.

I could provide many links but searching "police camera statistics" will get you plenty enough.

newtboy said:

<snip> Knowing they were being recorded by their own cameras has not stopped MANY a cop from behaving atrociously in recent times, they just don't care most of the time, and get away with it nearly all of the time.

The Down-Tuning Experiment

SquidCap says...

You are right, what i was saying is mostly about audio quality. You can not have a sharp fast complex attack on very low notes. No matter what the instrument is. B is about the lowest, after that you need to make drastic equalizations to get that sharpness back. Also the chord structure "widens" it's intervals the lower you go. With B tune, you can barely make fifths. Once octave higher and you get thirds. If you go 7 octaves higher, you can even use seconds... Allthou Bmin9 sounds AWESOME on B, not very pretty or even recognizable, it's just rumble..... But it sounds clearer around E, aka Breath on Floyds Dark Side of the Moon....

ChaosEngine said:

I dunno. Mastodon seem to manage ok on standard neck length down to A# or even A.

I didn't find this riff "heavy" at all.
It's not the tuning that makes a song heavy, it's a whole bunch of things.

Sepulturas Roots Bloody Roots is in B and Panteras 5 Minutes Alone is in D. Can you honestly say that Roots is that much heavier? Would 5 Minutes Alone be heavier in B?

The riff itself is obviously important, but also what the drums are doing, the production, the tone, etc.

Bird on high voltage line get fried - caught on dashcam

The Perfect Wave With The Perfect Song

LadyBug (Member Profile)

lurgee (Member Profile)

tiny hamster eating tiny burritos

Darth Vader storms Ukraine's Justice Ministry

Did Stephen Hawking just kill the concept of a black hole?

Did Stephen Hawking just kill the concept of a black hole?

Picking up a Hammer on the Moon

MichaelL says...

So you're saying on Jupiter or any other super-giant planet, we should have no problem walking about, lifting the usual things such as hammers, etc with no problem because the mass is the same as Earth?
Hmm, didn't think gravity worked like that. I always read in text books that on the moon, you should be able to jump higher because gravity was less than earth... but you say no.
Damn scientists always trying to confuse us...
(Pssst... weight and mass are different things. Weight measures gravitational force... the force that you have to overcome to lift something... less gravity = less force to overcome)

As for the conspiracy thing... you do know we already have bases on the dark side of the moon and Mars right? Look up Alternative 3...

Chairman_woo said:

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



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon