>> ^Reefie:

I laughed at the end when it shows other videos from the same artist - Le Fap Club


The first rule of Le Fap Club is...

I laughed at the end when it shows other videos from the same artist - Le Fap Club

>> ^shole:

Things do need to be simplified when doing a show of a limited time.
They can't do a show where it's like browsing wikipedia, jumping from one subject into some minute detail of it, and digging deeper until you forget what you were studying in the first place.
Not that i would mind if someone were to make a show like that.


exactly but the compromise is not saying verbs and words that have no real meaning. The compromise is saying , " this is what it is called " " these scientists have done x " "the ramifications are y"
and then include links at the end of a show or a short sting that tells people where to go if they are interested in perusing it or what books to read / maths to study.

The general public is ignorant as to what the basic principles of the scientific method are so trying to then explain the more abstract aspects of quantum mechanics is utterly futile.

Still the lecture was a realy good effort and most of it was fantastic , IT is depressing to me that your average joe on the street probably doesn't know of the slit experiment and that a good proportion of the adults in that room with him didn't .

For those wondering what the calligraphy people wrote, it was "Ka Er": 卡尔, pronounced "Kah are". In reality, it would be pronounced very quickly, like "car". So they did the best they could given the lack of an ending "L" sound. Shows the limitations of translating english phonetics into chinese language sounds.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'vote off, journey ends here, reality, show, contestant, immunity' to 'vote off, journey ends, reality show, contestant, immunity, Thomas Lennon, Arsenio' - edited by Trancecoach

Actually, ashamed as I am to admit it, I watched this episode (my wife has a morbid curiosity, that's my excuse). Her parents exchanged it for the model she actually wanted by the end of the show. If you watch the whole show I'm not sure you'd conclude it's all faked.

>> ^coolhund:

>> ^Peroxide:
>> ^coolhund:
Both sides have nutjobs. Picking them out doesnt really make your point objectively.
Should have gone to John Christy or Svensmark and hundreds other reputable scientists instead.

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=903

You fail at internet.

Oh so youre picking some random nutjob site and take everything for granted thats written there.
Alright, Ill let you know when my website is ready that tells you to jump off a cliff.
But thanks for the ironic laugh at the end.


Show me your site, I expect it will have less funding from Exxon Mobil than any - denial of anthropogenic climate change - site you'll find.

Also, I have jumped off a cliff, it was fun. PLUS it only endangered my own life, not those of all the generations to come, like we are doing with climate change.

I've had a number of endings of various shows ruined by the announcer talking over the conclusion. So one is watching a whodunnit and dont get to hear whodunnit.

>> ^steroidg:

Credits? One of the commercial channels in Australia used to half the viewing area of Futurama 15 seconds before the show actually finished and talk over the entire ending.

A: wearing a hoodie
B: wearing an undershirt thingy.

Round 1
0:00-0:10 - B tries several 1-2 combinations, but poor footwork and punching technique result in misses.
0:10-0:18 - A shows good distance control, but poor footwork leaves him backed against the door. Slipping and circling to his right would have been a better option.
0:18-0:27 - A and B both try to counter straight/wobbly right hands with their own right hands. Poor technique in general displayed by both. Establishing a stiff jab would have been a better option for both.
0:27-0:35 - Unable to land any strikes, both A and B separate and regroup. End of Round 1. 10-9 B for driveway control and generalship.
0:36-1:04 - Between rounds we get some back story to the confrontation which involves theft of illicit property. We also learn of A's prefight illness, and B's lack of compassion.

Round 2
1:03-1:08 - Clearly motivated, A comes out swinging, with B looking to counterstrike. B is smart to allow A to close distance rather than try to chase him down like in round 1.
1:08-1:13 - Drawing A in, B is able to counter a lunging right hand with a right hand of his own. Poor footwork by A combined with a quick followup shot by B leads to a knockdown.
1:13-1:18 - B tries to land punches before establishing a solid top position. A is able to sweep B with a quick roll. B should have concentrated on establishing his base first. 'Position before submission' is a better idea. A ends up securing side position.
1:18-1:35 - A shows excellent patience, as B expends too much energy attempting strikes from the inferior position. An armbar is available at 1:22, but A elects not to attempt it. The sequence ends with A executing a knee-over pass to full mount.
1:35-2:15 - A maintains mount, but B's lack of grappling is matched only by A's lack of conditioning. B removes A's hoodie. Multiple armbars are available, but A does not capitalize.
2:16-2:20 - B is able to execute a bump-and-roll (upa) sweep, landing in A's guard. A does well to control B's posture. An introductory lesson at their local Brazilian jiu jitsu school would have been a good option for both A and B.
2:20-3:07 - B tries landing strikes from the guard, but poor posture makes them ineffectual. A goes with an open guard, but a total lack of hip movement makes submissions unlikely. The sequence ends with an illegal groin strike.
3:07-4:12 - Too much talking. I have a feeling they may not be wearing the required mouth guards. At 3:27 a dog barks.
4:12-4:25 - A attempts an omoplata, but forgets to hook B's arm. This general lack of control allows B to strike A. A goes to turtle position.
4:25-4:37 - B attempts to take A's back, but does not secure the over/under or the hooks. As A stands up, B goes for an elevated (flying?) crucifix, but B counters it by dumping A on his head.
4:37-4:55 - With B on his back and A standing, A attempts multiple torino passes, but is unable to get to side position.
4:55-5:19 - Round 2 ends, but A shows a lack of sportsmanship by threatening to spit on B. 10-9 A.
Result: 19-19 Draw.

Note: I suspect this may not have been a sanctioned Amateur MMA event.

TL;DR: At 3:27 a dog barks.

People do manage to fool them sometimes and get to go on stage in Vegas. Penn and Teller also sometimes tell everyone how a trick is done. I think that they decide if it's something unique or not. This one was something that they seemed to think was very clever, so they didn't explain it.

They also have Penn and Teller perform a trick at the end of each show. I prefer the shows with just Penn and Teller doing magic, but this series still blows away "The Magicians" on BBC One. That was a terrible magic show with B-list celebrities as magicians/assistants that was aired shortly after the first Fool Us on ITV in January.

There was never a Mr. T sketch. It was a gag for the end of the show "send-off".

At the end they're showing just how futile resistance really is.

that dana chick has no idea what she is talking about.
trickle down economics=proven failure.
the top 2% have NOT created new jobs and when given tax breaks they:
1.do not spend that extra cash but rather invest..in OTHER countries AND focus their immense wealth to further lobby legislation to promote their own self-interest (be they a corporation or private person).
2.the stimulus was not meant to create jobs but rather stabilize our consumer based economy in the form of credit lines remaining open and while the debate may be if it was too small or too big there is no debate if it worked..it did.

i really have a problem with shows like this and we are inundated with them.on the surface it appears to be attempting to understand complex topics and discuss possible reasons and solutions but all the public gets are people regurgitating talking points and rhetoric and nothing gets accomplished.
entertaining?
maybe... for some i guess, but at the end of the show viewers are still ignorant to the reality of the situation.
this woman dana even tried to promote a false narrative using historical context and even the context she tried to use was propaganda!
but if you didnt KNOW the history she may have sounded reasonable and authoritive and you may have been swayed to accept her premise.
this is the place most americans find themselves.giving authority to a person just because they may be on TV and speak in a confident manner,even though the information they are using is patently false.


ignorance is curable but not with shows such as this.
shows like this only serve to keep people ignorant and they seem to only be getting more popular.

Transcript:

If I oppose health care, I'm against the poor; if I oppose their ridiculous climate change bill, I hate the planet and I'm a flat-Earth, moon-landing denier; if I oppose illegal immigration, I'm anti-Hispanic; if I oppose the stimulus package, I'm against the president because he's black; if I oppose the massive deficit increasing exponentially by this administration, I loved it the previous eight years; if I support the troops, I'm a war-monger; if I attended a tea party, I'm crazy; if I favor traditional marriage, I'm a homophobe; if I oppose abortion, I'm against women; if I oppose the Fairness Doctrine, I hate diversity; if I oppose strong-arm unions, I'm against workers.

So, taking all of their arguments, one by one, and adding them all together, I guess it would be safe to assume that according to the inclusive, diverse progressives that I'm just a crazed, poor person-hating, flat-Earth believing, moon-walk denying, deficit-loving, homophobic, xenophobe, who is a homogenous, women-hating, racist, that loathes hard-working, blue-collar Americans.

Oh, did I mention I'm a warmongering, jingoistic fatso? That hates children? And puppies? And spits on trees? And shoots gerbils, just for sport?

And if I don't hate, I'm simply dangerous. A fearsome, mob-inciting, redneck, flesh-eating monstrous, rhetoric spewing, out-of-control religious zealot, bent on blowing something up, maybe even before the end of the show.

It's nice that fans of this show like the one that posted this video explain the ending of the show, but looking at the comments for people who haven't seen the show I think this is a focus on one of the show's weaker points, that being the explanation, or lack thereof, of it's mythology. It can be argued either way that certain plot devices were left unsettled (cough* Waaaaalt *cough) but it may be a better thing because people with imagination can fill in the plot holes. Many of the things explained were only revealed in the last season of the show. The show's strong point was it's character development and the knowledge that no one was completely safe from dying. Any of the main characters could die at any time and every death was always heartfelt.
I challenge anyone who has not seen Lost who read this post to go to google abc's free tv episode viewer and watch the first 5 episodes of Lost and see what they think.