I completely agree with her about Lars on many points. He often (very often actually) makes his technique seem "the best in the world" when compared to ANY other technique (as there are A LOT of shooting techniques; some that need different bows, materials, and setups).

Kind of like being able to shoot through plate-mail... Lars would NEVER be able to pull that off (of course no one, with a shortbow and the wrong arrow--or tip--will be doing it either; the crossbow is as close as you can get to being small and puncturing plate) as it requires a huge amount of pull force to puncture plate (even heavy English oaken wood shields). The type of bow is a big issue, because that is where you get your draw strength. But, what type of tip you have on your arrow will determine whether or not it even goes into or just bounces off the armor...

However, for the most part, archers didn't try to puncture plate armor--because to be honest about it: it was HARD, it required a VERY heavy bow and expensive tips (of course the bows were also expensive, because they would not be made out of normal material--it might be a specially imported type of wood that could hold up to extreme forces; the string may also be made of something a bit different than normal). So, you didn't have very many people walking around with the innate ability to puncture plate. BUT, what most archers trained a VERY long time to accomplish was extreme accuracy, for one reason alone: armor.

Instead of trying to puncture plate or even chain, archers instead aimed for gaps or areas were there was no coverage (basically anywhere you bend or connect the armor to another piece or tie/connect itself together; so places like under the armpit or along the side of the body were the armor is pulled together and tied shut). Then they may not have to go through anything at all, or they will only have light leather or heavy cloth armor in the way--either way they will penetrate, and they will slowly kill their target by slowing them down and immobilizing them, then moving in for the finishing blow OR if they hit the right place they can just let blood loss finish them off...

But, this requires extreme accuracy, especially in battle AND especially so if you are firing from a horse (if you were lucky you were able to ride behind someone and concentrate solely on firing your shots, then you could add a bit of speed as well). This is the one place that Lars has horribly mislead people--OR he has made a really great breakthrough. But, if Lars never bothers to really demonstrate this stuff, we have no idea how great an archer he really is.

His entire video is one gigantic edit. Every shot and "trick" has been setup with the camera in the right place. The biggest problem is we don't know if it took Lars 1000 attempts to accomplish some of these feats (he makes it sound in some areas that it happens VERY fast, however...but due to the editing, or how he edited it, we actually have no idea if his claims are true) or if he did it in ten...or right off the bat...

That is why I said we needed to wait for Lars to actually talk to us about this whole thing, and to clear various areas up (records and competition). Because he has set a very high bar for himself, and from his own video he seems to be amazing--but, I like many know that if you edit enough and try something over and over again, you can make yourself look like an expert *whatever* whenever you wish to do it...

I agree heavily with her about his historic claims (and also mocking him on his "super clumsy" shots and setups to make fun of "modern" archers); she also points out, correctly, how wrong he is on some of those claims. Like everyone shooting from the left side; which somehow Lars, in ALL his studying completely and utterly missed. Which tells me one thing: she knows more about archery history than Lars actually does.

But, is Lars actually a great archer? Would Lars be a good archer in a battle, or more specifically his "technique"? Lastly, is he really an unique archer more than worth praising? We won't know until Lars does what I mentioned above; he must meet these criticisms head on.

If we allow Lars time to learn how to ride a horse; or it might be a bit more fair to just allow him to ride behind someone controlling the horse, which was a common practice even in battle (then make sure Lars knows how to also fire properly from a horse, since it requires controlling a horse--if you're alone--and staying on the horse using your thigh muscles...which is actually a pretty hard thing to do...and requires expert horsemanship; asking Lars to accomplish this is laughable, as this type of thing would have been a lifetime achievement in the past AND any archer that could fire fast, accurate, and ride a horse by himself...would have been a horrific force on the battlefield; then give him a sword/melee skill--make sure they have a lot of upper body strength--and a very well made, thick steel buckler and he'd be godlike; and then enough armor to protect from arrows...BUT this means you have to be very strong...otherwise you will never be able to accomplish ANY of the feats with the bow mentioned above; BTW, I'm mentioning a superhero right here, there "may" have been a few people like this in history, but they would've been very few and far apart...and more than likely used sparingly).

Mounted archers are extremely powerful against all units that are mounted yet slower than them and of course those on foot and without a long range means of attacking them (at least shorter than the mounted archer's range), this I will always agree with. We already know that mounted archery units could create absolute havoc in the past, see: Alexander The Great. However, eventually people figured out how to deal with this type of threat as well... But, horse mounted archers do have their "nemeses", namely foot archers--since they can take some time (if an arrow comes their way, they block it--it is much harder for a horse archer to carry around a big shield or at least just have on sitting nearby--or you can aim for their horse, which is why above I said that "superhero" like warrior would need a melee skill, because eventually they WILL be on the ground).

So, again, we have to wait and see if Lars bothers to respond to this video and to ALL of the others that have also been made (he did make a lot of people angry; as he did make some stuff up and possibly "overshoot" the mark on other claims and possibly even his own abilities...). I won't hold my breath though.

I think we can all come to a fairly logical conclusion on this. If Lars NEVER responds to anything, then we will have to assume that a lot of his "super-speed" with "accuracy" was due to one thing alone: editing.

Phew, I think that covers everything...it certainly was long enough!!!!

I watched it carefully. His arm moves very fast for a dying man. Keep in mind, I think they set the tone of Oberyn's amazing speed and reaction time when they first introduced him and he nailed that guard's hand to the table. So I would have liked them to persist with that (as in, fast as the Mountain was he would still be too slow)

Being run through with a huge bladed spear twice will inflict massive trauma to a very vascular region, creating immediate blood loss and very quick hypovolaemic shock. I agree that you can keep going until your blood pressure is low enough to knock you down (I was a paramedic - that's bread and butter stuff for me). But he already fell down involuntarily. If he made a massive adrenaline fueled exertion after that I expect to see rainbows of blood coming out of the Mountain (for the viewers pleasure of course) and for you to be slower (you've got blood loss! - which doesn't speed you up).

As I wrote I haven't read the books, so a lot of the nuances will be lost on me (and other unenlighted).

I would have dropped the emotion and instead pushed the cockiness of Oberyn and let that be his downfall (and you could have almost the exact same ending).

I understand in the book the Mountain is like 8 feet tall. This would have helped with the skull popping effect (which is not possible by even the strongest men in our world). And it would have made it look cool with a veritable giant next to Oberyn.

This scene is pretty close to how it goes down in the book, save a little variation in how the final blow is administered.

I also completely disagree, I think the director completely nailed it. It plays up to a lifetime of predictable cliché's only to turn them right around and give us a dose of cold hard reality.

Hero's frequently loose, villains frequently win, overconfidence is a weakness and having a just cause is no guarantee of victory.

Oberyn wins the fight but allows his need for vengeance to cloud his judgement. He starts calm and works himself into more and more of a frenzy over a neurosis he has carried for many years. IMHO this was portrayed pretty authentically, he starts calm (as he has learned to be) but as the fight progresses he allows the guard to drop and the raging emotions to manifest properly.

Now he can afford to let these bottled up feeling out properly, the mountain is right there and soon he will kill him! Throw in some adrenaline and the anticipation of that moment overwhelms the self control that earned him the title red viper.

I also don't see how you can describe the mountain as a "super ninja" here. Everything he does at the end is an exercise in brute strength, let's not forget he's wearing mailed fists, the blow to the mouth need not be especially strong or quick to do the damage. All he does after that is roll on top of him with the last bit of strength and rage he has (spurred on by his "beetle crushing" fuck everything mindset). Subsequently crushing the skull has more to do with his upper body weight as his hands alone.

A massive strong man yanks someone's legs out from under them, punches them in the mouth and then climbs on top (while they are stunned) to finish the job.

Being run through doesn't necessarily stop one's muscles from working until the blood loss kicks in. Doubly so with the adrenaline of a life or death fight (and the anaesthetic effect massive trauma has on the nervous system). There are countless stories of soldiers and criminals being mortally wounded by multiple shots to the chest who continued attacking till the blood loss overcame them. Gregor Clegane is exactly the sort of psycho who might exhibit such bloody minded behaviour.

I might also remind you that the Mountain has one more than one occasion been described as "swifter than might be expected for a man of such stature" i.e. not a lumbering hulk. He gets several blows in on Oberyn during the fight. Many of the swings are extremely heavy but they are calculated moves from an expert fighter who is more than capable of moving quickly when needed.

Oberyn is quicker, but the Mountain is not exactly slow (that's one of the reasons why the Mountain is/was formerly undefeated, he's big but can still move relatively quickly for his size).

The resulting blood loss from your dick breaking off would be the official cause of death

>> ^grubert:

From Wikipedia:
"Despite local laws prohibiting trade in slow lorises and slow loris products, as well as protection from international commercial trade under Appendix I, slow lorises are openly sold in animal markets in Southeast Asia and smuggled to other countries, such as Japan. They have also been popularized as pets in viral videos on YouTube. Slow lorises have their teeth cut or pulled out for the pet trade, and often die from infection, blood loss, poor handling, or poor nutrition."
That's why this thing eats rice instead of insects.

From Wikipedia:

"Despite local laws prohibiting trade in slow lorises and slow loris products, as well as protection from international commercial trade under Appendix I, slow lorises are openly sold in animal markets in Southeast Asia and smuggled to other countries, such as Japan. They have also been popularized as pets in viral videos on YouTube. Slow lorises have their teeth cut or pulled out for the pet trade, and often die from infection, blood loss, poor handling, or poor nutrition."

@chilaxe

Nearly every medical association in the world disagrees with you (read the page on the Bioethics of Circumcision that I linked to above). There is no conclusive evidence that it causes any decrease in sensitivity or pleasure. If convincing empirical evidence arose in the future, I'd agree with you entirely--it needs to be banned. But until such evidence arises, any law attempting to stop circumcisions doesn't have a leg to stand on.

@Lawdeedaw

I believe I answered your question multiple times, most specifically in my response to hpqp above. Circumcision is more than just a cosmetic adjustment. But, as I've said in other responses, I wouldn't personally be against parents choosing to make other cosmetic adjustments to their children so long as there was no evidence of permanent harm being done. I think most doctors would agree that cutting off someone's earlobes will cause lasting medical harm. According to Wikipedia:

Since the earlobe does not contain cartilage it has a large blood supply and may help to warm the ears and maintain balance.

So, cutting someone's earlobes off seems at the least potentially likely to kill them (through massive blood loss) and may impair both ear and balance functioning. Plus it doesn't seem like it would prevent any illnesses either. That's why I find it a red-herring argument when discussing circumcision. It's a nice emotional visual, I'll give you that. But it's irrelevant to whether circumcisions should be legally banned or not.

EDIT: Sorry, didn't finish my response to chilaxe before I hit submit. Plus fixed some typos/tags.

A friend of mine recently had his son circumcised, a day or two after he was born. After the procedure, the boy went into shock. Whether it was from blood loss or anesthetic or simply the trauma of the procedure, they never really found out. The boy was teetering on the brink of death for almost two days. I kept my mouth firmly shut, but oh how I wanted to scream at them for having the procedure done at all. Completely unnecessary.

Google circumcision and death. The number isn't terribly high compared to many dangerous things in the world, but why would you volunteer to put your baby at risk like that, even if the chances of death are slim? As others have said, let them grow up and choose for themselves.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

^A tazer is a weapon. It can leave scaring and in rare cases cause death. It is the means to stop a criminal that is not as certain to cause death, and as such should be used sparingly. Many people I know that have undergone the tazer certification say they would rather be shot.
Moreover, this was just some stupid 17 year old running around on the field. Yes, he was being a disruption and should of been dealt with. But using a weapon on someone who is unarmed and not a physical threat is senseless violence.


You've GOT to be kidding me.
Rather be shot than tazed?

let's weigh the options:
Tazed: Intense, searing pain that lasts for 5 seconds and is immediately over, with a negligible chance of complications, OR
Gunshot: Intense, searing pain that lasts for many days, weeks, and possibly months, massive blood loss, obliterated tissue, reduced mobility and function, months of rehabilitation and possible loss organs or limb or death.

Either they're complete idiots, or they were joking.

If he had stuck himself for real we would have seen a notable drop in speech power, shaking in his hand, and shortness of breath.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_%28circulatory%29

I'm refering to Grade 1 shock: "Anxiety, restlessness, altered mental state due to decreased cerebral perfusion and subsequent hypoxia".

Basically the one part of the brain would have said, "WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU DOING!?"

Anyone who has ever had blood drawn knows that one vial feels like. Two vials, feels twice as bad. Some people even faint. This is cased by grade 1 shock, those two or three vials of blood are what were circulating around your body, bringing oxygen around.

This, is a well done trick. However, it was not real given the position of the needle to the Brachial artery, he would be a fool to do this for real.

Still, the effects of grade one shock could be deaden by practice, there is still a chance he was dumb enough to stab himself. Which he sets in the minds of his audience by walking off stage without pulling the needle out. Normally a wounding such as this, the puncturing object is not removed, because of the resulting re-opening of the wound and subsequent blood loss. The object is best removed by medical professionals who can react quickly with a clotting agent, hemostat, or direct pressure on the wound.

Umm...those aren't feather dusters...those are, quite possibly, one of the cruelest implements used in a bullfight (provided the toreador is a good swordsman and doesn't botch the killing blow) - the banderillas (barbed sticks that are stabbed into the bull near his first wound to weaken him from blood loss and enrage him into making more fearsome charges).

We talked about female circumcision in one of my classes earlier this year... the teacher read part of a memoir from a girl raised in some African tribe who went through her circumcision at the age of five. Just listening to the story made me sick to my stomach.

- The practice is never done by a doctor. It's usually performed by a medicinewoman of sorts, who carries her dirty, rusted, bloody, dull razor blade with her from town to town. The "patient" is given no anesthetic. In the case of the little girl we read about, her mother put a gag in her mouth and tied it behind her head. Then she sat there and watched her daughter nearly die of blood loss. The girl slipped in and out of consciousness for three days.

Actually, I just found a site with some interesting statistics. It says that in Egypt, only 0.3% of these surgeries are done in hospitals. Nearly 80% are done in the home.

Path.org tells us "The highest maternal and infant mortality rates are in FGM-practicing regions. The actual number of girls who die as a result of FGM [female genital mutilation] is not known. However, in areas in the Sudan where antibiotics are not available, it is estimated that one-third of the girls undergoing FGM will die. Conservative estimates suggest that more than one million women in Centrafrican Republic (CAR), Egypt, and Eritrea, the only countries where such data is available, experienced adverse health effects from FGM. One quarter of women in CAR and 1/5 of women in Eritrea reported FGM-related complications. Where medical facilities are ill-equipped, emergencies arising from the practice cannot be treated. Thus, a child who develops uncontrolled bleeding or infection after FGM may die within hours."

It's disgusting, and as much as I value the religious or cultural beliefs of others, this should be outlawed. It's akin to torture, and women suffer life-long effects.

According to wikipedia, he passed away after massive blood loss after removing part of the tumor. Theres no citation and a quick google search doesnt find any articles. The lastest thing I can find was something posted yesterday that his death has not been confirmed yet, so it could be just a rumor.

Qwizzers:
I had a feeling it was one of your sneaky ploys to milk us innocent Sifters for all the votes you could get! </sarcasm>

Seriously though, I don't know of any videos with the specifics, but this is a peice I usually refer to:

"Moreover, according to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission there were 37 known vending machine fatalities between 1978 and 1995, for an average of 2.18 deaths per year. Over the past decade there were a total of six recorded shark attack fatalities in the U.S., for an average of .6 deaths per year. Ergo, barring a drastic reduction in the frequency of vending machine accidents since 1995, vending machines are indeed more deadly than sharks by a factor of almost four."

The vending machine fatalities are caused by people most likely rocking the vending machines to the point of falling on them.

You're correct about the Bullsharks as well. In more than most instances of shark attacks, the victim isn't killed, and if they are it is due in part to blood loss. Bullsharks, like all sharks, are curious and the way they explore something unknown is to perform an "exploratory bite" (or so the research I've read states). Of course, biting a human causes the human to freak out, which in turn, causes the shark to freak out, and from then on it becomes a fight for survival in the minds of both animals.

And, as usual, if I'm wrong I'd love to be shown so, seriously. I hate spreading around incorrect information that I originally absorbed believing the data I'd seen is correct!

I would love to have a medical channel. Reporting of this type can be very biased and misleading. I say CAN be.

I have tremendous respect for Dr. Mangano. He has done some REALLY important work. However, it's important to carefully listen to what he said about the drug. He said about his study, "it's shown a TREND towards increased risk of death in-hospital." Medical researchers use the word "trend" to indicate the association between the drug and increased risk of death did not reach a p = .05, which is the standard measure of causation in medical literature. A probability ratio of .05 simply means there is a 5% probability that what you observe is occurring by chance alone.
The FDA mirrors this statement regarding the association not reaching a level of "statistical significance."
http://www.fda.gov/Cder/drug/early_comm/aprotinin.htm

However, I don't know the probability number they did come up with, and evidently it was close enough to .05 that they began to assume causation.

What the studies did confirm was that aprotinin was effective at reducing blood loss during heart surgery, and it was associated with less blood transfusion. If you look at that on the surface, it sounds good because bleeding and transfusion is a significant cause of surgical morbidity and death.

The title of this video includes "Trasydol kills thousands" The commentator clearly states, "Trasydol MAY HAVE CONTRIBUTED to the deaths of thousands of patients." So, the title bends a possibility to a proof. Further, in the majority of cases, it is nearly impossible to say the drug was the ACTUAL cause of the complication in any given case. Was the surgeon who operated on this man trying to deflect blame away from shoddy surgical technique. Believe me, physicians are all too quick to point the finger at someone else.

And, no open heart surgery is routine. It averages around 1 death per hundred cases, hardly routine.

All that being said, I'm not going to defend BAYER. It sounds as if they acted in an irresponsible manner. These days it often appears drug companies wait too long when a "trend" is developing. It seems they are content to wait until they hear the studies have shown a p value of .05. Profits over probabilities. It's a disgrace.