>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

>> ^MilkmanDan:
Cool, but I'm not really informed enough to fully comprehend what I'm seeing. It would be interesting to see it cut away like that under power!

I feel ya, it is like I understand less now. I had a picture in my mind how it worked, now that is gone and I am left with nothing, NOTHING!


On the far right is the clutch plate that mates the power from the engine to all those gears. The power comes in on the bottom teeth and then those syncros mate different gear combinations to different output speeds.

>> ^MilkmanDan:

Cool, but I'm not really informed enough to fully comprehend what I'm seeing. It would be interesting to see it cut away like that under power!


I feel ya, it is like I understand less now. I had a picture in my mind how it worked, now that is gone and I am left with nothing, NOTHING!

Cool, but I'm not really informed enough to fully comprehend what I'm seeing. It would be interesting to see it cut away like that under power!

New Millenium Cyanide Christ

I'M A CARNAL, ORGANIC ANAGRAM. HUMAN FLESH INSTEAD OF WRITTEN LETTERS.
I REARRANGE MY PATHETIC TISSUE. I INCISE. I REPLACE. I'M REFORMED.
I ERADICATE THE FAKE PRE-PRESENT ME. ELEVATE ME TO A HIGHER HUMAN FORM.
THE CHARACTERS I AM, MADE INTO A WORD COMPLETE, THEN I'LL BE THE NEW NORM.

SELF INFLICTED FRACTURES. I REPLACE MY BONES WITH BARS;
ALUMINUM BLEEDING OXIDE; THE DRUG OF GODS INTO MY POUNDING VEINS

(A HUMAN PUZZLE FOR ALL TO SCORN. NO FACE. NO BACK. DIRECTIONLESS.
MY SCARRED EDITION I'LL DISPLAY; THE ORGANIC WORD FOR NOTHINGNESS)

MY RECEIVING EYES EXCHANGED WITH FUSES; BLINDNESS INDUCED TO PREVENT DESTRUCTION.
CERAMIC BLADES IMPLANTED PAST MY RIBS TO SAVE ME FROM THE DUES OF INHALATION.
I TEAR MY WORLDLY USELESS SKIN. STAPLES TO PIN IT OVER MY EARS.
NON-RECEPTIVE OF UNGODLY SOUNDS - I DISABLE THE AUDIO-GENERATORS OF FEAR.

HEXAGONAL BOLTS TO FILL MY MOUTH, SHARPENED TO DEPLETE THE CREATOR OF ALL VIOLENCE;
WITHOUT SPEECH THERE WILL BE NO DECEIT

(MY FEET I CRUSH. THE FLESH I CUT AWAY, SO AS TO NOT PRODUCE THE SOUND OF THEIR PRESENCE ON ROTTEN GROUND)

BAPTIZED IN VITRIOLIC ACID. A FINAL TOUCH. A SMOOTHING OF FEATURES.
COMPLETION OF THE GREATEST ART; TO CAST THE GODLY CREATURES.
HUMANS, ONCE ASTRAY; MADE DIVINE. STRIPPED OF CONGENITAL FLAWS.
WE'RE INCANDESCENT REVELATIONS IN A WORLD OF DARKENED FORMS.

(CONFIDE IN MY NEW AGE DOGMA. SWALLOW THE INDOCTRINATION. YOU'LL COME TO LOVE IT HERE,
THE SUICIDAL ATMOSPHERE. LET ME INTO YOUR COMMON MIND. I'LL PLANT MY THOUGHTS INTO ITS SOIL.
WALK AMONG US SELF-MADE GODS, DEIFIED THROUGH THE PAINS OF SELF TORTURE)

DISCIPLES, COME JOIN WITH ME TO SAVE A FAILED HUMANITY. FOLLOW THE GOD OF CYANIDE INTO THE NEW ETERNITY.
BEHOLD; A SACRIFICIAL RASE A CLEANSING WORSHIPPING OF PAIN.
THE NEW MILLENIUM CHRIST HERE TO REDEEM ALL FROM LIES

(I'VE COME TO SAVE YOU ALL. I'VE COME TO LIGHT YOUR WAY)

>> ^chilaxe:

Why didn't his secondary work?
If they performed rescue breathing better, would he have not passed out?


his secondary is the blue thing caught up with the other guys chute. im guessing when the other guy cut loose it stayed wrapped up on him (lines around legs or body), so when he cut away, he was still caught. his secondary deployed into the mess.

he did loose consciousness at end of video.

His did cut away his chute. (he had a parasail that got cut away) when he is looking up at the end, the blue thing is the secondary.

I always wonder why it's ok to watch a video where the guy is a quadriplegic, but if he died it is snuff. The only reason he lived is someone giving him rescue breathing, I'm guessing he is still on a ventilator.

Wow, that is intense. Does anyone know why he couldn't cut away his own tangled chute?

This weird kid was sifted 16 months ago, although this is not a dupe.

http://videosift.com/video/Attenshhhhun-citizens-of-California

I said it then...I'll say it now: I suspect this kid is making a video bed for a greater creative effort. What in the world is a video bed you may rightly ask?

Well, let's say you were putting on a live stage play. During the play, you needed someone to appear on a television (almost like an entire new character) to provide background info, fake news related to your stage story, whatever it might be...

Or maybe you were shooting a news show and you needed a cut-away to a "live" reporter and your video camera would shoot the monitor displaying that live footage, making it appear as though a live feed were coming through, like a nested video thing...

Understand?

Well, that footage must be shot separately, yes?

And so here it is. I hope.

Downvote for cutting away before the teabag.

>> ^NetRunner:

Heh, it's funny, I originally was going to say something along the lines of "this is silly / you obviously don't understand..." in my last comment but decided against it.
Again, I'll remind you that you came into this thread basically telling me that I shouldn't be making a fuss about this.
Now at least you're admitting there's a problem, but you're still hell bent on saying that blaming the people running the networks is off limits, as is suggesting any sort of regulation (e.g. it's false advertising to call Hannity "news"). I disagree with both of those assertions.
But the one solution you're supposedly okay with -- changing the minds of consumers -- was really what I was trying to do by posting the video and writing my comments saying "this is wrong".
At that stage, you got in my face, and have kept in it doggedly insisting I'm doing something wrong by saying they're doing something wrong!
Yes, I put the blame on the news organizations, because they're the ones doing it. Yes, consumers have the power to fix that with their own choices. Should my comment be "you stupid people out there are fucking up the news by still watching the news"?
I understand the entire mechanism you lay out. You don't seem to understand that I understand that, and have for a very long time. You don't seem to understand that it's not the only way the world has to work. It also won't ever change if you try to shout down the people who speak out and say "it doesn't have to be like this" by constantly saying "yes it does!"
Yes, I get that technically you're saying "well, maybe if you change human nature." But then you can't really change human nature. Especially if you go around telling anyone who tries that they just don't understand it's just the way the world is and you're not facing reality...


We just have a different take on it.

When I said "silly argument", I didn't mean that you were silly or that you didn't get it, I meant that I felt the argument was silly because I agree with almost everything that you're saying here. I'm not trying to get in your face. I guess I'm just a little cynical lately because I feel that the "problem" begins and ends with the consumer. There is a lot of corporate crap in the middle of that shit sandwich, but in the end it's the consumers eating it. They are the ones choosing to increase ratings and they are the ones who refuse to stop watching. I'm not trying to tell you not to make a fuss about anything. I'm just telling you how I see things.

I feel like I'm being misunderstood here. Try not to read that as "you are incapable of understanding", because that isn't what I'm saying.

I don't think you can "change the minds of consumers". I think most people just don't care. And yes, most of them are just oblivious. I randomly asked someone today (a statistical analyst) "Who is the Secretary of State" and their answer was "Rumsfeld". I also think that most people prefer to have "news" reflected back to them that confirms their views.

Forget it, I don't want to rehash my opinion . I just want you to know that I'm not saying "yes it does" have to be this way. "Yes, consumers have the power to fix that with their own choices." For me, that sums it up, in your own words.

Like I said, I'm not trying to win anything here, not trying to sway you or get in your face .. just telling you what I think and I apologize if you think I was getting in your face. I honestly believe we agree 99% of the way here .. but for me the balance of culpability leans towards the consumers not the broadcasters. In other words, I place more hope in people than I do corporations, and although I'm universally disappointed by both, more so by the people.

I'm sorry you took offense to what I had to say here. I never wanted that. I'm not trying to shout you down or tell you you don't understand reality, I'm telling you my opinion of how I perceive the reality of the situation. That's all. I'm going to just drop it because like I said, it's silly to argue with someone that I basically agree with.

>> ^burdturgler:

This is sort of a silly argument at this point, but I'd like you to understand one thing. I'm not defending the way news is handled. I've said several times that it's awful and shitty .. but it is reality. You don't want it to be reality. Neither do I. But the solution to changing it starts with the consumers, I guess that's where we disagree. The only reason they cut away was for ratings. Again! Yes! That sucks. But that is what a money making machine will do in response to ratings based revenue. Ratings. Ratings. People Watching. People. There's your problem.


Heh, it's funny, I originally was going to say something along the lines of "this is silly / you obviously don't understand..." in my last comment but decided against it.

Again, I'll remind you that you came into this thread basically telling me that I shouldn't be making a fuss about this.

Now at least you're admitting there's a problem, but you're still hell bent on saying that blaming the people running the networks is off limits, as is suggesting any sort of regulation (e.g. it's false advertising to call Hannity "news"). I disagree with both of those assertions.

But the one solution you're supposedly okay with -- changing the minds of consumers -- was really what I was trying to do by posting the video and writing my comments saying "this is wrong".

At that stage, you got in my face, and have kept in it doggedly insisting I'm doing something wrong by saying they're doing something wrong!

Yes, I put the blame on the news organizations, because they're the ones doing it. Yes, consumers have the power to fix that with their own choices. Should my comment be "you stupid people out there are fucking up the news by still watching the news"?

I understand the entire mechanism you lay out. You don't seem to understand that I understand that, and have for a very long time. You don't seem to understand that it's not the only way the world has to work. It also won't ever change if you try to shout down the people who speak out and say "it doesn't have to be like this" by constantly saying "yes it does!"

Yes, I get that technically you're saying "well, maybe if you change human nature." But then you can't really change human nature. Especially if you go around telling anyone who tries that they just don't understand it's just the way the world is and you're not facing reality...

>> ^NetRunner:

If you asked everyone "do you want the news to focus on bullshit, or important stuff?" do you think people would overwhelmingly respond "I want bullshit"?
If you asked everyone "do you want the news to lie to you, or do you want them to tell the truth?" do you think people would overwhelmingly respond "I want to be lied to"?
It's true that people watching Hannity like Hannity. But why does Hannity have a show in the first place? Because someone decided produce a show where ideological propaganda would get sold to people as news.
Who made that choice? Were people complaining that the news was just too truthful?
What choice do you think people tuning into Hannity think they're making? "I want to be told comforting lies?" or "I want the truth, and only Fox News has it?"
As for who should hold news corporations responsible, of course it should be the consumers of news, and people generally. But first you have to get people to stop defending the news media by saying things like "Blame the idiots who devour this garbage" or "to blame corporations is the same as blaming a snake for biting you" and generally get in the face of someone who says "that's not what they're supposed to be doing" when they cut away from Pelosi when she says she won't talk about Weiner!

"If you asked everyone...?


It's a loaded question. Of course, most people are going to respond that they don't want to be lied to. The problem is, it's not a lie if the person lying to you agrees with you. That's just affirmation.

Let's say there is a magical room that "everyone" can sit in. On the left side of this room there is serious debate being honestly reported and covered by good journalists over the fiscal solvency of social security. On the right side of the room is a Bugs Bunny cartoon (or a Jerry Springer episode, a Lady Gaga video, an Alex Jones bit .. ie. anything else). In which direction do you think most of "everyone" is looking?

Most people honestly don't give a shit, they are struggling with their own lives and a quick escape is what they're after. When it's time for news, they don't want honesty, they want the comfort of a voice that confirms their own beliefs. I don't think Hannity viewers (for example) are making a choice between "comforting lies" and "I want the truth, and only Fox News has it?", I think they are comforted by lies because it confirms the easily digestible "truths" they already hold and they're either unwilling or unable to invest more time or intelligence to understand the complexity of reality further.

McCain/Palin got around 46% of the vote in 2008. That means 46% of people were comfortable with the idea of Sarah Palin having the nuclear launch codes of the U.S. arsenal if McCain died (a real possibility considering his age). Don't overestimate people.

This is sort of a silly argument at this point, but I'd like you to understand one thing. I'm not defending the way news is handled. I've said several times that it's awful and shitty .. but it is reality. You don't want it to be reality. Neither do I. But the solution to changing it starts with the consumers, I guess that's where we disagree. The only reason they cut away was for ratings. Again! Yes! That sucks. But that is what a money making machine will do in response to ratings based revenue. Ratings. Ratings. People Watching. People. There's your problem.

If you asked everyone "do you want the news to focus on bullshit, or important stuff?" do you think people would overwhelmingly respond "I want bullshit"?

If you asked everyone "do you want the news to lie to you, or do you want them to tell the truth?" do you think people would overwhelmingly respond "I want to be lied to"?

It's true that people watching Hannity like Hannity. But why does Hannity have a show in the first place? Because someone decided produce a show where ideological propaganda would get sold to people as news.

Who made that choice? Were people complaining that the news was just too truthful?

What choice do you think people tuning into Hannity think they're making? "I want to be told comforting lies?" or "I want the truth, and only Fox News has it?"

As for who should hold news corporations responsible, of course it should be the consumers of news, and people generally. But first you have to get people to stop defending the news media by saying things like "Blame the idiots who devour this garbage" or "to blame corporations is the same as blaming a snake for biting you" and generally get in the face of someone who says "that's not what they're supposed to be doing" when they cut away from Pelosi when she says she won't talk about Weiner!

>> ^burdturgler:

What makes you think people 'in power' need an excuse?
You're comparing buying gas and clothes to watching cable news. They're not the same thing. People don't need to watch Hannity, they do it because THEY LIKE IT. The masses don't stand up to stop it because they're busy diving face first into the trough and gorging on it.
Yes, the corporations that produce "news" should be held accountable. But if not by their consumers then who?

>> ^burdturgler:

I disagree that the only people with influence over this situation are those who have wealth and "power", and with your characterization of viewers as "powerless". In my mind it's the complete opposite. The viewers have all the power. The power to write. To call. To contact advertisers. To e-mail .. twitter, blog, petition, etc etc their unhappiness and unwillingness to partake of the "product". And most importantly, the power to change the channel, cancel subscriptions and so on.

And my point is that this kind of reasoning winds up being an easy excuse for virtually any decision anyone in power ever makes. It's sort of a "the masses didn't rise up in rebellion to stop me, so it must be okay" sort of philosophy.

Nobody wants the environment protected, because they haven't given up using electricity or gasoline.

Nobody wants to stop sweatshops from operating, because they keep buying cheap clothes at Walmart.

It's not the people watching Fox, buying gas, and tube socks who're spreading propaganda, playing fast and loose with safety on oil wells, and running sweatshops.

I agree, in theory collective action could stop all those things. But that's very different from saying the people running the companies cannot or should not be held responsible for the choices they're making about how they do business, because it's really their customers making all the moral choices.

"Ultimately it comes down to who you think is responsible for the way the world is. Is it the people with all the wealth, power, and influence, or is it the people who are poor and powerless that tune in to the nightly tabloid, and think they're hearing about what's going on in the world?"


I asked you the same question above. "What do you think is really the driving force NetRunner? The people who broadcast or the people who watch?" Clearly you think the broadcasters are most culpable for the problem we both agree exists.


But why would you blame the network? It's not their job to educate or inform people. They are not a community service. They are a corporation driven by profits. Apparently, they've run the numbers and garbage is what sells. You may think it wouldn't cause a significant drop in ratings to avoid hype, but that's because you would appreciate more substantial fare. Many people would. Unfortunately the vast majority doesn't and the proof is all over every form of media available. Is that shitty news for "news"? Sure is. But to blame corporations is the same as blaming a snake for biting you.

I disagree that the only people with influence over this situation are those who have wealth and "power", and with your characterization of viewers as "powerless". In my mind it's the complete opposite. The viewers have all the power. The power to write. To call. To contact advertisers. To e-mail .. twitter, blog, petition, etc etc their unhappiness and unwillingness to partake of the "product". And most importantly, the power to change the channel, cancel subscriptions and so on.

I shouldn't have used the word "stupid". I'm not out their clubbing mentally challenged people like baby seals. It was a catch all phrase for what I tried to clarify as "a bunch of fucking zombie-eyed, vote-texting, self-involved twittering imbeciles with an attention span of 10 seconds or less." Those are the people I blame.

>> ^NetRunner:

Like I said, I don't blame stupid people for being stupid. No one chooses to be an idiot. Smart people with control over a major broadcast network, them I blame.
I reject the notion that people wouldn't be interested in topics of substance. I think people are hungry for it. I think that's doubly true if broadcasters actually tried to make what's important interesting, instead of trying to make what's sensational seem important. I seriously doubt their ratings would go down if their quality improved.
The real problem is that it'd cut into profit margins. It costs a little more to cover any of our 3 wars, or the economy than it does for someone to just peruse twitter and talk about the latest gossip. It wouldn't really cost all that much more, but it'd be more than nothing. But since their goal is only to make money, then the argument will basically be "why bother spending money you don't have to?"
Ultimately it comes down to who you think is responsible for the way the world is. Is it the people with all the wealth, power, and influence, or is it the people who are poor and powerless that tune in to the nightly tabloid, and think they're hearing about what's going on in the world?
>> ^burdturgler:
We both agree that it's a shitty situation. But if people tuned out, the situation would change. They don't .. because the majority of people actually likes the product, and that is what really sucks.