>> ^sadicious:

>> ^westy:
couple of issues with this
1) FUCKING CALL THE POLICE OR SUMONE FIRST BEFORE FILMING ( might have done this anyway )
2) IF FILMING KEEP THE ACTION IN FRAME
3) THE OTHER CAR COULD VEER RIGHT OR LEFT DONT DRIVE INLINE WITH IT YOU RETARDS
also it dosent matter that the people find it funny, finding something funny does not mean that you wont be pragmatic, productive or have empathy with people involved and consequences.

1. What if they don't have a cell phone with them?
2. You didn't pay him to keep it in frame. Infact, you didn't pay him at all!
3. How else do they attempt to keep the action in frame?
3b. Humor is often connected with hardship. They came to the conclusion that the driver was doing it intentionally. One of them mentioned that they wanted to see what would happen at a bridge. This isn't so they could see a bloody mess, but so they could see some more action with the drivers off-road skills. I doubt anyone in the car filming wanted to see this person kill or be killed. If only they read the newspaper from tomorrow, they may of acted better.


you didn't comprehend what I wrote granted I write like a retard but other people understood what I put

1) thats obvouse why would you make that piont bvously that logic is self containd in what i said , its also likely they r filming it on a phone in the first place as that's the most likely video camara people would have to hand in this situation ( WHAT IF THEY WERE ALL DEFF !!!! WHAT IF THEY HAD NO BATTERIES , WHAT IF THEY ALL HAD ERECTIONS THAT WAS BLOCKING THERE HANDS FROM POCKETS )

2) why does it matter if I paid them if you are going to go to the effort to film something should at least try and do a good job of it evan if its for themselfs

3) well what you do is you work out that you are moving around allot so you keep the shot zoomed out you then angle yourself as such so that the subject is kept in frame , the driver would also stay behind the car so that if it did veer off he would have time to react and this would allso let the guy filming film clearly people watch tv they should know these things from police chases film sequences and by generally thinking.


3b) you didn't understand what I said

>> ^therealblankman:

HOW FUCKED UP IS A WORLD WITH FUCKING HOMELESS CHILDREN?!? ESPECIALLY IN THE RICHEST NATION ON EARTH!!!
Despicable.
As for this young woman, I wish her all the best. I hope that she can have all her hopes, dreams, ambitions and goals fulfilled.


because unregulated capitlisum works perfectly in fact if we ferther deregulate markets and increase the amount of corporate involvement in government then I'm sure things will only get better ( not like that lead to exploitation of uneducated pore people and the market crash in 08)

Its max lol that she is homeless in USA and how USA has massive homeless issue, total fail I mean UK is pritty shitty with its wealth gap but at least after WW2 it became far harder to be homeless and has a basic welfair state still intact ( mind you conservatives and retards are curently doing away with it privatising the NHS and removing other things that are proven to benefit all of a society )

In the uk people are generally only homeless because they are mentally ill chose it and or slipped though the under funded system , but not simply because they are pore or out of work.

Whats mental is the argument against welfair that some people will be lazy and scrounge and yes sure there will be but you know what I would happily pay tax for 4 scroungers if that means 1 non scrounger gets support from it. I would also happily have 10 people getting housing bonofit inappropriately if that means 1 person is not made homeless. once a person is homeless its very hard for them to get even a basic job or contribute to society at all, if you save 1 person from being homeless and they just get a minimum wage job the economic benefit from that is worth hundreds of thousands if not millions over there life.

Allso helth and all these things affect everyone if you dont have free helth then STD's spred to evan the rich people same with environment based desizes and a pore populations tendency to resort to hard drugs fact is if you dont spred welth pore people will do hard drugs to escape there shit lives and a % of rich people will get drawn into that directly or indirectly.

LOL ARE PEOPLE THICK ?

1) Both people consented to it

2) both people appear mentally sound

3) there was minimal long term risk to the health of the people involved

Lets just compare this to other shit that's on tv where we see people jumping of buildings or doing dares that are ridiculously dangerous where there is a high chance sumone will get permanently hurt I mean for fucks sake footballers probably have more risk of serous ingery (and involuntary) than what happened on this show , what about shows that exploit people or companies that sell products they know will have an adverse effect on people yet still market them aggressively asoceating them with healthy thing.

If anyone has a real problem with this then they should have a evan larger problem with the majorty of tv.

The only real arguments against / problems with canablisum should be if your are canablising people against there will , depriving someone of life , exsploiting sumone with a mental disorder/lower mental facalty or stand a high chance of catching and perpetuating a Diseas.

I think its nice finding potentaily inhabitable planets with life , but its a bit of a cock tease no chance in hell will we ever go to one of these places not in the next 1,500 - 3000 years I doubt we will get a visual light spectrum view of them for at least 300-500 years , and maybe some detailed direct radio observation for 150-200 years.

Its actually prity meaningless/useless finding these planets other than confirming that the universe has many planets and high probability of many earth like planets , but I think we knew that prity much for certain maby 20-30 years ago.

Don't get me wrong I Think of Astrophysics of massive importance and a scientific imperative to persure as it will have tangible ramifications on earth evan if unpredictable ones.

Seems to me that you can learn so much more about space and the universe with exsperments on earth such as being done with the LHC , or observations of how mater is spred out in general and those kind of observations.

still would rather have kepler doing its shit than spending money on wars , and i bet kepler probably only costs a small % of all the communications and media satalites we launch so for the relative cost its probably worth it just for shits and gigles.

bit of a missed opertunity , music was good , but really half arsed effort with the projected video looked like a 1990's cinema promo video or some 1990s theme park 3d video.

Just using basic colours but lighting multiple buildings up in time with the music would be infinetly better , often for music visualization the more minimal and selective things are what have the most impact.

the whole building projection working with the architectural can work well but evan then i think the more minimal effects are the most striking , like having water pore down the building or making it look like the building has changed shape as a whole by blocking parts off , or lighting features of the building up like the windows in a way to make it look like the building is doing stuff rather than sumone simply projecting an image on the building.

"1) How is picketing Wall Street helping Jobs."

The point is there are a small group of people that have a large amount of welth and are using that wealth to control the political and legal system and have basicly hijacked the democracy. That is what the 99% ers are protesting.

until You remove control from people who have a compleat conflict of interest then you cannot address the core aspect of job creation.
If these protests have the desired effect , the knock on result would be that government and industry can rationally approach things in a way that might work and would in the end result in a better quality of life for more people and most likely more jobs.

"2) They keep blaming Fox News / Republicans. But a republican isn't president, "

They blame fox news because it is a media outlet owned by the small % of super rich people and a part of there method of using wealth to control the nation. fox news is also entirely disingenuous and presents its self as a news station and fair and balanced when in fact it solely exists to push the agenda of the very rich in society.

They blame republicans more so than democrats because republican policy benefits the super rich more so than the democrats policy , having said that I think most people don't even see this as a republican or democrats issue the fact is both governments are largely as bad as each other. Fact is if you have enough money you can simply lobby things into existence evan if they are a detriment to the society at large.

"3) I can't get behind these people because they have no Game Plan"

there game plan and what they want is ridiculously clear and simple they want wealth to be more evenly spread and for policy and laws to be made based on what is good for the majority of people in the country not a select few that happen to be super wealthy.

The reason why they are having to protest and kick up a fuss how they are is because democracy is so fundimentaly broken and tilted towards wealth deciding things that unless you are rich or in a high up cooperate position you cannot have any influence to gain traction.







>> ^ptrcklgrs:

Sorry but I don't think I missed your point. Also I am not playing ignorant. I didn't think those points needed recognition.
I recognize unemployment is at an all time high.
I recognize a large percentage of those are college graduates.
I believe everything you said. I pretty much agreed with your idea, sorry if I'm misinterpreting is that, jobs are hard to get these days even for college students and there is a definite issue with over qualifications.
I don't understand what I said that would induce a statement from you encouraging a response from me in the terms "You are right, and I was wrong". I re-read what I wrote and don't think that there was any blanket statement made, let alone one that has an extreme contradiction to what you said. So sorry if I'm a little lost. If you could quote the statement I made that you clearly disagree with I would be happy to discuss.
One of my points I feel like you may of missed, is that College is graduating more people in fields then there are jobs for that field. Which isn't helpful because people end up "throwing away" their degrees and getting jobs in other fields and now have to pay off student loans making it hard to get by.
I do recognize the issue with Entry Level Jobs. In programming I see job offerings all the time that say "Entry Level Position" then on it "2-4 years experience" I already have a job so I every time I see that I've started e-mailing those companies "2-4 Years expierience" !== "Entry Level" (!== means not equal, nerd joke).
Also their is a difference between Lying and omission from a Resume. I guess I shouldn't of used "Lie". My bad. Their is nothing wrong with not putting in PHD and rather just putting in BA. You don't have to put everything on a resume, I mean I've seen some with people with Dog Watching on their resume. A lot of job consultants will tell you not to make one generic and use it for everyone. Tweak it to what's important to the company you are applying for. Not lying.
My issue with this whole "99%":
1) How is picketing Wall Street helping Jobs. These people don't have a game plan, they are just screaming. Wall Street guys are huge douche bags, but at the same time I still have money in the market and my portfolio is still doing well. It's growth has definitely slowed over the past few years but it is still more then 3 years ago. Mainly I diversified. All these people who lost all their money had all their eggs in one basket. Which there is a saying for that.
2) They keep blaming Fox News / Republicans. But a republican isn't president, and for a period Democrats held House and Senate and President. During these times They still blamed Fox News / Republicans for everything. Dems had all the power at a time and didn't do shit with it. I just want to know when they are going to start holding Obama accountable. Obama is a terrible president. The problem is when I say that people think I'm defending Bush or some crap. Fuck Bush. Fuck Obama. Give me another Option. I though Clinton did a fine job. So did Bush Sr.
3) I can't get behind these people because they have no Game Plan. If they had Action Items Examples "Fire This Person", "Pass This Bill", "something" I could possibly get behind their ideas and message. But they don't so I don't even know what they want. They just go "I don't like the economy and the job situation". Nobody does. Hell even Rich do, the higher employment is, the more money Ford, Chevy, Coca Cola, other big companies make. So they are not against jobs.
To quote Lewis Black "Republicans have Bad Ideas, Democrats have No Ideas".
>> ^MycroftHomlz:
I am slightly frustrated (annoyed) that you missed my point, given that I think I made it very clear.
Not everyone who is having trouble finding a job is undereducated, not willing to explore labor jobs, educated in something that is not useful, or self-entitled.
In fact, quite the opposite. Most people I know who are having trouble finding work are unemployed because they lack industry experience, which they can't get because no one is hiring entry level positions. Thus, your reductive and simplistic rant is an naive interpretation of the current economic situation. As such, your blanket statements about people who can't find a job are simply false.
I gave a specific example that demonstrated empirically (a concrete example of) my point. To reiterate (repeat), highly educated people are unable to obtain labor jobs due to their credentials, because companies like Safeway, Wholes Foods, Walmart, etc fear these employees will not stay long enough to recoup any investment in training.
The fact that you persist in clinging on to your beliefs and cant say simply "You are right, and I was wrong. Good point, I should not have made a blanket statement" indicates to me that you are willfully ignorant (intentionally making an effort to not understand).
I look forward to your reply.
Here are the specific answers to your questions:
1) I am an experimental physicist and my wife is a biologist.
2) At research universities (Harvard, Stanford, etc), Professors hired based on research. Typically they are pioneers in their field and have numerous high profile publications.
3) My position is based on merit. As I said, I received numerous awards based on my academic and research performance.
4 & 5) non sequiturs (off topic).
6) You advice is to LIE! What is she supposed to say she has done for employment in the last 6 years? Are you kidding me?
>> ^ptrcklgrs:
1) My first question is what is your PHD in.
2) College sadly has gotten to be a for profit education system.
3) IV league schools probably only 10% of the people who go there, got in on merit.
4) I had a teacher in college who made us Buy his book... I had great teachers and I had shitty teachers.
5) I just want to be able to get rid of the shitty teachers to bring in more great teachers.
6) I undestand your issue with being over qualified and it sucks. If I were you or your wife, I would leave it off my resume and lie. If your dealing with Safeway or a big company, no one is getting hurt. I wouldn't do that to a Mom and Pop Shop.

ugh...Cap's outfit is just so...80s

And here I thought Thor's costume would be the hardest to take seriously. but they make it work somehow.

All cap is missing is that motor cycle helmet and it's the same costume from that 60s/70s movie

Chris Evans seems dwarfed by RDJ imo.

yeah your to far gone no saving you If I was you I would end your life now , you are forbidden from enjoying something I hate so much!

The screen size thing dosen't matter if you have a 1080p tv or hd projector or evan better 2 hd projectors stitched and you sit relatively close to it then the screen size difference interms of what is in your fov will not be that grate ( obviously it depends on what focal range your eyes are comfortable with but sitting withint he range of 2-5m from 70" screen should be fine ) The effective resolution of 35mm film is about 4000x2000 , but now allot of cinimas use digital projectors and many of them project at 2048×1080 , so all in all a $1000 Tv or $1500 projector will likely do a fairly comparable job. the massive advantage with home system is you can set it up to your taste not some arbatrery pre-decided spec some company has come up with and for sound especially everyone has different taste.

also I don't see the piont of a shaired exsperance with people you dont know and will never talk to . I understand watching a film with some friends or a group and then talking about it but with total randoms that you will never interact with dosent make sense. ( it might make sense when you have a cinema full of black people (or one of those special film nights some cinemas do) and they all screem and shout at the film getting involved more and what have you as that is truly an original exsperance (not one I enjoy but I can certainly see how that could be enjoyable and different from watching a film at home).

The only cinema exsperance I ever had that was better than what could be achieved at home was watching a documentary on a proper spec I max screen ( before they did the bullshit I-max licensing) and at a theem park in France called http://uk.futuroscope.com/ where they had a screen below the floor as well as a normal imax one.

Id probably enjoy going to an american outdoors cinima where you park a car , or evan one where its just in a park or something ,



I think what makes me ill with bog standard cinema is its so procedural with you just been a chiken stuffed in a pen and fed bullshit useless advertising and constantly told ITS THE BEST EXSPERANCE YOU CAN HAVE ON THE BIG SCREEN when infact for allot of people its probably not.

Finaly to finish of my waist of time writing !

I concide that if the cinima is


1) empty or near empty to the piont i cannot notice other people or the only people in it are people i know and are firends with
2) set up correctly sound focus screen everything
3) has comfortable seats not sticky shit on the floor smells nice
4) no quing up no bullshit adverts and no trailers that ruin the plot of new films ( or its possible to miss them all some how)

Then it is better than what you will get at home and will be far more enjoyable in general , having said that that scenario has happened to me 3 times in 14 years and from going to over 30 different cinemas in 2 different countries.





>> ^Sarzy:

>> ^westy:
Although I enjoyed your discussion home cinimas are infinetly better than going out to watch a film evan if you only have a 42" 2 year old LCD tv and bog standard surround sound system.
maybe you have super awesome cinemas where you are but in the uk there is always something objectively wrong and not in a "charming way" ( listed above in my other comment )

I can see where you're coming from, westy. There are so many things that can (and do) go wrong with the theatrical experience: inconsiderate jerks, bad projection, bad sound, uncomfortable seats, lighting issues, too many commercials, and so on, and so on. But I just love going to the movies.
You ask why you'd want to watch a movie in a room full of people you don't know. But I think that sitting in a darkened room full of strangers and having a shared experience is one of the things that makes going to the movies so special.
There's also the fact that, no matter how big the screen is in your home theatre, it's still a mere fraction of the size of a decently-sized theatre. The sound will never be as good at home (assuming the theatre is doing what they're supposed to be doing). The image will never look as good as well-projected film. And again, watching alone at home can never compare to being in a room full of people who are laughing when they're supposed to, or who are all thrilled, or scared, or moved at the same time you are.
But then I've been going to the movies on a regular basis since I was old enough to sit in the seats, so maybe, like you said, I can never be truly objective about it. I don't care how good home theatre technology gets, I'll be going to the movies until the day I die.

>> ^westy:

Although I enjoyed your discussion home cinimas are infinetly better than going out to watch a film evan if you only have a 42" 2 year old LCD tv and bog standard surround sound system.
maybe you have super awesome cinemas where you are but in the uk there is always something objectively wrong and not in a "charming way" ( listed above in my other comment )


I can see where you're coming from, westy. There are so many things that can (and do) go wrong with the theatrical experience: inconsiderate jerks, bad projection, bad sound, uncomfortable seats, lighting issues, too many commercials, and so on, and so on. But I just love going to the movies.

You ask why you'd want to watch a movie in a room full of people you don't know. But I think that sitting in a darkened room full of strangers and having a shared experience is one of the things that makes going to the movies so special.

There's also the fact that, no matter how big the screen is in your home theatre, it's still a mere fraction of the size of a decently-sized theatre. The sound will never be as good at home (assuming the theatre is doing what they're supposed to be doing). The image will never look as good as well-projected film. And again, watching alone at home can never compare to being in a room full of people who are laughing when they're supposed to, or who are all thrilled, or scared, or moved at the same time you are.

But then I've been going to the movies on a regular basis since I was old enough to sit in the seats, so maybe, like you said, I can never be truly objective about it. I don't care how good home theatre technology gets, I'll be going to the movies until the day I die.

Although I enjoyed your discussion home cinimas are infinetly better than going out to watch a film evan if you only have a 42" 2 year old LCD tv and bog standard surround sound system.

maybe you have super awesome cinemas where you are but in the uk there is always something objectively wrong and not in a "charming way" ( listed above in my other comment )



>> ^Sarzy:

>> ^budzos:
Skipped through it. Stunning cinematography. Hope nobody wants to go see it with me so that I can enjoy it on blu-ray. Here's a big fuck you to almost everyone at the movies who won't stop talking and kicking my seat. Even the people I go to movies with manage to annoy me to hell and distract me from the movie with their weird stunts. The person I went to see Captain America (mediocre film, good comic-book movie) with fricking disappeared for the last 20 minutes of the movie. When they reappeared afterwards they said "when I went to the bathroom I didn't want to pass in front of the audience again so I just sat over here." Meanwhile I spent the entire last 20 minutes wondering where the hell they were, and I'm sure the people in the seats around their new seat were also scratching their heads. Just come back to your fucking seat.

True, the theatrical experience can suck sometimes (and your friend is a weirdo), but no home theatre can match the experience of seeing a great movie on the big screen. That's why, even as home theatre technology gets better and better, I'll never stop going to the movies.

I agree with the trial westy, but to say the CEO should have vetted information and seen through the lies of professionals is a bit much.

If the sources know one thing, it is how to manipulate--even one of their own.

>> ^westy:

So he is admitting that he himself didn't do his job in vetting what was in the document and checking that the sauces were correct , WASN'T IT HIS JOB TO CHECK THAT THE SOURCES WERE CORRECT ( ie not coming from one guy that was waterboarded). sure he has other people to go over the document but you cannot just say OH THEY TOLD ME SO I BELIEVED IT.
evan if he is or was inosent Why are we still not having a high profile trile of the people that presented the intelligence as being of value ?
Also the Neo-conservatives just wanted an excuse to go to war with these countries the intelligence didn't even matter they had and still have an agenda we dont know about and they simply used the events of 911 and bullshit inteligence as a way to get what they want , they have no intrest in doing whats best for "the people" they are only intrestead in whats best for them and "there people" which is probably 200,000 or so super ritch people.
I dont see why we dont try governments that go to war with people and fail , they are guilty of the killing of many people us troops and people on the other side. If we don't have triles and understand how this can happen then it will happen time and time again.

>> ^westy:

aspects of idiot abroad are amazing and some parts are genouse comedy . but then I find it really ruined by the editing and the contrived conversations with gervias (evan if they are not contrived they are edited in such a way that they become totally canned and it simply dosent work) . they allso used the same music constantly which drove my crazy.
basicly I think what the problem is that the show is having to fit into the sky/tv formula of presentation and bullshit story telling and its simply not suited to it.
Idiot abroad would have been 1000x better if it was filmed and edited like the Michel palin around the world documentaries , or if they apreached it in the way that they do there podcasts or how independent documentary would be filmed.


I like the phone conversations but I totally agree about the music choice. It would be funnier if it was trying to reach the lofty heights of Palin and falling short because Karl just ain't that at all.

aspects of idiot abroad are amazing and some parts are genouse comedy . but then I find it really ruined by the editing and the contrived conversations with gervias (evan if they are not contrived they are edited in such a way that they become totally canned and it simply dosent work) . they allso used the same music constantly which drove my crazy.

basicly I think what the problem is that the show is having to fit into the sky/tv formula of presentation and bullshit story telling and its simply not suited to it.

Idiot abroad would have been 1000x better if it was filmed and edited like the Michel palin around the world documentaries , or if they apreached it in the way that they do there podcasts or how independent documentary would be filmed.

So he is admitting that he himself didn't do his job in vetting what was in the document and checking that the sauces were correct , WASN'T IT HIS JOB TO CHECK THAT THE SOURCES WERE CORRECT ( ie not coming from one guy that was waterboarded). sure he has other people to go over the document but you cannot just say OH THEY TOLD ME SO I BELIEVED IT.

evan if he is or was inosent Why are we still not having a high profile trile of the people that presented the intelligence as being of value ?

Also the Neo-conservatives just wanted an excuse to go to war with these countries the intelligence didn't even matter they had and still have an agenda we dont know about and they simply used the events of 911 and bullshit inteligence as a way to get what they want , they have no intrest in doing whats best for "the people" they are only intrestead in whats best for them and "there people" which is probably 200,000 or so super ritch people.

I dont see why we dont try governments that go to war with people and fail , they are guilty of the killing of many people us troops and people on the other side. If we don't have triles and understand how this can happen then it will happen time and time again.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'backwards, double jointed, piano, Evan Petrone' to 'backwards, double jointed, piano, Evan Petrone, coldplay, clocks' - edited by xxovercastxx