If you see the behind-the-scene filming of your favourite movie or tv show it looks a bit cringy too. but it's what you see onscreen that is the subject to be judged.. I think these people are trying to do things that mimic what they see pro models/actors/musicians do in videos/photos. and it works, they try all sorts of angles and find a good shot then post it and it makes people think they are awesome and are worth following/listening too.. then they plug products and get paid. no big deal.. just the tech has gotten cheap for consumers and distribution is simple.

They seem to have a good shot. Most of their critics were just saying that we need to stop the influx of plastic, like what these folks are doing is detrimental to that process or something. Derp.

*promote

The people I saw interviewed mentioned the captain driving fast to get back to the docks as a positive, so my guess is there was major damage but it didn't sink. I only saw footage of the hole in the roof, but never a good shot of the interior.

First impressions is it is a visual update to the arena style FPS games we played and loved so many years ago.

Question is are enough people going to care? You have a half billions games just like it that you can buy for chicken feed or free even! Also back then if you were not a real good shot then you lived with not being high on the score table. These days many FPS games offer support roles for those who aren't the greatest shot, those people are not going to have any interest in coming BACK to the likes of quake multiplayer.

Drones are already getting annoying and will soon be a scourge. You think people with selfie-sticks are annoying? How about a 2 foot buzzing machine in your eyeline while you're trying to *insert any peaceful or enjoyable event*. I've already seen them at concerts and fireworks and they definitely take away from the show. Good shot Mr. Fisherman, good shot.

That last one was a good shot!

lucky760's reasoning is sound.

Anyone that has researched and/or trained on weapon on weapon defense, in this case knife vs. firearm knows the Tueller's Drill. It has been a standard for over thirty years. Basically,

The Tueller Drill is a self-defense training exercise to prepare against a short-range knife attack when armed only with a holstered handgun.
Sergeant Dennis Tueller, of the Salt Lake City, Utah Police Department wondered how quickly an attacker with a knife could cover 21 feet (6.4 m), so he timed volunteers as they raced to stab the target. He determined that it could be done in 1.5 seconds. These results were first published as an article in SWAT magazine in 1983 and in a police training video by the same title, "How Close is Too Close?"[1]
A defender with a gun has a dilemma. If he shoots too early, he risks being charged with murder. If he waits until the attacker is definitely within striking range so there is no question about motives, he risks injury and even death. The Tueller experiments quantified a "danger zone" where an attacker presented a clear threat.[2]
The Tueller Drill combines both parts of the original time trials by Tueller. There are several ways it can be conducted:[3]
The "attacker and shooter are positioned back-to-back. At the signal, the attacker sprints away from the shooter, and the shooter unholsters his gun and shoots at the target 21 feet (6.4 m) in front of him. The attacker stops as soon as the shot is fired. The shooter is successful only if his shot is good and if the runner did not cover 21 feet (6.4 m).
A more stressful arrangement is to have the attacker begin 21 feet (6.4 m) behind the shooter and run towards the shooter. The shooter is successful only if he was able take a good shot before he is tapped on the back by the attacker.
If the shooter is armed with only a training replica gun, a full-contact drill may be done with the attacker running towards the shooter. In this variation, the shooter should practice side-stepping the attacker while he is drawing the gun.
Mythbusters covered the drill in the 2012 episode "Duel Dilemmas". At 20 feet the gun wielder was able to shoot the charging knife attacker just as he reached the shooter. At shorter distances the knife wielder was always able to stab prior to being shot. (Wikipedia)

That a firearm, particularly a handgun, will instantly incapacitate an individual is not a working concept and is fallacious. Variables such as adrenaline and drugs are attributable. Shot placement is trumps. Anything but a CNS. central nervous system, shot is not efficacious in safely stopping the threat. Not an easy or sure target sans movement, stress, etc.

Law enforcement put their lives and safety in harm's way every day. They are not there to die needlessly. An individual with suicide by cop or a LEO's death in mind is a serious threat to be dealt with with prejudice.

By the way, research knife wounds vs. handgun wounds. There is much data, ER, medical examiner, law enforcement. The deadly seriousness of knife wounds are well documented.

Tasers...I would not want to risk my life behind one or anyone about whom I care.

Basically @RFlagg I see it happening in one of two ways. If Republicans continue to lose elections, especially the white house, if the political fallout from the shutdown is large enough, the Republicans will lose congress as well. Republicans will either: 1) fade into history. or 2) Republicans will whip their low information voters into a frenzy, playing the tyranny card and eventually there *will* be an attempt at an armed revolt, but since it won't have any real popular support, it will fail relatively quickly but it will have the additional effect that Republicans will be blamed for any deaths caused by this revolt and there will be a huge exodus from the GOP and they will be ostracized from American society. They'll still exist of course, but they'll have the same relevance as the KKK, or the people who still think the world is flat and it's just a huge conspiracy.

2016 is going to be an important election, If Dems can still retain the white house for another 8 years, it's going to be another huge blow to the Republicans, especially when their last stated singular goal was to make Obama a 1 term president and failed.

and quite honestly, I'm not sure it will happen like I was sure Obama would get re-elected. Hilary just...shouldn't run IMO, her time is past. Elizabeth Warren would have a good shot at it. But I also think Dems need to find a new voice. Someone who, like Obama, who actually did embrace the internet and social media and used it very much to his advantage.

If you win the internet, you win the vote. They've got to keep the pressure up. Quite honestly, the 2008 and 2012 elections were easy, It was easy to get the left riled up when clueless Sarah Palin or Robot Romney were running. But I suspect the right will eventually learn from their mistake and run someone who actually is semi-relatable

I just think it's very likely Dems will get cocky and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory again. So.....don't get cocky kid.

the thrill of the hunt. It's fun, not only does it provide food, it's exhilarating. Stalking the target is the most fun style of hunting large game, as you have to stay down wind, stay quiet, and get close enough for a good shot.

it is "getting off" so to speak. The adrenaline is pumping, it even has a name you can google "Buck Fever" every hunter gets it. "Buck Fever" causes a lot of missed shots, the heart races, adrenaline pumps and you wind up missing or spooking them. But hunting is a ton of fun, if it weren't my kids wouldn't even be interested in it either. Not only does it provide cheap and plentiful food for family, which otherwise I would probably need food stamps to afford meat for family of 4, it's also fun, entertaining, and constantly trying to get better.

Similar to how fps gamers get addicted to keep getting better scores and "kill streaks" same for hunting, I hate missing a flock of quail, I love when we flush a flock of 5 or 6 quail and we can get them all, which rarely happens, usually 2 or 3 are dropped until next flush.

if hunting was not fun, there would be no point, just buy from store...
but it serves a purpose and it's fun as hell.

The slingshot does "hit harder" i.e. impart more momentum into the target and thus more likely to knock you down.
Intuitively this seems like it would therefore cause the most damage and for several 100 years this was the prevailing logic with muskets and cannonballs.

So much so in fact that when Charles Whitworth first introduced his rifle it was dismissed by the British army partly for having too small of a bullet. Whitworth used a smaller more stable round for its increased range and accuracy/stability (though there were also concerns about "muzzle fouling" and slower reload time).
It was believed at the time that the larger (slower) much less accurate bullets from the Enfield were more effective at actually injuring enemy soldiers, but history later demonstrated that speed and penetration can have just as much (if not more) effect on soft bodies than sheer mass and momentum.

Simply put, that large slingshot round would likely knock you to the floor in the same was as an MMA fighter landing a roundhouse square in your guts would. It might even penetrate the skin a bit and embed itself in you. What it won't do however is travel through your soft tissues at high velocity and create a large "temporary cavity" which is how most firearms do their real damage.

The 9mm etc. don't carry as much overall energy as the slingshot, but they do deliver it to a soft target much more effectively (that is to say lethally). A much more informative test would have been to fire them into ballistic clay, this would have highlighted the differences between speed, momentum and penetration much more clearly. The slingshot would leave a massive dint, the bullets would leave tunnels.

That said, the point they are making does stand to some extent. If you used that slingshot on someone that was trying to shoot you there is a good chance you'd knock them down (or at least stop them taking an aimed shot back for a few seconds). Hell you might even hospitalise them with a good shot!

It's not fair to say that the slingshot is a more "powerful" weapon but I think they did clearly demonstrate that it's a viable alternative under some circumstances. In fact for defending yourself in your own home etc. it might even be better!

Little/no risk of collateral damage (unless you miss really badly)
Very cheap
Would put most people on the floor with one good hit
No firearms licence or background checks needed
More difficult for a child to misuse (Most kids would lack the strength)
Enemy wouldn't expect it
Much less likely to kill
etc. etc.

Hell I'd get one myself if UK law wouldn't fk me over for using it.
It's illegal here to use a weapon specifically intended or kept for defense. i.e. if you grab a random object like a chair and beat up an intruder that's ok, if you have a baseball bat etc. by your bedside for expressly this purpose then it's not.
Handy then that one of my broken computer chairs happens to contain a loose 1ft long iron bar. Naturally I'd never even consider using such a thing violently, but who knows what might come to hand when faced with an intruder

(Seriously though, as broken furniture its a viable means of defence, if I kept it by my bedside as a "weapon" I'd be breaking the letter of the law by using it. Fucking stupid!)

Got some good shots, but taking footage from the edges of high, windy or slippery places without use of safety-lines is unnecessarily stupid.

Good shot

Yes, many hits are generated through sheer volume of blind fire. The other good reason to shoot in the general vicinity of the enemy, even if you can't see them, is that they're not going to stick their heads out and see if they can line up a good shot on you if there are bullets whizzing all around them. It also tends to pin them down, so hopefully you can bring in other units to flank them, while they are afraid to move.

The interesting historical note to this is, being Americans, the military overreacted to this WW2 problem of not shooting often enough, and trained soldiers to just pull the trigger. In Vietnam US soldiers expended one million rounds of ammo per confirmed hit. I've seen lots of footage of men in trenches blasting through magazines on full auto with their rifles pointing well over the heads of the enemy position.

That was a good shot at the end!