I don't think he knew the prop was off until he got out and looked. You can hear him trying to rev the engine a couple of times post prop loss. Great skills on this landing, now its time for some to get some drinks!

He may not be crazy in the "crazy" sense; he may be a brilliantly narcissist with great skills at diverting the focus of a problem that he's encountered.
Which I personally find scarier.

You are completely entitled to your opinion on this track.. not that fond of it myself, tbh.... but pretty much everything else you've said is simply untrue.

First up, digital instruments are still instruments. Some of them require great skill to play in real time (see Beardyman for example).

Some are authoring tools that aren't used for performance. So what? In the past, we called those kinds of tools sheet music, where a composer could write some music and have others perform it.

Second, it's not a zero-sum game. Just because some people use a sampler doesn't take away from people playing guitar.

Finally, there are literally millions of musicians still playing instruments (by which I'm assuming you mean traditional instruments like strings, percussion, wind, etc). With the web as a distribution and learning tool, it has never been easier to learn, write and record music. So if you want to listen to rock or classical or blues or jazz or soul or funk or metal or folk or any combination thereof, it's out there. Go look for it.

This is obviously a very great skill and at the same time it has its faults. It's also obvious to anyone with common sense that he IS a "trick" shooter. I mean almost every demonstration in the video IS a "trick" shot of some kind. Would any of these things come in handy in war... Certainly, many of those "tricks" would put him at an extreme advantage--especially if he could do this extremely well on horseback (and you must be a GOOD horseback rider, motorcycles don't count--a horse is a whole different story; especially if you plan to do some of the *feats* I'll mention below, while in combat). He would be even better if he had mastery over the shorter bow(s) he uses in this and also a longbow for long targets and heavily armored enemies.

As for him penetrating chainmail, that is a good question and I do believe he could quite possibly end up penetrating the chainmail in some situations while (possibly still getting through the chainmail) being stopped in others (he shows being able to penetrate mail with an under armor of some type, but we don't get a lot of details about that situation to be honest). It depends on how his bow is made, the string it has, the type of arrow he is using (or the tip, to be honest), and his draw strength (along with this is range). On the chainmail side it depends on what type of chainmail the enemy is using and then whether they have an under armor of some kind--and again, range.

The problem in this video--except for a few shots--is that he does shoot very close in many of the cases; within 30-20 feet. In a close combat experience--which wasn't necessarily unusual for archers in the past (especially as I mentioned mounted ones--of course you'd be nuts to not be mounted at these ranges--or at the least be a swordsman as well...which was even more rare) he would terrorize opponents... Unless they are wearing plate or other heavy types of armors, then he is in a bit of trouble. But if he really does have great accuracy, then even many of these armors types wouldn't necessarily help you--and could eventually lead to your own death.

I say we give this some time and see if Lars gives us more answers (like "records", competition, types of bows and arrows, chainmail used, etc...).

Oh, fistfights are definitely treated differently than stick violence. Mild stick-related stuff (taking a short chop at someone with the stick is called a slash, tripping is self explanatory, leading a check/hit with the stick can be charging or a cross check, etc.) is usually given a 2 minute minor penalty. But if you go nuts and just try to lumberjack somebody with your stick (extremely rare, but happens every once in a while), it is treated very harshly with a likely LONG suspension. All that seems pretty well-handled to me -- if your slash or cross check or whatever is is a risky situation that can or does result in injury, those scale up from minor penalties into majors, game misconducts, or possible suspensions.

Fights are a 5 minute major penalty, assuming both sides/fighters intentionally got into it. However, both involved players get the same 5 minute penalty, so since they are coincidental it doesn't result in any actual penalty to the team (not down to 4 players instead of 5 like in a normal penalty) other than the player who was in the fight being unavailable for 5 minutes. A pretty high majority of players who get into fights are designated goons who might be on the ice for 1-3 minutes total of a 60 minute game, compared to 15-17 for a skilled forward or 20+ for a skilled defenseman. So, "losing" that player for 5 minutes is usually really no penalty at all.

However, the "code" of those enforcers/goons is actually a pretty real thing. Many fights (especially in the regular season) are actually a pre-planned thing between the enforcers on each team. They ask if the other guy is up for a fight, as a means to engage the crowd and/or their teammates. If both are up for it, the next time they line up for a faceoff or whatever they will probably contrive some offense and drop the gloves. Those fights are pretty silly, but both sides know what they are getting into and agree to it beforehand, so it isn't SO crazy.

Spontaneous fights usually happen when an average or lesser-skilled player makes a dangerous hit or dirty play against a skilled player on the opposing team. If that happens, their toughest teammate currently on the ice will likely rush to their defense, and if it appears like the offending player did it intentionally they will drop the gloves to "teach them a lesson". These fights seem much more purposeful to me, and if you ask great skilled players like Wayne Gretzky they almost all universally say that this system made things safer and opened up the ice for skilled players.

So, it is all pretty complicated and strange to the uninitiated, but there is a sort of method to the madness.

I also vote @Sublime; great skill!

Great skills. Really liked the more organic feel of the film as opposed to showing a continuous reel of tricks.

Must take this guy ages to write an essay.

I don't like the second 'L'. Indifferent about the dot above the i.

But indeedy, great skill, and terrible music. But Yanni is a must-listen when doing calligraphy of Copperplate.

It's kinda funny you know, we bear witness to an old man's past time. Involving great skill and creating beautiful works of art.

THEN

They show a bunch of kids killing time playing in an arcade.

@RedSky

This is an interesting topic to me as I like competitive games and played mw1 in a euphoric state for about 4 months straight 'till my xbox died.

1. 100+ ping is unplayable for me. Living on the east coast of Canada I am blessed in that I rarely ping more than 60. If I connect to a server where I'm pinging 100+ it's super noticeable and frustrating.

1.5 M/kb vs Controller has always frustrated me. I've actually read comments from people saying that you can be just as good with a controller. While you can be very good/great with a controller. It's super obvious to me m/kb is more accurate. For the longest time I never touched ps3/xbox fps' due to having been spoiled by my cs 1.6 days. I finally did accept the controller after playing halo, and then mw1, and seeing how fun those games were. I still wished for a m/kb combo for those games. But I guess I understand why they don't allow it...

2. I never played mw2, so I'll speak about mw1. I was never overly frustrated at imbalanced guns. Sure, the noob tube required less skill to get kills with but w/e. It also wasn't really a gun that allowed for great skill. So what I mean is that a highly skilled player using a noob tube wouldn't be much more effective than a noob using the noob tube. But a highly skilled player using an m4 vs a noob tube wouldn't usualy be frustrated. And the only perk I remember thinking was really lame was martyr. That was total bullshit.

3. Popping into a server and seeing those familiar faces, even if you never speak to them is great fun. Seeing how they play, knowing who's good and who's only decent etc. That's not something they should overlook as game designers imo. But regarding match making, halo 3 provided the greatest match making experience ever imo.

I really felt my skill was rewarded with mw1, though thinking back there were a few frustrating nade spots. But that was mostly faulty map design. There were a couple maps where you could nade close to the other teams spawn straight from the start. Getting hit by one of those straight away always got an xclamation of bushit from me lol.

Girls only like guys who have great skills...

Crab-ups to thunder stand, awesome!

It's true - girls only like guys with great skills.

>> ^spoco2:
Look, I'll upvote, as she has some skils... but surely I'm not the only one that finds there is no flow between bit to bit, no continuation of beat, no talent in the stringing of things together.
Great skill with a lacking in actual musical talent to my ears.


I agree.

Look, I'll upvote, as she has some skils... but surely I'm not the only one that finds there is no flow between bit to bit, no continuation of beat, no talent in the stringing of things together.

Great skill with a lacking in actual musical talent to my ears.

But from all the other comments... I guess that's just me.

>> ^spoco2:
I ask, because it's no small thing to decide to do, and it's a huge investment in your time to undertake, so other than the most common reasons of religious differences or concerns about how their children would handle a school environment... I'm just at a loss as to what would make someone choose that path.

That's very interesting. We actually don't see it as a huge time investment. It certainly doesn't feel like it to us. Our daughter did grade 1 and that was a huge time commitment. I guess in some way, the school schedule and the structure did seem to fit the way she was learning. We always knew that homeschooling was an option and we decided to do it.

I also ask because I find that I can look back on my schooling and remember fondly many teachers, and how their differing outlooks on things have helped shaped me. I can also look back with interest at those teachers I did not like, but that in itself was helpful as it taught one to look critically at those in positions of authority, and also how to learn despite such people... which is a great skill to have for later study/work.

OK. I had good teachers and bad, but its not something that entered into our decision.

Will no one really come right out and say why they choose homeschooling? It is one of those areas where I fully support the ability to do it (it freaks me out that there are many places where it's illegal), but I am still yet to have someone make me see a reason that I could really identify with.

I guess that it was so simple and easy to choose that its not like it was an massively unbalanced choice. We chose homeschooling because we felt it fit our family's life. It certainly works for us and hasn't been a bother at all. Schooling pretty much goes on all year, all the time and allows us great freedom to travel and learn wherever we go.

(ie. I understand the religious/scared of bullying reasons, just think avoiding the school is the wrong solution)

And most homeschoolers agree. The people that homeschool for these reasons usually end up being the shut-in variety.