>> ^blankfist:

Local news said they don't think she suffered a stroke. They said a stroke doesn't typically make words incomprehensible. Likely this was anxiety.
So feel free to laugh without remorse.


I think you might have skipped over other people's comments before posting that. The official statement from the station is that there was a medical cause which was not a stroke. Others have speculated about the possible cause, there are a few and I think they've covered just about everything. The only things publicly known is that it wasn't anxiety or a stroke.

I've completely got sympathy for people who didn't understand what was going on and thought it was just nerves. I thought so too a few seconds into the video. But since that wasn't the case, it's a bit like laughing at Michael J. Fox. Something best left for Rush Limbaugh.

Local news said they don't think she suffered a stroke. They said a stroke doesn't typically make words incomprehensible. Likely this was anxiety.

So feel free to laugh without remorse.

I had this happen to me about 15 years ago. I wasn't trying to talk, but I was trying to text chat with friends online. My brain just couldn't figure out why my hands weren't recording the language in my head. For at least 10 minutes my typing was even worse than Westy's -- largely incomprehensible.

(Taken from Liveleak)
Serene Branson - did she suffer a stroke?

"Well, a very heavy burtation tonight," she said, smiling broadly. But her smile More.. disappeared as her speech devolved into a series of incomprehensible utterances.

To be clear, it's not immediately known what happened to Branson and calls to the station where she works went unanswered at presstime. But a neurologist who watched Branson's episode offered several possible explanations as to what happened to her.

"Stroke is the number one possibility," Dr. John Krakauer, associate professor of neurology and neuroscience at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine in Baltimore, told CBS News. Other possibilities, he said, include a transient ischemic attack - a sort of "mini-stroke" that produces no lasting problems - a migraine headache, or a seizure.

His youtube site is still up, and it is all similarly incomprehensible. http://www.youtube.com/user/Classitup10

Here is a compilation of all his vids: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NE0BzDZ6yMY

From 200 views to 200,000 thousand in a few hours. He finally got the attention he apparently desired.

>> ^NetRunner:

Let me play devil's God's advocate here for a moment, and try to properly state the argument BillO only hints at.
Yes, science can predict that fluid on the Earth's surface will move in tides due to a massive object orbiting the Earth. But that's just a particularly astute observation about what is happening, a divination of some of the "code" that governs the way things work in the universe. It doesn't tell us anything about why the code is what it is, or why it's executing, or even really how it is that time breathes fire into the equations, and makes events happen.
If you think about it, it really is a marvel that all the molecules in the ocean move on their own, according to one set of universal laws of movement, without any deviation. It would take centuries of computer time to simulate the motion of every particle in the ocean for just a second, and yet it happens on its own second after second for billions of years. And never once is there a mistake -- the tides go out, and come in like clockwork, and even more amazingly, the molecules all flawlessly follow the laws of physics, without fail.
Whatever this thing is that we're all inside, it does seem to be a machine of almost incomprehensible perfection. It just works, day in, and day out, producing more miracles than we can count in every second...
Mind you, even when I do it justice, the argument still has the same yawning logical flaw. It's just a little easier to miss when you pretty it up properly.


The answer is: We're all in a computer.

>> ^NetRunner:

Let me play devil's God's advocate here for a moment, and try to properly state the argument BillO only hints at.
Yes, science can predict that fluid on the Earth's surface will move in tides due to a massive object orbiting the Earth. But that's just a particularly astute observation about what is happening, a divination of some of the "code" that governs the way things work in the universe. It doesn't tell us anything about why the code is what it is, or why it's executing, or even really how it is that time breathes fire into the equations, and makes events happen.
If you think about it, it really is a marvel that all the molecules in the ocean move on their own, according to one set of universal laws of movement, without any deviation. It would take centuries of computer time to simulate the motion of every particle in the ocean for just a second, and yet it happens on its own second after second for billions of years. And never once is there a mistake -- the tides go out, and come in like clockwork, and even more amazingly, the molecules all flawlessly follow the laws of physics, without fail.
Whatever this thing is that we're all inside, it does seem to be a machine of almost incomprehensible perfection. It just works, day in, and day out, producing more miracles than we can count in every second...
Mind you, even when I do it justice, the argument still has the same yawning logical flaw. It's just a little easier to miss when you pretty it up properly.


hold your head in the tide for 20mins... marvel at the perfection of a perfect machine that destroys it's own components?

the point is, lack of knowledge isn't a defense... someone with the knowledge can always back a religious person into the "God works in mysterious ways corner"

'and beyond the logical flaws, there's scientific flaws... like molecules flawlessly following the laws of physics... but anyhoos

Let me play devil's God's advocate here for a moment, and try to properly state the argument BillO only hints at.

Yes, science can predict that fluid on the Earth's surface will move in tides due to a massive object orbiting the Earth. But that's just a particularly astute observation about what is happening, a divination of some of the "code" that governs the way things work in the universe. It doesn't tell us anything about why the code is what it is, or why it's executing, or even really how it is that time breathes fire into the equations, and makes events happen.

If you think about it, it really is a marvel that all the molecules in the ocean move on their own, according to one set of universal laws of movement, without any deviation. It would take centuries of computer time to simulate the motion of every particle in the ocean for just a second, and yet it happens on its own second after second for billions of years. And never once is there a mistake -- the tides go out, and come in like clockwork, and even more amazingly, the molecules all flawlessly follow the laws of physics, without fail.

Whatever this thing is that we're all inside, it does seem to be a machine of almost incomprehensible perfection. It just works, day in, and day out, producing more miracles than we can count in every second...

Mind you, even when I do it justice, the argument still has the same yawning logical flaw. It's just a little easier to miss when you pretty it up properly.

>> ^mxxcon:

as much as it is visually awesome movie, holy crap is that story incomprehensible. you have to re-watch it like 5 times to understand everything that's going on there..


Strange, I got it the first time. But, also the fact that most of the movie did not have The Major in it kind of left it feeling flat.

as much as it is visually awesome movie, holy crap is that story incomprehensible. you have to re-watch it like 5 times to understand everything that's going on there..

There is plenty of denying the "alleged positive aspects" of what wikileaks is doing. There has been almost nothing that is either new or surprising that comes from the leaks. They are released in a disorganized mishmash which makes them completely incomprehensible. This isn't the pentagon papers. Julian Assange is trying to call himself a journalist for proving war is ugly. That's not news. It's treason. It's demagoguery. It's an ego trip. It's not news.

In fact, the Das Spiegel interview highlights the tyrannical control he's taken of the organization. HE has made it an organization about Julian Assange, not the press. So long as he does that, he can accept full blame for the questions he receives. I don't mind transparency of information. I think Blog Del Narco, for example, does a good job of giving a transparent view of the Mexican drug wars. I just think wikileaks doesn't do a good job largely because of Julian Assange, and his insistence on a particular model. I completely agree with Daniel Schmidt. He should step down in order to deflect these questions, and allow someone else to discuss the meat of their work.

@Matthu

There's quite a lot of advantages to them, let me list:

1 - Virtually latency free. It depends a lot on where you live but if you reside in say Australia, the average person has 0.5mbps to 1mbps upload if that. That is simply not something that can support 32, let alone the maximum 16 players in MW2. Where it does, you're looking at a ping of 100+, which makes the game feel noticeably imprecise and usually spiky. This is probably less of an issue on consoles since controllers are generally less responsive and lead to slower gameplay than with a mouse. If you don't believe me, google some youtube clips of a cross platform game and compare PC to console gameplay, it's really quite obvious. This is also likely why P2P matchmaking has always been fine on consoles.

2 - Competitive mods. The fact is MW1 was simply not balanced towards being a fair competitive game out of the box. Grenade launchers as an example are cheap, and not really counterable in any way shape or form. 3x nades, especially if used by a whole team and lobbed in particular locations for S&D makes the game Russian Roulette. That's not even getting into the atrocious gun balance or the ridiculousness of perks.

Even in MW1 which was comparatively pretty tame, in Team Deathmatch modes, easily 2/3, if not more of my kills would consistently be Air Strike/Chopper kills. The point is, IW made the game in the interest of appealing to the masses, making it easy to gain kills and generally allowing far too many ways to score cheap kills. MW2 took this 10 steps further. Which is why in the competitive scene on PC, MW2 is a shell of what MW1 was.

3 - Community - Like you said yourself, you can regularly play on the same server and get to know people over time. Without it, unless you /friend them straight away, there's a chance you'll never see them again.

As a game with good graphics, whiz-bang explosions and lots of action, honestly it delivers, but if you're looking for a game that rewards skill, and where half your deaths and kills weren't based on luck then you should really be looking elsewhere.

---

And yeah, like westy said in his usual incomprehensible way, it's hilarious to see Black Ops stealing ideas from PC.

Especially GunGame which as far as I know originated from a mod. You know, the feature they removed in MW2?

Oh sweet irony, which unfortunately will be lost on most.

yet another proof how horrible gaga's music is. even with something as majestic as bell tower that stuff sounds horrible and incomprehensible.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Good analysis. I too wish the Wachoskis had gone that route.>> ^timtoner:

I assiduously avoided any commentary about the film until I was able to judge it for myself, and was interested to see that Nolan had started work on the script while shooting Memento. Given that The Matrix came out in 1999 and Memento in 2000, it's not a stretch to consider that Nolan had seen The Matrix and, like the rest of us, was really thinking about it. Now most people HATEHATEHATE the Matrix sequels, but there's a moment at the end of the second one where it still could have been all right, where all the craziness would suddenly make sense, but the filmmakers would have to trust the audience to follow them down the rabbit hole. I speak of course of the moment when Neo raises his hand and shuts down the Sentinels. How the frick could he do that?!? The answer, to me, was obvious: Neo/Thomas Anderson realized that "The Desert of the Real" (as Morpheus referred to it) was just another construct fashioned by the machines. Everything we've been told supports this conclusion. I don't want to go into too much detail, but as I was watching Inception, it occurred to me that Nolan came to the exact same conclusion I did, and was just as pissed as I was when the Wachowskis failed to trust their audience (as seen in the third film). Inception, then, is a think piece not only about the nature of reality, but how little things can build to dangerous proportions if we let them.
To me, the most wonderful thing about Inception was its completely incomprehensible trailer. We were shown disparate images that make not a lick of sense, and left me feeling rather put out. Upon watching the film, I realized that the trailer showed us EVERYTHING without actually telling us ANYTHING. It was the fevered fragments of a dream, seconds after waking. Since that's pretty much what the movie is about, mission accomplished, trailer-makers.

I assiduously avoided any commentary about the film until I was able to judge it for myself, and was interested to see that Nolan had started work on the script while shooting Memento. Given that The Matrix came out in 1999 and Memento in 2000, it's not a stretch to consider that Nolan had seen The Matrix and, like the rest of us, was really thinking about it. Now most people HATEHATEHATE the Matrix sequels, but there's a moment at the end of the second one where it still could have been all right, where all the craziness would suddenly make sense, but the filmmakers would have to trust the audience to follow them down the rabbit hole. I speak of course of the moment when Neo raises his hand and shuts down the Sentinels. How the frick could he do that?!? The answer, to me, was obvious: Neo/Thomas Anderson realized that "The Desert of the Real" (as Morpheus referred to it) was just another construct fashioned by the machines. Everything we've been told supports this conclusion. I don't want to go into too much detail, but as I was watching Inception, it occurred to me that Nolan came to the exact same conclusion I did, and was just as pissed as I was when the Wachowskis failed to trust their audience (as seen in the third film). Inception, then, is a think piece not only about the nature of reality, but how little things can build to dangerous proportions if we let them.

To me, the most wonderful thing about Inception was its completely incomprehensible trailer. We were shown disparate images that make not a lick of sense, and left me feeling rather put out. Upon watching the film, I realized that the trailer showed us EVERYTHING without actually telling us ANYTHING. It was the fevered fragments of a dream, seconds after waking. Since that's pretty much what the movie is about, mission accomplished, trailer-makers.