From what I recall, it really wasn't until the late nineties when animal shows became garbage. Reality shows wrecked them. All of a sudden the Discovery channel went from interesting, fairly in-depth documentaries about the lives of animals to THE WORLD'S DEADLIEST SNAKES! and other sort of low attention span oriented shows with just a string of thirty second segments. Aside from that, now it's all shows about asteroids destroying the earth.

I love these things. I used to do similar sort of stuff when I was younger using Autodesk Animator in the early nineties. The key difference of course was that mine were terrible, and usually just one stick man punching another one followed by lots of red splotches flying everywhere. I devoted a worrying amount of effort into making sure the little blood blobs splashed just right on the ground.

Whomever made this ought to consider trying his hand at doing fight choreography for films.

SOOOOO much better than the official PE + Anthrax version that came out in the late nineties. I hated that version. This is not great but it's so much better than that version.

That's very impressive. I saw that big one back in the mid nineties, and that was impressive, but this knocks that one down several rungs.

Whenever you see something like this, you have to worry that it might be an old Soviet nuclear-powered satellite which failed to eject its core properly, and that the next morning you're going to look in the mirror and find your hair falling out and your teeth singing show tunes a capella and spinning around in their sockets.

Amazing song and one of the pivotal albums of the nineties for me. But I can't upvote it. Not that i'm a snob about videos here, i'm not, but there are TONS of songs i'd adore to post and never do because they don't have a good enough video for them. At least a montage - at the very least...

As much flack as they have received, mostly deservedly, I have to sympathize with the No Mutants Allowed crowd.

Back in the nineties, western RPGs were epic, in depth interactive stories. They didn't have much to impress people with, so they poured their effort into the story and dialog.

As a result, I connected with those blurry, distant 2d figures. I can remember the names of every character I traveled with in Fallout 2, BG 1 & 2 and Planescape Torment. Yet, I can't remember a single character from Morrowind or Oblivion, and I played them far more recently.

Hopefully they'll find a way to combine the open worlds of today and brilliant writing of the nineties. Unfortunately I don't see that happening any time soon.

Chick next to Bill totally wants to nail him! I discovered Bill Hicks back in the mid-nineties when part of his act was shown in a flashback sequence in Preacher.

This reviewer was so interesting and enjoyable to watch since he kept it was all about the game, and didn't do ninety percent of the video dressing up, goofing off and swearing. Not that there's anything wrong with swearing mind you, it's just not that thrilling to sit and listen to after a while. In contrast, this guy's positive attitude and genuine excitement for the game truly caught on, and the background info about the movie and the cartoon was really interesting!

The exchange rate dipped into the sixties from the mid-nineties through the turn of the century.

am i allowed to do images?
i guess not.
well that kinda sucks for this thread.

anyway... a few off the top of my head, in no particular order because i love so many...

Blur: Parklife
They had a thing at the time for carefully using stock photography, instead of original images... which (as a pop art fan) I find really super cool. Also, their logo designer said "we wanted something that kids could draw on their schoolbag" which has become my golden rule of logo design. The album is about ...life (the dog race analogy is good!) and dog racing is a traditional british thing, another theme of the album. It's like they deliberately set up that perfect shot just for the album cover.... but actually they picked it from a catalogue. Pop art rules.

Radiohead: Amnesiac
This is just soooooooooo Radiohead, so perfect for the music, such good typography, my favourite colours, everything is cool and makes me want to play it again.

The Beatles: Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts' Club Band
You don't seriously need me to write something here do you?

FSUK #1
Awesome compilation of breakbeaty things from the nineties, "Future Sound Of The United Kingdom #1" ...very nice artwork. "messy" is a very hard style to do right. Sorry this is a bad jpg but it's hard to find.

>> ^Bidouleroux:
Why would they not be lowlifes when they represent the 18-35 American demographic, minus all the ones that actually have respectful or high paying jobs? Not to say there aren't lowlifes in corporate America, but the lowlife scum tend to stay "unemployed".

Oh, so having a college degree automatically exempts you from being lowlife scum? So all the other people in that demographic that don't have white-collar sit-in-the-AC-behind-a-fucking-desk jobs are lowlife scum, too? Just because they didn't have parents that were capable of sending them to college? OR because they had other matters in life that were more pressing and needed to pay bills?
I'd rather have my blue-collar job over sitting in a tiny fucking cubicle any day.


Anyway, a majority is fifty percent plus one, not ninety-nine percent. And these are enlisted troops, not conscripts, so you're gonna get only people who want to shoot muslims or people who want to serve their country so much that they want to put themselves in (h)arms way

You'd probably be right in that there are people that want to shoot Muslims. HOWEVER, people with this kind of mentality are the ones that are sitting with a huge confederate flag in their yard shooting at beer cans on a fence, not at the recruiter's office. I've never met ANYONE that said "I joined to shoot me some mooslims." And in the Marine Corps, the "why did you join" question gets asked even if you only knew the other guy for 5 minutes.

As for the people that joined because they want to serve their country? We don't do it because was want to do it so much that we WANT" to put ourselves in harm's way. We do it because we love this great nation, even for all it's flaws. We do it knowing that we could be put in harms way. We're not a bunch of masochists in uniform, ya fuckin know.


And I reckon anyone that WANT to shoot someone else, for whatever reason, is by definition a lowlife scum.

So now you're calling America's greatest generation lowlife scum? I would think that the veterans of WWII deserve nothing but honor and respect for their actions, and you should too. If it wasn't for them, you'd all be speaking German and saluting the Swastika right now.

Everyone that is so blind to politics, backroom machinations and human rights abuse that he still wants to enlist in a military without wanting to actually shoot anyone, is also a lowlife or at the very least stupid.

How can someone that honestly doesn't know of back-room politics and abuse of fellow humans be low life scum? What if he did know about it? Maybe he would fucking want to join just to show that there ARE people in the military that don't beat on prisoners? Someone that honestly loves his country so much he is willing to put his life on the line is stupid? This isn't rhetoric, I really do expect you to answer these questions.
Basically, what you just said is that as far as enlisted personnel, you're either stupid or a lowlife.


Put these two kinds of people together and you get shitty operations like Afghanistan and Iraq.

No, put a highly trained and welldisciplined fighting force against an unknown enemy using tactics and techniques that have not been fought against before and you get situations like that.

As we've seen over the past 7 years, the problems only start when you tell your enlisted troops NOT to shoot anyone anymore.

O RLY? Care to actually back asinine claims like that up with actual fucking data?

They tend to get frustrated and remake the Dumb and Dumber movies. As for those that start out "normal", please refer to the Stanford prison experiment.

Again, O RLY? Moar data plz. Or should I say ANY data, please.

Also, you're not countering his point with your question

Maybe because the point of my fucking post wasn't to counter his points. "Troops are low life scum" isn't a point, it's a n opinion, in case that's what you were referring to.

Yes, you may have "heard things", but there's a reason hearsay is not allowed as evidence in a trial: it's actually pretty unreliable. Also, keep and bear in mind that no one likes to think that he himself did "bad things" in a conflict. They always blame the other or perversely blame only themselves.

What the hell does that have to do with ANYTHING said here?

And like your precious Jesus said: “He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone at her.” I'm sure nowadays plenty of bible-churning rednecks would gladly obey and start throwing stones, but then again I'm sure that for all your other faults at least you're not that kind of person.


Have I thrown a stone here?


Basically, next time, if you don't have any data to back up supposed "facts", STFU.

>> ^Bidouleroux:
>> ^MarineGunrock:
>> ^NordlichReiter:
The majority of your enlisted occupation troops are lowlife scum

EXCUSE THE FUCK OUT OF ME?

Why would they not be lowlifes when they represent the 18-35 American demographic, minus all the ones that actually have respectful or high paying jobs? Not to say there aren't lowlifes in corporate America, but the lowlife scum tend to stay "unemployed". Anyway, a majority is fifty percent plus one, not ninety-nine percent. And these are enlisted troops, not conscripts, so you're gonna get only people who want to shoot muslims or people who want to serve their country so much that they want to put themselves in arms way, but not shoot muslims (these latter would go in the first category). And I reckon anyone that WANT to shoot someone else, for whatever reason, is by definition a lowlife scum. Everyone that is so blind to politics, backroom machinations and human rights abuse that he still wants to enlist in a military without wanting to actually shoot anyone, is also a lowlife or at the very least stupid. Put these two kinds of people together and you get shitty operations like Afghanistan and Iraq. As we've seen over the past 7 years, the problems only start when you tell your enlisted troops NOT to shoot anyone anymore. They tend to get frustrated and remake the Dumb and Dumber movies. As for those that start out "normal", please refer to the Stanford prison experiment.
Also, you're not countering his point with your question, except by implicitly generalizing your own experience in your own squad in the marines (as I gather from your previous posts here on the sift). Yes, you may have "heard things", but there's a reason hearsay is not allowed as evidence in a trial: it's actually pretty unreliable. Also, keep and bear in mind that no one likes to think that he himself did "bad things" in a conflict. They always blame the other or perversely blame only themselves. And like your precious Jesus said: “He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone at her.” I'm sure nowadays plenty of bible-churning rednecks would gladly obey and start throwing stones, but then again I'm sure that for all your other faults at least you're not that kind of person.


I'll let someone else tear you a new one. This makes me wish we had a mandatory military like germany. It would really open your eyes to the respect your taught to give everyone even your enemies. Go to a recruiting station for any branch and tell them you want to shoot people and that's the reason you want to join. Please do so and tell me what they say. I think you'll be surprised.

>> ^MarineGunrock:
>> ^NordlichReiter:
The majority of your enlisted occupation troops are lowlife scum

EXCUSE THE FUCK OUT OF ME?


Why would they not be lowlifes when they represent the 18-35 American demographic, minus all the ones that actually have respectful or high paying jobs? Not to say there aren't lowlifes in corporate America, but the lowlife scum tend to stay "unemployed". Anyway, a majority is fifty percent plus one, not ninety-nine percent. And these are enlisted troops, not conscripts, so you're gonna get only people who want to shoot muslims or people who want to serve their country so much that they want to put themselves in arms way, but not shoot muslims (these latter would go in the first category). And I reckon anyone that WANT to shoot someone else, for whatever reason, is by definition a lowlife scum. Everyone that is so blind to politics, backroom machinations and human rights abuse that he still wants to enlist in a military without wanting to actually shoot anyone, is also a lowlife or at the very least stupid. Put these two kinds of people together and you get shitty operations like Afghanistan and Iraq. As we've seen over the past 7 years, the problems only start when you tell your enlisted troops NOT to shoot anyone anymore. They tend to get frustrated and remake the Dumb and Dumber movies. As for those that start out "normal", please refer to the Stanford prison experiment.

Also, you're not countering his point with your question, except by implicitly generalizing your own experience in your own squad in the marines (as I gather from your previous posts here on the sift). Yes, you may have "heard things", but there's a reason hearsay is not allowed as evidence in a trial: it's actually pretty unreliable. Also, keep and bear in mind that no one likes to think that he himself did "bad things" in a conflict. They always blame the other or perversely blame only themselves. And like your precious Jesus said: “He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone at her.” I'm sure nowadays plenty of bible-churning rednecks would gladly obey and start throwing stones, but then again I'm sure that for all your other faults at least you're not that kind of person.

I had those Pepsi Shades, and the Pepsi Dog Tags in the mid-nineties. My mother worked at a community center that ordered large cases of Pepsi to fill their drink machines and sell at events, so she took all the Pepsi points and gave them to my sister and I. We only accumulated enough for two pairs of killer blue shades and the dog tags.

Yeah, you can laugh now. I still cry on the inside.

My frustration is not with the production or regulation of pharmaceuticals, but with the concentration and increase of power in the hands of a few, and the income that unnecessary pharmaceuticals nets one of 5 or so, of the largest industries ever created, in recorded history-
Agreed that diet is key. When you mentioned underdeveloped countries, immediately thought of the USA, considering the ratio of healthy to unhealthy folks here, with respect to diet-We have the means to educate everyone on nutrition, and by the same means, provide a way to redirect the psychic dependence on the medical establishment, and her promise of facility, and affordable care-as it is now, the mantra is, "create the problem(let people stay fat and unhealthy), provide a solution(buy our drugs and insurance)"

I don't ascribe to any vitamins,extracts, or alternative treatments, unless prescribed by a ninety-year old Chinese woman....so, I wholeheartedly agree with the snake-oil element, being as faulty as the system's approved, structured, and watch-dogged apparatus-

the paradigm is corrupt-and the fissures becoming gorges-

The anti-depressants and pain-killers, gone tomorrow, would not be missed...folks would do as they have always done, self-medicate and deal.

Nationalized health care is a cop-out. It gives the beast more power.
Stop poisoning your body with food.