No. We not having it, go finish your chores then do your homework.

What's the difference between a pet pig and a livestock pig though?
They both want blankets and cookies. Or at the very least neither of them wants to stand in a tiny metal and concrete cage and be pumped full of antibiotics, hormones and god knows what else for their short miserable lives. Neither of them want to be bruised because they have only enough room to face one direction their entire lives. Neither of them want their testicles ripped out without anesthetic while they are piglets. Neither of them want to be beaten when they don't eat.

Also, despite what the marketing people say, humans are not omnivores, everything healthwise and physiologically suggests we are somewhere between herbivores and frugivores. It's also backed up historically too by analyzing fossilized poop!

Here is a quite simplified chart, but I think it does a pretty good point of showing how far away we are from typical mammalian omnivores http://www.whale.to/c/10013268_676368449097110_1949968139_n.jpg

I'm not having a go at you, but I just hope you aren't acting according to a few labels that some organisation has set.

I completely agree with her about Lars on many points. He often (very often actually) makes his technique seem "the best in the world" when compared to ANY other technique (as there are A LOT of shooting techniques; some that need different bows, materials, and setups).

Kind of like being able to shoot through plate-mail... Lars would NEVER be able to pull that off (of course no one, with a shortbow and the wrong arrow--or tip--will be doing it either; the crossbow is as close as you can get to being small and puncturing plate) as it requires a huge amount of pull force to puncture plate (even heavy English oaken wood shields). The type of bow is a big issue, because that is where you get your draw strength. But, what type of tip you have on your arrow will determine whether or not it even goes into or just bounces off the armor...

However, for the most part, archers didn't try to puncture plate armor--because to be honest about it: it was HARD, it required a VERY heavy bow and expensive tips (of course the bows were also expensive, because they would not be made out of normal material--it might be a specially imported type of wood that could hold up to extreme forces; the string may also be made of something a bit different than normal). So, you didn't have very many people walking around with the innate ability to puncture plate. BUT, what most archers trained a VERY long time to accomplish was extreme accuracy, for one reason alone: armor.

Instead of trying to puncture plate or even chain, archers instead aimed for gaps or areas were there was no coverage (basically anywhere you bend or connect the armor to another piece or tie/connect itself together; so places like under the armpit or along the side of the body were the armor is pulled together and tied shut). Then they may not have to go through anything at all, or they will only have light leather or heavy cloth armor in the way--either way they will penetrate, and they will slowly kill their target by slowing them down and immobilizing them, then moving in for the finishing blow OR if they hit the right place they can just let blood loss finish them off...

But, this requires extreme accuracy, especially in battle AND especially so if you are firing from a horse (if you were lucky you were able to ride behind someone and concentrate solely on firing your shots, then you could add a bit of speed as well). This is the one place that Lars has horribly mislead people--OR he has made a really great breakthrough. But, if Lars never bothers to really demonstrate this stuff, we have no idea how great an archer he really is.

His entire video is one gigantic edit. Every shot and "trick" has been setup with the camera in the right place. The biggest problem is we don't know if it took Lars 1000 attempts to accomplish some of these feats (he makes it sound in some areas that it happens VERY fast, however...but due to the editing, or how he edited it, we actually have no idea if his claims are true) or if he did it in ten...or right off the bat...

That is why I said we needed to wait for Lars to actually talk to us about this whole thing, and to clear various areas up (records and competition). Because he has set a very high bar for himself, and from his own video he seems to be amazing--but, I like many know that if you edit enough and try something over and over again, you can make yourself look like an expert *whatever* whenever you wish to do it...

I agree heavily with her about his historic claims (and also mocking him on his "super clumsy" shots and setups to make fun of "modern" archers); she also points out, correctly, how wrong he is on some of those claims. Like everyone shooting from the left side; which somehow Lars, in ALL his studying completely and utterly missed. Which tells me one thing: she knows more about archery history than Lars actually does.

But, is Lars actually a great archer? Would Lars be a good archer in a battle, or more specifically his "technique"? Lastly, is he really an unique archer more than worth praising? We won't know until Lars does what I mentioned above; he must meet these criticisms head on.

If we allow Lars time to learn how to ride a horse; or it might be a bit more fair to just allow him to ride behind someone controlling the horse, which was a common practice even in battle (then make sure Lars knows how to also fire properly from a horse, since it requires controlling a horse--if you're alone--and staying on the horse using your thigh muscles...which is actually a pretty hard thing to do...and requires expert horsemanship; asking Lars to accomplish this is laughable, as this type of thing would have been a lifetime achievement in the past AND any archer that could fire fast, accurate, and ride a horse by himself...would have been a horrific force on the battlefield; then give him a sword/melee skill--make sure they have a lot of upper body strength--and a very well made, thick steel buckler and he'd be godlike; and then enough armor to protect from arrows...BUT this means you have to be very strong...otherwise you will never be able to accomplish ANY of the feats with the bow mentioned above; BTW, I'm mentioning a superhero right here, there "may" have been a few people like this in history, but they would've been very few and far apart...and more than likely used sparingly).

Mounted archers are extremely powerful against all units that are mounted yet slower than them and of course those on foot and without a long range means of attacking them (at least shorter than the mounted archer's range), this I will always agree with. We already know that mounted archery units could create absolute havoc in the past, see: Alexander The Great. However, eventually people figured out how to deal with this type of threat as well... But, horse mounted archers do have their "nemeses", namely foot archers--since they can take some time (if an arrow comes their way, they block it--it is much harder for a horse archer to carry around a big shield or at least just have on sitting nearby--or you can aim for their horse, which is why above I said that "superhero" like warrior would need a melee skill, because eventually they WILL be on the ground).

So, again, we have to wait and see if Lars bothers to respond to this video and to ALL of the others that have also been made (he did make a lot of people angry; as he did make some stuff up and possibly "overshoot" the mark on other claims and possibly even his own abilities...). I won't hold my breath though.

I think we can all come to a fairly logical conclusion on this. If Lars NEVER responds to anything, then we will have to assume that a lot of his "super-speed" with "accuracy" was due to one thing alone: editing.

Phew, I think that covers everything...it certainly was long enough!!!!

First of all, there is no "norm in America." It's a big fucking place, and schools are locally managed. I suppose waivers are relatively normal when children are expected to be in a risky situation without the supervision of their guardian. Suppose for example your kids were going to go on a rock climbing field trip. Would parents not be asked to consent to that? That's fucking weird. The weird part is that this waiver is clearly not related to the situation. These particular people at this particular school are clearly particularly stupid. That's why it's a video on the internet. It's not weird that they want 5 year olds' guardians to arrange for some sort of supervised transport home. I think it would be strange to just let a 5 year old walk miles down a highway to their home. The school would clearly have some liability if they allowed the child to do that without their guardian's permission.

As for the cop, well, again, that's a locale to locale sort of thing. He might not be a permanent fixture at the school (although some schools have rent-a-cops). He may have been called in because the guy caused a ruckus off camera. Do you not have cops go to places where there is an incident? So, for example, if someone went to a school and refused to leave until his demands were met, would you not call in a cop to mediate the situation?

Not a lengthy description, just a clearer description. Hovering over Cult shows "CultSift". Dark shows "Dark". Military (although pretty self-explanatory) shows "Army, Navy And The Air Force". No Marines? News shows "What's Fit to Sift". Huh? Philosophy, for some reason, pops up "Philosophical Society". Mystery is still a mystery. WTF goes in WTF? Debunked helpfully returns "The Debunked Channel". Some of the channels are obvious, but many of the pop-ups are confusing or just parrot the name of the channel.

If lengthier, yet still concise pop-ups are not an option, at least link to a page that does list each channel and briefly and clearly details the types of videos the channel welcomes. The current link that tentative channel assigners are encouraged to refer to "before selecting any channels" (the FAQ link) is a dead end and no help whatsoever.

I would appreciate not having to go to every channel and read the description there just to make proper channel assignments for a single damn video. It seems making VS easier to use and navigate for new members and potential new members isn't a primary concern these days, but I'm sure they would appreciate it as well. Sorry if that sounds snarky.

Just to save posting another comment... I still can't see who's got their ass planted in Sift Lounge without having to join (although they're usually of the same lot of 5-10 cliquies).

>> ^braschlosan:

>> ^NaMeCaF:
I cant stand this anime style animation. It's so lazily animated, like 4 frames a second and the huge shifts in perspective are just annoying.

Yeah those fucking fans better learn to have a professional animation studio. They should just go kill themselves for even trying.
I was attacking the anime style in general, not this specific animation asshole

>> ^gel:

But it's not lazy nor is it [an exaggerated] 4fps. WIP aside, you can download the video and frame step it if you want. The character animation is no slower than 12fps (24fps animated on twos). So, are you just making stuff up and then getting angry about it?
I don't love the animation nor the face art style, mind you; but it is quite well animated (and seemingly in Flash). There were a few camera movements that were funky. Still, I think you might be harboring some anime hate that you are misdirecting.
And furthermore, some animation from Europe is around 8fps and that stuff is fantastic. Some folks might be lazy. Others use it as a style (changing the timing also affects how the animation feels and how movement looks).


You're right it was an exaggeration, but that's the effect it gives. The art is amazing, and the person who did this is definitely talented, I'm not having a go at that. I'm just saying I don't like this anime style of animation. That is all.

>> ^JiggaJonson:

>> ^shuac:
>> ^JiggaJonson:
Danarys is not supposed to get the unsullied until the third book... -_-
Part of why I've liked the series so far is the fact that they followed the books so closely. I'm gonna be disappointed if they stray from that formula.

Christ, there's only been one season so far. How could you get used to that aspect so quickly? Especially since it isn't true: toward the end of season 1, they dip into book 2 a little bit (Arya and Gendry joining Yoren for their trip to the wall)...so I'm just gonna call a little bullshit on you. Just a tinsy bit, mind you.
Besides...all the books after book 1 do not have enough going on to warrant their own 10 episode arc. Not like book 1 had. So in short: they are absolutely picking & choosing the best story elements of book 2 and 3 for season 2. Live with it. Or don't.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ SPOILER ALERT @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
I trust the show runners to understand that to have, for example, the red wedding in season 2 would be too early. That's probably a season 3 storyline. But as far as Daenerys goes: what does she actually do for all of book 2? Not that much: she travels the desert, goes to Qarth, and walks through that magic room maze thing. Yaaaawn.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ SPOILER ALERT @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
My big concern is getting HBO to see the series through to the end without canceling it. That's the real cliffhanger.

I'm sorry, bullshit on what, exactly? That they didn't stick to the story line of the book in the first season?

The only glaring example of that, I can think of in the first season, is when Caitlyn visits Jamie Lanister at the camp and gets him to admit pushing Brann out of the window. That and I guess the part you mentioned. But, to be fair, Arya's last chapter in Game of Thrones ends with him cutting off her hair and telling her to go with him; the show shows her being called to the cart right after that happened. That insignificant difference is far cry from introducing an entirely new set of characters/plot element from a different book a whole season too soon.
Find me more glaring examples of not closely following the plot and we'll have something to discuss, until then...
throws bullshit back @shuac


They are doing their best to keep each season within the book it's supposed to parallel but the big issue is the the books get bigger. A Clash of Kings is longer than A Game of Thrones by a bit and A Storm of Swords is substantially longer than both of those. *Spoiler Alert* To be able to fit the red wedding into the end of season 3 they are going to need to get started with a bit of book 3 at the end of the 2nd season. These guys have done a fantastic job of adapting season one so I've still got very high hopes for future seasons.

Mouse over a channel assignment when submitting a video and have a defined description of what that channel is for. Currently it only reads the channels "header". When I submit a video I put my mouse over the Audio check box and it says "soundsift" I think it should include a description of the channels use so people do not have to go back and forth making sure they have the right channel assigned instead of guessing.

>> ^shuac:

>> ^JiggaJonson:
Danarys is not supposed to get the unsullied until the third book... -_-
Part of why I've liked the series so far is the fact that they followed the books so closely. I'm gonna be disappointed if they stray from that formula.

Christ, there's only been one season so far. How could you get used to that aspect so quickly? Especially since it isn't true: toward the end of season 1, they dip into book 2 a little bit (Arya and Gendry joining Yoren for their trip to the wall)...so I'm just gonna call a little bullshit on you. Just a tinsy bit, mind you.
Besides...all the books after book 1 do not have enough going on to warrant their own 10 episode arc. Not like book 1 had. So in short: they are absolutely picking & choosing the best story elements of book 2 and 3 for season 2. Live with it. Or don't.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ SPOILER ALERT @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
I trust the show runners to understand that to have, for example, the red wedding in season 2 would be too early. That's probably a season 3 storyline. But as far as Daenerys goes: what does she actually do for all of book 2? Not that much: she travels the desert, goes to Qarth, and walks through that magic room maze thing. Yaaaawn.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ SPOILER ALERT @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
My big concern is getting HBO to see the series through to the end without canceling it. That's the real cliffhanger.

I'm sorry, bullshit on what, exactly? That they didn't stick to the story line of the book in the first season?


The only glaring example of that, I can think of in the first season, is when Caitlyn visits Jamie Lanister at the camp and gets him to admit pushing Brann out of the window. That and I guess the part you mentioned. But, to be fair, Arya's last chapter in Game of Thrones ends with him cutting off her hair and telling her to go with him; the show shows her being called to the cart right after that happened. That insignificant difference is far cry from introducing an entirely new set of characters/plot element from a different book a whole season too soon.

Find me more glaring examples of not closely following the plot and we'll have something to discuss, until then...

*throws bullshit back @shuac*

>> ^JiggaJonson:

Danarys is not supposed to get the unsullied until the third book... -_-
Part of why I've liked the series so far is the fact that they followed the books so closely. I'm gonna be disappointed if they stray from that formula.


Christ, there's only been one season so far. How could you get used to that aspect so quickly? Especially since it isn't true: toward the end of season 1, they dip into book 2 a little bit (Arya and Gendry joining Yoren for their trip to the wall)...so I'm just gonna call a little bullshit on you. Just a tinsy bit, mind you.

Besides...all the books after book 1 do not have enough going on to warrant their own 10 episode arc. Not like book 1 had. So in short: they are absolutely picking & choosing the best story elements of book 2 and 3 for season 2. Live with it. Or don't.

*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*SPOILER ALERT*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*

I trust the show runners to understand that to have, for example, the red wedding in season 2 would be too early. That's probably a season 3 storyline. But as far as Daenerys goes: what does she actually do for all of book 2? Not that much: she travels the desert, goes to Qarth, and walks through that magic room maze thing. Yaaaawn.

*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*SPOILER ALERT*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*

My big concern is getting HBO to see the series through to the end without canceling it. That's the real cliffhanger.

>> ^BoneRemake:

I am at a loss as to what this is about.
I should not have to go out and search for back story, at least I personally don't believe so.


I agree, all stories should be bundled in a 30 second package of lights and mayhem for me to consume and become fearful of.

I am at a loss as to what this is about.

I should not have to go out and search for back story, at least I personally don't believe so.

Ok just because I like to rip off bandaids and rub nails into them. I'm wondering everyones opinion on someone who commits suicide as a way out? Now if they're a kid they don't have the same judgement as a teen or an adult sooo I'm not having a go at them.

However I think I would be a lot more concerned if say this kid was beaten to death...I'd want people to hang. Rather than he was picked on to the point where he felt he needed to end it all. Where were the parents in that scenario?

I guess it's my callous attitude but simply put if you want to commit suicide (if you're of age and sound mind) that's pretty much on you. If you're a teen you can GO to someone and TELL them what's going on. Parents, teachers anyone. When you're a kid you're more alone but you parents should maybe notice a change in attitude or something.

I don't know just some thoughts.

>> ^Kofi:

@luxury_pie The fucktard in the toro chase was actually a protester who got caught up trying to get people out of the way. She survived another 10 years but was paralyzed by the incident.
Not having a go at you, just letting you know the background story.


Wow. Thanks for sharing this piece of information. Way to go misjudging a situation due to lack of context.

@luxury_pie The fucktard in the toro chase was actually a protester who got caught up trying to get people out of the way. She survived another 10 years but was paralyzed by the incident.

Not having a go at you, just letting you know the background story.