>> ^EDD:

>> ^xxovercastxx:
>> ^EDD:
>> ^xxovercastxx:
I'm not sure if it's legitimately dead or just really fucked up, but this won't play for me.

Still works for me. I did have to click on 'Play' twice (once the big button in the middle and then on the one in lower left hand corner) though.

No dice. It fades to black and just sits there for me. The controls come up on mouseover but otherwise it's just a black rectangle.

Not sure what to suggest anymore apart from trying another browser? I'm not logged into IGN, and everything's still playing fine. What about other newer IGN embeds?


Some work normally and some have the same problem as this one. I just found that if I waited a few minutes, it eventually starts playing.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^EDD:
>> ^xxovercastxx:
I'm not sure if it's legitimately dead or just really fucked up, but this won't play for me.

Still works for me. I did have to click on 'Play' twice (once the big button in the middle and then on the one in lower left hand corner) though.

No dice. It fades to black and just sits there for me. The controls come up on mouseover but otherwise it's just a black rectangle.


Not sure what to suggest anymore apart from trying another browser? I'm not logged into IGN, and everything's still playing fine. What about other newer IGN embeds?

>> ^EDD:

>> ^xxovercastxx:
I'm not sure if it's legitimately dead or just really fucked up, but this won't play for me.

Still works for me. I did have to click on 'Play' twice (once the big button in the middle and then on the one in lower left hand corner) though.


No dice. It fades to black and just sits there for me. The controls come up on mouseover but otherwise it's just a black rectangle.

[redacted]

>> ^Barseps:

I don't see a video, just a black blank rectangle where the video should be.


Pffft ok. I'm struggling with FoD embeds now because when they give you the option to use the old embed code you get this monstrous thing:



So I deleted a bunch of it and hoped I'd got it right and then it said I could post it, so I felt like a fuckin genius, but apparently not!

Someone help meeeeeeee

I don't see a video, just a black blank rectangle where the video should be.

Awww thanks!

Luckily for you Danes are not territorial about their partners.

In reply to this comment by hpqp:
Wow, nice profile! The spatial organisation reminds me of the golden ratio rectangle, and the colours work perfectly.

(okay, I am incapable of making a non-creepy sounding compliment; you are pretty! please don't kill me @gwiz665)

Wow, nice profile! The spatial organisation reminds me of the golden ratio rectangle, and the colours work perfectly.

(okay, I am incapable of making a non-creepy sounding compliment; you are pretty! please don't kill me @gwiz665)

>> ^CrushBug:

I think this is blocked for me in Canada. Just a dead black rectangle with no interaction or messages.


Try clicking the Alternate Embeds:Backup. It worked for me.

I think this is *blocked for me in Canada. Just a dead black rectangle with no interaction or messages.

I was thinking about something similar just the other day. I was considering what morality is, and what is needed for it. It got me thinking about how you even describe morality...what is it? Is morality about yourself, or is morality about yourself with other people, or is it just about other people? I came to a satisfactory definition of morality: The use of reason to influence behavior. In this definition, even animals have morals. For instance, cobra snakes do not bite each other when fighting for a mate. They are using knowledge of their toxicity versus the nature of their reproductive cycle and making a rule against it. And while I am sure that bites happen from time to time, the general moral principle is observable.

Though, I don't think science is part of that equation entirely. Science is a notion of trial and observation. I don't know if you need that for the development of moral principles and ethics. I like to think of science as a mod or reason, a rectangle to reasons square. Empirical inquiry, for instance, can't tell you what morals even are or should be. Empirical inquiry, in fact, is very very limited in the types of questions it can even answer. Very useful for many many things, but as far as ethics go, it doesn't have much to offer. You can get more help from pure logical, a priori modes of inquiring when talking about things of this nature, IMO.

The key is having Beverly D'Angelo in the scene.

>> ^blankfist:

Plenty of examples where eyelines aren't broken at a rectangle table.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Spmqbs8YCW8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DIhwWTHcG0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_b0-mMtp8Y
And so on...

You're missing my point. I didn't mean it *should* be done that way, I meant it *can* be done that way because the frame of reference is clear.

As for your examples, I think they prove my point. The Christmas Vacation scene uses tons of angles and moving camera, so you need the 180 degree rule. The American History X example is extremely simple with almost all the shots concerning the father and son who are sitting at an angle to each other, so the rule applies. And the Donnie Darko scene is actually a little confusing because they break the rule with the mom and son, and they are sitting at an angle to each other.

>> ^blankfist:

Plenty of examples where eyelines aren't broken at a rectangle table.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Spmqbs8YCW8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DIhwWTHcG0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_b0-mMtp8Y
And so on...

Plenty of examples where eyelines aren't broken at a rectangle table.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Spmqbs8YCW8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DIhwWTHcG0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_b0-mMtp8Y

And so on...

This looks to be an older f-18, not the super hornet. It is hard to tell, the main difference is easy to spot normally as the old school hornet has oval intakes, where as the super hornet has rectangle ones. It is possible the aircraft become unstable when the operator was trying to bank while under speed. However, that isn't the only explanation as there could of been bad wind sheer, flame out (hard to say, right when it is going down I hear 2 pops, but that could be the rockets from the ejection seats), or some type of failure on the plane itself. It shouldn't be an albatross until the investigation is in. There is a very small window for error when flying at those speeds at that altitude. It is as close to the razors edge you get pulling [combat] maneuvers at low speed and altitude.