I love how in such a small plane, you can really see what's going on. You can see him correct some kind of sideways force (wind i assume?) by pushing to the left, and see the response of the plane when he directs it.

For some reason - probably video games - i assumed those sticks would be incredibly sensitive. In retrospect it makes no sense for it to be very sensitive.

*quality retrospection.
*promote

Dunno if you'd relate as much, but I would really like to see historical retrospectives of Bullfrog and Psygnosis games.

The human body being a closed system, if you burn more energy than you take in, you lose weight. It feels great when you're in that exercise routine.. or at least in retrospect, it feels to have been .. great..?

No, I had to click through More obvious in retrospect.

'Deck' may be over the top. Putting myself in his shoes, at the time, it may have seemed intentional. He just got up and kept going which seemed odd. I'm sure I would have asked the dude what had happened. In retrospect, after seeing the whole video, I'd be pretty pissed that this idiot is tooling along on his segway apparently not competent to operate it (and couldn't he have just walked along with the camera?). It's about as careless as texting while driving. I'm not sure if Usain Bolt is still winning races, but the legs this guy ran into are what puts food on his plate. So yes, I'd be pretty pissed.

Someone just told me that this is an actor/director, and he was edited in after the fact. Hahaha that's pretty funny in retrospect but even still, very close to the truth intentionally or not

Very powerful.
Not to break the magic but from Wiki : "At her 2010 MoMa retrospective, Marina performed The Artist Is Present, in which she shared a period of silence with each stranger who sat in front of her. Although "they met and talked the morning of the opening",[22] Marina still seems to have had a deeply emotional reaction to Ulay when he arrived at her performance, reaching to him across the table between them."

To be fair, my friends and I are extremely racist to each other in our text messages, but we are a hodge podge mix of white, black, Mexican, Korean, Chinese, Vietnamese, Iranian, and really who cares about trying to include them all.

See, smart people gravitate towards each other regardless of race or sexual orientation because they were in honors and AP classes together, competing in academic decathlon, speech and debate, and went to the same tutoring place, hanging out not because they were cool and looked the same, but because they are intellectual gladiators; only idiots revolve their lives around a group of mammals simply because they look alike. It's truer than you think. You end up living up to other people's expectations and fail to experience the joys of your unique mind if you don't diversify your experiences. We are all prototypes for a future society anyway. White people are a conglomerate of interracial breeding. Also, it's simply genetically irresponsible NOT to mix genes with people of differing racial traits.

Why? Because all humans are niggers. It's just not common courtesy to call people niggers in public, and certainly you wouldn't call someone you don't know a nigger. Say what you will, I feel like there's an overriding logic that makes criticism of that pretty clearly crybaby bullshit. Black people have a reason to cry, and then there's white people lol; but, we are all just people so how does that not override your logic on BOTH sides of the argument? I'm above and below everything and nothing. I am the all singing, all dancing crap of the world. You might not agree but life is transitory and we'll all die and fertilize the ground.

So, in retrospect, let's continue to call friends and family niggers as we see fit, but let's not so hastily call someone we don't know a nigger; likewise, let us continue to judge ourselves as unworthy, but not judge others as such. I feel like that should make everyone do alright.

I'd like to add something humorous here but honestly, I'm still trying to process how big a pack of cunts you'd have to be to seriously defeat a bill no one would honestly oppose, put forward purely to show how democracy works.

Actually, in retrospect, it pretty much describes what happens to real common sense legislation. Congrats kids, you're now prepared for the apathy you'll feel when you can actually vote.

Thank you! Can't read German, so---in retrospect, the part about the "Stossdamfer" and "intakt" might have clued me...
lol

The gym class technique, in retrospect, is clearly designed to make anyone who isn't all upper body strength with no lower body successful and fail all the rest of us!
Maybe a good work out for your upper body---but if you actually wanted to CLIMB and DESCEND a rope, these two methods would work a lot better, right?!!!!

I rather feel that that puts the argument in a skewed light. Essentially, we are either in full awareness of the facts and long term results of fracking or we are not. If we are not yet, why on earth would we pursue it now? We have alternative forms of energy production, it's just a whole bunch of very rich people aren't quite done selling us oil yet.

The shale will still be there, and we may have developed more efficient and safer means of extracting it. And we will have to deal without oil eventually, what better time to begin, whilst we still have some that we can get if we utterly must? We are not yet in crisis but they want to take a risk, that's got to make you ask a few questions. I don't have a detailed scientific knowledge of the subject, but i would know if it was proven safe, and it isn't yet.

Incidentally or otherwise, the first earthquake that i've ever felt in my life happened very shortly after they began a new testing site for fracking nearby - one of two earthquakes that happened in short succession after the first wave of tests. I live in the north of england.. they never happen. It's worth looking into before we start doing it.. the last person i'm going to trust with the future of this planet is an oil baron.

@BoneRemake - let me know which bit of my horseshit you want me to look past and i'll attempt to look past it and see what you describe. Or was it an empty sound-bite? My criticism was valid - newt said everything that needed to be said on that subject, and yes i can in retrospect see the value of the video as a demonstration of the fracking process. But you don't have to be a hippy to try and see positive and informed decisions made in the world, but if it makes me one then i'm glad to be one. What does that make you? No need for name calling, it generally means you've not got an argument.

I'd just like to mention that it really, really suits the pro-fracking lobbyists to try and ridicule people and try to conjure mental images of the long-haired flower-child hugging trees and not showering and wearing tinfoil hats. It turns real, intelligent, professional people who care about what happens around them into caricatures, and it belittles their reasoned and sensible argument without even addressing it. It is a tactic as old as the hills.. i'm sure you're not a lobbyist, but i can't help think they're smiling knowing that the old seeds they scattered around took root somewhere..!

Well, just to be clear... ISIS and any other al-qaeda groups anywhere in that region are still real "threats", just not directly or imminently to us (probably). And furthermore I wouldn't go judging the reality of these claims based on a 15-minute compilation of quotes put together by Cenk, many of which he subtly misinterprets (in fairness I skipped a handful because of that).

Basically, we can say for sure that Iraq had no WMDs, but there has been no retrospective on this because it is still a current event. Further, I would say that in this case everybody knows we're basically just bombing ISIS regardless of what legal excuse we use. I think Bush and Cheney just wanted to give the region an enema and still lie to us about it even today. There has been plenty of analysis on that in the last dozen years, none of which I'm an expert on.

One danger I see of political cynicism is to dismiss both sides as if their arguments are equally worthless. Just like with anything, ACTUALLY EVALUATE BOTH SIDES! For example: http://videosift.com/video/Last-Week-Tonight-with-John-Oliver-Climate-Change-Debate

Also, I think you are misinterpreting the GRRM quote about killing perceived heroes of the series once they become popular.

First of all, the Red Viper and Ned stark were introduced and killed in the same book. Their deaths were planned all along and served the story. They didn't have a chance to become popular with the fans before they died. It only feels that way because you are watching a tv adapation of the books.

Secondly, the MOST POPULAR candidates for the heroes of the series are still alive as of book 5. There is one prevailing theory based on plenty of hints GRRM scattered throughout his books on who the real heroes of the story are, and so far the books have been consistent. Of course, that does not mean they will survive the series ending.

GRRM has specifically stated that he does not want the books to become like the TV series Lost, where the writers actively tried to outwit reader speculation. GRRM said he wanted to strike a balance between giving the readers what they want, and maintaining some element of surprise.

So in summary, I don't think GRRM is killing characters unfairly just because they're popular. In retrospect, I like the series even more because so few books leave such a lasting impact on me.