Tags for this video have been changed from 'sofa, car, stupid, silly, funny' to 'sofa, car, stupid, silly, funny, top gear, sofa, dumpster, skip, boat, garden shed' - edited by therealblankman

*discuss

This is dup of this one, though it's dead. Wasn't it decided that existing sifts if dead should be fixed before reposting?

Bravo! Top Gear and Clarkson are the best.
Sure that isn't Edd Chinas sofa car?

>> ^Krupo:
>> ^EDD:
ok, it's a little bit off-topic, but Die Hard 4.0 was a very decent revival, I don't get what's his problem with it.

"BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!"
No, I'm not laughing at the idea that DH4 was very decent. I'm quoting myself in the theatre, laughing at the "magic hackers" in the movie.
For an action flick, it was amusing and did its job. But if you stop suspending disbelief for too long you find yourself laughing stupidly hard at a bunch of the technical twists/angles.
Also, the ZPR doesn't seem to be as nsfw as it used to be (maybe since the GDC presentation?), but still is a bit. I listened a second time to see if there was much obvious nsfw here, wondering if he was 'cleaning' things up. There was just enough to make it salty enough for a tag though.



Yeah, I love how everything, includine your toaster and sofa, are connected to the internet in that movie. Seriously, like, wtf?

BUt as for the review - Man, I could tell he really hated this game.

Holy Sheet! I need a cheap sheet to go on my Sofa-King expensive sofa!

I have a real soft spot for Roy. There are lots of great 'technical' guitar players (Malmstein, vai, satriani). There are also a fair share of great 'musical' guitar players (Hendrix, Gilmour, Clapton). But Roy was the rarest combination of both. A one of a kind that didn't and doesn't get his due.


In reply to this comment by snoozedoctor:
Sofa,
What indeed is wrong with these people. I guess I'm getting too old and jaded. I long for bygone days of real musicians playing real songs with real instruments. Anyone can set a loop to play over and over and monotone some poetry over it. On the other hand, very few can make smoke rise from the frets of a Tele as it screams the blues of a lonely and neglected heart. Am I waxing too poetic here? I think I'm off the deep end in despair over this.

Sofa,
What indeed is wrong with these people. I guess I'm getting too old and jaded. I long for bygone days of real musicians playing real songs with real instruments. Anyone can set a loop to play over and over and monotone some poetry over it. On the other hand, very few can make smoke rise from the frets of a Tele as it screams the blues of a lonely and neglected heart. Am I waxing too poetic here? I think I'm off the deep end in despair over this.

I think this is now my favorite sift -- I just about fell off my sofa laughing. Thanks, Eric!

also, i'd like this on the record, in regards to downvoting, in general.

i have never once taken a single one of ant's downvotes against him, and he knows that because i told him so. we all frequently joke about them.

http://www.videosift.com/video/Crazy-Eddie-commercials-we-had-to-endure

i have never felt ant was targeting me, or anyone else to my knowledge, just being harsh yet honest.

and his votes given / received ratio shows a genuine interest in selecting the best and worst for their appropriate thumbage, before the clip has sifted, and those less interested in manning the churn, suddenly appear.

ant was one of the first, to upvote the one thing i really cared about here.

http://www.videosift.com/video/Shadow-Puppets-animation-by-Chuck-Gamble

and i notice him secretly upvoting my comments.

besides, he's the yin to my yang. i dig ant.

if all that shroom did, to deserve any of this, was downvote any one guy's shit honestly?

we would not be having this conversation, and every one of you knew that, about him, long before i got here.

ps.
>> ^MycroftHomlz:
Rottenseed, I agree that all of my15minutes videos suck.

funny. the way i read that, rottenseed was talking to, and about, K0MMIE. not me.

i guess we all see what we want to, though.

and, if you're willing to provide some more useful and specific criticism, i'd happily accept it, Holmz. here, or in private, at your convenience.

i've only been active here 2 months. but i honestly didn't think anyone had a problem with TED clips, a couple funny commercials, some old TV intros, a single Ron Paul vid, and one cute sift.

pps. were this an isolated incident, with shroom, the way it was with TheSofaKing, three weeks back, dumping on blankfist?

http://sofa.videosift.com#comment-282621

that's how i'd handle shroom.

but this incident, is about as isolated, as Paris Hilton at a circle jerk.

which is a fucking shame, because TheSofaKing needed only the merest of prodding to see the error of his ways instantly.

thank you all again for your time, and attention, to keeping the sift the kind of place that you want it to be.

i will happily submit to the will of the Jedi Council.

- owen

1. TheSofaKing stands by the NIST report.
2. TheSofaKing agrees that the NIST was not in charge of the FEMA investigation.
3. TheSofaKing agrees that the NIST sent one (1) person to the disaster sites as part of the FEMA investigation and they inspected some physical evidence there.
4. TheSofaKing has not read the NIST report on the WTC collapses in its entirety.
5. TheSofaKing does not think the NSF and the ASCE were original investigative teams even though they responded within hours of the collapses and before FEMA and the BPAT teams were formed.

According to the document:

"Early confusion over who was in charge of the site and the lack of authority of investigators to impound pieces of steel for examination before they were recycled led to the loss of important pieces of evidence that were destroyed early during the search and rescue effort. In addition, a delay in the deployment of FEMA’s BPAT team may have compounded the lack of access to valuable data and artifacts."

Do you agree with that?

Or is that another bit of documented reality that you'll choose to ignore?

In reply to this comment by TheSofaKing:
No that does not constitute an "original investigative team" to me. They were one group out of several who arrived quickly to respond to an unimaginably chaotic situation, for which there was no "procedure". Do you know what the word "among" means?

In reply to this comment by rougy:
This is a quote from section two, paragraph three of the document from the House Committee on Science:

Researchers also began to respond immediately. Among the first were National Science Foundation (NSF)-funded social scientists and engineers who arrived at the WTC site within 48 to 72 hours after the tragedy to begin collecting data. Similarly, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) formed a Disaster Response Team within hours of the first plane strike.

That does not constitute an "original investigative team" to you?

They were there before the NIST, weren't they?

They were there before FEMA, weren't they?

This is a quote from section two, paragraph three of the document from the House Committee on Science:

Researchers also began to respond immediately. Among the first were National Science Foundation (NSF)-funded social scientists and engineers who arrived at the WTC site within 48 to 72 hours after the tragedy to begin collecting data. Similarly, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) formed a Disaster Response Team within hours of the first plane strike.

That does not constitute an "original investigative team" to you?

They were there before the NIST, weren't they?

They were there before FEMA, weren't they?

In reply to this comment by TheSofaKing:
No I don't agree with that. Have you read the document you linked to? Because if you made it even two paragraphs in, you would have seen where your latest attempt at documentation is again, and predictably I might add, incorrect.

"A variety of other engineering researchers and professionals, including members of the Structural Engineering Association of New York, also engaged in the monumental task of collecting data that could lead to a better understanding of the collapse of the buildings ..."



In reply to this comment by rougy:
1. TheSofaKing stands by the NIST report.
2. TheSofaKing agrees that the NIST was not in charge of the FEMA investigation.
3. TheSofaKing agrees that the NIST sent one (1) person to the disaster sites as part of the FEMA investigation and they inspected some physical evidence there.
4. TheSofaKing has not read the NIST report on the WTC collapses in its entirety.

*****

See revisions to #2 and #3 above.

The original investigative team(s) were not FEMA, but rather the members of the "Society of Civil Engineers" and the "National Science Foundation" according to this document by the House Committee on Science.

Do you agree with that? Is that correct?

*****

1. TheSofaKing stands by the NIST report.
2. TheSofaKing agrees that the NIST was not in charge of the FEMA investigation.
3. TheSofaKing agrees that the NIST sent one (1) person to the disaster sites as part of the FEMA investigation and they inspected some physical evidence there.
4. TheSofaKing has not read the NIST report on the WTC collapses in its entirety.

*****

See revisions to #2 and #3 above.

The original investigative team(s) were not FEMA, but rather the members of the "Society of Civil Engineers" and the "National Science Foundation" according to this document by the House Committee on Science.

Do you agree with that? Is that correct?

*****

In reply to this comment by TheSofaKing:
Your running record of my beliefs is incorrect. #3 and to some degree #2 are in contradiction with my last post which stated at least one expert from NIST was on site with FEMA and did examine physical evidence. Your questioning whether I have read all of the WTC 1 & 2 reports (tens of thousands of pages) and you can't even read 2 sentences?

As for the full NIST report, no...I have not read it in it's entirety . I doubt anyone has. I have read significant portions of it depending on what aspects of the investigation I was interested in at the time.

In reply to this comment by rougy:
1. TheSofaKing stands by the NIST report.
2. TheSofaKing agrees that the NIST was not a part of the original investigation.
3. TheSofaKing agrees that the NIST did not go to the disaster sites and inspect the physical evidence there.

*****

Have you read the NIST Report that you referenced in its entirety?

*dead
This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by SOFA Entertainment

1. TheSofaKing stands by the NIST report.
2. TheSofaKing agrees that the NIST was not a part of the original investigation.
3. TheSofaKing agrees that the NIST did not go to the disaster sites and inspect the physical evidence there.

*****

Have you read the NIST Report that you referenced in its entirety?

In reply to this comment by TheSofaKing:
Ok...I know you like to take things slow out of your own necessity, but it has been obvious where this was going since your first post. Why don't you just come out and say what you want to say? It's not like it is anything new or based on evidence.


From NIST website

"FEMA, which had launched its Building Performance Study in early October 2001, sent a team of experts to review the steel at the WTC site and the salvage yards. These experts, including one from NIST, identified pieces of steel of potential interest to a follow-on investigation"


In reply to this comment by rougy:
1. TheSofaKing Stands by the NIST report.
2. TheSofaKing agrees that the NIST was not a part of the original investigation.

The NIST did not go to the disaster sites and inspect the physical evidence there. They did not personally recover any of the physical evidence that they used in their report. The evidence was given to them by Fema or other entities. Correct?

1. TheSofaKing Stands by the NIST report.
2. TheSofaKing agrees that the NIST was not a part of the original investigation.

The NIST did not go to the disaster sites and inspect the physical evidence there. They did not personally recover any of the physical evidence that they used in their report. The evidence was given to them by Fema or other entities. Correct?


In reply to this comment by TheSofaKing:
I guess by "original investigation" you actually meant "preliminary investigation". FEMA's initial report was completed in cooperation with the American Society of Civil Engineers, and no, the NIST did not have anything to do with it. Nor should they have.

Once commissioned to do so , the NIST produced a mind bogglingly thorough report on WTC 1 & 2. In paper form it sits about 3 feet high.

http://wtc.nist.gov/reports_october05.htm

The investigation and subsequent report on WTC 7 was separated from the first report in order to get it out faster. That is why the one I linked is preliminary, with the full report due out in early 2008.


In reply to this comment by rougy:
1. TheSofaKing Stands by the NIST report.


The NIST was not part of the original investigation into the collapse of the towers 1, 2, or 7. Correct?