search results matching tag: subs

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.001 seconds

    Videos (277)     Sift Talk (42)     Blogs (21)     Comments (1000)   

Yanny or Laurel

wtfcaniuse says...

Nope. It switches for me on the same hardware. Also good headphones will go a lot lower than most speakers especially computer speakers. When you have a 5-6" midrange driver in a "subwoofer" attempting to produce sub 40hz tones it doesn't tend to work very well .

eric3579 said:

It all must have to do with your speaker set up, and the frequencies range your speakers use. I have computer speakers (also headphones) which generally cut off much/some of the mid and all of the low end frequencies. I'm guessing if i had good full range speakers and an eq i could hear both. I'd guess if we all listened from the same source, we would all hear the same thing. Although (in general) as you get older the frequency range you are able to hear diminishes quite a bit.

Bill Burr - One-Punch Man

Jinx says...

Lets not start a sub vs dub war now.

Obviously sub wins tho.

moonsammy said:

Wow, I hadn't heard any of the English dub before. It... lacked a lot. Love the show, have been impatiently waiting for season 2 (sometime late this year, I believe).

Just a playground in Russia

Kung Fu Hustle - The Beast

Kinetic Spinning Ring Box

Color Picker visual basic 2015

NoBody says...

Private Sub pbxPalette_MouseMove(sender As Object, e As MouseEventArgs) Handles pbxPalette.MouseMove
On Error Resume Next
Dim img As Bitmap
img = Me.pbxPalette.BackgroundImage
Dim iY, iX
iX = (MousePosition.X - Me.Left - Me.pbxPalette.Left) * (img.Width / Me.pbxPalette.Width)
iY = (MousePosition.Y - Me.Top - Me.pbxPalette.Top) * (img.Height / Me.pbxPalette.Height)
Me.pbxColor.BackColor = img.GetPixel(iX, iY)
End Sub

Private Sub pbxPalette_Click(sender As Object, e As EventArgs) Handles pbxPalette.Click
Me.pbxSelectedColor.BackColor = Me.pbxColor.BackColor
End Sub

"It doesn't matter if it's good, as long as it makes money."

CrushBug says...

"Mark Hamill on the latest Star Wars films."

He really isn't speaking specifically about the latest Star Wars films. This is one of many videos of interviews with Mark Hamill in which people try and take things out of context and make it sound like he is trashing the new films. He is not. This video is from 2016 and is posted by an account named "Jar Jar Abrams", if you were looking for any clue as to the intent of this person. I don't know when the interview was initially filmed, but it would be helpful to know when, relative to the release of The Force Awakens.

He is pointing out that Hollywood judges the success of movies only by the money they make, hence Transformers. He notes that companies, such as Disney, buying up other movie companies, should be cause for concern. How will Disney judge success of The Force Awakens? Probably on revenue, since TFA did about $2 billion. Does that make it a success or a good movie? That is actually the point he is making, that pure revenue doesn't judge success. I think his point is more that Star Wars makes a shit-ton of money, Transformers makes a shit-ton of money, but does that make Transformers a better/more successful franchise than Star Wars?

Rotten Tomatoes has most Transformers movies at sub-50%. Are they a failure? The last 2 Star Wars movies are sitting at 90+% on Rotten Tomatoes. Does that mean they are a success? I found TFA to be a fun, nostalgic Star Wars film, but it wasn't The Best Evar. I have seen TLJ twice in the last week. I think it is fantastic, almost as good as Empire, but it still has its problems.

The user review on Rotten Tomatoes for TLJ is 54%. Does this mean the movie is a failure? Or are user reviews just the internet rage machine, concentrated? I am done with aggregated/collected game and movie reviews on the internet. Too much hate, too much agenda-ranting. Nowadays, I have found some game and movie reviewers that seem to see games and movies like I do. I read their reviews and then judge for myself.

Be critical of the things you love.

Jane Sanders will be advising Bernie Sanders in2020 campaign

notarobot jokingly says...

Election 2020.

Title: A New Hope.

Slogan: “Hindsight is 2020.”

The rich will choose between voting for tax breaks for themselves, and tax increases and net neutrality. Unless they are rich because of NN, they will be able to afford the new high-prices for the internet to be open to them. They won’t care about NN.*

The poor will likely prefer the guy they can relate to the easiest.

Big words don’t draw a crowd of people who couldn’t afford university. The… undereducated voters will remember a lifetime of corporate media telling them “socialism is bad,” perhaps un-American. It will be difficult to convince this group otherwise. Indeed, “les deplorables” might (again) vote against their own best interests.

The middle class will be divided. Some will have been licking boots as hard as they can for a long time. These “senior boot-lickers” have been entrenched in the ideas of “capitalism” and are looking forward to their next promotion where they will finally get to have their own boots licked by the next chump below them. This sub-group will vote for tax cuts. There will be no promotion. Just a ribbon and thank-you card upon retirement.

The lower part of the middle class will fall for the trap that socialism is for commies. And “they’re not commies! They’re American!” They will vote for their own social security to be cut.

Finally, there is the group that remembers Debbie Wasserman Schultz—senior bootlicker, and professional lapdog—for her actions during the last election. They remember the emails. They remember how the Clinton Cash Club sowed corruption from within the party to stop the rise of a ‘so-called socialist’ outsider. This group will remember how Trump was handed the keys to the Oval Office after the party was fractured. They will fight hard to convince their neighbours not to vote against their own interests. They will be on guard for further corruption.

*Footnote: Among the ‘rich’ will be the ‘old establishment’ of the democratic party. Former Hillary supporters. This group will feel that their position of ‘corporate lapdog’ could be threatened by the prospect of a ‘socialist’ at the helm of their party. There will be an attempt to sabotage anyone who might upset that status quo from WITHIN the party. it has happened before. It will be attempted again. (DWS has not retired from her position on the bootlicker pyramid, and she has friends...)

Bonus: The Disney Princesses.

Now that the House of Mouse has 40% of all American media within it’s walls, you can bet that anyone who refuses to play ball wearing mouse-ears will have a harder time scoring. Just sayin’.

(And if NN is truly undone--you'll only ever see what 'they' want you to.)

2020 will be an interesting race.

The Truth About Jerusalem

bcglorf says...

@newtboy

I do think the 'arab world' has legitimate complaints

Gonna stop you there, I never said anything about validity or number of complaints or grievances anyone had. In a better world things like that would matter, in a military conflict though they don't change the outcome.

I see no chance for a single state (where non Jews are sub-citizens with no vote or power) or an Israeli designed two state...

You misunderstand me. I said nothing about the chances of those outcomes working for Palestinians or even being better for them. I stated that whether we like it or not, Israel has more than the required military might to do so and whichever moment they decide the cost of implementing one of those options is better than the status quo they are gonna do it. Do you really see 'no chance' of that happening?

I don't think propaganda is that important to them that they actually prefer their allies suffering to reasonable resolutions, but I don't think that any reasonable resolutions are being offered or even discussed.

Then on this we vehemently disagree. Israel wasn't the only one that expanded their borders in the war in 1948. The Arab Palestinians allies snatched up parcels of land as well. They haven't even considered ceding that land back to facilitate a Palestinian state. In fact, Israel's very existence is pretty widely accepted as being due to the fact that each neighbouring Arab state went to war with the intent of securing sections of Palestine fro themselves and thus each fought independently giving Israel a chance to survive facing off against each of them rather than facing a united coalition in a co-ordinated strike. That they all mobilized their forces and sent them in the second they could to try and get the most land allowed Israel to fight them, with the exception of Jordan whom Israel cut a deal with by agreeing to not fight for the land Jordan wanted so jordan just silently took that part of Palestine for themselves.

In short, the neighbouring Arab states are not true allies to Arab Palestinians.

The Truth About Jerusalem

newtboy says...

I doubt that. ;-)

Except for territory they hold, I agree, Palestinian suffering is their only influence, and that's not much.

I agree, because we back them, Israel does as it pleases. I do think the 'arab world' has legitimate complaints beyond Palestinian suffering, like constantly expanding borders and expulsion from historical holy sites.

I see no chance for a single state (where non Jews are sub-citizens with no vote or power) or an Israeli designed two state (where only barren desert is Palestinian with all water and access controlled by Israel, shut off at any hint of complaint).

The Palestinians do want a two state solution, just not one where any land worth having is Israel and the leftovers are Palestine.

Israel gains nothing from negotiating when they can get what they want, like recognition of another land grab (Jerusalem) without negotiating. That's why this move is horrendous, it gives them incentives to not negotiate and just act unilaterally.

I don't think propaganda is that important to them that they actually prefer their allies suffering to reasonable resolutions, but I don't think that any reasonable resolutions are being offered or even discussed. Given that, what's the option? Outright war? With us backing Israel, that's a no go.

I think, if given a solution that didn't give everything to Israel, the Palestinians would jump at it (maybe not Hamas, but the people). Being offered second class citizenship after having all their land and possessions taken is not workable, and it's what they seem to get.

If N Korea sells Iran a nuke, I hope we can we go back to negotiations instead of genocidal one sided dictations.

bcglorf said:

I think I see things more jadedly than you do.

Here's what I see of the situation. On a nation state level, nobody cares about the Palestinians. The Palestinians only influence on the chess board is their suffering. All of their 'allies' like Syria, Egypt and Iran don't care about the Palestinians for anything more than making sure that they suffer, the greater and the more public that suffering the better propaganda it makes. Israel and it's allies only care about the Palestinians in so far as that same suffering makes them look bad and sways public opinion as well. The threat from the Palestinians is a police and humanitarian matter, not a military one.

So everybody with boots on the ground doesn't care about the Palestinians. The Israeli side will take what they want as long as public opinion isn't too onerous on it. The Arab nations will actively arm, encite and push the Palestinians from peace to violence at ever turn because it ensures they serve their 'purpose' of public suffering better.

I count exactly zero hope for a two state solution reached between Palestinian and Israeli's as equals. A future of the region where the Palestinian people are afforded a better future either in a province of Israel, or their own state created under terms dictated to it by Israel I see as at least an existent possibility. I honestly believe seeking something more is simply not a possibility because NOBODY wants it. The Israeli's don't, the Palestinians allies don't, even the Palestinians themselves don't.

You seem to think maybe the parties can be made to change their minds on that, but it runs contrary to their self interests.

Israel gains nothing by backing down and negotiating as equals for a two state solution.

Palestine's 'allies' actually lose out greatly in any resolution to the status quo because it currently ties down Israel and makes for great propaganda. They'd lose that and gain nothing in return but less suffering for the Palestinians whom they don't care about.

Palestinians themselves might be persuaded to change their minds, but the only ones swaying their public opinion are their 'allies' with a vested interested in making sure they continue to fight forever for all of Palestine and not settle for two states. Additionally, for all intents and purposes their opinions don't matter anyways because they lack the power to make a meaningful difference.

None of the above is my opinion on how I would like things to be, nor how I think they should be, but rather how I see it actually looking. Nation state actions can usually be stripped down to narrow self interest and naught else. The exceptions are failures of the state representation, like say a dictator choosing their personal interest over a national one, or a buffoon blundering off into idiotic random actions...

ant (Member Profile)

Sharks Attack Submarine - Blue Planet II Behind The Scenes

How the Obama Presidency Destroyed Todays Democratic Party

StukaFox says...

I upvoted your video because I appreciate the fact you're trying to present a cognizant backing for a lot of the things you say and believe.

I don't know if this was your strongest card, 'tho. He's well-spoken, with impressive CV and an interesting argument. The problem is he's cherry-picking the entire video and sometimes even resorting to rank hypocrisy (it's anti-American to campaign to minorities with a grievance, yet pulling the same stunt got Trump elected when he did it with white people).

I notice he falls back on the Coastal Elite trope, as if being successful and having ideals is somehow an antithesis to all that's good and pure about corn farmers in Kansas. Somehow, it's all those darned people living in that magical wonderland of those who can smell sea salt from the front porch of their homes that fucked middle America.

No. Sorry. Wrong answer.

40 years of Republican-dominated rule, 40 years of a sick social experiment being run by the disciples of Any Rand, is what fucked those people. 40 years of tax cuts for the rich and excess taxation on the poor; 40 years of stealing from schools to pay for subs; 40 years of setting the wolves among the sheep in the form of stripping consumer protections; 40 years of historical revisionism; 40 years of the kind of government that should have landed the perpetrators 12 steps from 6 hooded men with 5 loaded rifles.

Republicans have been calling the shots since Reagan, but yet 8 years of the black dude somehow set the country on a frenzy of self-destructive idiocy unseen since the French Revolution?

Look, I appreciate that you're trying to raise the tone with videos like this. But if you're trying to intellectually shore up the dike, I've got bad news for you: the facts will rarely be on your side.

Senator Ernie Chambers The "N" Word at Omaha Public Schools

newtboy says...

Where did these white people get that idea about "nigga" being a term of endearment?
Black people.
This is what you get for fostering a double standard. Telling a black child to hit white children if they use a word, but not hit a black child if they do....who's the racist?
When the black child says nigga, expel them, then maybe you'll get somewhere.

This dude probably thinks he's fighting against racism by being pretty damn racist. All he said was "white"..."black"....."black"...."white"...."white". I get his anger, but you cannot fight injustice by suggesting injustice, you cannot fight racism by dividing people by race for separate treatment.

Rule of thumb, if those you find to be disgusting sub humans would be wrong to use your words with black and white reversed, you're being a racist.
If you become what you despise in your fight, you lost.
Those who fight monsters must be ever vigilant against becoming one.

Vox explains bump stocks

harlequinn says...

Just about any competition shooter can keep up 0.3 splits for 10 minutes. Go to a three-gun competition near you and ask someone to show you.

Aiming is relative to what you want to achieve. From "spray and pray" to taking many minutes per shot in Palma and F-class. You might take 10-12 shots per minute with a semi-auto at this distance. Others will aim and shoot at 5 to 10 times that rate.

"Shooting with your finger at maximum speed is always far less accurate and slower than full auto with the same gun. You have to prove it to me that I'm wrong, because that's simple logic."

No. That's not how it works. I don't have to prove anything to you (as much as you have to prove anything to me). How about this though - first go read "On Killing" by Dave Grossman, which covers this topic, then go search on Youtube for the many videos (I checked just now and there are plenty) showing how full auto hits much less, (and the shots where you do hit are mainly sub-optimal) compared to aimed fast shots in semi-auto, then go join a gun club and try some competitive shooting. I'd be surprised if at the end of that you still imagine full-auto is what you think it is.

Also fun to watch are videos of guys like Jerry Miculek who can fire in semi-auto at insane rates of fire.

Now, lets be clear, I'm not saying full-auto doesn't have its uses, because it does. I'm taking umbrage with your claim that you have more control in full-auto (you do not) and that you get more hits on target with full auto across a series of targets (you do not).

newtboy said:

I don't believe for one second that you could keep up that rate for a full minute, much less over 10. If you take the time it takes to aim a 300 yard shot accurately, you're talking 10-12 shots per minute.
Shooting with your finger at maximum speed is always far less accurate and slower than full auto with the same gun. You have to prove it to me that I'm wrong, because that's simple logic. Full auto is a more stable rate, so easier to adapt to, and doesn't require you to vibrate one hand, shaking the gun, dividing your attention, and tiring you out.
It's silly to imply the full auto functionality didn't exponentially raise the number both wounded and killed. Without the crowd, it might have made less difference. With the crowd, absolutely not imo.



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon