dont know why it wont let me embed..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WsCcQ5dGtU

>> ^A10anis:

>> ^kulpims:
♪ but in the end it doesn't even matter ♫>> ^A10anis:
>> ^Jinx:
>> ^A10anis:
"One more time, WITHOUT the compulsory F'KIN music!!!"

ONE THING I DONT KNOW WHY IT DOESNT EVEN MATTER HOW HARD YOU TRY KEEP THAT IN MIND I DESIGNED THIS RHYME TO EXPLAIN IN DUE TIME ALL I KNOW

Sorry, try using syntax, punctuation, English, and DON'T SHOUT. It makes it far, far, easier for the reader. Thanks.


Of course, to morons, it doesn't. I'm done.

Do they have a glut of commas where you come from?


ps. Its Nu-Metal. It's hard to listen to and it seems rather fitting for it to be hard to read too.

>> ^kulpims:

♪ but in the end it doesn't even matter ♫>> ^A10anis:
>> ^Jinx:
>> ^A10anis:
"One more time, WITHOUT the compulsory F'KIN music!!!"

ONE THING I DONT KNOW WHY IT DOESNT EVEN MATTER HOW HARD YOU TRY KEEP THAT IN MIND I DESIGNED THIS RHYME TO EXPLAIN IN DUE TIME ALL I KNOW

Sorry, try using syntax, punctuation, English, and DON'T SHOUT. It makes it far, far, easier for the reader. Thanks.


Of course, to morons, it doesn't. I'm done.

>> ^Jinx:

>> ^A10anis:
"One more time, WITHOUT the compulsory F'KIN music!!!"

ONE THING I DONT KNOW WHY IT DOESNT EVEN MATTER HOW HARD YOU TRY KEEP THAT IN MIND I DESIGNED THIS RHYME TO EXPLAIN IN DUE TIME ALL I KNOW

Sorry, try using syntax, punctuation, English, and DON'T SHOUT. It makes it far, far, easier for the reader. Thanks.

>> ^A10anis:

"One more time, WITHOUT the compulsory F'KIN music!!!"

ONE THING I DONT KNOW WHY IT DOESNT EVEN MATTER HOW HARD YOU TRY KEEP THAT IN MIND I DESIGNED THIS RHYME TO EXPLAIN IN DUE TIME ALL I KNOW

>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^coolhund:

The consensus is non-existent. There are hundreds of scientists who oppose it. There are over 450 studies which oppose it.
There might be hundreds of scientists and 450 studies that oppose it, but there are thousands of scientists and countless studies for it.
There's no consensus? yeah, right....
>> ^coolhund:
Oh and just btw: A consensus doesnt mean anything, because physics are not democracy, as Einstein said very nicely once:
"If I was wrong, one would be enough."
This is correct, and if Einstein was wrong, one good parsimonious hypothesis backed by experimental evidence would absolutely prove him wrong. Same with AGW.
But every competing hypothesis describes the reality less accurately.

>> ^coolhund:
This AGW hype is no science. As climate scientist and former IPCC lead author Prof. John Christy of UAH put straight:
For example, we were told by the IPCC that „milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms” (TAR WG2, 15.2.4.1.2.4).
After the winters of 2009-10 and 2010-11, we are told the opposite by advocates of the IPCC position, „Climate Change Makes Major Snowstorms More Likely” (http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/climate-
change-makes-snowstormsmore-likely-0506.html)
The non-falsifiable hypotheses works this way, “„whatever happens is consistent with my hypothesis.” In other words, there is no event that would „falsify” the hypothesis. As such, these assertions cannot be considered science or in anyway informative since the hypothesis' fundamental prediction is „anything may happen.”

The full quote is "Milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms but could cause an increase in freezing rain if average daily temperatures fluctuate about the freezing point. It is difficult to predict where ice storms will occur and identify vulnerable populations. "
The potential effects of climate change are certainly an unknown. The fact that it is happening? not so much. And Christys skpeticism has been pretty soundly debunked, although at least he's one of the few that's actually qualified to speak on the matter.
You still haven't addressed my other point about why you believe the scientific community is making this up.


And that doesnt change a thing.

Of course, nobody is denying that climate change isnt happening, because climate has always changed.

I didnt say everything was right what critics say. Thats science. However, you can start by "debunking those 450+ studies one by one, because that article you linked didnt debunk one of them but instead just tried to personally discredit 3 people who they think are too dangerous to their cause.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

Its very easy to say what you are saying. Just like creationists. You cant debunk it. "God told me so, prove me wrong!". That you think climate science is a science that is even known well by humankind and thus can be easily proven, proves alone that you dont have a clue. Again: Climate science doesnt even know properly how clouds are created. And studies that try to explain this partly (Svensmarks), and thus attack the "consensus" of the corrupt, get dismissed like its some atheist in a church trying to explain how resurrection is impossible.

There are enough facts plus satellite data, but as long as people like you prefer to get their money taken from them (thats what this is all about, if you still havent noticed), there is nothing objective science can do about it. You have no idea how many billions the global warming market is already. Not only the "scientists" that get paid for every mention of AGW in their studies and articles by the IPCC, but also normal people who make a living by selling stuff that is supposed to decrease CO2 emissions and levels.

This is so thick of an political and economical part of our society already, that, even if you had 100% undeniable facts, people would still not believe you. Its sad that youre one of them. Again: This is not science anymore. Science is falsifiable, but people like you just are saying the Al Gore bullshit "The debate is over" and are bringing old and already debunked arguments (even not used anymore by IPCC). I dont know why you are so ignorant and and stupid to support a new religion, but it makes me very sad every time I am confronted with so much ignorance. I know this last part has nothing to do with the issue, its just my own feelings, since ignorance has been the sole cause of problems on this earth. I didnt even know theres actually a site like this that promotes discrimination of scientists by putting their own bullshit on it and claiming their are wrong and calling them childish names like Christy Crocks. Reminds me of those republican kids that invent stuff like "libtard" or "obamallama". Very objective and scientific. It gets sadder and sadder each day.

Oh and btw, we are experiencing a cooling now it and will last until about 2020 to 2040. Lets see what new "scientific facts" will pop up to support your religious opinion until then. I am seriously excited.

Oh yeah about your last link:
It proves that you dont understand how things work: The IPCC is an organization, that has no need to exist, if there is no AGW. Thats like me putting up an organization that claims that computers, like they are right now, kill us all and I'm getting paid by several governments to say that. I have enough money to buy people and studies that support my claims. But not only that, my idea is that good, I will get support from the economy, because my view is opening MANY new ways to make new profit, because many things will have to change. I will also get the mass media on my side, because being a friend of the bad computers that kill cant be good. People who criticize my views will be bad people and part of the bad computer industry that only wants money. Perfect propaganda material.

However, its prolly funny for you (worth to ignore I mean) to see that the bad oil companies are part of the climate change lobbies. They make lots of money off the AGW hype too. The high energy prices alone, that are part caused by this hype, lets them laugh themselves into sleep every night.

As I said, the system is far more complicated than the simple picture you posted there. And thats why it is so easy to keep the true agenda hidden. And no, its no conspiracy. Its the way this system works. You want to keep your job, or you want to get a better paid job... you just have to get rid of a few minor ideologies and then you have a good life for the rest of your life. No more need to scrounge up supporters every month to get your fundings for your studies. Its what everyone wants. And if youre one of those guys who actually believes in AGW, which is quite common these days due to Al Gores indoctrination movie and the mass media following it, its even more straight forward.

Oh and btw, I think America is very easy to fool with things like this. Take the biofuel for example. It is nowhere near being actual "biofuel". It actually harms our eco-system. Palm oil, clearing of the rain forest to make space for more plantations, high food prices, waste of water, etc come to mind. Other countries like Germany are more skeptical about things like this and have proven once again, that they are right, even though your country (and many other who benefit from it) are still claiming there is also a "consensus" on this matter. How ironic.

>> ^Psychologic:

>> ^coolhund:
>> ^Psychologic:
>> ^coolhund:
>> ^sillma:
>> ^marinara:
>> ^TheGenk:
God, I hate motion blur...

man i thought it was just me who hated motion blur so much


Motion blur isn't all bad, but when it's applied at such amounts as this it's retarded as hell. Just a tiny TINY fraction of motion blur makes everything slightly more real.

That tiny bit of motion blur (actually I feel like its A LOT as well), you have anyway if youre using a LCD screen. So I really dont know why they add it in games on top of it too.

LCDs have a fade out effect, but it only affects pixels that change.
Think of a small object traveling very quickly across the sceen. Only the pixels in each frame will have the fade out, but "good" motion blur will actually make the animation look smoother.
Of course motion blur is like 3D... developers try to make it obvious and end up using way too much of the effect.

Nope, its exactly that. Motion blur. Things around you get blurry when you look around. Thats also why people cant tell that well anymore if its 60 fps now or 100. It makes the motion look smoother, but also makes things blurry. Try an old CRT again, the picture is crystal clear when you move around. On an LCD its blurry as hell.
So using motion blur on an LCD is like putting a gas tank into a gas tank.

It can be similar, but if something is moving fast enough that its individual frames aren't touching and the background is stationary then an LCD does nothing to connect those frames. Motion blur does (depending on the particular implementation).


An LCD always has motion blur when something is moving. If it slow, you just dont see it that well. Actually LCD motion blur is more realistic, since it isnt so overdone as the artifically implemented stuff.

>> ^coolhund:

>> ^Psychologic:
>> ^coolhund:
>> ^sillma:
>> ^marinara:
>> ^TheGenk:
God, I hate motion blur...

man i thought it was just me who hated motion blur so much


Motion blur isn't all bad, but when it's applied at such amounts as this it's retarded as hell. Just a tiny TINY fraction of motion blur makes everything slightly more real.

That tiny bit of motion blur (actually I feel like its A LOT as well), you have anyway if youre using a LCD screen. So I really dont know why they add it in games on top of it too.

LCDs have a fade out effect, but it only affects pixels that change.
Think of a small object traveling very quickly across the sceen. Only the pixels in each frame will have the fade out, but "good" motion blur will actually make the animation look smoother.
Of course motion blur is like 3D... developers try to make it obvious and end up using way too much of the effect.

Nope, its exactly that. Motion blur. Things around you get blurry when you look around. Thats also why people cant tell that well anymore if its 60 fps now or 100. It makes the motion look smoother, but also makes things blurry. Try an old CRT again, the picture is crystal clear when you move around. On an LCD its blurry as hell.
So using motion blur on an LCD is like putting a gas tank into a gas tank.


It can be similar, but if something is moving fast enough that its individual frames aren't touching and the background is stationary then an LCD does nothing to connect those frames. Motion blur does (depending on the particular implementation).

>> ^Psychologic:

>> ^coolhund:
>> ^sillma:
>> ^marinara:
>> ^TheGenk:
God, I hate motion blur...

man i thought it was just me who hated motion blur so much


Motion blur isn't all bad, but when it's applied at such amounts as this it's retarded as hell. Just a tiny TINY fraction of motion blur makes everything slightly more real.

That tiny bit of motion blur (actually I feel like its A LOT as well), you have anyway if youre using a LCD screen. So I really dont know why they add it in games on top of it too.

LCDs have a fade out effect, but it only affects pixels that change.
Think of a small object traveling very quickly across the sceen. Only the pixels in each frame will have the fade out, but "good" motion blur will actually make the animation look smoother.
Of course motion blur is like 3D... developers try to make it obvious and end up using way too much of the effect.


Nope, its exactly that. Motion blur. Things around you get blurry when you look around. Thats also why people cant tell that well anymore if its 60 fps now or 100. It makes the motion look smoother, but also makes things blurry. Try an old CRT again, the picture is crystal clear when you move around. On an LCD its blurry as hell.
So using motion blur on an LCD is like putting a gas tank into a gas tank.

>> ^coolhund:

>> ^sillma:
>> ^marinara:
>> ^TheGenk:
God, I hate motion blur...

man i thought it was just me who hated motion blur so much


Motion blur isn't all bad, but when it's applied at such amounts as this it's retarded as hell. Just a tiny TINY fraction of motion blur makes everything slightly more real.

That tiny bit of motion blur (actually I feel like its A LOT as well), you have anyway if youre using a LCD screen. So I really dont know why they add it in games on top of it too.


LCDs have a fade out effect, but it only affects pixels that change.

Think of a small object traveling very quickly across the sceen. Only the pixels in each frame will have the fade out, but "good" motion blur will actually make the animation look smoother.

Of course motion blur is like 3D... developers try to make it obvious and end up using way too much of the effect.

>> ^sillma:

>> ^marinara:
>> ^TheGenk:
God, I hate motion blur...

man i thought it was just me who hated motion blur so much


Motion blur isn't all bad, but when it's applied at such amounts as this it's retarded as hell. Just a tiny TINY fraction of motion blur makes everything slightly more real.


That tiny bit of motion blur (actually I feel like its A LOT as well), you have anyway if youre using a LCD screen. So I really dont know why they add it in games on top of it too.

>> ^DrewNumberTwo:

He walked down the street legally with an item that he was legally allowed to walk down the street with. We don't know why Jeremy was walking around with his gun, and it doesn't matter. If you would like to walk around with a jar of cat piss, why would I give a fuck?


i couldnt tell you why you should "give a fuck" if i walk around with a jar of cat piss because there isnt any real reason you should "give a fuck". im not arguing that at all. what i am rebutting is this idea that any ridicule of this mans behavior, while it may be well within his rights, is objectionable on the sole premise that "because he fucking can".

imagine you see me walking down the street legally with a legal jar of cat piss. you dont know why i am walking around with a jar of cat piss and it doesnt matter. if i would like to walk around with a jar of cat piss, why should you give a fuck? but if you think im weird for it, youre a paranoid idiot.....now does that make any more sense than chiding me, or anyone else, for very reasonably thinking "jeremy" a douche pickle sandwich, given the context of the situation.

i dont really give a fuck that he was lawfully open carrying. but given the situation that unfolded and how he unnecessarily reacted to it, i am inclined to think he is a douche captain who had no real motive to open carry other than to instigate an awkward scene with the police with the hopes that he may capture video evidence of police brutality that he instigated in the first place to prove a retarded point

for all i care he can continue to act in this way as is his right. doesnt mean im not gonna stop calling him a douche for it though

first of all , i hate tv dont know why im watching this shit.

secondly I don't know why he talks down the audio book as if it would be worse than the written book so long as the information is the same I don't see why you would promote one more than the other.

>> ^burdturgler:

>> ^quantumushroom:
A mediocre impersonator: the only job His Earness can take credit for creating.

Surprisingly, you and your buddy up there missed the point. This isn't about the comedy or the performance, it's about the hypocrisy of the g.o.p. conference laughing at infantile jokes then kicking the guy off stage when the jokes turned on them.



I dont have time for buddies or friends, take your heart felt hurted feelings and make a pie and keep your fingers busy doing something constructive. You dont know why I downvoted or upvoted because you never asked, you dont seem "man " enough to actually engage in conversation and ask questions, you seem a tit for tat grudge holding Popsicle.