Straight under the skin. Straight, I say!

1. If you want to borrow MY crayons, then yes, I AM the boss of you. How is that even in question? They're my crayons, so I set the rules. You will not bear down, or I will withdraw my generosity. At the very least. Don't like it? Don't make requests.

2. Do not smash a toilet in a dog's face, just to get attention. The dog could have been blinded or otherwise injured, inconsiderate clumsy fool.

3. Refrain from using a sensationalist iPhone smear/repair video as a soapbox to promote sexist notions. Twice.

4. Don't expect a company to support cases of user error. Especially huge companies. It's just not possible. Devote energy to precaution and research rather than blame-shifting.
(Disclosure: Samsung user)

I agree with everything he said... except for the last point.

The story of the prequels is boring and it's not directed in a visually interesting way.

Anakin's transformation into Vader is narratively clumsy and I'm not even sure you can entirely blame Christensen for his portrayal of Anakin, given the clunkiness of the script (blindingly obvious tip: if you're creating the guy who will become Space-Hitler, don't let people call him "Ani").

Lusas is undoubtedly a technical visionary, and he's certainly not a "bad" director, he's just not really good enough to be directing the biggest movies on the planet.

Dude. Proofread your stuff. It makes you look incompetent.


Incompetent:

1. Not having or showing the necessary skills to do something successfully.
"a forgetful and utterly incompetent assistant"

synonyms: inept, unskillful, unskilled, inexpert, amateurish, unprofessional, bungling, blundering, clumsy, inadequate, substandard, inferior, ineffective, deficient, inefficient, ineffectual, wanting, lacking, leaving much to be desired;

The only thing that didn't really work was the musical segue from Huey Lewis(?) to the BTTF theme. It felt clumsy, which was a shame because the drifting delorean worked really well with it.

Other than that, it was exceptionally well put together.

I think an interesting plot line for an actual BTTF 4 would be to show that Marty & Doc somehow affected the course of technology and disrupted the invention of cold fusion, hoverboards, etc

When he talked about the unborn, he wasn't talking about fetuses, he was talking about managing to care about distant future generations of humanity, not just our own children and grandchildren. Though I agree it was a clumsy way to put it.

Thanks, clumsy wife! Now I will appreciate my clumsy wife more. <3

And reading too much into clumsy animation and continuity errors.

I've had it, after using it for 22 years the internet has become so freakin stale. Same old lazy know-it-all spectators who couldn't walk a mile in their own shoes, much less anybody else's. The predictable drama queen cliches about revolution and fascism and cop trolling and "he's just a kid" and race baiting and "I'm the face of the oppressed" and all the fake controversy and forced celebrities and all the shit-eating selfies. This clumsy new interface on Videosift made me realize it takes more mouse clicks just to read the same old crap. It's been fun.

Here is the basic situation. If you find her funny because she discusses women's issues in a way you find to be humorous, more power to you.

I personally don't think she is funny. In fact, I would go so far as to say that unless she is performing material that someone else wrote, she is extremely terrible at comedy.

Is it because I am a guy? Maybe. I mean I understood what she was doing. She was basically trying to use sarcastic humor to take pot shots at the magazine because they enforce a lot of stereotypes to their readers. I just think that she went about it in a lowest common denominator sort of way. It was crude and clumsy from my viewpoint.

But in the end, it really doesn't matter. You either find her funny or you don't. I can't throw stones at you if you think she is funny. I like Stephen Wright and Mitch Hedberg while a lot of people think they are terrible. Comedy is something personal to everyone, and you like who you like.

Or he could just NOT be a retard that falls off a perfectly good stage for no reason? So yeah, clumsy like. a. boss.

Must have been his friends that went to help him.

Personally, I think I would have been far too clumsy to help him. Probably would have accidentally put my knee into his head.





A few times.

I own about 15 kitchen knives, none of which cost more than roughly $10 individually -- and most under $5 or so. I don't have very well developed knife skills, so I am fairly hard on knives (as eluded to in the video). But, replacing a $5-$10 knife when I mistreat it won't break the bank.

I'm sure my slow, clumsy cutting would make any professional chef weep or facepalm, but I am not an overpriced restaurant worried about the judgements of strangers. And even my meager skills are plenty adequate enough to reduce any food item that I purchase into smaller, bite-sized pieces of food item. Plus I've never lopped off a finger or cut myself bad enough to require stitches or medical attention or anything.

So, I'm happy enough with my cheapo knives and subpar (but adequate) skills in using them. The video does provide good general advice though!

The explanation I heard was thus:
They didn't want to go with red, the tradtional Labour colour, because they wanted to make a statement that they were trying to reach out to women and break from the norm. So they went with pink, which is close to red but not red (symbolic of a change or break from the mainstream), is not affliliated with any of the other major parties, and is a bright, warm colour. Clearly they are still guilty of being so out of touch they couldn't see how it might be perceived, but I can sort of believe that the thinking wasn't purely " girls like pink, lets make a pink bus".

This all came to pass because of polls showing that voter turnout for women is abysmal (frankly I can't blame them...) so here is Labour making a clumsy stab to try and engage with half of the voting public.

I think it is silly to deny that men and women care more about different things. Is it patronising to focus on education, or childcare, or care for the elderly (all things women ranked higher than men) in order to try and score votes, or is perhaps the greater sin to simply ignore any difference and continue the existing dialogue which seems to be turning women away from politics in droves?

I completely agree with her about Lars on many points. He often (very often actually) makes his technique seem "the best in the world" when compared to ANY other technique (as there are A LOT of shooting techniques; some that need different bows, materials, and setups).

Kind of like being able to shoot through plate-mail... Lars would NEVER be able to pull that off (of course no one, with a shortbow and the wrong arrow--or tip--will be doing it either; the crossbow is as close as you can get to being small and puncturing plate) as it requires a huge amount of pull force to puncture plate (even heavy English oaken wood shields). The type of bow is a big issue, because that is where you get your draw strength. But, what type of tip you have on your arrow will determine whether or not it even goes into or just bounces off the armor...

However, for the most part, archers didn't try to puncture plate armor--because to be honest about it: it was HARD, it required a VERY heavy bow and expensive tips (of course the bows were also expensive, because they would not be made out of normal material--it might be a specially imported type of wood that could hold up to extreme forces; the string may also be made of something a bit different than normal). So, you didn't have very many people walking around with the innate ability to puncture plate. BUT, what most archers trained a VERY long time to accomplish was extreme accuracy, for one reason alone: armor.

Instead of trying to puncture plate or even chain, archers instead aimed for gaps or areas were there was no coverage (basically anywhere you bend or connect the armor to another piece or tie/connect itself together; so places like under the armpit or along the side of the body were the armor is pulled together and tied shut). Then they may not have to go through anything at all, or they will only have light leather or heavy cloth armor in the way--either way they will penetrate, and they will slowly kill their target by slowing them down and immobilizing them, then moving in for the finishing blow OR if they hit the right place they can just let blood loss finish them off...

But, this requires extreme accuracy, especially in battle AND especially so if you are firing from a horse (if you were lucky you were able to ride behind someone and concentrate solely on firing your shots, then you could add a bit of speed as well). This is the one place that Lars has horribly mislead people--OR he has made a really great breakthrough. But, if Lars never bothers to really demonstrate this stuff, we have no idea how great an archer he really is.

His entire video is one gigantic edit. Every shot and "trick" has been setup with the camera in the right place. The biggest problem is we don't know if it took Lars 1000 attempts to accomplish some of these feats (he makes it sound in some areas that it happens VERY fast, however...but due to the editing, or how he edited it, we actually have no idea if his claims are true) or if he did it in ten...or right off the bat...

That is why I said we needed to wait for Lars to actually talk to us about this whole thing, and to clear various areas up (records and competition). Because he has set a very high bar for himself, and from his own video he seems to be amazing--but, I like many know that if you edit enough and try something over and over again, you can make yourself look like an expert *whatever* whenever you wish to do it...

I agree heavily with her about his historic claims (and also mocking him on his "super clumsy" shots and setups to make fun of "modern" archers); she also points out, correctly, how wrong he is on some of those claims. Like everyone shooting from the left side; which somehow Lars, in ALL his studying completely and utterly missed. Which tells me one thing: she knows more about archery history than Lars actually does.

But, is Lars actually a great archer? Would Lars be a good archer in a battle, or more specifically his "technique"? Lastly, is he really an unique archer more than worth praising? We won't know until Lars does what I mentioned above; he must meet these criticisms head on.

If we allow Lars time to learn how to ride a horse; or it might be a bit more fair to just allow him to ride behind someone controlling the horse, which was a common practice even in battle (then make sure Lars knows how to also fire properly from a horse, since it requires controlling a horse--if you're alone--and staying on the horse using your thigh muscles...which is actually a pretty hard thing to do...and requires expert horsemanship; asking Lars to accomplish this is laughable, as this type of thing would have been a lifetime achievement in the past AND any archer that could fire fast, accurate, and ride a horse by himself...would have been a horrific force on the battlefield; then give him a sword/melee skill--make sure they have a lot of upper body strength--and a very well made, thick steel buckler and he'd be godlike; and then enough armor to protect from arrows...BUT this means you have to be very strong...otherwise you will never be able to accomplish ANY of the feats with the bow mentioned above; BTW, I'm mentioning a superhero right here, there "may" have been a few people like this in history, but they would've been very few and far apart...and more than likely used sparingly).

Mounted archers are extremely powerful against all units that are mounted yet slower than them and of course those on foot and without a long range means of attacking them (at least shorter than the mounted archer's range), this I will always agree with. We already know that mounted archery units could create absolute havoc in the past, see: Alexander The Great. However, eventually people figured out how to deal with this type of threat as well... But, horse mounted archers do have their "nemeses", namely foot archers--since they can take some time (if an arrow comes their way, they block it--it is much harder for a horse archer to carry around a big shield or at least just have on sitting nearby--or you can aim for their horse, which is why above I said that "superhero" like warrior would need a melee skill, because eventually they WILL be on the ground).

So, again, we have to wait and see if Lars bothers to respond to this video and to ALL of the others that have also been made (he did make a lot of people angry; as he did make some stuff up and possibly "overshoot" the mark on other claims and possibly even his own abilities...). I won't hold my breath though.

I think we can all come to a fairly logical conclusion on this. If Lars NEVER responds to anything, then we will have to assume that a lot of his "super-speed" with "accuracy" was due to one thing alone: editing.

Phew, I think that covers everything...it certainly was long enough!!!!

Sad.
You are supposed to be the protectors of the public, but you seem to think it's proper to live in fear of and disgust with them.
I was taught, and it has held true, that the best way to win a fight is not to be in one. I have won many a 'fight' in my youth by being LESS violent than the person assaulting me, sometimes with words diffusing the situation, sometimes by simply avoiding their clumsy attacks and allowing them to hurt themselves. Escalating the violence is almost never the best option, just the simplest and most reactionary.
Those times I 'lost' a fight (only happened with my brother who was twice my size, unavoidable, and I couldn't talk down), I could have become more violent to 'win' and saved myself from discomfort and injury by stabbing him...that would have been inappropriate. To me, from your comments you would have knifed him, because winning is more important than anything else. That theory sucks ass, and I think you know it.
OK, if "all too many cops" is hyperbole, I'll say "nearly every cop on the force"...better? Both are true, both are terrible. Show me just 3 instances of cops going against other cops publicly and in court, and remaining cops. You can't. That's "All too many" to almost everyone that's not in uniform.