>> ^razzyl:

Man I dont know WTF just went on there but Baby Faced Laser Dick is officially the name of my next band. Look for us on iTunes.


I'll totally listen to your stuff and then download it illegally!

Your video, Swaim - Deconstructing the Most WTF Clip in Internet History, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

>> ^Fletch:

Bonercycles...


i'll take you bonercycle and raise you a dick laser!

Swaim is my internet comedy hero.

Taste this (shameful promotion) for some great Swaim for the latest in his regular series:
http://videosift.com/video/Swaim-Deconstructing-the-Most-WTF-Clip-in-Internet-History

>> ^Ryjkyj:

Wow, great deconstruction there. I especially like the part where you say that listening to police radio channels is illegal for citizens, blowing whatever argument you had up in your face.
Unless of course you think that cops are breaking the law by listening because citizens can't?
C'mon, let's hear it...?


Let's take a closer look.

You will find that police only radio channels are often encrypted, because the *public* can listen to them, and *hijack* them. Which is illegal and those laws are enforced by the FCC.

The key words there are the public, which could mean anyone listening. Listening is not the illegal act. Hijacking them is, which is covered by the FCC.

Come on, trololololololol harder.

Wow, great deconstruction there. I especially like the part where you say that listening to police radio channels is illegal for citizens, blowing whatever argument you had up in your face.

Unless of course you think that cops are breaking the law by listening because citizens can't?

C'mon, let's hear it...?

would you be able to tell jokes if once a month u had cronic pains and leeked blood from your gronal reagoin , then at the age of between 20-50 u spawned another person from within yourself ?


I think its all to do with status and authority , women in general are more dimplamatic at a compramise to there own authority .

the realy good femail comideans r ones that are interlectual and can produce clever jokes but without bing a dyk.

kind of like the best black comideans dont base all there jokes on the colour of ther skin , same with cultral comideans , arguably a good comidean can deconstruct almost annything and make it funny. ( what would be comparable to an actor that simply plays one charactor (themselfs) verses one that can play manny )

With no prior knowledge of this clip, I had to deconstruct what was going on with the characters myself. I think I'm pretty close to the original storyline.

*Scene set, by the beach, with a fat guy, and obviously, there's a trampoline there*

//Moves to guy sitting down, paving slab man, who has bad eyesight, sitting at picnic table with his paving slab//

Note: Paving slab man is friends with fat guy

Paving slab guy notices someone bouncing on the trampoline, but is however unsure (with his terrible short sighted vision) if it's a hairy guy or a pretty woman.

Paving slab guy does the 'is it a woman' check. On closer inspection and severe eye straining, it is found that trampoline person has breasts.

Paving slab guy reckons that they've sure got the trampoline skills and the breasts to warrant further investigation, so decides to check out the situation taking his paving slab with him to hopefully impress the individual.

Paving slab guy scrutinizes the individuals trampolining ability while initiating stage 2 of the 'is it a woman' check. Yes, indeed, she has a vagina and what's this? She can do the splits?!

Paving slab guy moves in for the kill, showing off his paving slab to his best ability.

//A CHALLENGER APPROACHES//

Paving slab guy is cock blocked by post-apocalyptic sunglasses woman.

Paving slab guy hugs his paving slab of fertility to to stop post-apocalyptic sunglasses woman from getting aroused.

End scene.

Also, I do believe a lot of Republicans are weary of corporations and big banks and Wall Street in general, not just Libertarians and Democrats. The problem is how we've polarized every issue between your two parties so that finding common ground or going against your own party is seen as an ostracizable offense and a sign of weakness.

We all agree that Corporations are a problem. The problem is how we deal with it. The common ground is where the answer lies. It's not in compromise, but in philosophical deconstruction of the entire system. First we have to accept that government creates corporations, and that this is the same government that maintains hegemonic control over weaker and poorer nations. However, big business, or rather big money, cannot go without control; it's the bourgeois vs. proletariat otherwise.

>> ^Bidouleroux:
If we deconstruct occam's razor, it goes like this:
(assumption 1)There exists at least one simplest explanation of a phenomenon which makes the fewest assumptions.
(assumption 2)There does not exist a better explanation than the simplest explanation for a given phenomenon.
(argument)If the simplest explanation covers all known facts about the phenomenon it explains, then a better explanation does not exist.
This is perfect logic. You may not agree with the assumption that there exists at least one simplest explanation which makes the fewest assumptions, or you may even not agree that the best explanation is the simplest, but in both those cases you are toying with metaphysics. In the world of information, simplest is always the best. It doesn't mean you always get the best, but ideally the best you can attain is also the simplest. If you find that your previous best explanation requires the addition of a new assumption, then that means it didn't cover all known facts and thus wasn't the best explanation in the first place. Indeed, science is the search for the very best explanation, that explains even as yet unknown facts (facts which you try to find through experimentation, which is why you will sometimes get false positives that validates one of your new and fancier explanation). But in the meantime, we do what we can with the best explanation.
>> ^Sagemind:
Occam's razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic, and certainly not a scientific result.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor
William Ockham (c. 1285–1349): The term razor refers to the act of shaving away unnecessary assumptions to get to the simplest explanation.




This is very true. You can think of information almost like a river of water slicing through ground. It always finds the path of least resistance and keeps moving with gravity (and other forces, basically almost anything left can be boiled down to friction).

Information with humans works the same. It seemingly begins complex, but over time it's realized that it is far simpler than previously thought by using more complex information. This has been true for math, sciences, even religion.

Also, I think he did mention some evidence in the video as he did talk about the likelihood of a given scenario taking place with current understanding. In it he took "the least path of resistance" and concluded that the sound was caused by the box falling due to lack of friction on a tilted shelf. Occam's Razor.

I think you naysayers obviously don't understand the brilliance of her act.

The jokes are corny and crude precisely becaaaaauuuuse she's only amatuerish at ventriloquism.

It's a theme.
She's poking fun at herself and the absurity of telling jokes thru a hand puppet.
Hence the deconstruction of it all.

You fellows also seem to fail at understanding why she has to laugh at her own jokes.
If she didn't, the illusion of the talking Monk is much less believeable.

Her laughter distinguishes her from the character of the Monk.

If we deconstruct occam's razor, it goes like this:
(assumption 1)There exists at least one simplest explanation of a phenomenon which makes the fewest assumptions.
(assumption 2)There does not exist a better explanation than the simplest explanation for a given phenomenon.
(argument)If the simplest explanation covers all known facts about the phenomenon it explains, then a better explanation does not exist.

This is perfect logic. You may not agree with the assumption that there exists at least one simplest explanation which makes the fewest assumptions, or you may even not agree that the best explanation is the simplest, but in both those cases you are toying with metaphysics. In the world of information, simplest is always the best. It doesn't mean you always get the best, but ideally the best you can attain is also the simplest. If you find that your previous best explanation requires the addition of a new assumption, then that means it didn't cover all known facts and thus wasn't the best explanation in the first place. Indeed, science is the search for the very best explanation, that explains even as yet unknown facts (facts which you try to find through experimentation, which is why you will sometimes get false positives that validates one of your new and fancier explanation). But in the meantime, we do what we can with the best explanation.

>> ^Sagemind:
Occam's razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic, and certainly not a scientific result.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor
William Ockham (c. 1285–1349): The term razor refers to the act of shaving away unnecessary assumptions to get to the simplest explanation.

@NetRunner, I'm not sure I understand what you mean seeing me "do these things countless times". If you're remarking about my consistent desire to use words based on a word's original lingual connotation as the prime factor in determining someone's meaning, then I'm guilty as charged. You may continue to enjoy language as a memorization technique no doubt taught to you lazily by a teacher whose idea of educational integrity was to grade based on ability to commit to memory rather than deconstruct the sum of its parts.

On that topic, anyone who believes being against big government and for more individual freedom is demonstrating partisanship, then I think we've discovered another grand achievement from our lackluster public school system.

It's true Jefferson was a man who spoke of "the people", and he practically coined it. He was a self avowed Republican, however. Not to be confused with the modern Republican, but of the root meaning of republicanism. He also believed in a strong democratic core whereby the choice of the men and women entering and exiting office would be chosen by a majority as opposed to an aristocratic minority, which is how elections were conducted at the start of the US. I agree elected officials should be selected by a majority. I don't believe, as didn't Jefferson, majority decision gives right for the popular group to take away rights and liberty and instill dependence and tyranny in its place, which is the democracy rule that Democrats and Republicans enjoy today.

I believe in persuasion over coercion; voluntarism over compulsion; individualism and self-governance over collectivism and dependence. Look how your precious system of big government has failed us routinely and driven us into entangled alliances and wars abroad. Your continued answer to this will surely be "but we can make it better." No. We cannot, otherwise it would've been better by now. It's only gotten worse.

>> ^40_Minus_1:
Except, you know, THAT one.>> ^Payback:
I want to live in any building that architect designed.



That's what I mean, have you ever seen how much deconstruction they do on those buildings BEFORE the explosives go off? That thing was probably 100% quake proof.

I think the concept of royalties for sampling had already been settled earlier, when the sample is small enough they do not really have to pay. This was a big problem and argument over rap albums sampling small bites from each other. There were tons of re-sampled sounds in the early 90s.

Either way this is a better insight to which albums were sampled, not to mention skill in deconstruction.

He's also using a modern program when The Prodigy was more likely using rackmount equipment and samplers to accomplish the same effect. They did not really have this sort of software based realtime editing in 1997.