How about those cops (plural) at 0:38, *throwing* spike strips at the car that's 4 yards away.
At least one got a car going in the other direction, that's something.
The real GTA is missing that feature.

Even I think Dutch is an insanely hard language. And I am Dutch!
So many rules and exceptions to rules.

Example: Let's say you want to wright down 'pancakes' in Dutch. A decade ago that word just changed in all dictionaries, because it used to be 'pannekoeken' (pancakes) and now we need to write 'pannenkoeken' (panscakes!?). All because you can bake pancakes in multiple pans. I'm not making this up.

One more actual commonly needed rule:
If you combine a word consisting of two parts of which one is an animal and the other an animal, you need to write plural for the first word.. (I'm not kidding, this an actual rule)
So, for example 'paard' (horse) and 'bloem' (flower) in English becomes 'horseflower'.. We need to make it plural, so in English it would be horsesflower (paardenbloem in Dutch)

Just don't even try to learn the language, we all speak decent English and most also speak French and German, so we'll just adapt to you, that's better for all of us.

There's only one of her, so no need to use the plural. It's not supposed to be realistic, but instead to provoke discussion. A few quotes from the filmmaker here:

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/womens-blog/2014/feb/11/oppressed-majority-film-women-eleonore-pourriat

You can sign me up @bareboards2. If there were some broad agreement on terminology I would switch to gender neutral language instantly. Fucking sick of it.

Coincidentally I was thinking about this just this afternoon, because luckily I have nothing better to do at work than stand around contemplating gender politics; pleased and proud as I am of genderqueer crusaders trying to wrestle pronouns into shape, I've been generally unwilling to join them. For fuck's sake, I spend enough time every day arguing about the excess syllable in the number sev, I can't afford to multiply that by every sentence with a person in it.

Singularising plural pronouns is offensive to me on a practical and aesthetic level, Spivak's no damn good, you've got your zes and your hirs and your hens, it's a pain in the ass but as soon as we get some consensus and momentum it's going to be cool.

Can't see that feminism really has anything to do with all this, well, I have trouble seeing that feminism has anything to do with anything. Not to go all Trancecoach here with male world problems but they're similarly told that to be professional they have to knot a piece of cloth around their neck for no reason or slice the hair off their face every day for no fucking reason. The situation is that we have a bullshit tribal culture with endless absurd customs and arbitrary rituals which is perpetuated by morons.

So we should always be rationalising - language, culture, behaviour, expectations.

Gender neutrality is obviously the way to go. If you get shoved in a box you don't become the champion of the box and work to make your box the best box it can be; you break out and start beating your captors over the head with box fragments.

I don't give a fuck about women's problems; I don't give a fuck about women, but I'm glad to consider anyone who stops wearing makeup a part of my team because I don't wear makeup for the same reason I don't shave my stupid face.

Anyway that was my choggie impression for the day. Too much caffeine, not enough sleep, not enough time spent bathing in the blood of my enemies.

just another distraction piece. pay attention to this triviality over here while real news goes unreported

and yes, I'd say the same damn thing if it was a Republican doing a selfie. Whether you like it or not, Presidents (plural) are celebrities and all their shit is overscrutinized. Meanwhile, yet another tiresome debt ceiling debacle is going on by the actual lawmakers and holders of power in this country. The whole idea of a king/queen or president in the modern age is to distract the populace while the real power holders in business and gov't go unscrutinized.

..and its working.

Not to mention, in much of the world we're doing maths plural. Way harder!

I lived in Germany for about 3 months for work and went back fairly regularly on business. I had a bit of German before I left, but I found it really difficult to speak while over there, primarily because everyone had such good English.

You would go to a shop or a meeting and people would just switch to English on the basis that their English was better than your German. You really had to ask to please use German if you wanted to learn.

And German is hard. There are 16 words for "the" or "a" in German (male, female, neutral and plural multiplied by 4 "cases")! And the gender assignments make no sense at all. Why is "wife" not feminine?

That said, they seemed to really appreciate the effort, even if they were very picky about grammar, as evidenced by that lady at the 1 minute mark.

I had a cat that used to get in fights (plural, it happened more than once) with coyotes. By the time he was 5-6 years old he was down to about 1/3rd of an ear total, broken tail, permanent limp, sliced lip so he drooled all the time, mangy lookin', etc.

Maybe that level of accumulated battle scars convinced him to retire from fighting, and he survived in that state for another 5 years or so. Tough ol' bastard.

Nah, what I mean is this isn't a matter of fails / wins. That implies plural. This is a singular win / fail.

Why didn't he show stats for crime rates in UK metropolitan areas? Wouldn't that be the most interesting comparison?
Also, the US may have 6 times as many metro areas, but it also has six times the population of UK and Wales.
...oh.. and please, "data" is plural.

Those riots and killings, Sagemind, seem to me to be much more a function of politics than any specific religion. Also, the "Muslim people" you are invoking is an obvious abstraction of a complex, massive, and plural group of people/voices around the world. Isn't that much obvious?

I know where you are coming from, and a big part of me agrees with you, but I also feel that the way both of us want to react to the violence is based on propaganda we've been fed about Islam and its "violent" nature. Nick Kristof has a pretty good piece on this here (should you be interested): http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/23/opinion/sunday/kristof-exploiting-the-prophet.html

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Lucky didn't mention it, but this was an email submission from the producer - here's some more detail:

I wanted to share a cool sci-fi, VFX heavy film I produced called Plurality. The film was conceived by Ryan Condal (screenwriter for Paradise Lost, Hercules, Cell 211) and directed by Dennis Liu of @radical.media. We shot it for no money, with a couple friends over a year and a half.

It takes place in 2023 NYC, where the WTC1/Freedom Tower houses THE GRID, a city-wide system that tracks all of your movements to reduce crime. The film confronts the issues of privacy and surveillance for the sake of safety.

Plurality Movie Link:
http://youtu.be/IzryBRPwsog

This is all good fodder for discussion, but it is clear from the dishonest way in which this video was put together that the Kochs are more interested in creating a political hit piece than fostering any kind of discussion.

They claim Obama signed an executive order to kill American citizens, but they provide no context and erroneously use the plural (citizens) when in actuality it's just one guy. I'm not sure if it could have been avoided. I'm not sure how many lives it saved, if any. I'm not sure if it was a good thing or a bad thing. In context, it exists in a very debatable grey area. But we see no attempt to understand any of this in this sanctimonious sermon.

As far as NDAA, it was not a bill designed to indefinitely detain prisoners, it was, (is) an annual military budget bill. John McCain attached a rider to the 2012 NDAA that allows for indefinite detention, for reasons I don't understand, because indefinite detention was already permissible under other existing clauses. Obama asked for it to be removed, but no action was taken, and it was voted in with a veto proof majority.

As to why the court case was appealed, I don't know. It might have something to do with Obama's executive order to shut down Guantanemo and provide trials for the prisoners. Congress vetoed the order by prohibiting funds to try the prisoners, leaving them in a kind of limbo. Does this clause give him more time to shut down Gitmo and give trials to the prisoners under a new and improved congress? I don't know. The point is that while it might be fun for the Koch's to drop some provocative soundbites, they do it in a superficial way that does little to further the conversation. If you want depth, read Chris Hedges, who has written some great stuff on the subject.

You could say that Reason is being superficial on purpose to mirror the Jackson video, but none of the videos they produce ever approach any level of depth.

Beyond all that, right wing libertarianism is not a viable alternative to a consensus guy like Obama or even a complete disaster like Romney. They are at the bottom of the barrel as far as our choices go. Their backwards and luddite view of economics disqualifies them from serious consideration from anyone with even a cursory understanding of economics.

Obama has kept his promises of ending combat in Iraq, getting us a healthcare system and signing an executive order to shut down gitmo (even if congress stopped him from doing it). I'd love to elect Noam Chomsky as President, but that's not going to happen, and he probably wouldn't get much done if somehow he were miraculously elected. There are many factions in this country pushing and pulling, and frankly, I can't remember a time when regular citizens had more pull. Change is slow in a democracy.

Emphasis mine. I disagree to an extant. Good journalists know you can strive for objectivity. You are right that ultimately anyone paying attention can figure your slant eventually, but the longer it takes the more respect you earn. It makes people notice all the more when you are clearly choosing words and editing material to moderate rather than polarize your newscast. When good communicators do it well, often it's the middle ground that becomes accepted by a plurality. Reconciling seemingly antagonistic viewpoints helps us to see the third way.

>> ^VoodooV:

>> ^lantern53:
The media on the left doesn't think they are slanted, because they think they are right.
the media on the right doesn't think they are slanted, because they think they are right.

sorry, reality isn't quite so binary.
yet another false equivalence argument. Everyone is biased, you can't not be. Science and the history of our government have shown time and time again that there is no one "way" of getting to the truth. This idea that liberalism is correct vs conservatism is correct is a bullshit way of framing things, and the smart people know it. It's just another charade to keep you distracted.
yet another failure of the two party system. compromise is perceived as weakness

>> ^PHJF:

Plural of roof is roofs, not rooves


While true, it is a strange and illogical part of the language as it stands today. We pretty much pluralize every other word ending in "fs" to "ves". Dwarf/dwarves, staff/staves, scarf/scarves, life/lives, hoof/hooves, half/halves, calf/calves, and on and on. It's easier to enunciate this way. If enough people agree and use rooves, it will eventually be legitimized by dictionaries.