I understand. I've been in cover bands. I was providing solid, factual information and the zeitgeist of the truly raw emotional music called metal. How does this equate to the lack of understanding of the music industry and the game they force musicians into? Then the game those very musicians somehow embrace via, what, musical Stockholm syndrome? lol!!!

Yeah, it sure is a good way to practice and get views. I agree, but how is it Top 15? All the other good musicians playing the good but unpopular songs and aren't cute enough for branding?

Yay Capitalism. It works. Who would have guessed. But I don't base my up votes on this sad fact of economics. It's bullshit. The music industry should be a sacred institution of musical progression and the pursuit of higher standards in music. But it's just a machine. The machine doesn't produce the truly great stuff. The great stuff is made by geniuses who write music because they breath it. It's made by disenfranchised youth. It is NOT this. This is cute but fucking SAD. But I guess no one gives a fuck because cool that's how it works. Ignore the superior talent, the artists with passion and personal drive due to adversity -- nooooooooo, focus on the popular talent.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-san-bernardino-deputies-kick-man-pursuit-20150409-story.html

Po po may eventually find out what blow back means.

3 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

None of your arguments stand because Eric Holder is in charge of the entire US Dept. of Justice. He can't get it done? Ridiculous.

And I agree that police work is not the most dangerous job in America. But the difference is this: police officers die enforcing the laws that you put on the books, they die protecting those who cannot or will not protect themselves. This shows that the police act unselfishly, which makes their actions heroic.
Cops aren't perfect, they lose it on occasion, but over 99% of the time, they act within the law to protect the ungrateful (you).

Furthermore, every use of force is required to be documented by any modern law enforcement agency. Every pursuit is investigated to make sure it stays within departmental policy. Every citizen complaint is investigated to make sure the officer's actions are lawful and within policy.

Police officer's are reprimanded, suspended and fired if the situation determines it. There is nothing in this limp video to illustrate this simple truth.

It always seemed to me that, if 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness' are 'guarantees' in America, health care should be free, otherwise only those with money get the former, while those without money may lose all 3 because of their uncared for health issues. That never seemed to be the intent of our system to me, and also does not seem moral or humane, and certainly isn't 'Christian'. It's not even financially sound, it's cheaper by far to take care of everyone properly rather than the system we have now under the ACA, which is better than before ACA.

There's quite a wait time for elective surgery in America too, I can't fathom why that's an issue for some people about single payer systems...if you count the time it takes to get pre-authorization from your insurance company, Canada is probably faster than America even on elective surgeries, and certainly far cheaper.

Fashion, like most pursuits that require some narcissism on someone's part (music, theater, art), has plenty of scope to exploit people at both ends of the runway...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/learnvest/2012/09/21/the-finances-and-career-prospects-of-being-a-model/

@eric3579 I never had an issue with all the details of what he is doing -- couldn't care less about bow strength and armor. I was more curious if he is ACTUALLY DOING IT, or if this was some sort of CGI.

I did find this one article about him, posted Jan 2015, with these two quotes that spoke to my issues:

"This guy is the Clint Eastwood of archery," says Tim Wells, professional bow hunter and host of the TV show, Relentless Pursuit. "Or if I was talking to someone who had never shot a bow and arrow, I'd say he is the 'Bruce Lee playing ping pong of archery.' We have all played ping-pong and none of us can play with nun chucks — that's what this guy's skillset with a bow is comparable to. He's a badass."

Experts agree that the skills demonstrated in the video are unbelievable, but also completely real. "His skillset is tremendous," says Byron Ferguson, owner of the Bare Bow Archery School and star archer on the History Channel's show, Extreme Marksmen. "These shots are legitimate, despite some video editing. His speed is almost unbelievable."

Read more: http://www.mensjournal.com/adventure/outdoor/the-story-behind-lars-andersens-new-level-of-archery-video-20150126#ixzz3Q3tKMqJK
Follow us: @mensjournal on Twitter | MensJournal on Facebook

I can't tell if they have met this guy or not, or if they, too, are just looking at the videos. That other "world record"? All I can find is more videos and nothing from Guinness or anyone else.

So at present, I am going to stay neutral as to whether this guy is for reals or not.

I know exactly what he means and have the same thought.. unconditional love for all after having a spiritual 'awakening'. Mine however wasn't born of psychodelic use but rather spiritual pursuits such as meditation during the most stressful time of my life. It was like my mind broke and a new me was born. It utterly changed how I think and feel. If I were religious at the time I'm sure I would have taken it as a sign some god had chosen me and for this reason I don't consider people who 'find god' or are 'born again' to be bat-shit crazy. They've simply had a similar experience.

I never understood exactly what happened to me physiologically to cause such a radical shift in the way I think and feel so I'm glad science is researching this phenomenon. That 'event' happened 20+ years ago but it still affects me every day.

It is with disappointment that I find your comments. ...belittling, condescending, and insulting. After the many comments privately exchanged up to this point that this one is not proffered so is indicative of a lack of respect I can only find interesting and telling.

As to the video, its merits or lack thereof and for the various opinions about same, it may be that in the fullness of time consensus will change...or not. As to my investment in the matter, I presently have none. To knee jerk, in your vernacular, comments or opinions garnered from snippets, headlines, media articles, predilection of personal beliefs,etc,. I have little to no respect to offer.

I do find the subject of this video interesting and have done enough research to find merit in further evaluation and a skeptical eye towards purported findings. But, that is neither here nor there. I posted it primarily for my own archival purposes fully expecting the reaction received with no concern about it. This practice will be repeated exercised if not often so. I will admit surprise at the development precipitating this exchange. Oh well.

I do not need to agree with others, as is often the case, to respect and even like and care for them. I do, however, have a disdain for apparent character deficiencies as is evidenced by behavior. Also, oh well. Neither do I suffer the defect of ego that I must defend a point of view or opinion or engage in any allied exercise of futility and certainly not in this environ as the honored civilized pursuit of intelligent discourse is so oft shunned in favor of banal, insipid and vitriolic attacks.

Enjoy and thank you for the many civil, kind and pleasant exchanges this one notwithstanding, of course.

You ask where to start? It is obvious that was not rhetorical in any way shape or form because your argument was poorly put together from the beginning.

"The total bill due in AMERICA tops 1 trillion." Then, "That's right, student debt in AMERICA..." There is even a reference to an AMERICAN President, and everything else about this video was about America. We see a reoccurring theme here newt?

So follows the logic that since this discourse is focused solely on American schools, then we are all talking about American schools. No other assumption is logical. My comment, with that prefacing in mind, is obviously intended for American schools. Yeah, take it out of context and I look like an idiot, but with the context I am not the one that looks stupid.

Let me give you another example. Say we are talking about gay rights in America and I just generalize the concept of gay rights after an intense discussion about just that. You could argue that since gay rights in tribal, African countries are different then I am stupid, but don’t be such a stickler for pathetic red herrings.

Second, the problems facing the poor are tragic. It is WELL DOCUMENTED; however, that poor children have lower grades. Why? Because it's hard to think on an empty stomach. In other words, it's hard to care about what the fuck is on the chalkboard when you have to worry about where you are going to get food at or hell, if you will have a roof over your head. This fact is not insulting, as you clearly say it is, this is reality. A sad, tragic reality that few in America have the balls to have a real discourse on. We trivialize it behind a false veneer. We make it seem like the poor try so hard and care so much but that if only we helped them a little more they could succeed. No, we have to help them a LOT more.

I think all colleges should be paid for by the government. I think books and research materials should be free. I think we can do a lot more than what we currently do.

Lastly, one student in my current class is obviously lacking in education and more so obvious does not care. She is a mother of three children, one of which is disabled. I can see why she just wants the degree and I don't judge her. You, on the other hand, do unintentionally judge this woman, newt. You insult her by suggesting her lack of educational pursuance is rare to the poor and that she must be failing that pursuit because of a lack of drive. She cannot care about bettering her leisurely time newt, period.

Do you think I gave a fuck about learning, just for education’s sake when my brothers beat me, threw me down the stairs, choked me, humiliated me, and shoved a pillow over my face at night? Or when they punched my skull into concrete and beat my dog? You insult the hell out of me—as though I SHOULD have cared when I just tried to survive. As though I failed to care and that made me a failure. The poor should not care—they should survive. We should all help them care.

@SDGundamX and addressing the devil's advocate rather than 'you'...

Spiderman's head is also raised (the same angle of their face is shown) and his back is arched, and i think that's clear when they are side by side. If anything i think spiderman's left leg is poorly drawn and his backside does need to be more in the air, whereas spiderwoman is a more human-like natural position for raising a knee over a ledge with your chest close to the ground. Remember that they are different artists bringing their own styles to a particular genre, they both have their own personalities and methods/methodologies. Furthermore, how much of an arch difference is necessary or acceptable and who makes those rules? Surely we must draw men and women differently so that we know whether the character is male or female (do we have too few fem superheroes is another question), and as a species we have different shapes. Surely amongst all these factors we must accept that the spiderwoman is a reasonable artistic recreation of the spiderman pic? If not, why not, taking all of those factors into account (and i can probably list more)? Basically we're asking the question "what is art?" here.

So that's why i think it's impossible for anyone to say the pose is sexual but the creator. No one questioned whether the spiderman pose was overtly sexual until someone drew spiderwoman doing "the same" (for argument's sake) thing. To a bunch of people who do not automatically see women as sexual objects (and i consider myself among that bunch), her pose is not sexual because the context isn't sexual. The question of sexuality arises when someone looks at the pic and goes "Gee, if i were levitating several hundred meters in the air directly behind her and she wasn't wearing any pants, she'd be 'presenting' to me for a split second."

So the ultimate level of 'equality' (or whatever) would be a world in which anything, in its particular context, is legal and absolutely ok. But of course, we can't depict nude youngsters in cinema even in the context of a bath for good reason, which let's generalise to all potentially difficult subjects (like sexism, racism, etc.) and call the "no one's perfect rule" - we can't trust everyone to keep things in context.

Our supposedly greatest form of organisation and problem solving - national governments, the pillars of our society - can't sort their proverbial arses from their proverbial elbows; if they're not perfect, how can we trust all of society to be?

In conclusion - i suppose we need a certain level of sexism or reverse-sexism that hopefully keeps us balanced between short-changing the future prospects of young girls in favour of young boys because of a biased society, and treating other people unfairly because of an over-zealous pursuit of what seems to be impossible.

One way of helping this is by very carefully checking the facts, the context and the meaning of what someone says before saying things like "sexist" or "mansplaining" or "racist". Always react as slowly as you may, that way you can be more or less enraged in your response depending on new info!

Edit: Want to add that if i had a pic of myself in that spidey pose, i'd be pretty happy putting it up on an eharmony profile or something - it is a 'sexy' pose, it looks good, he looks lean and strong and fit. I don't like this idea that women don't have sexual urges or that lean, fit men aren't sexy to women. It's possibly sexist to assume that! He's kind of presenting too, from a certain position...

Not only do i think this is wrong, but i think it is obviously and patently wrong.

It is demonstrable that a confrontation does not necessarily escalate the longer it goes on for. If you've been taught that in training by someone purporting to be an expert then i despair. I almost feel at a loss for where to begin - i have been in thousands of confrontations that de-escalated due to more time passing allowing both parties to explain or understand better, or for the blood to cool down. I've seen thousands of the same types of confrontation happening to other people. It literally happens all the time; misunderstandings get corrected and the situation de-escalates.

I hope that the brief explanation has betrayed what you really meant. Perhaps you were talking about a specific range of situations with a violent individual.

Or perhaps that's the problem and someone has been training law enforcement this falsehood which effectively encourages you to use the most extreme measure you have to end the conflict more quickly and keep it at a safely low level of escalation. And then you end up with mine- and rocket-resistant urban combat vehicles patrolling the streets, teams of camo'd police holding weapons INCORRECTLY in the presence of civilians on your own streets, and the mowing down of unarmed shoplifters...... all because it's more kind that way? I refute that, and before anyone says the most dangerous words ever spoken 'but we've always done it that way', in a discussion about the ineptitude or otherwise of law enforcement you aren't allowed the premise "law enforcement's methods are and always have been the best way to do things." -- Law enforcement, along with politics, should be the most heavily scrutinised and re-scrutinised systems that exist - because of their unique position to affect people.

I do NOT consider the concern for the safety of a police officer to be greater than the concern for the rights of a citizen; i was under the impression that police were the defence line between citizens and criminals, they put their lives on the line to keep society safe and running. Their job is to ensure we can be citizens, and they are paid to uphold the ideals of the society - freedom, respect for the individual and personal security. I genuinely hope they do so safely, but you don't play with feathers unless you're willing to get your arse tickled, as the saying goes. It is very possible to be safe, respectful and understanding all at the same time in the pursuit of law enforcement. If a person does not have the ability to behave that way they should not be in the job in the same way as someone who finds kids irritating and hit-able shouldn't go into childcare.

Your video, Tortoise in hot pursuit of toy truck, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Aaaaah The good old Russian Roads.

Smokey and the бандит!!

The бандит is hired on to run a tractor trailer full of Used cars over country lines in hot pursuit by a pesky sheriff.

бандит is a truck-driving Russian who accept a dare from big-shots Big and Little Putin to pick up a truckload of Cars from Kiev and drive through Donetsk and then return it to Moscow within a specified amount of time.

Quotes!

Russian Trooper: Did you see that? They went right through our roadblock!

Valery Bolotov: You som'bitches couldn't close an umbrella!

Hmmmm,
* I don't care much about the continuity, it was always paper-thin in the previous movies anyway.
* But if it's a prequel, he must end up with a sawed off shotgun and a handful of dud shells. And a stray dog.
* I hope it doesn't turn into a 300-fest; that's a lot of shit jumping in slo-mo.
* I hope it doesn't get too MichaelBaysed, that's a lot of Orange And Teal.
* One-armed warlord Charlize Theron: more of that please.
* Max tied to that car-pillory thing: awesome idea. Turns a gimmick into a cultural thing of sort in that universe.
* ...and it's not a 'Pursuit Special' anymore. It's the last of the Interceptors.