Tags for this video have been changed from 'backwards, double jointed, piano, Evan Petrone' to 'backwards, double jointed, piano, Evan Petrone, coldplay, clocks' - edited by xxovercastxx

>> ^Yogi:

How do you not plan how much gas you're going to need? I refuse to watch this movie that will possibly contain the answer...someone must tell me the answer and THEN I'll watch the movie.

"It seems some MMA websites have reported on the story, posting up that I might die out in the desert, or that it might be my greatest opponent yet, etc. Come on, guys. It's really common down in Southern California to go out to the off-road recreation areas in the desert about an hour away from LA and San Diego.

So my plan is to go out to the desert, do some camping, ride the motorcycle, and shoot some guns. Sounds like a lot of fun to me. A lot of people do it. This isn't a version of 'Into the Wild.'" -Evan Tanner

"I plan on going so deep into the desert, that any failure of my equipment, could cost me my life. I've been doing a great deal of research and study. I want to know all I can about where I'm going, and I want to make sure I have the best equipment."

I like to layer all of those. I think its called the 'fecal farmer special' at Bob Evans.

>> ^berticus:

My pancake topping preference, in order from favourite to least:
Lemon juice and brown sugar.
Banana and melted chocolate.
Berries and yoghurt.
Maple syrup.
Diarrhea.

@westy

Yes nearly every business tries to game the system that's the point of capitalism and that's why it will always fail ( im not on about simply ballencing your books and deprecaiting assets and playing that sytem , evan though that is gamed in the same way) I'm on about the system at large , surely you can see the difference between a butcher and a company that offers high interest loans to desperate people , when instead of offering the loan the ethical thing would be for them to tell them to contact citizens advice ?

I don't think capitalism (by which I mean a regulated but moderately free market) will fail as (at least so far) it's provided the best manner of funneling people's naturally selfish/nepotistic tendencies in a productive way.

Let's be clear here, generally brokers were responsible for writing subprime loans with botched (or outright false) assessments of income and capacity to pay. These brokers were essentially gaming the investment banks (like Bear Sterns) into buying fraudulent securitised loans. Bear Sterns along with Lehman Brothers didn't survive and many other banks got taken over. There was clear motivation for them to perform more due diligence and they paid for their mistakes by going bankrupt or being taken over. The credit rating agencies and the insurers who backed CDOs also had poor judgement. My point is, the people who benefited from writing these bad loans weren't the banks.

thats the piont im making , you can have companies that game the system but also privde a service but the people that have caused this economic crisis are people that are at the pinicale of gaming the system and do not care to provide a service and purely participate to game the system purely exist to make money at whatever cost to society.

They're not gaming the system if they're going bankrupt. You know as well as I do that banks borrow money from those with savings and selectively lend them out to generally good investments thus creating economic growth and jobs. Let's not get carried away with populism here.

luckily we have people that are ethical and don't just think of the profit bottom line , but in general you will see that a good proportion of those successful at business and profiting are ones that couldn't give a shit about other people or there effect on the environment.

The difference between the butcher and a large financial institution is size. If this was a national specialty chain business, you can bet that they would be lobbying their congressman and receiving favors and payouts. Don't get me wrong, I'm not for crony capitalism and I understand that banks weild considerable leverage over the economy and politicians. They should be more regulated commensurate to their significance and intractability with the economy, particularly shadow banking system (securitisation of loans and credit derivatives) should be regulated to prevent crises. This is a failure of regulation though, not a failure of banking in general. As I mentioned, every large industry/corporate body curries favors.

"Either way they are both pretty beneficial to a functioning economy"

so the bankers that turned a blind eye to the toxit assits were beneficail to the econimy ?

how about the lobiests and deregulation that made it possable ?
what about the real estate agents that knew the people they were selling the houses to could not maintain the mortgage?

What about the marketeers that designed the sales materail to obscure the mortgage rates to hide the fact that they would increase and specifcaly designed the brouchers and trained the sales teams to exploit unknowlageable people ?

No they weren't and many of their businesses went out of business. These are all issues of regulation. Corporations (as opposed to say partnerships) are by legal design geared towards maximising profit. If you come in with expectations that any corporation will not do this, you are making flawed assumptions.

"hedge funds don't gamble shares, they trade them based on discrepancies between actual price and fundamentals"

Defanitoin of Gambling from Wikipedia - "Gambling is the wagering of money or something of material value (referred to as "the stakes") on an event with an uncertain outcome with the primary intent of winning additional money and/or material goods."

something doesn't have to have unfavourable odds to be considered gambling for example there are many professional gamblers that make a living of horse betting , and in that exact same way there are many people that profestinaly gamble on the stock market , and I would argue that they are themselfs not providing a use to socity. I would however contrast that against sum-one that invests in a company because that company is doing good or employs many people or is developing beneficial technpligy.

the problem is in general capitalism in its current form is fucked , and i belive we need to move towards something that is what I would describe as a

"democratic socialist capitalist system" where we have as free a market as possable and that is achived through democratic regulation guided by socialist princapels. so you try to give every citizen as equal a chance as possible at having free will and succeeding in what they want to do.

the current system allows the top 10% fantastic freedom and chances but at the expense of the majorty of people.

It's not a wager of value, it's a transfer of value. Which is critically what makes it different from gambling. If you have agricultural produce and you want to hedge the risk that your harvest will go down in value when it comes to fruition, it's typically an investment bank/hedge fund/commercial bank that takes the counterparty position. Without someone taking that counterparty position, you couldn't eliminate your risk of a fall in prices. If someone buys a newly listed share of your company, they're contributing to your capacity to invest and pay wages. During the process of gambling before someone is declared the winner, there is no value being created. That's a pretty crucial difference. The main point is though that banking creates value, hopefully I've already illustrated that beforehand.

I don't disagree with what you're saying at the end, but as far as I'm concerned you should be resentful towards campaign finance rules. Instead, it's like trying to treat the symptom not the cause.

what a load of bullshit , the whole viral aspect of this is so shit , I mean its totally idiotic this whole "shot with x device" especaily when the device has nothing to do it with it , be better to just say brought to you by nokea N8 or to have the animation reflect the phone in some way.

Its made even more stupid by the fact he used multiple phones ( because the phone is obviously not suited to this task so that negates that sales point )


the whole shot with x camera only makes sense if for example the film is of a quality level that makes you think wow must have been shot with profestional kit and then u see it was done with an i phone or some shit making you then think the product has a good camara , then that would make some sense ( evan though vast majorty of what makes things look profestional is in the editing / colour grading / post work/ camara angles ( meanign you could use a £15 webcame and still end up with a end result that looks professionally)

or if the camera itself had a unqu function or feature that added something specific to the film like the ablity to film those high altitude videos or say exstreem sports stuff then again that would make sense.


anyway ill stop talking shit , at least the animation was nice ( I couldn't give a shit about the scale gimmick but it looked like they had fun making i liked the dark part and it generaly was fun.

this sounds terrible , her style of singing sounds pretty off unless its recorded in a sound studio and produced well ,

Live with all that background noise and pore mixing it just sounds like a mess , also she looks utterly retarded with what she is wearing its ridiculously impractical for where she is its not evan particuly original or making a "statement"

>> ^Ryjkyj:

A good mosh pit is a beautiful thing Westy. I really enjoyed some of the concerts I went to back in the 90's where mosh pits weren't really a "punch in the face" affair but more of a way to get into a crowd and struggle and work out all your pent up energy. As a teenager, moshing can be a really good way to get that energy out. Nobody really ever got hurt in the best mosh pits. It was really just a struggle against the crowd.
As for the music: not really my cup of tea either. It sounds completely formulaic, like Linkin Park's record producer performed the whole thing. And that lead singer's precious little hair helmet makes me want to hit him with a fucking brick.


If I was going to get rid of pent up energy randomly flailing around to music would not cut it id need to be perpousfully beating the shit out of sumone , or jogging , or doing some sort of sport.



I have been in some mosh pits where everyone was friendly and I know they are just having fun but it just strikes me as stupid if your just bumping into each other ( I was at one where everyone stopped cos some person got punched in face and fell on floor so i know its all ment in a friendly way in most of them ) , I mean if it was sexy half naked women bumping into me then wouldnt have an issue with that having said that though iv been to lebean clubs where that happend but evan then it was just a bit weard.



General mosh pits are grate for gay guys though im pritty sure you could cup a feel and get away with it.



^ I realise that's not indicative of your average mosh pit. ^

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

>> ^robbersdog49:

This really, really was the GP with everything, even light relief! The marshal running to Vettel's car when he crashed in FP1 stacked it pretty good too )


First good f1 race of this season , despite that just about every FIA desisoin was retarded , and DRS gave button and Weber a free pass on michael schumacher.

Start under safty car , Keep safty car out for so long that drivers dont evan need to use wet tires , 2 DRS pionts when evan the 1 DRS gave a driver in a competative car a free pass.

>> ^MaxWilder:

I'm a little bit shocked a the misogyny going on here. She's got every right to complain. If there was a glass ceiling above the urinals, you better bet I'd complain.
Stop being assholes.


how is that Evan comparable ? there is a difference having something specifically designed to watch people piss than having something that accidentally would allow sum one to briefly see up sum-ones skirt if they really put effort into it.

And really by now toilets should be mixed i don,t see why its acceptable to have a bloke look at u dick and piss next to you but no have a woman do the same.

The juge makes out that all men are specifcaly going to go there to perv on women , and that it was designed by men for that the juge in manny ways is the sexist in this situation , making out that men r all perverts ( although granted she was making a piont about types of people in court and im sure the editing could have changed how the judje cam across , non the less she still hinting at men been perverts by defult)

In scotland men ware skirts with no underwear if i was waring a skirt and sumone looked at my penis i wouldn't have an issue with it its just a penis people need to grow the fuck up.

The fact the judge apreaches this with anger rather than a pragmatic humors / or emotional neutral approach shows she is a retard and probably not suitable as a judge.

what a stupid bitch .

1)unlikely stairs were designed to perv on women more just so they are light (visualy)

2) who gives a fuck juses Christ at best you would see a vagina most probably knickers obvously if sumone was filming with the intention of perving on people you would just ask them to leve the building.

3) If you use the building and its really an issue for you just get them to apply frosted tape to the glass parts problem solved , its not evan an issue I mean what a joke.

4) its only a problem if u worked there had a issue with it and they refused to compamise and put tape on it. evan then its small fish compared to the other retardation going on in courts and the legal system.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Ask yourself whether you believe there isn't a God because its true or because you want it to be true.
>> ^westy:
DUMB SHIT ALERT .
obviously if the universe was different we most probably would not exist and then we would not be able to comment on how its not suited to us so over an infinite amount of time we are only going to be able to say Oh look its so fine tuned when the occurance happens that it matches up with something that allows for us to come into existence.
Its to be noted that most the universe as it is appears not to be suited to human life ( and life in general) I mean on cosmic scale earth has only been suitable for humans for a blip and we are likely to get totally wiped out by any of a thousand things if not ourselfs.
This is a bit like having sum one win the lottery and then claim the odds of them winning were 100% because they won or that it was pre determined because it was so unlikely for them to win but they did so it must have been an outside force that selected them.
And then if you are going to claim that this is evidence for god then you have to say what are the odds for a god to be created ? or for a god to always exist ? or what creates a god ? given that we have hundreds of religions that are not followed by anyone really any more who is to say which religion has the correct version of god ? why would a made up story of god thats not Evan based on science be true ?
If you are going down this line of resoining then you would come to the conclusion that we are living within a computer simulation or that an Alain race created us WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY before you could come to a god conclusion But there is no solid evidence to suggest any of the above its just interesting philosophy but pure speculation not anything to build any desissoin making of.
ahaha at the end "there is really only one problem with it there is no evidence that it is true" (refuring to multiple universe thery) I don't get how he can say that about one thing and then not apply it to the other.



I don't have a preference its about whats evident and there is no evidence for god so im not going to believe in it, in the same way i don,t believe in unicorns or ghosts.

Ask yourself whether you believe there isn't a God because its true or because you want it to be true.

>> ^westy:
DUMB SHIT ALERT .
obviously if the universe was different we most probably would not exist and then we would not be able to comment on how its not suited to us so over an infinite amount of time we are only going to be able to say Oh look its so fine tuned when the occurance happens that it matches up with something that allows for us to come into existence.
Its to be noted that most the universe as it is appears not to be suited to human life ( and life in general) I mean on cosmic scale earth has only been suitable for humans for a blip and we are likely to get totally wiped out by any of a thousand things if not ourselfs.
This is a bit like having sum one win the lottery and then claim the odds of them winning were 100% because they won or that it was pre determined because it was so unlikely for them to win but they did so it must have been an outside force that selected them.
And then if you are going to claim that this is evidence for god then you have to say what are the odds for a god to be created ? or for a god to always exist ? or what creates a god ? given that we have hundreds of religions that are not followed by anyone really any more who is to say which religion has the correct version of god ? why would a made up story of god thats not Evan based on science be true ?
If you are going down this line of resoining then you would come to the conclusion that we are living within a computer simulation or that an Alain race created us WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY before you could come to a god conclusion But there is no solid evidence to suggest any of the above its just interesting philosophy but pure speculation not anything to build any desissoin making of.
ahaha at the end "there is really only one problem with it there is no evidence that it is true" (refuring to multiple universe thery) I don't get how he can say that about one thing and then not apply it to the other.

DUMB SHIT ALERT .

obviously if the universe was different we most probably would not exist and then we would not be able to comment on how its not suited to us so over an infinite amount of time we are only going to be able to say Oh look its so fine tuned when the occurance happens that it matches up with something that allows for us to come into existence.

Its to be noted that most the universe as it is appears not to be suited to human life ( and life in general) I mean on cosmic scale earth has only been suitable for humans for a blip and we are likely to get totally wiped out by any of a thousand things if not ourselfs.

This is a bit like having sum one win the lottery and then claim the odds of them winning were 100% because they won or that it was pre determined because it was so unlikely for them to win but they did so it must have been an outside force that selected them.

And then if you are going to claim that this is evidence for god then you have to say what are the odds for a god to be created ? or for a god to always exist ? or what creates a god ? given that we have hundreds of religions that are not followed by anyone really any more who is to say which religion has the correct version of god ? why would a made up story of god thats not Evan based on science be true ?

If you are going down this line of resoining then you would come to the conclusion that we are living within a computer simulation or that an Alain race created us WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY before you could come to a god conclusion But there is no solid evidence to suggest any of the above its just interesting philosophy but pure speculation not anything to build any desissoin making of.

ahaha at the end "there is really only one problem with it there is no evidence that it is true" (refuring to multiple universe thery) I don't get how he can say that about one thing and then not apply it to the other.