Tags for this video have been changed from 'Who framed roger rabbit, judge doom, Bob Hoskins, Christopher Llyod' to 'Who framed roger rabbit, judge doom, Bob Hoskins, Christopher Lloyd' - edited by calvados

I remember being soo F'n terrified of this scene when I was a kid. I also loved Back to the Future and it wasn't till much later that I figured out Christopher Lloyd played both roles.

Harry Lloyd was right to do this...Emilia was always on set mouthing off.

Hedges was arrested along with 15 other protesters following the “people’s trial” when they staged a sit-in outside the headquarters of Goldman Sachs.

The Gothamist reports:

Over a dozen Occupy Wall Street protesters were arrested today outside Goldman Sachs, where they had marched with 300 others after holding a mock trial of CEO Lloyd Blankfein. Among those arrested were performance artist gadfly Reverend Billy and author and columnist Chris Hedges, who is a senior fellow at The Nation Institute. Hedges and the Rev joined several others in a direct action protest outside the firm, sitting down on the sidewalk, linking arms, and refusing to leave. It seems clear the activists intended to be arrested; earlier today Reverend Billy tweeted, “I’ll spend the afternoon in a police van with Chris Hedges and come out ten times more READY for the miracle! Revolujah!”

http://youtu.be/MOiUOkNj0L4

>> ^Peroxide:

http://www.newscientist.com/articl
e/mg21228354.500-revealed--the-capitalist-network-that-runs-the-world.html


According to this study...
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1107/1107.5728v2.pdf

An analysis of the relationships between 43,000 transnational corporations has identified a relatively small group of companies, mainly banks, with disproportionate power over the global economy. These are those top 50 Companies

Table S1: Top 50 control-holders. Shareholders are ranked by network control (according to the
threshold model, TM). Column indicate country, NACE industrial sector code, actor’s position in
the bow-tie sections, cumulative network control. Notice that NACE code starting with 65,66,67
belong to the financial sector.

Rank Economic actor name Country NACE code Network Cumul. network
position control (TM, %)
1 BARCLAYS PLC GB 6512 SCC 4.05%
2 CAPITAL GROUP COMPANIES INC, THE US 6713 IN 6.66%
3 FMR CORP US 6713 IN 8.94%
4 AXA FR 6712 SCC 11.21%
5 STATE STREET CORPORATION US 6713 SCC 13.02%
6 JPMORGAN CHASE & CO. US 6512 SCC 14.55%
7 LEGAL & GENERAL GROUP PLC GB 6603 SCC 16.02%
8 VANGUARD GROUP, INC., THE US 7415 IN 17.25%
9 UBS AG CH 6512 SCC 18.46%
10 MERRILL LYNCH & CO., INC. US 6712 SCC 19.45%
11 WELLINGTON MANAGEMENT CO. L.L.P. US 6713 IN 20.33%
12 DEUTSCHE BANK AG DE 6512 SCC 21.17%
13 FRANKLIN RESOURCES, INC. US 6512 SCC 21.99%
14 CREDIT SUISSE GROUP CH 6512 SCC 22.81%
15 WALTON ENTERPRISES LLC US 2923 T&T 23.56%
16 BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON CORP. US 6512 IN 24.28%
17 NATIXIS FR 6512 SCC 24.98%
18 GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP, INC., THE US 6712 SCC 25.64%
19 T. ROWE PRICE GROUP, INC. US 6713 SCC 26.29%
20 LEGG MASON, INC. US 6712 SCC 26.92%
21 MORGAN STANLEY US 6712 SCC 27.56%
22 MITSUBISHI UFJ FINANCIAL GROUP, INC. JP 6512 SCC 28.16%
23 NORTHERN TRUST CORPORATION US 6512 SCC 28.72%
24 SOCIÉTÉ GÉNÉRALE FR 6512 SCC 29.26%
25 BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION US 6512 SCC 29.79%
26 LLOYDS TSB GROUP PLC GB 6512 SCC 30.30%
27 INVESCO PLC GB 6523 SCC 30.82%
28 ALLIANZ SE DE 7415 SCC 31.32%
29 TIAA US 6601 IN 32.24%
30 OLD MUTUAL PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY GB 6601 SCC 32.69%
31 AVIVA PLC GB 6601 SCC 33.14%
32 SCHRODERS PLC GB 6712 SCC 33.57%
33 DODGE & COX US 7415 IN 34.00%
34 LEHMAN BROTHERS HOLDINGS, INC. US 6712 SCC 34.43%
35 SUN LIFE FINANCIAL, INC. CA 6601 SCC 34.82%
36 STANDARD LIFE PLC GB 6601 SCC 35.2%
37 CNCE FR 6512 SCC 35.57%
38 NOMURA HOLDINGS, INC. JP 6512 SCC 35.92%
39 THE DEPOSITORY TRUST COMPANY US 6512 IN 36.28%
40 MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL LIFE INSUR. US 6601 IN 36.63%
41 ING GROEP N.V. NL 6603 SCC 36.96%
42 BRANDES INVESTMENT PARTNERS, L.P. US 6713 IN 37.29%
43 UNICREDITO ITALIANO SPA IT 6512 SCC 37.61%
44 DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION OF JP JP 6511 IN 37.93%
45 VERENIGING AEGON NL 6512 IN 38.25%
46 BNP PARIBAS FR 6512 SCC 38.56%
47 AFFILIATED MANAGERS GROUP, INC. US 6713 SCC 38.88%
48 RESONA HOLDINGS, INC. JP 6512 SCC 39.18%
49 CAPITAL GROUP INTERNATIONAL, INC. US 7414 IN 39.48%
50 CHINA PETROCHEMICAL GROUP CO. CN 6511 T&T 39.78%

Of course I've seen it, Mammy-Rammer. The best acting job in the film goes to Christopher Lloyd, for his speech about the old man that died when Jimmy was trying to give him the plane tickets. Buckwheats, chugging cock, bitches bastard: the film is infinitely quotable.

<shuac holds up his hand> Boat drinks, enoch.

In reply to this comment by enoch:
In reply to this comment by shuac:
"things to do in denver when your dead"

My dead what?


fixed ya bitch.
you ever seen it? its pretty awesome.
i was tryin to find the scene with treat williams and steve buscemi.
"your reputation far exceeds your skills" but i only found it buried in a much longer clip.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Back to the Future, Nike, MAG, Bill Hader, Christopher Lloyd, great, scott' to 'Back to the Future, Nike, MAG, Bill Hader, Christopher Lloyd, great scott' - edited by xxovercastxx

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Back to the Future, Nike, MAG, Bill Hader, Christopher Lloyd' to 'Back to the Future, Nike, MAG, Bill Hader, Christopher Lloyd, great, scott' - edited by ponceleon

http://videosift.com/video/Jake-Lloyd-Ten-Years-After-Star-Wars-Ep-One

Tags for this video have been changed from 'delorean, time travel, back to the future, garbarino' to 'delorean, time travel, back to the future, garbarino, christopher lloyd, doc brown' - edited by xxovercastxx

how long before Lloyd Doggett gets his piece of the pie and clams up at the new beach house?

>> ^Ti_Moth:

Jesus was white!?


And Judas was black... thanks Andrew Lloyd Webber.

WWDJJD?

I think he's got a bit of Christopher Lloyd going on there...

@Porksandwich those all sound like good ideas. I especially like the idea of trying to make rehabilitation more of a core function of our justice system. It seems like once someone's been found guilty, society at large just writes them off as if they're no longer fully human.

The whole concept of justice and crime and punishment is just rife with deep philosophical questions.

Take A Clockwork Orange for example. What's the just way to deal with someone like Alex? Lock him up? Execute him? Brainwash him so he's rendered physiologically incapable of giving in to his dark impulses? But he's a special case, and clearly mentally ill. A mental hospital is almost certainly the right place for him.

How about someone like Scott Roeder, who murdered Dr. George Tiller for running an abortion clinic? He's probably not clinically insane, he's just acting in what he considers a highly moral fashion -- he's preventing the extermination of hundreds, if not thousands of innocent lives, by taking the life of one man, knowing that his life, and possibly even his immortal soul is forfeit in doing so. I say that's mental illness too, but there's more than a few people out there who think he's a hero and a martyr. Would it be serving justice if we could "cure" him of his convictions? I'm not entirely comfortable with that, but I don't see how he's safe to release back into society with his beliefs intact.

How about Lloyd Blankfein, or Tony Hayward? They gambled the lives and livelihoods of millions of people, knowing that it was a "heads I win", "tails they lose" situation. But that's their entire job function -- to find a way to exploit economic opportunities to make money, wherever they find them. Every pressure on them inside the company and within the culture they live in was for them to do the immoral, profitable thing. In this case, I think these guys' real crime is that they gave in to peer pressure, which is not exactly a tremendous moral failing. Shouldn't we blame those who pressured them? Maybe the entire social and economic structure that's designed to encourage this kind of behavior in the first place? What court can rule on that?

Instead, on VS, the only debate people seem to want to have is "are cops evil or not?"

Since when is life so black and white?

>> ^xxovercastxx:

Some of you people seem to really have it out for the guy on the left when you don't even understand the question to begin with. He seems to be the only person on the panel who understands the crux of the question... ultimately it comes down to "What definition of sound do you go by?"
If you define sound as vibrations in the air, then you'd say yes, the tree makes a sound.
If you define sound as the sensory experience of those vibrations, you'd say no, it makes no sound unless someone hears it.
They are both valid definitions of sound. See definitions 1 and 2 here: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sound
It doesn't mean the tree doesn't fall if nobody witnesses it.
By the way, light is invisible. You can't see it, only its effect on objects it strikes.
Also, that idiotic tool's name is John Lloyd. He's the creator of the show.


Like Stephen Fry said, given the second definition the point is moot since you can say a mechanical recorder can experience the vibration. If you admit that - and there is no reason you shouldn't except bad faith - then you can take it to the quantum level and say that every object around the falling tree is an observer and thus "hears" (is affected) by the vibrations. In fact, given the first definition, sound cannot exist without affecting something (the molecules in the air) thus by default there must always be at least one observer in order to even conceive of the possibility of the existence and transmission of a sound in the first place. Thus, whether there is a macroscopic observer is moot since there is always a quantum level one in the first place to produce anything (like the tree falling). Its a regression problem and in the end it comes to quantum probabilities: there is a small chance that no sound will be produced, but it is highly unlikely. You'd need an Infinite Improbability Drive to make sure you're there when the sound doesn't happen and be smug.

By the way, light is visible since what is visible is what you can see with your eyes. In fact, technically speaking the only thing you can see with your eyes is light. What you think you "see" (objects) are your interpretations of the light patterns on your retina. What light you can't see are those particles of light that are not converging on your retina, just as you can't see objects that are not in your field of vision or can't hear sounds that don't enter your eardrum. Doesn't mean you can't see anything or hear sounds now does it? Also, you can't ear supersonic vibrations, but your dog can. Thus you can't hear sounds? No, you can't hear supersonic vibrations. The same way you can't see ultraviolet light, but you can still see light. See? It doesn't matter what definitions you take, only that they all be on the same level of abstraction. Now do that with the second definition of sound and you see that you get solipsism. Thus the second definition of sound is not good for any kind of knowledge about the world. Why? Because it cannot explain the exteriority of the sound's provenance. The second meaning can only be a special usage reserved to neurology as a substitute for a more appropriate but cumbersome technical word, just as we still use "heat" to refer to the state of excitation in molecules.