This game is more atmospherically intense - and some parts are really scary. Though, I think these guys are just havin' some good ol' jerky fun because if you're screaming that much the entire time you probably aren't immersing yourself in the game enough to have anything to be afraid of.

the only way to know is to try it for yourself.
no, i haven't tried it.
well, i ate a few dog jerky's before i realized, but it's almost the same as the meant-for-human-consumption stuff. i swear...

that's also how you make chemistry-student jerky

Yeah me too.

I'ts really bad how they were encouraging childhood obesity.

Btw... is this video broken? it seemed to be playing the audio funny and the video was a little jerky.

Nice jerky camera work...come out with my games now plz.

freaky, but one of the best i've every seen. ran a little jerky on my winxp

This is part of the reason why I think all religion needs to be abolished. It's time we grew out of childish fancies, but we just have too many stupid idiots on the planet still.

You are assigning blame to a symptom, not the disease. Human beings inherently fixate on "differences" and descend quickly into jackassery based on the differences as a means of justifying their pride, fears, greed, selfishness, and general brutishness. Religious bigotry is based not on "religion" per se but on the nationalism, tribalism, racial prejudices, and personal behaviors associated with religious followers.

If Religion was gone then people would instead harp on skin color, national origin, language, accents, nose shape, facial structure, or whatever other physical feature they could see or invent sufficient to supply enough mental justification to allow them to be a jackass if they want. Heck - they don't even need that. Humans will fixate on sporting teams, shirt color, hair style, how you walk - ANYTHING. Any difference, no matter how slight, is enough to do this.

Athiests and Agnosts need to learn a simple, basic fact... RELIGION does not teach people to be jerks. JERKS use religion to justify their bad bahavior. Christ did not teach people to hate each other. But just because someone joins a Christian church does not make them a good follower of his teachings. I imagine Islam is much the same. What we have here is a bunch of cave-dwelling jerks who are obsessed with the race & religion of others only insofar as it allows them to blow stuff up they don't like.

Human bigotry is the disease. Proper adherence to religious practice is the CURE - not the cause. THis is not to say that there aren't some religions who in some respects make this kind of jerkiness a part of their teachings. Sure it happens. But y and large this is the exception, not the rule. 99% of "religions" teach simple, basic, common-sense morality as a means of improving the world and drawing closer to God. It is a shame that 99% of PEOPLE who belong to a religion need to learn to be better practicers of what they preach.

Chrome, mainly because ripping off tabs, especially with playing videos in them and resizing them is damn useful! Also speed. I dunno about the new Firefox beta, but every version before that suffered from infuriatingly jerky videos. Chrome doesn't have this problem and also tends to slow down less when you pile on more tabs.

"It tasted like beef jerky."

Ok, I think I know the problem now. We aren't talking about the same thing. Your are talking about legalism, I am talking about a moral argument. I am talking about how WRONG what they are doing is, not about how against the law what they are doing is. I approach the law as a means of maximizing freedoms and minimizing evils. So the problem I have here is with the very laws you seem to defend.

The very existence of the TSA is bad. The government has no place hijacking the security of airports. While their may be a case for the existence of federal police in airport just as their would local cops and emergency workers, to say they should OWN security of airports if wrong. I don't care if it was ratified by congress and signed by the president, it's wrong. It would be akin to them taking over security at the movies, or at your local shopping mart. Lets look at the case of Best buy. I can't walk out of best buy without getting checked out by security, however at target, I get no such harassment, and as a result I typically choose to go places I don't get haggled with. You pay a higher price, but it is worth it to me. Now, if they government took over all security in all retail stores in America, that choice would be eliminated. I would have to put up with the same old nonsense everywhere I went, my freedom, my choice would be gone.

The same could be true of airlines. One airline might adopt an anal probe philosophy and people whom generally like to be alive and are afraid of terrorists could pay the extra buck or 100 to go on such airlines. Me, I don't care, let me fly cheap, I don't care if I die...F it. With the TSA, I get no such choice. The government has hijacked my ability to make my own choices on how I want to spend my dollar. And it isn't just a few dollars, it is billions...and I don't even fly that often anymore but yet still I pay.

I think that also falls into your first point a bit. An airport is NOTHING like the Pentagon. An airport is completely private in nature. Everything they do is for customers. It is NOT a government institution in anyway...at all. So, this "screening area" idea to me is incompatible with that. Plus, do you only get the freedom to film if you have a press badge, is that your idea of freedom? Papers please? Really? Come on, freedom of speech is way more than a press badge. Plus, you are watching his video on the Internets...sounds like a member of the press to me...whatever member of the press means.

Secondly, I can't honestly believe you think talking about how dumb not allowing blankets on a plane is as some kind of security risk. I talk about how dumb it is they don't allow water on planes. Should that warrant some kind of investigation of my loyalty? Should I be searched and striped naked because I question the value of a rule? This seems more like your are grasping at straws here. Seriously whining about how dumb not letting blanks on a plane is, is about as dangerous as complaining about traffic. If not, then every child in an airport is a threat, they do nothing but moan about every procedure...those damn terrorist children (sorry for the demagogy).

Your third point I think is the weakest of them all. There is a difference between someone who is a threat and someone who is being petulant. This is the main difference between security and a bouncer. A bouncer deals with people who are jerks and causing trouble, security is for those people that might bring harm to those around him. The TSA is supposed to be security. After 3 different conversions, one of whom is their job to directly gauge the threat level of someone, failed to properly gauge him. What really happened here is TSA got but hurt and went after this guy with no remorse. They used many of their powers on a non-threat. They improperly assessed the situation, continued to do so to the violation of this innocent, if not slightly jerky, man. Let us get that point very clear. This man is guilty of no crime. He was doing what normal people do in a normal space.

Your last point is completely erroneous. At first, we was fairly respectful. The lady approached him and asked if he was a member of the press. Once they started following him and hounding him, he responded in kind. I don't know if you ever had any run ins with the police, it doesn't sound like it. It is a very threatening situation. More over, from the get go they were yanking him around by the arm and being very authoritative, ordering him around like they owned him...he responded in kind. They tried to trap him into saying something damning, he responded by saying things damning of their very institution. This is MUCH different than the gun stunt...which was exactly that, a stunt. This was a display of the system in action. It would be more akin to getting pulled over and getting searched anally just because you mouthed off. There again is the main difference between what you and I see as the role of government and laws.

Like many other people on the sift have said that are smarter and more well spoken than I, the police should fear the people. They work for us, to protect us. The shoe has gotten on the other foot now. Now they are above us, protecting themselves against us. I have known many wonderful policemen in my day. I have also known people like these officers who forget what their job is. For these tragic people, their job isn't to help us...their job is us. We are the thing that has to be dealt with, not the people they are helping dealing with things. The difference in mind set is ever so slight but o so important.

As Shepppard aluded to; some of the movements are too jerky to be a full sized truck. Not only the steering, but also the suspension. Still quite impressively done, pointless though it may be.

Upvote of "Oh boy, Oberto!" That's my favorite brand of jerky.

*pixels

The difference between me and Dawkins is that I accurately described VideoSift, but he does not accurately describe theists. VS promotes Dawkins over and over ad nauseum ad infinitium because the majority of VS consists of people who strongly tilt to atheism/liberalism (generally conjoint interests). So when Dawkins goes on one of his rants, sympathetic Sifters just can't stop themselves from posting his froth because they are insecure and feel their point of view needs reinforcement, repetition, and trumpeting.

But theism contains hundreds of millions of quiet, unassuming, hard working, humble people who aren't anything like what Dawkins chooses to portray as 'religion'. Such persons merely follow the tenents of their philosophy without flash or glitz. Dawkins takes a minority of the noisy, jerky theists - paints them with a biased brush - rhetorically pretends that they represent the majority thought of all theists - and then makes generalized condemnations of everyone.

So on my part, I'm accurately describing a small population of people who really are desmonstrating the behavior I claimed (vocal, insecure, atheist, liberal). Dawkins is inaccurately describing a huge population of people who are not demonstrating the behavior he claims.

>> ^westy:
yah narator pusses at anoying times making it hard to watch ,
animatoin was realy pore , 3d models and rendering were ok , but the animatoin was jerky , i think they were stretched for footage and so had to resort to using post animatoin rather than doing it in the 3d package.

Those are not animations wizzed up by some kid to look fancy, they are actual SIMULATIONS of galaxies colliding, black holes forming etc. and they are badass. The animation is not meant to impress animators, but to be informative.If you are looking for impressive space animations, go see the new Star Trek movie or something.

yah narator pusses at anoying times making it hard to watch ,

animatoin was realy pore , 3d models and rendering were ok , but the animatoin was jerky , i think they were stretched for footage and so had to resort to using post animatoin rather than doing it in the 3d package.