I'm going to go out on a limb and call this viral. I don't, however, have the authority do it officially,

Obvious focus on the product, and definately faked using CGI. But creative use

I love how she bashes the entire scientific community one minute, and does a 360 for the last minute and praises science as the holy grail of this fantastic new energy alternative which has yet to be invented.

Bravo..

Amazingly, the non-static background works even better

Thanks Geo

Anyone else get drawn to what seemed to be an uncanny case of Lewis Black-fingers at his right hand?

>> ^GoodAttorney:
Is this like a semi-serious Mystery Men?


I would say closer to a non-serious version of Watchmen

Definately my favorite episode

*Note to self, find and submit the slow-motion parts*

>> ^sepatown:
"been compared to Ben Gibbard" or "rips off Ben Gibbard mightily" ?


"Rips off Ben Gibbard mightily" or "Reissuing the same music 7 years later while replacing all Bens darker, more sincere lyrics with horrible nonsensical sugary counterparts which appeal to the teens and tweens"?

I'm sorry, but "I get 1.000 hugs from 10.000 lightning bugs" is just plain painful to listen to. Whenever i hear Owl City on the radio, I get slightly depressed. Not due to the music, but because of everything it represents.

>> ^NordlichReiter:

But, once again it is in your opinion that they mean to provoke, that is why there is a Judicial system in place, to solve these conundrums. Hence the reason that Philidelphia supreme court protected David Hackbart right to give the bird to a citizen, and a peace officer, because he was expressing his distress with his current situation.
In fact the city gave him 50,000 to settle the matter.
But I think we are arguing two different things, however related. Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Expression, which are invariably tied. You cannot have one without the other.


I admit that this is purely my opinion, and you are probably right, judicially this sort of rhetoric needs to be covered by the freedom of speech. If nothing else, then to ensure that people cannot be censored merely for being hot headed or lacking judgement in the heat of the moment.

However, I still feel that relying on emotional offense is an inexcusable element to bring to a discussion.

The problem with the way Carlin, and for that sake Wilders, seeks to offend people while proving his point, is that the point only reaches the people who already agree with him. When you give people on the opposite side of the spectrum, the people you really need to reach, an excuse to get offended, they switch off and ignore the central message entirely. That is immensely counter-productive when trying to spread ideas, and trying to actually make a difference in the world.

In the end, I guess it makes little difference when looking at which ideas flourish across the entire political spectrum, and which do not. Carlins words, and people like Wilders, will continue to be ignored by people on the opposite side of the political spectrum due to their reliance on offending people to convey their message.

My only hope is that the people out there with ideas, which could actually change the world for the better, don't fall into the same trap

>> ^NordlichReiter:
Now, here is where it is different: Fuck you and your point of view. That is an expression of my distaste for your position on the matter at hand. Had I said, Fuck You! Then you can construe that as fighting words. That is not, under the law correct free speech. You must put context with the situation.


I see your point, but in my opinion both the examples you use should never be used in a debate, or publicized. By anyone, no matter what viewpoint they are representing.

I see neither "fuck you!" or "fuck you and fuck your opinion" as arguments. They are meant purely to provoke, and bring nothing to a discussion. In that respect, I see Fitna as a giant "fuck you an fuck your opinions" with incredibly little rational discussion or debate. Bringing that into the public arena is an extreme lapse of judgement as it creates much more emotional harm than rational discussion.

While you may be technically right that Fitna can be considered as freedom of speech, I don't feel anything deserves that label if it doesn't take itself seriously enough to atleast compose its arguments in a rational manner.

To me, there is a very significant difference between a person making use of his or her freedom of speech, and intentionally inflaming and entire people and hiding behind it. Geert Wilders isn't on trial because of what he said, but because he showed incredibly poor judgement in how he chose to say it.

While what he said may be "true", there are definately ways to say it that are both rational, well thought out and based on valid arguments. But when he instead chooses to make a movie based mainly on disgusting images and emotional porn, you have to wonder whether he truely wanted to tell the "truth", or simply wanted to poke at the bees nest to create publicity. If so, he has made a mockery of the freedom of speech he is touting to his defense.

The sounds is just too perfect to be home made. Sounds like they are both wearing microphones.

This is definately fake

>> ^Truckchase:
Look, if you can't derive happiness from even two strains of cancer cells being selectively killed off, (without proof of it not working on others) I suspect there is little to derive happiness from. Let's be enthusiastic about this eh?


If you were to make a 2-minute news blip promoting the discovery every time results like these, at such an early stage, were published, then you would need a 1-hour news special every week

This is merely a shameless attempt to publically promote a single possible approach toward more effective cancer treatment midst a sea of similar discoveries.

I'm all for news stories that spur interrest and promote the biomedical sciences and the incredible breakthroughs that are being made on a yearly basis. But this is, unfortunately, not one of them.

This definately deserved more of brother Mouzone, but luckily had plenty og Snoop to compensate

The viking guy was definately the most sympathetic, and normal, in the bunch.

I hope it turned out well for him

>> ^davidraine:
I still do not understand how this culture, when confronted with the question of how to promote a new computer operating system, responds with "seven-decker hamburger."


Because it is a new american computer operating system. Or, at least that would be my guess

All in all, eating 7 pieces of beef is the perfect way to emulate the bloated Windows Vista experience. While this certainly is an amazing cross-sensory promotion strategy, it seems like a tremendous blunder when trying to sell an OS which tries to distance itself from Vista's bloat.