But it didn't collapse! That's not Battlefield damage, that's Call of Duty.

In the puddle test, the water is very still after the camera change when it's dropped in. Looks like they at least edited together different takes, assuming it's not fake (which would be incredibly pointless).

The thing about Arsenal is, they always try and walk it in. Looks bloody nice when it comes off

I thought it was offside when it happened. It always looks strange when a player is in so much space and 95% of the time it's because they're offside.

In football (unlike, I believe, other sports with offside rules) it's the exact moment your team mate passes the ball that matters, which is why the director pauses it then.

Fun fact - this means that the assistant referee (the linesman, at the side with a flag) has to simultaneously look at what players are in offside positions and look at the ball to see when it's passed. If the ball is travelling quite far up the pitch, it's physically impossible for the assistant referee to do this.

Additional fun fact - players and fans are extremely forgiving of this and should this impossible situation result in an error that's to the detriment of their team, they will typically smile wryly and think back to a time when they've been the beneficiary.

The previous paragraph may not be entirely accurate.

Dara Ó Briain did a bit in which he argued that Tom Cruise is the greatest actor that has ever lived - because he's made numerous highly watchable movies despite being so incredibly annoying.

Being responsible by drunk driver standards isn't much to crow about.

I get your point, there's some people who, karmically, deserve this more than her. If it was some repeat offender who was completely off their tits racing through a school district, I wouldn't feel too bad for them (which doesn't mean I'd be OK with it happening or with Officer Thug falsifying stuff).

Doesn't that imply that before parking her car, she was driving drunk?

I tend to defend the police on here, although I don't see it necessarily claiming the police actions were justified; just pointing out some things that I feel are being misrepresented in the debate.

The most common reason is because the title is misleading. Coming here, I expected yet another case of someone being arrested for DUI and escalating the situation until the officer had reason to fear for the safety of themselves or of others. The other main reason I defend authorities is because sometimes, the video only shows one side of the story and if they're to be believed then 100% of the people beaten up by cops at riots just happened to be walking by and weren't even part of it, honest.

In this case, she resisted the officer and refused to enter her cell ... for a split second. This thug needs to be at least fired for this assault and charged with making a false report when he tried to cover his ass.

I really dislike the word "apologist". It's just a pejorative word for someone who often takes the other side in an ongoing debate. If they're taking that side because they have some need to defend someone then perhaps it's appropriate but if, as is the case here, they take that side because they believe that side is right then "apologist" is just name calling.

HURRY UP PC VERSION!

"How dare you! My mother was a saint!"

I'm not sure what's going on here, is this right?

Access to the war memorial was shut down because of the government shut-down. There was a war memorial service taking place that was supposed to visit the memorial. Park Rangers would not let them in because it was shut down. A national Congressman who is partly responsible for blocking the budget is there and is telling off the Park Ranger for doing what his actions have caused.

Even his t-shirt is obnoxious. "Keep calm and" needs to die.

@budzos - I think it's all part of the ego trip that this sort of video is. Not just everything wrong with internet soapboxes but everything wrong with atheism too. This guy's nothing to do with me!

@Chairman_woo, they claim it's easier to use - they would. It's certainly different and is based around context-sensitive commands. I've seen some of the UI in another video (edit: Trading and Mining, I think, I don't remember when but it's worth watching the whole video anyway) and I believe it works something like when you've selected (by pressing the 'target' key when aiming at it) one of your mining ships and you aim at an asteroid, the 'use' button will tell the captain to mine that.

As I recall, doing this in previous X games was something like going through a menu to select the mining ship, going through a menu to select 'mine', then going through a menu to select an asteroid, then quitting that menu to check the name again because you forgot, and then going through a menu to select an asteroid.

I was very dubious about only being to fly a single spacecraft (yes, literally one ship the whole game - I didn't believe it when I first read it either) but I've been impressed by it's implementation. I wouldn't say I'm 100% convinced, but I'm prepared to hear them out as it were. One very good ship is better than 10,000 crap ones but this rather breaks down if it's not a very good ship.

It's not British is it? Channel 4 are, but they just got the clip from AP or Routers or some such, the same as everyone else. There's nothing inherently British about the operation AFAIK.

I got that, but in additional to saying it shouldn't be up for discussion he makes a point of saying that it shouldn't be discussed openly.

The US is hardly the only country, we (UK) had a vote on it in Parliament. Also, he seems to have a problem with the fact that the US is openly discussing this - would he rather the discussions were behind closed doors?

Using a scumbag's tactics against them isn't hypocritical if you're satirically doing this to draw attention to the technique (did you know Glen Beck refuses to deny that he raped and murdered a woman in 1990?) but I don't think that's what's happening here. This is just misleading, I assumed he banned it from any TV channels he owns but nope.


In particular, this grates:
And if you aren't used to audience-catching video titles by now, then where have you been?
Because even though I'm used to this sort of thing, I still think it's wrong.

If you consider audience-deceiving tactics to be acceptable, why does Murdoch bother you so much?