Because I am a nerd, the subtitles:

Lunar Materials Fluidification and Firing
Feldspar Extraction Technique and Belt-Driven Flame Kiln are proprietary to Aperture Science. Do not describe the events depicted in this scene.

Ballistic Turing Test
"Polylunarcarbonate ballistic redisintermediation" is a registered trademark of Aperture Science.

Diamond-Assisted Panel Abridgement
In the event of a clogged diamond disposal chute, DO NOT attempt to clear diamond hole.

Packing Simulation Trial
Please note: these panels are intended for simulated transportation environments only, and should not be used in an actual packaging event.

Completed Test Chamber
This test chamber was constructed for promotional purposes only, and may not accurately reflect the actual panel distribution cost of an official Enrichment Center activity.

Extra-Earth Outsourcing Initiative
Disclaimer: Any resemblance to Earths not residing in the public domain is guaranteed by the physical laws of multiverse theory, and therefore not actionable.

How It Works
This is not a dramatization. An Earth where sea mollusks have created an advanced land-based society with wholly inappropriate bipedal keyboards is guaranteed to exist.

The Multiverse and You
A Note About Getting Back to Work: In the event that you are reading this, get back to work.

(Throughout)
This Aperture Science Extra-Earth Outsourcing and Perpetual Testing Initiative Employee Orientation Video is for internal use only. Do not distribute to other Earths.

>> ^shuac:
One question for you, Sarzy. You say this film is a milestone. I'm sure you're right. Can you tell me why this film is a milestone?


Because the fight choreography and direction are peerless; the film's fight scenes easily rival anything that I've ever seen, and I've seen my share of action movies.

Because the critical consensus is that it's an instant classic.

Because it's breaking through into the mainstream more than any martial arts film I can think of since Ong Bak.

Because it is awesome.

Some quotes from reviews:

David Fear -- Time Out: And in terms of beautifully coordinated film violence—the kind involving flying fists and feet, whizzing blades and ballistic superbattles—Gareth Evans’s insta-classic Indonesian crime flick is leagues above every kinetic bullet-ballet and martial arts epic of the past decade. Whether this 31-year-old Welsh director will eventually be mentioned in the same breath as legendary chaos orchestrators like Sam Peckinpah or John Woo remains to be seen. For now, Evans can take pride in the fact that he’s set the bar for cinemayhem impossibly high.

Andrew O'Hehir -- Salon: “The Raid” is a witty, pulse-pounding instant midnight classic, an immediate sensation at the Sundance and Toronto festivals that should appeal to cinema buffs, action freaks and a pretty large mainstream audience besides. It offers some of the best Asian martial-arts choreography of recent years and an electric, claustrophobic puzzle-palace atmosphere that’ll leave you wrung out and buzzed.

Ty Burr -- Boston Globe: Not yet 30, Evans is a master of visceral tension and release. “The Raid’’ repeatedly slows down, gathers force, and rushes forward using all the elements of filmmaking at a director’s disposal: editing’s ability to expand and contract time; the camera’s gift for revealing information through motion and light; a good musical score (by Joseph Trapanese and Linkin Park’s Mike Shinoda) that can cue audiences to respond or just play with their heads. At times, “The Raid’’ feels like pure cinema.

Nordling -- Ain't it Cool: Then, there are the action sequences, which are so exquisitely orchestrated that they build like a symphonic suite of pain and kickassocity. This movie builds and builds, each fight even bigger than the one before it. I can't imagine an audience that won't be on their feet for some of them - and the action choreography is damn near perfect, with cinematography to match. Sure, there's some shakycam, but it's only to build the intensity because Uwais and director Gareth Evans have planned each fight so well that it's never confusing, not once. The geography is flawless. The film wisely lays out the building early on, so that you unconsciously understand where everyone is in the building and even in the same room. I haven't seen such confident action direction since John Woo unleashed the doves in THE KILLER and, yeah, HARD BOILED.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^Stingray:
She was probably pissed that he was trying to squeeze through, but I do believe that is allowed in some areas/countries.

I see motorcycle cops do it all the time, so my dad always does it. One time he squeezed through didn't touch anyone and some guy went F'n Ballistic. Yelling and screaming at him how he can't do that, how dare he.
On another note the camera seems to be rather smooth at the end, like it's not registering footsteps.
Also Road Rage is all the Rage http://videosift.com/video/Persistent-attacker-taken-for-a-ride


I actually got into a debate about this subject with someone I was at a new hire sort of event. This lady was talking about motorcycles and how she was really upset when riders do this and that's why nobody should be allowed to motorcycle.

I asked her if she thinks this guy only rides a motorcycle or if he has a car for when it rains or snows or whatever. She replied that she thinks he probably does. I asked her "Are you seriously going to tell me that when this guy is not driving his car instead of riding his bike he's not weaving in and out of traffic and cutting people off" She agreed

Since we can't stop idiots from driving like idiots I think we should allow them to ride motorcycles like this because there is a much greater risk to them than to others.

>> ^Stingray:

She was probably pissed that he was trying to squeeze through, but I do believe that is allowed in some areas/countries.


I see motorcycle cops do it all the time, so my dad always does it. One time he squeezed through didn't touch anyone and some guy went F'n Ballistic. Yelling and screaming at him how he can't do that, how dare he.

On another note the camera seems to be rather smooth at the end, like it's not registering footsteps.

Also Road Rage is all the Rage http://videosift.com/video/Persistent-attacker-taken-for-a-ride

Probably the same people who call and complain when their trash isn't emptied when they pack it too tight or let it get wet and freeze solid in the can.

Mailmen put up with similar shit. Was a mailman around here who on 95+ degree days on his walking route, he'd stop and get something to drink at a corner store. Old lady near the store would call and complain her mail wasn't delivered before noon (usually 5-10 minutes after) and that her mailman was slacking off across the street instead of delivering. They told him to deliver just her mail, then take a break.

That kinda petty shit would make you go ballistic, especially if you're young and not deadened to the bullshit of life yet....which many trashmen are young. They are the only people who can do that kinda labor day after day and still get out of bed at the end of the week.

In my opinion, the only way SOME atheists are like theists is their insistence that others think/believe the way they do. @dannym3141 doesn't do that -- he doesn't insult theists, he just chooses not to be one.

Sorry @budzos, but I think you are guilty of being like a theist, by being so intolerant towards another person's choice. I can agree with you that it isn't "logical" -- I don't agree that it is imperative that every human being BE logical.

@Winstonfield_Pennypacker -- the reason we don't go ballistic over any Jesus or God references made by Obama is because we know he isn't talking to us. He is talking to the idiots who STILL insist that he is Muslim, trying to calm them down. Not that it will make any difference to them. Logic isn't their strong suit. Obama doesn't pray to God, looking for answers, like Bush said that he did. He doesn't say that God wants him to be President. If IF he talked like that, we would be in an uproar. But we are smart people, us liberals. WE know when children are being placated.

>> ^ant:

>> ^Selektaa:
No one got hurt, not "no one was in danger". That thing ripped THROUGH a bedroom, bounced across the street, and hit another house and a van. Plenty of danger there, everyone just got lucky.
edit: I do hope this doesn't adversely impact the show, though. Not trying to come off holier than thou

I hope they air this episode and the accident!!!


They could turn it into a full hour special showing you the dangers of owning and firing a ballistic cannon that has typical velocities past 1000 ft/s!

THEN...

Check in for the latest in the media's fear-mongering war: Are our nation's bomb ranges safe?

>> ^vaire2ube:

"Anyone else feel like Running?" should have had a bleep .. lmao his is on my lips and in my throat


I see why everyone tries to get him with the ballistic headshots.

Not a ballistic knife, but a funny knife none the less.

>> ^mintbbb:

Sorry, didn't mean to go all ballistic about this. There were some weird message board ham(p)ster issues somewhere many, many years ago that obviously left me emotionally scarred
>> ^zombieater:
>> ^mintbbb:
I am sorry, but.. it is a hamster, hamster.. no 'p' there!

Ooh yes! You're right! Oops.



Ah, no worries. Let's just hope that nobody makes my mistake again so that you wont have anymore flashbacks.

Sorry, didn't mean to go all ballistic about this. There were some weird message board ham(p)ster issues somewhere many, many years ago that obviously left me emotionally scarred

In reply to this comment by zombieater:
>> ^mintbbb:

I am sorry, but.. it is a hamster, hamster.. no 'p' there!


Ooh yes! You're right! Oops.

Sorry, didn't mean to go all ballistic about this. There were some weird message board ham(p)ster issues somewhere many, many years ago that obviously left me emotionally scarred

>> ^zombieater:

>> ^mintbbb:
I am sorry, but.. it is a hamster, hamster.. no 'p' there!

Ooh yes! You're right! Oops.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
why should i care about this?
..seriously


It'll make you a bigger man and put hairs on your chest

@marbles:

First you need to acknowledge what a conspiracy is. When two or more people agree to commit a crime, fraud, or some other wrongful act, it is a conspiracy. Not in theory, but in reality. Grow up, it happens.

Thanks for the vocabulary lesson, but I used the term conspiracy theory, not conspiracy. Conspiracy theory has a separate and more strongly suggestive definition (this one from Merriam-Webster): "a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators."

I openly acknowledge that the government of the United States has and does commit conspiracies, as you define the word. (You mentioned Operation Northwoods in a separate comment; a post on Letters of Note from few weeks ago may be of interest to you, too, if you haven't already seen it: http://www.lettersofnote.com/2011/08/possible-actions-to-provoke-harrass-or.html.) The actions described therein, and other such actions, I would aptly describe as conspiracies (were they to be enacted).

Definitions aside, my problem with posts like that of @blastido_factor is that most of their so-called conspiracies are easily debunked. They're old chestnuts. A few minutes' worth of Google searches can disprove them.

It may be helpful to distinguish between what I see as the two main "conspiracies" surrounding 9/11: (1) that 9/11 was, to put it briefly, an "inside job," and (2) that certain members of the government of the United States conspired to use the events of 9/11 as justification for a series of military actions (many of which are ongoing) against people and countries that were, in fact, uninvolved in the 9/11 attacks. The first I find no credible evidence for. The second I consider a more tenable position.


The Pentagon is the most heavily guarded building in the world and somehow over an hour after 4 planes go off course/stop responding to FAA and start slamming into buildings, that somehow one is going to be able to fly into a no-fly zone unimpeded and crash into the Pentagon without help on the inside?

Once again, much of what you mention can be attributed to poor communication between the FAA and the government agencies responsible for responding to the attacks (and, for that matter, between the various levels of government agencies). And again, this is one of the major criticism levied by the various 9/11 investigations. From page forty-five of the 9/11 Commission: "The details of what happened on the morning of September 11 are complex, but they play out a simple theme. NORAD and the FAA were unprepared for the type of attacks launched against the United States on September 11, 2001. They struggled, under difficult circumstances, to improvise a homeland defense against an unprecedented challenge they had never before encountered and had never trained to meet."

Furthermore, it seems to me that one of the biggest mistakes made by a lot of the conspiracy theorists who fall into the first cateory (see above) is that they judge the events of 9/11 in the context of post-9/11 security. National security, on every level, was entirely different before 9/11 than it is now. That's not to say that the possibility of this kind of attack wasn't considered within the intelligence community pre-9/11. We know that it was (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks_advance-knowledge_debate). But was anyone adequately prepared to handle it? No.

In any event, when's the last time you looked at a map of Washington, DC? If you look at a satellite photo, you'll notice that the runways at Ronald Reagan airport are, literally, only a few thousand feet away from the Pentagon. Was a no-fly zone in place over Washington by 9:37 AM? I honestly don't know. But it's misleading to suggest that planes don't routinely fly near the Pentagon. They do.


And how did two giant titanium engines from a 757 disintegrate after hitting the Pentagon's wall? They were able to find the remains of all but one of the 64 passengers on board the flight, but only small amounts of debris from the plane?

In truth, I don't know enough about ballistics to speak for how well a titanium engine would withstand an impact with a reinforced wall at hundreds of miles an hour. But, if you're suggesting that a plane never hit the building, here's a short list of what you're wilfully ignoring: the clipped light poles, the damage to the power generator, the smoke trails, the hundreds of witnesses, the deaths of everyone aboard Flight 77, and the DNA evidence confirming the identities of 184 of the Pentagon's 189 fatalities (64 of which were the passengers on Flight 77).

Regarding the debris: It's misleading to claim that only small amounts of debris were recovered. This from Allyn E. Kilsheimer, the first structural engineer on the scene: "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box ... I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts." In addition, there are countless photos of plane wreckage both inside and outside the building (http://www.google.com/search?q=pentagon+wreckage).


Black boxes are almost always located after crashes, even if not in useable condition. Each jet had 2 recorders and none were found?

You help prove my point with this one: "almost always located." Again, I'm no expert on the recovery of black boxes, but here's a point to consider: if the black boxes were within the rubble at the WTC site, you're looking to find four containers that (undamaged, nonetheless) are roughly the size of two-liter soda bottles amidst the rubble of two buildings, each with a footprint of 43,000 square feet and a height of 1,300 feet (for a combined volume of 111,000,000 cubic feet, or 3,100,000,000 liters). (You might want to check my math. And granted, that material was enormously compacted when the towers collapsed. But still, it's a large number. And it doesn't include any of the space below ground level or any of the other buildings that collapsed.) Add to that the fact that they could have been damaged beyond recognition by the collapse of the buildings and the subsequent fires. To me, that hardly seems worthy of conspiracy.


Instead we invaded Afghanistan and started waging war against the same people we trained and armed in the 80s, the same people Reagan called freedom fighters. Now we call them terrorists for defending their own sovereignty.

Here, finally, we find some common ground. I couldn't agree more. You'd be hard-pressed to find a more ardent critic of America's foreign policy.

>> ^marbles:
First you need to acknowledge what a conspiracy is ...

@GenjiKilpatrick

The other video clearly shows the guy picking up a cell phone (not a gun) and audibly says "phone" while he's pointing at it to the videographer.

Initially the police implied Harding was firing indiscriminately at the officers while fleeing. Then the story changes when they realize they have to go by what the gunshot detection system said. But somehow they can't find the gun. I guess it's better to be charged incompetent, than to be charged with murder.

The officers clearly contaminate the suspect when they rolled him over. (Gunshot residue)

And the gun they found later is a different size caliber than the one used in the Seattle murder, yet the police chief says they'll have to wait for ballistics to see if the gun matches the murder weapon. Pure political propaganda.

This is a top to bottom cover up. I'd like to think that maybe one of the cops just got anxious and shot at Harding's general direction (not necessarily at him) and then other cop freaks and starts shooting at Harding in the back, killing him. But who knows how it went down. What we do know is there was no other gun at the scene.