If you pause the video @9s in, you'll see a footnote, that says this car is only valid for the Indian market. It also says that this model is made in India (the law in India makes importing cars super-expensive, so any car maker that wants to sell there has to put a factory there). Renault has much higher EU safety regulations for the cars that it builds in France and Romania.
There are some cars sold in India (Tata Nano for example) where the seatbelts are even optional.
I think the reasoning is that it's marginally safer than transporting your family on a motorcycle, which is common.
Also, random cattle crossing the street have the right-of-way, even on highways.

Yeah, the makers of the video just needed to punch it into Wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eunice_aphroditois#Name

If I were the teacher, I'd give it an F.

"How much of the work did you do?"

"I just watched."

"Tell your dad to take this project to his teacher. I want to see something YOU made."

What the fuck's next? Some rich parent will just hire a model maker to do the project? How's a normal kid supposed to keep up?

address please...
i'll be right over to cock punch you,and i shall do so with all the humanity,empathy and compassion that one human can generate.

but you are still taking one to the baby maker.

Through counter-intelligence it should be possible to
pinpoint potential trouble-makers... and neutralize them,
neutralize them, neutralize them...

It's still working it's way through the courts, Remington claims that they're protected under the Protection of Lawful Commerce and Arms Act. But some say there are exceptions for things like negligent entrustment, as the families are claiming that military style weapons should never have been sold to the public in the first place and therefore qualifies as negligence.
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/02/22/467688334/ar-15-gun-maker-seeks-to-dismiss-lawsuit-filed-by-sandy-hook-parents

Is holding arms makers accountant for crimes they didn't commit even a thing? Wouldn't this just get laughed out of the courts if they tried to implement it?

The reason many in the NRA are so against smart guns is because some places (New Jersey is one I think) have it written into law that when smart guns become technically and commercially viable then all arms dealers must switch to selling only smart guns within something like 3 years. Essentially making the sale of all other guns illegal I guess.
And the gun manufacturers pretty much already have immunity from being sued for how someone uses their products. There is no reasonable way that the makers of a firearm could possibly insure that someone they sell a gun to will not use it in either a criminal or just recklessly.
Personally I think smart guns are a great idea but I think lawmakers didn't consider how their own laws might wind up hindering the adoption of smart guns.
Here's the story I heard on NPR about it a week or two back.
http://www.npr.org/2016/04/07/473416699/how-an-idea-to-develop-a-safer-smart-gun-backfired

It's not fake, it's a joke. I doubt the video maker was trying to actually convince anyone.

So, it looks like he's wearing that same black material everywhere under the spider print, I'm guessing it's meant to be some light armor that can close to protect the eyes.

I think the movie makers realize it's a problem that you can't show expression with a full mask. Notice with Tony Stark they're always cutting away to show a view from inside the helmet.

Super Mario Brothers Parkour 2 [In Real Life] - Mario Maker has been added as a related post - related requested by ant on that post.

They are the only music video makers on earth now.
No others should even bother.

And yet almost no Republican has a problem with the Death Penalty. Almost no Republican has a problem with War, in fact they love it and want more of it. Almost no Republican has a problem with Stand Your Ground and execute a guy for trying to steal your TV.

What about Jesus teaching that "blessed are the peace maker" he didn't say that there be blessings on the warmongers. Yet the party is the party of warmongers, and looking for any excuse to enter a battle and murder and kill people who haven't done anything to anyone here in the US... just on the threat they may pose. Yes, the war against bin Laden was just, but Bush and the party abandoned that soon after for a set of lies about Iraq, which had done nothing to us. How many people have to die in war after war before the so called pro-life people start saying enough is enough?

Jesus said that if somebody steals your coat, give them your shirt too, not to mention turn the other cheek. Which I don't think he meant to literally let people walk over you, but it is hard to justify the death penalty and stand your ground legislation when you support murdering another person. Murders, rapists, etc may deserve it, but it is impossible for somebody to claim to be pro-life when they support the death penalty and stand your ground.

Hell, that's all without getting into the whole fact the party doesn't want to support that life if they are poor and needy after they are born. The party wants to get rid of food stamps and all other programs to help them. It doesn't matter that half the people who work for Walmart qualify for food stamps, despite the fact they can easily pay all their workers living wages, give the benefits and still be hugely profitable, the bad guy to the Republican right is those needing food stamps, and in fact they want to reward the owners/operators of Walmart and other businesses that refuse to pay living wages while punishing those who work for them... go work 80+ hours if needed is the Republican right's response. Plus Republican's oppose their own plan to create an affordable health care plan, just because it was passed by a black Democrat. They much rather roll back to the days where only those with really good jobs could have affordable health care, let everyone else die, they way they chanted at the one 2012 debate. You want to stop abortion? Then make sure every woman has access to affordable health care, including birth control... in fact encourage the use of birth control, especially IUDs which is ultra effective in stopping pregnancy (and contrary to the Republican right's teachings, modern non-copper IUDs don't reduce the chance of a fertilized egg from embedding... even modern copper ones's have only a very slight reduction) . The only difference between the women having abortion and those not is the issue of affordable health care and access to affordable and reliable birth control... and don't give the usual bull shit about how the pill is only $5 or so, you still have to be able to see a doctor and all that goes with it... plus the pill isn't the most effective method as if she forgets...

"Automatically ok"? Not necessarily. But in cases where it makes sense, at a stretch even "plot sense" for the character to be there; yeah, I think that is OK.

The Last Samurai isn't a documentary. But, the general historical justification for Tom Cruise's character being in Japan is pretty much valid. Meiji was interested in the West -- clothes, technology, weapons, and military. He actually did hire Westerners to train his army, although from what I read it sounds like they were German, French, and Italian rather than American. Still, the movie portrays the general situation/setting with at least *decent* broad-strokes historical accuracy. LOADS of movies deviate from even this degree of historical accuracy *way* more without drawing complaints; particularly if their main purpose is entertainment and not education / documentary.


Your hypothetical reverse movie makes some valid criticisms. Even though it would have been historically possible for a Westerner to be in Japan at the time -- even to be involved with training a Western-style military -- it would be unlikely for such a person to get captured, run into a Shogun that speaks English, become a badass (or at least passable) samurai warrior, and end up playing a major role in politics and significantly influencing Emperor Meiji.

My defense against those criticisms is that, for me at least, the movie is entertaining; which is kinda the point. Your "Union Samurai" movie might be equally entertaining and therefore given an equal pass on historical inaccuracies by me.

The whole characters as a "lens through which the audience can appreciate a culture/history outside their own" issue is (slightly) more weighty to me. I don't think those are often necessary, but I don't feel like my intelligence is being insulted if the movie maker feels that they are in order to sell tickets.

I love the Chinese historical novel "Three Kingdoms". A few years ago, John Wu made the movie "Red Cliff", mostly about one particular battle in the historical period portrayed in that book. For the Chinese audience, Wu made the movie in two parts, summed up about four and a half hours long. For the US / West, he made a version trimmed to just over two hours. Why? Because he (and a team of market researchers, I'm sure) knew that very few Westerners would go to see a 4+ hour long movie, entirely in Mandarin Chinese (with subtitles), about a piece of Chinese history from ~1800 years ago that very few in the West have ever heard of or know anything about.

I think the full 4+ hour long movie is great. In my personal top 10 favorite movies of all time, ahead of most Hollywood stuff. But I also understand that there's no way that movie would appeal to all but a tiny, tiny fraction of Western viewers in that full-on 4+ hour format. But, even though I personally think the cut-down 2 hour "US" version is drastically inferior to the full cut, I am glad that he made it because it gives a suitably accurate introduction to the subject matter to more people in the West (just like the "Romance of the Three Kingdoms" and "Dynasty Warriors" videogames do), and makes that tiny, tiny fraction of Western people that know anything about it a little less tiny. While being entertaining along the way.

For other movies, sometimes the best way that a filmmaker can sell a movie to an audience that otherwise might not accept it (at least in large enough numbers to justify the production costs) may be to insert one of these "lens" characters for the audience to identify with. I don't think there is inherently anything wrong with that. It might not work for movies that are taking a more hardline approach to historical / contextual accuracy (ie., if Tom Cruise showed up in "Red Cliff" in circa 200AD China), but outside of those situations, if that is what the studio thinks it will take to sell tickets... Cool.

The Last Samurai is, like @ChaosEngine said, a movie primarily about an outsider learning a new culture (and accepting his own past). He serves as that lens character, but actually the hows and whys of his character arc are the main points of interest in the movie, at least to me.

I'm sure that an awesome, historically accurate movie could be made dealing with young Emperor Meiji, Takamori (who Katsumoto seems to be based on in The Last Samurai), and the influence of modernization on Japanese culture at the time. It could be made with no Western "lens" character, no overt influence by any particular individual Westerner, and be entirely in Japanese. But that movie wouldn't be The Last Samurai, wouldn't be attempting to serve the same purpose as The Last Samurai, and very likely wouldn't sell as many tickets (in the US) as The Last Samurai (starring Tom Cruise!) did. That wouldn't make it a worse movie, just an apple instead of an orange.

Because murder is murder.

Being a Godless soul that you are I don't expect you to understand.

I do agree these are messed up laws that put roadblocks into a woman's choice to murder their child. But law makers use what is available to them.