I didn't even notice they were butchering the camel until I read the comments. And then I watched it again and I was horrified.

But then I thought about why I was horrified and it really has more to do with the fact that we simply don't see where our meat comes from anymore in society. If I want some turkey for Christmas dinner, I can just head to the grocery store and buy one that's ready to cook (or already cooked). I don't have to go out in the backyard and chop one's head off, bleed it, pluck it, and pull its innards out with my bare hands.

So really, the horror comes from just not seeing it happen everyday (even though I'm guessing millions of animals are butchered for food worldwide every day).

The comments in YouTube suggest this camel was being killed in a Halal fashion (which would require the butchering to be done the way we see in the video--a swift cut to the carotid artery followed by a bleeding out). Turkeys are killed in the same way, I believe (though hung upside down first before having their throat slit).

So to the people who are against this video (or are actually downvoting it) I say: humans are omnivores. It's scientific fact. Most humans eat animals and that usually means killing them first. This video shouldn't be shocking and probably the reason it is to you is that 1) you never thought to eat a camel since you grew up in a country where that wasn't common and/or 2) you've forgotten that animals actually have to be butchered before showing up on your local grocery store shelf and/or 3) you've chosen to be vegetarian (good on you) but forgotten that a large number of other people have chosen to embrace their omnivorism.

(I know omnivorism isn't an actual dictionary word but if vegetarianism can be a word, why not?)

I like how the dog makes another noise and the cat is like "You want me to go upside your head?"

Dude, I'm not dissing deskjobs here. It's just that for the vast majority of jobs, a 32 hour week can't work unless you have more employees. Yeah, in his company that works and it's brilliant but as soon as you get into jobs that require actual physical labor (let's say construction work) or physical presence (for example sales clerks or cops) it doesn't. It's a huge upside of his company, it's just unrealistic for 80% of every other job.
I can have as many sandwiches as I like at my job. All the fucking time. I can eat Creme Brûlée till I puke my guts out. Cops get to beat up people and pornstars get to have earth-shattering orgasms. Every job has an upside.
This dude acts as if he just found out something amazing. Or as if he just made a commercial for his company.

Your video, Upside Down Whale Breach, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

So, I know essentially nothing about football /soccer (a fact I am sure will become immediately obvious). Maybe sift football fans can relieve some of my ignorance:

When I saw the title, I assumed that the keeper was going to launch it the distance of the pitch and score, but I see he's up with the other players.

In hockey, a team can "pull" their goalie back to the bench, allowing them to put an additional skater out on the ice in order to try to score late game-tying desperation goals like this. I guess this is the football equivalent of that?

In hockey, you can replace your pulled goalie with any skater you want (generally, they will be replaced by players with the most offensive upside or "clutch" scoring abilities). But I guess in football, maybe it has to be the goalie/keeper?

And as a followup to that last question, in hockey a goalie is not allowed to carry/touch/control the puck beyond the red (center ice) line. That rule is *almost* never actually put into effect, because there is basically no good reason for a goalie to do that. ...Unless you are (one of the alltime greats) Patrick Roy, team down by many goals with a few minutes left, upset with the lackluster effort of the team playing in front of him, and wanting to light a bit of a fire under their asses:


...Clearly didn't work out in as positive way as the football goal here (Roy didn't even know that it was a penalty to carry the puck over center ice beforehand), but a really funny quirk that happened in a game that I actually remember watching live on TV.

The world is upside down.

What she says ; it's too funny! I want the head upside down! Head upside down! Ha ha ha h a ah ahaaaaa. Again! Again! Ha ha ha ahaaaaa... Dad : we rest a bit and go back up. Girl : Again!..

Dad and mom where interviewed on local TV, they are both pilots, so that explains.

Incorrect, he said we laugh because the jokes are a little bit true.

And if there are protected species, then there are no jokes left at the expense of other people, even self deprecating ones... That's the upside of equality, everyone get's grazed by jokes at some point in time. You can either choose to have the thinnest skin on the planet and a persecution complex the size of the Titanic or be a part of the human race and accept that at some point in time, there will be a joke where you or someone just like you is the butt...

Arm wrestling is about technique and leverage. Almost no strength involved.

Guy on the left has no leverage. Place about 2 inches under the right guy's elbow and Barbell Boy would spin him upside down.

The guy with the longer forearm loses.

I understand your discomfort with my phrasing. My beef is with the electoral college system.

While I was getting my degree, I took some really good American History and Government classes at college. The prof in the Govt. class really went into depth explaining the electoral college to us, and to me the shittiness of that system was just shocking. For example: (none of this is news to a truly informed voter or an interested person with an internet connection, but it WAS news to me when I was ~20 years old, and I think it still would be news to a really high percentage of US voters)

* First is the very idea of an electoral college. The only way to become president of the US is to win the most electoral votes. But voters don't cast electoral votes, the people of the electoral college do. OK, the electoral college is supposed to follow the votes/will of their state/constituents (more on that next), but the fact remains that literally/practically, our votes as citizens don't matter. Only the electoral votes count. So yes, in the most literal sense ... NONE of our votes "matter".

* In general, the "electors" (the people on the electoral college) are supposed to cast their electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote in their state / district. I think 2 states (Nebraska and Maine?) divide up their suggested electoral votes to be as close as possible to the actual proportions of the popular vote, but that's a whole other issue. Anyway, in general the electors are supposed to cast their vote for the popular vote winner in their state. BUT, that process isn't automatic. The votes that actually matter, the electoral votes, are cast by fallible human beings -- and they might "go rogue" and vote against what they are "supposed to" do. That is called a "faithless elector". That would be bad enough if it was just some weird loophole that technically exists but has never actually happened in practice, but actually faithless electors happen fairly frequently. The only upside is that they haven't ever changed the outcome of an election. Yet.

* When we're young and in civics type classes in school, we're brainwashedtaught about Democracy as a very simple, will of the public, one man one vote system. The electoral college shits all over that. One can win the popular vote but lose on electoral votes, and that actually has happened multiple times (not just to Al Gore). In my opinion, the electoral college creates a laundry list of problems (swing states are the only ones that matter, so campaign there and ignore everybody else, etc. etc. etc.), has very few benefits (any supposed benefits of the system are tenuous at best), and is completely contrary to the core concepts of Democracy.


Without the electoral college, a blue vote in Kansas would matter, as would a red vote in Massachusetts. Or a vote for a 3rd party or independent, anywhere. With the electoral college, edge cases like any of those can be safely and easily ignored by candidates.

I think it is unlikely that Kansas would turn blue, even if all of the democrats voted. That being said, we're not a complete LOCK for red; heck, out of the 10 most recent Governors we've had before we turned into Brownbackistan it is an even split between Democrats and Republicans with 5 each. And actually the Democrats had significantly longer total number of years in the office.

So basically, I don't actually think that a vote cast on a losing candidate is "pointless", I just think that the electoral college system does a really good job of making sure that some votes are more pointless than others. It amazes me that there wasn't a MUCH bigger stink made about it when Gore "lost" in 2000, but I guess voter apathy can overcome any challenge to the system.

Good luck using those fancy techniques on a beachball with a sack of hammers, or upside down in a bunny costume.

(If you haven't seen Cutthroat Kitchen yet, guys, I recommend it.)

If this is real, it's a terrible concept.
For this to work, it needs a seriously powerful industrial robot arm, which cost tens, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars. That means it's only feasible for amusement rides, if that. because it flips upside down and relies completely on seat belts to keep you in it, they'll never put it in a setting where they'll be liable if you fall out, so won't be in amusement parks. To me, that means they have no client that would purchase this device, if it even exists. Looks fun, but also looks unrealistic.

There's some debate on the exact phenomenons at play and their extents, but the gist of it is correct, it's not like they have "no idea" how it works. An airfoil moving through air (or any other fluid, same principles work in water as well) generates a higher pressure below it and a lower pressure above it, which results in lift. This can be done even with simple flat plank by using angle of attack, or more effectively if you shape it like a good airfoil. Similarly the wings in racing cars do the same thing but flipped upside down, pushing the car down to the ground (though exploiting underbody aerodynamics can be much more effective if regulations allow it).

The only thing that really bothered me in the video was the insistence on the angle of attack being required for lift. Some planes are so light and have wings that produce so much lift (due to size and shape), that at high speeds they actually need to have negative angle of attack to fly level. If the plane didn't point down a bit it'd just keep climbing higher and higher.

I wish you could get high on fascist blood. Maybe they'd rethink drug prohibition while their kind were routinely being hung upside down, throats cut, bleeding out, surrounded by freedom fighters getting stoned off their tits on the last drops of the enemy's otherwise worthless life.

I mean, we ought to be doing that anyway but it'd be nice to give the people a little further incentive.

This is what you get when you read the Kamasutra upside down.