I wish I were half as classy as that pink unicorn backpack...

R. L. Burnside is God's gift to blues and Rock n Roll

1:57 this section of the track is so ethereal beautiful and deserves to be a full track unto itself

This whole sound track is fricking amazing

Loved this scene with this song

Why the hell did they replace ryker sleeve with A.Mackie? Ryker was perfect and the main reason why I started watching it.

Then I'll take it all

R L Burnside original is great.. this modern update is very cool as well

perfect sound for gym

This is a song I play while making waffles wearing sunglasses.

What a great track! Carbon!

Masterpiece.

I remember this last scene of Episode 1! Loved this music but then this video was not uploaded yet :(

I love the real Tak and the first riker/Tak

awesome cover of R.L.Burnside's song💪

getting the right mindset just before watching season 2

Anyone With The Similar Song Like This......🥺😍

Прослушал в видоизмененном углероде, просто супер трек!

Muy buena canción 🎶 👍

RL Burnside

Perfect capture👁💥

Esperando la segunda temporada 👌

🔥🔥🔥

❤❤❤❤❤❤ Saeson 1 for one

I keep coming back

Can anyone tell Whose voice is recorded in the soundtrack 'let my baby ride'

does anyone have the drum riff sheet music?

:)

Трек пушечный

I got major Cyberpunk 2077 feels

@MikeShinoda you need to get on this!!! ^_^

DEAR ALL (troll on this page alert > goes by "M K" which stands for Mark Kalvin) handle is twitter.com/sorokahdeen The "debate" I attempted to have with this person who was not debating but trolling, is located below further down in the comments, here's the direct link: kzfaq.info/love/MMtDHIIuvW8uJAduNORDVg I've decided to do a character study with this exchange, using KZfaq as the medium, to demonstrate to anyone who's here an interested exactly How to spot and break apart, piece by piece, the Logic Fallacies used against you during discourse or debate by trolls (that is, the uneducated, narcissistic, and morally superior and inflated egotists who love to find someone they believe they can pull something over on and troll, project, and otherwise order you around - it's amazing how much "ordering around" is done by trolls, you'd think they have control problem, wouldn't you? ;). Some Advice: never tell your background to someone you're debating about an area you're an expert in until they show their hand to you. Then you'll actually know whether that person is worth your time in debate, or whether they're a poser. M K, the troll in question was absolutely the latter but probably doesn't get called on it much because they've learned how to appear as if they understand debate arguments (formal debate), fallacies, logic errors, and the like. The problem with faking it of course, is that you gamble each time that your target of harassment is not practiced in actual debate or and is also not an expert in the topic area under discussion. More Advice: Debate only on subjects you know well and have some training in. If you're unsure, ask open-ended questions (like an interview) until you ascertain the level of expertise (more or less than you) of the other party. So, let's take an Example from the conversation I had on this channel with M K. ...someone tries to tell you that "no opinion has more weight than another regardless of either person's experience, credentials, knowledge etc. etc." - so, they're effectively negating a valid argument backed up by facts and proof (can be a sign of panic and an attempt to remove oneself from the debate while desperately trying to save face and maintain some semblance of intelligent appearance). While trying to have a civil debate with someone who *appeared* (and appeared is the keyword here) to be a person with a decent brain (the subject under discussion was "acting" - specifically Kinnaman's acting as Ryker/Takeshi in response to a question posed by Siva Kumar (link to the entire discussion is above in para 1), we also discussed plot, character, and the visual media business, which I happen to be in). It quickly became clear that M K was intelligent but badly misusing that intelligence and instead of engaging in the actual debate but was gaslighting, projecting, trolling, and otherwise treating others (Moi) as inferior using his or her narcissistic emotional petulance. Now, granted I haven't seen someone be *this* egregiously illogical from inside of the poser-frame *I have superior logical intelligence to you!* in so long that I realized afterward that I had forgotten what the *logic fallacies* were called when someone did this and what the errors surrounding them were. So, after I finished answering M K's spew of illogical thinking and projection, I thought it might help to post some details everyone else might find helpful when a troll tries to debate you on a subject you're an expert in, or when someone tries to *deflect* constantly to avoid addressing either your original point or an error they made in addressing your point initially, or if they claim that *neither your opinion nor even theirs has any weight as it's "only an opinion"* ... that's one of the more classic fallacies used and an easy one to spot as I detail below, but notice throughout the conversation, M K accuses me of Straw Man fallacy and Intellectual Dishonesty, this is the classic projection of a narcissist since M K is using both of those constructs during the conversation on me (or trying to). Detailed breakdowns below, and you'll find more at - shanesnow.com/articles/intellectual-dishonesty#articles/dirty-debating 1. "It's just an opinion so it doesn't matter" is called an *illogical fallacy*... 2. “I’m entitled to my opinion, therefore any opposition you make is wrong.” illustrates the error in logic called “The Fallacy of Invincible Ignorance” there are several types of this: a. Error #1 - The person operates with an errant premise. That premise is something like this even though it is unstated or hidden (and that's another error in logic by the way) and goes like this: “Only opinions exist. Facts or knowledge or reasons do not exist, because they are not opinions. Therefore, only opinions are credible for knowledge.” WHY IS THIS A LOGIC FALLACY? Because if only “opinions” existed and they carried no weight, then everything proposed as a law, a principle, a guideline, an axiom, or a rule, or a traffic sign, or a mathematical operation, would have to be *denied as something which exists*." (So if a troll wants to hold that ridiculous logic, then they're also asserting that the next law they break accidentally or through unintended negligence, like a traffic light they ignore, doesn't actually exist ... ya, good luck with that when you get pulled over by a cop - especially these days.) b. Error #2 Using methods of logic in illogical ways...The Fallacy of Invincible Ignorance is a common error amongst persons who have never studied the Basics of Arguments. That is, the uneducated but well-read, the folks who are steeped in data up to their eyeballs but have never been able to digest it well enough use it to positive educational effect, whether to make a point during a discussion, to win a debate of any kind, or to apply it to their life in a meaningful way. In other words, just because you read Hemingway's The Old Man and the Sea when you were in school doesn't mean you understood it in any meaningful or applicable way. c. Error #3 Life Impact - trying to negate all opinion, including educated opinion (such as a reporter's first-hand knowledge as an example, or a TV show director's experience of the nuance of acting as another) by placing your uneducated personage in a superior position does not make you look accurate, logical, or intelligent, you just look like a dumbass trying to be right at any cost. Separately, notice that M K makes a point of slamming my "credentials" and accusing me of both brandishing those credentials and also of "Intellectual Dishonesty" in effect. What M K was doing by bringing up credentials multiple times - even though I mention them only to to factually rebut M K's assertion that "neither of us has that kind of "media" experience," - which is in itself a *fallacy argument* and was incorrect. And that fallacy, which M K devolves into equates to trying to negate all of my factual and anecdotal evidence with what M K claimed I was using as an "Appeal to Expertise" fallacy. You'll find that in the article I posted above as well, along with many, many other tactics that M K used in the last few responses to me underneath the discussion that was originally simply a response to Siva Kumar's question. Notice when you read the article above on "dirty debating" that these logic errors and the way they are often *misused* could easily be referred to as "Tuckerisms" - and in fact many formal debate teams use Carlson of Fox News as an example of what NOT to do and of the logic flaws, which often occur when someone is trying to make a "bad science" jump from one point to another, making it appear that they're related when they're actually not and one does not follow the other or that they are not mutually exclusive. Many of M K's assertions about what has value or weight and whether something can be taken seriously etc. etc. ... many of these tactics are affectionately referred to as "Tuckerisms" and some are simply just dishonest and narcissistic projection. I hope those of you who've been trolled by professional poser types on here will find this helpful when dealing with trolling and narcissistic projection. And by the way, there are many more fallacies to learn about when you are debating an idea, opinion, assertion, etc. with anyone, and if you're on a debate team at University or you are in law school or anything similar, you'll absolutely need to know every one of them and how to defend yourself. If you get a Master's degree you'll also need to know all of that when preparing your "defense" -Not because you'll be defending against trolls when you defend your dissertation, but so that you don't step into any of these logic errors or fallacies as you're defending your points and your proof. -Cheers.

Parabola by tool

@MikeShinoda where you @!!!!!!!!