If you look at the video, you can see what appears to be mining equipment just behind the flow and if you look later in the video you can see that the hills behind the flow appear to have been heavily mined/stripped. Looks like this was probably caused by man stripping out all of the trees, grass and vegetation. Screw around with the balance of nature enough and you will get occurrences like this.

at the 35 second mark it looks like he is doing two loads of laundry on stage while he is doing his drum solo.

Roller coaster design seems to be stuck in a loop of designing extremes (height, speed, loops, etc). While those are fun you usually end up in the position that enoch mentions, a 3 hour wait for a 1- 2 minute ride. I would much rather have a roller coaster ride with less extremes but a longer duration. A coaster ride that lasted 3-5 minutes would be much more enticing to me than this continued push for short duration extremes.

A couple of points.
1) several people stated that the truck driver sped up to keep her out. There is no proof of that. There is proof of a decreasing amount of space between the truck and the vehicles ahead of him.

2) The truck in which the video is being shot from appears to be a semi and not a pickup. You can not expect them to speed up or slow down like a passenger car.

3) The vehicles in front of the truck appear to be slowing down due to conditions in front of them, causing the decreased distance between the truck and traffic in front of him.

4) Even though the audio is not that good, there does not appear to be a change in the engine noise to indicate that the truck driver was speeding up to keep her out.

It appears to me that several vehicles in the slow lane saw that there was a semi in front of them that they wanted to avoid. They saw the space in front of the semi in the high speed lane and decided to occupy it. They then passed on the right hand side of the truck.

*warning legal mumbo jumbo*
Straight from the State of Texas Statutes and Legislation web page
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/TN/htm/TN.545.htm

Sec. 545.001. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:

(1) "Pass" or "passing" used in reference to a vehicle means to overtake and proceed past another vehicle moving in the same direction as the passing vehicle or to attempt that maneuver.
------------------------------------

Sec. 545.057. PASSING TO THE RIGHT. (a) An operator may pass to the right of another vehicle only if conditions permit safely passing to the right and:

(1) the vehicle being passed is making or about to make a left turn; and

(2) the operator is:

(A) on a highway having unobstructed pavement not occupied by parked vehicles and sufficient width for two or more lines of moving vehicles in each direction; or

(B) on a one-way street or on a roadway having traffic restricted to one direction of movement and the roadway is free from obstructions and wide enough for two or more lines of moving vehicles.

She was passing on the right by their definition and she did it illegally The truck being passed did not meet the requirements to legally allow passing on the right.

Seeing the video and having read the appropriate law that applies in this situation, It is my opinion that the driver of the passenger vehicle was at fault.

More context needed to make a decision on this. What happened before this was shot. Something caused the cops to circle the bicycles and take a defensive stance.

Everyone has already done this you just don't have the direct link back that Bill does. Think of all the bodily waste that you produce, then multiply that by the number of people that exist today add in all the animals that exist then multiply that by all the humans and animals that have ever existed. The water you drank at lunch today was probably at one point dinosaur urine or maybe your neighbors from last week. Yum!

Am I the only one who noticed?! The light switch was installed upside down! Missed the whole watch repair, because I sat there for 6:45 in total disbelief.

One of the few times you would want a Remote starter on a chainsaw.

The Greek Ministry of Silly Walks put on their first exhibition recently...

I always wonder what the person did to get them in that situation. Yes, a lot of times it is something beyond their control but I think that a lot of people also get into a situation due to their own stupidity and belief that hey I've got a cell phone and can just call to get rescued if I get in over my head.

I have always felt that if you are going to hike/climb/ski etc in a public park or facility that you should be required to buy "hikers/climbers/skiers" insurance. Put up $10,000 cash bond or buy a rescue insurance policy for x dollars and we will come rescue your butt off the side of a cliff/depths of a canyon/acres of forest or we can bill you for the rescue later. I understand that you have the right to go perform these things in the wild but I also think that you should take some financial responsibility for the cost of saving your butt if/when things go wrong.

I have to agree with other by saying this video has an incorrect title. it should read "Really cool old and not idiot proofed elevator".

There is nothing essentially dangerous about this elevator. It just does not have airbags, voice instructions, seat belts, padded walls, signs in 12 languages, or free helmets. I would love to have something like this in a building I work/live in.

One possible solution:

1) provide the police an operating budget that comes from the taxes that a city normally collects.
2) ALL money from police citations, fines, etc. goes into a separate account.
3) Appoint a citizens committee (Absolutely no government employees/contractors etc) that will decide at the end of the year where the money is spent. with some limitations. It can NOT be spent on day to day police or city budgets. For example. They can decide to fund the city homeless shelter, fund a city beautification project, scholarships for residents of the community, fourth of July celebration, etc. (MAYBE a %5-%10 amount could be budgeted to be given to fund special projects for the city or police force).

Gives me an idea...

"Hello Police, I think someone planted a bunch of marijuana in my front yard..."

Yard work done!

People love to use the analogy that weapons bans are the same as reasonable limitations on your 1st amendment rights. They use arguments like "You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater", "You can't Slander", etc. but there is a big difference.

An assault weapons ban basically equates to "you may not own this item" the restrictions on 1st Amendment rights say "you man not use a word in this very limited list of situations".

If they were truly equal then the "reasonable" restriction on your 1st amendment right would be "You may not EVER use the word FIRE. Not in a crowded theater, not at home, not at work, not ever. Remove it from your vocabulary and we will not teach it to people who learn the language in the future."

No one would find that reasonable and everyone would fight to protect their right to use the word "fire" in safe, appropriate conversation.

Now lets take that and reverse it. Let's apply what everyone says are reasonable restrictions on our 1st ammendment rights and apply them to our 2nd ammendment. If you did that then you would havesomething along the lines of the following: "You may own the gun but you may not use it in these very limited list of situations".

Oh wait a minute! That's what we currently have. "You may own your gun but you may not use it to rob a store, murder someone, threaten someone, etc."

I am not trying to convince everyone that my side is right. I am just pointing out that you need to be careful when you start restricting ANY constitutionally guaranteed right. Take the restrictions that you think are fair and apply them equally to any other right that you have and see if they still sound "Reasonable".