>> ^Sagemind:

The rule is one of several strict guidelines set by organisers to protect the exclusivity rights of sponsors such as Coca-Cola, Visa and McDonald’s and prevents ambush stunts from rival non-sponsors. It means that athletes are prevented from endorsing their individual sponsors throughout the event.
Athletes found in breach of the laws could be fined and disqualified from the Games, although this has never happened.
http://www.marketingweek.co.uk/news/olympians-hit-
back-over-sponsor-ban-rule/4003014.article


Seems like the UN is bigger than the IOC. Couldn't we just tell them "Fuck you we're not putting up with your shit!." I mean it's not like they have an army or anything, and I'm really sick of corporations ruling everyone.

I'm also sick of the Olympics not being about Amateurs anymore...it should be 100% non-professionals!

The rule is one of several strict guidelines set by organisers to protect the exclusivity rights of sponsors such as Coca-Cola, Visa and McDonald’s and prevents ambush stunts from rival non-sponsors. It means that athletes are prevented from endorsing their individual sponsors throughout the event.

Athletes found in breach of the laws could be fined and disqualified from the Games, although this has never happened.
http://www.marketingweek.co.uk/news/olympians-hit-back-over-sponsor-ban-rule/4003014.article

TYT's narrative was that an overzealous wanna be cop chased an African American kid down and shot him. The 911 call seems to bear that out. The cops told Zimmerman to stop running, but you can tell he continues to run because of the sound of air wooshing against the cell phone.


To me, the screams for help sound more like a child than a man. It would probably be easy to analyze the audio to determine whose voice it really was. Likewise, they could probably also take a look a Zimmerman's injuries to see if they are legit and not self inflicted after the fact. It seems unlikely to me that a small kid could (or would want to) overpower a large man. It also seems strange that Zimmerman claims the kid dissappears and then reappears out of nowhere to ambush him. And the 'do you have a problem? well you do now' line sounds fabricated, like something out of an action movie.

Zimmerman's story sounds bogus to me. He is fighting for his life, after all. I'd probably make stuff up too if I was in Zimmerman's shoes.

I read the title as, "Sneak Past..." so I think it should add heat/motion sensors. Kids love to ambush adults, and what better way than unattended automation?

@ Bruti79 I hear what you're saying but when your parent is LGBT, people often treat you differently and just "being a child" is something you're rarely afforded. Michelle Bachmann just got a visit from reality and it is unfortunate that she had to be ambushed to see it. It's more unfortunate that this will undoubtedly galvanize her resolve to "save" this boy and other children like him. I'm just glad she has no shot at being the president.

>> ^AeroMechanical:

I believe their rifles fire three shots with each pull of the trigger, so being shot three times doesn't necessarily mean anything.
>> ^marbles:
Army medical examiners concluded Tillman was shot three times in the head from just 10 yards away. Friendly fire? Yeah, right.



It doesn't? It makes it hard to sell the lie that it was an Al-Qaeda ambush.

New documents shed light on Tillman’s death:
“The medical evidence did not match up with the scenario as described,” a doctor who examined Tillman’s body after he was killed on the battlefield in Afghanistan in 2004 told investigators.

The doctors — whose names were blacked out — said that the bullet holes were so close together that it appeared the Army Ranger was cut down by an M-16 fired from a mere 10 yards or so away.
...
Army attorneys sent each other congratulatory e-mails for keeping criminal investigators at bay as the Army conducted an internal friendly-fire investigation that resulted in administrative, or non-criminal, punishments.

The three-star general who kept the truth about Tillman’s death from his family and the public told investigators some 70 times that he had a bad memory and couldn’t recall details of his actions.

No evidence at all of enemy fire was found at the scene — no one was hit by enemy fire, nor was any government equipment struck.
...
It has been widely reported by the AP and others that Spc. Bryan O’Neal, who was at Tillman’s side as he was killed, told investigators that Tillman was waving his arms shouting “Cease fire, friendlies, I am Pat (expletive) Tillman, damn it!” again and again.

On October 24, 2011, Ford was confronted at his home by Mary Walsh, a cast member of the satirical show This Hour Has 22 Minutes, in costume as her character Marg Delahunty. Walsh has frequently conducted "ambush" interviews of Canadian politicians as this character, a housewife who dresses in an outfit inspired by Xena: Warrior Princess. Ford called 911 twice, reportedly shouting at the dispatcher "You … bitches! Don't you fucking know? I'm Rob fucking Ford, the mayor of this city!" Ford denied directing "foul and derogatory comments" at the dispatcher but apologized for his use of profanity.[71][72][73] Toronto police Chief Bill Blair released a statement shortly afterwards stating that he had reviewed three emergency calls involving the mayor and that their content had been 'misrepresented'. According to the chief, the word 'bitches' was never used nor did the mayor describe himself as originally claimed.
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rob_Ford

>> ^dannym3141:

>> ^Confucius:
Lol...kinda was but still cool.
Im no poison/snake/giant gecko expert here but ifn that is a long-oh-so-long POISONOUS viper arent both geckos dead? Unless geckos have some kind of immunity, or its some variety on non-poisonous.....In which case shouldnt this be under some sort of romantic gesture channel?
>> ^sillma:
that was really, really, REALLY slow-paced. I slept for an hour after starting the clip and still woke up in time for the first gecko attack.


I agree, but i was confused by the snake because it looked like it was trying to constrict. In which case, it wouldn't be poisonous? I'm no expert, someone help, i want to know if this was epic success or not!


The fact that the snake is holding the gecko in it's coils does not mean it's a constrictor. Most snakes, both venomous and nonvenomous, that consume large prey do this. It keeps the prey from escaping and is necessary so that the snake can position the prey in order to ingest it. Ingesting a prey item bigger than your head is a tricky process, especially if you don't have any hands, and once the process has begun, the snake would become extremely vulnerable.

Many lizards show some resistance to snake venoms. Several skink species, for instance, are highly resistant to elapid (cobras, kraits, adders) venom. Some geckos too show a degree of resistance.

I could be wrong about the following, but the snake in the video does not look like a pit viper to me. The neck is thin, the head shape isn't quite right, and it doesn't appear to strike like a viper. I think it is more likely to be a colubrid, perhaps a golden tree snake (Chrysopelea ornata). If so, that would mean that the snake is rear fanged, the snake would really have to bite down to inject it's relatively weak venom, and the attacking gecko is far less likely to be envenomed during a strike.

It is also probably relevant to point out that the gecko is most likely not trying to 'save his friend', but is instead reacting aggressively to the presence of a predator because of the direct benefits the gecko will receive from his actions (the harassed snake, an ambush predator who has lost the element of surprise, will leave and forage elsewhere).

4 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

Yup, can you invoke a dupe for me?

>> ^Boise_Lib:

Is this a dupe?
What do you think?
@mintbbb's has no sound--but it's the same video.
http://videosift.com/video/Watch-out-the-waves-are-HIGH-today

Well to be fair, it was more like a failed ambush by non-fighters. The first guy going in had his two buds behind him pushing him in, waiting for him to fall before going in there and also getting their ass handed to them.

The two guys did well, fighting-wise. Definitely trained at fighting, their instincts worked in from lots of practice.

>> ^Boise_Lib:

1:04--The reason two on one is much safer.

Christians judge peoples behavior based on its conformity to Gods laws. We are commanded by God to take a stand against sin and to expose it, where ever it may be. We are not to judge the person, for only God knows the heart, but we are commanded to tell that person about sin, and judgement, and about the salvation of Jesus Christ.

Ephesians 5:11

Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them.

Matthew 28:19

Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

I'll try to break down this video for you, because I think you are ascribing arrogance and judgement to Ray when he is merely following the gospel and trying to save this woman..

First he asks her what happens to someone when they die. She gives an answer about "soul recycling" which establishes that she doesn't know or believe that she will face Gods judgement.

Hebrews 9:27

And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment,

Next he asks her if she thinks she is a good person. She states she thinks she is. God says there is no one good:

Romans 3:10

As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one

Romans 3:12

All have turned aside, they have together become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one

The reason there is no one good is because of sin. So to show her she is not in fact a good person Ray asks her about sins she may have committed. She admits to lying, stealing, lusting and blasphemy. Ray then informs her that she isn't a good person in light of those sins. She attempts to turn it back around on Ray but never gives an answer as to how she could be good yet guilty of those sins.

Romans 3:23

for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

Next, Ray asks her if she will be innocent or guilty on judgement day. She affirms innocent. Ray then reminds her of the sins she just admitted to. Again, she tries to turn it around back on Ray but never gives an answer to how she will be declared innocent even though she is admittidely guilty of many sins.

The whole point of what Ray was trying to do was..

A. Establish to her that she is a sinner
B. Let her know she was going to be judged for those sins when she died
C. Let her know the verdict would be guilty without Christ

He wasn't trying to judge her, and said that flat out, that he was incapable of judging her. He also admitted that he was a sinner like her and was not perfect, that Christ was his only way out. I think people are getting offended by Ray when he suggests that this woman isn't a good person, because its the most popular lie that people like to believe. The truth is, no one is good, and everyone is a hypocrite who has never lived up to their own standard let alone the standard they judge other people by. People are not generally good, they are generally sinful. Everything Ray did here was by the book so I can't support your criticism here. I don't know what else Ray has done really..I haven't followed him too closely, but I don't see anything wrong with this.

>> ^enoch:
@shinyblurry.
judgement and discernment are not the same thing in the context you are trying to convey.
and you posted a most excellent verse to make your claim.please reread that verse...nothing about judging but EVERYTHING about patience and careful instruction.
to preach the word you have to understand the word.
ray comfort is clueless as a child when it comes to the word and he should be ashamed of his ignorance.
ambushing this young lady and then hiding behind scripture to defend his vitriol.
it is cowardly and vicious.
and one of the myriad reasons i find ray comfort to be a stellar douchebag of a human being.
at least YOU ask the questions shiny.
you seek to know and i have all the faith that you shall,but i plead with you to not give ray comfort any authority.he is a charlatan who dresses himself up as the faithful.
and yes..i AM judging him.

@shinyblurry.
judgement and discernment are not the same thing in the context you are trying to convey.
and you posted a most excellent verse to make your claim.please reread that verse...nothing about judging but EVERYTHING about patience and careful instruction.
to preach the word you have to understand the word.
ray comfort is clueless as a child when it comes to the word and he should be ashamed of his ignorance.
ambushing this young lady and then hiding behind scripture to defend his vitriol.
it is cowardly and vicious.
and one of the myriad reasons i find ray comfort to be a stellar douchebag of a human being.

at least YOU ask the questions shiny.
you seek to know and i have all the faith that you shall,but i plead with you to not give ray comfort any authority.he is a charlatan who dresses himself up as the faithful.
and yes..i AM judging him.

I'm still searching the Japanese news sites for the truth about what went down at this meeting, but according to some people on the Japanese YouTube version of this video, this may have been a setup. The reason for all the cameras and shouting was supposedly because the majority of the audience in attendance that day were members of "Green Action" and "Greenpeace" who weren't even residents of the affected area. They basically came to further their own anti-nuclear agenda and brought the urine with them knowing that it wasn't these guys jobs to test it. Again, I'm not sure of the truth of all that. If I find out more I'll post again.

EDIT: Did a bit more research and found children from the Fukushima area have had their urine tested back in June, but only trace amounts of Cesium were found--not at any levels that would affect health (0.41~1.13 becquerels per liter of urine).

EDIT2: Yeah, it was a total setup. The whole meeting was organized by an NGO called Friends of Earth Japan (FoE), who have a strong anti-nuclear agenda (the page I linked to is their public announcement of the meeting, including handouts that detailed their strategy for the meeting). They called out to other groups like No Nukes More Hearts who share similar goals. On the No Nukes More Hearts web page that I linked to they encourage all members of the group, whether they are residents or not, to attend the meeting. Other groups that seem to be involved were the Fukushima Protect Children from Radiation Association, Fukushima Fukuro Club (similar to Greenpeace) and Greenpeace Japan, further stacking the audience.

These groups apparently invited government representatives for "negotiations" about the rights of people living in the stricken areas. Realizing the groups were there to grandstand and not actually discuss anything, the government officials eventually withdrew from the meeting--after nearly 2.5 hours of patiently trying to answer questions! The NGO groups quickly edited down and translated the original video of the meeting to further their own purposes, deleting the two hours of the video in which the government members listen to speeches given by various group leaders and try to answer questions from the audience.

You can see the original unedited video of the meeting here. It looks like the attending government officials were only given copies of the questions they would be asked moments before the meeting started (although in fairness if they had gone to the websites I linked to above they would have known what they were walking in to). Before the meeting even begins, the Fukushima Protect Children from Radiation Association drops a petition demanding all children be evacuated from Fukushima. Throughout the meeting, as the government officials try to patiently answer questions from the audience they are routinely interrupted by others who stand up and give speeches (there's a lot of talk about "protecting the children" which always gets a lot of applause).

So yeah, these guys got ambushed. It was basically a successful troll for these NGO groups.

EDIT 3: In the link to the original (uncut) meeting video, you can go to 1:02:00 to see where this clip starts. Notice this clip has been heavily edited and the government officials actually stuck around for ANOTHER HOUR to answer questions before being accosted by the urine-wielding brigade.

Same logic: What are we then?

I was gonna say that Crocs haven't really changed much since the Cretaceous, but that would actually be a little bit of a lie. They are quite complex really, its just that their outward appearence is much the same, well, because water hasn't changed much. They adapted to be an amphibious ambush predator, the design worked 80ish million years ago, it still works.