This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by lurgee.

It has *dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Condit-Dam-Breached-with-Explosives-and-Subsequent-Draining

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by eric3579. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

NSA knows what's best for you.

I mean, surely their filtering algorithms have already analyzed a more accurate profile of you, than what your psychiatrist ever could? What with all the years of records of your internet searches, emails and videosift comments..

Seriously though, about this nice video, if you have a popular smartphone, no matter how you trust that fruit, droid or window logo, there's seriously no real guarantees that your activities are not recorded in whichever way, whenever. Any data on 'customers' is precious to these companies, or the NSA for that matter.

To be a bit cynical, I'd say that most people don't mind, they can't perceive anything strongly negative to come out of any of these privacy breaches. After all, so far the system has kept them relatively safe from the other ones, the evil ones.

To be even more cynical I'd say this hip guy, 10k likes on FB and all, seems to be quite smoothly riding the next generation's "My mom uses FB" disdain to .. I don't know? Maybe try to gain respect among this, certainly most sought after viewer demography, the younger generation, about to become consumers?

It could even be that he makes money on ads on YT views? But certainly Youtube, or their parent company, would never breach anyone's privacy, or make questionable sudden changes to their TOCs? Say, they wouldn't use the Chrome browser's or the Android OS's capabilities to use a connected mic to sift through recorded data?

Well, in any case, I've got to appreciate anyone who makes these matters more public and talked about, what ever their motives might be.

On another topic, as a loyal user of Google's mostly brilliant services, and mobile operating system, I was quite surprised to realize that I could see where I (or my phone) had been about, through their service here: https://maps.google.com/locationhistory

Luckily the feature can be turned off from the same site. I mean I'm sure it's off now, because I can't see any data there anymore..

@BoneRemake et. al.:

I will answer to your comment for a change, Read the following paragraph, which is one of the last paragraphs and the meat of the matter if you want the short answer. For you or any that desire to join in Group Therapy, then continue reading.

Submissions to this Site are governed. I do not care...nor am I constrained to care or consider if, when, where, whether, how, etc., someone reads or does not read the guidelines. Nor am I constrained to care or consider whether their violation of said guidelines is intentional, accident of misinterpretation, the violators age, intelligence, sex or lack thereof, hair color.... AND I DO NOT CARE ! I am empowered to initiate, second, contest (which I do), or ignore an invocation of Ban. The reason I do not care is that each and every banee is informed at the time of banning that there are available avenues for redress in the occurrence of mitigating circumstance(s) or professed reorientation and thereby capable of productive and compliant participation at the Sift if that is, becomes, or ever was their intended purpose.


<Do you honestly have no clue as to what you do ? >
On one hand I might say arguably better than do you...on the other who really does?

<The only thing I personaly respect about what you do with the ban thing is that you adhere the Terms of service ( which everyone reads of course right ??? ).>
What can I say to that...ok.

<The rest of the time you deny possible gems in the rough without any warning.>
Blanket generalizations are inherently ridiculous and unsupportable. Aside from that your statement of observation is highly speculative and the issue of warning is mute besides.

< I mean I do not want to be so in your face, but to see you write that made me mad.>
I was polite and succinct. It is my privilege to exercise to inquire....the rest is a personal problem with which you must deal though I would wish otherwise for you and myself.

<You have denied so many possible peole here without any incling of the genuine purpose of the site,>
I have denied no peole(sic) here, possible or otherwise. As far as my having an incling(sic) this is again arguable to contestable and at best highly speculative on your part. I would submit to you, however, that the purpose of the site is served and supported by the originator(s) of the site and the rules and policies that they deem necessary and relevant. The interpretive perimeters by which they are implemented are set and monitored for compliance by those same individuals. If you have an issue with those policies there is ample avenue for open discussion and elucidation, not with me...not my job by happenstance or inclination.

<you just outright ban people>
I patently do not. I may and do initiate or second a ban and that only. Checks and Balances.

<and we are not stupid>
I wouldn't touch that with a ten foot pole. Really...we?...am I included?...how many are you?...whom all?...of course you are not.

<it is so you can garner some form of level up>
Your point? My motivation(s) for participation on any or whatever level I so chose or in what manner I choose is my own and not for you or anyone else to judge but for a quantifiable breach of demeanor and then not solely by but a couple of individuals. Do you not submit videos, comments, polls, etc., and accept comments, votes, badges, etc? If I were someone else here I might comment on the desirability of some number of those submissions as relates to the quality and genuine purpose of this or any site for that matter. But I am not that or any someone else and make no such judgement at this time about your contributions including the relevant comment.

<you got called on a lot of things in the past in that regard>
Really, how many...how many with objective merit or...on down and so what? As far as called on, you might say that is true of both of us and perhaps more so for you and then comes the argument respective to justifiability on grounds.

<SERIOUSLY ? ? you ask her why she explained

that ??>
You got me on that one, Yes, However, I did not pass a value judgement, express any alternate or opposing view or stance. Therefore I might profess some surprise at the timbre of your comments. Love you still.

While much of that which I attempted to cover strained answerability, much or most of the remainder defies it and so the following which is a departure from the set format.

Speaking to what may be trenchant to this matter overall is the following:

Submissions to this Site are governed. I do not care...nor am I constrained to care or consider if, when, where, whether, how, etc., someone reads or does not read the guidelines. Nor am I constrained to care or consider whether their violation of said guidelines is intentional, accident of misinterpretation, the violators age, intelligence, sex or lack thereof, hair color.... AND I DO NOT CARE ! I am empowered to initiate, seconded, contest (which I do), or ignore an invocation of Ban. The reason I do not care is that each and every banee is informed at the time of banning that there are available avenues for redress in the occurrence of mitigating circumstance(s) and thereby capable of productive and compliant participation at the Sift if that is, becomes, or ever was their intended purpose.

All the indulgence outside of this stance which is the sole province of the commenter and not binding...is merely that...indulgence and any and all are free to exercise their proclivity to such.

That was fun, overall, and I too love you enough to respond having done so with no vehemence, unsupportable assertions, profanity, personal aspersions, ear biting, eye gouging, or tongue pulling.

Again, love you Boneremake. Let's do this again sometime....NOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooooooo...,

@RedSky - You aren't reading what I'm saying.

I'm talking about finding an equilibrium in which humanity can thrive economically, socially and environmentally.

I'm only saying that things like environmental damage, fracking, certain food production techniques, the current flavor of resource wars, and the fact that a massive proportion of our current population really can't feed itself are all evidence that the effort required to sustain current and future population levels doesn't fit my definition of finding balance.

The only point of no return I'm talking about is that at some point it will be essentially impossible to get to that place of balance that I favor. It's a nebulous concept for sure, but I do think it is relatively imminent and at the very least that we are heading in the wrong direction - especially in light of the notion proposed by this video where exponential growth can give you a false sense of security right up until just before you hit it.

I actually agree with you and think that earth could sustain an arbitrarily large population of say 20 billion or even more.

But we'd have to spend more of our time and efforts competing (sometimes violently) for the resources, we'd have to shape ever larger proportions of the natural world to our own narrow needs, we'd have to put up with a much less pleasant environment, and since it will be challenging enough to just get the resources to feed and clothe your own people, there is a really good chance that unfathomable (billions) quantities of human beings will be marginalized by this system and spend most of their time suffering.

Again, a far cry rom my definition of equilibrium.

As for your notion that vague global threats don't cause change, for starters I'm not sure that's true - there are significant popular environmental movements around the world and also some threshold of self interest can be breached. For example if you look at negotiations over things like the Kyoto protocols you will see that developing nations who are much more susceptible to environmental changes like shifting climates and rising sea levels are significantly more likely to sign on. It's no coincidence that Bangladesh and a few other island nations were the only countries to ratify the thing.

But there are also educational and social strategies that can have a huge effect. I think that you'd get a lot of mileage from just increasing women's rights around the world.

Your video, Marine M1 Minefield breaching vehicle at work, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Lived in Ontario (28 years), Brisbane, Australia (5 years), Alberta (7 years), and now Texas (14 years).

Agree with pretty much with Boneremake on Alberta, gets more points than Ontario. My Australian experience was good, in both the city and rural (blew an eardrum due to infection in Longreach QLD at Xmas... the doctor was drunk when they wheeled him into emerg, but he was a gentle, caring drunk).

Small things in Ontario are manageable - anything requiring stuff beyond typical emergency room patching up in more rural locations (my definition - anywhere far enough from Toronto that you can't see the nighttime glow, so north of Newfenmarket sort of) is quite lacking (v. long wait times for things like weekly dialysis, MRI, even open MRI, GI tract scoping, ultrasounds, contrast X-rays etc). Parental unit #1 with diabetes requiring 3 times a week dialysis almost snuffed it as there were only 4 chairs in the unit 14 miles from home, got on the list and had to wait for someone to die before getting on the team. Finally snuffed it when they shut down these 4 chairs and the new unit was now a 90 mile round trip 3 times a week for man who could barely walk or see. Died from exhaustion, not diabetes. 2nd parental unit needs an MRI for some serious GI issues, can't keep food down, losing weight rapidly. Wait 4.5 months and we'll see if we can get you in. I'm having her measured for the box.

Having said that, the situation is easier to describe in Texas, the land of excess (excessive wealth and excessive poverty).

Good health insurance plan, preferably through employer with lots of employees = wait times for advanced procedures measured usually in minutes or hours, sometimes days, but not weeks or months. You get taken care of, and your birthing room at the local maternity ward looks like the Marriott (just Couryard though, so no mini-bar or microwave).

Mediocre or no health insurance plan = pray you never get sick enough to require more than what you can buy at the CVS or splint up by watching do-it-yourself first aid videos on youtube, because an unplanned night in the hospital or a trip to emerg in the short bus with swirly lights followed by admission can, for many, wipe them out or sure eat up Bobby's college fund. No exaggeration. I have insurance, but for a reference point, one night in hospital (elective) for a turbinectomy (google it people) including jello and ice cream came in at $14,635. Yes, one night. 24 hours. Do the math. An emergency room visit for a forearm cut requiring 13 stitches (and I didn't even bleed on their white sheets - just cut through the skin to the fat tissue) was billed at $2,300 bucks. Our new baby tried to exit the meatbag as a footling breach, so emergency C-sectioned him out, and one extra night in hospital (2 in total) - all up, billed at just shy of $24K. We now have 3 full service hospitals within 5 miles of our house, and a full service children's hospital in the same radius. And they just started building another. Somebody's making money. If you don't have insurance, or your insurance is shitty (huge deductibles, huge copays) you will eat much of these types of costs. Rule: cheaper to die than get sick.

Ontario and AB might have longer wait times, but even an 83 year old woman in a rural Ontario village with no pension, insurance, income or large stacks of cash can (eventually) get the health care she needs without spending unjustifiable amounts of money. Happy birthday mom.

My 2¢

@VoodooV
as i suspected.
you interject your own subjective and limited understandings into my words.
thats pretty weak-minded.

but an even BIGGER offense is that somehow my plea can be translated into validating anothers argument.
i never validated any one of either chings nor bobs arguments.
i was defending their right to be here.
thats all.

and then to top off even that major breach of basic dichotomy,you put words in my mouth.

you are a hypocrite.
the sad thing is you are totally unaware of that fact.
blinded by your own smug arrogance.

and who is this "we"?
do you speak for others?
who are these other people that share your supposed understandings of my intentions?

fake and transparent?
seriously?
are you so caught up in your own little ego-driven world as to be so arrogant to KNOW my intentions?

fuck you buddy.you dont know me.
you dont like me?
i dont care.

feel free to have the last word.

Actually, the proof that something did not end up in the hands of the Chinese, the Russians, or myself for that matter, is quite difficult, given that evidence of absence is impossible to obtain. However, the absence of evidence to the claim that they have gained access to information through Snowden himself is reason enough for me.

You want proof that nothing was transfered to them? Might as well try to prove the non-existance of the famous tea pot in orbit.

So the basic argument boils down to motivation as well as credibility of claims.

His motivation to keep access to his material restricted to the selected group of journalists is apparent from his own interviews. They are supposed to be the check on the government, they lack the information to fullfil the role, they need access to correct (what he perceived to be) a wrong, namely a grave breach of your consitution on a previously unheard of scale.
Providing access to Russia or China would instantly negate all hope of ever not drawing the short straw in this mess, as the US is the only country on the planet who can provide him with amnesty and therefore safety.

So why would he do it? For a shot at asylum? You know as well as I do that (permanent) asylum in China/Russia is worthless if the US is after you. Europe could guarantee one's safety, but given the lack of sovereignty vis-a-vis the US, it would not be an option.

That leaves credibility of claims. And that's where my first reason comes into play, the one you put down as "naive". His opponents, those in positions of power, be it inside government or the press, have a track record of being... let's not mince words here, lying sacks of shit. James Clapper's act of perjury on front of Congress is just the most prominent manifestation of it. The entire bunch lied their asses off during the preparation of the invasion of Iraq, they lied their asses off during the revelations triggered by Chelsea Manning and they lied their asses off about the total und unrelenting surveillance of American citizens in violation of their constitutional rights.

If you think supervision of the NSA by the Select Committee on Intelligence is actually working, I suggest you take a look at statements by Senator Wyden. The NSA even plays them for fools. Hell, Bruce Schneier was recently approached by members of Congress to explain to them what the NSA was doing, because the NSA refused to. Great oversight, works like a charm. By the way, it's the same fucking deal with GCHQ and the BND.

So yes, the fella who "stole" data is actually a trustworthy figure, because a) his claims were true and b) his actions pulled off the veil that covered the fact that 320 million Americans had their private data stolen and were sold out by agencies of their own government in conjunction with private intelligence contractors.

What else...

Ah, yeah. "Sloppy" and "stupid". Again, if he was sloppy and stupid, what does that say about the internal control structure of the intelligence industry? They didn't notice shit, they still claim to be unaware of what precisely he took with him. Great security, fellas.

"He could have allowed the press to do it's job without disclosing a much of what has been released."

He disclosed nothing. He is not an experienced journalist and therefore, by his own admission, not qualified to make the call what to publish and how. That's why he handed it over to Barton Gellman at the WaPo, Glenn Greenwald at the Guardian and Laura Poitras, who worked closely with Der Spiegel.

If Spiegel, WaPo and Guardian are not reputable institutions of journalism, none are. So he did precisely what you claim he should have done: he allowed the press to do its bloody job and released fuck all himself.

As for the cheap shot at not being an American: seventy years ago, your folks liberated us from the plague of fascism, brought us freedom. Am I supposed to just sit here and watch my brothers and sisters in the US become the subjects of total surveillance, the kind my country suffered from during two dictatorships in the last century?

Ironically, that would be un-American, at least the way I understand it.

And there's nothing gleeful about my concerns. I am deeply furious about this shit and even more so about the apathy of people all around the world. You think I want Americans to suffer from the same shit we went through as a petty form of payback?

Fuck that. It's the intelligence industry that I'm gunning for. Your nationality doesn't mean squat, some intelligence agency has its crosshairs on you wherever you live. It just happens to be an American citizen who had the balls to provide us with the info to finally try and protect citizens in all countries from the overreaching abuse by the intelligence industry.

In fact, I'd rather worry about our own massive problems within Europe (rise of fascism in Greece, 60% youth unemployment, unelected governments, etc). So can we please just dismantle all these spy agencies and get on with our lives?

Sorry if this is incoherent, but it's late and I'm even more pissed off than usual.

*dead
"This video has been removed due to a breach of the Terms of Use."

My guess would be he stuck to zero calorie drinks and avoided fries.

Had a quick on their nutritional website, a Big Mac is 520 calories, which is not great but not absurd. The issue is, you add a large fries (500) and coke (280) to that and you've added exactly 150% more calories on top.

All up being 1300 calories or about 2/3rds of your daily intake in one meal. Provided you avoided the sides though, it wouldn't be too hard to stick within the limits.

The issue is that MCD makes the minimum mandated attempt to educate customers. Australia legislates that food energy levels be published in a prominent fashion alongside the rough recommended daily energy intake of 8700kJ. They usually publish most of these on the side in small font. Having been over in France recently they didn't have them, I'm sure that's the case in most countries.

The larger issue with MCD and other fast food is the use of trans-fats and excessive sodium.

Trans-fats act as an insanely effective preservatives that keeps their produce looking like it'd been cryogenically frozen even years on. They're also have a reputation for clogging arteries causing heart attacks, strokes and the like.

Sodium which boosts blood pressure when ingested is a flavour enhancer which is probably why it's used in excessive amounts (e.g. a Big Mac has 40% of recommended daily Sodium). Even if this guy kept within calorie limits he would have easily been breaching recommended Sodium levels and in the long term would be elevating his risk of high blood pressure, stroke or various kidney diseases.

*dead -- "Content rejected.
This video has been removed due to a breach of the Terms of Use."

There are two lanes on that bridge. He wasn't passing on the right; he was just driving in the right lane. And why do you feel the truck isn't allowed to drive in the left lane?

I'm not really following your highway logic. Do you live somewhere where rules of the road dictate that trucks are not allowed to drive on the left and cars are not allowed to drive on the right?

The truck very deliberately breached the divider line to force the car to slow down. There was plenty of space in the lane and he was slow enough that the car had no choice but to slow down, which is why he had time for the truck to get out of view and was at a low enough speed that he could stop before careening into the overturned car.

There was a very tiny window of time the truck driver had to react to help the car, and he didn't have to do anything at all, but he probably saved lives with his not-at-all-reckless maneuver. If I was in the car, I would have been very thankful.