In reply to this comment by Skeeve:
The guy in the audio tape was a police officer who confiscated the pot.

Not a dupe, but related to:
http://videosift.com/video/Dumbest-Cop-Ever-An-officer-who
-ate-pot-brownies-and-call

and

http://videosift.com/video/Cope-Eats-Pot-Brownies-and-Calls-91
1-The-Full-Version

I thought he was a cop but nothing in the audio indicated he was so I left that part out. The first link is a clip from our local news. Loved the snort ... LOL =o)

The guy in the audio tape was a police officer who confiscated the pot.

Not a dupe, but related to:
http://videosift.com/video/Dumbest-Cop-Ever-An-officer-who-ate-pot-brownies-and-call

and

http://videosift.com/video/Cope-Eats-Pot-Brownies-and-Calls-911-The-Full-Version

Measuring the effectiveness of a current ad campaign by comparing macro trends that have going on for decades isn't going to be accurate. Useful data would need to be obtained by measuring drivers' behavior after viewing the two ads.

Most psychologists would probably say driver behavior will be more influenced by high threat of financial loss (loss aversion) than a soft, artful depiction of an unlikely event that speeders assume can't happen to them.

If there's a lower rate of seatbelt use in the US, it's probably due to hard reasons like the higher average education level among drivers in Europe and Japan, where car use is more expensive.


Anybody conscientious enough to appreciate an artistic ad has probably only very rarely met the kind of person who doesn't wear their seatbelt.

>> ^jubuttib:

>> ^chilaxe:
If we look at the data, the American commercials likely produce more of the desired result.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. While I don't have hard data at hand, there is one big difference in American and European cars that is related to this: Airbags. The American airbag is designed to be able to stop an adult that is not wearing a seatbelt, because so many people don't use the darn things. European and Japanese cars on the other hand have much less powerful airbags, that are designed to cope with someone that is wearing their seatbelt. Cars that are imported to the States often get the "America spec" airbag added because of this. This would suggest that using seatbelts is vastly less common in the States.

>> ^chilaxe:

If we look at the data, the American commercials likely produce more of the desired result.


I wouldn't be so sure about that. While I don't have hard data at hand, there is one big difference in American and European cars that is related to this: Airbags. The American airbag is designed to be able to stop an adult that is not wearing a seatbelt, because so many people don't use the darn things. European and Japanese cars on the other hand have much less powerful airbags, that are designed to cope with someone that is wearing their seatbelt. Cars that are imported to the States often get the "America spec" airbag added because of this. This would suggest that using seatbelts is vastly less common in the States.

I'm having this problem with embeds from youtube on every site I visit. Not all of the embeds, but 60% are not working. I have to go to the youtube page. Which requires SECONDS! How am I supposed to cope with that? Diablo III ? Oh well...

No seriously, it's a problem.

Alright, the problem with this approach is that he's giving the conclusions, but not helping on 'HOW' to get to the desired goals.

It's easy to just say 'don't listen to any one, dress the way you want', but for a teenager this is extremely difficult to carry out. They are afraid of being judged and alienated by their peers. You could tell them, 'Oh, don't bend to peer pressure'. But they DO get affected by them because they are, after all, teenagers. They are not as experienced or as mentally stout. That's why they need our help and advice in the first place.

It would be more useful for the teenager if you could give specific examples to help them cope with their situation, such as 'Be absolute about your stance and opinion to others', and 'Never let them have one over you. Strike back! Then at least they will leave you alone.' You know, advice which explains the general rules of the school yard and how to protect yourself from it. That's what these kids need most, not some moral assessment of the whole situation.

So good effort, but no bacon. Then again he's not a professional guidance counselor or anything so.... meh.

>> ^Reefie:

Probably one of the few occasions where this li'l fella is better off in a zoo than being out in the wild - I hate to think how he (or she!) would cope with ice!


I was just thinking his claws would dig into ice more easily.

Just wanted you to know you aren't alone in not liking some of the "male" humor around here.

I don't think it is a good thing -- but I have gotten numb to it. It is a good coping mechanism. And especially when it becomes clear there is nothing you can do or say that will make a difference. So why bother.

And. I remember feeling pretty much a lone voice calling out into the wilderness, and how crappy that felt.

So. You aren't alone.


In reply to this comment by tsquire1:
The fact that a comment critiquing rape culture gets downvoted, and one that promotes rape culture gets up voted, reveals a heavy nerdbro tendency on this site that is really quite sick.

No, I dont care if it is 'just a joke'. You infantile nethipsters that make these comments never have to worry about being raped, never have to worry about what they wear walking down the street and if it will promote 'catcalls'. You don't have to worry about facing violence by going out at night or, if you do get sexually assaulted, have to worry about who will even believe you.
Plainly, you have no idea what you are talking about.
That is why it is funny to you. Because you are that removed from reality. Your laughter is a privileged laughter. Your cynicism is anti-human.
>> ^Hybrid:

You wouldn't be saying that 30 mins after I put some Rohypnol in your drink.

Probably one of the few occasions where this li'l fella is better off in a zoo than being out in the wild - I hate to think how he (or she!) would cope with ice!

I feel like I could be doing so much more for the Occupy movement, that I'm not doing my part. Instead I just donate monthly to the UK Occupy movement's efforts because I don't think I could cope without the financial security of my job. I hate how money is such a central part of global society. It's got me suppressed.

>> ^aurens:

Funny: I don't find it at all hard to argue with the results. It was billions of years of biological evolution—particularly the development of coping mechanisms for acute stresses—that saved Captain Udell, not his appeal to the (presumably) Christian god. (Surely I don't need to explain the difference between correlation and causation, do I?) And yes, if he really did pause to pray, then his religious impulse was self-defeating: it delayed the instinctual biological responses that eventually saved his life.
The difference between me and the Westboro Baptist Church—I'll spell it out—is in intention, delivery, and degree. Of course, your criticism lost all its punch as soon as you went off the deep end in equating me with those crazies.
I learned from the Hitch, thankfully, to be weary of people like you, people who want to chastise—or, worse, forbid—the criticism of religion on the grounds that it's unacceptably irreverent. Well, goddamn right its irreverent (in the etymological sense); that's the point.>> ^Asmo:
Both are insensitive and intolerant towards people who have not offered any overt offense. Both are self justified and self righteous. I don't see much of a difference, even if you pan it off as humour.
Besides, the humour would have been closer to the target if the guy had actually died from his "self-defeating religious impulses". As it stands, he lived versus incredible odds in spite of taking time for prayer. Kinda hard to argue with the results in this case... X D



You are weary of his calling you a douche, and he is weary of you calling a guy whose body has been blown apart and is barely holding himself together for his wife and kids an idiot.



Way to raise the level of discourse here fellas.

Funny: I don't find it at all hard to argue with the results. It was billions of years of biological evolution—particularly the development of coping mechanisms for acute stresses—that saved Captain Udell, not his appeal to the (presumably) Christian god. (Surely I don't need to explain the difference between correlation and causation, do I?) And yes, if he really did pause to pray, then his religious impulse was self-defeating: it delayed the instinctual biological responses that eventually saved his life.

The difference between me and the Westboro Baptist Church—I'll spell it out—is in intention, delivery, and degree. Of course, your criticism lost all its punch as soon as you went off the deep end in equating me with those crazies.

I learned from the Hitch, thankfully, to be weary of people like you, people who want to chastise—or, worse, forbid—the criticism of religion on the grounds that it's unacceptably irreverent. Well, goddamn right its irreverent (in the etymological sense); that's the point.>> ^Asmo:
Both are insensitive and intolerant towards people who have not offered any overt offense. Both are self justified and self righteous. I don't see much of a difference, even if you pan it off as humour.
Besides, the humour would have been closer to the target if the guy had actually died from his "self-defeating religious impulses". As it stands, he lived versus incredible odds in spite of taking time for prayer. Kinda hard to argue with the results in this case... X D

>> ^Reefie:

>> ^Jinx:
>> ^Reefie:
Ideal slogan for those who want to pretend their world is ideal.

What?
Its not about pretending that your world is ideal, its about understanding that sometimes you can't control where the bombs land and all you can reasonably do is keep your head and try to keep living your life. "Panic and stop everything" doesn't exactly seem like sage advice. In fact, its the very opposite of what one could consider sage - a person of wisdom, who in the stoic sense does not allow destructive emotions to rule their decision making.

Okay first up we haven't had bombs dropped on us in over 65 years. Your reasoning might stand up if we were still subject to the terror of bombs landing on us every night, knowing that the following morning we could be missing friends and that everyone remaining would have the hollow gaunt look of someone who hasn't had a decent night's sleep in years.
Second, this was a propaganda poster. It was intended to encourage people to just accept what was happening around them and to get on with their lives regardless. Nowadays the media has popularised the same propaganda poster so as to encourage people to just ignore what's going on around them on this planet, to just accept it and carry on, don't let it get to us or otherwise we'll question why things are so bad to begin with.
I did not state the opposite should be encouraged. Why is it when someone posts something you disagree with that you immediately presume that person is encouraging the complete opposite? We're a lot more accommodating of varied viewpoints than you might be expecting!
PS If you're in a country where bombs are still being dropped on you regularly either by British or American troops then I can only apologise. Maybe, just maybe, that propaganda poster is helping people cope in such a country.


It's about continuing to do what you do best in difficult circumstances. There's nothing about pretending or accepting anything.

>> ^Jinx:
>> ^Reefie:
Ideal slogan for those who want to pretend their world is ideal.

What?
Its not about pretending that your world is ideal, its about understanding that sometimes you can't control where the bombs land and all you can reasonably do is keep your head and try to keep living your life. "Panic and stop everything" doesn't exactly seem like sage advice. In fact, its the very opposite of what one could consider sage - a person of wisdom, who in the stoic sense does not allow destructive emotions to rule their decision making.


Okay first up we haven't had bombs dropped on us in over 65 years. Your reasoning might stand up if we were still subject to the terror of bombs landing on us every night, knowing that the following morning we could be missing friends and that everyone remaining would have the hollow gaunt look of someone who hasn't had a decent night's sleep in years.

Second, this was a propaganda poster. It was intended to encourage people to just accept what was happening around them and to get on with their lives regardless. Nowadays the media has popularised the same propaganda poster so as to encourage people to just ignore what's going on around them on this planet, to just accept it and carry on, don't let it get to us or otherwise we'll question why things are so bad to begin with.

I did not state the opposite should be encouraged. Why is it when someone posts something you disagree with that you immediately presume that person is encouraging the complete opposite? We're a lot more accommodating of varied viewpoints than you might be expecting!

PS If you're in a country where bombs are still being dropped on you regularly either by British or American troops then I can only apologise. Maybe, just maybe, that propaganda poster is helping people cope in such a country.

what you said at the end, that i think is the real issue. youve got a documentary crew filming bullying on a bus and yet the officials (whoever that lady was, principal i presume) are in complete denial instead of looking into it further and taking appropriate disciplinary action.



by and large children are products of whoever raises em, whoever their adult influence is. you could take virtually any "bully" look at his parents and find the root cause (most of the time anyway). i know a lot of the boys who bullied me in jr high and high school i later came to find out almost all of them had no father figure. do you really think anti bullying rules or something is gonna stop that? the problem is deeper than that, much deeper. do you think bullying stops after high school? do you think it doesnt take place at work, at college, at a park, at the movies, at anywhere?

i think overall the point im getting at is it really doesnt matter what we do or dont do, we cannot prevent bullying. it will happen, it always has and it always will, and thats not a "swept under the rug" answer to the issue, its the reality. so how can we resolve it? by changing not only our mindset as adults, but positively influencing the mindsets of our children as well.

as a side note, as far as the 24-7 thing is concerned, i was bullied at school and at home almost a full decade before the internet and looooong before myspace and facebook. i had an older sister who was such a tomboy growing up she was practically another older brother. but i mainly got picked on by my older brother who was just a year apart from me. i got shit from him and his friends at school, i got it from him and his friends when we'd play in and around our neighborhood and i got it from him at home. in a way, thats infinitely more invasive and inescapable than e-bullying. i lived with him, and for a number of years i had to share a room with him. so ya, to me, it isnt different at all. and while my testimony may be a special case, its far from being unique and youd be naive to think so.

if teen crime rates are declining and bullying is pretty much a constant, that certainly doesnt suggest bullying is becoming worse or even that its a "huge problem". all that suggests is what ive been saying; bullying isnt anything new, and it will always be with us.

maybe im not articulating myself in a compassionate way. im certainly not advocating turning a blind eye to bullies or bullying. i squash it pretty quick when it happens in class, and whenever appropriate i try to talk to the bully one on one in hopes that i may discern what the issue really is. is he picking on that kid cuz he's just a shitty kid? or is he lashing out over emotional/mental issues he's unprepared to cope with? or is he compensating for severe self esteem issues? those are the things we should be addressing to "prevent" bullying, not creating this bizarre subculture war where its us vs them.
>> ^SDGundamX:

>> ^smooman:
>> ^berticus:
what? no comment yet from someone saying how bullying "toughens you up and prepares you for the real world"? COME ON!

ok i'll start. im all for moderate measures to be taken to monitor and disrupt bullying (man, that almost became full alliteration). that being said, the bullying scandal and the myriad documentaries and specials and exposes on the subject are just redundant. as someone who works in the school system bullying really isnt any different than when i was in school, or when my parents went to school, or their parents, etc. bullying isnt anything new. calling it an epidemic is laughable and just plain absurd.
does my heart go out to individuals who have been bullied? absolutely. i myself was constantly bullied growing up (both at school and at home). now berticus, what you said is true even if you were being facetious. being bullied forced me to quickly develop social skills needed to diffuse confrontations among other things. it sharpened my wit, even as an adult. the point isnt that we need bullies to make men out of our children. the point is bullies arent anything new, and they will always be with us. react accordingly

I downvoted your comment and I just wanted to explain why.
First off, while you may technically be correct in that the amount of bullying has not changed over time, technological advances (i.e. the Internet) allow that bullying to continue 24-7 so that there is no refuge from it, even after you get out of school. In other words, while the rate of bullying may not be changing the severity and impact is--it is more invasive, harder to escape, and therefore is NOT the same as when you were a kid.
But even disregarding that, I think the term "epidemic" is appropriate when you look at the fact that over the past 50 years crime among teens has consistently been decreasing in the U.S. (according to FBI statistics a drop of over 44%) and yet the rate of bullying appears to remain the same. To me, that says there is a huge problem that is not being addressed by either our society or our school system. And taking the attitude that "bullies aren't anything new, and they will always be with us" does not seem to me to be the way to go about solving that problem. Rather, it virtually guarantees that in the next 50 years we will see bullying to continue at the same rate as bullies find ways to circumvent the "moderate measures [...] to monitor and disrupt bullying" that you advocate.
Documentaries like this are critically important because they expose just how deep the problems are--you have school officials claiming the bus is perfectly safe while the documentary filmmakers are capturing multiple acts of violence and bullying on the bus. We need more documentaries like this and much more research into how bullying manifests and how to prevent it because we're clearly doing a piss-poor job of it right now.