The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by bareboards2.

>> ^vaire2ube:

Aye but the guy did say the Progressive lawyer in the courtroom did more than give a little assistance:

"At the beginning of the trial on Monday, August 6th, an attorney identified himself as Jeffrey R. Moffat and stated that he worked for Progressive Advanced Insurance Company. He then sat next to the defendant. During the trial, both in and out of the courtroom, he conferred with the defendant. He gave an opening statement to the jury, in which he proposed the idea that the defendant should not be found negligent in the case. He cross-examined the plaintiff’s witnesses. On direct examination, he questioned all of the defense’s witnesses. He made objections on behalf of the defendant, and he was a party to the argument of all of the objections heard in the case. After all of the witnesses had been called, he stood before the jury and gave a closing argument, in which he argued that my sister was responsible for the accident that killed her, and that the jury should not decide that the defendant was negligent.
I am comfortable characterizing this as a legal defense. "
>> ^entr0py:
The good news is the Fisher family won the case regardless. There were also a few factual errors in TYTs reporting, as porksandwich mentioned the other driver had insurance which had already paid out to it's maximum, and progressive didn't represent him legally. But what they actually did do was bad enough to deserve the condemnation; a progressive lawyer contacted the defendant's lawyer and gave him assistance, so they could ultimately avoid liability.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-progressive-campaign-
20120816,0,5322264.story



I admit I didn't read the blog on account of the short attention span. But yeah it's fucked up. I would have thought defense attorneys would have to do most of that work to earn their standing, apparently not.

>> ^vaire2ube:

Aye but the guy did say the Progressive lawyer in the courtroom did more than give a little assistance:
>> ^entr0py:
The good news is the Fisher family won the case regardless. There were also a few factual errors in TYTs reporting, as porksandwich mentioned the other driver had insurance which had already paid out to it's maximum, and progressive didn't represent him legally. But what they actually did do was bad enough to deserve the condemnation; a progressive lawyer contacted the defendant's lawyer and gave him assistance, so they could ultimately avoid liability.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-progressive-campaign-
20120816,0,5322264.story



The front page of Fisher's blog has a screen cap, and a link to the official case record.

Aside from being listed as: "Interested party, type: Mediator." The record also contains this gem:

"It is this 19th day of May, 2011, by the Circuit Court For Baltimore City, hereby ORDERED1. That Progressive Advance Insurance Company be and is hereby allowed to intervene as a party Defendant.2. That Progressive Insurance Company is GRANTED all rights to participate in this proceeding as if it were an original party to this case."

Aye but the guy did say the Progressive lawyer in the courtroom did more than give a little assistance:



"At the beginning of the trial on Monday, August 6th, an attorney identified himself as Jeffrey R. Moffat and stated that he worked for Progressive Advanced Insurance Company. He then sat next to the defendant. During the trial, both in and out of the courtroom, he conferred with the defendant. He gave an opening statement to the jury, in which he proposed the idea that the defendant should not be found negligent in the case. He cross-examined the plaintiff’s witnesses. On direct examination, he questioned all of the defense’s witnesses. He made objections on behalf of the defendant, and he was a party to the argument of all of the objections heard in the case. After all of the witnesses had been called, he stood before the jury and gave a closing argument, in which he argued that my sister was responsible for the accident that killed her, and that the jury should not decide that the defendant was negligent.

I am comfortable characterizing this as a legal defense. "

>> ^entr0py:

The good news is the Fisher family won the case regardless. There were also a few factual errors in TYTs reporting, as porksandwich mentioned the other driver had insurance which had already paid out to it's maximum, and progressive didn't represent him legally. But what they actually did do was bad enough to deserve the condemnation; a progressive lawyer contacted the defendant's lawyer and gave him assistance, so they could ultimately avoid liability.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-progressive-campaign-
20120816,0,5322264.story

The good news is the Fisher family won the case regardless. There were also a few factual errors in TYTs reporting, as porksandwich mentioned the other driver had insurance which had already paid out to it's maximum, and progressive didn't represent him legally. But what they actually did do was bad enough to deserve the condemnation; a progressive lawyer contacted the defendant's lawyer and gave him assistance, so they could ultimately avoid liability.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-progressive-campaign-20120816,0,5322264.story

Gotcha better now. Guess I'm just lucky then.>> ^dag:

It's chosen once a week. I go to the "top Sifts" tab on the day - use the "week" dropdown, and see which one is at the top at that time.>> ^messenger:
Neat-o! So it's a rolling thing. There might be a new one every few minutes, or even two replacing each other back and forth as votes come in, if things worked out that way. It seems like one video tends to stay up there for a week, so I thought it was chosen once a week.
Thanks!>> ^dag:
This is the method I use
http://videosift.com/top?range=week&order=votes&topsubmit=sele
ct
You can see (for the next few hours) that it's the top SFW video of the week.
>> ^messenger:
Thanks dude! I notice that this vid only got the 5th most votes. Any reason you chose it for sift of the week? Wouldn't want people to think I've been lobbying the powers that be after all the TYT anti-corruption vids I've sifted. >> ^dag:
Sift of the week - meow.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

It's chosen once a week. I go to the "top Sifts" tab on the day - use the "week" dropdown, and see which one is at the top at that time.>> ^messenger:

Neat-o! So it's a rolling thing. There might be a new one every few minutes, or even two replacing each other back and forth as votes come in, if things worked out that way. It seems like one video tends to stay up there for a week, so I thought it was chosen once a week.
Thanks!>> ^dag:
This is the method I use
http://videosift.com/top?range=week&order=votes&topsubmit=sele
ct
You can see (for the next few hours) that it's the top SFW video of the week.
>> ^messenger:
Thanks dude! I notice that this vid only got the 5th most votes. Any reason you chose it for sift of the week? Wouldn't want people to think I've been lobbying the powers that be after all the TYT anti-corruption vids I've sifted. >> ^dag:
Sift of the week - meow.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by critical_d.

Um no way in hell are you sticking me inside that with the cover off sorry.
>> ^nanrod:

So why do they cover all that up. That would be so cool to see all that while you're getting scanned. Kind of like a midway ride.

Additionally, Venice is awesome but NEVER go in the summer. It's super hot & humid, which means the canals stink (because they're also the city sewers), and it is CRAZY crowded with tourists. Go in the off season. Everything is just as beautiful, but you'll actually get to enjoy it. >> ^raverman:

For any considering it. DON'T bother planning the tower of Pisa in to your trip.
It's a depressing little trap town. It really isn't that interesting or unique when you're there. You won't have a good time, and you wont 'remember it fondly forever'.
You'll remember how disappointed you were and that you saw better churches and towers and this sucked you in because of famous bad architecture and tourists all getting in each other's photos. If you do have to go, don't make the mistake of thinking you'll stay a night and see the town. It's basically a ghetto bus stop of regrets.
Book 5 nights in the Ci
nque Terre and a further 3 nights in Sorrento instead and tell me this wasn't the best advice i ever gave you.

For any considering it. DON'T bother planning the tower of Pisa in to your trip.

It's a depressing little trap town. It really isn't that interesting or unique when you're there. You won't have a good time, and you wont 'remember it fondly forever'.

You'll remember how disappointed you were and that you saw better churches and towers and this sucked you in because of famous bad architecture and tourists all getting in each other's photos. If you do have to go, don't make the mistake of thinking you'll stay a night and see the town. It's basically a ghetto bus stop of regrets.

Book 5 nights in the Cinque Terre and a further 3 nights in Sorrento instead and tell me this wasn't the best advice i ever gave you.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by kceaton1.

>> ^ghark:
a regular chest xray would expose you to 0.06 mSv while a helical CT scan of the chest would expose you to 8 mSV - thirten hundred and thirty three times as much radiation (although the effective dose only ends up being about one hundred times as much).
If you mean the same thing with "mSv" both times (and not jumping between milli and micro or anything like that), then you're off by a factor of 10. 8 / 0.06 = 133.333333, not 1333 like you said. And if the effective dose follows the same pattern, then the CT scan would be about 10 times as much as the x-ray, though I don't know anything about that part.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

>> ^ghark:
It's not made that clear in the video, but the reason he says that the plate is safe to store and handle, but not eat off is because Uranium 238 is usually an alpha emitter. Alpha radiation doesn't penetrate skin that well, but it is very dangerous when ingested and the soft tissues become exposed to it. Please correct me if I'm wrong there.

Depends on if you believe in radiation hormesis or linear no-threshold model . Most likely the truth is somewhere in-between (which by default makes hormesis "more" accurate). In the end, though, it is always best to avoid ingesting heavy metals, radioactive or not.
Learning lots about radiation as of late. There is a lot of fear factor behind it, even though our daily lives are pretty much consumed with radiation...NEATO! Bones full of radioactive carbon, potassium, you name it, you most likely have lots of radioactive isotopes of it Once again, truth stranger than fiction


I find the argument between those two models quite fascinating, they both make sense TBH. One interesting thing I found out recently was the enormous difference in radiation exposure between regular x-ray's and CT scans when visiting the doctor. It makes sense that CT scans expose you to more radiation because they make multiple passes to get a better image - however the difference astonished me - a regular chest xray would expose you to 0.06 mSv while a helical CT scan of the chest would expose you to 8 mSV - thirten hundred and thirty three times as much radiation (although the effective dose only ends up being about one hundred times as much). As a comparison point, the typical human is exposed to 2-3 mSv per year, so with a helical chest CT you're getting 3 years worth of radiation in a few seconds.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by eric3579.