Your video, State Police Use Helicopter To Disperse Tailgaters, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

yup, he hit the brakes as soon as he noticed the guy wasn't going to shoulder check... Maybe he could have hit the brakes harder and sooner, but why would you assume the guy wouldn't look? to brake that hard when the other car was still in it's lane would have made no sense and been more dangerous in the conditions.. this guy with the dash cam did nothing wrong.

also in Canada we can have partial fault in accidents too. % of fault allocated and dispersion of insurance follows suit. so on a bicycle, you can be found partially at fault if you got hit, but since there isn't insurance for bicycles, only the driver's insurance would have to dish out.

You said almost 3 times that speed, continuously for over 10 minutes....and not with a lightweight speed shorting pistol.

If someone wanted to kill with each shot on moving targets at 3-400 yards in the dark, yeah, 5 seconds+- per shot still seem reasonable, maybe half that for someone who practices on living, moving targets often. Your claim some people can continuously do that 120 times a minute including mag changes is just laughable. They might shoot that fast, but not hit anything accurately at that distance.

You have to prove it to convince me...better? If it's as common as you say, that should be easy to provide with a comparison video instead of a suggestion to buy and read a certain book. The videos I found are all short range small target, not at all the same as what we're debating. Show me a comparison of a field layered deep with 10000 balloons getting shot at from distance, that would be informative, short course accuracy target shooting isn't.

My claim is you will have more control at full auto than absolute maximum possible finger speed.
My other claim is you will put more lead down range with most full autos. In a crowd situation where missing is basically impossible and aiming wasted effort, like this one, more bullets means more damage. Once the crowd dispersed, aiming a high powered rifle would probably be more effective, but not before. Were this not the case, why would any military allow them, ever?

In this Turkey shoot situation, you get more hits on target in full auto. In target shooting, you won't. This was not a series of targets at 20 yards, it was a target zone at 3-400 yards in the dark.

So, that's zero Nazi rallies then...and I doubt you can name a single one of these peaceful KKK rallies, because those rallies are never peaceful.

Bob, you don't get to decide who can be a citizen any more than I do, fortunately. Antifa may be misguided thugs, but the right trying to dehumanize them does nothing but embolden them.

Trump is not coherent enough to be fascist, but many things he's said are fascist, as are many of his supporters. Don't try to deny it, the unite the right march was replete with shields bearing fasces.

Now, I have to chastise you for horrible reading comprehension, intentional or not. Every time I mention antifa, I denounce them and call them fascist morons, yet you still somehow lump me with them in your mind. I sincerely hope this is an intentional misdirection, as the alternative, that you honestly can't grasp that someone left of you isn't in antifa and blm (because I know that in your head they're the same thing), is incredibly sad.

Agreed, the police seem to be taking a 'wait and see what happens' approach here, I can't fathom why, but that wasn't their tactic under Obama. When antifa attacked in Berkely the first time, the cops were on them like white on rice and they dispersed...what happened.

Again with this...me and my kind with me violence. *snicker* Me and my kind don't do silly sign slapping and shouting violence, our kind of violence wakes you up at 3 am standing at the foot of your bed in a Trump mask. ;-) I ain't with those millennials throwing tantrums, they aren't anti fascist, they are fascist....and dumb. Try as you might, you won't put me in their camp, or them in mine.

With his support at all time record lows for a president, I don't know where you get this idea beyond wishful thinking. Antifa makes Trump voters? No more than Nazis and the KKK make anti Trump voters. Which crowds are larger? Good luck with that....maybe you can convince the Dems to try Clinton again...you'll need it.

Why does the march disperse periodically wherever there is a shoe store or clothing outlet?

Every clip they show of this amazing laser-guided precision weapon disperses randomly and misses 90% of the vehicles in the target zone.

Seems to me the lasers, rockets, computer chips, etc. are a bit wasted.

Typical American military. Spend $50 billion on a weapon system which is barely better than the simple low-tech solution and poverty-level wages for the people who will deploy it.

There was an expose video on here that was just great about another butchering plant where they dispersed pigs blood from the facility by spraying it into the air. I would definitely not be surprised if this place does all sorts of insidious shit like that, especially given their paranoia about people filming around there.

Correlation and causation is distinguished by controlling for variables directly where the list of possible covariates or confounders is known & limited, or when it is not, using say machine learning techniques to infer a model from the data and repeatedly cross validating it with different test and training samples to ensure that it is rigorous. Read:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

There is nothing about repeatability.

Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-validation_(statistics)

Repeatability has nothing to do with testing for correlation / causation. Okay, you repeat an experiment. It looks like X causes Y, like in the first test. But it turns out that Z (that you didn't consider or can't measure) is acting on X & Y at the same time, creating the appearance of a relationship between X & Y where none exists. Read:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confounding

If anything the political hype is underblown. Politics deals with the immediate, tangible and the "what directly helps me now." With the financial crisis, politics in the US has decreed that any action on climate change that might marginally impact wages or living standards is out of bounds.

If we assume the risks are real - polluting has specific benefits (cost reduction to polluters) and incredibly dispersed costs which are almost imperceptible for decades while the damage is being done. It requires global coordination for a cost on carbon to be politically feasible. And the effects are seen at least 40 years into the future:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climate-Change-The-40-Year-Delay-Between-Cause-and-Effect.html

That's the problem, by the time the effects are obvious, it will be too late to react. In the meantime, you have massive amounts of money, interest groups, politics and delayed effect all acting against any action being taken.

I'm kinda hoping gameplay involves sitting in a trench dispersing acerbic wit and insulting the idiots that surround you while concocting increasingly cunning plans to avoid such a fate....

This could use some better explanation, and some footage of the first 2 tries where nothing happened. What was different the 3rd time?

Just from observation I'll hazard a guess, it seemed the salt may have trapped some water inside the blob which flashed to steam, causing a small explosion and dispersing the molten salt into the water and super heating a large area of water to steam in an instant, causing the large explosion.

That may be totally wrong, it's just a guess, but something extremely hot causing water to 'explode' is hardly "inexplicable".

We have high school students sending cameras into space. Testing the air at 30k would cost < $500/balloon. If all of the chemtrail theorists put in $100, they could EASILY afford to acquire the 'proof' they needed.
1) Decide what chemicals you want to test for
2) Select a way to test for those chemicals in the air. (active vs passive?)
3) When "Chemtrail" spotted, send up 50+ Weather Balloons in vicinity w/ chemical tester across range... 1 per half mile = 25 mile spread. (it takes 30 mins to climb to 30k feet)
4) Retrieve devices.
5) If no chemicals were found, either:
A) Dispersal of the chemical via chemtrail is terribly inefficient, absolutely no reason to worry
B) No chemicals were found

OR... and here is the brilliant part. Monitor chemicals on the ground. If they are in high enough concentration to have an effect on the human body, they'll be high enough to detect on the ground.

Testing that contrails are nothing but H20 would require a high-altitude drone or just charter a flight. It isn't that difficult to test, but the chemtrails theorists wouldn't trust a non-chemtrails theorist (otherwise they'd be over it for now).

@harlequinn

I see the root of the problem in the US simply being existing gun availability (incomparably high to any other developed country) which makes them cheap, plentiful and relatively easily obtained without a license. I'm sure that better mental health and poverty programs would help in the US but those would surely only chip at the problem and many would fall through the cracks. To me, a more trusted, reliable and locally available police force is more the answer. I guess the relative geographic dispersion in the US is a factor here, and probably why guns took off like they did in the first place.

Comparing to here in Australia, I would much rather bans kept a lid on availability so that we never have the problems the US does. Not that any other country is ever likely to match the US (89 guns per 100 people, versus 15/100 here in AU), but better safe than sorry. I think that statistic better than anything describes why so many Americans have the attitude to gun bans of 'well then only the criminals will have guns'. The ubiquity and accessibility is highly apparent in the US, whereas here in AU and probably most parts of Western Europe they are a rarity and that argument seems bizarre.

Concentrated benefits, dispersed costs: Why politicians don't cut spending: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uR4lqa7IK4

Concentrated benefits, dispersed costs. Democracy is a scam.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgJ644LPL6g

I understand your point, but I disagree.
True, they CHARGED him with failure to disperse, along with public intoxication, battery on police, and resisting arrest, and we can see clearly that most of their accusations (delineated in the link) were lies. Also, they didn't arrest the woman standing with him or any of the other bystanders (except the one 'friend' that touched a cop), which to me indicated that was not an issue for them at any time. Also, he was in a small alcove off the sidewalk, not in anyone's way or interfering, unlike several bystanders. The closest officer comes over to him, walking around numerous others to get there, only when the cell phone is noticed. It looked to me like he was going for the phone himself, then went 'tough guy' when he complained about the theft by officer 2.
That's why it seems clear to me they arrested him for filming them and made up other charges later, it's almost certainly the reason they stole his phone. Maybe I'm wrong, but it is my take.
And @speechless is right, I couldn't fit all that in the title. ;-)