I'm curious how often one finds artillery shells laying around in an area like this, that it's not immediately assumed a half-buried artillery shell is a possible IED. Commonly? It IS and has been a warzone for a long time.

That soldier is VERY lucky to be alive. Even though most IEDs are made to go off remotely, plenty of them go off with the slightest contact simply because they're made with home supplies and stability is no guarantee.

a) Is it common practice for US soldiers to do this kind of video?
b) Is it common practice to pick up stuff in a warzone that's known for IEDs?

U ARE the/an/one of potential enemy/ies!

[IF YOU BUILD IT, THEY WILL BE SURVEILLANCE!]

Someone needs to write code for this next sure to be a hit, "Total War" version.

Drones.
IEDs'.
Shiite governments everywhere.
Hidden knowledge.
Aliens.
Zombies.
Bio weapons.
Splinter factions become self-aware annihilating the establishment. Blood. Chaos.Disorder~

A New Aeon rises from the ashes-

"Best new game of 2012, motherfuckers!"~PC GAMER MAGAZINE

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

Seriously? You're equating where and the laws under which one lives to where and the restrictions under which one posts videos or blogs? You're equating Google's non-monopolistic business position with the government's monopoly on violence? You're equating renouncing one's citizenship to changing one's video host?!

Global companies, for all the rights and power they hold in the U.S., do not come close to being in the same position vis-a-vis customers/citizens as a government does. Corporations don't get to decide whether you live or die. And that's the reason it generally doesn't make sense to hold them to the same standards of free speech.

I want to be clear that I'm referring only to content hosts and publishers. Clearly, the situation is different for ISPs. There's only one network, and for a given individual, likely only one (maybe two) viable access providers. Like the phone company(ies(y)), you want to guarantee universal access. Beyond that, though, I don't see what legal basis you can construct an argument to force a corporation to provide a platform for content which it believes to be detrimental to its business. By "legal basis", I don't mean strictly U.S. law and precedent, but more generally in a philosophical/historical legal sense. The only example I can think of that comes close is requiring cable companies to provide public access television.


>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^jonny:
This seems like a flawed argument to me, Netrunner. Almost none of the other one-to-many or many-to-many media have any such requirements. Google's dominant position influences the situation, but at the end of the day, there are other options/outlets. A LOT of other options. So, the only difference I can see is that you are asserting a right not to free speech but a big audience.
>> ^NetRunner:
It should mean that you actually have the right to express yourself using modern communications networks without being censored by the network providers. It means content publishing services should have limits on what they're allowed to refuse to publish.
Google chooses to provide a publishing service to the public "for free" (though they make money off the content people are "giving" them "for free"). That shouldn't endow them with the unlimited right to censor content that's published on their service, anymore than "free speech" means there can be no limits on speech whatsoever.

To generalize your argument, you're saying that China isn't an oppressive regime that has no guarantee of free speech, because there are lots of other countries you could live in that might let you have it.
People in who want a right to free speech in China don't really want free speech, they just want to live in a country with lots of people. After all, there are lots of other countries to live in...
My position is that if it's unconscionable for a state to do it, why is it unconscionable to suggest that corporations shouldn't be permitted to do it either?

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

Yep - there's some good ones in there. It could be a good year for SF. Duncan Jones - director of Moon is also working on a Bladerunner homage! http://www.firstshowing.net/2011/duncan-jones-mute-stalled-but-homage-to-blade-runner-is-next/>> ^garmachi:

>> ^dag:
Here's a good preview of what to expect from SF films in 2012:
http://io9.com/5872776/70%252B-science-fictionfantasy-mov
ies-to-watch-out-for-in-2012
Most excited about Prometheus and Cloud Atlas.

This comment sent me on an internet tangent which lasted well over an hour. I wound up about 7 links downstream, shook myself out of the haze and thought "haven't surfed like that since the early days of the net."
Thanks @dag

Your video, Incredible First Person IED Blast Video, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

>> ^hpqp:
and here's hoping this kind of footage may one day be confined to the History Channel.


Who put the IED there?

Aliens

I don't know why anyone would want to hunt with that round, but still, I seriously doubt they used half jackets. It's not like bulletproof glass is something that only exists in the movies.

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

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

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

Tap S to drag downed team member. Hold Q and E to shit pants in terror. Double tap W to throw up. Die to an IED. Respawn? Nope.

Honestly, the more games try to mimic the wars of today the more I have trouble stomaching it.