I mean... yeah, the ledges are different, but kinda... "so what" is how it strikes me.

Major blooper? Huge error?

Nah, not really. They just adjusted the set to match the story they'd written instead of adjusting the story for the sake of continuity to match an episode from several years earlier.

In any case, I'm happy to see people talking about I Love Lucy.

From one crazy cat to another, get off that ledge.

I'm sure it's a problem, but why the hell hasn't he added latches and ledges to things to stop the worst of it?

Yawn. Did this in Minecraft. At least the world is slowly catching up with gamers. Now... where to place the item spawns and the rocket jump ledges?

It seemed that there was a ledge every three rows up or so that could be used to climb out. On further review, there was only one that was fairly wide near the bottom and then the rest pretty narrow. I'm glad kitty got out.

Watch the movie again and see how much line the guy pulls up. That's about ten waders in length, almost in the middle of what looks like a well-defined channel. Even if it was out lengthwise, that tells me there's a decent current there.

Next, try and go swimming in waders, or get them off when you're either in water or hanging on to a broken ice ledge.

The guy doesn't have ice pick safety devices in easy reach, it's windy as heck, and the conditions are slushy which means that ice is breaking up. And the ice in the hole doesn't look very thick either, maybe a couple inches from what I can see.

I'm "quick to judge" because I'm also an experienced ice fisherman. From all evidence that's visible in the video, that's a very dangerous way to fish.

2 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

@SDGundamX and addressing the devil's advocate rather than 'you'...

Spiderman's head is also raised (the same angle of their face is shown) and his back is arched, and i think that's clear when they are side by side. If anything i think spiderman's left leg is poorly drawn and his backside does need to be more in the air, whereas spiderwoman is a more human-like natural position for raising a knee over a ledge with your chest close to the ground. Remember that they are different artists bringing their own styles to a particular genre, they both have their own personalities and methods/methodologies. Furthermore, how much of an arch difference is necessary or acceptable and who makes those rules? Surely we must draw men and women differently so that we know whether the character is male or female (do we have too few fem superheroes is another question), and as a species we have different shapes. Surely amongst all these factors we must accept that the spiderwoman is a reasonable artistic recreation of the spiderman pic? If not, why not, taking all of those factors into account (and i can probably list more)? Basically we're asking the question "what is art?" here.

So that's why i think it's impossible for anyone to say the pose is sexual but the creator. No one questioned whether the spiderman pose was overtly sexual until someone drew spiderwoman doing "the same" (for argument's sake) thing. To a bunch of people who do not automatically see women as sexual objects (and i consider myself among that bunch), her pose is not sexual because the context isn't sexual. The question of sexuality arises when someone looks at the pic and goes "Gee, if i were levitating several hundred meters in the air directly behind her and she wasn't wearing any pants, she'd be 'presenting' to me for a split second."

So the ultimate level of 'equality' (or whatever) would be a world in which anything, in its particular context, is legal and absolutely ok. But of course, we can't depict nude youngsters in cinema even in the context of a bath for good reason, which let's generalise to all potentially difficult subjects (like sexism, racism, etc.) and call the "no one's perfect rule" - we can't trust everyone to keep things in context.

Our supposedly greatest form of organisation and problem solving - national governments, the pillars of our society - can't sort their proverbial arses from their proverbial elbows; if they're not perfect, how can we trust all of society to be?

In conclusion - i suppose we need a certain level of sexism or reverse-sexism that hopefully keeps us balanced between short-changing the future prospects of young girls in favour of young boys because of a biased society, and treating other people unfairly because of an over-zealous pursuit of what seems to be impossible.

One way of helping this is by very carefully checking the facts, the context and the meaning of what someone says before saying things like "sexist" or "mansplaining" or "racist". Always react as slowly as you may, that way you can be more or less enraged in your response depending on new info!

Edit: Want to add that if i had a pic of myself in that spidey pose, i'd be pretty happy putting it up on an eharmony profile or something - it is a 'sexy' pose, it looks good, he looks lean and strong and fit. I don't like this idea that women don't have sexual urges or that lean, fit men aren't sexy to women. It's possibly sexist to assume that! He's kind of presenting too, from a certain position...

Your video, Ramming a 9 ton sailboat into a rock ledge at 9 mph, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

1) As I mentioned earlier, implementing border control for each state is never going to happen. As I also mentioned, border control has already been proven ineffective at stopping both drugs and illegal immigrants so why would guns be any different?

2) My drug analogy is perfectly valid. Drugs are banned yet they are still smuggled into the country. And no, people aren't growing cocaine or heroin in their backyard. And yes, smuggling a small packet of cocaine by hiding it in your ass is easier than smuggling a gun through the same means but guns don't have be smuggled intact. They can easily be disassembled and the individual parts smuggled separately. Many of these pieces would be small enough to hide in your ass. But this is all largely irrelevant because the bulk of drugs are not transported via anus.

3) The motivations of mass shooters is highly debatable. I'd argue that they want to feel empowered and the easiest way to do that is in schools which are undeniably the least likely places for people to be armed. If they tried to go on a shooting spree in a police station or military base or gun convention, they probably wouldn't get many kills. Instead, they'd be shot and killed by someone else and that's something no shooters seem to want (hence the reason why they always commit suicide after the spree instead of letting themselves be arrested or killed by the police). In fact, if you look at the history of school shootings in the U.S., many of the shooters were adults. The Sandy Hook shooter was 20 years old and he primarily targeted first-graders who obviously weren't his peers. When it comes to mass shootings, it's all about quantity and targeting people who can't defend themselves is the most effective way of achieving that.

4) Do you have any statistics to support your claim? I seriously doubt suicide rates plummeted in countries or states where guns were banned. Japan and South Korea both have extremely strict gun laws yet they also have some of the highest suicide rates in the world (South Korea is #3, Japan is #8, the U.S. is #33). If you weren't serious about killing yourself and just wanted attention, you wouldn't use a gun in the first place. You'd stand on the ledge of a building and wait for the news vans to appear. Like you said, guns are the quickest way to kill yourself so you wouldn't use them if you had any doubts or hesitations.

Almost always the reason is an overestimation of their skills. They realize mid way up that they lack the strength to make it to the top on their own, and since back down is even more dangerous they get stuck. Especially without ropes.

My wife and I found a father and son midway up Echo Point in Katoomba, NSW once. They attempted to climb the cliff for a daytrip, and were only 2/3 of the way up when nighttime fell, so they camped on a ledge and started screaming when the sun came up.
We were on a hike for sunrise and thats when we heard them. Called in rescue and they showed up with helicopter and a team that repelled down to them. Got them up safely after a few hours.

Rescue team was actually happy about this one. Said 9 out of 10 they are called in to scrape up the remains of suicide jumpers at that location.

Ahh now I see it. Yea the ledge is high in the air.

Man, watching that shard/ledge/middlefingerofgod come at him in slowmo was terrible.

When a person warned that the men should remove the video before they go to jail, Hall fired back.

"Nobody’s going to jail," he wrote. You have a 2,000 lb boulder that is teetering on a 2"[sic] dirt ledge and about ready to fall off on it’s [sic] own. 5 minutes before this video we watched a family with many small children walk right below the rock to take a family photo. We didn’t do anything until they were gone because we didn’t want anyone to get hurt. One gust of wind and that rock was falling whether someone was there or not. ...

"I’ll take my chances with the cops rather then my conscience after hearing a family was crushed to death by a rock I was prompted to move."

Swalberg said just because a rock looks loose, it doesn’t mean people should knock it over.

@jonny - I'm pretty much with you. These same "dilemmas" were presented to me in a college class (Psych? Philo?) and I objected to the 2nd one on the basis that I can't imagine a bystander fat enough to reliably stop a train, and if they were I wouldn't be able to push them off a ledge.

The TA that was teaching the class said that the idea is to just treat it like a Newtonian Physics problem (ie., everything is a frictionless sphere or make all assumptions to reduce complexity wherever possible). In the scenario, just accept that you KNOW that you are capable of pushing the dude off, that you KNOW he will stop the train, and that you KNOW that you have insufficient mass/strength to jump off yourself and stop the train.

I get how that limits the variables and therefore draws a more concrete difference between various answers to the situation, but to me it also limits the interest I have in the question. My brain doesn't work that way, my problem solving center engages automatically and tries to find pitfalls and assign success rates rather than just "assume this will work".

I think I'd rather see the situations / dilemmas reworked to have a more realistic expectation of success. Maybe something like a rampaging lion on the loose, and you can swing a door currently blocking a room with 1 person inside to instead block a room with 5 people inside (situation 1); or you are above a hallway with a lion running towards 5 people and have an opportunity to push somebody into the lion's path which would give the 5 people enough time to run out of the hall and lock a door (situation 2). I think my "hungry lion" dilemmas have fewer physics pitfalls than the traditional train dilemmas.