I have now lived in either Australia or New Zealand for the past decade. Cricket is very popular in both countries. Apparently at the moment, the australians are good at it and the kiwis suck at it (kinda like rugby but in reverse).

Either way, I attempted to watch a match once, and I don't have a goddamned clue what the hell the idea of the game is. Best I can tell, it's like an even more boring version of baseball, which frankly, I didn't think was possible. Basically, it's an excuse for a bunch of people to sit in the sun drinking beer while watching some middle aged guys do some mild exercise.

@Sarzy -- I know what you mean. However, the beginning and the ending and most of the middle made up for a preponderance of jerking off jokes edited together.

It is a dick fest. As a middle-aged feminist white woman, I am NOT their target demographic. However, I was happy to sit through some self indulgence because the majority of it made me laugh my ass off.

You seem to labouring under the misapprehension that I was ASKING them. I told them to give it to me. If they hadn't, I'd have had them thrown out of the cinema.

And actually there is a legal precedent for this, it's called "ex turpi causa".

Besides, apply a bit of common sense here. If a kid hits a baseball onto your property, you don't have to gIve it back to them straight away.

These kids are self entitled little fucks (especially the un-self-aware idiot who whined about it being "so obnoxious... Stealing people's stuff")

Frankly, they were lucky, that THREE of them managed to overpower a small, middle aged lady. If the manager had been a bit more physically intimidating, this would've ended very differently.

Later Heart (especially later than this) is kind of analogous to the middle age American heart, grossly obese and suffering from cardiovascular disease that kinda killed it.

Easy upvote though for the Wilson sisters (the first live concert I saw was Heart) and for 80's music videos. Love everything about it.

But still, I gotta say, omg, this stuff from the same people who made Barracuda? This is from another quality tier altogether:
LOOSELY *related=http://videosift.com/video/Heart-1977-Barracuda

Apology accepted

To be fair, that came off a little harsher and humourless than I intended. You are undoubtedly hipper than me, but I am a middle aged white Irishman who writes software for a living. The only living thing unhipper than me would be a chartered accountant named Kevin.

Hey Stormsinger,

There are plenty of studies on how the diet affects heart and circulatory health. Here is a compilation of some of them:

http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/105/7/893.full

They conclude:

The most important dietary recommendations are as follows:

Keep an energy balance, indicated by a body mass index below 25 kg/m2.

Consume <10% of energy from saturated fat.
Consume <2% of energy from trans fat.
Eat (fatty) fish at least once a week.

Eat ≥400 g of vegetables and fruits per day.

Limit salt consumption to <6 g/d.
If these recommendations are followed, coronary heart disease can be eliminated to a large extent in the population aged <70 years, and by implementing these recommendations at middle-age, there will be lower annual costs for medical care in older age.

The data continues to pour in that diet can prevent and reverse heart disease. To the extent people eat healthily, they can benefit from the truth those studies serve to illuminate.

Just have to say. I don't get it. Is it useful? is there a point? is there a reason? Is there a purpose? It all seems like tradition for traditions sake. I admit it takes time and practice, but is it a skill? and if so, I need to smoke what your smoking, because to me it's just middle aged men cutting shit with a sharp object.

And since i'm in a terrible mood i would also like to say; when did videosift turn into reddit.com/videos? Seems like the whole purpose of this web community is lost in a sea of lame shit I can see somewhere else. Why dosen't siftbot copy and past reddit's entire front page onto videosifts and just save everyone else the trouble.

I guess this website it practicing in the art of futility, just like this video.

I'm sorry you don't know what succinct means. It means clearly expressed. And you are being succinct when you advocate flogging for people who abuse dogs. This is not the middle ages, though your comments clearly reflect that you wish it were. Of course, if it were the middle ages, we could use fighting dogs for the reason they were bred.

I've seen a lot of people flaunting story since it happened, but they fail to read the whole article:

There were six similar attacks in just seven months in 2010 that killed nearly 20 people and wounded more than 50.

The most recent such attack took place in August, when a knife-wielding man broke into a middle school in the southern city of Nanchang and stabbed two students before fleeing.

In one of the worst incidents, a man described as an unemployed, middle-aged doctor killed eight children with a knife in March 2010 to vent his anger over a thwarted romantic relationship.

Tight controls mean that gun crimes are rare in China and make knives and sometimes explosives the weapons used in mass attacks in China.

There have been an increase in school attacks in China starting in 2010. Why isn't this being given 24/7 coverage in the media?

Super skinny women don't look as attractive when they're not in slow motion... then again, neither do middle age white guys.

Eat some food. Now.

I live in Cincinnati. The Butler and Warren counties have large populations, are full of conservative suburbs and middle-class middle-age white people fleeing the cities. Of course they went strongly for Bush over Kerry. Delaware County is the exact same thing, but for Columbus.

>> ^L0cky:
I looked at a lot of sources, including CDC. They have a helpful compilation of their stats in the form of their CDC's 2007 chart book. It shows that firearm related deaths and poisoning are always less than motor vehicles; firearms are more likely to cause an early death; while death from poison is more likely to get you in middle age (possbily this includes long term effects of poisoning, ie working with hazardous materials when they were younger?).
It also doesn't show non death injuries; nor can the stats reflect the fact that every household has potential poisons while around half of households have firearms.
I took a look at the pdf, and while the charts are nice, they cover various date ranges and present their results in different formats, and I think you're misinterpreting them. What I did was use the search feature and look at the raw data. You can also search for non death injuries, but gun related non deadly injuries, accidental or intentional, doesn't even make the top 20, and it doesn't show anything below that.

>> ^L0cky:
In absolute terms it's inarguable that there are a lot of gun related deaths and injury in the US (around 31,000 deaths and 70,000 injuries per year give or take). This doesn't change simply because there are other causes of death and injury.
You just said that your source doesn't show non death injuries, yet now you're claiming 30,000 deaths and 70,000 injuries per year. You claim to be getting your sources from the same place, but the data from the CDC shows that between 1999 and 2010 the average homicide by firearm is 12,807 deaths per year. If you add accidental deaths involving firearms the total comes to 21,146 which accounts for 9.6% of all accidental and intentional deaths (this does not include suicide, illness and disease related deaths).

>> ^L0cky:
Let me be clear, my argument is that non sport firearms don't add anything positive to society that justifies the resulting gun related injury, death and crime. The granting of firearm licenses for hunting and sport should require strict licensing that's based on a requirement of training and testing. Gun control laws should be purposefully strict.
We already have plenty of gun control laws. More laws are not going to stop someone that has no intention of obeying them. You obviously did not read the whole article I linked to as it points out that "93 percent of the guns obtained by violent criminals are not obtained through lawful transactions that are the focus of most gun control legislation.

>> ^L0cky:
I haven't objected to this. My objection is to the suggestion that a societal need to teach children how to use firearms can be used to justify their existence. It's circular logic; and I'd prefer not to live in a society where learning to use firearms is a requirement of safety.
No one said that you need to teach children to use guns to justify their existence. You were a kid once (or still are), and at a certain age didn't you do the opposite of everything your parents said? If there is going to be a gun in a house, even if they are told it's dangerous and not to be played with and you do your best to lock it up and keep it away from them, if they do get their hands on it wouldn't it be better that they knew how to properly handle it so they don't end up adding to the accidental death by firearm statistic? Cars are dangerous too, but we teach our kids how to be safe in and around cars (wear your seat belt, look both ways before crossing street, etc.), why are you so freaked out about teaching a kid gun safety?

Your philosophy that kids shouldn't be taught how to use guns because guns are bad is basically the same as abstinence only sex education, AKA teaching ignorance.

>> ^L0cky:
I'm not stating this, I'm questioning it. You yourself said you own them for self defense.
I said I own guns for many reasons, self defense being one of them. You still seem to be confused about why someone chooses to carry a gun for self defense. It looks to me based on what you've written is that you assume someone carries a gun only to protect themselves from other gun owners. As I already pointed out, only 10% of violent crimes involve the use of a gun. I carry to protect myself from 100% of crimes.

>> ^L0cky:
That has zero effect on the number violent crimes that DO involve the use of a gun.
You can't pick out a small portion of a larger statistic to base your argument on, you need to take into account the whole picture. That's like saying 2001 was a slow year for terrorism, if you don't count the World Trade Center attacks.

>> ^L0cky:
This isn't a useful number unless you can show that those crimes would not have been prevented without guns; and would still have occurred without guns.
I don't know what more you expect, a crime was in progress, a lawfully armed citizen stopped it and it was reported to the police. What your asking isn't possible as the only way to know what would have happened in the other situations is to invent a time machine.

>> ^L0cky:
I guess your point is that gun ownership reduces crime. I'm open to that - if it can be shown more clearly.
What is clear from comparing to other countries, particularly those with comparative gun ownership is that the lack of gun control in the US correlates to an increase in gun related death and injury by an order of magnitude. The problem isn't gun ownership in and of itself; it's gun ownership without lack of appropriate gun control laws.
If guns don't reduce crime, then why do we give them to the police? Once more back to that article you didn't read:

"In 13 states citizens who wish to carry arms may do so, having met certain requirements. Consider Florida, which in 1987 enacted a concealed-carry law guaranteeing a gun permit to any resident who is at least 21, has no record of crime, mental illness or drug or alcohol abuse, and who has completed a firearms safety course. Florida's homicide rate fell following the enactment of this law, as did the rate in Oregon after the enactment of a similar law. Through June 1993, there had been 160,823 permits issued in Florida. Only 530, or 0.33 percent, of the applicants have been denied permits. This indicates that the law is serving the law abiding. Only l6 permits, less than 1/100th of 1 percent, have been rescinded because of the commission, after issuance, of a crime involving a firearm."

>> ^L0cky:
You're right, if guns suddenly vanished tomorrow there would still be crime and violence. However, it would be crime and violence without guns; and I think, that (of itself) is preferable. How could it not be?
Are you fucking serous? Why is a murder with a gun any worse than a knife, baseball bat or even bare hands? A murder is a murder no matter what tool is used to commit it. Other crimes besides murder would be better off without guns, but what part of 90% of violent crimes do not involve the use of a gun did you not understand? If you take away guns from everyone, you're only removing 10% of the tools used by violent criminals, and that doesn't guarantee that violent crime will drop by 10%? In reality you wouldn't be removing anything from criminals because "93 percent of the guns obtained by violent criminals are not obtained through lawful transactions that are the focus of most gun control legislation. So you essentially want to take away every law abiding citizen's right to defend themselves with a gun without doing anything to stop criminals from committing crimes with guns.

>> ^L0cky:
Crime in the UK has reduced dramatically according to The Office for National Statistics between before then (1999/2001) and now, including firearm offences. In Australia assault is up, robbery is down and sexual assault is about the same according to the Australian Institute of Criminology. Homicides involving firearms have continued to decline to their lowest on record.
From your source: "Provisional figures for the year ending June 2012 show that 5,507 firearm offences were recorded in England and Wales, an 18 per cent decrease on the previous year (6,694)." In 1997 when the ban was enacted only 2,648 crimes were reported involving guns. It looks like that ban has worked well.


>> ^L0cky:
I pulled it from the same source you are correcting me with
The CDC - Injury in the United States: 2007 Chart Book, page 24.
Statisticslol
This is where you have misinterpreted the graphs. The vertical portion of that graph is in deaths per 100,000 population. If you dig up the raw numbers from the search engine this is what you'll find:

Motor Vehicle Accident = 22%
Homicide by Firearm = 13%
Accident by Firearm = 0.5%

>> ^jimnms:

You can get very detailed statistics from the CDC

I looked at a lot of sources, including CDC. They have a helpful compilation of their stats in the form of their CDC's 2007 chart book. It shows that firearm related deaths and poisoning are always less than motor vehicles; firearms are more likely to cause an early death; while death from poison is more likely to get you in middle age (possbily this includes long term effects of poisoning, ie working with hazardous materials when they were younger?).

It also doesn't show non death injuries; nor can the stats reflect the fact that every household has potential poisons while around half of households have firearms.

In absolute terms it's inarguable that there are a lot of gun related deaths and injury in the US (around 31,000 deaths and 70,000 injuries per year give or take). This doesn't change simply because there are other causes of death and injury.

Let me be clear, my argument is that non sport firearms don't add anything positive to society that justifies the resulting gun related injury, death and crime. The granting of firearm licenses for hunting and sport should require strict licensing that's based on a requirement of training and testing. Gun control laws should be purposefully strict.

>> ^jimnms:

I don't understand your objection to teaching a kid how to properly operate a firearm when the're old enough.

I haven't objected to this. My objection is to the suggestion that a societal need to teach children how to use firearms can be used to justify their existence. It's circular logic; and I'd prefer not to live in a society where learning to use firearms is a requirement of safety.

>> ^jimnms:

how come no one pitches a fit about bows like they do guns?


Like swords, they have nowhere near the same problem; and there isn't any good data about what they're used for. My guess would be they're mostly owned for sport, but like swords I don't know.

>> ^jimnms:

From everything you've posted, you seem to be thinking that someone needs a gun to defend oneself from an attacker with a gun.

I'm not stating this, I'm questioning it. You yourself said you own them for self defense.

>> ^jimnms:

The majority violent of crimes do NOT involve the use of a gun

That has zero effect on the number violent crimes that DO involve the use of a gun.

>> ^jimnms:

up to 2.5 million reported crimes (many are unreported) are prevented by lawful gun owners each year


This isn't a useful number unless you can show that those crimes would not have been prevented without guns; and would still have occurred without guns. I guess your point is that gun ownership reduces crime. I'm open to that - if it can be shown more clearly.

What is clear from comparing to other countries, particularly those with comparative gun ownership is that the lack of gun control in the US correlates to an increase in gun related death and injury by an order of magnitude. The problem isn't gun ownership in and of itself; it's gun ownership without lack of appropriate gun control laws.

>> ^jimnms:

You seem to have some delusional idea that removing guns from society is going stop crime and violence. Removing guns isn't going to magically stop people from being violent and committing crimes.

You're right, if guns suddenly vanished tomorrow there would still be crime and violence. However, it would be crime and violence without guns; and I think, that (of itself) is preferable. How could it not be?

>> ^jimnms:

The UK and Australia did ban personal ownership of guns and their crime rates went up because the only ones left with guns were the criminals. [1][2][3][4]


Crime in the UK has reduced dramatically according to The Office for National Statistics between before then (1999/2001) and now, including firearm offences. In Australia assault is up, robbery is down and sexual assault is about the same according to the Australian Institute of Criminology. Homicides involving firearms have continued to decline to their lowest on record.

>> ^jimnms:
That "statistic" is flat out untrue, and it must have hurt pulling that out of your ass.

I pulled it from the same source you are correcting me with

The CDC - Injury in the United States: 2007 Chart Book, page 24.

Statisticslol

>> ^jimnms:

Personally I would rather live in a society where people are educated and non violent so that we can own guns for sport, collecting, hunting, etc. and not have to deal with people's irrational fear of them.

Personally I would rather live in a society where people are educated and non violent so that we can own guns for sport, collecting, hunting, etc. and not feel the need to own them for self defense, therefore supporting lenient gun control policies that contribute to a high rate of injury and death.

One can dream

>> ^cosmovitelli:

>> ^Stormsinger:
I've got to say, that unless someone has some evidence that the prosecutor's statement is a lie, or they have a confession, I'd more or less agree with dropping the charges. Why would the driver keep silent about the weapon in his possession? Sounds a lot like a setup...rich drunk guy makes a pretty good target.

OK if this was a junkie skinhead attacker and the victim was a virgin princess would you say the same?
I'm assuming you are from some oligarch/monarchist society where one person is better than the other or you wouldn't dare speak such hateful hypocrisy in the open.. would you also let him fuck your wife on your wedding night? This is what trials are for brother, some of us are glad the middle ages are over..

As a matter of fact, I would. I'm something of a believer in the idea that you need fucking evidence to convict someone. Not "he said", not "the victim said", not even eye witnesses (who are almost totally unreliable). But when evidence is hidden away by the victim for months, then suddenly becomes available at the last minute, there's something fishy going on. And when there is fishy goings on, the accused gets the benefit of the doubt...what was it, better ten guilty men go free than one innocent man be wrongly convicted?

And if you think I support someone just because he's rich and white...well, either you've read none of my posts here, or you're a moron. You pick which one fits.