One thing I don't like about this safety announcement is that it makes it seem like rips as these underwater murder machines just lurking out there trying to kill you.

There is nothing inherently dangerous about a rip current per se. Surfers use them all the time to get out quickly into the lineup quickly without having to duck dive the heavier sets.

The real danger of rips is to inexperienced or poor ocean swimmers. The rip can carry you out to water that is too deep to stand in very quickly, so if you're not comfortable floating or treading water for long periods that's going to be a big problem.

Most people drown because they panic when they realize they can't touch the bottom and try to swim back against the current to get to a place where they can stand again. In their panicked state they forget about floating or treading water and exhaust themselves. As long as you swim perpendicular to the current you should be fine. The number one mistake people make is that they forget to stay calm and take breaks by doing the side-stroke or treading water until they're ready to do the crawl stroke again.

All that said, lateral rips (rips that run parallel to the shore rather than out to sea) are some scary shit, as they can move basically as fast as a river. During lifeguard training in my younger days I got caught in one while doing a training rescue and was swept in literally seconds into a wooden jetty. Thankfully I was able to ride the crest of a wave up to the top of the jetty, pull myself up, and then sprint down back to the shore before the next set of waves washed me back into the ocean and carried me even further down the shoreline. After getting back, I took a lot of shit from my instructors and peers for nearly having to be actually rescued during a training rescue.

@SFOGuy False positive. This is not the type of serious brawl that occurs when there is a severe lack of parenting in a particular neighborhood.

The "wise elder" in the video is proof of this -- he wouldn't have been able to so easily break up a fight if your anthropological study were at all accurate. The kids know they're in the wrong. They just don't like being laughed at by their "friends".

I've also never heard of a culture where teenagers don't get into fights after school and where classmates don't use peer pressure to bully less aware students into fighting. This is a classic scene from countless middle class neighborhoods, white or black.

When their yuppie parents see this video, I can almost guarantee some asses will be red. Unless they're the kind of ultra liberal parents that don't believe in punishment -- then I may be inclined to agree with you in part.

Bwaaahahaha! Pretty sure that term came from your video! Some proteins are more easily used by the body than others...these would be deemed 'quality proteins' when talking nutrition. Kuru, a prion, for one, is a non-quality protein.

This, from the guy that conflates enjoying cheese with heroin level addiction and anecdotal advertisements with peer reviewed studies?!? Lol!

So...you claim to have peer reviewed, published studies that actually say plant based vegan diets CURE this type of cancer and provide enough useable, quality proteins for people with his condition? I seriously doubt that, but feel free to produce away, but if I read them and find that they don't say any such thing (like the last time I spent my time debunking this guy), or aren't really scientific studies, be ready to be called a liar any time you post more claims without them being reviewed as a reward for wasting my time and efforts....again.

Wait....you see I won't accept non published, non peer reviewed studies because they aren't scientific, so instead you offer a webpage about random people's compiled anecdotes about weight LOSS from vegan diets, the exact opposite of the claim being discussed? There was only one cancer story on the whole page of anecdotes, totally unscientific, in which the woman had surgery and treatments then later went vegan and claimed it "cured" her, but she seems to have stopped checking so doesn't really even know if she still has it and certainly couldn't say what 'cured' it...and every story there is really just an add for his books. WTF man?

I never said some people can't benefit from plant based, or even vegan diets (although that's incredibly difficult and expensive long term, as proven by Jobs who couldn't benefit from the most expensive, highest quality plant proteins available.). I said it usually can't provide the protein normal people need to be healthy, much less the excessive protein needed with his condition, which was absolutely PROVEN because it completely failed to do so and eventually even he gave up...just far too late.
Plant based diets VS processed food based diets usually will help with weight loss (what almost all the anecdotes were about) and most people can benefit from the weight loss alone, no matter how it comes. That has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the topic of curing cancer or Jobs condition.
Face====>palm

You're already assuming the studies I'm going to quote aren't peer reviewed - which all journal published studies are. This is why I'm not going to bother, because we've been down this road before.

So perhaps you'd do better with anecdotes like this: https://www.drmcdougall.com/health/education/health-science/stars/stars-written/
Are all of these people lying about getting off their meds?

Yeah, I'll stick with the oncologists take on it over some internet only studies, since they studied peer reviewed science for years and practiced longer on exactly this subject, and they all said trying to cure cancer with veganism instead of surgery is insanity, as was wasting away while refusing to eat enough recommend quality proteins. That part is a no brainer, but it only contributed to his death from cancer and likely helped it spread faster, it didn't directly kill him.

Edit:besides, I'm not going to take my time up to fully discredit this guy again. Once was enough. Even you admitted he was full of it when he claimed studies showed eating meat is as dangerous as chain smoking, he's not worth another debunking....he's a fraud.

"How you read this report is going to be clouded by how you feel about pot in general." Bingo.

No no new science here, though. No new studies. Just re-re-reviewing existing literature.

"We know almost nothing about the medicinal effects of smoked marijuana."

If that's true... then how much do "we" know about the effects of raw cannabis, complete with it's non-psychoactive tetrahydrocannabinolic acid? The large scale, peer reviewed method works far, far to slowly to be of any real use. It is too dependent upon those with enough financial funding to be considered an authority. If "we" finally perform the "right" study on cannabis, will that magically undo nearly 100 years of unjustified criminalization, untold millions of needless deaths, and pain and suffering?

The historical precedents being (self)censorship and gulags.

Subjective offense and harm defined by well-meaning panels of social judges are the road to hell.

Is the man really black enough to be allowed to say nigger? Is the woman really ugly or is she justly offended? Who decides? Or is there some other concept at work here? Like common morals decided upon by peers in normal social contact (conflict), instead of dictated by a "higher" entity, the SJW.

Let the people decide for themselves. The normal path is that legislation is formed based on morals, not the other way round.

That's a convenient, but likely baseless claim. Do you have any peer reviewed studies to back it up?
It's the same thing that allows it in every religion. Immoral people assume leadership positions and instruct faithful to act atrociously. Christianity was just as inhumane, the phrase isn't "nobody expects the Muslim inquisition". It's misguided to get myopic about history in order to demonize one religion, they all fall into this pitfall, it's the nature of blind faith that it's easily abused.
A good question might be what is it about religion that it makes normal people act as if they have mental issues, and I think I just answered that.
Looking at the issue honestly, not biased against "them", is essential. It allows you to ask "did my culture find a way to stop this behavior, and if so, how." Since no culture seems 100% free from it, pointing fingers isn't helpful. Since it's true that they aren't the only ones to "be bad", how is it dishonest? What fact does it ignore?
The left is not the factually challenged side of the two. The left believes science, the right doesn't. Issue settled.

Ah. Late last night after 11 PM PST, VS was showing:

"Secure Connection Failed

An error occurred during a connection to videosift.com.

Cannot communicate securely with peer: no common encryption algorithm(s).

Error code: <a rel="nofollow" id="errorCode" title="SSL_ERROR_NO_CYPHER_OVERLAP">SSL_ERROR_NO_CYPHER_OVERLAP

The page you are trying to view cannot be shown because the authenticity of the received data could not be verified.

Please contact the website owners to inform them of this problem."


https://s28.postimg.org/9id7f2tjx/ssl.jpg for a screen shot/capture from SM's Page Info's Security tab.


I could reproduce this error in both of my computers (64-bit W7 HPE SP1 OS & 64-bit Linux/Debian Jessie/stable)'s SeaMonkey v2.46 web browsers. Also, Firefox v51 in my Debian box. I could not reproduce it in W7's IE11 & Debian's Chrome v50 web browsers that aren't based on Mozilla's Gecko engine.


I told Dag and Lucky760 about it, and it was fixed about 1.5 hours later. Kudos to the quick fixes!

And I would add you cannot simply separate the individual and the institution. You may like them more or less, but they are reporting to the same leadership and controls as their peers. And I agree with sentiment that anyone with a reputation to uphold would not be on that network unless they had no other options.

Fine to hear a story, but at best a secondary source.

I truly can't understand why the next reporter asked her question after that exchange between Trump and the CNN correspondent. If someone treated a peer of mine like that, I would take it as a personal insult.

given enough peer pressure, of still living peers, yes

I think her argument is incredibly flawed.
It misses out the crucial aspect of training. An umbrella needs no instruction to function inside the parameters it's designed for. It's comes ready for use. Babies, however, require a lot of resources and training to perform even somewhat satisfactory. The amount of time you need to invest to train tricks, like walking and not-pooping-the-pants successfully, greatly outweights the demanded time period to acustomise yourself with the functions and limitations of a new umbrella. To even learn the boundaries of what babies are capable of leads quite often to a frustrating process of trial and error that can render your baby unusable. Which leads of to the next issue.
To procure an umbrella you have varying retail options, including online distribution, as well as exchange of services or goods among acquaintances. For some unfathomable reason, these options are frowned upon by a political correctness obsessed society in regards to babies. The only viable option that won't cause offense among your peers is manufacturing one yoursef. Imagine what our economy would look like if we handeled all goods this way. It's preposterous!
So you are stuck with whatever baby you can produce on your own, relying on unskilled labor in most cases. Not only do you have to go through the time consuming and strenuous acts of sexual activity, which we all now can lead to severe cases of depression and anxiety, there is a unreasonable waiting time included as well. Imagine you had to wait 9 months for every Amazon delivery. This is just customer harassment.
Loosing an umbrella is not worse than losing a baby but it's not because of reasons that cannot be fixed. If we as a society would work together and openly oppose the unfair unequality in treatment of babies and umbrellas, our lives could be improved in unpredecented ways. But we don't. We are all to blame for this.

Yeah, they're doing it wrong again. Something they did or just some nebulous culture shift around ~2000 or so seemed to actually work, and it takes about four or five years before you can know whether what you did worked or not. Prior to the 2000 thing, it was scare tactics, which don't work on invincible teenagers. Then they switched to a less dramatic "it's not a big deal, it's okay to chose not to smoke" approach, which I think was the good one.

The real problem (in the US at least) is the 17 and 18 year-old kids smoking, which means the 13-16 year-old kids do it to be like their older peers. If you can break that cycle, even just once, you come as close to solving the problem as you can. But, since there is this lag time between the beginning of the cycle and it coming full circle, the industry assumes it was the most recent ("evil tobacco corporations taking advantage of you") effort that was actually the effective one. I don't think it is. I especially don't think it will work on college-age demographic they're targeting. It's still "The Man" telling them what to do, even if it's a different hand of "The Man."