I actually feel there should be two types of dupes, The Regular dupe that we have now, and a delayed dupe for instances of this caliber.

A delayed dupe would allow the video to stay for 3 days and accumulate votes, after the 3 days it's then treated like a normal dupe and the original gets the votes, that way the original gets its votes and the second has a chance to do well enough to allow the video to be seen.

I know there have been instances where naming a video meant it got next to no views, no views means no votes, and then a few days later due to the bad naming and tagging someone dupes it. With a second dupe type you at least still acquire votes for the second person rather then just getting a slap on the hand.

I don't know about getting something for the original voter, because that could potentially be abused, but with the delayed dupe you can at least do something nice for the person you've duped.

I didn't realize I was obligated to respond to you but, since I apparently am, here it is: I think net neutrality is a lose/lose situation.

First off, there's no 'neutral' option in this argument. The options are either to allow corrupt megacorporations to determine which traffic is prioritized or to allow a corrupt government agency to determine which traffic is prioritized.

Either way, us regular people are out in the cold. Basically, I mostly agree with you.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

You never addressed any of my problems and instead fed the troll and then complain about him being a poor debater when not taking place in the actual debate? Do you also not have anything to say about net neutrality and just want to engage in an asinine debate over corrupt politics?
I laid out a very sound argument that the government has been involved with the regulation of the radio, and TV waves since 1934 and has helped aid in the corporate take over all during that time. The rule sets and regulations they put in place favor people who have large sums of capital and extra man power. The assume they would do anything different with the internet would be counter to 60 years of history. What started as an effort to "clean up the air waves" of both congestion and indecency has ended up with the larges concentrations of media power in free society. TV tells the same, and even worse story. AM radio stations are about the only public domain for broadcast, but is volumes times higher than your public access TV station. The corporate take over of the media was facilitated by gaming the regulation system in favor of large corporate pools of influence over time. The web resembles the early radio days in many ways. There is one key difference, the ones who own a lot of the pipes now are legal monopolies. Erase that status, and you will get what you almost had 60 years ago with radio, truly free communication. Undo the damage that has been done to the cause of net neutrality be undermining the monopoly power base of those companies that are growing out of size and scope with the level of their consumer fulfillment.
Trying to legislate net neutrality will ultimately undermine it. That is, unless you are going to fund lobbies on the level that some of the richest companies in all of humanity are going to. If not, then it is a bad idea.
( I have to learn to stop speaking in the second person, it sounds so accusatory)

You never addressed any of my problems and instead fed the troll and then complain about him being a poor debater when not taking place in the actual debate? Do you also not have anything to say about net neutrality and just want to engage in an asinine debate over corrupt politics?

I laid out a very sound argument that the government has been involved with the regulation of the radio, and TV waves since 1934 and has helped aid in the corporate take over all during that time. The rule sets and regulations they put in place favor people who have large sums of capital and extra man power. The assume they would do anything different with the internet would be counter to 60 years of history. What started as an effort to "clean up the air waves" of both congestion and indecency has ended up with the larges concentrations of media power in free society. TV tells the same, and even worse story. AM radio stations are about the only public domain for broadcast, but is volumes times higher than your public access TV station. The corporate take over of the media was facilitated by gaming the regulation system in favor of large corporate pools of influence over time. The web resembles the early radio days in many ways. There is one key difference, the ones who own a lot of the pipes now are legal monopolies. Erase that status, and you will get what you almost had 60 years ago with radio, truly free communication. Undo the damage that has been done to the cause of net neutrality be undermining the monopoly power base of those companies that are growing out of size and scope with the level of their consumer fulfillment.

Trying to legislate net neutrality will ultimately undermine it. That is, unless you are going to fund lobbies on the level that some of the richest companies in all of humanity are going to. If not, then it is a bad idea.

( I have to learn to stop speaking in the second person, it sounds so accusatory)

>> ^xxovercastxx:

Nope, I don't. Bush lost in the popular vote but he didn't steal the election. It's just a case of an anomaly in our screwy election system.
This was a good example of why you're such a poor debater, though. If you can't make an argument you just change the topic. You've apparently got nothing to say on the topic of Net Neutrality so you start whining about the election from a year and a half ago. When I call you on your crappy source, you strawman me and start whining about the election from almost 10 years ago.
Most of your "opponents" here are just as ignorant, I know, but you'll have to

>> ^Shepppard:

oof.. could end very badly. @:06 seconds person in the hall on the left notices what's going on and books. Hopefully nobody was between those lockers.


15 seconds in you can clearly see someone getting out from the middle of the mess.

oof.. could end very badly. @:06 seconds person in the hall on the left notices what's going on and books. Hopefully nobody was between those lockers.

The video starts off, without much context (i.e. a start point), and after the issue has already started. From this video, it is not clear why the officer is dealing with the person in question. That is not the fault of the officer, but the person with the camera. Someone mentioned, this was started due to jay-walking. While not a crime often pursued, it is a crime in most cities and quite alot of towns in the USA. So, in a sense, the officer is well within his right to speak to the suspect and question them. But this *ISNT* in the video.

Now, when the second person assaults the officer, the officer is well within his right to defend himself. Maybe that girl should be lucky he didn't pull out his sidearm and point it at her! Likewise, a crowd forming around one, lone, officer, whom are behaving more like a mob to lynch, then to gank; should make any law enforcement person concern.

A person is considered INNOCENT until proven GUILTY! Whether its the suspect(s) or the police officer.

^Yeah he's the second person with that name I've known and this one doesn't go around petting others hair...at least I think he doesn't.

Regardless, Congrats Bryce!

I was surprised they had a second person (presumably the cameraman) in the car. Having 2 people in the car effectively neutralizes the Scuderia's lower weight than the standard F430.

It's a nice car, but the host's ending point stands. A motorcycle's power to weight ratio is such that a car can't effectively compete with a bike when it comes to pure acceleration. That means, even if a car handles a corner better, the bike regains its lost speed significantly faster. Any track that favors acceleration is going to be dominated by a bike.

While the story is just down right disgusting, a few things caught my attention.

Near the beginning the reporter mentions she walked with someone she knew, I presume as in a friend and then consumed alcohol? So did this second person leave before the assault or did this person also fail to report the assault? I can't really see why she would drink alone, at 15 you tend to be drinking to show off.

The other thing is the way the news anchor follows the story, "What if they were cheering it on?", I mean really? Is that really even worth mentioning, lacked taste if you ask me, the story is bad enough in itself, it didn't need any sensationalism.

TerryF: That is such a ridiculous statement to stand by, it's not much further than saying women who wear provocative clothing deserve to be raped or lead people to rape them. It is not and never will be the responsibility of the victim to not get raped, please don't forget what rape is.

First off, decimate means reduce by ten... as in the root 'deci'. At some point we decided it would be a good idea to completely ignore the history of the root and make up a newer, modern definition: to reduce completely. Revisionism.

Secondly, personal liberty isn't a made up mental frame to be used for controlling people. Sure the Republicans are now spouting 'Liberty' from every hilltop, and I think a majority of them use it to mean Anti-Democratic or in more isolated cases to mean "Give our country back, black man."

And, come on, dude. Democrats are afraid of Corporations? Seriously, you want me to believe that? If you cannot see how the Democrats and Republicans are cut from the same cloth, then neither I nor anyone else can reach you. Corporations don't fear Obama, especially when he's willing to bail them out. And if you ever have the curiosity, I beg that you look into the Center for Public Integrity at the campaign donations and see who gives to which party. Each big Corporation hedges its bets by giving to both parties.

And what of the military efforts? Obama cares more about how he'll be perceived than giving any credence to ending any war. The Neocons (read: Bill'O) clamor on that pulling out of the Middle East would mean the terrorist win, and Obama is now conflicted whether or not to pull out of Iraq and bolster more troops in Afghanistan. Spineless.

And even his Administration seems divided. Eventually they want 500,000 more troops. Hillary/Holbrook wants to put into place a North/South Korea military presence in Afghanistan for an indeterminate amount of time while we "spread democracy" there and nation build. Biden, however, wants to scale down the nation-building but wants to invade Pakistan. And what the fuck about the humanitarian crisis in Somalia?!

That aside, you're right, I am in favor of Capitalism over Socialism. Please don't confuse Capitalism with Corporatism. I mean working from Capital (or surplus) to create jobs and create wealth. I believe in a free market where private individuals can trade without government coercion. Socialism on the surface appears to be a system that is meant to help the people, but instead it powers the government, and even though you may disagree I still must point out how the National Socialist German Workers' Party really did a bang up job in Germany taking care of the people.

"We the people" doesn't mean democracy. No where in the Declaration nor the Constitution does it say word number one about a democracy. Not one. It does, however, say in Article 4 section 4 "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government." (not to be confused with the current Republican Party) By saying "We the people" implies this to be a Democracy is like implying decimate means to reduce completely. It simply isn't true even if it's a widely accepted idea.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:

1. I was sent to a behavioral hospital for saying I would kill myself and stabbed the table with a large kitchen knife.

2. I thrive to be the kindest person I know but still end up being an ass without even trying.

3. I'm Socially retarded. I have trouble talking to friends I've known for years.

4. When I was 19 I had an affair with a twenty year old woman. I felt guilty about her husband but I was in love.

5. I often feel my social awkwardness is the #1 contributer to feeling that my life has been kind of dull.

6. I work in the IT industry and I'm building a web site for my dads company which I still have no confidence in.

7. I love everything French and wish there was a French channel. Although I cannot speak French fluently even after studying three years of it.

8. I play piano and guitar.

9. I adore women.

10. When I was young I told my brother that there was a twenty dollar bill behind a fence in a coke can so I could steal the front seat of my moms car. He came back with a twenty dollar bill and a coke can.

11. I used to work security for a event arena. I sat next to Lars Ulrich all night and did not recognize him. I've also said hi to Phil Collins, Eddie Van Halen, Bonnie Raitt, Natalie Merchant, Ericah Bahdu, and the guy from Matchbox 20.

12. ^ I've also been back stage and watched Metallica warm up for the show and was the sole reason a popular disc jockey was thrown out of the same concert.

13. I have celebrity crushes on Drew Berrymore, Dolores O rirden (I know I did not spell that right), Kelly Osborne, Audrey Tautou, Natalie Portman, and Lisa Loeb.

14. I always stick up for Jewish people when the chance arises.

15. When I was young I cried because a younger man was picking on and beating up an older man in an old western movie.

16. I always wanted to be famous but only because I wanted people to like me.

17. I did not have sex until I was 19. (and it was the affair 4.)

18. I married the second person I had sex with.

19. I once had a beagle named Snoopy. (I know so original)

20. I wish I worked for a gaming company.

21. I still feel like a kid.

22. I spent two weeks in France.

23. I kissed a girl I barley knew in Paris, she was from Richmond Virginia. I also was became lost there with two others who did not speak French and between the three of us had to find our way to the hotel. Luckily I know how to say where is the Metro?

24. I just recently purchased a house.

25. I cannot seem to be able to turn off love. Once I've fallen in love with someone I always love them.

Fuck pitbulls, and FUCK YOU pitbull owners. Go pursue an inane cause that doesn't require everyone around you to accept the premise that "don't worry, this bomb I bring everywhere won't go off while your kids are around. I'm a responsible bomb owner. Just don't make any sudden movements or anything that could potentially be taken as a threat, around my totally harmless bomb, or otherwise it might harmlessly rip your fucking face off."

The first time I let my dog within biting distance of a friend's Pit, she got bitten really hard, even though the owners were my friends, the dog knew me, and everyone was gathered around urging the Pit to be calm as we introduced the dogs. No warning, their Pit just clamped on the fucking neck of my black lab. If not for an instantaneous and well-placed kick in the side of the face from the Pit's owner, my dog's jugular probably would have been ripped in two. I imagined how I would feel if it had been my niece or nephews, and came to this conclusion: FUCK PITBULLS.... just because they're licking your face one moment doesn't mean they're not going to eat it off you the first fuckign excuse you give them.

The other weak-ass part of Pit owners' argument is this: When a black lab or even a german shephard decides to bite a person, a second person of reasonable strength can rescue that first person from the dog (if the first person can't rescue themselves). This is not really the case with Pits, unless the third person is willing to put themselves at risk (by trying to "wheelbarrow" the Pit for instance), or become seriously violent and murderous in attacking the dog (by picking up a brick and bludgeoning it in the fucking skull).

Second person "Sight-jacking" was done in Psychonauts, though it wasn't too developed or useful in that game either.

The person you're most likely to kill with your own gun: yourself.

The second person you're most likely to kill: a member of your own family.

The third person you're most likely to kill: a perfect stranger who was of no threat to you.

The single biggest predicate for dying from gun violence: owning a gun.

LOL @ U

In reply to this comment by alien_concept:
Oh for fuck's sake. Sorry...

In reply to this comment by Farhad2000:
Exactly why am the second person to vote for it.

In reply to this comment by alien_concept:
http://www.videosift.com/video/Aimlessly-Sound-Tribe-Sector-9-1 Isn't this your kinda thing far?