There is no footage of the 2004 tsunami initially hitting Sumatra's coast for good reason. It was no doubt filmed, but no one close enough to do so would have survived. The 2004 wave was caused by an earthquake that was 3 to 9 times more powerful than the earthquake which caused the Japanese tsunami.

The Japanese 2011 wave was at its highest around 10 to 12 meters, dwarfed by the 2004 wave, which was up to 30 meters.

http://videosift.com/video/Indonesia-Tsunami-Massive-Surge-Of-Water-And-Debris
This clip is taken of the 2004 wave in Banda Aceh, Sumatra; an area hit by the one of the highest waves. This video shows the wave more than 3 miles from the shore. No one on the shore line would have survived such a monstrous force.


The Japanese public also had significant warning a tsunami was coming, so a lot of them stood on strong, tall buildings for safety. Japan as a whole is well educated about earthquakes and tsunamis, while Indonesians were not. Other than the strong earthquake they felt, there was no warning at all for the Sumatrans as the 2004 wave hit.



>> ^rychan:

>>
I totally agree. It's amazing how much more footage there is compared to the 2004 Indonesia Tsunami. In fact, I'm not sure I've seen a single video of that Tsunami in Indonesia or Sri Lanka where so many died. There are a few videos in Thailand but they're not showing much. It's such a great boon to scientists and public awareness.

I hate to be a dick, but footage wise this tsunami couldn't have hit a better country.

Just incredible footage here too, immensely scary.
>> ^rychan:

>> ^bareboards2:
This is probably the scariest of any I have seen. I can't imagine what that camera operator must have been thinking -- there seemed to be no place else to go, and the water kept rising. And still they shot that incredible footage.
Every time I see one of these, I think -- wow, do we have an incredible archive of material for scientists to study on how tsunamis actually work.
Amazing. Scary. Wow.

I totally agree. It's amazing how much more footage there is compared to the 2004 Indonesia Tsunami. In fact, I'm not sure I've seen a single video of that Tsunami in Indonesia or Sri Lanka where so many died. There are a few videos in Thailand but they're not showing much. It's such a great boon to scientists and public awareness.

>> ^bareboards2:

This is probably the scariest of any I have seen. I can't imagine what that camera operator must have been thinking -- there seemed to be no place else to go, and the water kept rising. And still they shot that incredible footage.
Every time I see one of these, I think -- wow, do we have an incredible archive of material for scientists to study on how tsunamis actually work.
Amazing. Scary. Wow.


I totally agree. It's amazing how much more footage there is compared to the 2004 Indonesia Tsunami. In fact, I'm not sure I've seen a single video of that Tsunami in Indonesia or Sri Lanka where so many died. There are a few videos in Thailand but they're not showing much. It's such a great boon to scientists and public awareness.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

>> ^shuac:
Her's are just a list of seemingly-relevant points that rely on their simplicity. Who's to say having a character name is always a good thing? So what if women don't talk to one another in a film? Why is that such a good thing? Why is that the measuring stick? And so what if women talk about a man in a film. Perhaps that's what the story is about.
The lines she's drawn are very arbitrary.

Ugh, do you really need this explained?
What major/driving character is nameless in a film or novel?
In what society or reality do women not relate to one another?
In what society or reality do women only talk to one another about men?
The point is to make the public aware that an overwhelming amount of popular films either depict women as secondary, dependent superfluous characters or not at all.
I'll assume you're a white male.
Now imagine that every movie from your childhood, teenage years and current life have female asian protagonists.
Not just a few, not just a large amount, but every major movie is about a female jackie chan type main character.
All deuteragonists, tritagonists and extras are female too.
The only male characters you see are the worried desperate husband, the drunken hobo, the clueless nameless youth.
No male characters have major lines.
No two male characters talk anything other then their how they miss and need wives.
No males are depicted that aren't ripped half naked & constanly flexing to attract attention from the main female.
Now imagine all the little boys that would grow up without a Batman or Spiderman or Dr. Doom to day dream about.
Are you visualizing this world?
Because for little girls this [objectification, helpless ditzy stereotype, lack of confident/constructive behavior modeling]
is a persistent reality.


Majority of the women I know would only watch movies as entertainment occasionally and don't really call themselves "movie buffs." If you think there is an untapped "movie buff" in the female world you would think the movie industry would attempt to tap into it? (Chick flicks?)

>> ^shuac:

Her's are just a list of seemingly-relevant points that rely on their simplicity. Who's to say having a character name is always a good thing? So what if women don't talk to one another in a film? Why is that such a good thing? Why is that the measuring stick? And so what if women talk about a man in a film. Perhaps that's what the story is about.
The lines she's drawn are very arbitrary.


Ugh, do you really need this explained?

What major/driving character is nameless in a film or novel?
In what society or reality do women not relate to one another?
In what society or reality do women only talk to one another about men?

The point is to make the public aware that an overwhelming amount of popular films either depict women as secondary, dependent superfluous characters or not at all.

I'll assume you're a white male.
Now imagine that every movie from your childhood, teenage years and current life have female asian protagonists.

Not just a few, not just a large amount, but every major movie is about a female jackie chan type main character.

All deuteragonists, tritagonists and extras are female too.

The only male characters you see are the worried desperate husband, the drunken hobo, the clueless nameless youth.
No male characters have major lines.
No two male characters talk anything other then their how they miss and need wives.
No males are depicted that aren't ripped half naked & constanly flexing to attract attention from the main female.

Now imagine all the little boys that would grow up without a Batman or Spiderman or Dr. Doom to day dream about.

Are you visualizing this world?
Because for little girls this [objectification, helpless ditzy stereotype, lack of confident/constructive behavior modeling]
is a persistent reality.

It turns out, however, that he very probably did do it. There's a rather comprehensive site with the facts and details on this:
http://www.graphicwitness.com/carter/index.html

I still like the song though. I would hope it was an avatar for those actual cases of wrongful arrest and did some real good for change in the public awareness.

Well, I have no real interest in "censoring" any of this content, but there does seem to be a persistent confusion about the meaning of the channel. Based on the types of videos I have seen over the years, I have long assumed that the kids channel meant "about kids." In searching the channel, however, I see that many videos I recall seeing here have been removed. For example, many Wonder Showzen and Family Guy clips have been in the Kids channel over the years.

There are still a significant number of clips in the Kids channel that seem to be "about kids" rather than "for kids". For starters a search of NSFW videos in the kids channel turns up five videos.

Additionally, skimming the first two pages of the Kids channel turns up these videos which seem to be more "about kids" than "for kids":
http://kids.videosift.com/video/What-children-see-children-do-Powerful
http://kids.videosift.com/video/Uncle-Globey-Friends-tells-kids-harsh-world-realities
http://kids.videosift.com/video/Superman-on-what-Maybe-on-a-hot-dog
http://kids.videosift.com/video/What-one-day-of-war-in-Iraq-can-buy-instead
http://kids.videosift.com/video/Yiddish-with-Dick-and-Jane
http://kids.videosift.com/video/God-is-Dead
http://kids.videosift.com/video/Apaches-A-rather-gruesome-UK-public-awareness-film
http://kids.videosift.com/video/Child-Bankrupts-Make-A-Wish-Foundation

In the long run, however, it might be far more productive to alter the submission page in some way to clarify the purpose of the channel and to make a distinction between "for kids" and "about kids."

I COMPLETELY disagree with this video. Not that there might not be scientific potential in GMO foods, but the current reality is that the agricultural industry is controlled by huge chemical corporations who want to sell more of their products -- most or all of which are poisoning our environment.

There are breeding techniques that have been largely ignored over the past century which can give much better results than genetic engineering, while vastly reducing the requirements for pesticides and fungicides. Yet these techniques have largely been squelched because they would reduce the profitability of big agribusiness.

From a scientific point of view, it is interesting to see what the potential of genetic engineering might bring. But to release untested genetics into the environment is madness -- akin to introducing cane toads, rabbits and water hyacinth to Australia.

Is it fearmongering to raise a red flag at the greed-driven policies of these corporations? Possibly, in the case of the more extreme environmentalists. But when government watchdogs are controlled by these same corporations, I for one appreciate it when people speak up to raise public awareness on these issues.

I even wonder if Penn & Teller got a fat payoff for doing this episode?

I'm inclined to think that the ambiguity caused by its relevance decides the issue. True snuf would have no ambiguity.

I'm strongly opposed to allowing authority institutions/figures to have immunity from repercussions for unacceptable action through a lack of public awareness and apathy. I have a family member who has worked as a high profile lawyer on behalf of families of similar situations in the UK and the high media profile can be vital to ensuring openness and transparency and to undermine the immediate defensive lies that can often be released to counter negative headlines.

Personally, i have no interest or pleasure from watching a human life lost, and have a strong aversion to doing so, but thats not the same issue as whether this vid should be here. I think it should. Its clearly labeled, and people like me can know of the story, see relevant articles, check snips of the vid to confirm the general aspects of it, without having to watch the actual death.

Important stories should not be buried.

Ahaha that's f*cking terrible rap, even for Swiss rap. Um, if I find my attention span, I'll translate it. For now, here's the translation of the description on Youtube:

"The clip 118 Projec't was officially launched on September 18, 2007, for the public awareness campaign on the use of the emergency number, 1-1-8. Produced by the ("Sapeurs"?) professional firemen of Geneva, the clip includes scenes with all the professional firemen of Switzerland ("Romande?). You will see firemen from Lausanne, Neuchâtel, Chaux de Fond, Geneva and the Gendarmerie of the Vaud canton, in a very original movie."

*edit* Ok, here's a very loose translation of the song, I tried to get it to rhyme/sound rap-ish, but I'm not that good. This had better be getting published, I just spent like 15 minutes translating this damn thing:

118 Projec't (in English)
*People calling about fires*
*One person calls asking for information*

NO!!!
This's a story about three numbers
One-one-eight
This's the story about a number
One-hundred and eighteen

Everyone is calling the wrong place for information
Everyone is calling us asking questions
Yo man, don't you get this ain't an information office
That it's a fucking emergency service?
Don't you understood that 1-1-1 is done
And 1-1-8 can't give you any information?

This's the dispatchers' office
But with 1-1-8, we get bothered all the time
All day long we're bothered
By you people, looking for phone numbers
"No, ma'am, you're mistaken, this is the Fire Department."
"No, sir, we don't know the tax office's number."
So that this error isn't repeated, listen the hell up:

[CHORUS]
1-1-8
Cram it in your head
1-1-8
That's the number to dial quickly
1-1-8
That's the number to remember
1-1-8
Dial when you're in trouble
1-1-8
Are you going to remember?
1-1-8
If you have to, tattoo it on yourself
1-1-8
If you can't remember, write it on your underwear(?)

If your neighborhood is on fire,
Or everything is up in smoke,
If your car says "Crack, bang, ah!"
And you have to be pulled out from it,
If you smell gas, before it explodes,
Dial 1-1-8
And for any other emergency that you need to be saved
Remember that number,
One day, maybe you'll be saved in the nick of time

If you have an electricity problem,
Call the right department
If you've lost your fucking keys,
Call the locksmith
If the toilet is blocked,
Call the plumber,
And for little pets,
Don't ever dial this number!

[Chorus]

Huh? What's the new 1-1-1?
I don't know, I'm taking a shit
Hurry up, my apartment looks like a fucking jacuzzi
Tell me who to call!
I think it's 1-1-7 or something like that,
No, that's the police, they can't do anything
Oh, fuck me, call 1-4-4
1-4-4 is in case of broken bones
Well, man, what's the number to dial ?
Easy, man, take off your pants and look at your underpants

(Spoken)
One day, you're gonna need us, but all our lines will all be busy
And your house will keep on burning
Despite the cry: "Firemen, emergency!"
Phone calls are flooding in
Your home sweet home will go up in smoke
Because you couldn't reach us, maybe because of you!
Yeah man, 10 minutes wasted is one more tragedy

[Chorus]

Yeah, that's all. Yep.

Sure the video that was tossed was release of public security camera footage, and done for public awareness since the police involved never were investigated for an unjustified shooting, but hey,

"Note: the presence of human fatality is acceptable and not considered "snuff" if presented as a limited portion of a reputable broadcast news report or documentary film."

I would tend to agree, Quboid, however not paying her taxes was in this case not about avoiding payment to schools and soldiers, it was about delivering a message and inciting a conversation.

Just because the consequences of her actions were illegal doesn't mean the actions were taken for purposes aligned with the reasons for their illegality (namely tax evasion for financial gain). She appears to have openly confessed to the crime (and is therefor admiting guilt), and one would expect the jury simply to decide how severly to punish her.

Analogy, I have a little money but the gas station is selling gas for way too much. I organize a protest, and nobody cares. I decide to steal a tank of gas and encourage others to in order to bring public awareness to the situation that may otherwise only effect some. I am caught and arrested for this crime,... does this mean I stole the gas in order to avoid paying the hard working company? Or was that just a parallel ramification of my actions?

Guilty, but with minimal sentence and minimal damages.

As a biomedical research PhD student I might be able to provide an interesting perspective on this discussion.


However, I'm pretty busy, and I come to videosift to see puppies and watch music videos.


The only thing I will say is witholding funding for tissue research based on moral opinions is far more selfish than one disease sufferer's attempts to try to make the public aware that the US no longer trusts the ethics of its scientists.