Your video, Camera kept swiveling to zoom in on the referee's bald head., has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

No Bob. Wrong again. Some were background witnesses that prove the mindset....removing a top diplomat known internationally for her anti corruption successes in the manner he did it was like like photos of Trump dismantling video cameras the night before he robbed his own bank, they don't prove he did it, and he has the right to remove them, but it's still good evidence he was planning the crime. There were also direct witnesses to his actions, and what the Ukrainians were saying.
We get more direct witnesses today, including numerous professionals who were listening in on the phone calls.

Most leaks have come directly from the Whitehouse, and a never ending stream from Giuliani, but he used them. Secondly, what exactly was he so worried might leak about his perfect phone calls that he needed to create a secret non governmental channel to do foreign policy based on ridiculous false claims from criminal Ukrainians who paid him for access, then hide all evidence behind a top secret clearance firewall? Could it be because the State Department had already debunked both theories thoroughly, or because the payments from Russian tied Ukrainians was totally illegal, as is selling American policy to the highest foreign bidders? Next excuse.

Bob, you know the Republicans aren't asking about the facts or offering a defense, but are only using their time to make false statements about Biden and the witnesses, and to whine about the process they themselves designed, right?

...and you add a video from rabid nutbag Jordan why? His animated blatherings were only designed to confuse and obfuscate, and had no logical bearing on the procedure. His rapid fire naming players only works on morons who can't follow along, anyone with an iq above 80 understands Songland was revising his testimony because others testified he was lying. Taylor recalled having been told by Songland's staff, Mr Morrison, about Songlands conversations with Mr Yarmack, a Ukrainian official, about meetings with Zelensky and Pence (and what he told Yarmack was the meeting was conditional on an investigation announcement over Biden, not Burisma or corruption, and it was cancelled because there was no such public announcement). Mr Morrison would testify the same, so Songland had to admit the conversation happened. Hilariously, until that admission, Songland was your guy, now you guys pretend you can't follow one sentence if it has 5 names in it. This from the guy who brought you Benghazi, numerous closed door secret investigations over nonsense with zero evidence or corroboration. *facepalm

Btw, Zelensky had a scheduled interview to announce his Biden investigation in a quid pro quo for the funding release, but the illegal funding hold and related extortion was discovered publicly first and the scheme fell apart days before he gave the interview, which he cancelled as soon as the funds were released and the extortion plot ruined. If he wasn't being extorted, he would have had that interview anyway.

Funny how they repeatedly use their time to complain about not being allowed to ask questions (a total lie btw) in closed door sessions or to make false accusations against others like Biden or Schiff instead of asking questions about this case....even the Republican lawyer. It's like they have no defense....oh, wait.

Keep laughing. I know Jordan being the best you've got gives me a chuckle. Rational people see him as the total nutjob he is.

Of course rape can occur at any point leading up to and even during the act. If you have penetrated your partner and they say stop, you stop.

However, I would ask what other evidence could there possibly be? Obviously we can't know, but one would assume that a motivated prosecutor would have gathered all possible evidence. We know from the victim's statements that she can't recall much of the night, is unsure she said yay or nay during the sex, but that she didn't think he should have been prosecuted. Her roommates are the ones that reported the 'rape', but they clearly didn't give any evidence the court saw as worth convicting on. If their statements were what USC went by to expel him, that would be available via the court and I'm sure someone would have posted them.

We simply do not know and can only go by the video and the statement of the 'victim'. She seemed to be walking fine and signed her name correctly, so either she is an extremely functional drunk or she was sober enough to make those choices. She said she didn't think he should have been charged with rape. To me, that should exonerate the defendant. It did in a court of law, but not in a closed off Title IX hearing.

I suspect that what happened is what happens in other colleges. The college determines what is going to look worse publicity wise and litigation wise, then expels based on that. The problem is that in the Title IX process, there is no real fairness. You can have an advisor present, but not a lawyer if the school objects. One person decides your fate. There is no appeal process. The burden of proof is not defined as to who it is upon. I am sure that the lady in charge went by some procedure and not merely off personal opinion/belief, but we can't investigate to find that out.

To sum up, are we at the point where we should not have intimate relations if either person has imbibed any type of substance? Should we request that a video camera or audio recorder be present at any sexual liaison? Do we need witnesses like they used to have at the consummation of royal weddings? Perhaps a written contract? It just seems pretty ludicrous to me to have a video and the statement of the person that was supposed to have been raped, yet somehow we still had a punishment given to the individual accused of the raping.

And stop looking at your video camera!

I’m shocked the cop didn’t try and say the cyclist ran into him and blew the stop sign or something. So, at least the cop was professional (or inexperienced) enough to admit his guilt and not try to screw the cyclist over. That’s going to be an expensive replacement though. Looks like an upper end bike, with Di2 (electronic shifting $$$), and carbon wheels, which will probably need to be replaced as well (at least the front). I’d say that bike could be $5k-$8k. This is why I’ve started riding with a video camera front and rear. You just never know when you might need clear evidence, especially as a cyclist.

Was just watching the old Mythbusters where they took an actual driving road test while intoxicated or talking on a cell phone. But, being actual driving, they legally had to stay under the .08 BAC limit even though it was on a closed course.

Really cool to see this place, where they can test things at mild/moderate/high levels of impairment, other types of intoxication, etc.

However, I did have one minor complaint, sort of the same as in the Mythbusters episode: it would be nice to see additional tests where the driver isn't ever expected to look at a video camera and/or respond correctly to questions. Ie., what if you're talking to somebody on the phone hands free, or talking to a passenger in the car, but you're not expected to devote a lot of attention to that ALL the time. In a real scenario, you can keep your eyes on the road and pay attention to driving while also listening to someone or even talking to them a little bit. If you see something in the road that requires your full attention, it seems like your brain should be able to do a reasonable job of prioritizing the driving (more important) over paying attention to the conversation (less important).

I'd wager that on average, people in that sort of scenario are slightly impaired compared to drivers putting 100% of their attention on driving, but not by a big margin. Probably lower than a lot of other distractions, some of which we deem acceptable (hard to legislate things like "driving while preoccupied" angry/sad/whatever).

God damn, that is a good video camera.

Congratulations! Your video, Camera shutter speed matches helicopter`s rotor., has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 43 Badge!

Your video, Camera shutter speed matches helicopter`s rotor., has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Your video, Cameras Reveal the Secret Lives of a Mountain Lion Family |, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

I think he's just a guy with a yacht, a video camera, and a chicken.

I'm not sure where digg picked up the video from.

Yeah I was thinking leidenfrost as well.

I love that people all over are doing random experiments for the hell of it, but it's videos like these that make me appreciate the education behind the more well known shows like Smarter Everyday, SciShow and whatnot, who approach curiosity with more than just a video camera and a "what if" attitude.