The reason the officer is asking for his ID and name are because he has to file a report on the incident. He will be recording only "Jeremy" on that report. Jeremy should not give his ID or full name to the officer if he is not being arrested, or unless it servers "jeremy's interests" (for example, if he was pulled over for being in a stolen car, but the car is registered to him.. fully identifying himself may prevent him from being arrested for a crime he has not committed). There is no benefit to him fully identifying himself to the officer. There could be consequences for his identity being filed away in police records.

this video is a true testament to the knowledge and respect of law on both sides. Props to "jeremy" for excercising his rights, and to the officers for knowing his rights.




>> ^shuac:

>> ^DrewNumberTwo:
Shuac, how do you expect someone to record their right being denied after it's already happened? And what's deceitful about walking around doing something that you're allowed to do? Also, no, it's not necessary to do something because you can do it. So what? He didn't have to present his ID. He didn't.

I'm not objecting to the video being taken. I'm objecting to this guy's agenda. Capice?
The other point I was making was this: given the way the cop was behaving what, exactly, would be the harm in producing ID? Show me another cop acting differently, and I'll give you another answer. But THIS cop in THIS video? ...no, there's no reasonable justification to deny producing I.D. other than to be a tool and to serve his little video presentation. I can almost hear him thinking, "Gee this isn't going so well...this cop is far too calm making for a boring 4th amendment rights video...hmm, maybe if I tell him I'm not going to produce I.D. then he'll get riled up...oh, I hope I hope I hope!"
Douche canoe, pure & simple.
On a related point...where was this fellow that he didn't need to produce a Carry License which, ostensibly, would have had his name somewhere on it?

@enoch

I think what you are doing with the argument about consciousness is rather confusing to me. It seems to me that you are applying our own consciousness to the universe as a whole, in the same way I look at my dog as a human ie: applying human reasoning to an animal that I really know isnt capable of it. (such as predicting or planning future events, like "My dog feels a sense of abandonment when I'm on vacation" etc.) My dog, and even more probable, the universe, doesnt give a shit that I'm in the next room or 4000 miles away, it doesnt know that I'm in a different country and it has no idea how long I might be gone. But its in our human nature to treat the things around us, and even the environment itself, as if it was socially connected with us, the way a fellow human might be.

Now, dogs may be more perseptive than one would think, and us dog-owners may be more right about our relationship with these animals than our research has been able to establish at this point, and there is even some mounting evidence that they understand us better than we could imagine. But again, we are talking about complex animals with very sophisticated brains that have undergone domesticating selection for thousands of generations. In other words, the human and conscious qualities that I unwittingly apply to dogs may not be entirely fictional.

But to apply this (consciousness,awareness,prediction or social behaviour of some kind)to the universe itself, is another matter entirely. Unlike the case with dogs, for example, there really is no evidence for this, there is no known mechanism, or even a credible potential mechanism, to give the universe an intelligence capable of conscious thought. In fact, all the evidence and knowledge we DO have, suggests that the universe is overwhelmingly indifferent, unintelligent, unconscious, and contains nothing but physical energy condensed into matter.

If the universe was conscious in some way, why would it, for instance spend 4 billion years evolving life, and eventually creating conscious creatures like ourselves around a burning fireball thats destined to explode and destroy it all within a few additional billion years, rendering the entire excercise completely pointless in the grand scheme of things. The universe will go on existing for at least a hundred billion years after that, and there will be no, absolutely NO sign that life ever existed in this part of that insignificant little galaxy (one out of a hundred billion) In fact that galaxy itself would be nothing but a supermassive black hole with fading stars(literally) around it. All our books and all our efforts, all our suffering and all our triumphs will be gone. forever.


Allright too gloomy, I know, but its the truth. we live here.. now, and we should appreciate our tiny visit to the spotlight. We are the universe understanding parts of itself, in a few short decade I will be no more, and in a few million years, mankind will be no more. We are conscious, now, and we are as far as we can tell, the only things that are.

We are the universe's consciousness.
As far as we can tell.
I say enjoy it while it lasts.

Deep-throating excercise gone bad?

>> ^radx:

Her first excercise was part of our football/soccer training back in the days, albeit with ankle weights and a backpack. It led to a hilarious amount of faceplants once you ran out of juice, particularly if done on sand.


Gay Test. FAIL

Her first excercise was part of our football/soccer training back in the days, albeit with ankle weights and a backpack. It led to a hilarious amount of faceplants once you ran out of juice, particularly if done on sand.

[redacted]

>> ^KnivesOut:
Doc_M, if you don't like my tags, feel free to down-vote the video.
Why put your creative license on my sift?


For videosift, tagging is not a creative liscence. It is an obligation of accuracy. Suppose I post a video of carebears and tag it with "horror,terror,concentration camp,war"... That would be inaccurate and it would be the JOB of people who have the rights to edit posts to correct it. I am exercising that right here. I've been a part of this community for a long time and have never excercised this right until now... I only want people who want to see this video to be able to see it based on the right tags, not those of someone who had no respect for those pictured.

It is a simple matter of discusion. Does "lies" help? No. Does "comedy" help? No.

Discuss it all you want, but don't tag with opinionated assumptions and prejudices.

That's youtube quality stuff there.
I have sent you a PM Knives. Please read it.

Aww, look'it the squirrels making the humans feel important. You ruined baby squirrel's training excercise. I'll never forgive you!!

The translation is off on quite a few points and if you ask me, it was done intentionally.

Chronologically:
- chemtrails sounds like they were dispersing some chemical/biological agents while the original said "Düppel" aka chaffs. Chaffs and flares were dropped in vast amounts during the war and during excercises over the last 60 years, but noone ever bothered calling it pollution.
- they are not manipulating the climate, they are manipulating weather maps. No matter how many chaffs you drop, it's not going to change the bloody weather, it's only screwing up radar imagery.
- sinister clouds ... they are only sinister, because it's made by a German equivalent of Fox News
- excercise was in the airspace of the Netherlands, not on the German side of the border
- not "chemtrails comprised by fine dust containing polymers and metals", but chaffs that are basically small pieces of polymer coated with metal
- not chemtrails at low altitudes, but a low amount of chaffs
- protests against the use of chaffs and no, "people" are not mobilizing ... this is the bloody first time i ever heard someone complain
- new excercises, military says radar imagery might be somewhat compromised for three weeks --- "suspicious", "counterfit" ... my ass
- they estimate that the wind will blow the clouds over Westfalia, etc
- "weather manipulation" ... translated correctly, just pathetic journalism

I haven't watched all of it and probably won't tonight, but I question their logic.

That companies are too zealous in allegations of anti-trust I have no doubt, but that does not undermine the value of the entire system. Anti-competitive price fixing results in a wasteful allocation of resources, and higher prices for consumers. Firms, particularly those with monopoly power charge at the marginal cost equal to marginal revenue price creating a deadweight loss, underproviding, and charging a higher price to reap greater profits. Or at least, that's the basic theory behind it, introducing trade makes it messier.

Not that some industries are not natural monopolies due to falling average costs over the supply of an entire market by one firm, but for the most part, new start-ups should be encouraged. An increased number of firms increases competition, breeds innovation, greater product choice and differentiation to cater to any individual consumer's needs and inevitably lowers prices through knowledge spillage as an externality, even if certain firms are able to hold patents for several years.

Again going by theory, if you're a monopolist for a product that has no close substitutes and particularly if that good is a necessity, then you as a firm excercise significant market power. Realistically though, I would argue a monopoly industry is more a theoretical framework (like perfect competition) that rarely if ever applies to a good in the real world, particuarly when you factor in international trade. Most necessities either fit into competitive industries or like utility companies tend to be natural monopolies.

I don't doubt though, that anti-competitive behaviour occurs. Producers may not be able to hold consumers as dependants on their products (well excluding tabacco and pharamaceutical anti-depressants among certain other exceptions that is ) but they can certainly push out would-be new entrants, by deliberately undercutting new entrants through selling below average cost prices and exploiting their inability to secure long term funding while running consecutive years of losses, or otherwise developing insurmountable barriers to entry. It's not like a monopoly has to continuously keep prices competitive to stave off entrants. After all, exit/entry costs in the real world are substantial in most industries and should a monopoly undercut a would be entrant, the new entrant can't simply get an 100% refund on their investment and hitherto accumulated capital. All that is necessary, is the mere threat that should a new firm enter the market, the monopolist will lower prices to unbearable levels that will stave off any would be entrants. How would you suppose competition is to be maintained without anti-trust laws preventing this from ocurring?

Do consumers demand inovation from monopoly producers supplying consumer wants? Sure. While NVIDIA was dominating the graphics card industry with it's series 8 GeForce cards and AMD/ATI was in a rut, they brought out the 8800 Ultra as a superior high-end card to the 8800 GTX. Since then AMD has gotten back into the game and looks what's happened. Numerous releases of new cards and revisions on previous editions, not to mention the price level of low/mid/upper range cards has essentially halved.

After watching this, I immediately went into the backyard with my brother and a couple excercise balls. Its wicked fun.

I don't see what everyone is so angry about. I love Watchmen, and this trailer has me really excited about the movie. Sure, the styling is different, but I personally like it when artists excercise their license...

Whenever there's a comic book movie, there will be purists who cry foul - no offense. I can relate - sometimes I can be that purist.

True, kilo and mega are all power boundaries for base 10.
But computers dont operate in base 10, they all run off base 2.

And the boundary power numbers for base 2, are powers of 1024, not 1000.

(here, a lil excercise for those that dont know about binary...start at one, and double it...keep going till you get to 1024, how many times did it take you of doubling to get there ?)

^ the main difference being that atheists maintain a consistent malleability of thought, readily accepting and often activing pursuing the prospect that their ideas of the world around them could be incorrect - maintaining a healthy skepticism and basing their perspectives on available proof. Technically saying that they excercise faith all the time is true - in that there are theories we follow but can't necessarily prove entirely. But such a statement can be a bit misleading, so I'm gonna play the role of nerdy douchebag and elucidate the meaning.

I think it may be different to be waterboarded as an excercise by people you trust then by your enemies.
That said, I'm not sure how I feel about it either. There are a lot of studies that say that any kind of torture is ineffective in getting any real information.
I think tha one thing that it comes down to is documentation. Let the person applying techniques take full responsibilty for their actions. That way, if it helps, good for them. If not... (insert punishment here)
It seems like a little accountability might be in order when it comes to this subject. That way, at least people would have to really think about what they were doing.