How can you be so sure without knowing the actual cups' measurements?

In any case, the cups are reported as 16 oz. and 20 oz., and they do fill the 16 oz. cup to the brim then transfer it to the 20 oz. cup and that is the amount of void space remaining at the top of the cup. Regardless of what it looks like, the difference must be 4 oz.

What are you suggesting as an alternative explanation? Is it magic?

Seems this is probably common practice. See also: *related=http://videosift.com/video/Ballpark-Beer-Scam-Oakland-Coliseum-Sham

Congratulations! Your video, Oakland CA Is So Scary Even Cops Want Nothing To Do With It, 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 5 Badge!

Lulz, Oakland . . .

and so...you have a problem with MY implied or otherwise philosophy of how to live and my archaic science of ideas and you wanna tell WHO and WHAT how to not let WHICH happen WHERE??!!

Have you ever been to Oakland Baltimore or Detroit?? ARE YOU ON EARTH?

I guess what I'm really trying to ask you is, what fucking planet or corner of the closet are you from and how did you ever think you had a clue?

Oh, and I suppose the question begs, what were YOUR parents doing to or for you in the fucking 60's???

Far right of left of your shit Maynard, get a fucking rubber-ribbed and lubed fucking room already??!

Oh wait *edit...MY BAD..Thought you were VooDoovVoov

There was an easy, cheap one available just off England, an old WW2 observation platform in international waters, that could have been a start. I think an internet data bank took it over and refuses to comply with international warrants for the data (but that was a while ago, no idea what's happened since).
You need enough like minded people to vote thoughtfully and rationally and it will.
...and elsewhere.
Trying, it's hard to buy back a whole country. ;-}
So, you don't vote? No wonder you have no representation, that's your fault though.
...and there you go...and again.
I don't think a divisive party line government of either party is helpful, in Oakland or elsewhere. I have to consider myself independent now, because I can't find a group that fits me (or vice versa). Never heard of Objectivisim...I'll have to do research there.
EDIT: I hope that wasn't too hard to follow.

> "why can't 'free marketers' buy a whole country and try it out fo realizes?"

Trying dude, trying. Not so easy to buy a country these days.

> "The country and state are owned by us all, we are represented by our government (no matter how poorly)."

The government does not "represent" me in any meaningful way. This is an absurdity, plain and simple.

> "Did school not teach you how that's set up? It should have."

Another thing you learned in private school?

> "Thank you, the implication that I'm unworthy of discussion with, then continued discussion was at best, odd."

Yes it is.

> "I'm saying we can make it better if we elect better reps"

No you can't. But like I said, go ahead and prove it. I'm not stopping you.

> "I agree that there's too much 'governing' with far too little result, but I disagree that the answer is to stop governing."

Again, go for whatever 'solution' you think is best. I'm not stopping you. I'm also not participating in it, obviously, as long as it seems like a ridiculous idea.

> "I say the present government sucks, and sucks worse in some places than others."

See? Even we can agree on one thing.

> "I agree that there's too much 'governing' with far too little result"

Two things.

Look, if you're pro taxes, pro police/military, but not a "statist" and consider yourself a (former) libertarian, then perhaps you're an Objectivist or a Randian. Randians would think that Oakland has a "shitty" government but that a right-wing one would be good and necessary. Rand did not call herself a libertarian and rather hated 'anarchists'.

West Oakland and East Oakland might as well be different countries. Kind of like Palo Alto (insanely upwardly mobile, I lived there in the early 80's) and East Palo Alto (murder capital of America in the late 80's, when I lived THERE).
I've spent time in both East and West Oakland, quite a difference, at least 10 years ago.
EDIT: East Palo Alto has become far better since then, for numerous reasons...and not just because I left!

2. I'm fairly certain there was drug dealing going on in at least one of those crowds harassing the cops. If not, it would be out of character for these groups.
3. Well, you said crime on private property is no one's business but the owner...that's Bullshit, which you admit now.
Shooting a gun violates public discharge laws, sends a projectile on a random arch to impact somewhere, and creates noise violations (especially in the middle of the night like these)...or can I come to your neighbors property and start my shooting range.
4. My point exactly
5. Use of taxpayer services while shirking your duty to pay taxes is theft and treasonous.
6. once gain, business regulation didn't cause the crime problem.
7. Are you suggesting giving the public property to private industries for them to 'take over' the entire city? First, can't happen. Second, shouldn't happen. Living in Disney is terrible, oppressive, expensive, and draconian. I don't see a difference between paying taxes for services and paying 'homeowner fees' for services, except homeowner fees are usually far more expensive for fewer services and more regulation. Not the direction I think most want to go, or a place where most Oaklandites could afford.
So, you aren't anti regulation, only if a Kenyan is doing it to you? That's just dumb.
8. Yes, but those reasons are not capped and/or solely created by having a democrat in power, as you and others suggest.
Most property owners in Oakland are absentee landlords that don't inspect their property regularly, because private ownership does NOT mean better management.
I get mob justice because you keep pushing for it, it's what the Mexicans did that you keep referencing, and it's what you get with a private, unregulated, armed 'group'.
9. Send me the URL to a company that gives actual security for $35 a month that isn't simply a guy you call on the phone who then calls the police. Never heard of any such thing, and if it exists, you are paying your on-post 24/7 security guard $1 a day, I don't think they'll care so much when you get knifed in the throat for that money.

So, you don't drive, you don't US dollars, food products, electricity, mail, internet, phones, water, sewers, public property, items that are imported, items that traveled inter-state, television, or any other service provided by the feds? Impressive. So many of your fellow Americans do that it makes semse for everyone to pay for part of these things so they are available to EVERYONE. Private institutions taking over make all of these for profit, removing their usage from many if not most people.
Yes, really, many people in the bay are having trouble paying their bills and feeding themselves, it's insanely expensive there.
I don't pay much in taxes, only my fair share. That's not enough to support one indigent. If you pay enough to support Oakland by yourself, you are either Bill Gates or a liar.
Most law abiding citizens have no inclination to grab their gun and go on the streets to patrol.
This didn't seem like you ignored me, neither did the 2 other posts that followed.
Sorry, mixed up the insanity.
You always have terrible governing from any governing body, from some point of view. It's a fallacy to conclude otherwise.
If you got your 'lack of governing' you would quickly get foreign governing.
So, there is no utopian free market, just the real, regulated one you're complaining about.
I don't think most libertarians agree with you that libertarian government is anarchy. I don't.
Well, I'm confused. You've spent a bunch of time and effort trying to convince me of your points, but you claim you know it's futile to even try...so what are you doing then?
To me, good government means doing the minimum it can to do what the populace wants, with safeguards to keep one group from taking unfair advantage of another. Better safeguards could make better politicians (yes, that's regulation, of politicians).
I know very little of 'praxology' that I didn't read in Foundation. Not in my science publications that I read regularly.
The tea party took over the libertarian party, and the republican party.
I do, I vote, and I pay my taxes. I don't have these problems, or over-regulation problems where I live. WOW! It worked!

And I paid for my excessive education, I only did 2 years in public school which was daycare. You don't seem to have any information I'm looking for.
If you think a mob of only your friends and family should roam the streets armed to 'protect your interests' then you support gangs. That's exactly what they are. To get enough to regulate activities in a place like Oakland would take a HUGE mob, far more than you have friends and family I'm certain.
I might hope you DO need the police to help you (with something minor, but enough to create your 'need'), then you might realize they are not all your enemy or useless and not far worse than anarchy. It's sad to think that it would take a personal need for you to realize that, but apparently it would.
The police are not a 'foreign' army, like the red coats.

Funny. I live in the bay area, and walk my son to soccer in the park all the time with no worries. We can take easy, peaceful strolls outside in the summer and winter. Looking around, it's no Norman Rockwell, but all I see are american families. We are surrounded by the best schools and universities in the country.

As far as Oakland goes, it's a great city to visit and to live. It's not just me that feels this way, demand for housing there has only increased in the past decade. It's expensive to buy there because people want to live there. Alot more than St. Paul, by the way. Last time I checked, St. Paul also had its crime ridden parts; or can you walk anywhere at night in your town?

So these dystopian pictures being painted on this thread exist in this thread only. In real life, Oakland is a thriving city with alot going for it, and the people with means who actually drive the economy agree, and are voting with their feet and wallets, and corporate headquarters.

I visit Oakland often. The last trip, I took my son on a tour of the USS Hornet, where he got to see the first footsteps of the Apollo astronauts after they returned to Earth. Before that, we visited the world class planetarium and took in great views of the valley. I love going to the great restaurants and live music venues downtown.

Shite like this is the reason I moved out of California, living in good old Saint Paul, Minnesota now. Oxnard California is like a mini-Oakland. Here I have a 3000sf home built in 1901, 1 mile from downtown and no worries. My daughter is 10mos, one due in July, and we so enjoy walks in the neighborhood in the summer. My stepson walks to baseball 1 mile away, we meet him there pushing baby and walking dog, walk home as an American Family. It makes it all worth while. My wife is a CPA but I am a blue collar truck driver.

I think there are ALL KINDS of problems that lead to places like this in Cali... Fresno is almost as bad. Parts of the low desert are very bad, etc. If you want to write 2 page posts defending your view of WHY, maybe that's one of the reasons why as well, and you should define it, man up, and put it in there at number 12 or whatever. Sure "democratic stronghold" is part of the problem. American counter-culture has also been rewarding consumerism above all else for decades. Asians, Latinos, and Blacks cash in today and sell out tomorrow. The west coast is also way too expensive, real estate is too high, and money is the only incentive.

Obviously there is a problem. The left wants to look at answers that sound might or will help but accountability cant be ignored. The right wants to go to war and justify a police state when we are all Americans defining our on future together.

As a side note I might have had 10-15 encounters with these types over the years in and around Oxnard and if their skin was white and I was armed, maybe they would have died...or me. Who knows, there are always more than one way to deal with a problem. In the end the minorities pay the price and it isn't fair. They get worse jobs, their property isnt worth ShXXt, their children receive a poor education. Cookie-cutter whites, in the end, benefit on the left. The drive their Volvo SUVs on highways to schools or doctors or what have you paid for by the masses.

I live in West Oakland. Before I moved here all my friends told me it was inevitable that I was going to get shot and my apartment broken into.

That has not been true AT ALL. Not only that but I walk around the really really terrible "Lower Bottoms" *gasp* everyday, I'd say a good one hour of foot traffic up and down Lower-Bottoms and I have not seen anyone doing anything in the least bit threatening to anyone's property or man-flesh.

Oakland is actually FUCKING awesome. Yeah, like any city there are portions that are not so great. What was showcased here was a portion of East Oakland a little past Fruitvale BART station.

Yes, there are spots that are dangerous there but Oakland is a sprawled out city, is Oakland the Wild West? I'd venture to say it is somewhat but it certainly is not even close to as bad as people make it out to seem - especially compared to most cities on the East Coast.

@bobknight33 @Trancecoach

Christians were once the majority in Lebanon, and they made Beruit "the Paris of the Middle East." But that era is over. They lost a battle of the cradle.

It's the same story with Oakland, Baltimore, and Detroit. Detroit was once "the Paris of the West," but the people who made it that way were forced out, and the culture, mismanagement, and corruption of the new caretakers couldn't maintain what had been built.

[edit: link removed]

We now live in a different world than our parents' 1960s, when most of our current ideas were invented. (I'm speaking to the minority of people from all ancestries who are on the side of civilization.)

@dag and @gwiz665 Don't let this happen to your countries

#2 They weren't dealing drugs in that video, were they? And the Oakland vice squad does conduct raids, does it not? I personally know a detective who worked there for years.

#3: "how many slaves do you own?"

Obviously slavery violates self-ownership rights. Shooting a gun on your own property violates no one's rights.

#4: "They document it in hopes the police will do something."

Don't hold your breath.

#5: "Business won't move to these places UNLESS you give them incentive (like tax huge breaks "

Sure, like in Pittsburgh or Singapore.

> "they do not just go there and fix things unless we all pay to let them."

Tax breaks is not "paying them." In fact, you have no moral right to tax. Taxation is theft.

#6: You're too vague positing little more than a bunch of opinions and declarations. Nothing here which really warrants a response.

#7: "They don't allow crime on their (ever expanding) property, period."

That's what I said. Only "public" property allows that kind of violent crime. No legitimate business would. So, while Disney can raise the standard of living on and around its grounds, it's under no pretense to maintain the civility outside of its property.

> "They show clearly that private ownership/control leads to MORE regulation, not less, it's just not government regulation."

When I say "regulation," I mean state-imposed regulation. Of course, however someone wants to regulate within their own private property is within their rights to self-ownership and private property. It's fine since it is not aggression/coercion. I'm not against private regulation. In fact, I regulate who enters into my house or uses my car. Duh. Don't you?

#8: "Oakland HAS been high crime with little money"

This is often the case. The same underlying causes for crime and poverty.

> "Much if not most of the crime happens in parking lots and buildings, on private property, not in the street."

Certainly not while the owners are using the property or while they are liable for allowing a crime to occur there. But tell me: where specifically?

I was making reference to what is happening in that video. If you want to talk about other specific instances, then tell me which ones and we can look at each one specifically.

> "Your apparent assertion that police have unfairly and wrongly stopped mob justice that would assuredly solve all the crime (by committing crimes against criminals) is laughable."

I don't know where you get this "mob justice" from. You are reading into what I said or something.

#9: "nor can you for $35 a month."

Yes I can, and better than what the police offers.

> "People will gladly take your money, but what do they do for you?"

If you are talking about the police, then nothing really.

> "Your taxes are not used only for 'security' you know."

Technically, they are used mostly to pay for war and the national debt. But police is also paid from taxes.

#10: "Most honest people in Oakland are struggling, or they wouldn't live there."

I don't know if this is true, but apparently you do. Somehow, I doubt they are struggling so much that they cannot buy a gun.

> "they can't afford rent and food"

Most "hardworking people" in Oakland cannot buy food? Really?

> "especially when you and yours stop paying taxes and all services they depend on to survive dry up."

I guess they'll still have you to pay for them and the wars and the debt. Although I'm not against charity, in fact I am actively engaged in such activities. But if you need my money, then put the guns away and ask nicely.

> "it's insanely easy to buy an illegal gun there"

But most law abiding people don't want to break the law on this or many other things.

> "Yeah yeah, I just know nothing, so ignore me."

I kind of do.

> "I don't think Oakland is a libertarian dream"

No, that was @enoch who said it was.

> "it's what you get when you de/under fund police and have terrible governing."

You always have 'terrible governing' when it comes from the state, politicians and such. It's a logical fallacy to conclude otherwise.

> "I don't think the answer is to stop governing and policing, it's to do it better (which doesn't necessarily mean more)."

Sorry, but this will NEVER happen. (But, hey, good luck with that. I'm certainly not stopping you. Go ahead. "Do better.")

> "Where is this utopian free market that has "much less poverty" you reference as evidence, I can't find it."

Then you must not be paying attention. Virtually all progress comes from the free market.

And again, if you are not interested, then it doesn't matter if you find it or not, does it? It's your life. You decide what you want and go ahead and do it and live with the consequences.

> "Ahhh, so you admit, anarchy is preferable to you over a government that's not libertarian...hmmmm."

In my opinion, a government cannot be libertarian. The logical conclusion to libertarian non-aggression is anarchy, i.e., no ruler; no state. A "libertarian" state is not really "libertarian." It's a contradiction in terms.

> "I don't think the working people of Oakland, or most anywhere else would agree."

So what? Who cares if they agree or not? They obviously don't agree and, therefore, as you say, they live in Oakland and are "struggling." If most people in Oakland agreed, they could probably turn things around. But as you say, they don't. So they, like everyone else, must live with the consequences of their decisions, their beliefs, their behaviors.

See, the good thing about being libertarian is that you don't really need to convince anyone of anything. That futile endeavor is the lot of those who hope -- against all evidence -- that they will somehow get "good government" if they can only convince others to elect the "better politicians." I sincerely wish you the best of luck with that. I'm certainly not counting on it ever happening. You have your idea of what "good government" means and how to get there, and so do many millions of other people. And they obviously don't agree.

> "And back to 'praxeology', an infant 'science' with questionable if any results."

Questionable in what way(s)? What do you know about it?

> "BTW...I was a libertarian until the Tea party came along...then I had to re-think."

The Tea Party is not libertarian. They have some libertarian preferences, but that's it. They are certainly not anarchists.

Anyway, in sum of all of this, let me say that, if you think you have the answers, then I encourage you to put them into practice. See if you can and deal with the problem!

How fast do you think the army/national guard would be involved if that happened in the USA? That said, if things were as bad in Oakland as they were in Mexico, I might change my stance. I don't think they're anywhere near that bad, they're just not good
I don't know about you, but between a well regulated and trained police force (ours needs better regulating and training, agreed) and a mob of random untrained angry armed strangers, I will trust the police. EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. (and make no mistake, I don't trust the police much at all) That's just me.

1. OK
2. Not THESE crimes, the one's I talked about. When violence and drug dealing can happen in front of the police with no repercussion, it's de-facto decriminalized.
3. BULLSHIT. Oakland is not telling anyone they can't hire private security, they do say you can't form a violent gang (which seems to be what you're advocating) even if it's intent is to stop other gang activity. What private institutions are clamoring to come in and solve the crime issues, only to be held at bay by the state? I've never heard of one (and a mob or gang of citizens does not count).
There are numerous legal marijuana dispensaries in Oakland, legalized drug dealers according to the feds....and pharmacies.
What, crime happening on private property is no one's business but the property owner?!? Just wow. Don't know where to go with that mindset...but I might ask, how many slaves do you own?
4. yes, most of the video was shot on private property. Edit: Ok, I noticed it's not mostly on private property. Lot's of crime is, but not this. I was wrong....still...
Private security does not stop this kind of criminal, especially when outnumbered. They document it in hopes the police will do something.
5. yes, I have heard (and disagree with) that complaint. Business won't move to these places UNLESS you give them incentive (like tax huge breaks and/or free land grabs), they do not just go there and fix things unless we all pay to let them. Never heard of it happening, anywhere. Please give an example.
6. Not for the illegal businesses, which are a large percentage. There are regulations to be sure, but many aren't enforced and they certainly aren't over-regulated as I see it, with small exceptions. Over-regulation did not cause the crime in Oakland, that's just ridiculous and ignorant.
7. Disney is not Oakland...and has not gentrified the surrounding areas. I know someone that lived across the freeway, and it was HIGH crime. They don't allow crime on their (ever expanding) property, period. Living in their gated communities is ridiculously expensive and regulated down to the colors you can paint your home or the types of grass you may have in your lawn. It's draconian. They show clearly that private ownership/control leads to MORE regulation, not less, it's just not government regulation.
8. Oakland HAS been high crime with little money, no statist intervention was ever needed. Much if not most of the crime happens in parking lots and buildings, on private property, not in the street. Your apparent assertion that police have unfairly and wrongly stopped mob justice that would assuredly solve all the crime (by committing crimes against criminals) is laughable.
9.Your taxes are not used only for 'security' you know. For the portion that does, you could not hire private security that did anything, nor can you for $35 a month. People will gladly take your money, but what do they do for you?
10. Not what I said, buy your idea is to arm EVERYONE, and everyone can't afford a gun. That does not mean only criminals can afford one, that's terrible comprehension. Most honest people in Oakland are struggling, or they wouldn't live there. Even if guns were cheaper, they can't afford rent and food, so it doesn't help...especially when you and yours stop paying taxes and all services they depend on to survive dry up. ;-} It's not an issue of them being over-regulated that stops most (or any, it's insanely easy to buy an illegal gun there) from owning one, it's just not.
Because people find ways to pay their bills and fines does not mean they have disposable income to spend on firearms, as you suggest.
Yeah yeah, I just know nothing, so ignore me. That seems to work for you. That's fine. First I'll ask, how long have YOU lived in Oakland, since you're an 'expert' and I am not (I never claimed to be)? How long did you live in the libertarian utopia you want to emulate?
I don't think Oakland is a libertarian dream, but I do think it's what you get when you de/under fund police and have terrible governing. I don't think the answer is to stop governing and policing, it's to do it better (which doesn't necessarily mean more).
Where is this utopian free market that has "much less poverty" you reference as evidence, I can't find it.
Ahhh, so you admit, anarchy is preferable to you over a government that's not libertarian...hmmmm. I don't think the working people of Oakland, or most anywhere else would agree. If I'm wrong about that, we're all in trouble.
And back to 'praxeology', an infant 'science' with questionable if any results. People are inherently difficult to study, we're all freaks. (every mention reminds me of the foundation sci-fi series).
BTW...I was a libertarian until the Tea party came along...then I had to re-think.