My guess as to why the driver lost control is that it was raining lightly. When it starts to rain, small amount of water mixes with the oil that is on pretty much every road and creates a slippery mixture. I'm sure many of you have been told when it starts to rain, expect a longer stopping distance then when the road is completely soaked.

Take that and add the fact that the amount of torque on the rear wheels of a 458 and that Ferrari's come with tires more akin to commercial racing tires than all season radials, and mama mia, you are going to have one expensive crasha!

No, the judge has no responsibility towards helping anyone. Would you say that a judge should work to convict someone if we all "know" they are guilty but cannot necessarily prove it? Ie. should he help out society to try to convict, say, a murderer?Take OJ's judge, or perhaps to a lesser extent Casey Anthony's. That is a slippery slope my friend. I will say though that he was out of line with his attitude, but we attribute the wrong attitude towards judges.

A judge should take no position. For example, a judge that gives probation over and over again to juveniles for burglary (Their typical charge) is doing them no favor at all because they think the justice system has no teeth. Then when they rape or agg bat, they go from 3-4 months and probation to 25 years. All because of our joke system that encourages leniency the first few times--then ass fucking after that. I see it everyday. If the kids would have some bitten off at the start perhaps they would not be so disrespectful to rules in general (And no, programs haven't worked often from what I see...drug program? Great for a bunch of addicts to get together and, do drugs...)

Ball that can roll ANY direction. Check.
Slippery surface. Check.
Mountain covered in said slippery surface. Check.
Dumb ass willing to get into ball. Check.

How did you think it was going to turn out? I mean, the odds were stacked against you from the start.

The saddest part is that he had a chance to pollute the gene pool already.

Think things through or GTFO.

They're intended to protect the dog's paws against the cold, slippery and/or hard surfaces, salt and grit on winder roads. They're quite a good idea but it does take some dogs a while to get used to them. In the meantime, they look a bit hilarious in the process, but that's hardly the owner's fault, so I think you're overreacting a bit there.

Lower taxation? Much like people who say it's against their so-called privacy to run red lights without a camera taking their picture? Because I'm pretty sure spending 20k is cheaper than 50k it'd cost to hire just 1 officer to stand at an intersection and chase people down.

Cameras aren't some big evil. It's improper use of the cameras that's evil. It's illegal wire tapping that's evil. It's the recording of all text messages without any safe guards in place that's evil. You're worried about a camera? Seriously, what are you doing that makes you so terrified of a little camera?

Why do police cars have cameras? I doubt it's so they can be all big brother on you. It's to keep the officer honest. It's a non-biased witness to a crime. In most cases a camera isn't going to prevent a crime, but it certainly helps when it's a he-said/she-said incident.

I think I vaguely recall some discussion about guns not killing people. Or something along those lines. If guns are perfectly okay despite the massive evidence of the rampant gun use and rampant gun sales to foreign entities that use them to suppress and murder, I don't see the same argument being applied to CCTV. Why is the gun ok but the owner bad, but the camera bad and the owner is never talked about?

Maybe instead of cheering on the destruction of tax payer property we should discuss the rules and regulations of handling the data from these cameras. After all, I for some reason see tons of idiot criminals on here due to these things. Obviously that benefit outweighs any lame excuses listed above.

1. CCTV is a lot cheaper than an armed guard at every intersection, every school blah blah. Not to mention, armed security hasn't really been all that effective. Hell, someone just shot a few cops the other day. I'm pretty sure the cops had guns. But who's counting.

2. First they make us drive on roads. Next they're going to make us get LICENSED! OMG! Pretty soon they're going to require us not to run over babies, or run red lights, or shoot people who are going too slow! Jesus we're becoming such a nanny state! Why can't I just hire a doctor who went to Joe Bob's School or 3 Day Medical Training?

3. Aside from all the evidence pointing to the fact that CCTV does deter crime. If 1 out of 5 crimes don't take place because of a camera, that's called a Deterrent. But I could be thinking of statistics and not emotion. The reason why these cameras catch idiots is because they're stupid enough to do them in the first place. Locks don't stop criminals. Locks determine your level of honesty. If you're determined enough, you will get in no matter what. If I reaaaaally want in your car, I will find a way, even if you lock it. So why bother locking it? Oh, right, because 1 out of 10 will be super desperate while 9 out of 10 will be ok with just opening the unlocked door.

4. Yeeeeaaaaaaaaah. That's such a good reason. Hey, I don't really like these whole murder laws. I say I should dissent. Or I don't like financial regulation, let's just crash the entire countries economy . . . or sell futures for a product that doesn't exist. See your number 2. Slippery slope here . . . so while I agree with you that some laws should be broken, ignored, fought etc, it's not exactly a "one good reason".

1. Lower taxation, these things cost money (initial outlay and ongoing costs) to keep an eye on a populace that, by and large, aren't doing anything wrong. Most of us don't want em, don't need em and don't want to pay for them.

2. Changing rules aka slippery slope. The people who agree to big brother on the first day might become victims of it later down the track. Once you establish a state where the citizens are constantly under surveillance and have accepted that onus, you can implement worse measures. Look at post 911 USA... Land of the free? As long as you don't mind the government setting up camp in your rectum 24/7.

3. There is no such thing as "safe". CCTV doesn't deter crime, it just catches the idiots too stupid to take it in to account (ie. people who cut down poles sans facial coverings for example...). Much like any other precaution, criminals find ways around CCTV. That is not an argument for more surveillance, it's an argument about the futility of it in the first place.

4. Sometimes the rules should be broken. How many things were illegal 100 years ago that are perfectly legal now? Worse, think of the things that were legal 100 years ago that are outlawed now (*hint: most of them are self harm crimes such as drug use etc) How often have nanny states tried to decree what you can and can't do only to find that people do not want to live under that rule? The camera is the start, if they can see what you are doing constantly, they can stop you. Why do you think organisations like Anonymous exist? To quote a memorable cutscene from Sid Meir's Alpha Centauri, "We must dissent...".

Send 10 bucks to the charity of your choice.

I agree with BR about this for the most part. Honestly, if you don't like it, walk away.

Yeah, she said "I don't do ass to mouth", I'm assuming after that they didn't film an ass to mouth scene. Honestly, who here actually knows the goings-on behind the camera? I sure as hell don't. For all I know, they said "We need a chick to take a cock up the ass, it'll pay 800 bucks. Want in?" and she said "Sure"

Then on set, that may have been the first time ANYBODY heard what her actual limitations were. The chick crying in pain about it hurting, if it hurts that much then stop. I don't understand why she felt the need to keep going, especially if she's A) Ruining the scene with Dialogue, and B) If it's about a moneyshot, they can get the guy to climax and finish strong another way.

To me, that seems more like one of the old school "we'll give you 500 bucks if we can fuck you" internet porn vids, and the chick is just worried about fulfilling her end of the bargain to get her money, because she literally turned herself into a prostitute for that one video.

I personally feel that the porn industry is just going to die out very soon. Everything this woman is complaining about is basically cured by free porn sites. LIke asians? ebony? fat? petite? whatever you want and actually enjoying what's going on, you can find it on the internet, as sad a fact as that may be.


That's a slippery slope too, however. If the industry dies out, who knows what'll be published online then. Maybe we will get rape sites, and if that happens then I fear for the sake of civilized society. But until that point, and until there's a union to back people up for making porn, if you don't like what's going on, then don't do it. Be stronger then that, walk away.

You don't have a union behind you to protect you, so YOU are the one who's going to have to decide if the risk is worth the reward, and weather or not you want to continue down the path you're on or if it's time to cut your losses and move on, be that with just this movie, or the career as a whole.

Yeah, I have issue with this.

Basically you're saying that this person deserves no trial, is found guilty by a clandestine group who assure people they've got proof that it's really the person. Where's the proof it's the person that did any of this?

Surely this proof should be brought before a court and the evidence looked at.

I'm going to invoke the 'slippery slope' argument here.

If you start letting 'Anonymous' decide who is guilty, and let them mete out the punishment as they deem appropriate, well, don't then start crying when they make a mistake, and accidentally identify the wrong person, or take their 'justice' too far and kill someone.

It's not the way to handle this. Person gets bullied to death, so they think the best course of action is to bully the bullyer? Let's just go back to the dark ages and eye for an eye then shall we?

Also, it's stupendously stupid to try to boil down everything that happened to the poor girl and lay it at the feet of the original dickhead who got her to show him her breasts. Attacking him is not punishing the school kids who tormented her until she killed herself.

This is all simple minded, stupid, ill thought through and makes things worse, not better.

Peterffy is right on everything except that voting Republican will help solve the problem. Both democrats and republicans strongly support social welfare/safety nets, bailouts, big military/national security spending, and many other forms of government expansion. The LIBERTARIANS are presently the only major party that is a realistic alternative to the socialist/Keynesian agenda. Too much socialism will eventually destroy the economic power of the USA. Many people, unfortunately do not understand this concept because 1) the major socialist/communist superpowers of years ago have collapsed and are long gone (and the horrors of those regimes are largely forgotten), and 2) People have become increasingly dependent on social programs, subsidies, & government employment to survive.

As Upton Sinclair once said, "It's difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it." How do you explain to a government worker that people in the private sector make 35% less in pay & benefits? You don't, they'll still ask for more by striking & threatening to shut down 'indispensable' government services--and they'll get what they want every time because their employer is already in the business of giving handouts. When they win it will be reported as a 'victory for labor' or the 'middle class', but it's really only a victory for the ballooning protected government/elite class. How do you explain to a long-time welfare recipient that the check won't be in the mail this month? You don't. You buy votes with social programs or the promise of a cushy government job. This is how the slippery slope of socialism works and eventually there will be more people in the wagon than are actually pulling it. The economy will gradually become less innovative, creative, dynamic, & productive as a result. The overall standard of living will decline and there will be continued threats to freedom & prosperity.

Socialist policies may have great intentions, but the actual results are often very different from such great intentions. As the old saying goes..."The road to hell is paved with good intentions". Socialism is a great example of such a road. Unfortunately many people have to see it to believe it.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

The idea behind replacing embeds - at least historically here on VideoSift - has been about replacing the exact same video with another source. e.g. YouTube goes dead, so replace it with a Break.com source.

IMO it's a slippery slope to start replacing videos with others that have the same "tone" - as it's open to very wide interpretation- that may have not been the intention of the original poster - and also possibly invalidates the description and comments of the original post. /2cents.

I don't think you should transpose how you feel the sift should be (not just you but in general)...it's not an individual's call. As far as pornography...as somebody that looks at it every day, not joking here, I masturbate to internet porn daily so I'm kind of a connoisseur, this is not porn. Would I show it to my mother? no. Then again, that's me. I would say this does walk some sort of line. Some might claim "slippery slope" others might cry "CENSORSHIP!" and both sides will be right and wrong at the same time.

What is a sure thing, though, keeping this on videosift won't change anything. The controversy will die off by Tuesday and it'll all be forgotten until it'll used as precedence in the next debate about some overtly provocative advertisement. Also I wouldn't view Vimeo as a propagator of pornography, so in some cases I think it's ok to use one of our accepted video hosts as a proxy for posting criterion.

[edit] no disrespect by the first part, I was speaking towards everybody here >> ^spoco2:

>> ^pumkinandstorm:
Sorry, but this is just fucking sad.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that because you had the sarcasm checkbox on... but my issue with this is that it's got zero merit other than being titillation. You said in your description of the video "In my opinion a really cool and original idea for an ad" What? Since when is using sex to sell something cool or original? It's neither. And as said before, this doesn't use the naked women in ANY clever way to sell what it's supposed to. It's a video of attractive women being naked, rubbing each other and kissing and that's it.
The sift should be above this. There's nothing wrong with sex and nudity, but to be here they should really have a point. This has none other than to arouse people. If there had been some clever or funny way that the nudity was worked into bike rental, then sure, that might warrant inclusion, but as it stands it's a not clever, not original, pretty sad example of someone in advertising going "Nope, I got nothing, let's just go with 'sex sells' shall we?"

I appreciate the time you took to formulate your response in a fairly respectful manner and even tone, so I'm going to try to reply in kind.>> ^VoodooV:
That's the thing about many republican views. They take an ideal, utopian world view....and work backwards.My views on the potential legality of abortion are not based on my party or religious affiliation. You can look elsewhere for my views on how destructive the party system is to American democracy, and I believe religion should play no part in legislation. (For instance, if your only opposition to gay marriage is a religious one, then you have no valid opposition to the legalization of gay marriage. However, it's easily to rationally oppose theft or murder outside of "Thou Shalt Not Steal" or "Thou Shalt Not Kill", so that gets legislated.) I'm looking at what I know and believe about human development and extrapolating from there. So perhaps airing my opinions in a thread discussing the backwardness of the Republican Party Platform is likely to promote some misunderstanding.>> ^VoodooV:
"In a perfect world, there is no rape or incest and health care is perfect, thus there would be no need for abortion, therefore we should ban abortion."
That's nice and all, but it just isn't that simple. Yeah, if we lived in a perfect world where every single citizen was financially and emotionally secure and nothing ever bad happened and no one ever accidentally got pregnant, sure I would oppose abortion.
We don't live in that world, we won't ever live in that world in our lifetimes, so why would you propose a law that only applies in a perfect world?I don't think we live in a perfect world. Rape, incest, and threat-to-life are real things, and I believe it's acceptable to make an exception in those cases - that it's acceptable to do the reprehensible when it is necessary to promote justice. I believe this in the same way I think murder is reprehensible, and that taking of a human life would never be necessary in a "perfect world", but acceptable in cases of self-defense or punishment of particularly heinous crimes. Accidental pregnancies are a known risk of sexual intercourse. "Financially and emotionally secure" are different issues, addressed in a moment. >> ^VoodooV:
A baby is not the equivalent of getting a pet for your kid to teach them responsibility. why would you needlessly punish the baby by forcing it to be raised by parents who are incapable of adequately raising it? You're trying to correct a mistake by forcing people to make another mistake. Some people should just never be parents, ever. Even if they were financially able to take care of a kid.You're absolutely right. Having a baby is VERY different from just getting a puppy. We're talking about a human life. Some people aren't emotionally or financially fit to be parents. Some of them realize that. Unfortunately, some of them realize it too late, after they've chosen to have sex and gotten pregnant. Should the child be "punished" by being raised by unfit parents? Of course not. I advocate adoption in those circumstances. Is this a perfect solution? No. But it is an acceptable one. Yes, this means nine months of pregnancy and the lifestyle impacts that carries. I feel it should be noted that you are also advocating "fixing a mistake by making another mistake.">> ^VoodooV:
To use an analogy that even a republican should understand. An abortion is like a gun, you hope to hell you never need to use it, but you're going to be glad you're able to use it if you need it.Yes, but again - selectively. The use of a firearm against another human being should not be taken trivially. I'm not going to shoot my neighbor just because he's doing something to make my life inconvenient. I'm going to shoot him when he poses a threat to my life or the life of another innocent individual. I'd say it was an ill-advised analogy, because it's a much better analogy for the anti-abortion stance than the pro-abortion stance. In the firearm analogy, the one harmed is a violent aggressor, while in abortion we're wielding this power against someone who is genuinely and truly innocent. My stance on abortion is MUCH more lenient than my stance on deadly force, since I also acknowledge cases of rape or incest. >> ^VoodooV:
Whenever you masturbate (oh wait, republicans never masturbate)I have to admit that that is a ridiculous position for them to take. If you're going to advocate that people avoid having sex if they're not prepared to take responsibility for the consequences of that choice, then it's ludicrous to tell them masturbation is ALSO verboten. Mutual masturbation is almost the only sexual practice that can legitimately be said to eliminate the risk of pregnancy.>> ^VoodooV:
Even when you're having legitimate baby-making sex. The male ejaculates millions of sperm. Each one of those sperm is a potential life. Yet only one of those sperm will make it, and the rest will die. Republicans don't seem to care about those millions of potential lives being snuffed out. And with the woman, every time a woman has her cycle, that's another potential life snuffed out.I think this takes the slippery slope (no pun intended) too far, and I think you realize that. There are religious viewpoints on the "spilling of seed", but again, I think religious viewpoints alone are not justification for legislation in a free society.
We can both agree (I'm fairly confident) that killing a newborn is murder. I'm fairly confident that we both agree that late-term abortion is abhorrent, if not explicitly "murder". (Is this assertion correct?) Furthermore I think we can both agree that an unfertilized egg or unused sperm is not a "life". So, somewhere between those points is the point of contention. The point where a mass of undifferentiated tissue becomes a developing human life. I don't think we can clearly define that point with our current level of knowledge, so I feel it is most rational to err on the side of caution and oppose abortion even in early pregnancy. (I feel that this view tolerates, for instance, the "morning-after pill", that prevents implantation of a fertilized egg, a view that is likely opposed in many "pro-life" circles. I must admit, though, to a degree of uncertainty in that opinion.)

Do you see black or is it more like there is something missing? I get that sometimes. I might be reading and suddenly for some reason I cannot make out the words in the middle of my vision. But it isn't blurry or black or bright or anything. It is just missing. It feels truly weird and it is hard to explain because how can there be nothing in just part of my vision without there being a hole there or a dark spot or something! Like if you look at a painting that is missing a part you can see a shape around the hole, you can see something on the other side. Having part of what you see be just missing without any artifact, it just feels slippery in a way. Like my mind just cannot process that part right now and in its place there is nothing, not even a gap.
>> ^TheFreak:

Forget deja vu, that description of Blindsight might explain one of the strangest things I've ever experienced.
I suffer occular migraines periodically. Generally, when that happens I get a blind spot that grows until my entire vision is gone, then after several minutes it clears up. The process takes about 20-40 minutes from beginning to end.
Well...one day I'm playing Halo online with friends and between games I begin to get an occular migraine. So I let everyone know I might end up running into walls for the duration of the next game. By midpoint of the game I'm completely blind. When the game ends I'm chatting with my friends on my team about the experience of losing my sight like that when someone says, "well for a blind person you played awfully well". Huh? So I have them tell me my score and I was top scorer in the game. Which is when it occurs to me that, even though I was fully blinded for the majority of the game, I never stopped playing.
So at one level I'm perceiving myself as totally without sight, while at another level I'm still moving and reacting, with great precision, to visual input.
Go figure.

If you want to change a law, you have to break it.

There are movies/documentaries that are not public domain that have been on here for more than five years, yet VideoSift is still operating. That said, our rules have not been enforced and seem to target individual's rather than videos.

I'm not proposing that we actively hunt and sift full-length movies just to make a point. But if we can sift a scene from a movie -- which is copyrighted -- why can't we copy and paste the embed for its entirety? It's a slippery slope argument that is constantly being redefined.

If the Federales ask dag, or lucky, or me to take a full-length movie down, then by all means I think we should. Furthermore, I'd almost argue against resubmitting another embed of the same movie!

But why not allow us to embed and share until we get a request to cease and desist? That's my point.

Have we been warned, yet? If so, please let us know. If we allow another four or five pages of full-length movies to sift, are we destroying everything we've worked for? I don't want that. But again, the onus should be on the owners, not us, in my opinion.

I think you are right, he is trying to make a point, the problem is, this "absurd scenario" he's using to make a point is already the law of the land in the US.

When Private clubs called churches are excused from taxation, everybody has to pay the share these clubs use but don't pay for. When one attends church, they get their money back in lower membership fees, but those of us who don't belong to these clubs just pay for them without receiving any benefit.

neo-conservatism seems to now full depend on the ability to deny the fact that giving someone $100 and excusing their $100 debt are materially the same thing.

>> ^entr0py:

Honestly, I think he's being facetious. He's a conservative radio host, so he must be against the affordable care act and the individual mandate specifically. I think he's saying "taxing people over being uninsured is as ridiculous as taxing them over not going to church, because church is good for you". It's a version of the supreme court's 'eat your broccoli mandate' slippery slope argument. Only, as KnivesOut said, designed to troll liberals.