@WaterDweller, @harlequinn The point surely is that this is a valid musical instrument - it just isn't new or even that clever. It's a just a in a reformed to fit in a DJ booth. The act of playing it isn't that different from piano and less technically skillful than say learning the Flute.

Show me someone creating dub step live from samples created by a digitally processed string instrument and i really will be impressed.

>> ^NetRunner:

@jimnms I think the right lesson to take from the example of Brazil is "gun control laws need to be properly enforced to reduce homicide", not "gun control laws never reduce gun crime."
Also, you're wrong about gun shows, there's a pretty big loophole. From wikipedia:

U.S. federal law requires persons engaged in interstate firearm commerce, or those who are "engaged in the business" of dealing firearms, to hold a Federal Firearms License and perform background checks through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System maintained by the FBI prior to transferring a firearm. Under the terms of the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, however, individuals "not engaged in the business" of dealing firearms, or who only make "occasional" sales within their state of residence, are under no requirement to conduct background checks on purchasers or maintain records of sale (although even private sellers are forbidden under federal law from selling firearms to persons they have reason to believe are felons or otherwise prohibited from purchasing firearms).

In other words, you can always just say you're a private seller, and sell guns at gunshows without doing background checks or recording the sale.
There are videos, sifted right here on Videosift, of people going and buying guns at gunshows while literally saying to the seller "I don't need a background check, right? 'Cause I probably couldn't pass one" with the seller replying with some form of "no problem, here's your gun".
But more than anecdotal video evidence, there's also a been series of studies about drug cartels moving serious amounts of guns using straw purchases at gun shows.
Yet for some reason you're calling Moyers a liar for saying the same thing.
Also, the Assault Weapons Ban set the maximum legal size of a single clip at 10 rounds. IIRC, this latest shooting featured the shooter using a barrel mag with over 100. That used to be illegal. Also, the Tuscon shooting featured a shooter using 2 guns with 30-round clips -- and he was stopped when he had to reload.
Personally, I don't quite understand the anti-gun control side of the argument. Say banning assault weapons only reduces the number of people killed by gun violence by 1.6%. That's still what, a few thousand people's lives a year? Why is having assault weapons legal for civilians worth the deaths of a thousand people a year? Why would it be worth the death of even one person a year? You can still have a pistol, a hunting rife, a shotgun, etc., you just can't have a high-velocity, large-magazine firearm. What exactly is the harm in making that illegal?


That's not a loophole in gun shows, private sales and transfer of firearms are not regulated in some states. You can't set up a booth and sell guns at a gun show unless you are a licensed gun dealer. And you certainly aren't going to walk in and buy a fully automatic assault rifle without showing ID or getting a background check. If a person legally has a fully automatic weapon, they have to have a class 3 federal firearms license and register the weapon with the ATF. If they sell that weapon, the person they are selling it to must also have a class 3 firearms license and the transfer of the weapon must be reported to the ATF.

I've seen the videos you speak of and I read the report you linked. It's good that the ATF is doing their job and cracking down on those douchbags dealers. What you said about Brazil, "gun control laws need to be properly enforced to reduce homicide", not "gun control laws never reduce gun crime.", can be said about the U.S. also.

The assault weapon ban limited pistols magazines to 10 rounds and rifles to 30 rounds. This also only applied to weapons and magazines manufactured or imported before the 1994 law went into effect. He still could purchase the high capacity magazine if it was manufactured or imported before the law went into effect, or he could have purchased it illegally.

People are still confused about what an assault rifle is. The definition of an assault rifle is a gun that can fire full auto or in bursts, and generally uses a shorter, less powerful cartridge than a battle rifle. The guns the media so ignorantly call assault rifles are NOT assault rifles. They look like their military assault rifle counterpart, fire the same round, but the internals are different. They only fire in semi-automatic and can not be modified to fire full auto.

If "assault weapons" were the least used weapons in violent crimes, why go after them when according to the DOJ the effect on crime is "too small for reliable measurement, because assault weapons are rarely used in gun crimes." The guns most preferred by criminals are small caliber (.25, .38 an 9mm) easily concealed pistols with magazines of 7 or less. So what do they do? They ban "assault rifles" and big magazines. Does that make any sense? It's just politics to appease the mass stupids by banning big scary looking guns.

Lets apply the same logic used by legalize drug crowd (which I'm all for). Pot and other drugs are illegal. There are laws against the sale and possession of these drugs, yet people still get them. Ban all guns, and people will still get them, only it will just criminals with guns. Both England and Australia have banned private ownership of guns, and their crime rates went up because the only people left with guns were criminals [1][2][3][4]. Why don't we give that a try here, because it worked so well for them.

Yahoos were viciously attacking a phone booth in the video I think I meant.

In reply to this comment by messenger:
Confused? What about?In reply to this comment by Krupo:
I did, and got confused by the vicious attack on the phone booth clip :

In reply to this comment by messenger:
Thanks dude! Did you check out the playlist I made of my own videos? It's on my FB.
In reply to this comment by Krupo:
*promote because I know people who were there in person. Good times. Also, *wtf

Oh cool! They earn commission if they attract a CEO to their booth?

>> ^Payback:

>> ^Sarzy:
Do booth babes really get paid a hundred bucks an hour??

Only when the CEO shows up...

>> ^Sarzy:

Do booth babes really get paid a hundred bucks an hour??


Only when the CEO shows up...

Do booth babes really get paid a hundred bucks an hour??

I just got my bitcoins in what seemed like a crazy amount of work. First I got a form from Bitinstant that required me to go to a moneygram agent and give them a bunch of codes over a little red phone, so after sitting in a booth with a moneygram agent on the little red phone giving codes - I paid the attendant, which paid a company called ZipZap that transfered my money to Bitinstant which transferred the money to Mt. Gox. Afte it arrived at Mt Gox I then turned into bitcoins and transferred to my second favorite place on the internet 62.95 turned into $55.95 which turned into 10.4487162558 bitcoins. Soon I shall once again have magical abilities.

I can hear the booth director in my head:

"Camera 2.....................camera 4....camera 2....smartass....."

The cat photo booth is awesome.

Until now I didn't know even know they had booths for ATMs in some places. Here it's called a 'hole in the wall' for a reason. >> ^frijoles:

I've read that some ATM booths like this will lock the door if they suspect tampering. Given his sudden sense of urgency, I wonder if he was fucking with the ATM and it locked him in. That'd explain why he left so quickly.

I've read that some ATM booths like this will lock the door if they suspect tampering. Given his sudden sense of urgency, I wonder if he was fucking with the ATM and it locked him in. That'd explain why he left so quickly.

>> ^legacy0100:

Goddamn that guy's head is HUGE compared to his body LOL


He had a head? I was checking out the cleav.

Confused? What about?In reply to this comment by Krupo:
I did, and got confused by the vicious attack on the phone booth clip :

In reply to this comment by messenger:
Thanks dude! Did you check out the playlist I made of my own videos? It's on my FB.
In reply to this comment by Krupo:
*promote because I know people who were there in person. Good times. Also, *wtf

I did, and got confused by the vicious attack on the phone booth clip

In reply to this comment by messenger:
Thanks dude! Did you check out the playlist I made of my own videos? It's on my FB.
In reply to this comment by Krupo:
*promote because I know people who were there in person. Good times. Also, *wtf

I didn't say her actions were evidence I meant they were suspicious. There are certain things people do when they lie, such as looking left, avoiding eye contact, stopping mid-sentence to change a statement, justifying actions for no reason(as in there is no reason to justify your actions if your innocent). She exhibits enough signs that I doubt her story. I could be wrong who knows. I sorta doubt that I am wrong however I do hope for the child's sake that I am.

But let's say your right and she got sunburned while tanning with her Mother outside. Is it any better that she took a 5 yr old to tan outside than it is to tan a 5 yr old in a tanning bed?

And speaking from experience here as I have red hair and fair skin myself. People with red hair and fair skin don't tan EVER period we burn end of story she should know better. Some people don't have the ability to tan. Their skin simply won't take it. This child will never have a natural tan the only way she will ever look tanned is through the use of spray on tanning. The fact that she would even try to let her daughter tan either in a tanning bed or outside in the sun is simply idiocy.

>> ^Stormsinger:

None of what you mention is evidence, you know. If I, or most people, get accused and arrested for something I didn't do, we quite likely get a bit defensive. And being interviewed on TV is more than enough to fuck up your train of thought if you're not an experienced interviewee. It's surprising how disruptive those lights and the pressure can be.
And once again, there are more ways to tan than in a booth. As a matter of fact, more people tan out in the sun than in a booth.
Being inarticulate when under pressure is not evidence of a crime. So far, no hint of any evidence has been made public in this case. There hasn't even been any hearsay reported. The daughter's statement of "going tanning with mommy" makes no mention of a tanning bed. I'm really rather surprised that so many people are so willing to believe the worst of this woman, with so little reason. Especially on a site that is usually more than a little rabid in their down-with-police stance. I guess that attitude only applies to young and/or attractive victims.
>> ^Auger8:
I'm sorry but it's obvious she is lying she changes her story like three times and is way way too defensive about it in the first place for someone who is innocent. First she starts to say "tanning is ok as long as.... I just like to tan.", then she says "it just didn't happen", then she says "well other parents bring their kids", then she says she got the sunburn outside. So what's the real story here lady? And why would the little girl tell her school she got the sunburn while tanning with her Mom if that's not what happened? Why would a 5 yr old lie about something like that? You think the kid was TRYING to get her Mom in trouble? No the more likely reason is that this woman who is obviously addicted to tanning decided her Fair skinned child was hideous and took matters into her own hands. Look in the mirror lady the only thing hideous around here is you and your behavior.
>> ^Stormsinger:
At least the comments here are a bit more reasonable...although a bit off track from what the actual news story is. Yes, she's damaged her appearance. Big deal....that's her choice.
What -I- find interesting is that nowhere, anywhere, have I seen the slightest shred of evidence that she actually did anything wrong. Her daughter said that she tans with Mommy. Mom, Dad, and the attendants at the tanning salon all agree that the girl never went in the tanning booth. Where's the grounds for an arrest? Because she had a sunburn? I'm pretty fucking sure there are ways to get sunburned that don't involve a tanning booth. I'm even almost sure that they might qualify as "going tanning with Mommy".