Been doing some research; story gets stranger; that is apparently a well known racing boat on the Southern California seen. How odd. They should have known better. That might explain somethings though: No motor, that's added weight and no anchor to toss out while they are still in a salvageable if not comfortable situation outside the impact/breaker zone so they could sort stuff out.

Scary video for me; I respect the water.

It would be neat to see what they are anchored to. Also, being suspended 3 feet off the ground makes it much easier to defeat than big heavy concrete blocks.

Because the anchor is at the rear of the vehicle, it would normalise any such manouver, ie. a sudden turn that would typically result in a roll over (assume back left wheel is trapped and the suspect turns hard left or right) would be arrested by the trap if they turned left, as the left wheel would want to rise to flip the car, and might actually be exacerbated if they turn right, where the tether would go under the car and anchor the wheel, increasing the momentum of the body of the car over that pivot point.

However, much like the example of weight in the rear of a trailer reducing the chance of loss of control, any turn would be damped by the addition of an entire car attached to the back of the vehicle, such that I think any turning manouver would likely be dulled substantially.

Additionally, as soon as the thing is deployed, the car is going to decelerate rapidly as it's essentially anchored.

On the surface, if you can control the deployment, looks like it would be a winner.

It wasn't particularly dangerous before, the supports were not 'bits of metal', they were railroad ties anchored into solid rock. 95% of the way you could simply walk the path, and in a couple spots there were via ferrata type cables to help walk across the beams where the concrete had eroded.

Sometimes I feel like I live on a different planet to other people. People keep telling me 'that's what men do' but I'm a man and that's not what I've ever done. But I'm not going to bang on and on about Trump, it's all been said before.

Because I'm so used to the kind of trash Trump comes out with, what shocked me from this video is that Oliver would suggest Clinton is the end point of a century old quest for female equality. She is from a powerful, rich family with connections and funding from some of the shadiest, rapacious industries/organisations in the world. Her victory wouldn't be a triumph for women, it would be a triumph for money and the elite ruling classes.

A triumph for women would be a rise to status based on merit and hard work, battling oppression every step of the way to change opinions and break new ground for anyone who follows. The success of Hillary's career mirrored Bill's and as his power and wealth increased so did her's.

What does this say? Work hard and you can overcome the prejudices of a male dominated society? No - it says if you're from the right family and know the right people, you can be president. Called Bush or Clinton? You're in with a shot. Hillary winning doesn't change the game, it doesn't pioneer a new path for females.

It is bullshit and it riles me because it's a manipulation of virtue. Hey everyone, vote for our FIRST FEMALE PRESIDENT, what an amazing and equal country we are, you're sexist if you don't want it! This has been a centuries long struggle but finally a strong enough woman has achieved what no other woman could do, it's time to recognise her strength of character! FUCK OFF. There have been millions of women more qualified and appropriate than her who never got even a sniff of a chance because they didn't anchor themselves to the right man, they weren't born into a particular family and spent childhood holidays with the sons and daughters of fossil fuel barons, investment companies, etc. The system is biased and wrong and Hillary winning only confirms that.

Yah, hard to know the particulars---and the wind and current probably would have worked against this idea---but---I did have a sailing instructor who stress tested me in a narrow channel by proposing that I'd just lost the engine---now what would I do?

The correct answers? Well, it's a sailboat, dummy---you could sail. And if all else fails---drop anchor (as long as you had the swing room; and even if you didn't, the resulting collision would be less impressive.)

But---we don't really know how the captain and pilot got into this situation.

I look forward to learning more.

Infact, there's a VERY famous video now of a woman who was crushing grapes and fell off (It was a news anchor thing.)

Ebaums was the only place to actually see the video because everywhere else took it down.

My impression is the anchor got that bit of info from her earpeace, and at the end of the video they credited the dude behind the scenes that noticed it. Steve Meister isn't the name of the helecopter reporter, it's some laywer dude they had in the studio, that's why she's joking about him representing Mr. Trenchcoat.

Very well pointed out.

I don't know if it's sexism; do you think the same thing would have happened if his co-anchor was a younger guy?

Shame on the helicopter reporter for not redirecting credit. That said, I don't know how many of us are evolved enough to redirect the credit to where it is due.

There's two big differences between them as far as voters see them. Both are disliked very much.

However, there's a large portion of the people who hate Hillary Clinton do it for completely fabricated reasons. This isn't to say that there aren't some reasons to hate her. But when Trump and the GOP are going around saying stuff like "Hillary Clinton wants to abolish the 2nd Amendment", which absolutely isn't true in the slightest, gosh, I wonder if there's a portion of the electorate who will hate her for a complete falsehood. Who could it be? Hmmmm....

Again, don't get me wrong, there's plenty to not like about her. I've said numerous things about the whole email thing, which I still can't believe she ended up doing something that stupid.

Trump? Well, I'm sorry, but he's said so many things at this point to piss so many groups off, they hate him for things that actually are true. He did target Muslims for discriminatory policies. He has said disparaging remarks about women, implying a news anchor who disagreed with him must be on her period, and women who get sexually harassed should find another job, not the people who were doing the sexual harassment. He's said most Mexican immigrants are rapists, murderers, and drug runners. And Hillary Clinton is mostly hitting on stuff like that, you know, stuff he's ACTUALLY said. In fact, one of her attack ads is just a barrage of clips of Trump saying Trumpy stuff with kids watching it. There's not a shred of evidence Hillary Clinton has ever come out in favor of completely abolishing the 2nd Amendment.

So, you can say half the country hates her, but come election day, when she wins by what appears at this point to be a margin larger than Obama thumped Romney, CLEARLY Americans like Clinton a heck of a lot more than Trump overall.

Pretty tenuous to call this an experiment... What hypothesis were they testing, that people watch and share exciting content? That video editing technology is fairly advanced by now but certainly not flawless?

They seem to start off with some media criticism - 'how much of the news should you believe -' but then lose that trail since A) all of their videos were questioned and called out by many as fake, and B) everybody already knows that the 'news' section of the show is over when the anchors are just reacting to fun videos they found online.

I'm fine with this video being an example of well scripted VFX to maximize virality for virtality's sake, but it's pretty goofy to call it an experiment. The best part was the cameo by TV's Frank.

3 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

I think the anger and disgust I feel at this abhorrent systemic breakdown can be partly summarized in the quote by the news anchor at ~12:07:

"I saw documentation of [various examples of gross negligence]. Why should you care? Well, every day Corizon dispenses health care you pay $339,000 whether it does it's job or not."

WTF. Seriously, the news anchor just said that Corizon was involved in destroying fellow humans and then said that the reason you should care about it is that it costs you money.

There's something deeply wrong here. There's something deeply wrong with for-profit prisons. There's something deeply wrong with for-profit healthcare. And if the only reason a society would care about someone's intense suffering and death is that it might cost them some money then there is something deeply wrong with that society.

Lol, nothing in this video is convincing, certainly not the 'anchor', or the lawyer making the fraud claims.

I'll trust Nate Silver over some idiot shouting on the internet, here's his take:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/new-york-primary-presidential-election-2016/

"If Clinton significantly outperforms exit polls showing a close race tonight and wins by a fairly comfortable margin instead, will it be part of a broader pattern? Not really. We’ve been keeping track of how Clinton’s and Sanders’s actual results have compared to initial exit polls, and the differences have been pretty random over the course of the campaign.

With that said, sometimes a candidate whose supporters are more enthusiastic can be overrated by exit polls because of response bias — this was sometimes an issue for Obama during the 2008 campaign, and it’s plausible we could see something parallel happening with Sanders. Furthermore, pre-election polls showed a wider lead for Clinton than the exit polls did, and it’s usually worth taking a blend of exit polls and pre-election polls even when you have exit polls in hand."

Congratulations! Your comment on CCN anchor reads Survivor's Statement on air has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

This achievement has earned you your "Silver Tongue" Level 3 Badge!