Another issue... Uber is a taxi dispatching service for unregulated "gypsy" taxi drivers. It is NOT a "ride sharing" service.

Why?

A ride sharing service would be the Uber driver broadcasting out "I'm downtown, and I'm heading to the airport, anyone need a ride?" and if no one takes him up on it, and he GOES THERE ANYWAY BECAUSE HE HAD TO, he's ride sharing.

If he's just sitting around, waiting for a passenger to broadcast "I'm downtown and need to get to the airport, come get me." then he's a taxi.

Uber doesn't need to be regulated, but they SHOULD only deal with properly licensed, insured, and legal transportation providers. Even if that's just a one-man, one-car business.

I disagree with your take on two counts.

First and foremost, just because somebody else is wrong or being a jerk does NOT automatically make the proper response being an equal or bigger jerk. Even when dealing with police officers. Yes, we expect officers are supposed to be the ones taking the higher road, but lets not just automatically lower the bar for everyone else. Lets encourage the civil part of civil society.

The second point is the presumption that an officer responding to complaints from people is somehow wrong. We have laws in place to balance the rights between all of us. In this case people have the right to walk on the sidewalk without watching to be run over by bikers, and bikers have the right to ride on the sidewalk at no more than 3mph(a very slow walk). If an officer gets complaints from folks about the bikers, he's not being a jerk to go over and check things out. It is, in fact, his job. The people complaining have the same rights as the guys on their bikes and it's the nuance of our laws that dictate who's in the right. In this case it certainly appears that those who complained to the officer where within their rights to do so because it's pretty certain the bikers weren't dropping onto the sidewalk from above at less than 3mph. The bikers were technically within their rights to point out to the officer that merely riding their bikes there was also legal. For the officer's part it looks like he started off with the actual impression that biking on sidewalks was not allowed, but backed off when the biker convinced him it was. In fact, the biker convinced him so much the officer FAILED to properly enforce the bylaw by insisting the bikers slow down. At this point, the complainers rights were stepped on by the officer being too passive and the bikers were left to ride faster than the bylaw states they should.

@bareboards2 @ChaosEngine and @newtboy Most want a particular church, or prefer a particular church. But a very few NEED a particular church--ie., they can't live without one. Take my mother-in-law. She survived a fire that nearly killed her, was forced to have sex with animals by her abusive father, was beaten by her husband, then lost all her children to DCF and well that sums up her life. It is easy to chalk up her reliance on Jehovah's Witness' faith as her "choice," but then that is denying the biological need to be accepted and loved in a certain manner. Hers is that faith alone. Take it away and she would either A-shut down, or B-more likely kill herself.

Not fussed about whether or not that was "real" / one take with audio direct from video recording, because musically it was *awesome*.

Whole thing was great, but I got the "whoa, this is f*&king awesome" goosebumps when he broke into the Smooth Criminal part!

Cool story, bro.

Except that in this video the only person in clear and immediate danger of dying is the guy who got sucker punched and took a header into the concrete. Blind guy, meanwhile, barely got rocked by the first punch and is in no immediate danger of dying. The facts, therefore, kind of negate your whole argument while strengthening mine.

Also, I provided ample links to show the relevant laws which come into play here and would force most DAs into prosecuting. Here's another one: take a look at California Penal Code 192(b). It doesn't matter that the kid was engaged in a lawful act (defending someone else). Someone was unlawfully killed and it's the DA's job to do something about it. Your counter-argument was essentially: "Nuh-uh, cuz I say so."

...wut?

I've argued with you about stuff before and you've always been good at using evidence-based reasoning to support your position. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you were having an off-day with that reply (pressed for time in responding perhaps).

BTW, I think the fact that we disagree on this is yet another reason why a competent DA would let a jury decide rather than make the call him/herself. Their job is to determine whether there is enough evidence available that someone has broken the law to prosecute them. In this case we would have the video and multiple eye-witnesses showing a killing punch being thrown. Again, I don't see how any decent DA can NOT prosecute at that point. Their job is to represent the state and prosecute those who break the state's laws. It's the defense attorney's job to counter that the law was broken for good reason (self-defense), not the DA's job. It's the jury's job to determine if a killing in self-defense is reasonable under the circumstances, again not the DA's.

DA's do sometimes decide not to prosecute when there is overwhelming evidence that the killing was justified and a trial would be a waste of time and money, but this isn't one of those cases. For example, if the video showed the bully attacking the blind kid with a knife and then getting killed by a sucker punch from someone trying to stop him, it's unlikely any DA would take action.

At the end of the day, while I think if the kid had killed the bully he would have been charged with manslaughter, I also think it would be unlikely to actually go to trial. Especially if the kid throwing the killing punch is a first-time offender, the DA would likely offer a plea deal for a lesser charge.

Anyways, can we at least agree that it is great that no one was seriously injured in this incident?

Your video, Downhill mountain bike run, filmed cinematically in one take, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

There was an interview with Charlie Cox, the lead actor, on Slashfilm today. He's also saying it's actually one shot. I mean, I guess everyone involved could be lying, but why? It's impressive either way.

http://www.slashfilm.com/daredevil-fight-scene/

Charlie Cox: It was incredible. It was as a special day as it was to as the scene has turned out. We dedicated our whole day to it. The first half of the day was just the camera movements. And then we got into, it was as you know it’s one take, so we had to get everything right. Each attempt that we had at it. And it’s incredibly tricky because it’s not like a long tracking shot with two people speaking, it’s a long tracking shot with people punching. And if one punch doesn’t land, it no longer works. It ceases to work as a scene. So I think we did it 12 times. I think three of them we made it all the way through to the end. And one of them was the one in the show, which is kind of almost flawless. I mean, it’s very hard to pick holes in that.

Peter Sciretta: So its really not stitched together at all?

Charlie Cox: No, that’s one take.

The show might be great but that stunt fighting is awful...

The number of blows that completely break believability are incredible. If that's the trade off for "one take", do more takes...

Your video, Awesome one-take fight scene from Daredevil, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

i don't entirely believe that but it would be cool if they did enough planning to pull it off. there are at least 3 spot where they could have had edits.


[the planning in TV is so horrible that i have a hard time believing they actually committed to, well, anything, especially one take]

Funny, that felt like the most real aspect of the scene to me. I've obviously never been in a fight like this, but I've certainly felt like this during some of my martial arts gradings.

It doesn't take long to get very tired (especially against more than one opponent), but each time someone attacks, you summon up the energy for one more round until you put them down.... repeat (literally) ad nauseam.

That last drop at 2:28 seemed completely unnecessary though (dude's already on the ground, just walk up and kick him!)

As for the scene itself, it's very cool. My only question is that if it really is one take (and I'm not saying it isn't), it seems like an odd choice to have so many points (0:38, 1:38, 2:18) that feel like they're there for the express purpose of an invisible cut.

Nice....well, nice article. That people are so irresponsible irks me greatly. First, the irresponsibility of abandoning a pet one takes responsibility for, and second, irresponsibly releasing invasive species into the wild.
People suck.
...but still, thanks for the article.
Newt

So... she sent a tweet to a total stranger and is not only shocked that the stranger didn't reply, but assumes that she got no reply because she's a sex worker?

Oh, and people who receive threats of sexual assaults aren't victims, they're faux-victims?

No one takes what she's saying seriously, do they?

<Reads comments on Videosift>

*sigh*

@newtboy @shinyblurry
are you guys going to make out?
because if you are,let me grab my camera!

do not confuse faith with religion,they are not synonymous,though they can be in the context of someone who bases their faith on scripture.which is where shiny is coming from.

i will admit to a certain joy in seeing the progression of shiny from years ago where all he would do is copy/paste scripture with little understanding,but as somehow being a rebuttal argument.

now when he posts scripture it is always accompanied with HIS understanding of that very scripture.i am not saying he is right,i am just admiring his continued progress in his seeking to understand and formulating his arguments from HIS understandings,not just words.

so..bravo to you shiny.

but here is a hint:no way scripture is going to convince newt of..well..anything.

so,i got the camera.lets get to that making out!

*side note* has anybody ever seen a thread so derailed?
i think this one takes the gold.

Whatever. Being a statist is its own punishment. The institution of the state has too much popular support, even if the particular criminals who get "elected" sometimes lose their popularity after a few years. They get "replaced" by "new" more popular criminals and so the cycle repeats itself. Nothing will likely stop it, regardless of the nation, be it Israel, the U.S., or elsewhere... Except perhaps the economic collapse. So the good always comes with the bad and vice versa. Probably best to get out of the way as things fall apart. At least you can say there's drama constantly. Never boring.

And as someone has said about being a contrarian:
"Following the herd is a sure-fire way to mediocrity."



@newtboy writes: "well thought out complaints with follow through often DO get results, and even if they don't you'll know you tried the right thing first."

Yeah, "the right thing," eh? According to whom? You?

Even if you replace the cop (even if it happens which often doesn't), so what? Another one takes his place. It's the whole police system, these are not just "isolated" individuals who are out of control. A lot of people insist that these are just "bad apples." Then those people become victims themselves. Poetic justice.