Congratulations! Your dedication to keeping VideoSift clear of baddies has earned you your "Ban Police" Level 110 Badge!

Ohio University Marching 110 - The Fox - Ylvis has been added as a related post - related requested by RFlagg on that post.

That would be quite pathetic, wouldn't it...

I bet if I were to do this, I could get at least 110 no, a black eye, a slight concussion and, on a good day, a shattered testicle.

So, you're telling me the other guy didn't win by wanting it more and then bringing 110% of his a-game? Make sense, chess man.

A few questions...
ANYBODY who doesn't give 110% to their career will not reach the highest levels of that career?
Are you saying that Georgew W. gave 110% to become President? Well, if that what he delivered is what it takes to get the job, it's a shame I can't run for office. I wouldn't even have to put on pants to come across as less idiotic as he did.
Are you really buying into this "Just give everything and you'll get there" myth? 'Cause that's not how the real world works for everyone. Have you ever been denied a deserved promotion? That is not that uncommon, especially for women. Look, giving your best is usually necessary but not always required. Luck, a lack of scruple, intolerance of others, manipulative skills and connections can really propel your career even if you don't work hard enough to deserve it. Just think of the cliché of the woman who sleeps her way on top. She doesn't even have to give 110% there, men are easy to please.

And regarding you biological theories, yes, men are stronger but how strong do you have to be to sit in an office? How much strength does it take to type on a keyboard? I'd say the jobs these female breadwinners we're talking about have are usually not involving tasks of great physical strength.
And why is it automatically the women job to take care of the children?
I mean, we're talking 2 parent families here since single women have no other choice than going to work unless you want to suggest poverty or child labour as viable alternatives.
In todays first world society it shouldn't be such a stretch to consider men as caregivers of the family's offspring. What makes the stronger sex so unsuitable to play that part? Because we're emotional cripples, unable to bond with the little ones like people with real breasts? Because society could point at us and laugh about our mangina? What is it a woman does a man can't do?
Oh I get it, that's just how biology wants it, right? We have to listen to mother nature, it's the smart thing to do. Well, that's at least what I told the cops after I left my house naked. You know, pants don't grow on trees and shirts don't run through the woods, evading capture by predators. It's not natural, not what mother wants. Let's not do this. Right?
We decided to shape the world as we see fit a long time ago. We can't change all behavioural routines in our heads but we are not powerless either. Why stick to role models that are ancient when we can make new ones with more benefits? Humans can't fly; didn't stop them from building planes. This is a question of nurture not nature.

What troubles me the the most, though, is your apparent belief that households with both parents working do it by choice. That is certainly not always the case, especially not in lower income families in America. To avoid that both parents would be forced to work, you need to have minimum incomes that are high enough to feed an entire family. How much is the minimum wage in america and how well can one person provide for a family with it? Would you like to raise 2 kids with only that much money?

Another thing is your idea that "women should gravitate to careers that will give the maximum flexibility so that they can spend all the needed time with their children". What kind of career is that? What jobs allow you to have "maximum flexibility" in terms or worktime? Drug dealing? E-Mail spamming? Porn?
I'm sure such jobs exist but I'd say they're very, very rare. Not a viable solution.

You call it "guidelines not rules" but maybe these guidelines are as antiquitated as ducking under the table when the bomb drops. We live in a brave new world, we need to do better than this. We shouldn't leave potential untapped because grampa doesn't like it. This is the 21st century, let's act like it.

There is nothing that makes women less qualified to bring home the bucks. "Think of the children" is simply a lazy argument against it and only shows the real problems of this debate: sexism and a lack of social security.

I really hate that they bring in (mostly) unrelated crap like abortion statistics, but the core of their argument here is correct.

Yes, correct, in my opinion.

I've been thinking about this topic a lot lately, and if you are rejecting what they say about female breadwinners out of hand, you are not thinking deeply on the subject.

Certainly, every woman should have the right to do with her life as she pleases. Whether that is career, family, or some combination of the two. But I think in the coming years there will be more and more people realizing that the average woman can NOT have it all. While there will be a few exceptions, most women will not be good mothers to their children while working 40+ hours per week, and ANYBODY who doesn't give 110% to their career will not reach the highest levels of that career.

Women need to be taught young that they need to make a choice and prioritize. If you look at young girls, you will see them fantasizing from a very young age about being a mother. You will see women of all ages fantasizing about marriage. And you will see feminists telling them that they are wrong for doing that. You will see society pushing and pushing and pushing for women to choose career over family while giving nothing but lip service to the importance of family. And if you look at the statistics, you will see this is beginning to have an effect on society. More women are postponing starting a family, and some are even working through the height of their childbearing years to the point where they can no longer find a suitable mate to have children with at all.

And if they do have children, the women are not at home to raise them. Sure, they are home for the first few months to a year, then they're back to work and the children are being raised by strangers. Mom comes home in the evening and asks how everybody's day was, exactly the way dad does (assuming dad is still in the family core).

This is not a popular sentiment yet, but I believe that gender roles existed for a reason. Just looking at male and female biology, it is plain to see that (in general) men are equipped for the tasks that require strength, and women are equipped to raise children. And for most of recorded history, gender roles followed biology. I believe we are beginning to see a reckoning. It won't happen in every relationship. And of course I think we should be very careful about judging others. I think you should take this information and apply it to your own life. What kind of a family do you want? Do you want to have two working parents and kids in day care, or do you want one parent to stay home? Are you going to feel more satisfied staying home with the kids, or leaving every day to earn a paycheck? These are questions that nobody can answer but you. I think that absent a serious internal drive, women should gravitate to careers that will give the maximum flexibility so that they can spend all the needed time with their children. I think that we should be teaching our children that they can do anything, but there are certain traditional roles that tend to bring people the greatest amount of life satisfaction. And I think we need to keep doing research and watching the statistics to verify or debunk everything I have just said, because I am fully aware that it is mostly speculation and gut instinct on my part.

On one hand we have a dick cop. On the other a reckless driver that could cause an accident that might result in your child's brains being splattered on the roadway...

My sister in law is law. She got pulled over doing 110. The cop was like this one--kind of let you off...then he looked in the backseat and saw the child there. "Ma'am, step out of the car, you're under arrest." It was fucking great. Point is, which one is worse in this video?

So...take a wing from another plane is "keeping it simple"? Seems simpler just to buy a used trainer (I paid $110 total for my first plane, motor and radio).

To be clear, in the original video the cop's lines from: "Pardon me" up to "sign here" are fabricated. Replacing the original soundtrack and dialogue of the lady relaying her address to the cop as he copies it down and spins the clipboard around for her to sign.

I'm an experienced sound editor. If there's one thing I understand in this world, it's audio and how to hide an edit. At its core this video fails to do that on several levels and all I hope to accomplish here is to educate people who want to learn how to spot a fake in the future.

I am 100% certain this is a fake, rendering it zero true value to the sift.

Don't you find it at all suspicious that in the original video the lady is audible whenever she speaks except for when she supposedly asks the cop the implied question? Why wouldn't she be heard then? It's because when he asks for her present address (actual dialogue) her actual dialogue (stating her address while he writes it down) is removed and the cop's zinger is shoe-horned in.

Notice the awkwardness in the jump in time between the the end of the zinger "sign here" and "This is not an admission of guilt"(actual dialogue). The difference in the fidelity of the audio (the fake dub vs the actual dialogue) is apparent. Besides that, it's just an unnatural rhythm of speaking forgetting that the dubbed voice is way off in terms of a match for the cop when listened to back to back at such a close proximity. The dubbers didn't have a large window of time to work within giving the dialogue a rushed quality which helps to expose it as a fake.

Also note the cop's body language while he is speaking to her throughout the original video. He frequently looks at her making eye contact when addressing her. During the false exchange his body language in no way reflects the bewilderment that is expressed when he repeats her assumed hushed dialogue.

On top of all that the dubbers failed to add foley of the sound of him handling his clipboard, a sound close enough to the cop to be picked up or cause interference with the cop's mic. There is just silence instead since they removed all sound during the exchange added a background ambiance loop (plenty of b-roll to draw from) and then dubbed in the lines which has fooled 110 (as of this post) into voting it into the #1 spot.

These are the exact kinds of tricks that are used in "reality" tv to take raw footage of people and construct characters in post utilizing the most sensational dialogue available and place a musical backing track to let you know how you are supposed to be feeling about a certain person or situation.

TL:DR See funny thing, upvote and move on.

@shinyblurry Radiometric data is based on uniformitarian assumptions.

Also vice versa. Which might sound circular, but isnt. Uniformitarianism is of course the simplest assumtion (occams razor) but it also correlates well with the available evidence. If natural laws acted differently in the past, we would presumably find EVIDENCE that it did. And correlating data is not a "hall of mirrors, it is evidence of correlation. This is basic statistics and empiri.

Suppose you didnt know anything about humans, and you wanted to know how long they lived in earth years. Now suppose you had a sample of 3:

Person 1: 3 years old
Person 2: 43 years old
Person 3: 81 years old.

Now, from this very limited dataset, Your conclusions about the human race would almost certainly be wrong. From the mean of 42,3 there is a standard deviation of 39, which means that you'd assume that only 68% would be less than 80 years old. You'd reckon that 95% would be less than 140 years old etc.
In other words: Pretty useless.

But if you had the age of, say, 10000 random people, things would start to look very different. From such a dataset, you could see that there would be a very steep drop-off rate above 80, with noone above 110 or so, and so you could start making qualified guesses, in fact, they would no longer be guesses, but conclusions based on data.

And this is where we are with fossils and dating. We dont just make wild guesses on the basis of 2 or 3 fossils and one shitty chemistry experiment involving half-lives; We have literally thousands of datapoints. If this is a hall of mirrors, then Satan is truly one crafty bastard making a pretty impressive one for us.

Arm yourself with knowledge, people, or succomb to ignorance found in conspiracies..

Facts: Yes, the Federal Reserve banks are privately owned, but they are controlled by the publically-appointed Board of Governors. The Federal Reserve banks merely execute the monetary policy choices made by the Board. In addition, nearly all the interest the Federal Reserve collects on government bonds is rebated to the Treasury each year, so the government does not pay any net interest to the Fed.

Facts: No foreigners own any part of the Fed. Each Federal Reserve bank is owned exclusively by the participating commercial banks and S&Ls operating within the Federal Reserve bank's district. Individuals and non-bank firms, be they foreign or domestic, are not permitted by law to own any shares of a Federal Reserve bank. Moreover, monetary policy is controlled by the publically-appointed Board of Governors, not by the Federal Reserve banks.

Fact: Independent accounting firms conduct full financial audits of the Federal Reserve banks and the Board of Governors every year. The Fed is also subject to certain types of audits from the Government Accounting Office.

Facts: The Federal Reserve rebates its net earnings to the Treasury every year. Consequently, the interest the Treasury pays to the Fed is returned, so the money borrowed from the Fed has no net interest obligation for the Treasury. The government could print its own currency independent of the Fed, but there would be no effective safeguards against abuse of this power for political gain.

Facts: The Federal Reserve banks have only a small share of the total national debt (about 7%). Therefore, only a small share of the interest on the debt goes to the Fed. Regardless, the Fed rebates that interest to the Treasury every year, so the debt held by the Fed carries no net interest obligation for the government. In addition, it is Congress, not the Federal Reserve, who is responsible for the federal budget and the national debt.

Facts: Kennedy wrote E.O. 11,110 to phase out silver certificate currency, not to issue more of it. Records show Kennedy and the Federal Reserve were almost always in agreement on policy matters. He even signed legislation to give the Fed more authority to issue currency.

Facts: McFadden was incorrect regarding the Fed costing the government money. However, later economic analysis agrees with him that Federal Reserve policy blunders had a substantial role in causing the Depression. However, his implication that this was done deliberately has no basis in fact. Moreover, for a dozen years prior to his rant, McFadden had been the chairman of the House subcommittee that oversaw the Federal Reserve. Why didn't he do anything to reform or abolish the Fed while he had the chance?

Facts: The banking system is indeed able to create money with a mere computer keystroke. However, a bank's ability to create money is tied directly to the amount of reserves customers have deposited there. A bank must pay a competitive interest rate on those deposits to keep them from leaving to other banks. This interest expense alone is a substantial portion of a bank's operating costs and is de facto proof a bank cannot costlessly create money.

Fact: The term 'lawful money' does not refer to gold or silver coin, but to types of money which the government would permit banks to use when tabulating their reserves. These types of money included, but were not limited to, gold and silver coin.

@notarobot "If it costs 1200 Euros (on average) to clear one mine, releasing 24 of these things to detonate ONE mine is still cheaper than other option."

Your math is based on some flawed assumptions. These things might detonate some landmines, that's it, and that's all. Mine clearance is about making safe zones where people can walk again with relative assurance that it's clear of mines.

Apples and oranges, but your apples are rotten, because they simply don't provide much practical use. Maybe it's possible one of these things might save a limb or a life, but as I pointed out earlier, it's equally possible they could cost a limb or a life. Without a dedicated research project nobody will ever know for sure whether these things effectively reduce the number of landmine related injuries.

Also, regarding the cost of mine clearance (well below your 1,200 euro spitball) http://www.un.org/cyberschoolbus/banmines/units/unit1c.asp I'll give the full quote because there are other sobering statistics there.

"A landmine that brings a vendor $3 in revenue, costs the international community between $300 and $1,000 to clear. At a minimum, the 110 million landmines currently buried worldwide will cost approximately $33 billion for clearance alone. In 1994, roughly 100,000 landmines were cleared. However, in that same period 2 million more landmines were laid, leaving the international community with an annual “de-mining deficit” of some 1.9 million mines, adding another $1.4 billion to the cost of clearing the world's landmines."

By the way, one of the big reasons for the wide range in clearance costs is density of the minefield, it takes almost as much work to clear one square metre of space without mines at all as it does to clear one square metre of space with a mine in it, so these doohickys will do little to bring down the cost of clearance in that regard.

I appreciate that DFT!!

I applaud this place in Oklahoma. I had 2 hrs of surgery a couple years ago. The bill.... $110,000

Walmart would go out of business if non English-speaking nationals, illegals (undocumented), and people with IQ's below 110 withdrew their support.
Their grocery section sucks donkey balls.
Their clothing insures the slavery of millions and millions of Chinese for years to come.
Their concern for their employees well-being....Non-Existent.
Their buildings are a cyst on the landscape of the country.

Insult to Injury should be their corporate motto.

Your video, Massive Bird Release, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 110 Badge!