Congratulations! Your video, Nothing Gets Through These Flooded Waters ... Except -, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 89 Badge!

Something else you should remember is that the DOW is now at 16,512.89, much higher than it was at its peak in 2008.

The market largely recovered by 2011/2012. Granted, US govt debt has ballooned, but it's not like politicians have tried to fix that since Reagan.

*length=89

More guns doesn't mean more gun violence, just ask the Serbians.
America has (or had) the most guns per capita by far (#1 at 89 guns per 100 people) but was 13th in gun deaths with 10.9 per 100000 people.
Serbia , (#2 in per capita guns at 58 per 100) had only 3.9 gun deaths per 100000 people.
Honduras only had 6.2 guns per 100, but had 64.8 gun deaths per 100000 people!

This quite clearly proves it's not the number of guns per person that's an issue, it's the culture the people live in. Guns aren't the problem, people pointing (and shooting) them inappropriately is the issue.
That said, when a populace has proven it can't be responsible with a dangerous device, it's reasonable to make it more difficult to own the device and require prior training for it's proper usage, and punishment for improper usage. Too bad reason has left the building.

I had an '89 Celica. I loved that car.

As much as I disagree with Kevin O'Leary on most things, I'm with him on this. The girl is impressively assured and sharp for her age, but a lot of what she is saying with such confidence is simply false.

For instance, she says that Golden Rice has been shown not to work. Untrue. There is plenty of scientific evidence showing that Golden Rice is a good source of vitamin A (example). Given the huge problems associated with vitamin deficiency in the third world, and the strong scientific support for the efficacy of Golden Rice, the movement against its use is basically like the anti-vaccination movement -- uninformed and dangerous.

Also, Golden Rice is distributed for free to poor farmers (thanks to Ingo Potrykus, its creator), so its not like farmers have to go into debt to pay Monsanto or something in order to use it.

There were other falsehoods in what she said (like her absurd claim that GM crops don't produce higher yields) but this one really stood out for me. Golden Rice seems like a no-brainer: an unambiguously positive scientific development that is being distributed in an ethical manner. Spreading misinformation about it in order to discourage its adoption is unconscionable.

I think its important to have people out there protesting and warning against the excesses of companies like Monsanto, which has an unfortunate stranglehold over most GMO distribution. I just wish the most vocal activists weren't also science-deniers.

It's an interesting idea, but only works on a subset of surveillance cameras. It's possible to detect almost any digital image sensor, and in fact there are commercial products available to do this - for example http://www.jaycar.com.au/productView.asp?ID=QC3506 (I don't know how good they are!)

They won't work on film cameras though.

*length=89

Undead with a 9/10/89 version.

Congratulations! Your dedication to keeping VideoSift clear of baddies has earned you your "Ban Police" Level 89 Badge!

*length=89

http://en.ilovecoffee.jp/posts/view/89

The non-dick way.

Debate, yay! Let's take this in order:

@00Scud00 You don't actually disagree with me it seems. Christian fundamentalism is (almost) as dangerous as Islam fundamentalism imo, with the tiny caveat that Jesus' message was mostly pacific passive-aggressive, à la "be nice to everyone here, me and Dad will torture our enemies in the afterlife", whereas Muhammed's was very much "death to the infidel, by our hand and/or God's" (e.g. s2:191-3; s4:89; 5:33; 9:52, etc). As for nation-building, it is more rooted in Islam - if only by virtue of being what their holiest figure did, contrary to the "kingdom-of-heaven-is-not-on-earth" Jesus (of course, Christianity's inherent One Truth totalitarianism is, as history shows, a perfect backup ideology for colonizing and war-weilding as well.
Of course people growing up with Islam will, for the most part, adhere to the good and ignore (sadly, instead of revolting against) the evil, just like with any other religion. That does not change the inherent wrongness and dangerousness of the ideology itself.
"You're condemning an entire belief system and billions of Muslims based on a statistically small group of whackjobs, doesn't sound very scientific to me. the comparatively greater (observable and quantifiable) numbers of threats/acts of violence done in the name of Islam than those in the name of other religious ideologies in this point in history " FTFClarity. If I mention >100'000person-riots demanding the deaths of atheist bloggers, which religious beliefs are most likely to be at the source there? Proportionally, which religious beliefs have, today, the most negative effects on women? Which population of ex-"religion" is most likely to receive death threats and/or be killed for religious reasons? I could go on, but I think the point is made that, proportionally, Islam is the greatest cause of religious-fueled harm today.

@Yogi, apples and oranges dear, not to mention your very narrow definition of Islam's toll (the sunnis bombed by chiites and vice-versa, and all the honour-killing victims, to name only a couple, would not agree with you). The US-wrought massacres in the ME are unforgiveable, no doubt about it, but most of the excuses made to justify it were secular, not religious. Fundamentalist Islam is above all a threat to its immediate neighbours (usually other muslims). Islamist terrorism is only one aspect of the ideology's dangers, and takes its greatest toll in Africa and the ME. Counting only US victims is terribly self-centered.

@SDGundamX Hello old debate-buddy; I will freely admit that I do not want to spend days and days compiling exact numbers of "victims of Islam" vs "victims of other religions", and I think it is rather a dismissive tactic to demand such data. That is why I formulated the question differently in the response above to 00Scud00: take a look at the state of the world, and simply compare. Does this paint all of Islam in a broad brush? You think it does, I do not. I do not find it contradictory to accept the wide variety of "Islams" and Islamic practices/interpretations while arguing that the core fundamentals of Islam, i.e. the founding texts and exemplary figures, can and sadly often do lead to or are invoked to motivate violence and unethical behaviour, and that at this point in history it is the one that does so the most. I do not imply that there is "one" practice of Islam, that is you projecting. There are, however, a set of texts at the core of Islam, and with it a set of beliefs (as you yourself point out).
There is a reason why "moderate" Christians, Muslims, etc. are called "moderate": they only "moderately" adhere to that core. And yes, Muslims disagree with eachother about how to live/interpret that core, and sometimes (like the Christians and Jews etc. before them) kill eachother over their disagreements.

Is there good stuff to be found in those fundamentals? Yes, of course, but they are basics of human empathy and animal morality, and do not require holy validation (this applies for all religious fundamentals of course).

You and many others seem to be unable to dissociate "hating an ideology" from "hating every individual who adheres to it, no matter to what degree". It is noteworthy that the people who accuse others of painting Islam/Muslims "with one broad stroke" are often guilty of implying exactly that when they make that accusation: "you express dislike of Islam and/or the acts of certain Muslims, ergo you can only be expressing dislike for all of them, because one=all!"

As for equating Islam with danger, there is nothing wrong with that. What is wrong is to equate Muslim people with danger, and yes, there is a huge difference, one that people like myself think so obvious as to not have to spell it out until opposing voices accuse us of not making that difference, often because they themselves cannot. When the fundamentals say "believing something other than Islam is worse than murder" and "kill the non-believer", it is a dangerous ideology. Thankfully we know that the majority of individuals will eschew that part of the fundamentals, gaining the "moderate" achievement. This does not diminish the danger inherent in the fundamentals.

@Babymech It is not ignorant to say that Chechens have been bombed, massacred, and isolated, and are poor as all get-out. It is ignorant to suggest that these are the only possible reasons a culture might have violent strains running through it, and that one should by all means not look towards the beliefs that explicitly command killing people who don't believe what you do. Moreover, my history is pretty rusty, but of all the many places and peoples the US has bombed and massacred, I don't remember Chechnya being among them. The Boston bombing may have been political in nature, but suggesting that it can only be so and cannot have religious motivations is simplistic and counter to, well, reality.

My Spanish is close to non-existent, but to paraphrase it says something along the lines of:

Watch the 60m final between two athletes of more than 90 years of age.

[something about being a good example to us all, and what an emotive contest this was between the two Nonagenarians] in the 60 metre dash in the final of the European Athletics Championships: The Finn Ilmari Koppinen, 95 years of age, against Belgian Emiel Pauwels, 94, who took the victory.

The European Veterans Athletics Championships in San Sebastian ran between March 19 to March 24. On the left, the Belgian Emiel Pauwels, 94. On the right, the Finnish Ilmari Koppinen, 95.

Ready, Set, Go!!!

The Finn takes advantage in the first meters and appears to be prevailing. However, the Belgian mid-career recovers and manages to cross the finish line first with his arms raised.

In reality, the two men both won, with the two solo contests of different categories of the 60 meter dash in the same race: Pauwels, of over 90 years, and Koppinen the age of 95.

The Belgian achieved a time of 17.70, while the Finn crossed the finish line with a time of 17.89.

Yo antman-was playing a game where you try to anticipate the next embedded video on the Videosift that geeks use to get votes and search for it here to try to beat my best time- Found this one on Laughing Squid and then found the ant's embed.

Try and beat 89 mins, my best time so far! Thanks ANT!

I would typically agree with you except it is generally shown to be wide open, well cleared, quite a thoroughfare. I imagine the pilot is familiar with the roads. I know which major roads I could land on up here for example without any type of wire crossings. Every plane landing on road event up here I read about ends up with fine people and fine aircraft. I'm not saying land on a road in downtown or Los Angeles. I'm saying look at the big ass road under the aircraft with no cars and no apparent hi tension wire crossings.

You might expect that a local pilot be familiar with major roads, like highway 89/91 pictured in the video. Take a look around on 89/91 and see if you think it looks safe:
http://goo.gl/maps/bL3Rq
That's the first major road seen in the video.

I think that's five lanes? I saw two cars on the entire stretch in the video. (Not the easiest to pick them out.)

From air:
http://goo.gl/maps/V0FaF