That's not true. You can't indiscriminately speed around - we all abide by the rules and use the roads assuming that other people are also using the rules, i.e. drive on the left, give way to your right on roundabouts, drive at 30mph in residential areas. We gauge our ability to leave a junction safely (amongst other things) on the idea that people abide by the speed limit (and other rules), and it isn't the turning driver's fault the lambo driver was driving dangerously. Those kinds of cars don't skimp on the breaks either - if she wasn't able to stop she wasn't driving appropriately. You can hear how fast the car is moving and listen to when the vehicle starts to slow, i don't even think she reacted quickly enough because the obstacle was well into the road before the change in speed.

If this was Britain (the shop names don't look it but the registration plates kinda do, also driving on the left and black-taxis) then i expect the speedlimit in that sort of area to be at or below 20 which is standard these days.

I thought this was another 4chan mass-troll when i first heard of it. Perhaps it will be this year's "Kony 2012." I've never heard anyone called bossy that wasn't striding around demanding things, telling people what they should be doing without consideration for the situation, etc. I've never heard anyone called a leader that wasn't a problem-solver with a good ability to express themselves. Part of me wants to believe this is some sort of inter-Atlantic difference because i've been so isolated from any evidence of it being a problem.

I've got three points and i'll try to make them succinct. If anyone wants to pull me up on them, i'll go further.

1. The word bossy is not inherently sexist. Sometimes people are bossy. Calling a girl bossy doesn't make you sexist. This campaign can make villains out of people in the same way that a girl getting called bossy can unfairly stereotype a strong willed woman. At best it trades one form of unfairness for another.

2. Human beings come in two flavours. One of them is man, another is woman. Man and woman are different. They will never in the foreseeable future be equal in all things, and it is not sexist a) to say that or b) for that to be the norm. This is the way of the animal kingdom - we see it in animals, and we are animals. Because of our different chemical composition, we will have a natural role diversity that is is absolutely unavoidable and has nothing to do with fairness. In lieu of this, any study that says "gender A is less represented in field B because sexism," has a hell of a lot of factors to take into account, some of which i'm not even sure can be accounted for. I am in no way stating that all of one particular gender are better than all of the other gender at any given thing; i am saying that on average, testosterone and oestrogen will soften or harden the heart in different ways (to simplify the argument) which will lead on average to gender weighting. It is going to take a lot more than a few poems and forceful statements to convince me. Where are the sources and the studies, and what authority do they have? Furthermore where are the studies about word-prohibition in the grand scheme of solving problems? i.e. How do we know this is a good idea even if there is a problem?

3. "Banning" a word empowers that word for those who would use it for harm. Or people will find a new way of expressing the same idea. In Britain people thought that UKIP (*spit*) should be kept off TV because giving them political air-time legitimised them. In actual fact, the better idea (and eventual decision) was to put them on TV and allow them to make idiots of themselves with their inherent stupidity. I suggest a similar thing is true of banning the word bossy. Let it be said, and make it abundantly clear how wrong it is when it gets said.

This was a really bad idea that stems from a great intention. And for the record, i love bossy girls - it would benefit me to see more empowered woman in the world. It's not easy finding them.

More Amanda Palmer music videos/songs.
and @siftbot make them all *related

http://videosift.com/video/A-song-being-denied-airtime-in-Britain
http://videosift.com/video/The-Killing-Type-Amanda-Palmer
http://videosift.com/video/Do-It-With-a-Rock-Star-Amanda-Palmer
http://videosift.com/video/Don-t-Wax-That-Vay-Jay-Jay

Do It With a Rock Star - Amanda Palmer has been added as a related post - related requested by eric3579.

A song being denied airtime in Britain has been added as a related post - related requested by eric3579.

The Killing Type - Amanda Palmer has been added as a related post - related requested by eric3579.

Don't Wax That Vay Jay Jay-A Joyful Celebration (and tame) has been added as a related post - related requested by eric3579.

Only in Britain do sports have a butler.

@VoodooV far be it from me to side with choggie, but he's spot on about major political parties being "the same." Even with 3-4 parties to choose from in Britain, what we actually get is a change of figurehead. What we refer to as "democracy" in both our countries is not fit for purpose and does not represent the best interests of the people.

There's a wonderful indictment of British politics that i've seen floating around. It shows the political debate over changes to the welfare system and the chamber is empty save for 5-6 people. The debate about proposed increases to MP's pay shows a picture of an utterly packed house. That's a modern politician.

Here

But they're not at war. America is absolutely 100% not at war with the nations of Pakistan or Yemen or wherever else they're currently using drones.

They are prosecuting assassinations of private individuals within those states. It is quite literally state sponsored terrorism.

The simple fact is that it is an illegal action under international law. Just because a foreign country doesn't want to hand over one of it's citizens that the USA believes is or has been engaged in harmful acts against your country does not mean you can simply throw your toys out of the pram.

If one of your neighbours assaults you and then runs inside their house, you can't just kick down their door for revenge.

To repeat @SDGundamX's excellent summation of the point:

if Americans are in support of remote assassinations that are carried out by executive decision without scrutiny from courts or any sort of due process, how can they possibly decry the use of such strikes by foreign powers against American citizens?

Just because you don't get what you want (the arrest/extradition of terrorists) does not mean you can just do whatever you want.

Oh, and @SDGundamX, my point was not so much that Britain would have used drones against Ireland, it's that they wouldn't have.

As much as I hated Thatcher, she wasn't stupid, and the political fallout over a British armed strike into sovereign Irish territory would have been immense, especially in the USA.

But because it's in one of them foreign places with poor brown people that don't speak english.... well, they get blown up all the time, right? What's a few more air to ground missiles, eh?

You evaded his question.

The question isn't whose terrorists are "badder." Nevermind the fact I find it hard to swallow your argument that Ireland's terrorists are "less bad" than Afghanistan's/Pakistan's because they were willing to use political means in addition to their violence against civilians to achieve their aims. I think it is pretty safe to assume if Britain had had access to the drone technology during The Troubles it would have used it. British forces didn't seem to have any trouble with shooting civilians during the conflict, nor unlawfully (and often indefinitely) detaining them.

The question is, if Americans are in support of remote assassinations that are carried out by executive decision without scrutiny from courts or any sort of due process, how can they possibly decry the use of such strikes by foreign powers against American citizens?

And there is only one plausible answer to that question--they can't.

@ChaosEngine is saying that these drone strikes, if internationally sanctioned, will open Pandora's box. What say you to that?

Ok, let's change the territory. Forget Muslims and Al Queada and the Middle East and all that.

Let's roll the clock back 30 years, and let's find a comparable scenario where we have stateless actors living in a country who's reluctant to extradite them (either through inability to locate them or because they don't really like the country asking for extradition). These actors are responsible for a number of atrocities committed in the name of a political cause that has some tacit support by the locals of this country.

So we have the IRA hiding in the Republic of Ireland for bombing civilians in Northern Ireland and Great Britain.

Now let's assume the British have drones. Is it acceptable for them to drone strike targets within the Republic leading to civilian casualties? If not, why not?

Hell, let's go forward 20 or 30 years to when Iraq or Afghanistan have drones and the USA refuses to extradite the people that illegally invaded their country and then committed crimes against humanity there. Is it ok to drone strike Texas to get to GW Bush?

This is not a door we want to open. You're happy with it now because you're the ones holding the big stick, but legitimising international assassination because you don't get your way is a recipe for a nightmare.

Did they put someone in jail? Are they stopping them by force?

Sorry but they are not a threat to free speech, they are voicing their opinions. Come back to me when someone puts you in jail for your opinion and I'll do something about it.

Freedom of Speech is alive and well in America, for example when the Guardian was forced to destroy all their computers and hard drives with the Snowden leaks on it in Britain they weren't here. Britain may have asked but the US Government knows better, they can't do it and not because of some law but because of the principle on which that law stands. That and we'd fucking riot like hell. Free speech is something we constantly have to fight and look out for, but it's not under threat from bored mothers. Even if they are a bunch of cunts.

Beautiful exposé by Sirota on PBS's contribution to the war on public employees’ retirement benefits: The Wolf of Sesame Street.

Britain is still one step ahead...

Wow! I could never get down a slope like that without an ambulance or air lift. I had to look up the impressive fellow with the skills to make it down in one piece and film.

"Graham Bell and his brother Martin competed for Britain throughout the 1980s and 1990s. Graham took a Silver Medal at the World Junior Ski Championships in 1984 and represented Great Britain at five Winter Olympics in Sarajevo 1984, Calgary 1988, Albertville 1992, Lillehammer 1994 and Nagano 1998." /sauce

Sorry sir, it's my native tongue, not a second-language, and only the most pathetic of my ancestors are from 'Great Britain.'

I have a degree in physics. I'm guessing that English is maybe a 2nd language for you? Your explanation of mass and weight is a little confusing. With regards to our astronaut on the moon, it's the difference in weight that matters. He should be able to (approximately) lift six times the weight he could on earth.
(Sidebar: It's often been said that Olympics on the moon would be fantastic because a man who could high-jump 7 feet high on earth would be able to high-jump 42 feet high (7x6) on the moon. In fact, he would only be able to jump about half that. Do you know why? I'll leave that with you as a challenge.)

Insofar as faked moon landings, I'm 90 % sure we went to the moon. However, bear in mind that Americans didn't know their own government was spying extensively on them til last year. It's the old joke... "Just because your paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't watching you..."

Alternative 3 is an interesting study of conspiracy dynamics. I first heard of it 30 years ago. It started as an April Fools joke in Britain on a science news TV show. It was brilliant in it's conception...

Short version:
1. Global warming will lead to total collapse of earth's eco-systems in two centuries or less.
2. Global governments are co-operating to move the cream of earth's leaders, scientists, etc to bases that have been established for decades on the far side of the moon and on Mars. (Alternative 3. Alternative 1 was huge underground bunkers, Alternative 2 was huge geo-synchronous cities... both were deemed too impractical to carry out.)
3. Mars is actually very liveable. We landed there in the 60s, established bases, using flying saucer technology developed here on earth by scientists.
4. The general population is being kept ignorant of the impending disaster, our advanced technology, the true state of Mars, etc. Governments worldwide are co-operating at the highest levels to perpetuate the myth that our progress in space is a slow, laborious process. (Which explains why the Soviet Union did not expose the Apollo programs as fake...) They don't want to cause a panic while they advance their agenda.
5. They have even developed psychic assassins capable of killing with their minds via spontaneous human combustion.

Due to TV schedule changes it was shown at a later date convincing the general public there that it was the real deal. (You can actually see the original show on YouTube... you'll even recognize some of the 'real scientists' etc as British character actors if you're old enough.)

It's a long convoluted story but thanks to a couple of follow up books and the Internet which gave it new life it has now 'morphed' into this vast conspiracy that involves alien / government co-operation at the highest levels à la X-Files. (The original conspiracy did not involve aliens...)

Adding to the fun and mystery is that some real world events -- too complicated to explain here -- later played right into details of the conspiracy.

I always thought it would make for a brilliant Hollywood movie -- the original version, not the 'updated' version.

We want an INVESTIGATION / COMPENSATION AGAINST BRITAIN FOR ALLOWING CHILDREN TO BE WRONGFULLY IMPRISONED BY THE IRISH STATE LAW WHO WERE BORN IN BRITAIN AND SUFFERED ABUSE IN IRELAND BOTH CULTURAL AND PERSONAL ABUSE.
CULTURAL ABUSE IS WRONGFUL IMPRISONMENT / SLAVERY
THEN THE PERSONAL ABUSE SUFFERED. BRITAIN IS GUILTY OF CHILD ABUSE.