Congratulations! Your comment on Huge wave breaks window at restaurant on pier has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

From another vantage point https://videosift.com/video/Huge-wave-breaks-window-at-restaurant-on-pier

So at what point can scientist's finally say, "We told you so!" I bet it'll happen in the next 5 years. I'm guessing by that point, the climate effects will be severe enough to prove climate science absolutely irrefutable. For now, we can march forward in relative uncertainty with the well-funded media campaigns of climate sceptics and their message of ignorance.

There might even be a bounce-back year coming up. One where the global climate actually averages 1.0 to 0.5C cooler over the year. I'm hoping it doesn't fuel the sceptic campaign too much longer, because the trend is far too frightening to imagine if humanity misses the window.

[edit: 7/8/2012] My father in-law, a staunch climate change denier, says humorously that he was planning to die in 4 years. In order to prove me wrong and laugh in my face however, he says he will now hang on for another 6!

ChaosEngine, your comment below is understandable. I think world citizens will change their tune in the next 5 years, however. The Green Party will probably gain huge waves of support even without SuperPacs because their campaign message will be felt more and more each year. Just as organized religion had its reign and lost influence as science and society have revealed its fallacy, so too will the sceptic's argument lose out over ever-mounting empirical support of the truth: that human activities have indeed altered the Earth's climate for centuries to come. That is to say as long as we have free lines communication through tools such as the Internet.

it has nothing to do with climate change. It's a geological formation that helps make huge waves. And as you can probably see in the video, the weather wasn't exactly bad.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^ghark:
Besides, by saying the GOP made nice comments about Arab Spring then bad comments about these protests, aren't you highlighting their hypocrisy? So what's the big deal about highlighting hypocrisy when it comes from the other side?
Yes, I'm highlighting their hypocrisy, because they are actually being hypocritical.
Democrats are not. They are sympathetic to OWS. They are saying good things about OWS. They are not capable of issuing orders to the police protesters are clashing with, and they definitely are not ordering a violent crackdown on demonstrators who are largely arguing for Democratic proposals.
>> ^ghark:
I agree that Republican obstructionism is not good, but if Dem's had the significant majority in both the house and senate would it make a big difference? I think in the past it might have, when the corporate influence in politics wasn't so great, these days... I think it's a very hard argument to make, especially considering the fact they didn't do anything significant when they did have the numbers after the last election.
Let's do some quick math. Suppose the Democratic Party consisted only of clones of Bernie Sanders and Joe Manchin. Further, let's suppose that in any given election, the Democratic party sends 80% Bernies, and 20% Joes to Congress. For simplicity, let's assume all the Joes always vote with Republicans, and that 100% of the Republicans vote against anything OWS wants.
You need 60 votes to overcome a filibuster. How big does the Democratic Party's margin of victory need to be for there to be 60 clones of Bernie Sanders in the Senate? Answer: 75. You need Democrats to carry 75% of the Senate. That means a minimum of 25 of 50 states need to have both their Senators be Democrats. Are there 25 blue states? And that scenario also requires ALL the remaining states be purple, with no pure red states at all.
Now, if Republicans weren't filibustering everything and anything, then the math changes only slightly. Democrats could pass legislation with just 50 votes (plus Biden), but as long as the Republican party stays 100% unified against anything even remotely like what OWS wants, you need 63 Democrats in order to wind up with 50 Bernies.
This is my way of saying "Democratic purity isn't the problem" -- 80% Bernies would be a massive, massive leap forward in Democratic ideological purity, and it still wouldn't do jack shit for us, because the deck is stacked against us by a) the rules of the Senate, and b) lockstep Republican opposition to sane policy.
So, are you out there working to help give Democrats that kind of majority, or improve their purity, or at least doing something about Republicans? Fuck no, you're out there taking potshots at Democrats because you didn't get a pony from Obama.
It ticks me off, because it's part of what's killing this country. To quote Yeats, "The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity."


I think the argument has to go a little deeper than that - you are talking about improving the number of 'rational-acting' Democrats which is a noble idea, and one which I of course support. However, at some point (if things stay the way they are) people are going to be unhappy with the system so you're going to get swing voters voting Republican. So unless both parties are brought into line we'll just persist with the current system where, no matter what anyone votes, there will never be enough Bernie Sanders' to make a difference.

The answer to both your Democratic problem, and the Republican problem can be mostly solved by just one change, removing the money in politics.

I don't think it should ever be about which side is better, it should be about 'how do we get the results we want' - talk is cheap after all.

The reason I don't think you can just hope for more people to vote Democrat and expect change that way is Obama had a huge wave of support in the last election; you'd just had years of Iraq war, Afghan occupation, colonialism just about anywhere there was oil, corporate looting, disastrous economic decisions etc by Bush, 2008 was the moment where the Democrats could have made a difference. But what have they done? I mean seriously, while we debate this nonsense people are getting slaughtered all over the world in the name of oil, by your troops, by your private armies, by your weapons and often with other countries support (including mine). There is a time for debate, but we must also realize that we are destroying our own livelihoods and the livelihoods of our children, we need to fix the path we're on sooner rather than later.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'tsunami, from boat, huge wave, lucky, oooOOooooo' to 'tsunami 2011, tsunami, from boat, huge wave, lucky, oooOOooooo' - edited by lucky760

Geesus and blankfist,
Yes, citizenship is bestowed upon birth in most countries, and yes, taxes are a pretty basic, common sensical part of a successful civilization. (I'd lurve to here some examples to the contrary if you've gottem) There aren't many countries that don't have taxes. The few exceptions are failed states like Darfur and Somalia.

If you don't like living in a modern civilization, you can either go galt and move to darfur, go off the grid -unibomber style- or work from the inside to change our system to something more anarchical. The last one probably won't happen, because I don't think there has ever been a successful country that didn't have taxes, so just basic common sense is your enemy in this fight.

Beyond all this, I'd think you two would be more happy, because we are about to see government elected on all that free market rhetoric that you both so oft spew.

A huge wave of corporate candidates wrapped in the flag, waving free market ideology have been swept into office, taking over a majority of state legislatures, governors mansions and the house. That combined with a supreme court in the pocket, a filabustable senate and a President who doesn't like to use executive orders very often (which is basically the only thing he can do from here on out), means that free market ideology will have free reign. I expect you will see much privatization, deregulation and tax cuts in areas that benefit big business. Also, Iran is back on the table, because markets just love all the money there is to be found in the weapons of war and the plunder of resources. Tax giveaways to the super-rich are also taking a front seat.

It's ugly, smelly and not too bright, but it's still your baby, it has your DNA. Kiss the baby.

Your video, Earthquake Creates Huge Waves in Pool, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

>> ^burdturgler:
Is there really a huge wave of test impersonators using a Muslim Niqab? I call bullshit on that.

It's not the Niqab in specifically, but proxy exam taking is one of the most common cheats, and I would know because I've been teaching at a university for 6 years. Niqab is just something that would facilitate the sort of cheating that is already a problem. It is also common practice to ask students to remove all hats during exams so that their eyes can be seen to not wander when they are hunched over an exam paper. In a smaller class they don't need to ID card people, because the teacher knows everybody's name by sight, unless their face is always covered.

Also, I imagine that when instructing students in a foreign language on phonetics it would be very helpful to see how they are moving their mouth so that you can correct them if that is part of the problem.

Is there really a huge wave of test impersonators using a Muslim Niqab? I call bullshit on that. I also call bullshit on the Niqab being an impediment to communication. They're not taking acting classes. Don't tell me you can't hear what's being said through a veil. It's not a muzzle. It's a thin piece of cloth. I hear my stupid neighbors arguing across the fucking street every day. If you want to make this about security you have a real problem, because like I said, the onus is on them to provide security and that means everyone needs to be identified before the test, but they are not trying to identify everybody.

" There is a difference between private beliefs/practice and public behavior. Public behaviors are subject to reasonable regulation regardless of whether they originate from a religious belief or some other idea." ... "The only difference between a religious practice and an arbitrary choice is how many people follow it." ...

This custom has been around for over a thousand years. Long before the foundation to these schools were poured. In fact, longer than many nations have existed. It doesn't really matter, justifying these rights is part of the problem. They already ARE rights. Taking rights away is the issue and you all should be concerned when any government starts telling you what you can wear.

>> ^jwray:
There are some issues with covering your entire face in a classroom:
1. It would be easy for an upperclassman substitute to take an exam for you. This is a common method of cheating in large lectures where the teacher doesn't know people's names. ID badges would accomplish nothing at all, as you can give your ID badge to the impostor and the exam taker cannot be seen except for her eyes. DNA, retinal scans, and fingerprinting are a little bit too high tech for this specific application. The most realistic solution is to reveal the face of the test-taker so that it can be matched against the picture ID. Voice identification might be a viable alternative, but it is much more difficult to match a voice than to match a face.
2. It impedes communication severely by hiding all facial expressions and muffling the voice.

Additionally:
3. There is a difference between private beliefs/practice and public behavior. Public behaviors are subject to reasonable regulation regardless of whether they originate from a religious belief or some other idea.
4. Rastafarians don't get exemptions from relevant regulations for their arbitrary religious dogmas involving marajuana, either.
5. The only difference between a religious practice and an arbitrary choice is how many people follow it. What if I decide that my new religion is skivinism, whose religious practice is to skip class every Wednesday. The teacher better not mark me down for it, or he's voliating my FREEDOM OF RELIGION! If practices based on religious beliefs must be granted exemptions from various regulations, then so must practices based on individual ideas. There is nowhere to draw the line along the continuum from individual nutter, to small cult, to large cult, to small religion, to large organized religion.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'aircraft, carrier, crashing, huge, waves' to 'aircraft, carrier, ship, crashing, huge, waves, rough seas' - edited by calvados

Also, I thought it was dreadfully Orwellian when, right after the exploitative video ended, the first thing it cut to was a huge, waving, American flag.

if you are in the ocean, the wave is gonna push you up and down a bit. that's all, as far as i know. it's not going to push you much towards shore, you're only little, there's not much to push on, and the wave won't be very high until it gets close to land. so it's pushing up, not shoreward. water isn't actually moving towards the shore, it's just rising and falling. of course when it gets to land it runs out of space and rises up and overtakes itself and produces turbulence underneath and starts to fall/roll over, pushing everything inland. getting hit in the ankles by a small wave on a previously dry street is very different to bobbing up and down on a huge wave out at sea.

and yes, this is scary. especially with the translation of the last line.

if you had something to float on and you could swim far enoughf out so the wave dosent own you you could probably avoid most the danger presuming you can swim back to shore. the thing that nroamly kills people is geting hit by stuff ore geting pushed down streets and into things then geting stuck. if your in the watter far away from everything you can get hit by huge waves and be fine.

Yep. Sunny Southern California. Orange County to be exact. Of course it's not so sunny this weekend as a storm's moving in. Though that just means surf's up. Speaking of which, a surfer died the other day in the huge waves this incoming storm has kicked up on it's way in. But I digress.

As far as temperature goes, it's been about a freezing 70°F lately. I've almost had to switch from short- to long-sleeved shirts.