Slashdot Mirror


NASCAR Tries To Squelch Video of Spectators Injured By Crash

An anonymous reader writes "Dozens of fans attending a NASCAR race at Daytona Speedway were injured when a crash during the last lap triggered a chain reaction, culminating in the front section of Kyle Larson's car ricocheting into the fence in front of the stands (Larson escaped injury). While the footage accompanying the article is dramatic enough, an even more riveting clip showing the chaotic scene in the stands from up close was posted on YouTube, but was taken down after NASCAR claimed it violated their copyright . YouTube has since restored the fan's video. A NASCAR spokesman has issued a clarification, saying that the takedown request was done out of respect for those injured. The race was an opening act for the main event, the Daytona 500, which officials say will proceed as scheduled. 'With the fence being prepared tonight to our safety protocols, we expect to go racing tomorrow with no changes,' Speedway President Joie Chitwood told CNN."

359 comments

  1. Nascar .. cha ching by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    Next up any mention of NASCAR will cost you a dollah

  2. False Takedown Notice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    So is NASCAR going to have a rash of legal suits for false takedown notices?

    1. Re:False Takedown Notice? by Dyinobal · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Didn't you get the memo, laws are for poor people.

    2. Re:False Takedown Notice? by kermidge · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Has any one, let alone some large corporate entity, every been sanctioned for false takedown?

    3. Re:False Takedown Notice? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 5, Interesting

      A NASCAR spokesman has issued a clarification, saying that the takedown request was done out of respect for those injured.

      Wow. So doing things under false pretenses is now a legitimate form of showing respect to someone. I'll try to remember that, it might come in handy!

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    4. Re:False Takedown Notice? by Gaygirlie · · Score: 5, Informative

      So is NASCAR going to have a rash of legal suits for false takedown notices?

      No, AFAIK the DMCA laws state that you lose the right to file any more DMCA takedown requests if you fail to comply with the rules -- ie. filing takedown requests in bad faith, for example, would result in you losing the right to protect your content with any future requests. It does not make you liable for monetary compensation or place you in a position for lawsuits. In addition to that, no one seems to actually honor this side of the law -- Google certainly doesn't give a flying f*ck if someone abuses the DMCA as long as they get their pretty penny.

    5. Re:False Takedown Notice? by sumdumass · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'm not sure they were false. Major League Baseball and I think most of the football chains have long considered anything that happens within their stadiums to be their copyright and trademark if documented.

      NASCAR could have the same legal position except they do not normally restrict the usage of fan generated content.

    6. Re:False Takedown Notice? by Seumas · · Score: 1

      In practice, I believe these clauses of the DMCA only apply to the little guys.

    7. Re:False Takedown Notice? by sumdumass · · Score: 3, Informative

      No, a false take down notice if it is knowingly false, subject whoever made the false accusation to liability to all damages including legal fees as a result of the take down.

      The problem is in showing you were injured in a way that can be monetized.

      There may be rules of the court in which allow for someone to be restricted from an action in the future, but the law only provides for the recovery of damages, costs, and lawyer fees involved with it.

    8. Re:False Takedown Notice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      By your cynical logic, wouldn't Google care about false takedown notices since they're not going to make money off of ads for videos they can't show?

    9. Re:False Takedown Notice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is there some public database listing those who got their rights to file takedown complaints revoked ?

      If there isn't how would the site owner check if the guy making the complaint may do so ?
      If there is no such database its intentional to make it impossible to enforce the penalties.

    10. Re:False Takedown Notice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      You're only now learning this? Have you learned nothing from all the slaughter done in the name of Jesus?

    11. Re:False Takedown Notice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All content is now transferred to NASCAR Digital Media II. When that one files a false claim and loses their privilege, all content is transferred to NASCAR Digital Media 3.

    12. Re:False Takedown Notice? by SniffTheGlove · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I really wish that Google would do the right thing and prosecute these organisations, after all they all state "The information in all notifications submitted through the Program will be accurate, and I swear, under penalty of perjury, that with respect to those notifications, I am the copyright owner or am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed." If there is a false take down then under their own words of "under penalty of perjury" they should be prosecuted. If there is never any comeback on these organisations they will keep on pumping out false takedowns. Does not matter if these are automated takedowns done by software and the sender of the takedown states "under penalty of perjury" then they are liable.

    13. Re:False Takedown Notice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      rotfl

      you - you a funny guy

    14. Re:False Takedown Notice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My understanding is that, technically, they fill out a form as part of a partnership they have with YouTube (Google) that is not *technically* a DMCA takedown request. It gives them the ability to have the same effect without having the liability of actually filling one out. Everybody (with money) wins!

    15. Re:False Takedown Notice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The most likely result of this will be some hasty alterations made to future tickets so that the "legalese" on the ticket clearly states that any and all video and audio representations taken while in the venue are property of NASCAR. That way they will be able to take down any videos that they don't like.

    16. Re:False Takedown Notice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Of course not. If someone tried, the law suit would be long and ruining for the person.

    17. Re:False Takedown Notice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or the slaughter done in the name of Muhammed?

    18. Re:False Takedown Notice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only the flying spaghetti’s monsters, is not covered in blood, yet

    19. Re:False Takedown Notice? by nametaken · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Amen. And we really do need Google to do this, if even on behalf of (and with written permission of), the actual rights holders. Every system needs checks, and just dumping countless notices on a service provider and letting them be the arbiter, with no repercussions for bogus requests, is absolutely insane. There needs to be counterweight.

    20. Re:False Takedown Notice? by AK+Marc · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Google can't prosecute, that's up to the government, which is already owned by the Nascar sponsors.

    21. Re: False Takedown Notice? by LocalH · · Score: 1

      This is what's wrong with society. The GP is proudly +1 while the parent is -1.

      --
      FC Closer
    22. Re:False Takedown Notice? by NatasRevol · · Score: 3, Informative

      But IS covered in tasty red sauce!

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    23. Re:False Takedown Notice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Lets do something about it! Everyone following this thread, please contact google and ask them to persue legal action against NASCAR for the knowingly false takedown request.

    24. Re:False Takedown Notice? by dcollins117 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Google doesn't have legal standing to file suit, that would be up to the owner of the video. He would also need to prove damages.

    25. Re:False Takedown Notice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Your outrage is misdirected. This wasn't a DMCA takedown this was a special power youtube gives to a special class of copyright holders to be the police themselves. Youtube can't override a DMCA takedown even if it was filed in bad faith only the person who posted the orginal can fight a takedown notice.

      If you want to be outraged; rage at youtube for giving NASCAR the power to pull videos and of course NASCAR for abusing their powers.
      But DMCA problem this is not; this is basicly an admin deleting a post they didn't like.

    26. Re:False Takedown Notice? by gnasher719 · · Score: 2

      You don't lose any rights by false requests. Here's what's illegal: You have to state under threat of perjury that you are the copyright holder or represent the copyright holder of some work. If the work that you claim isn't actually the one that is uploaded (for example if NASCAR believed that you uploaded their official video, but you uploaded one you shot yourself), that isn't punished. If they claim that you uploaded a video made by some TV crew and they own the copyright, but in reality the TV station and not NASCAR owned the copyright, that would be perjury and punished accordingly.

    27. Re:False Takedown Notice? by sjames · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I met a guy that considered the earth to be flat once, but I remain unconvinced.

    28. Re:False Takedown Notice? by LMariachi · · Score: 2

      All they’re attesting to with that clause is that they are the copyright owner or the owner’s authorized representative. Read it again; the oath doesn’t cover the actual validity of the infringement claim.

    29. Re:False Takedown Notice? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2

      "Has any one, let alone some large corporate entity, every been sanctioned for false takedown?"

      I have wondered that myself. False takedown is an offense, after all. I want to see it enforced.

    30. Re:False Takedown Notice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obviously recording the entire performance is probably a violation of copyrights, but the accident is not the intended part of the performance, and even if it was, a 10 second clip is still fair use.

      ASSCAR can suck it.

    31. Re: False Takedown Notice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slaughter in the name of Jesus was 500 years ago. Slaughter in the name of Muhammed was 5 days ago. Smaller scale, granted, but it's too soon to joke about.

    32. Re:False Takedown Notice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Has that concept been tested in court yet?

    33. Re:False Takedown Notice? by yotto · · Score: 1

      And we're not talking hit-by-a-tire damages here. Monetary damages. REAL damages.

    34. Re:False Takedown Notice? by yotto · · Score: 1

      Actually yes, but in pretty much every single case ever the massive corporation submitting the takedown notice will sue Google for a lot more money than the 13 year old dancing to their favorite song would ever earn.

    35. Re:False Takedown Notice? by sumdumass · · Score: 2

      I'm not really sure what you think has to do with it. It's all about what the person who filed the notice thinks. If they have a claim, then there is a claim. The validity of that claim might be questioned but it still doesn't negate the claim as far as the law is concerned.

    36. Re:False Takedown Notice? by sumdumass · · Score: 2

      Fair use is a defense to a violation not and exception to controls. It works out in reality that it can be an exception, but only after the claim of a violation is made.

    37. Re:False Takedown Notice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Oooh, I'm quite poor. Can I have a law?

      And one for my wife as well?

    38. Re:False Takedown Notice? by dissy · · Score: 2

      Proving damages is pretty easy. Google tracks ad views pretty well, and knows down to a fraction of a penny how much money was earned over what period of time. Extrapolate that over the time the video was down = amount of damages.

    39. Re:False Takedown Notice? by GumphMaster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Perjury is a felony in the US (see 18 USC 1621) so one might expect the relevant government to intervene and prosecute. One might also be disappointed.

      --
      Patent litigation: A doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction... in which everyone seems willing to push the button
    40. Re:False Takedown Notice? by aevan · · Score: 1

      Curiously: doesn't google via advertisments, monetize videos? Do they not have an agreement with the uploader that they (the uploader) has rights to the video, and are allowing google to run the ads? So couldn't google make a claim for interference, akin to tortious interference? Now couple with how many views a fresh video of an accident can accrue... that sounds like damages to me.

    41. Re:False Takedown Notice? by jonbryce · · Score: 4, Informative

      And if the video was from a spectator's phone, then they don't own the copyright.

    42. Re:False Takedown Notice? by jonbryce · · Score: 2

      It's covered in horsemeat, in Europe anyway, and that contains blood.

    43. Re:False Takedown Notice? by gl4ss · · Score: 2

      Google doesn't have legal standing to file suit, that would be up to the owner of the video. He would also need to prove damages.

      no, they don't need to be. it was a dcma request, they could sue the ass off from nascar with no need from the original uploader. the original uploader could sue separately.

      nascar was interfering with googles site under false premise, lying about owning copyright to media shown on googles service. googles business was interfered with, they had the right to show the video and nascar claimed they didn't have - it's quite simple. I don't know how to put it any simpler, but if you were selling some very nice jeans in your jeans-store-r-us and levi's showed up and said they pirated their design.. and you then found out that they in fact didn't after pullign them from the selves for the xmas season.. you would sue levi's. you wouldn't go and ask the guy who sold you the (totally legit) jeans to sue.

      google would also know exactly how many shows of the video they blocked(and could argue it had gone viral and would have had exponentially more hits).

      BUT THAT DOESN'T MATTER BECAUSE THE DUMB FUCKS ALREADY PROMISED UNDER PERJURY THAT THEY CHECKED THAT THEY OWNED THE FUCKING CONTENT. so google should sue them - everyone should sue them - the fucking government should be sued for not suing them.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    44. Re:False Takedown Notice? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Every now and again the dumb-ass robots that generate the majority of DMCA take-downs flag up legit sites like itunes.com or amazon.com. Sometimes they even send take-downs for the copyright owner's own site, e.g. hbo.com. Google should start honouring those ones.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    45. Re: False Takedown Notice? by ganjadude · · Score: 3, Informative

      so 1 of them should be modded +1 funny while the other being modded +1 informative

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    46. Re:False Takedown Notice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And we're not talking hit-by-a-tire damages here. Monetary damages. REAL damages.

      I don't know about that... getting hit by a tyre will certainly cause REAL damage!

    47. Re:False Takedown Notice? by cheater512 · · Score: 1

      They have the right to think that.

      Just as much as I have the right to think that everything that happens in their stadiums is copyrighted by myself.
      In other words, what they think is irrelevant.

    48. Re:False Takedown Notice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A local NASCAR track does have a camera policy posted at the entrance, warning that NASCAR does retain copyright to all images of the event, and restricting fan-generated footage (megabytage?) to personal use only. This is a small minor-league track, but the wording indictaes it is a national policy at all NASCAR sanctioned tracks.

    49. Re:False Takedown Notice? by jrumney · · Score: 4, Funny

      When I want to respect an injured person, I've been following the 20th century tradition of sending flowers to their hospital bed. I really must catch up with the times and issue some DCMA takedown notices on false pretenses in their honour instead, least they consider me old fashioned.

    50. Re:False Takedown Notice? by jrumney · · Score: 1

      Obviously recording the entire performance is probably a violation of copyrights

      Obviously, to anyone versed in the basics of copyright law, it is not a violation of copyright. It might be a violation of the terms and conditions for entry into the event, but there is no copyright on a public event unless it is choreographed (in which case there will be an artistic component to the performance, which may give it some copyright protection).

    51. Re:False Takedown Notice? by chrismcb · · Score: 1

      Why do you think it is a false take down?

    52. Re:False Takedown Notice? by j00r0m4nc3r · · Score: 1

      I've been drinking horse blood to increase my penis size for a year now. Should I be worried??

    53. Re:False Takedown Notice? by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      A NASCAR spokesman has issued a clarification, saying that the takedown request was done out of respect for those injured.

      Wow. So doing things under false pretenses is now a legitimate form of showing respect to someone. I'll try to remember that, it might come in handy!

      What the heck, the usual sob sisters (and brothers) are doing it for Newtown, CT.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    54. Re: False Takedown Notice? by CyprusBlue113 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Slaughter in the name of Jesus was 500 years ago. Slaughter in the name of Muhammed was 5 days ago. Smaller scale, granted, but it's too soon to joke about.

      I think you mean 5 years ago at most, unless you're willfully ignoring all the abortion clinic murders among other atrocities committed in the name of a christian deity...

      --
      a handful of selfish greedy people are no match for millions of selfish, greedy people -u4ya
    55. Re:False Takedown Notice? by MacDork · · Score: 3, Informative

      Has any one, let alone some large corporate entity, every been sanctioned for false takedown?

      Diebold for one.

    56. Re:False Takedown Notice? by sjames · · Score: 1

      Anyone can claim anything. That doesn't make it true.

      Closer to the point, I'm reminded of that rooftop across the street from Wrigley field.

    57. Re:False Takedown Notice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      blah blah blah..... whatever is written on the back of the ticket they purchase, that's what they agreed to.
      If you don't like what is written than do not attend the NASCAR race, simple.

    58. Re:False Takedown Notice? by kermidge · · Score: 1

      Thank you for the linked article; makes interesting, useful reading. That it was Diebold that got caught makes it somehow more delicious.

      I'm also grateful you didn't razz me for not finding this on my own.
           

    59. Re:False Takedown Notice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A citizen can't charge someone with perjury. The charge would need to come from a government agent, such as a district attorney, that has the authority to file such a charge. That's never going to happen against a big company like NASCAR.

    60. Re:False Takedown Notice? by jonbryce · · Score: 1

      It won't increase your penis size, but provided it has been farmed to EU standards or the equivalent elsewhere, then there is nothing to worry about.

    61. Re:False Takedown Notice? by The_Noid · · Score: 1

      Yes, but due to comma weaselling, the perjury but only refers to whether they are allowed to speak on behalf of the copyright holder they claim to represent, NOT on whether the material infringes that holders rights.

      So they could file a takedown notice claiming that the constitution of the USA infringes NASCAR's rights, as long as they are allowed to speak on behalf of NASCAR.
      They could not file a takedown notice claiming an actual NASCAR race recording infringes NASCAR rights, if they did not have the right to speak on behalf of NASCAR, even though that recording actually does infrige.

      But IANAL, so I might be wrong.

    62. Re:False Takedown Notice? by azalin · · Score: 1

      Though I'd guess Google could come up with a pretty decent number for lost add revenue.

    63. Re:False Takedown Notice? by Solandri · · Score: 3, Informative
      Read the DMCA again. The relevant portion says:

      (3) Elements of notification.--
      (A) To be effective under this subsection, a notification of claimed infringement must be a written communication provided to the designated agent of a service provider that includes substantially the following:
      ...
      (vi) A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.

      In other words, the perjury isn't for filing a copyright claim against a video you don't hold the copyright to. It's for filing a claim when you don't hold the copyright you claim is being infringed.

      Say I make a spoof video of the Oscar ceremony using completely self-shot footage and put it on Youtube, and it gets yanked due to a DMCA copyright claim saying I lifted video from ABC's broadcast of the ceremony. It's only perjury if the person filing the claim isn't authorized to file on behalf of ABC (the copyright holder for the Oscars broadcast). The fact that it's my own video is irrelevant. The claim is that I violated ABC's copyright, and as long as the person filing the DMCA claim is authorized to do it on behalf of ABC, they are safe from the perjury provision.

      The relevant section of the DMCA in this type of situation is:

      (f) Misrepresentations.-- Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents under this section --
      (1) that material or activity is infringing, or
      (2) that material or activity was removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification,
      shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys' fees, incurred by the alleged infringer, by any copyright owner or copyright owner's authorized licensee, or by a service provider, who is injured by such misrepresentation, as the result of the service provider relying upon such misrepresentation in removing or disabling access to the material or activity claimed to be infringing, or in replacing the removed material or ceasing to disable access to it.

      But good luck proving that they knew my video was original and not theirs when they filed the DMCA claim. All they have to say is, "Oh we're sorry, we didn't realize it was your original video, we thought it was a copy of ours" and they have no liability. The burden of proof rests with you.

      The DMCA was written at the behest of copyright holders and treats their responsibility very lightly. Given how long it's been since it's been passed, I'm starting to think the only way it'll ever be reformed to be more balanced is if people who own copyrights to similar media start filing DMCA takedown notices against media published online by the big studios and record companies.

    64. Re:False Takedown Notice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only if you start developing multiple noodly appendages.

    65. Re:False Takedown Notice? by RivenAleem · · Score: 1

      Yes, if they are switching beef for horse, they might be switching horse for beef. Have you noticed any enlargement in your moobs (puntastic!) recently?

    66. Re:False Takedown Notice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Believe it or not, it doesn't matter. They "own" the IP of the sporting event, as a performance. Just try setting up your own "all-22" camera at a football game and see what the NFL says.

    67. Re:False Takedown Notice? by Specter · · Score: 1

      I would expect that NASCAR works the same way as any other major public sporting event. You bought a ticket and the ticket came with terms and conditions (usually printed on the back) in which you agreed they own the copyright for the performance.

    68. Re:False Takedown Notice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is this insightful? "I really wish that Google would do the right thing and prosecute these organisations" I wasn't aware that Google has taken over the DoJ. Why are you asking Google to "Prosecute" anybody?

    69. Re:False Takedown Notice? by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1

      No, a false take down notice if it is knowingly false, subject whoever made the false accusation to liability to all damages including legal fees as a result of the take down.

      The problem is in showing you were injured in a way that can be monetized.

      There may be rules of the court in which allow for someone to be restricted from an action in the future, but the law only provides for the recovery of damages, costs, and lawyer fees involved with it.

      LOL I can see the news stories already: "It hurt my feelings, and that cannot be compensated for monetarily... but $20mil is a good start on the path to healing."

    70. Re:False Takedown Notice? by Checklist · · Score: 0

      Very precise comment-wave the laws in the faces of the law abiding-

    71. Re:False Takedown Notice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The issue here becomes muddier due to the fact that the spectators almost certainly had tickets and/or notice that the copyright to images from the event were held by someone. Sort of like video from the Olympics. Even long after the games have ended, you can't see the moving images unless they are licensed.

    72. Re: False Takedown Notice? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1
      Slaughter in the name of Muhammad is going on every day:

      2013.02.26 (Mardan, Pakistan) - Muslim radicals gun down a guard for a polio vaccination team.

      2013.02.25 (Shikarpur, Pakistan) - Sunnis bomb a Sufi shrine, killing two worshippers.

      2013.02.24 (Gulak, Nigeria) - Boko Haram slit a man's throat in front of his wife and children.

      2013.02.24 (Fika, Nigeria) - Islamists rampage through a Christian village, killing five people in attacks that included a church.

      2013.02.24 (Jalalabad, Afghanistan) - A Fedayeen suicide bomber sends two souls to Allah.

      2013.02.23 (Ngalda, Nigeria) - Fundamentalists storm a small town late at night and indiscriminately murder six people at a bar.

      (Source)

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    73. Re:False Takedown Notice? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      I've been drinking horse blood to increase my penis size for a year now. Should I be worried??

      Meh, and I wondered why Genghis Khan's Mongols were such dicks. This explains it!

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
  3. Respect is an excuse? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Respect" is an excuse for perjury and a violation of a federal law? I should try that one if I ever get I trouble. I was just being respectful.

    Oh, I forgot. The rules are different for large corporations. Carry on.

    1. Re:Respect is an excuse? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes the rules are different.

      I am the one that made 20 DMCA takedown requests against NASCAR's commercials on youtube, and Google has refused to take the videos down.

      It's a shame I don't have the time to sue them. Without safe harbor protection they would have to spend their own money to show in court I do not own the copyrights to the videos. Wasting their money is the only thing these companies understand.

    2. Re:Respect is an excuse? by ganjadude · · Score: 2

      slashdots anon coward making takedown requests... no WONDER no one takes you seriously when you are always talking about frosty pisses

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  4. Slow mo video by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Liveleak has it, but you can't post racist comments on there unlike youtube.
    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e2c_1361717939

    1. Re:Slow mo video by WrecklessSandwich · · Score: 2

      That's why you should install Herp Derp for YouTube.

    2. Re:Slow mo video by CockMonster · · Score: 1

      Liveleak has one of the most racist communites on the publically available internet

    3. Re:Slow mo video by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1

      Liveleak has one of the most racist communites on the publically available internet

      You just advertized it indirectly. Nice.

  5. Yay Lawyers! by Joe+U · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What's a little perjury when you have someone's best interests in mind, right?

    1. Re:Yay Lawyers! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's a little perjury when you have someone's best interests in mind, right?

      And by "someone's best interests" you mean NASCAR had its own best interests in mind, right?

  6. Why do they think they can get away with this? by CaptainOfSpray · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So the takedown "was done out of respect for those injured."? Yeah, we lied about owning the copyright of newsfilm of a public event, in order to CMA, we didn't want to look bad or not caring about safety, we just wanted to suppress it all, so we invalidly exploited a stupid law. Who cares? We're important and those people injured are nobodies.

    --
    "Cock Up Your Beaver" does not mean what you think. This sig is intended to clog filters and annoy do-gooders
    1. Re:Why do they think they can get away with this? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Where does it say they lied about the copyright?

      Major League Baseball asserted ownership of the copyright of anything that happened at their games. This has been long enough ago that a lot of other organizations have done the same. It has even withstood court challenges. If NASCAR asserts the same ownership at their events, then they could very well have a copyright ownership. Their lack of enforcement in the past does not forbid them from enforcement in the future, it just makes them a dick for selectively doing it, and less of a dick for doing it for these reasons. It has nothing to do with not caring about safety as all the information, likely along with more video coverage then the fan's created coverage, will be sent to regulators and authorities for review.

    2. Re:Why do they think they can get away with this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Major League Baseball asserted ownership of the copyright of anything that happened at their games. This has been long enough ago that a lot of other organizations have done the same. It has even withstood court challenges.

      I tried to find out what court challenges they'd won, to get an idea if NASCAR has a valid claim here. I swear they'd won some, but all I could find was the one they lost claiming copyright over the statistics.

    3. Re:Why do they think they can get away with this? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Good catch. I was under the impression that MBL actually went to court to get a blog shut down and content removed in the late 1990's and won. But I can find no reference to this now.

    4. Re:Why do they think they can get away with this? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      DMCA oath applies to people who "believe" that they are the copyright holder. So, even if they are wrong, they probably did they believe they owned it, as they assert they do on the tickets.

    5. Re:Why do they think they can get away with this? by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1

      So the takedown "was done out of respect for those injured."? Yeah, we lied about owning the copyright of newsfilm of a public event, in order to CMA, we didn't want to look bad or not caring about safety, we just wanted to suppress it all, so we invalidly exploited a stupid law. Who cares? We're important and those people injured are nobodies.

      Now that's the sickest peer-level advertizing attempt I've ever seen.

  7. PR already started by fafaforza · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I was watching their press conference (http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2013/feb/24/daytona-crash-fans-injured-race) and wondered why that Chit guy kept repeating how quickly and within protocol their people responded. I guess there's some question now, and they're already setting a stage for their defense.

  8. I'll tell you what's gross. by Seumas · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you watch the video, everyone's practically ejaculating as the wreck begins and more cars get involved. And then, suddenly, it extends into the spectator seating and then it's the worst thing in the world. I'm sorry for those who were injured, but there's something about that which just seems really gross. "Oh, dang Jimmy Bob John Paul Ricky Dicky Junior! Look at that amazing wreck and the cars flipping around and slamming into each other! This is what we come to see! Violence and destruction and people risking their lives potentially being injured for our enjoyment!" followed by "ermagherd, a tire! who do we sue?!".

    Don't misunderstand me -- the accident looked horrible, even though it wasn't clear who was injured and exactly to what extent, in the seats and I hope the spectators end up being okay and are justly compensated. It's great that the drivers were apparently okay. It's just that, as I watched the video, something about that sort of -- I don't want to call it hypocrisy, but I don't know what to call it -- which I found kind of gross.

    1. Re:I'll tell you what's gross. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, people aren't there to see cars running around in a big circle... so... you know... yeah.

    2. Re:I'll tell you what's gross. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's just that, as I watched the video, something about that sort of -- I don't want to call it hypocrisy, but I don't know what to call it

      Karma.

    3. Re:I'll tell you what's gross. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Hoping to see other people suffer injuries without being injured oneself is not hypocritical. It is callous, perhaps sociopathic.

      You hope the spectators are justly compensated, but they already have been. What could be more appropriate than suffering an injury themselves?

    4. Re:I'll tell you what's gross. by Concerned+Onlooker · · Score: 4, Funny

      Carma, in this case.

      --
      http://www.rootstrikers.org/
    5. Re:I'll tell you what's gross. by Ol+Biscuitbarrel · · Score: 2

      You would question the base ethics and thus intelligence of spectators of a sport that fundamentally involves cars driving around in a circle for hours on end?

    6. Re:I'll tell you what's gross. by houghi · · Score: 2

      I don't want to call it hypocrisy, but I don't know what to call it

      Human nature?

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    7. Re:I'll tell you what's gross. by chrism238 · · Score: 1

      ... and I hope the spectators end up being okay and are justly compensated.

      Justly compensated for what? The spectator (yes, we all hope that they have a speedy recovery) came to a see cars racing, and took on the risk.

    8. Re:I'll tell you what's gross. by mabhatter654 · · Score: 2

      It's like the Joker said ... It's expected some cars will crash, and some driver might get hurt. It's not expected that people on the other side of the chain link fence 10 feet away are going to get hurt.

      There is $100k+ of engineering per seat keeping drivers safe in these crashes. There $100k (maybe) of safety structure between cars and spectators. People pay for front row seats to experience the cars... If they pile up more safe brick walls, people can't see the cars... They can just watch on TV.

    9. Re:I'll tell you what's gross. by poity · · Score: 1

      Adrenaline probably. They're not fully conscious of the consequences at the moment of something spectacular happening. Same reason a violent tackle in in any contact sport is met with enthusiasm from fans -- that is until they realize the players are not getting up. Look at football (American and Euro) and rugby highlights and you'll see the same thing.

      --
      your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
    10. Re:I'll tell you what's gross. by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Well, First, I don't watch NASCAR on purpose. But you have to marvel at the engineering involved that allows cars to fly around a track as 160-200+ miles per hour speeds, often just inches away from each other, and when they do have an accident, the drivers walk away with little more then their wallets damaged better then 90% of the time.

      If you have to compare the wrecks on the track to wrecks that injure spectators, think of it more like watching kids driving bumper cars at the county fair verses your teenager driving your car and an accident happens. On one, there is a comfortable margin of safety. Or maybe a demolition derby which is a staple at most county fairs would be more accurate.

    11. Re:I'll tell you what's gross. by SternisheFan · · Score: 1
      Myself, I like to go to the turtle races, but only for the crashes.

      (*ducks!*)

    12. Re:I'll tell you what's gross. by SternisheFan · · Score: 1

      I was impressed by the force of impact that that protective wall absorbed. 10 years ago the carnage from an event like this crash would have been huge. That no one was killed (afaik) says a lot about the safety measures that have been implemented. Just need to make that fence a little bit higher maybe?

    13. Re:I'll tell you what's gross. by SydShamino · · Score: 4, Funny

      No wonder there are crashes. What are ducks doing at a turtle race?

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    14. Re:I'll tell you what's gross. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about the sport involving moving a ball from one place to another? Clicking buttons? Pieces of paper with writing on them? Tiny clay figures?

      You can sneeringly disdain any damn thing that your arrogant ass wants, that only proves you can be condescending. Which is a really special club, only 97% of humanity belongs.

    15. Re:I'll tell you what's gross. by poity · · Score: 1

      I'm not a fan of NASCAR (nor any vehicle racing sport for that matter), but banked circular tracks should be safer than road tracks. And if you want to poo-poo a racing sport, it should be rally racing. Driver and spectator injuries/deaths in rallying dwarf those seen in NASCAR, and that's just looking at Europe alone. There are ZERO safety considerations and even less intelligence in the spectators, who especially like to crowd around dangerous curves with nothing between them and the vehicles.

      --
      your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
    16. Re:I'll tell you what's gross. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Fence height isn't the problem here. Looks like the object in this case got through it. (Which is why NASCAR tried to do the takedown for CYA purposes.)

      If you notice the footage, there were cables and some light fencing. However the cables had nothing to keep them together other than the widely spaced support posts. Looks like some other debris from the early part of the crash bumped the cables first which had them swing, this made the gap between the cables wide enough for a tire from a car crashing into the end of the wreck to thread its way through. The 70 pound wheel flying around 100MPH went right through the lighter inside fencing with no problem, since it only seems to be there to keep loose trash and stupid fans from going onto the track.

      They could probably fix it and make it less likely next time if they put some kind of cording at spaced intervals over the big cables. You know, so they wont swing apart and let big objects that they're supposed to block get through.

    17. Re:I'll tell you what's gross. by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      We'd be able to eliminate 99% of fatalities on the road if we followed the same policies in private cars. But nobody wants the cost/weight hit of a safety cage, or the inconvenience of a 5-point seatbelt, or the cost of having professional medical help no more than 20 seconds away at all times.

    18. Re:I'll tell you what's gross. by Ol+Biscuitbarrel · · Score: 1

      Those other sports at least offer a modicum of complexity, and showcase human physique/initiative. What NASCAR and driving sports of its ilk offer in the way of intellectual pleasure I couldn't tell you. But the spectacle of vehicles moving around at high speed just seems to click with people. I always think of the similarly monotonous Roman chariot races, which at least sported a bit of hand-to-hand combat from the drivers, but otherwise don't seem much more interesting than cars flying around and around. Perhaps there was a survival advantage for humans who were transfixed by herds of game hauling ass around the veldt.

      Mostly I posted the link because it's funny, which is about all I have to contribute here anyway.

    19. Re:I'll tell you what's gross. by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 1

      Why can't they just raise the spectator seating a bit?

    20. Re:I'll tell you what's gross. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've been to a race, when something bad happens on track of course there's yelling. It's high tension and people are calling attention to what's going on, and the yelling js part of that. People aren't thinking and they sure aren't cheering, it's concern being expressed without thinking. At the very end of the race like that everyone is on their feet cheering a close finish and to have it all go wrong like that I think it's silly to not expect emotion. People aren't often close to crazy things like this, of course they watch with jaws dropped and yelling - you would too if you had been there! These races are an amazing show of energy and engineering, those who loom down their nose at them and the fans are missing out.

      My biggest concern is for the cameraman. If you watch the videos there was a guy filming at the fence who gets wiped out. If he survived il'l be amazed and he will have been one lucky guy. That the tire that went through the stands didn't wipe out dozens is a miracle, it's happened before. It looks like it landed in an empty seat and injured a spectator next to it but its hard to tell. Containing everything on track is pretty much impossible at these speeds but they do a pretty good job of it. That no one was killed outright is amazing, hopefully everyone pulls through but I suspect some of them will be crippled :-(

    21. Re:I'll tell you what's gross. by SternisheFan · · Score: 3, Funny

      No wonder there are crashes. What are ducks doing at a turtle race?

      Um, quacking up?

      (*hastily exits room*)

    22. Re:I'll tell you what's gross. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Base human nature that decent people put effort into controlling, because of how ugly it is.

      At some level we all just want to procreate and kill our enemies, but we're civilized enough to not do that.

    23. Re:I'll tell you what's gross. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NASCAR wrecks are not even that interesting. Inevitably when you have to drive in a circle with way too many cars in close proximity they are going to crash. The cars, and the sport in general, is very unsophisticated appealing to the lowest common denominator. In a way, it is a modern Colosseum.

      Le Mans accidents are far more fascinating, and a hell of a lot safer. Weird things happen after hours and hours of endurance racing, add to that prototype vehicles that need massive downforce just to stay on the track. Sports car racing has the right idea, all the crashes occur on the parts of the track where there are no spectators; save for a few incidents down the front straight.

      The FIA has _very_ strict safety guidelines and some draconian penalties, something American motorsport could take a lesson from.

    24. Re:I'll tell you what's gross. by Seumas · · Score: 1

      I have nothing against the sport. It seems dumb as hell to watch, but that doesn't mean there isn't incredible technology and skill to compete in it. Watching dudes turn left would be dull as hell to spectate, though. I can get into some X-Games rally racing and stuff, though. That's remarkably exciting to watch.

    25. Re:I'll tell you what's gross. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I went to a Formula 1 race once. God it was boring. Round and round and fucking round. NASCAR looks the same. Give me the drags anyday. It might be a few minutes between each 60 second race (including burnouts), but those final 6 seconds are electrifying. Otherwise it's a good day out with friends.

    26. Re:I'll tell you what's gross. by Seumas · · Score: 1

      Except it seems clear to me that one of the primary reason these people attend the races is for the chance to see these exciting wrecks. They're going so that they can see carnage and when they got what they were waiting patiently the whole day for, they reacted favorably -- fueled by adrenaline or otherwise. And then they got a taste of it, directly, amid their cheering at someone else's wreckage, before it became their own.

      As I said, it's gross. I couldn't quite come to call it hypocrisy and I wouldn't exactly call it "wrong", since everyone is there willingly and everyone's getting paid or paying for the experience on both sides of the fence. Just that . . . there's still something inherently gross about that whole moment and it starts with the reaction of the fans, in my mind.

    27. Re:I'll tell you what's gross. by Seumas · · Score: 2

      Of course, there are plenty of busy bodies who would then argue that if everyone had roll-cages in cars, they'd become reckless maniacs on the road, because they'd know they were invulnerable. :P

    28. Re:I'll tell you what's gross. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oval racing is more dangerous than road racing-- there is this every present thing called "the wall", speeds are generally higher (especially at a place like Daytona), and you rely SO much on the car's setup. On road courses well designed ones have all sorts of features to slow cars down before they hit "the wall". I do agree with you about rally racing though. There is a special form of madness present in it.

    29. Re:I'll tell you what's gross. by T-Bone-T · · Score: 1

      I went to a race once. It was indeed dull as hell and you missed half the crashes because you are suddenly free to watch the heated battle for 15th place on the other end of the track. You don't know there was a wreck until you notice the smoke and by then it is 90% over.

    30. Re:I'll tell you what's gross. by khallow · · Score: 1

      I take it you've never been to any turtle races. What a loon!

    31. Re:I'll tell you what's gross. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "everyone's practically ejaculating as the wreck begins and more cars get involved. And then, suddenly, it extends into the spectator seating and then it's the worst thing in the world."

      Because the driver protection of modern race cars is such that the motorsport world is now shocked when a driver is seriously injured. However car shrapnel vs crowd is never going to end well.

      You'll note the lack of serious injuries to the drivers despite this being a bad crash resulting in several cars completely destroyed.

    32. Re:I'll tell you what's gross. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, like horse racing. I only go to see the horses crash.

    33. Re:I'll tell you what's gross. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Turtles? How about snails?

    34. Re:I'll tell you what's gross. by SternisheFan · · Score: 1

      Interesting. Not the crab racing part, the bit about 7of9's Jeri Ryan divorcing her husband Jack because he wanted to see her having sex with other guys in clubs. What. A. Fool. !!!

    35. Re:I'll tell you what's gross. by FuzzNugget · · Score: 1

      Oh, dang Jimmy Bob John Paul Ricky Dicky Junior!

      Best comment ever.

    36. Re:I'll tell you what's gross. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was the last lap of the race. People were standing and excited because they wanted to see who would win the race, and THEN a wreck broke out.

      Way to judge people though. Obviously the editors of crapdot found you insightful.

    37. Re:I'll tell you what's gross. by peawormsworth · · Score: 1

      Hoping to see other people suffer injuries without being injured oneself is not hypocritical. It is callous, perhaps sociopathic.

      You hope the spectators are justly compensated, but they already have been. What could be more appropriate than suffering an injury themselves?

      Well, I dont wish this upon you, but according to your logic, it would be appropriate for you to be injured next. For viewing their injuries as appropriate.

      Because you just said: people should be injured for wishing injury on others... and... its an appropriate justice for those people to get injured for wishing injury on others.

      But I certainly dont wish the injury thats coming to you. Simply because I dont wish injury on myself.

  9. Illegal take down request, penalty is ---- by RichMan · · Score: 5, Interesting

    As a penalty the next takedown request from NASCAR to youtube should require full documentation requiring a lawyers affidavit and full documentation of ownership of all material asserted to be owned and an full explanation of the way in which copyright is violated and a $10K deposit.
    Youtube may then take up to a week to process the take down request. An improper request will not remove the penalty and the deposit will be forfit.

    At least I can dream.

    1. Re:Illegal take down request, penalty is ---- by MartinSchou · · Score: 2

      The deposit should be sent to the actual owner of the copyright - not YouTube.

    2. Re:Illegal take down request, penalty is ---- by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The deposit should be sent to the actual owner of the copyright - not YouTube.

      Would you give YT your bank details, just in case someone made a takedown request? YT would be the obvious organisation to hold such funds.

  10. Perjury by TubeSteak · · Score: 5, Interesting

    NASCAR: "I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the information in the notification is accurate and that I am the copyright owner or am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed."

    Youtube: "Our partners and users do not have the right to take down videos from YouTube unless they contain content which is copyright infringing, which is why we have reinstated the videos."

    Youtube has more or less admitted that NASCAR committed perjury by filing the DMCA claim.
    Should be a slam dunk court case. Right?

    --
    [Fuck Beta]
    o0t!
    1. Re:Perjury by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sure. Now who is going to file charges? Nobody.

      --

      "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
    2. Re:Perjury by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Has anyone ever been prosecuted for a false DMCA claim? Even though DMCA takedown requests supposedly have to be accurate under the penalty of perjury?

    3. Re:Perjury by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure. Now who is going to file charges? Nobody.

      That's right. NASCAR is a very rich and well connected organization. And their political clout is gigantic. No Republican politician will ever back anything against them - it'l totally piss off their base! You know; white trash morons.

      Daytona, FL - the White Trash Capital of the World

    4. Re:Perjury by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IIRC, the takedown tools youtube gives to big media companies don't include the formality of filing a DMCA claim. We don't know what route NASCAR took, but they may or may not have committed perjury.

      Doesn't make it right. Just less illegal.

    5. Re:Perjury by Kjella · · Score: 1

      If they used the DMCA yes, but as I understand it a lot of the big takedown senders - and I would assume NASCAR is one of them - have a private deal with YouTube to pull content, without formally issuing a DMCA notice. It's not required by law, but it's not forbidden by law either. Also your quote is very wrong, the legal text is:

      (vi) A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.

      Only the last part is "under penalty of perjury", the rest only goes under "misrepresentation" in the law.

      Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents under this section -
      (1) that material or activity is infringing, or
      (2) that material or activity was removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification,
      shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys' fees, incurred by the alleged infringer, by any copyright owner or copyright ownerâ(TM)s authorized licensee, or by a service provider, who is injured by such misrepresentation, as the result of the service provider relying upon such misrepresentation in removing or disabling access to the material or activity claimed to be infringing, or in replacing the removed material or ceasing to disable access to it.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    6. Re:Perjury by Velex · · Score: 1

      Oh, I wish I had mod points.

      --
      Join the Slashcott! Stay away entirely Feb 10 thru Feb 17! Close all tabs to prevent autorefresh!
    7. Re:Perjury by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The key is they didn't file a DMCA claim they simply asked youtube to take it down.
      They violate youtubes rules not the law. The best you'll get, and highly unlikely, is that youtube could sue them on the rules of their partners program or kick them out of their special treatment.

    8. Re:Perjury by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Sure. Now who is going to file charges? Nobody.

      If it had been my video? Me. But would I go to a NASCAR event in the first place? Only if someone else paid, and only one of the two races a year they turn in both directions.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    9. Re:Perjury by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HSBC funds drug cartels and terrorists, and the US government is unwilling to charge any of those responsible. Laws are for the peons.

    10. Re:Perjury by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Youtube has more or less admitted that NASCAR committed perjury by filing the DMCA claim.
      Should be a slam dunk court case. Right?

      How do I admit that you murdered someone? How does my so-called admission make for a slam-dunk case against you?

    11. Re:Perjury by complete+loony · · Score: 1

      Only if they attempt to take down the video again.

      --
      09F91102 no, 455FE104 nope, F190A1E8 uh-uh, 7A5F8A09 that's not it, C87294CE no. Ah! 452F6E403CDF10714E41DFAA257D313F.
  11. Re:Nascar .. cha ching by Seumas · · Score: 5, Funny

    That doesn't seem fair. Everybody knows NASCAR fans can't afford a dollar.

    . . . I'm a shitty person . . .

  12. Stop Automobile Violence Act by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Automobile violence in the US has been rising at an alarming rate for the last 60 years.

    Deaths by automobile are rising faster that the sun rise.

    We need the President and Vice President and leaders of both chambers of Congress to come together and remove the violent and death dealing automobile from our local, state and national pathways.

    There is no US constitutional amendment, clause or Executive Order that mandates an automobile for any US citizen.

    Death from the automobile is not 'pursuit of happiness.'

    The time has come to ... Kill the Car ... and let the people live.

    1. Re:Stop Automobile Violence Act by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fine. How about we take away your automobile first and not allow any automobiles where you live. Let's see how long it takes for you to STARVE TO DEATH because no more food is being delivered to your area anymore....

    2. Re:Stop Automobile Violence Act by Seumas · · Score: 5, Funny

      You ignorant commie. The solution isn't to take cars away from people. It's to require ALL law-abiding citizens to own and carry cars. Especially teachers. Look at cities like LA, where everyone is extremely nice to each other, because everybody knows that everybody else is carrying an automobile.

      Sidenote: I love the second amendment and all, but c'mon - I got a chuckle. :P

    3. Re:Stop Automobile Violence Act by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Indeed and let's not forget the fact that the numbers of people dieing on the roads has been decreasing in recent years.

    4. Re:Stop Automobile Violence Act by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 3, Funny

      Look, I understand your grief, but we need to be realistic about automobile violence. There are so many automobiles out there already, that change just cannot happen overnight.

      Automobile ownership needs to be public record. Then responsible newspapers can mine this data, and create interactive online automobile ownership maps. You will feel much safer if, with one patented click, you can see which of your neighbors owns automobiles.

      If automobiles are made illegal, only illegals will have automobiles. Just look at how many drugs and illegals are smuggled over the border from Mexico in automobiles every microsecond every day. If they are already using automobiles to smuggle other stuff, they might just as well smuggle the whole automobile, as well.

      However, a real solution to automobile violence could only be solved with a mechanical fix. As everyone knows, the biggest cause of automobile violence is a loose nut behind the steering wheel. But our society just does not have the will to fix that problem.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    5. Re:Stop Automobile Violence Act by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes - since they lifted the assault vehicle ban 5 years ago, the number HAS been declining.

    6. Re:Stop Automobile Violence Act by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Which is why automobiles as an idea is broken. You want the roads open for goods, but the vast majority of fatalities are of drivers moving people, not drivers moving goods. So if we just limited the ban to private cars, then we'd eliminate nearly all fatalities and still be able to eat.

    7. Re:Stop Automobile Violence Act by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Higher fuel prices saves more lives than any other single safety measure. Put a 50% VAT on fuel and watch deaths plummet.

    8. Re:Stop Automobile Violence Act by femtobyte · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Perhaps there's some middle-ground solution? We could require all cars to be registered (and tracked in government databases), and operators to be licensed and trained. We could mandate insurance for drivers, and require new cars to be built with reasonable safety features (while grandfathering in older collectible models). Maybe even additional taxes on car fuels, beyond the sales taxes on ordinary goods? Limitations on car operation in school zones? Fines, loss of licensing, and criminal penalties for dangerous driving (even in cases no damage is done)? This way, people who have grown up in a driving culture, passed down from parents to children, can still responsibly drive cars for recreation and utility, while keeping unlicensed fleets of murder vehicles out of the hands of criminals. But perhaps I'm the crazy dreamer to think that society could ever agree to such a solution.

    9. Re:Stop Automobile Violence Act by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Best use of a car analogy ever.

    10. Re:Stop Automobile Violence Act by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only improvement to your dream that I can suggest would be to require applicants to prove that they had a need for an automobile.

      Cruising 100 yards down to WalMart at the next intersection would not qualify. Neither would commuting to the office across the road.

    11. Re:Stop Automobile Violence Act by femtobyte · · Score: 1

      As a non-car-owner myself, and appalled at the level of societal and environmental externalities attributable to car use, I'm personally in favor of increased deterrents to automotive proliferation. However, I think these need to be balanced by even greater enhancements to public transportation alternatives --- in most US cities (and even more so rural areas), cracking down on automotive use is a highly "regressive tax" that harms the poorest and most vulnerable most. A nice solution would require first having a great, tree-lined, bicycle- and pedestrian-friendly path to the nearest WalMart (even better if WalMarts were eradicated for diverse locally-owned shops).

    12. Re:Stop Automobile Violence Act by azalin · · Score: 1

      This should also remove the obesity problem.

    13. Re:Stop Automobile Violence Act by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Society may agree, but what would this "solution" solve? I imagine, in some far-off science-fictionary world where what you've described could be acceptable to a society, that it would just create some sort of moderate level of 1. criminal abuse of cars, 2. negligent injury and homicide by "legal" users who met the government minimum standards but are a danger to themselves or others from being bad at being careful with deadly implements, and 3. occasional true accidents despite the best efforts by people with training exercising appropriate diligence.

      And as long as even one child dies gruesomely, isn't that too many gruesome child deaths? We shouldn't have to accept even one. Won't someone please think of the children?

  13. I'll tell you what's gross-Gladiators. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Blood and Circuses.

    1. Re:I'll tell you what's gross-Gladiators. by azalin · · Score: 1

      Actually it's panem et circensis - Bread and Games. The blood is only a part (although important) of the games.

  14. Perjurious fuckers... by tibit · · Score: 4, Informative

    Look, you fuckers, you can't use copyright law "out of respect for the injured", mmkay? What kind of an idiot would come out with this line for an excuse? You did not send an "I wish it were so" takedown. You sent a takedown under DMCA, and you've just publicly claimed that you've perjured yourself! Just one more reason for me to otherwise ignore NASCAR.

    --
    A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    1. Re:Perjurious fuckers... by sumdumass · · Score: 2

      They can if they own the copyright. It owuld be a distinction between why they normally do not assert their ownership to fan created videos and they are now.

      Now I'm not saying NASCAR is the owner, but Major League Baseball and some of the NFL franchises assert ownership of anything documented at their games. If NASCAR is in the same legal position, you will find they are a valid owner regardless of failing to exert any rights to that ownership in the past. MLB has actually won this in court already.

      And if you otherwise ignore NASCAR, I'm not entirely sure why you are upset over this as the content has been restored.

    2. Re:Perjurious fuckers... by tibit · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That maks MLB and NFL fuckers too. Thanks for clearing it up for me, not that I was ever in love with large scale U.S. sports anyway.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    3. Re:Perjurious fuckers... by StormReaver · · Score: 1

      Perjury is only a crime in certain circumstances:

      1) You're poor, and can't afford a high profile lawyer.

      2) You're rich, and the publicity is so bad that the judge is afraid for his next election campaign.

      In all other cases, perjury is swept under the rug. Since this falls under option 2, the only way perjury charges will be filed is if there is massive public outcry. There won't be an outcry, though, so there won't be any charges.

    4. Re:Perjurious fuckers... by FLaSh+SWT · · Score: 1

      Major League Baseball and some of the NFL franchises assert ownership of anything documented at their games.

      Not true, I'm a sports photographer and MLB/NFL does not own the copyright of images I take at their games. Now they do restrict usage as part of the credential agreement, but that doesn't give them ownership or any rights to use the images themselves.

    5. Re:Perjurious fuckers... by chrismcb · · Score: 1
      You are a sports photographer and the Professional Organizations don't own the copyright to YOUR images. Because you've made an agreement with them. That is a different agreement the average public makes.
      One ballpark says:

      Personal photography and video are permitted in the ballpark provided the images are for personal use only. However, videotaping any game action is prohibited.

    6. Re:Perjurious fuckers... by FLaSh+SWT · · Score: 1

      I am only disputing the statement, "...assert ownership of anything documented at their games..." "Anything" is very broad and not true.

      However even your quote doesn't contain any language that attempts to assert copyright or ownership of fan photography/video.

    7. Re:Perjurious fuckers... by rastos1 · · Score: 1

      You don't get it. They created that work of art. As in: they arranged that spectacular crash. They put their most talented people to it. And they certainly deserve to protect their work and investment. If you want to have your own spectacular crash, you have to pay up. It's all because we, the society, want "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts".

    8. Re:Perjurious fuckers... by tibit · · Score: 1

      IOW: Something being prohibited doesn't make the results owned by $BIGSPORTSHONCHOS$ :)

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    9. Re:Perjurious fuckers... by tibit · · Score: 1

      Useful Arts, that'll be with a triple helping of chuckle, and a schmilescinoscherry on top :)

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
  15. re takedown by freddieb · · Score: 1

    Nascar should not have tried to suppress the video. If you look at their new website, it is obvious they don't know much about electronic media. The website is awful. Maybe the art of web design is lost? Surely they could have done better.

    1. Re:re takedown by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And it's not like the footage isn't plastered on all of the tv news stations.

  16. takedown request? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    copyright takedown request
    "takedown request was done out of respect for those injured"

    Someone deserves few years in jail here.

  17. Their "safety protocols" are crap by Lumpy · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Sorry but what idiot thinks that a Chain link fence can hold back a 200mph engine block? Up to the 20' mark above the wall should be 8" thick polycarbonate with large steel beams. Problem is that NASCAR hates spending money on safety of the fans.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    1. Re:Their "safety protocols" are crap by johnny+cashed · · Score: 3, Informative

      In addition to the chain link fencing, there are four or five tensioned steel cables on the lower portion to give additional reinforcement.

    2. Re:Their "safety protocols" are crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The same idiot who thinks an engine block can dislodge from the engine mounts, bounce off the pavement and fly through the hood up into the bleachers. Yep - that was a mighty bouncy engine block in the video wasn't it!

    3. Re:Their "safety protocols" are crap by TubeSteak · · Score: 3, Informative

      And if you look at pictures of the crash, the engine block got caught in those steel cables at the bottom.

      The safety officials are probably much more interested in how those tires got loose, because they've been dual tethered to the cars since a crash in 1993 launched a tire into the parking lot of a track.

      NASCAR has had an ongoing program of safety upgrades to the barriers and once they figure out what happened and how to prevent another penetration, it'll push forward their timeline for upgrading the fences.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    4. Re:Their "safety protocols" are crap by jackb_guppy · · Score: 1

      Those steel cables were not in the way during the crash. Look carefully, the crash went thought a gate in the fence (hence no cables). The gate allowed the nose of the car to be sheared off upon hitting the pole closest to finish line. Luckly dropping the enigne at the foot of stands tangled with the fencing, but allowing for tires and othe junk to go into the stands.

    5. Re:Their "safety protocols" are crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently you didn't see the engine block was held back. What got through mostly went over the already curved fencing. I foresee NASCAR putting a few more feet of curvature in the sections in front of fans.

    6. Re:Their "safety protocols" are crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry but what idiot thinks that a Chain link fence can hold back a 200mph engine block? Up to the 20' mark above the wall should be 8" thick polycarbonate with large steel beams. Problem is that NASCAR hates spending money on safety of the fans.

      That would block the view of the customers in the stands.

    7. Re:Their "safety protocols" are crap by chrismcb · · Score: 1

      Sorry but what idiot thinks that a Chain link fence can hold back a 200mph engine block?

      Did you notice, that chain link fence ALMOST held the engine block, the engine block barely made it through the fence. The biggest problem was stuff flying OVER the fence, as well as pieces of the fence itself.

    8. Re:Their "safety protocols" are crap by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      what idiot goes to an automobile race and expects perfect safety? it's a dangerous sport, for participants and spectators. some get maimed or killed, tough shit, should have stayed home and watched it on tv

    9. Re:Their "safety protocols" are crap by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Which did nothing but break and whip to possibly decapitate someone.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    10. Re:Their "safety protocols" are crap by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Hey my stalker is back... Dude I told you I am not going to send you nude photos... Please leave me alone.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    11. Re:Their "safety protocols" are crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do know that polycarbonate is clear right? in fact it would be a better view than looking through the low cost chain link fencing.

    12. Re:Their "safety protocols" are crap by Nolas · · Score: 1

      Hey my stalker is back... Dude I told you I am not going to send you nude photos... Please leave me alone.

      and that everyone, is the sound of a small minded manchild losing an argument.

  18. Good rednecks in action by kelemvor4 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Did you notice the guy shooting the video was 2 seats away from where the tire landed and he DID NOT SPILL HIS BEER. I'm not joking, check it out. That's some good redneck skills right there, man.

    1. Re:Good rednecks in action by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Did you notice the guy shooting the video was 2 seats away from where the tire landed and he DID NOT SPILL HIS BEER. I'm not joking, check it out. That's some good redneck skills right there, man.

      that beer cost about 7 bucks. shy of an engine block severing off both your arms would you spill it?

    2. Re:Good rednecks in action by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did YOU notice the cameraman who was wiped out by debris coming through the fence or were you too focused on some guy's beer looking for something to make fun of? I'm thinking you wouldn't have been nearly as poised as that guy was and his video could very well be key in figuring out how to engineer the catch fence better to prevent this from occurring again. I doubt you could have done as well.

    3. Re:Good rednecks in action by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently today there was a caution flag due to someone throwing their beer on the track.

      Classy.

    4. Re:Good rednecks in action by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you have a link the the other guy's video...cause that's definitely must see TV!

  19. What is this nascar? by Ice+Station+Zebra · · Score: 3, Funny

    Is it a new programming language? Real nerds want to know.

    1. Re:What is this nascar? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Ahh one of the assholes decided to pop his head up and cry about the content of Slashdot again.

      You are 100% correct in the implication that most nerds don't give two shakes of a rats ass about Nascar. You failed to comprehend that the article is also about DMCA abuses, this is something that all real nerds would care about.

      Next time you think the articles don't fit your refined tastes, turn in your nerd card at the door, and don't let the door hit you where the good lord split you.

    2. Re:What is this nascar? by maxwell+demon · · Score: 2

      nas = network attached storage
      car = first element of a dotted pair

      So someone had a pair of network attached storage devices, and the first one crashed. :-)

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    3. Re:What is this nascar? by spitzak · · Score: 1

      No, it's network attached storage car analogy.

  20. Re:Nascar .. cha ching by mcgrew · · Score: 1

    Well, they can afford plenty of beer; I drink with a lot of NASCAR fans. There are NASCAR parties in most bars around here today.

  21. "out of respect for those injured"? by mark-t · · Score: 2

    That's all very well and good, and may have even been a perfectly arguable justification for having the video pulled from Youtube (although it may have taken longer), but why couldn't they have just said that in the first place, instead of making up some copyright violation excuse? Now, instead of coming across like they actually might have even cared about the people who were hurt, this after-the-fact excuse sounds very wholly contrived, and not really a priority for them at all.

    1. Re:"out of respect for those injured"? by kerrbear · · Score: 1

      Agreed. IDK if someone has said this already, but my first thought was simply they forced it down out of embarrassment. I'm sure they were aware it was not theirs to begin with. They are suppressing all video to avoid blame and worse: i.e. loss of fans due to disgust or fear.

  22. Re:Nascar .. cha ching by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It shocked me to learn that NASCAR tickets are more expensive than NFL seats. The more you know.

  23. Gross? by Dan+East · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm undoing my negative moderation of your post to reply to your comment. In case you don't understand the context of this video, it is the final lap of the race. Everyone is excited because it is a close race with a number of cars vying for the win. Perhaps you don't enjoy watching sports, or rooting for a particular person or team to win, but most people tend to get rather excited when a long competition comes down to the very end.

    For you to demean the spectators, and use terms like "practically ejaculating", simply shows me that you are detached emotionally from sporting events, which is a great source of entertainment and pleasure for a very significant number of people.

    If you find spectators getting excited over a winner of an event "gross" then I advise you to not attend sporting events or view videos of them, so as to not offend your sensitivities.

    --
    Better known as 318230.
    1. Re:Gross? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Insightful

      NASCAR is not a goddamn sport. You have rules that you have to follow while driving? Welcome to every fucking public road in America -- we're all athletes! Mooo MOOOO MOOOO FUCKING MOOOO goddamn manatees watching dumbshits drive in circles. More beer for the narwhals while they watch their "sport" ... the word means nothing anymore.

      So, for you, a 'sport' is something practiced in the nude without any implements, tools or other artifacts of modern life? So naked Christians thrown to the lions in early Rome was a 'sport'? Interesting outlook on things.

      Motor sport racing, while silly on a lot of levels (NASCAR especially) requires quite a bit of athleticism from it's participants. YOU try to muscle a 5000 pound vehicle at close proximity to others going close to 200 mph for several hours. YOU probably couldn't get the thing out of the garage without having a heart attack. Ignorant Bozo.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:Gross? by Bagels · · Score: 2

      I think Seumas is commenting in part on the announcers' apparent lack of concern for the safety of the drivers. Yes, the crash could be a pivotal moment in the race - but it's arguably a little warped to be audibly excited about an event that could lead to the injury/death of several of the people involved. It's a fair criticism, whether you enjoy the sport or not.

      --
      --- Bwah?
    3. Re:Gross? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For you to demean the spectators, and use terms like "practically ejaculating", simply shows me that you are detached emotionally from sporting events, which is a great source of entertainment and pleasure for a very significant number of people.

      You cannot even use correct grammar ( hint : sporting events is plural, so you need to use ARE instead
      of "is" in your sentence above ).

      And you attempt to justify something being worthwhile based on its popularity.

      Do us all a favor and kill yourself, you pathetic redneck loser fuck.

    4. Re:Gross? by iCEBaLM · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Except the loudest cheers where not when the cars were in sight, but when the crash began, including a loud "Ooooh, there we go!" from someone close to the camera.

      Nice try though.

    5. Re:Gross? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've never seen a combine that went 200 miles per hour. I think watching people driving that around would be a sport, at least as exciting as watching an airshow.

    6. Re:Gross? by AK+Marc · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Part of it not being a "sport" is that no, he likely couldn't even try. Football and such, you can find a ball and run around. You can get the "official" ball if you like, and there are piles of "regulation" fields around to play on. So you can approximate the "sport". Nascar is a "sport" where you have to pay millions of dollars to play, and there is no real analog, aside from some "amateur" organizations generally filled with people who laugh and don't consider Nascar a sport either.

      Nascar is a sport like sitting in a sauna is a sport. You sit. You sweat. *yawn* all done.

    7. Re:Gross? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Compared to other professional drivers making much less, NASCAR drivers actually have it pretty damn easy.

      Sure they have no air conditioning, and it is dangerous to go 200MPH around a track, but look at all the shit they don't have to deal with. Driving on the highway, I might be going a little less than half as fast, but I'm dealing with other "drivers" that aren't trained properly in the operation of a vehicle (or just not caring), don't follow the rules, don't have a goal in mind (drive like they're lost), hell they're not even paying attention half the time. (Texting on that damn phone.) Not only that, but NASCAR drivers get nearly the best car money can buy (instead of some ghetto company's rattle-trap) and are fair weather only. Not only do they not have to deal with the kind of bullshit that I do, they don't deal with it while driving in snow, sleet, rain, or fog.

      If somebody gives me a week to get familiar with one of those cars, I would be more than happy to trade my transportation service job with shitty pay to do what they do. Hell I'd even do it for as half as much as they currently make! (Not only would the sponsors save money, I'd still come out way ahead compared to what I make now. Win-win! Right?)

      (Personally though, if I had a choice I'd much rather to do rally driving. Not as popular on this side of the pond, but looks like more fun for the driver. Nobody in my way, race course seems less of a grindfest, and if something happens it's likely my own car or my own fault!)

    8. Re:Gross? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're an idiot if you think these guys aren't athletes. I guarantee you they're all in better shape than you are! These guys race cars that require serious endurance to drive, they aren't anything like the POS you drive. They do it in heat at speeds that would make you crap your pants. These guys understand aerodynamics and they have to react constantly just to keep the cars on track. They risk their lives and exhaust themselves doing it while breathing monoxide. You can jeer all you want but you couldn't handle their sport no matter how hard you might try and you're too stupid to even realize it.

    9. Re:Gross? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Nascar is a sport like sitting in a sauna is a sport. You sit. You sweat. *yawn* all done.

      Because you're retarded, and don't understand the difference between "spectators" and "athletes." Nobody would say "football isn't a sport," yet hundreds of thousands of people go to stadiums every weekend during football season to sit, sweat (or shiver), and watch the athletes play.

      Nascar is a "sport" where you have to pay millions of dollars to play, and there is no real analog, aside from some "amateur" organizations generally filled with people who laugh and don't consider Nascar a sport either.

      Just confirming your retard status, I see. Some sports have required gear to participate - hockey, skiing, skydiving, skating, mountain climbing, etc. Sometimes, that gear is expensive - meaning that the sport is out of the reach of many people. But as with any of those sports, an amateur can find a group of like-minded amateurs at a local amateur racing club, and race their own vehicles - sure, buying & prepping a stock car for racing will cost you more than a soccer ball, but it won't cost you millions.

      I know a guy who does this (or did it - haven't seen him since I split with my ex about 2 yrs ago) at the Thompson Speedway in Thompson, CT. By day, he operates a shipping company. On the weekends, he races. He has no special qualifications, other than an interest in the sport, and he races in an amateur division.

    10. Re:Gross? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      YOU try to muscle a 5000 pound vehicle at close proximity to others going close to 200 mph for several hours.

      Can't be that demanding. I heard chicks drive in NASCAR these days.

    11. Re:Gross? by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

      Beginning a sentence with a conjunction ("And you attempt") is also an incorrect usage.

      William Blake says you're full of shit. And Shakespeare agrees.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    12. Re:Gross? by daemonenwind · · Score: 2

      Millions to play? Excuse me, your ignorance is showing. You should probably zip it.

      NASCAR is the pinnacle of Stock Car Racing, and yes, you're as likely to compete there as you are to make the FC Bayern Muenchen Team. That said, all over the USA, during warmer weather, people not sponsored by Go Daddy or Budweiser or Sprint race their cars.

      Check here, for instance: http://www.racingin.com/Track/upcoming-schedule.aspx

      Or read Wikipedia's article on Dick Trickle, who dominated semi-pro dirt-track before his short NASCAR career. You might just learn something.

    13. Re:Gross? by Raenex · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Reminds me of a Simpsons episode where they went to a race, and every time there was almost an accident the crowd would get all excited... and then disappointed as the driver recovered. People are kidding themselves if they don't recognize the general desire of people to see violence at sporting events.

    14. Re:Gross? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since when is cost to entry part of the definition of a sport? Also it's a little silly to use football (I'm assuming American) as an example, since it costs hundreds of dollars for the equipment. Hockey, skiing, horse racing, golf, and many others are not cheap. (Though I admit I don't think of golf as a sport :P)

    15. Re:Gross? by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      So, you're holding dozens of hundreds of people responsible for what one person shouted?

      Nice try though.

    16. Re:Gross? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Shakespeare who considered "et" a valid past ense of "eat," and the William Blake who didn't use commas before conjunctions?

      I'll go with Strunk and White, the Chicago Manual of Style, and other current sources rather than two writers who were born 200-500 years ago (before even spelling had been standardized), and who were, incidentally, British. These NASCAR fans, are on the other hand, American and have an idiom standardized under different rules.

      Also, it looks like you are a member of the club, too, and you just earned the misguidedly pedantic prick badge!

    17. Re:Gross? by Seumas · · Score: 1

      I understand the context of this video, just fine, despite your attempt to insincerely and misleadingly describe it.

      At no point did I say that cheering on people in a competition was "practically ejaculating" and you know what was clear in my statement. Including my phrasing into an entirely different set of circumstances, which you describe in your post, but did not actually happen is bullshit. I didn't describe cheering on good sportsmanship and competition as "practically ejaculating". I described leaping to your feet, cheering, and clapping as you enthusiastically partake in the carnage down and approaching form the track as "practically ejaculating". Don't act like there's not a huge fucking difference between the two.

      The crowd is nearly SILENT , even as the cars approach the corner, until the first part of the wreck begins off in the distance when they rest of them start to stand up and begin cheering and clapping .

    18. Re:Gross? by Seumas · · Score: 1

      The definition of "sport" is "An activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others". My understanding of NASCAR is that it involves both a lot of physical exertion and skill, no matter how boring it is to spectate.

      Of course, "physical exertion" doesn't really mean anything. The word "exertion" simply means "effort". There is no definition of how much physical exertion is required for something to be a sport or to be athletic. In that case, I guess you could say poker, darts, bowling, scrabble, and Letterpress on iOS are "sports".

      At any rate, as few fucks as I give about NASCAR, I'd have a hard time saying it doesn't require a lot of physical effort or mental skill.

    19. Re:Gross? by Seumas · · Score: 1

      My analysis and phrasing of the situation was based on the fact that the crowd was relatively quiet as they watched the race and it wasn't until the cars wrecked -- far in the distance at the turn -- that everyone began clapping and cheering. If they were sports enthusiasts giving out a good old cheer of support for respectable competitors in the final laps of said competition, why did they only dart their attention to the action and start cheering and clapping when the accident occurred? That's, specifically, what I was referring to as a sickening ejaculatory reaction.

      It seems clear to me that Dan East was being willfully obtuse about my statement so that he could use my phrase in his inaccurate restatement of the events of the video which are pretty clear to anyone that watches it, despite how he positions it in text.

    20. Re:Gross? by spitzak · · Score: 1

      Don't be an idiot. The audio pretty clearly has a "Oh! Here we go!" and "alright" and many other exclamations of joy which are clearly timed to when the crash started, long after the cars became visible. The announcer on the speaker however seemed to be much more into the actual racing and shut up when the crash started.

    21. Re:Gross? by Concerned+Onlooker · · Score: 1

      According to Hemingway there are only three sports: Bull fighting, motor racing and mountain climbing. The rest are games.

      I find bull fighting offensive, but it is a great quote. And I have the feeling that Hemingway wasn't talking about spectating, but rather participating.

      --
      http://www.rootstrikers.org/
    22. Re:Gross? by AK+Marc · · Score: 0

      Just confirming your retard status, I see. Some sports have required gear to participate - hockey, skiing, skydiving, skating, mountain climbing, etc. Sometimes, that gear is expensive - meaning that the sport is out of the reach of many people.

      Most wouldn't consider "skydiving" or "mountain climbing" as "sports". They are activities, but without metrics to compare one's performance to someone else's, there isn't much "sport" in it. Yes, I know there are skydiving and climbing competitions, but they are rare and poorly attended. But anyone that wants to sky dive can scrape up $150 or whatever and go to their local small airstrip and there's likely a diving operation working out of there. So most wouldn't consider that prohibitive like a $150,000 car and $500,000 a year in crew would be. And the mountain climbing indoor places I've been are all $20 or less. Most include the basics. So yet again, almost exactly the same situation as Nascar.

      But as with any of those sports, an amateur can find a group of like-minded amateurs at a local amateur racing club, and race their own vehicles

      Go to an SCCA Autocross and see how your skills stack up. And note how the participants talk about Nascar. It's almost always as the punchline of a joke.

    23. Re:Gross? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      There are no "stock" parts in stock car racing anymore. The RWD manual Lumina V8 "stock" cars with one seat are nearly identical to the 5-seater V6 FWD automatic-only cars you can get from the dealer.

    24. Re:Gross? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Yachting isn't considered a sport in many places either, because it's a showcase of tech, not a contest of people. Theoretically, Nascars are identical enough that the car shouldn't determine the outcome, but it does, so it's a "sport" like "fastest laptop" is a sport.

    25. Re:Gross? by M2616 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The Autobahn isn't shit comparatively, straight line speed is easy. Like most guys I like to drive fast, we all think we can do it because we've driven down the interstate at 100-150 before. I was given a gift certificate once for Richard Petty so of course I thought it was going to be great. Not so great, the constant G's wear you down quickly. the visibility in the turns is non existent. Its very disconcerting when you have to fight to see more than 4 or 5 car lengths ahead of yourself when you are buried in the banking, there isn't any equivalent. Driving the Pikes Peak race would be less stressful. Cresting over a hill is fun, if you've done this on a motorcycle and gotten air you know what I mean negative Gs are a great sensation. Pushing inside a hill with NO visibility at that speed fighting against G's is terrifying. If anybody thinks they could compete with 42 other cars for 500 miles should first try walking into a cage with 42 hungry lions first. Point is its a deadly serious competition, everything else is just a sport as they say.

    26. Re:Gross? by khallow · · Score: 1

      and there is no real analog, aside from some "amateur" organizations generally filled with people who laugh and don't consider Nascar a sport either.

      There we go. We have "sport" by your contrived definition.

    27. Re:Gross? by khallow · · Score: 1
      It's worth noting that darts and bowling would count as sports on the basis of being contests of physical skill.

      Of course, "physical exertion" doesn't really mean anything.

      Well, it doesn't unless you use that same source to figure out the meaning of words. For "exertion" we have "physical or mental effort" and "effort" in turn means "a vigorous or determined attempt". So what's physically "vigorous or determined" about throwing cards or little plastic pieces on a table?

    28. Re:Gross? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I pointed out places I've been where Nascar isn't considered a sport. How is that a definition at all, let alone contrived?

      "An activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others." Google tells us it requires exertion and skill. So Golf isn't a sport. There's more exertion in walking the 18 holes than the actual "play" of the game. You can have a game without sport. And others could argue that mechanical sport isn't sport because it isn't a test of skill, even if skill is involved, because setup of the equipment is more important than execution of the skill. If that weren't so, then why don't all teams switch cars at the start of a race? That would make it more fair. There'd be no incentive to break the rules.

    29. Re:Gross? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please find me an authoritative definition of "sport" which supports your assertion, or kindly just shut the fuck up. Sports do not require a "competitive" element - many sports have them, but since when is skiing only a sport if you're competing with someone? And holy fuck, if you want to say that there must be a competitive element, please explain to me how that would eliminate NASCAR, where time and beating the rest of the field is the only thing that matters?

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sport
      http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sport

      Under any of the numerous definitions provided on either page above, "skydiving," "mountain climbing," and "NASCAR" would all be considered sports.

      Nobody really cares that YOU like to think that a sport like NASCAR is only engaged in by people you think are dumb, so it can't be a sport - if you want to redefine terms for your own personal use, that's fine. But by any generally-accepted definition of the word "sport," all of the activities I listed are sports, and you remain retarded.

      Go to an SCCA Autocross and see how your skills stack up. And note how the participants talk about Nascar. It's almost always as the punchline of a joke.

      Oh wow, people who engage in one type of sport disparage people who engage in another, and think their chosen sport is the best and most fun version? I'm shocked. SHOCKED! None of what you've said suggests that NASCAR is not a sport. In fact, you're just underscoring the many elements it has in common with plenty of other competitive sports.

    30. Re:Gross? by MimeticLie · · Score: 1

      You're comparing apples and oranges. The sport is motorsport, and Nascar is one of the top levels of the sport. Autocross, karting, or track days are more analogous to the "finding a ball and running around" scenario. Not everyone can participate in Nascar, but not everyone can participate in the NFL either.

    31. Re:Gross? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1
      http://lmgtfy.com/?q=sport+definition&l=1

      I know google isn't "authoratative" but it is popular.

      Please find me an authoritative definition of "sport" which supports your assertion, or kindly just shut the fuck up. Sports do not require a "competitive" element

      I presume you accept wikipedia, as you linked to it.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sport

      "Sport (or, primarily in North America, sports) is all forms of competitive physical activity..."

      "competitive activity." So, are you going to continue to insist that there is no "competitive" element in sport? I'm quoting from your own links. Did you even read them?

    32. Re:Gross? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "An activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others."

      So NASCAR does qualify. It requires physical exertion, it requires skill, and individuals compete against one another. Glad we cleared that up.

      There's more exertion in walking the 18 holes than the actual "play" of the game.

      So by this definition, soccer and football aren't a sport, either. There's more exertion in running around on the field than there is in the actual kicking or throwing of the ball! Surfing sure isn't a sport, either - all you have to do is stand on a board in some water!

      And others could argue that mechanical sport isn't sport because it isn't a test of skill, even if skill is involved, because setup of the equipment is more important than execution of the skill.

      And by this argument, baseball isn't a sport either, because the Yankess can simply buy their way to a championship every year. And neither is sport shooting, because you're using mechanical equipment. And neither is cycling - I mean jeez, you can win if you buy the most expensive lightweight bike that gives you an advantage!

      Do you realize at all how retarded you sound? No, don't answer that - the answer is obvious. You're all over this thread trying to twist words in a way that's logically consistent to define NASCAR as "not a sport," despite the fact that it contains all the same elements as other activities commonly accepted as sports. The only difference between NASCAR and other sports is that "rednecks" like it, and you think it's low class. Hooray for diversity!

    33. Re:Gross? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      And neither is sport shooting, because you're using mechanical equipment.

      If the shooters swapped equipment, it would still be a contest. But Nascar is mostly about the machines. You are deliberately stretching my words. And yes, modern archery is less of a sport now that the competition bows are wholely unlike the regular ones.

      It's not me stretching it to make it sound like Nascar isn't a sport. It's all those who demand it is. It's not unlike a video game. You sit and give some inputs based on mainly visual feedback. 3 hours later, you win or lose. No reset, no retries, one life. But I guess you'd consider competition Starcraft to be a sport.

    34. Re:Gross? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm quoting from your own links. Did you even read them?

      Indeed, I did. Perhaps you got tired after reading the first sentence - maybe some sports would help you build your endurance? But I digress. My own link goes on to say this about the definition of sports:

      The precise definition of what separates a sport from other leisure activities varies between sources, with no universally agreed definition. The closest to an international agreement on a definition is provided by SportAccord, which is the association for all the largest international sports federations (including association football, athletics, cycling, tennis, equestrian sports and more), and is therefore the de facto representative of international sport.
      SportAccord uses the following criteria, determining that a sport should:
      1) have an element of competition
      2) be in no way harmful to any living creature
      3) not rely on equipment provided by a single supplier (excluding proprietary games such as arena football)
      4) not rely on any 'luck' element specifically designed in to the sport
      They also recognise that sport can be primarily physical (such as rugby or athletics), primarily mind (such as chess or go), predominantly motorised (such as Formula 1 or powerboating), primarily co-ordination (such as billiard sports) or primarily animal supported (such as equestrian sport).

      NASCAR qualifies on all 4 counts.

      Interestingly, your lmgtfy link returns the following as the "top" definition for sport - did you even read your own links? Or did the first sentence of my link tire you out that much?

      Sport: Noun
      An activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others.

      Again, NASCAR qualifies. The drivers spend a large proportion of their hours-long, 500 mile race working against 2 G's (about what they feel going through those banked turns - without the banking, they'd be subjected to more like 3-4 G's), in temperatures which commonly reach above 110 F, at speeds of 150-200 miles an hour, where the slightest break in attention or focus can mean - at best - that you lose the race, and at worst, that you die, and kill a couple people with you. That requires immense physical exertion & stamina, intense mental focus, and a large amount of skill, all in the context of a competitive activity. Sport? You betcha.

      So are you going to continue to insist that there is no "competitive" element in sport?

      I said it NEED NOT be a competitive activity. And the wikipedia page states "Sport is all forms of competitive physical activity." It does not say that it is ONLY "competitive physical activity," as the later definitions go on to explain. But even if we take your restrictive "competitive physical activity" definition - NASCAR *still* qualifies - it is competitive, and it is a physical activity - nowhere is there any minimum caloric expenditure required for an activity to rise to the level of sport, nor is there any stated requirement for the physical activity to involve certain motions that you consider "required." Perhaps you need a course in reading comprehension. A course like that is not a sport, but it surely would help you.

      Your logic is full of holes, and you're simply twisting and turning trying to salvage some semblance of a logical point from the mess you've made. NASCAR is a sport, by ANY definition you've provided, and by ANY definition I've provided. Just be honest, and admit that the reason you're bagging on NASCAR is that you can't stand the thought of something "rednecks" enjoy being something of any value. It's easy to be snarky and dismissive when you're convinced it's something only "low class" people would enjoy, but I assure you, your lack of enjoyment doesn't magically rewrite commonly accepted definitions of the word "sport."

    35. Re:Gross? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, you're an idiot. He understood the context of the video quite well, but you didn't understand the meaning of his comment. The fact that people like you are even allowed to moderate demonstrates the most prominent failing of the moderation system. Grated, you removed your improper moderation, but imagine how many other times your faulty judgment has caused you to moderate poorly. Again, I reiterate, you're a stupid mother fucker.

    36. Re:Gross? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Part of it not being a "sport" is that no, he likely couldn't even try. Football and such, you can find a ball and run around. You can get the "official" ball if you like, and there are piles of "regulation" fields around to play on. So you can approximate the "sport". .

      I bought "official" nascar sunglasses at the local safeway for 15 USD. Then I drove around town listening to "Danger Zone." I think we can all agree that what happened was "sport".

    37. Re:Gross? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They need not be concerned; the cars are well designed to protect the driver in impacts like those. The announcers knew that.

    38. Re:Gross? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Any way the meta-mods can look into taking away this guy's mod points?This guy's opinion of the spectators' actions differs from Seumas, and neither of you was there or can read minds so neither of them knows the truth, but this guy downmodded an opinion which he didn't like? That is absolutely, positively an abuse of the moderation system.

    39. Re:Gross? by khallow · · Score: 1

      "Thank you for clearing that up for me."

      Just copy and paste that next time, you get into one of these threads. NASCAR fits the definition of "sport". You need not worry about it any more.

    40. Re:Gross? by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

      These guys race cars that require serious endurance to drive, they aren't anything like the POS you drive

      Yeah, they're a little bit faster but to gain that speed they have sacrificed all the handling, braking and ride that make "ordinary" cars bearable.

      They do it in heat at speeds that would make you crap your pants

      Why not have air conditioning? Touring cars have it. Le Mans entrants have it.

      These guys understand aerodynamics and they have to react constantly just to keep the cars on track

      That's because American manufacturers haven't discovered suspension yet. Get out on the track in a straight-from-the-showroom BMW 335d and see how it goes

      They risk their lives and exhaust themselves doing it while breathing monoxide.

      Why not use diesel engines, which are simpler, much more powerful and cleaner - and don't produce any carbon monoxide because they always run lean?

    41. Re:Gross? by rpstrong · · Score: 1

      I'm not much of a parser, and I couldn't tell you what a gerund is, but shouldn't it be "something as?"

    42. Re:Gross? by Cramer · · Score: 1

      Every sport has it's rules. NFL, NHL, NBA... golf, tennis, lacrose, bowling, fox hunting... EVERY. F'ing. THING. NASCAR is no different -- 'tho the officials aren't always enforcing all of the rules. (eg. the rules about no intentional contact.)

      You say NASCAR isn't a sport because you don't think there's any skill or competition in it. Well, you are 100% wrong. By all means, get in a stock car and see for yourself -- there are many "NASCAR Experience" events every year that will put you in a "baby" stock car (with an instuctor) on a NASCAR oval at close to full speed. (the one I did at Rockingham eons ago, they kept everyone to 120-130, 'tho capable of 180+)

      While driving around in a circle is certainly boring as all hell to watch -- making it not much of a spectator sport. It is entirely different from behind the wheel -- there's *alot* going on in the car, and a small lapse in attention (at 180mph) *will* be disasterous. To some it comes natural; to others, not so much. (*cough*Danica Patrick*cough* I watched her almost lose it driving in a straight line.)

    43. Re:Gross? by Cramer · · Score: 1

      YOU try to muscle a 5000 pound vehicle at close proximity to others going close to 200 mph for several hours.

      Athleticism? That's pushing it. I've not seen very many "athletic" drivers in NASCAR or F1. In fact, many of the older drivers are rather pudgy.

      And the cars don't weigh 2.5ton. They have 700hp engines so you don't have to get out and push them -- and as the driver, you're never pushing it anyway. They have power steering, power brakes, and a hydrolic clutch (or a flappy-paddle (F1).) They are as easy to manage as any street car. Even with a manual steering rack, once the car is moving, it's not hard to turn. (esp. on a NASCAR oval where there's very little steering anyway.)

    44. Re:Gross? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I still disagree. It's a sport like professional Starcraft is a sport. And many don't consider things like rhythmic gymnastics a sport, even if it's an olympic sport. Apparently, the group-think requires no non-conformant opinions. And you are the acting group-think Nazi.

    45. Re:Gross? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I still disagree. It's a sport like professional Starcraft is a sport.

      Except, you know, for the fact that it requires a hell of a lot of physical endurance and upper body strength, which are not required by e-sports of any kind. You keep trying to assert that the physical demands are identical to "sitting in a car on a flat, open highway doing 65 mph." They are not. You obviously have no concept of the physical demands put on the driver, and as such, you are nothing but the sports equivalent of a pointy-haired boss asserting that whatever you don't understand must be trivially easy because you did something once that looked sort of like what those other people are doing.

      What you're asserting, basically, is that you're qualified to pass judgement on the design of the Boeing Dreamliner, because you "made some paper airplanes once, and they flew real far."

      If you want to argue that NASCAR drivers are not required to be tremendously physically gifted *athletes*, you might have a point. But their sport is most certainly a sport, by any definition that's been bandied about here in these comments - there is no requirement that a sport require 4% body fat and a certain baseline VO2 max. Every definition of the word "sport" that you've provided, NASCAR has fit the definition of. You may not like the sport, or find much value in it - that's certainly your prerogative - but you don't get to selectively redefine words and not get called on it.

    46. Re:Gross? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      You obviously have no concept of the physical demands put on the driver, and as such, you are nothing but the sports equivalent of a pointy-haired boss asserting that whatever you don't understand must be trivially easy because you did something once that looked sort of like what those other people are doing.

      I've driven hot-laps on Nascar courses. I've driven in car races. That we disagree doesn't mean that I have less information than you. It's entirely possible for me to know as much or more than you and still not agree with your opinion. Nascar is as much a sport as the cars in it are stock.

    47. Re:Gross? by khallow · · Score: 1

      So even though you have personal experience and the numerous arguments on this thread, including your own, against your claim, you still choose to be wrong? Be your guest.

    48. Re:Gross? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Why do you object do vehemently to others having an opinion different than yours? I'm not wrong, I'm just different. Why does that bother you so much?

    49. Re:Gross? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've driven hot laps on NASCAR courses

      1) They're called "tracks."
      2) What's "hot-lapping", a reader might ask? Funny you should ask:

      Hot lapping, or simply lapping, is a motorsport in which vehicles are driven around a race track without actually competing for a position or any other recording of performance. Multiple vehicles will typically be on the track, but no passing is allowed, nor any contact. Even though the main purpose is not competitively oriented, many clubs will record lap times, so drivers can measure improvement. Cars may be classified for different levels of performance potential, in order that similarly capable cars and drivers are on the track together. However, with no specific rules about car modifications, there is really no meaningful competition, as the cars may have significantly different potential. A competition in which time is used as a competitive element is called time trialing.

      So you've driven around in circles on a NASCAR track a couple times, participating in a motorsport which bars contact, passing, and pretty much any element of competition. And yet, hot lapping is still considered a motorsport, in its very definition.

      That we disagree doesn't mean that I have less information than you.

      No one's said you have less information simply because you disagree. What we're saying is that you *actually have no applicable information* to back up your claims - you're assuming a NASCAR driver is the same as you puttering around a track a couple times - and the only way your claims are valid is if you actively redefine the term "sport" to mean something that doesn't resemble its actual definition in multiple "authoritative" sources.

      Nascar is as much a sport as the cars in it are stock

      Your experience qualifies you to speak with any authority on the demands placed on NASCAR drivers just about as much as my experience applying a Band Aid to a cut qualifies me to speak with any authority on the process of performing a kidney transplant.

    50. Re:Gross? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I have a cup-board in my kitchen that is not a board, and does not hold a single cup. My dash-board does nothing to prevent the dash from reaching the driver. And my motor-sport is not a sport. Perhaps you are confused about language.

    51. Re:Gross? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do you object do vehemently to others having an opinion different than yours? I'm not wrong, I'm just different. Why does that bother you so much?

      Why does that bother you so much?

      Because he is different than you ;)

    52. Re:Gross? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I know people have joked about Nascar being a religion, but I didn't realize it was quite so literal. The reason Atheists are offensive to Christians, is the very fact they exist indicates that they *must* believe that Christians are wrong. And calling someone wrong, even if just passively, is still offensive. Funny how in a bullying situation, the conservatives jump on the right of a bully to say whatever they want, even if the sole intention of the speech is to cause harm. But for religion, we must defend the status quo.

    53. Re:Gross? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know people have joked about Nascar being a religion, but I didn't realize it was quite so literal.

      That's why I gave you that reply. Not much will be gained to dwell on why he has this need to be right (or make you wrong). Religious people are religious. It's just the way he is. He's just different

      And I wouldn't call khallow a conservative. Real conservatives wouldn't care what other people are like (right, wrong, religious, atheist, gay, straight, etc). Real conservatives have no problem with different people as long the conservatives themselves (and their way of life) are left alone*

      *of course, that ceases to be true with extreme conservatives, who stops minding their own business and wants everybody else to follow their (oh so very righteous) way of life. Alas, just as "liberal" doesn't automatically mean extreme Marxism, neither does "conservative" mean the opposite extreme

    54. Re:Gross? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      There are no "real" conservatives. It's so far gone that neo-con is last generation's conservatives. We are past that and on to tea-o-con or whatever the resurgance of religious-driven progressives working for some change that works for some "ideal" that never was, but our memories altered to help us.

      Conservative and liberal are mindsets, not belief-sets. Do you prefer to go to McDonald's because it's shit food, but it's shit food you are expecting and is always the same? Or do you prefer to try a new place almost every time, because there could always be something better out there you haven't found yet?

      But no, the "traditional" definitions have been discarded to mean "liberal" - fiscally irresponsible, and "conservative" socially irresponsible, depending on who you are trying to insult.

    55. Re:Gross? by khallow · · Score: 1

      Not much will be gained to dwell on why he has this need to be right (or make you wrong).

      This isn't some religious right and wrong. This is logic. AK Marc has claimed that NASCAR racing isn't a "sport" because you can't do it on an amateur basis. You have to drop millions to race, while with say football (of either the international or US variants), you just need a ball, a field, and some players.

      He then goes on to say that people who actually race cars on an amateur basis agree with him. Think about that. He says there isn't amateur racing (using that as his basis for the claim that NASCAR isn't a sport) and then turns around and says there is. WTF? This is his argument, not mine.

      And when one goes by an actual, official definition of sports rather than some unrecognized, homebrew definition, it turns out that since racing is a contest of physical skill one needs not deliberate further. It's a sport by definition.

      And I wouldn't call khallow a conservative. Real conservatives wouldn't care what other people are like (right, wrong, religious, atheist, gay, straight, etc). Real conservatives have no problem with different people as long the conservatives themselves (and their way of life) are left alone*

      I just wish True Scotsmen would do the same.

      Also, I'm curious what you think the point of a discussion forum like Slashdot is for. Is it just a place to dump opinions? Say in our thread, an essay-based poll for whether NASCAR is a sport or not? I had the impression that since there was a "Reply to This" button, one could interact with other users, say if someone posted something you happened to disagree with. Even possibly one could use it to persuade or illuminate.

      As I see it, this is an opportunity for AK Marc to be educated and think better. It's not about NASCAR. It's not about conservatism. It's about thinking. Why should I hold back when I can help make him a better person?

    56. Re:Gross? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This isn't some religious right and wrong. This is logic.

      Nope, this is you lacking the ability to read and comprehend what you read.

      AK Marc asked you why you won't back off (you call it educating him, he calls it insisting to be right). I was answering that question, nothing about NASCAR. So excuse me while I ignore your net blurb about NASCAR

      I just wish True Scotsmen would do the same.

      It's interesting you say this, but then said later (note the bold):

      Is it just a place to dump opinions? Say in our thread, an essay-based poll for whether NASCAR is a sport or not? I had the impression that since there was a "Reply to This" button, one could interact with other users, say if someone posted something you happened to disagree with. Even possibly one could use it to persuade or illuminate.

      AK Marc said something about conservatives (defending bullies). I *disagreed* with him on that, and provided my view (like how you present yours - "as I [you] see it, this is an opportunity blah blah blah").

      In other words, I'm just doing the same thing you're doing bro, on a slightly different topic with AK Marc.

      I do believe my statements about conservative are more correct than his, unless you (or him) can provide evidence to the contrary. I mean, you're the one who talked about persuasion and illumination, right?

      Also, I'm curious what you think the point of a discussion forum like Slashdot is for.

      I suspect my views are very similar to yours. Our difference is more in our personalities. Namely, I'm easy going while you're, well... not

      As I said, I was doing the same thing you are doing with AK Marc. Whereas I want Marc to ease up by saying that's just the way you are (so he should just accept it), you want to escalate by now engaging me.

      As I see it, this is an opportunity for AK Marc to be educated and think better.

      Exactly, and *I* was educating AK Marc that conservatism isn't about "defending bullies" (his words), and pointing out that just as how he's different in viewing NASCAR as not a sport, people like you are different than him and will not back down. Again, same thing as you're doing, just from a different angle.

      Why should I hold back when I can help make him a better person?

      I didn't say you should hold back. If anything I told AK Marc to back off, accept that you're the kind of person you are, and let you do your thing. I told him not much would be gained trying to question you.

      Speaking of which, this is another difference in our personalities. You think like a socialist, wanting to take "opportunities" to making people "better", for whatever definition of better you have within your moral framework. I think like a libertarian, I let individuals decide what's "better" for themselves, and they can find and take the opportunity themselves. I may offer some of my thoughts and help as charity, but it's still up to them to take the opportunity to accept my help.

    57. Re:Gross? by khallow · · Score: 1

      AK Marc asked you why you won't back off

      Has that been a problem here? I see one or more AC who has been rather diligent, but I only posted three times to him plus twice (including my current post) to you. He's posted something like sixteen times in this thread. Who isn't "backing off"?

      I didn't say you should hold back. If anything I told AK Marc to back off, accept that you're the kind of person you are, and let you do your thing. I told him not much would be gained trying to question you.

      And when will he get around to "questioning" me? Keep in mind that what created this whole thread was some AC just stating unconditionally that NASCAR wasn't a sport. AK Marc pretty much has just been saying over and over again that he too doesn't believe that NASCAR is a sport. I have no trouble with that though other people did, simply because AK Marc wasn't using a standard definition of "sport".

      But what he also did was justify that claim on the basis that there was no amateur car racing akin to NASCAR, and that the amateurs, who did race cars akin to NASCAR, agreed with him that NASCAR wasn't a sport (for likely different reasons, I might add than AK Marc's). When your argument is at its core an inherent logical contradiction, then you aren't "different", you are merely wrong.

    58. Re:Gross? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Has that been a problem here?

      I'll answer your question with a question: does something have to be a problem for him to ask a question?

      I don't know if it's a problem for him. For whatever his reason, he asked a question. I gave an answer. Just like now you're asking "has that been a problem here?" I'm giving you an answer, because I feel like it.

      Who isn't "backing off"?

      Well, if you ask me, I'd say it's the one who's counting how many posts people are making ;)

      And when will he get around to "questioning" me?

      Quite a few posts ago, he asked (questioned) you a couple things:

      "Why do you object do vehemently to others having an opinion different than yours? I'm not wrong, I'm just different. Why does that bother you so much?"

      When your argument is at its core an inherent logical contradiction, then you aren't "different", you are merely wrong.

      Well, he didn't call it an argument in that post. He called it an opinion (maybe he said something different in another post, but I'm not the one keeping track here)

      And again, the whole NASCAR thing isn't my (this particular AC's) problem. I just felt like answering his question about you, which frankly, has nothing to do with the topic NASCAR, so was a good place for me to interject without getting into the NASCAR topic. And as I said, when I interjected, it was to tell HIM to back off, as his question is going beyond just NASCAR.

    59. Re:Gross? by khallow · · Score: 1

      Well, he didn't call it an argument in that post. He called it an opinion

      Ok, it's a inherently wrong opinion.

      I just felt like answering his question about you

      And your answer was:

      Not much will be gained to dwell on why he has this need to be right (or make you wrong).

      I have a "need" to be "right" because well, I have beliefs just like anyone else, and well, beliefs that are more consistent with each other tend to cause less weirdness in the brain ("cognitive dissonance" is the pop-psych term).

      I don't have a "need" to "make" anyone wrong. I didn't post all that because I needed to make AK Marc wrong. Instead, it was to point out that his beliefs (opinions, arguments, etc) contradicted each other. Such contradiction is inherently wrong no matter what an outsider "needs" and I think it hurts the person holding the contradictory beliefs. Cognitive dissonance can't be that good for you.

  24. "to our safety protocols" by Guppy06 · · Score: 2

    With the fence being prepared tonight to our safety protocols

    Hey, those protocols were sufficient the last time around, amirite?

    1. Re:"to our safety protocols" by Nolas · · Score: 1
    2. Re:"to our safety protocols" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think what helped out the situation there was that NO ONE CARE TO SHOW UP TO THE RACE

    3. Re:"to our safety protocols" by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      actually they were

      Since we're commenting about a video showing spectator injuries, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that current spectator protection standards aren't sufficient to protect injuries.

  25. Re:Nascar .. cha ching by hedleyroos · · Score: 2

    I was expecting to see Randy Marsh in the video.

  26. Perjury by hduff · · Score: 4, Funny

    "We realized we perjured ouselves in requesting a DCMA takedown of a fan video of a crash where spectators were injured. It made us look bad and made racing appear unsafe for spectators and would hurt our business. Besides, the video showed a lack of respect for the Women, Veterans and First Responders who may have been injured. We support and love these dedicated American Heroes who sacrifice everything for this Great Country and would undoubtedly support us in our loving, caring, selfless decision. Since he drinks beer, President Obama is probably a big race fan and I'm sure Obama and Jesus would support us in this no matter what the law says. I know Jesus would forgive us." Speedway President Joie Chitwood told CNN.

    --
    "I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
  27. Nice to Know by hduff · · Score: 1

    It's nice to know NASCAR has a copyright on injuries to consumers of their product.

    Microsoft has a lot of license fees to pay.

    --
    "I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
  28. it's a news event by circletimessquare · · Score: 3, Insightful

    fair use should apply

    it all happens on corporate property, but that doesn't trump the common news value

    this is a dangerous precedent if corporate PR trumps newsworthiness

    this is how and why western democratic ideals and freedoms are undermined by runaway financial power

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  29. link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But don't think about posting the link to the damned video as part of the story. No, that wouldn't be of any value.

    1. Re:link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, there is a link in the summary, moron.

  30. Respect for those who were injured ... by Chromium_One · · Score: 1

    Yeah, see how much ice that cuts as soon as one of those who was injured tries to *keep* any of this footage online.

    --
    When you live in a sick society, just about everything you do is wrong.
  31. Does not top years years 500 crash and fireball by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    Does not top years years 500 crash and fireball

  32. Re:Nascar .. cha ching by flyneye · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Well, most NASCAR racers can't afford an engine, but they do their darned best to bring you entertainment.
    Before the race, straws are drawn and the short straw gets a nice heavy duty Cummins tractor engine. Straws are drawn again for position and the pit crews start attaching a chain from the engine car to those behind them. The flag drops and the cars roar off like a big choo choo train. The accident happened because a weak link in the chain broke causing a sudden loss of torque and surprising the driver who was busy texting a pit bunny . This caused the crash and a delay of race as the pit crew rushed to bolt the chain back together and finish the race. Fans are encouraged to send donations to NASCAR Chain to keep this proud U.S. tradition advertising the finest makers of autos and auto accessories, t-shirts, toys and beer.

    --
    *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
  33. Too bad, NASCRAP by FuzzNugget · · Score: 2

    Yes, I will even defend FOX News on this. This is absolutely newsworthy and applicable to freedom of the press. The extremely obvious reason why they want to suppress it is to minimize loss of fanship (though their fans have a pretty hardcore dedication, is that even possible anyway?) and loss of profit. Fuck off NASCRAP.

    1. Re:Too bad, NASCRAP by dcollins117 · · Score: 1

      They'd also like to suppress the video as it is dynamite in the hands of a good prosecuting attorney. Think of all the upcoming lawsuits that the injured will soon file. Certainly with actual video of car parts breaching the safety fence a compelling case for negligence can be made.

  34. It's the great american race by kspacey · · Score: 1

    Complete with censorship and blackout

    --
    kspacey join amnesty international www.amnesty.org
  35. Is this Nerdy in any way? by TooTechy · · Score: 0

    For the life of me I am trying to determine why this is on /.

    It must be a slow tech news day. Sunday - sigh.

    1. Re:Is this Nerdy in any way? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll give you an analogy. Big shopping malls in the suburbs are often located on an exit of an Interstate or major highway, but sometimes you can't see the facility from the road. Officials know that if they put up a sign like "Great Mall, Exit 30" that would become a slippery slope where every other local businessman would request the same treatment. But, it's a real problem that crowds of people face trying to find the damn mall the first time. So they put up this:

      "Great Mall Road, Exit 30"

      See the difference? They're allowed to put up signage naming major access roads (even though there frequently is no "Great Mall Road" - there's just a "Great Mall").

      So that's my windy way of saying what this story is about. The "Great Mall Road" is the takedown notice. The "Great Mall" is NASCAR, the crash into the stands and the injured spectators.

      - submitter

    2. Re:Is this Nerdy in any way? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know that you could just simply ignore the article that does not interest you (you know, the one dealing with tthe DMCA, which has been a hot topic of discussion here for years), don't you?

      But I know, I know. Complaining is soooooo much more satisfying.

    3. Re:Is this Nerdy in any way? by TooTechy · · Score: 1

      Point taken - somewhere along the line take-down notices must have become nerdy. I just can't see why any more. Essentially anything "big brother" must have become nerdy. Perhaps we should reopen 9/11 events and spend the day discussing them instead. Get that guy Alex Jones involved. Perhaps have one of those "Ask 10 questions of..." sessions for him... etc etc.

      Wood and trees anyone?

      Where has all the tech news gone?
      Short ints passing.
      Garbage collected, every one.
      When will they ever deallocate?

      Sung to the tune of "Where have all the flowers gone?"

    4. Re:Is this Nerdy in any way? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      somewhere along the line take-down notices must have become nerdy.

      Yes. That happened just about the time that Slashdot was overrun by conspiracy theorist morons whose sole other sources of news are The Daily Show, blogs, youtube, and left-wing echo chambers. This - coincidentally - happened right about the time Democrats in the US decided that half the population of the United States were irredeemable idiots, and began apologizing constantly to European countries for our existence as an independent country.

      You can tell these people by their blind adherence to unsubstantiated conspiracy theories, use of phrases like "'MURRICA HAHAHA," general disdain for anybody who does not immediately rush to agree with them, no matter how outlandish their "factual" pronouncements, and their immediate rush to characterize anything they don't know about or don't agree with as "fascist republithug corporate libertarian randian bullshit."

      Welcome to Slashdot. Echo chamber for the self-styled modern intelligentsia. Not much to see here if you're a thinking man, but you'll probably get some laughs out of it.

  36. Everyone knows that Nascar... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...holds the copyright for horrific accidents. Sheesh!

    Sometimes their lawyers beat the ambulance to the scene of especially gruesome car crashes to serve papers. "Excuse me, sir, you are violating our copyright for accidentis horribilis. Here are the court papers. Right, your arms are over there on the sidewalk. Then I will just drop these on your head and see you in court."

  37. Protecting The Fans by hEpen · · Score: 1

    So they cheap-out on fencing that would actually protect fans and lawyer up on digital rights to protect the fans.

    I'm ready for NASCAR to go alternative energy or go away.

    1. Re:Protecting The Fans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fencing at NASCAR tracks is quite strong. What happened is Larson's car hit an access gate fans use to get from pre-race festivities to the grandstands.

      Whenever something like this happens, NASCAR always looks at improvements and I'm sure will make changes necessary to ensure the gate is not a weak-link anymore.

      And as to the DMCA mistake, I believe it was done with the best of intentions. NASCAR's not too aggressive with copyright claims.

    2. Re:Protecting The Fans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That you think that fencing was cheap is a amazing display of ignorance. Do a little research and you'll become educated, it's damned beefy and has cables as thick as your fist run through it to tie it together. That it held back a multi-thousand pound car at speeds of 200mph is a testament to that fact.

  38. So basically by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    NASCAR flat out admitted they misused the copy right take down notice system to remove a video? And will face no recourse?

    Man, as a US citizen, what's it feel like to be owned by people with the money to do whatever they want? Do miss freedom and civil liberty?

  39. That's not a DMCA take down by r6_jason · · Score: 1

    You guys are missing something, that isn't a DMCA take down, it's youtube's in house take down system, so Nascar didn't violate the DMCA at all here, it violated it's contract w/ Google.

  40. Re:Nascar .. cha ching by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yeah, because nothing says "being a good guy" like trying to render first aid to someone when you're drunk and don't know the first thing about first aid.

    He should've just elbowed his way through there, grabbed a pocket knife from someone, and done surgery right there in the stands.

  41. In defense of NASCAR by michaelmalak · · Score: 1

    The whole point of NASCAR is the wrecks. I'm assuming a NASCAR ticket doesn't allow video recording, similar to an NFL ticket. If you can't YouTube an NFL touchdown, then it follows that you can't YouTube a NASCAR wreck (which, again, is the whole point of NASCAR).

  42. Muscle? Ha! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    YOU try to muscle a 5000 pound vehicle at close proximity to others going close to 200 mph for several hours.

    What an ironic selection of verb for this discussion. Tell me, what sort of muscles do they use to control that powered steering? Of course, one should imagine this is what discourse with a NASCAR fan would be like.

    1. Re:Muscle? Ha! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Well looks like you both got it wrong. The average weight of a NASCAR car is about 3400 lbs. Secondly there is no power steering on a NASCAR car. Power steering robs horsepower and adds weight. At 200 miles per hour, it does indeed take muscle to control the car, as well as quick reflexes. This isn't like a Sunday drive to church where you can be half asleep.

  43. Eh... did you watch the video moron? by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1

    The engine WAS caught in the fence. It was other parts of the car that didn't including a tire but the engine did.

    So why should we take any of your ideas for consideration when you clearly don't know what you are talking about?

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  44. NASCAR needs new safety measures by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

    There needs to be enough room between the first row of seats and the track to prevent this kind of thing from happening. At 200MPH a chunk of metal can probably skid and jump along the ground for 500-1000 feet before coming to rest, so I would say a 2000 foot buffer zone all the way around the track would probably be appropriate.

    After all, we have to remove 100% of all risk from every part of life, and even the smallest risk is unacceptable. Whatever it takes, no matter how much is spent, if just one life is saved, it's worth it.

  45. foul ball? by CrAlt · · Score: 3, Funny

    So in baseball if a fan catches a foul ball or home run ball the MLB lets them keep the ball.

    Now in NASCAR if you catch a tire or engine block are you allowed to keep it also?

    --
    I have to return some videotapes...
    1. Re:foul ball? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Truely, if I were to catch so much as a stock car rim, I would keep that thing at all costs. It's not because I could use it, or give a flaming hoot about racing. I get the rim home, and promptly start the bidding on Ebay at a grand. Rim sells in 12 hours.

    2. Re:foul ball? by cOldhandle · · Score: 1

      This made me laugh so much, thank you!

    3. Re:foul ball? by Shag · · Score: 1

      Odds are the driver's going to come see you in the hospital, too - so remember to get them to autograph it. Really drives up the bidding.

      --
      Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
  46. NASCAR Fan Authenticated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    Because you're retarded

    Just confirming your retard status, I see.

    Authentication tests have come back and ... yes, yes we are dealing with a NASCAR fan here, folks.

    1. Re:NASCAR Fan Authenticated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Actually I'm not a fan - I find it terribly boring to watch. I also find football, hockey, soccer, basketball, and pretty much any other professional sport terribly boring to watch. That doesn't mean they're not sports - it simply means I'm not interested in them.

      "NASCAR isn't a sport because the people who go to NASCAR events just sit there and watch," is truly a retarded statement to make - regardless of whether or not you LIKE NASCAR, nobody has ever claimed that the NASCAR *spectators* are the athletes. Analogs for them exist in every professional sport - spectators attend sporting events, and watch, while professional athletes (the drivers) engage in their sport, and - ideally - exhibit feats of sporting skill and prowess that the spectators might not be able to match.

      So, why don't you tell us why NASCAR isn't a sport, when it fits the definition, and meets every criteria I can think of for something to be called a "sport"?

      As far as I can tell, any "NASCAR isn't a sport" argument boils down to "I have this curious notion that redneck southern conservatives are the people who like NASCAR, and so I'm immediately superior to anybody who would like NASCAR, because I watch the Daily Show and the Colbert Report, and those shows have taught me that the only real sport is being a condescending douchebag to anybody who likes something I don't like."

  47. Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Crashes, accidents and potential deaths are the only reason most people watch nascar to begin with.

    Besides, they dont care about the victims or anything else. They are simply trying to keep anything that makes them look bad out of the spotlight. If a driver dies they never try and hide it, infact they put out tshirts, bumper stickers, hats and stay in the media eye as long as possible. For christs sake they still put out dale earnhart stuff trying to "honor his memory" by selling that crap to people. But spectators dying? That could be bad for business so they try to cover that up quickly as possible.

  48. Reading Fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your reading comprehension is at the same level as a NASCAR fan's. He was referring to the drivers (the so called "athletes") who basically just sit in a chair and sweat. Not the fans, you dumb shit. Learn how to read!

    1. Re:Reading Fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, but the drivers exert a lot more effort than that - since it's only the spectators who show up, sit, and sweat, I tried to assume (generously) that he was talking about the spectators.

      As someone with an inkling of the effort and skill required to steer a car going 170-200mph through tight turns while surrounded by multiple other vehicles doing the same thing within inches of your vehicle for hours on end, I guarantee that you could not, as you are today, successfully compete in a NASCAR event - without extensive conditioning and training.

      Guess what, champ? Kickers are not wide receivers. Drivers are not nose tackles. That doesn't mean they're not engaging in a sport - different athletes train & excel at different aspects of their sport. If all it took was a driver's license to race successfully, there'd be a lot more successful drivers out there. The amount of stamina & strength (as well as reflexes and critical thinking) required of a driver go far beyond what you imagine is required.

      You have no concept of what's entailed, and since you have no concept... you assume it's easy. We have a term for that around here, but it's usually applied to managers.

    2. Re:Reading Fail by AK+Marc · · Score: 1
      The spectators show up and drink. The participants show up, sit down, and sweat.

      As someone with an inkling of the effort and skill required to steer a car going 170-200mph through tight turns while surrounded by multiple other vehicles doing the same thing within inches of your vehicle for hours on end, I guarantee that you could not, as you are today, successfully compete in a NASCAR event - without extensive conditioning and training.

      As someone who has done that for short periods, and other auro-based activities for much longer than the average Nascar race, I would assert that you are wrong. Pay my entry fee into a race, and get me in a car, and I'll prove you wrong. Oh yeah, as was my point, that's impossible, not like football, where if I claimed I could kick a 60 yard field goal, we could check that in 5 minutes or less.

    3. Re:Reading Fail by Pubstar · · Score: 1

      Racing is more mentally draining than anything else. In my younger days, I used to do some illegal canyon racing, and I have to tell you... After a 20 minute run, I was brain dead. The amount of information you have to process while trying to keep your car on the road is killer.

    4. Re:Reading Fail by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Canyon racing is more mentally draining than Nascar racing would be. With courses, especially longer ones, you not only drive, but navigate, even if you have a navigator. With Nascar, you turn left, followed by 399 more lefts. The mental aspect is almost completely removed. Unless you are winning, you don't even get to pick your own line. Instead you focus on the feedback of the car. Is it drifting neutrally, understeer, oversteer, brake fade, brake performance improving with use, and all the other changes are what you fill your brain with in oval, and its almost boring. I get more thrill in my morning commute, but then I'm on a motorbike in a place where lane splitting is legal.

  49. Re:Nascar .. cha ching by Sporkinum · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Professional sports at the upper levels priced them selves out of the market years ago. Same with live concerts. I really don't know how they get so many people to pay so much for so little.

    --
    "He's lost in a 'floyd hole"
  50. Re:Nascar .. cha ching by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You realize it's contradictory to say they priced themselves out of the market, and that they sell a lot?

    In fact, a lot of concerts could easily price tickets much, much higher, and still sell out. They have cheaper tickets to give their less wealthy, but devoted enough to be the first in line, fans a chance to come.

  51. They should be encouraging the wide distribution by Lanboy · · Score: 1

    An almost infinitesimal chance of personal injury will pull more fans to see the races. Danger is exciting.

  52. Re: Nascar .. cha ching by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    LOL you have never been to a NASCAR race then, while races attract all types, there is definitely not a lack of money at the events. I highly recommend going to a race, they are a blast.

  53. Re: Nascar .. cha ching by Seumas · · Score: 2

    I'm on to you. You just want me to get hit in the skull with a massive NASCAR tire.

  54. A lawsuit may still be the right response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Realize that the proper result here is the sport paying for all of the medical care and resulting quality-of-life changes for the people injured.

    The medical costs are a result of having the sport. If the sport is in enough demand, it can pay for the costs. If it isn't, then it costs us more to have it than we benefit from it in terms of enjoyment.

    This is why we don't have chainsaw fights.

    If the sport *doesn't* make those payments, that's what lawsuits are *for*.

    An asshole is someone who sues for no reason, or an illegitimate one. Someone who sues because you slammed into them at two hundred miles an hour and then didn't pay their medical bills is not an asshole.

  55. NASCAR is doing the right thing here by slasher999 · · Score: 1

    NASCAR will do and is doing the right thing by these fans I'm confident. This isn't the first time fans have been injured at events, although it does happen infrequently. Simply stated, the catch fence for the most part did it's job and kept the car on the track. The engine block and a wheel could be seen on the spectator side of the fence where the failure occurred. The fence was repaired (although the gate from the track to the stands was not replaced, but removed) for today's Daytona 500.

    1. Re:NASCAR is doing the right thing here by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      right thing? RIGHT THING?

      how is lying the right thing? they lied to own the copyrights to the video recording.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    2. Re:NASCAR is doing the right thing here by slasher999 · · Score: 1

      I did say "by the fans", not by the people responsible for posting videos of other people's misfortune. Is NASCAR lying about copyrights worse than video bloggers looking for their next viral video at the expense of people heading for an emergency room? I don't believe it is. I also think "lying" is probably a bit strong. Misstated - perhaps. A blatant lie? Doubtful.

  56. The Roman Circus by nanospook · · Score: 1

    All you are viewing is the Roman Circus syndrome, but the difference is that these drivers (Gladiators?) accept the risks and get paid for it. I'm not sure I see your point on the spectator's attitudes. Of course, they are excited and are only expecting to be 'spectators', not participants.

    --
    Have you fscked your local propeller head today?
  57. Appearances are deceiving.. by nanospook · · Score: 1

    It was an empty can. He needed another beer and the wait was so long that he pacified himself by holding onto the empty one.. *suck suck*

    --
    Have you fscked your local propeller head today?
  58. Re:Nascar .. cha ching by ganjadude · · Score: 1

    As a NASCAR fan it shocks me as well. Since I cant get tickets to a football game for under 60 bucks yet I can go to a NASCAR race for 35 (cheepest tickets to pocono and a jets game)

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  59. bad PR beats no PR by turkeydance · · Score: 1

    y'all just add to the hype.

  60. Aka "fraud". by pla · · Score: 1

    A NASCAR spokesman has issued a clarification, saying that the takedown request was done out of respect for those injured.

    Aka, A NASCAR spokeman admitted they fraudulently claimed copyright in issuing a DMCA takedown request.

    Wait, no one care? But but but, safe haven and all that!

    Oh, screw you, taking my ball and going home - Burn Rome to the fucking ground, barbarians!

  61. Re:Nascar .. cha ching by hairyfeet · · Score: 2

    I don't know but they have really gotten batshit on the pricing. when I was a teen i went to concerts almost weekly because you could easily afford to, now tickets in the nosebleed section often run close to a hundred bucks.

    And is it just me or is anybody else having trouble with YouTube not buffering worth a shit? I go to speedtest and it consistently shows I'm hitting 20Mbps and all the other video sites load and play perfectly but for the past week or so YouTube has stuttered like its on dialup no matter what res I set the video to. I have asked those around me and they are all seeing the same thing, I get told "Oh thank God I thought there was something wrong with my PC" but I've tried 4 different PCs and the results are the same, stutter city. So I am just curious if others are seeing this or if its only in my area.

    --
    ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  62. Re: Nascar .. cha ching by gmhowell · · Score: 4, Insightful

    while races attract all types,

    Yeah, and they like both types of music at the bars near NASCAR tracks: country and western.

    --
    Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
  63. Re:Nascar .. cha ching by Pubstar · · Score: 1

    I can torrent, play online games with no lag and stream netflix all at the same time with my 50mbps connection, but youtube is spotty at best even when it's only one PC on in the house. So no, it's not just you.

  64. Re:Nascar .. cha ching by T-Bone-T · · Score: 2

    It isn't just you. My internet speed is actually quite low but YouTube pisses me off to no end. Trying to switch to a lower quality video often makes it load even slower! I wish people would stop using it. It isn't good anymore.

  65. There Is Power Steering in NASCAR! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well looks like you both got it wrong. The average weight of a NASCAR car is about 3400 lbs. Secondly there is no power steering on a NASCAR car. Power steering robs horsepower and adds weight. At 200 miles per hour, it does indeed take muscle to control the car, as well as quick reflexes. This isn't like a Sunday drive to church where you can be half asleep.

    [citation needed] everyone knows there's power steering in NASCAR in fact I think it's required. But of course we have NASCAR fans trying to assert NASCAR awesomeness here so lies will abound.

    1. Re:There Is Power Steering in NASCAR! by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      haha, even if correct funny you use yahoo answers, all sorts of rubbish in there. anyway, even in the 1980s about a quarter of the cars had power steering.

  66. I've seen this before by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wasn't this sequence in a Final Destination movie? They violated Hollywood's copyright by crashing in the first place.

  67. Re:Nascar .. cha ching by Sporkinum · · Score: 1

    Yeah, I realized that when I wrote it. More accurately is they have priced themselves out of my market. The funny thing is that I have way more disposable income now than I ever have, even counting as today's lower value dollars.

    --
    "He's lost in a 'floyd hole"
  68. Re:Nascar .. cha ching by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And is it just me or is anybody else having trouble with YouTube not buffering worth a shit?

    Just you and all the other Burson Marsteller employees who've been paid to smear Google products at any opportunity.

  69. Re:Nascar .. cha ching by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, smearing google products at any opportunity. Clearly. Which is why his email address is a gmail account.

    Fucktard.

  70. Re:Nascar .. cha ching by davester666 · · Score: 1

    This is your ISPs way of 'encouraging' YouTube to "partner" with them.

    As in, YouTube should pay to remove the occasional latency issue that only seems to afflict their videos.

    --
    Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
  71. pffff.. by SuperDre · · Score: 1

    Why all the fuzz, you know stuff like this can happen during a nascar race, it's also the reason why a lot of people like nascar.. yes it's a sad that a few fans got hurt, but making such a fuzz about it is stupid..

  72. NASCAR Coverup! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    NASCAR knows that everyone that got injured will be suing their asses off for millions, so they're trying to get
    rid of the evidence!

  73. Tucson School Board Meeting was the same by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.ironicsurrealism.com/2011/05/12/video-shocking-excerpts-read-at-tucson-school-board-meeting-from-a-book-in-the-ethic-studies-curriculum/

    This video has been taken down scores of times by Youtube, despite the fact that the complainant has no rights to the video - they just don't want the public to know what's going on in their 'schools'.

  74. Re:Nascar .. cha ching by Inda · · Score: 1

    It's a running joke on the interwebs that the adverts on YouTube load faster than the actual content.

    60mbit down for me and they stutter.

    Tracert says my ISP has a direct connection to Google.

    Torrents say I download 5 megabytes a second.

    YouTube is fucked.

    --
    This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
  75. Re:Nascar .. cha ching by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

    Oh good, I was afraid it was just me or that there was something off in the last patch Tuesday that was making YouTube suck. I've asked a dozen friends and relative scattered all over the state on multiple ISPs and they are all seeing the same thing, YouTube WAS working okay then a few weeks ago it started going downhill and now its all stutter city. The bitch is I can load a half a dozen videos from multiple sites and have ALL of them ready to go before YouTube has buffered enough to even let me play a music video without stuttering like crazy. Nothing more irritating than trying to look up a song only to have the thing sound like a CD playing while bouncing down train tracks.

    I have to wonder if this is why I'm seeing more and more videos that I click on being hosted on BlipTV instead of YouTube because its gotten bad enough that if I click on a link and see its YouTube I just close it, the stuttering has been so damned bad its really not worth the trouble.

    And maybe I'm wrong, not a JavaScript or streaming video guy, but it feels like YouTube just "dies" for want of a better term. you can leave the video paused and it STILL doesn't buffer for shit, the damned thing just sits there doing nothing. Its really fucking irritating when I have all this bandwidth and YouTube acts like I'm on fricking dialup.

    One final question, does anybody know how to block ACs WITHOUT blocking real users, you know, the ones that have actual UIDs? preferably something that works in Chrome? Because i'm really getting fucking sick of all the batshit crazy ACs that act like if you dare say ANYTHING other than "Gee, isn't product A great in every way?" that you MUST be a shill for somebody else. I've been using YouTube since before Google even bought the damned thing and it was ONLY in the last month or so that service really started going downhill, before that? it buffered fine, vids loaded quick, i had no complaints.

    But the ACs can blow Google or Apple or MSFT or anybody they want but if a product starts sucking ass I AM gonna call them out on it and YouTube is sucking some serious ass right now. When I could literally download an entire fucking movie on BT faster than I can get the damned trailer to load on YouTube? Something is seriously broken with YouTube.

    --
    ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  76. Re:Nascar .. cha ching by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

    Already thought of that but I've talked to multiple people with multiple ISPs all across the south and it seems they are ALL seeing the same shit, at least in this area. In my home town I have relatives on all 3 ISPs and none of them can watch YouTube and we can ALL load multiple videos by anybody else and have half a dozen download and play before YouTube has even buffered enough to play a single movie trailer. There is something funky going on at YouTube.

    --
    ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  77. General Corporate Culture by saintmess · · Score: 1

    This is just a reflection of the general culture of large corporations to hide anything that is bad for business.

  78. Not a patch on the 1955 Lemans by VAXcat · · Score: 1

    They call this a crash involving crowds - it's nothing compared to the 1955 LeMans disaster. There's film of most of a Mercedes 300 slicing through the crowd like a scythe. Mercedes withdrew from all racing for many years after this happened. No one ever tried to censor the footage of the carnage.

    --
    There is no God, and Dirac is his prophet.
  79. Re:Nascar .. cha ching by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1

    I don't know but they have really gotten batshit on the pricing. when I was a teen i went to concerts almost weekly because you could easily afford to, now tickets in the nosebleed section often run close to a hundred bucks.

    And is it just me or is anybody else having trouble with YouTube not buffering worth a shit? I go to speedtest and it consistently shows I'm hitting 20Mbps and all the other video sites load and play perfectly but for the past week or so YouTube has stuttered like its on dialup no matter what res I set the video to. I have asked those around me and they are all seeing the same thing, I get told "Oh thank God I thought there was something wrong with my PC" but I've tried 4 different PCs and the results are the same, stutter city. So I am just curious if others are seeing this or if its only in my area.

    My thought is a weird one, but here 'goes:

    Since the notification of MarkMonitor going live today (2/25/13), people may be making the transition from 'torrenting to just listening to their music of choice on YouTube. The slowness kinda started once the news came out and really killed streaming starting about Saturday.

    Not to be off-topic, but I was wondering the same thing so... There ya have it; my crazy, weird thought. :)

  80. Re:Nascar .. cha ching by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  81. Re:Looks like the object in this case got through by DocSavage64109 · · Score: 1

    If you look at the footage right before the accident, you'll notice that there appears to be a double fence door right where the impact occurred. It seems to me that the fence did it's job just fine, but the door itself failed.

  82. Re:Nascar .. cha ching by CodeHxr · · Score: 1

    It's a running joke on the interwebs that the adverts on YouTube load faster than the actual content.

    Running joke or not, that's the truth of it.

  83. Re:Nascar .. cha ching by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 2

    NASCAR fans are among the most loyal to their sponsors which is in part why the sport is so popular with them. They shell out a lot of money and will even switch brands when a favorite team/driver switches.

    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
  84. Hey cousin Joie! by CHIT2ME · · Score: 1

    Really bad call there with that takedown of this video. I used to be a big fan of NASCAR racing until I began to realize that it is the last sports bastion of the good old boy white mans club. Don't get me wrong, I'm a WASP just like you,but, do you see a single black person in the video? When was there ever a black person driving or even in the pit crew at a Winston or Sprint Cup event? Are NASCAR dads inherently rascist? Is this the reason Republican candidates in elections can only win with the jerrymandering of voting districts? Also, what's with all the Toyota (Japanese) cars in NASCAR today. I thought NASCAR was an American sport! Oh right!, the red south is against unions like those for Ford or Chevy cars. Guess the hatred of unions is enough to let in the riff-raff Japanese mfgrs. What's next, Russian cars?

    --
    My karma is bad. Don't get too close!!!
  85. Re:Nascar .. cha ching by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
    Or, just possibly, he should have attended his first aid courses at school, and subsequently at work, so that he'd have had a good idea of what to do.

    The site of gushing blood has a remarkably sobering effect. And the ABCs of first aid aren't exactly rocket science. which is why they're called ABCs ("Airway", "Breathing", Circulation").

    Oh, it's only an AC. So we'll never know if he keeps his first aid certification up to date. I do - it's a required part of my employment (and I've had to put it into use on a number of occasions).

    --
    Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  86. Re:Nascar .. cha ching by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Or, just possibly, there were already dozens of people crowding around the injured people, and adding one more drunk asshole to the mix would have been pointless.

    The best thing you can do, in a "first aid" situation where you're drunk and unqualified, is to get the fuck out of the way and let the people who are sober and qualified handle it.

    As far as "gushing blood having a sobering effect," - BULLSHIT. That gets you "sober" like a cup of coffee gets you "sober" - which is to say, not at all. They don't let doctors work drunk, and there's a good reason for that.

  87. Re:Nascar .. cha ching by Pubstar · · Score: 1

    You might want to check this out:
    http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/13kmvd/have_time_warner_internet_but_can_barely_stream/
    Just saw this, and now Youtube is loading 10 min 1080P videos in sub 20 seconds.

  88. Re:Nascar .. cha ching by BigSes · · Score: 1

    I was expecting to see Randy Marsh in the video.

    "You don't understand, SHARON!"