gwiz665's Sift Talk Posts

Why doesn't the Facebook login keep you logged in?

Howdy folks,

Every time I go to videosift, I have to go through the login with facebook. It never remembers my login, is there a reason for that? I'm using chrome, if that makes a difference.

I must say, as well, I don't like the beta layout of the site - since I get to see that every time I go on here, since the opt-out is only when I'm logged in. I think that if you force the issue on that design, it will be the final deathblow to the site, since it essentially hides the community.

hugs & kisses,

Court rules embedding or watching copyrighted videos is not

I thought this was relevant to the Sift's interests.

"Unless this ruling is overturned by a higher court (i.e. Supreme Court), this is what can be considered a landmark judgment in the age of Internet 2.0; it will obviously set a precedent for future copyright infringement cases and may change how people pirate movies and TV shows -- torrenting vs streaming. Of course this will also put further pressure on video streaming websites, such as Youtube, to cut down on copyrighted videos which may result in more stringent uploading rules. Who knows, let's see what happens."

Regarding power points for dead fixes

I think it's a bad mechanic to not give power points when you fix dead videos if your own power points have recharged recently. I wanted to earn one now, so that I could frontpage berticus' earthquake talk post ( ), but I couldn't.

This is bad.

It tells me to not go and fix videos, but wait until I get something back for it.

It is foolish to expect users, especially gamers, to do something like this, essentially a chore, for "free" for the good of the community, we might as well give people incentives to do it.

It may be ripe for abuse, since we can earn lots and lots of points in a row potentially, but isn't that worth it? If someone fixes 100 videos, then they've earned those 100 power points - and the community wins, because 100 less videos are dead.


Humble Bundle #2 - awesome indie games!

Cortex Commando
Revenge of the Titans

Pay what you want. I payed $5 and the games are seriously awesome.
"The Humble Indie Bundle #2

Pay what you want. If you bought these five games separately, it would cost around $85 but we're letting you set the price!

All of the games work great on Mac, Windows, and Linux.

We don't use DRM. When you buy these games, they are yours. Feel free to play them without an internet connection, back them up, and install them on all of your Macs and PCs freely. There is no time-limit on your downloads.

You can support charity. Choose exactly how your purchase money is divided: Between the game developers, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, or the Child's Play Charity. Also, if you like this deal, a tip to the Humble Bundle itself would be much appreciated!"

How often do you go to Church? (or similar holy place)

  (5 votes)
  (1 vote)
  (2 votes)
  (9 votes)
  (62 votes)

A total of 79 votes have been cast on this poll.

I deliberately left out weddings, funerals and occasions like that since they sorta break the norm.

I'm genuinely interested, since I read this which says:

"According to a new University of Michigan study, American church attendance runs around 35% to 45% if you simply ask people. But if you actually check on their church attendance, the truth is that only 26% of Americans attend church regularly. That's a HUGE difference."

I know we're mostly a atheistic, liberal bunch, but still, it would be nice with some numbers on it.

Leslie Nielsen random quote generator

"[Playing chess] Tanya Peters: What are you doing?
Lt. Frank Drebin (Nielsen): Oh! I was, uh, just conjugating my next move.
Peters: Your bishop's exposed.
Drebin: It's these pants."

"Doorman: Your coat, sir?
Lt. Frank Drebin (Nielsen): Yes, it is. And I have a receipt to prove it."

David Mitchell: "Rupert Murdoch is pretty uncontroversial"

David is wonderful as usual.

"Rupert Murdoch is a pretty uncontroversial figure among people I know. Everyone agrees that he's a monstrous arsehole who wants to ruin everything for everyone. Liberals who've reluctantly come round to thinking that Margaret Thatcher might have had a point about the extremes of 1970s trade unionism, that Kim Jong-il just feels excluded from the international community and that Noel Edmonds is actually bloody good at what he does are unswerving in their hatred of the Murdoch empire and everything it stands for. This is the man Dennis Potter named his cancer after and, to most of my friends, that seems about right."


We must attack these things in which we do not believe

"I believe that we must attack these things in which we do not believe.

Not attack by the method of cutting off the heads of the people, but attack in the sense of discuss. I believe that we should demand that people try in their own minds to obtain for themselves a more consistent picture of their own world; that they not permit themselves the luxury of having their brain cut in four pieces or two pieces even, and on one side they believe this and on the other side they believe that, but never try to compare the two points of view. Because we have learned that, by trying to put the points of view that we have in our head together and comparing one to the other, we make some progress in understanding and in appreciating where we are and what we are. And I believe that science has remained irrelevant because we wait until somebody asks us questions or until we are invited to give a speech on Einstein's theory to people who don't understand Newtonian mechanics, but we never are invited to give an attack on faith healing or astrology--on what is the scientific view of astrology today.

"I think that we must mainly write some articles. Now what would happen? The person who believes in astrology will have to learn some astronomy. The person who believes in faith healing will have to learn some medicine, because of the arguments going back and forth; and some biology. In other words, it will be necessary that science become relevant. The remark which I read somewhere, that science is all right so long as it doesn't attack religion, was the clue that I needed to understand the problem. As long as it doesn't attack religion it need not be paid attention to and nobody has to learn anything. So it can be cut off from modern society except for its applications, and thus be isolated. And then we have this terrible struggle to explain things to people who have no reason to want to know. But if they want to defend their own points of view, they will have to learn what yours is a little bit. So I suggest, maybe incorrectly and perhaps wrongly, that we are too polite."

- Richard Feynman

Quoting with @ makes baby jesus cry

It seems to me that we have a bug when we quote comments that have a name with a @ in.

If I quote a comment with :


it comes up as

<em>&gt;&gt; <a href=''>^gwiz665</a>:<br />
@<a href="" title="member since February 22nd, 2007" class="profilelink"><strong style="color:#3393f2">gwiz665</strong></a><br></em>

If you want to fix it, you have to clean up the code around the name (in bold:

<em>&gt;&gt; <a href=''>^gwiz665</a>:<br />
@<a href="" title="member since February 22nd, 2007" class="profilelink"><strong style="color:#3393f2">gwiz665</strong></a><br></em>

change to:

<em>&gt;&gt; <a href=''>^gwiz665</a>:<br />

That makes the fancy quoting work again.

David Mitchell: "Sacked and fined £1,000 for a joke..."

I fell upon this and couldn't agree more.

David Mitchell writes:
"Sacked and fined £1,000 for a joke about an airport? You cannot be serious
The case of the man interrogated for seven hours for a silly quip he made on Twitter shows a depressing sense of humour failure

We live in serious times. Humanity is facing terrifying threats to its future, as usual. Most of them are self-induced, as usual. Britain feels itself to be on a precipice, about to plunge into a new canyon of mediocrity and self-chastisement, as usual. There are serious fears about disruption to people's holiday plans over the half-term break, as usual.

What is unusual is that this seriousness is being compounded by an intensifying national determination to behave terribly seriously about it. No one's buying frivolity or flippancy stocks at the moment. Piss-taking is falling on all markets and everyone's pouring their rhetorical investments into beard-stroking bonds, head-shaking futures and survivor's gilts.

Paul Chambers knows this to his cost. During the January snows, his hopes of a blind date with a woman he'd chatted up on Twitter were jeopardised by the closure of his local airport. He tweeted from his mobile to his 600 followers: "Crap! Robin Hood airport is closed. You've got a week and a bit to get your shit together, otherwise I'm blowing the airport sky high!" He was subsequently arrested, interrogated by detectives for seven hours and fired from his accountancy job. Last week he was found guilty of sending a menacing electronic message and fined £1,000.

In the heady days of the boom, perhaps I'd have been inclined to laugh at this unfortunate idiot, pictured in the paper looking dazed and unshaven, tie at half-mast, still clutching his treacherous iPhone. He's executed a perfect and extravagant online pratfall – he's like a cyber-Frank Spencer – but, in the spirit of this serious age, I just feel terribly sorry for him. I'm not amused, I'm annoyed.

That's an attitude I suspect I share with the off-duty airport manager who spotted the tweet and informed security. He or she might have thought: "That's not funny. I work at an airport – what's funny about blowing it up? I'm going to take this further." But maybe it was more like: "I appreciate the dark humour of this frustrated remark but am duty-bound, under current security protocols, to pass this on to my superiors who, this being a sane world, will presumably ignore it."

What I can't believe is that anyone thought the message was a genuine expression of violent intent. I don't know much about al-Qaeda's MO but I imagine giving a week's warning of an attack, in the guise of an irritable and amorous accountant, would amount to a significant change in tactics.

Certainly, the threat – and I suppose it is theoretically a threat, in the same way that an aspirin is a food and George Osborne a successor to Gladstone – was classified as "not credible" by the airport. I don't know if that means they thought it was funny. Maybe these people sit in front of Morecambe and Wise, sides splitting, tears streaming down their faces, yelling "Not credible!" as Eric picks up André Previn by the lapels.

However, despite Chambers's manifest lack of credibility, the security people were apparently obliged to inform South Yorkshire police, who arrested him a week later. They were obviously convinced he was a man of his word in terms of the week-and-a-bit timescale. With many plausible terrorist threats, they might have rushed straight round there. Or maybe they're not morons and knew perfectly well that he had no intention of blowing up an airport but had decided to make an example of him.

It's vindictive and it's humourless. Could they not just have had a quiet word? Was bringing him to trial really in the public interest? Is a large fine, unemployment and a criminal record proportionate punishment for an irritated quip, albeit one made within the earshot of others? He didn't actually send the message to the airport, written in letters cut out from a newspaper, wrapped round a raw liver and a holy text (Christian, Muslim or SMS).

Or did some people resent his levity? While not deemed a threat, was his tweet considered "inappropriate" by those who had the means to elevate inappropriateness to a criminal offence? "In a world where people do try to blow up airports, such a remark can never be funny," they think. They've got it backwards: it's funny because such terrorists exist. If they didn't, it would just be wacky, like saying: "They've got a week and a bit or I'll cover the runway with jelly!" (not Napalm).

This aversion to levity certainly infused the election campaign. But there was a funny bit and most of us missed it. When Gordon Brown got in his car and called that woman a bigot, it was hilarious. It was a properly comical human moment, made funnier by the uncomfortable truths it hit upon, in terms of both the former PM's flawed personality and the jealous xenophobia that lurks behind many discussions of immigration.

But we forgot to laugh, because some of us have come to prefer the sensation of judging: judging Brown for the gaffe, judging the media for its reporting of it, poring po-facedly over the subsequent pantomime of apology. It was the equivalent of his accidentally showing his arse and yet all we could do was carp: "Has he been concealing from the public quite how fat his arse really is?" or: "Why, at this moment of crisis, are our media focusing on arses rather than policies?" No one said: "Ha ha! I can see his arse!"

Instead of finding genuine humour, we're expected to stomach the ersatz jokes that the leaders prepared for the debates, like Brown's "They remind me of my two young boys squabbling at bath time!" line – official moments of respectful jocularity, the humorous equivalents of a maiden aunt's one cream sherry every Christmas. And this in a country that used to like getting pissed.

We already live in a world where, when asked whether we've packed our own bags, we know that saying: "Yes, I put all the bombs in myself!" will not be taken in good humour; where a conversation with a US immigration official must be treated with all the piety of an audience with the pope. We have accepted that facetiousness, like smoking, while not officially illegal, is absolutely not for public places.

Well, I don't remember agreeing to it and I'm sick of it. It's boring, I don't believe it saves a single life and it could do incalculable damage to freedom of speech. I'm serious."


Hey Texas, you're fucked!

Maybe home schooling is the lesser of two evils:

"After three days of turbulent meetings, the Texas Board of Education on Friday approved a social studies curriculum that will put a conservative stamp on history and economics textbooks, stressing the superiority of American capitalism, questioning the Founding Fathers’ commitment to a purely secular government and presenting Republican political philosophies in a more positive light."

Why Home Schooling is corrupting kids

Christian Science books.

"Home-school mom Susan Mule wishes she hadn't taken a friend's advice and tried a textbook from a popular Christian publisher for her 10-year-old's biology lessons.

Mule's precocious daughter Elizabeth excels at science and has been studying tarantulas since she was 5. But she watched Elizabeth's excitement turn to confusion when they reached the evolution section of the book from Apologia Educational Ministries, which disputed Charles Darwin's theory.

"I thought she was going to have a coronary," Mule said of her daughter, who is now 16 and taking college courses in Houston. "She's like, 'This is not true!'""

More at

Religion is subversive, viral and utterly destroyed by knowledge, but if it keeps convincing stupid people to teach their kids stupid things it will keep humanity stupid for a long time.

Send this Article to a Friend

Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients

Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Member's Highest Rated Videos