Psychologic

Member Profile

A little about me...
"Pure mathematics is, in its way, the poetry of logical ideas." -Albert Einstein

Member Since: August 30, 2008
Last Power Points used: April 9, 2009
Available: now
Power Points at Recharge: 1   Get More Power Points Now!

Comments to Psychologic

siftbot says...

Congratulations on reaching new heights on VideoSift. You have earned yourself 25 stars, earning you status of Bronze Star member. You have been awarded 1 Power Point for achieving this level. Thanks for all your contributions.

Stormsinger says...

Perfectly good explanation. Thanks for clarifying your stance for me.

In reply to this comment by Psychologic:
^ Posting a video is not an endorsement of its contents unless stated as such. This was posted as a point of discussion. I'm also not concerned with the methodologies of a particular video, but of those used to construct conclusions within the general realm of climate change.

The Cassiopeia Project contains a wealth of wonderful resources on various scientific subjects (physics, chemistry, evolution, etc), but this particular video struck me as unusual. Something about it doesn't sit right with me, but it isn't because of any specific data point it contains.

Here are some random reactions I have to the video:
-If most of the recent warming happened toward the end of the last hundred years then the "average increase per century" isn't very relevant.
-Focusing on "the last few years" in a statistical analysis is not all that useful.
-Regardless of the cause, the general trend has been one of warming. Saying it isn't something to worry about can, at best, only apply to increases up to this point.

My main questions:
-What is the mathematical relationship between CO2 concentration and temperature due to the greenhouse effect? Is it linear, logarithmic, or something else?
-What effect has water vapor concentration had on historical temperature trends? Does a large increase in water vapor continue trapping heat, or can it be offset due to more cloud formation?


I'm not advocating for any side of the debate. The problem is that my fascination with the subject far outstrips the available free time I have to invest in researching it.

When I look into this stuff I find mostly crap from people who start with a conclusion and then find evidence to support it... sorting through that becomes very time consuming. I know there are people on the Sift that have put far more time into researching this topic, so my hope is that I can benefit from their endeavors.

I also happen to enjoy controversial subjects, so this video seems to fit. =)


>> ^Stormsinger:

Then why are you promoting a video that says nothing about its methodology? If you want to understand the methodology shouldn't you actually be -looking- for methodologies?
Actions really do speak louder than words...and your actions and words aren't saying the same things.>

NetRunner says...

You make good points. I think the intent of the prank makes all the difference.

Under normal circumstances, I would agree that if someone steals a piece of property that can be inherently dangerous, and gets hurt because the brakes don't work or because the chain on the stolen chainsaw was lose (or whatever), there's no one else who should be considered at fault. You take your chances when you do that, and the consequences are yours to bear.

However, we have video evidence of the sabotage, and the intent to hopefully injure someone for stealing. It's like entrapment combined with reckless endangerment combined with vigilantism.

It'd be nearly impossible to prove...unless you had video like this available as evidence.

In reply to this comment by Psychologic:

GeeSussFreeK says...

I loled

In reply to this comment by Psychologic:
>> ^longde:
That is the opposite of what peeves me about the video. Film guy went out of his way to tempt someone to steal and thereby create a crime. >> ^Psychologic:
If you are upset about this setup then you should:
-Keep your house's windows unlocked... if someone has to break the glass to steal your stuff then they might get hurt.
-Make sure your alarm is turned off... loud noises could damage their hearing.
-Keep your house orderly... and intruder could twist an ankle in the darkness.
-Ignore missing property... pressing charges could result in jail time and hurt feelings.



I'm tempting people to break into my house because I insist on having one. Hell, I even put it in plain sight near a road!

(edit: rewording)

NetRunner says...

I think they're idiots too, but that's the thing I'm more worried about -- Tancredo knew what he was doing, and people cheered him on without necessarily understanding the point, or the historical context of the idea.

I hate doing the Godwin thing, but people being whipped into a froth by scapegoating a racial minority for the troubles of the day has a lot of really uncomfortable historical parallels with that German guy with the distinctive mustache.

I'd hate for the liberal desire to take the high road doesn't chill people's ability to freely discuss their concerns about politicians playing with fire like that.

In reply to this comment by Psychologic:
Maddow was going out of her way to demonize them. She wants people to see them as being intentionally evil... I just think they're incompetant idiots.

My remarks weren't in defense of those at the convention. Maddow is very intelligent, but at times she colors her coverage of things in a way that makes me a little uncomfortable. It's fairly subtle though, and it only bothers me because I generally like her.

dag says...

Ahhh yes. That's the problem. You're right though- the message is confusing.

In reply to this comment by Psychologic:
The embed that I pasted to the message was the same one I pasted to the submit form. Longde suggested that my "rank" may not be high enough to submit it. I had the same issue trying to submit the PeeWee iPad video, but it worked fine for him.

If it is a permission issue then I would rather the submit form say "you do not have permission to post this" rather than "the embed appears to be invalid". I spent over an hour trying to figure out what was wrong with that PeeWee iPad embed yesterday.


In reply to this comment by dag:
I just tried it and it worked fine for me:
http://videosift.com/video/test-39

Make sure that you've got a complete copy of the embed- if it's still not working for you, we'll escalate to Lucky.

Cheers

In reply to this comment by Psychologic:
Hey, I'm trying to submit a video but it keeps telling me that the embed is invalid. It works fine in comments, but the submit form won't accept it. The same thing happened with the PeeWee iPad video yesterday. =(



dag says...

I just tried it and it worked fine for me:
http://videosift.com/video/test-39

Make sure that you've got a complete copy of the embed- if it's still not working for you, we'll escalate to Lucky.

Cheers

In reply to this comment by Psychologic:
Hey, I'm trying to submit a video but it keeps telling me that the embed is invalid. It works fine in comments, but the submit form won't accept it. The same thing happened with the PeeWee iPad video yesterday. =(



longde says...

I think that once you reach higher levels (e.g., bronze, silver, gold), you are able post post more types of embeds. I would ask one of the senior members, though.

In reply to this comment by Psychologic:
Hey, how did you get the PeeWee video to embed? I never could get figure out why it told me that the embed was invalid.

I get the same error on another video I've been trying to embed (see below)... any suggestions?

(edit: wtf, why does it work here but won't let me submit it??)



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