I'm a bit late responding, but no, I don't know anything about it beyond Google-fu. Luckily, it seems like Mycroft covered things pretty well.

...by the way, what went down with this Aaron McDonald fella?

In reply to this comment by jonny:
Do you know anything about this?

A public good means that consumption of the good by one party doesn't affect the possible consumption of the good by another party; thus, it can be argued that even roads aren't a public good (ie, traffic); healthcare isn't a public good because there are limited numbers of hospitals, hospital rooms, doctors, etc. The classic example of a public good is air - if i breathe more air, it doesn't decrease the amount of air everyone else can breathe. but even that can be argued otherwise - if a factory pollutes the air around a city, do you define that as the factory consuming the air, or just pissing in the pool, so to speak? That's when you get into exclusivity rights, which, in the case of air, or the environment in general, the government protects these public goods by claiming the right to exclude the factory from polluting, or by mandating limits. This is also where littering fines come from (or toll roads, if you'd like to argue that they are public goods), because the problem with public goods is that nobody takes the responsibility to maintain them, which is why every unit of civilization has a governing body take on such a responsibility. Roads are maintained by governments largely for reasons of economic benefit, as transportation is an economic lubricant. Thus, roads are good for the public, but I don't know if you could call them public goods; a big 18-wheeler stopped in the middle of the road affects others' ability to use the road, and each car entering a crowded freeway sets each car behind it back by 10 seconds, so on and so forth.

And to add, I think information might be considered more of a public good than education; education requires facilities and faculty, which have limits; information, on the other hand - well, when you read this, it doesn't affect anyone else's ability to read it.

In reply to this comment by jonny:
you mean, like roads? those things which create economic benefit for everyone?

In reply to this comment by J-Rova:
Since when is healthcare a public good? or education? granted, they are good for the public, but they are not, by any means, public goods.

Lucky sifted it - the link is on that page somewhere.

In reply to this comment by jonny:
that just made my night bro!

In reply to this comment by MarineGunrock:
HAHAHAHA - I crack myself up. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6M7tp0JTe_k

piss off

In reply to this comment by jonny:
In reply to this comment by raven:
correcting a librarian on grammatical issues is never smart...

And gwaan, keep up the good work man, clearly there are many in the western world who need to better understand your chosen faith.

split infinitive - for shame.

I don't know... Normally my memory isn't all that - but when it comes to internet video for some reason I'm a dupe catchin machine.

In reply to this comment by jonny:
why don't people trust you?

In reply to this comment by MarineGunrock:
It's a dupe, but I can't find it right now.

Did that help?

In reply to this comment by jonny:
Can you help me understand this? I feel like I must be missing something, but damned if I can figure it out.

unbanned at the same time as qm http://www.videosift.com/member/mkone#comment-315243

In reply to this comment by jonny:
don't forget mkone

In reply to this comment by dag:
Right you are. Thanks for reminding me. 2 weeks flew by.

In reply to this comment by E_Nygma:
hi dag. wasn't sure if this was the place to post it, but shouldn't qm be unbanned by now? i just had a look at his profile, and it's still in banination territory...

I don't get it- why'd you upvote one ad but downvote the other?

The problem for me is that I had the post bookmarked so every single time you posted a comment, I got an email to celebrate the occasion. After 4 posts and 4 emails I simply made my appreciation known .

Hope no hard feelings.


In reply to this comment by jonny:
You do realize the sarah silverman bit was a joke, right? I actually think she's kind of funny. Guess my comments weren't?

I guess it depends on the specific case, but generally speaking I'd have to say yes, new channels should not be a subset of any other channels.

In reply to this comment by jonny:
In reply to this comment by lucky760:
>> ^flavioribeiro:
Could you give an example that wouldn't fit in the wtf channel?

I think this is a very good way to gauge if a new channel should be created. If lots of videos can validly be submitted into the proposed channel and not into any existing channels, then it's likely a good candidate.

Would you say the inverse of that is true? If lots of videos can validly be submitted to an existing channel as well as the proposed one, then it's likely not a good candidate? It's not supposed to a trick question (obviously some channels already fit that description, but that's leftover from collectives for the most part). I'm asking because I've known what channel I would create for months if given the chance, and it would definitely be a subset of another channel.

No, I'm not a phyicist, but Mycrofthomlz is, so he might be able to help you if you really want to know. I wish I knew the answer too.

In reply to this comment by jonny:
yeah I got the humor part.
I wrote back directly, though, because I thought had read before that you were a physicist. I also wondered if I was asking a silly question after reading yours and deathcow's comments.

In reply to this comment by kronosposeidon:
I know it was a serious question. My answer was my silly way of saying that I have no clue. I didn't think you were calling "FAKE" or anything like that either. I was just having a little fun.

In reply to this comment by jonny:
It was supposed to be a serious question. Did I miss something in the video that explains it? I looked around for info on the nasa site and wikipedia and elsewhere, but the source of the emission isn't really ever brought up. Just that the interaction of the star moving that fast through interstellar space "ignited" the material left behind. Obviously, I'm not an astrophysicist, but I can't think of any other phenomenon in which energy is emitted for that long without some source of energy.

I'm not suggesting the data was faked or anything, just trying to understand what is clearly a very odd finding.

In reply to this comment by kronosposeidon:
^Ya know dude, I'm not really sure about all of that. I might have known, but I got kicked out of MIT's astrophysics program for immoral experiments with gravity. I don't think those kittens suffered. Too much.

I know it was a serious question. My answer was my silly way of saying that I have no clue. I didn't think you were calling "FAKE" or anything like that either. I was just having a little fun.

In reply to this comment by jonny:
It was supposed to be a serious question. Did I miss something in the video that explains it? I looked around for info on the nasa site and wikipedia and elsewhere, but the source of the emission isn't really ever brought up. Just that the interaction of the star moving that fast through interstellar space "ignited" the material left behind. Obviously, I'm not an astrophysicist, but I can't think of any other phenomenon in which energy is emitted for that long without some source of energy.

I'm not suggesting the data was faked or anything, just trying to understand what is clearly a very odd finding.

In reply to this comment by kronosposeidon:
^Ya know dude, I'm not really sure about all of that. I might have known, but I got kicked out of MIT's astrophysics program for immoral experiments with gravity. I don't think those kittens suffered. Too much.

ack. try my "MINK begs for saves here" playlist.

In reply to this comment by jonny:
Turns out it was a dupe. Got something else you want saved? I'll hit it up on monday so it doesn't drop into obscurity over the weekend.

In reply to this comment by MINK:
woop!

Absolute power corrupts absolutely - eventually. We're only human so succession has to be factored in. But sorry, although I know there have been and are benevolent despots in the world that worked- I cannot agree that it would ever be a good choice for starting a new government - because we're human.

Of course I recognize the irony that VideoSift is not a true democracy. But the analogy between a community website and a country only goes so far. I can't chain you to your computer if you decide you want to leave.

In reply to this comment by jonny:
heh - can't slip anything by you, can I? I was intentionally vague, but I was talking about democracy. I think certain authoritarian governments of the past have proven more effective. The problem with them wasn't a particular ruler, but the method of succession, which inevitably would produce a ruler that was not just ineffectual, but harmful. Augustus was an incredible leader, but ultimately, the method of succession in the Roman Empire would lead to someone like Nero.

In reply to this comment by dag:
Do you mean voting for quality content or democracy?

In reply to this comment by jonny:
I knew the quote, but didn't realize that was Churchill. I thought it was a supreme court justice or something. On a side note, and maybe you already guessed this about me, I don't necessarily agree that it's better than all the others that have been tried.

In reply to this comment by dag:
It's actually a mangled Churchill quote:

"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."

Do you mean voting for quality content or democracy?

In reply to this comment by jonny:
I knew the quote, but didn't realize that was Churchill. I thought it was a supreme court justice or something. On a side note, and maybe you already guessed this about me, I don't necessarily agree that it's better than all the others that have been tried.

In reply to this comment by dag:
It's actually a mangled Churchill quote:

"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."

In reply to this comment by jonny:
Me either. My dogs do that a lot, one of them usually with all sorts of strange noises. I didn't mean it as a personal dig, dag. I guess I'd rather see a site with a few hundred vids of exceedingly high quality than a site with thousands of vids of some quality. But it's not my site and as you've written, quality is very subjective. I liked that comment about voting being the worst way to determine quality, except for all the others.

In reply to this comment by dag:
What can I say? I am not immune to the cuteness.

In reply to this comment by jonny:
for real dude -- it's cute, but is this what you think is quality?