>> ^eric3579:

Congrats on that bronze star!
Thanks, chaps!

Congrats on that bronze star!

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.

You're welcome. Thanks for freeing my Kaolin vid, too

As you can see, there is currently a 6 month delay between me putting a video on my list of ones to promote and then getting to it File that under "better late than never".

You're only one vid away from bronze, too.

p.s. Is this your lego marble run one?

http://pann.nate.com/video/217375042
In reply to this comment by FlowersInHisHair:
Thank you for promoting the Powaqqatsi clip I submitted. It's a great piece; I only wish I could have been at the concert! Anyway, thanks again, it's nice to see it published.
In reply to this comment by oritteropo:
*promote

Adele wasn't actually in the video, but I hope this clears it up for ya dude
In reply to this comment by FlowersInHisHair:
Where was Adele?

Your video, Vi Hart introduces the amazing fractal number Wau. Wow., has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

True - that lazy work. The model with her eyes closed and looking down is made into something entirely different. Someones head tilt is entirely shifted.

In reply to this comment by FlowersInHisHair:
If anything, this video makes me consider how photo-editing software is used to cover up for bad and/or lazy photography (particularly lighting, which is most of the "before" shots is generally very poorly thought-out), not just to modify the appearance of the subject.

What is even sadder?

I went back and listened to it again. Right after the guy says "coke" you can hear "it's a pepsi" real low.

I am back to thinking this is subliminal advertising.

Jaded, jaded, jaded, I am.

In reply to this comment by FlowersInHisHair:
>> ^bareboards2:

Good point!
I concede that I am too jaded for my own good....

It's a sad day.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

This achievement has earned you your "Silver Tongue" Level 3 Badge!

Thunder does not belong to anybody
So, no hard feelings.

In reply to this comment by FlowersInHisHair:
Sorry to steal your thunder! :

In reply to this comment by luxury_pie:
>> ^FlowersInHisHair:

How hypocritical of @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/shinyblurry" title="member since January 21st, 2011" class="profilelink">shinyblurry to accuse someone else of having a "heart filled with poison". The ridiculous, hateful and archaic dogma of sin and judgement that you subscribe to is an immoral poison to the modern world, giving rise to absurd and damaging situations like the religious exception to this law.
Equating homosexuals with paedophiles is a cowardly trick of misdirection and a false analogy. They are not the same, and you know it - a consenting homosexual couple harms no-one at all, whereas a paedophile who molests a child causing emotional damage that ripples out into the child's later life and relationships. Your argument is empty.


Maaan. I wanted to do that :

I watched it again, and they're not saying that radio waves are pink, they're saying that you can't see them... but that pink fills the spot on the colour wheel that would otherwise be filled by the invisible radiation.

They could've made it clearer, but they didn't say what you thought. What they did say isn't exactly wrong just not clear.

Fair enough that it's hardly worth counting UV vision in certain lens enhanced people, I just thought it was cool.
In reply to this comment by FlowersInHisHair:
>> ^oritteropo:

I think they mean that if you try to wrap the visible spectrum around a colour wheel, then it works for the red,green,blue,violet part and then stops working when you get to the magenta/pink/negative green part.
To quibble a little with your claim that anything out of the visisble spectrum is invisible, people who have had cataract surgery can see potentially light slightly outside the normal visible range (all right, not gamma rays, but still)... http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/605905
>> ^FlowersInHisHair:
The claim made in the video that we see all the non-visible wavelengths of light/EM radiation as pink is patently false. We know this because gamma rays aren't pink, they're invisible.


That's not what they're saying though. They are quite clearly saying that the vast area outside the tiny wavelengths we can see are perceived by human eyes as pink. If that were true, there would be so much light bouncing around that that we percieved as pink that we wouldn't be able to make anything else out.

And I quibble with your quibble: anything outside of the visible spectrum is invisible by definition, isn't it? The slight increase in the visible spectrum in a minority of the people who've ever had cataract surgery is hardly worth counting in this regard as it's not considered normal vision.

Happy anniversary! Today marks year number 3 since you first became a Sifter and the community is better for having you. Thanks for your contributions!

yes, I know that, i guess it's just frustrating that calling out such utter idiocy is such a no-no for the sake of "communication". I don't think insults should be an obligatory part of this kinds of debates, but sometimes the nonsense should be called out as such (the fact that it is done by a comedian is all the more telling). I guess we simply disagree on approach.

In reply to this comment by FlowersInHisHair:
@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/hpqp" title="member since July 25th, 2009" class="profilelink">hpqp

I'm the last person to insist on special treatment for religious nuts and their beliefs, you know that. My point is that a formal debate is a place for reasoned argument, not name calling. She was invited on the show, like they all were, to conduct a debate, not insult each other. Even if the other debaters were to behave badly and insult her, the best course of action would still to be civil, and show them up. As for the audience response, you can hear it in the video. Hell, I'm on her side, and I think she was out of order.

LOL agreed!!!

In reply to this comment by FlowersInHisHair:
The most punchable face on YouTube.