I noticed that your Douglas Adams video is dead.

http://www.videosift.com/video/Douglas-Adamss-text-on-Atheism-read-by-Simon-Jones

I found a new embed for you if you want to fix it.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4484409161693268826&q=douglas+adams+atheism&ei=uKNESKDYA6CErAOTv934CA&hl=en

It's not the whole thing though and I didn't see a second part.

Just want you to know that I've watched this at least once a day since I found it on eric3579's slam poetry playlist a few weeks ago. I'm in a 1200 mile long-distance thing with my lady, and this poem helps us a lot. This man is a hero. Thanks for the post; even a year later, it still echoes...

In reply to this comment by rembar:
I still love this, but I'll be back.

*discard

http://www.videosift.com/video/Tim-and-Eric-Awesome-Show-Ive-Got-Bees

This is that vid I was telling you about before the break, I forgot to look it up.

The paper is the first result in the google scholar link that I posted. It tested rats with double distilled deionized water (DDW) in the control group and DDW + 2.1 ppm NaF in the test group. 2.1ppm NaF is equal to 1ppm fluoride ion. The rats were not force-fed; the difference was just the type of water in their water bottles. It used a computer program to evaluate rat behavior. It's cited by 60 other papers. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=fluoride+varner

In reply to this comment by rembar:
Could you link me or direct me to the paper in which the clinical trial demonstrating the 1 ppm effect on rats is detailed? The video you commented on is teetering towards the edge of getting the boot from the Science channel, and I thought it might be fun to see if it could be rescued before it flails its way into the abyss.

In reply to this comment by jwray:
TV news is so reminiscent of http://www.videosift.com/video/Monty-Python-The-Argument-Clinic-Full-Version

They don't actually go into the details of the placebo-controlled clinical trial that shows 1ppm of fluoride ion in drinking water causes a pattern of behavioral deficits in rats, or the studies of the biochemical mechanisms of its neurotoxicity. Dental Fluorosis is the most benign of the problems excess fluoride can cause. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=fluoride+varner

Dude, I'm not saying that what was found in the water is affecting the human population, as of yet. However the "scientific" fact of the matter is that small quantities of pharmaceuticals have been found in the water supply, by scientists from the US Geological Survey. Do you dispute that? I'm NOT talking about over-reaching conclusions, just the data that has been measured by real scientists. That's why I included this in the "Science" channel. This isn't the journal "Science", BTW. I'm not talking about a hypothesis, research, and conclusion. Just data that was extracted by real scientists.

I'm not a perpetual motion enthusiast or a conspiratorial "fluoride is evil" dude. Just a guy who's putting out information. I'll grant you that many people may not be able to differentiate between a hypothesis, a theory, and a fact. But the fact remains that there's stuff in our drinking water that no one has disclosed before.

I've seen videos in the "Science" channel before that include theories still rejected by the majority of scientists in their field. Does that make them unworthy of the Science channel too? If you don't want to include this in the Science channel I won't lose any sleep over it. But just think about it.

In reply to this comment by rembar:
From the actual article:
"To be sure, the concentrations of these pharmaceuticals are tiny, measured in quantities of parts per billion or trillion, far below the levels of a medical dose."

Contaminants, including pharmaceuticals, in our water is a danger, but this report is a crock of crap regardless because 1. effects on organisms occur at many factors higher dosages than the AP reported, 2. the AP is misinterpreting focused studies like the feminization of male fish to fit its narrative, and 3. the AP clearly doesn't understand why concentrations measured by ppt are idiotic and why biomagnification is important.

Now, let's discuss why the AP isn't a scientific publication and how newspapers profit off fearmongering at the expense of public health policy that should be guided by scientific results.

I see, thanks for the clarification, next time I'll hop over to the channel description to check a submission.

In reply to this comment by rembar:
I will allow videos that talk about science or include it as a discussion. That's not why I removed it from the channel. Part of the channel description reads:

"In addition, if the video is intended to be factual and not parody, it must be reasonably scientifically accurate and in keeping with scientific thought."

The video you submitted does not fit this description, so I removed it.

Ok, I'm still trying to understand the guideline for the science channel. So tell me if the gist of what I understand is correct or not. You'll only allow videos that demonstrate something about science and not ones that talk about science or include it as a discussion?

In reply to this comment by rembar:
This is the second time this has been posted, the first sift can be found here, including my comments.

Well, mycroft's answer didn't entirely satisfy me, but as I told him, I don't have the technical knowledge to challenge any further. So I shut up then - usually.

The story with the mcdonald clown is that I banned him for self-linking, he created new accounts to harass me, then another to try self-linking again, I banned him again, and that really set him off. Through the use of proxy server and scripting, he began leaving literally thousands of obnoxious comments on my profile - about 6000 or so in the span of a few hours. At that point, it became an issue of abusing the entire site, and the community responded. http://www.videosift.com/topusers?order=new&pg=2 should give you some idea of the level of his maturity and intellect.

In reply to this comment by rembar:
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?

no sarcasm intended in my previous comment, and no offense taken. thanks for the explanation though... if i ever get to make a channel i'll make one for inventions.

In reply to this comment by rembar:
No offense to you. I've gotta stick by the guidelines I've set for the channel, and one of those is: Perpetual motion machines get chucked right out. The machine by itself might have some interesting properties to it, but it's not perpetual motion.

In reply to this comment by E_Nygma:
sounds good rembar.

In reply to this comment by rembar:
EN, I am removing this post from the Science channel. That link pushed it over the edge and off the cliff. Sensational journalism loses out consistently to the laws of thermodynamics.

sounds good rembar.

In reply to this comment by rembar:
EN, I am removing this post from the Science channel. That link pushed it over the edge and off the cliff. Sensational journalism loses out consistently to the laws of thermodynamics.

Dead

In reply to this comment by rembar:
*SPOILER ALERT*

Ricardo beat Yundt by arm-in guillotine choke from mount at 1:08 of Round 1.

Do you know anything about this?

Sure, there are batteries, but batteries on that scale aren't really practical, and batteries are very inefficient storage mechanisms for energy.
There are other mechanisms for storing energy: for instance, Norwegians pump water to a great height and then effectively use hydrogeneration to produce the energy when required. This again is very inefficient.

But sure, I think this is simplified. I think they probably meant something like, "over demand for energy would cause a crash unless a surplus could be guaranteed via production or storage, but storage is economically infeasible given current resources.

Is that a good enough answer? I have to admit this isn't my field, but I think I have it right here.

In reply to this comment by rembar:
Hey Oxdottir, I know you're an engineer, so I was wondering what you think of this video. I'm curious as to why the video would say that over-production of energy would necessarily cause a crash of the distributed system. Aren't there ways to create power regulation and ways to store energy to prevent this from happening?

You talkin' about Bill Clinton's patented humidor?

"I'm big into, y'know, sticking things in body cavities."

Good'nuff, Rembar.

In reply to this comment by rembar:
I've chosen to not meet up with sifters a few times, but we'll see in the future. It really depends on how my career path works out, as I'm really in the midst of some overdue change. Eventually, I think, all in due time.

In reply to this comment by schmawy:
In reply to this comment by rembar:
>> ^schmawy:
I accept that you know a lot about this, that's why I'm dogging you about it.
So who do you think done it?


...I've already voiced my opinion in a more public manner and I would rather not connect that with my online persona. I like my anonymity."

I hope that this doesn't mean that if there's ever a VS meet-up, you wouldn't be able to attend so I could by you a drink.