Here's what wiki has to say about Ford and his high wages -- that he called profit sharing for qualified workers. Started in 1914. By the Great Depression, no more profits, I guess, and therefore no more high wages:

Ford was a pioneer of "welfare capitalism", designed to improve the lot of his workers and especially to reduce the heavy turnover that had many departments hiring 300 men per year to fill 100 slots. Efficiency meant hiring and keeping the best workers.[20]

Ford astonished the world in 1914 by offering a $5 per day wage ($120 today), which more than doubled the rate of most of his workers.[21] A Cleveland, Ohio newspaper editorialized that the announcement "shot like a blinding rocket through the dark clouds of the present industrial depression."[22] The move proved extremely profitable; instead of constant turnover of employees, the best mechanics in Detroit flocked to Ford, bringing their human capital and expertise, raising productivity, and lowering training costs.[23][24] Ford announced his $5-per-day program on January 5, 1914, raising the minimum daily pay from $2.34 to $5 for qualifying workers. It also set a new, reduced workweek, although the details vary in different accounts. Ford and Crowther in 1922 described it as six 8-hour days, giving a 48-hour week,[25] while in 1926 they described it as five 8-hour days, giving a 40-hour week.[26] (Apparently the program started with Saturdays as workdays and sometime later it was changed to a day off.)

Detroit was already a high-wage city, but competitors were forced to raise wages or lose their best workers.[27] Ford's policy proved, however, that paying people more would enable Ford workers to afford the cars they were producing and be good for the economy. Ford explained the policy as profit-sharing rather than wages.[28] It may have been Couzens who convinced Ford to adopt the $5 day.[29]

The profit-sharing was offered to employees who had worked at the company for six months or more, and, importantly, conducted their lives in a manner of which Ford's "Social Department" approved. They frowned on heavy drinking, gambling, and what might today be called "deadbeat dads". The Social Department used 50 investigators, plus support staff, to maintain employee standards; a large percentage of workers were able to qualify for this "profit-sharing."

Ford's incursion into his employees' private lives was highly controversial, and he soon backed off from the most intrusive aspects. By the time he wrote his 1922 memoir, he spoke of the Social Department and of the private conditions for profit-sharing in the past tense, and admitted that "paternalism has no place in industry. Welfare work that consists in prying into employees' private concerns is out of date. Men need counsel and men need help, oftentimes special help; and all this ought to be rendered for decency's sake. But the broad workable plan of investment and participation will do more to solidify industry and strengthen organization than will any social work on the outside. Without changing the principle we have changed the method of payment."[30]

>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^Payback:
Victoria, BC native too.

Actually, Steve Nash is a native of South Africa (who lives in Canada).


Actually, when you move to Victoria, you become a native within 48 hours.





It's like a disease.

Saw this in the theaters years ago and made the embarrassing faux pas of yelling out "48 Hours!" when the Dukes made their cameo. This was made all the worse by my friend who followed with "It's Trading Places, you dummy!", and a round of laughter by the audience. To this day, I still haven't found a theater seat as deep as the one I was sitting in that night.

You're welcome, but I think you took a wrong turn somewhere when you followed that link, because Hitchens lost that debate pretty badly. Don't get me wrong, because I think Hitchens did win most of his debates, if only on his rhetorical abilities, but on that one he floundered..which is particularly clear when watching from 1:19:00 or so when he was subject to direct questioning by Craig.

In any case, the fallacious claims are all on your side, considering the rest of your post is nothing but a strawman argument. Congratulations, you defeated me in your imagination..did you get a boost of self-esteem? I also wonder how a self-described militant antitheist could escape the label of zealotry?

Let's say that I told you that I buried one million dollars somewhere in your neighborhood, and I gave you the GPS coordinates for its location. I also told you that if you didn't dig up the money within 48 hours, it would go back into my bank account. The GPS coordinates are very convenient to your location and are on public property. All you would have to do is go and check it out for yourself.

But, instead of going over to the location to dig, you start doing some research. You interview a lot of people in the neighborhood and you find out that no one actually saw me bury the money. You also find out that many other people have claimed to have buried treasure in the past, and many of those claims have turned out to be false. Further, on the basis of speculation as to what I was doing that day, you dig around many other locations where I was said to have been. After this, you finally come to the GPS location and look for forensic evidence, such as foot prints, that I was there. You test the malleability of the dirt at the location to see if it feels like it had been dug in recently. In that 48 hour time period, you do absolutely everything except putting your shovel into the ground and directly investigating the claim. At the end of the time period, you tell me that on the basis of your investigation, you have rejected my claim as false. I take you over to the location, dig up a suitcase and show you the money. It would have been yours if you had just taken a leap of faith and spent 5 minutes of your time investigating it.

Do you think the way you investigated this made any sense? If not, then why you do you think that the way you investigate the question of Jesus Christ makes any sense? You want to investigate it on your own terms, in your own way, stubbornly refusing to even consider the only actual way you would find evidence for the claim; the way that He told us to find Him. In all the time you have ever invested in this, you have refused to do the one thing that could yield up the truth. Does that make sense?

Jesus specifically said you wouldn't find any evidence for God any other way. He said He is the only way, and if you want to know God, you have to go through Him. Why are you so against actually testing His claim to see if it is true? Do you think the Lord of all Creation is incapable of proving His existence to you? Is it because you would feel silly? Isn't it worth feeling silly for a few minutes to potentially gain an eternal reward? Isn't it worth stepping outside your comfort zone for a few minutes to potentially avoid an eternal consequence? The only thing which is stopping you is pride.

I wasn't spoon fed anything; I was agnostic for most of my life. I had no predisposition towards Christianity, and actually many against it. I was opposed to religion in general, and the claims of Christianity in particular. I did just what you're doing; I dismissed it, thinking I knew enough about it to rule it out, when it was all just based on my superficial understanding. My proof constituted a few verses taken out of context, my rejection of any judgment for my sins, and the hypocripsy I had seen in Christians in general. Yet, it wasn't evidence at all, it was simply what I preferred to be true.

Yet, God was merciful to me. He drew me near to His Son, and when I finally gave my life to Him, Jesus revealed Himself to me. He will do the same for you, if you came to Him in humility and asked Him into your life. If you just asked Him what the real truth is, instead of arrogantly believing that you have it all figured out, He would show it to you. He makes it plain to everyone that He exists, it's just that people write these things off or deny them to themselves because they don't want to submit to God. They don't want to believe it is true.

Only God can reveal Himself to someone; I can only point to Him. No amount of argument is going to give you faith. You have to choose to want to know Him, to want to know what the actual truth is. It's something that happens in your heart, when you desire to know the love of God, and you simply do not have any idea how much He loves you. It is what you are here on Earth for, to know that love of His; to be in relationship with your Creator.

I pray that you learn that and understand that. You have to realize that you don't actually know either way. Step outside your comfort zone and listen to your conscience, because it witnesses against you that you have sinned against a holy God. There is forgiveness for you, but it is your choice to receive it or not.

>> ^SpaceGirlSpiff:
I honestly don't know why I bother... oh well, here goes.
First off, thank you for the Hitchens video, I don't think I had see that one yet. Now I've seen it though, I see that Hitchens once again quite successfully defends against the vapid, circle jerk arguments which assert proof without evidence. In fact a Hitchensism comes to mind that I quite enjoy, which states that, "That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." Good stuff. Simple. Easy to put to use.
Take for example Shiny's ridiculous assertion about Hitchens being in his make-believe after life.
Shiny: Oh no, the after life is real and you're going to burn in hell fire. I know it's real because the bible says it's so and the bible is the truth.
Inquiry: How do you know it's the truth?
Shiny: Because the bible says it's the truth.
Inquiry: What evidence do you have that it's the truth?
Shiny: The bible says it's the truth.
No evidence. Fallacious claim dismissed.
You may choose different words to express yourself, but this is the very essence of your circle jerk argument and like all other apologists and zealots, it proves nothing except your willingness to accept something without evidence.
You contribute nothing.
You advance nothing.
Your words are empty.
You merely wretch up that which was fed to you...
...and I have no appetite for your absurdly limited menu.

How can Martin not be 100% innocent? I don't get how you think he could be at all culpable.>> ^Porksandwich:

To be clear on this. I don't think either Zimmerman or Martin is 100% innocent in this. I just feel that Zimmerman is the one who caused the whole event to happen.
There are some articles where police admit they have about a 1 minute window of where they don't know what happened.
There is Trayvon's girlfriend who said she was on the phone with him where she heard some specific questions asked by both parties and then some pushing or other something and the line went dead. If her story is true, they can verify it by cell phone logs as to when the line went dead and if she was on the phone with him when she claims.
If they can verify she was on the phone with him, her story actually lines up with what some of Zimmerman says. But they have not released what Zimmerman said the exact conversation was. He claims that Trayvon said something like "You got a problem?" and zimmerman said "no" and trayvon said "well you got one now" and hit him. Girlfriend says nothing like that was said, but the line may have been dead by then. So does Zimmerman admit to pushing or that Trayvon pushed him? Do the questions they asked each other line up with what the girlfriend heard? Does the girlfriend think Trayvon was scared/concerned/pissed/whatever?
What was the orientation of the fight? Zimmerman says Trayvon was beating his head and slamming it into the ground. How was Trayvon standing over him? Was he straddling him? Was he off to the side? Was he above Zimmerman's head? Was he sitting on his chest and beating him?
How did Zimmerman shoot Trayvon and not end up underneath him when he collapsed? Report says he fell with his arms underneath him face down in the grass. You could assume he grab for his chest when he was shot, but how did Zimmerman avoid him? How did Zimmerman not end up with blood on him? Do his clothes match with what he said happened when you look at it again and look at the clothing? The grass stains do, but does the blood?
We are to believe that Zimmerman was on his back and drew his gun from his waistband holster (they don't specify when he kept it). So his access to this gun is going to be impaired if Trayvon is sitting on him pounding his face. Plus he's going to be on his back when he shoots unless Trayvon let him up.
Far too many questions for Zimmerman to not be kept for the 48 hours they are allowed to hold someone while they investigated the case. They questioned him and let him go. Perhaps they answered all this and never released it. But then you have Zimmerman not being tox screened and them sending a narcotics detective instead of a homicide detective to do the investigation (according to http://abcnews.go.com/US/neighborhood-watch-
killing-911-tape-reveals-racial-slur/story?id=15966309).
I'm not saying crucify Zimmerman or that he needs to have a bounty on his head. But the questions and no answers or address to them is not a positive sign that this crime was investigated properly. And since it has been weeks after the fact when the federal investigators were brought in, the chance of determining it given the iffy police work up front is going to be a lot less possible. That still does not mean Zimmerman's accounting is accurate until they exhausted possibilities. Not just go with what seems most apparent. If Zimmerman were fabricating, he'd pick the best explanation given the scene if he had planned or taken anytime at all to make something up. Plus his recollection of events are going to be driven out his natural bias in the situation, any person's view point would be.
Also in a gated community with a rash of breakins, I would think there would be some home security and other security cameras installed to try to curtail it. Especially on the "clubhouse" Zimmerman references in his 911 call.

To be clear on this. I don't think either Zimmerman or Martin is 100% innocent in this. I just feel that Zimmerman is the one who caused the whole event to happen.

There are some articles where police admit they have about a 1 minute window of where they don't know what happened.

There is Trayvon's girlfriend who said she was on the phone with him where she heard some specific questions asked by both parties and then some pushing or other something and the line went dead. If her story is true, they can verify it by cell phone logs as to when the line went dead and if she was on the phone with him when she claims.

If they can verify she was on the phone with him, her story actually lines up with what some of Zimmerman says. But they have not released what Zimmerman said the exact conversation was. He claims that Trayvon said something like "You got a problem?" and zimmerman said "no" and trayvon said "well you got one now" and hit him. Girlfriend says nothing like that was said, but the line may have been dead by then. So does Zimmerman admit to pushing or that Trayvon pushed him? Do the questions they asked each other line up with what the girlfriend heard? Does the girlfriend think Trayvon was scared/concerned/pissed/whatever?

What was the orientation of the fight? Zimmerman says Trayvon was beating his head and slamming it into the ground. How was Trayvon standing over him? Was he straddling him? Was he off to the side? Was he above Zimmerman's head? Was he sitting on his chest and beating him?

How did Zimmerman shoot Trayvon and not end up underneath him when he collapsed? Report says he fell with his arms underneath him face down in the grass. You could assume he grab for his chest when he was shot, but how did Zimmerman avoid him? How did Zimmerman not end up with blood on him? Do his clothes match with what he said happened when you look at it again and look at the clothing? The grass stains do, but does the blood?

We are to believe that Zimmerman was on his back and drew his gun from his waistband holster (they don't specify when he kept it). So his access to this gun is going to be impaired if Trayvon is sitting on him pounding his face. Plus he's going to be on his back when he shoots unless Trayvon let him up.

Far too many questions for Zimmerman to not be kept for the 48 hours they are allowed to hold someone while they investigated the case. They questioned him and let him go. Perhaps they answered all this and never released it. But then you have Zimmerman not being tox screened and them sending a narcotics detective instead of a homicide detective to do the investigation (according to http://abcnews.go.com/US/neighborhood-watch-killing-911-tape-reveals-racial-slur/story?id=15966309).

I'm not saying crucify Zimmerman or that he needs to have a bounty on his head. But the questions and no answers or address to them is not a positive sign that this crime was investigated properly. And since it has been weeks after the fact when the federal investigators were brought in, the chance of determining it given the iffy police work up front is going to be a lot less possible. That still does not mean Zimmerman's accounting is accurate until they exhausted possibilities. Not just go with what seems most apparent. If Zimmerman were fabricating, he'd pick the best explanation given the scene if he had planned or taken anytime at all to make something up. Plus his recollection of events are going to be driven out his natural bias in the situation, any person's view point would be.

Also in a gated community with a rash of breakins, I would think there would be some home security and other security cameras installed to try to curtail it. Especially on the "clubhouse" Zimmerman references in his 911 call.

If memory serves, and the actual logistics haven't changed, it takes roughly 48 hours for the world's DNS servers to fully update a major change like this. So yeah, @dag and @lucky760 killed our support it still take a while for it to process.

Because the international banking system is global, so too are the protests. The magnitude of the protests will have some relation to how screwed over the average citizen feels. For example there are lots of good reasons for people in the united states to be pissed off, but in the entire country of 300+Million, less than half the protesters were reported than the Spanish city of Madrid. Just one city in a country of only 46M.

Why? I don't know. Is it the poor media coverage? Do people not realize that they have a reason to be pissed off? Or that they really can change things if they get together? I will have to let our American friends offer better insight than I can.

The last time that the income gap was this extreme was immediately followed by the Great Depression, which was immediately followed by WWII. (Presently, I see a repeat of history from about 90 years ago in charts and other data.) The recent push to refresh in military technology, be it the F-35 White Elephant or the recent $35B Canadian navy contract, are not isolated only to NorthAm militaries. And I do believe that there is potential for some kind of blowback from NATO/US involvement in Libya/Iraq/Afghanistan etc. To what extent or force the blowback will or won't be remains to be seen. I hope the my spidey-senses and my surface reading of history are both very off on this point.

My prediction is that things will get worse before they get better. The recession in the U.S. is not a double dip, because it hasn't really gotten enough better to stop being a recession. Lots of soldiers are about to come home from Iraq, many will be discharged and not be able to find other non-military work. Greece will likely default or the process of preventing default will be so complicated that it will be seen as a lesser evil as opposed to a victory for the globalized financial casino markets, and some form of protest will continue or will be revived after a brief hiatus once a leak in the patchwork repair job springs true.

The real wildcard in Occupy Wall Street could be the reaction of those thousands of hard-working soldiers home from a long war to a country in protest. There are certainly a lot of factors to be considered. All I can say for certain is that something will come of Occupy.

Heterosexual people have done more to undermine the sanctity of marriage than gay couples have. Britney Spears and her 48-hour marriage - legal and holy. Muslim men who pay imams to grant them temporary marriages to prostitutes - legal and holy. A random man and a random woman can get married without having met before, but two men who have known and loved each other for decades are denied this "privilege" - legal and holy. Fuck the straight sanctimonious hypocrites who say that only hetero marriage is allowed. Fuck. Them.

The recharge timer starts once you cut into your "full" limit.

Your PPs are full when you have at least your recharge maximum, in your case: 1.

In other words, once you use your last 1, the 48 hour recharge timer starts.

You can earn PPs for fixing Dead Pool videos only when your points are not already full.

In reply to this comment by Boise_Lib:
I bet you get a lot of dumb questions--so here's one more.

On Monday the 29th at 8:25 MDT I had three powerpoints. I used two to promote this vid.
http://videosift.com/video/Conviction-Movie-Trailer
My PP's went down to one.

I then fixed a deadpool vid.
http://videosift.com/video/Test-Flight-of-the-Ares-I-X-Rocket
I got the response below from sifty.
>> ^siftbot:

Boise_Lib has fixed this video's dead embed code - no Power Points awarded because Boise_Lib's points are already fully charged.


At 8:36 MDT on the 29th my profile showed :
Last Power Points used: 2011-08-25 • Available: now

I'm probably missing something on the FAQ, but from what I understand my PP's should have to wait two days to recharge--unless I fix a deader.
Did I not wait long enough? Am I just confused between recharged PP's and being awarded PP's?

If you get the time please help me out here.

Thanks

@blankfist: You can actually adjust that in your account settings.

One thing about how the Top 15 currently functions is videos can only remain there until they reach 48 hours since being published. It's for this reason that some videos hit the Top 15 then vanish from it very quickly.

If we shortened the limit down to 24 hours from publishing, there could be days where there aren't enough videos to make it into the Top 15. This is why most channels have less than 15 videos in their listings. Of course, we could modify the way the listing works if we had a better alternative. We're open to suggestions!

Of course, if it's just that you'd like to get your hands on less stale videos, the Top Sifts listing has a few options including the top videos from the past 24 hours.

>> ^lucky760:

@direpickle: I think the majority of users use the "hotness" setting, not only because it's the default, but because they, like me, prefer it. I'm curious about it now, so I'll start a poll after this one ends.


You should try newness then, because some of the hotness code seems to have been mixed in there .

I'm purely on newness and on page 3 and up I frequently get really odd "newnessessess" (how do you stop spelling this?) displayed. From page 3 for me right now, the videos displayed to me, by order on the page and truncated to most significant time increment are: 17 hours, 1 day, 3 weeks, 1 day, 1 week, 1 day, 20 hours, 1 month, 1 day, 1 day, 3 months, 1 day, 2 days, 2 days.

If new comments are made to the videos or they got recently promoted, I can see that, but that doesn't have to be the case. I've had 4+ year old videos pop up randomly in the front pages when ordered by newness with no significant activity documented for 2 years. I really hope Sifty doesn't start selling fresh seafood

A bit more on topic: The front page per se is fine for me, the top 15 could be cycled a bit more often. 48 hours in the top 15 is plenty.

>> ^dag:

Lifecasting will become the default. We'll all wear pendant cameras around our neck at all times. Nothing will go unrecorded, but we'll share the good parts. How many terabytes would be required to store 80 years of life at say 720P?>> ^deathcow:
With the advent of cheap quality cams, infinite storage, etc. It probably wont be long before car insurance requires little cams around all car corners. Liability will be as simple as reviewing the footage from all cars nearby.



Assuming 4 Mb/s compressed, about 1200 TB, but that's including when you're asleep, where a camera could perhaps stop recording. Not that much, really, I thought it would be more, so maybe I messed up my calculations.

YouTube has over 48 hours of video uploaded every minute these days, so must have massive amounts of storage, although after deduplication, it's probably only about 30 seconds...

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Darn, you're right. Worked fine 48 hours ago I think. Calling Doctor @lucky760 Code blue, I repeat, code blue.

^Perhaps he should have been given a 48 hour window to leave the CIA 40 years ago.