Mysterious are the ways of @siftbot.

Videos with less than 10 votes are not published, but can appear on the front page at the whim of the bot.
In reply to this comment by raverman:
@siftbot but it's number 8 on the frontpage of the site. How can it not be published?

Great movie ... Great loss. Michael Clarke Duncan was always one of my favorite guests on Craig Ferguson, RIP =o(

If everybody can agree that the show, its essence notwithstanding, has new characters in new situations then it becomes difficult to sustain the idea of theft. I'm just glad that whatever happened we got some cool content out of it.
In reply to this comment by kymbos:
Really, short of stealing the actual gags to the letter, they've couldn't steal more than the exact concept replicated in a new Olympic city. I read comments from Clarke that they saw it as lifting the essence of The Games, and he saw it as a theft in spirit, even if he couldn't prove it in law. I tend to agree with this. And while I take your point, I really think the 'in defence of art' argument is the last refuge of the one-eyed.

Really, short of stealing the actual gags to the letter, they've couldn't steal more than the exact concept replicated in a new Olympic city. I read comments from Clarke that they saw it as lifting the essence of The Games, and he saw it as a theft in spirit, even if he couldn't prove it in law. I tend to agree with this. And while I take your point, I really think the 'in defence of art' argument is the last refuge of the one-eyed.
In reply to this comment by gorillaman:
Well, we can start with the understanding that faux-documentaries are now fairly common, and that the olympics as a huge public event is very attractive to satire. So two different shows being produced along these lines isn't completely unlikely, and once you have those two shows then there are always going to be similarities.

I don't know much about the idea that The Games was being pitched to the BBC and who from those meetings went on to produce Twenty Twelve. There is a suggestion that the makers of The Games had gone so far as to lend the writer of Twenty Twelve DVDs of their show before he went off and wrote his, which is pretty hilarious.

Regardless I think it's fair to say Twenty Twelve isn't a direct copy of The Games; it had its own tone and told its own jokes. (Whether you think those jokes are funny or not.) Stealing the general idea 'satirical mockumentary about the olympics organisers' would actually be totally legit - that happens all the time and is pretty much how art advances, by building on earlier ideas; stealing lines and situations wouldn't be, but I don't see that happening. If I were plagiarising The Games the genetically-engineered horse and 94m 100m track would have gone straight into my script, for starters.

In reply to this comment by kymbos:
Ok, I've only watched one episode, but the similarities were overwhelming to me. How is it different?

*dead again -- "'Caleb(so you thi...'
This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Dick Clark Productions, Inc..."

Honestly, I never understood the ending until I learned how others interpreted it.

http://www.kubrick2001.com/

>> ^spoco2:

And in the end. I am one of those people that finds 2001 to be an unsatisfying movie. It has some awesome moments, some iconic shots and scenes, but overall it is a bit rubbish in it's conclusion.
From listening to Arthur C Clark, it would seem that's because they didn't have a good story to begin with, and I think it shows. It seemed to be a case of 'we've got these ideas that'd be good to make a movie out of'... and they just went ahead with making that movie before actually creating a workable narrative from those ideas.

And in the end. I am one of those people that finds 2001 to be an unsatisfying movie. It has some awesome moments, some iconic shots and scenes, but overall it is a bit rubbish in it's conclusion.

From listening to Arthur C Clark, it would seem that's because they didn't have a good story to begin with, and I think it shows. It seemed to be a case of 'we've got these ideas that'd be good to make a movie out of'... and they just went ahead with making that movie before actually creating a workable narrative from those ideas.

>> ^kymbos:

@Deano, agree it was the best, but that doesn't say much. And still there's the whole 'wearing glasses - Clark Kent, no glasses - Superman' silliness.
I saw a great idea for Superman written somewhere. Maybe Reddit. I've googled it and can't find it. It's something like Superman is around in the 1940s, but Lex Luthor puts him into stasis until around now. In the meantime, Luthor builds a mighty media conglomerate and slowly convinces humanity that Superman wasn't a hero, but in fact was evil. When Superman re-emerges, the world sees him as a massive terrorist and loathes him. He has to overcome the distorted power of modern media and a malleable, ignorant populace to defeat his enemy.
Something like that. Not my idea, but a great way to modernise the story a little.


That idea sounds a bit weak to me. He'd only need to get a good PR firm and a twitter account and he'd be sorted!

@Deano, agree it was the best, but that doesn't say much. And still there's the whole 'wearing glasses - Clark Kent, no glasses - Superman' silliness.

I saw a great idea for Superman written somewhere. Maybe Reddit. I've googled it and can't find it. It's something like Superman is around in the 1940s, but Lex Luthor puts him into stasis until around now. In the meantime, Luthor builds a mighty media conglomerate and slowly convinces humanity that Superman wasn't a hero, but in fact was evil. When Superman re-emerges, the world sees him as a massive terrorist and loathes him. He has to overcome the distorted power of modern media and a malleable, ignorant populace to defeat his enemy.

Something like that. Not my idea, but a great way to modernise the story a little.

No, no NO you guys! Didn't you see the differences?! Clark Kent is a crab fisherman now! It's completely different!

Soo... science just proved the theory behind the short story, The Nine Billion Names of God by Arthur C Clarke

2012 KT42 is an asteroid discovered by Alex R. Gibbs of the Mt. Lemmon Survey (part of the Catalina Sky Survey) with a 1.5-m reflector + CCD on May 28, 2012. The asteroid had a close approach to the Earth on May 29, 2012, approaching to only Distance: ~8950 miles / ~14,440 km above the planet's surface. This means 2012 KT42 came inside the Clarke Belt of geosynchronous satellites. As of May 28, 2012, the estimated 5 to 10 meter wide asteroid ranked #6 on the top 20 list of closest-approaches to Earth. There was no danger of a collision during the close approach. 2012 KT42 will pass roughly 0.01 AU (1,500,000 km; 930,000 mi) from Venus on 2012 July 8.[3]

It is estimated that an impact would produce an upper atmosphere air burst equivalent to 11 kt TNT,[4] roughly equal to Hiroshima's Little Boy. The asteroid would be vaporized as these small impacts occur approximately once per year. A comparable-sized object caused the Sutter's Mill meteorite in California on 2012 April 22. It was removed from the Sentry Risk Table on 2012 May 30.[5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_KT42

You had me at "Attempt no landings here"!!!

I think Arthur C. Clark just giggled a bit in his grave!

3 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^VoodooV:
twice now, Ms. Hoover has attempted to make shitty arguments to Bill whenever the topic of increased taxes comes up.
The last time she was on Real Time prior to this, she asked Bill if he was willing to give up one of his cars since he advocated higher taxes for rich people (like Bill) It's a fallacy as she is appealing to fear. Oh No! Bill will be slightly less rich if he had to pay bigger taxes.
And then again, she suggests that Bill should knowingly take advantage of tax loopholes so he doesn't have to pay any tax even though he has the ability to absorb higher taxes without significantly affecting his life.
She's kind of a shithead. (and so is Grover as is self evident by this video and many others on the sift)

Yeah they're both awful but the biggest shithead on this panel is Richard Clarke...not for what he said but for who he is.


Who is he?