I happen to have a close friend who teaches neuroanatomy at medical school.

She says she'd fail any student who understood as little about the human brain.

First, memory is not perfect. That is a myth. No amount of prodding will get a patient to remember the entire text of a novel verbatim unless they'd already spent a huge amount of time purposely memorizing the text. The human brain is all about shortcuts and workarounds so we remember important content without having to store massive amounts of data. There is no such thing as photographic memory.

Secondly, you can't just stick a probe in someone's head to extract information. You could trigger memories randomly, but you'd never know what memory you'd get from one time to the next.

He shows a fundamental lack of understanding on how the brain works.

Just looking at his Wikipedia article because I was curious. It says he nearly flunked out of medical school but suddenly turned things around when he stopped attending lectures (he claimed to be self studying). Sounds a lot like a pattern of cheating on tests if you ask me. Certainly he has no idea what he's talking about now, so he either forgot everything he learned for the tests or he never really learned it.

Nope, nothing wrong with sharing an opinion, it was his line "digital footage can look amazing but it has to be graded PROPERLY." so that means he's saying they aren't doing it 'right'. I'm saying that sometimes there are valid reasons for things that may not be apparent immediately on the one shot you're looking at... that someone made a conscious decision to grade this way for carefully considered reasons and it's not as simple as 'right' and 'wrong'.

i.e:
desaturating cg generally makes it feel a bit more photographic, so maybe Marvel thinks that it will balance all the crazy comic-book action and make things feel more real.

Also, maybe they want to mute things so that all the different films feel like they're in the same world, even if the color palettes are different.

I expressed my opinion because I've been a vfx artist for 15 years, and that was the topic of this specific youtube video! I'm not commenting on how he did with this video, but I'll do that now: "Pretty great first essay vid! look forward to seeing more!"

I actually prefer this guys grading more, and would likely do it that way if it was up to me. That's not the point. I'm countering his position.

Does that all make sense now Danny?

I just ran across this picture yesterday, the Trump family portrait:

https://i.sli.mg/hw80Mr.jpg

Ha, isn't that great! I don't know what Slovenian sentiment in general is towards American taste, but let me assure that their family photo is tacky even by American standards. Just thought you might want to share this with your countrymen, as I'm sure Melania is a great source of pride to you all.

edit: Yes, that is a real picture, not photoshopped:

http://www.snopes.com/family-photograph-of-melania-barron-and-donald-trump/

*ban2.0
rodney bailey
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKHuA9V3y-s

*related= http://videosift.com/video/Proposal-Photographers-Washington-DC
*ban1.0
rodney bailey
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wycL-iKvFi0

*ban1.0
rodney bailey
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wycL-iKvFi0

*related= http://videosift.com/video/DC-Wedding-Photographers
*ban2.0
rodney bailey
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKHuA9V3y-s

My wife uses Instagram and other photo-centric social media to promote herself as a photographer and graphic artist; she also submits a lot of Yelp restaurant reviews and posts pictures of the food on the menu so that people can see the food before they order.

I love the images and the art, but I hate slideshow videos. I especially hate it when someone steals the images from a "listacle" (classic buzzfeed) then puts them into a video.

This youtube poster didn't credit the artists, nor the photographers, for the stolen images. Then stuck his watermark on them. That's all this guy does. His entire channel is just ripping off other people's images and making a slide show set to music.

What is this, eBaum's world?

This is low quality content.

Downvoted.

Baby deer kidnapped by well-meaning but ultimately mistaken photographer.

Mom probably got the other baby safe and waited until after the guy left the area to come back, but the baby was gone.

Nice that it worked out but that fawn was obviously imprinted on him. Could have been bad.

One
more
total
communication
failure.
I wrote that there would only be an obligation for them to also help men IF they want to claim that 'feminism' is about pure equality of the sexes and not just working for women's rights, which is what had been contended. It was a reply to a claim, not a suggestion.
Please try reading again.

Sexual objectification is sexist, even if it's objectifying a man. What do you think the word means?
from dictionary.com
Sexist - relating to, involving, or fostering discrimination or devaluation based on a person's sex or gender, or attitudes and behavior toward someone based on the person's gender

This is the exact thing I've come to dislike about 'feminism'. It seems you're saying his objectification and devaluation isn't up to par with the objectification and devaluation many women suffer from, so it's not "actual sexism", doesn't matter, and he should just shut up about it and quit his whining.....but if a woman said the exact same words about being uncomfortable being required to do the exact same actions there would be (and has been) a serious discussion of how to solve that disturbing sexist trend and a move to fire and shame the disgusting pig director/photographer that forced her to do something she was uncomfortable doing, and if someone dared to say her issues were minor, outrage and attack.

I know exactly what he's talking about when he mentioned stitching together lots of photographs at different focal lengths. I've done this type of macro photography in the past, albeit on a much smaller scale. I immediately noticed that I would need much more controlled parameters than I could get from a handheld still camera and a moving object in nature. I used multiple focal lengths but it became instantly apparent that I needed many more in between. It's really cool to see this kind of thing. And holy shit I bet that plotter costs as much as a house.

Regarding the video: "rape letter", "polling a distant second" - so who is perpetuating stereotypes here?

This american thing of not accepting nakedness (because pedophiles exist?!) is weird. There is absolutely nothing wrong with being naked, being seen naked, seeing someone naked or photographing your kids playing naked in the swimming pool. Naked children do not cause pedophilic behaviour. Naked people are in principle not offensive.

Accusing someone of being a pedophile is horrible. Even Trump probably is not a pedophile.

Original photographer's video fwiw: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BSI3aKtvXk

He's a good guy and it's kinda sad his work is blowing up on other people's channels while he has 115 subs.

Arguable music but it has bonus cows you don't get in the rip-offs.

Not at all from my read.
To me, it's like trademarking the word "news!", forcibly removing any videos labeled "news!", and insisting anyone that posts one pay them 1/2 the revenue they might make...and probably taking it too far and going after those making 'news' claiming they're also infringing and forcing them to pay or defend themselves in court.
It's not at all as specific as you claim.
I see the difference in your analogy, but I totally disagree with your characterization. It's far more like trademarking 'news!' than trademarking 'news filmed and broadcast from a window of a bathysphere sitting in your swimming pool'. If it were that specific, there would be no outrage.
If they didn't come up with it, it's not their idea...and 'humans react to' videos is NOT distinctive enough by far, IMO, and in the opinion of MOST people. If they actually limited it to videos with the exact format of people watching unseen videos at an angle, and the exact same title of "Kids React!" they're still over reaching to control something they did not invent and should not own. Kids reacting was a genre of video/photograph LONG before they started making them, and if the reaction is exciting, using an exclamation point is normal English, as is capitalization of all words in a title.

They have no right to 'protect' something they didn't invent by taking other people's money, first that's not protection, it's simple extortion, second, it's theft, since it's not even their idea in the first place.
They don't have to be the first, possibly, but they certainly shouldn't be able to trademark a common phrase that existed before their company, or a format that existed long before their company, which is what they did.
If they want to 'protect their brand', they need to re-name it something that's not already a common phrase, otherwise they're trying to co-opt a commonly used phrase (that they didn't come up with in the first place) and extort money from those who commonly use it under threat of lawsuit. They also need to steer FAR away from attempting to enforce it against ANY video not in their EXACT format, including font, capitalization, punctuation, stated video format, content, etc. It a video doesn't meet EVERY standard there, they should leave it alone. I'm fairly certain that's NOT their intent, as it would make it impossible for them to extort money and make this move useless.


EDIT: Can we at least agree that, if a company is going to do something like this that COULD be a huge over reach and could easily be abused to both extort money and remove any competition, and their spokes people do such a piss poor job of explaining what they're doing that it sounds like they're using the law to steal property and money from actual content creators and erase those they can't control, while creating absolutely nothing themselves, and offering nothing for the money they forcibly take, that that company deserves ALL the ridicule and losses that follow, and their best move left would be to drop the entire thing rather than continuing and making numerous failed attempts to explain themselves?