Henry Rollins doesn't do stand up, exactly. He usually does spoken word. So yeah, not particularly funny but he's often interesting to listen to.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'sarah, kay, the letter B, spoken, word, poem' to 'sarah kay, the letter B, spoken, word, poem' - edited by Zifnab

>> ^spoco2:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/budzos" title="member since October 30th, 2006" class="profilelink">budzos Why do you say that? Is it not amazing to have a self contained machine being able to listen to, understand, and correctly answer natural language questions better than humans?
Is it not difficult to see that this is a pretty amazing step along the way to creating machines that can converse with us with spoken word like robots in Science Fiction Films?
How is that not exciting?


I agree with the sentiment of the answer! AI has been my sci-fi hope for as long as I can remember. Probably why I thought "The moon is the harsh mistress" is the best book ever. When I was back in college, one of the papers I wrote was on the current state of AI, and the likelihood of the AI we see in TV and movies coming to fruition. It is amazing, and frustratingly slow field of discovery. It has taken 30 years just to begin to start to code machines to interpret language. In pursuit of this, we have come to a better understanding of how complex human speech is, and how powerful the brain is in understanding this very complex arena.

With that said, Watson doesn't "understand" or answer questions better than humans. There are many clips of the respondents just failing to beat Watson to the buzzer, most likely possessing the correct answer. Watson is the same level of impressive as the normal champs, but with mechanical reflexes. Give the humans robotic arms, and I am sure it would be a level playing field. Or, give Watson the questions one word like the humans have to do. He gets his input all in one text file and starts parsing for information before the humans have had the entirety of the question read to them (though, Watson's speed might be as such that this is trivial).

Also, as of yet, computers don't have "understanding". They can answer questions in a way that seems to make them intelligible, but they don't understand. Understanding comes from consciousness. It is still only understands the wold in terms of syntax. It is able to apply this language of syntax to properly answer trivia, but has no understanding of what the question even means. It doesn't have any experiences which are necessary for understanding. It is like if you train a parrot to respond with the correct answers to trivia questions, it doesn't actually know what it is saying.

Watson is the better parts of a parrot, and a repository of human facts. Philosophically, I am convinced that true "AI" is impossible...but I hope I am wrong! None the less, this is still super exciting, and unprecedented...how can you compare it to Sanjaya!

@budzos Why do you say that? Is it not amazing to have a self contained machine being able to listen to, understand, and correctly answer natural language questions better than humans?

Is it not difficult to see that this is a pretty amazing step along the way to creating machines that can converse with us with spoken word like robots in Science Fiction Films?

How is that not exciting?

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Religious practicioners who follow the precepts of true faith would not dare to presume on a person's ultimate status before diety. Only God himself has the final say. Such judgmentalism is against the precepts of the spoken word, which clearly states "Judge not lest ye be judged" as well as "judge not according to the appearance". True followers labor to correct sin (when recognized) with gentleness, meekness, and love unfeigned - not with railing and anger.


Hello, hello, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the first annual True Faith Awards! Our first contender is Mark from Austin TX, And Mark, are atheists going to hell? "-Well, the Bible is pretty clear.." Ok How about contestant B Mr.Winstonfield_Pennypacker? -"Well, the bible says God is the final judge.."

Congratulations, its a tie! Since who the fuck knows, theres no evidence to support either, you both qualify for TrueFaith™ and you win the opportunity to believe unbelievable crap based on your own fallible interpretations of randomly selected, mistranslated copies of copies of documents written in an extinct language by superstitios tribesmen ages ago in the middle east!

Christ's message of peace is a relatively new thing... The sword of God was very, very swift... I mean the newborn son? Those against abortion must have a shit fit about God's Post Term abortion plans! At least the Spartains, who smashed their babies' heads against rocks, only did so for the crippled!

Anyways, this was a good comment by you--not judgmental at all. I will add this--as an Aethist I feel less alone than I ever did when my mother took me to church...

On a side note, I only have respect for a few religions/groups. Buddhists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Amish, and druids... But I respect all members of faith on their own actions... So long as we understand what the bible means (Like God's post-term abortion plans when he made the plague.)

Again, great post, for a religious guy that is

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Religious practicioners who follow the precepts of true faith would not dare to presume on a person's ultimate status before diety. Only God himself has the final say. Such judgmentalism is against the precepts of the spoken word, which clearly states "Judge not lest ye be judged" as well as "judge not according to the appearance". True followers labor to correct sin (when recognized) with gentleness, meekness, and love unfeigned - not with railing and anger. So -100 Christian points to the caller for being a rather poor example of a follower of God. Maybe he had good intentions, but if so he went in badly.
Now - if you are a theist or Judeo-Christian and believe that God exists then you do well. It is your priveledge to share that belief with others as Christ himself did. The word Gospel means "Good word", and it should always be a positive, affirming message. From the perspective of a believer, guys like these hosts need a loving hand up - not a rude blasting. If you really are concerned about the welfare of their souls, or the effect their negativity about religion may have on others - then the responsibility is to show that you have a better, more positive, more uplifting message to share. Call in and discuss the merits of religious faith. They are many, and provide a basis even an atheist can often agree with.
That all said, the hosts of the show have some pretty odd perceptions of Christianity. Clearly they have been damaged somewhere along the way. Unfortunate, really. To have the perception that Christ's message of peace, patience, and love as a 'monsterous' indicates a predisposition to see the negative while ignoring the positive. That could have been acquired any number of ways, and none of them good.

Religious practicioners who follow the precepts of true faith would not dare to presume on a person's ultimate status before diety. Only God himself has the final say. Such judgmentalism is against the precepts of the spoken word, which clearly states "Judge not lest ye be judged" as well as "judge not according to the appearance". True followers labor to correct sin (when recognized) with gentleness, meekness, and love unfeigned - not with railing and anger. So -100 Christian points to the caller for being a rather poor example of a follower of God. Maybe he had good intentions, but if so he went in badly.

Now - if you are a theist or Judeo-Christian and believe that God exists then you do well. It is your priveledge to share that belief with others as Christ himself did. The word Gospel means "Good word", and it should always be a positive, affirming message. From the perspective of a believer, guys like these hosts need a loving hand up - not a rude blasting. If you really are concerned about the welfare of their souls, or the effect their negativity about religion may have on others - then the responsibility is to show that you have a better, more positive, more uplifting message to share. Call in and discuss the merits of religious faith. They are many, and provide a basis even an atheist can often agree with.

That all said, the hosts of the show have some pretty odd perceptions of Christianity. Clearly they have been damaged somewhere along the way. Unfortunate, really. To have the perception that Christ's message of peace, patience, and love as a 'monsterous' indicates a predisposition to see the negative while ignoring the positive. That could have been acquired any number of ways, and none of them good.

Best Historical Recording: "Poetry on Record: 98 Poets Read Their Work (1888-2006)," Rebekah Presson Mosby, compilation producer; Randy Perry, mastering engineer (various artists)

Sexy stuff eh?! I mainly master music, but my one grammy nod comes for a spoken word album ::rolls eyes::>> ^lwi:

>> ^youdiejoe:

WELL! while we are trotting out our pedigrees, I'm just a lowly Grammy nominated sound engineer and you CAN take my word... not everything needs to "speak to me" or "touch my soul" sometimes it just makes me happy.

out of curiosity: what were you nominated for?

One of the most moving spoken word pieces I've ever heard was Dan Savage's eulogy for his mother on This American Life.

That's some fine *british spoken word.
Word.

>> ^VoodooV:

Ahh..back when the MTV Movie Awards were actually fun. When I was young, sure I watched MTV like everyone. Eventually I got sick and tired of all the reality shows and stopped watching but every year I would come back because the Movie Awards show was badass. But over the years even that went to shit.
Anyone else remember the first MTV Movie Awards with the spoken word "songs" by William Shatner of "I want to Sex you Up" and "You Could be Mine" and others. Now if we could find a sift of that...


Or when MTV was for purely music videos back in the 1980s/80s? Get off my lawn, kids!

Ahh..back when the MTV Movie Awards were actually fun. When I was young, sure I watched MTV like everyone. Eventually I got sick and tired of all the reality shows and stopped watching but every year I would come back because the Movie Awards show was badass. But over the years even that went to shit.

Anyone else remember the first MTV Movie Awards with the spoken word "songs" by William Shatner of "I want to Sex you Up" and "You Could be Mine" and others. Now if we could find a sift of that...

90s, 00s, africa, architecture/design, education, europe, fan (mashup), fashion, holidays, homme (man), ict, latin(o), poetry/spoken word, pranks, psa (public service announcement), psychology, registrations, robots, seniors, tragedy (drama), violence

..will all go fine with your Rrruby!

>> ^ponceleon:

And just so we are clear: Jesus is a total Asshole.
See for proof:
http://videosift.com/video/Jesus-Nukes-The-Earth-with-Fireballs


* Opens up the Encyclopaedia Britannica and looks up the definition of total Asshole *
OYG (Oh Your God) you are right!

And that video was awesome!

i think i mostly agree with the sentiment of this comment. being a former traveling, vegan, animal rights, social justice hippie that i was...i tended to get too wrapped up in caring about shit. i tried hard not to be a zealot, but it's just like... if i cared about the way we treat and exploit livestock, then also have to care about the environmental impacts of livestock production, and also the impacts of globalization on 3rd world countries, and then poverty and hunger and disease, and then how every single product i use daily exploits someone or something somewhere etc etc etc on and on and on. i'd spin myself into a tizzy of caring about everything until my heart was broken and i couldn't go anywhere or do anything.

so, we can't do everything. and no, there's not enough left after taking care of ourselves and our families to care about everything. but i do think we'd all be a hell of a lot better off if we just turned off our televisions. and for good.

>> ^spoco2:

I do love Rollins, have seen him do spoken word live a few years back.
I also get the rage against people watching dross while real world events flow on by.
BUT
We can't spend all our time always paying attention to 'what is important', it'd burn anyone out, even the most ardent of do-gooders.
I do fully agree that the majority of us do not do enough, and let a lot happen that shouldn't (me most definitely included)... However we are also struck with a few conflicting concerns:
a) The all powerful 'Yeah, but what the hell can I do about it?'
b) The also powerful 'I have barely enough hours in the day to do my work, look after my family etc... give me a few moments to relax dammit'. (And yes, doing this on videosift is part of my allotted relax time )
c) The nagging thought 'Well I think I know which side is right in this particular issue, but do I really know all the facts, or have I got it a bit wrong, so if I go in balls and all, will I end up finding out I've done the wrong thing?'
These, but mostly the first one, mean that while we may WANT to help and make the world better on these things, we feel powerless, and so rather than becoming miserable due to always thinking about what we are not doing, we do the best in our sphere of influence in our lives and do right by others.