Yeah like I said, I've mixed feelings. And no answers. True about the comments / discussion thing - Reddit is so vast and random that I don't feel like engaging with it the way I do here on stuff like this. Good news about the badge, but I was thinking more along the lines of a vote weighting or something. I hate coming to videosift and seeing 6 videos in the top 15 that are from Reddit front page in the last few days. KInd of takes away from the uniqueness that first appealed to me about this site when I found it a few years ago. Is there a way to see more than the top 30 videos here so as to catch some of the further bubbling under videos?

Thanks too for answering Dag.

Defining the term is to me a largely semantic issue. The way I see it, most atheists are also agnostics, and most agnostics are atheists. The dictionary definition I would say is that atheists answer in the negative to questions like "Do you believe in God/That Jesus was the sun of god/that god created the universe/that Muhammed talked to god/other religious claims"

No, I do not believe in any of those things. Thus I am an atheist.

I am also an agnostic, because I can never be sure of anything. There might be tooth fairy for all I know.

Someone who calls themselves "agnostic" and avoids the term atheist, well, I cant speak for them, but I suppose they almost believe in god or something, or think its 50/50 or think that it is impossible to make up your mind.

To me, personally, It seems silly and non-descriptive for my view to use the term agnostic, since I'm agnostic about everything. I have no faith in any religious claim. so non-theistic, or a-theistic is a better fit to describe my view.

@radx No problem on the short comment, I do the exact same thing

I find your question hard to address directly because it is a series of things I find kind of complexly contradictory. IE, market forces causing undesirable things, and the lack of market forces because of centralization causing undesirable things. Not to say you are believing in contradictions, but rather it is a complex set of issues that have to be addressed, In that, I was thinking all day how to address these, and decided on an a round about way, talking about neither, but rather the history and evolution as to why it is viewed the way you see it, and if those things are necessarily bad. This might be a bit long in the tooth, and I apologize up front for that.

Firstly, reactors are the second invention of nuclear. While a reactor type creation were the first demonstration of fission by humans (turns out there are natural fission reactors: Oklo in Gabon, Africa ), the first objective was, of course, weapons. Most of the early tech that was researched was aimed at "how to make a bomb, and fast". As a result, after the war was all said and done, those pieces of technology could most quickly be transitioned to reactor tech, even if more qualified pieces of technology were better suited. As a result, nearly all of Americas 104 (or so) reactors are based on light water pressure vessels, the result of mostly Admiral Rickover's decision to use them in the nuclear navy. This technological lock in made the big players bigger in the nuclear field, as they didn't have to do any heavy lifting on R&D, just sell lucrative fuel contracts.

This had some very toxic effects on the overall development of reactor technology. As a result of this lock-in, the NRC is predisposed to only approving technology the resembles 50 year old reactor technology. Most of the fleet is very old, and all might as well be called Rickover Reactors. Reactors which use solid fuel rods, control rods, water under pressure, ect, are approved; even though there are some other very good candidates for reactor R&D and deployment, it simply is beyond the NRCs desire to make those kinds of changes. These barriers to entry can't be understated, only the very rich could ever afford to attempt to approve a new reactor technology, like mutli-billionaire, and still might not get approved it it smells funny (thorium, what the hell is thorium!)! The result is current reactors use mostly the same innards but have larger requirements. Those requirements also change without notice and they are required to comply with more hast than any industry. So if you built a reactor to code, and the wire mesh standards changed mid construction, you have to comply, so tear down the wall and start over unless you can figure out some way to comply. This has had a multiplication effect on costs and construction times. So many times, complications can arise not because it was "over engineered", but that they have had to go super ad-hawk to make it all work due to changes mid construction. Frankly, it is pretty amazing what they have done with reactor technology to stretch it out this long. Even with the setbacks you mention, these rube goldbergian devices still manage to compete with coal in terms of its cost per Kwh, and blow away things like solar and wind on the carbon free front.

As to reactor size LWRs had to be big in the day because of various reasons, mostly licencing. Currently, there are no real ways to do small reactors because all licencing and regulatory framework assumes it is a 1GW power station. All the huge fees and regulatory framework established by these well engineered at the time, but now ancient marvels. So you need an evacuation plan that is X miles wide ( I think it is 10), even if your reactor is fractionally as large. In other words, there is nothing technically keeping reactors large. I actually would like to see them go more modular, self regulating, and at the point of need. This would simplify transmission greatly and build in a redundancy into the system. It would also potentially open up a huge market to a variety of different small, modular reactors. Currently, though, this is a pipe dream...but a dream well worth having and pushing for.

Also, reactors in the west are pretty safe, if you look at deaths per KWH, even figuring in the worst estimates of Chernobyl, nuclear is one of the best (Chernobyl isn't a western reactor). Even so, safety ratcheting in nuclear safety happens all the time, driving costs and complexity on very old systems up and up with only nominal gains. For instance, there are no computer control systems in a reactor. Each and every gauge is a specific type that is mandated by NRC edict or similar ones abroad (usually very archaic) . This creates a potential for counterfeiter parts and other actions considered foul by many. These edicts do little for safety, most safety comes from proper reactor design, and skillful operation of the plant managers. With plants so expensive, and general costs of power still very competitive, Managers would never want to damage the money output of nuclear reactors. They would very much like to make plant operations a combination of safe, smooth, and affordable. When one of those edges out the other, it tends to find abuses in the real world. If something gets to needlessly costly, managers start looking around for alternatives. Like the DHS, much of nuclear safety is nuclear safety theater...so to a certain extent, some of the abuses don't account for any real significant increase in risk. This isn't always the case, but it has to be evaluated case by case, and for the layperson, this isn't usually something that will be done.

This combination of unwillingness to invest in new reactor technology, higher demands from reactors in general, and a single minded focus on safety, (several NRC chairmen have been decidedly anti-nuclear, that is like having the internet czar hate broadband) have stilted true growth in nuclear technology. For instance, cars are not 100% safe. It is likely you will know someone that will die in a car wreak in the course of your life. This, however, doesn't cause cars to escalate that drastically in safety features or costs to implement features to drop the death rate to 0. Even though in the US, 10s of thousands die each year in cars, you will not see well meaning people call for arresting foam injection or titanium platted unobtanium body frames, mainly because safety isn't the only point of a car. A car, or a plane, or anything really, has a complicated set of benefits and defects that we have to make hard choices on...choices that don't necessarily have a correct answer. There is a benefit curve where excessive costs don't actually improve safety that much more. If everyone in the USA had to spend 10K more on a car for form injection systems that saved 100 lives in the course of a year, is that worth it? I don't have an answer there as a matter of fact, only opinion. And as the same matter of opinion on reactors, most of their cost, complication, and centralization have to do with the special way in which we treat reactors, not the technology itself. If there was a better regulatory framework, you would see (as we kind of are slowly in the industry despite these things) cheaper, easier to fabricate reactors which are safer by default. Designs that start on a fresh sheet of paper, with the latest and greatest in computer modeling (most current reactors were designed before computer simulations on the internals or externals was even a thing) and materials science. I am routing for the molten salt, thorium reactors, but there are a bunch of other generation4 reactors that are just begging to be built.

Right now, getting the NRC to approve a new reactor design takes millions of dollars, ensuring the big boy will stay around for awhile longer yet. And the regularly framework also ensures whatever reactor gets built, it is big, and that it will use solid fuel, and water coolant, and specific dials and gauges...ect. It would be like the FCC saying the exact innards of what a cellphone should be, it would be kind of maddening to cellphone manufacturers..and you most likely wouldn't have an iPhone in the way we have it today. NRC needs to change for any of the problems you mentioned to be resolved. That is a big obstacle, I am not going to lie, it is unlikely to change anytime soon. But I think the promise of carbon free energy with reliable base-load abilities can't be ignored in this green minded future we want to create.

Any rate, thanks for your feedback, hopefully, that wasn't overkill

So they had a preview of this earlier in the year where the actors and director were explaining how they filmed this to be actual live singing and not just a voiceover, and how much better that would be. I was like 80% sold hearing the description, but there wasn't much of an actual example in that preview.

Basically most musicals have the actors singing the parts in a studio, and then 2 months later are playing it out and just mouthing out the words to a pre-recorded track. This is NOT that. This is the actors singing live as they are acting. It's very much still a movie, but the singing is not a voiceover track...

This is stunning. I'm not one for musicals but I think I'll find a way to see this. It has all the good elements of a theatrical play with the narrative scope of a movie. I'm not saying it'll replace the intimacy of a playhouse theatre, but this is impressive work.

Haha, I actually tried that for a little while because yeah, it bothered me how insincere the whole thing can be and I hate doing that whole dance. Thing is if you unload fully on your partner then it puts them in an awkward postion because they feel they have to reciprocate your full disclosure when perhaps they don't trust you sufficiently. At least thats the way I see it (and its why I stopped being a dick to people who were just trying to be polite )

The worst small talk? 1st year of university. You meet a lot of new people which I was mostly fine with. What bothered me endlessly was the same few questions. Where are you from. What course are you on etc etc. Maybe its selfish of me, but first I got bored of asking them and then I got bored of answering. Eventually I started asking people what their favorite flavour of icecream was (lemon sorbet btw) just to, you know, break routine. I guess you might call it an ice(cream)breaker and tbh, it worked quite well. Oh, and if somebody answers vanilla then you need to keep that person close. They are the best kinds of people (and there aren't very many vanillas). Maybe I don't really have a problem with small talk, I just have a problem with boring small talk

Interesting to note that "How do you do?" is traditionally reciprocated with another "How do you do?". I mean, its seems totally absurd, its almost like the question is rhetorical - it certainly doesn't expect an answer. Its just a polite courtesy and to do anything but show the same courtesy back would be considered rude - how self absorbed of you to actually answer! The conversation might evem bloom into discourse on the state of the weather (the last refuge of the unimaginative .

Oh, and it kind of is stupid though SveNitoR. Don't worry, I don't consider myself stupid or somehow broken in this regard, but I really can't see how anxiety serves any purpose. Obsessing over the tiny details of a conversation only serves to make me look stiff and robotic, like some sort of psychopath trying to remember how to smile with their eyes. I've heard theories that the reason alcohol is so embedded in our society is because on some level we actually sort of need it to overcome this inhibition. Unfortunately I don't drink, although I have found a sort of vicarious empathy - I inherit the same hibition if I am with people who are a bit buzzed, just none of the memory loss (a blessing ang a curse). Anyway, thats quite tangental. I guess what I'm saying is that I'm quite comfortable being an introvert and while anxiety certainly bothers me and stresses me out more than I'd like I don't let it paralyse me.

I get the whole boycotting CFA for its views and all that. But the way I see it: It's a losing battle, they will not win, and so the money they are spending for it is just going down the toilet. I've only had them twice but man are those good chicken sandwiches.

A few suggestions and requests:

Retina icons and thumbnails.
And maybe a "sarcasm" banner, like the featured banner?.
And a way to see how many are in the sift lounge from the main navigation, without having to hover to check. Otherwise it's going to die completely.

>> ^VoodooV:

first sentence into the interview and yeah, I have to agree, he sounds like he's trying to wash his hands of any responsibility. If he wanted to just be a good engineer, he didn't have to become a co-founder. He could have said "thanks steve, but no thanks, I like working in my garage"
as corporations get more and more powerful, the issues of their responsibility are going to be bigger and bigger.
I dunno, the way I see it, the internet is too big to be cracked down on and locked down. Of course there are always going to be people who try to lock it down but it will be temporary at best. sure there are always going to be your walled gardens and areas where things are locked down, but the internet at large will probably always be free.
There would be too much outrage if they were actually successful in locking people out.
but like anything, you can't just rest on your laurels and do nothing and assume it will be free without doing anything. freedom has to be fought for. There has to be pushback. The protests of PIPA/SOPA did have an effect and if someone tries to take something away from you, you fight to keep it.


Yeah the first sentence is do important people have a responsibility to speak out about regulation of the internet! No questions about taking responsibility for the actions of ones company. Of course the people running a company are responsible for the actions of the company. This was never talked about in this video. Woz states he likes it when anyone in the public eye speaks out for what they think is right. I cannot believe people are trying to correct me and still completely fail to understand basic English. Whether or not Woz is defensive about Apple in other situations I don't know anything about and is also irrelevant since he hasn't had any influence there for decades.

It's an interesting conversation, one I wish we could all have in person as typing is so cumbersome at times.

It's not only about the testosterone which guides the male libido (The penis has nothing to do with it - unless the entire process actually leads to sex - which it can - but most often it doesn't)

It IS, as Enoch points out, about attention. As long as the process of flashing the colourful feathers, gets the attention that is needed, then the individual is validated.

Just a glance or a stare can be enough to bolster a girls confidence (from a male, a female, a family member, a boss or whoever.) And if wearing the right shoes does the trick the validation is achieved. If wearing designer labels works, then validation is achieved. If being seen in a Lamborghini does the trick, then validation is achieved. Everyone has triggers. Sometimes they are emotional triggers brought on by personal trauma - sometimes they are learned triggers brought on by advertizing and society.

Male or female, Validation is all anyone ever wants. Those that have had constant validation in their lives, may not be a slave to the process. But in a society where advertisers constantly try to make us feel like we are not good enough so that they can create a market based on everyone's self image this is the way things work.

If it didn't work so well, they wouldn't do it. I work in advertising. I have been trained to find a way to sell things to people that they don't need. The problem is, I'm a cynic and I can't do it. So every time I have to do it, I find a way around it. That's why I now work at a college (a microcosm of political correctness where I don't have to sell stuff using sex - in fact we go out of our way not to)

So there are two sides to this equation:
1). There is the side where everyone seeks validation either emotionally, physically or by accomplishment.
2). And there is the side where advertising exploits our biological AND emotional needs to sell stuff.

Although they are two very different things, they form a symbiotic relationship and feed off each other.

I know that @bareboards2, you are trying to say, that this "advertising" needs to stop. And ideally, you are right. If you find a way to stop it all let us know. But I also know that this type of marketing is so targeted to our needs at the most basic levels, that this type of thing will never go away. Our personal needs, and desires need it too badly.

To try to explain all this is difficult - I trained for 6-years in art school to manipulate what people see and how to make them see what I want them to see. How to lead them and bring them to my way of thinking through visual media. Advertising is an attack and a science into your needs, sensibilities, emotions and psychological image of your self.

I expect the only way to battle media is through media - The person with the most media and money wins. (it's a propaganda war)

If you want to delve deeper into the psychology of it all - It's an in-depth study - here is a place to start. Start with John Berger's, "Ways of Seeing".
http://videosift.com/video/John-Berger-Art-Critic-interview
http://videosift.com/video/Ways-of-seeing-John-Berger (first episode of four)
http://videosift.com/video/WAYS-OF-SEEING-final-episode-vertising (final episode - Advertising).
The book starts with classical art and leads right up into modern advertising. Check Amazon for reviews.

first sentence into the interview and yeah, I have to agree, he sounds like he's trying to wash his hands of any responsibility. If he wanted to just be a good engineer, he didn't have to become a co-founder. He could have said "thanks steve, but no thanks, I like working in my garage"

as corporations get more and more powerful, the issues of their responsibility are going to be bigger and bigger.

I dunno, the way I see it, the internet is too big to be cracked down on and locked down. Of course there are always going to be people who try to lock it down but it will be temporary at best. sure there are always going to be your walled gardens and areas where things are locked down, but the internet at large will probably always be free.

There would be too much outrage if they were actually successful in locking people out.

but like anything, you can't just rest on your laurels and do nothing and assume it will be free without doing anything. freedom has to be fought for. There has to be pushback. The protests of PIPA/SOPA did have an effect and if someone tries to take something away from you, you fight to keep it.

>> ^messenger:

For me in Toronto, http://www.beatfiltering.com is the only way to see the site. The 216.URL is too slow and there's no pics, and the 108.one doesn't work. YMMV


You can't load the IP addresses directly to view the site (well). As I stated, you should add those lines to your hosts file. This will enable your computer to find videosift.com (and cdn.videosift.com which is where our images and other static content come from).

For me in Toronto, http://www.beatfiltering.com is the only way to see the site. The 216.URL is too slow and there's no pics, and the 108.one doesn't work. YMMV

>> ^Reefie:

>> ^Januari:
Is there a single person watching this that is the least bit surprised... I mean AT ALL? Does anyone really think this is different than anyone else who's put forward legislation like this?

Not surprised, but quite pleased someone's admitted that they haven't really thought about what they've been proposing.

Sorry, I don't see it this way. I see him so flabbergasted that he resorted to the truth because nothing else came to mind. No advisor-driven pat statements, no prepared party-endorsed positions, no damage-control spin.


Just a question that nobody else thought to ask.


That Al Jazeera interviewer, or whoever created that line, deserves a Pulitzer.

Of all the political issues of today, this scares me the most. From the recent Supreme Court ruling to allow SuperPACs to the privatization of previously local government-run institutions, the secret class war that so many on the right deny is happening is becoming more and more prevalent. I truly hope this can be turned around, but the only way I see that happening is for people to achieve more faith in local, state, and the federal government and at the same time see the errors in this methodology. It may take some horrible incident of private ownership wresting the freedom from local civilians or it may just be a slow churning of ideas and a shifting mentality that forces us to wake up. Whichever occurs, I cannot wait for our collective eyes to open.

>> ^poolcleaner:

The internet is just part of our social evolution. This is the awkward phase.


Yeah that's the way I see it.

No offense to the poster of this comment, but when I read things like:
"I've read that children around the age of 12-14 are getting counseling on how to interact face to face with people because"

I immediately flash back to the absurdity of the mid-80's, and the whole "D&D will cause your kids to do acid and kill each other and live in a fantasy world!"

I think anyone is totally valid in saying this trend is pretty stupid in many ways, but it's not the first or last one the human species will go through, and all those awkward kids who grew up on the internet will have kids of their own and wonder "why the hell doesn't he come out of the VR room all weekend? I read research that..." yadda yadda.

From my personal perspective, I wish people were more resistant to "the latest thing" or new technology, because of how much we give up for it.