The *kids channel is for kids, not of kids.
And also, Happy birthday!
In reply to this comment by garmachi:
*kids

Dunno, @Stormsinger is suggesting it isn't a real thing, just some indignation over a perhaps mole hill event. TYT does do that kind of thing like all of us do, so it wouldn't be to shocking.

Personally, though, I would think homosexuality is a large enough "anomaly" to at least be worthy of mention to the person that is getting the sample. I don't know a thing at all about the sperm donation process, I assume some kind of profile is already given to people who accept the sperm, and homosexuality seems like a genuine attribute a person should know about before you accept it. To that end (anecdotal), I heard of a blind, lesbian couple that wanted to find a blind male sperm donor to inseminate one of them to increase to likelihood of a blind child. That is all just to say choice is always a good thing to have, and edifying choices require information and freedom to act. If the FDA was mandating sperm banks to provide a profile that includes homosexuality as a listed trait of the donor (which is what I thought this video was going to be about), that is one thing, but wholesale misunderstanding of the risks of spreading HIV as it was mistakenly understood as Gay-related immune deficiency seems so folly that I almost can't believe it is true. However, being that I produce sperm well enough on my own; my own desire to google if this was a story worthy of actual merit escapes my attention span.

>> ^swedishfriend:

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Hmmm when I read the title, I thought it was going to make at least some sense, like...since homosexuality might be genetic (though it could be epigenetic or in utero) to not allow that "anomaly" into the sperm bank. That makes at least some sense to me; this though is retarded. It makes me laugh when recollecting people wanting to put the FCC in charge of the internet...because this is the type of shit that would start happening. Perhaps not a fair comparison, but I think their respective track records are pretty similar.

It is genetic. Going with the notion that it is an anomaly, it isn't an anomaly that is medically unsafe in any way so why would it matter? If you get sperm from a clinic you must realize that there is a chance of at least some genes from the donor being expressed in the child. Are people staying away from sperm banks or are they lining up in droves?
So why FDA? who is asking for this? Business competition would lead to sperm banks with genetic controls if this is something people were clamoring for.

>> ^vaire2ube:

Aye but the guy did say the Progressive lawyer in the courtroom did more than give a little assistance:

"At the beginning of the trial on Monday, August 6th, an attorney identified himself as Jeffrey R. Moffat and stated that he worked for Progressive Advanced Insurance Company. He then sat next to the defendant. During the trial, both in and out of the courtroom, he conferred with the defendant. He gave an opening statement to the jury, in which he proposed the idea that the defendant should not be found negligent in the case. He cross-examined the plaintiff’s witnesses. On direct examination, he questioned all of the defense’s witnesses. He made objections on behalf of the defendant, and he was a party to the argument of all of the objections heard in the case. After all of the witnesses had been called, he stood before the jury and gave a closing argument, in which he argued that my sister was responsible for the accident that killed her, and that the jury should not decide that the defendant was negligent.
I am comfortable characterizing this as a legal defense. "
>> ^entr0py:
The good news is the Fisher family won the case regardless. There were also a few factual errors in TYTs reporting, as porksandwich mentioned the other driver had insurance which had already paid out to it's maximum, and progressive didn't represent him legally. But what they actually did do was bad enough to deserve the condemnation; a progressive lawyer contacted the defendant's lawyer and gave him assistance, so they could ultimately avoid liability.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-progressive-campaign-
20120816,0,5322264.story



I admit I didn't read the blog on account of the short attention span. But yeah it's fucked up. I would have thought defense attorneys would have to do most of that work to earn their standing, apparently not.

Yossarian i couldn't agree more.

Very british ceremony, and probably very much FOR the british people. I don't doubt that many of the reasons i enjoyed it will not be relevant to others. To take the stadium from fields of green to industrial towers was great, especially showing all of the people who were there (willing or not) to help the transition - boats arriving from the west indies and such, the suffragettes. To see the growth of britain and eventually the forging of the rings. I think the ring forging was one of the coolest things i've seen.

It was different, and at times anti-political, anti british. Because being anti british is a british trait. Thank you boyle for showing what pride in our country looks like. The NHS and great ormond street, these are things to be proud of. Our humour, our invention, our quirkyness, our gifts to the arts. If only this would inspire more pride in our health sector. We used to lead the world with our NHS till the tories got their hands on it, maybe we can once again if we take PRIDE in its quality; show the world what a free health system can be. Come on, britain. Where's all the pride gone?

Even though i wasn't such a fan of the singing and dancing and texting, i understand why it was there (a tribute to what we've given the world in the technology and arts departments) and i think choosing Danny Boyle was a masterstroke. I haven't seen anything like it in my life before, and thank god it was finally something to come out of britain to be proud of. At least the british public knows how to represent britain on the world stage. If you want to know how great "great britain" really is, watch our HUMBLE ceremony.

We could lead the world again by showing them what humility, cooperation and pride can do; no more money in politics, no corrupt bankers. Civilised society and fair play were once our specialities.

Btw interrupting a tribute to one of the major bombings of the "anti terrism era" led by bush no less is if you ask me outright insulting to the memory of the dead. To cut to a worthless talking head like ryan seacrest as well? I'm sorry that britain couldn't hold people's attention for longer than 3 minutes whilst we mourn the loss of our loved ones. I hope the silence for the wars didn't bore anyone either. We all payed dearly to defend this island, this link to the theatre of war that eventually inspired the world to fight with us against wrongdoing and against the odds; the least we might expect from the rest of the world is their attention span for a bit.

It was deemed good enough that china commissioned a stage version to be shown in beijing. I bet seacrest won't be getting a call up. Anyone who didn't like it - switch over to Big Brother, Celebrity Love Island, X's Got Talent, Geordie/Jersey Shore or E! now. I'm sure you'll be mesmerised. You might even find ryan seacrest presenting one of them!!

Well, I loved the ceremony. Obviously not all did, but I loved it. There was something fantastic about the grass and little fields and the tree. The great transformation to the industrial nation... it was great. I'm amazed anyone could be that down on it to be honest. I can get not liking all of it, but to really think that it was boring... man, someone has a short attention span.

I loved it!

Was it perfect -no. But it struck a chord with the creativity and invention which makes Britain Great, while sending out a timely reminder of what we have accomplished and given to the world.
So much to enjoy, lots of creativity and not afraid to be self deprecating, humorous and actually fun!

The abide with me tribute to 7/7 victims and those who could not be there was genuinely moving. Even if NBC thought that an inane interview by Ryan Seacrest was more important. Disrespectful dicks. I wonder if they'd do the same during a 9/11 memorial..?

The whole of the UK was grateful for the Great Olmond Street Childrens Hospital and NHS routine. Something to make our PM - whose so keen to downgrade the National Health Service to a privatised model that no one wants - squirm in his seat.

Because we don't need to prove ourselves to anyone the ceremony could focus on the achievements of the ordinary Briton. Unfortunately this meant it may not have been whiz, bang, sparkle, sparkle, pompous bollox enough for those with tiny attention spans. But as trade offs go..I can live with that.

upvote for "nation of a short attention span".

>> ^heathen:

When a video that's 11 seconds long needs "Wait for it" in the description it might be time to consider that the problem is with people's attention span, not their literacy. ">


I was gona click out after 4 seconds.

Wait. What were we talking about again?

When a video that's 11 seconds long needs "Wait for it" in the description it might be time to consider that the problem is with people's attention span, not their literacy.

>> ^Ryjkyj:

On the "Alien" release in 1979:
"Critical reaction to the film was initially mixed. Some critics who were not usually favorable towards science fiction, such as Barry Norman of the BBC's Film series, were positive about the film's merits. Others, however, were not: Reviews by Variety, Sight and Sound, Vincent Canby and Leonard Maltin were mixed or negative. A review by Time Out said the film was an "empty bag of tricks whose production values and expensive trickery cannot disguise imaginative poverty"."
-Wikipedia


Well they were wrong. Though I don't see why those criticisms should not be directed at this effort. Having just seen it I'm disappointed that my low expectations were met.

For a guy who claims to base his films in logic, Scott has a lot of illogical things going on. No tension, poor characters, dodgy dialogue at times and an overall plot that simply explains a few things in the lead up to the first film.

Also for a two hour film it's paced very quickly and for the first time in my life I am tempted to conclude this is purposely geared to the attention span of the Facebook generation.

I'd like to put a vote in for "not dupe"... the other one is edited for people with attention span issues and/or cognitive impairment.
>> ^ant:

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
http://videosift.com/video/Genius-Dog-Knows-1000-Words>> ^jonny:
pretty sure it's a dupe, but I can't find the original.


dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Genius-Dog-Knows-1000-Words

Preamble: Much as I hate going through these sorts of exercises, they are sometimes necessary, particularly when a thread has gotten large. People forget what they're responding to; what the topic really is at the time they're responding, leaps of logic, etc. One thing's certain about these summaries: they're always helpful. <- Yes, that's a boast.
1. I posted some quotes from Roger Ebert's review (and blog) that I thought captured my own feelings about The Raid, including a brash comparison to the joke movie Ass featured in Mike Judge's hilarious flick Idiocracy.

2. I get dressed down by Sarzy for said comparison. Sarzy also claims Ebert said there was no craft or artistry to The Raid (which he never actually said, but never mind) and that The Raid is a martial arts milestone.

3. ChaosEngine makes an amusing ad populum argument and later makes a strong case for the merit of terse storytelling and inference of story elements.

4. I ask Sarzy why The Raid is a milestone.

5. Sarzy responds with many heartfelt testimonials by sympathetic reviewers, personal opinions, and lauds its choreography and direction.

6. I excise all the subjective-slanted testimony and focus on what is demonstrably true about The Raid: it was choreographed and directed with great care. I point out that without context (story), conflict is without meaning.

7. ChaosEngine gives it one last try with another amusing post about inference of story elements on the part of the viewer and indirectly calls me a prick. Classy!

8. I respond to ChaosEngine by inferring a wonderful storyline to Ass, instantly making it one of the best joke movies I'd ever watched.

9. Sarzy points out that plenty of other genres of film are short on story. The best examples are the "meditative" styles featured in art houses and the like.

10. I respond to Sarzy's excellent point by citing other possible gains (transcendence) by watching these "meditative" style pictures, gains that are not possible (in my opinion) with martial arts pictures. I remind him that I am responding to his point with, and I quote, "...I am merely responding to your point about the role of story."

11. Despite my reminder, Sarzy erroneously concludes that every film I see must transcend me to another plane even though all I was doing was attempting to shoot a hole in Sarzy's point about other films that are loose on story.

And that pretty much brings us up to date.

But do you see how helpful these summaries can be? They're my little innovation. You internet kids and your short attention spans made its creation a necessity.

Promote YOUR awesomeness.

And thanks for your reply to shinyblurry.

I rely on more calm souls than me to engage with folks like him. I get too passionate and hence disrespectful.

Sorry I didn't help you make gold -- my heart was willing, but my attention span under trying circumstances at work was interfering.

Thanks again.

It is a great vid, isn't it? How anyone can watch it and not be moved to change their minds is beyond me. I think this vid may be a turning point in the debate.

But then, I am an eternal optimist.

In reply to this comment by messenger:
As promised, *promote the awesomeness.

>> ^Enzoblue:

I know I'll get flamed, but this series is so badly done. I like they're dumbing down for attention span but not dumbing down the explanations. All they do is make uninformed people go "huh?" and informed people roll their eyes.

They're screwing themselves with this whole "1 minute physics" idea because nothing I've seen them cover can be adequately explained in even 15 minutes.

I know I'll get flamed, but this series is so badly done. I like they're dumbing down for attention span but not dumbing down the explanations. All they do is make uninformed people go "huh?" and informed people roll their eyes.