Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I'm surprised at the breadth of opinion on this one. I think it must strike at the heart of people's concept of funny. For me - this is exactly my favourite type of video. Messes with my head a bit but still makes me laugh.

Monty Python is a very different kind of humour, but effects me the same way.

Also, she's very good when you deconstruct the performance a bit. Her little nervous impromptu laughs and feigned shock are of course completely scripted but come across as so natural. She's very good.

For those of you who don't think this is funny- perhaps you need a better laugh track to help you out.

Well, Doc, I would constitute your classification of "Atheist" (someone who wants to disprove God and therefore as faith-based as a Christian, etc) to be just as badly misinformed as you'd say someone who hates Christianity is. An Atheist doesn't need to disprove the existence of a god because an Atheist, by definition, has a lack of believe in any such thing.

I'm an Agnostic Athest (they are not mutually exclusive) and don't go around proving any god does not exist. Proving a negative is impossible, and as a scientist I'm sure you can understand that. Read Carl Sagan's "A Dragon Lives in My Garage" for reference from "The Demon Haunted World".

In my youth I seeked as hard as one could when looking for a god. And believe me, when you're a child and an adolescent looking for a god and you haven't even bothered to understand the breadth of science and reason you coul be bamboozled a lot easier into believing. However not a single prayer was answered, not a single sign was posed to me. And those that I thought were I found much easier explained by natural causes because they were so insignificant and meaningless when compared with what I truly asked for.

>> ^Doc_M:
OK, maybe he's not a D-bag. I was feeling bitter and I apologize.
...
Raigen, should I find the time, I will PM you pertaining to my "evidence."

This site is and always has been severely lacking in channel breadth and it has become a hindrance to the quality of channeling videos. Unrealistic qualifications for those wishing to fix this are only further stifling things. So choose whatever you want, whoever this thread is for, because you'll try something broad enough to fill one of the monstrous gaps of the channels, but then the other kids will bicker and fight with you due to their anal retentiveness. Look at how big the list is that one guy proposes, and then you'll see that the idea of "searching by channel is awesome" is completely retarded and pointless. Who the crap cares about how many channels need to be created; if they need to be created for clarity then they need to be. If you kids are a community then cease the status crap and create them together. 90's and Seagal channels are mine by right, but make "Seagal in the 90's" and I'll upvote all your videos. Wait forget it, I'll prolly get banned for pointing out this site's major flaws.

>> ^NordlichReiter:
So they gave him a warrant that wasn't exactly for his house?
That's a violation of the warrant system, the judge can be disrobed.

He said he owns both sides of the duplex, so the property is his, and so the warrant seems valid (though it may be groundless, which is another problem all together) but the police who searched and detained people at the other address, seems to have done so without a legal warrant.

The breadth of the warrant bothers me as much as anything else, the taking of computers/cameras/cellphones for many people these days constitutes a blanket warrant to search all private and confidential records, the fact that these records exist on electronic devices should not in any way reduce the legal hoops required to access or confiscate them.

>> ^ShakaUVM:
Fedquip said, "Watch the video again, this conversation never happened, the cop never told the driver it was a taser, never said he wasnt going to "play this game"..and I dont see any jumping around?"
Yeah, that was exactly what I picked up on in this video. It's interesting because we get to immediately see a cop's recollection of an event, and shows how cops lie under oath -- or even to themselves. Cops can and do flip out with little provocation, and then lie about it to save their asses, but our courts always take a cop's testimony over a citizen's. It's a really messed up situation.
I was in the car where a Texas Ranger threatened to arrest my dad and hold him overnight because my dad didn't want to provide his SSN (when we called to complain, they said, yeah, that guy has been having some mental problems...). I thought we were about a hair's breadth from being shot, all of us.
Personally, I had a cop pull me over while doing 65, and then lie about it under oath saying I was doing 87 (I had been, but earlier, not anywhere near where he pulled me over). I even found evidence showing that he contradicted his testimony under oath with his sworn statement from the scene, and the judge (who lives in a nowhere town and gets paid from issuing false tickets) ignored the perjury that I caught him in and upheld the ticket anyway.
Cops taser people waay to easily these days. They think that because it's non-lethal, it's okay to taser people in situations where shooting or beating them would be inappropriate. Of course, it hurts as much as getting hit with a nightclub, but they don't seem to consider that, do they?
His hands out of sight had nothing to do with him being tasered. Listen to the end of the tape -- the cop tasered him because he was "jumping around".


Um, yeah, you were still speeding - it doesn't matter if you were pulling into a parking lot when he pulled you over. He still caught you going almost NINETY miles an hour - and you think that you DON'T deserve a ticket?
They don't have to pull you over the instant you were caught, ya know...

Very true, JAPR. People who have no concept of the depth and breadth of the customs and traditions of ancient Asian cultures will likely never *begin or care to have any true understanding of them.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

QM Responds: (by email)

I read my "Siftquisition" with delight at the depth and breadth of entertainment created. Not the "controversy" per se, but the idea(l)s and vociferous opinions.

I was genuinely touched by the number of sifters who hate(d) my comments and corrosive anti-Lincolnesque persona--namely all of them--yet felt I was worth defending on the grounds of free speech, or what passes for it nowadays.

Every attempt to second-guess my recent actions was incorrect, and furthermore, is it anyone's business why anyone votes the way they do? There are no such litmus tests in the real world other than public opinion, which was the true executioner here.

"Bad faith" voting is the charge? The mact-of-the-fatter is, one vote is one vote, per each sift. Had I downvoted all but say, 5 sifts of a certain member, would THAT have been OK? Hey, I unnerstand the Game...VS is someone else's baby, even though they (we) are often trading in copyrighted materials in violation of both the letter and the spirit of the law. If my actions have further refined the rules then so be it; because of this incident you' will have to.

Without minority viewpoints all you've got is a bunch of politically-correct, faux-tolerant bobbleheads, and most sifters know it. Even now the ghosts of my words may haunt the Sift like Boo-Berry from the cereal of the same name.

I accept my 'vacation' with a smile and in the meantime will try to get some real bloodwork done.

Love and respect,

Quantumushroom, a mushroom you love to hate and hate to hate, due to quantum mechanics

^Abducted, My deadpool will show that theres quite a breadth to whats been placed in the pool to be voted on as people wish. As for the thumbnail, i dont get to decide that as i cant invoke *findthumb. YouTube just pics a still at the start/end and middle, and thats the middle frame.

kulashaker were the nuts. i never understood why so few people noticed the music... oh yeah because they were posh kids who were into indian mythology.

trust you to post this choggie! where do you get your breadth from?

anyway kulashaker = awesome. thanks for the reminder

Fedquip said, "Watch the video again, this conversation never happened, the cop never told the driver it was a taser, never said he wasnt going to "play this game"..and I dont see any jumping around?"

Yeah, that was exactly what I picked up on in this video. It's interesting because we get to immediately see a cop's recollection of an event, and shows how cops lie under oath -- or even to themselves. Cops can and do flip out with little provocation, and then lie about it to save their asses, but our courts always take a cop's testimony over a citizen's. It's a really messed up situation.

I was in the car where a Texas Ranger threatened to arrest my dad and hold him overnight because my dad didn't want to provide his SSN (when we called to complain, they said, yeah, that guy has been having some mental problems...). I thought we were about a hair's breadth from being shot, all of us.

Personally, I had a cop pull me over while doing 65, and then lie about it under oath saying I was doing 87 (I had been, but earlier, not anywhere near where he pulled me over). I even found evidence showing that he contradicted his testimony under oath with his sworn statement from the scene, and the judge (who lives in a nowhere town and gets paid from issuing false tickets) ignored the perjury that I caught him in and upheld the ticket anyway.

Cops taser people waay to easily these days. They think that because it's non-lethal, it's okay to taser people in situations where shooting or beating them would be inappropriate. Of course, it hurts as much as getting hit with a nightclub, but they don't seem to consider that, do they?

His hands out of sight had nothing to do with him being tasered. Listen to the end of the tape -- the cop tasered him because he was "jumping around".

At the end of the piece, the narrator quotes Judge Alex Kozinski of the Federal 9th Circuit Appellate Court. I've included the extended version of that quote here. His opinions on the "right of publicity" are best summed up in his White v. Samsung Electronics Dissent. The entire opinion is worth reading, but the critical summary is found in the first section which reads:

"Saddam Hussein wants to keep advertisers from using his picture in unflattering contexts. Clint Eastwood doesn't want tabloids to write about him. Rudolf Valentino's heirs want to control his film biography. The Girl Scouts don't want their image soiled by association with certain activities. George Lucas wants to keep Strategic Defense Initiative fans from calling it "Star Wars." Pepsico doesn't want singers to use the word "Pepsi" in their songs. Guy Lombardo wants an exclusive property right to ads that show big bands playing on New Year's Eve. Uri Geller thinks he should be paid for ads showing psychics bending metal through telekinesis. Paul Prudhomme, that household name, thinks the same about ads featuring corpulent bearded chefs. And scads of copyright holders see purple when their creations are made fun of.

Something very dangerous is going on here. Private property, including intellectual property, is essential to our way of life. It provides an incentive for investment and innovation; it stimulates the flourishing of our culture; it protects the moral entitlements of people to the fruits of their labors. But reducing too much to private property can be bad medicine. Private land, for instance, is far more useful if separated from other private land by public streets, roads and highways. Public parks, utility rights-of-way and sewers reduce the amount of land in private hands, but vastly enhance the value of the property that remains.

So too it is with intellectual property. Overprotecting intellectual property is as harmful as underprotecting it. Creativity is impossible without a rich public domain. Nothing today, likely nothing since we tamed fire, is genuinely new: Culture, like science and technology, grows by accretion, each new creator building on the works of those who came before. Overprotection stifles the very creative forces it's supposed to nurture.

The panel's opinion is a classic case of overprotection. Concerned about what it sees as a wrong done to Vanna White, the panel majority erects a property right of remarkable and dangerous breadth: Under the majority's opinion, it's now a tort for advertisers to remind the public of a celebrity. Not to use a celebrity's name, voice, signature or likeness; not to imply the celebrity endorses a product; but simply to evoke the celebrity's image in the public's mind. This Orwellian notion withdraws far more from the public domain than prudence and common sense allow. It conflicts with the Copyright Act and the Copyright Clause. It raises serious First Amendment problems. It's bad law, and it deserves a long, hard second look."

-- Judge Alex Kozinski

I too stand by my comments and would like to take this moment mlx to tell you that I do not feel that you handled this at all innapropriately... the issues I've long had with the TAYTV collective in no way compare to the self-linking, advertising, and cross-promotional gain that came to light yesterday (and I thank you for bringing them to light)... I was shocked and appalled at the breadth of this issue and I feel that just sweeping it under the rug because we feel guilty about how it was handled will do no good for the future of this site.

Well . . .my earlier comments in this thread came before I knew about the sheer breadth of the problem.

I still don't think that every instance of self-link merits the ban-happy banhammering, although with Lucky's recent font changes, it is getting more difficult to call it an innocent mistake.

Nonetheless, there has always been the confusion about what constitutes self-promotion. Does the posting of an Attenborough vid from your own YT account promote you? For the purposes of Videosift, it does, but it is not the most intuitive conclusion.

So I still prefer a system of first warning where a newbie posts something spectacular from their own account. And I support bans when the goal is clearly commercial spamming.

And, in the case of fedquip, I would have to vote ban, because lawd have mercy . . .

"Colin McGinn (born 1950) is a British philosopher currently working at the University of Miami. McGinn has also held major teaching positions at Oxford University and Rutgers University. McGinn is best known for his work in the philosophy of mind, though he has written on topics across the breadth of modern philosophy. Chief among his works intended for a general audience is the intellectual memoir The Making of a Philosopher: My Journey Through Twentieth-Century Philosophy (2002)." - Wikipedia

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

your average mac user can't add a WEP key either,

Well, there is a wide breadth of Mac users. Sure there are the graphic design/video/sound people who might have problems with the more techie stuff -

Then there are the would be Linux users who want all the goodies that Linux offers with a much better UI than anything from KDE or Gnome. (ooh, I may have just opened a second OS war front)