lol..

Some of us submit good videos that are entertaining or of some quality or at least unique and interesting.

Other people just submit the same stuff ad naseaum. (See: GI JOE PSA from years ago) (See: endless parade of kitty doggie videos)

Some people try to be the first to submit regular type series that are the kind on the top10 of digg and most of the internet (See: Zero Punctuation) (see: chad vader)

Some people just like their own unique tastes to be posted everywhere, this is usually certain types of music videos.

A lot of the top people just see a video from whatever means the use to aggregate videos and recognize those destined for top honors and submit those.

A better question is where do people cull videos from the internet from. Most people do not watch 1000s of newly submitted 10 view YT videos, so there is already some major sifting before they get submitted to aggregation sifting/voting sites like this one.

Occasionally, people will just try to fill out a niche that is otherwise ignored on the internet, like cooking videos or horrorshow videos back when a contest is run or halloween time. This site is unique in that there are not really hard core channel fans, like a video gaming forum might see only those videos, etc.

Anyways, this site started with a certain relatively small group of users and the types of videos that others like were reinforced, so people that enjoyed that blend of videos came back because it was useful for delivering certain content. Eventually those that value the content make an account and add their own, usually somewhat similar tastes, or if it was not it would be ignored.

This site is really not that much different than the digg top10 list, but it does have to opportunity to provide more unique finds. There used to be great japanese and korean content, which has mostly died down, partly because of the massive YT purges of jtv content. Same goes with adultswim content that was once submitted, but pretty much useless now because those videos will soon be dead, so copyright holders can actually stifle the distrubution to larger audiences.. dee doo doo

For instance, for awhile it was all Colbert stuff, but that died off either as a fad, or the YT embed being killed by copyright holders, and then the annoying US only ability to play Comedy Central embeds. So much content is ignored from corporations trying to control their content.

I think in general the answer you are looking for from at least this collective of users if providing a place to be able to quickly and effortlessly watch good videos and avoid a bunch of useless crap. In some ways I think people submit videos to return the favor and keep the house of cards afloat, so there is a communal aspect to it, and many of the videos are a you-have-to-see-this. For the record, this site is not that much different than a fark submission, or at least the early days on this site had that appeal, but fark is a also almost a decade past jumping the shark.

You should visit GodTube as another concept of the secluded pockets of the internets where it used to be fun sport to submit some classic godtube content.

I think Sarah is absolutely clueless, but when you look at pictures of her when she was a teenager, and you see her today, I have to admit she's gotten prettier with time.

A pretty nutcase, but pretty.

Needs a little editing, but pretty cool.

>> ^spoco2:
>> ^imstellar28:
I raise legitimate concerns and I get mass downvoted without a single reply to why what I said was wrong or ill-conceived. I don't randomly downvote comments like many here. Nobody has directly addressed a single word I've said, all I've seen are people putting words in my mouth and then trying to argue against that. The only people upvoting are a parody character and a "troll". Your philosophy as just as much of a joke as the community on this website.
If you haven't left the country you were born in, or seen outside the town you grew up in. If you haven't read books or studied history. If you haven't experienced third world poverty or the consequences of what you espouse, I suggest you shut the f ck up about how relieved you are about your new overlord and his "new" policies.

You are an angry, bitter man who likes to spend a whole lot of time arguing on the internet. Most of us have better things to do.
No matter what your political leaning, anyone can go and find all sorts of references and links to back up 'their' point of view. These references and links may just be others with the same view spouting non backed up drivel, but unless those you're arguing with have heaps of time to go off and look up the counter arguments you can pretend that you win the argument.
The issues are this:
The USA's last President
Was more repressive to people's freedoms, and more narrow in its ideas of what the country should accept as its basis (read, the Bible... shudder )
Invaded a country on COMPLETELY FALSE pretenses and has spent untold billions (or is it trillions now?) on fighting a war that should never have been started.... what was it about again? Oh, to get those responsible for 9/11... No.. .wait, we'll change that, to get Weapons of Mass Destruction... NO, WAIT, We'll change that, to bring freedom to Iraq... well, we'll get that Saddam guy... who we kinda put in power in the first place.
Continued to fuck up education to a huge degree, pumping money in with no real plan on how it should actually be used, at least no GOOD plan
Spent huge amounts of money on Abstinence only sex education. Yeah, that works a treat...
Ruled by fear of 'terror'
Continued to favour big business and the already rich in their financial policies with the insane logic that if you give them enough tax breaks and incentives then they might throw some crumbs to the less well off
Continued the idea that spend, spend, spend is the way out of anything, when really it just gets people more in debt... which leads to...
Has plunged the world into economic freefall (not entirely on its own, but... pretty much)
The republican's ticket for this election
Offered EXACTLY THE F CKING SAME
Your NEW PRESIDENT
Offered the idea that perhaps people need to work a bit harder to get out of things
Thinks that perhaps the government should actually DO things and not sit back and let the private sector fuck up everything and make basic services more expensive for everyone.
Thinks that maybe the rich are doing pretty damn well for themselves and don't NEED any more tax cuts, and could actually quite friggen easily handle paying a little more tax so that those that are actually struggling to pay their rent or mortgage can have enough to do so. (while working full bloody weeks, don't go the whole 'well, they're lazy, why should they get more money' absolute bullshit)
Is Black... shows that maybe the majority of the world has actually stopped paying attention to race and those that still think it's an issue should grow the f ck up
Can actually form coherent sentences
Don't delude yourself into thinking that everyone who voted for Obama or supports the decision did so out of blind starry eyed optimism and no logical thought.
We understand things you know, we can think.
And for the record... I currently live in Australia, have lived in the UK for over a year, lived and worked in the States for a number of months, and do pay attention to world issues.
What makes you such an all knowing soothsayer anyway?


Ah so you're proclaiming the merits of wealth redistribution and socialism, too, eh? Nice...I advise reading history books. When you start blaming the private sector, you have (here's my love to Cali reference) "issues" with understanding economics.

>> ^imstellar28:
I raise legitimate concerns and I get mass downvoted without a single reply to why what I said was wrong or ill-conceived. I don't randomly downvote comments like many here. Nobody has directly addressed a single word I've said, all I've seen are people putting words in my mouth and then trying to argue against that. The only people upvoting are a parody character and a "troll". Your philosophy as just as much of a joke as the community on this website.
If you haven't left the country you were born in, or seen outside the town you grew up in. If you haven't read books or studied history. If you haven't experienced third world poverty or the consequences of what you espouse, I suggest you shut the f ck up about how relieved you are about your new overlord and his "new" policies.


You are an angry, bitter man who likes to spend a whole lot of time arguing on the internet. Most of us have better things to do.

No matter what your political leaning, anyone can go and find all sorts of references and links to back up 'their' point of view. These references and links may just be others with the same view spouting non backed up drivel, but unless those you're arguing with have heaps of time to go off and look up the counter arguments you can pretend that you win the argument.

The issues are this:
The USA's last President
* Was more repressive to people's freedoms, and more narrow in its ideas of what the country should accept as its basis (read, the Bible... *shudder*)
* Invaded a country on COMPLETELY FALSE pretenses and has spent untold billions (or is it trillions now?) on fighting a war that should never have been started.... what was it about again? Oh, to get those responsible for 9/11... No.. .wait, we'll change that, to get Weapons of Mass Destruction... NO, WAIT, We'll change that, to bring freedom to Iraq... well, we'll get that Saddam guy... who we kinda put in power in the first place.
* Continued to fuck up education to a huge degree, pumping money in with no real plan on how it should actually be used, at least no GOOD plan
* Spent huge amounts of money on Abstinence only sex education. Yeah, that works a treat...
* Ruled by fear of 'terror'
* Continued to favour big business and the already rich in their financial policies with the insane logic that if you give them enough tax breaks and incentives then they might throw some crumbs to the less well off
* Continued the idea that spend, spend, spend is the way out of anything, when really it just gets people more in debt... which leads to...
* Has plunged the world into economic freefall (not entirely on its own, but... pretty much)

The republican's ticket for this election
* Offered EXACTLY THE F*CKING SAME

Your NEW PRESIDENT
* Offered the idea that perhaps people need to work a bit harder to get out of things
* Thinks that perhaps the government should actually DO things and not sit back and let the private sector fuck up everything and make basic services more expensive for everyone.
* Thinks that maybe the rich are doing pretty damn well for themselves and don't NEED any more tax cuts, and could actually quite friggen easily handle paying a little more tax so that those that are actually struggling to pay their rent or mortgage can have enough to do so. (while working full bloody weeks, don't go the whole 'well, they're lazy, why should they get more money' absolute bullshit)
* Is Black... shows that maybe the majority of the world has actually stopped paying attention to race and those that still think it's an issue should grow the f*ck up
* Can actually form coherent sentences

Don't delude yourself into thinking that everyone who voted for Obama or supports the decision did so out of blind starry eyed optimism and no logical thought.

We understand things you know, we can think.

And for the record... I currently live in Australia, have lived in the UK for over a year, lived and worked in the States for a number of months, and do pay attention to world issues.

What makes you such an all knowing soothsayer anyway?

^rottenseed:


1. Black and white is just an analogy for a scale with no gradient.
Black and white are two labels given to two sides of the same coin. You were insinuating that socialism was "gray" and that is incorrect. A philosophy cannot be gray, it can only be black or white. A philosophy which advocates evil in even 0.0001% of situations is not gray, it is black.

2. I could say that I would say murder is ok, if the person you murder raped your wife and kids.
You can say that, but you'd be wrong. Murder is not the same as killing. Murder is always wrong, killing is not. If you killed a man in the middle of raping your wife/kids that would be self defense. If you killed him after the fact, that would be murder. You are not legally permitted to act as a judge, jury, and executioner.

3. I could also say that under pure capitalism, most of us are slaves. Think about the ratio of those that are independently wealthy compared to those that must work to survive for all their life.
Pure capitalism forbids one thing: the restriction of physical violence. Explain how that makes anyone a slave. over 3 billion people live on less than $1 a day. How much did you make last year? How long would that last you at a $1 a day. Are you suggesting you are a slave lord?

4. Don't make the assumption that socialism in ALL degrees is bad.
Don't make the assumption that socialism in any degree is good. Give me a single example where socialism (means AND ends) is good.

5. We've discovered from thousands of years of progress that 100% of almost any social system is bad. You've gotta have "checks and balances".
No, you've "discovered" that because you haven't read all the evidence.

6. With a pure socialist state you have the loss of freedom.
I agree, because with any socialist system you have a loss of freedom

7. With pure capitalism you have the potential separation of socioeconomic classes.
I agree, and this potential exists for all systems except the system where 100% of all salary is taken and dispensed equally to everyone--is this what you want? You haven't explained why economic classes are a bad thing. The gap between rich and poor is decidedly worse in socialistic systems--look at history

8. Greed has already shown to destroy most "pure" societal structures.
Wrong, when has a pure system every existed? Also, why is (lawful) greed bad and how does it destroy such systems? If you are talking about unlawful greed, what you really mean to say is "a high amount of unlawfulness has destroyed social systems" which I agree with.

9. Why not have regulations set in place to not allow exploitation, yet allow the good intentioned corporate and individual entity grow freely?
I agree. that is necessary in any system including capitalism. Capitalism is not anarchy so don't pretend it is, it has regulation just as any other system.


your batting .300, good enough to keep you in the majors but pretty bad for any real sport

Clear Sky is good (i have both S.T.A.L.K.E.R. games), but pretty flawed, too. my litany of complaints:

-AI grenade accuracy is sick. Quick save often, because if the enemy has grenades, you are going to die a lot.

-No clipping on NPCs, and they love to block doorways. Why can't you nudge them? They sure as shit nudge you. This is most problematic when you are fighting alongside NPCs that PUSH YOU OUT INTO THE OPEN.

-Enemies can you see you at night, even if your flashlight is off. Using the cover of darkness to sneak up on the military outpost would be awesome, but they see you creeping in from 100 yards.

-The stamina system. You run out of energy too quickly for the amount of ground you must cover. You can pay to be escorted (i.e. teleported) but it can be very expensive and money is tight in this game.

-One of the major components to this game is the faction warfare. In some areas, you aid one faction in ridding the map of another faction, and your results are measurable. I.e., you don't see as many red dots on the map anymore. What I don't get is that you can't ever completely eradicate them. In some areas, you can destroy a little encampment over and over, but they always return. Maybe the game wouldn't be as fun with no enemy factions, but it could have been thought through more.

What I like about Clear Sky:
-the weapon upgrade system--gives you a huge range of weapon combos.
-the faction wars--working with the NPCs to push through enemy outposts is still great fun, even though you can't completely eradicate them in some areas.
-the slow pace--in the beginning of the game, you don't see much in the way of mutants. as the game goes on, you start to see them more and more, and it freaks you out more.
-the new anomaly system--makes anomaly hunting more fun, and more rewarding imo

Yeah, but pretty much everyone knows it's Osettian freedom to organise a "democratic" and "fair" vote to join the glorious Empire of Russia they're fighting for. South Osettia couldn't even support itself economically (no real industry/agriculture), there's nothing there, mostly rocks. Abkhazia, on the other hand, could take cue from Moldova and actually be self-sufficient, mainly via tourism, cause it's got vinyards, beaches and spas. But Russia will probably annex it, too, as Kremlin's already got their sights set on Crimea.

>> ^cybrbeast:
Well, Russia is hypocritical for the reason stated in the clip. Russia has been fighting against the independence of Chechnya for many years, now they say South Ossetia should be allowed to become independent.

>> ^BansheeX:
Do you understand that in a libertarian society, it is illegal to infringe on a person's rights, whether you're a company or an individual? How do you interpret my post as wanting to let companies do ANYTHING they please?

Force of habit, I'm used to bumping heads with Republicans, and rarely do Libertarians preach about the need to restrict the power of corporations to infringe on people's individual rights. Most just talk about the tyranny of regulation, and often go so far as to debate the necessity of OSHA, USDA and even the FTC (which seems to have faded from existence in my lifetime).

"Economics" is too vague. There are many different branches, the dominant philosophy changes with time. Currently, it is neo-Keynesian, but that will change after its collapse. It matters not that 90% of current economics doctorates are in this manner of thinking. The Austrians were already proven right from the FIRST great depression, do we really need another one to figure out that the Federal Reserve is the equivalent of the benevolent dictator argument?

Not to lean too heavily on an appeal to authority, but are you saying there's something about Austria in the Great Depression that disproves the underpinnings of what 90% of economists believe? Shouldn't someone at Universities around the world be notified?

I'm just reacting to the insistence that there's something fundamentally flawed with liberal philosophy. Usually that "something flawed" is that "socialism doesn't work" or "the free market fixes everything" or some other nonsensical absolute assertion.

For example, you said I don't understand which powers of government are "justified" and which ones aren't. That's not true, we just have a different concept of what's justified.

You also questioned whether or not I'd go along with letting the government have and use a hypothetical mind control device -- and of course I'd be opposed to such a thing. I'm all for protecting individual rights, and limiting government's power over the individual, I just don't think free markets are always the best way to fulfill every need in society, merely most of them.

The market is millions of people making mutually agreeable transactions. The government is not the market, they're just suppose to protect people's property and settle disputes on a national and domestic level. And it isn't black and white anyway. For example, I disagree with fellow libertarians in that I want to keep the FDA for information, labelling, and enforcement of what constitutes terms like "organic" and "free range," but remove their ability to ban products. That power is currently used for collusive anti-competitive reasons. Go on wikipedia and look up Stevia for one example, the artificial sweetener lobby bribed officials to block its use in products because it was a natural, no-patent substitute to crap like "Aspartame" which would have cost them billions.

I agree on that issue, that there's abuse of the power that needs to stop, but I don't think the solution is to remove government power to ban products.

I'm not entirely sure what such a law would say, there are risks everywhere to everything.

That's easy: show a schedule of payments to potential purchasers, so they know what their obligations will be with regards to the loan.

There's differing opinions out there about who's at fault for the crisis, but part of the problem did start with predatory lending practices, motivated by the hunger for those mortgage backed securities.

Ultimately, though, their only loss will be their credit and the home they couldn't afford because they can walk away and leave their bank or lender with the unpaid loan and depreciating house. That's what the government is trying to bail out with honest taxpayer money.

Actually, since we're still under the auspices of the Bush administration, it's mostly going to help out banks who leveraged themselves to invest in mortgage backed securities. Regular people who got screwed by predatory lending are having to get by with the scraps the Democrats can attach to the legislation.

I know it's all socialism to you, but to me there's a vast difference in those things.

Instead of letting the chips fall where they may, we're trying to delay a necessary recession AGAIN with inflation. Prices want to come down from these artificial levels, and have those jobs reallocate to manufacturing exports because exports are the only thing a the weak dollar is good for.

I agree with the assessment of the current situation, it does seem like we're putting off the inevitable. I'm a cynic though, I think they want to make sure the next President gets the big market crash, and they're intentionally delaying things for that purpose, even at the risk of making that crash worse.

And it will be a replay of the FDR administration with Obama, but pretty effing bad under McCain [snip]

That's exactly how I see it too, and I couldn't be more happy at the thought of a new FDR-style administration, I just hope we don't have another Great Depression and World War to go with it.

Quite the discussion of economic philosophy, in the comments on a video of Obama talking about Republicans being pridefully ignorant on energy.

>> ^NetRunner:
^ I actually agree with you on most of the actions you're recommending, if not your total rejection of "socialism" (which you seem to define as "anything that restricts businesses from doing as they please")

No, I define socialism for what it is: any government which controls over 50% of its capital. We are extremely close to that and it's a major problem. Do you understand that in a libertarian society, it is illegal to infringe on a person's rights, whether you're a company or an individual? How do you interpret my post as wanting to let companies do ANYTHING they please? Gimme a break, companies in a truly free market are forced to follow the law and compete in a fair environment or be taken to court. The enablements of inflation, subsidies, and specialized tax breaks erode that fairness. Without that, companies would have only one legitimate way to make money: to convince you to buy their product over their competitor's. And to pay its workers by outbidding its competition and getting you to agree on a price. Oh, the horror! And not even the highest paid lawyers in the world can win cases on outright false advertising and malpractice.


>> ^NetRunner:
^There is always an implied (and in your case directly stated) belief that anyone who believes in regulating markets doesn't understand economics, and I heartily disagree. If that were the case, all PhD economists would all be endorsing the Libertarian party...and yet, they've got a political spectrum that leans left of the average populace.

"Economics" is too vague. There are many different branches, the dominant philosophy changes with time. Currently, it is neo-Keynesian, but that will change after its collapse. It matters not that 90% of current economics doctorates are in this manner of thinking. The Austrians were already proven right from the FIRST great depression, do we really need another one to figure out that the Federal Reserve is the equivalent of the benevolent dictator argument?

>> ^NetRunner:
^My favorite "market regulation" is a ban on slavery. If you follow the Libertarian/market fundamentalist argument -- slavery should be legal. People should be able to sell themselves into permanent servitude, and then be resold by their owners.

I don't think that's going to fly, because no one would know if you were voluntarily doing it or somehow coerced or tricked into doing it. But fundamentally, you're right, people own their own bodies, and that means they are free to inflict themselves with drugs, kill themselves, whatever. If our technology comes to a point where the government is capable of manipulating your body into not doing something with some kind of field under the pretense of protecting you, will you allow them this ability? Or are you smart enough to realize that the power will be abused and incur ultimate costs far greater than the benefits?

>> ^NetRunner
Fraud should also be legalized -- if I'm smart enough to dupe a person or corporation out of their money, I should get to keep it.

Wrong, misrepresentation or not honoring a verbal or contractual agreement is the equivalent of theft. The transaction is not complete until both parties receive what they contractually agreed upon. If some person in Negeria tells you you won a prize and you pay them the collection fee, and they give you no prize, that is an unlawful appropriation of property and an infringement of rights. Not a freely acceptable activity under a libertarian free market, because the federal government has legitimate duties to protect people from infringements of rights and offer a means of recourse through the courts. See, this is the problem. You don't even understand the few government powers that ARE justified, you're so wrapped up in its "regulatory" extensions!

>> ^NetRunner:
^Violent intimidation should also be legalized. If my competitors think they can open a store in my neighborhood, they better be able to protect it from my guys burning it down.

Ummm, arson is destruction property you don't own. Rights derive from property, if you don't own it, you can't take or break it with impunity in a system that protects from such infringements.

>> ^NetRunnerAfter all, only a socialist would think we should interfere with the free market.

The market is millions of people making mutually agreeable transactions. The government is not the market, they're just suppose to protect people's property and settle disputes on a national and domestic level. And it isn't black and white anyway. For example, I disagree with fellow libertarians in that I want to keep the FDA for information, labelling, and enforcement of what constitutes terms like "organic" and "free range," but remove their ability to ban products. That power is currently used for collusive anti-competitive reasons. Go on wikipedia and look up Stevia for one example, the artificial sweetener lobby bribed officials to block its use in products because it was a natural, no-patent substitute to crap like "Aspartame" which would have cost them billions.

>> ^NetRunnerThose sound silly, but they're along your line of thinking. When us "socialists" talk about regulating the mortgage market, most of us are thinking that the law should require lending companies be upfront about the risks and costs involved in loans to the customer. It shouldn't be "caveat emptor" at all times, and buying a home shouldn't mean you need to hire a lawyer, just to hear the truth about what your obligations will be.


I'm not entirely sure what such a law would say, there are risks everywhere to everything. You can't slam your finger in the car door and sue the automaker for not explaining the risks of doors to you. Likewise, if you are speculating on home appreciation and taking a non-standard loan, I have ZERO sympathy for you if you didn't read the paperwork and ask questions beforehand. Many of these people lied about their incomes to get mortgages on homes they knew they couldn't afford, but thought would pay for themselves.

Ultimately, though, their only loss will be their credit and the home they couldn't afford because they can walk away and leave their bank or lender with the unpaid loan and depreciating house. That's what the government is trying to bail out with honest taxpayer money. Instead of letting the chips fall where they may, we're trying to delay a necessary recession AGAIN with inflation. Prices want to come down from these artificial levels, and have those jobs reallocate to manufacturing exports because exports are the only thing a the weak dollar is good for. Yes, that's a painful process, just like a junkie from a high, but you have to come down from it, not shoot up with more heroin until you kill the dollar.See, that's the market's automatic way of healing itself. BUT IT ISN'T BEING ALLOWED TO HAPPEN. We're getting more intervention, full of moral hazard from socialized losses and a systemic destruction of natural deterrents (why would I keep saving prudently if I lose and a speculator wins? Why would banks stop being taking risks if the government will always spare them true consequence?).

But tell me, how many politicians are going to win an election saying that pain is necessary? Zero. They're going to play to people's ignorance and gravy train optimism and propose an easy government solution. And it will be a replay of the FDR administration with Obama, but pretty effing bad under McCain as well.

And I just want to say thank god that you didn't know any myths about gold, because I'm tired of writing today, but I see jwray made up for that. *sigh*

Yes, he was especially right about Russian doomsday devices. He was also spot-on how ALL of US infantry would be killed there, as well as how Condi would be gang-raped by all the elite Iraqi soldiers who can cross the desert in an hour. His analysis of the US dollar (we're talking 2002 here) was flawless, especially considering how just a couple of years earlier most private savings in Russia as well as prices for virtually all consumer goods and even majority of private salaries were quoted in USD $.

Only truth out of this guy's mouth, indeed.

>> ^antimatter:
There are no jokes, only truth. HST

He was wrong about the iraqi army, but pretty much right about everything else.

There are no jokes, only truth. HST


He was wrong about the iraqi army, but pretty much right about everything else.

>> ^Farhad2000:
This is not normal and screams made in China quality. Some wire must be touching the outer casing of the mini USB cord.


Yeah but pretty much everything is made in China and certainly all computer components.

not quite a dupe, but pretty much the same info as this one:
http://www.videosift.com/video/The-Tweel-a-new-wheel-concept-from-Michelin
and that one is longer too.

Bah.

In reply to this comment by rottenseed:
Here. I don't know maybe they aren't exactly the same but pretty darn close.

In reply to this comment by ant:
Where's mine?

In reply to this comment by rottenseed:
I think your sift is a dupe of this one:

http://www.videosift.com/video/Bear-Showing-Off-his-Mad-Stick-Tw
irlling-Skillz