Most of Videosift is petty stuff.

Many great sifters have left because of the clique-ish, self aggrandizing, first-world-problem-griping nature of Videosift.

The Siftquisitions that take place to "sort out" the squabbles are often times the most petty.

As I believe it was in my case..

(It was my causal, blunt-as-usual comment to Pumpkin or whoever that resulted in me being attacked & eventually banned.)

So yeah, Videosift is unique in that it is both petty & pedantic..

A decent - but flawed - idea.

..which why the rest of the internet has ignored it & its community.

Oooh well, it was pretty nice when it started.

Wonder how long it'll be before Dag finally shuts the lights off.

I respect anyone's choice to do or not do anything they choose. I thought the same way about it until I started to wonder if I wanted to go to my grave not knowing what it felt like out of some stubborn desire to win an imaginary "drug free" sticker at the moment of my death.

I saw some people who smoked it and were a) not addicted or changed by the act and b) functioned excellently and contributed greatly to society (in the form of music and literature and art). So I tried it, and I'd say it taught me a way to cope with my brain and how it works, so I can fight long term depression.

I'm sorry that he didn't stress that there are absolutely no causal links established either between psychosis or education. I still strongly believe that there will be a link between psychosis or mental illness and the willingness or desire to try it - which in turn would give them medicinal relief and in effect they end up unwittingly self medicating. We know it has medicinal qualities as did our ancestors. I think that the link between poverty and social elements greatly affect the uptake rate, having grown up both in council estate (very poor) areas and middle class areas between parents I can vouch for that disparity personally.

I think it's an obvious logical conclusion, and all I need is evidence to disprove it. Until then I certainly will not apologise for using something that has been of the earth for millions of years over something mixed and concocted by pharmaceutical companies that have documented side effects, overdose risk, and actual addiction.

What I was more specifically disputing was any causal link between the two.

Crime rates in Australia go up and down (the long term trend has been downwards) but firearm ownership is (and was) quite low. As far as I know only organised crime gangs keep weapons for self defence, so if your average burglar knows that unless you happen to rob a crime boss you're not going to be facing a weapon can you explain exactly how there could be a causal link between crime rates and restrictions on weapons?

I don't think I'm alone in saying that even if I had a rifle in my house, I'd call 000 if I had a break-in rather than unlock the gun-safe and attempt to murder some schmuck.

What an idiot. Yes, the temps have been up for a while. Just like we've had mini-ice ages and mini-bumps throughout history. Look at geology reports (oh, wait, he's only a mechanical engineer.) Nothing new here, folks. Yes, we're pumping out carbon dioxide. So did volcanos in the distant past. So what? We've got a lot of buffer called the ocean. Lastly, Dr. Nye, two coincident facts don't show causality. Oh, you wear a bow-tie, you must be smart. See? Classic example of two facts that are coincident but not related. Except for the you're being smart part. That part isn't true. Michael Crichton had it right in State of Fear.

And in the same breath you could say that rampant military conquest created the modern world and drove scientific advances etc, but while the Muslims were pottering around the the Middle East, Spain/England/France etc were plundering the entire world. Lead by militants and the religious. Oh gee...

Your conclusion that the majority of Muslim's is as factually bankrupt as the assertion that "playing video games makes people violent". Millions of people are Muslims, but extremist attacks are relatively minor on the grand scale of things. Your casual causality is not born out by what actually happens in the real world.

almost dupe of http://videosift.com/video/Testing-Crows-Causal-Understanding-of-Water-Displacement

My head hurts too much to read the paper right now, but I suspect that most of this can be attributed to learning, and that a 'causal understanding' is not being demonstrated here.

The important figure to look at here is Fig 3, specifically the first trial in figure 3, before the crows had a change to learn each particular task. Performance is, slightly, better than chance for each task except tasks D and F. But these are NOT naive birds. There are only 6 crows used in this experiment, and before the experiment they were all trained to perform a water displacement task for food reward. The better than chance performance on the first trial for some of the tasks could, and probably is, a result of the similarity between the 'correct' choice in that task and the training condition.
A: A water filled tube is more like the water filled tube in the training condition, than is a sand filled tube.
B: Heavy blocks are more like the heavy stones used in the training condition than are the light blocks.
C: Solid black weights are more like the black stones used in the training condition than are the hollow cages.
E: A nearly full tube is more similar to the training condition (which took only two stones to reach the food) than a nearly empty tube.
Tasks D and F, where the crows did not perform better than chance, have choices much more difficult to distinguish from the training condition (with both choices in F being nearly identical to the training condition).
What's more, the sample size is tiny, with a max of 6 birds for any task, and only 4 of these same (very experienced) birds for tasks E and F. You cannot do meaningful statistics with a sample size of 4.
If someone who has actually read the whole paper wants to show me how I'm wrong please do. Until then, I think the editors at PLoS ONE need to be more careful with their choice of reviewers. The journal, although noble in it's stated mission, is still young, and its reputation is still fragile.
"Our results indicate that New Caledonian crows possess a sophisticated, but incomplete, understanding of the causal properties of displacement, rivalling that of 5–7 year old children." How on earth did they let that pass! They know the press will have a field-day with misleading statements like that.

Your video, Testing Crows' Causal Understanding of Water Displacement, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Look at shinyblurry- smart but clearly crippled by unhelpful dogma that has exacerbated rather than reduced the inherent existential trauma in being a conscious organism apparently spontaneously existing in a mindbogglingly vast and uncaring Universe (even these minimalist words are necessarily reductive). He can justify bombing, spreading aids and even openly destroying the environment for personal economic gain to accelerate the 'day of judgement'. (No joke, all in HIS posts on THIS SITE).

Also, you should learn more about the Jonestown massacre before speaking so causally about people desperate enough to knowingly drink poison and give it to their children in the hope that it will somehow make things better.

You need to start making more sense fast Yogi or those with brains are going to consider you a fool and stop wasting time on you.

I'm a cyclist, both on-road and off. One day, while on a trail no less, I was coming down a really steep hill hitting around 30MPH plus. I'm on the right side, no one else is around, it's the middle of the day etc. Near the bottom, some kid, who was on the other side of the trail by himself on the bench, gets up, runs across and stands directly in front of me.

Lucky for him I have better reactions but I certainly could have killed the kid if I hit him. In regards to the skater, I understand his side a lot better because I've had this happen to me. Given his level of concern for the boy, I'm pretty sure before doing the tricks he checked to make sure no one was in his path. And then suddenly, errant child out of no where.

Also, having 2 daughters I can also say she's a shitty ass mother. I see stuff like this happen often when the parents are completely off in lala land because they don't want to care for their child and "want a break". And the mother comes up saying "you hit him on his birthday?!" As if that makes any difference except, WHY THE HELL DID IT TAKE YOU SO LONG? She causally walked over the from the pavilion, which her son was running away from and never once checked on her child. I have become Flash Gordon the moment I hear either one of my kids get hurt. I have leapt over benches, tables and other people.

So yeah, I agree, mother of the year and I hope that kid grows up and finds someone who actually cares about him.

Aye ayes totally amaze me... and scare me...
"tap, tap, tap" with that finger that looks like the hook Egyptians used to pull your brain out through your nose.
Then "CrunX", those teeth bite right through your face... yikes.
Seriously, these things can bite right into a coconut, and then causally scoop the jelly out with that freaky finger.
-tree zombies

There is only one Moral imperative observable in nature. "Nothing is true and everything is permitted"

"Nothing is true..." :

All concepts of truth are relative and dependant upon a supporting paradigm(s) to facilitate meaning and context. To say "killing is wrong" would only be meaningful within a structure that defines both A. the intended meaning of the terms used (i.e. linguistic convention) and B. the causal relationships and imperatives of the ethical code/structure under which one is operating
(e.g. Christians might say "because God will get you", or Deontologists might say "because the act is always more important than the consequence, or Consequentialists that say the opposite of the Deontologists etc.)
Either way "Truth" is just a meaningless noise leaving ones mouth unless there is at least some intellectual structure in which to define it. Ascribing "truth" to "God" is just another such intellectual structure.

"......everything is permitted":

Given all moral/ethical imperatives are by their very nature intellectual constructs and that none (as we define them) appear irrefutably to occur in nature we must conclude that the only "moral judge/authority" that provably exists in the cosmos must be our own minds (you can't even prove 100% that other minds necessarily exist). The only acts prohibited by nature are those defined by its physical laws, one cannot commit a physical action that does not have an equal and opposite reaction for instance. Thus "everything is permitted".
However as the fact that ones own mind is and can be the only moral authority it is also implicit in this "truth" (see what I did there?) that one should endeavour to not be found wanting in the eyes of this ethical arbiter. After all your own conscience is the one person you can never avoid! Thus "everything is permitted" when "truly" understood (again lol) does not encourage one to "do what you want" but rather to consider your every action with the utmost care. No one knows your true motivations & desires better than your own sub-conscious and no one could ever punish you as hard for your mistakes.

Hardened violent criminals who repent their crimes rarely do so because prison is an unpleasant environment (they are often hardened men, accustomed to physical hardship). They repent because the enforced solitude forces them to confront themselves!

Thus I assert; moral behaviour is a product of wisdom and self awareness only! Anything else is brainwashing and (often dangerous) delusion as it deprives one of the true (and complicated) reasons for why some choices/beliefs would be mistakes. (e.g. the sexual repression of Christian culture that still remains firmly in place amongst many (most) atheists).

Love is the law, Love under will.
And do what thau wilt shall be the whole of the law.

Still waiting for the facts?, its been nothing more than arguments from authority & the gun deaths chart is pure bogus, I.E. bee stings annually kill more US citizens than terrorism thus terrorism is not as important as stopping people getting stung straw-man argument. furthermore, alcohol is regulated, cars are regulated even medical practitioners are licenced - if you went into surgery knowing that your doctor may be one of 40% of unregistered practitioners would you feel safe in that knowledge?.

Here is how easy it is to twist this logic to suit your claim: Since the war began in Iraq there has been 4488 U.S. causalities, comparing this to 11,000 annual gun death's in the U.S. PROVES that being at war is LESS DANGEROUS than merely being at home. This example is how correlation does not equal causation (& if this girl in the video is indeed a psychologist she should know this).

Maybe one aspect of the Mexican gun rate is also the fact that the U.S. with 'the 'Fast & Furious law' actually allowed the trafficing of guns from the United States into Mexico right into the hands of drug gangs in the hopes of stopping the cartels. (But did she mention that?).

What are the stats for mass homicides?, rather than suicides compared to other countries?. and in one breath the speaker said that a gun is the most effective way of killing yourself, and later that regardless of guns the person will find a way to kill themselves regardless of guns which she just stated were the most effective other than hanging or jumping from a height. (& Japan is a collectivist culture with a high population, where the individual is expected to look after their entire family & the government is expected to ensure public safety hence strict gun laws - so it may in fact be due to feelings of being ashamed culturally rather than seeking attention & fame as in individualistic cultures like America.

a gun is not a 'tool', it's a weapon - it has no other purpose than to kill. it's like saying a harpoon is a 'tool'.

No-one is saying its just about A) whether being allowed to own a gun B) or not. it's about as stated in the opening of this video as stated in the 2nd amendment 'A well REGULATED militia or marketplace of guns' and the American gun lobby is definitely not said anything about wanting to strengthen the gun-laws I.E. waiting times, background checks, sales at gun-shows etc.

This video is wrong in all these areas listed from start to finish it has been nothing but misrepresentation calling them facts.

gaming/hollywood has always been the scapegoat. If you're a shitty parent, it's far easier to pretend that some outside influence made it happen than to actually ask the hard questions and admit that shitty parenting played a role.

If video games truly had a causal effect, we'd have shootings way more frequently than we do now. Everyone plays video games these days, young/old/guys/girls.

It's no different from when parents back in the day blaming rock and roll for their kids' behavior.