But this is the nature of ALL web companies.

They all start as a good idea with zero revenue and attract a mass of grass roots support. They cross the chasm from private to public they are owned by investors and a board of directors - NOT the community.

YouTube is THE top media host and outlet in the world. It's the 'google' of video. I watch way more video online (via videosift than i do on TV.

What they have been (a community publisher) - is not what they have to be forever (the leading video media provider).

They have 'eaten the lunch' of the tv networks. To take the next step they need to make people go online to watch TV - then the TV networks will have to move online or die.

But it's ok!!! The net community is fickle anyway. They will move on to the next big thing. They dumped news sites and moved to aggregator blogs. They dumped IRC and moved to facebook. Most of the videos i watch are hosted at YouTube - But i watch them on videosift and other blogs. I don't actually go to youTube to watch them.

By abandoning the 'at home video maker', someone else will 'eat that lunch' by taking it to the next level.

>> ^Memorare:
it aint just Dominoes kids, and it aint just boogers and buttwipes, and it aint just a little sick that you're likely to get.
=Every= restaurant where food is prepared out of public view by unsupervised employees has this going on.
The lawsuit needs to be against Dominoes to change how and where and under who's view food is prepared.
If you can't watch it being cooked or prepared, don't eat it.


You are SO wrong. I have never seen anything like this in over 10 years of working in food service. Actually, at the places where I've worked, we don't even JOKE about this kind of thing. And we joke about everything. The thing you don't fuck with is the food. Not food for each other, but ESPECIALLY not for the customers.

Maybe you don't understand how fucking hard the restaurant industry is, but we dedicate our LIVES to it, and don't expect very much in return. Our margins are so slim, the whims of the public are so fickle, more restaurants fail than succeed. Some of the greatest chefs in the world have restaurants that lose money. Even the great Gordon Ramsey had to shut his restaurant in Dublin. Our jobs are SO expendable, even if you are the best.

In the face of all of this adversity, we still persevere. We still create fantastic cuisine for you all. I like to think that it is the creativity of chefs that makes dinner time bearable. If it wasn't for chefs, we'd eating boiled meat and overcooked vegetables. Plain boiled potatoes, and no gravy. We don't do our jobs because we're trying to make civilization better, but it is a happy coincidence. We do our jobs because we are compelled to, maybe it is some defect in our personalities, but I like to call that defect Love. We do it for love.

These people aren't cooks. These people are nothing like my people. This doesn't happen in real restaurants. I've worked at many restaurants, and I've worked test shifts at many, many more. I've never seen behaviour ANYTHING like this. I would be reporting it to the health department straight away if I had. And I think that the dozens and dozens of chefs and cooks I've worked with would do the same.

Just because you saw waiting and think you know how it is doesn't make you an expert on restaurant kitchen culture. Try living it, and then come back and tell me what you saw.

I don't know the site's history, i just found it by chance 3-4 years ago and spent the next two weeks obsessively reading nodes...
I've always been too intimidated by the weird, idiosyncratic interface, close knit community and the high quality writing to write anything myself though... so on the first 2 points, sounds very much like slashdot to me, yeah.

In reply to this comment by dag:
I haven't visited Everything2 in years - it was started by the Slashdot guys, no? I'll check it out. Weird that it pre-dated wikipedia by so much, but never caught on to the same extent. The web is a fickle thing.

In reply to this comment by Crake:
Do you know Everything2.com ?
it's like a wikipedia with articles like "the melancholy you get while making tea in the late afternoon and it's raining"... nah, doesn't quite explain its appeal, but it's a nice site, very well written.

Anyway, they have a user-made list of related articles, used and abused with often hilarious results. just saying, if you made a full list of potential ads available to input for a given video, it would almost certainly get abused. Don't know if the advertisers would like it, but it would probably be fun .

In reply to this comment by dag:
That's a neat idea - if we could find an advertiser to play along. We're definitely going to try integrated ads again.

In reply to this comment by Crake:
To expand on Kevin143's idea about integrated ads, could they be user-calibrated too? so one could *edit the *ad field to make it relevant and/or non-annoying?

also, I'll chip in in 2-3 business days, which is what paypal tells me it will take to verify my credit card... it's only fair, since I am an ad-blocking, firefox-using meatbag

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

I haven't visited Everything2 in years - it was started by the Slashdot guys, no? I'll check it out. Weird that it pre-dated wikipedia by so much, but never caught on to the same extent. The web is a fickle thing.

In reply to this comment by Crake:
Do you know Everything2.com ?
it's like a wikipedia with articles like "the melancholy you get while making tea in the late afternoon and it's raining"... nah, doesn't quite explain its appeal, but it's a nice site, very well written.

Anyway, they have a user-made list of related articles, used and abused with often hilarious results. just saying, if you made a full list of potential ads available to input for a given video, it would almost certainly get abused. Don't know if the advertisers would like it, but it would probably be fun .

In reply to this comment by dag:
That's a neat idea - if we could find an advertiser to play along. We're definitely going to try integrated ads again.

In reply to this comment by Crake:
To expand on Kevin143's idea about integrated ads, could they be user-calibrated too? so one could *edit the *ad field to make it relevant and/or non-annoying?

also, I'll chip in in 2-3 business days, which is what paypal tells me it will take to verify my credit card... it's only fair, since I am an ad-blocking, firefox-using meatbag

I think one of the modern success stories of free markets and interesting self regulatory bodies that emerge are the labor unions. They were able to strike out their claims more effectively and nimbly than any government regulation.

Labour unions are given power through Federal and State government. In both cases business claim that minimum wages, safety standards, and work agreements pushed through by labor unions stifle business growth. Labor is seen as an input factor in economic thinking, not as a group of people. Mises always argued for the elimination of minimum wage for example. Furthermore if you remember the when the Detroit bailout was being discussed it was the Union workers that were blamed for over inflating their wages.

If labor mobility is taken as presented in Austrian economics then all trade restrictions must be done away with, there is efficiency reached when US manufacturing jobs are taken to less regulated non union parts of the world such as China.

The business has great power then its workers to dictate the terms of employment, dissatisfaction with labor conditions would mean mass firings and replacements, the exact reason why China has no labor problems with regards to unions there are so many people vying for the jobs as is.

Who are these "others" to which your refer? If a company charges a fair market price for its product, it can pay its workers well, and his family can prosper as well, the consumer also gets his product at a reasonable price. It is the happy medium.

Fair price is never set in the capitalist market, its is the abnormal profits price that is set. With migration of manufacturing to Chinese nations there has been no price fall in basic commodities like clothes. Per unit production costs are in the pennies, however the price charged is inflated. So what you bought for 50$ made in the US is still $50 when made in China, even though production costs are reduced. This applies to almost every industry. Even though market competitiveness is supposed to drive down price we do not see that as there is unspoken collusion of where to set the price. Or rather how much can you set such that demand is stable but with the highest profit creation possible. There is an entire course on profit maximization at the expense of the consumer.

It is when the government interferes with this that the unfairness is introduced.

What about Government intervention on child labour laws? Social externalities and pollution? In the last 8 years the argument has always been that firms in a free market system can account for externalization given the chance because they are hurting their own market in the long run.

However firms operate on short term profit maximization, and do the best they can in socializing their losses, and privatizing their gains. See Banking bailout.

It is only government regulation that allows or rather forces through economic incentives such as carbon trading to make firms pollute less or increase the welfare with regards to its work force.

Trying to merge two opposites is not wisdom. This is the idea of having your cake and eating it too. You can not have the powers of the market work if they are stifled in other areas. There ends up with a bubble of something eventually, and the market will always find that and exploit it until it bursts.

Really? Explain how socialistic and free market governments flourish in places like Sweden, Norway, Netherlands, Finland and shit even China? Mixed economy systems are the most prevalent in the world yet somehow you claim they are all made to internally fail because there is government intervention. That flies in the face of historical fact.

China is the perfect example because you have centralized government which allows free market activity in the economy but nowhere else basically proving Mises belief that the free market leads to democracy in a populace is not altogether sound.

The resent housing bubble is the greatest explained of poor government regulation. the The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 caused the housing bubble by not alowing banks to use their normal risk evaluation models when considering blacks and other minorities for loans.

Utter right wing spin rubbish, I mean do you even think about it? A 1977 act results in a market meltdown some 32 years later. Be serious. The banks knew the risks, they just hoped the bubble wouldn't burst before making out, further increased exposure by repacking toxic debt and then selling that off as investment packages.

There clear causality found in the 1994 to 2004 time of Fed debates regarding regulating sub prime and derivatives markets, remember junk bonds of the 1980s? Same shit different name but far more severe effects.
For more http://www.videosift.com/video/Klein-Blames-Greenspan-Deregulation-for-Economic-Crisis

Greenspan believed that banks would self regulate themselves.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7687101.stm
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/09/business/economy/09greenspan.html

Committee chairman Henry Waxman, a Democrat, suggested that Mr Greenspan had added to the problem by rejecting calls for the Fed to regulate the sub-prime sector and some complex, risky financial products.

"The list of regulatory mistakes and misjudgements is long," Mr Waxman said.

"Our regulators became enablers rather than enforcers. Their trust in the wisdom of the markets was infinite," he added, saying that the mantra became "government regulation is wrong".

Central planning nearly always results in tyranny of the most extreme kind. Once the power is centralized, the ability to abuse that power becomes irrefutable as far as history is concerned.

Of course it does, but that makes my comment sound like an endorsement of communism and central planning, its not, its rather a clarificaition in that there is no idealized free market system that enables all citizens to be free in the vein of Rand and Friedman. One extreme is a mirror of the other.

Goverment intervention is needed to regulate markets through laws, laws that protect from monopolies from emerging and allow free market competitiveness to occur. To state that a free market system would simply regulate and account for all external costs that it imposes is ridculous.

At the end of the day the onus of proof lies at the feet of Free marketers to prove it can, well the derivatives and sub prime market was a free market entirely with no regulation and see how much profit maximazation and risky behavior that developed, primarily because each firm was acting as an independent actor working towards its own profit maximization.

What did it create? A huge social externality that they were bailout out for, so we continuously social the costs and risks through government and privatize the profits and benefits because that is capitalism.

If we allow free market thinking to take over all these banks should have been allowed to fail for their risky behavior in the market, but that would mean socio-economic collapse, though I think it would have been better since it would clarify to any one else that risky business behavior has its costs. But the people running the banks are tied closely to those running the economy, and you can't have a major change in the Wall Street it would create a huge loss of investor confidence that would create even worse effects. Business confidence is a frighteningly fickle beast.

I think I'll weigh in on this because I like philosophical arguments. After reading all of the responses so far, I've decided to answer your original question and ignore the correlaries you've proposed; feel free to ask followups here or in my profile if you want more answers. I have also decided to present my findings in list format to fit my fickle whims.

Why is life sacred to me?

1. I'm Roman Catholic. The fifth commandment is pretty clear: Thou shalt not kill.
2. Each person has their own viewpoint and experiences, and when they are dead all that is not recorded is lost.
3. Death is irreversible. If a conflict ends in death, then those killed have no recourse left in this world.

Why isn't life sacred to me?

1. Various religious, ethnic, and national groups have throughout history sanctioned the death of other humans. Although I note above that Roman Catholicism demands that one not take other lives, during the Crusades they not only sanctioned the death of Arabs, but stated that any faithful who fall in battle during a crusade are immediately absolved and borne up to heaven. Given the varying historical context, there's no reason to believe that our current viewpoints are any more correct.
2. The universe is a vast place, and humans are tiny specks in comparison to all of creation. Even if we make a large impression on the world now, it's almost certain that it will be gone in one million years. Given that scope, any life is worth surprisingly little.
3. Death is a part of nature. Animals kill each other for various reasons, humans kill each other for various reasons, and this has always been the case.

There's always a choice to be made as far as life goes. Of course being living breathing animals with an interest to propagate our own genes ingrained in our biology, we'd say that, yea, life is important and "sacred" and it must be protected. But, being that we're biased toward humankind, we end up classifying life into different levels of importance based on arbitrary or vague concepts.

An example of this can be examined with the question, "what would be easier to kill, a puppy or a bug?" Most would say a bug. Partly because it's small, it's not as "cute", it doesn't bring as much enjoyment into our lives, it's easier, etc.

Now I will pose the question, "what would be easier to kill, a puppy or a kitten?" Unless you have a strong disdain for one or the other, many would have a hard time making a decision. Does that mean that the kitten's life has more value than the bug's life? Why? It's purely subjective to "most" humans. I guarantee you the bug community would beg to differ.

This argument may seem a bit simplistic, but you make decisions every day that affect the lives of other beings for your own personal reasons. Does somebody who despises bugs not murder many through a lifetime? Does a person that's late to an appointment not drive hastily and risk the lives of beings around them?

So if we have no universal way to determine the value of life between one being and the next or even between our own kind depending on the circumstances, some extreme (war), some mundane (driving erratically), then we must assume that either:
A) All life is sacred and nothing's life should be taken away or put at risk no matter what the cost to you
B) No life matters, murder away, Dahmer.
C) Life matters only with parameters

We all know most everybody except for Dahmer and Buddha will believe that "C" is the answer. The only thing that everybody argues is what those parameters are. And those parameters are many times personal, temporal and fickle. Somebody could be against the death penalty one day, then witness a loved one being murdered and totally change their views. Nobody's views on the sacred nature of life is the same, and it's always changing on a personal level.

So the answer is "no" there's no "sanctity" of life, except in our heads. Why? Because we need the flexibility to either love our neighbor or protect our family from our neighbor.

Oh, I posted a story on this too a little while ago and discarded it through lack of interest... damn the sift and its fickle ways.

>> ^lucky760:
Is that kitten in the Matrix or what?


The cat clip is from a website in Japan called "Nikoniko Douga." Basically, as the vid plays people can stream their comments across the screen, which is what you're seeing. I have no idea why it's popular, as most of the comments are utter gibberish or typical YouTube-style comment nonsense.

Upvote for Shiba-ken, IMO the best-est dogs in the whole world. They're clever and cute, although they can be a little fickle personality-wise sometimes. I miss Kenta-kun, the Shiba my host family had when I lived in Japan. He knew a ton of commands, like the typical sit, lay down, roll over, shake hands, and speak as well as stranger commands like "sleep" (he'd close his eyes).

It was a stupid comment made by Nader, but I still judge his character based on his lifelong commitment to making the United States a better country. I'm not going to defend Ralph's comment but I am not going to celebrate the fickle anger in this video either.

I'd also like to add I have no doubt once the economy stabilizes again the fickle middle which is now calling for regulation, will be screaming for deregulation.

Unfortunately this is what I think tends to drive a lot of policies, and why you see democrats voting for deregulation, and like now, republicans calling for oversight (they can't bring themselves to actually say regulation). They flip-flop on policies to stay on the side of public opinion and stay in office, it's not an excuse it's just the way it is, and in my opinion one of the draw backs to a democracy. That's why people like Ron Paul are so admirable even if you don't agree with them, because they continue to vote in a consistent way despite public opinion.

Obama has voted for things I don't approve of, the dems have voted for things I don't approve of. Sometimes it'd been under the banner of compromise and something just to go along with public opinion. I still support Obama and the Dems because overall they support the views I support. If there were a viable candidate or party that voted more consistently in a manner I approved, I'd vote for them.

Of course it's not just women. Exploitation is defined as 'to employ to the greatest possible advantage', or 'to make use of selfishly or unethically'. If you are gay, heterosexual, transsexual, a midget, whatever, the majority of pornography is aimed at producing a product for profit, and people in porn are exploited sexually to maxmise the profit potential. Again, look at the definition. There is no underlying social cause, the porn industry is not trying to liberate people sexually first and make a profit second. Just because you can look at the fringes of an industry and see products that are created based on stronger ethical and social foundations doesn't indemnify the majority of that industry from criticism. In the same vain you can't vilify pornography absolutely. People are always unwilling to look critically at those things they enjoy, for they fear the guilt of their enjoyment. There are problems with pornography, but that doesn't mean that the people who criticize it are trying to steal and ban your lube from you. I love chocolate, I'm not going to stop eating it because most of the worlds cocoa comes from exploited farmers, but at least I'm willing to criticise the product I partake of. Only through that critical awareness can you even begin to make steps towards improving the conditions of production, and if you buy into 'free market' principles at least you can then make an informed vote with your dollar for a product that you feel is less exploitative to those industry workers involved in its creation.

I also doubt Noam's views are as narrow as they seem to be in this interview. You have to look at the vast body of his work and once you understand the broad nature in which he views our society politically and ethically it would make sense that he would outright denounce pornography in a short interview and no doubt clarify later. Why are people so quick to forget the huge body of work this man has written? Do you really think that the views of an academic as prolific, articulate and brilliant as Chomsky have been summarized in totality in this little interview? Give the man some credit and don't be so fickle.

The sift is fickle. If a video is posted at an off time, or a too-popular time, or if it's just plain unlucky, then it won't get enough votes in its first few hours and thus becomes a long-shot to get sifted. That's why I felt (and still feel) that we need to bring back the requeue. Given that videosift 3.2 is coming in the near future, I'm hoping that the requeue will make a comeback, but since I seem to be in the minority on this issue I'm not holding my breath.

The queue can be fickle at times...

I kneel before you, my king, with premontory whispers of a fickle populace and a treacherous court.

All hail, King Zifnab!