I wonder what the carbon footprint of a single crop in that building is compared to a similar sized plot of land.

I'm sure some of this is just resistance to change, but...

Didn't really like any of the differences. Old style had more functionality/information/etc. in a smaller pixel footprint. If I want the video to be big, I can fullscreen it. I like the older style Top New Videos, or Upcoming Videos list with ranks and votes easily visible in a small space. The old footer was big, but had stuff (links) that I actually used or referred to spread through it, and it was easily ignorable at the bottom of the page the rest of the time.


Overall experience is sorta like going from Office 2003 to Office 2010. I can tell that it is probably still capable of doing what I want it to, but I no longer have any idea how to make that happen, and I get the definite feeling that it has been designed for a "new market", which I read as "somebody other than me".

Probably one of those signs that I'm getting old.

...Sorry @lucky760, don't take any of that too seriously. Just my first reaction.

I see little upside and a huge potential downside. Im guessing it would be used for sifters trying to be clever/funny and not sure what else. I think it would also derail comment threads easily with large images that take up a shit ton of space. With embedding videos it's typically used to add info to the sifted video in some manner.

Maybe if you have to click on a hyperlink type thing to open the image. Keeping the footprint small in the comment thread.

This is what i assume it would typically be used for. Personally i think it works fine just the way it was done with a hyperlink.
http://videosift.com/video/Left-Shark-The-Real-MVP-of-Super-Bowl-XLIX#comment-1841651

The quote of mine you used was among my recommendations for global warming alarmists to walk their talk. However, I, myself, am not a global warming alarmist (though I somehow manage to maintain a much smaller carbon footprint than most -- possibly ALL --- of those that I know).

And, wouldn't ya know it, that heat that those alarmists claimed to be "hiding" in the oceans were wrong about that, just as they're wrong about most of the claims they base on political convenience, rather than climate science.

Like most of Sorkin's bloviating, this empty rhetoric is undermined by the incongruency of the climate change alarmists' own ballooning carbon footprints while attempting to use the government to impose force upon others' behavior. Until global warming alarmists themselves walk their talk (i.e., drive hybrids -- if they drive at all -- cease flying in airplanes, eat strictly vegetarian diets, have few if any children, and withdraw their consent from the worst polluter on the planet: the state), then no amount of freaking out, ranting, incentives, or attempts at policy will serve to avert the "impending catastrophe."

In China and India (where pollution is no doubt a significant problem), there are hundreds of millions of people who have far bigger concerns and more pressing problems than some remote notion of a "warming planet" or some looming "catastrophic collapse of civilization." (In fact, the same can be said for the majority of the population of the planet.)

And this is to say nothing of how ALL of the models used to support "evidence" for the case of a warming planet have ALL (not some, but ALL) been consistently undermined by serious skeptical science (PDF) while the claims of the political entity of the IPCC remain inconsistent with the data.

Since when do politicians get to decide the veracity of scientific fact?

EDIT: ALL of the climate-change alarmists' predictions, dating back to the 1980s, have all failed to come true. When this trend continues for the next few decades, there will be no shortage of "Told You So" moments that will undoubtedly be explained away by some unknown variable -- like the heat that is "hiding" in the ocean -- that, once "corrected for," will serve to further prop up this political ruse.

Yeah, but they are looking for funding, so someone is going to pony up. I watched the video. Most of what they show is a Hubsan FPV quad that you can get through places like Banggood it uses a spreadspectrum 5.4 system to broadcast the video and a 2.4 system for control, but it does not have any autonomous capabilities. Hubsan makes some of the best stuff out there and we work very closely with them. The wrist thing is cludgey, and while it conveys the idea (You can see the needed twist I was talking about), it wont get them anywhere near their presented final design. Wifi would be an option, but it would require a wifi hotspot be built into the quad. I know we aren't talking about components that require a bunch of power, but we are talking about small batteries, so every mV counts. Especially for something that is wearable.
Now the Hexo+ is very much like the Airdog. Both seem very viable and are using existing technologies. My only concern about either is what do they do about object avoidance and low battery response. In either situation you can wind up losing the vehicle or injuring someone. Most higher end quadcopters have the ability to Return To Home (RTH) which is great since the pilot is in a stationary position, but put a pilot on the move and things get weird. If you are out surfing and the quad gets a low battery warning due to either a battery failure or having been waiting for 30 minutes for you to catch a wave, where does it go? It could go back to the take-off position, but if you drifted from there then it will need to calculate that distance and make sure it can get back. Salt water and electronics don't play well together. If you take your quad with you for a ride on a skateboard down the boardwalk, how do you make sure it doesn't hit a light post or a tree while it is zipping after you? You could fly at a higher altitude, but the zoom lens on the camera may not be enough. Hexo+ has a video of the founder riding a skateboard while the quad films. Notice that he stops short of going into the wooded area. I wonder why?
There are issues, but at least in both cases I think they are starting from proven technologies and have footprints that are achievable.

What's coming inevitably will be as it's always been in the 'century-of-self ': The machine keeps peeps distracted by disinformation, issues to rally-behind, toys to play with and continual mind-fucking through Bernay's-style cradle-to-grave programming then....Suddenly, like three skyscrapers dropping into their footprints on International Shit-Box Tonight with Sham Cocksworth, yet another, 'create-the-crisis-provide-the-solution' scenario will further strengthen the resolve of the assholes who want ultimately to have the world to themselves and the bulk of humanity as dutiful robot-putty-slaves.

Technology, technique, fear, and an empty promise of safety and security (please, think of the children again, break to commercial) will shape the next worldwide crisis and urgency of action...and again, watch rights and individual responsibility deteriorate into a controlled chaos.

Fake alien invasion? Orchestrated and choreographed conflicts? Some scary flesh-eating disease? Most-likely the next planetary theatrical concoction will be some superfecta once again where fascism continues to reign supreme and the entire globe continues along the path of planetary lock-down.

Oh, and pusillanimous shit-heals with Cheeto-stained fingertips will between anime-clips and chicken-choking to porn, (who think they know how police fraternities work), will continue to pop-spit from the illusory comfort of their soiled computer chairs....

'Right...'Left' ?? Again, for the ChaosEngines of the world...a concocted and programmed, fucking illusion.

And don't be a hater man... I don't have any children (unlike all the other people contributing to "overpopulation," or whatever your idea is about people with children).
In any case, I spoke to most climate scientists. They disagree with your points.
And the only party I have is the one you are not invited to. But there's a good number of scientist invited though.
The 4% statistic is in the report that Obama cited.

Maybe what I say is asinine in your view, but who really cares what you think?

And what exactly are you doing to fix the problem? I don't know, but there's a good chance I have less of a carbon footprint than you do. Unless of course you walk to work, eat vegetarian, have no children, drive electric, etc. have solar panels at home. You know, the basics.
Take deep slow breaths.
Don't buy plastic.
Or smoke.
Grow my own fruit in the yard.
But let's not jump to conclusions. What do you do (besides attacking people's views online)?

He should have put cut-out footprints relative to where he was standing with pictures of his burns, DUDE!?

Oh, then you do believe in AGW? If not, what's the straw man?
If global warming were the reason I do the things I do, you would be correct, going vegetarian would be a reasonable next step. The thing is I've done all I have done for personal, self centered reasons that benefit me personally, it just so happens that they mostly also benefit the planet. Because I intentionally didn't have children and don't believe in reincarnation, I have little incentive to attempt to save the planet beyond my lifespan. That said, I eat little beef, which is the worst meat to eat, and mostly chicken, the best meat for ecology (except for Iguana tail, a truly sustainable meat product).
CO2 staying at current levels dooms the planet fairly quickly. Raising those levels dooms if faster and more completely. I see little chance that we might actually decrease CO2 production levels, much less turn it to a negative number, which needs to happen if there's any chance in hell of stopping the run-away greenhouse effect. I see it as an issue that's far too late to stop, and can only be minimized at best, and will likely be maximized instead.
It's more like 4 billion that need to reduce their 'footprint', and another 3-4 billion that need to not expand theirs. More to the point, it's about 5 billion that need to not reproduce, while the other 3 billion only have 2 children at most. Not a likely outcome, but what is needed to solve the most pressing issues of the day.
Government is required to incentivize industry to follow suit and reduce their emissions. Without coersion, they'll do what's cheaper every time, and not cleaning up your own mess is always cheaper.
The only 'climate scientists' that are skeptical are the deniers, all others have examined the data and come to the same conclusion, just differing in the levels of change they expect. From what I see, they all underestimate the changes to come and ignore compounding features of the systems.
I'm not sure why you don't see this as a serious conversation, but that's on you.
I have given a scientific commentary. you ignored it and asked the same questions again, claiming they had been ignored. I'll try again....

CO2 saturation and temperature are linked, and have been proven to be so. Human production of CO2 is larger and faster than any natural CO2 rise in known climate history, well over 200000 years and up to hundreds of millions of years depending on what data you consider reasonable and reliable, and it's not only the amount but the rate of change that is greater than any natural climate change ever seen in the data. It's that faster rate of change that's the most dangerous, but the amount that determines the change to come. The system is slow to react, and is only now reacting to last centuries atmospheric changes. That means that even if we stopped CO2 production completely today, the effects will still be felt for centuries to come, and we aren't even slowing the rate at which we raise the amount of CO2 we produce, it's going up faster by the day thanks to those that either deny the problem or ignore it in favor of profit or simplicity. That's why estimates of the future are all lacking in my eyes, they all assume either static or reduced CO2 production, which is not reality.
We're hosed. The only option I see is to become self sufficient and die before the planet does. One more reason to not have children and instead be self sufficient as much as possible and enjoy what's left while you can.

Oh fuck man, those are some of my favourite vices, but you forgot lust, you sexy dumbass.

The people aren't innocent. We have brought this on ourselves. At least I recognise that. Unlike your holier than thou stance, I recognise that I am a part of the problem, I recognise that there is a problem, and I recognise that the solution is going to be incredibly hard work either way.

Like @newtboy, I try to do my own small part, I grow some of my own food and I try to source what I can't as locally and sustainably as I can. I don't have kids, and I have plenty of trees on my property.

But I also like to snowboard and camp and lots of other things where I need a 4wd. I hate the fact that I drive it to work everyday, but it's really my only option (I don't have room for a second car, I live 15kms from work and there's no shower at my office, otherwise I'd bike.).

Despite your pathetic little insinuation to the contrary, I went to university, and I'm a highly paid professional. That means that as someone who's better off than most people in the first world country I live in, I am probably among the worst in the world in terms of resource consumption. Unless you're dirt poor and living in the third world, you are too.

I've travelled in Europe, Asia, Oceania and a small part of North America. The carbon footprint of that is massive, but I still want to see more of the world.

These are all my contributions to fucking up the environment. I recognise them, and I do what I can to mitigate them, but if I'm honest with myself, I know I'm having a net negative effect. The fact that it's less of a net negative effect than others in my socio-economic bracket is irrelevant.

But the fundamental difference between us is that I believe that if the problem can be solved (and at this stage, I'm dubious that it can) it will be solved by working together, not individually. If we are going to fix this, it will only be fixed by efficiencies of scale.

And the only way that we encourage clean industry is to level the playing field with regulation. Until there's no competitive advantage to polluting the environment (and it's always cheaper not to clean up after yourself), business will continue a race to the bottom.

But hey, you know what will fix this? Go downvote a bunch of completely unrelated videos because the nasty man was mean to you.

This seems like a straw man "attack" to me.

Anyway, you should stop eating meat right now. No more meat. It's a good follow up to not having children. If "global warming" is the reason you did not have children, then I must acknowledge your belief in man-made global warming and commitment to not contributing to it. But stop the meat eating. That also contributes greatly to greenhouse gases, second only to population.

And, yes, for CO2 alone, to stay a current levels (not to mention decrease the levels), humanity would have to cut down 60% to 80%. Not happening. To decrease levels it would need negative levels. Certainly not happening.

No, I'm not asking for a "physics class." Nothing will be resolved and no one convinced of anything through the comments section. This is simply mental masturbation.

Good luck getting 350,000,000 people reduce their carbon footprint by commenting about your opinions on videosift.

I'm glad you do your little part in slowing down the increase of greenhouse gases. Like you say, it won't do much, but at least you are doing something. But relying on the government? That won't do anything. Too bad, because I also would like clean air. It may take a few generations for people to get on with a more realistic program than "petitioning their congressmen." (So maybe not having children is not that great for the environment as clearly the current generations are not getting anywhere with this.) Do whatever you are going to do or not (just like everyone else). And good luck. Who cares other than you?

If you think you know how to stop greenhouse gases to levels you like, then go ahead and do it. Or tell someone who can do something about it. See if you can convince the climate scientists who are skeptical (not the deniers) about man-made global warming. If you have some solid research, you might make a difference!

@shatterdrose, I won't even go into the "politics" of all this. Everything that involves politicians, you can count as a failure already. But, hey, I wish you luck with that.

AT this point, it's clear to me that we're not having a serious conversation. Good luck to you in getting your "representatives" to do what you want them to do and stopping global warming.

Have a blast.

If you have your own research on climate change, or your own scientific commentary, I may be willing to take a look at it. Otherwise, everyone has an opinion and commenting won't change anyone's mind.

I grow my own plants, well, as many as I can in an apartment. I bike everywhere I can. I eat some meat, but it consists very little of my diet. I produce a grocery bag of trash a week and most of that is organic waste.

Oh, you mean I should stop living in a first world country and go back to the stone-age! I get it now. You mean, I should completely and utterly give up everything because it may cause some pollution? Very illogical of you. I believe that is another one of those fallacies people are chiding you for.

By acknowledging the climate change is man-made, we can make better strides to actually bring about meaningful changes. One person reducing their carbon footprint isn't going to make much of a difference, but 350,000,000 people will.

Or, if politicians like Marco Rubio, who I shutter to think belongs to my state, would stop denying climate change we could actually have a dialogue about actual changes we can make, not ad reductionist claims like some people here on the sift are making. (I.E., you.)

Um, as for the state getting out of the way . . . The reason we have any clean air is because of their standards. For instance, it took a government mandate to eliminate lead from gasoline. Lead, which is highly toxic and one of the leading causes of anti-social behavior in convicted felons of violent crimes. I'm sure the free-market would have solved that issue on it own, however, in a much shorter period of time. *Thinks about that for a while.*

So you want to move away from the AGW and just say the climate is changing?

Basic premise flaw: if we humans aren't creating it, then there's nothing we can do. I give you, case in point, climate change deniers. Such as our Marco Rubio. Humans aren't causing it, therefore, we shouldn't impose any regulations on oil and gas. (I believe they did something similar back in the leaded gasoline days. May what short memories we have.)

By the way, saying since California has environmentalists that having the worst air pollution thus makes environmentalism a mute point would be called Fallacy of Composition. Because, let's not forget basic math: California population is greater than oh, I think 49 other states and contains the counties largest ports (major source of air pollution), the majority of the countries cars, the majority of semi trucks and trains originate here, they house dozens of oil refineries and there's this little itty bitty nascent issue of these Rocky Mountain things people keep talking about. Or, this "valley" people make fun of. I hear it's right next to these mountains.

So, really, the logical argument would be, because of the increasingly dire air pollution in California, more and more people are become environmentally aware and are slowly changing their habits to reduce future smog, but without increasing government intervention, larger corporations will continue their practice so long as it returns a profit. So, as a result, the larger corporations are spending millions lobbying politicians who have been passing favorable laws much to the angst of the growing environmental movement.

And no, that doesn't require overthrowing the government and going to an all berries diet. Nor me writing a book about my efforts.

I feel like most if not all of these are rhetorical, and you don't really want answers to your queries, but I'll offer some anyway....
I'm not attacking you, but will attack your position that AGW is a fraud.
I have done the MOST impactful thing one can do to minimize one's footprint, I didn't have children. I also grow most of my own food (but I do still eat meat, mostly chickens), I have solar power and water, and I drive far less than 5K miles per year. All that said, I am still probably contributing to the CO2 rise when all the math is done, but far less than most first worlders, and not at all when I'm gone.
You can't really be asking for a physics class here in the comment section, can you? Put simply, CO2 reflects more heat back towards the earth, trapping it in our 'system', making it hotter. It's not the only gas that does this, but it seems to be the most prevalent. The models prove to be imperfect because most of them don't take everything into account, for instance global dimming is rarely included in the math. While CO2 fluctuates naturally, the amount and rate of change due to human production is faster and greater than seen in nature, exponentially so. That means there's no time to adapt to the new environment and greater rate of species failure than in a natural extinction event.
I'll just point out that these articles still try to claim that warmer temperatures will create better growing conditions for crops, a claim that has already been proven wrong, as the problems with extreme weather and drought far outweigh the minimal benefits. That's enough right there for me to discount them, as is the fact that they come from sites dedicated to 'denying'. I didn't need to read any farther.
I, for one, do read the data and interpret it myself...and I come to the conclusion that most climate scientists are minimizing the issues, not exaggerating them, and that 'deniers' consistently ignore any data that doesn't fit their pre-conceived self-serving result.
It seems odd to me that the same people that want to rely on the slippery slope argument when dealing with social issues can't understand how far we've gone down that slope with our climate and deny there's a slope at all, no matter what the evidence shows.

This is the paper that is being cited, and you'll note that if you read it, you'll see that the experts had no position as to whether "man-made global warming is occurring" or not. They don't know and so, as scientists, they don't make any claims one way or the other. Of the minority who thinks or claims that they "know," most said that it is occurring.

That is totally different from saying "97% of all climate experts agree" on whatever... But, y'know, reading may be too much work for most people. If you are truly concerned about "climate change," then reduce/eliminate your own carbon footprint. Become vegetarian, walk and take public transportation, reuse bags, bottles, and containers, etc.. If you are not concerned about it, then you might as well ignore the whole topic and let the meteorologists do what they do.