Your video, News Reporter Freakout!, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

...but seriously folks, if anything deserves a Nermar-level freakout.

DAYYYYMN!

*related=https://videosift.com/video/Bill-OReilly-Freakout-Dubstep-Remix

Bill O'Reilly Freakout Dubstep Remix has been added as a related post - related requested by Fantomas.

Your video, Curb Your Freakout, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Don't want to be that guy espousing "it's Photoshopped" - but, I never trust these video game freakouts. Many of the most popular ones were staged... remember that kid that shoved a shoe up his butt due to WoW, then people remixed and autotuned the shit out of it? Leeroy Jenkins? All that shit was staged for views. Though, I still like re-watching that Leeroy Jenkins bit, that's a classic, regardless!

Isn't that the kid who tried to shove a remote up his ass?


edit: ya, this one. http://videosift.com/video/Best-WoW-Freakout-Ever

Hottest year on record except, of course, for all those places covered in snow. I wonder if the heat stopped hiding in the ocean: "It's virtually certain that California will have its warmest year on record, even if California has record cold in December." It's the warmest year even if it's simultaneously the coldest December (or winter) on record. That's what I call "useful" data. Maybe the heat only hides during certain months, and then comes out and then hides out again, like for the Holidays or something.

I gotta sympathize with the global warming folks who latch onto any data point they can use to promulgate the freakout... anything that justifies their existence (until they inevitably run out of improbable causes).

Id like to see what happened before the freakout

My doctorate is in psychology -- a social science, which includes coursework in epistemology. I am also the executive director of a peer reviewed psychology Journal which incorporates quantitative, qualitative, and mixed method methodologies.

If science was driven purely by consensus, than the upending of long-held scientific understanding (as achieved by the likes of Galileo, or Darwin, or Einstein -- who, incidentally, upended some theories about how something as "self-evident" as gravity works -- in more notable ways and by lesser known scientists in still significant ways) would never come about. Science is not practiced by "votes," whereby the majority determines what theories are most accurate. Rather, evidence (whether it be rationally deduced, rationally induced, empirically demonstrated, or hermeneutically interpreted) serves as the basis for scientific progress, whether the majority of scientists agree with it or not.

(Climate change, itself, is rationally deduced, since empirical models of the earth are so difficult if not impossible to design, let alone run controlled trials.)

You are actually going a long way to make my point that those who are "believers" in climate change are missing the value and indeed necessity for ongoing skepticism in the scientific literature (rather than the name-calling and vilification that constitutes much of the "OMG! Climate Change!" discourse of late). That point, along with illuminating some of the citations I linked to above, is the purpose of my comment -- and not to argue (or name-call or "debate" as many on the sift waste their time doing).

I do concur that the manner in which I posted the links may not have been "fair," and so I apologize for that, but the content of the links themselves raise significant questions as to the unilateral "belief" in "OMG! [andropogenic] Climate Change!" I encourage anyone who is seriously interested in the scientific basis for skepticism around such a belief, to consider reviewing the literature cited in those links before arriving at an incontrovertible conclusion.

But in light of your request for a single link, I recommend you visit the NPCC's website and perhaps attend, specifically, to their literature about temperature changes (PDF), which I believe serve as valid refutations of the literature upon which the climate change "believers" tend to base their adrenal-freakouts.

Seems like another non-issue. In other words, people who stream video should pay for it, and not the people who don't. Right now, people who don't are subsidizing some of the costs for those who do. I don't really get the "problem," but I haven't put a lot of time looking into it.

In other words, what's the issue with NN? That they won't let you access porn sites or whatever? I think freeing it up for ISP competition would take care of access and cost issues. Like if Verizon was to introduce "static" onto your calls, then AT&T would take a larger chunk from them by not doing so. In a free market, businesses have to compete for your business. In a free market, you cannot really introduce a false scarcity. Only if there is a cartel or monopoly can that happen (which, in this case -- and in every case -- is ultimately the government).

In a competitive environment, no sane provider would want a reputation as a bad provider who intentionally messes with their own quality of service. That makes no sense. The restriction of ISP competition seems to be more of a problem and it is for this reason that the whole NN issue strikes me as another unnecessary freakout.

Also, I just want to bring up another blight dooming this site. Not every sift that has a person with a canadian accent belongs in the canada channel. Not every sift that has a woman in it is femme (even if she's hot, sorry). I could go on all day about channel assignments. Asia? Nope. Sorry, just because there's an asian person doesn't mean it goes there. Celtic? Same thing. British? You guessed it. There's thousands of mis-channeled sifts like this. Where's the freakout? There is way more fuckup imo on channels and tags than there is on invoking (or not invoking) related.

I like the freakout at 20 seconds in.

I under your sentiment but I think he is raising a worthwhile issue. I'm honestly not a fan of behavioral tracking for many reasons and what I've seen out there for browsing anonymously is pretty crappy. I really don't want Facebook or Google knowing what I am up to. But yes, turning it around and tracking your trackers is somewhat interesting, maybe terrifying to some but rather pointless.

I'm really not interested in searches being 'catered' to me or 'recommendations'. No computer could possibly understand what I am into - it's an annoyance that I want to get rid of.

>> ^ForgedReality:

OMGOGMGOMGMOGMGGOGMOMG FREAKOUT!!! Let's fearmonger without cause. sigh
Honestly, I don't see how this is as high up the sift as it is. There is absolutely nothing of substance here. This guy probably works for the company that makes that addon and is just trying to get more traffic through paranoia.

OMGOGMGOMGMOGMGGOGMOMG FREAKOUT!!! Let's fearmonger without cause. *sigh*

Honestly, I don't see how this is as high up the sift as it is. There is absolutely nothing of substance here. This guy probably works for the company that makes that addon and is just trying to get more traffic through paranoia.