Yes! 😄

I only ever listen to my "liked" songs on Spotify, and only sometimes accidentally hear new songs in roundabout ways (like this one I heard because of Charming Jo's cover) or if I go exploring in Spotify intentionally looking for new stuff.

Not that i really think anyone is all that surprised Bob, but you really do look at this stuff like a child does.

You see what you want to see, so much so that no matter what evidence is presented you'll never deviate from your narrative. The idea that you can't grasp how heavily those videos are edited is really just the latest example.

On a side note... kind of sad that a man like Trump could absolutely be crushing the other republicans isn't it?... What do you think that says about your party? (Seriously asking)

I just wrote the following in a PM, as part of a much longer message. Thought it belonged here:

But if more energy was spent by you guys who say "I've never seen this, I don't know what you are talking about, prove it, say it differently, convince me" ... well, if instead you just said -- Huh. How about that. Look how this stuff is affecting these women. Why IS it that the men they encounter feel it is okay to intrude on their lives this way, when they are just walking down the street? Where do these guys get the idea that this is okay? Why do they get offended when the women don't respond? What WOULD it feel like if it were me, 4-5-9 times a day being told -- smile, nice ass, hey pretty lady, when all I am trying to do is go buy a pint of milk for my morning coffee? Yeah, I don't do that, you could say. These guys are clearly out of line. But how am I like that, in smaller ways, you could ask?

Maybe when you don't listen and insist that this video has to be softened into being palatable to you. Maybe that is how you are like those other guys.

These women are straight forward and very very clear. And yet you say they aren't. Why is that?

Its perfect they have all been stashed away pretty much since i bought them back then.
I also have crazy amounts of old baseball cards and old video games(new unopened games) from when i was a game dealer. I just never have looked into how much the stuff is worth. It actually gives me anxiety now that i know. I guess one day i may look into the stuff. Probably when i need the money.

Maybe that young man is depressed? Stops going to church, going outside, withdraws from society, and wants nothing more than to blatantly masturbate in front of his peers. The solution is what, to talk about his porn? Is this not more likely a symptom of a bigger problem perhaps?

Anyway, I had this playing in the background looking at other stuff, and my selective hearing told me the soldier he needed to get out was his sperm, and he was in a desperate struggle to release them from their confinement. Talk to your bishop to help relieve this bitter struggle from your pants. I thought maybe they were talking about a new masturbatory video game. Help your friend get off today! Stop watching porn, and participate! Coming to your jock today, multiplayer action in your pants!
/sarcasm

Can you provide some URLs?
(Google is not great at looking for old stuff)

I always like seeing pics & diagrams of old-but-innovative tech.

No - you can clearly see that the plane of sharpness and the depth of field give the illusion away (and confirm that the video is not fake) - especially for the baseball at 0:50-1:00 - it is clear that this is an image and not a 3D object. Just like you clearly can see if the glasses are real or not in the final shot.
Quite obvious that the shots with the changing focus aren't faked, especially if you're used to low DoF photography with fast lenses. The plane of sharpness do not follow the 3D shapes when focusing back and forth - the plane follows the still image on the table.

And of course they adjusted the exposure during the shot! They go back and forth from large apertures to small apertures - they had to change the shutter time and/or ISO.

You can also tell that the deepest shadows on the images never get quite dark enough - look at the shadow underneath the globe in the opening shot, versus the deeper blacks on the typewriter and sunglasses. This is easily seen in all the shots, if you know what to look for.
And, stuff like the edges of the papers under the glasses in the final shot - real objects do not have chromatic aberration with a red tint towards the corner of the image and a blue tint towards the centre of the image.

Nope - real.
Of course it isn't one take, but they did not use editing trickery - they do not swap out 3D objects for 2D ones or vice versa.

Considering the freaking shit my wife gives me if I have a hang nail while rubbing her back, I'd kinda believe that inserting a 1.5 inch long false nail in to a twat (or another hole...) might not exactly be what most real women want.

That being said, if you want real lesbian porn, go looking for amateur stuff (and not that fake "Straight girl seduced by lesbian" crap either). There are plenty of voluntary amateur porn 'stars' out there with their own sites which allow them to make money being an exhibitionist.

You aren't missing much. He's sort of like the Postal Service went all Kinkadian religi-o-cheesey. >> ^mintbbb:

I need to look up more stuff from this guy!
promote
quality

I need to look up more stuff from this guy!
*promote
*quality

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

You make some good points. I've thought about it quite a bit too. The first thing we should stipulate is that *a lot* of Google searches are about sex. The other point is that most of the time when people do search for sexy stuff on Google - they don't realise that Google Safe Search is enabled by default.

VideoSift doesn't have adult content so it falls in the realm of the Safe Search "Safe" sites. What people are really looking for are the search results that come up when Safe Search is disabled. The set of pages returned with sexual keywords that are "safe" is a much smaller set, so we rise to the top of the list. That's whay I think is going on.

>> ^Sagemind:

Hmm, I'm shocked that those are the top search words that bring people here.
BUT I want to know why. What is it about our search results in Google that makes us the destination for those searches?
People search for all kinds of crap, and I know šë× is one of them. But there must be something in the site that makes us a target for those search results.
I think some search strategies are needed here. Of all the videos people search for, I know those are not the only video searches. So why are those specific ones, the ones that result in VideoSift? Has anyone looked into this? Seven of the top 10 search words were rape related. No one is looking for other stuff? That seems strange to me.
Rape and Hunger Games. Really?
Something is broken - look closer at Google, don't blame the audience. Why are those searches not being led to sites that include that sort of content (does that exist?) - why are they being routed here?
The Google search is broken if it's sending those requests here to this site - that doesn't have that content.
>> ^dag:
Top 10 Google search terms that lead people to VideoSift. Here we go, for the past 30 days in descending order of popularity:
rape videos
rape video
hunger games trailer
rape scene
rape
irreversible
irreversible rape scene
rape scenes
inside vagina
There's our non-logged-in audience and it's kind of depressing. Google is 45% of our traffic. Fuck them.

Hmm, I'm shocked that those are the top search words that bring people here.
BUT I want to know why. What is it about our search results in Google that makes us the destination for those searches?
People search for all kinds of crap, and I know šë× is one of them. But there must be something in the site that makes us a target for those search results.

I think some search strategies are needed here. Of all the videos people search for, I know those are not the only video searches. So why are those specific ones, the ones that result in VideoSift? Has anyone looked into this? Seven of the top 10 search words were rape related. No one is looking for other stuff? That seems strange to me.

Rape and Hunger Games. Really?
Something is broken - look closer at Google, don't blame the audience. Why are those searches not being led to sites that include that sort of content (does that exist?) - why are they being routed here?

The Google search is broken if it's sending those requests here to this site - that doesn't have that content.

>> ^dag:

Top 10 Google search terms that lead people to VideoSift. Here we go, for the past 30 days in descending order of popularity:
rape videos
rape video
hunger games trailer
rape scene
rape
irreversible
irreversible rape scene
rape scenes
inside vagina
There's our non-logged-in audience and it's kind of depressing. Google is 45% of our traffic. Fuck them.

No clue, I just liked their name so went to look at their stuff and saw this. Just seemed out of character that's all, made me chuckle. The internet only ever matters in the moment, that's what I love about it
In reply to this comment by rottenseed:
Was I actually banned for it??? Hmmm...I don't even remember who it was or why everything was heated. Goes to show you how little the internet matters.
In reply to this comment by alien_concept:
In reply to this comment by rottenseed:
Sorry dude (or gal). I jumped the gun on the ban. We used to run a tighter ship around here but I guess eventually it just caused too much "free speech" drama. If you must know I banned you initially for you calling somebody a "dumb ass". That kind of direct insult is actually prohibited in our rules. However, because things get heated here, or because sometimes somebody is just being sarcastic, we've gotten a little lenient on that one.

So once again, I apologize. Maybe with more of a rapport I'll be able to recognize your intent. Keep on siftin'


Hahahahahahahaha, you banned someone for calling someone a dumbass, what the hell crawled up your butt that day

<edit> And as I was posting this in your profile I saw this in your Comedy I Know And Love playlist: http://videosift.com/video/Charles-Barkley-calls-himself-a-Dumbass It's a running theme and you are the common denominator. Love you!

I find myself unable to process the job advertisements in a way that actually translates into tasks you would actually be performing. I don't know how many times I've heard of people talking about they applied for a job that read like they wanted an entry level person, and come to find out they ended up hiring people who were 10 and 15 years above the experience level it sounded like they were asking for.

My dad just recently got a job, the position he applied for was road maintenance.....fixing pot holes basically and then in the winter plowing snow. They sent him an offer letter, no details of actual job activities. He needed a job and he had been looked over for stuff in other jobs for not repeating himself in each category, one applicant assessor told him he should put "Asphalt" in front of "Paver Operator" because they don't know if a paver is the same as an asphalt paver...and that he should have repeated that in every section that left room for entering your own info. So after dealing with that for over a year, he took this job....thinking he's finally got something that is at least in his ballpark and they have some sort of reasonable job description where the guy isn't performing the job duties of six people. After he went through his orientation and got the gear they required him to have for safety.....he was put on a weed eater. That's all he does all day is run a weed eater.....which was never mentioned in the job description he applied for. Never mentioned in the orientation, never mentioned in the offer packet......basically just never mentioned.

So......all I have to say to that is. Employers are their own worst enemy. You get people into jobs through networking or lieing, as the process that is in place is pure deception based on both fronts. If you answer questions honestly and try not to exaggerate or guess what they want, you look like you are unqualified by a large margin. So you get people who have drastically less experience and do things that are very dangerous because they don't know know any better....because they exaggerated/lied on their applications.

It's like when I read the resumes of my highest paid friends. I know they can't do what's on their resume, I even ask them if they can. And they pretty much preface anything by saying "I could learn how to do it.".....which to me, if it's a core job task you're looking at it's an unacceptable answer. Because you don't know if you could learn it to the level you would need for that job. And that's on top of the crazy list of skills they ask for when most of them are not even slightly used by their company.

Basically they need to figure out what they actually need/want so they can find a fair market price to ballpark on their job ads.

There's still a company in my area that advertisers for a specific job all year round, and has done so for 3 years. I find it impossible that they have not filled an entry level job position adequately in 3 years with 2 universities located in the same town and a even larger universities located just an hour away. I believe they want to marginalize their staff, so they can plug anyone in at any time for as close to minimum wage as they can manage....or they are using it as a tool to say "Look we've interviewed countless individuals and we have no filled that position."