>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^ant:
Why can't Google have an option to migrate to my YouTube account instead of downloading and reuploading?

Google Video had no practical time limit and was pretty lax on copyright enforcement. I think the answer here is that Google actually wants a lot of those videos to disappear, so they've got no incentive to make it easy to transfer them.


It's lame. Actually, one of my Simpsons clip (Ants in Space from Deep Space Homer) did get pulled though.

>> ^ant:
Why can't Google have an option to migrate to my YouTube account instead of downloading and reuploading?


Google Video had no practical time limit and was pretty lax on copyright enforcement. I think the answer here is that Google actually wants a lot of those videos to disappear, so they've got no incentive to make it easy to transfer them.

I just saw the e-mail for it:

"From: Google Video <noreply-googlevideo@google.com>
Date: Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 6:18 PM
Subject: Google Video Hosted Content To Be Removed After May 13
To: ...@Gmail.com

Dear Google Video User,

Later this month, hosted video content on Google Video will no longer be available for playback. Google Video stopped taking uploads in May 2009 and now we’re removing the remaining hosted content. We've always maintained that the strength of Google Video is its ability to let people search videos from across the web, regardless of where those videos are hosted. And this move will enable us to focus on developing these technologies further to the benefit of searchers worldwide.

On April 29, 2011, videos that have been uploaded to Google Video will no longer be available for playback. We’ve added a Download button to the video status page, so you can download any video content you want to save. If you don’t want to download your content, you don’t need to do anything. (The Download feature will be disabled after May 13, 2011.)

We encourage you to move to your content to YouTube if you haven’t done so already. YouTube offers many video hosting options including the ability to share your videos privately or in an unlisted manner. To learn more go here.

Here’s how to download your videos:

Go to the Video Status page.
To download a video to your computer, click the Download Video link located on the right side of each of your videos in the Actions column.

Once a video has been downloaded, “Already Downloaded” will appear next to the Download Video link.

If you have many videos on Google Video, you may need to use the paging controls located on the bottom right of the page to access them all.

Please note: This download option will be available through May 13, 2011.

Thank you for being a Google Video user.

Sincerely,

The Google Video Team

© 2011 Google | 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043

Google is a trademark of Google Inc. All other company and product names may be trademarks of the respective companies with which they are associated.

You have received this mandatory email service announcement to update you about important changes to Google Video and your Google Video account."


Why can't Google have an option to migrate to my YouTube account instead of downloading and reuploading?

>> ^blankfist:

Let's play MadLibs.
1._________ (adjective)
2._________ (plural noun)
Haha, way to go 1._________ 2._________!


1. Free market
2. Fuckwads

This was a story about the horrors of what happens when you migrate a core state function to a for-profit entity. Amazingly, people with a profit motive running the prisons didn't result in high-quality, effective justice!

I think it is likely that the Australian/Kiwi accents are closer to "British English" because of its (slightly) later divergence and the fact that there is significantly less influence from the United States and quite a bit more influence linguistically from England. Canadian English stems primarily from the language spoken by United Empire Loyalists who migrated to Canada after the American Revolution. Australian English, on the other hand, was based largely on the English spoken by British convicts, military personnel and settlers (a large proportion of which spoke with Cockney or Irish accents).

With a proportionally larger influx of people from British cities, particularly London and Southern England and, with Received Pronunciation being largely a formalized form of the London accent, it is understandable that Australian English has a closer connection to "British English".
>> ^FishBulb:

Skeeve, How do you explain the Australian and New Zealander accents?
It's interesting, as to dialect Australians say rubbish, bin, spanner, etc.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^petpeeved:
>> ^xxovercastxx:
and why are they being herded across this frigid water, exactly?


"It won't be long before Ella's deer will be grazing on the lichen they need to get them through the winter." -narrator.

Right, but, what happened to the food supply where they originated from? If it's just a seasonal thing, something tells me the deer would migrate on their own (or they'd have died out eons ago).


Not to be all bleeding heart on you, but, the whole don't interfere with nature or your ruining it thing is long dead. Humans have interfered with nature in so many destructive ways, I applaud someone who uses our intellect and resources to give a boost to vulnerable animal populations in their most treacherous hour.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

^I don't see we why shouldn't have both proper regulation and a more level judicial playing field.


^To a certain extent, I think flimsy regulations can lull public concern and investment for the issue. I know I don't routinely examine my MUD provided water, I just assume all is ok. When I had my own well, I had to keep tabs on it to make sure we didn't get radon bleeding in...which happens all the time in the mountains. When you regulate from the business side, the bucks are invested in a side of protection you don't examine, and can't examine. Consumers aren't expected to protect themselves, and therefore the tools for doing so are more costly and more cumbersome. It is just clunky. It would be like if cars didn't have speedometers and instead needed pace cars to set their speed relation too, it's just unnecessary. It would be better to equip people with the tools to protect themselves.

With that said, FRAKING seems like a really bad idea. Back in the day, we had tons of problems with natural gas migrations into our water wells. We had to dig a 800foot well just to find good water, which isn't cheap. You don't need to help that situation any, for sure. Though, it would seem to be a hard thing to prove that a specific action caused a gas contamination vs natural occurring one. I wonder if they are tracing the fluid contamination over the methane?

Edit: And I should note, now that we have a water softener, I pay more attention to my water content now that I have the tools too

'Evolution' is shorthand for 'Evolution by Natural Selection' in the context you're using it, with 'natural selection' being the mechanism that Darwin and Wallace realized could be driving the evolution that others had for so long struggled to explain.

When groups of people select what should be bred and crossbred and carried on for our benefit, its 'evolution by human selection'. Eventually human-driven selection can produce things like dogs which can no longer interbreed (but come from the same ancestors) and plants that don't even produce seeds (like bananas, which have to be planted by people).

'Natural Selection' is only different because it takes people out as the selectors of who breeds and who has offspring, and roughly says 'in nature, small variations between individuals play a role in determining which ones thrive and have offspring (or conversely don't thrive)... this natural selection slowly accumulates, and whole new species can develop (especially with migration to new areas where different adaptations give benefit)'.

>> ^Calcul8r:

Bananas and cauliflower don't demonstrate evolution. They demonstrate intelligent design. Had the mutations not been specifically selected by the growers they would have disappeared, overwhelmed by the overall gene pool of the species.

I have not heard so many condensed clichés in a while...

What a bunch of baloney.. no borders eh? Free movement of population sounds great on paper, but there seems to be a disparity in how well different populations manage their respective landscapes. Seems to me the migration would be pretty one sided.

This unidirectional movement of people causes considerable global societal problems. Namely, how can a handful of nations possible accommodate the gargantuan number of failed populations worldwide? And what is to be done once those ineptly populated lands have been vacated?

How, for instance, would the municipal government of Madrid react were it to discover that one fine Tuesday 2,000,000 Algerians had decided to set up camp. I wonder how well primary schools would be equipped to handle such an influx.

For argument's sake, say these Algerians are magically net benefit taxpayers and there were enough money to go around after the next population census to determine in which parts of the city they need to build more schools. How about if in the months subsequent to the census 3,000,000 Nigerians decide to make Madrid their home? Back to square one with a social machine completely unprepared to deal with artificial and anachronistic population surges.

As a side note, you understand why population surveys are taken right?

But the root of this problem is far more important: Do the landmasses we call Europe and North America endow its inhabitants with magical properties? Is the air we breathe and the soil we toil any different from elsewhere?

Obviously not. There's something we're doing right and they're doing wrong. The best we can do is share our knowledge with the world, not poach their populations.

Liberty and prosperity? Yes, for everyone. And every nation.

There's just so much blatant mind-numbing naïveté and grandiose sounding vacuum-filled ideas in this video I don't even know where to begin. I can't help but feel compassion (not pity) for the childish part of our minds this drivel appeals to.

The sad thing is most people feel like the man who made this clip. We deserve out fate.

It's time for Europeans and North-Americans to start thinking with logic once again. Using our bleeding hearts is a death wish.

>> ^petpeeved:

>> ^xxovercastxx:
and why are they being herded across this frigid water, exactly?


"It won't be long before Ella's deer will be grazing on the lichen they need to get them through the winter." -narrator.


Right, but, what happened to the food supply where they originated from? If it's just a seasonal thing, something tells me the deer would migrate on their own (or they'd have died out eons ago).

Where are the before and after pictures of boobies out of bras!

I loved the bit where the fat from the tits migrated straight down into the stomach. I wonder if when you buy the boob vibe on if stomach fat will be charmed into migrating back to give double Ds.

Ah..."Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish" -Euripides. It has been my personal experience that those who do not believe in evolution are not so much resistant to the idea as they are ignorant of it, as you said. You can explain to him that evolution is the product of math, and that's it. As one allele is favored in the environment, it increases in frequency. In fact, you could also explain that evolution may also occur through something as simple (and unarguable) as migration. If more individuals with blond hair enter a population, the population evolves because the frequency of the blond allele increases.

In regards to the age of the earth, you could discuss some geological facts that are in obvious support of an ancient earth:
1) Fossils (Previous types of organisms have existed. Extinction has occurred. We know the rate of extinction and the rate that speciation occurs - these all indicate an earth that is billions of years old)
2) Vestigial structures (Previous useful structures can lose their function through time - lots of it)
3) Modern Gemonics (The more closely related two organisms are the more similar their DNA is, the more genes they have in common and therefore the more morphologically similar they are. We know the rate of mutation, which means we know the rate of the formation of alleles in a population. For humans, the rate of mutation is about 0.0000001 mutations per base pair per generation (very slow - and this is for all mutations, not just for positive ones). The formation of new species usually takes millions of years due to this slow rate coupled with natural selection.
4) Biogeography (A single species separated by the movement of continents evolves at the same discussed rate. We know how fast continents move (theory of plate tectonics: 2 - 10 cm/year). We know many organisms were separated by continental drift (Many separate (but very similar-looking) species are found in currently separate geographical areas that were once together - primates in Africa / South America, for example or the flightless birds - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratite - for marsupials: http://biology.clc.uc.edu/Courses/bio303/contdrift.htm)

I hope this helps!

Marc

In reply to this comment by Psychologic:
Hey, you seem to know your way around science so I have a question for you (asking several people actually):

I have a friend who is fairly intelligent and open-minded, but is also a young-earth creationist. While there is quite a bit of evidence showing the planet to be much older than 7000 years, I'm trying to find something that is fairly obvious and can't be dismissed as easily as, say, radiometric dating.

Needless to say, he doesn't "believe" in evolution, but I think many of his positions are the product of misinformation. I wouldn't believe in what he thinks evolution is either, but for now I just want a clear way of showing a skeptic that the earth is much older than the christian bible seems to indicate.

Any insight?

Duckman, Duckman does whatever a duck can.
He can swim, he can fly, he can sleep with an open eye.
LOOKOUT!! There goes Duckman!!

Is he stealthy? Listen Gordon Gecko,
His ninja quacks don't even echo.
In the spring he migrates far,
In the fall, he shits on your car.

To him, life is just one big pleasure.
Should you notice a man with feathers,
You've found the Duckman!

Congrats you righteous Mallard!

>> ^Psychologic:

Indeed. I would much prefer more specific designations for particular ideas within evolution (micro, macro, etc). "Evolution" seems to have a different meaning for everyone so at times it's difficult to know if two sides of a conversation are discussing the same idea.


"There is nothing mysterious or purposeful about evolution...it just happens. It is an automatic consequence of cold, simple mathematics." -- Scott Freeman & Jon C. Herron, Evolutionary Analysis

Microevolution is the change in an allele's frequency over multiple generations. Macroevolution is commonly referred to as speciation, the formation of new species via microevolutionary methods along with the isolation of organisms (either geographically or otherwise) and their eventual genetic divergence due to this isolation.

>> ^bmacs27:

Now, the real problem here is that what we mean by "evolution" is a moving target. It's so broad it's meaningless. In many ways "Darwinian evolution" has been falsified hundreds of times, much like Newtonian mechanics. It was wrong in the details.

I just get worried about how far people push the assumption of natural selection (e.g. evolutionary psychology).


Evolution is a moving target in as so much as any scientific discipline is. I'm sure if we started arguing about the physiology of vision, there would come a point where theory is still changing and, if I may, evolving within the scientific community. As I'm sure you know, this is just how science works.

Darwin was wrong in the details, true. Up to his death, Darwin believed in gemmules (small particles that travel through the body and deposit their "characteristics" into the gentialia) but that does not make his ideas any less sound. Modern evolutionary theory has filled in the gaps of Darwinian evolutionary theory. The fact that we can even reference Darwin 150+ years later should be a testament to how radically brilliant his ideas were and it should not undermine them just because he lived in a time where nothing was known about genetics (save Mendel's small garden patch).

About your last point concerning natural selection, I agree in so far that natural selection is not the only cause of evolution. Since evolution is merely the change in allele frequency over time, this can also be caused by migration and genetic drift, two very powerful forces and often more powerful in shorter time spans than natural selection. Albeit these forces are not influenced by agents of selection such as the environment, competition, predation, or sexual selection, they are still effective at causing the evolution of populations.

This isn't a game review, this is a campaign review. Dammit Yahtzee, do you never play online? Bitch about the god-awful matchmaking, the shitty hit detection, the fucked-over sniping, and general fucktardedness of ragequitting hosts and failed migration.