Not the wording: the definition. Exploit does not mean hate, and at no point was I defending misogyny or abuse or hatred of anyone. But this odd definition of exploitation of women being re-labeled as 'hatred' has always struck me as an awkward manipulation of reality. To me, it's akin to redefining being punched in the face as 'rape'. Both things are terrible, but repurposing a worse word to apply to a lesser one is over-exaggerating the situation only to draw attention to the crime.

As for exploiting people, that's just getting into a Freudian psycho-analysis, the nuances of which could honestly make everyone guilty of exploitation just by human nature. But we should bypass that because the subject isn't applicable and is wide and deep enough to spawn a hundred websites just dedicated to just that topic alone, and no one in this tier of human evolution will ever find a conclusion to that conversation.

But this is something different. This is an intentional action to belittle others for the sake of social or personal insecurity. I am entirely against that, but I have to draw the line at blowing things out of proportion for the sake of drawing attention to the issue, especially when it's done on a culturally-wide level, because that makes all of us collectively dumber in the end. I demand progress through honesty.

Very neat idea!

If you replaced the magnets with a non-magnetic material conductively glued onto the magnet, it would still work. From wikipedia on 'electromechanical solenoid',

Electromechanical solenoids consist of an electromagnetically inductive coil, wound around a movable steel or iron slug (termed the armature). The coil is shaped such that the armature can be moved in and out of the center, altering the coil's inductance and thereby becoming an electromagnet. The armature is used to provide a mechanical force to some mechanism (such as controlling a pneumatic valve). Although typically weak over anything but very short distances, solenoids may be controlled directly by a controller circuit, and thus have very quick reaction times.
The force applied to the armature is proportional to the change in inductance of the coil with respect to the change in position of the armature, and the current flowing through the coil (see Faraday's law of induction). The force applied to the armature will always move the armature in a direction that increases the coil's inductance.

No disrespect intended towards your cousin, but Darwin espoused a different view about transitional fossils:

"But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record."

Charles Darwin, Origin of the Species

Darwin didn't believe all fossils were transitional in the sense I am referring to. He believed that there would be specific fossils showing the links between families, but he thought the reason they couldn't be found was because of the relatively few amount of fossils we had back then. Today hundreds of millions to perhaps billions of fossils have been found, but those pesky transitional forms are still nowhere to be seen.

@Taint, The skeptics don't "deny" that the climate changes. They are skeptical of the reasons why it changes, the claims of consistent warming, and the claims about the catastrophic effect of whatever is caused by human activity. Also, I don't think I need to go into the debunking of that 97% claim (science is not a function of votes or consensus, but of evidence). In any event, most of the "debate" about this topic is a waste of time considering the "believers" are mostly not climate scientists and that no one is actually doing very much about it in their own lives.

So, straw man opinions about so-called "deniers" is a pathetic attempt to substitute character "analysis" for actual scientific evidence of man-made global warming of catastrophic proportions. Evidence of which has yet to be provided.

So the real reason many people don't "believe" has to do with not being presented with actual evidence and instead being given false claims (97%) about "consensus" (which is irrelevant to science), and claims of "settled" science (also meaningless in real science), postulated mostly by writers, politicians, and activists with no scientific credentials.

No one really argues with the idea that the climate changes. But, rather, what caused the change, to what degree, and what the effects will be... Well, let's just say for now that all (not a few but all) climate models have been proven wrong.
So no, there are no climate change "deniers," but plenty of people, and many scientists, who don't believe certain claims about specific aspects, even when believers keep repeating the "consensus" canard.

I honestly don't think believers actually believe their own claims of impending greenhouse gas climate catastrophe. If they did, they would all drive hybrids and go vegetarian. Also, most "green" tech companies wouldn't fail (like most of them do). Why do the climate change believers drive their SUVs and fly to their holiday vacation without regard to the impending climate doom? They are polluting the air, are they not? By their own theories, they also warm up the climate.

Contrary to consensus claims, nearly every aspect of climate change is being debated by the scientific community. Can you name a specific aspect of it that is not under debate (without going into some general "climate change" "consensus" canard)? Such claims are too broad to mean anything of any relevance. What specific aspect? What about it?

Oh lawd... I'm sorry to add another unrelated comment to this video, but this is pretentiousness taken to extremes! I think you mean beyond you. Defeat conceded, good argument @enoch.

On the matter of trolls - there really isn't a troll problem here. You tell me a website with the same number of members and traffic of here that is as civil and well presented as this. We don't even have a massive amount of bad language.. As Sir Meatius of Loafendale said in 1754, on the subject of light and optics, "Objects perceived in the rearward looking reflecting devices may appear to have their sizes increased proportional to their actual location." (Chiroptera Ex Infernus) What he was trying to say is if you've been bugged by someone unfairly recently, it's a big problem to you.

Also, although i saw a lot about siftquisitions, i never really understood them, or had them presented to me in the way of "Hey, come help us decide how the sift will be," kind of thing. So i always avoided it and I may even have been young and annoying 5 years ago, and avoided it to keep my cover. But i'd love to be involved in things like that now, i am part of the community but it's more because i like talking to people. Some of the people i know over the years have given me videos to sift so that i'd keep minimum necessary status, and i got my avatar given to me by someone who made me feel very welcome for my comment contributions. I think any chance for the community to help itself is a good thing, it might get noticed if it's presented that way. And as someone else said, we have changed a lot in 5 years, and i don't just mean the sexy UI. Tell me if there's a poll!

Hmmm. Wasn't Maher one of the people piling on John McCain in 2008, when *he* was 72?

To be fair, that was mostly because McCain chose Sarah Palin as his running mate, which would have put her 1 step away from the White House if anything happened to him. But still, a big deal was made of his age at the time ... so you can't exactly claim that this is some new wave of ageism.

I'd personally be fine with a 72+ year old president... But on the other hand, the parties are going to swing for whoever they think is the most electable, and since a disturbing proportion of people just vote for whoever they think looks the best, they kinda have to pander to that demographic a bit. And that's going to put some pressure on the "old and wise" in favor of the "young and good looking", whether we agree with it or not.

Ugh, so wrong. The gravitational force between two objects is proportional to the product of both masses. So a more massive object will indeed fall faster than a lighter object.

We can't really see it with a bowling ball and a feather, but we really shouldn't be teaching that all objects fall at the same speed.

If the 'overage' of A's 67 votes is 33, D would not inherit all 33.
D had 1 2nd place out of 67. So he inherits proportionally.
D would get 33 * (1/67) = less than 1 vote.
33 * (66/67) would simply be non transferable, because they have no other place option.

Personally, I prefer a system where each candidate is individually rated from -100% to +100%.
So a ballot with 3 people, would let you write down 3 numbers. 1 per candidate.
- Each candidate's final result if the average of his rating.
- Final ratings are sorted by highest average, top N rated candidates are elected to N positions.
- All candidates are required to have an above 0 rating to be electable.
Meaning that there can be a vote of no confidence and no one is elected. (Aww, I guess we'd have to keep the laws we have until the next election cycle. No one elected to write more laws. Too bad )

-scheherazade

There's no assumption going on, the electorate decide who their second choice is.

To make things easy, let's imagine an electorate of 100 voters, with 3 representatives and a 33% threshold.
So let's say 60 people give White Tiger their no.1 and among those people, their second vote is spilt 40 to Orange Tiger and 20 to Silverback.

So White Tiger has 27 surplus votes. Those surplus votes are divided by proportion to Orange Tiger and Silverback.

So in this case Orange Tiger gets 66% of the surplus vote and Silverback 33% giving them 18 and 9 votes respectively.

Mixed-Member Proportional Representation Explained has been added as a related post - related requested by RFlagg on that post.

Mixed-Member Proportional Representation Explained has been added as a related post - related requested by RFlagg on that post.

Mixed-Member Proportional Representation Explained has been added as a related post - related requested by RFlagg on that post.

So most of the series is Sifted...

*related=http://videosift.com/video/The-Problems-with-First-Past-the-Post-Voting-Explained

*related=http://videosift.com/video/The-Alternative-Vote-Explained

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Gerrymandering-Explained

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Mixed-Member-Proportional-Representation-Explained

The Problems with First Past the Post Voting Explained has been added as a related post - related requested by RFlagg.

The Alternative Vote Explained has been added as a related post - related requested by RFlagg.

Gerrymandering Explained has been added as a related post - related requested by RFlagg.

Mixed-Member Proportional Representation Explained has been added as a related post - related requested by RFlagg.

@lucky760
did you just comment on your own comment congratulating yourself on what a great job you did?

dude..that is dork of such epic proportions...i salute you my friend!
you are 9 kinds of awesome!