search results matching tag: template

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds

    Videos (58)     Sift Talk (7)     Blogs (5)     Comments (183)   

Republicans are suffering from Partisan Derangement Syndrome

luxintenebris says...

also, some things to think about...

- we have a naturalized Austrian that can directly compare WWII to today's elephant-in-the-room...https://tinyurl.com/2p8zsj9m

- one of the few Republican leaders that speak to the Russian people (not rooting Putin on)...https://videosift.com/video/A-message-to-the-Russian-people

- self-made (seriously made) millionaire*, that was a governor of a large state - enough to qualify as a nation by itself - who is the closest to the template of St. Reagan alive...and he has much disdain for the GOP.

makes the head reel. an Austrian leader speaking out against fascism. another of the 1937 reasons NOT to support the red.

*what bk33 avatar's wishes it represented

Social Credit: Almost There, a Warning to Every American! (2

bobknight33 says...

Trump does not really fit the RINO template.


Rino are Republicans who align themselves with democrats. McCain, Graham , Flake, Corker to name a few.

Trump is actually doing a great job, even though he could be neither Democrat nor Republican-- He dose not fit any mold.

newtboy said:

RHINOs....you mean like Trump? Even you would admit he's certainly not a Republican by any definition from pre 2016.

I hope those that stand with and for the constitution will keep those who stand on it at bay. Sadly, the last two years has shown that many charged with that responsibility either don't or won't.

Black Child Abducted and Assaulted by White Supremacists

lucky760 says...

Regardless of how channel templates might have changed (unintentionally or not), we've all been around for many years and know that the Kids channel is for kid-friendly content.

Actors of Sound - Trailer

ChaosEngine says...

Simply not true. Will you get some directors using cookie cutter sound templates? Of course... bad ones. Hell, Bay reuses entire shots in his movies (often in the same damn franchise).

But good filmmakers will hire good sound designers and they will create good sound with what they have available.

Computers are a tool, nothing more. Digital sound is no different to digital imagery... people say they hate it, but they only hate BAD examples of it.

Can foley survive? Short term, maybe; long term, unlikely.

Fundamentally, it'll come down to the same question as any other technique in any commercial artform... cost vs quality. If foley remains the best way to get a sound, you will find people willing to pay for it. As digital sound creation gets better and better, there WILL come a point where no-one can tell the difference.

If you don't believe me look at guitar amplifiers. For decades, guitarists have preferred old vacuum tubes (known as valves) to generate the sound they want in a guitar amp. Digital (commonly referred to as solid state) amps are cheaper and generally pretty crap.

But these days, even people who love valve amps (and I include myself in that) have to admit that it's almost impossible to tell the difference between a genuine valve amp and a good computer model of the same (side note for guitar techy people... I know modelling != solid state).

And that's not just in playback, it's in live performance too. A kemper or an AxeFX FEELS like a valve amp, and you can vary the settings like a valve amp.

I believe that foley will ultimately go the same way. People like Wes Anderson will continue to use it, but for most filmmakers on a budget, they'll go with the sound creation software.

newtboy said:

*promote
The art of foley outshines the science of sound editing. If this art dies, we'll be left with what has been digitized and little more. Every scream a Wilhelm, every roar a T-rex.
Computers can't paint with sound, they can barely print with sound files.
I certainly hope new directors understand that.

Bill Maher - Punching Nazis

dannym3141 says...

I think you've got the wrong end of the stick at some points, so let me just clear that up first:

"Woah, woah, woah! There's a pretty big difference between saying it's not ok to assault someone and expressing support for them."
-- I referred to the modern nazi who supports them, not you for thinking it is wrong to punch. You are not a nazi supporter because of your stance. A nazi of course supports hitler, etc.

So hopefully this clears up:
"The law has nothing to do with it. It is unethical to assault someone simply for stating their beliefs."
-- My point was that they are stating their support for genocide and harming other people. It's not just a belief, it's a desire to exterminate, alienate and persecute an ethnic group. They aren't shy about their template for society, they fly the swastika flag clearly and sieg heil and whatnot.

"Here we are, 70 years after the biggest armed conflict the world has ever seen.... and yet we still have Nazis."
-- This implies that you think being 'nicer to Hitler' (i.e. not solved it with violence) would have gotten rid of them yet you contradict this later on. Otherwise you must accept that violence was the most successful solution, and you are equivocating over semantics with this point. In as far as any ideology (which only really latches itself on generic human mindsets like xenophobia, and is therefore inalienable, a form of nazism will occur by some other name in any social group*) may be "defeated", it was defeated.

I accept that you think it is unethical to punch them. I'm not saying i want chaos in the streets where mobs go around tearing suspected nazis to bits; that's why i'm not asking for a law change and why i won't be opening with violence towards nazis. I'm just saying if a nazi happens to get punched, on balance, it's probably ok.

* - just expanding on this. It's a bit like trying to 'defeat' religion. If you stamped out any sign of all religions in the world, all the imagery and documents and let's say memories too. Before long, religions would form because the human brain is drawn to those ideologies; that's why so many diverse ones formed and still do. And as you originally said defeatable, if it isn't defeatable (because it's inalienable) then you're saying your own point is wrong.

TL;DR sorry for the wall of text, ignore me

ChaosEngine said:

Stuff

enoch (Member Profile)

radx says...

Rememer the talking point that 17 intelligence agencies pointed their fingers at Russia for having orchestrated the hacks during the election?

Even the NYT has finally buried that one:

The assessment was made by four intelligence agencies — the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency. The assessment was not approved by all 17 organizations in the American intelligence community.

Given how many talking heads have used this talking point, the damage has been done, and one small correction isn't going to undo it.

Edit: the AP as well.

Video World - The Death of a Video Store

shagen454 says...

You know, I hated going to the video store when I was a kid. I was always looking for the new "blockbuster", it was always out and then you had to make up your mind on what to get which took upwards of forty minutes.

But, if you have good stores and good tastes then you can't beat a good video store or record store or book store. A good store will challenge you to look at something new and inspire you by putting really good quality material in front of you, that you otherwise wouldn't have been interested in or known about.

That is what I fear is going on, right now with the internet and Tech goons taking everything over. It removes the history by creating a disposable past & disposable future. If it's not "trending" then delete it, if it's not up to par with the new branding "templates", then get rid of it.

So, yeah - point being, fuck corporate chains, fuck big tech & long live quality mom & pop & independently run shops. It's sad that we are losing this battle - and with Trump (who is a corporate hooligan shill for the 1% & an ideological nazi[congrats you fucking idiots]) in office, it's only going to get worse.

Fusionaut (Member Profile)

Badass 9 Year Old Completes Navy Seal Obstacle Course

Sagemind says...

Hi Folks - I feel the need to share my thoughts on this a bit more

"NOW THIS" videos are exclusively created to get clicks for this company.
Their sole business model is to post on social media and encourage people to share their content for marketing purposes. (Facebook and Twitter) so they can get viral hits.

They don't have tons of hits on their YouTube page because most of their hits are on Facebook with over 5,304,668 followers over the last two months
https://www.facebook.com/NowThisNews

And the main part to note here is they have "no original content" whatsoever.

They make their profit by stealing other people's video content and applying a template, and editing the crap out of things to crop it into a one minute video. They often cut out the sound, and ad the overlaying text as part of their template.

I'm a VERY STRONG believer of supporting the content providers.
"NOW THIS" doesn't create any of their own content. They steal it outright.
I'm really sensitive to theft from content providers, especially when the stolen content has only one purpose and that's to reserve it as their own content for the sole purpose of company profits.

As a member of the SIFT, I believe our job is to sift out the bad stuff and vote up the great videos. These guys don't create even mediocre videos. They grab any story they can and go for the emotional grab to catch people and get them to re-post. There is no quality to these videos of theirs.

Consent is actually easy to understand, yeah?

bareboards2 says...

@00Scud00
Glad to know you know about women being too nice. And then there is the old canard "boys will be boys." I've been saying for years that we need to learn from each other. Men need to work on empathy and women need to work on straightforwardness.

This video isn't meant to rehash the past, though. It is a template for good hearted and well meaning tea drinkers to go into the future thinking about things differently.

Not all tea drinkers are well meaning, of course.

But first we need to define consent. Boys learn to ask and girls learn to speak up clearly.

And then practice practice practice, yeah?

Regulation 44

ChildrenHomes says...

Visit this site [url redacted] for more information on Regulation 44. We have now released a revised and updated Children's Homes Regulations and Quality Standards friendly Regulation 44 Visit Template and a Visitors Compliance Pack which is available from our store. There is a clear expectation on regulation visitors to be up to date with their knowledge and how they impact a service may be commented on in the Inspection Report.Follow Us :[url redacted]

The Gun Debate: Too Much Emotion, Not Enough Data?

harlequinn says...

Is that a question or a statement (it's worded as a statement, but has a question mark at the end)?

Yes I already knew that. And...? It's no different than Australia in that particular respect. It's an aspect that I would fully expect Americans to rightfully not adopt.

Adding to above NZ allows semi-auto longarms and high capacity magazines for all firearms (basically what Australia has banned from owning), not all firearms need to be registered (unlike Australia), and they have longer licensing periods and yet they have a significantly lower firearms homicide rate and homicide rate overall. America using the NZ model as a template would be a better starting point. I wrote "template" in my previous post, perhaps "model" or "rough guide" would have been better. I don't mean copy it verbatim. I mean use it as a starting point as at least potentially workable.

Are you a citizen of NZ or Aus and are you a firearms owner in NZ or Aus?

ChaosEngine said:

You do know that in NZ you have to have a firearms licence? And that if you list self-defence as your reason for applying, you will be de used a licence?

The Gun Debate: Too Much Emotion, Not Enough Data?

harlequinn says...

He talks so much sense my head hurts.

In my home country (Australia) we have some pretty good statistics on firearms (and knives, and just about everything actually). Yet they are routinely ignored in favour of the simple solution - to blindly further restrict law abiding citizen's access to firearms. It makes the government look as though they are tackling firearm crime (which in Australia is almost never committed by a licensed firearm owner) even though it has no appreciable effect on firearm crime.

This is happening again right now. After the Lindt place siege last year they held a lot of enquiries. The one on firearms concluded that no further restrictions needed to be made (the gunman had an illegal firearm as those who commit firearm crime almost always do, in this case a pump action shotgun) and that licensing and registration should be made easier. The first thing the government did? Put an import ban on perfectly legal lever action shotguns with magazine capacities of more than 5 rounds, calling them a "dangerous new technology". Firearms owners are expecting (from a historical trend) further restrictions at the National Firearms Agreement review next year.

Once a right is given away it rarely comes back, no matter how badly you want it. So I hope America chooses its path carefully. If I moved there I'd want the right to own firearms and to use them to defend myself (the first of which in Australia has nonsense restrictions, and the second of which is almost totally illegal . Word has it that self defence in the home by firearms will shortly be made totally illegal and if your firearms are stolen you may be charged with crimes committed by those firearms).

If you want to look at what the data says you also have to extend it everywhere (my preferred scenario). And in regards to others aspects of people's lives, I think people won't like the numbers and so will simply ignore the numbers.

Or you get people in America saying "hey look Australia solved its firearms problems by restricting them" - using it as a quasi-statistic. Except:
1. We never had a big firearms problem to start with.
2. We had a linearly diminishing rate of firearms deaths starting well before the restrictions that didn't change with the restrictions.
3. The majority of studies looking at the topic say the restrictions didn't work.

Australia is very similar to New Zealand in every way (and really are hardly like the US), and NZ allow access to all almost all the firearms we banned and yet they have a lower homicide rate by firearm, and a lower homicide rate overall. Basically if America wants a model that arguably works as a template, look at NZ. But probably more important than that, I'd be fixing America's health system, mental health system, and poverty rates first. I bet an analysis will show many incredible flow on effects in American society as a result of doing that.

WTF Cops?! - Two Racist Texts and a Lie

heropsycho says...

I'm not thinking in binary. There's gray area.

There's no debate about the fact that virtually everyone is somewhat racist. This isn't a debate about that.

I'm saying making any joke that is related to race isn't racist every single time, just as avoiding saying anything that could be construed as racist doesn't mean you're absolved of being a racist.

A joke that is actually racist is expressing an idea or feeling of one race's superiority over another directly or indirectly through humor.

Ironically making racial statements that I absolutely don't believe is NOT racist because I'm not expressing racial superiority. I'm pointing out the idiocy of racism and poking fun at racists.

About the random black person overhearing my joking, yeah, they'd be offended. Thank you for making my point. They'd be offended precisely because they heard those words out of context.

If you saw a grown man say this to a little girl sternly:

"...go cry me a river..."

You might be inclined to think he was acting like a jerk to her. But what if you had heard....

"It's a figure of speech. If you ever for example hear someone say 'go cry me a river', they don't actually mean one person's tears can be that much water."

It's the SAME THING. That man did nothing wrong, but you heard him say 'go cry me a river' to a little girl without context, it may look bad, when it's not.

Just because someone may get offended by hearing something out of context, it is not automatically something wrong with what that person said.

Even the dreaded N-word... Are you telling me that it was wrong and racist for Mark Twain to use it in The Adventures of Huckleberry Fin?

The one thing I would agree with you is that you also have to be mindful of context before saying the joke. Those racial jokes I make? I'm not going to say those in situations where there's a high likelihood that those statements could be overheard and misinterpreted. If I wanted to tell those to a black person, I'd make REALLY sure they knew I didn't actually believe the racial statement.

And you know what? Usually, it turns out fine. I've played that Louis CK thing for a black friend of mine, but I laid down the context first that it's Patrice O'Neal, etc. And they laughed hysterically at it.

Richard Pryor is considered by most comics as being a pioneer in using comedy to shed light and provide insights into racial tensions, etc., and actually is credited by many people far beyond just comedians to have helped further the cause of fighting against racism.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5048430

His use of the N-word wasn't racist. The use of the word was communicating that he was not Bill Cosby, not that there was anything wrong with Cosby's comedy, but it was to signal that he was talking more about reality, including the rough edges especially about racial topics, and there wasn't anything wrong with that either.

The kill somebody thing. You ever seen someone say something like, "My roommate AGAIN left all the lights on! I'm gonna kill him!"? My point there is you shouldn't call the cops because you think he's homicidal.

A Summary Of Steam's Stupidest Move Yet!

newtboy says...

Yes, but who's the developer...developer of what? The game, or the mod? If that means the mod developer has the option, that's better.
I read it as 25-30% to Valve/Steam...the remaining 70-75% to be split between the game creator, and the mod creator, on a split to be determined by the game creator, usually giving the mod developer what amounts to 25-30% of the total. That seemed fair to me, since that means the work product is worth 75% of selling price, and the original creator did way more than 2/3 of that work...meaning the mod developer gets a great deal at 25%.
Auto repair is not analogous. Making a replica/kit car is closer, and I believe they do pay royalties...certainly replica car makers do. If the mod makers were fixing the game, that would be different, but they are not. Shelby and Ford had contracts where they shared profits, as do many other professional car modders.
It is a problem if someone takes a game, mods it, then sells the mod as if they created the entire thing...they did not. They used someone's work product to create something else. Without the original program, they would have nothing.
These companies are under no compulsion to allow mods, and if they believe charging for the privilege is a good business model, they have every right to try. I think it's a toss up. People expect them for free at this point, but developers have a right to demand payment for their product...and any new product based on their product.
Really, I have no idea what I'm talking about? I've played many a mod, and 'playable fan fiction' is an apt description to my eyes. (see Blood Dragon) It's taking a known series and skewing it in some way. What you end up with is BASED on the original, is created using the original as a 'template' (and in the case of games using the program itself), is using/riding the popularity of the original to be seen at all, and would not exist without the original. To me that's pretty damn close.
I think it's actually more analogous to plagiarism, which is actionable...or may be condoned and/or licensed....but it's up to the creator of the original to decide that.

NaMeCaF said:

What's the first paragraph of the description say?

"...making Workshop mods now have the *option* for the developer to lock them behind a paywall..."

I understood it to be 25% goes to the mod maker and the remaining 75% goes to valve and bethesda (splitting to 30% to valve and 70% to bethesda). But maybe its 30% to valve then 70% to mod maker and bethesda (splitting it into 25% to mod maker and 75% to bethesda)? Either way its stupid.

Do you think auto repair and service centers should pay the car companies a percentage of their profits when they paint your car or make modifications to it?

The fact is modding has been grand for the last 30+ years without anyone doing it for the money. Some have gone on to make full games based on their mods and sold them, and there's no problem with that, because the mod still remains free.

Game companies like Bethesda release mod tools because it is good business for them. It extends the life of their games, grows their community and brings in more people who buy their games FOR the mods. Just go and have a look on the Nexus to see how many mods there are for the Elder Scrolls and Fallout games.

Both Valve and Bethesda are now just in PR mode and trying to put out the fires. Do you think their sole intent was purely for the money to go to the mod makers like they say? Then why is the split so heavily in their favor and the mod makers are getting a pissy 25%. Its contradictory.

And if you think it's "playable fan-fiction" then you obviously have no idea what you're talking about



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon