I didn't enjoy this as much when I saw it. Stewart was in the right as he often is, but to enjoy it I felt I would just be serving catharsis, rather than media justice.

I did love the Ted Nugent bit, but ultimately this wasn't nearly as amazing as the Jim Cramer episode. That was something that every politician deserves to go through to this day; true, deserved defamation for hypocrisy and dishonesty.

Hannity just deserves to be ignored, because he's too small to be worth the trouble.

Too small of a sample to come to that conclusion. Back in Jesus times nobody died from gunshots.

Too small and far me. I slept through it!!

Under a glass desk?

“It was recently brought to our attention that the amount of beer that fits in our large (20-oz) cups also fits in our regular (16-oz) cups. The differentiation in the size of the two cups is too small. To correct that problem, we’re purchasing new cups for the large beers that will hold 24 ounces, instead of 20, for the remainder of this season." Eric Trapp, the president of the Idaho Steelheads and CenturyLink Arena wrote on the team's Facebook page.
http://www.idahostatesman.com/2014/03/10/3072815/centurylink-o-change-beer-cups.html

First of all how does the same amount of liquid fill a 16 oz cup and a 20 oz cup (although the 20 oz cup isn't filled to the rim as the 16 oz is, sure doesn't seem like a 4 oz difference). Even the new 24 oz cups will be a rip off. The equal value size to a four dollar 16 oz beer would be a seven dollar 28 oz cup. What a scam.

I don't recall the moment in Videosift history that you're referencing.

You could probably write a Videosift web crawler that determines the moment that cat videos and boobs became popular, but I think it will likely determine that they have always been popular.

10 votes to determine quality control is too small of a value, UNLESS downvoting were used less sparingly.

But no one really downvotes as a form gating, they mainly downvote as an extreme action towards something they strongly disagree with. For example, ant downvoting things that are verbally vulgar. Well, what if you and everyone who felt that cat videos and boobs were poor quality, what if you guys downvoted as a rule to maintain quality control?

If you guys did that, you'd see something closer to the utopia of quality you think somehow magically occurs. It would then follow that, if sifters followed this method for maintaining quality, the Sift would have higher standards for Top 15.

Unless that is already happening, and people of value (to be defined) actually believe this is a video that is worthy. Clearly, by the rules and inputs available, even you agree that this video is worthy. Otherwise there would be AT LEAST one downvote.

You complained but failed a call to action. Figured I'd help you better understand how democratic systems work, and how lack of appropriate participation degrades quality of that democratic system over time, as potential voters cease to vote as needed to maintain quality.

All markets are free at inception, and no markets are free in practice. Why do you think this is?

A few ways to suppress competition, off the top of my head?
Dominant corporation(s) or collusion thereof strongarms retailers into not carrying competitors products.

Dominant corporation(s) or collusion thereof pays off widget manufacturers to not provide widgets to competitors.

Dominant corporation(s) or collusion thereof simply buys and buries competitors, disruptive technologies, whatever.

Free market with patents (antithetical concepts?): Dominant corporation(s) or collusion thereof refuses to license patents to competitors.

Free market without patents (this has too many problems to enumerate, but just picking one): Espionage. R&D is squandered when a competitor steals your trade secrets/reverse engineers your products, sells it for a pittance.

Price dumping. Dominant corporation(s) or collusion thereof with large cash reserves simply prices upstarts out of the market.

This list is just off the cuff, is by no means exhaustive, ignores other things like:

1) "Natural" monopolies (utilities, roads, railways, etc.)
2) Restriction of information/prevention of rational, informed consumers
a) Side note: In a free market, this is the only place you can go to for environmental protection, avoidance of the tragedy of the commons.

Edit: Okay, I may have overstated my case. Very small-scale interpersonal markets can be free. That farmer's market that's too small to attract the big guys, that's pretty free. There's a scale at which it collapses, though.

I wouldn't say you're an ass...just uneducated. We (the human race) currently produce -far- more food than is needed to feed everyone on the planet. Resources diverted from growing food is utterly irrelevant. The problem is, and has always been, getting the food to those who need it. And the reasons it doesn't get to those people are almost always political and/or economic. IOW, someone didn't get their payoff, or someone diverts supplies to sell elsewhere for their own profit.

The land/oil used for producing and transporting spices is too small to have any effect on this.

Putting the knives through the paddles could be possible. And cool.

The pineapple one is fake for two reasons:
a) it's not possible to practice it safely -- the margin of error is too small for humans
b) the odds of hitting the pineapple exactly horizontal in both x- and z-planes are too long
c) I frame-by-framed it, and the perfect cut in the pineapple appears before the knife hits it
I'm guessing that knife was made of rubber, or was CGI'ed in later.

The ping-pong ball one might be possible, but in this case, I'm sure it was faked. I think she had the ball in her mouth the whole time and the ball was CGI'ed in later like in Forrest Gump and the Bruce Lee one. If it were real, her mouth would have been open wider and longer before the ball got there, and she would have been using a sharp intake of breath to increase the chances of catching it.

Great show though. Upvote!

Don't forget the even smaller minority that simply want reason, fairness, "truth", and honesty, damn the 'cost'... many in this group aren't looking for power and they rarely get it. Perhaps this group is too small to define society.

You missed another perfect example, police that can't understand that individuals might not be criminal, because they only deal with those they assume are criminal in some way.

The slingshot does "hit harder" i.e. impart more momentum into the target and thus more likely to knock you down.
Intuitively this seems like it would therefore cause the most damage and for several 100 years this was the prevailing logic with muskets and cannonballs.

So much so in fact that when Charles Whitworth first introduced his rifle it was dismissed by the British army partly for having too small of a bullet. Whitworth used a smaller more stable round for its increased range and accuracy/stability (though there were also concerns about "muzzle fouling" and slower reload time).
It was believed at the time that the larger (slower) much less accurate bullets from the Enfield were more effective at actually injuring enemy soldiers, but history later demonstrated that speed and penetration can have just as much (if not more) effect on soft bodies than sheer mass and momentum.

Simply put, that large slingshot round would likely knock you to the floor in the same was as an MMA fighter landing a roundhouse square in your guts would. It might even penetrate the skin a bit and embed itself in you. What it won't do however is travel through your soft tissues at high velocity and create a large "temporary cavity" which is how most firearms do their real damage.

The 9mm etc. don't carry as much overall energy as the slingshot, but they do deliver it to a soft target much more effectively (that is to say lethally). A much more informative test would have been to fire them into ballistic clay, this would have highlighted the differences between speed, momentum and penetration much more clearly. The slingshot would leave a massive dint, the bullets would leave tunnels.

That said, the point they are making does stand to some extent. If you used that slingshot on someone that was trying to shoot you there is a good chance you'd knock them down (or at least stop them taking an aimed shot back for a few seconds). Hell you might even hospitalise them with a good shot!

It's not fair to say that the slingshot is a more "powerful" weapon but I think they did clearly demonstrate that it's a viable alternative under some circumstances. In fact for defending yourself in your own home etc. it might even be better!

Little/no risk of collateral damage (unless you miss really badly)
Very cheap
Would put most people on the floor with one good hit
No firearms licence or background checks needed
More difficult for a child to misuse (Most kids would lack the strength)
Enemy wouldn't expect it
Much less likely to kill
etc. etc.

Hell I'd get one myself if UK law wouldn't fk me over for using it.
It's illegal here to use a weapon specifically intended or kept for defense. i.e. if you grab a random object like a chair and beat up an intruder that's ok, if you have a baseball bat etc. by your bedside for expressly this purpose then it's not.
Handy then that one of my broken computer chairs happens to contain a loose 1ft long iron bar. Naturally I'd never even consider using such a thing violently, but who knows what might come to hand when faced with an intruder

(Seriously though, as broken furniture its a viable means of defence, if I kept it by my bedside as a "weapon" I'd be breaking the letter of the law by using it. Fucking stupid!)

A bigger MAMMAL than expected. Wait... not a fish but a mammal... no, no -- a thing that's bigger than another thing which was expected but this was not... expected. A bigger flipper than -- no, no, flipper was a dolphin, but was a mammal. Definitely definitely too small. This was BIG.

Pyrolysis!

Nice Big Trouble reference too.

Hybrid's thumbnail idea is okay, but I'm with whoever said the thumbnails are way too small. And I wonder if a casual user of the site will understand that they need to click on them to see more.

The only thing I would do to improve the current system is to make the "next featured video" link be much much bigger. And maybe in a box of it's own to catch the eye.

I wonder if there are any stats on how often the "next featured" link gets used? Of course, there are way less promoted vids these days, so the stats might be misleading.