I'm not advocating he should have caved in to Depp in the slightest. There's a difference between taking a stand that's reasonable and acting like "a complete wanker".

The quarantine requirements make complete sense. Most voters accept the fact that some laws are annoying but necessary. But he's not helping by acting like he did. At least show you'd feel bad if you had to kill his dogs instead of saying the equivalent to the dogs should fuck off. I'd completely understand if Depp came in with illegal items that if destroyed didn't hurt anyone but Depp, so yeah, outrage and some good old fashioned dickish behavior at a hollywood star acting entitled would be pretty awesome. The problem is he's acting like this about killing innocent dogs.

The issue with his behavior isn't that he took a principled stand. It's that he acted like a complete douche, which makes people turn against doing the right thing when it's completely unnecessary.

Totally unnecessary....just put the spider outside ffs.

Funny, that felt like the most real aspect of the scene to me. I've obviously never been in a fight like this, but I've certainly felt like this during some of my martial arts gradings.

It doesn't take long to get very tired (especially against more than one opponent), but each time someone attacks, you summon up the energy for one more round until you put them down.... repeat (literally) ad nauseam.

That last drop at 2:28 seemed completely unnecessary though (dude's already on the ground, just walk up and kick him!)

As for the scene itself, it's very cool. My only question is that if it really is one take (and I'm not saying it isn't), it seems like an odd choice to have so many points (0:38, 1:38, 2:18) that feel like they're there for the express purpose of an invisible cut.

Calling people bigots when you have no clue only indicates the depth of your unfortunate, unnecessary and willful ignorance.

The law in Indiana is meant to keep gay people from suing those who refuse to participate in their ceremonies. The point of my comment, which you fail to comprehend, is that it also protects you from lunatics like those from the WBC.

But good job with that chaos-spreading.

This is all about saving things, but the think about the wasted amount of footage they removed between all this image-leaping-around!

Love the theme, but damn, I hate movies that bounce all around like this. Completely unnecessary and irritating.

They know to float and hold their breath due to a natural response, which you can emulate by blowing in their faces, to which they have the same reaction. They also flap their arms and legs in a swim-like motion so that a layman might think they know how to swim.

Actually they are not strong enough nor understanding of the concept to hold their head above water to breathe. Your advice is misleading and it could be dangerous if taken in the wrong way. Babies cannot swim and are at significantly higher risk of drowning than older/stronger (even non-swimmer) children, and they're naturally shaped and weighted to float face down.

Suggesting that we have an unnatural, unnecessary fear of babies drowning in the west sounds like jenny mccarthy new-age nonsense.. we have a rational fear of babies drowning because they are at risk of drowning for aforesaid reasons, which is aside from whether this video is safe for a baby or not... some people take their babies on bicycles and in cars in at least equally dangerous environments.

No offence intended, but drowning is a serious risk for small children, and what you say is a hazardous myth... babies will survive being submerged for a short period of time, and will not try to breathe when submerged. They cannot swim and will drown if not retrieved quickly.

i think some here are missing the point of this short video.
while we can all argue the particulars of religion,it's failings and its successes,the fundamental reasons for its existence remains.

the militant atheist will argue holy text with the very same literalism that a fundamentalist exhibits,all the while ignoring the massive contributions to humanity in the realms of:art,philosophy,politics and even science.

while this dynamic of the argument is not necessarily wrong,it is,however,inaccurate.one cannot ignore,nor dismiss the positive contributions of religions,which have been legion.this does not mean that religion is above reproach nor criticism,just that a militants argument is incomplete without acknowledging this vital facet of human history.

the problem gentlemen,is fundamentalism,of ANY flavor.
religion is not going anywhere,much to the chagrin of atheists,but the reasons why humanity gravitates towards religion,or a search for the divine and sacred,remain a very powerful influence.

religion must,and has over the centuries,evolve to incorporate the paradigms that are added daily.the religion that is rigid in its interpretations and implaccable in its philosophy...dies.human history is littered with the remains of lost religions that refused to evolve with humanity.

a good example is the dark ages.which was partially perpetrated by a rigid understanding of christian theology (and an abuse of power and authority)affecting millions.it halted human progress and imposed a suffering and misery that is still remembered to this day.then the church experienced a philisophical shift and the reformation was exacted,ending the dark ages and introducing the 'age of enlightenment"...and human progress was allowed to proceed.

interestingly enough,while this was all happening in europe and human misery was a direct result of religious rigidity,the muslims were carrying the torch for human progress.making such additions as algebra and other huge strides in the sciences.

how is that for irony?

fundamentalism,in any form,must be fought at every level.so on that note i tend to side with atheists who are on a constant vigil in revealing the utter hypocrisy of a fundamentalist theosophy,but i will not ignore the wonderful and fantastic contributions that religion has added to human history.

because the fundamental reason why humanity gravitates toward religion is still there and it is not going anywhere.so religion,like man,must evolve to encompass the new paradigm in order to express our humanity,inspiration and awe in the face of the divine.

i am not an overly religious man.
that form of theosophy is not my path,but i recognize the importance of religion and its positive contributions.the challenge is to allow the more archaic and atrophied theosophy to fall away and dissolve like a vestigal limb.keep the parts that inspire and exalt humanity and allow the unnecessary and irrelevant to die with dignity,to become a footnote in our history.

which is what i gathered this video was attempting to convey and why i found it interesting.

@shinyblurry
thanks for the link buddy,now i am depressed.

@bobknight33
please do not take offense when i say:your last comment is so riddled with contradictions,fallacies and outright ignorance in the understandings of -religious history,politics and philosophy that i cannot even begin to address a singular point.that comment is just one big mess.

i will say this in regards to your comment.
to assert that atheists have no moral compass due to their lack of faith and/or religion is just patently bullshit.unless of course,you secretly wish to murder,steal and bang your neighbors wife and the ONLY thing keeping you from acting out is your fear of god.
or hell..whatever..judgement.

do you see what a facile and inept argument that is? morality is inherent to each individual.we all develop our own moral code.now religion can help clarify that moral code,but if you take religion away? we still will all have a moral code we live by.

we also rationalize.
ah..now there is something we humans excel at..rationalizing.or better put:lying to ourselves in order to justify poor behavior.here is where the atheist and the religious diverge.because the atheist has no holy text to twist and manipulate in order to justify that poor behavior,they have to own it and take responsibility.the religious person,however,can abdicate responsibility onto an ancient text based solely on their own interpretation (or some authority they have given power).human history is burdened with the mass graves of such justifications.

ok..i am rambling.
i love this subject and rarely get to engage in discussions such as this.if you have made it this far..i thank you for your kind patience with my own proclivities towards verbosity.

You can seek the advise of more than one GP and compare.

By their very title, GPs don't even claim to be the end all of medical knowledge They are in place to ensure the specialists (who are already severely booked) are not swamped with unnecessary work for common treatments, like vaccination.

This also isn't an issue that may vary between doctors or one they can have lack of knowledge about (like your fathers issue). This is a long standing, historically proven treatment.

I know you're not against vaccination but my point is, there's no need to muddy the issue with unrelated treatments where you weren't diagnosed 100%.

I opted back in and did a "standard sift watching session" for me of a few videos.

This time I forced myself to actually look for things that I noticed weren't in the places that I was expecting.

Some more thoughts:

I tried to figure out where to see "who voted for this video", currently under the comment entry box. I can't find that information in beta UI. I must admit that the current location isn't particularly logical, but I know to look for it there and I can't find it at all in the beta.


The "sidebar" content changed from Sift of the Week / Comment of the Moment / Leaderboard List (of whatever section you are currently in; Top New Videos, Top Videos Expiring Soon, etc.) to Suggested Videos and Related Videos. I think the old sidebar content was more likely to be relevant to what I want.

I get that that stuff has been moved into the header menus, but in my opinion it is harder to access there:
For beta - mouse to Watch button/menu, hover, mouse to relevant section like Top New Videos, mouse to which one I want
Old - mouse to what I want in the sidebar, which is probably already visible but not taking up TOO much screen real estate, and if it isn't visible it is a quick mousewheel jump away

In the meantime, the new sidebar makes stuff that I personally don't care about at all BIGGER. I don't understand what/who suggests the "Suggested Videos" and by what criteria they are deemed to be of interest to me, and "Relevant Videos" are mostly relevant in a long-timescale sense (ie., stuff from a single video series, containing same/similar tags, etc.) where on the sift a big part of the appeal is to vote on what is hot NOW. But those two things take up more space than the old sidebar that was filled with stuff that I *did* care about; they are now big thumbnails with a title underneath plus lots of spacing between list items compared to small thumbnail with title *beside* and very minimal extra padding/spacing between list items. So, the new sidebar has stuff I don't want to see, and spaces it out so that I have to scroll the mousewheel a lot more to get through it (even though it has fewer total list items than before!).


A big part of my personal enjoyment and engagement with the sift is video comments. I'm not a big fan of the beta font for comments, but I think I could potentially get used to it. But more important than the font is that it seems like each comment gets less total screen real estate, and there is more padding/space between each comment AND the sidebar.

I'd like to see that spacing/pad cut down to more like the old style. Beyond that, I figure it is safe to assume that you're not interested in bringing the old sidebar content back (Sift of the Week / Comment of the Moment / Top X Videos) from its beta location in the menubar. Assuming that that will stay there, I'd *much* rather see comment boxes that take up the majority of the page width with NO sidebar. Old sidebar and old style comments would be my personal choice, but assuming that isn't going to happen, I just feel like the beta sidebar is unnecessary and massively oversized / overspaced.


So, I gave it another shot ... back to opting out for me for now.

In the mouseover menus, when I hover, the menu pops up AND a little description text pops up. This text seems unnecessary as the menu is already open and the contents can hopefully speak for themselves. If it is necessary, as it stands, it's annoying that it overlays the content of the menu, particularly the Discuss menu where the text, "Community Discussion" covers up the top comment line.

But isn't this rewriting it to remove what they're looking for? Personally I thought the story is very simple, with no unnecessary adornments and all the information to make the correct answer is given. If you spell it out too much then you're just showing that the kid can follow instructions, not testing how much they can figure out for themselves.

That there was a man named Jesus with a small 'religious' following (Koresh had more followers at his death) executed by Romans...probably not a myth.
That he was born from a virgin that god screwed while she was firmly engaged (Joseph shoulda been quicker getting a ring on it, I guess?), preformed 'miracles', died by choice, or 'for us' (rather than 'was murdered by the state for doing religion wrong'), waked on water (unless it was frozen, then I can too) healed sick, disabled, and blind (but never ever an amputee, what's up with that, Jebus?), was an articulate friendly vegetarian zombie in his later days, and all the other magic stuff attributed to him....that's all the myth part...and is totally unnecessary to impart the good lessons he tried to teach, like inclusion, acceptance,tolerance of, and love for even those who looked or thought differently...or the golden rule...treat others as you would have them treat you...but those are the lessons remembered the least by his fans (and he has very few actual followers).
I prefer Aesop.

How am I taking this argument too far? History has shown that taking nude pics of yourself and sending them to others is risky. How many leaks have there been that have caused humiliation or worse yet, ruined careers? Plenty. Comparisons to online banking, leaving your house, talking to people, etc, are ludicrous because those are things you need to do to function in modern society. You absolutely do not need to take or send nude pictures of yourself. It's a completely unnecessary risk that has bitten many people in the ass. Do you have the right to do it? Of course, but that doesn't make it a smart thing to do.

We're part of the problem because we believe that people should take precautions and avoid unnecessary risks? Make no mistake, it's awful that someone stole her pictures and distributed them on the web. She's definitely the victim here. Nobody is arguing otherwise. However, making angry videos chastising the people who perpetrated these crimes is a waste of time. They knew exactly what they were doing and most certainly don't feel any remorse. Explaining the psychological impact of leaked nude pictures isn't going to convert those people into saints.

There are a lot of assholes in the world who don't care about your feelings or your rights. You should take that into account with every choice you make, such as taking nude pictures of yourself and sharing them with others on the internet. People take precautions all the time. You lock your doors, you look both ways before crossing the street, you don't carry too much cash at any given time, you stay out of dark alleys, you wear warm clothing in cold weather, you cover the seats of public toilets before using them, you wash your hands after using toilets, you get flu shots, etc. Using the internet should be treated no differently. Teaching people that sobering fact is going to be way more productive than trying to turn assholes into good people.

Many of us took the money in the spirit intended, and went shopping

Since consumer sentiment and the economy picked up right on cue, analysts from the likes of the IPA came out and said it was "wasteful", "unnecessary", and "didn't work". My feeling is that if the treasurer had been red instead of blue they would have hailed him as a genius!

Ross Gittins (economics writer for the left leaning SMH and The Age) argues against their point here - http://www.rossgittins.com/2014/10/re-writing-re-write-of-gfc-fiscal.html

The background to the stimulus is explained here - http://www.thegoodfightonline.com.au/behind-the-gfc-1/