I'll upvote because I think it's cool, but this looks like it could be faked easily. Now, I'm not doubting the authenticity of this video, but the sounds added to just gives it a veneer of "I made this in my basement with photoshop and stuff"

Tags for this video have been changed from 'jose gonzalez, veneer' to 'jose gonzalez, veneer, acoustic, guitar' - edited by calvados

Kudos for admitting a mistake.

(Unsolicited advice)

Why are you always so concerned with what other people think? Maybe there is no veneer. Maybe people are just opinionated and confrontational on the internet. I find people to be more true to their nature while under the influence of internet anonymity, rather than less. Netizens are also, by and large, fairly liberal. Sorry for that, but those are the breaks.

You have some great points about food culture, but you bury them so deep with anger, insults and vanity, that no one takes them seriously. Not telling you to change your nature, only that you might be more influential if your ideas were not overshadowed by all your talk of sheep and monkeys. Too much stick, not enough carrot and not enough meat on the bone.





In reply to this comment by choggie:
'Appreciate this post from the wayback-I was in banlandia when you posted this, and remember it well. I was between sock-puppet accounts perhaps.

Thanks man...the tags for the bluebeam viddy were pretty fucking lame, huh??(sifting shitfaced...i am a wholly nonviolent drunk, btw, i giggle and cut up mostly) I can't help it, I get a rise out of reactions to stimuli....guilty guilty guilty....but not of racism. Of people's collective denial and their, "my shit stinks less than yours" kinnna attitude while hiding behind a veneer of social pantomime and incivility parading around unchecked and misrepresented as progressive thinking. I can't tell you how many times I have had discussions in real-time, which lead to mutual understanding given others misconception of me with regard to the spoken or written word.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Sound works fine for me. The program cycles through the 2 second grid, so you might not hear sound immediately.

'Appreciate this post from the wayback-I was in banlandia when you posted this, and remember it well. I was between sock-puppet accounts perhaps.

Thanks man...the tags for the bluebeam viddy were pretty fucking lame, huh??(sifting shitfaced...i am a wholly nonviolent drunk, btw, i giggle and cut up mostly) I can't help it, I get a rise out of reactions to stimuli....guilty guilty guilty....but not of racism. Of people's collective denial and their, "my shit stinks less than yours" kinnna attitude while hiding behind a veneer of social pantomime and incivility parading around unchecked and misrepresented as progressive thinking. I can't tell you how many times I have had discussions in real-time, which lead to mutual understanding given others misconception of me with regard to the spoken or written word.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Sound works fine for me. The program cycles through the 2 second grid, so you might not hear sound immediately.

My transplanted English prof pal from Oregon commented on the latest news here relative to himself and the students that pass for literate enrolled in the college he works for....he's pretty much in the same camp I'm in...don;t let your kids be defiled by public schools in the U.S...Texas is simply a more finely-focused lens of dissolution....and on your televisions so you had to look, huh??

Again, Robot monkey programming makes for obedient little wage-slaves-

Secondary public schools in general in the states, would not pass the 1945 US school litmus test of acceptable practice and curriculum-People have been duped into settling for a thin veneer of the real as opposed to a fine deep lustre...and all of you here, who have fingers to point, point the one that screams complicity, at the man or woman, or at that emasculated fucking male in the mirror....you too, Norwegian-

Oh yeah, and like bea, I spent plenty of time out of tis state as well, living, working, voting, etc. Cali, Oregon, Colorado, Washington State.....regions mean little in the grand scheme of the country as a whole-yer all in the same federal shit storm of idiocracy to the humans being.

She's the broadcast equivalent of mobile home wall paneling. A cheap veneer covering nothing of substance.

Links? Evidence?

Sure - but I'm not interested in playing duelling banjos. I'm listing a few of many. I could go on, but doing so ultimately becomes pointless. Science is science, and the current science is not decided. However, if you have made up your mind POLITICALLY where you stand then no amount of fact or evidence will be useful. But here we go. Here is the IPCC working group 1 report itself.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html

Here is the section detailing the models they selected to write their conclusions.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch8s8-2.html

Here are some links detailing just some the problems with their models.
http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2009/03/_internal_modeling_mistakes_by.html
http://www.john-daly.com/forcing/moderr.htm
http://www.applet-magic.com/IPCCmistakes.htm
http://www.democracyforum.co.uk/environment-energy/59296-ipcc-climate-models-8-fatal-errors.html
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL039642-pip.pdf
http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?page_id=11
http://www.warwickhughes.com/hoyt/scorecard.htm
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/surfacestationsreport_spring09.pdf

Being a statistician myself, I am fascinated by the process by which other analysts arrive at a methodology. The IPCC report is sloppy at best, and it doesn’t take any advanced statistical analysis to dismiss the conclusions prima facie. The IPCC freely admits that it ignored critical variables, and arrived at specious conclusions.

Keep in mind the “two divisions” I talked about. On the one hand we have “science of climate” and on the other hand we have “politics of man-made C02”. Warmers like to refer to science as justification for politics. This allows them to have their rhetorical cake and eat it too.

No one disagrees with the posit that the climate is “changing”. Duh! The climate always changes. We figure that out a few millennium ago. But that isn’t what the Warmer movement is trying to say. The Warmers say, “Science has PROVEN that human behavior is the cause of climate change – and human behavior can stop it.”

Horse hockey. In the first place, science has NOT proven human behavior as causal or even related to climate cycles. In the second place, there is no evidence of any kind that the cessation of human C02 emissions would supply a correction. The Warmer approach is therefore not scientific.

‘destroy the world paranoia’

Odd, since I didn’t say that. I said there are groups that desire to reduce human activity. I keep a folder full of links specifically about discussions related to the reduction of human activity in order to ‘save the planet’. Some of them are amusing. Some of them are creepy when you strip away the veneer of good intentions.

Explain NASA hottest decade?

Sure.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10783
http://www.newstatesman.com/scitech/2007/12/global-warming-temperature
http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Worldwide+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=3494

Sadly, NASA is an organization corrupted by politics. Obama specifically has pushed to have NASA be less about 'space' and more about 'political justification of my cap & tax plan'. There are good people there, but they are operating in a nasty political environment. Their use of substation data for their temperature projections invalidates their data entirely.

Is Fox News actually putting on a veneer of journalistic integrity? Was there a change of management recently?

Good luck, have fun. I'll go pull my armor out of the pantry and ride off to fix the rest of the world's troubles.

In reply to this comment by dag:
I'm not removing shit. You keep fighting those great injustices, brother. I'll tell Sarah's Mom.

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
That's exactly what I've done. I think she broke "the rules" when she requested it be removed, so I mock her by saying it again (or something similar). And if I want to protest that the easiest way is to mock it. (Hell, I nearly pulled the infamous chuggo video out of sift talk again too, but I can understand your problems with advertisers and didn't want to be too much of a pain to you guys.)

If the mail you got had been to me (and it was my post), I may or may not have removed the info, because if she's getting really hurt and I don't really care, then there's no reason for it to be there. I can honestly not see how she would be so hurt over that though. This is turning into Sierra Noble-gate, I think.

I can certainly understand the disassociation you talk about. The John Gabriel Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory is very true indeed, but I freely identify myself and stand by my words.

My comment was really intended for you, calvados and her; and if you've all seen it, I don't really see the use in having it anymore. If you really feel it hurts her and you (and the sift) you have my blessing to remove it, and I won't bitch about it (any more).

Peace.

In reply to this comment by dag:
One malady of Internet life I feel is that people are very quick to take action for perceived "rights" issues- but seldom consider the individual human beings that their actions affect. It's a disassocation- happens in cars because we can't readily see the people inside and consider the car to be a beast at least in some portion of our brains. We do and say things that we would never do or say to a person's face.

You've taken the easy, automatic action- flipping off a car that you think has broken the road rules. I don't expect you to see it this way, because I'm sure you're feeling fairly defensive at this point. But wow, I really do wish people were more empathetic saw the world less in shades of black and white.

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
If you want to be smug, move to San Francisco. I'm no more pleased or displeased with myself than normal, because I don't really care. If someone pushes, I push back, and that's all I've done here.

You're the one being a dick to me, not the other way around.

In reply to this comment by dag:
Yes, quite the high road you're taking there. You must be really pleased with yourself. Congrats.

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
The censorship comes not from you, but from her. She's feeling "outraged" that her daughter was talked about on the Internet, and while you obviously didn't just change the post (which would have been far worse), you passed on a "network note" that essentially made calvados change the post, not to look like a dick. To be completely honest, I'm not sure what was actually in the post before, I made my comment after his changes. I can see the point in not announcing something like she was nude on the beach or whatever in the title, but to guild trip people into not saying anything like it in the comments is just not kosher.

A comment is not a big deal. I don't want anyone to come in and tell me what I can and can't say about something so trivial. The next thing is that she wants me to only think good thoughts about her daughter.

There is such a thing as tact - if someone had died, I wouldn't do a little dance at his funeral - but this is just not relevant. If she wants to maintain the pristine veneer of her little fairy tale offspring, then she can go off to live in Narnia - this is the real world.

I don't care about private if you don't, I'm the one taking the high road.

In reply to this comment by dag:
Censorship. Really? You're going to go that route? Where's the censorship here? Have you seen me deleting anything?

I asked Calvados if he could modify his post to save this kid and her mom a bit of embarrassment - he complied. I waited a week for him to make the change - and I would have done absolutely nothing if he decided not to. Where exactly is this censorship you speak of?

Way to make a moral stand- you sure showed this lady.

PS, I'm making this private- but if this is something you want out in the open, feel free to unprivate it. Ta.



In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
Because I don't like censors. Not in any shape or form.

If I had done a 4Chan, it would be much worse (a fancy photoshop, for instance) - but I'm not a monster. Besides, other people have made far worse comments, and if she's giving you grief over my comment then I am sorry, for you, not her.

And she's not a minor at the "tender age of 19", so she can shove her concern.

In reply to this comment by dag:
Very clever and all - but why? We try hard to make VideoSift not 4Chan. This lady had a legitimate concern for her minor daughter, and this is not nice.

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
Seen her naked. Life is good.
Edit: Beautiful music, too. I wish her well.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I'm not removing shit. You keep fighting those great injustices, brother. I'll tell Sarah's Mom.

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
That's exactly what I've done. I think she broke "the rules" when she requested it be removed, so I mock her by saying it again (or something similar). And if I want to protest that the easiest way is to mock it. (Hell, I nearly pulled the infamous chuggo video out of sift talk again too, but I can understand your problems with advertisers and didn't want to be too much of a pain to you guys.)

If the mail you got had been to me (and it was my post), I may or may not have removed the info, because if she's getting really hurt and I don't really care, then there's no reason for it to be there. I can honestly not see how she would be so hurt over that though. This is turning into Sierra Noble-gate, I think.

I can certainly understand the disassociation you talk about. The John Gabriel Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory is very true indeed, but I freely identify myself and stand by my words.

My comment was really intended for you, calvados and her; and if you've all seen it, I don't really see the use in having it anymore. If you really feel it hurts her and you (and the sift) you have my blessing to remove it, and I won't bitch about it (any more).

Peace.

In reply to this comment by dag:
One malady of Internet life I feel is that people are very quick to take action for perceived "rights" issues- but seldom consider the individual human beings that their actions affect. It's a disassocation- happens in cars because we can't readily see the people inside and consider the car to be a beast at least in some portion of our brains. We do and say things that we would never do or say to a person's face.

You've taken the easy, automatic action- flipping off a car that you think has broken the road rules. I don't expect you to see it this way, because I'm sure you're feeling fairly defensive at this point. But wow, I really do wish people were more empathetic saw the world less in shades of black and white.

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
If you want to be smug, move to San Francisco. I'm no more pleased or displeased with myself than normal, because I don't really care. If someone pushes, I push back, and that's all I've done here.

You're the one being a dick to me, not the other way around.

In reply to this comment by dag:
Yes, quite the high road you're taking there. You must be really pleased with yourself. Congrats.

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
The censorship comes not from you, but from her. She's feeling "outraged" that her daughter was talked about on the Internet, and while you obviously didn't just change the post (which would have been far worse), you passed on a "network note" that essentially made calvados change the post, not to look like a dick. To be completely honest, I'm not sure what was actually in the post before, I made my comment after his changes. I can see the point in not announcing something like she was nude on the beach or whatever in the title, but to guild trip people into not saying anything like it in the comments is just not kosher.

A comment is not a big deal. I don't want anyone to come in and tell me what I can and can't say about something so trivial. The next thing is that she wants me to only think good thoughts about her daughter.

There is such a thing as tact - if someone had died, I wouldn't do a little dance at his funeral - but this is just not relevant. If she wants to maintain the pristine veneer of her little fairy tale offspring, then she can go off to live in Narnia - this is the real world.

I don't care about private if you don't, I'm the one taking the high road.

In reply to this comment by dag:
Censorship. Really? You're going to go that route? Where's the censorship here? Have you seen me deleting anything?

I asked Calvados if he could modify his post to save this kid and her mom a bit of embarrassment - he complied. I waited a week for him to make the change - and I would have done absolutely nothing if he decided not to. Where exactly is this censorship you speak of?

Way to make a moral stand- you sure showed this lady.

PS, I'm making this private- but if this is something you want out in the open, feel free to unprivate it. Ta.



In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
Because I don't like censors. Not in any shape or form.

If I had done a 4Chan, it would be much worse (a fancy photoshop, for instance) - but I'm not a monster. Besides, other people have made far worse comments, and if she's giving you grief over my comment then I am sorry, for you, not her.

And she's not a minor at the "tender age of 19", so she can shove her concern.

In reply to this comment by dag:
Very clever and all - but why? We try hard to make VideoSift not 4Chan. This lady had a legitimate concern for her minor daughter, and this is not nice.

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
Seen her naked. Life is good.
Edit: Beautiful music, too. I wish her well.

That's exactly what I've done. I think she broke "the rules" when she requested it be removed, so I mock her by saying it again (or something similar). And if I want to protest that the easiest way is to mock it. (Hell, I nearly pulled the infamous chuggo video out of sift talk again too, but I can understand your problems with advertisers and didn't want to be too much of a pain to you guys.)

If the mail you got had been to me (and it was my post), I may or may not have removed the info, because if she's getting really hurt and I don't really care, then there's no reason for it to be there. I can honestly not see how she would be so hurt over that though. This is turning into Sierra Noble-gate, I think.

I can certainly understand the disassociation you talk about. The John Gabriel Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory is very true indeed, but I freely identify myself and stand by my words.

My comment was really intended for you, calvados and her; and if you've all seen it, I don't really see the use in having it anymore. If you really feel it hurts her and you (and the sift) you have my blessing to remove it, and I won't bitch about it (any more).

Peace.

In reply to this comment by dag:
One malady of Internet life I feel is that people are very quick to take action for perceived "rights" issues- but seldom consider the individual human beings that their actions affect. It's a disassocation- happens in cars because we can't readily see the people inside and consider the car to be a beast at least in some portion of our brains. We do and say things that we would never do or say to a person's face.

You've taken the easy, automatic action- flipping off a car that you think has broken the road rules. I don't expect you to see it this way, because I'm sure you're feeling fairly defensive at this point. But wow, I really do wish people were more empathetic saw the world less in shades of black and white.

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
If you want to be smug, move to San Francisco. I'm no more pleased or displeased with myself than normal, because I don't really care. If someone pushes, I push back, and that's all I've done here.

You're the one being a dick to me, not the other way around.

In reply to this comment by dag:
Yes, quite the high road you're taking there. You must be really pleased with yourself. Congrats.

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
The censorship comes not from you, but from her. She's feeling "outraged" that her daughter was talked about on the Internet, and while you obviously didn't just change the post (which would have been far worse), you passed on a "network note" that essentially made calvados change the post, not to look like a dick. To be completely honest, I'm not sure what was actually in the post before, I made my comment after his changes. I can see the point in not announcing something like she was nude on the beach or whatever in the title, but to guild trip people into not saying anything like it in the comments is just not kosher.

A comment is not a big deal. I don't want anyone to come in and tell me what I can and can't say about something so trivial. The next thing is that she wants me to only think good thoughts about her daughter.

There is such a thing as tact - if someone had died, I wouldn't do a little dance at his funeral - but this is just not relevant. If she wants to maintain the pristine veneer of her little fairy tale offspring, then she can go off to live in Narnia - this is the real world.

I don't care about private if you don't, I'm the one taking the high road.

In reply to this comment by dag:
Censorship. Really? You're going to go that route? Where's the censorship here? Have you seen me deleting anything?

I asked Calvados if he could modify his post to save this kid and her mom a bit of embarrassment - he complied. I waited a week for him to make the change - and I would have done absolutely nothing if he decided not to. Where exactly is this censorship you speak of?

Way to make a moral stand- you sure showed this lady.

PS, I'm making this private- but if this is something you want out in the open, feel free to unprivate it. Ta.



In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
Because I don't like censors. Not in any shape or form.

If I had done a 4Chan, it would be much worse (a fancy photoshop, for instance) - but I'm not a monster. Besides, other people have made far worse comments, and if she's giving you grief over my comment then I am sorry, for you, not her.

And she's not a minor at the "tender age of 19", so she can shove her concern.

In reply to this comment by dag:
Very clever and all - but why? We try hard to make VideoSift not 4Chan. This lady had a legitimate concern for her minor daughter, and this is not nice.

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
Seen her naked. Life is good.
Edit: Beautiful music, too. I wish her well.

If you want to be smug, move to San Francisco. I'm no more pleased or displeased with myself than normal, because I don't really care. If someone pushes, I push back, and that's all I've done here.

You're the one being a dick to me, not the other way around.

In reply to this comment by dag:
Yes, quite the high road you're taking there. You must be really pleased with yourself. Congrats.

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
The censorship comes not from you, but from her. She's feeling "outraged" that her daughter was talked about on the Internet, and while you obviously didn't just change the post (which would have been far worse), you passed on a "network note" that essentially made calvados change the post, not to look like a dick. To be completely honest, I'm not sure what was actually in the post before, I made my comment after his changes. I can see the point in not announcing something like she was nude on the beach or whatever in the title, but to guild trip people into not saying anything like it in the comments is just not kosher.

A comment is not a big deal. I don't want anyone to come in and tell me what I can and can't say about something so trivial. The next thing is that she wants me to only think good thoughts about her daughter.

There is such a thing as tact - if someone had died, I wouldn't do a little dance at his funeral - but this is just not relevant. If she wants to maintain the pristine veneer of her little fairy tale offspring, then she can go off to live in Narnia - this is the real world.

I don't care about private if you don't, I'm the one taking the high road.

In reply to this comment by dag:
Censorship. Really? You're going to go that route? Where's the censorship here? Have you seen me deleting anything?

I asked Calvados if he could modify his post to save this kid and her mom a bit of embarrassment - he complied. I waited a week for him to make the change - and I would have done absolutely nothing if he decided not to. Where exactly is this censorship you speak of?

Way to make a moral stand- you sure showed this lady.

PS, I'm making this private- but if this is something you want out in the open, feel free to unprivate it. Ta.



In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
Because I don't like censors. Not in any shape or form.

If I had done a 4Chan, it would be much worse (a fancy photoshop, for instance) - but I'm not a monster. Besides, other people have made far worse comments, and if she's giving you grief over my comment then I am sorry, for you, not her.

And she's not a minor at the "tender age of 19", so she can shove her concern.

In reply to this comment by dag:
Very clever and all - but why? We try hard to make VideoSift not 4Chan. This lady had a legitimate concern for her minor daughter, and this is not nice.

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
Seen her naked. Life is good.
Edit: Beautiful music, too. I wish her well.

The censorship comes not from you, but from her. She's feeling "outraged" that her daughter was talked about on the Internet, and while you obviously didn't just change the post (which would have been far worse), you passed on a "network note" that essentially made calvados change the post, not to look like a dick. To be completely honest, I'm not sure what was actually in the post before, I made my comment after his changes. I can see the point in not announcing something like she was nude on the beach or whatever in the title, but to guild trip people into not saying anything like it in the comments is just not kosher.

A comment is not a big deal. I don't want anyone to come in and tell me what I can and can't say about something so trivial. The next thing is that she wants me to only think good thoughts about her daughter.

There is such a thing as tact - if someone had died, I wouldn't do a little dance at his funeral - but this is just not relevant. If she wants to maintain the pristine veneer of her little fairy tale offspring, then she can go off to live in Narnia - this is the real world.

I don't care about private if you don't, I'm the one taking the high road.

In reply to this comment by dag:
Censorship. Really? You're going to go that route? Where's the censorship here? Have you seen me deleting anything?

I asked Calvados if he could modify his post to save this kid and her mom a bit of embarrassment - he complied. I waited a week for him to make the change - and I would have done absolutely nothing if he decided not to. Where exactly is this censorship you speak of?

Way to make a moral stand- you sure showed this lady.

PS, I'm making this private- but if this is something you want out in the open, feel free to unprivate it. Ta.



In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
Because I don't like censors. Not in any shape or form.

If I had done a 4Chan, it would be much worse (a fancy photoshop, for instance) - but I'm not a monster. Besides, other people have made far worse comments, and if she's giving you grief over my comment then I am sorry, for you, not her.

And she's not a minor at the "tender age of 19", so she can shove her concern.

In reply to this comment by dag:
Very clever and all - but why? We try hard to make VideoSift not 4Chan. This lady had a legitimate concern for her minor daughter, and this is not nice.

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
Seen her naked. Life is good.
Edit: Beautiful music, too. I wish her well.

http://lyricwiki.org/Bon_Iver:Skinny_Love

Come on skinny love just last the year
Pour a little salt, we were never here
My, my, my, my, my, my, my, my
Staring at the sink of blood and crushed veneer

I tell my love to wreck it all
Cut out all the ropes and let me fall
My, my, my, my, my, my, my, my
Right in this moment this order's tall

I told you to be patient
I told you to be fine
And I told you to be balanced
And I told you to be kind

In the morning I'll be with you
But it will be a different kind
I'll be holding all the tickets
And you'll be owning all the fines

Come on skinny love what happened here
We suckled on the hope in lite brassieres
My, my, my, my, my, my, my, my
Sullen load is full, so slow on the split

And I told you to be patient
And I told you to be fine
And I told you to be balanced
And I told you to be kind

And now all your love is wasted
And then who the hell was I?
I'm breaking at the britches
And at the end of all your lines

Who will love you?
Who will fight?
Who will fall far behind?
Ooh, ooh

Please Dag, you're such an Apple apologist.

Restriction of this technological functionality is plainly ridiculous, you cannot claim a patent over something this basic. Because the only people to lose out are the consumers as a whole. It's not like Apple is based entirely on the iPhone. Compete on services and features not the restriction of functionality.

This is lawyer shenanigans on the same scale as the lawsuit over the Watchmen film.

I always said Apple is nothing but Microsoft of the early 90s in white shiny veneer.