>> ^Ryjkyj:

That's absolutely brilliant. I mean, think about it. If you want someone to remember your cause, you could do a lot worse than associating it with a blond, bare-chested model

Unless, of course, you're protesting the objectification of women. Then, it seems to me, a titty-based message might be counter-productive.

>> ^DerHasisttot:
It's more along the lines of: Ukrainian girls/women are being raped, sold, kidnapped, exported and used for prostitution. The Ukraine has as a result/cause a problem with sex-tourism and the subjugation of women as objects of sex. A modelling contest with a blond airhead is a great opportunity for the protesters to get publicity.
For more info: http://observers.france24.com/content/20
090828-how-they-protest-prostitution-ukraine-femen-sex-tourism

Good info, thanks.

>> ^gorillaman:

So what's this corruption in Ukraine's modelling industry?


It's more along the lines of: Ukrainian girls/women are being raped, sold, kidnapped, exported and used for prostitution. The Ukraine has as a result/cause a problem with sex-tourism and the subjugation of women as objects of sex. A modelling contest with a blond airhead is a great opportunity for the protesters to get publicity.

For more info: http://observers.france24.com/content/20090828-how-they-protest-prostitution-ukraine-femen-sex-tourism

god, just looking at paris hilton's stupid gaze, makes my IQ drop.

Sarah Palin is to Washington as Paris Hilton is to Hollywood.

Why is she famous again? Failing 3 times to get elected to office isn't an accomplishment. I honestly think the media only gives her attention because viewers seem to enjoy disliking her. Like the political equivalent of Paris Hilton.

>> ^chilaxe:

So you're arguing against markets (meritocracy)

Markets aren't meritocracy.
>> ^chilaxe:

and in favor of collectivism & experientialism ('feel good' degrees paid for by somebody else)

Honestly, I don't really know what I'm in favor of. Given all the discussions I have here, I'm pretty sure your conception of "collectivism" differs from mine, and I only have a vague notion of what you're trying to say when you refer to "experientialism." It doesn't matter though, because your parenthetical ascribes a position to me that I have already explicitly disavowed (along with the premise it's based on).
>> ^chilaxe:
It does seem relevant then whether or not meritocracy causes greater contributions to humankind

It's no more relevant than talking about the ecological impact of unicorn migration, seeing how meritocracy doesn't exist.
>> ^chilaxe:
(it appears to, if we compare my outcomes to those of my lazy collectivist friends)

Anecdotes aren't data. Especially considering the cognitive biases of the source.
>> ^chilaxe:
"Would you really stop working on it if you got paid less, or if everyone got paid the same no matter what they did?"
Yes I would, and that's one of the reasons I stopped working in academia early on.
I'm asking you to respond to a hypothetical, specifically what would you do if material wealth wasn't connected to how you spent your time? Would you just become a couch potato? Or would you still feel driven to do something worthwhile, because being idle doesn't appeal to you?

I think if you are who you say you are, you'd still choose to do things that are useful and meaningful to society in such a situation. I know I would.

>> ^chilaxe:
I realized most human problems are self-caused and aren't relevant to rationalists (same as the make-believe problem of student loans).

Too bad you aren't a rationalist, then.
>> ^chilaxe:
But fortunately it's not generally necessary to make the choice between passion and career... individuals have general interests, and they can follow the most socioeconomically valued paths within those interests.

Sure it is. Who becomes a janitor because it was their passion? Lots of people get channeled into jobs that don't align with their passions, largely for reasons beyond their control.

As for "socioeconomically valued paths" my point is that that's a pretty strong external constraint on your ability to choose how to live your life, and that "freedom" doesn't entail making those constraints and pressures stronger.

One can make the argument that a society with that level of paternalism is more beneficial for everyone (I sometimes even believe that myself), but one can't seriously contend that such pressures constitute the very definition of freedom.

But if your goal for society is to promote rationality, markets aren't your mechanism.

Bill Nye doesn't get paid more than Sean Hannity, and Judge Judy gets paid more than the entire Supreme Court. There is no meritocracy, and there is no connection between rational behavior and their reward. Hannity and Judge Judy both would probably lose their jobs if they started publicly promoting rationality instead of inanity. Not to mention, Paris Hilton can probably buy and sell them all.

One can play a certain shell game with this, and say that it's rational for the producers to pay Hannity to be publicly inane because it's going to make them money, but this just further amplifies my point -- markets give rational people incentive to do irrational and destructive things, like give Sean Hannity a TV show, or try to rig the real-estate market, or to base a business on encouraging young women to become prostitutes.

She has a huge business because she was born into money. If that wasn't the case and she was born poor, no one would know or care who Paris Hilton was. Period. And yes, she really is stupid.

>> ^Kofi:

What does the phrase "think yo" mean? She keeps using it after compliments.


It's a personal reminder.

>> ^chilaxe:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/messenger" title="member since August 23rd, 2006" class="profilelink">messenger
If people have different definitions of things, public discussion of the different definitions seems to be fair game.
Yeah, making good collective decisions seems problematic, but making good personal decisions works, and that's why I watch the Greed is Good video often http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONXpaBQnBvE&feature=related
I think the difference between being intelligent today and 100 years ago is that the internet allows smart people to become much smarter relative to non-smart people than was possible 100 years ago. Also, maybe in a few decades being rich will give people access to biotech innovations like increased lifespans, so I think there's a better argument than ever before for building our personal human capital.


Don't equate rich and smart though.


Paris Hilton....

There is no precedent set. At this point, every variation or deviation seems to be or is deemed a precedent by some or someone.

As to the poll. I commend Blankfist and for that matter anyone here who spends the time, attention, and energy to lend sense and resolution to this matter. But, respectfully, what victory. Five to one, ten to one, a hundred to one is meaningless to whether I or anyone else dupes a video.

xxovercastxx and dag cited the basic tenets from the posting guidelines.

"A duplicate video is one which contains content already on VideoSift in a published, queued, personal queued, or dead video submission. Minor changes in content, like a few additional insignificant seconds of video or alternate background music, will still be considered dupes. The only exception to this is if the change in audio makes a significant difference to the video content."

Albeit brief, I find it rather clear, not perfect and all encompassing, but elegant in it's conciseness. Any attempt to codify this past that is going to be at once daunting and unpopular with someone(s). As it stands, the overriding principle for me is, is it a dupe as described, does it have significant additional content as to not be a dupe.

The analogies of one second, ten seconds, one minute or two out of however long is reducing to the absurd as well. Reaching far and long. There are other exceptional considerations mentioned in the past but not discussed here. The poll hinges on one and arguably not the most trenchant or supportable. But popular and all settling per the poll.

Also, believe it or no, I do not dupe every one that I or others find. There are those here that could verify conversations, private, that plead additional content, etc. Some are consummated anyway, some are not. I, and I believer most if not all whom invoke *dupeof do so with cognizance of the investment someone has made but with awareness of the principles and realities that fomented its inception.

There is not generally the same attention given to other invocations. Certainly not recently or as often.

Precedent is a laudatory concept. However, this is not the legal system where precedent is published and therefore established. Consensual agreement is not precedent. Popular among a vocal few or many is not precedent even though they think or wish it to be. Incidental or errant but unaddressed application or misapplication is not precedent. Proof. What is to befall those that disagree or do not subscribe to the "precedent" as described and voted on in the poll. There is tacit recourse that has been enacted in the past here for abuse of the invocation but remote in time. As it stands, sans official codification to the contrary there will be today, tomorrow, and thereafter the same dissatisfaction and discussion meaning little.

Now I am going to compete with xxovercastxx for that crown.


>> ^blankfist:

>> ^xxovercastxx:
>> ^gwiz665:
I will argue that the reason all these exceptions, precedents and so on aren't directly written into the FAQ is that @lucky760 and @dag have better things to do and let the community drive the rules as much as possible. The wiki was supposed to contain all of these, since we all can edit them, but it just disintegrated in all the blithering chatter of "can I post about this user and that user" perez hilton bullshit.
The FAQ is not a holy book! There are exceptions and it seems to me, that if people don't know what the exceptions are, then they shouldn't preach what is the right way and what isn't.
But how is anyone to really know what the rules are if they're not written down? I'm not saying the FAQ is a holy book and it can never change; I'm saying it should reflect the rules that we decide upon.
While I (obviously) disagree that we should allow, or even encourage, people to post the same shit over and over again, what's more important to me is to have a clear rule. I'd rather have rules I dislike than to not be able to tell what the rules are.
Last time I looked at blankfist's poll, the overwhelming majority want a much looser definition of what a dupe is.
angry fist shake You win this time, Batman!
Since we're obviously going this way, I'd say let's work on making a clear rule and getting the FAQ updated. I don't want to hear that @dag and @lucky760 have better things to do than update the FAQ; it's part of the job they volunteered for.
Also, as soon as I get home I'm going to start posting dupes with minute time differences. I should be able to get my crown by the end of the week.

But precedent has been set in the past that if something isn't a duplicate, then it's not a dupe. If it has a few extra seconds that offers nothing new (very subjective), then it's a dupe. If it's a longer or shorter portion of another video that can be said to offer something new (also very subjective), then it's not a dupe.
I made the poll to hopefully put an end to people making their own rules about the dupeof invocation. We all know the FAQ is ambiguous, but those of us who've been on here for a while should understand that precedent has been set from past discussions on the matter, and that's as good as a rule.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^gwiz665:
I will argue that the reason all these exceptions, precedents and so on aren't directly written into the FAQ is that @lucky760 and @dag have better things to do and let the community drive the rules as much as possible. The wiki was supposed to contain all of these, since we all can edit them, but it just disintegrated in all the blithering chatter of "can I post about this user and that user" perez hilton bullshit.
The FAQ is not a holy book! There are exceptions and it seems to me, that if people don't know what the exceptions are, then they shouldn't preach what is the right way and what isn't.
But how is anyone to really know what the rules are if they're not written down? I'm not saying the FAQ is a holy book and it can never change; I'm saying it should reflect the rules that we decide upon.
While I (obviously) disagree that we should allow, or even encourage, people to post the same shit over and over again, what's more important to me is to have a clear rule. I'd rather have rules I dislike than to not be able to tell what the rules are.
Last time I looked at blankfist's poll, the overwhelming majority want a much looser definition of what a dupe is.
angry fist shake You win this time, Batman!
Since we're obviously going this way, I'd say let's work on making a clear rule and getting the FAQ updated. I don't want to hear that @dag and @lucky760 have better things to do than update the FAQ; it's part of the job they volunteered for.
Also, as soon as I get home I'm going to start posting dupes with minute time differences. I should be able to get my crown by the end of the week.


But precedent has been set in the past that if something isn't a duplicate, then it's not a dupe. If it has a few extra seconds that offers nothing new (very subjective), then it's a dupe. If it's a longer or shorter portion of another video that can be said to offer something new (also very subjective), then it's not a dupe.

I made the poll to hopefully put an end to people making their own rules about the dupeof invocation. We all know the FAQ is ambiguous, but those of us who've been on here for a while should understand that precedent has been set from past discussions on the matter, and that's as good as a rule.

I agree. Rules need to be written down. Blankfist did a great service by starting this poll so we could stop arguing about what the rule is.

Now we know. I think. I don't know the protocol for calling a vote completed.

And yes, we have now codified Gray Area. I can see that will frustrate some folks. And it is a huge relief to others.

And so we negotiate.

It's not as if we are super busy people who don't have time to waste on a stupid website, right?


>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^gwiz665:
I will argue that the reason all these exceptions, precedents and so on aren't directly written into the FAQ is that @lucky760 and @dag have better things to do and let the community drive the rules as much as possible. The wiki was supposed to contain all of these, since we all can edit them, but it just disintegrated in all the blithering chatter of "can I post about this user and that user" perez hilton bullshit.
The FAQ is not a holy book! There are exceptions and it seems to me, that if people don't know what the exceptions are, then they shouldn't preach what is the right way and what isn't.
But how is anyone to really know what the rules are if they're not written down? I'm not saying the FAQ is a holy book and it can never change; I'm saying it should reflect the rules that we decide upon.
While I (obviously) disagree that we should allow, or even encourage, people to post the same shit over and over again, what's more important to me is to have a clear rule. I'd rather have rules I dislike than to not be able to tell what the rules are.
Last time I looked at blankfist's poll, the overwhelming majority want a much looser definition of what a dupe is.
angry fist shake You win this time, Batman!
Since we're obviously going this way, I'd say let's work on making a clear rule and getting the FAQ updated. I don't want to hear that @dag and @lucky760 have better things to do than update the FAQ; it's part of the job they volunteered for.
Also, as soon as I get home I'm going to start posting dupes with minute time differences. I should be able to get my crown by the end of the week.

>> ^gwiz665:

I will argue that the reason all these exceptions, precedents and so on aren't directly written into the FAQ is that @lucky760 and @dag have better things to do and let the community drive the rules as much as possible. The wiki was supposed to contain all of these, since we all can edit them, but it just disintegrated in all the blithering chatter of "can I post about this user and that user" perez hilton bullshit.
The FAQ is not a holy book! There are exceptions and it seems to me, that if people don't know what the exceptions are, then they shouldn't preach what is the right way and what isn't.

But how is anyone to really know what the rules are if they're not written down? I'm not saying the FAQ is a holy book and it can never change; I'm saying it should reflect the rules that we decide upon.

While I (obviously) disagree that we should allow, or even encourage, people to post the same shit over and over again, what's more important to me is to have a clear rule. I'd rather have rules I dislike than to not be able to tell what the rules are.

Last time I looked at blankfist's poll, the overwhelming majority want a much looser definition of what a dupe is.

*angry fist shake* You win this time, Batman!

Since we're obviously going this way, I'd say let's work on making a clear rule and getting the FAQ updated. I don't want to hear that @dag and @lucky760 have better things to do than update the FAQ; it's part of the job they volunteered for.

Also, as soon as I get home I'm going to start posting dupes with minute time differences. I should be able to get my crown by the end of the week.

Fair has everything to do with it, because we are not a legal entity. We do things a long way on a video by video basis.

I will argue that the reason all these exceptions, precedents and so on aren't directly written into the FAQ is that @lucky760 and @dag have better things to do and let the community drive the rules as much as possible. The wiki was supposed to contain all of these, since we all can edit them, but it just disintegrated in all the blithering chatter of "can I post about this user and that user" perez hilton bullshit.

The FAQ is not a holy book! There are exceptions and it seems to me, that if people don't know what the exceptions are, then they shouldn't preach what is the right way and what isn't.