Hello hornet's nest, let me give you a little kick.

This was a lot better than I originally thought it would be. I'm going to promote this just to kick the hornet's nest.

What's the emoticon for nerd crush? B-}

Nicely done, beelicant.
In reply to this comment by NicoleBee:
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Angry hornets covered in soap atop the shoulder of an exterminator. I've watched fireflies glitter in the dark near Old lady Ethel's Garden. All those moments will be lost in time, like ants in the rain. Time to die.

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Angry hornets covered in soap atop the shoulder of an exterminator. I've watched fireflies glitter in the dark near Old lady Ethel's Garden. All those moments will be lost in time, like ants in the rain. Time to die.

This is great. People have such warped ideas of guns from Hollywood mythmaking - though a lot of video games don't help either.

I've seen guys come into the range, fire a 9mm for a bit, then brag about how much better the Desert Eagle is. Then a range officer pulls one out and they realize that it's hard for them to hold it steady, let alone fire accurately. A .50 pistol sounds impressive only until you realize that you only have 7+1 rounds, you can't aim for shit, and the recoil is a bitch. As my favorite range officer put it: "Angelina Jolie [a la Tomb Raider] would have trouble carrying one in each hand, but somehow she is firing two on the run?"

Some movies are getting better, more accurately depicting the proper usage of a gun and actually showing reloads, but even my girlfriend starts laughing at some of the more blatant mistakes in action movies (The Green Hornet has some whoppers).

I mentioned in another thread that indeed there is nothing to prevent someone from creating a separate site or blog about VideoSift. However that doesn't mean we have to do it here. We don't have to be a part of that. And even if we did post Sift history and member bios in our Wiki, that still doesn't mean that someone else won't do it on blogspot, wordpress, typepad, or wherever.

The cat's always been out of the bag. Someone could have been posting Sift history and member info elsewhere a long time ago. There's also nothing stopping someone from creating another video voting site. We can't control that either. But at least we can control what we do here, and I don't think we need to kick the hornet's nest in our own backyard.

Posting history and biographies here will not prevent it from happening somewhere else. Let's just not do it here in the first place. >> ^ctrlaltbleach:


On a side note even if you try and ban this now the cats out of the bag whats to stop said malicious offender of writing a web documentation somewhere where the sift cannot control? People are curious by nature and destructive by nature while I may have good intentions another member may just love mischief and mayhem none of us really have the power to stop gossip here on the internets or in our real lives.

First of all, the book is being charged because the staff members of NYTimes had to read through piles upon piles of information, sifting through the redundant text and picking out things that are actually worth of note (U.S. Diplomatic cable leak alone were over 250,000 classified cables from various U.S. Embassies).

http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/over_250000_us_diplomatic_documents_released_by_wi.php

And they summarized the information they found into a book, and is charging a service fee for the work they've put in. I have no disillusions about why the book is being charged as it is called a 'service fee' and that's how a free market works, you trade in resource or capital value in exchange for goods and services.

I heard the story on NPR interviewing NYTimes executive editor Bill Keller and he explains the situation a little further than just purely relying on this little video clip for all the information on the matters involved (do some research of your own over this matter. It wouldn't hurt). It seemed that NYTimes as well as other journalistic organizations couldn't really trust this Julian Assange guy, as he acted on this hidden agenda of his own that Assange never fully reveals; an alterior motive separate from fighting against the evils of the world and taking down giant corporations.

http://www.npr.org/2011/02/01/133277509/times-editor-the-impact-of-assange-and-wikileaks

Keller also mentions his doubts against the demand for full disclosure of everything, including exposing his staff writers to the public eye to be hassled and receive death threatened from this numerous yet anonymous people. But that's another issue.

I have my own reasons to be skeptical about Assange's full motives.

http://videosift.com/video/Julian-Assange-helps-a-falling-old-man?loadcomm=1#comment-1135222

And from the looks of it the guys at NYTimes had a reason of their own, whatever it may be and have cut ties with Julian Assange. They suspected something was off with Assange, though they never fully reveal just exactly what it was. But they are a journalistic organization and I'm sure they've had plenty of research done on their part. Anyways that's what Keller suggests in his interview, and that's what most other journalistic organizations are saying as well at this point who has also cut ties with Assange.

Now I highly doubt NYTimes is doing this because they are somehow a part of the media conglomerates trying to undermine the works of Julian Assange. NYTimes may have gotten a bit inattentive over the years and let a few things slip (especially during the Bush years). But that doesn't mean they are ones to shy away from criticizing the wrongs of our society. They've took on Nixon's administration before, they've dealt with Daniel Ellsberg. It's not like this was the first time dealing with a situation like this. So there must have been a pretty damn good reason why such reputable journalistic organizations decided to cut ties with Assange.

We all have our doubts and suspicion. And as I've already mentioned I have my own doubts about this Assange guy. All I can say for now is that Julian Assange is just a human. Of course we shouldn't undermine the fact that he did a very difficult and brave thing as well as muster up quite a resource around him using his skills and talent. But when someone has a motive of their own that does not coincide with what he preaches himself to be, it creates a disconnect from its audience and raises suspicion amongst his partners. If he is working for the good of humanity, why is he censoring himself or trying to manipulate how the story is leaked? Why is he trying to make a career out of whatever that he is doing? If he is really serious about the cause, why won't he just go balls out against the government like Ellsberg did who was very clear about his intent, who gave up his career, his friends and his life, instead of going around the world putting himself on this role of elusive vigilante?

Assange is not this knight in shining armor on a white horse that you guys make him out to be, in my opinion. But perhaps he was just a curious boy who managed to climb up a tall tree and kicked the hornet's nest and watch the shit go down. While the rest of us down on the ground doesn't know exactly why or how it all happened.

*Kick this hornet's nest.

*Kick this hornet's nest.

>> ^NetRunner:

Not much of a hornet's nest. More of a political posture to make a point.
The idea isn't that Charlie Rangel wanted to continue the wars, and make sure we're adequately prepared for new ones with Iran and North Korea. Out of context quotes makes it look that way, but of course it was just a ploy to make Republicans put up or shut up.
If the war in Iraq was about an existential threat to the US, the case for a draft should be airtight. If Republicans don't want a draft, then aren't they just full of shit?
If they do want a draft, what better way to focus people's attention on the war, and get them to really start organizing in opposition to it, even if the bill fails on a narrow party-line vote (or even better, a Bush veto).
I'd say that's a pretty ballsy gambit to drive the national debate. The problem, as always, was the Democrats didn't really form a coherent strategy or message to go along with it, and the bill got voted down without anyone really paying attention to it.


Yes, that is the context, but I still think this Should be our national policy. No more chickenhawks sending other peoples kids to war.

But, that's not why The-User-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named posted this, is it? He doesn't want informed conversation: shit stirrer.

Not much of a hornet's nest. More of a political posture to make a point.

The idea isn't that Charlie Rangel wanted to continue the wars, and make sure we're adequately prepared for new ones with Iran and North Korea. Out of context quotes makes it look that way, but of course it was just a ploy to make Republicans put up or shut up.

If the war in Iraq was about an existential threat to the US, the case for a draft should be airtight. If Republicans don't want a draft, then aren't they just full of shit?

If they do want a draft, what better way to focus people's attention on the war, and get them to really start organizing in opposition to it, even if the bill fails on a narrow party-line vote (or even better, a Bush veto).

I'd say that's a pretty ballsy gambit to drive the national debate. The problem, as always, was the Democrats didn't really form a coherent strategy or message to go along with it, and the bill got voted down without anyone really paying attention to it.

Siftbot, kick this fucking hornet's nest!

Is that a "Girl with the Dragon Tatoo" (third film of the trilogy) reference?

The music is very distracting in this video.
>> ^blankfist:

Let's kick this hornet's nest.

Let's kick this hornet's nest.

Thanks for the promote. I do like kicking the hornets nest.

In reply to this comment by geo321:
*promote anyway