Cheetahs are awesome. Humans have been taming them for thousands of years. They're very sociable and don't inherently see things our size/shape as "lunch."

Note that tame <> domesticate. Tame means "make safe and predictable," not "make into a pet." There are no house cheetahs. But there are lots of relatively safe cheetahs to be around. Look up Marlice van der Merwe.

This would make a hell of a safari story.

Wanna learn how to run as fast as Bolt? Go on a safari with these idiots.

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

Just had a try with Opera, Chrome, Safari and Firefox (all Mac) on that baguette video and it's working OK for me. Anyone else having this issue?

Weird - I was getting that with Safari (WebKit), but not with Camino (Gecko).

I don't know what your background is (?), but my colleagues and I have no trouble understanding what "aversive punishment" means. No incoherence, no confusion. It's one part of behaviourist principles that are taught in undergraduate psychology. It is often referred to as positive punishment.

Would you care to cite the relevant evidence that shows the effects are vanishingly small? Because punishment, from everything I have learned, is an excellent means of behaviour control -- it just has many drawbacks, which is why reinforcement is the preferred alternative. The problem is that there are severe cases where nothing else works. What then do you do?

Reductions in social skills, communication skills, and cognitive ability are all possible outcomes. However, every one of those will depend on the punisher used, its properties, the behaviour in question, and a large variety of other factors. Your brush paints thickly.

I'm not sure what to make of your last paragraph. It reeks of ad-hom.

>> ^RhesusMonk:

"Aversive punishment" is not a coherent term in the realm of emotional/behavioral psychology. What's more, the practice to which this term seems to refer has vanishingly small effect on "self-injurious" behavior (which is actually called self-stimulating behavior). What effects it may have are significantly offset by the reduction in social and communications skills, and a decrease in cognitive ability. These reasons are why, when aversive conditioning is used in the developmental setting, it is as a last resort and the aversive stimulus is sparing and lenient. In this case, the video and other evidence around the boy's condition and behavior are sparse, and any judgment whether this was the correct course of action based on the information we have is laughable. Great measures require great evidence in their justification.
In any event, cooling people off their outrage at authority who inflict barbaric emotional and physical pain in an effort to encourage compliance for its own sake with quasi-psychology based claims is sophomoric at best. There may be some intellectual satisfaction with the idea that some minds are so beyond reason that they only respond to pain of this kind, but that idea only smacks true when the thinker lacks the creativity necessary to actually manage these kinds of malfunctions. Seems Nurse Ratched would pass muster with at least some of our Sifters.

>> ^berticus:
The sad, cold truth of things is that there are some severely autistic children who engage in the most horrific self-injurious behaviour, and aversive punishment is the ONLY treatment (in conjunction with a broader treatment plan, naturally) that works. And yes, it DOES work.
I'm not talking about kids with minor problems. I mean the ones who will do things like smash their own face into the ground over and over until they lose so much blood they pass out. The ones who will, left to themselves, die.
Positive punishment is horrible. But, it's either that, or let these kids maim or kill themselves (or possibly others) through their behaviour.
(I make no comment regarding this specific incident, I just want you to know the issue is far more complicated than this mind-bite would have you believe.)

"Aversive punishment" is not a coherent term in the realm of emotional/behavioral psychology. What's more, the practice to which this term seems to refer has vanishingly small effect on "self-injurious" behavior (which is actually called self-stimulating behavior). What effects it may have are significantly offset by the reduction in social and communications skills, and a decrease in cognitive ability. These reasons are why, when aversive conditioning is used in the developmental setting, it is as a last resort and the aversive stimulus is sparing and lenient. In this case, the video and other evidence around the boy's condition and behavior are sparse, and any judgment whether this was the correct course of action based on the information we have is laughable. Great measures require great evidence in their justification.

In any event, cooling people off their outrage at authority who inflict barbaric emotional and physical pain in an effort to encourage compliance for its own sake with quasi-psychology based claims is sophomoric at best. There may be some intellectual satisfaction with the idea that some minds are so beyond reason that they only respond to pain of this kind, but that idea only smacks true when the thinker lacks the creativity necessary to actually manage these kinds of malfunctions. Seems Nurse Ratched would pass muster with at least some of our Sifters.


>> ^berticus:

The sad, cold truth of things is that there are some severely autistic children who engage in the most horrific self-injurious behaviour, and aversive punishment is the ONLY treatment (in conjunction with a broader treatment plan, naturally) that works. And yes, it DOES work.
I'm not talking about kids with minor problems. I mean the ones who will do things like smash their own face into the ground over and over until they lose so much blood they pass out. The ones who will, left to themselves, die.
Positive punishment is horrible. But, it's either that, or let these kids maim or kill themselves (or possibly others) through their behaviour.
(I make no comment regarding this specific incident, I just want you to know the issue is far more complicated than this mind-bite would have you believe.)

That almost must be something to do with your browser, perhaps an add-in, or something you've turned off that the code requires.

What happens when you try it on a different workstation, with a bog standard IE or Firefox or Safari or whatever is standard there?

I have given you the basic template though, if you really want to embed vimeo clips you can use that and just change the clip_id parameter.
In reply to this comment by ant:
Yes, the same one. VS will approve the code (with a different ID and not a dupe), but after it changes it for the final submission, then it gets rejected to say code is invalid.

Indeed, 2013. When was the lifetime changed from 2 weeks to a year?

You use the user agent, like the full user agent including version number? Doesn't Chrome autoupdate all the time? Anyway, I am a pretty plain browser user, I am pretty sure that I only log in on Videosift on my own computer, and only through Chrome, without any special cookie settings, but autoupdate is on in it.

>> ^lucky760:

Couple of things. First, we used to have a cookie lifetime of two weeks. That's since been increased by much more, like beyond a year. For example, my cookie also expires in May, but of 2013. Are you sure your cookie expiration isn't 2013?



Second, I can't really think of a reason that you might get logged out, except if you upgrade your browser. The reason for this is there's a security precaution in place that in part uses your browser's user agent to ensure you're the rightful owner of the cookie.
Is anyone else experiencing these issues? I never have to log back in whether in Firefox, Chrome, or Safari, except after upgrading.

Couple of things. First, we used to have a cookie lifetime of two weeks. That's since been increased by much more, like beyond a year. For example, my cookie also expires in May, but of 2013. Are you sure your cookie expiration isn't 2013?

Second, I can't really think of a reason that you might get logged out, except if you upgrade your browser. The reason for this is there's a security precaution in place that in part uses your browser's user agent to ensure you're the rightful owner of the cookie.

Is anyone else experiencing these issues? I never have to log back in whether in Firefox, Chrome, or Safari, except after upgrading.

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

You can set your user-agent to safari mobile, and pretend to be a mobile, flashless device. Vimeo works too.

>> ^dag:

If you have your User Agent set to Mobile Safari it might load HTML 5 for those hosts that we're doing iframes for - YouTube, Vimeo et al. We might be able to force HTML 5 as an option in the future, not sure.>> ^marinara:
10 minutes after i read this, Adobe flash crashed.
I ask again, when is HTML 5 coming to videosift?



VideoSift iPad/iPhone app in the works?

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

If you have your User Agent set to Mobile Safari it might load HTML 5 for those hosts that we're doing iframes for - YouTube, Vimeo et al. We might be able to force HTML 5 as an option in the future, not sure.>> ^marinara:

10 minutes after i read this, Adobe flash crashed.
I ask again, when is HTML 5 coming to videosift?

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

I think he probably is a philanthropist – but it would be in some weird, Jobsian way – not a foundation or otherwise. The guy is a very, very private person. I’m sure there will be a lot of information that comes out after he passes. I suppose it would affect my opinion of him if he wasn’t.

Although I like my Apple products, I’m a big fan of open too. I use a lot of open source tools, especially on the web. I also love my Google products, Gmail, Google Docs etc. I feel like “Open” is misused a bit in the current IT world. Most of the tech titans have “open” and non-open technologies. Apple is a big supporter of an open web – and are behind and have contributed heaps to Webkit, the open source layout engine used by Safari, Chrome, Kindle and more. No, OSX and iOS are not open but neither is Windows and even Android is not quite as open as Google would like you to believe: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_15/b4223041200216.htm >> ^kymbos:

Do you think he is a philanthropist, @dag? Would it affect your view of him if he weren't?
It is interesting to me that he is viewed so differently to someone like Bill Gates, however. Gates seems to have copped so much criticism about Microsoft, while Jobs seems to be so revered by Apple fans. This is despite Gates' philanthropy, and the insular nature of Apple products.
I don't feel strongly about it, to be fair, but I find myself drawn to open platform products on principle.
What I see Apple doing in the language of economics is 'product differentiation'. They have created a point of difference between their products and their competitors that allows them to move away from competing on price.

>> ^Yogi:

Seriously he's wearing mascara? Conan is gonna fail sooo hard.


While I agree wholeheartedly with the imminent failure of a PG-13 remake of one of the baddest-ass 80s movies there ever was using a dude who's no where near as awesome as Arnold, I get a total nerd-boner for Game of Thrones and do actually believe Drogo would eat Conan alive, so I need to point out that the eye makeup Jason Momoa is wearing is to ham up his

1 decade 2 years 9 months 3 weeks ago