I think the debate here goes right to the central issue about Climate change:
How do you make science and politics play well together?

In science, concensus isn't that important. Sure, people will be skeptical if you champion some way out there theory, but entertaining strange possibilities is seen as a good thing.

Climate scientists, however, suddenly found themselves in a position where they had to get into politics with the message they got out of their data. Politics, however, is another beast entirely. You have to deal with absolute truths, otherwise people won't give a damn about what you're saying.

How do you make an informed decision based on science? Since it doesn't offer absolute truths, there has to be some element of risk analysis behind your reasoning. But the problem isn't only that no one scientist is absolutely sure about his answer, it's that people disagree on how sure you can be. How do you perform risk analysis when you don't know the risk?

This is where consensus becomes important in science. You can't have a concensus about what's true and what's false, but maybe you can have a consensus about what the risk is. That is what the IPCC is all about.

Now, people won't just trust a consensus; they want to know what lies behind. That's why public access journals are so important.

That's my thinking on the subject, anyway. I, however, am no expert.

>> ^Crake:
The problem with that analogy is whether Videosift is like your backyard or not.

Good point. Assume it's a metro park instead, or perhaps a privately owned, but publicly accessible park where all the plants and gardening is done by volunteers...

My main point is that it's possible to differentiate between minor infractions (say, slapping someone), and major ones (say, stabbing someone), even if the action in both cases share a common basic root (they're both violent), without being illogical or hypocritical.

In the specific case of westy, I think all we need to do is tell him we don't like what he said, but I do think what he said was a bit more than merely being disrespectful.

this is more sad than comedic. I can't believe this man was given so much power . . . He sounds like the televangelist that airs on my county's public access television at about 1 am after reruns of M.A.S.H. Regardless of his personal beliefs, I believe the constant references he made to his faith were just part of his snake oil salesman act.

>> ^9781:
is it just me that thinks that this COULD actually be an awesome metal song?


I'm thinking in the same vein as Type O's cover of "Cinnamon Girl"

Lucky760, thanks! I've actually already tried doing exactly that. The only problem is that with the exception of Facebook's own instructional videos, the video pages aren't publicly accessible unless you're logged in. I'd have to resort to logging in first and then extracting the data from the page. My goal had been to see if someone could spot an obvious algorithm that was generating the data after http://vthumb.ak.facebook.com/vthumb-ak-sf2p in the thumbnail URL (besides the ID). I think I'm going to let our users paste in the embed code & parse the values from that instead of the page URL.

Paul

I think public access TV needs to implement just a few broadcasting rules. Like not allowing the tone deaf to hit the airwaves.

I can't explain why I watched it twice... I think I actually enjoy it? I feel a strange mix of pity and appreciation. I mean this guy waited (it would seem) 20 or 25 years to finally let his masterpiece out of the closet and onto... public access television. Shit, I really dig this song.

OMG, that's so *terrible.

It looks like it was blankfist (especially the fifth picture down) who introduced the performer, volumptuous.

*promote public access Sift Up

>> ^deathcow:
TYT.... figure out how to do sound please

yeah, no kidding. the production values on that look like public access cable. I keep expecting him to turn to the right and go "party on Garth!"

...and why is it that it seems like all public access tv shows think that a room divider is the perfect backdrop for their scenes?

I think this longer clip might be from the same show;

http://www.videosift.com/video/UFO-Obsesed-Christians-Science-Public-Access-Television

>> ^blankfist:
You can see CP420 in his latest video.


He's actually got his own show on public access, ya know.

These strivings for an "atheist society" will have little impact, even if it is on public access TV.

The human heart is infinitely deceptive; anyone who thinks they can make up their moral code as they go along is already a victim of that deception.

Man remains a vicious animal, a reptilian brain with only a thin veneer of reason and rationality. There is nothing in the atheist's bag o' tricks to quell the beast (ego).

Apparently there's enough good in religion--any religion--that promotes human survival over destruction. I don't believe you can be an authentic atheist without acknowledging this.

While the clip is entertaining, it gets old real fast. But there's always a solution to the problem. And I happen to utilize this solution wherever I go. First...

1) Quit the game
2) Switch to Ventrilo or TeamSpeak
3) Disconnect.

Problem solved.

It's entertaining that whoever was doing it played the clip "I don't think you're happy enough". But like I said, it gets old, fast.

Also, this is the number one reason why you should never.. ever... EEEEEEEEEEEEEEVER... make your Ventrilo or TeamSpeak public/accessible to all. Don't want retards going in and making annoying sounds? Password it, change the password for it, or turn it into a private server. That's all.

if atheists want to be a minority group who gains their civil rights in this century, youre going to have to stop public access call in shows hosted by these guys.
noone listens to a flamboyant homosexual, a ganged out mexican, or bra burning man hated feminist and noone is going to listen to baldy mcnerdistein and uncle pedo in his joker hat.
why cant you find a more handsome spokesman?
maybe y'all are just atheist because youre ugly.