I'm not a Maher fan, but he does have a few points.
Yes, the Benghazi fiasco is an issue, as is the IRS thing, but these two "scandals" are far from being anything close to the "worst" scandal that's ever happened.
Thing is, that the American public in general (and congress even more so) has a very short attention span, they easily forget and dismiss history and only focus on the present. So when something pops up, they instantly think it's the "worst thing" (or "best" thing, depending on the situation) ever.

Personally, I don't like where this is going. It's bad enough Google and similar companies are making millions off tracking your surfing habits; just wait till these become popular. How long did he/she look at that cereal box or car or whatever? And at what part of it? Better get that info off to marketing to increase the font size and change the color. Meanwhile, let's bombard the user with up-to-date advertisements in real time.

Not to mention invasion of privacy (outward facing camera), increasing our already short attention spans and isolation from one another, draconian EULA's -- don't resell 'em, don't lend 'em out, otherwise our data gathering will be shit. What's next? Don't take them off?

Yes, I can see the thousands of beneficial uses these could provide too. Don't mean to go all Kaczynski/Orwell here but it seems an awful lot of trade just to be able to watch cat videos instantly.

>> ^vaire2ube:

Aye but the guy did say the Progressive lawyer in the courtroom did more than give a little assistance:

"At the beginning of the trial on Monday, August 6th, an attorney identified himself as Jeffrey R. Moffat and stated that he worked for Progressive Advanced Insurance Company. He then sat next to the defendant. During the trial, both in and out of the courtroom, he conferred with the defendant. He gave an opening statement to the jury, in which he proposed the idea that the defendant should not be found negligent in the case. He cross-examined the plaintiff’s witnesses. On direct examination, he questioned all of the defense’s witnesses. He made objections on behalf of the defendant, and he was a party to the argument of all of the objections heard in the case. After all of the witnesses had been called, he stood before the jury and gave a closing argument, in which he argued that my sister was responsible for the accident that killed her, and that the jury should not decide that the defendant was negligent.
I am comfortable characterizing this as a legal defense. "
>> ^entr0py:
The good news is the Fisher family won the case regardless. There were also a few factual errors in TYTs reporting, as porksandwich mentioned the other driver had insurance which had already paid out to it's maximum, and progressive didn't represent him legally. But what they actually did do was bad enough to deserve the condemnation; a progressive lawyer contacted the defendant's lawyer and gave him assistance, so they could ultimately avoid liability.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-progressive-campaign-
20120816,0,5322264.story



I admit I didn't read the blog on account of the short attention span. But yeah it's fucked up. I would have thought defense attorneys would have to do most of that work to earn their standing, apparently not.

Well, I loved the ceremony. Obviously not all did, but I loved it. There was something fantastic about the grass and little fields and the tree. The great transformation to the industrial nation... it was great. I'm amazed anyone could be that down on it to be honest. I can get not liking all of it, but to really think that it was boring... man, someone has a short attention span.

upvote for "nation of a short attention span".

Preamble: Much as I hate going through these sorts of exercises, they are sometimes necessary, particularly when a thread has gotten large. People forget what they're responding to; what the topic really is at the time they're responding, leaps of logic, etc. One thing's certain about these summaries: they're always helpful. <- Yes, that's a boast.
1. I posted some quotes from Roger Ebert's review (and blog) that I thought captured my own feelings about The Raid, including a brash comparison to the joke movie Ass featured in Mike Judge's hilarious flick Idiocracy.

2. I get dressed down by Sarzy for said comparison. Sarzy also claims Ebert said there was no craft or artistry to The Raid (which he never actually said, but never mind) and that The Raid is a martial arts milestone.

3. ChaosEngine makes an amusing ad populum argument and later makes a strong case for the merit of terse storytelling and inference of story elements.

4. I ask Sarzy why The Raid is a milestone.

5. Sarzy responds with many heartfelt testimonials by sympathetic reviewers, personal opinions, and lauds its choreography and direction.

6. I excise all the subjective-slanted testimony and focus on what is demonstrably true about The Raid: it was choreographed and directed with great care. I point out that without context (story), conflict is without meaning.

7. ChaosEngine gives it one last try with another amusing post about inference of story elements on the part of the viewer and indirectly calls me a prick. Classy!

8. I respond to ChaosEngine by inferring a wonderful storyline to Ass, instantly making it one of the best joke movies I'd ever watched.

9. Sarzy points out that plenty of other genres of film are short on story. The best examples are the "meditative" styles featured in art houses and the like.

10. I respond to Sarzy's excellent point by citing other possible gains (transcendence) by watching these "meditative" style pictures, gains that are not possible (in my opinion) with martial arts pictures. I remind him that I am responding to his point with, and I quote, "...I am merely responding to your point about the role of story."

11. Despite my reminder, Sarzy erroneously concludes that every film I see must transcend me to another plane even though all I was doing was attempting to shoot a hole in Sarzy's point about other films that are loose on story.

And that pretty much brings us up to date.

But do you see how helpful these summaries can be? They're my little innovation. You internet kids and your short attention spans made its creation a necessity.

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

I think outrage fatigue is a real problem. Especially with the short attention span we now all have. Oh look, a puppy!

Holy cow this guy is annoying. Ridiculous strawmen, stupid vocal affectations, equivocation, eye-rolling hyperbole, some stuff that's so stupid it has to be at least disingenuous, and not even a vague pretense of balance.

To be clear: I think the pipeline will probably end up on a different route, and for valid reasons. And there's clearly downsides. But this decision doesn't exist in a vacuum. It's not like moving oil other ways is safe either, and it's not like building out production facilities somewhere closer to Alberta is environmentally neutral. There's a lot of factors to be balanced, and building this pipeline is, at very least, not crazy.

Yeah, it's big, but mostly it's special because it came at the wrong time; it's just the right time to get rolled up in the "we hate corporations"/"corporations are burning the planet" zeitgeist so it's getting a level of attention that would make much simpler decisions hard to sell.

Luckily for the people building this, people have short attention spans and this will (I think) get lost in the next Republican talking points battle.

Have you seen TubeChop?
http://www.tubechop.com/

Good tool, especially with the short attention spans around here.

I think you could have chopped this into a Bachmann vid and a Paul vid and they both would have done well.

I disagree. This video is just over a minute long, the original is over 8 minutes long, hardly "a few additional insignificant seconds of video".>> ^mxxcon:

>> ^bareboards2:
http://videosift.com/video/Japanese-Precision
Here is the full routine. Wild. [edit] not a dupe -- blankie's is a short excerpt. short attention span theater.
according to http://videosift.com/faq-en.php

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.

>> ^bareboards2:

http://videosift.com/video/Japanese-Precision
Here is the full routine. Wild. [edit] not a dupe -- blankie's is a short excerpt. short attention span theater.
according to http://videosift.com/faq-en.php

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.

http://videosift.com/video/Japanese-Precision

Here is the full routine. Wild. [edit] not a dupe -- blankie's is a short excerpt. short attention span theater.

>> ^quantumushroom:

As long as he doesn't burn millions of taxpayer dollars for fat-assed vacations on Soul Plane 1, go robo!


You vile racist hack.

Clearly with your short attention span, you've forgotten that Bush II spent more vacation time than any other president, or burned through our biggest budget surplus with his corporate welfare programs and handouts to the rich. Clearing brush on his ranch in Crawford, TX, was a greater priority to him than bringing to justice the man responsible for thousands of US deaths and probably securing his second term.

So screw you, you morally-bankrupt retard. No, it's an insult to the mentally challenged to liken them to you - you have no excuse as to why you don't use all your brain. You're going on /ignore, and no amount of private pleading will help your case this time.

Bashir asks some good questions, but never gives the guy a chance to respond. Bashir is clearly the wrong type of interviewer for such a nuanced subject. He talks to the pastor like he would Dog the Bounty Hunter. Also he has a short attention span.

I can see why you would have that opinion. I myself disagree only because, in the past, a cop's opinion was the only one that mattered. Unless, in the few rare circumstances, a powerful individual was pulled over (Like a mayor or police chief.) Think on this--who is the camera around most often, the civilian or the cop? Who does it watch more?

(All of these incidents were on the news)
For example, Rodney King may not have been a dash cam, but the police were still caught. A cop nearby my residence pulled a drunk driver from her vehicle--through the window. He had all right to do so, because she tried to gun it and was behind the wheel of a dangerous weapon. But who gets suspended? In a booking jail in my home state, a paraplegic was dumped out of a wheelchair... Cop got a felony and deserved it. Later, a man threw himself from a wheelchair while a cop was trying to prevent either from getting harmed, and guess who gets suspended? (It was on tape and someone had to take the fall because, even though you could see what happened, a quick glance suggested it was his fault. And people tend to have short attention spans.) In a prison, four officers (Alibis) go into a cell when the power goes out (Dumbasses, backup power is a beautiful thing,) and beat a murderer to death.

The list goes on and on, and since most cameras do not affect the average joe, I tend to believe they are there for a reason beyond the cop's best interest. Remember, even if the cop is justified, "Cameras never lie."

Now, the Police Departments do benefit from dash cams, simply because they can limit liability.


>> ^Porksandwich:
I dunno I think the dash cam is there for non-biased record, it is as much for the cop as it is for the person he stopped. But I also think that they've let a lot of officers run solo because of the dash cam, since they don't need a second officer to file their report on any incident that might occur. As long as it happens mostly on camera and the audio is captured. You'll notice they have multiple units of single occupied vehicles show up to situations where their dash cam is unlikely to record anything useful....like responding to noise complaints and other such minor things...car can't record that without being positioned very deliberately.
The only downside to dash cams are that the footage can be tampered with or "lost" when it's convenient for the police. I haven't heard of any system where the footage is captured direct from car with no human hands/eyes being involved in it's cataloging and tamper resistant storage (nothing is foolproof, but it should at least be something deliberate to cause loss of records where it's not explained away as inefficiencies and mistakes).