Thanks for the fix, sorry it took so long - I've been terribly busy. I guess I'll have to keep looking for the second bit....

In reply to this comment by GreatBird:
I noticed that your Douglas Adams video is dead.

http://www.videosift.com/video/Douglas-Adamss-text-on-Atheism-read-by-Simon-Jones

I found a new embed for you if you want to fix it.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4484409161693268826&q=douglas+adams+atheism&ei=uKNESKDYA6CErAOTv934CA&hl=en

It's not the whole thing though and I didn't see a second part.

Could you link me or direct me to the paper in which the clinical trial demonstrating the 1 ppm effect on rats is detailed? The video you commented on is teetering towards the edge of getting the boot from the Science channel, and I thought it might be fun to see if it could be rescued before it flails its way into the abyss.

In reply to this comment by jwray:
TV news is so reminiscent of http://www.videosift.com/video/Monty-Python-The-Argument-Clinic-Full-Version

They don't actually go into the details of the placebo-controlled clinical trial that shows 1ppm of fluoride ion in drinking water causes a pattern of behavioral deficits in rats, or the studies of the biochemical mechanisms of its neurotoxicity. Dental Fluorosis is the most benign of the problems excess fluoride can cause. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=fluoride+varner

I will allow videos that talk about science or include it as a discussion. That's not why I removed it from the channel. Part of the channel description reads:

"In addition, if the video is intended to be factual and not parody, it must be reasonably scientifically accurate and in keeping with scientific thought."

The video you submitted does not fit this description, so I removed it.

In reply to this comment by gorgonheap:
Ok, I'm still trying to understand the guideline for the science channel. So tell me if the gist of what I understand is correct or not. You'll only allow videos that demonstrate something about science and not ones that talk about science or include it as a discussion?

In reply to this comment by rembar:
This is the second time this has been posted, the first sift can be found here, including my comments.

I'm a bit late responding, but no, I don't know anything about it beyond Google-fu. Luckily, it seems like Mycroft covered things pretty well.

...by the way, what went down with this Aaron McDonald fella?

In reply to this comment by jonny:
Do you know anything about this?

No offense to you. I've gotta stick by the guidelines I've set for the channel, and one of those is: Perpetual motion machines get chucked right out. The machine by itself might have some interesting properties to it, but it's not perpetual motion.

In reply to this comment by E_Nygma:
sounds good rembar.

In reply to this comment by rembar:
EN, I am removing this post from the Science channel. That link pushed it over the edge and off the cliff. Sensational journalism loses out consistently to the laws of thermodynamics.

I've chosen to not meet up with sifters a few times, but we'll see in the future. It really depends on how my career path works out, as I'm really in the midst of some overdue change. Eventually, I think, all in due time.

In reply to this comment by schmawy:
In reply to this comment by rembar:
>> ^schmawy:
I accept that you know a lot about this, that's why I'm dogging you about it.
So who do you think done it?


...I've already voiced my opinion in a more public manner and I would rather not connect that with my online persona. I like my anonymity."

I hope that this doesn't mean that if there's ever a VS meet-up, you wouldn't be able to attend so I could by you a drink.

Lol, you do like answering your own questions, don't you? I've dropped a reply in the thread, by the way.

In reply to this comment by schmawy:
Can we add this to *Mystery then?

E: (Doh!, it is! I Stoopid.)

In reply to this comment by rembar:
This doesn't belong in Science, because it only briefly covers anthrax biologically and even then does it poorly.

And I downvoted because, from a personal standpoint, this is a horrible mistreatment of a subject that requires a much greater in-depth analysis and a much stronger knowledge of the actual events and the nature of anthrax than the History Channel has, can or likely ever will put forth. Whether the conclusions are likely correct or not, this clip is still bad.

That was a sick VideoSift tag you made, rock on!

The Picard Facepalm, a byproduct of internet flame wars long past.

In reply to this comment by MarineGunrock:
1) brennon, please tell me that comment was supposed to be sarcastic. If not, this isn't YouTube, so please grow up and learn proper English and spelling.
2) What is that rembar? I see a hand - is it hands taking a helmet off?

*sigh*, dangit, my pratfall went to the wrong person. Or siftbot. Sorry, I'll correct that.

In reply to this comment by rembar:
Sifty, you have the wrong person! Seriously, put that cannon away before you put somebody's eye out. Sheesh.

In reply to this comment by siftbot:
JOHN CONNOR, COME WITH ME IF YOU WANT TO LIVE.

Much obliged.

Hey Rick, got a save for this sift? I found a replacement vid, but can't fix it 'til it's saved.

Will do. I'm betting it'll be a while before Apple and others start rethinking their retarded crippleware ideas, but hey, it's a start, right?

In reply to this comment by MarineGunrock:
You personally know the guy? Tell him I said "thanks" for giving Apple the ol' 'fuck you'

In reply to this comment by rembar:
Ahahahaha....unreal. Never thought I'd find myself upvoting an interview with one of my own friends. Actually, I think he comes across more eloquent here than he does in person!

Way-hey, thanks for the promote, I appreciate it. And looks like you'll be joining me soon, at least as soon as the site updates...

In reply to your comment:
“*promote”

For your edification.

In reply to your comment:
“

I'll bet a few ballistics calculations would bury this trash.