We had a blip months ago where it seemed that a swath of Google Video embeds stopped working on the Sift side. Wasn't conclusive or site-wide, but embeds may need to be refreshed.

http://geek.videosift.com/talk/Is-Google-Video-finally-dead

blipping the throttle on the downshift? bravo!

When single mothers are fine $15M, it's time to take a look at copyright protections in the digital age.

http://blip.tv/file/4341980

Thanks! Hope all is well. I've been barely blipping onto the sift radar lately.

In reply to this comment by MarineGunrock:
*promote

>> ^quantumushroom:
Freeing slaves, giving women the right to vote, legalizing drugs or prostitution...these aren't even blips on the radar compared to the fundamental societal changes that legalizing gay 'marriage' might bring.


Though I would argue several points of your response, this is the fundamental position that I find patently ridiculous. Gays are already living together in loving, committed, long-term relationships. They are already raising children. They already have some of the same rights as marriage through "civil unions". And there is not one shred, not one single iota of data to suggest that anyone is being harmed by this except for thick-headed conservatives who can't get over their "ewwww" reaction. Allowing gays to apply the word "marriage" to their relationships would do nothing except give them a few more of the privileges that heterosexual couples have and, more importantly, bring an end to the legally sanctioned classification of second-class citizen.

I challenge you or any other homophobe to explain one single concrete harm that would befall society by allowing gays full marriage rights. You can't, because all opposition arguments are based on religion and fear of the unknown, combined with a fundamental distaste for anything that is categorized as "different than me".

1. The will of the people does not override the Constitution. The Constitution isn't being overridden, there's nothing in it about marriage either way. No one political party has the patent on hypocrisy. The legitimate State exists to preserve rights and protect private property, and since marriage is a legal contract it IS the State's business, and still would be even under the flawed 'marriage privatization' libertarian model.

2. You talk about "new" rights as if they are something bad which should be feared. Is one of the two major political movements more concerned with actual consequences than the other? Yes. The Right defends traditional values, for better or for worse. Why? To be mean? Or is it because 99 out of 100 "new" ideas fail?

Straight people currently have the right to marry whoever they fall in love with. Gays just want the same right. That is a lot less scary than giving slaves their freedom or women the right to vote. I don't see what all the fear is about.

The left has no real idea what the ultimate effects of legalizing gay marriage will be. We're talking 30 years of sketchy, activist-driven data versus 5000 years of history, during which no lasting society or moral thinker--religious or otherwise--condoned gay "marriage". It could be harmless, or it could turn the legal system and society on its ear. What personally ticks me off is if gay 'marriage' proves harmful to society, the left will deny it and try to hide the evidence.

3. Marriage is not about children. A rather large part of it is. Should we take away the right of the single parent to raise a child because they are not getting input from the opposite sex? No, but if the left cannot admit that two loving parents are better than one, then once again we are mired in intellectual dishonesty and the disavowal of common sense.

Never mind the fact that gay couples already have the right to adopt children despite not being married. Get over this argument, it is lame. Marriage is about two people joining together on their journey through life. That might involve children, it might not. It might involve a business venture, it might not. It might involve the purchase of property, it might not. There are as many different types of marriage as there are different people. And the only people damaging the "sacred institution of marriage" are the people trying to label it and restrict it.

Society has a right to define what relationships it values the most. If society decides one man/one woman legally bound works the best, then it has the the right to place that union on a pedestal. Gays like to make this all about them and how they're being persecuted over a "right" that IS new, but there is a line out the door and circling the block twice of relationship configurations society will also not place on "the pedestal".

Like a great number of Americans--though obviously not a majority--I couldn't care less about what gays do in their personal lives, but nor will I pretend there are no consequences for legitimizing 3% of the populations' will over the other 97%.

Freeing slaves, giving women the right to vote, legalizing drugs or prostitution...these aren't even blips on the radar compared to the fundamental societal changes that legalizing gay 'marriage' might bring.

I don't expect agreement here, just acknowledgment that there are other points of view, thoughtful and well-intentioned.














>> ^MaxWilder:

QM,
1. The will of the people does not override the Constitution. I love how Conservatives want to keep the government out of everything. Except the bedroom. And a woman's womb. And the science lab. And where certain buildings are placed. And... well the list of hypocrisy goes on and on. The simple fact is the government should not be in the business of deciding who can marry whom. It is between the individuals involved, and no one else.
2. You talk about "new" rights as if they are something bad which should be feared. Straight people currently have the right to marry whoever they fall in love with. Gays just want the same right. That is a lot less scary than giving slaves their freedom or women the right to vote. I don't see what all the fear is about.
3. Marriage is not about children. You can have children without getting married. You can get married without ever having children. You can raise a child alone, or with a vast extended family in the house. Should we take away the right of the single parent to raise a child because they are not getting input from the opposite sex? Never mind the fact that gay couples already have the right to adopt children despite not being married. Get over this argument, it is lame. Marriage is about two people joining together on their journey through life. That might involve children, it might not. It might involve a business venture, it might not. It might involve the purchase of property, it might not. There are as many different types of marriage as there are different people. And the only people damaging the "sacred institution of marriage" are the people trying to label it and restrict it.

>> ^Tingles:

Are you able to get blip.tv embeds to work because you're uber privileged Ant? Or is there some trick to their embed code I don't know about?


Probably since I don't recall blip.tv being supported by default and only for privileged members.

Are you able to get blip.tv embeds to work because you're uber privileged Ant? Or is there some trick to their embed code I don't know about?

*nsfw for the wonderful running monologue given by Jaws.

Could someone translate what was being said or what happened? I just saw this tiny blip of a car go by and a lot of smoke. And other than the f-bombs and n-words coming from Jaws mouth, I have no idea what he said.

*nochannel

*wtf *wheels *fail

>> ^Croccydile:

>> ^LarsaruS:
Ahhh, the Amiga... Some of the best games ever made were on that system. When the Amiga died computer science and capability lost ~10 years. True multitasking, AGA graphics, sound which didn't only go blip and a lot of other awesome features which the PC took ages to get. Heck Windows, afaik, still only fakes multitasking.

Wait... what? There is no doubt that the machine had great capabilities when it was first released, but this statement is a tad off.
When the Amiga died, everything else had superseded it. I seriously doubt the industry lost 10 years. At its release the machine (1985) was in a league of its own, the problem was they didn't really advance the design along as the rest of the industry caught up. When you talk about "fake" multitasking you are describing Windows, MacOS, Linux, etc... task switching is now trivial on modern processors even in software. Hell we have hardware virtualization on modern CPUs now! Switching resolutions on the Amiga between scanlines was pretty cool in 1985 but by the time it died this was no longer necessary as well as video architecture in general rendered this obsolete. Amiga was stuck on the legacy implications of the OCS and its greatest strength became its greatest weakness to advancing by the early 90s. Even AGA was actually a step backwards compared to emerging 16-bit and 24-bit colour PC video cards. Hold and Modify (for HiColor on the Amiga) required use of the CPU for displaying static images when Hi/True Colour PC cards did this simple task in hardware. Ugh!
It didn't matter in the end anyways. Gross mismanagement along with a seemingly trivial patent case on the CD32 put the company under for good. Really a good example at why software patents can be insanity at times. http://xcssa.org/pipermail/xcssa/2005-February/002587.html
Don't get me wrong as I don't mean to pick on you in particular. I just wanted to point out at the end of its life the Amiga was not all roses and unicorns. I would still personally like to have an Amiga 1000 to play with at home sometime


I guess you really do learn something new every day. I hadn't heard of the XOR patent issue. Also, no hard feelings on my side. I tend to get nostalgic when it comes to old systems.

>> ^LarsaruS:

Ahhh, the Amiga... Some of the best games ever made were on that system. When the Amiga died computer science and capability lost ~10 years. True multitasking, AGA graphics, sound which didn't only go blip and a lot of other awesome features which the PC took ages to get. Heck Windows, afaik, still only fakes multitasking.


Wait... what? There is no doubt that the machine had great capabilities when it was first released, but this statement is a tad off.

When the Amiga died, everything else had superseded it. I seriously doubt the industry lost 10 years. At its release the machine (1985) was in a league of its own, the problem was they didn't really advance the design along as the rest of the industry caught up. When you talk about "fake" multitasking you are describing Windows, MacOS, Linux, etc... task switching is now trivial on modern processors even in software. Hell we have hardware virtualization on modern CPUs now! Switching resolutions on the Amiga between scanlines was pretty cool in 1985 but by the time it died this was no longer necessary as well as video architecture in general rendered this obsolete. Amiga was stuck on the legacy implications of the OCS and its greatest strength became its greatest weakness to advancing by the early 90s. Even AGA was actually a step backwards compared to emerging 16-bit and 24-bit colour PC video cards. Hold and Modify (for HiColor on the Amiga) required use of the CPU for displaying static images when Hi/True Colour PC cards did this simple task in hardware. Ugh!

It didn't matter in the end anyways. Gross mismanagement along with a seemingly trivial patent case on the CD32 put the company under for good. Really a good example at why software patents can be insanity at times. http://xcssa.org/pipermail/xcssa/2005-February/002587.html

Don't get me wrong as I don't mean to pick on you in particular. I just wanted to point out at the end of its life the Amiga was not all roses and unicorns. I would still personally like to have an Amiga 1000 to play with at home sometime

Ahhh, the Amiga... Some of the best games ever made were on that system. When the Amiga died computer science and capability lost ~10 years. True multitasking, AGA graphics, sound which didn't only go blip and a lot of other awesome features which the PC took ages to get. Heck Windows, afaik, still only fakes multitasking.

Yes, we are at a crisis point.
We are reactive beings, languishing in self-centered accumulation. Blinded by envy, preyed upon by a societal structure that is profit, rather than welfare, driven.
"hippies" - is a term bastardized by those who disagreed with underlying tenets (objective and free thought, care and consideration of others) of the movement, applying that term equally to reactive thought (and/or angsty, hormonal teenagers). Free thought based on observation has always been validated. And in this case, it has, and...we're basically fucked.

Humanity and it's self-centered approach is probably just a blip on the evolutionary timeline, of which we are still in an infantile stage. Consider, of course, that a mere 200 years ago, the main concern for most people was feeding themselves whilst avoiding an untimely extremely-violent end. Shit, most of the world remains incredibly superstitious,... competing invisible men in the sky. Most people are simply sheep, conditioned from birth to repeat behavioral patterns...

Genetically we are still only 1% removed from chimps, and yet we act like arrogant, know--t-all fucktards (note the above entry: "Global warmer, its natural, not man made". You sir, are excused from your idiocy, you are entitled to it, but your idiocy comes at an expense... And that expense, on a global scale, is our downfall...

They missed a possible blip off the coast of South Africa in 1979: http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Safrica/Vela.html

he is a loud blip on my gaydar