^"While I think it's unfortunate a lot of people don't seem to have the knowledge available to make informed choices I think it's even worse of these companies to take advantage of them."

I agree. But, being naive is still not a good excuse.


@Januari: Double speak pisses me off. I hate it when politicians change their talking points in favor of more popular language. I want to hear about some real solutions. I don't support a candidate simply because my party nominated them. I would criticize them HERE for the things I don't agree with but there is already an overabundance of criticizm towards the republicans on this site.

@arekin:
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-trailmoney9-2008sep09,0,1969729.story
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=75586
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/07/top-senate-recipients-of-fanni.html
http://blip.tv/file/1268421
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/09/mortgage-giants.html
http://cjonline.activote.com/obama-got-big-donations-freddiefannie

Wow, everyone is so quick to jump to this guy's defense because he was smoking weed and weed shouldn't be illegal. In most of the other weed related sifts everyone talks about how it should be legal and treated no differently than alcohol. And yet here the guy isn't using it responsibility, he was pulled over for a traffic violation, it's not like the cops have weed radar, 'ooh, ohh two blips on the weed'o'tron he's smokin a roach get him!'

Driving slower does not make you a better driver, old people drive slow that doesn't make them better drivers, some drunk people drive slow, does that make them better drivers? They drive slower in an attempt to compensate for their inability to handle the vehicle at higher speeds. Which means their reaction time is slower. And even assuming they obey all the traffic laws their decreased reaction time still puts them at risk. Being a good driver not only means obeying traffic laws, but also being alert and reactive enough to avoid accidents when other people aren't being responsible drivers, or when shit suddenly happens like a kid or dog suddenly running into the middle of the road. I can't count the number of times where alertness and quick reaction on my part has avoided an accident because of someone else's stupidity.

So I guess to sum things up, defend responsible marijuana use, but don't weaken your position's credibility with a knee jerk, never-admit-someone-smoking-pot-could-be-doing-something-wrong, defense.

Arguing he'll get an unfair sentence, compared to those who drink and drive, is also a fair point to make. But suggesting being high as fuck doesn't impair your ability to drive normally, not so convincing.

Lies. Damn lies. And statistics.

That first "blip" on the poll for "General Election Matchup" just seems WAAAAY too scewed to show favor towards a candidate who really doesn't appear to be winning ANY poll.

C'mon, what kind of sample size is 791 "likely voters"? Does that even mean these people are REGISTERED voters? And why just 791?

I HATE POLLS! They are not a reflection of people's opinion anymore rather the press's way of telling us what to think. It manipulation.

Lies. Damn lies. And statistics.

Hey, thanks! Just getting my house in order, y'know. And trying to make that feeling last. Y'know, like thinking about baseball. Thanks for the fix.

In reply to this comment by kronosposeidon:
Deading your own videos? What a turd.

Fix this:

http://www.videosift.com/video/Design-for-Dreaming-1956

With this:

Deading your own videos? What a turd.

Fix this:

http://www.videosift.com/video/Design-for-Dreaming-1956

With this:

The sudden coldness caused by atmospheric debris from an astroid impact would only last a few decades. That's barely a blip on the radar in the chart's time scale, but enough to cause many extinctions. Each vertical pixel in that chart is over half a million years. There is no way particulate debris from an astroid could stay in the atmosphere that long.

Oh jeez oh jeez.

EDIT: remainder of comment blipped out. I don't want to go there.

>> ^deathcow:
wtf why the downvotes

Well, since you asked, let's go back to your original quote (before you sarcastically edited it)...

"wow, Mos Def sounded much more intelligent on HHGTTG.... the "IQ 80" accent does not suit him"

The IQ 80 accent? As if everyone who speaks "ghetto" or uses slang must be unintelligent. No, Mos Def should go back to the corrupt and despicable school system of the ghetto (he grew up in Brooklyn) and learn himself some real English so us whiteys can understand him better! Then maybe he'll be more accepted into the mainstream media instead of being written off as another tokin' black guy for Uncle Sam to chuckle at. In reality, Mos Def is one of the leading underground hip-hop artists of our time, a man who actually has a message to his music, unlike 90% of the c"rap" that's out there talking about bling, guns and hoes. And as seen here, he's willing to speak his mind and say things in public that many people have thought but are too afraid (read: no balls) to say.

The accent doesn't "suit" him? Please. Do us a jig Mos! As if he's putting on some kind of act. Then to say he sounded more intelligent in some cheesy kiddy movie where he WAS acting, completely degrades what this man has accomplished in his lifetime - and believe me, HHGTTG is barely a blip on his radar.

On to the next quote...

"mos def might have a speech disorder, but luckily we can understand him alright.
cornell west.... who cares."

Speech disorder - pfft, yeah. Maybe he should start talking "more white" so that we can translate this foreign ebonic jibberish. See above.

Cornel West... who cares? Right, he's only a former Harvard professor, current Princeton professor, a best-selling author, civil rights activist, a well-respected sociologist and social critic especially when it comes to matters of race and religion, etc. etc. Nope, he's just using a bunch of big phony words I can't follow, therefore he must be talking out of his ass. In fact, Cornel West has many more meaningful things to say than you or I probably ever will.

I never thought I would give out downvotes, especially to people who upvoted my own video, but those comments completely missed the point.

Thanks for the embed help!

In reply to this comment by winkler1:
*dead - replacemnent here, http://youtube.com/watch?v=nPdP1jBfxzo ... or maybe at http://beatbots.blip.tv/#

*dead - replacemnent here, http://youtube.com/watch?v=nPdP1jBfxzo ... or maybe at http://beatbots.blip.tv/#

Wow, I didn't know that comment blocking was going to lead to Communism, choggie. This is a little surprising coming from a guy who says that opinions are like you-know-what.

Look, I don't plan on blocking anyone's comments, but if someone else wants to block them then who gives a rat's ass? People filter shit all the time in their lives anyway. Many choose not to watch FOX News because it sucks. Some people will only read the New York Post and refuse to even look at the New York Times. Some people refuse to read a single word of Ann Coulter's, and others can't stand to even hear the sound of Keith Olbermann's voice. What are you going to do, force everyone to watch and read everything so that they know all 879,000 sides of every story?

Now you could argue that the world is in such bad shape these days partly because people are always selectively filtering information. However I don't see human behavior having changed so drastically over the millennia to say that people only started selectively filtering information just recently. People have ALWAYS done it. It ain't the end of the world.

Besides, those who filter comments will probably notice that some threads won't make sense because they chose to filter out comments. Oh well, that's what they chose to do, so those are the consequences they'll have to accept.

If in a few days time we all start calling each other "comrade" and start posting old Soviet propaganda videos, then we'll know choggie was right after all. However I'm still banking on comment filtering not even registering a blip on the social-interaction radar here. And I watch the radar, people. Trust me.

Ok, folks. Here's my take.

Initial impressions: Each interview is very shortened and not always as thorough as should be expected, but nothing is outright incorrect. I'm getting the distinct impression that this video is cutting out hours and hours of interviews to get a few little blips of speech that are being slapped together by layman TV people to get the nice easy piece they want. For example, I'm not particularly sure why Professor Lloyd is brought in, he seems to be speaking to an entirely different set of questions than the video is supposed to be asking.

Eric, the roulette table is in reference to the Schrodinger wave equation and its implication in wave function collapse. In theoretical terms, the video is putting forward an interpretation of such an event, specifically Everett's many worlds hypothesis. If you want an explanation, I can put one together for you, but altogether it's a reasonable (albeit not the most widely-held) hypothesis, insofar as quantum mechanical hypotheses are.

Overall, the video just seems to be very disjointed and sloppy. Each speaker is cohesive individually, but the leaps the video is making are not connected and occasionally simply off-topic.

I'm tempted to leave this video in the Science Channel because it's at least making people ask questions. The question "Are there parallel universes?" is one that is still in the hypothesis stage without substantial data in support of or against an answer either way, so it falls within the softer side of science, the part not yet locked down by solid evidence. In this sense, the video is still in keeping with scientific principles.

I am, however, concerned that this video does seem to be misleading in that it is presenting a number of phenomena and theories that are not quite topical or sufficiently linked as to be topical to the specific question of whether parallel universes exist, and doesn't place them appropriately. Why are they getting into entanglement theory? Why are they talking about quantum computers? ....I don't really know. Hell, they don't even distinguish a change in topics when they move from the "Dang there could be multiple versions of you within the same universe because the universe could be infinitely big" theory to the "Holy crap there could be multiple universes because there could be branching due to quantum decoherence" theory. Bad bad bad. Naughty TV show.

In short, I think I see both sides of the argument here. KP, you're right, I think the scientists are cool and damn smart (and Seth Lloyd is fucking BALLER) and their research and theories are great. Irishman and Jonny, you're right, the overall video is being screwed up by crappy TV program producers/editors and their regrettable fill-in voice-overs. I'm at a loss for what to do. I think I'll come back, see how a few more people weigh in, and then decide whether this video stays or goes.

P.S. If you happen to think a video in the Science Channel is questionable, please let me know via profile comment or email. I happen to be SWAMPED in my own research, and I don't have near enough time to clean out all the swill from the channel as throughly, as often or as quickly as I would like.

Yay Fox News: Shun and destroy all that is not conservative christian white bread America.


OMG, someone wanted to get pregnant to "feel good"?!?!?! that has never happened before, stop the presses. The funny yhtings, is that the middle, and right-side guys both ping little blips on my gaydar.

critttter is on to something here. I always liken snoozedoctorin' to airline piloting. When at altitude and on autopilot, you hope you have an interesting copilot to talk to, an attendant that can get you a drink every now and then, and a fairly recent issue of Sports Illustrated, preferably the swimsuit edition.
But, occasionally the take-offs and landings scare the s*** out of you.
There are other upsides to administering the vapor; you get to fiddle with high tech toys, poke needles into body cavities, and, when appropriate and necessary, you get to point out to the surgeon that, although they may fancy themselves to be the most important and interesting person in the solar system, they are, in fact, a frigging arsehole.

>> ^critttter:
I always wondered what snoozedocs did when someone was under...I mean, they can't just be sitting there watching that monitor blip...OOOhhh, that's where the snoozin' comes in!

I always wondered what snoozedocs did when someone was under...I mean, they can't just be sitting there watching that monitor blip...OOOhhh, that's where the snoozin' comes in!