Restoring @MeasuredByCharacter per apologies for misunderstanding and a promise not to violate the posting guidelines again.

Upvote for the incredibly clear explanation of the joke in the youtube description:

"Marc goes home at 3:55 am and is completely drunk. When he opens the door, his mother is ready and waiting to scold him and tells him he's drunk. Marc will deny that. The woman then asked to say say what time it is displayed on the clock so that it is aware of the late hour. Too drunk, he will misunderstand the meaning of the sentence and repeat that it is not drunk at the clock.

Indeed the question asked by the mother who is "Can you tell the time?" can be interpreted (most commonly available) with "You can tell what time it is?" but also, as has understood that young drunk man, "You can say it now?" . This is why Marc will repeat that it is not drunk by speaking directly to the clock."

Dead pan at it's best!

I've been shouted down in meetings for the depth of field thing so many times. So many people don't understand how inappropriate it is for an interactive experience. Film is about controlling the viewers experience, games are about allowing the player to experience on their own. Not only is depth of field a completely unnatural artifact, its presence in games is a misunderstanding and misuse of the medium. Drives me nuts.
Also, most of the things the talking head says during the demo are devoid of any meaning. There's truthfully not a great deal impressive about the demo itself; these guys are wowing people with great artwork and flawless technical execution, (which is still nice), but the hardware/software used isn't as important as they're going on about.

Actually, you seem to have said it's up to Valve and the game developer (also Valve often enough), not the mod developer. Did I misunderstand?

True, you didn't do a break down of the 75% (apparently actually 70%?)....but in the case of Valve games, Valve gets 75% (70%?) and the mod developer 25-30%.

The mod maker seems to not get the option of making their mod free...at least that's how I read your description and took the video.
It makes sense to me that the mod maker only gets 25-30%....they only worked with the tools that the game developer spent hundreds of thousands-millions to develop. I think if you count total man hours to create, they would be getting over paid quite a bit at 25%. It's like saying people who write fan fiction should get 75% of anything they can make, and the series creators and distributers should split what's left.

I think they should leave it up to the mod developers how much to charge, but I can support the split. If you make a good mod that 100000 people 'buy' for $10, you just made $250000 for what amounts to playable 'fan fiction' made at home on your free time.
Just how I see it.

I think that the noise being picked up by the recorder makes it sound a lot worse than what it is. In my opinion, he's only really patting next to the baby.

Would it not be fair to say that clapping is a roughly equivalent action? And i see people doing that near babies all the time without someone worrying about affecting the kid's mental state as it grows up, or worrying if the kid perceives the clapping of hands as a threat or worry.

If babies are too young to understand, then they may misunderstand clapping? Or alternatively how are they to understand the waving of someone's hand nearby to be aggressive? Especially given that it appears to be a comfortable family unit.

Most importantly, can we please consider that the baby was slapping its own leg? Perhaps one day the baby slapped its hand about, the father did the same thing, and the baby got enjoyment out of it? It slaps its hand about again at the end too. We don't know, we can't know, and it's very unfair to make so many casual assumptions - not just about his actions, but about what is normal for different people.

I'm concerned about the amount of assumptions being made in chastising this man. Especially when drawing a parallel to an anecdote about someone "growing up skittish" because of "teasing". Correlation, not necessarily causation.. and again, what evidence is this of teasing, and how is it fair to speculatively compare it to something stated so vaguely?

I'm sorry to be combative about it, but i feel this is a huge leap of imagination based on 30 seconds of video. A great many of us (if not all) could be made to look all kinds of contrary ways based on 30 second snippets, and it's an indelible brush that he's being hurriedly tarred with. I stand to be corrected, but i don't see any signs of distress either from the baby or the person recording, and the baby looks otherwise healthy and well provisioned. It was not placed in that seating with those accoutrements without care and attention. I think more harm than good can come of judging things like this, considering the subtlety of most *actual* abusers.

Gangs of thugs are gonna be violent thugs, I'm not sure race has much to do with that, but I am pretty sure someone else will think differently.

Perhaps I misunderstand you @artician, are you blaming the tired man for not discussing contentious racial issues with angry pushy strangers? I can't fathom why he's at fault at all, can you explain please? I can totally fault the guy who gets violent over someone not talking to him, 100%, and I'm curious why you don't. Did I miss something?

He politely asked a focused question that could clear up the confusion, so I answered. I hope he reads my answer and will understand the misunderstanding, I made it as clear as I can, if he still acts the same, I'll say you're right and give up.

Well, even if you did say they were toxic I'd have agreed with you, like others here have said any reasonable comments made would have been buried under a metric fuckton of bullshit anyhow.

I think there is a misunderstanding here however, when GenjiKilpatrick and others are talking about Sarkeesian "being called on her shit" they mean the reasoned criticism, not the threats, nobody here is arguing in favor of that.
I am curious though, unless you know something about these threats that I don't, how do you know that they are in fact "Serious"? Most people can dream up all kinds of crazy shit or even talk about it, but that still doesn't put you into Dexter Morgan territory (Dexter would be too polite to say anything like that anyhow, and Sarkeesian doesn't fit Harry's Code).
If you are referring to the UCU lecture that she cancelled, then no, neither campus security nor the FBI advised her against going through with the appearance, she made that choice on her own.
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/58528113-78/sarkeesian-threats-threat-usu.html.csp

You also say "It's unseemly to imply a single woman should ignore such threats or assume they are not credible", which makes me wonder if this was a man we were talking about would you still feel the same way? Adam Orth received death threats to both himself and his family and while it did create a lot of discussion, even heated discussion, it did not generate the same kind of mass outrage that this has so far. Gabe Newell also got a threat from a developer some time back and that got barely a peep out of anyone.
Simply put, we still live in a society that puts on a good public show of equality for men and women, but privately we still teach our little boys that men are still the true protectors of our society. We don't get as upset when men face danger because that is what we expect of them, and this kind of deeply embedded cultural belief is the real heart of sexism in our society. This debate over the role of women in video games is all superficial because I believe it comes from those much older beliefs.

Enoch does it again...posts a totally irrelevant video. Why? Because if there were a case against Darren Wilson, the feds would have made it. He had a whole platoon of FBI agents trying to make a case against Wilson and they couldn't do it, simply because all the evidence backed Wilson's account. There was no 'hands up, don't shoot'. All total bullshit.

But enoch sounds like he was there, he knows everything about what happened.

If you want to make a case for removing that prosecutor, that's fine. She screwed up. Every rookie cop since Tenn v. Garner knows that you can't shoot a fleeing felon simply because they are fleeing.

However, FYI, you can shoot a fleeing felon if in your judgment the person poses a threat to other people and that threat is immediate.

Most of the posters here, I think, would prefer to watch a video of the proceedings a week later, than make a studied response, mostly based on their hatred of authority and misunderstanding of law and law enforcement.

Please read again...and write again, reading what you write before submitting. I can't follow your first paragraph. What little I can understand completely ignores what I wrote and makes stuff up to argue against.

I didn't say atheists have a monopoly on morality, I said morality doesn't come from religions, and atheists are more moral than religious people. I gave clear statistics about criminal behavior to prove my point.
EDIT:It seems you are saying if it's not religious in origin, the only thing left is political affiliation!? OMFG! That's so wrong I don't know where to start, I hope I just misunderstand you.
Reading/writing comprehension matters.
read my last paragraph in the post above...you exhibit those symptoms.

The answer to all your demographic questions, the religious group.
Religious 'morality' allows for murder, rape, and slavery of the non devout, and so is more responsible for the decline, and for many of the schisms in society.
You watch too much fox news, liberals don't 'control all major media and schools'. "Conservatives" (which are not conservative, they want to be more 'progressive' than liberals by "going back" to a time that never existed) never shut up pushing their insane, debunked ideas day and night. Their morality supports slavery and rape and wage disparity so disastrous that it may lead to class warfare. (how you treat the least of your brethren...etc.)
(EDIT: also investigate the saying 'eat the rich'-Jean-Jacques Rousseau )

More abortions for Christians than atheists, they can't be seen haveing out of wedlock children and many can't use birth control.
Abstinence only sex-ed actually promotes pre-marital sex (if you look at the results).
Christians have more adulterous affairs... for entertainment, and more divorce too.
Religious 'morality' is all 'morality decided by self'. (You don't stone non Christians or people who work on Sunday, do you? If not, you absolutely don't take your morality from the bible.)
Religion totally enslaves the poor.

Any other fallacies you need me to destroy?

Barely got through the first one? I'd say you got all the way through the first one, that was your problem.
I heard this whole thing was just a big misunderstanding, the guy who commissioned the work asked for "Money Shots", at least he still used a viscous and sticky fluid.

I think the author of this video, and presumably the Christians who have spoken to him, have a fundamental misunderstanding about what the bible says about atheists or those who don't believe. I don't know why messenger seems to think this was my argument for theism; I don't recall saying anything like this to anyone on this site, although I could be wrong.

What I believe is that yes, atheists are not able to see or comprehend the things of God because they are spiritually discerned:

1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

But that isn't the end of the story:

Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.
Romans 1:19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.
Romans 1:20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

So, the colorblind person is given glimpses of Gods power and deity, through the creation, and other kinds of revelation such as in their conscience, to know that there is a God who created them and that they are accountable to Him. If it were simply that nonbelievers couldn't see God, they would have an excuse. Yet, that isn't what the bible says. In the end it's not that nonbelievers can't see God, it's that at some point in their lives they have seen God and rejected Him.

Most atheists I've spoken to have had supernatural experiences for which they cannot write off with materialistic explanations. Some will even change from atheism to theism in the course of a conversation because they suddenly realize that they had suppressed the truth of their own experience. God can and does give ample evidence of His existence and everyone at some point in their life will see it clearly and have a clear choice to make. It's when you choose to suppress the truth that you become self-deceived. It's not up to me to prove to someone God exists; it is up to me simply to be a faithful witness and pray they would respond to the revelation they already have.

See?! All these people want to do is make hilarious car videos, and yet Americans are killing them for one little misunderstanding!

Well, I appreciate the thought, even if you didn't follow through.

No, perhaps there's the misunderstanding. He did not FLEE as I see it. The officer pulled up behind him, he pulled away. He was not being stopped, no flashing lights on, no loudspeaker telling him to pull over or stay there, only a spot light. That is not an indicator that you must stop, or even an indicator that it's a cop, so there was nothing to flee from. In fact, as I see it, it's the prudent, intelligent thing to do if you are on the side of the road, alone, in the dark and a strange car pulls up behind you and shines a light at you. Drive away, don't wait to be carjacked. When the flashing lights came on, he pulled over right away, did not flee.

No this is not abuse or misconduct. It is a cop being rude because a citizen asserted his rights, calmly and respectfully in my eyes. It also seems to be a cop being angry someone didn't 'respect his authoritah' by waiting to see what he might want, but he could have been far worse about it.
Not all cop videos must be either of abusive misconduct or PR videos of them being nice.

When I'm stopped, I do the same thing, refuse to answer questions, but I realize the cops are humans and I calmly and clearly explain that I can't answer their questions without a lawyer present, nor will I without blanket immunity in writing from the DA. Then I produce ID (if asked) and sit quietly with my hands in view. I've never had a problem, when it's explained the cops always understand (even if they don't like it).

EDIT: I hope you will go back and re-read my first reply to your comment. It was not condescending in the least, IMO. I don't know at all what you mean. Sincerely.

Perhaps you might choose your words more carefully then, because your statement could easily be interpreted as racist...that's why I asked.

I stated that more police SEEMS to be a good solution to them over-reacting on it's face, but is actually not a good solution because they feed on each other and ALL over react, meaning more cops, more over reactions, unfortunately. If that's what you meant too, then we agree on at least one point.

Uneducated is NOT the same thing as unintelligent. You can fix the former, not the latter. As to the intellect of 'mobs', it's not applicable. This is not a mob we're discussing, it's a neighborhood with a number of individual witnesses, not a mob.
So, perhaps it's not racism but classism? You seem to be implying that poor people are all of lower intelligence, or do I misunderstand?

I will agree with you that eye witnesses are inherently untrustworthy, but if there were 100 women around that all gave the same story without talking to each other first, it would be incredibly unlikely they all made it up, would you not agree? Because they may have had time to speak to each other does not mean they did, I've never heard or seen any evidence (or before now even the implication) that they colluded. And if we suppose they all did speak together and came up with a story that, while a lie, also fit all the evidence (evidence which was yet to be collected or even found, btw), they would have to be criminal masterminds, no? Kind of hard to pull off in my opinion, especially if you're a group of below normal intelligence, uneducated thugs.