>> ^poolcleaner:
EDIT BONOBO: Deleted comment, then added edit 1.
EDIT 2: Added second edit, reason for edit and several random spaces at the end of sentences.
EDIT 3: Added edit 3, then added a 1 to the first edit, then subtracted the 1 and decided to add it at the end of edit 1 comment.
EDIT 4: Deleted the comment for real, then lied about it in EDIT 1, which is now titled EDIT BONOBO. (Don't ask.)


Don't stop now

EDIT BONOBO: Deleted comment, then added edit 1.

EDIT 2: Added second edit, reason for edit and several random spaces at the end of sentences.

EDIT 3: Added edit 3, then added a 1 to the first edit, then subtracted the 1 and decided to add it at the end of edit 1 comment.

EDIT 4: Deleted the comment for real, then lied about it in EDIT 1, which is now titled EDIT BONOBO. (Don't ask.)

EDIT 5: Hi.

>> ^Haldaug:
I kind of agree with the last closing statement. All the apologists arguments for a theistic universe are easilly refuted, but it seems like Hitchens doesn't bother refuting them.


Are they easily refuted? Refute them for me here, then.
You don't know that they are easily refuted because the arguments against them have not yet been made, or at least made in full - so that they are refuted. Perhaps Hitchens didn't have enough time to do so, but that doesn't mean he can. (Although I personally believe he could, perhaps with the aid of 3 other Atheists, so it would be a more balanced debate. More talking points were made, obviously, by the Christians, and they took up more time - subtracting time from the arguments Hitchens could have made.)

This is inconclusive, and as the last person suggested, more in-depth discussion should be had.

I guess no one will be surprised, but I don't think it's a dupe, because the sound does add (or in this case subtract) from the video in a significant way.

actually the second season really got weak really fast.... they must have subtracted one genius writer. bye bye.

In reply to this comment by oxdottir:
Yeah I really liked it. I think I've seen all that exists though. I really like the actress who plays his crazy sister too.

In reply to this comment by marinara:
dang, i'm watching the stephen fry kingdom stuff. really good so far!!! !!!!!

Thanks!

And oh, I tend to get a bit obsessed and overexcited when I pick a new hobby! Besides, this is so much fun.

And MUHAHAHAHA! I have more star points than NetRunner!

Erm, I mean, happy to be in the Top 10!


>> ^lucky760:
You're right; it was another bug.
There was a different bug related to this that I fixed a while back, but there was another little bit where stupid siftbot had a typo and was doubling up on the vote subtractions. All affected user stats have been fixed.

Sorry and thanks for reporting. Btw, have I said lately how much I can't believe that you're in the top 15 TEN Sifters of all time when it seems like just last week that you were unstarred and hit the top 15 Sifters of the week? Man you've been busy!

You're right; it was another bug.

There was a different bug related to this that I fixed a while back, but there was another little bit where stupid siftbot had a typo and was doubling up on the vote subtractions. All affected user stats have been fixed.



Sorry and thanks for reporting. Btw, have I said lately how much I can't believe that you're in the top 15 TEN Sifters of all time when it seems like just last week that you were unstarred and hit the top 15 Sifters of the week? Man you've been busy!

The first two arguments aren't bizarre at all.

The GOP chairman's distinction between jobs and work makes perfect sense, as long as you're willing to accept the implied meaning and not play the fool. Digging ditches for the purpose of filling them up is simply work, but not a job because it subtracts wealth from the economy (assuming that the ditch digger gets paid). An activity which adds value is a job. It may not be the dictionary definition (or may be, I haven't checked), but it's what the chairman wants to say.

The second argument is perfectly acceptable. Maddow's rebuttal is ridiculous, because she shows a graph and argues that correlation implies causation.

Maddow could've chosen something better out of all the stupid shit said by GOP members.

It's a nice montage, but a lot of the footage is not of Ivy Mike.

I think the * music added after the 1:30 mark actually subtracts from the visual significance of the video. (I've just heard that song so many times now.)

A more informative video about the results of the Mike test is here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-cZnMfCtaY

>> ^quantumushroom:

The America-based Japanese car companies have no unions, their employees make good wages and their companies aren't facing extinction.


...and yet their take-home pay is similar once you subtract the union dues from the UAW pay scale. Unions are just another form of government outside the Government, acting like a business where it tell it's shareholders what to do, rather than the other way round.

>> ^marinara:
Why do I get the feeling that subtracting people like this would almost completely fix the christian church?


Religion isn't something that can be fixed.

I will pray for you. You know what the right decision is.

Pressures for conformity and control. Why do I get the feeling that subtracting people like this would almost completely fix the christian church?

Has anyone else said something this crass and uneducated? She's not dumb but she makes up for it in "vulgar".

Man I couldn't forgive myself if I looked that dumb.

>> ^xxovercastxx:
I have a more radical suggestion: Increase the value of the vote. Think of votes as currency. We're suffering from inflation here. We've got an unlimited supply of votes to spend on anything and everything. From the voters' perspective, there's little to no reason not to vote something up.
Cap the total number of votes each sifter has per day. Suddenly those votes have value and voters will want to use them more selectively. I suspect that under such a system, downvote would be obsolete.
I realize this would be a radical change to the way the Sift works, but think about it. How radical the change is could be controlled by how many votes-per-day are allowed. Something ridiculously low, like 5, would cause people to be really stingy with those votes and would be a drastic change. Something ridiculously high, like 500, would have little to no impact at all.


I've been thinking something along the lines of this too, though mostly in a sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek way.

What we need is false scarcity! Let's make it so "votes" work like money. Posting a video is free, and each vote your video receives goes into your "bank". You can vote for a video as many times as you like, each one subtracted from your bank, but you can't vote for your own videos.

You can downvote videos, but it'd still count as an "upvote" in the recipient's bank, it'd just lower the vote count for "quality" purposes. You can downvote as many times as you like, though it may ultimately be counterproductive.

There is no such thing as pqueues, promotes, begs (they're socialist anyways) and the front page is Top Sifts, not Hot/New.

That way free market principles will surely allow choice to bring us the highest quality videos possible.

Then we just change the site to "LibertarianSift", and siftbot's name to randroid, and we're good to go.

Getting back to seriousness though, I do think we should look into increasing vote count and queue time both, and shifting the default front page to newness instead of hotness. I think the hot = frontpage is exacerbating some of the problems people are complaining about (i.e. too much sensational, not enough sublime).

In my country they subtract 4 km from the speed they measure.

53,000 years old??? That would be a find, indeed!

Subtract 47,700 years and you'll have a more accurate figure.

http://www.videosift.com/video/History-of-Tattoos-Oldest-Tattoo-Mummy-53000-years-old