Oooh big typographic words!

But yeah, NRA, won't happen. The vast majority of US gun owners (NRA members IIRC) are already in favor of more background checks, it's merely that since the NRA is funded by gun manufacturers, naturally they are against it.

This is probably not the case. He wants to be able to "see the boxes." Rather, as a typographer he would have to have been a master of stippling. It's not so much that his "vision is blurry" any more so than your peripheral vision is blurry. It's just that he only has peripheral vision to work with. You can still see these details with enough zoom, which is what the computer affords him. I suppose he could also do it with traditional optics (e.g. a jeweler's loop), but that would probably make the actual painting part pretty awkward.

"Better than people!"

This troll has been brought to you by the Grammar Police. The Grammar Police, a non-profit organization, has been fighting typographical crime one vowel at a time since 1993.

>> ^TheSofaKing:

Better then people!

very impressive typographic design.

^ I also find it more comfortable to read a narrow block of text. That's actually a typographical principle and the reason why newspapers use columns.

I have videosift at the 1024 setting on all flavors of resolution because I usually have the side panel in Opera out to check the status of my e-mail and rss. All the other widths leaves me with a horizontal scroll bar when the panel is open.

*edit: But now that I have tried out the sexy new auto wide video feature, I might just consider switching to 1280...

A small portion of the Tiga Remix of Maddam Hollywood with Typographical animation. Listen to the full version.

>> ^Arg:
How, exactly, is he wrong sir gm?
Take there, their and they're as an example. If we were to spell them phonetically then they would all be the same. Now try to make sense of the following sentence:
"There over there with there children."

This phrase is unambiguous because of English's strict word ordering. Every native speaker will intone this sentence as "They're over there with there children" because an English sentence is Subject-Verb-Object. For example, try pronouncing this: "There they're with there children". Most native speaker would be reluctant to pronounce this because it's actually a grammatical conundrum. This last phrase is in fact impossible. If you do pronounce it, you will pronounce it as the equivalent of the the first one, that is "They're there with there children". When you change the word order, you CANNOT contract the subject and the verb. You would naturally say: "There they are with there children". (Here I'm writing "their" as "there" just to show that there's no ambiguity whatsoever between those two words, because they're both words but not verbs)

So, in reality there's no need to "translate". When you pronounce the first phrase, you will understand it just fine. The real problem here is that reading is not the same as speaking, unless you read aloud or subvocalize. But any which way you read, when writing you cannot convey the intonation of the voice. That's one of the greatest pitfalls of alphabets. For example, in this case to be phonetically correct, you would have to specify by a typographic mark that the first "there" is actually a spoken contraction of two originally distinct sounds "they" and "r", so that a reader who doesn't know English very well can put the correct intonation on the correct words. That way the sentence becomes as clear as it needs to be phonetically. Of course, it's not always as easy as that, and to convey pure spoken language in a textual form without all the usual typographical baggage that you find in linguistics is impossible. Even Germans do not always pronounce exactly as they should, but for example all the different nuances of the sound "a" are all rendered as the letter "a" and only that letter. When a whole word is pronounced differently it becomes a matter of dialect and not of pronunciation per se.

Another example: in French, intonation is always on the first syllable of a word, so individual words are easy to separate. Add to that a strict word order plus a plethora of articles and you get yourself a quite clear language that can be written however you fancy.

So spelling, and punctuation, add more information to the meaning of the words than merely how they are pronounced.

They do, but it's a pittance because a spelling not based on pronunciation is too arbitrary. When retracing the origins of a word, pronunciation is much more useful than spelling. If spelling changed without equivalent modification in the pronunciation, it would make the linguists' job harder. But it almost always happens in reverse: the pronunciation changes and then some guy decides he's going to spell it the way he pronounces it. And the linguists thank him. But some old words get spelled in new ways and some others keep their original spellings, and in the end you get the orthographical mess that is known as English (or French for that matter).

well i think you made ^that comment because you assume i am "anti atheist" rather than taking the time to realise that i am a contrarian and I wish people would use logic and reasoning to make a point rather than hype and buzzwords and smoke and mirrors.

If a brainworm is an idea, Islam is a brainworm.
But the idea of a brainworm is just an idea. It's just a way of putting it. It can make logical sense but not be true.

When people who have a firm position on something (i.e. atheists or devout believers) come across a theory that sounds coherent, they repeat it ad infinitum in order to make it more "true", because as we all know, repeating a lie makes it the accepted truth.

Within the brainworm theory, i agree, islam is a brainworm.
Within the entire universe I disagree, i think it is the wrong way of looking at things. To me, these evolutionists want to project their evolution theory onto everything, because they only see the world in terms of evolution. Just like religious people only see the world in terms of religion.

I am a designer, and i often fall into the same trap, i think everything is about design. (i mean graphic design, not "intelligent" design).
It's called "vocational prejudice" or something. I genuinely believe the world could be a perfect place if we had more typographers and better architects. Then i realise that i only put so much priority on the importance of design because I AM a designer.

Anyway.

If god is everything, how can god not exist? lol.

Stick with me budzos, i know you vote for unpopular clips that i also vote for so we can't be so opposite as you think.

sod it, i might cave in and get yet another dang loginamijig.
<stroke chin>
sexy airplane, lithuanian honey wrestler, small animal... decisions, decisions.

edit: done. click for typographic niceness.

Not crazy about the song, but I love that the animation is made of typographical dingbats and characters...cool! One wise sifter named krupo once told me it was perfectly ok to vote up your own posts calvados. It may make the queue yet...

dwk

"How is there any middle ground there where some of the time he was speaking the truth and it's good to follow his teachings, but some of the time he was a nut claiming to be the salvation of the world and the Son of God?"

Because he was alive. I am advancing the idea that the historical Jesus was like any other living, breathing, existing person on this planet. Which is to say, some of his ideas were and remain extremely valuable and visionary and some of his ideas were like my Videosift comment threads -- full of typographical errors and drivel. I realize that every blinding truth that I type is leavened by some lie or fumbled misquote from Wikipedia.

So Jesus was entirely in his right mind but a bit of a shameless self-promoter. The strain I distrust most in traditional Christianity is the doctrine of infallibility, whether you choose to posit that someone like the Pope (Christ stand-in) is infallible or the historical Jesus. Although I realize that it would be a contentious issue to most Christians, I believe that one could find value in the teachings of Christ without ever believing that he was the the son of God or even believing that there could ever be sons of a paternal/maternal God. It is a relativist viewpoint to be sure, but I do not think that anyone here has a monopoly on divine truth. Even the beloved Richard Dawkins has some ugly pimples. (*Siftblasphemy!)

It just seems to me that you are advancing a constricted fundamentalist view of Christ. Either he is divinity or he is nothing. The historical study of Jesus seems to me to be the middle way around that kind of thinking.