Thanks for the info on the 'I'm on a boat' uncensored version being embeddable

Thankyou muchly.

It is pretty darn nice to be able to promote things you think deserve that extra bit of attention. Not too far yet for you!

In reply to this comment by EDD:
Congratumalations on going Gold-100! Very nice to see you with those powers you deserve. Hopefully I'll be following suit real soon. And afterwards we'll be able to promote the crap out of each other

He he Thanks... may the yobbo continue on his world dominating quest which will end in many people further destroying their tvs... huzzah!

In reply to this comment by nomino:
I changed the title sweetheart

Yeah, fair enough, I guess we are all free to use our voting privilages as we see fit. I guess I had my idea of the downvote informed by it not being available until you had enough starpoints, hence having some real power and not to be used flippantly.

Hence I have only downvoted a handful of videos ever.

But, each to their own I guess.

In reply to this comment by xxovercastxx:
So as not to crowd the video with unrelated posts, I figured I'd take our discussion to profiles.

If the meaning of upvote and downvote were to be defined by the FAQ, I'd gladly comply; I'm all for working in a system. But, as it stands, it's left up to each of us to interpret them for ourselves.

I try to vote on every video I watch. Only if I really just don't know what to make of a video do I not vote, or if I feel somehow conflicted about it.

If I find value in the video, I upvote. If I don't, I downvote. Pretty cut-and-dry for me. I feel people are too concerned with getting videos published, any videos, rather than getting good videos published. I don't think it should be easier to get something published. If anything, I'd like to see it made more difficult.

In reply to this comment by spoco2:
See, I see things a little differently.

We have
Upvote: You think it's a great video, worthy of moving up higher on the site
No Vote: You don't like the video, or it left you 'meh', or you just thought it was pretty lame... you don't feel it particularly worthy to go any further.
DownVote: You really believe this video has no place on the sift, either it's horribly offensive, racist/bigoted, in really bad taste, is full on propaganda with no truth to it etc.

I really see the downvote as being reserved for those really bad videos. If you just don't like something then don't upvote it for god's sake, it's hard enough to get published around here let alone with people making life harder by downvoting for no real good reason.

Yeah, there are so many people that no matter what they hear, their views stay amazingly rigid.

I too have changed my stance on all sorts of things, usually a case of understanding the other position better and therefore being able to see their point of view and why they do what they do or want what they want.

In reply to this comment by JiggaJonson:
studies show that new information, even contradictory information, more often than not reinforces previous beliefs. It's sad but true, then again that's why im a liberal and open to new ideas. It's hard to think over and over again "i might be wrong about this" but it often tends to be the case.

In reply to this comment by spoco2:
Brilliant. And so, so true.

Palin trying to make talking about the past be a no-go area was just shameful. It sorely showed how poor the Republican ticket is going when they have to try to pretend that everything the Republicans have done doesn't really exist, have to pretend that learning from mistakes doesn't make sense, how knowing your history can help you in the future.

They are a team of blinkered no hopers. It amuses me that republican supporters try on the 'Obama is just selling hope with no substance'... Where the Obama/Biden team are more than willing to talk about the actual issues, whereas the McCain/Palin team are a team actually selling 'fear with no substance'.

Please Right Wingers, even in your right wing allegiance, surely you can see how this particular ticket is selling snake oil? Surely you can see that?

No?

You can't?

thanks for that... Man VideoSift's search can suck and awful lot sometimes, I couldn't find anything when I submitted it.

In reply to this comment by arvana:
Sorry, spoco, it's a dupe.

Yeah, I'm pretty sick of the seeming swing back to treating women like objects these days.

You could be forgiven for thinking that women's lib never happened

In reply to this comment by fojlz:
Hey, thanks for being the voice of reason with regards to the "Sexy/Sexist Guiness Ad" video. I'm glad not everyone just laughs at that kind of thing.

Oh well, I guess we all just have to accept that consoles will spell the end of games on pcs anyway... I've been thinking the day will come where I'll have to give up the fight and get a console.

But not get a mac

Just because of their self righteous ads.



In reply to this comment by MarineGunrock:
I never understood that either.

In reply to this comment by spoco2:
Sometimes I do wonder about what does and doesn't get sifted up.

I truly hate this apple ad, I've been a PC gamer for a long, long time (and programmer, it's what I do for a crust), and so suggesting that all PCs do is boring things just rubs me up the wrong way.

Cause there's SO many games available on the Mac compared to the PC.

Self righteous Apple people... grrr.

Erm... I meant the writing in the video, the tinsy, tiny red writing that is almost unable to be read due to its size and colour, what they hell are you going on about?

Bad day at work?

In reply to this comment by onetimeuser:
if you meant me then yes its quite obvious I did not make much of an attempt, I wrote it once because I dont give a fuck what you or anyone else thinks, and you got the exact same message once over as if I had "wrote it properly " its bloody terrible if I hold myself up to the standards you do, which thankfully I do not. internet people are not real.

In reply to this comment by spoco2:
Ok upvote on the geekiness of it, but did this person not even attempt to make the writing readable? That's bloody terrible.

Thanks.

I love the sift because it shows me things like this which take away the rose tinted glasses on some things.

In reply to this comment by schmawy:
Hey I thought this was a really great comment.

In reply to this comment by spoco2:
What this shows more than anything was that it was never really the 'house of the future' as it was touted, but moreso a whopping big ad for using plastics for everything...

Thanks. But people who love their guns will take no manner of logical arguments to sway them.


In reply to this comment by jonny:
Nope, it's not just you. I thought about jumping in, but I gave up on this argument some time ago. My basic response to the "you can kill someone with all sorts of household items" argument is that none of those items were specifically designed to kill humans. I'll never understand the insane kind of logic that compares a hammer with a gun.

In reply to this comment by spoco2:
Yeah, I knew you'd bring up that you don't use it for protection... damn you!

But a lot of people use that as an excuse.

Look, for my money, no sport is worth having a very deadly weapon in the house for. Sure, you can kill someone with all manner of items, but dangit, if a gun just isn't a really efficient way to do so. Just me I guess.

In reply to this comment by MarineGunrock:
Hmm. I see your point there, but I don't keep a gun for protection. I have it for hunting. However, you can simply hide the key where they aren't going to find it, like in the basemet ni yuor tool chest, or maybe in their mom's underwear drawer. After all, what kid wants to touch their moms underwear?

In reply to this comment by spoco2:
You can, but then you get the arguments of "Well, if it's under lock and key, and the ammo is in another place etc. then what's the use come a break in, I can't get it in time".

It works for me, by and large, although the problem with keeping anything under lock and key is that kids will invariably find said items. When it comes to booze and adult media, if they're old enough to find where a key is hidden then the contents are fairly unlikely to do them any harm... with a gun, not so much...

In reply to this comment by MarineGunrock:
In reply to this comment by spoco2:
You keep your liquor under lock and key.

Not trying to be argumentive here, but why can't you take that same logic and apply it to firearms in the house?

Yeah, it makes me shudder to think of a setup like that with kids around... and while you don't so it's cool, there are people who DO have that. Man, the thought of any of my kids (all under 5yrs) finding it, and playing with it until an accident... uuuurgh.


In reply to this comment by MarineGunrock:
But I'm not saying I wouldn't use it for protection. I won't ever need to, break-ins around here just aren't that frequent. I do however keep my ammo in my gun case unlocked and under my bead. I have the foam cut out for two racks of ammo to sit in there. It looks bad-ass .

I am, however, 22 and have no kids.

Yeah, I knew you'd bring up that you don't use it for protection... damn you!

But a lot of people use that as an excuse.

Look, for my money, no sport is worth having a very deadly weapon in the house for. Sure, you can kill someone with all manner of items, but dangit, if a gun just isn't a really efficient way to do so. Just me I guess.

In reply to this comment by MarineGunrock:
Hmm. I see your point there, but I don't keep a gun for protection. I have it for hunting. However, you can simply hide the key where they aren't going to find it, like in the basemet ni yuor tool chest, or maybe in their mom's underwear drawer. After all, what kid wants to touch their moms underwear?

In reply to this comment by spoco2:
You can, but then you get the arguments of "Well, if it's under lock and key, and the ammo is in another place etc. then what's the use come a break in, I can't get it in time".

It works for me, by and large, although the problem with keeping anything under lock and key is that kids will invariably find said items. When it comes to booze and adult media, if they're old enough to find where a key is hidden then the contents are fairly unlikely to do them any harm... with a gun, not so much...

In reply to this comment by MarineGunrock:
In reply to this comment by spoco2:
You keep your liquor under lock and key.

Not trying to be argumentive here, but why can't you take that same logic and apply it to firearms in the house?

You can, but then you get the arguments of "Well, if it's under lock and key, and the ammo is in another place etc. then what's the use come a break in, I can't get it in time".

It works for me, by and large, although the problem with keeping anything under lock and key is that kids will invariably find said items. When it comes to booze and adult media, if they're old enough to find where a key is hidden then the contents are fairly unlikely to do them any harm... with a gun, not so much...

In reply to this comment by MarineGunrock:
In reply to this comment by spoco2:
You keep your liquor under lock and key.

Not trying to be argumentive here, but why can't you take that same logic and apply it to firearms in the house?

Look, I understand that there pretty much will always be those that think the best deterrent against someone with a gun is for yourself to have a gun. My view is to keep guns out of as many hands as possible.

"Bad guys will always be able to get guns" I hear you cry (I do really, it's a weird power I have)... But strict gun control laws and a general feeling that guns are damn hard to come by mean that far fewer crimes are committed with them, far fewer deaths result because of them. And while you say that there are many ways to kill someone, shooting them dead seems to still be the quickest and most effective. I know I'd feel like I had a bit more of a chance against someone with a knife vs a gun. (I could run away for starters).



In reply to your comment:
“well i can't seem to find any solid statistics on violent deaths across countries, mainly because i dont subscrube to resources like those, but heres a BBC article
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1566715.stm

or maybe its because:
Guns are deeply rooted within Swiss culture - but the gun crime rate is so low that statistics are not even kept.

i agree with what you're saying about more guns might cause crimes of passion on impulse, but what makes Switzerland different?

United Kingdom vs Switzerland

A European example would be to compare the violent crime levels of the United Kingdom, which has very strict rules against gun ownership, with Switzerland, which has fully automatic assault rifles in 14% of homes. [1] According to the British Home Office, Switzerland had a homicide rate per 100,000 of 1.2 average over the years 1999-2001, which is less than England & Wales at 1.61, although Scotland is higher at 2.16, while Northern Ireland - with its historically exceptional conditions - is at 2.65. The latter compares with the Irish Republic (with similar gun control laws to the UK) at 1.42. [2]

These data indicate a negative correlation between gun ownership and crime. However, simple correlative evidence concerning two examples is inconclusive as to causation. Put another way, these data do not conclusively indicate that the higher gun ownership rate in Switzerland is a cause of that country's lower homicide rate, although that conclusion is frequently drawn.

Data can be skewed to say that there is a positive correlation between guns and crime, and that there is a negative correlation betweeen the two depending on what countries and how you poll etc. This correlation, does it necessarily imply causation? I think theres much more at hand than just how many guns are floating around, its definately got something to do with their culture and how they view guns and violence in everyday life.

i dont know about you but i'd think twice about waving around a gun when everybody has access to those same guns. Its sort of like when everyone has nukes what an awesome deterrent huh.. (btw, what an ugly truth)
besides, if someone is intent on kiling somebody they dont need a gun to do it (one way or another, see: milions of pissed off wives who drug their husbands to death when they come back home smelling like perfume)

on the other hand, not having guns only does the opposite, it prevents the people who can put a stop to a situation like VT massacre and renders them useless while they wait for the SWAT team to arrive. (last incident over there was stopped by a man with a gun) and it like i said you dont need a gun to kill, not having guns wont prevent the millions of other ways to render a person not breathing.

In reply to your comment:
“And?
Where in that does it say anything in regards to gun ownership and a link to gun violence?

Check out this greaph which shows a strong link between suicides with guns and gun ownership levels. (and in case you were going to say... "and shows that there is little evidence that rates of homicide and suicide by means other than firearms increase where gun ownership is lower.")

It's just basic common sense isn't it? Don't give guns to more people, how is that going to make things better? "FUCK YOU MAN, I DESERVED A High Distinction ON THAT PAPER!" BANG, BANG, BANG... Having guns easily accessible means that in the heat of the moment people have the opportunity to do really stupid, deadly things.

Not having guns during heated situations means that there may be fist fights, yelling etc. but not deaths, not anything that can't be apologised for and made right. You can't make right shooting someone in the head.

In reply to your comment:
“i'll play devil's advocate and link you to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_policy_in_Switzerland

In reply to your comment:
“I SO HATE those that try and suggest 'If others had had guns, he could have been stopped'... because we all know to stop violence, just arm more people.

F*cktards.””””