*dead

Possibly fake as well, since it was taken down for a copyright infringement claim.

Yet another trailer where I feel like I've already watched the whole movie. I wish I could say this looks good. I like Ethan Hawke--just rewatched "Training Day" a couple of weeks ago--but I also just watched "For a Few Dollars More" and this doesn't look like it holds a candle to the old spaghetti Westerns.

I think the last good Western made was Clint Eastwood's "Unforgiven." The "3:10 to Yuma" remake had some good moments too.

Well, Dad wasn't wrong....

Wow, those costumes must have been hot as hell to dance in. Great performance though.

"He was like the Rolling Stones... only younger."

Hahaha! *quality Bern!

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Brilliant-analysis-of-the-philosophy-of-South-Park-season19

Wow, didn't expect to see the comments section explode like this. Seems like some people took what he was saying seriously in spite of the multiple disclaimers he gives the audience that this whole bit is a joke.

I could absolutely see why someone who is an actual Cosby rape victim and takes Jefferies's words seriously would be offended. I could absolutely see someone not being able to transcend their own personal pain in order to see the irony in this bit. But this seems like a wholly different kind of joke from the one Dave Tosh allegedly made in which it was really unclear whether he was joking or not about inviting audience members to rape a woman for daring to heckle him during a set. I don't see any malice in this routine whatsoever.

If you don't find it funny, that's fine. Every joke doesn't have to be funny to every single person on the planet. And if you don't approve of rape jokes, that's fine too. Like Reginald D. Hunter says, go ahead and withhold your laughter. "But take it from the rest of us who did laugh--it was fuckin' funny."

*blocked in Japan by NBC Universal.

*doublepromote the epic juxtaposition of the manly posturing with the girly screaming when things inevitably go wrong.

Science "works" when scientists bother to actually try to replicate claims, no matter how bizarre they may be. And as this video and my comment shows, that's not happening in a number of scientific fields. Which is really, really bad for human knowledge and society in general, as billions of dollars and countless work-hours get wasted since researchers base future research on what turn out to be unreliable past claims.

The "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" flies in the face of everything the scientific method espouses. Evidence is evidence. It is not supposed to matter who finds the evidence. Someone who is famous in the field should not be given more benefit of the doubt than someone who is not, yet that is exactly what happened in Shectman's case. He was removed from his lab and an actual expert in the field, Linus Pauling, verbally abused him for literally decades.

That's not how science is supposed to work at all. If someone finds evidence of something that contradicts current theory, you're supposed to look at their methodology for flaws. If you can't find any flaws, then the scientific method demands you attempt to replicate the experiment to validate it. You're not supposed to dismiss evidence out of hand because the person who found it isn't a leading expert in the field. In Shectman's case, other labs replicated his results and the "experts" still wouldn't budge... to this day in fact Pauling refuses to admit he was wrong.

Conversely, there are too many papers out there now with shoddy methodology that shouldn't even be published, yet because the author is a name in the field they somehow make it into top-tier journals and get cited constantly despite the dubious nature of the research. Again, that's not how science is supposed to work.

"Spurious bullshit," as you called it, is not being weeded out. Rather it is being foisted on others as "fact" because Dr. XYZ who is renowned in the field did the experiment and no one looked closely enough at it or bothered to try to replicate it. The spurious bullshit should be getting weeded out by actual scientific testing (like the studies in the video that were found to be unreliable) and not by mob mentality.

Theoretically, science works great. However, as has already been noted, in the real world in certain fields, the pressure to publish something "substantial" combined with the inability to get grants for certain experiments because they aren't "trendy" right now causes scientists to self-limit the kinds of research they undertake, which is not at all great for increasing human knowledge.

Another problem is the "expert opinion" problem--when someone with little reputation in the field finds something that directly contradicts the "experts" in the field, they often face ridicule. The most famous recent case of this was 2011 Nobel Prize winner Dan Shechtman, who discovered a new type of crystal structure that was theoretically impossible in 1982 and was roundly criticized and ridiculed for it until a separate group of researchers many years later actually replicated his experiment and realized he had been right all along. This web page lists several more examples of scientists whose breakthrough research was ignored because it didn't match the "expert consensus" of the period.

Finally, in the humanities at least, one of the biggest problems in research that uses a quantitative approach (i.e. statistics) is that researchers apply a statistical method to their data, such a as a t-test, without actually demonstrating that whatever being studied follows a normal distribution (i.e bell curve). Many statistical tests are only accurate if what is being studied is normally distributed, yet I've seen a fair share of papers published in respected journals that apply these tests to objects of study that are quite unlikely to be normally distributed, which makes their claims of being "statistically significant" quite suspect.

There are other statistical methods (non-parametric) that you can use on data that is not normally distributed but generally speaking a test of significance on data taken from a normally distributed pool is going to be more reliable. As is noted in this video, the reason these kinds of mistakes slip through into the peer-reviewed journals is that sometimes the reviewers are not nearly as well-trained in statistical analysis as they are in other methodologies.

Huh, this has been through the Sift before but I can't find it in either the Deadpool or Killed videos. I distinctly remember in the comments someone mentioning that both people are douches, especially that guy laughing at the end.

Reddit video, Break-dot-com, and those kind of sites are good for a few videos. Just look for hot or popular videos on those sites that haven't been Sifted yet. You've been on the Sift long enough to probably to recognize the kind of stuff that will get Sifted compared to the trashier videos. Anything from Last Week Tonight will get Sifted, but you've got to be quick on the draw (as in, online immediately after the episode airs) in order to get a clip up before someone else does. But it's a guaranteed Top 10 video if you do manage to snag it first.

Submit your 3 vids a day, use beggar's canyon if a video gets to 7 or 8 votes (discard stuff that only gets 2 or 3), and I'd guess that within a month you'll have your bronze. Then you can kick back and not submit anything ever again if you don't feel like it.

*ban