http://catsanddogs.videosift.com/talk/I-read-the-news-today-oh-boySchmawy-gets-his-diamond

http://happy.videosift.com/talk/Hearts-moons-stars-clovers-and-now-DIAMONDS

PS, BTW, after my sister and I struggled with barely passing grades through incredibly chauvinistic public school math programs, my sister went on to get her masters degree as a math educator. Fight the power!

In reply to this comment by oxdottir:
OK, this is one of my favorite jokes. I realize it might not be popular, but I love it. I dedicate this joke to the biologically-unfunny crittter.

Two mathematicians are having dinner in a restaurant, arguing about what the unwashed masses understand about math. The first (and somewhat snotty) mathematician claims that the average American has trouble counting, much less doing complex math; the second (and rather down with the modern student, if he does say so himself) mathematician says people are generally smarter than they know, and you just have to encourage them to feel their inner Euler (so to speak).

The snotty one says, "OK, put your money where your mouth is: ask our waitress a simple Calculus question, and if she gets the answer right, you win the argument and I'll pay for dinner. But if she doesn't know what you are talking about, you have to shut up and pay up."

Our math "Dude" quickly agrees, but when the first guy goes to the mens' room, he quickly calls the waitress over and whispers, "It's not important, why, but I'm going to ask you a question when my friend comes back, and just remember that the answer is 'one third x-cubed.' You don't need to know why; all you need to know is there is a 50 dollar tip in it for you if you give me the answer correctly." She nods hurridly and paces off with a tray full of dishes.

Both of them back at the table, the waitress comes by to leave the check, the first guy raises his eyebrows with great significance at the second guy, and our math spokesman says, "Do you mind if I ask you what the integral of x-squared is?"

The waitress hems and haws and closely examines the ceiling while apparently trying to shove her tongue through the middle of her left cheek. Eventually she hesitantly says, "um, one third x-cubed...?"

Thanked for her answer, she picks up the payment (and hefty tip), and turns to walk away. Two steps away, she stops, turns back to the table, and announces clearly, "Plus a constant...ASSHOLE!"

^ Har, Har, Har!! Tanks!!!

http://comedy.videosift.com/talk/Hear-any-good-jokes-lately-Possibly-NSFW

http://www.videosift.com/video/Photo-Montage-on-the-Iraq-War-to-a-cover-of-Comfortably-Numb#comment-458335

Sobering video.

http://femme.videosift.com/talk/Crittttter-with-4-Ts-hits-Gold-100-Congratttttulations

Sorry to be oblique - it's a pronunciation thing. It's the funniest way of saying buffet I've ever heard, and I couldn't pinpoint his accent if my life depended on it. Burfay?

ahh yes, i must apologize for the lack of dupe radar i've been having of late... great post though

In reply to this comment by oxdottir:
Sorry, oh enigmatic one!
*discard

Love it. It stays. I dropped a comment here on the sift, too.

Thanks for the heads-up. Research has been so busy I haven't been on VS in months....

In reply to this comment by oxdottir:
I submitted a video that is hot, and my inclusion of the science channel, very much on purpose, is controversial. I said I would like the determination to be made by you and not random star-invocations. Here is the video:
http://www.videosift.com/video/Girl-spins-on-escalator

And here are some comments :

>> ^MarineGunrock:
nochannel happy femme comedy
How the hell is this science? And what part of this discusses engineering or demonstrates it?


>> ^oxdottir:

Geeze, MG. She's using matched linear forces to provide a rotational spin, and the escalator gadget is being used emmergently. I'm slapping those channels back on, and if the science channel guy wants to eject it, let him. But as the engineering channel guidance counselor, THAT one stays!


>> ^xxovercastxx:
By that standard we could mark probably every video on the sift as science and/or engineering. Show me a video that doesn't feature gravitational forces in action. Show me a video that doesn't feature a lever, wheel & axle, or an inclined plane somewhere.
Science is usually rigorously enforced, thankfully. A number of the other channels are becoming catch-alls or the channel owner's favorites list. The frickin woohoo channel even says "anything else that we find suitable.." right in its description.


>> ^oxdottir:
Specious argument. Yes, many videos have gravity in them, no those videos don't usually show the existence of gravity producing a novel or surprising result. Should the Science Channel owner disagree, I would not complain.
I created the engineering channel partly out of frustration that there was no appropriate venue for cool gadgets, cool use of technology, and discussions of same. This is smack dab in the intended area, and I would know that better than anyone. Which doesn't of course, keep you from being snippy, but that's the interwebs.




>> ^rottenseed:
oh and this is nature too because humans are part of nature.
and sexuality because those tight jeans make her look sexy to me


>> ^oxdottir:
I removed those channels. If their owners really wanted them in, I wouldn't complain.
I am clearly from a different planet from some of you. To extend the metaphore above, a video that contained gravity as part of the world is not worthy of a science tag. A video taken of two disparate sized objects that were dropped off the tower of Pisa and which landed at the same time would be, even if no words were spoken. Rembar, whatever you want is fine with me.

While I vehemently disagree with your channel choices, your comment just cracked me up. And yeah, I kinda forgot that you own the engie channel, so you could put whatever you want in there

In reply to this comment by oxdottir:
You are a class act, my dear MG.
(seriously--I'm talking about your upvoting of the comment where I chided you)

Thanks for the heads up - should be fixed now

In reply to this comment by oxdottir:
Your Pqueued sina is dead (I tried to watch)

thanks! I actually use http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triton_X-100 , which can disrupt polar cell membranes basically by poking holes. This allows me to then add stuff into cells in the lab...

In reply to this comment by oxdottir:
nice comments!

In reply to this comment by bamdrew:
I guess I can put this in *science, now that I've dragged some nerdy language out on the comment board,

They really need to clear up that side of things, I think an original 'posted' date should be it, I don't really know why anyone would care when things have been published or the like.

Thanks for the clarification though.

In reply to this comment by oxdottir:
It's not the posted date. It's the original submission date. It's confusion, which is why I discarded my own submission eroneously. If you hover over "published by" it says 4 days 10 hours. Yours says 3 days something hours. I did it very carefully when they were both live. I can't do it to yours now, because you can't see that with discarded videos. But I checked over and over.

I'm not trying to be nasty. I discarded my own when I saw yours at first, then I posted to sifttalk: http://www.videosift.com/talk/Can-we-have-time-stamps-on-original-submissions and then lucky undiscarded mine because the dates confirmed mine was first. I didn't know until today that you could get information from hovering over "published by" or "submitted by".

In reply to this comment by spoco2:
Wha?

So, my post, when I hover over the posted date I get: June 15th 2008, for the other post I get June 17th 2008.... Um, how am I second on this one?

In reply to this comment by oxdottir:
This post is a dupe of http://www.videosift.com/video/Roller-Coasters-increasingly-intense-rides, which was submitted first, verified by hovering over the "published by" field abovve.

*discard

Wha?

So, my post, when I hover over the posted date I get: June 15th 2008, for the other post I get June 17th 2008.... Um, how am I second on this one?

In reply to this comment by oxdottir:
This post is a dupe of http://www.videosift.com/video/Roller-Coasters-increasingly-intense-rides, which was submitted first, verified by hovering over the "published by" field abovve.

*discard

Sure, point me at it and let me go sick on it. I can re-queue it.

In reply to this comment by oxdottir:
Thanks very much Lucky. I am really glad to learn this trick.

Now, is there anything I can do about having discarded as a dupe a posting that was actually the first of its kind?

In reply to this comment by lucky760:
If you hover your mouse over the "published by" or "queued by" text below a videos' title it tells you when it was originally posted.