I have to hear the Fox News drivel every day blaring at ultra high volumes from downstairs every day. I can't wait to get out of this house again, just to escape the maddening stuff. Depressing so many people think that it is agenda free and all the others are the one that have the agenda because Fox News and often times the pulpit says so. Don't question authority, unless said authority is a demoncrat as they tend to think of the Dems...

Of course once upon a time I did too, then I started applying actual critical thinking rather than what they said, often by going "if you really think about it..." then apply some logical fallacy that sounds true enough that you repeat it and feel embarrassed later that not only did you believe it that you actually propagated the non-sense. I used to be a hardcore Christian Republican (even had posted on the Sift under another name, but could never recover the password for, defending Fox News saying how they may be to the right but that is just to balance out how far left the mainstream media's which I was lead to believe were near Pravda). Then I had problems with legislating morality, mostly Republican drug policy and became a Christian Libertarian. Then I had an issue with American style Free Market Capitalism, and felt we had to do more to help the needy and the poor as Jesus commanded us to, and I went more or less an independent leaning to the Green/Democrat.

My faith if God started waning as I had issues with so many Christians voting Republican as the party was clearly opposed to everything I was reading in the Bible, and if Jehovah was any more real than any other supposed god, such as Odin (who at least apparently got rid of the Frost Giants as I've never seen one or evidence of one), then He'd be screaming at them that is the wrong way (now to be fair, half of the Christians in this nation also feel the Dems are more Christian oriented than Republicans, and many of the more liberal of them would point out that the election and more importantly the re-election of Obama was God's way of saying just that).

Then hundreds of Christians shouted "let them die! Let them die!" over and over again at the Republican debate and Christianity lost me forever. The Republican right wanted to see people like me and my children die because my employer doesn't offer an affordable health care plan and they don't want their taxes to help with getting health insurance either. And it wasn't just about me, because even if I got a better job, somebody has to work that job, somebody has to sacrifice health insurance so some rich guy who can more than afford to pay living wages and affordable health care for all who work for him, chooses not to in order to make himself rich, and over half the Christians in this country support the position, they vote for people who want to give that rich guy more tax cuts, and cut all aid to the people he employs. They want those people to die, as they said at the debate. Confront them and they'll say no, they don't want them to die, but the people who work there should take responsibility for their own selves, and ignore the fact somebody has to work there. They seem to think that people only work where they want to work at, and that everybody at that big box retailer is working there because its what they want rather than the fact it was who called and offered the job. They seem to think that in fact, no, nobody needs to work that spot if I didn't work it, that anybody needing affordable health insurance and a living wage simply wouldn't work the people working, or I, weren't too lazy to do so, that somehow everyone working jobs not paying living wages and not having affordable health care took those jobs out of laziness and not necessity.

The bigger the city the more you need to leave other people alone. the press of humanity is maddening. people construct their own villages within the city, and the people they choose can compliment them.

Yes, of course, the economic crash and Bush era Republican backed policies had no responsibility for that rise in debt. (head hits wall) You must be one of those who believed the hype that he had spent more than all other presidents put together in his first 1/2 term...I heard that often and had to constantly remind my friends of the facts and the numbers, which they usually agreed with, then quickly chose to ignore or forget and start the same BS argument and claims again a week later. It's maddening! He's spent far too much, but no worse than his predecessor that had a surplus when he started office, in many respects better.
I wish those who claim the president ignores the constitution would actually read it, including ammendments. The president has the LEGAL right to make 'presidential decrees' and the like, and to act in many ways without congresses go ahead, thanks to the Bush era he can almost declare war! Much of what he tries may be overturned by congress if they can get their shit together (but they can't). Don't take it wrong, I'm not happy to see this being done in most cases, and certainly not as a run-around of congress, but it's not against the constitution as it stands today, and those that make that claim are simply wrong and have been misled.
I'll just ignore your last paragraphs, they are not legitimate or reasoned arguments, just name calling.

Happy to be the 10th vote for this.

That guy was a total twat. I only wish the camera had showed his face so that if I passed him on the street I could call him out for being a twat.

The actual comment from Paul Robinson in the New York Times in 1979 (which Chomsky paraphrased in this talk) is as follows:

"Judged in terms of the power, range, novelty and influence of his thought, Noam Chomsky is arguably the most important intellectual alive today. He is also a disturbingly divided intellectual. On the one hand there is a large body of revolutionary and highly technical linguistic scholarship, much of it too difficult for anyone but the professional linguist or philosopher; on the other, an equally substantial body of political writings, accessible to any literate person but often maddeningly simple-minded. The 'Chomsky problem' is to explain how these two fit together."

Chomsky's coming to Japan next month and my wife and I are going to try to see him give a talk on linguistics (unfortunately his other talk on democracy and capitalism booked up as soon as it was announced).

"They don't all agree with it, which is why it's not science."

If anyone is looking for absolute certainty, they should turn to their priests, their gurus, their investment brokers, their politicians, their snake-oil salesmen.

The only absolute certainty science can provide is in proving a wrong. Everything else is probabilities and exclusions, all the way to the end.

The fact that the public expects a proof of absolute certainty of a positive is maddening to me. Any assumed equivalency between "not knowing for sure" with "not knowing anything" is frustrating to no end.

Scientists have to enter the public arena and proclaim certainty to match the public's vernacular. If they were to stick to probabilities the way they do within their own realms, they'd fail to communicate the essence of their findings. Just look at how warped the common understanding of "theory" has become.

----------------------------

"Consensus, I repeat, is not science."

Everything scientific that is being communicated publicy is a consensus. The fact that statements of less than absolute, unanimous consensus are met with suspicion and a diminishment of trust in the process itself is one of the reasons why science cannot be properly discussed on the public stage. They cannot present the fuzzy edges of their findings as that would require a qualification in the form of probabilities. A consensus, the greatest common denominator if you will, is the best that can be done. The IPCC's reports are a magnificent illustration of that very issue.

And why can't we talk about the fuzzy edges? About scenarios and their corresponding probabilities? Because people are suspicious, even scared of numbers. Math as a subject is made fun of, a lack of mathematical understanding has become something to be proud of. An intuitive understanding of probabilities is the exception, not the norm. As soon as a prediction doesn't come true, people tend to dismiss the underlying theory, without any regard to the previously attached probability.

That's the climate the scientists have to endure when trying to present their work to the public.

Because people want them "real" as possible. I am fine with the old games on NES because I don't care. But if you bought the Xbox one well then you obviously need it as close to life to feel complete as possible. His desire, not mine.

Also, didn't know a player was a commentator? Was he just spectating the game and not involved in "playing?" If so I can understand. John Madden used to do this all the time...

Little orphans in the snow
With nowhere to call a home
Start their singing, singing
Waiting through the summertime
To thaw your hearts in wintertime
That's why they're singing, singing

Waiting for a sign
To turn blood into wine
The sweet taste in your mouth
Turned bitter in its glass

Israel, in Israel
Israel, in Israel

Shattered fragments of the past
Meet in veins on the stained glass
Like the lifeline in your palm
Red and green reflects the scene
Of a long forgotten dream
There were princes and there were kings

Now hidden in disguise
Cheap wrappings of lies
Keep your heart alive
With a song from inside

Even though we're all alone
We are never on our own
When we're singing, singing

There's a man who's looking in
And he smiles a toothless grin
Because he's singing, singing
See some people shine with glee
But their song is jealousy
Their hate is clanging, maddening

In Israel
Will they sing Happy Noel
In Israel, in Israel
Israel, in Israel
In Israel
Will they sing Happy Noel

reminds me of Guy Madden's films.

@radx No problem on the short comment, I do the exact same thing

I find your question hard to address directly because it is a series of things I find kind of complexly contradictory. IE, market forces causing undesirable things, and the lack of market forces because of centralization causing undesirable things. Not to say you are believing in contradictions, but rather it is a complex set of issues that have to be addressed, In that, I was thinking all day how to address these, and decided on an a round about way, talking about neither, but rather the history and evolution as to why it is viewed the way you see it, and if those things are necessarily bad. This might be a bit long in the tooth, and I apologize up front for that.

Firstly, reactors are the second invention of nuclear. While a reactor type creation were the first demonstration of fission by humans (turns out there are natural fission reactors: Oklo in Gabon, Africa ), the first objective was, of course, weapons. Most of the early tech that was researched was aimed at "how to make a bomb, and fast". As a result, after the war was all said and done, those pieces of technology could most quickly be transitioned to reactor tech, even if more qualified pieces of technology were better suited. As a result, nearly all of Americas 104 (or so) reactors are based on light water pressure vessels, the result of mostly Admiral Rickover's decision to use them in the nuclear navy. This technological lock in made the big players bigger in the nuclear field, as they didn't have to do any heavy lifting on R&D, just sell lucrative fuel contracts.

This had some very toxic effects on the overall development of reactor technology. As a result of this lock-in, the NRC is predisposed to only approving technology the resembles 50 year old reactor technology. Most of the fleet is very old, and all might as well be called Rickover Reactors. Reactors which use solid fuel rods, control rods, water under pressure, ect, are approved; even though there are some other very good candidates for reactor R&D and deployment, it simply is beyond the NRCs desire to make those kinds of changes. These barriers to entry can't be understated, only the very rich could ever afford to attempt to approve a new reactor technology, like mutli-billionaire, and still might not get approved it it smells funny (thorium, what the hell is thorium!)! The result is current reactors use mostly the same innards but have larger requirements. Those requirements also change without notice and they are required to comply with more hast than any industry. So if you built a reactor to code, and the wire mesh standards changed mid construction, you have to comply, so tear down the wall and start over unless you can figure out some way to comply. This has had a multiplication effect on costs and construction times. So many times, complications can arise not because it was "over engineered", but that they have had to go super ad-hawk to make it all work due to changes mid construction. Frankly, it is pretty amazing what they have done with reactor technology to stretch it out this long. Even with the setbacks you mention, these rube goldbergian devices still manage to compete with coal in terms of its cost per Kwh, and blow away things like solar and wind on the carbon free front.

As to reactor size LWRs had to be big in the day because of various reasons, mostly licencing. Currently, there are no real ways to do small reactors because all licencing and regulatory framework assumes it is a 1GW power station. All the huge fees and regulatory framework established by these well engineered at the time, but now ancient marvels. So you need an evacuation plan that is X miles wide ( I think it is 10), even if your reactor is fractionally as large. In other words, there is nothing technically keeping reactors large. I actually would like to see them go more modular, self regulating, and at the point of need. This would simplify transmission greatly and build in a redundancy into the system. It would also potentially open up a huge market to a variety of different small, modular reactors. Currently, though, this is a pipe dream...but a dream well worth having and pushing for.

Also, reactors in the west are pretty safe, if you look at deaths per KWH, even figuring in the worst estimates of Chernobyl, nuclear is one of the best (Chernobyl isn't a western reactor). Even so, safety ratcheting in nuclear safety happens all the time, driving costs and complexity on very old systems up and up with only nominal gains. For instance, there are no computer control systems in a reactor. Each and every gauge is a specific type that is mandated by NRC edict or similar ones abroad (usually very archaic) . This creates a potential for counterfeiter parts and other actions considered foul by many. These edicts do little for safety, most safety comes from proper reactor design, and skillful operation of the plant managers. With plants so expensive, and general costs of power still very competitive, Managers would never want to damage the money output of nuclear reactors. They would very much like to make plant operations a combination of safe, smooth, and affordable. When one of those edges out the other, it tends to find abuses in the real world. If something gets to needlessly costly, managers start looking around for alternatives. Like the DHS, much of nuclear safety is nuclear safety theater...so to a certain extent, some of the abuses don't account for any real significant increase in risk. This isn't always the case, but it has to be evaluated case by case, and for the layperson, this isn't usually something that will be done.

This combination of unwillingness to invest in new reactor technology, higher demands from reactors in general, and a single minded focus on safety, (several NRC chairmen have been decidedly anti-nuclear, that is like having the internet czar hate broadband) have stilted true growth in nuclear technology. For instance, cars are not 100% safe. It is likely you will know someone that will die in a car wreak in the course of your life. This, however, doesn't cause cars to escalate that drastically in safety features or costs to implement features to drop the death rate to 0. Even though in the US, 10s of thousands die each year in cars, you will not see well meaning people call for arresting foam injection or titanium platted unobtanium body frames, mainly because safety isn't the only point of a car. A car, or a plane, or anything really, has a complicated set of benefits and defects that we have to make hard choices on...choices that don't necessarily have a correct answer. There is a benefit curve where excessive costs don't actually improve safety that much more. If everyone in the USA had to spend 10K more on a car for form injection systems that saved 100 lives in the course of a year, is that worth it? I don't have an answer there as a matter of fact, only opinion. And as the same matter of opinion on reactors, most of their cost, complication, and centralization have to do with the special way in which we treat reactors, not the technology itself. If there was a better regulatory framework, you would see (as we kind of are slowly in the industry despite these things) cheaper, easier to fabricate reactors which are safer by default. Designs that start on a fresh sheet of paper, with the latest and greatest in computer modeling (most current reactors were designed before computer simulations on the internals or externals was even a thing) and materials science. I am routing for the molten salt, thorium reactors, but there are a bunch of other generation4 reactors that are just begging to be built.

Right now, getting the NRC to approve a new reactor design takes millions of dollars, ensuring the big boy will stay around for awhile longer yet. And the regularly framework also ensures whatever reactor gets built, it is big, and that it will use solid fuel, and water coolant, and specific dials and gauges...ect. It would be like the FCC saying the exact innards of what a cellphone should be, it would be kind of maddening to cellphone manufacturers..and you most likely wouldn't have an iPhone in the way we have it today. NRC needs to change for any of the problems you mentioned to be resolved. That is a big obstacle, I am not going to lie, it is unlikely to change anytime soon. But I think the promise of carbon free energy with reliable base-load abilities can't be ignored in this green minded future we want to create.

Any rate, thanks for your feedback, hopefully, that wasn't overkill

Great work! I'm still finding the changes a bit unsettling, but even good change is usually unsettling, isn't it?
My three criticisms are:
1) The 'top 15 unsifted but soon to expire' list on the side of all unsifted videos was a great way to bring attention to submissions that probably deserve it, before they disappear for ever into P-queue purgatory.
2) If someone went through the trouble of promoting a video in order to share it with the rest of us, it should have a reasonable tenure at the top of the front page. If promoted videos are taking up too much space, perhaps they can have even smaller thumbnails? Although, I think two rows of three videos would fit just fine with the current thumbnail size.
3) The lag I'm experiencing when typing and scrolling the page is maddening. Even typing this one comment has by body burning with frustration. That's not a feeling you want visitors associating with your site, because it will, consciously or subconsciously, train them to avoid VideoSift.

Really? In all seriousness, what, aside from the sex, would a 26 year old see in a 16 year old? The conversation must me maddening in its inanity.>> ^chingalera:

>> ^shang:
I like to procure underage coitus myself... but I wouldn't let my church know about it, or show off about it... I keep it in my van, down by the river.

Bad move Romeo, best to keep it in the parent's house preferably with consent...My ex was 16, I 26 when the magic happened

Exactly what he said at the end... what the fuck was the point of this Syndicate?

I LOOOOOVED the original, just loved it. So when I heard they were making a new version I was very happy... then I saw it was a FPS.

I cried inside.

Why could they not have done as is being done for X-Com? Maddening... that's what it is

>> ^TheFreak:

>> ^EMPIRE:
she's adorably cute (Kristen, not the sloth, although sloths are pretty cool I guess)

No, they're not cool! They are terrifying.
Oh sure, they're adorable hanging out in trees in your National Geographic.
But just wait until the day you wake up on the floor of a Panamanian jungle and look over, half asleep, to see one of those monsters crawling, inexorably, eerily slowly...towards your face. Each outstretched limb like the leg of an improbable hell beast spawn of spider and morlock, covered in green moss like the dried ichor of Yog-Sothoth that birthed the abomination. It's void black eyes piercing into your own as your brain tries to form a maddening scream that will never find your lips, as you lay paralyzed in terror.
Wait for that day. It will happen...oh yes, that day is coming for you too.
I mean, sloths...not Kristen Bell. She's adorable.


To me, Sloths are Badgers on Quaaludes.

>> ^TheFreak:


No, they're not cool! They are terrifying.
Oh sure, they're adorable hanging out in trees in your National Geographic.
But just wait until the day you wake up on the floor of a Panamanian jungle and look over, half asleep, to see one of those monsters crawling, inexorably, eerily slowly...towards your face. Each outstretched limb like the leg of an improbable hell beast spawn of spider and morlock, covered in green moss like the dried ichor of Yog-Sothoth that birthed the abomination. It's void black eyes piercing into your own as your brain tries to form a maddening scream that will never find your lips, as you lay paralyzed in terror.
Wait for that day. It will happen...oh yes, that day is coming for you too.
I mean, sloths...not Kristen Bell. She's adorable.

Note to self, do not read Lovecraft before bed when hiking in the Panamanian jungle.

>> ^EMPIRE:

she's adorably cute (Kristen, not the sloth, although sloths are pretty cool I guess)


No, they're not cool! They are terrifying.

Oh sure, they're adorable hanging out in trees in your National Geographic.
But just wait until the day you wake up on the floor of a Panamanian jungle and look over, half asleep, to see one of those monsters crawling, inexorably, eerily slowly...towards your face. Each outstretched limb like the leg of an improbable hell beast spawn of spider and morlock, covered in green moss like the dried ichor of Yog-Sothoth that birthed the abomination. It's void black eyes piercing into your own as your brain tries to form a maddening scream that will never find your lips, as you lay paralyzed in terror.

Wait for that day. It will happen...oh yes, that day is coming for you too.

I mean, sloths...not Kristen Bell. She's adorable.