there's a lot more stuff in the database than just IEDs

Hey, What up, my Honkey

(...don't forget to check the Racial Slur Database)
>> ^jimnms:

As a white boy, I feel left out. We don't have a racial name to call each other by.

Ah, now we're getting into more eldritch territory.

1) The exact formula is only known to @lucky760 and @dag and has not been revealed as far as I know. It does indeed involve how long they have been there, "hotness" is the used term. IF you get many views, it gets hotter. If it gets many votes it gets even hotter. Quality affects hotness as well, boosting it enough to become the first listed video just under promoted videos. The Sweden video likely got the 20 votes in very rapid succession, which boosted it up. If it doesn't get more votes/views it will fall down in the queue fast.

The difference between promoted and quality is that promoted do not affect hotness and only "floats" the video for a given period. The quality gives a one-of boost to the hotness, so it will have to subside as normal hotness does, which means that if it gets a lot of votes after being qualitied, it stays there for a while. At this point, quality is far better at getting more votes and views than promote, in my experience.

2) As you say. If you mark it private, only you and the recipient can see it. (And likely the admins if they look directly in the database, but they don't really do that.)

3) You direct your bug reports @lucky760 or that's what I do, anyway.

>> ^Raaagh:
You invoke the "impossible" clause to much - if you are a software developer (like I) I hope you start channelling more Kevin Garnett.

HOWEVER...I happen to agree that this is all too good to be true, and there doesn't seem to be anyway around doing MASSIVE amounts of calculations. I hope to be proved wrong.
Also if its been languishing for years, its almost certainly bullshit: games developers appropriate new technology with gusto from what I have seen.


Nope, not a game developer any longer and never a 3D programmer, as I said (I'm a database guy), I just worked alongside them. But I do clearly remember them complaining about the lack of memory bandwidth to the card, which really does imply that replacing polygons with points is going to make things worse rather than better.

I'll certainly agree with you on the last two points. If it sounds too good to be true...and all that.

I don't really mind that much if google knows everyone and owns everything.
As long as it's given out free, and they have no power over them.
But being in US, the government can just poke their heads into their databases when they feel like it.
What happens if a properly evil corporation wants some of that information for their actually nasty purposes through a ploy of law or lobby?
You know, like has already happened with RIAA and MPAA bullying isps and other services for customer data to sue the entire world's youth for negligible losses.
If google would guarantee the data would stay in their database, unretrievable to an external party, i wouldn't mind.. but as is, i won't put anything online i wouldn't mind my mom/neighbor/boss/wife finding out.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I have read it. I support the Anonymous action. The "banning small breasts" thing is actually, mostly true.

From the site that's linked from that Crikey link you posted Spoco:.

UPDATE 29/01/10 12:19PM: Fiona Patten has provided additional comment:

“I would like to clarify a few points. In the last 18 months the Classification Board has revoked over 30 serial classifications for a range of reasons, one major one being that the models appear to be under 18. These revoked classifications do not appear on the classification database.”
“Late last year I attended a classification publications training session with three adult magazine distributors and one publisher. We were shown a range of images and the notes made by the board were read out. The underdeveloped nature of the model’s breasts was cited as a reason for the image to be refused classification numerous times.“

“All the publications that have been refused classification adhere to the very strict US laws that enforce model age verification in adult publications and films. These laws are upheld by the FBI. There is no chance that any of the models were under 18.”

>> ^spoco2:
ARGH!
Again with this bullshit..

NO, THEY ARE NOT BANNING SMALL BREASTS. Does no one actually go and check things anymore?
sigh .
Yes, Australia has some ridiculous censorship laws. YES, the attempt to install a mandatory internet filter is utter bullshit. YES we are denied R rated games.
BUT THIS IS NOT TRUE.
It hurts the real cases when this is spread around as if it's fact, because it isn't.
The ejaculation thing is true, which absolutely friggen baffles me... WHY?

"Since you downvoted my apology, I'll add this."

I downvoted the comment that it was "just a few seconds". My post including ~40 seconds where Robertson calls the earthquake a blessing your original did not. I did not see your video until SP declared *dupeof, and I was annoyed because they were not the same video, as mine was ~50% longer and had additional content. I was more bothered by the fact that this has happened before and it still isn't fixed.

"You decided to passively aggressively scoop my video with 36 seconds of immaterial content."

This is crazy talk. I think you think I care way more about my sifts way more than I actually do. I have been on this site long enough that people know I have never done that, if you don't know me it is because my usage has tapered off lately. Irrespective of your conspiracy theory bullshit, SlipperyPete declared dupeof incorrectly. As per the definition of "dupe", it means a copy. If there was black screen or credits something of that degree padding my video, then I would agree it would be a dupe. But it contained ~50% more content and a completely different segment. You know that.

"My sift must have come up as a dupe; the titles are too similar."

The dupe checking function doesn't work that way. My impression is that it takes time to for he database to load the videos. If two videos are posted close together and have similar titles the dupe checker will not see the first one.

Ask Lucky or Dag I am sure he will say the same thing.

Ah. If you look at and click on the video title above your comment (in your personal comment listing), you'll notice it is: http://www.videosift.com/video/100-ton-bomb-explodes-BOOM-Watch-the-shockwave whereas the video you think you commented on is: http://www.videosift.com/video/Civillian-EOD-contractors-detonating-100-tons-of-dynamite

The one you actually commented on is a dupe of the other and when you go to the dupe you're being redirected to the other.

In reply to this comment by deathcow:
it does show in my comments though.. 10th or 11th comment down


In reply to this comment by lucky760:
When did you post the comment? There's no record of it in the database, so it seems it was never saved.

In reply to this comment by deathcow:
hmmm I have a comment on this video
http://www.videosift.com/video/Civillian-EOD-contractors-detonating-100-tons-of-dynamite

not showing... but it exists

it does show in my comments though.. 10th or 11th comment down


In reply to this comment by lucky760:
When did you post the comment? There's no record of it in the database, so it seems it was never saved.

In reply to this comment by deathcow:
hmmm I have a comment on this video
http://www.videosift.com/video/Civillian-EOD-contractors-detonating-100-tons-of-dynamite

not showing... but it exists

When did you post the comment? There's no record of it in the database, so it seems it was never saved.

In reply to this comment by deathcow:
hmmm I have a comment on this video
http://www.videosift.com/video/Civillian-EOD-contractors-detonating-100-tons-of-dynamite

not showing... but it exists

I was reasonably sure they didn't get deleted. No programmer with more than three brain cells would use such a wrong-to-the-very-core approach...and the rest of the sift makes it clear that the programmer was far better than -that-.

So the only real problem with merging comments is the problem with reversing a dupeof? If that's the case, it's not too hard to get around. Don't actually -merge- the original comments, simply duplicate them on the original discussion, with a (invisible to the users) tag that identifies them as merged from video X. Then reversing the dupeof simply means deleting those comments with that tag.

Of course, duplicating the messages increases storage requirements...so the simple answer may not be the best one. Moving the comments and using a similar tag to move them back for a reversal would work too, although it strikes me as more fragile. The choice of approach would depend on numbers that I have no clue about. But the coder(s) can certainly check.

Certainly, neither of these is as simple as it sounds...changing the structure of the database is not something to rush into (I'm a DBA, and am very familiar with the risks and costs of such). But maybe for the next major version, or even minor if we're really lucky...

>> ^blutruth:
I should start by saying that I have no idea how the "stuff under the hood" of this site works, but it would seem like the channel assignments should exist only in the backend (database--SQL?) and should only be queried when the video details are requested (search, view, edit, etc...). Maybe I'm misunderstanding the part about "duplicate content over multiple URLs", but surely there must be a way to abstract the channel information/data from the URL part of things.

I think they're talking about how the channels are subdomains. e.g.: music.videosift.com, wtf.videosift.com

(Also, we might have too many channels already, but we desperately need a *fake channel.)

I should start by saying that I have no idea how the "stuff under the hood" of this site works, but it would seem like the channel assignments should exist only in the backend (database--SQL?) and should only be queried when the video details are requested (search, view, edit, etc...). Maybe I'm misunderstanding the part about "duplicate content over multiple URLs", but surely there must be a way to abstract the channel information/data from the URL part of things. Unless they're referring to videos with multiple channels...I don't know, I'm starting to think in circles.

I agree that there are a lot of channels out there, but killing off channels (especially to solve what seems to be a technical issue), seems to be a BIG DEAL®. I'd like to hear from the devs on this...is there no other way?

Just curious.

Degausser...Would it work? Maybe. Degaussing renders the magnetic media completely unusable and damages the storage system...ok? A better plan for "illegal" down loaders is to act as joe2 suggested, tell the FBI to return with a warrant..BUT-What if (chances are good they do) they already have one secured....yer screwed.

A simpler, foolproof plan is to employ a system of RHI (Remote Hardware Incineration) near the front door or in a pocket. Feds arrive, push button, and an electronic fuse ignites detcord easily attached to the internal harddrive of yer PC. Bobs yer uncle, harddrive annihilated.(Remember how Mel Gibson got rid of his evidence in Conspiracy Theory?)

If I had been this fella, released prior to sentencing for a goodbye dinner with mom and dad????....You'd never find me again in the U.S. again, ever. Oh and I'd start a new hobby....rendering my fingertips, palms, and pinky-sides of hands, undetectable by inkage...cause, they got my prints in more than one database. Fuck the Dumbshitz!

When I'm coding database stuff, year/month/day seems pretty standard, especially for stuff that's intended for both foreign (ex US) and domestic markets.

The only problem with 26NOV09 is that it's English-centric.