comment listing type:
Top New Horrorshow Videos by Vote
Subscribe
Top 15 Sifters of All Time
Top 15 Sifters of the Past Week
VideoSift Links
comment listing type: Top New Horrorshow Videos by Vote Subscribe Top 15 Sifters of All Time Top 15 Sifters of the Past Week VideoSift Links |
Cat on LSD
http://www.videosift.com/video/Most-AMAZING-graphics-tech-demo-youll-ever-see-under-180kb
and
http://www.videosift.com/video/In-Russia-Traffic-Camera-Laughs-At-You
http://www.videosift.com/video/Moscow-Car-Tunnel-Crazy-Drivers
http://www.videosift.com/video/My-Mom-Said-I-Could-Amusing-Commerical
http://www.videosift.com/video/Boy-can-do-whatever-he-wants-Mom-says-oui-oui-Condom-ad
http://www.videosift.com/talk/The-sift-needs-concrete-rules-on-dupes
Cat on LSD
If edits and music still don't save it from being a dupe, what does?
Something that actually contributes a meaningful change. Here's an example:
http://www.videosift.com/video/Monkey-Waiters-in-Japan
http://www.videosift.com/video/Monkey-waiters-in-Japanese-restaurant
While both of those clips share mostly the same video, except one has commentary added that explains what is going on. Something significant is added with narration and backstory. With this video, it is the same clip shortened with background music. Accepting that as a significant change means we can have multiple copies of all the generic football in the groin type videos (or any other common popular clips) as long as someone shortened it and added different music.
Edit for Blankfist
So then change the part of the FAQ that says: "Minor changes in content, like a few additional insignificant seconds of video or alternate background music, will still be considered dupes." That should clear the problem up.
Cat on LSD
Cat on LSD
"Duplicates will be discarded. A duplicate video is one which contains content already on VideoSift in a published, queued, personal queued, or dead video submission. Minor changes in content, like a few additional insignificant seconds of video or alternate background music, will still be considered dupes. The only exception to this is if the change in audio makes a significant difference to the video content."
So, I agree with gwiz. Dupe.
NordlichReiter
In reply to this comment by NordlichReiter:
Not sure, this post was hella off when I looked at it again this morning. Maybe I was a in a rush, I think it may be due to the Guinness though.
In reply to this comment by Lurch:
How is this an Election08 sift?
Spore Tribal Stage Preview - IGN
Spore Creature Stage Preview - IGN
Spore Civilization Stage Preview - IGN
History of Tattoos: Oldest Tattoo Mummy 5300 years old
How is this an Election08 sift?shuac
In reply to this comment by shuac:
You make good points, Lurch, and I hope you're right.
My original comment (the "which is worse" thing) was less about supporting a ban/tax and more about asking the OP where he stands: subverting the constitution, about which Bush feels he is beyond reproach, or legislating a ban or tax on guns, thus keeping it civil, legal, and most importantly allowing for it to be blocked, civilly and legally. It's a false choice, yes, but then...so is our presidential election. I'm kidding. Sort of.
Jokes aside, watching those vids of New Orleans cops taking guns away from citizens kind of made me want to get a gun. Is that bad?
shuac
Also, I don't see why someone who fears that the government *could* take weapons by force if they wanted to would think it was logical to support bans and unreasonable restrictions. I'm not saying you in particular since you didn't really mention specifics on your position, but it's something I've noticed having this conversation with others. It just seems incongruous to me since this argument of "you couldn't fight back anyway" comes up a lot. To me it is like saying, "I don't think I could stop them from illegally taking my guns if they wanted to, so I'll support laws that make it legal for them to do so." I think if private firearms are going to be taken en masse in this country it will be through slow and calculated legislation "for our own protection," not by force.
In reply to this comment by shuac:
Well, I'm glad for that. And while I'm normally anti-gun and having never once held a gun in all my 40 years, I watched all the footage of the Sheriffs taking people's guns away in sheer horror. The NRA had the chance to litigate this issue afterward only because the worst had not happened.
But imagine for a moment (taking the founding fathers' original intentions of the 2nd amendment and applying them to today's world, something I never thought we'd have to do), that if the time ever comes that we'd need an armed populace for the purpose of defending the Constitution, a job normally done by our elected officials...then the government has proven that all they need to do to prevent that from happening is to merely walk up to that armed populace and literally take their guns away.
It took a hurricane to demonstrate to the powers that be that the 2nd amendment is meaningless. After the "big moment" has passed us by and the population has been disarmed, there will be no court date.
Again, I'm normally anti-NRA so you can imagine my disappointment.
In reply to this comment by Lurch:
>> ^shuac:
Which is worse: 1) making an attempt to legislate a ban/tax on firearms of these kinds which puts it up to be legitimately 'shot down' (hehe) or 2) proclaiming yourself pro-NRA and having your police force take citizens' guns away anyway...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgPR9I4KMNI
Seriously. I'm asking. Which is worse?
Well, the NRA actually took that to court and got all the firearms returned. They're also currently fighting in DC over making sure the government follows through after the ban was overturned. So, in the end, the NRA still prevailed.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081008/ap_on_re_us/katrina_confiscated_guns
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27087738/
ant
Is this the same clip as the dead one? I didn't want to just fix it with the wrong trailer.
In reply to this comment by ant:
Can't find a replacement.
Kid Chokes Dove at Ceremony
http://www.videosift.com/video/A-Dove-Symbol-of-Peace-Gracefully-Takes-Flight-anduh-oh
NRA ad: Defend Freedom, Defeat Obama!
Which is worse: 1) making an attempt to legislate a ban/tax on firearms of these kinds which puts it up to be legitimately 'shot down' (hehe) or 2) proclaiming yourself pro-NRA and having your police force take citizens' guns away anyway...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgPR9I4KMNI
Seriously. I'm asking. Which is worse?
Well, the NRA actually took that to court and got all the firearms returned. They're also currently fighting in DC over making sure the government follows through after the ban was overturned. So, in the end, the NRA still prevailed.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081008/ap_on_re_us/katrina_confiscated_guns
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27087738/
Palin abused power, probe finds (Politics Talk Post)
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/10/10/1531677.aspx
They didn't actually find anything unethical about the firings. The abuse of power claims are based around accusations of her knowlingly allowing her husband to be involved somehow. Problem is they don't seem to have any actual evidence. Just statements that they couldn't prove a personal connection, but since they couldn't disprove one either it must be true. Here's an article from the Anchorage Daily News detailing the trooper that was fired:
http://www.adn.com/politics/story/476430.html
Just about everything that was in question ethically happened even before Palin ran for office. Also, the things Palin claimed caused her to fear this guy were all substantiated by the trooper's record. They had police statements from before Palin even ran for office where Wooten threatened family members and was physically abusive. I think this will only become big if something more concrete comes out of it. Like if it actually makes its way to the Alaska Personnel Board and they find that she actually broke the law (which is unlikely). I would also expect Obama's campaign to run with this too if it really carried any serious weight.
I do like this part of the BBC article since it sums up what I think pretty nicely:
"The US presidential race has now become so polarised both Republicans and Democrats will likely see the report's findings as vindication for their own trenchant views about Mrs Palin, says the BBC's Richard Lister in Washington.
Alaska's governor will either be seen as the victim of a Democratic party hatchet job, or a hypocrite.
Most voters, for now at least, seem more concerned about who will extract them from the current economic crisis, rather than any questions about political infighting in far-off Alaska, our correspondent adds."