I was sure Ted Talks did have transcripts. I'm sure I remember making a similar objection in the past and somebody putting me in my place with a link to exactly that. On this occasion, however, I scoured the page and couldn't see one. So either I'm being really dim, or you're absolutely right.

(The one time I was persuaded, on the basis that TED talks are really intellectual and insightful and whatnot, to set aside my "videos are (usually) a fucking retarded means of information intake" prejudice and watch a TED talk, some guy rambled for several minutes restating the same tiny concept which could have been stated in a sentence shorter than this one. Seriously, five minutes to cover 10, maybe 12 seconds worth of reading time... even if you're the type who needs to use a finger and move your lips. That's where I reinstated my prejudice and regular policy of ignoring video links.)

WTF!? Please tell me this is exaggeration. I cannot fathom the idea of a TWENTY MINUTE ad break in a film. I've practically given up on TV because the 4-5 minutes we get here are too annoying for me. Do people really tolerate 20 minutes? Rather makes me fear for the future of the human race, if so.

Unless you're a librarian, that's a given.

Perhaps you meant borrow.

Here you go.

Protip: this was the first result of googling "etymology quiz", which is actually 3 fewer characters to type than "[citation needed]".

I have an interesting example of that sort of thing.

I was recently looking at the wikipedia page of a band I like, and it contained a claim as to their total worldwide record sales, followed by the legendary [citation needed]. I thought I'd be helpful and add the requested citation -- I was very sure I remembered reading that factoid in an interview with a certain magazine. Said magazine has online archives, so I rapidly found the interview in question, and.... um... no such statement. Oops. Not wanting to give up, I copy/pasted the sentence under debate into google looking for some other source. Result (unsurprisingly) - dozens and dozens of pages which quoted that wikipedia article verbatim. Not only sites which systematically mirror / reuse wikipedia content (last.fm, answers.com, etc) with clear declaration of source & GFDL status -- but also many other sites, some with more of a reputation for credibility and/or original research, such as the BBC.

At this point I started getting a strange "now waaaaaaiiiiiiiit a minute" feeling, so I plunged into the history of the wikipedia article, diffing versions until I found the original addition of the sentence in question. Guess what? I wrote it.

I was rather amused to see this factoid which, although I'd written it with honest intentions and a genuine belief I'd read it in a credible source, apparently turned out to be made up out of my stoned imagination, quoted so consistently across the web by sources WP itself would rate as "notable".

What would stop me from adding that BBC regurgitation (for example) as the requested citation? Well, my conscience. But (excepting the fact I relate this story now) I'm the only person who would know the story of how that "fact" came to be, so what stops someone else from adding that citation with a clear conscience? Nothing.

Of course, this story is not without precedent, but to have it happen with my own words drove the point home somewhat.

Thanks for the information. It is simply pathetic that half the time I open a story on slashdot, the first comment serves to point out the headline and/or summary are essentially complete horseshit. Fair enough on a pure UGC site like reddit, but this place has editors - paid editors. Really, though, it seems that calling them "editors" is about as accurate as saying Google have "blocked" Scroogle.

Sorry, but that is a ridiculously false statement. Are you actually naive / ill-informed enough to believe this, or were you shooting for a Funny?

The Sun solidly backed Cameron; if you think this was because Murdoch is cosy with the Tories you're right, but if you think it was ONLY due to this, despite the entire (mostly working-class) readership of the paper thinking all the while "WTF why are they backing the tories I hate them" you are in dreamland. Not even Murdoch can get away with wholly flying in the face of his readership's leanings. On the contrary, there is a decent chunk of working class (self employed White Van Man, etc) who are Thatcherite/Tory for various reasons: disagrees with the welfare state ("I'm a self made man who didn't need no handouts"), disagrees with Europe/immigration ("Cheapo Polish builders taking all my clients"), etc.

Meanwhile, look at the stereotype of the New-Labour-voting Islington dinner party brigade. (Upper) middle class to a tee. Do you really think Labour had the last 13 years in govt without any middle class votes whatsoever? Relying solely on that traditional unionised working class base which... um... hardly exists anymore, what with the decline in our manufacturing industries? More dreamland.

Your ludicrously simplistic class-based analysis is at best extremely dated (certainly pre-Blair, perhaps even pre-Thatcher), and quite probably was never really accurate. In an international forum like this where people who don't know better are liable to take you at face value, I feel it's almost irresponsible to trot out this utter nonsense with a straight face.

Why are you asking someone to justify something which was clearly a rhetorical construction and not something they actually believe?

Hint: just before the bit you selectively quoted, " IF you mean that power should be divided by land area... then that is fine." Just after the bit you selectively quoted: " BUT if you think that power should be divided equally amongst the citizens...then the existing system is not fine"

Try reading the entire paragraph before "arguing" with it (aka restating what GP was obviously getting at themselves).

Erm. Try aiming your counter-ire at the right target.

For one thing, Britain has pennies, so it's pretty much a certainty that moaning GP is from the Eurozone, not from Britain. Furthermore, although officially 98% metricated, in reality, within many demographics and in many areas of life, Britain pays lip service at best to metric units, and use imperial measurements like the US.

So, whilst I think GP is a tool (because I agree with this guy), all your attempt at swatting him down has really achieved is, ironically, to go a fair way towards making you look like a good example of the "Americans don't know shit about the rest of the world" stereotype.

1. That's actually what he said in the first place: "open standards usually follow proprietary"

Otherwise: yes, mod parent up, etc.

You don't need cable for Dave (formerly UKTV G2), it's on Freeview. And if "Freeview" means nothing to you, then having cable probably won't help you either (wrong market).

Dave (TV channel)

What sort of Google account do you mean?

I've got several Gmail accounts without ever being asked for a mobile number. AFAIK those Gmail accounts serve as "google accounts" for their other services. Youtube, maps, groups, analytics - I've been able to use all of these without ever being asked for a mobile number.

Nor can this be a "but it's changed lately" thing, because the last gmail account I signed up for, sans mobile number, was only about 10 days ago (wanted another pseudonymous throwaway email).

If you mean an android service then I'm lost - you want to get a mobile phone without the mobile phone provider knowing your mobile phone number?

In short: eh? wat?

Awful, awful analogy, on just about every level, lord only knows how it is at +5 insightful.

GP said he wanted to be able to do one of the simplest, most fundamental building blocks of video editing in this software, not master the entire art of video editing (which he already knows and wishes to transfer) nor master the entire piece of software.

So it's more like knowing how to ride a bike, getting a new bike, spending 30 minutes and not being able to figure out how you even sit on the bike, and deciding that particular bike is rubbish.

Very interesting read, indeed. Thanks BeardedChimp.

I am British, but I still don't speak like that ;-) It's a legal document after all...

While we're talking UK/US, I found it interesting that a US judge/case was cited in point 34. I was also interested to see Orwell and Milton referenced!

All in all, I agree, it is highly readable, and as such I would encourage all to read this pdf rather than comment on this story here or elsewhere on the basis of second-hand / journalistic accounts.