I went looking for a higher quality embed for your Hot Chocolate live at ZDF, and failed miserably While looking though, I did find my children's favourite Disco classic http://videosift.com/video/Patrick-Hernandez-Born-to-be-alive-Live-at-ZDF-1978 and as far as I can tell it's never been sifted, although there was a failed attempt 6 years ago.

I can see that you're not gonna listen, but I hope other people will read this.

http://chomsky-must-read.blogspot.com/2008/09/humanitarian-imperialism-by-noam.html

In it Chomsky makes the case for Humanitarian intervention, citing two specific instances where an invasion was justified as humanitarian.

"The most significant ones by far during the post–Second World War era are in the 1970s: India’s invasion of East Pakistan (now Bangladesh), ending a huge massacre; and Vietnam’s invasion of Cambodia in December 1978, driving out the Khmer Rouge just as their atrocities were peaking."

Neither of those instances was England and neither is the Falklands. It's a much more complex situation than just Evil Military Junta, and White Special Knights of England bravely saving the day. People who believe these fantasies give power to those who end up destroying a lot of fucking lives.

Every evil bastard cites defense, or humanitarian intervention. It's not true, don't fucking believe them just because you're too lazy to do the research.

You have been awarded 1 Power Point for fixing the embed code for Dead Pool video Orson Welles Vivitar Camera Commercial 1978. Thank you for helping maintain VideoSift's reliability.

Regarding inventing the training montage (and making it awesome)...
Jackie Chan, Drunken Master, 1978
http://youtu.be/RGtUTnMwLVo

Eat it, Stallone.

On a daily basis, politicians, like Obama, and pundits in the lamestream media mindlessly bump their gums about global warming, uh... "climate change" (the term employed when the earth stopped warming), without having the slightest idea what they are talking about. Most simply parrot the line about a "so-called "consensus of scientists," without the slightest knowledge of the science or data, or point to extreme weather events as “proof.” Al Gore and Henry Waxman have become masters at this. Noam Chomsky should stick to linguistics. Once he ventures outside of his specialty, he’s just a run-of-the-mill leftist loon.

Science does not operate on the basis of consensus, but provable fact and hard DATA that is replicable. No one can prove that C02 causes warming, apart from the other forces that are chiefly determinative of climate--solar output, cosmic rays (and their effect on cloud cover), the earth's elliptical orbit, its axial tilt, etc. The earth's climate cycle has been in place for eons and is not being altered by any significant degree by anthropogenic CO2. In fact, 99% of the people who believe in the "global warming crisis" cannot even tell you what the current globally-averaged temperature is, nor how much it may have risen over the past century (or any other time frame for that matter). Nor do they know that the current globally averaged temperature is 1-2 degrees C below what it was during the Medieval Warm Period, when human activity could not have been a factor.

Neither temperatures nor sea level rise are accelerating. Temperatures haven't risen since 1997. And even the U.N. predicts just an 8.5" to 18.5" sea level rise by 2100 (2007 IPCC Report), far below the 20 feet predicted by Al Gore, or the 35 feet predicted by Joe Lieberman in 2002. In fact, sea levels have been rising at a rate of about 7" per century since the end of the last age 12,500 years ago, so the U.N.'s predicted range is likely to fall at the low end.

Weather stations around the world are notoriously unreliable, many placed in locations now near asphalt parking lots, etc., replicating the urban island heat effect. Calculating the globally averaged temperature in an enormously complex task. compounded when scientific frauds like Phil Jones and Michael Mann (of the infamous "hockey stick" graph) hide, and would not supply, their data because it does not support their predetermined conclusions of anthropogenic global warming. (Climategate). This is not surprising, however, since thousands of scientists stand to collectively lose billions in federal research grants if the hoax is exposed (more than $80 billion has already been spent on such research, nearly 500 times what oil companies have spent to fund so-called “skeptics”), a fact totally lost, or grossly misrepresented, by global warming religionists.

The fact is: even if the earth's temperature is rising marginally, from natural forces, it will be far better for mankind than falling temperatures. It will result in higher crop yields and less death around the world. More than twice as many people die of extreme cold than extreme heat.

Contrary to morons such as Al Gore (who will never agree to debate the topic, so fearful is he of getting his clock cleaned), scientific evidence clearly shows that we have had no increase in extreme weather events. Dr. Roger Pielke Jr., Professor of Environmental Studies at the University of Colorado, summed up the latest science on weather extremes when he wrote that “There is no evidence that disasters are getting worse because of climate change....There's really no evidence that we're in the midst of an extreme weather era - whether man has influenced climate or not,”
Pielke also explained that the data does not support linking Hurricane Sandy to man-made global warming. “Sandy was terrible, but we're currently in a relative hurricane 'drought'.” But that doesn’t stop politicians from trying to make political hay from them.

Much of the gum bumping about "global warming" may be attributed to the political aspirations of Al Gore who hoped to ride an environmental white horse into the White House. It all comes down to a politically-motivated overreaction to a 0.35 degree C increase in globally-averaged temperatures in the period from 1978-1997. Since 1998, temperatures have flat-lined. They are now at 14.5 degrees Celsius which is exactly where they were in 1997. What this amounted to was a hyperbolic response to a temporary and cyclical climate phenomenon, which has been replicated a myriad of times in human history.

The climate history of the 20th century, by itself, contradicts the CO2 equals warming hypothesis. From 1913-1945, CO2 was not a factor and temperatures rose slightly. And from 1945-1977, temperatures fell in the face of rising CO2. It was only in the period from 1978-1997 that temperatures and CO2 rose simultaneously. But since CO2 is likely to continue to rise for the foreseeable future, we will have periods of both rising and falling temperatures in the face of rising CO2.

The scientific travesty is that many politicians are trying to transform CO2 into a “pollutant” requiring draconian federal regulations whose only effect will be to stifle economic growth. CO2 is a harmless trace element constituting just 0.039 per cent of the earth's atmosphere (390 parts per million by volume). It's what humans and animals exhale and its presence helps plant production. 500 million years ago, CO was 20 times more prevalent in our atmosphere. The aim is to convince the uninformed that carbon dioxide is the equivalent of carbon monoxide, a highly toxic gas.

With time and historical perspective, the global warming crisis will turn out to be the greatest scientific fraud in history. But that won’t politicians from exploiting it in the short term.

On a daily basis, politicians, like Obama, and pundits mindlessly bump their gums about global warming, uh... "climate change" (the term employed when the earth stopped warming), without having the slightest idea what they are talking about. Malloy is just the latest in a long line of demagogic politicians trying to capitalize on the scare. Most simply parrot the line about a "so-called "consensus of scientists," without the slightest knowledge of the science or data, or point to extreme weather events as “proof.”

Science does not operate on the basis of consensus, but provable fact and hard DATA that is replicable. No one can prove that C02 causes warming, apart from the other forces that are chiefly determinative of climate--solar output, cosmic rays (and their effect on cloud cover), the earth's elliptical orbit, its axial tilt, etc. The earth's climate cycle has been in place for eons and is not being altered by any significant degree by anthropogenic CO2. In fact, 99% of the people who believe in the "global warming crisis" cannot even tell you what the current globally-averaged temperature is, nor how much it may have risen over the past century (or any other time frame for that matter). Nor do they know that the current globally averaged temperature is 1-2 degrees C below what it was during the Medieval Warm Period, when human activity could not have been a factor.

Neither temperatures nor sea level rise are accelerating. Temperatures haven't risen since 1997. And even the U.N. predicts just an 8.5" to 18.5" sea level rise by 2100 (2007 IPCC Report), far below the 20 feet predicted by Al Gore, or the 35 feet predicted by Joe Lieberman in 2002. In fact, sea levels have been rising at a rate of about 7" per century since the end of the last age 12,500 years ago, so the U.N.'s predicted range is likely to fall at the low end.

Weather stations around the world are notoriously unreliable, many placed in locations now near asphalt parking lots, etc., replicating the urban island heat effect. Calculating the globally averaged temperature in an enormously complex task. compounded when scientific frauds like Phil Jones and Michael Mann (of the infamous "hockey stick" graph) hide, and would not supply, their data because it does not support their predetermined conclusions of anthropogenic global warming. (Climategate). This is not surprising, however, since thousands of scientists stand to collectively lose billions in federal research grants if the hoax is exposed (more than $80 billion has already been spent on such research, nearly 500 times what oil companies have spent to fund so-called “skeptics”).

The fact is: even if the earth's temperature is rising marginally, from natural forces, it will be far better for mankind than falling temperatures. It will result in higher crop yields and less death around the world. More than twice as many people die of extreme cold than extreme heat. The scientific evidence clearly shows that we have had no increase in extreme weather events. Dr. Roger Pielke Jr., Professor of Environmental Studies at the University of Colorado, summed up the latest science on weather extremes when he wrote that “There is no evidence that disasters are getting worse because of climate change....There's really no evidence that we're in the midst of an extreme weather era - whether man has influenced climate or not,”
Pielke also explained that the data does not support linking Hurricane Sandy to man-made global warming. “Sandy was terrible, but we're currently in a relative hurricane 'drought'.” But that doesn’t stop politicians from trying to make political hay from them.

Much of the gum bumping about "global warming" may be attributed to the political aspirations of Al Gore who hoped to ride an environmental white horse into the White House. It all comes down to a politically-motivated overreaction to a 0.35 degree C increase in globally-averaged temperatures in the period from 1978-1997. Since 1998, as Mr. Hart correctly points out, temperatures have flat-lined or declined. What this amounted to was a hyperbolic response to a temporary and cyclical climate phenomenon, which has been replicated a myriad of times in human history.

The climate history of the 20th century, by itself, contradicts the CO2 equals warming hypothesis. From 1913-1945, CO2 was not a factor and temperatures rose slightly. And from 1945-1977, temperatures fell in the face of rising CO2. It was only in the period from 1978-1997 that temperatures and CO2 rose simultaneously. But since CO2 is likely to continue to rise for the foreseeable future, we will have periods of both rising and falling temperatures in the face of rising CO2.

The scientific travesty is that many politicians are trying to transform CO2 into a “pollutant” requiring draconian federal regulations whose only effect will be to stifle economic growth. CO2 is a harmless trace element constituting just 0.039 per cent of the earth's atmosphere (390 parts per million by volume). It's what humans and animals exhale and its presence helps plant production. 500 million years ago, CO was 20 times more prevalent in our atmosphere. The aim is to convince the uninformed that carbon dioxide is the equivalent of carbon monoxide, a highly toxic gas.

With time and historical perspective, the global warming crisis will turn out to be the greatest scientific fraud in history. But that won’t politicians from exploiting it in the short term. Obama has already wasted billions trying to fix a non-problem.
And now he’s even orchestrating the mindless followers of a new secular religion to march on the Mall to advance this silly agenda.

The result is a faint image of a gorgeous woman captured in brown sludge. The pictures are somewhat interesting, but I agree that the video is just irritating.

http://expired-instants.com/photos/1978-10-polacolor2-808.html

no, it's the opposite of instagram. it's using very old, esoteric, and volatile materials and experimenting to discover results. instagram deals with known methods and known and [only] repeatable results that imitate cheap film cameras from the 60s and 70s. this is an expensive camera, probably hard to find and expensive film, which may or may not work, giving completely unknown results. saying this is just like instagram is like saying that a PT cruiser is just like chrysler airflow or that a van gogh poster is just like the original painting: you're confusing the cheap imitation for the original. it's exactly like confusing a low res, digital instagram shot with an extremely high res, large format, film photo done with 100 year old camera.

saying this is "making a picture look bad misses the point entire" in fact, misses the point entirely. it misses the point of art, it misses the point of experimentation, and it's an extremely narrow and purely utilitarian understanding of a rarely utilitarian process.

also, maybe you should check out the whole story before dismissing this as being part of a cheap "fad".

http://www.expired-instants.com/stories/1978-10-polacolor2-808.html

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

When I was around 9 in 1978, I met Muhammad Ali. I shook his hand in a restaurant called the Evergreen in Delta Junction, Alaska. He was in town to shoot a battery commercial.

Perhaps if your beloved so called "job creators" paid people a living wage rather than horde more and more of their profits for themselves there wouldn't be a war on poverty. They can't even pay their employees a rate that keeps up with inflation. Worker compensation goes up 5.7% since 1978, while CEO pay 726.7%. You right wing folks cry foul if the government taxes the rich about "spreading the wealth" but don't care that the rich are stealing the money earned by the hard work of the working class and keeping it at the top. Want to stop spending so much of your tax dollars helping the poor? How about your heroes paying everyone a living wage? How about they start hiring people again rather than fire people so they can have a jet? When the job creators start doing that then we can complain about how much tax money goes to helping the siftless who refuse to work and "want a handout". When some rich guy, <cough>Romney</cough> making $20 Million a year off investments actually spends $15 to $19 Million of that making businesses that just run off those investments rather than just holding it for their own greed, then we talk about a war on poverty... if I made that kind of money I wouldn't need even $1 Million a year, I'd stop around $150k (+/- cost of living adjustments from this area to whatever area I was in) and the rest I'd put into making stores or something, paying people living wages... $20 million a year would pay a lot of people a living wage.

And to be clear, I believe in the right to start your own business, and to be compensated for the risk, but when over half of your workers need food stamps, and you are making $18.7 Million a year, most of that in very low tax capital gains, then I start having issues. Nobody needs that kind of money, nobody. I'm not saying that everyone should cut off at the $150k (+/- cost of living for a given area) that I'd stop at, but after $250-$500 or so it starts to get bad if they aren't paying everyone under them a living wage (and if they are all being paid a living wage, then start hiring more people rather than keeping minimum staffing).

But no, they hold it for themselves, they fire thousands of people and keep the rest an minimum wages for over 3 years so they can have and keep their jet, their incomes greatly increase year to year compared to the rate of inflation while the few people they keep aren't keeping pace, and you people on the right complain about the poor rather than looking at the people responsible. You complain about how the poor are all just lazy... stop your job, work with the poor, take a job in retail working minimum wage for 10 to 20 years of your life. Most of those people want better jobs, they don't want a hand out, they want something better for themselves and their kids. Most of the poor want out, not by a handout, they want good jobs, but the "job creators" care only about increasing their pockets rather than helping their employees. Every person I know who gets government assistance (and that is a very large percentage of the people I know) would love to make a living wage and be off government assistance, a great many of them are embarrassed to be on the government roles and take it only because the only other choice would be take their kids and live on the streets, while the business owner or CEO hired by the company they work for jets around from mansion to mansion.

Ugh. Another "with great power, comes great responsibility", preachy, overly oppressive, dark but "cool" superhero movie trailer. If it's indicative of what the full movie will bring, I'll pass. When did comic book movies lose their sense of fun? Why SO serious? (pun intended)

Want to know why Iron Man (1) was such a hit? Because it was fun. Same with Superman (1978). Or The Avengers. Emulate those movies and not the heaviness of Batman all the time.

Oh, and don't swing the other way too far either. The world only needs one Superman III.

@shinyblurry

[me:] … invited … yadda yadda. [you:]I get your overall point.

That's all that matters. And I'll add that I too think you're a valuable member. I've even taken to defending you around the place, if you can believe that.

Now on to the other topics.

Apparently you haven't heard of Chiastic structure:

You're right, I hadn't heard of it. That's neat stuff. But it doesn't change the fact that Matthew's choice to use that structure created *an error in the text*.

No, they can't be scientifically measured. You would never know during your test whether God was simply feeding you a certain kind of result. Think about it. God knows the entire time that you're trying to test for His existence outside of what He ordained (faith in Jesus Christ). His choice is either to give you results that will prove His existence outside of Christ or results that will make it ambiguous. What do you think He is going to do?

As far as I can tell, either you don't understand science or my mind is incapable of understanding how all the things you're saying about God can be true at once. This is going nowhere. I'm dropping this prayer/science topic.

You're acting is if I have no evidence for my beliefs.

No. I'm acting as if you are not giving appropriate weight to the evidence on both sides. All evidence against your beliefs, you massage into being compatible with some very, very loose rules, to the point now where words in the Bible don't even count as words anymore. Yet any mote of evidence against my beliefs (even things that aren't evidence at all, such as lack of an answer --which is entirely consistent with a world without a God) you throw around like it's absolute proof not only that I'm wrong, but further that you're right. You even tell me that I'm suffering cognitive dissonance—not that you *think* I might be, but that I am. Basic statements of humility elude you, like, "Humans are far too complicated even for humans to understand, and therefore any argument from complexity/arrogance/hubris applies to belief in the existence of God just as much as it applies to belief that humans invented God." And even after you say something like that (I believe you did acknowledge in another thread that it's technically possible you're wrong), you continue to speak like you're right and I’m wrong. In a nutshell, I come to the table with my beliefs, I acknowledge they are my beliefs, and I act towards you as if they are only beliefs, not absolute fact. And that's the basic humility I'm asking for in return, and which frankly I require to have a real conversation about the existence of God.

My worldview is internally consistent, and it is also rational.

I disagree that it's rational, for the fact that you hold it to be absolutely true, bar nothing. From where I stand, it's irrational for a mere human to hold that they are absolutely correct about their interpretation of anything as complex, critical and subjective as the things you claim about God and the Bible.

you reject the evidence I have receive apriori.

As a rational actor, I must be sceptical of your subjective evidence. To accept it OR dismiss it would be irrational of me.

To you there must always be some other explanation … You've already come to the conclusion that … Rather than letting the evidence interpret the conclusion, you are interpreting the evidence through the conclusion.

Anybody willing to look can see that there are internally consistent plausible alternatives to your beliefs. I say again and again only that there are alternative possibilities. I have come to no "conclusions" about anything. As a scientific-minded person, I simply cannot think so rigidly, ever, especially not about something as important as the nature of the universe. I mostly see how the evidence could fit in your worldview. Sometimes I don't, and that's OK. I suggest that there are other possibilities with words like, "could", "maybe", "I think," "From where I stand," and so forth. And nearly every time you treat me like I'm claiming atheism is absolutely 100% correct, end of conversation. The only thing I believe I'm 100% correct about is *that I have proposed* internally consistent plausible alternatives to the existence of God. That's all I'm ever saying: other things could be possible. Read all my messages again; I'm pretty consistent. So I'll ask you again, please read my words literally, not with some defensive filter like every sentence of mine is a skewer.

It was only when I questioned that and investigated the evidence that I found [the Bible was right and science was wrong].

What evidence do you have that science is wrong? I'm not saying science is perfect (it's human), but you're no expert to claim that what you've read is scientifically valid. To be frank, you've got a reputation on the Sift for quotemining and have been caught at least once on the Steven Pinker quote. People with insignificant scientific backgrounds and/or clear non-scientific primary agendas don't count.

It's only a literal reading [of the Bible] that makes any sense.

A literal reading of the Bible gives two different accounts of the same genealogy. That doesn't make sense.

Even atheists know that:

You mean, "at least one atheist once thought that, maybe". A quick out of context copy-paste from christianforums.com of a vague quote from a 1978 periodical by a group that neither speaks for nor represents atheists. Why bother? You can do better.

This is actually Kate Bush's first ever TV appearance - on German TV in February 1978, she performed Kite and Wuthering Heights.

I found a longer version with the intro and both songs, http://youtu.be/NDAWhdJU6HQ

Also, for this embed:
*length=3:38
(the original was 10s longer)

>> ^Buck:

LOVED the 2600!!
Yep, me too. I had one and I became a video game addict.

I had these games I can remember:
Megamania
Pitfall
Dolphin
Combat
Ms. Pac-Man
Pac-Man (ugh)
E.T. (ugh)
He-Man
Frogger
etc.

Now, I have ALL with Stella emulator.

jesus was a jewish carpenter as far as i know from your "how to book". a book that the christians stole part of from the jews. the book's main character was mimicked from earlier gods. as for spiritual beliefs, they are nonexistent.
In reply to this comment by shinyblurry:
>> ^lurgee:

you do not have to quote your "how to book" to me. i was brought up catholic and received many doses from this collection of fiction. i received weekly doses until i reached the age of 13. that is when my mind woke up and said, "this is bullshit!". i have been a non believer since 1978. there is NO way that you or anybody else can make me believe in the invisible sky king.


I can't convince you of anything. Only God can change your heart. Let me ask you a question..who is Jesus Christ to you? Here's another one..do you have any spiritual beliefs?