The first time I flew to Iceland on the aptly-named Iceland Air, the "entertainment" consisted of the entire catalog of Sigur Ros and Bjork. The seat-back screens in the cheap seats had a list of movies that an old UHF channel would have turned its nose up at, and an endless loop of four commercials for wonderful Iceland -- in Icelandic -- that you couldn't turn off. They also insisted in asking people to pay in isk for Icelandic food, which was both a novelty, an annoyance and a source of nausea all in one.
That said, it was better than Air France by a long shot.

Intense.

Some of those drops were maybe 75-100 yards upwind of the target and still drifted past the fire. In America, I think they cancel fire planes in high winds like these.

That long shot of the fire closing in on the radio shack looked like a pyroclastic flow, not a wildfire. Scary stuff.
*quality

Poor Bob, the BBC light ribbing over Trump's anemic "biggest inauguration audience ever in the nation's history" dwarfed by the wedding crowd upset you? Snowflake. ;-)

Not a memory lane of me saying that.
I called it for Trump when the DNC got caught....actually before then but not with certitude until then. I knew he was right, he could murder someone publicly in cold blood and not lose a vote, because his supporters are morally bankrupt tribalists. I knew decades of philandering, often with his friends wives, pussy grabbing, daughter lusting, school fraud, charity fraud, repeated bankruptcy, thousands of lawsuits, hush money, mob/Russia ties, a long history of cheating the little guy, blatant racism, being narcissism personified, and having zero capacity for honesty had no effect on them, it was clear that Clinton, whose voters had morals, was a huge long shot at best when the primary underhandedness came to light, she only drove the right to the polls, not the left. They couldn't have created a more polarizing candidate with more baggage.

Never underestimate the stupidity and gullibility, or count on the morality of the American voter or you'll look the fool like these people did.

And let's not forget that Oprah is in many ways anti-science. Not as much as Trump by a long shot but a cabinet with Dr. Oz and Deepak Chopra?

If you count war, tyrants, genocides committed by governments/rulers, inappropriate criminal convictions/executions, draconian/harmful laws, illegal police actions, and political culling as law enforcement (and he does), he's almost certainly correct. Certainly there are exceptions in certain times and/or places, but as a whole I think he's not far off....at least counting since civilization/law enforcement started.
Think of Pol Pot....everything he did was in the name of law enforcement. He's not alone by a long shot.

Your video, every frame a painting-the spielberg oner-the long shot, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

War Horse was the movie that killed Spielberg for me. Mawkish, mawkish, mawkish.

And it started with a long shot, if memory serves. I was pissed at him from the get-go.

@newtboy
you misunderstood.

respectable investigative journalists gain that respect by being consistent with their reporting.

chris hedges is such a journalist.

but,by your metric,him being on RT negates that respect.now this is an assumption on my part,but i am using your words to come to that assumed conclusion.you have yet to agree or disagree with what chris hedges is saying,choosing instead to attack the medium in which he is saying it.this is your right,i just happen to disagree with you on this matter.

i refer back to one of my original comments,and a point i tried (and i guess failed?) to reiterate:discernment is the key.

so in a sense..yes..it is our responsibility to do our due diligence to vette the veracity of an investigative reporter.

those "reporters" who shill for either the democrats or republicans reveal themselves as the whores they are fairly quickly.

demagogues can almost be instantly identified due to their constant appeals to emotion.(keith olbermans new youtube channel from GQ "the resistance" comes to mind).

and reporters who are simply bad or lazy are quickly revealed as well.by other reporters.

let's take @bcglorf review of chomsky,and how chomsky is singular in his constant criticism of american foreign policy and asks the question "why can't he,just for once,speak on the positives that america has done in the world,or speculate on what could have happened had american not intervened in third world country A or B".(paraphrased)

now this is not an entirely unfair question,and in chomsky's books..he does address the very specifics that bcglorf would like to see chomsky address,but in lectures you are lucky to get a sentence in regards to such subjects.

but notice that while bcglorf would like to see chomsky speak in more broad terms,he never once questions the veracity of the details chomsky is laying down.

do you know why?
because chomsky does his homework,and backs up everything he says.

bcglorf respects chomsky for this,while simultaneously wishing he changed the channel once in awhile.

bcglorf utilized discernment to come to the conclusion that chomsky is a worthy,if infuriating,read/listen.

i do not mean to be speaking for Bc,and maybe i am missing the mark by a long shot using him as an example (if i did,please forgive Bc).

but my basic point is that we ALL discriminate and discern using our own subjective tools,our experiences and ultimately our understandings.

the problem here,and it is the underlying message on this thread,is confirmation bias.

we all know about this,and this election cycle REALLY brought this up to the forefront.

what i find interesting,and always makes me giggle,is how people will point to the "mainstream media" as an outlet for:propaganda,fake news,biased and slanted news ..but..it is NEVER the news THEY consume.the news THEY consume is hard hitting journalism.

so when i see people dismiss a piece that may happen to be on a questionable outlet..i laugh..because MOST outlets are ALL questionable.

so yes my friend,it is up to us to discern what is valid and what is bullshit.secondary sources help.concrete,trackable sources help and discussing and talking with one another is probably the greatest help of all.

but if you reside in an echo chamber,and everybody is just smelling each other farts.then some information may come as a shock.

my faith dictates my politics.
i am a dissident,and a radical.
the dynamic is always "power vs powerlessness",and i am always on the side of the powerless.

so it should be no surprise that on my list are people such as chomsky or hedges.

because they criticize power.

I wish she wouldn't use the term "pro-lifers" when referring to anti-abortion advocates. They support the death penalty (despite Jesus saying it wasn't an eye for an eye, and despite the fact He said "If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone takes your cloak, do not withhold your tunic as well. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what is yours, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you.…", and more and more that show He wouldn't support the death penalty, even if they had done something, which is their usual defense when defending their support of the death penalty), they love war (though Jesus said "blessed are the peacemakers" and was clearly against war)... seems the Republican Christians in fact aren't pro-life at all, they are very anti-life, just anti-abortion... which is a fine stance to take if you want, just don't lie and say you are pro-life when you don't give a fuck about that life after it is born... they want to get rid of all programs that help the needy and poor too... though Sodom's sin was not doing enough to help the needy and poor, and many would also note that the Bible is clear that it was also guilty of being hostile to foreigners (though most will also agree that sexual immorality played a role, but it wasn't Sodom's sin by a long shot since the Bible names that specifically as being not helping the needy and poor).

Liberal Redneck -- need to say more? nope

Trump will be always better than Clinton.


Yep Trump is a dick. not PC not by a long shot. Never apologizes even when wrong. Dickish you bet

But Hillary:
She colluded with the DNC to win. She cheated to win!
She had to cheat.

Then you add all her other baggage and the Clinton baggage.
No way will she make a good president. She is the establishment.

Yep Republican and Democrat establishment hate Trump. But their approval rating is in the shit so who cares what they think.

Americans want change from the norm and Trump happens to be it.

He is looking her in the eye as he honks the horn, probably with a smirk on this face plus a cell phone pointed at her.

Not a mistake by a long shot.

Gets the shit scared out of her, fight or flight response kicks in and she chooses fight.

Good for her.

That was amazing. I only wish it had been a single long shot instead of multiple setups.
*promote *quality kinetic *art

@dag @newtboy @VoodooV

I do enjoy this site. I enjoy the posts and videos. I agree with some and disagree with others.


I don't complain to Dag when ever I am treated unfairly or a bad post is slandered against me. Even when I post video that clearly is to the disliking of most of this site and it gets yanked for having 3 down votes. I may think that is not fair but that's the rules, so be it.

As the minority on this site I could ask Dag to solicited more conservative viewpoints to this site but that would not be fair to ask him to help "stack the deck" for poor little ol me.

Liberals do not hold the majority view in America. Not by a long shot.
As of 2014
Conservatives 37%
Moderates 35%
Liberals 27%

So don't feel that you hold the majority opinion when you clearly don't.

Sifters may hold majority it here on the sift but in the real world Liberal ideas are a rightfully discarded ideas of crazy people.

You certainly have a choice in how you use the electricity.

I think YOU missed the point, if you can only sell your power for 8 c perkwh, and pay 36c per kwh, and you sell ALL the power you make, then buy it back later, YOU are subsidizing the power company, who makes 28c on every kwh you sell them. No one is subsidizing that 8c they pay(I would hope, 350% profit is already insane) so what "high feed in tariff" are you talking about?

The power grid is fairly smart, and takes into account the amount being produced by ALL sources, and shuts/ramps down those not needed. For you to be sending power when it's not required would require more PV generation than the entire grid uses, because ANY other generation could be put on hold until night. The certainly DO do this on a 'few hundred times per second' basis, at least here in the US. Solar generation may jump up and down on individual systems, but the total amount fed to the grid by all solar systems in an area is fairly stable, and doesn't jump radically from a cloud...come on.
Here, peak power is at peak temperature time, mid-late afternoon, when businesses turn up the AC and people get home, exactly when PV makes the most power, I can't speak for AU.
The point being that the grid CAN and DOES adjust rapidly to account for all generation methods, and it does already shift production because some of the need is supplied by PV.

Not so, the return on energy invested is at least double the return on coal in the long term...for the consumer, that's why you save money VS the electric company in the long term.
It's certainly not cheap or easy to deal with the waste in the US where the company(s) (and the taxpayer when it goes bankrupt) has to pay for destroying major river systems because of inevitable waste releases...as happened recently and repeatedly. Only if you ignore most of the actual costs of coal can you think it's cheaper, if you count all the costs, it's FAR more expensive.

ALL the power/energy needed to produce PV panels is reflected in their cost...100%.
Again, to be a bad way to reduce carbon pollution, you MUST assume it takes more carbon to make a panel VS the amount of carbon pollution it saves VS coal power production of the same amount of KWH. That's simply not the case by a long shot, so it does significantly reduce CO2 production, by around 20-30X vs coal. Even in Germany and Denmark, where it's often overcast, they found ....
"solar PV works out to about 50g of CO2 per kWh compared to coal's 975g of CO2 per kWh, or about 20x "cleaner."" In places with better weather, it can be up to 40X.
http://www.mnn.com/green-tech/research-innovations/blogs/how-much-co2-does-one-solar-panel-create

Once again, my electric company doesn't pay me a dime, it trades me power based on peak and non peak hours. Yours on the other hand makes 350% profit on every kwh you produce. I save cash because making (and USING) my own power is FAR cheaper than buying (mainly) coal produced power from the electric company. No "high feed in tariff" required at all. No feed in tariff at all, in fact.
It obviously makes an inroad on reducing carbon because, beyond the panel's production and shipping, there's ZERO carbon, unlike coal which produces more carbon per 10 KWH than it likely took to make each of my 20 panels, meaning they pay off their carbon debt in about 100 hours of sunlight, and are total carbon savers for the rest of their 20 year lifespan.
If we're going to fix climate change, we need to be HONEST about energy production, not compare 150%-350% of the cost of one production source with 5% of another production source to be able to say the 5% source is better.

HAHAHAHAHA!!!! Nuke requires a jump in your bill (even with the HUGE government subsidies the nuke industry gets at every step), but it's better than home mounted PV which SAVES you >50% off your 20 year power costs without a taxpayer cent?!?!? Please think about that.

I'm not basing my figures or thoughts on any study, but on my own personal, long term, economic experience with a system.
As someone who purchased a solar system for purely economic reasons, and has found it to be a HUGE cost saver over buying coal/nuke power from the electric company, all without counting subsidies at all, and even considering I paid top dollar for my system and have battery backup (that produces nothing but cost thousands), I'll simply say you're completely wrong in your assessments based on my own dispassionate, no child having, purely economical experience and leave it there.
I'm happy saving 50% of every power/dollar, you are accepting of giving away around 80% of your power/dollars to the power company. That doesn't make solar unworthy, non-"green", or economically unviable, it makes it a TERRIBLE choice for YOU because you're doing it wrong, and your electric company is punishing you rather than incentivizing you.

This video seemed to be searching for sympathy and understanding for the poor abusive cops. Of course it makes a claim that they all took the job altruistically to help people but dealing with the public made them all turn into violent criminal dickheads that hate all non-cops. (not) If that were the case, why do other professions with more, worse contact with the public and no authority, training, equipment, or 'legal rights' (or more often the ability to get away with illegal inappropriate activity) to do anything about it not have similar instances of outrageous inappropriate violent conduct...or the rest of their profession creating a (pick your color) wall around them to protect the 'bad apples' in the profession rather than get rid of them. If 'unpleasant contact' with the public was an excuse for poor behavior, why do we not have people attacked at the DMV daily?
I have 2 things to say about that. First, if some unpleasant contact is going to make you paint all the public in the same 'criminal/opponent' light, you are not the right kind of person to be a cop. Second, if unpleasant contact IS making you feel the public is against you, CREATE some POSITIVE contact with the public. As the 'authority', it's up to YOU to create and control the tenor of your contacts and conduct. (you yourself, @lantern53 have repeatedly said it comes from 'above', like the chief) That goes for each contact, the 'authority' is in control, and is responsible for the tone of the contact.

Cops don't have the worst position dealing with the public on average (but on rare occasions may have the worst dealings). Cops don't have the most dangerous job by a long shot. The thing that most separates cops from other professions is their ability to get away with their illegal bad behaviors. That should change, a non-police group (like a grand jury) should investigate each and every use of force and prosecute any that are even questionable (if you did nothing wrong, fight it in court, your words, right? What's good for the goose....). That would stop most use of force (as it no longer lets them hide it from prosecution, and even legal force would no longer be a 'time saver' since it would put them under time wasting suspicion at least, indictment at best).