This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by mintbbb. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

that is a REALLY old video by internet standards, and it's completely fake.

Not only are hay stacks packed very tightly, making something like this at the very least quite painful, but there are other ways to tell.

Look at the time it takes from the moment he "jumps" into the machine to actually emerge at the end. It's too short, considering how slow the stacks are actually dropped.
secondly, at 0:40 seconds in, he's a good 50 meters away, and suddenly just 4 seconds later, he's right next to the person filming.
and lastly, just as the video is about to end, you can hear a voice over about to come in, and introduce the product this was used to advertise.

http://videosift.com/video/Naked-hay-baling-fun

Hay you!

wasnt there a provision for those who sought to utilize public airwaves that they had to have so much "educational" programming in order to gain and/or retain their broadcasting license?

and isnt PBS only 40% tax-payer backed? i forgot where i read that PBS was ran on 60% donations.that the taxpayers filled in the gap/loss which averaged a 60/40 ratio.

either way you slice it,what we are seeing is political hay and nothing more.making the argument that PBS is some socialists wet dream is just bullshit.i wonder if the irony is lost on these people who wish to shut down an institution to replace it with mind-numbing,vapid staleness.creating a zombified drooling public.

or is that the actual intent? to dumb down the american public?

i would like to subscribe to that conspiracy but these retards cant get out of their own way,nevermind concoct such an elaborate scheme such as i am suggesting.

so all for the sake of political whoring we may lose an institution that has brought some of the best and ground-breaking educational programming since the mid 60's.
and the collective IQ of this country drops.
sad...
so very very sad.

sesame street came out the year i was born.i learned how to read before i hit kindergarten because of that show AND it was one of many shows that got my craving to absorb information and learn.

but i guess "future strippers of america" is more important.
bollocks......

Hay-lozenge

That's all well and good, but people don't hold religion in a historical context -- they subvert science beneath these mythical stories and cling to their interpretations of said stories as 'gospel truth' above anything else, empirical or otherwise.>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

The Christians most likely lived in and around greek culture dominated by roman law. The Homeric tails and the iliad most likely dominated the prevailing mindset of their area, though, not as much as the hay day of greece. The punishment for not obeying the Gods was pretty drastic, you wouldn't want to be the one to do it unless you were super brave. The bible talks about entire towns of sinners being wiped out or an entire kingdom falling for the sins of a single king, pretty drastic. We must remember not to think in our own context, but of someone whom is bought in to the idea of communing with the creator(s) of existence. It is easy to scarecrow religion to death, but in a way, it was early science...trying to put the world in context the best way we knew how.
>> ^Trancecoach:
... therefore, let's kill each other over what's true or not true on the basis of these stories, shall we.>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
>> ^TheJehosephat:
Did she say 4th century... and then say 150-200 years after Christ?
Which is it?

Things were seldom written down, the actual bible stories of mark, matthew, ect, were not written by them nor where they written in those times. So, what I think she meant is the story most likely started at around that time and was then transcribed much later. Studying biblical history from a historic perspective instead of a religious one is pretty fascinating and very hard. Jesus was a popular figure and had many different story lineages until codification much much later in christian history. Just because it it written down doesn't mean it is true or accurate, getting an entirely accurate view of what is happening is hard. Most notably because pretty much all the stories we have of Jesus were finally transcribed much after his death, and anyone who has played the telephone game knows how that goes.

The Christians most likely lived in and around greek culture dominated by roman law. The Homeric tails and the iliad most likely dominated the prevailing mindset of their area, though, not as much as the hay day of greece. The punishment for not obeying the Gods was pretty drastic, you wouldn't want to be the one to do it unless you were super brave. The bible talks about entire towns of sinners being wiped out or an entire kingdom falling for the sins of a single king, pretty drastic. We must remember not to think in our own context, but of someone whom is bought in to the idea of communing with the creator(s) of existence. It is easy to scarecrow religion to death, but in a way, it was early science...trying to put the world in context the best way we knew how.

>> ^Trancecoach:

... therefore, let's kill each other over what's true or not true on the basis of these stories, shall we.>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
>> ^TheJehosephat:
Did she say 4th century... and then say 150-200 years after Christ?
Which is it?

Things were seldom written down, the actual bible stories of mark, matthew, ect, were not written by them nor where they written in those times. So, what I think she meant is the story most likely started at around that time and was then transcribed much later. Studying biblical history from a historic perspective instead of a religious one is pretty fascinating and very hard. Jesus was a popular figure and had many different story lineages until codification much much later in christian history. Just because it it written down doesn't mean it is true or accurate, getting an entirely accurate view of what is happening is hard. Most notably because pretty much all the stories we have of Jesus were finally transcribed much after his death, and anyone who has played the telephone game knows how that goes.

Hay what are you guys talking about?

MSNBC's Chris Hayes: "It’s a craven capitulation".

@ChaosEngine

Oh sweet irony, I'm being called wilfully ignorant by a young-earther.

I'm not going to refute you. I don't need to; @BicycleRepairMan has already done an excellent job of it.

An excellent refutation? He cherry picked one sentence out of my reply, a reply where I had demonstrated the fallacy of his argument from incredulity by proving his assumption of the constancy of radioactive decay rates was nothing more than the conventional wisdom of our times. Is this what passes for logical argumentation in your mind? He posited a fallacious argument. I exposed the fallacy. He ignored the refutation and cherry picked his reply. You seem to be showing that in your eagerness to agree with everything which is contrary to my position that you have a weak filter on information which supports your preconceived ideas. Why is it that a skeptic is always pathologically skeptical of everything except his own positions, I wonder?

@BicycleRepairMan

...and to see an exampe of such a racket, check the flood "geology" link.

Seriously, you cant see the blinding irony in your own words? So, things like radiometric dating, fossils, geology, astronomy, chemistry, biology are all just parts of a self-perpetuating racket confirming each others conclusions in a big old circlejerking conspiracy of astronomical proportions.. well, lets assume then that it is. So they are basically chasing the foregone conclusion that the universe is over 13 billion years old and that life on this planet emerged some 3,6 billion years ago and has evolved ever since. But where did these wild conclusions come from? Who established the dogma that scientists seems to mindlessly work to confirm, and why? And why 13,72 billion years then? Why not 100 billion years, or 345 million years?

The thing is, what you have here is an alleged "crime" with no incentives, no motivation.. Why on earth would all the worlds scientists, depentently and independently and over many generations converge to promote a falsehood of no significance to anyone? it might make some kind of sense if someones doctrine was threatened unless the world was exactly 13.72 billion years old. Or if someone believed they were going to hell unless they believed trilobites died out 250 million years ago.. The thing is, nobody believes that.

The truth is pretty much staring you in the face right here. The conclusions of science on things like the age of the earth emerged gradually; Darwin, and even earlier naturalists had no idea of the exact age of the earth, or even a good approximation, but they did figure this much: It must be very, very old. So old that it challenged their prior beliefs and assumptions about a god-created world as described in their holy book. And thats were nearly all scientists come from: They grew up and lived in societies that looked to holy books , scripture and religion for the answers, and everybody assumed they had proper answers until the science was done.If scientists were corrupt conspirators working to preserve dogma, they be like Kent Hovind or Ken Ham. Ignoring vast mountains of facts and evidence, and focus on a few distorted out-of-context quotations to confirm what they already "know".

Not only was your prior argument fallacious, but I refuted it. Now you're ignoring that and cherry picking your replies here. Seems pretty intellectually dishonest to me? In any case, I'll reply to what you've said here. I was going to get into the technical issues concerning why scientists believe the Universe is so old, and the history of the theory, but so far you have given me no reason to believe that any of it will be carefully considered.

Instead I'll answer with a portion of an article I found, which was printed in "The Ledger" on Feb 17th 2000. It's interview of a molecular biologist who wanted to remain anonymous

Caylor: "Do you believe that the information evolved?"

MB: "George, nobody I know in my profession believes it evolved. It was engineered by genius beyond genius, and such information could not have been written any other way. The paper and ink did not write the book! Knowing what we know, it is ridiculous to think otherwise."

Caylor: "Have you ever stated that in a public lecture, or in any public writings?"

MB: "No, I just say it evolved. To be a molecular biologist requires one to hold onto two insanities at all times:
One, it would be insane to believe in evolution when you can see the truth for yourself.
Two, it would be insane to say you don't believe evolution. All government work, research grants, papers, big college lectures -- everything would stop. I'd be out of a job, or relegated to the outer fringes where I couldn't earn a decent living.”

Caylor: “I hate to say it, but that sounds intellectually dishonest.”

MB: “The work I do in genetic research is honorable. We will find the cures to many of mankind's worst diseases. But in the meantime, we have to live with the elephant in the living room.”

Caylor: “What elephant?”

MB: “Creation design. It's like an elephant in the living room. It moves around, takes up space, loudly trumpets, bumps into us, knocks things over, eats a ton of hay, and smells like an elephant. And yet we have to swear it isn't there!”

Here are some selected quotes:

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

Richard Lewontin

"In China its O.K. to criticize Darwin but not the government, while in the United States its O.K. to criticize the government, but not Darwin."

Dr. J.Y. Chen,

Chinese Paleontologist

Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic."

S. C. Todd,
Correspondence to Nature 410(6752):423, 30 Sept. 1999

"Because there are no alternatives, we would almost have to accept natural selection as the explanation of life on this planet even if there were no evidence for it."

Steven Pinker,
Professor of Psychology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA., "How the Mind Works," [1997]

"Biologists are simply naive when they talk about experiments designed to test the theory of evolution. It is not testable. They may happen to stumble across facts which would seem to conflict with its predictions. These facts will invariably be ignored and their discoverers will undoubtedly be deprived of continuing research grants."

Professor Whitten,
Professor of Genetics, University of Melbourne, Australia, 1980 Assembly Week address.

"Science is not so much concerned with truth as it is with consensus. What counts as truth is what scientists can agree to count as truth at any particular moment in time. [Scientists] are not really receptive or not really open-minded to any sorts of criticisms or any sorts of claims that actually are attacking some of the established parts of the research (traditional) paradigm, in this case neo-Darwinism. So it is very difficult for people who are pushing claims that contradict that paradigm to get a hearing. They find it hard to [get] research grants; they find it hard to get their research published; they find it very hard."

Prof. Evelleen Richards,
Historian of Science at the University of NSW, Australia

Speaks for itself, I think..

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2012/08/20/paul-ryan-argued-for-the-stimulus-when-it-was-bushs-idea

The Stranger blog agrees with you.
Excerpt: Apparently, Chris Hayes is MSNBC's newest Rachel Maddow impersonator?


>> ^VoodooV:

I don't disagree with the reporter, but why does he sound exactly like Maddow?

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by Barseps.

>> ^lucky760:

>> ^kymbos:
You people work and sleep some crazy hours!
@lucky760 how can you work till 3am then get up at 5:45am? I would not be able to cope with that.

Yes, it definitely is really tough. I am so desperate to go to bed most nights and I have to fight hard against my brain and body to stay awake, but it's my role in life to suffer so that my family doesn't have to. Sometimes I start to feel I am Jack's lost mind, and once or twice a week when I really start to get delirious, I'll very regrettably hit the hay at 10pm without getting any work done that night.
High doses of caffeine late at night doesn't work any more even though I don't consume it any other time of the day. I sometimes (jokingly) consider getting on drugs to help me stay awake. Instead, I hit the deck and give me 30 push-ups to rev my heart back up. That's usually good for a 30 minute boost (one minute per push-up).


Just. Wow. Sift can we do anything for the @lucky760 ?
How much more sleep would you get if I chartered now?