When he pulls that lever, the whole press shifts, I'm pretty sure the Gutenberg wouldn't move like that. A Gutenberg is between 1 & 2 tonnes.
They don't show any distinguishing marks. In my opinion, if it was, they would have showed the emblem, (just to show off.)

I've used many presses like these, and hand-bound my own books, even made my own paper to use in the press. This is purely a hobby or small run use purposes. The amount of work that goes into setting all that lead type takes so long and the print run is so unpredictable, that it's just not profitable on any level to create full books like these. Nostalgic and cool yes. but you'd have to sell for several hundred dollars for for the book, and sell mass quantities. I hope the art form never dies though.

One of the professors at the college I work at, teaches sections on typesetting and printing on typesetting presses. He has his own publishing house and produces jobs for people.

Some photos here: http://www.greenboathouse.com/gallery/13-09.html
We also have a print studio at the college for students to use and train on.

Hey robbersdog49, thanks for the level headed reply. I'll address your comments in a few pieces here:

The origin of life and Darwinian evolution are two entirely different things. Regardless of how you believe the first life came about we do know from the fossil record and evidence about the way the environment and climate changed on earth in those early millennia that the first life was simple single cell organisms.

In my study of the evidence from the fossil record, I found more evidence that contradicted the assertions of Darwinian evolution than confirmed it. The Cambrian explosion for example, where basically every type of animal body plan comes into existence at around the same time, contradicts the idea that these things happened gradually over long periods of time. In fact, a new theory was invented called "punctuated equilibrium" which says that the reason we aren't finding the transitional fossils is that the changes happen too quickly to be found in the fossil record. Instead of a theory based on the evidence, we have a theory to explain away the lack of evidence.

Evolution is the process which turned these very simple life forms into the complex forms you see all around you today. It's an ongoing process and the evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

The evidence for micro evolution is overwhelming. The reason we have hundreds of different breeds of dogs is because of micro evolution. Darwin discovered this and all the credit should go to him, but where the leap of faith took place was when he supposed that because we see changes within species, that therefore all life evolved from a common ancestor. This claim is not substantiated scientifically. You cannot see macro evolution taking place anywhere in the world, and you cannot find the transitional fossils to say it ever took place. You cannot test it in a laboratory, it is a historical claim based on weak circumstantial evidence.

Science doesn't know exactly how life first came about. It doesn't claim to. We know that it did because we're here, but how? Not sure. But that's not a problem, science doesn't claim to know everything. Science is a process we use to find out about the world around us. It's not a book with all the answers.

Science is all about what we don't know. It's a process of discovery, and you can't discover something you already know. Religious people like to show any gap in the knowledge of scientists as showing they are frauds, or know nothing and that this means their own views must be true. That's just a stupid logical fallacy. Just because no one else has the answer doesn't mean you can just claim your version must be correct.

Science not being able to tell us how life started has no effect on the validity of the statement 'God did it'.

The God of the gaps fallacy is simply a red herring in these conversations. I don't purport to say that because science can't explain something, that means God did it. Science is all about the principle of parsimony; what theory has the best explanatory power. I purport to say that the idea of a Creator has better explanatory power for what we see than the current scientific theories for origins, not because of what science cannot explain, but for what science has explained. I think the evidence we do understand, in physics, biology, cosmology and information theory overwhelmingly points to design for many good reasons that have nothing to do with the God of the gaps fallacy.

There is also it seems a point of pride for those who think the best position is to say "I don't know", and accusing anyone who thinks they do know as being wrong headed, arrogant, or whatever. It's a very curious position to take because there are plenty of things we can know. No one is going to take the position that if you say the answer to 2 + 2 is 4 and you deny that any other answer is valid, you are arrogant or using fallacious reasoning. Yet, it is arrogrant and fallacious to those who think that science is the sole arbitor of truth when someone who believes in God points to a Creator as the best explanation. They think that because they believe no one else could know the answer except through scientific discovery. You have to realize that is a faith based claim and not an evidence based claim. You think that way when you place your faith in science as what is going to give you the correct answers about how and why you are here. I like these quotes for Robert Jastrow, who was an Astronomer and physicist:

"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."

"Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation, but they are driven by the nature of their profession to seek explanations for the origin of life that lie within the boundaries of natural law."

As for the age of the earth, there's a huge amount of evidence which says it's about 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years old. That's plenty of time for evolution to take us from simple single cell life to the complex animals we've become today.

Have you ever studied the scientific proofs for both sides? There are some "clocks" which point that way, and there are other clocks that point the other way. The clocks that point to the old Earth have many flaws, and there are simply more evidences that point to a young Earth. That video I provided shows the evidences I am talking about.

With extra clips in his office to boot. The account I just sifted goes into detail on the Max Payne-ish moves he pulled to take down the shooter. Amazing.

But...if you don't 'believe' in the progress of science you ARE ignorant and/or delusional. Scientific progress is not a debatable issue or something that requires 'belief', it simply is.
I'm not sure why I listened after he implied thinking that is wrong somehow.

99.9% of Muslims that don't want to impose Sharia or have an Islamic Caliphate? That certainly does not jibe with the numbers I've heard repeatedly. A recent poll in Germany I read said over 25% of Muslims there believed it was proper to impose Sharia in Germany on non Muslims. Where did he pull that 99.9% number from I wonder?

Cops DO NOT always assume someone is armed and dangerous. That's why they get killed so often. Someone comes in to file a report, you don't assume they are armed and dangerous. Little old ladies...not armed and dangerous. Children...not armed and dangerous. Wives of bikers...not armed and dangerous. Shoplifters....not armed and dangerous.

Guy runs a stop sign...you don't assume he is armed and dangerous. But you have to be aware that the possibility exists. Too many cops have paid the ultimate price for not watching the hands.

Of course, sometimes you are wrong. You can find a video of a shoplifter being detained in Russia...he pulls out a gun and shoots 4 people.

As for pepper-spraying people...I carried pepper spray for 30 yrs, never used it.

If a cop is using it on 'non-violent' protesters sitting in the street, it's because his supervisor said 'clear the street, cars have to move through here'. See...because you've already told 20 people to move out of the street and guess what...they didn't do it.

As for being treated violently by other cops, the reason cop's families don't get treated violently is because they generally don't make meth in their kitchen, they don't engage in violent domestic arguments, etc.

He also has a good method; he pulls away and moves over in front of the CBR to stop it getting past. He only needs to pull away quicker - easily done with his extended wheel base and (probably) lower gearing - and win the first 20 yards.

'name and badge number, and phone number for your supervisor. I will be making a complaint on your permanent record, and that will follow you the remainder of your career.' That is the proper way to 'instruct' and 'help' this officer, and the rest of us.

"Technically I can pull you over for an inspection...and that's what I did"?...no dickhead, he pulled YOU over for multiple violations.

name and badge number, and phone number of your supervisor, and stop searching for a 'violation' of your 'inspection', or the 'threats' will go on that permanent record too, as will this video proving them.
We need more of these 'guys'. (pun intended)

Ok, the car driver is an asshole. Let's just take that as a given.

But FFS, how is the guy making the video still alive? We first see the car at ~0:18, he doesn't even seem to react until nearly 3 seconds later. Average human reaction time is about 1/4 second so he is TWELVE times slower. In fact, it almost looks like he pulls away from the barrier.

Amazing that that seems to be a built-in reaction in little dudes doing that thing where they hug something and put their face against it.

My oldest boy has never seen anyone do that before but he pulls the same move in similar situations, albeit not with pieces of fruit.

I agree that you should do everything you can to avoid hitting someone even if it's their fault.

My point is that in the situation portrayed here, there was nothing he could have done. Even if he'd been at the speed limit, he was still going to t-bone the other guy.

And he wasn't doing 10mph over the limit he was doing 7kph over the limit (barely 4mph).

Meanwhile, the other guy is sitting at an intersection on an open stretch of road. He could have waited another 5 secs and been perfectly safe, yet he pulls out across oncoming traffic. THAT is an actual, genuine problem on NZ roads.

The reason this ad is being shown at the moment is that the police in NZ have started a crackdown on speeding. There used to be a 10kph tolerance (to allow for the fact that focusing on keeping your speed exactly at or under the limit is more dangerous than actually paying attention to the road), but now it's 4kph and this ad is trying to justify it.

What really irks me is that I drove about 1000km over xmas, all over the South Island, and the ONLY place I saw a speed check was on the main highway. The straight, flat, wide, can-see-for-miles-in-either-direction highway.

Meanwhile on the narrow dangerous winding sections? Not a cop in sight.

Aha! I thought Vincent Clortho sounded familiar. It's from one of my all time favorite movies - Ghostbusters. Louis, played by Rick Moranis, was possessed by the Keymaster Vinz Clortho. Here's a bit of the script from IMDB.

Louis: [Louis, as the possessed Keymaster Vinz Clortho, runs out of Central Park, scaring a married couple] I am the Keymaster! The Destructor is coming. Gozer the Traveler, the Destroyer.
[Louis pants and sniffs, then notices a horse carriage; horse neighs]
Louis: Gatekeeper.
[Walk over towards the horse]
Louis: I am Vinz, Vinz Clortho, Keymaster of Gozer. Volguus Zildrohar, Lord of the Sebouillia. Are you the Gatekeeper?
Coachman: Hey, he pulls the wagon, I made the deals. You want a ride?
[the possessed Louis growls at the coachman with his red-glowing eyes]
Louis: [to the horse] Wait for the sign. Then our prisoners will be released.
[Runs amok, scaring bystanders; yelling]
Louis: You will perish in flame, you and all your kind! Gatekeeper!
Coachman: What an asshole.

There isn't anything wrong with saying "I don't know". Yet, what I've observed is that there is an obsession with the search. What is the point of the search if not to find the answer? Is it wrong to think there may be an answer?

Christians claim that there is a God who has given us answers, yet this doesn't impede scientific research. Johann Kepler said as he made discoveries that he felt like he was thinking Gods thoughts after him. There is no actual incompatibility with a belief in God and true science. That I claim an answer as to where the Universe came from doesn't prevent anyone from finding out how it works. And finding out how it works doesn't preclude God from having created it. To say it did would be outside the realm of empirical research and be resting on faith.

This is what Robert Jastrow had to say about that dichotomy:

"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."

I keep re=watching the shirt/vest change as he leaves the audience to go back on stage and I still can't figure out how he pulled that off. No pun intended.

Yeah, Maher can fuck riiiight off, here.

Edit: Alright, he pulled it back a little at the end. He can fuck off a little less.

The media does not cares if blacks kills blacks. They report what is and is not news worthy.

The other week the When the plane went down is San Fran. There were 72 killings / shootings in Chicago and no National Media. From a gun violence point of view and there is a lot of that going around, still no one cares.


The Zimmerman/ Martin issue was made a race issue from the National Race Baiters Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson. They went down to Sanford and goated the DA for the arrest of Zimmerman. The circus show had begun. Even during and after the trail, MSNBC is pulling the race card. No wonder the country is divided.

The only defining issue to have is the state of mind of Zimmerman when he pulled the trigger. There was no defining evidence of willful intent or self defense hence he was acquitted.