Jurassic Park when it came out was simply: a phenomenon. I've never seen movie theaters packed for two weeks straight--no matter the time--for the same show. Everyone had seen the show over and over again. It was simply too amazing--it was the first show to PERFECTLY nail CGI--and it picked one of the best topics for CGI that you could... Who can ever forget the first time you saw and heard that T-Rex step out into the clearing and roar. It was mesmerizing (I do feel bad for those of you that hated it; there will always be haters, for any movie, or any book...but I think those of us that liked it all got the same sense of wonderment from that show...those scenes; which IS why we kept going back). It reminded me of the similar feeling you get from amusement park rides (pick your ride that fits what I'm describing).

The first time I saw that, I had to do a double take. Nothing, EVER, had been even remotely close to being that good. I mean nothing. Seeing the "gigantic" Brachiosaurus (as there have been sauropods found that, unlike the "brachi" @ 26m--length wise, is utterly dwarfed by ones like the Amphicoelias Fragillimus, that could be as long as 60m) was just amazing (this IS the movie that made CGI a reality for movies and mainstreamed it).

It helped that I saw the movie on a screen that was as big as an IMAX. One of those old-fashioned ones with a balcony and decorations. Torn down and replaced by a screen half it's size, but still fit just as many people (ah, what greed does to us)...

It was the T-Rex scene that left us awe struck and electrified--it truly felt like a dinosaur had come back to life...and yes, it was a bit terrifying. Add in the great music, well done sound (who can forget our *THX* openings), and something so well done that it basically was something new--the CGI--it was a hit that people saw so many times.

Jurassic Park did for CGI, what Star Wars did for extended special effects and the company(s) that created it. Both jump started a new generation of movies. Avatar tried to bring us into the 3D realm (which I DO like, and I would say it "worked" for as much as it possibly could...as I have a 3D HDTV and quite a collection of shows...but...), but 3D has too many issues left for it to "change" things *yet*. Sound is another place that can change things (along with many other aspects and ideas that deal with including or adding onto the sensory perception of a movie; maybe we just have to wait until we can connect almost directly neurally).

I hope this movie will be worth watching (I hope it can end up being much more than that), but it merely looks like a huge money grabbing scheme (plus Jurassic Park was at least based on a pretty good book; which BTW is worth reading even if you saw the movie). The fact that the new huge "T-Rex/Velociraptor" seems impervious to a 30mm machine gun makes me want to just...laugh; then add in the swarm of flying dinosaur people snatchers.

Hello.

Just read this again and thought to say hello, again, and finally have. Always found you interesting. Some of my favorite people hereabouts are on this page of yours.

...have a feeling you are well and happy. Enjoy.

what an odd dynamic here on the sift in regards to lantern.

many here (myself included) have seemed to put the mantle of responsibility squarely on lanterns shoulders,as if he represented ALL police....everywhere.

this is not only patently false,it is very unfair.

BUT....

and @lantern53 this is very important you understand this very crucial,pivotal point:

the outrage you see here playing out on the sift in regards to police abuse of power and authority (oftimes directed AT you) comes directly from a perspective on how we all view HOW a true police officer should behave.

we feel (i dont mean to speak for everyone..but im going to anyways) that those in a position of power and authority have to be held to a much higher standard than the rest of us.

why?

because they are in a position of power and authority!!!!

and to abuse that public trust.
be it by the use of violence or intimidation,is the greatest of all betrayals.

so when we see a cop abusing his powers,in whatever capacity,we become outraged and angered.
justifiably so in my opinion.

i know you like to poke the hornets nest from time to time and it gives you the giggles.
ok..thats fair enough...
but stop defending the indefensible.

as a police officer you should be the first one condemning those cops who have obviously stepped over the line.
i am willing to be that you have done just that in your time on the force.most cops i know do it that way.
police policing themselves in a roundabout way.

i have full confidence you are good at what you do and have built a skin so thick not much really phases you anymore,but stop defending those cops that are NOT good cops...they are a cancer on your institution and they make those of you who ARE good at what you do treated with suspicion and wariness.

so listen to those here who are telling you how they feel about the bad cops.these are not criticizing you in particular,so dont feel you have to defend every bad cop out there.

so just as you do not represent every cop on the planet,dont allow those bad cops define you.

we are counting on you to be better.

/rant off

@lantern53

Having been an officer for a long time, long enough to really have seen the entire process of the "militarization" of the police force from its inception to its current state. I'd really like to know your opinion of it. Can you honestly say you feel its appropriate, even needed or justified? The very rare opportunities I've had in the past to ask police officers this question, i find they are very reluctant to give honest and straight answers. Paraphrasing, they tend to fall back on the, "we'd rather have it and not need it" line of thinking. If you do support it, do you truly feel you or the officer utilizing it have received appropriate training?

I remember driving by our local police station (small town Texas) on the way to school and seeing BOTH the giant armored vehicles parked prominently in front with the bold SWAT on the side. Its always been extremely hard for me to accept them or the fact that we as a town of 30k needed a SWAT team to begin with.

Life is beauty through and through
Life is sunny, life is cool
Life is even easy too
But if my word is to be true
Life is something to behold
But if the truth is to be told
Let us not leave out any part
Do not fear, it's safe to say it here
You will not be called a weakling nor a fraud
For feeling the pain of the whole wide world
You want to help but can't help the feeling you cannot
And it's killing you while you're just trying to smile from your heart
So go on, say it, on the same knees you're praying
Yes, life is hard

Come celebrate
Life is hard
Come celebrate
Life is hard
Our life is all we are

Celebrate it in the sun, promenade it with everyone
Elevate it in a song
And I'll be there to play it, don't get me wrong
When I feel like dying and being gone
When life is hard
There's just one thing, let's not forget
Yes! life is it!
Life is it, life is it, it's where it's at
It's getting skinny, getting fat
It's falling deep into a love,
It's getting crushed just like a bug
Life there's no love, it's getting beat into the ground
It's getting lost and getting found,
To growing up and getting round
It's feeling silence, feeling sound
It's feeling lonely, feeling full
It's feeling oh so beautiful!
Yes!

Come celebrate
Life is hard
Come celebrate
Life is hard
Our life is all we are

@Trancecoach holding a doctorate doesn't make you capable of understanding the scientific literature. If you held a bachelor's degree in one of the three sciences you'd stand a lot better chance of being able to understand the literature than someone who had a doctorate in say Art History. I would actually refer back to the Dunning Kruger effect and suggest that holding an unrelated qualification might lead you to overestimate your abilities.

And for someone who says that they *are* capable of understanding the scientific literature (and therefore the scientific method and approach), you dismiss "scientific consensus" as not being "scientific evidence". I don't understand what you mean here, but i think that's because you don't understand what scientific proof is.

I think it's a fundamental mistake that you're making. Scientists propose theories. Those theories that most accurately describe the situation and are most rigourously investigated are the ones that are accepted as being the case, and when things are found that are not correct, adjustments are made to the theory or other theories are proposed. There is never ever, ever.... EVER.. absolute evidence of anything in the way in which you request it, and that's your fundamental error, and stems from you not understanding the scientific method.

We have a lot of scientific consensus about gravity, but we do not have "scientific evidence" in the way you describe it. The evidence is ALL of the science that is done, ALL of the experiments ALL of the conclusions, positive and negative, and the consensus of the scientific community is reached and refined based on that research and ongoing research. There is no one document anywhere that constitutes "proof" that gravity is how we think it is. Not even all of the documents do that. They merely indicate to us what is most likely to be happening according to all of the knowledge and ingenuity that we've built up over the years.

I don't appreciate the scatter gun method you've used by posting all those links. You said in your latest post here that people try to confuse the issue by redirecting your request for "evidence" - the type that doesn't exist - towards other issues that you deem contentious. Yet you have almost drowned me in what appears to be about 15 different links to pages that seem to show singular examples of individuals that deny climate change. (Again, there are so many, and so many quotes, and no actual specification of what you are disagreeing with me about, that i can't rightly assess any of them.)

My point here is twofold - 1) don't try to be confusing like you accuse your opponents of, i.e. throwing as many links as possible to extend the argument to other points and 2) if that isn't what you were doing, could you perhaps condense your 15 links and selected quotes into a smaller point; that point being what it is about my previous posts you disagreed with?

Here are my points for you, simplified:
1) Scientific consensus does not mean "THIS IS HOW THINGS ARE" - it means that, on balance, according to everything we know and the opinions of those that are in the know, this is how we think things are until we know better.
2) There is no such thing as "scientific evidence" in the way you use the term; the only absolute proof is the one Descartes spoke about; the only thing you can know for sure is that your consciousness exists.
3) It is very easy to be misled by articles such as the one you linked from "the libertarian republic" website. This is also true of the last link you recommended for my research; you used that book to support your opposition to my assertion that human-caused climate change is not a matter of debate in the scientific community. Yet the same author was involved in the Copenhagen Consensus which lists as 6th most worthy of investigation (for the benefit and future of mankind), i quote; "R&D to Increase Yield Enhancements, to decrease hunger, fight biodiversity destruction, and lessen the effects of climate change"

I think that out of courtesy you should select one link which backs up whatever it is that you wish to refute, because it's not a good use of my time to have to go through each individual link, find out what you disagree with me about, and then spend time looking into it.

So, we disagree on one of the following:
1) The scientific consensus is that human-caused climate change is real, and that consensus represents the best of our current understanding as a species.
2) "Proof" in the sense you use it doesn't exist, the correct term is scientific evidence. The more evidence and the more convincing it is, the more firm the belief in a theory.
3) The article you linked from the libertarian website was unfairly representing its argument in relation to the paper it was referring to.

Please let me know. Remember - nothing is "beyond scepticism" in your words. I am sceptical about everything, including gravity, which i have an incredible amount of evidence for. However i am still sceptical about our understanding of it - i am always looking for differences. That doesn't mean that our understanding isn't the best one we have, and we should use it for our own advantage and safety.

I also note that you seem loathe to have a proper discussion with me. Our discussion could have been either about the scientific method or about the article you linked, but to throw all these links at me makes me feel you're unwilling or incapable of challenging your own opinion based on evidence. You don't even refer to the assessments of the article that i offered; you immediately discarded the article from your argument and linked me to other people that may or may not be misrepresenting the argument.

Souma Yergon, Sou Nou Yergon
We are shakin' the tree
Souma Yergon, Sou Nou Yergon
We are shakin' the tree

Waiting your time, dreaming of a better life
Waiting your time, you're more than just a wife
You don't have to do what your mother has done
She has done, this is your life, this new life has begun

It's your day, a woman's day
It's your day, a woman's day

Souma Yergon, Sou Nou Yergon
We are shakin' the tree
Souma Yergon, Sou Nou Yergon
We are shakin' the tree

Turning the tide, you are on the incoming wave
Turning the tide, you know you are nobody's slave
Find your sisters or brothers who can hear all the truth in what you say
They can support you when you're on your way

It's your day, a woman's day
It's your day, a woman's day

Souma Yergon, Sou Nou Yergon
We are shakin' the tree
Souma Yergon, Sou Nou Yergon
We are shakin' the tree

Changing your ways, changing those surrounding you
Changing your ways, more than any man can do
Open your heart, show him the anger and pain, so you heal
Maybe he's looking for his womanly side, let him feel

You had to be so strong
And you do nothing wrong, nothing wrong at all
We're gonna break it down
We're gonna shake it down, shake it all around

[Incomprehensible]
No no no no no no
No no no no no no
No no no no no no

It's your day, a woman's day
It's your day, a woman's day
It's your day, a woman's day
It's your day, a woman's day

It's your day, a woman's day
It's your day, a woman's day
It's your day, a woman's day
It's your day, a woman's day

It's your day, a woman's day
It's your day, a woman's day
It's your day, a woman's day
It's your day, a woman's day

You had to be so strong
You do nothing wrong, nothing wrong at all
We're gonna break it down
We're gonna shake it down, shake it all around

@My_design guns are dangerous tools. A little regulation really isn't that unreasonable.

No one really believes that firearms should be completely unregulated (unless you feel you have a right to a nuclear bomb?), so you've already accepted in principle the concept of some gun control.

And while I applaud Morgan for at least highlighting the issue, it doesn't change the fact that he's an awful human being.

There's also the fact his arm, wrist, and hand are rotating in a natural way instead of dead lifting without rotation. Grab a 40lb hand dumbbell and lift it straight up and then lift it up allowing your arm to rotate it however it feels.

You note when he dead lifts, he goes from palm-towards himself to palm-away, but with it spinning he rotates from palm towards to palm towards, but facing up during the main lift past his shoulders, rotating to palm away at the top.

The speeding up of precession just accelerates the rise initially not during.

So voodoovoovoo, may I offer-up an armchair analysis of why you feel the need to justify anything regarding your take on the subject?

In particular, this statement:

"I *am* opposed to every single depiction of a creator that humanity has come up with so far. petty, fear-based, eternal punishment for finite crimes, constant inconsistencies in their rules, ok with slavery, and absolutely shitty morals."

I would surmise from this opener, that you may resemble a victim of the fallacy contained in this statement considering your penchant for using this website as a platform to recruit similar folks of your ilk to validate your current position within this chaotic world, any individual's perception of the same resembling a constant flux and ever-changing.

Might I know where to attend services and pay tithes to afford myself of the bounty of wisdom to be derived form your observations disguised as a statement of purpose?

Church of the Videosift perhaps??

Already a member having paid my dues thank you. I'm sure you have a bar down the street from your flat and a certainty exists there that they would appreciate you drinking alone less often and perhaps helping with the gas bill.

My advice?? Become a hack writer and create your own weekly gathering of like-minded patrons who might afford you the luxury of the proselytizing quest you're compelled to pursue here.

Jesus the Nazarene spoke of a disease regarding a similar affliction quite simply and eloquently, in a similar sentiment...

"And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward."-Matthew 6:5

I'm sorry if I'm a dick about your current take on why you're here feeling you have to explain yourself, but from what you've described you simply are at this point in your experience, not able to conjure a god or system that does not fit into the models you have created for yourself. Kinna like my stance that anything created by men for other men is doomed to fail and already sucks.

Morality? Often relative to your dealings with those of opinions other than your own...

Make your own way, and you become the absurd creator-god perhaps?? Stranger shit has happened after all, over, and over, and over until the cessation of observation.

Did anyone else have a problem understanding her through the echo?
And WTF woman?!? You have no 'right' to be adequately racially represented in someone else's story, especially a fantasy story. If you feel you need that, write your own.
Or should someone make a ranting slam poetry video about how pissed off they are that the actual story of 47 ronin doesn't have any white people in it? I mean, just because there were almost none in japan at the time is no excuse, right? (instead, I'm pissed off that they inserted one in the new movie, we didn't need Neo in Edo)

I understand that and offer once again in by way of friendly retort another, "so what?" It's cool as shit left standing for four+ years, and personally have no problem with it staying-Unless you feel you need to make old rules new and the new uncomfortable....But you know me already ant, my siren-song is as always, be-damned the 'rules.'

i figured it best to bring the convo to your page.
i have derailed enough threads this past week alone.
would be impolite and rude to keep tramping through the china shop willy nilly.

i think i am starting to understand where you are at.
of course i am presuming,but im gonna go with frustration.
anger and outrage to what is being done to the people of syria.

i can relate to that.it is an outrage.
it is heartbreaking.

we disagree on how to proceed.
i am not here to change your mind.

i am here to talk to you as a man.
to maybe help you understand how your passionate posts may be perceived.
your last one i found impertinent,insulting and rude.

if i had to paraphrase this is how i read your last comment on the raytheon post.
"how can you all be so fucking blind?are you all a bunch of fucking pussies?dont you SEE what that man is doing?and you fucking pansies want to talk? you are all retarded,stupid and have no idea what is going on!"

i deleted half my commentary because it really was just me ripping you apart.
and that would not be fair to you and it would be just as insulting.
your post really pissed me off.
but we have talked before.
we disagree more than agree but we have always been civil and i appreciate the time you take to respond.

so the point of me coming to your page is to point out that you are talking to actual humans.
you called me a pussy.
you implied that this situation only bothers you and anybody who came to a different conclusion in regards to how to proceed in syria was not getting the plot.
was that your intent?
did you actually MEAN to imply that anybody who disagreed with a military resolution was a pansy?

well..i dont think so.
i think you are just really passionate about this and frustrated that nothing is being done.
outraged at the violence being perpetrated upon innocent people.

i feel ya.i truly do.
and i would be willing to bet the very people you chastized as being weak in their approach feel you as well.

the first thing we need to address is the fact we are all armchair quarterbacking.we have no influence nor power to dictate what happens in a country on the other side of the planet.
so basically all our bickering and arguing is a cathartic release for a situation that is horrid,horrifying and complicated.

the second is really just questions i would like to ask (and you could promptly tell me to go fuck myself).

1.how would a limited strike upon assads regime change anything that is happening on the ground?

this is really the only question you have not answered and to me it is pivotal in understanding your logic.

i have my suspicions but i await your answer.
and my apologies if i cam across snarky.
i was angry at the time.
till next time.
namaste.

@carnivorous
let me first start by apologizing to @pumkinandstorm for derailing her thread.i always seem to do it to her posts.poor thing must hate me.

as for @carnivorous, i usual dont respond to any other posts after i rant (unless its shinyblurry) but i feel you are worth the time.i have read many of your comments and i sense you are a decent sort.

and though i am loath to do it i shall form my response in bullet form,more for expedience than laziness.(bullet responses are a lazy form of argument in my opinion).

1.my comment was not directed at you specifically,hence my generalizations and the use of the open-ended pronoun of "you".though you were certainly included in that use of "you".if i had issue with YOU i would have formed my comment in that manner addressing YOU..specifically.

my problem with some of the comments was not with a moral conflict but rather:presumption and ignorance.your commentary displayed both.

this is not an attack on you nor is it a reflection of how i feel/think/react to you.
it is just a statement based on your commentary.
i was hoping that my rant would possibly illuminate that fact for you (and others).

please reread your commentary in regards to @shang.
notice anything?
presumption.
you presumed to know and understand @shang 's intentions,even when he stated the opposite.
unenlightened.
or ignorant.you decide.because your whole premise is based on how YOU feel/think about a certain activity and you projected that morality onto @shang and found him lacking.
self-righteous.
because @shang participates in something you find abhorrent,it appears by your commentary this gave you the right to chastise and judge him,based on YOUR morality.

2.i do not think you are a bully.i think you were being presumptuous and self-righteous.read your commentary.

3.your rebuttal was no rebuttal at all but rather a conflation.the family you used as your example as "hunters"were not hunters.we have a name for people like that "sadistic psychopaths".appears they made it a family affair.
but to conflate those sick individuals and hunters is obscene and reveals an utter lack of understanding in regards to actual hunters.

4.i respect a man who stands up for what he believes in and i would never ask you to apologize but thats not what my commentary was addressing.

i was addressing the presumptions you were making about @shang based on pretty much nothing.
and while he was responding in a decent fashion you kept sniping at him from the bleachers.

its all trumpets and parades for standing up for what you believe in but how about a little bit of respect and appreciation for someone taking the time to respond to your questions?
especially in regards to something you obviously know next to nothing about?

you cant demand respect for your morals and beliefs and then turn around and deny anothers right for the very same thing.

i mean,think about it man.
you missed out on an opportunity to understand the mindset,motivations or passion for an activity that is alien to you.

your understanding has not moved an inch because of a pre-conceived notion based on what?
a childhood memory?
a few anecdotal experiences?

what a wasted opportunity.
would you have still disagreed?
yeah..most likely.
but at least you would have understood more.
and this practice is also known as empathy.

ah well...
i hope you read this is the context it was written.
with humanity and not an attack on you.

I'll start by apologizing for the long reply...
I looked as closely as possible in HD fullscreen and on my computer the head never touched ground. More to the point, the child never reached for his head. Either way the point is moot, the mother never once even glances at the child to determine injury.
I did look closely, down to street view, at the whole park, and what I saw was it seems that in the non-skate areas there is a different texture to the ground (around the pool, playground area, etc.)
From my viewpoint (and I admit I could not read the park rules, I tried from every angle) the rest of the park is built specifically for skating, and has obstacles designed to skate on that have clear marks on them that that's what they are used for. The area you think is the only skate area has ramps in and out to skate on, so perhaps I'm wrong, but the implication of that design is you can skate everywhere. If I'm wrong in that guess, I'm wrong. There's no way to tell for certain from what I can see. That said, I draw the line at the areas designated for skating, and not in the areas designated for other things. As I've repeatedly stated, the skater bears some responsibility for not looking in a public place, but mom bears far more for allowing child to run free in a public skate park, especially when he was headed straight towards the street with no one watching until he screams.
I do admit from what I see this park is not well designed, as there is not a clear separation of the skate area and non-skate area, or a path from one non-skate area to another. If all the areas besides the small rail/bowl area are not for skating, they certainly should not have built it filled with skating obstacles and ramps, knowing that skaters will skate them.
I guess I misunderstood, yes, he was skating towards the picnic tables, but was no where near them at the end of his run, so who's to say he didn't plan on turning left into the rail area or stopping after the kick flip? The child was headed for the street, agreed?
Barrels out from behind an object is what children often do, and why they get hit, they don't know to look first.
Kid's mom is not seen until after the incident, then walking from the pavilion, she was not with or watching her child from every thing I see.
My reaction to blame the mom is because she was not watching her child and went off because that inattentiveness led to an accident, and she was the one responsible for her child's safety, no one else.

second post reply starts here:
OK, that's clearer that you don't excuse her actions. I accept and agree with that.
Expect the parent to be upset, absolutely. Expect them to be aggressive, not really but many people go that way. Expect them to be violent to address their own parental failings, not at all. Expect them to understand they (not the skater) is 70%+ at fault for not supervising a toddler? Never, parents rarely accept their failings and almost always deflect responsibility.
I feel you miss-state the situation. I say he should have hit her to stop her advance, not if she stopped, at the end of the video, she's still attacking. That's self defense, and using the skateboard in that capacity seems fine to me. We may disagree, people are different.
I think you hit the nail on the head in your last paragraph...we just don't see it the same way. I feel like many parents have a natural defense mechanism of responsibility deflection, and I don't accept any responsibility for other's children, and would never expect them to take it for mine. I understand the mindset of parents that believe we all have a responsibility to take care of their children, I just disagree with it.
I also disagree that age is an excuse, if the child is too young to watch out for itself, it's 100% the parent's responsibility in my eyes, not mine.

And then there's the new idea that this discussion is all about a faked video. If true, the parent is still irresponsible for letting their child be run into on concrete where he may well have broken his skull, but maybe not completely out of control crazy violent.
Again, apologies for the long post.