Timestamps and films

0:00 28 Days Later
0:35 The Matrix
0:50 The Terminator
1:04 T2
1:09 Predator
1:12 Die Hard
1:25 Face Off
1:30 Predator
1:45 Die Hard
1:55 Rambo (not sure which one)
2:08 Die Hard
2:18 The Professional
2:35 Captain America: The Winter Soldier
3:22 Star Wars The Phantom Menace
3:28 Star Wars A New Hope
3:37 Star Wars The Empire Strikes Back
3:43 Die Hard
3:44 Platoon
3:46 Invasion of the Body Snatchers
3:56 Aliens
4:10 Highlander
4:44 The Right Stuff
5:14 Minority Report
5:19 Disclosure
5:38 2001 A Space Odyssey
5:56 Blade Runner
6:15 Patton
6:29 A Few Good Men
6:43 The Breakfast Club
7:06 Rain Man
7:20 Ghost
7:42 An Officer and a Gentleman
7:55 My Dinner with Andre
8:14 Sixteen Candles
8:18 Lost in Translation
8:23 Star Wars The Empire Strikes Back
8:35 Good Will Hunting
8:58 An American Tale
9:08 The Shinning
9:20 LOTR: The Two Towers
9:43 MTV- The Real World: Seattle
10:04 House Party
10:09 The Color of Money
10:14 Pulp Fiction
10:22 The Breakfast Club
10:26 Zardoz
10:29 Blazzing Saddles
10:32 MIB
10:34 Hook
10:36 The Beastmaster
10:41 Wallstreet
10:44 The Shawshank Redemption
10:51 The Fugitive
10:55 Pulp Fiction
11:10 The Ring
11:12 Vertigo
11:14 National Lampoon’s Vacation
11:35 Animal House
12:31 Good Will Hunting
12:44 Dead Poets Society

Any time you "see" an electron or photon, you change the scene (more like you only see the effects of when they hit something).

If you try to "display" the "position" of an electron or photon relative to something else, like another electron or photon, or a matchbox for scale, you get in complicated trouble.

You can't bounce a laser pulse off a photon. Something lost in translation from Swedish? Like a sarcasm tag somewhere?

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

Did not know that about the weed smuggling. Love the guy. If anyone says that Lost in Translation is a bad movie,I will fight you.

Thanks for the link, you have my upvote if you would like to post it.

Really he can't say that any Greek bank is insolvent, such a statement would become self fulfilling prophesy.

As for the rest, like you say, it's hard to read.

Schäuble has been quoted by the English Language press as saying that “It is clear that we will not leave the [Greek] people in the lurch.”, but it's possible that there was something lost in translation, and anyway it wasn't obvious what he meant by that. http://gu.com/p/4acjq/stw

From Teh Wikipedius Popularis: "Centuries, or Centuriae, means tribe or company. Theoretically, this word traces its roots to centum which is Latin for one hundred, but that connection is widely disputed or disregarded."

Basically, "lost in translation".

What is Islam? Who or what are Muslims?

It seems every single debate over whether Islam is a religion of peace or of violence comes down to this same argument over who or what defines those terms and there is never an agreement. Indeed, much of the conflict in the middle east is due to followers of Islam arguing over who's particular interpretation is correct. Meanwhile in the western world religion is something that, as the late Hitchens put it, we take "a la carte". It seems you can no more describe a person by revealing their particular faith than you could describe what food you had last night by giving somebody the whole menu to the restaurant. You might ascertain that it was perhaps Thai food... but little else.

Still though, when we go the texts we do find quite unequivocally immoral preachings. I think the religious really have to find an answer for this. We aren't buying the alternate interpretations or the lost in translation theories. When you describe yourself as a Muslim or as a Christian, or as any other faith, it seems to me you don't really have much of a right to get upset when we call you on the evil shit in your holy books. You might protest that you are not that "kind" of Christian, but the speed at which you dismiss any given passage is only matched by the speed at which you declare divine truth for another. We understand the vast plurality of beliefs, which is why it baffles us that you subscribe to a particularly narrow set of ideals whilst simultaneously admonishing us for tarring you all with the same brush.

Didn't think Sofia Coppola was terrible. Not memorable, but not bad either. Plus, for me she atoned for any mishaps with Lost in Translation.

Appreciated-This happens not infrequently when colloquial euphemisms are used to make a point-That point lost in translation for some whose itchy-trigger-fingers twitch at the very odour of being able to scream RACISM! from the high tower of moral superiority and cultural sensitivity.

Hey babymech, your comment was popular, eh? You can't "hear" the written word by the way, you "read" it. The word "nigger" rang in the head like a church bell, and a predictable knee-jerk reaction followed at the sight of a combination of keystrokes, choosing not to address the meat of my comment, but fixated instead on some inferred or assumed character flaw? It's a diversionary tactic not uncommon with so-called 'news' and political organizations not unlike my conscious decision to use an inflammatory euphemism to invoke a predictable reaction.

In a sane world, men who rape women would be shot at sunrise and people who cry racism when they read a single printed word are in desperate need of continuing education.

Danke, braschlosan-This has happened here before when I've intentionally pushed the "OMG racism!" button.

altogether evil, eh? Wished Ida down-voted now...and the meats' lost in translation
*trigger-happy

You have been awarded 1 Power Point for fixing the embed code for Dead Pool video Lost in Translation - Iraqi Translators. Thank you for helping maintain VideoSift's reliability.

Some meaning was lost in translation. He's talking about 贪污 which has more to do with monetary corruption than anything else. To say that the US ranks #1 in misappropriation of money is not inaccurate.

Thanks! I also enjoy Bill Murray's rendition from the karaoke scene of Lost in Translation.

In this clip I don't hear Keller say there is or isn't a God. I don't hear him say that evolution is bunk or not. I hear him saying that Dawkins argument is spurious for several reasons.

As I understand it, the scientific method requires that something must be falsifiable; evolution is not. I'm not saying evolution doesn't happen, just that you can't apply the scientific method to it. Also, the scientific method is always in the hands of humans. That is the fly in the ointment. Humans are hugely fallible. The method may be perfect, but the handlers aren't.

I think it would be beneficial to watch the entire talk so that Keller isn't being made the problem for pointing out the problem. There is a problem and it isn't Keller or me. It isn't you either. It's the fallibility of humans not being taken into account in this equation.

>> ^PalmliX:

Who cares if he quotes two "respectable secular sources"? Just because someone is "respected" and "secular" doesn't mean that what they have to say on any given subject will be truthful or even meaningful.
Even if the most respected scientist in the world came out and said that God was absolutely real it still wouldn't matter. They wouldn't be able to provide any evidence for their claim and at the end of the day the opinion of one, or even several scientists isn't all that important. It's the facts that matter, things that we can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt to be true.
As far as I can tell, Tim Keller's basic point is that a belief in evolution is the same as a belief in a god because if evolution is correct and our beliefs are formed purely for survival reasons and don't necessarily tell us what is true, than how can judge the objective truth of our various beliefs?
Well I know of one particularly effective way of judging our beliefs. It's called the scientific method and it works because it only deals with facts, only with things that can be proven true. Anything else is useless.
I'm glad that you found Plantiga's observation fascinating as well as humorous, and Lewis' comments on transparency germane to the conversation, but so what? So what if his audience is UC Berkly and they laughed at his jokes? This doesn't change the facts of our universe. Now maybe as you said, Keller's point has been lost in translation and I'm just not 'getting it', so please help me to understand.
>> ^silvercord:
Why is it that he is quoting two respectable SECULAR sources for the refutation of Dawkins', et al, conclusions and is first being accused of arguing against evolution (he isn't doing this) and then being accused as the one who didn't think the refutation through. Hmmmm.
I find Plantiga's observation fascinating as well as humorous, btw, and Lewis' comments on transparency germane to the conversation. It seems his audience (UC Berkeley) is tracking. Maybe it's being lost in translation here.
>> ^PalmliX:
Why explain or attempt to know anything then? I just don't get the point this guy is trying to make. Are there not facts that exist in this universe? When I leave the apartment every morning I take the elevator I don't jump out of my 10th floor window. Is my "belief" in gravity the same as someone else's "belief" in god?
I seriously think this guy doesn't actually understand the scientific process. Science ONLY deals with facts. It ONLY deals with things we can know FOR SURE. Now if provable facts aren't enough for this guy then nothing ever will be.

Who cares if he quotes two "respectable secular sources"? Just because someone is "respected" and "secular" doesn't mean that what they have to say on any given subject will be truthful or even meaningful.

Even if the most respected scientist in the world came out and said that God was absolutely real it still wouldn't matter. They wouldn't be able to provide any evidence for their claim and at the end of the day the opinion of one, or even several scientists isn't all that important. It's the facts that matter, things that we can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt to be true.

As far as I can tell, Tim Keller's basic point is that a belief in evolution is the same as a belief in a god because if evolution is correct and our beliefs are formed purely for survival reasons and don't necessarily tell us what is true, than how can judge the objective truth of our various beliefs?

Well I know of one particularly effective way of judging our beliefs. It's called the scientific method and it works because it only deals with facts, only with things that can be proven true. Anything else is useless.

I'm glad that you found Plantiga's observation fascinating as well as humorous, and Lewis' comments on transparency germane to the conversation, but so what? So what if his audience is UC Berkly and they laughed at his jokes? This doesn't change the facts of our universe. Now maybe as you said, Keller's point has been lost in translation and I'm just not 'getting it', so please help me to understand.
>> ^silvercord:

Why is it that he is quoting two respectable SECULAR sources for the refutation of Dawkins', et al, conclusions and is first being accused of arguing against evolution (he isn't doing this) and then being accused as the one who didn't think the refutation through. Hmmmm.
I find Plantiga's observation fascinating as well as humorous, btw, and Lewis' comments on transparency germane to the conversation. It seems his audience (UC Berkeley) is tracking. Maybe it's being lost in translation here.
>> ^PalmliX:
Why explain or attempt to know anything then? I just don't get the point this guy is trying to make. Are there not facts that exist in this universe? When I leave the apartment every morning I take the elevator I don't jump out of my 10th floor window. Is my "belief" in gravity the same as someone else's "belief" in god?
I seriously think this guy doesn't actually understand the scientific process. Science ONLY deals with facts. It ONLY deals with things we can know FOR SURE. Now if provable facts aren't enough for this guy then nothing ever will be.

Why is it that he is quoting two respectable SECULAR sources for the refutation of Dawkins', et al, conclusions and is first being accused of arguing against evolution (he isn't doing this) and then being accused as the one who didn't think the refutation through. Hmmmm.

I find Plantiga's observation fascinating as well as humorous, btw, and Lewis' comments on transparency germane to the conversation. It seems his audience (UC Berkeley) is tracking. Maybe it's being lost in translation here.

>> ^PalmliX:

Why explain or attempt to know anything then? I just don't get the point this guy is trying to make. Are there not facts that exist in this universe? When I leave the apartment every morning I take the elevator I don't jump out of my 10th floor window. Is my "belief" in gravity the same as someone else's "belief" in god?
I seriously think this guy doesn't actually understand the scientific process. Science ONLY deals with facts. It ONLY deals with things we can know FOR SURE. Now if provable facts aren't enough for this guy then nothing ever will be.