You are a dolt. Red shift is a term referring to the Doppler effect. The Doppler effect is relative to an object and its observer. Of course to us the redshift shows us at the middle, we're the ones observing it. Furthermore I love when christians use science sometimes, but then try to denounce it other times. Fucking dummies.

The observation of red shifts having quantitized values is exactly the observation that their values are not due to a doppler effect. If you're going to call me stupid, at least know what you are talking about first. For your edification:

http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Links/Papers/Setter.pdf

And no, I am not against science. I am against exactly what isn't science, which macroevolution, which can neither be tested or observed, but is accepted on blind faith. The whole proposition is a false dichotomy:



Ok, so you don't understand things...let's just throw a magician in the mix and all is answers. "Magnets, how the fuck do they work?" Must be magic, right? Oh no, we have an answer for that. And you're probably satisfied with that answer as it's commonplace and it doesn't contradict your belief in god.

There aren't any answers for it. What you believe is that one day science is going to explain out how something came from nothing. That's much worse than magic, and your blind faith.

As if you're not repeating shitty christian rhetoric. BTW, I've tried to read the bible...discovered I have a better time reading something good. That's right, your book fucking sucks. That's the biggest shame: it's not even fucking entertaining. I can't get passed genesis without getting angry that people literally believe that bullshit. Maybe you're right though, maybe I should waste my time on that crappy book. I mean I need something fictional in between all the technical stuff I'm reading.



Ok, the whole founding fathers being Christian, deal. You've probably read plenty of places that they were christian and I've probably read plenty places that they weren't. It probably has to do with where we're searching, and I'm positive that there's plenty of evidence on both cases (there's not, but I'm being nice). But guess what...I wasn't there. Neither were you. And I know it's easy for you to make up your mind about something based on little to no evidence. I do know that there is NOT.ONE.MENTION.OF.GOD in the constitution. So you're a christian, tell me, would you put the word of god in a constitution if you were writing one? probably would.

It does make mention of God, and Christianity, actually. First, if you pursue the delegate discussions pertaining to the wording of the first ammendment, you will find that it was put in place to rule out any particular Christian denomination from coming into power over the others, not for the equality of all religions. This was the wording proposed by George Mason:

[A]ll men have an equal, natural and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that no particular sect or society of Christians ought to be favored or established by law in preference to others.

The framers intended that the federal government wouldn't interfere with the free practice of the Christian religion, as this makes plainly obvious.

Justice Jospeh Story:

"the real object of the [First A]mendment was not to countenance, much less to demand, Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects."

Second, the constitution makes a provision for sunday worship, which shows the Christian orientation of America and the framers, and the political recognition they gave to that fact:

“If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it....”

Third, it is finished thusly:

Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth....

Notice what it says? If it was a secular document, it would have used a secular dating method. That is an explicit reference to Jesus Christ.

After the constitution was signed and finished, George Washington made this proclaimation:

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor-- and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/ammem/GW/gw004.html

So, if you think there is equity in our positions, by all means go find the ten or so quotes that atheists use to try to justify that this isn't a Christian nation, and then I will return with the hundreds I can use to prove otherwise.

Here's the deal with your "truth", shiny...your "truth" comes from an ancient text written thousands of years ago by man. Your entire "truth" is founded on the premise that the book is the word of a god. If one thing in that book is flawed, it compromises the entire premise. So you see, if you're intelligent enough, you should know that understanding science that has explained the world as different than the bible creates a conflict of interest for you. On the other hand, science is the act of testing a premise through the collection of data to form a conclusion. Science is wrong constantly, but every consecutive time it's wrong, it's more right than the time before. It doesn't base itself on the premise that it HAS to be right.

I understand that science functions as your religion, but the two things are not mutually exclusive. Perhaps you don't understand that the roots of modern science are actually in Christian Europe. The pioneers were devout Christians who believed we could investigate an orderly and lawfully ordained Universe and look for Universal laws that governed it.

http://www.bede.org.uk/sciencehistory.htm
http://www.ldolphin.org/bumbulis/
http://www.rae.org/jaki.html

>> ^rottenseed:
Red shift is a term referring to the divisive

>> ^Peroxide:

http://www.newscientist.com/articl
e/mg21228354.500-revealed--the-capitalist-network-that-runs-the-world.html


According to this study...
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1107/1107.5728v2.pdf

An analysis of the relationships between 43,000 transnational corporations has identified a relatively small group of companies, mainly banks, with disproportionate power over the global economy. These are those top 50 Companies

Table S1: Top 50 control-holders. Shareholders are ranked by network control (according to the
threshold model, TM). Column indicate country, NACE industrial sector code, actor’s position in
the bow-tie sections, cumulative network control. Notice that NACE code starting with 65,66,67
belong to the financial sector.

Rank Economic actor name Country NACE code Network Cumul. network
position control (TM, %)
1 BARCLAYS PLC GB 6512 SCC 4.05%
2 CAPITAL GROUP COMPANIES INC, THE US 6713 IN 6.66%
3 FMR CORP US 6713 IN 8.94%
4 AXA FR 6712 SCC 11.21%
5 STATE STREET CORPORATION US 6713 SCC 13.02%
6 JPMORGAN CHASE & CO. US 6512 SCC 14.55%
7 LEGAL & GENERAL GROUP PLC GB 6603 SCC 16.02%
8 VANGUARD GROUP, INC., THE US 7415 IN 17.25%
9 UBS AG CH 6512 SCC 18.46%
10 MERRILL LYNCH & CO., INC. US 6712 SCC 19.45%
11 WELLINGTON MANAGEMENT CO. L.L.P. US 6713 IN 20.33%
12 DEUTSCHE BANK AG DE 6512 SCC 21.17%
13 FRANKLIN RESOURCES, INC. US 6512 SCC 21.99%
14 CREDIT SUISSE GROUP CH 6512 SCC 22.81%
15 WALTON ENTERPRISES LLC US 2923 T&T 23.56%
16 BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON CORP. US 6512 IN 24.28%
17 NATIXIS FR 6512 SCC 24.98%
18 GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP, INC., THE US 6712 SCC 25.64%
19 T. ROWE PRICE GROUP, INC. US 6713 SCC 26.29%
20 LEGG MASON, INC. US 6712 SCC 26.92%
21 MORGAN STANLEY US 6712 SCC 27.56%
22 MITSUBISHI UFJ FINANCIAL GROUP, INC. JP 6512 SCC 28.16%
23 NORTHERN TRUST CORPORATION US 6512 SCC 28.72%
24 SOCIÉTÉ GÉNÉRALE FR 6512 SCC 29.26%
25 BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION US 6512 SCC 29.79%
26 LLOYDS TSB GROUP PLC GB 6512 SCC 30.30%
27 INVESCO PLC GB 6523 SCC 30.82%
28 ALLIANZ SE DE 7415 SCC 31.32%
29 TIAA US 6601 IN 32.24%
30 OLD MUTUAL PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY GB 6601 SCC 32.69%
31 AVIVA PLC GB 6601 SCC 33.14%
32 SCHRODERS PLC GB 6712 SCC 33.57%
33 DODGE & COX US 7415 IN 34.00%
34 LEHMAN BROTHERS HOLDINGS, INC. US 6712 SCC 34.43%
35 SUN LIFE FINANCIAL, INC. CA 6601 SCC 34.82%
36 STANDARD LIFE PLC GB 6601 SCC 35.2%
37 CNCE FR 6512 SCC 35.57%
38 NOMURA HOLDINGS, INC. JP 6512 SCC 35.92%
39 THE DEPOSITORY TRUST COMPANY US 6512 IN 36.28%
40 MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL LIFE INSUR. US 6601 IN 36.63%
41 ING GROEP N.V. NL 6603 SCC 36.96%
42 BRANDES INVESTMENT PARTNERS, L.P. US 6713 IN 37.29%
43 UNICREDITO ITALIANO SPA IT 6512 SCC 37.61%
44 DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION OF JP JP 6511 IN 37.93%
45 VERENIGING AEGON NL 6512 IN 38.25%
46 BNP PARIBAS FR 6512 SCC 38.56%
47 AFFILIATED MANAGERS GROUP, INC. US 6713 SCC 38.88%
48 RESONA HOLDINGS, INC. JP 6512 SCC 39.18%
49 CAPITAL GROUP INTERNATIONAL, INC. US 7414 IN 39.48%
50 CHINA PETROCHEMICAL GROUP CO. CN 6511 T&T 39.78%

Tags for this video have been changed from 'pink floyd, the final cut, roger waters, david gilmour, nick mason, richard wright' to 'pink floyd, the final cut, roger waters, david gilmour, nick mason' - edited by Trancecoach

James Mason was the best, isn't that right Lolita?

@Boise_Lib and @Skeeve

I don't know, this looks pretty suggestive to me, don't you think?

Was wondering the same thing myself... How does one make the mental leap from Freemasons to a confession about fake orgasms? >> ^Boise_Lib:

Reading a book about Masons makes you horny?

Reading a book about Masons makes you horny?

>> ^SDGundamX:

He wasn't arrested for animal abuse, he was arrested for "willfully teasing a police K-9" which is an misdemeanor offense in Mason County (see this WSJ law blog). The reason for the law should be obvious--unlike your normal house pet, these dogs are actually trained to bite people and if you get them agitated enough they may attack without command and not respond to an officer's orders to stop biting.
From this web site on the behavioral nature of police dogs:
No matter how well-trained in suspect apprehension a police dog might be, all police dogs can easily make behavioral mistakes, such as attacking at the wrong time, attacking out of context, attacking a suspect when not commanded to do so, and failing to stop an attack after being commanded to do so by the handler. Because of the behavioral nature of aggressive responding in dogs, and despite the extensive training most police service dogs have been subjected to prior to being deployed in the field, they will make behavioral mistakes, thereby causing injury to a victim that was uncalled for or far beyond what was probably needed.
Teasing the dog increases the likelihood of that happening. The drunken dumbass who was barking at the dog was putting people at risk and got arrested for it. I love the 1st amendment but I have absolutely no problem with these charges sticking. First amendment rights don't mean you can say whatever you want to say whenever you want to say it. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater just for lulz and you can't intentionally agitate police dogs into a frothing rage.
I love how Judge Napolitano apparently made a snap judgment himself about the situation without bothering to look at the facts of the case (as reported in the WSJ link above). Upvoted to promote yet more awareness of the stupidity that airs on Fox News.


I agree with everything you said, except the part where you said stuff about the law. While there could be a case for civilly responsible for acts of speech (suing), the constitution on clear on criminal charges. I have been in a movie theater when a false alarm of the real system went off, we didn't send the alarm maker to jail...double standard. Two people were injured in that false alarm of the alarm system. It is pretty dubious to just start arbitrarily dissecting speech, even more so when no one was ACTUALLY harmed. We have enough problems and we take time to legislate theoretical ones, great. That is the only reason drugs are still illegal, because of all the theoretical stuff that could happen. Let real crime be punished, and let fake crime fall away as dodging a bullet.

</lunch rant>

He wasn't arrested for animal abuse, he was arrested for "willfully teasing a police K-9" which is an misdemeanor offense in Mason County (see this WSJ law blog). The reason for the law should be obvious--unlike your normal house pet, these dogs are actually trained to bite people and if you get them agitated enough they may attack without command and not respond to an officer's orders to stop biting.

From this web site on the behavioral nature of police dogs:

No matter how well-trained in suspect apprehension a police dog might be, all police dogs can easily make behavioral mistakes, such as attacking at the wrong time, attacking out of context, attacking a suspect when not commanded to do so, and failing to stop an attack after being commanded to do so by the handler. Because of the behavioral nature of aggressive responding in dogs, and despite the extensive training most police service dogs have been subjected to prior to being deployed in the field, they will make behavioral mistakes, thereby causing injury to a victim that was uncalled for or far beyond what was probably needed.

Teasing the dog increases the likelihood of that happening. The drunken dumbass who was barking at the dog was putting people at risk and got arrested for it. I love the 1st amendment but I have absolutely no problem with these charges sticking. First amendment rights don't mean you can say whatever you want to say whenever you want to say it. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater just for lulz and you can't intentionally agitate police dogs into a frothing rage.

I love how Judge Napolitano apparently made a snap judgment himself about the situation without bothering to look at the facts of the case (as reported in the WSJ link above). Upvoted to promote yet more awareness of the stupidity that airs on Fox News.

Strange. This seems to be an edited version of this original remix: http://videosift.com/video/Masterchef-Synesthesia-Swede-Mason yet, quite why it's been edited shorter like this is beyond me

Judge not, lest ye be judged.

>> ^shinyblurry:

sigh. id feel the same way if i wasnt a christian..id take care of my dog no matter what..you may feel differently
>> ^bareboards2:
Aren't they in a hotel? I suspect a no dogs policy and a huge amount of emotional distress and personal grief.
But go ahead and judge them, [insert aggrieved Christian reference here]
>> ^shinyblurry:
great owners..the loyal guy crawls home on broken legs and they can't be bothered to take care of him..

sigh. id feel the same way if i wasnt a christian..id take care of my dog no matter what..you may feel differently

>> ^bareboards2:
Aren't they in a hotel? I suspect a no dogs policy and a huge amount of emotional distress and personal grief.
But go ahead and judge them, [insert aggrieved Christian reference here]
>> ^shinyblurry:
great owners..the loyal guy crawls home on broken legs and they can't be bothered to take care of him..

Aren't they in a hotel? I suspect a no dogs policy and a huge amount of emotional distress and personal grief.

But go ahead and judge them, [insert aggrieved Christian reference here]


>> ^shinyblurry:

great owners..the loyal guy crawls home on broken legs and they can't be bothered to take care of him..

Reminds me of my childhood, running in the basement and hunkering down with my brothers every time there was a tornado warning. Never had one hit. Mom always gave us a mason jar half filled with water and a drop of dishwashing soap so we could make our own "tornadoes". In retrospect the glass jar probably should have been plastic.

Where first escapes me sir, sorry. However, it has been represented in numerous magazine articles, woodworking and other. I believe even in National Geographic though I do not believe as a feature article. Books as well, some compilations of articles, tool books, shop books, and such. I have researched on the Net as well some years ago. I now think I may have seen it on TV as well but not with the more extensive views of its ingenious workings as Norm provided. I wish he had shown more of the inlay, particularly the Masonic symbolism incorporated. Some of the photos of this chest are truly tool and tool chest porn. The quality of the video does not do it justice at all.

I wonder at the cost in todays prices to reproduce the chest and tools. Some of the materials are rare to unobtainium. If one was able to procure some of the woods, finding the quality of wood, probably only available in the manufacturing of musical instruments would be challenging. Some rosewoods, for example, are not legally exported any longer.

It is a phenomenal piece of work. I once was given a 400 hundred year old Chinese tool chest. It was more a work of art than working art. ...hidden compartments and the whole bit. I was afraid to use it and had no use for it as an exhibition piece. No comparison to this one or its shadow.
>> ^arvana:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/chicchorea" title="member since October 15th, 2009" class="profilelink">chicchorea — How did you first hear about it? I had never seen it before, and I LOVE this kind of thing.