Good catch. It was clearly symbolic - being in a different key and not resolving - but I couldn't place it.

In reply to this comment by dag:
It's definitely dark - but always makes me feel good. Supposedly he's got a new album coming out soon - looking forward to that.

Did you catch on the last track at the very end, he does a few notes from the first track of The Nightfly - closing the loop on the trilogy? At least that's what I think he was doing.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
I'm digging Morph the Cat. I see what you mean about the darker harmonic language. Thanks for the recommendation.

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

It's definitely dark - but always makes me feel good. Supposedly he's got a new album coming out soon - looking forward to that.

Did you catch on the last track at the very end, he does a few notes from the first track of The Nightfly - closing the loop on the trilogy? At least that's what I think he was doing.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
I'm digging Morph the Cat. I see what you mean about the darker harmonic language. Thanks for the recommendation.

I'm digging Morph the Cat. I see what you mean about the darker harmonic language. Thanks for the recommendation.

It's amusing that no one here can actually just present their views without acting all incredulous "OMG I CANT BELIEVE WHAT YOU BELIEVE OMG UR SO DUMB OMG!!!" How about you just let your logic speak for itself. If you want to talk about intelligence, I scored 149 on my last IQ test..how about you? You science worshippers are more dogmatic and sensitive than any religious person I know, and that's the truth.

You can repeat something is true over and over again, as forcefully and dramatically as you want..there are no, and I repeat ZERO true transitionals. Yes of course every fossil is a transitional by definition..lol..but we're talking about actual records showing a change in kind to another kind. There aren't any. Here is a list of all the best ones science has found: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

And here is the disclaimer:

Ideally, this list would only recursively include 'true' transitionals, fossils representing ancestral specie from which later groups evolved, but most, if not all, of the fossils shown here represent extinct side branches, more or less closely related to the true ancestor

Read that a few times and let it sink in. None have ever been found, those are all extinct side branches, not true transitionals. Why don't you get a background and know you're talking about before you try to get into a debate with someone, let alone imply they themselves are ignorant.


>> ^BicycleRepairMan:
>> ^shinyblurry:
And of course there is the embarassment of not having any true transitional forms..which should be abundent by now I would think.

Oh god.
Every animal and every fossil there ever was, is, and ever will be, IS a transitional form, by definition. If we limit ourselves to the human/homo linaege , please check out a video I recently posted about human evolution: http://videosift.com/video/Human-Evolution-and-Why-it-matters
If you watch that video, you will see how scientists are working to piece togheter a very large number of hominids with a large variety. its not like "Apes turned into human" in some neat movie-style morph, but a complex mess up populations of gradually more humanoid apes, the large majority of which formed long lineages that lived for thousands of years, before joining the vast collection of extinct species. Its become increasingly clear that we are one of many branches, and the last surviving in the hominid group so far.
The "no transitional fossils" is a laughable strawman argument, deeply ignorant and dishonest at the same time, in other words, typical creationist nonsense.
As for Irreducible complexity, , this is the most "sciencey" of the creationist drivel out there, but its still drivel. It's not even bad science, its just meaningless white noise designed to baffle people who has no knowledge of biology.

>> ^shinyblurry:
And of course there is the embarassment of not having any true transitional forms..which should be abundent by now I would think.


Oh god.

Every animal and every fossil there ever was, is, and ever will be, IS a transitional form, by definition. If we limit ourselves to the human/homo linaege , please check out a video I recently posted about human evolution: http://videosift.com/video/Human-Evolution-and-Why-it-matters

If you watch that video, you will see how scientists are working to piece togheter a very large number of hominids with a large variety. its not like "Apes turned into human" in some neat movie-style morph, but a complex mess up populations of gradually more humanoid apes, the large majority of which formed long lineages that lived for thousands of years, before joining the vast collection of extinct species. Its become increasingly clear that we are one of many branches, and the last surviving in the hominid group so far.

The "no transitional fossils" is a laughable strawman argument, deeply ignorant and dishonest at the same time, in other words, typical creationist nonsense.

As for Irreducible complexity, , this is the most "sciencey" of the creationist drivel out there, but its still drivel. It's not even bad science, its just meaningless white noise designed to baffle people who has no knowledge of biology.

>> ^MaxWilder:

I disagree @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/DerHasisttot" title="member since May 11th, 2010" class="profilelink">DerHasisttot, the push for legislation can be a fantastic way of grabbing people's attention, thereby legislating and educating simultaneously. Despite the fact that every professional medical organization in the world (such as the AMA) finds no medical justification for circumcision, it is still routinely performed without question. A legal rumpus may be just what this issue needs to enter the public consciousness.
But you may be right in that this will take several attempts to pass before enough people realize what barbaric bullshit they are using as justification for mutilating their children. Perhaps it will morph into a bill where there are special exemptions for religious purpose. I'd be fine with that. The point is to get people to stop thinking of it as normal and medically justified. In fact just the opposite, the procedure carries the risk of death (rare as it may be). All of the supposed risks that are used to justify circumcision can be remedied by basic hygiene, and it's long past time that people were aware of that.


I fully agree. In my mind I compare it with the drive to legalise Marihuana, which is somewhat comparable, in the way that both issues are depending on widespread support.

I grant you the attention-grabbing possibilities, but to be honest, the activist in the video was not the right man for the job.

I disagree @DerHasisttot, the push for legislation can be a fantastic way of grabbing people's attention, thereby legislating and educating simultaneously. Despite the fact that every professional medical organization in the world (such as the AMA) finds no medical justification for circumcision, it is still routinely performed without question. A legal rumpus may be just what this issue needs to enter the public consciousness.

But you may be right in that this will take several attempts to pass before enough people realize what barbaric bullshit they are using as justification for mutilating their children. Perhaps it will morph into a bill where there are special exemptions for religious purpose. I'd be fine with that. The point is to get people to stop thinking of it as normal and medically justified. In fact just the opposite, the procedure carries the risk of death (rare as it may be). All of the supposed risks that are used to justify circumcision can be remedied by basic hygiene, and it's long past time that people were aware of that.

ah my friend...
remember it was you who asked me to help you understand my faith.
and i did so openly and honestly and with the total understanding that you would wholeheartedly disagree.
were you looking for some form of evidence?
i did not promise you any.
what we have here is a philosophical discussion.
i thought that was something self-evident.
we are discussion an intangible:faith.

reading your response i am puzzled at the volume of presumption based on very little.
much of which i had already addressed.
what were you trying to accomplish in your response?
what was your intent with all this?
i have been open,honest and put myself out there because you were respectful and curious.
i held no illusions you would ever agree with how i viewed things but i did think that maybe if i shared you would at least understand where i was coming from.
and that is always a good thing.

but i have to say for someone so adamant about evidence and research you presume volumes based on little or no information.you took it waaay past what i offered and formulated your own dynamic.
and while it kind of irritates me and i dont feel i should have to point this out,
i shall anyways...just because....

1.(No, I don’t suspect that you are anti-research, I suspect that you don’t value research or the scientific method as much as people should. If you did, you would find no value in faith.)
-i already stated that when new information is gained.the paradigm is changed.of course i value research but maybe i am not as schooled as you.maybe i dont have access or was unaware of certain research.
did this not even occur to you?
then you go on to ostracize EVERYBODY who does not value research the way you do and that if we did we would find no value in faith.then my friend..you dont have the first clue about faith (which means i have failed from the get-go..lol).but has the arrogance of this statement eluded you?you are judging people based on YOUR perceptions.

2.I suspect that you don’t read many science books, if any. I suspect that you don’t follow the most recent information coming out of neural science research labs.
-now on this i will agree.your suspicions would be correct.not because i avoid them but because i dont follow them.my studies are in cultural religious history,american history,world history,US and european governments and comparative religions.(and of course art,poetry and music).
if you have some suggestions and in video format i would be delighted to watch and learn.

3.I suspect that the only research that you are primarily interested in is the kind of research that supports your pre-existing idea of the nature of reality. I suspect that you don’t actually understand the scientific method. I suspect that you’ve never read “The Demon Haunted World”.
-and you base this presumption on what...exactly? when i have clearly stated the opposite.do i need to point out that i am a man of faith who frequents a predominantly atheist web site? i have never even heard of "demon haunted world" what is it about? it sounds interesting.

4.I suspect that you don’t really understand causation verses correlation.
-ok..now you are just being snide.many religious folk fall into this trap..i am not one of them."see? there is your evidence!".i thought you would understand what i was implying.i guess i was wrong.

5.I suspect that you generally aren’t very skeptically minded and that your definition of “evidence” is loosely constructed.
-again.what are you basing this on? because i have faith? is THAT what you are basing this presumption on? i addressed this in my letter to you.

6.I suspect that you aren’t actually doing anything to falsify your beliefs. I suspect that you identify with your beliefs to the degree that if realized that they weren’t true you would feel a sense of loss of personal identity. I suspect that you value any answer, even if it’s potentially incorrect, over no answer at all. I suspect that you would rather believe in “spirit” than to disbelieve it because, as I suspect, it makes you feel good and it gives you the answer that you want.
-are you projecting? or having a conversation with a different person and sent this to me? if my beliefs (which just by using that word means i have utterly failed to convey how i view things)were proven to be false..then they would be false.i would not curl into a ball and cry like a little girl.my faith is expressed through who i am but is not integrally me as a person.my faith is neither stagnant nor static but flows,drifts and morphs as time goes on.and to say how my faith in spirit makes me feel.well you are just guessing based on little or no information.i find this particularly hypocritical of how you present yourself.you have no idea HOW i feel or how i would react if it turns out that there is no spirit.come on man..you are better than this particularly nasty nugget.

7.I suspect that you like the writings of Deepak Chopra and that you probably like movies "The Secret" and "What the Bleep Do We Know". I suspect that you have very little respect for truth and that your beliefs are more about perception rather than what can be known to be factual.
-ok.here is where you literally take the gold for presumption.deepok chopra? really?
let me explain something so we are crystal clear here.every and all of my philosophies have been hard won.while the revelations may have been a gift my understanding of them has taken me on paths and roads you cannot even BEGIN to understand (or maybe you can.my turn to assume).my wisdom has been hard won,epic battles with my own self and the world around me.scars upon scars to garner the wisdom i now hold and the path i walk is a solitary one. NOT one i read from deepok fucking chopra.
i find the sciences fascinating and consume as often as i can with my limited understanding.i wish my curiosity for these things had not blossomed so late in my life but for 12 years i have been absolutely ravenous for information and for you to suggest that somehow i avoid the truth because it may disprove my beliefs..
aw fuck you man..thats hubris times ten and just plain fucking wrong.you are painting a picture on how you perceive me and i gotta tell ya man.that person you are picturing? it aint me.
i am a poet my friend and everything i do,say or relate to is all about the truth.in everything.. and that includes..ESPECIALLY..includes..self deception.
read my poem.its right here on my page under my favorite video.my first published actually.
and you included the SECRET? for real? let me tell ya and i say this often (ask my friends who read that garbage) if i ever meet the authors, i am slapping them dead in the face.may not be the same reason you would but we can do it as a dynamic duo../SMACK.

my friend,
you state the all importance of evidence.the absolute value of truth based on facts and testable results.yet what you have done to here is base your opinion on almost no evidence nor facts.
you have judged me falsely.

now.lets move on to the questions.understand i asked them not looking for the correct answer but rather how you would respond to them.because there really is no "correct" answer,only what we know up to this point.
1.What is ego? I don’t know. I don’t study neurological brain functions as much as I wish I had the time for. The thing is, I’m not the one providing a bunch of nonsense answer about how it’s some sort of separate entity apart from myself, or that it has its own wants and desires part from my own. The burden of proof rests on the person making those claims.
-berticus could answer this more scientifically than i could and since you do not believe in spirit any further discussion would be redundant.
my stance is that the ego is who you THINK you are,not who you actually are.i would elaborate but i dont think you would respect any of my conclusions.which are mostly anecdotal and not actual evidence.

2.What is reality? From Wikipedia “Reality is the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or may be thought to be.” I would use that definition. I would also say that we absolutely can know what is real vs. what is not real by performing rigorous investigations into phenomenon that we observe and that during these investigations we use the scientific method to keep us from lying to ourselves. Contrary to the beliefs of people of “spirituality” and post-modernists, there are things that we can call objectively real and there is such thing as truth, that knowing the truth requires hardcore investigation and that once you know the truth, at least to a very high degree of certainty, you can know what is not true. By definition, reality is the collection of things and phenomenon that are real. Things like fairies, unicorns, leprechauns, flying spaghetti monsters, gods, etc, aren't known to be real, they don't really exist, they aren't a part of reality. Sure, the idea of those things is real, but those things themselves aren't.
-we dont fully know.that is the correct answer.we only know what we know by our standards and abilities to date.reality keeps becoming more and more grander and complex as we dig deeper and reveal more.this is an ongoing project and the rabbit hole keeps getting deeper.this is something that really excites and fascinates me.look at how much of reality we have uncovered in the past 100 years.dont you find it all fascinating?what was once unknown is becoming known and things never even suspected are becoming possibilities.that is just too awesome.

3.What is consciousness? It sounds as if you’re asking me what consciousness is as if consciousness is a thing. Consciousness isn’t a thing; it’s a bi-product of certain biological systems and it can be affected and manipulated by various means. It’s a collective brain state. Consciousness doesn’t exist somewhere in the universe and we’re interacting with it and even if that were true, there isn’t any actual evidence of that being the case. In humans, it is just the sense of awareness of one’s self with respect to others and of the relationship between the mind and the world that we interact with. You talk about consciousness as if it’s some sort of mystical force; it just sounds like magical thinking, attributing animal qualities to the universe. There is nothing magical or mystical about it. This notion that consciousness and the ego are somehow “outside” of us or separate from who we “are” is just a fantasy similar to fairies and unicorns. I know people that believe in actual fairies, the kind with wings, who control certain aspects of our lives. I put spirituality in the same exact camp as belief in fairies, there just isn’t any evidence that it’s actually true.
-consciousness is a subject that is still discussed in philosophical and theosophical schools.just like the subject of reality we dont fully know.we suspect and there have been great strides in understanding but at the end of the day...still dont really know.and i do not speak of something "outside" sorry if i came across that way.must have been a tad confusing for you,but consciousness is another rabbit hole.the more we learn the bigger the picture gets.which again..fascinates me.if you want to play around with reality and consciousness drop some acid,or mescaline,shrooms even and let creation melt like a chocolate sundae on a hot summers day.there are levels of consciousness and awareness and everybodys is different.theories that plants have a form of consciousness and we all pretty much agree that animals have a consciousness.

4.Who am I? I could say that I am who I define myself to be based on what information that I have about myself combined with the model of myself that is retained in other people’s minds whom I interact with and also the collective actions that I’ve taken and continue to take. It just seems like you’re adding a layer of mysticism over the nature of humans, as if there is something magical about humans over other primates, or other carbon based life forms. Again, there is nothing mystical or magical about who people are.
do you let everyone tell you how to act?
i tease...
this is a very scientific..and BORING... answer.and very,very one dimensional.but it has the value of allowing me a peek into your inner workings.so i thank you.
this is actually an exercise in self-reflection.was meant to make you think about just you and who you were for a second (mostly i get people telling me their occupation).
short..to the point..and very boring.
while we may be more self-aware than other animals i never stated we were magical beings,unless you count my faith in spirit and if thats the case...fair enough.
i am nothing special and hold no hidden secret key to the temples of delight and neither are you.i deal with everybody based on that assumption.

now lets deal with your conclusion:
1.The reason why I suspect that you are not scientifically minded is because you’re prepared to dismiss ongoing research which may or may not be conclusive but you’re willing to provide your own answers and form your own beliefs based on your own subjective experiences.
-where have i dismissed science that has been proven to be factual?or even remotely hinted i was prepared to?where are you getting this from? if i gave you that impression then i apologize because that is not how i view things.
now i shared a very personal revelation with you that i normally do not share.please do not dishonor that trust with contempt or disdain.i understand you do not believe and that is your right but at least respect my offer of something valuable to me,even if it is garbage to you.
this is why it is called "faith" and not "evidence".i did not offer evidence,i offered a revelation given to me which is where my faith resides.and all of our experiences are subjective.

2.What good are those answers if they have no basis in reality. Just because there is no definitive consensus doesn’t mean that you can substitute in your own beliefs. Doing that, in and of itself, is irrational. Everything that you’ve said that you believe in has its basis in magical and wishful thinking, not in science, even though you're using scientific terms (incorrectly I might add).
-again.this is why it is called faith and faith in and of itself is irrational.i do understand these concepts and realize their implications.and whats up with the snide remark about my incorrect usage of scientific terms? then teach me correctly..or are you one of those people that will let a dude walk around with his fly open? come on man...uncalled for.

3.If there isn’t a conclusive answer, than why make one up? The only thing that individualized answers to these questions offers to me is evidence of how scientifically illiterate people actually are. Scientifically literate and rational people don’t answer questions that they don’t have objective and research driven answers to and if they do propose an answer when there isn’t something they can be objectively highly certain of, they submit it as conjecture, a mere hypothesis, very little more than an inconclusive guess.
--again i refer to faith.i get it man.you dont have any unless it is scientifically proven factual.
and most people are scientifically illiterate.you ever think instead of calling them retards (you didnt use those words but you may has well have)that maybe you could help them a bit? maybe share some of your understanding? point them in a direction that may answer their questions?
you are kind of being a douche in this last part,i dont think its intentional,but its very...douchey.
i mean..
you ask me a question.one in which i attempt to answer based on a revelation that was given to me over 30 years ago,and THEN turn around and basically say that im making shit up and that i am scientifically illiterate.
of course i am scientifically illiterate.
i am an ordained minister and a fucking poet!what did you expect?
but i own an insatiable curiosity.
i am constantly prodding the edges of my own understanding and attempting to further my knowledge base.
but i hold no illusions that i knew everything,nor do i look down upon those i disagree with.
i view every interaction as an opportunity to learn.

as i stated earlier.
i offered my faith,not certitude.
if the factual realm of science gives you comfort and makes you smile then i say ..good for you!
and might i suggest you share this passion with others?
i do not know what you meant to accomplish with your letter to me.
its tone is far different than our other transactions and some of its content and wording has me perplexed.
you have never been presumptuous with me before nor have you taken an arrogant tilt.
yet i find both of those in this letter.
meh../shrugs..text lacks the nuances of eye to eye conversation.
and being a person who uses words often i am fully aware of their total inadequacies to express ones thoughts/feelings/dreams at times.

just know that science reveals my understanding of creation to be spot on..
every..single..time.
and if you wish to call "god" the "universe"..
feel free.it is just as appropriate.
my path may be far different from yours but i still think your pretty cool.
while the fundamentalist stagnates in his own certitude..
i do not.
i am just me.
be well my friend.
namaste.

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

They're all good. The albums definitely get darker. A lot of his songs seem to be about death and loss as he's getting older - which suits me fine. My favorites on Morph the Cat are Brite Nightgown and Great Pagoda of Funn. The title track's good too - not sure what it means, but kind of ominous.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
I did Kamakiriad and Nightfly back to back. I didn't know about Morph the Cat, so I'm downloading it right now.

In reply to this comment by dag:
Absolutely love the guy. Nightfly? Morph the Cat?

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
I'm rocking some Donald Fagen right now. Just thought you'd like to know.

I did Kamakiriad and Nightfly back to back. I didn't know about Morph the Cat, so I'm downloading it right now.

In reply to this comment by dag:
Absolutely love the guy. Nightfly? Morph the Cat?

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
I'm rocking some Donald Fagen right now. Just thought you'd like to know.

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

Absolutely love the guy. Nightfly? Morph the Cat?

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
I'm rocking some Donald Fagen right now. Just thought you'd like to know.

I forgot you were a noobie and couldn't help in my campaign!

That vid has given me endless amusement. Although it does disturb me, it has morphed into something else entirely that I rather adore.

In reply to this comment by taranimator:
Would downvote if I were priviledged...
on account of the dark knee socks at the very least.
I'm sure those gals must be super smart with all the blood rushing to their heads.

>> ^rottenseed:

This whole movie had a thread of sexual tension between the two. At least, that's what I thought about it


totally agree but with the directors cut we get to see so much more and many things that were only implied before are given voice.
1.matilda is 12.remember that age? when emotions could become like a thunderstorm?imagine living in that fucked up..unloving family.no safety..no comfort and all you have is your 4 yr old brother whom you take care of.
2.leon is the adult and in the 1994 release we see him respecting boundaries but he seems a bit..off..in the original.THIS scene in particular clears all of that up.we see that leon shut down a part of himself at 19.THAT part of him never grew up nor matured in any substantive way.

so while matilda has found her knight in shining armor to bestow all that pre-pubescent hormones onto,we find out the leon is around the same age emotionally.
it is due to this very unique situation that we get to see leon literally morph in front of us.
kinda like the grinch but with guns,blood and screaming.
i would go as far to say that the character arc for leon is the most profound i have ever seen from any movie.

There are a few differences, the Iraq war was originally billed as taking out Saddam's WMDs and Terrorist training camps. When these things didn't materialize the dialogue morphed into 'liberating' the Iraqis. This time the dialogue is solely about stopping A dictator from actively killing civilians. Its also a UN action, as opposed to US and Pals.

Some liberals love the save the oppressed angle, while some conservatives are wringing their hands over getting the US a foot hold in an oil rich nation who's leader has embarrassed us several times in the past with his open defiance of our will.

As a liberal I would normally be in support of such an action if I could actually believe
A.)We're actually doing what the vast majority of Libya's 6 million+ population wants and not just handing control of the country over to a thousand or so militants because they're more friendly to us (for the moment).
B.)There won't actually be any ground troops, therefor greatly reducing cost and possibility of US casualties. And that instead of spear heading the effort, we're just helping to level the playing field for the militants.
C.)This was actually about helping the civilians of Libya rather than spending billions if not trillions of taxpayer dollars so some corporations can make billions off exploiting Libya's resources and our military and then have the gall to bitch about how high taxes are.

I suppose the problem is we've been lied to so often by both sides, exploiting our fears or noble intentions, nobody believes them. When was the last time our involvement in a conflict actually went as planned? WWII?

>> ^Lolthien:

>> ^wagthedog1:
>> ^ForgedReality:
Strange how a lot of the frames morph together like this was just a collection of individual photos blended together using semi-intelligent edge detection, as opposed to using, say, oh I dunno, A VIDEO CAMERA...?

Use of a cheap video camera explains why this slo-mo has big fail all over it. The camera man did absolutely nothing recommended in this guide to help the time remapping/frame interpolation filter in After Effects get a super slo-mo result. Also recommended practice is individual tuning of motion sensitivity when using such plug-ins.
If you want to see what a good frame interpolation plug-in can achieve slowing down regular video, type "Twixtor" into the search bar of your favorite video sharing site.

Holy crap dude. That's WAY too much analysis over a corgi in slow motion video.


It's a good explanation buried in basement-dweller cynicism.