Later Heart (especially later than this) is kind of analogous to the middle age American heart, grossly obese and suffering from cardiovascular disease that kinda killed it.

Easy upvote though for the Wilson sisters (the first live concert I saw was Heart) and for 80's music videos. Love everything about it.

But still, I gotta say, omg, this stuff from the same people who made Barracuda? This is from another quality tier altogether:
LOOSELY *related=http://videosift.com/video/Heart-1977-Barracuda

Heart - 1977 - Barracuda has been added as a related post - related requested by deathcow.

wiki says

"In the early 21st century, the premier TT racing bikes complete the Snaefell course at an average speed exceeding 120 mph (190 km/h). Record holders include David Jefferies who set a lap record of 127.29 mph (204.85 km/h) in 2002. This was surpassed by John McGuinness during the 2004 TT on a Yamaha R1 setting a time of 17 min 43.8 s; an average lap speed of 127.68 mph (205.48 km/h). McGuinness lowered this even further at the 2007 TT, setting a time of 17:21.99 for an average speed of 130.354 mph (209.784 km/h) becoming the first rider to break the 130 mph limit on the Snaefell Mountain circuit. The most successful rider was Joey Dunlop who won 26 times in various classes from 1977 to 2000. For 2009, the Manx government added a new event to the June race schedule. The Time Trial eXtreme Grand Prix (TTXGP) was billed as the first zero-emissions motorcycle race. While any technology could enter, as a practical matter zero emissions means electric.[34]"

A deep constitutional scholar such as yourself probably already knows this:

"For more than a hundred years, the answer was clear, even if the words of the amendment itself were not. The text of the amendment is divided into two clauses and is, as a whole, ungrammatical: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The courts had found that the first part, the “militia clause,” trumped the second part, the “bear arms” clause. In other words, according to the Supreme Court, and the lower courts as well, the amendment conferred on state militias a right to bear arms—but did not give individuals a right to own or carry a weapon.

Enter the modern National Rifle Association. Before the nineteen-seventies, the N.R.A. had been devoted mostly to non-political issues, like gun safety. But a coup d’état at the group’s annual convention in 1977 brought a group of committed political conservatives to power—as part of the leading edge of the new, more rightward-leaning Republican Party. (Jill Lepore recounted this history in a recent piece for The New Yorker.) The new group pushed for a novel interpretation of the Second Amendment, one that gave individuals, not just militias, the right to bear arms. It was an uphill struggle. At first, their views were widely scorned. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, who was no liberal, mocked the individual-rights theory of the amendment as “a fraud.”"

source: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2012/12/jeffrey-toobin-second-amendment.html

Perhaps you've never studied the history of the region, but the reason I haven't addressed your questions is because I reject the central premise, which is the notion of a distinct "Palestinian" people. There is no such thing as a Palestinian people. There never has been any people in history going by that name, or demanding a country of their own. There is no Palestinian culture, artifacts..nothing The fact is, there is no actual difference between Palestinians, Jordanians, and Syrians. Before I go into it, you can hear it straight from the horses mouth:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism. For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

Zuheir Mohsen leader of the Syria-controlled as-Sa'iqa faction of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) between 1971 and 1979.

James Dorsey, "Wij zijn alleen Palestijn om politieke reden", Trouw, 31 March 1977.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Zuheir_Mohsen

They aren't struggling for "independence", they are waging all out war against the Jews. The "Palestinians" have been offered their own state many, many times, with the initial deal being something like 80 percent of the entire country. They rejected it and vowed to exterminate the Jews. They are not interested in negotiating because they want to wipe any Jewish presence in the region off of the map. They're also being funded and supplied by Arab nations all over the Middle East for this purpose. Why? Because Muslims are raised to hate Jews and this stems from the Qur'an. It probably goes back to when the Jews rejected Muhammad as a prophet.

Please research the history:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZY8m0cm1oY&feature=related

This album was a revelation for me back in 1977. What in the world, Sound and Vision, Art Decade, it was brilliant. One of my PIN codes that I have used for decades is based on the length of one of the songs on this album, that's how much I liked it.

Thank you kind sir! You kick booty.
In reply to this comment by kulpims:
*promote

Fusionaut#1977!

*length=124

Normally I'd look harder for a high quality embed, but firstly all the other embeds seem to be from the famous 1977 concert, and secondly it's punk!

I have seen brilliant red bands of aurora from horizon to horizon in Alaska.

Once.

Since 1977.

Green... 1000x

>> ^dag:

I really enjoyed those Wilson books too. It was a SF subject, but didn't read like SF - maybe because, like you say, he focused more on the characters' reactions than the technology itself. The first one, Spin, is a great "almost end of the world" kind of book.Yeah, the view point of the story is very "bottom up", with incredible technology presented like a force of nature, accessible to humans, but never controlled by them. His writing style is not typical of SF either. Some words that come to mind regarding his style are plain, solid, easy flowing. He's never trying to impress you with linguistic finesse, just keeps the text moving right along. Sort of the opposite extreme of Stephenson, where word play, sentence construction and all that is very much a part of the show.



Speaking of end of the world books, I had read Lucifer's Hammer for the first time a few months ago. It was published in 1977, so it's a little dated, but a great read nonetheless.

Aye I agree that not hurting people is a worthy cause, but if you follow that line of thinking, once again you will find inconsistency. For example, if he truly doesn't want to hurt people, why did he try to have the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 repealed - twice.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d096:h.r.2310:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d094:h.r.13264:

Wouldn't having less safety at work result in more harm to workers, and even deaths?

How about his stance on the environment, would a degraded, polluted environment lead to harm? Quite possibly, and he's sponsored more than a half dozen bills to try to get rid of, or limit legislation protecting it, including a bill to repeal the Soil and Water Conservation Act of 1977.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d096:h.r.7079:

There are plenty of studies that demonstrate a scientifically significant correlation between pesticide exposure and cancers, birth defects and spontaneous abortions. Look up carbaryl, atrazine and benomyl-carbendazim to name a few, if he truly wanted to avoid doing harm, shouldn't he focus on legislation that tightens up the use of toxic chemicals in the food chain so that the seasonal and migrant workers (especially) might have improved health outcomes?

What about his handling of the Florida oil spill, the ecosystem there got devastated and there will be ongoing health consequences for not just the locals. His reaction was that there should be less oversight by the Government and instead there should be promises by the corporations to make good any damages with the populations they affect. That's not just an example of how his principles could harm people but it's an example of libertarianism gone crazy. His sponsorship of the H.R.2415 and H.R.4004 bills back this up, both of them incentivize off-shore drilling.
http://www.ronpaul.com/2010-06-16/ron-paul-defends-obama-on-bp-oil-spill-and-himself-on-owning-gold/

He takes the stance that he 'doesn't want to hurt people because he's then able to get a lot of anti-abortion supporters to vote for him, or in other words, he's doing a good job of being a politician. In addition, he's deciding what is right and what is wrong for the people that have other opinions and may wish to express those opinions in the form of exercising the right to make an informed decision about their future family - I don't call that libertarianism.

>> ^garmachi:

>> ^packo:
there was a good car thriller... by lucas?/spielberg?... can't remember its name though
basically 1 guy driving, and this dirty old tanker truck chasing him in the desert

Duel.


Duel was one of my Dad's favorite movies.

>> ^packo:

there was a good car thriller... by lucas?/spielberg?... can't remember its name though
basically 1 guy driving, and this dirty old tanker truck chasing him in the desert


Duel.

How can you not see the flaw in this logic? Atheists do not make claims for which evidence must be provided, there is no point in trying to "DISPROVE" god, or any other imaginary entity. the "evidence that god doesnt exist" is that there is no evidence that god does exist.

Drac did make the claim "I'm saying there is no God, so there are no necessary assumptions about his nature, since he doesn't HAVE a nature" So therefore he has a burden of proof.

Also, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Finally, no matter how you've redefined the definition, atheism is the belief that there is no God:

"Atheism, from the Greek a-theos ("no-god") is the philosophical position that God doesn't exist. It is distinguished from agnosticism, the argument that it is impossible to know whether God exists or not"

(Academic American Encyclopedia)

Atheism, system of thought developed around the denial of God's existence. Atheism, so defined, first appeared during the Enlightement, the age of reason"

(Random House Encyclopedia-1977)

Atheism is the doctrine that there is no God. Some atheists support this claim by arguments, but these arguments are usually directed against the Christian concept of God, and are largely irrelevant to other possible gods.

(Oxford Companion to Philosophy-1995)

Atheism (Greek, a- [private prefix] + theos, god) is the view that there is no divine being, no God"

(Dictionary of Philosophy, Thomas Mautner, Editor-1996)

Atheism is the belief that God doesn't exist.

(The World Book Encyclopedia-1991)

According to the most usual definition, an atheist is a person who maintains that there is no god.

(The Encyclopedia of Philosophy-1967)

Atheism denies the existence of deity

(Funk and Wagnalls New Encyclopedia-Vol I)

This is what the world looks like to you, huh? absolute laws layed down and explained by God?

In the scientific worldview, there are no absolutes, our "laws" are based on repeated observations and revisions, take for instance Newtons first law: The velocity of a body remains constant unless the body is acted upon by an external force.

Now, this actually works, it turns out that the world is this way*. It is natural for a curious human to ask "why?" because we expect,perhaps deep down that there is a reason and a purpose behind the world being arranged this way. But there doesnt seem to be any real reason, had Newton or Galileo lived in an alternate universe, where objects would move at random, independent of the forces acted upon them, well, then we wouldnt have this law, would we? Perhaps such a universe exist, but perhaps there are no Newtons there to check, because the evolution of life and therefore Newtons brain, requires objects to behave in this predictable Newtonian way.

We only have one sample, which is this Universe. Shoulds, woulds and perhaps don't explain away design. What you're really trying to express here is the anthropic principle. Take this example..let's say you're standing before a firing squad of 100 trained marksmen, all aiming for your heart, and then you hear the shots go off..and to your surprise you find that you're still alive, that they all missed. Should you be surprised that you do not observe you are dead? If you were dead, obviously you couldn't observe it. However, you are justified in being surprised you are alive, since all 100 marksmen missing you is extremely improbable. Which is the same reason we should be surprised that there is a conspiracy in the physical laws to support life in the Universe.

Anyway, here we are, we make our laws based on our observations of how things seem predictable, and if things arent that predictable, we cant make laws about them. For instance, why hasnt god, being so clever with the whole "law of motion" trick and all, made a similar law-system for finance? ie: "every 50 years, the market will collapse" and so on? or evolution " the ultimate goal of all of evolution is for all species to evolve big brains trunks, like the humans elephants have?

God laid down a lot of laws about how we should behave. The reason for the chaos in the world is because we haven't obeyed those laws.

No, it seems while God likes order and laws to apply to inanimate object, he's decided to go for chaos and indetermency when dealing with large, complex systems.

You'd almost think there was no god at all, huh?

*Yeah,yeah Einstein, relativity blah blah, for all intends and purposes, Newton will suffice here.

He gave us laws about how to live. Perhaps you have heard of the bible?

>> ^BicycleRepairMan