this is cool too:

Improved measurement of the shape of the electron - 2011
- J. J. Hudson,D. M. Kara,I. J. Smallman,B. E. Sauer, M. R. Tarbut & E. A. Hinds

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v473/n7348/full/nature10104.html

briefly

"Here we use cold polar molecules to measure the electron EDM at the highest level of precision reported so far, providing a constraint on any possible new interactions. We obtain de = (−2.4 ± 5.7stat ± 1.5syst) × 10−28e cm, where e is the charge on the electron, which sets a new upper limit of |de| < 10.5 × 10−28e cm with 90 per cent confidence. This result, consistent with zero, indicates that the electron is spherical at this improved level of precision."

Thought you might enjoy this. The new music video for ‘Against The Grain’ from emerging Melbourne indie-folk artist Hudson.

>> ^Fletch:

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Huh, so you see a tunnel of light when you approach c, I find this intriguing.
Yeah, just like when you drive through an actual tunnel. Does that intrigue you too? Maybe the road to heaven leads under the Hudson River. Who knew Weehawken, NJ was Paradise?


More that certain studies of mind have shown a seeming quantum nature to thought, specifically conciseness. That mind could be an entanglement of many different, yet simultaneous locations in space and time. What that all means, fuck if I know, just find it interesting that traveling the speed of light approximates certain peoples near death experiences. Not saying it is significant, only interesting. Or as Spock would say "fascinating". My mind sorts information of "likes" first and "relevance" second.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

Huh, so you see a tunnel of light when you approach c, I find this intriguing.
Yeah, just like when you drive through an actual tunnel. Does that intrigue you too? Maybe the road to heaven leads under the Hudson River. Who knew Weehawken, NJ was Paradise?

Tags for this video have been changed from '911, Manhattan, Civlians, Boat Rescue, Hudson Rver' to '911, Manhattan, Civilians, Boat Rescue, Hudson Rver' - edited by xxovercastxx

>> ^ponceleon:

This is a little wtf


Not if you've seen the movie...it was the first time Williams actually impressed me as an actor. Well worth watching, even if it's not your kind of movie (it's definitely not mine).

>> ^marbles:

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
Both parties bro, both. You can't have one, without the other. (Of course, the Republican side is worse.)

Neither party is a perfect fit for me either. But the big Republican idea of cutting "spending" and insisting on no taxes for the rich leads us where this video says it will.
Democrats are insufficiently resolute in their opposition to this idea, but you shouldn't pretend that this makes them equally guilty for the promotion of these bad ideas amongst the populace.
It's the difference between a squadmate who runs away when the bullets start flying, and the people firing bullets at both of you. Neither are going to be your favorite people in the world when the dust settles, but to condemn them equally as if their actions differ only by a trivial matter of degree seems like an injustice to me.

Netrunner, why are you blinded by partisan theater?
http://videosift.com/video/Obama-s-Economic-Policy-is-a-Charade-of-lies

Michael Hudson:
What’s inefficient? Paying for people on Medicaid. Got to cut it. What’s inefficient? Medicare. Got to cut it. What’s inefficient? Paying Social Security. What is efficient? Giving $13 trillion to Wall Street for a bailout. Now, how on earth can the administration say, in the last three years we have given $13 trillion to Wall Street, but then, in between 2040 and 2075, we may lose $1 trillion, no money for the people?
[...]
They’re going to have to decide what to cut back. So they’re going to cut back the bone and they’re going to keep the fat, basically. They’re going to say–they’re going to try to panic the population into acquiescing in a Democratic Party sellout by cutting back payments to the people–Social Security, Medicare–while making sure that they pay the Pentagon, they pay the foreign aid, they pay Wall Street.


Who's blinded by partisan theater?

I'm not gonna bother with the video clip, but not a single sentence in the entire quote from Michael Hudson was true.

That said, if you think Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security should stay as they are, and Wall Street should have to contribute more to the debt (say, with more taxes), then everything you want is antithetical to the Republican party.

Why exactly do you assume that Democrats are secretly working with the Republicans to implement the Republican policy platform?

I feel like we get the Republican party's policies no matter who's actually in office too. But my solution is to try to make sure all the Republicans lose their seats, so the Democrats will have to put up or shut up.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^Lawdeedaw:
Both parties bro, both. You can't have one, without the other. (Of course, the Republican side is worse.)

Neither party is a perfect fit for me either. But the big Republican idea of cutting "spending" and insisting on no taxes for the rich leads us where this video says it will.
Democrats are insufficiently resolute in their opposition to this idea, but you shouldn't pretend that this makes them equally guilty for the promotion of these bad ideas amongst the populace.
It's the difference between a squadmate who runs away when the bullets start flying, and the people firing bullets at both of you. Neither are going to be your favorite people in the world when the dust settles, but to condemn them equally as if their actions differ only by a trivial matter of degree seems like an injustice to me.


Netrunner, why are you blinded by partisan theater?

http://videosift.com/video/Obama-s-Economic-Policy-is-a-Charade-of-lies

Michael Hudson:
What’s inefficient? Paying for people on Medicaid. Got to cut it. What’s inefficient? Medicare. Got to cut it. What’s inefficient? Paying Social Security. What is efficient? Giving $13 trillion to Wall Street for a bailout. Now, how on earth can the administration say, in the last three years we have given $13 trillion to Wall Street, but then, in between 2040 and 2075, we may lose $1 trillion, no money for the people?
[...]
They’re going to have to decide what to cut back. So they’re going to cut back the bone and they’re going to keep the fat, basically. They’re going to say–they’re going to try to panic the population into acquiescing in a Democratic Party sellout by cutting back payments to the people–Social Security, Medicare–while making sure that they pay the Pentagon, they pay the foreign aid, they pay Wall Street.

[Interviewer]: So, what do you think? Good versus evil. We’re playing out the debt struggle and the debt ceiling issue. And if we don’t raise the debt ceiling, we’ll be in the apocalypse. What do you make of it all?

HUDSON: I think it’s evil working with evil.... If you have to choose between paying Social Security and Wall Street, pay our clients, Wall Street.

***

What’s inefficient? Paying for people on Medicaid. Got to cut it. What’s inefficient? Medicare. Got to cut it. What’s inefficient? Paying Social Security. What is efficient? Giving $13 trillion to Wall Street for a bailout. Now, how on earth can the administration say, in the last three years we have given $13 trillion to Wall Street, but then, in between 2040 and 2075, we may lose $1 trillion, no money for the people?
***

It’s not about the debt ceiling. It’s about making an agreement now under an emergency conditions. You remember what Obama’s staff aide Rahm Emanuel said. He said a crisis is too important to waste. They’re using this crisis as a chance to ram through a financial policy, an anti-Medicare, anti-Medicaid, anti—selling out Social Security that they could never do under the normal course of things.

***

They’re not going to cut back the war in Libya.

***

They’re going to have to decide what to cut back. So they’re going to cut back the bone and they’re going to keep the fat, basically. They’re going to say–they’re going to try to panic the population into acquiescing in a Democratic Party sellout by cutting back payments to the people–Social Security, Medicare–while making sure that they pay the Pentagon, they pay the foreign aid, they pay Wall Street.

[Interviewer]: Yeah. But what–I hear you. But what I’m–I’m saying, what could be an alternative policy? For example, don’t raise the debt ceiling. Number two, raise taxes on the wealthy. Number three, cut back military spending. I mean, there are ways to do this without having to borrow more money, aren’t there?

HUDSON: Of course.
***

Of course they could cut back the fat. Of course what they should do is change the tax system. Of course they should get rid of the Bush tax cuts. And the one good thing in President Obama’s speech two days ago was he used the term spending on tax cuts. So that’s not the same thing as raising taxes. He said just cut spending by cutting spending on tax cuts for the financial sector, for the speculators who count all of their income that they get, billions of income, as capital gains, taxed at 15 percent instead of normal income at 35 percent. Let’s get rid of the tax loopholes that favor Wall Street.

***

Mr. Obama has always known who has been contributing primarily to his political campaigns. We know where his loyalties lie now. And, basically, he promised change because that’s what people would vote for, and he delivered the change constituency to the campaign contributors...

>> ^EMPIRE:
this video is just full of moronic ideas, and personal beliefs (and some of them down right insulting towards certain nationalities).


If they're so moronic, surely you can point out why they are so ridiculous. (also i just now made sure video started at michael hudson interview)

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/05/23/110523fa_fact_mayer?currentPage=all
From Article:
'When President Barack Obama took office, in 2009, he championed the cause of government transparency, and spoke admiringly of whistle-blowers, whom he described as “often the best source of information about waste, fraud, and abuse in government.” But the Obama Administration has pursued leak prosecutions with a surprising relentlessness. Including the Drake case, it has been using the Espionage Act to press criminal charges in five alleged instances of national-security leaks—more such prosecutions than have occurred in all previous Administrations combined. The Drake case is one of two that Obama’s Justice Department has carried over from the Bush years.

Gabriel Schoenfeld, a conservative political scientist at the Hudson Institute, who, in his book “Necessary Secrets” (2010), argues for more stringent protection of classified information, says, “Ironically, Obama has presided over the most draconian crackdown on leaks in our history—even more so than Nixon.”
...
Mark Klein, the former A.T. & T. employee who exposed the telecom-company wiretaps, is also dismayed by the Drake case. “I think it’s outrageous,” he says. “The Bush people have been let off. The telecom companies got immunity. The only people Obama has prosecuted are the whistle-blowers.” '

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Ric Elias, airplane, crash, hudson river' to 'Ric Elias, airplane, crash, hudson river, father' - edited by RhesusMonk

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Hudson, Wolf, The real news' to 'Hudson, Wolf, The real news, class war' - edited by dystopianfuturetoday

Whether thrown in an oven or massacred by bombs and artillery what is the difference ?
And yes, I do believe as many Muslims have been slaughtered over their history as the Jews (if not more).

Also, ALL orthodox religions are CRAZY ! Christian, Jew or Muslim. Please stop cherry picking extreme events to paint Muslims as crazy, all religions are guilty of it. I can't be bothered to troll the internet for tragic instances of religious freaks killing each other, but it's all there. Just look at orthodox Jews in Israel if you want to see the oppression of women. I don't see the west stepping in to 'help' them.

Also, the west is mostly to blame for the lack of progress in the middle east. Every time an organized modern government appears, we bomb it back into the stone age or setup a dictator to take them out.
The west does not want progress in the middle east. Just look at Israel / Palestine.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

>> ^billpayer:
This talk is pathetic.
The Hudson institute is a bunch or war mongering fascists set up by Herman Kahn (sociopath) and RAND corp (ie. US Military Industrial Complex).
Scum like these have been building up Islamophobia for decades.
Muslims are in-arguably the new Jews and are the subjects of persecution all over the globe.

Interesting, and where are the getting tossed into ovens by the tens of thousands? Where do women still get stoned for showing their faces? While no doubt, the subject or some western bigotry, the comparison to them to Jews is just patently absurd. Even African Americans pre-60s had it harder then Muslims today. Are there separate Muslims bathrooms, no.
This talk is not pathetic. Was it pathetic the Catholic Church was, and still is, the subject of malice over the recent fiasco, no. Western bigotry over Muslim ideals is inevitable, because as they currently are incompatible. They don't have to be, but that is the current state of them. A man can beat his wife for not putting out. A women can be stoned for adultery, and adultery can be so loosely defined as being alone with another man that is not your husband.
This does cause undue stress on Muslims that do not practice these ideals, they are the true victims. But they still don't have it as bad as AA did in America, the Jews in German, or the women in Muslim countries do today.

That is an awesome cast of shit And it reminds me how terrible Melanie Griffith is to listen to. It amazes me she ever got as big as she did.

Has the same 'feel' of a movie I loved as a kid Spacehunter, it had Molly Ringwald, Ernie Hudson, Michael Ironside... was great b-grade schlock.

And this looks to be the same exact sort of entertaining guff... excellent