If this is too discordant and erratic, try : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVNAdwFFWjI

Thanks for posting this, really. I hadn't heard of Himori Uehara before and I'm off to buy everything she's ever done and send her envelopes full of my hair.

Self-fascinated wall of text time!

I write music and the more I learn and develop, the less music seems interesting, like the "magic" is slowly being eroded the more I understand composition. Classical, prog and jazz - really good jazz - are protected against that effect, and remain as amazing as they were the first time I ever heard them. Jazz is especially stimulating and fascinating, although I still love everything from Muse to King Crimson to Nobuo Uematsu to Miles Davis. Hiromi Uehara just makes me want to blow my fucking head off with 12 gauge.

>> ^Stormsinger:

Got to agree with Deano... Definitely not my kind of music (and the Sift is probably the only way I'd have ever heard her), but she's one hell of a singer.
I may have to add a small branch to my musical tastes again, just for her.


It's not mine either, I'm more a Muse, Placebo, Massive Attack kinda girl. But as you both say, it's the phenomenal voice and her age, just have a lot of respect for her

His self musings, that are hysterical to him are quite a sign of derp.

If you want the audience to follow please give us the funny details (cause your jokes suck Loughner).

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Take a Bow' to 'Take a Bow, muse, watchmen, black holes and revelations, haarp, matthew bellamy' - edited by gwiz665

Different version

Liberally slanted media outlets are falsely accusing conservative philosophy and persons of being acesssory to murder - directly and indirectly. The same people are ignoring and excusing identical behavior from liberal counterparts. Persons in this thread (yourself included) are cheering this behavior, agreeing with it, and otherwise encouraging/defending/justifying these baseless charge. In my book, deliberately accusing or even slyly 'implying' others falsely of murder and violence is a form of hate speech. Such an accusation is not just innocent, idle words or musings. It has serious consequences legally, profesionally, politically, and personally. There are people talking about regulating speech and using this kind of mudslinging as the justification for censorship. Have not hateful people in all human history behaved with that intent?

If it makes you feel better to perform some sort of classification - then call it 'political hate speech' in the context of this issue. But the intent is clear - to accuse & imply that conservatives are guilty must shut up or be forced to shut down.

I don't find much on tv to be worth watching but this has been a glorious and unexpected exception. Final episode is tomorrow.

I'd say Coogan has been pretty brave with this storyline, musing on his insecurities about a career in decline.

BTW they both did brill impressions of Woody Allen in episode 5.

jefferson's quote is pretty self explanatory and while you do point out the one half concerning religion you ignore "there shall be no law respecting an established religion"-now what do you think "respecting" could possibly mean in this context?

The quote is “an establishment”; and respecting does not mean “no one in government is allowed to have or be influenced by religious belief”. The founding fathers expected government servants to be people of faith with all kinds of values, mores, and beliefs. What they didn’t want is for government to step in and impose church attendance. It really is that simple.

What constitutes an 'innocent display'?

Anything that doesn’t force you to attend a church.

How 'innocent' is any religious icon in a court of law?

Short answer? Completely.

Long answer? Should I be offended because an idol of Lady Justice is in a courthouse? Does it mean the STATE is going to frogmarch me to go worship at the local temple of Themis? Will it suddenly turn me and my family into Dikeists? Of course not. Likewise, it is a silly position to say the 10 Commandments in a courthouse is somehow an “establishment” of religion. Law is rooted in religious history. To display a religious symbol in a legal building is a tip of the hat to historical precedence. It no more violates the 1st Amendment than a public museum or library with a statue to the Muses in it.

Doesn't it seem far more reasonable to just take a pass on displaying ANYTHING religious and be done with it?

No – such a position is unrealistic to the point of being preposterous. The mere attempt to follow this concept is in itself an ‘establisment’ of religion. Atheism. It therefore becomes an equal violation of the separation clause as defined by the left. If it is a ‘violation’ of the establishment clause to put a manger scene up on a city park, then how is it not a violation to ban religion from all public sites? Does that not ‘establish’ a position by the state? Is that not “telling” people to be atheists just as much as a Christmas tree is “telling” people to be Christian?

That’s why the left’s position on this issue is so laughable. It is hypocritical and self-defeating in the extreme, like most leftist policy. The 1st Ammendment is supposed to keep government from making laws that force you to attend a specific church. Christmas trees, the 10 Commandments, the word “God” in the pledge, prayers in schools, and all the other stuff that left is so uptight over are not germane to the subject in any way. The left just WANTS them to be germane, and so they’ve come up with this idiotic position as a means to justify it.

Tags for this video have been changed from '70s, television, England, muse, icon, pop, grandpa, happy dancing guy in vest' to '70s, television, England, muse, icon, pop, grandpa, happy dancing guy in vest, star man' - edited by rasch187

Disclaimer: I don't claim to be an authority on the topic, I just thought I'd share my musings for any who may be interested

I'm extremely surprised that none of the physicist could give a remotely satisfactory answer to the beam-hand interaction question. I realise that the energies involved are extreme so weird things may happen and they obviously specialise in more fundamental aspects of the physics but I would have expected all of them to know at least a little bit about the physics of interactions between charged particle radiation beams with solid objects or water.

I only learnt a bit about proton beam therapy used in radiation oncology during my Masters in Medical Physics, and I'll admit I've forgotten a lot of it and can't remember all the calculations or parameters involved, but it seems to me like this would be a similar although perhaps more extreme case. Ultimately you would be receiving some dose of ionising radiation, the amount would depend on various things.

As solid as our hand appears to be it is still mostly empty space on an atomic scale, and there is a very high likelihood that protons in the beam will not collide with anything as they pass through. This is particularly true at very high energies, I forget exactly why... either due to momentum or the time spent in close enough proximity with atomic nuclei or something, but protons interact relatively weakly until they lose enough energy through the few interactions that do occur, at which point the likelihood of further interactions rises exponentially dumping all the remaining energy very rapidly. It is interesting to note here that at medically relevant energies 100-200Mev (17-35 thousand times lower than the LHC) this energy dump requires between 5 and 20cm tissue for the initial slow down to take place before the beams slow enough to dump the bulk of their energy. Your hand is at most a few centimetres thick and barely sufficient enough to do this at 100MeV let alone 3.5TeV. Graph which illustrates this.

Anyway, energy from the beam would be deposited due to some deflections and collisions and result in ionisation of some atoms either directly by collisions or indirectly by xray/gamma rays produced in the interactions. The few direct collisions between protons in the beam and atomic nuclei would also likely result in exotic particles and radiation further contributing to the dose you receive.

Other things to consider are whether the protons that shoot through your hand are still following sensible enough trajectories for the LHC to bend them around for another pass. At near light speeds they would be shooting around the LHC many thousands of times per second so even if the chances of interactions occuring in your hand are slim, each proton that manages to make another pass rather than shoot off on a random path that takes it out of the LHC, will have many opportunities to interact and deposit energy.

So depending on just how many protons are in the beam, and how much energy they dump into your hand, the effect could be anywhere from increased chance of cancer to a radiation burn of some sort if not a hole in your hand (although I suspect that most extreme scenario is unlikely).

All of this assumes my understanding isn't completely void at the energies involved which, if it is, may explain why the physicists didn't mention any of this.

This is the Muse I love.

For those of you that now want to listen to the whole song:

http://videosift.com/video/Muse-New-Born-Glastonbury-10

http://videosift.com/video/Muse-New-Born-Full-Length

Thanks for the promote! I'm usually terrible at thanking people, but I'll try to make it up by promoting stuff I like

In reply to this comment by Krupo:
*promote *rocknroll with a message.

I worry about the state of the *law in *Asian countries, let alone everywhere else. Anyone else read Tokyo Vice?

Thanks, I'm terrible at thanking promotes/quality so consider this as thanks for any of them

In reply to this comment by Zonbie:
*quality

>> ^BicycleRepairMan:

Yeah, that pretty much destroyed a perfectly good song. I managed to get 3:42 in but I'd rather spend the next four minutes hammering rusty nails into my ears. With a nailgun.


Yeah, I don't like most remixes either. *livemusic