>> ^Yogi:

>> ^Xaielao:
Firefly was very good while it lasted, but I've always been more of a Farscape fan and would much rather see a reunion episode of that.
/runs for the door

I've watched a lot of Farscape. It is sometimes very good. Other times though it's just farcical. I mean I started watching it in the order that you're intended to watch it, and the Characters still had no consistency. You never knew where anyone stood at any particular time, sometimes they were mad, or happy, or friends, or enemies. It made so little fucking sense and the characters would change WAY too much over a very short period of time, and then go back like nothing was gained or learned.
I love their use of puppetry and the costumes for some of the characters, it was amazing. Some of the story lines and ideas were absolutely fun and great. The consistency and character arcs simply didn't exist though, they were chaotic at the best of times.


Farscape is definitely a show that has to be watched from beginning to end in order to follow the threads and feel like you know where you are with it. It's a stark contrast to Firefly where episodes are an entire story unto themselves with only a couple of background story threads being maintained at any one point. IMO Farscape's complex story is second only to Babylon 5's epic-ness when considering the story-arc aspect of sci-fi TV shows.

Also helps to be a little bit crazy to fully appreciate Farscape. A love of the 1812 Overture by Tchaikovsky helps too

Overture to The Magic Flute (Die Zauberflöte)

In reply to this comment by enoch:
http://videosift.com/video/rush-2112-the-overture
seems we are the only rush fans


holy sh%! that was cool

http://videosift.com/video/rush-2112-the-overture
seems we are the only rush fans

Haha exactly, no one wants a cop around until they need one.>> ^probie:

Why do I get the feeling this is the same type of asshole who sues the police department for not being on his doorstep in 15 seconds when he really needs them?

Do you mean driving unlicensed or that they just don't have their license on them. If it's the former then good. If they're driving without a license they shouldn't be on the road.
>> ^longde:

Some people just won't get it until it's their child under a police baton.
How many people in Australia are in jail or prison? In the US, we lock up more people than any other nation, including China. So when even the smallest, harmless seeming provocation can land you in jail, you learn to be wary of police overtures.
It's not a question of if, American police have indeed abused such checkpoints. They routinely arrest people for non DUI offenses, because the stop gets their foot in the door, so to speak. They can drum up probable cause, search the vehicle, and even impound it. In fact, in many checkpoints the people arrested or fined for non-DUI offenses dwarf the actual DUI offenses.
Here's a recent example of the revenue motive in checkpoint abuse in california:
The revenue comes in two ways. First, $30 million in federal funds pays for police overtime and operating costs at checkpoints like these. And then the impounded vehicles provide a profit. After fines are paid to the city along, with 30 days in storage fees, a vehicle typically produces $2,000 in revenue, sometimes more if it is not claimed and then auctioned.
........
An analysis of records obtained by the Investigative Reporting Program shows that, last year, impounds brought in over $40 million in revenue, shared by tow operators and municipal governments.
And documents reveal that, for every one DUI arrest at these sobriety checkpoints, there can be as many as 60 people cited for driving without a license, 60 vehicles seized.

I'm glad you Aussies don't have this problem.>> ^liverpoolfc:
Some people just won't get it until it's their child under the back wheel of a drunks car.
What's interesting about this conversation and random breath testing is that there is no argument in Australia against it, it's a non-issue. Aside from drink-drivers themselves you'd struggle to find anyone here that thinks random breath testing is a bad idea or that you should be allowed to refuse to take a breath test.
We accept that we have rights as well as responsibilites to other road users, the police are there to ensure we follow those rights and responsibilities and protect the rights and responsibilites of others. Appears to be a big culture difference between the way law enforcement is perceived here and in America.>> ^EMPIRE:
this guy is a fucking tool. And those cops were nothing but professional and corteous. In fact, if all the cops always acted like these did, they would just make morons like this guy look even worse.
They were just trying to keep the road clean of drunk drivers. As a living human being who walks around a city, and also drives, and as a husband of another living human being who does the same thing, and the father of an infant living human being who get driven and walked around the city, the least I expect from the police is to try and control if there aren't any worthless piece of shit drunk drivers on the roads endangering my family, myself, and my fellow citizens.
Yes, there's a lot of cases of cops abusing their power, but one can't simply think that all cops are in it to fuck people over and abuse power.

Some people just won't get it until it's their child under a police baton.

How many people in Australia are in jail or prison? In the US, we lock up more people than any other nation, including China. So when even the smallest, harmless seeming provocation can land you in jail, you learn to be wary of police overtures.

It's not a question of if, American police have indeed abused such checkpoints. They routinely arrest people for non DUI offenses, because the stop gets their foot in the door, so to speak. They can drum up probable cause, search the vehicle, and even impound it. In fact, in many checkpoints the people arrested or fined for non-DUI offenses dwarf the actual DUI offenses.

Here's a recent example of the revenue motive in checkpoint abuse in california:

The revenue comes in two ways. First, $30 million in federal funds pays for police overtime and operating costs at checkpoints like these. And then the impounded vehicles provide a profit. After fines are paid to the city along, with 30 days in storage fees, a vehicle typically produces $2,000 in revenue, sometimes more if it is not claimed and then auctioned.
........
An analysis of records obtained by the Investigative Reporting Program shows that, last year, impounds brought in over $40 million in revenue, shared by tow operators and municipal governments.

And documents reveal that, for every one DUI arrest at these sobriety checkpoints, there can be as many as 60 people cited for driving without a license, 60 vehicles seized.

I'm glad you Aussies don't have this problem.>> ^liverpoolfc:

Some people just won't get it until it's their child under the back wheel of a drunks car.
What's interesting about this conversation and random breath testing is that there is no argument in Australia against it, it's a non-issue. Aside from drink-drivers themselves you'd struggle to find anyone here that thinks random breath testing is a bad idea or that you should be allowed to refuse to take a breath test.
We accept that we have rights as well as responsibilites to other road users, the police are there to ensure we follow those rights and responsibilities and protect the rights and responsibilites of others. Appears to be a big culture difference between the way law enforcement is perceived here and in America.>> ^EMPIRE:
this guy is a fucking tool. And those cops were nothing but professional and corteous. In fact, if all the cops always acted like these did, they would just make morons like this guy look even worse.
They were just trying to keep the road clean of drunk drivers. As a living human being who walks around a city, and also drives, and as a husband of another living human being who does the same thing, and the father of an infant living human being who get driven and walked around the city, the least I expect from the police is to try and control if there aren't any worthless piece of shit drunk drivers on the roads endangering my family, myself, and my fellow citizens.
Yes, there's a lot of cases of cops abusing their power, but one can't simply think that all cops are in it to fuck people over and abuse power.

harumppphhh cant tag this video with channels
http://videosift.com/video/Rush-R30-Overture

*history *music

FYI from the video's description:

List of films used:
00:06 - A Fistful of Dynamite (aka 'Duck, You Sucker!') (1971)
00:26 - The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957)
00:32 - The Bridges at Toko-Ri (1954)
00:33 - The Bridge on the River Kwai ("Madness") (1957)
00:35 - True Lies (1994)

00:43 - The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (1966)
00:45 - Hogan's Heroes (1965)
00:47 - The Wild Bunch (1969)
00:52 - Monsters vs Aliens (2009)
00:56 - The Core (2003)
00:58 - Tropic Thunder (2008)

01:06 - Mission: Impossible III (2006)
01:11 - I Am Legend (2007)
01:18 - A Bridge Too Far (1977)
01:21 - The Long Kiss Goodnight (1996)

Music:
Tchaikovsky - 1812 Overture, Op. 49 (by Bernard Haitink, Royal Concertgebouw Orchestra)"

ok.
i have stated this previously and in multiple posts.
lets define "god" for a moment.
and lets accomplish this without any religious influence or overtures...none.
because lets be honest,religion acts like it has the secret key to the hidden doorway.
which i find not only repulsive but dishonest.

lets see if we can agree on a few things.i shall use the monotheistic religions as example because using all 4500 would be..tedious:
1.god implies masculine.this is obviously a falsehood.why would god need sexual organs?
2.we are all made in gods image.again a falsehood.having never seen god how can we know?
3.the bible/q'ran is the written word of god.(i wont include the torah because jews do not make that pronouncement).again this is false,some basic research will reveal this statement to be an utter fallacy.unless of course you are a fundamentalist,and in that case..carry on with your wars of attrition /looking at you fundmantalist christians and muslims).
4.god loves you.unless you break these rules and in that case he has built a special place for you to burn for eternity (varying degrees of understanding here,even fundamentalists struggle with this obvious hypocrisy).conclusion=bullshit.


ok.i am going to stop because i could do this all day.
my basic point is that it is RELIGION that makes the claim that it is THEY who hold the keys to the gate.that only through THEIR understanding could any of lowly humans ever think to have salvation.
religion is man-made with tangible texts,doctrine and dogma and in being so is subject to criticism.as it SHOULD be.
these institutions define god and then attempt to compel through fear and..well..fear..to get people to comply.
in my opinion it is these very institutions which hinder the growth and development of us all as a species.
fundamentalism is the stunting of the spirit and the stagnation of the mind.
none of what i am saying here takes away from the poetry,literature and wisdom from the bible..it is RELIGION which perpetrates that crime.

everybody still with me?
am i making sense?
ok..now lets define god and lets do it in a way that religion will never do because it will make those institutions irrelevant.
(which ironically was the EXACT thing jesus was attempting to do..but i digress)
lets consider "god" an entity with immense consciousness.
let us for a moment imagine this consciousness giving birth to the universe from itself.
what is the first thing to come in to existence besides energy?
time.
and when that happened what else became evident?
everything became relative due to this added dimension.
let that sink in a bit because it has huge implications.
ok..
now if we continue on this thread of thought.this would mean that the universe is literally god.
every molecule.
every atom.
god.
and what if this creator put out only one simple edict for his construct?
create.
thats all.he sets the rules and puts only one line of code=create.
and everything his creations creates is part of him and he..it.
good..evil..arbitrary terms used to relate subjective realities focused from a singular perspective.
the creator does not notice them because all of it is the same to the creator.
WE make those very human definitions.
lets imagine for a second that the universe has a consciousness.one that we may be aware or unaware of,but we know we are an individual.
we have consciousness.
we do NOT know if a plant has a consciousness that we can measure but we may some day.
now if we are a part of this incredible creation called the universe and we have consciousness.this means we are aware of not only ourselves but the universe around us.
this means we experience creation on a daily basis.manifesting in so many dynamic ways:love,loss,anger,violence,wonder,imagination,making love,cheeseburgers with a cold beer etc etc
and in that light would not the creator experience its own creation subjectively through our experiencing his creation?

now this is not a new idea,in fact it is quite old but it does have the quality of not needing any religion,nor doctrine or dogma.
why not?
because in essence YOU are god and god is YOU.
if i had postulated something like this as early as 100 yrs ago i would be burned at the stake.
why? religion.
but this is the basic definition i use when i use the term "god".
it is also the reason why i have no urge to preach or proselytize.
the only thing i try to do is recognize that i do not hold the key nor the answers but i seek them and that is my path.
yours is your own and the only thing i can do is recognize that you are a spiritual being (whether you believe that or not) and respect your choices on how you wish to live.
because..in the end..they are YOUR choices.

now please understand i share this with you not to convince or to invite ridicule but rather to offer a different definition.
to me life is amazing in the very simple act of breathing.
of loving..
and arguing..ah..many thanks for those in my life for the glorious arguments.
this life is precious if only for those simple things.
is there an afterlife?
i believe so,what it looks like i have no idea but i know it wont be THIS life.
so cherish those who you care about because this is one helluva ride,and i am glad you all are here to enjoy it with me.

for those of you still here.
thanks for coming to the show!
dont forget to tip your bartenders and waitresses!
and thank YOU BRM for taking the time to discuss things of this nature with me.

>> ^brycewi19:

I've heard that last song before. Does anyone know who that is? It's awfully familiar and I can't place it.


The last song (Hoppipolla by Sigur Ros) was used for Planet Earth and a few trailers...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hopp%C3%ADpolla

>> ^brycewi19:

For that matter, what's the first song, too?
Definately music plays a part in this vid!


The one at the start... over the credits is used in Finding Nemo near the start of the movie.
The main theme they play after that though is Overture by Michael Kamen and originally from the Robin Hood (Keven Costner version) soundtrack, but a portion of that theme, the part they played here, is used by Disney/Pixar films when the Disney logo is up. Can't say I knew before just now it was in Robin Hood, I just associated it with the Disney logo.
From there it goes into Kaneda's Death, Pt. 2 (Adagio in D Minor) by John Murphy from the Sunshine soundtrack and used in tons of trailers since then. That one I was able to place instantly... he is one of my lead choices for the Dark Tower score...
Then of course goes into the last song already mentioned.

*history *shortfilms

FYI:
Music:
1. Nemo Egg by Thomas Newman (For quote in beginning)
2. Overture by Michael Kamen
3. Kaneda's Death, Pt. 2 (Adagio in D Minor) by John Murphy
4. Hoppipolla by Sigur Ros

Pixar Feature Films Used (In order of release)
Toy Story (1995)
A Bug's Life (1998)
Toy Story 2 (1999)
Monster's Inc. (2001)
Finding Nemo (2003)
The Incredibles (2004)
Cars (2006)
Ratatouille (2007)
WALL-E (2008)
Up (2009)
Toy Story 3 (2010)
Cars 2 (2011)

Short Films: Adventures of Andre and Wally B., Luxo Jr., Red's Dream, Tin Toy, Knick Knack, Geri's Game, For the Birds, Mike's New Car, Boundin', Jack-Jack Attack, Lifted, Presto, BURN-E, Partly Cloudy, Day & Night, Hawaiian Vacation."

The current Panama Canal by comparison is 77 km (48 mi) long
(the US/Mexico border is (3,138 km or 1,950 miles)

The estimated cost for the new Panama Canal (announced in July 2009 by the Belgian dredging company Jan De Nul) is approx 100 million dollars

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_canal

Some quick Math:
$100,000,000 div by 77km is $1,298,701.30 per km
$1,298,701.30 x 3,138km equals $4,075,324,679.40
and of course, add inflation over the 10 years or so it would take plus unseen overtures and you've got a 5-7 billion dollar project.

PS - just let me know if my math is faulty, although I'd like to be, I'm not a mathematician

Also: How much money does the US spend on it's War Machine?
Click here to find out: http://costofwar.com/en/

Edit: I'm not saying to build it, I'm just quoting the numbers

>> ^grubert:
This is not played by some unknown high school orchestra, what you hear is the great Portsmouth Sinfonia: "Players had to be either non-musicians, or if a musician, play an instrument that was entirely new to them."
There's more on YouTube, like the William Tell Overture.


Thanks! Updated Tags and Info accordingly.

This is not played by some unknown high school orchestra, what you hear is the great Portsmouth Sinfonia: "Players had to be either non-musicians, or if a musician, play an instrument that was entirely new to them."
There's more on YouTube, like the William Tell Overture.

Thank you, Paul

In reply to this comment by Fusionaut:
*promote